the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 273rk the nays are 179, the amendment is adopted. the request is for a recorded vote on amendment number two by the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two, offered by mr. gutierrez

of illinois. the chair: those in favor of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 164, the nays are 235, the amendment is not

adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report --

the chair: on amendment number two, the yeas are 164, the nays are 236, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report 111-468, by the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in house report 111-468, offered by mr. gutierrez of illinois. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 13, the nays are 386, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished bids is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number four printed

in house report 111-468 by the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four, printed in house report 111-468, offered by mr. burton of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 301, the nays are 100. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the question for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-468 by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-468 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible b the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 11, the nays are 387. the amendment is not agreed to. the the unfinished business is the question for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, on which the ayes were requested by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-468 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 112, the nays are 285, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of is the -- the unfin,ed business is the request for a recorded vote by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. velazquez on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-468 offered by mr. have a lalkezz of new york -- have a lazz he can -- velazquez of new york. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this amendment the vote is 171 yeas to 223 nays. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has reported that the committee has had under consideration of the bill and reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question son adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as

amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. third reading. >> mr. speaker. the clerk: a bill to provide for a federally determined sanction process for the people of puerto rico. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. hastings: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. hastings of washington moves to committee the bill, h.r. 2499. mr. hastings: i ask that the motion be considered read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection -- without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, as the house considers the bill on

puerto rico's future, this motion to recommit provides members of the house an opportunity to register their views on questions of english as an official language and on the importance of protecting americans' second amendment rights. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, two amendments were filed with the rules committee to directly address the issues of english language and second amendment gun rights. both were blocked by the democrat-controlled rules committee. what that means, of course, is that members have no opportunity to debate this issue. by making an amendment in order does not guarantee obviously the outcome. but yet we're even denied the opportunity on english as official language and second

amendment rights. so this motion to recommit simply combines these two issues in the motion to recommit. now, let me explain specifically what the motion will do. it will amend the description of statehood that will appear on the plebiscite ballot authorized thunderstorm bill to state that, one, english will be the official language of the state and all official business will be conducted in english. and, two, that laws will be in place that will, quote, ensure residents have the second amendment right to own, possess, carry, use for self-defense, store, assemble at home and transport for lawful purposes firearms and any amount ammunition provided that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate federal law, end quote. .

it has been asserted during the debate that in certain -- inserting the issue of english language is something unprecedented or hasn't been talked about or whatever. that's not true, because four states were admitted to the union in part of that admitance was the requirement that english would be the official language. so, mr. speaker, this is a pretty straightforward motion to recommit. i urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico rise? