Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina if she has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. Again, I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, particularly at a time of economic stagnation, recovery from a recession, skills are a more important piece than ever to ensure that Americans can compete in the 21st century workforce. We all know that many of the jobs that helped Americans earn a solid place in the middle class in the 20th century are not necessarily going to be the same jobs that will allow Americans to live in upwardly mobile middle class lifestyle in the 21st century. There are new growth sectors, new opportunities, and yes, new challenges as well. One of the keys to both our prosperity as a Nation as well as the prosperity and growth of the middle class is to make sure that Americans have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. When we match those skills to the people who need to have them to support their families, we're talking about all American families. We're talking about veterans. We're talking about the disabled. We're talking about those who don't have a high school diploma. We're talking about immigrants. We need to make sure that each of these groups that traditionally has had and does have a higher unemployment rate than Americans as a whole can receive the type of training, education, and skills that they need to support their families and give back to the rest of us--a hand up, rather than a hand out. That is what workforce investment is all about. Both Democrats and Republicans agree it's long overdue for us to update and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act. It was written in 1998. The world was different in 1998. I don't think any of us saw the degree with which the economy would change. We've, since 1998, had many new technology jobs, the Internet has grown to a mainstream phenomenon, we've had a banking crisis, we've had two wars, and we're on our third President since 1998. Things have changed a lot. Things have changed a lot. I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, when I meet people now that were born in the 1990s and they're in the workforce. It's absolutely incredible to think about. And, yet, we're still operating under a law that doesn't reflect the changing needs of the American workforce. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to work together--to work together--to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. The President has stated that he doesn't support this bill, he wouldn't sign this bill. We need to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to come up with a framework that works. Yes, we all know that a committee markup process is part of that process; but so, too, is establishing the base bill, a process from which Democrats were excluded. Former Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said that he ``would like to see us work in that same mode where we really try to work together. I don't think it is the Republican bill or the Democratic bill, but it should be all of our bill.'' Unfortunately, with regards to where this bill is today, Republicans did not choose to regard this wise advice of the former chairman in how this bill was formed and brought to the floor. Now, again, while neither House Democrats or committee Democrats or the President support the underlying bill, I'm hopeful that the Republican leadership's desire to move this bill to the floor indicates the start of a process to finally reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. It's not an issue of left or right. It's an issue of updating the Workforce Investment Act to reflect the changing needs of our economy and the changing set of skills that Americans need to support themselves. I'm hopeful that with the continued work of Dr. Foxx, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and other esteemed Members of this body that Republicans and Democrats will work together both making concessions to improve the Nation's workforce investment system and improve the route to the middle class for working families across our country. Workforce investment and training to address the skills gap are critical to this economy as a whole. We have a long way to go to strengthen and, yes, streamline our workforce training and investment programs. There are some good ideas with regards to streamlining workforce investment that are contained in this bill that can form a basis for bipartisan support, but we still have a long way to go. We need to work across the aisle to invest in our future and take care of fellow citizens to make sure that they have the ability to support themselves. I look forward to continuing this process with Members on both sides of the aisle, with members of the committee and Members of the House at large. Yet the process and bill before us currently is flawed. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills, or SKILLS Act. For the last 40 years, the reauthorization of the Federal job training legislation has had the support of Democrats and Republicans. Members on both sides of the aisle know that the passage of this bill is critical to our Nation's recovery and future competitiveness. I served on the State Board of Education in Colorado from 2000 to 2006, and I recall the prior authorization of the Workforce Investment Act that we're still operating under. It dates to 1998. It came up after 5 years, which was in 2003, and I remember being on the State board. In our State, like in many States, jurisdiction goes between both the Department of Labor and the State Department of Education. Under the State Department of Education, we have some of the adult literacy components and adult education components of workforce investment, and under the Department of Labor, we have other areas of responsibility. We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act. That was in 2003-2004, but that Congress didn't act. We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act in 2005-2006. We still need a reauthorization, so let's hope Congress will act. Then I ran for Congress. I was in the next Congress from 2009-2010 with a Democratic majority. It didn't pass. In 2011- 2012, with a Republican majority, there was no WIA reauthorization. So here we are now in the 113th Congress, and, unfortunately, we have a bill that lacks bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Republicans have departed from the long history of bipartisanship in common areas of agreement, some of which were talked about by Dr. Foxx in her opening remarks: streamlining programs; reducing the number of programs that have been shown to be ineffective by the GAO; having a workforce investment system that's more nimble and able to react to changes in the economy, to changes in the employment sector, to changes in the types of skills that people need to succeed in the 21st century workforce. Unfortunately, we have a bill today which falls short in that regard. Even though this bill gives great authority to Governors, I have word from my own home State's Department of Labor and Unemployment of its opposition to this bill. We have statements from many other disability advocates, youth groups, civil rights groups that are opposed to this bill. Workers with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, returning veterans, low-income adults, migrant workers, and minorities are all underserved populations that a workforce investment system is designed to serve, yet these are the very populations that stand to lose the most under the current bill. Instead of encouraging collaboration between these programs and streamlining these programs and rewarding what works and stopping what doesn't work, this bill forces effective programs to compete with one another for State funding, putting an additional burden on State and local budgets in the process. Instead of prioritizing incentives for business, which could potentially leverage our Federal investment for colleges and local governments and workforce organizations to collaborate, this bill requires that only employers be represented on Workforce Investment Boards, leaving many other stakeholders on the sidelines. Of course, meeting the needs of employers is the goal of the Workforce Investment Act, but when you look at the stakeholders that will deliver on that and match the people to the skills, you need to include businesses, colleges, local governments, and others who work in partnership with needs assessment, driven by the employment needs of the private sector, to help determine the outputs that are important for workforce training systems so that our economy can continue to grow and succeed. Mr. Speaker, this bill hands a blank check to Governors with a message that says to go ahead and use Federal tax dollars however you like, you can eliminate services for the underserved, and yet we, the American taxpayers, are continuing to pay for it. Look, we are custodians of taxpayer trust here in this body. Frequently, this body doesn't do a very good job of that with the deficits that we have, with the lack of any comprehensive way of reining in Federal spending and even with regard to the sequester, which, while it makes progress on reining in Federal spending, it does so in a non-discriminate way rather than with a thoughtful approach that would be in the interest of our country. Here we are just passing out dollar bills, throwing dollar bills to the States. Here comes Uncle Sam, ready to bail out Governors. They're playing the walnut game-- moving it over to this account and moving it to this account. This is essentially a slush fund for State Governors, as it's currently constructed, at the expense of groups that traditionally have high unemployment, including veterans who so capably served our country, particularly during our two most recent wars--the Iraq War, which has wound down, and the Afghanistan war, which we hope winds down over the next couple of years--as well as the many veterans of prior conflicts, including the first Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict, who continue to suffer from unemployment at above average levels to this day. In addition, this bill decreases the WIA State set-aside funding that facilitates targeted innovation and encourages interstate partnerships. My home State of Colorado has used this funding for a State energy sector partnership, provided scholarships to train over 20 Coloradans. It led to full-time employment, even leading to the creation of a new company. This funding also allowed Colorado to form 10 strategy sector partnerships, which have leveraged more than three-quarters of a million in private financing and public financing towards incentives that will train over 1,200 Colorado job seekers in high-demand occupations. This vital funding would be slashed from 15 percent to 5 percent. I would add that, under the Democratic substitute, which we are grateful that this rule allows for, WIA State set-aside would be restored at the full 15 percent. In addition, this bill would freeze authorized funding levels for WIA over the next 7 years. This freeze comes on top of the fact that WIA funding has already been cut in half since 2001. Let me say that again. WIA funding has been cut in half since 2001, at the very time when the changing needs of the global economy need to be matched so that Americans can keep up with the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. And while making a cut there could save a few dollars now, if we fail to invest in the future of bringing Americans along to ensure that they can have good jobs that our Nation depends on, this would have a profound negative impact on our budget and economy over time. There are many ideas that a number of us have had to make this bill better. Many of them are included in the Democratic substitute, which is allowed under this rule and will be debated with extended debate time and discussed. However, many of us would have preferred an open rule. We proposed an open rule yesterday in the Rules Committee. Had an open rule been offered, I would have loved to bring forth a number of amendments, including one that is a bill I cosponsor with Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut that would make it easier for women to get training in jobs that they are capable of doing in fields that they are traditionally underrepresented in. There are many fields, while women have made great progress across the economy, where women only have a 2 or 3 or 4 percent presence that are high-paying jobs. We need to match women to the skills so they can fulfill those opportunities. I also would like to see, if there had been an open process here on the floor of the House of Representatives, a requirement that State and local workforce organizations both give some of their time and effort on promoting training to empower people to start their own companies through entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition to creating access to entrepreneurship training, we can focus on reducing the skills gap in computer science and information technology, fast-growing occupations, by providing education and training for the jobs of their future. Democrats have introduced their own workforce reauthorization bill, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, which would streamline programs, maintain strong protections for veterans and other vulnerable populations, and create stronger accountability for employment outcomes while recognizing and expanding the central role community colleges play in job training. Again, I'm pleased that this rule makes the Democratic substitute in order. I wish that it was an open rule that allowed for a full discussion of the many ideas that come from the entire body of membership. It will take both sides working together on this bill, with Dr. Foxx's effort, Ranking Member Miller's effort, Chairman Kline's effort, Ranking Member Hinojosa's effort, to create a reauthorization that will stand the test of time, replacing the 1998 law that we all continue to operate under in a world that has changed significantly since then. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina if she has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Minnesota yielded to me.

Mr. POLIS. And the gentleman has yielded his time.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to ask the Speaker how much time remains.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passing comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible. Cindy Slosson I have a story to share from a resident in my district, Cindy Slosson from Fort Collins, Colorado. Cindy wrote me that her daughter fell in love with a young man from Mexico when they were in high school. They had a dream about their future lives together, and part of that dream was of course helping him become an American citizen so he could go to college, find a job and support their family that they hoped to build together. They persisted tirelessly for 10 years, through everything that the American bureaucracy and Immigration Services threw at them, and today, finally, he's a citizen of the United States. He's pursuing his degree in aviation mechanics and wants to continue to go to school for an engineering degree. Part of their dream is now a reality and they keep on building upon this dream to be contributing community members and leaders among their friends and family. Cindy writes that, unfortunately, some young people don't have the kind of support and focus and, frankly, patience that her children had. Cindy writes: Let's make their path a bit more attainable. I believe most everyone truly wants to do their best, so let's give them a chance to be their best in this country. As Cindy writes, there are so many people that are caught up in indefinite waiting periods just to be reunited with their own family, people who give up hope and move from their family and friends and everybody they know simply because they can't get through the unrealistic length of time it takes to navigate our legal system. As part of comprehensive immigration reform, we need to have a system that reflects our values as Americans and one that's realistic for families to go through. Monica Olguin Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from a constituent from my district, Monica Olguin from Boulder, Colorado. Now, her story is an interesting one because the U.S. came to her instead of her moving to the United States. Her family hails from the southwestern United States even before it was part of Mexico. Her family descended from Spanish colonial settlers in 1598 near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Over the following 300 years, they traveled north to Colorado to Conejos County, where the family has been for over 100 years. Now, Monica writes: Many of our best students today have been immigrant children. Monica, herself, taught in our public schools for over 30 years. Monica writes: They enter our school system with great hopes and dreams and do not take education for granted. It isn't long, though, before they are able to express their fear of losing their place in this country, their fear of not belonging in their country of origin or their knowledge that there is no hope for success or dreams for their future in either their country of origin or in this country. Monica shares the concerns of so many of us whose lives have touched those who live in this country every day in fear of the very government that should be there to protect them, in fear that it will detain them indefinitely, in fear that it will send them out of this country back to a country that they know no one in, that they might not have even been in since they were 3 years old or 8 years old or perhaps even to a country where the language that's spoken is not even a language that they're fluent in. That is the reality of our immigration system every day. As Monica writes, it's critical that we replace our broken immigration system with one that works now. You're only a child once, and we need to make sure that our next generation of leaders has every opportunity to make our country greater. Paul Edward Condon Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from a constituent of mine in Lafayette, Colorado, Paul Edward Condon. Like so many Coloradans, Paul feels that we need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country and make sure that we have a way to make sure that the people already here can get right with the law. Paul writes that on his father's side he is descended from people who his daughter, Katherine, likes to say qualify her to be a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. On his mother's side, he's descended from immigrants from Bohemia in the 1890s who homesteaded in Oregon. So, like many Americans, Paul is a child of both one side of the family with long roots in our country dating from before our country existed and another side of his family recent immigrants. As Paul writes, perhaps with the full sense of understanding that comes from his personal story, Paul writes: We are all sons and daughters of immigrants, including those descended from the peoples who were already here when my earliest immigrant ancestor arrived and descended from the people who also arrived unwillingly in this country. All immigrants, all mingled together. And, indeed, even Congresspersons are descended from immigrants. Congresspersons who wish to restrict immigration and reject immigrants are rejecting their own heritage. They should be ashamed. I agree with Paul. We are all, in this country, descended from immigrants. And whether those immigrants arrived thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, decades ago, or last week, our future is intertwined with the very definition of America as an immigrant Nation, a Nation of laws, a Nation of immigrants. Those two need to be reconciled. We need laws that reflect our values as Americans, our values as a Nation of immigrants; laws that are enforceable and in touch with reality rather than laws that tear families apart every day in this country and deny--deny people who have worked hard here and contributed to society the opportunity to fully partake in our great country and to someday become Americans themselves. Semay Dibekulu Nelson Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from a constituent in Colorado from the Second Congressional District, Semay Dibekulu Nelson, from Boulder, Colorado, who shared a story with me about immigration, that speaks to the need to reform our immigration system today to ensure that everybody gets a chance to succeed in this country. Semay writes: As a first generation immigrant American having received political asylum under life-threatening conditions, I feel the pain of undocumented immigrants and their fear of being deported. I am honored to have received your message, and I would like to reflect on this important topic. I'm aware there's no time to waste while millions are being underpaid for an honest day's work while living in fear of detention and deportation. I hope our government brings this agonizing issue to a positive resolution. The time is over in which we can afford to ignore an issue that has led to this humanitarian catastrophe. I agree with Semay. Hers is a firsthand story of many legal immigrants like Semay who have firsthand knowledge of the process of leaving everything they know and coming to a new country without friends and without family. How difficult is that? Yet, today, our government is active tearing families apart, at taxpayer expense taking mothers from daughters and placing them in detention at the cost to taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars. We need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country and reflects our values as Americans, as even our newest Americans like Semay agree with. John Hoffman Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from John Hoffman in Boulder, Colorado. Like so many Coloradans and like so many Americans, John feels that we need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works and allows a way for the 11 million people who are here without status to get right with the law and fulfill their destiny. John writes: My great-great German grandparents settled in Germantown in Louisville, Kentucky. They were hardworking and industrious and eventually got into the vaunted ``middle class.'' Let the Latinos do the same. Izabella Peszek Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Izabella Peszek from Lafayette, Colorado. Izabella wrote me to share her immigration story and her passion for making sure that we replace our broken immigration system with one that works and reflects our values as Americans. Izabella and her husband were recruited to join a graduate program in math at the University of Maryland in 1989. When they decided to go for it, they thought they would return to their home country, Poland. That was their plan when they got their degrees. But fate decided otherwise. When they graduated, Robert in 2 years and Izabella in 2\1/2\, the country that they knew in their childhood was gone, and they were being offered some very tempting positions in the United States. Robert went to CMU for a postdoc, and Izabella joined the pharma industry. Eventually, they got green cards and became citizens of the United States and of our great State of Colorado, which is now their home, where both of them are respected in their fields and are happy doing what they do best. Now Izabella and Robert can't imagine living anywhere else. And they work hard to make their new home in the United States even better, just as so many other immigrant families contribute to this country, are an asset to this country, are an asset to America, are part of America, and are as American as anybody else, which is why we need an immigration system that reflects our values and our priorities as Americans and ensures that others have the ability to give back to this great country just as Izabella and Robert have and continue to do every day. Janice Green Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Janice Green from Westminster, Colorado, about why we need to fix our broken immigration system to help reunite families. Janice writes: My family has been in the United States for many generations, but my daughter-in-law is prevented from joining my daughter here because of the Defense of Marriage Act. They were legally married in Portugal, and my daughter may have to leave the United States to be with her spouse. Under current immigration law today, same-sex couples are not accepted under immigration law, even though there are a number of States where same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, federally that marriage is not counted for purposes of immigration. Janice's daughter might be driven from the country she loves and can contribute so much to because there's no viable path for her family to stay together. That's why I support Jerry Nadler's United American Families Act, and we need to work hard to make sure that as we replace our broken immigration system with one that works, it's fair to all Americans and treats all Americans fairly and reflects our value as Americans of keeping families like Janice's daughter and daughter-in- law together. Jean Hodges Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Jean Hodges of Boulder, Colorado, about why we need to improve our immigration system. Jean writes that both sides of her family immigrated in the 1800s from Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. They began life in Virginia and moved to Ohio around the Civil War. So Jean doesn't share the immediacy of immigrant parentage that many others do, but Jean does write that she understands the privilege of being a U.S. citizen and all that provides: for all of us to find a path to equality and whatever our pursuit of happiness may be. Jean, like so many Coloradans and so many Americans says, ``I wish that for all immigrants.'' Jean understands the reasons that her forebearers might have left everything and everyone they knew to come to this country. I know Jean. And the way that she has given back to our community as a school teacher, as a leader for equality, her work to support parents of LGBT kids, has been of tremendous value to our country, like the tremendous value that today's immigrants will provide through their public service, their community involvement, through their efforts as teachers, as firefighters, as policemen, as lawyers, as doctors, as successful business people who will lead our country to a more prosperous and bright future. Dan McLellan Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Dan McLellan of Boulder, Colorado, about why we need to fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that reflects our values as Americans. Dan is a fourth-generation Coloradan. In fact, on his father's side, he has ties all the way back to the Mayflower. On his mother's side, the family came from Ireland, Italy, Germany, and Scotland. Like many Americans of mixed blood, he remembers memorizing when he was in fifth grade his ancestry. He would quickly list it off: English, Irish, German, Italian, and Scottish. But recently, Dan fell in love with a Canadian. It was love at first sight, and last March they got married in New York. The plan was that Dan and his spouse were going to spend their lives together. But you know what? Right now they don't know where because Dan's spouse is another man. Unlike if Dan's spouse was a woman, Dan doesn't have the same kind of right to allow his husband, Michael, to be a legal resident of our country. Dan writes that he's forced to have to choose between the country he loves, the country his ancestors worked hard to get to, and being united with his own family and his husband. Dan calls upon us in Congress--and I pass this challenge to our colleagues--to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that treats families fairly, that treats families equally, that ensures that families are united. That's why I'm a proud sponsor of Jerry Nadler's United American Families Act, and I call upon this body to include respect for marriage as an important bed-stone principle of comprehensive immigration reform. Sally Miller Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Sally Miller from Broomfield, Colorado, and her strong support for fixing our broken immigration system. Sally is a social worker, and her story is about several pieces of her own personal experience working with people in the Denver metro area. Sally has worked with immigrants who came to our country 20 years ago. They raised their families, they hoped for a better life, their kids are U.S. citizens, have succeeded in school, and are giving back. But Sally writes that the parents of one of their families are constantly in fear that the father may be caught on the way to or from his cleaning job and sent back to a country that he left, torn apart from his family at taxpayer expense. One of their three children graduated from high school just this past June and is working and taking college classes. The other kids are 16 and 14. Sally writes that her friend and his wife hope to stay in the Denver area until all three of their kids graduate from high school, but every day the kids come home from school, they live in constant fear that our government sees their parents and sends them back to another country. Sally writes: The parents are good decent people, loving parents, and have always felt their sacrifices for their children's sake have been worth the price. There are so many families that risk being torn apart because our immigration system is completely out of touch with our values as Americans. Rather than reuniting families, it tears families apart; rather than encouraging people to follow the law, it rewards unscrupulous business people who hire people under the table and encourages the violation of the law and identity theft. We need to replace our immigration system with one that works for our country, allow people who've been here and are hardworking and contribute to our country to get right with the law, and, yes, some day enjoy the same benefits of citizenship that Sally herself enjoys. I call upon my colleagues to pass comprehensive immigration reform now. Ann Harroun Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Ann Harroun from Loveland, Colorado, who wrote to me with regard to her support for comprehensive immigration reform and her own family's story. Ann writes that her relatives first came to Canada from France and England; the French in the 1700s and the English a little later. Ann's great-great grandmother was becalmed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for a time, and both sides of her family were farmers in Quebec before wandering into northern New Hampshire in the 1920s. Ann writes, ``Were they legal? Who knows?'' She further writes that the French had large families and soon outgrew their farms. They moved on from New Hampshire. Her mother moved from New Hampshire to Maine in 1942 after the death of her father, and she worked for Maine Blue Cross for 30 years. Ann moved to California after high school and saw an opportunity to attend college, married, had children, joined the League of Women Voters, finally graduated in 1980, and promptly won an election to the Vermont house. Ann was the first in her family to attend college, vote, own a house, and hold public office. There are so many today that would be the first to go to college, that would be the first to vote, that would be the first to own a house, that would be the first to hold public office, that would be the first to be captains of industry, that would be the first to have advanced degrees if only we can find a way where they have the ability to get right with the law and get paperwork that allows them to pursue the great opportunities that this country offers. As Ann says, ``Were they illegal? Who knows?'' Were they illegal? Who cares? When my family came here in 1906, they got off the boat and registered. There was no quota or process or thing they had to deal with on the legal front. They just showed up here. You know what? They were welcomed. And you know what? Their grandson on one side and great- grandson on the other is now a United States Congress person, just as Ann was the first in her family after they wandered down from Canada to New Hampshire. Ann has given so much for her country, just as so many of today's immigrants will if we only give them today's opportunity. Daryl Shute Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Daryl Shute from Littleton, Colorado. Daryl writes with regard to the critical need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works. Daryl's grandfather, Joseph Giangreco, emigrated from Sicily to the United States to join his mother, who was already living in Buffalo, New York, in the mid-nineteen teens. Daryl writes that Italians were the unwanted immigrants of that day. Daryl writes that he returned to Canada, walked across the border, and rejoined his mother after he was deported from New York. He was caught and given a choice to fight for the Allies in Europe to earn his citizenship. He accepted that. And Daryl's grandfather, Joseph, went to war for the American Dream. Unfortunately, he received injuries during that war that affected him the rest of his life. Even so, he was hardworking and worked hard from the back of a horse-drawn cart to support his family for many years. Even to this day, immigrants give so much of themselves through their hard work, their toil, their sweat and tears, which all of us as Americans prosper from and benefit from. We need to find a way, just as Joseph's grandfather did, so that people can get right with the law. What is being discussed and what needs to be discussed is not an amnesty any more than if you get a speeding ticket and you enter a plea bargain it's an amnesty. It's essentially a plea bargain. Yes, you violated the law. Let's figure out how you get right with the law: register, pay a fine, get your working permit. It's not realistic in any way, shape or form to try to round up large numbers of people who are giving so much to our country every day and who, in many cases, have American children. That's why we need to pass immigration reform and replace our broken immigration system with one that reflects our values as Americans. Martha Denney Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story from Martha Denney in Fort Collins, Colorado. It's her own personal story and the story of her family's immigration and why we need to replace our broken immigration system with one that works and pass comprehensive immigration reform now. Martha's grandmother's family members were immigrants from Montbeliard, France, but they were actually Swiss Mennonites. They were driven from Switzerland as followers of the Mennonite faith. They followed the teachings that defied the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they were discriminated against. Many Swiss farmers became valued and trusted workers on estates in France, where they went to escape persecution. When they were able to emigrate to the U.S. in the late 1800s, they came to Wayland, Iowa, which was a small Mennonite community. Martha has worked for more than 30 years in the area of international exchange at a large American university, Colorado State University, in Fort Collins. She has worked with issues of visas and student visas and the immigration of students. She has observations about the process that she has tried to share over the years with Representatives of our United States Government, but she believes that, up until now, they weren't in a position to hear them because they weren't focusing on immigration reform. I call upon this body to focus on immigration reform, to heed the stories of those like Martha's and of the many others who interact every day--whether it's as an employer or an educator or a social worker--with those who are here in this country and are working hard to make our country greater but who lack the paperwork that verifies their own existence, who lack the paperwork that allows them to exist under the rule of law in this country. We need to replace our broken immigration system with one that reflects our American values, with one that allows people to step out of the darkness and into the light, to get right with the law, to be able to fully pursue their destinies as future Americans. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we all benefit from the tremendous benefits that immigrants give to this country every day. I hope that now is the time that Representatives of our United States Government in this House of Representatives will be in a position to hear and will be in a position to focus on immigration reform in order to make our country stronger, to make our country safer, to make our country more prosperous. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to support comprehensive immigration reform and to pass it now. We must replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country and our values. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Further parliamentary inquiry. Does the rule being considered today prohibit a Member from demanding a division of the question?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 66 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution, waiving all points of order, waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, therefore causing a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in the underlying bill H.R. 273, but rather as well to demonstrate that in many ways this bill and this process has been a travesty of the civics lesson that Americans learned in school. I would like to make, Madam Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. What is the process that a Member can use to demand a division of the question on a bill?

Mr. POLIS. Having heard from the Chair that a motion can be made by any Member to divide the question, I would like to ask unanimous consent to demand a division of the question on today's bill before us.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the Speaker, and I understand that it sounds like sitting here in the Chamber one Member objected to a division of the question. I would like to point out that over 400 Members did not object to the division of the question. I will not ask for a recorded vote on this, although I think it's clear that my side would win over 400-some to 1, perhaps. I did not hear any additional objections from anybody in the Chamber.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Is the time under my control yieldable?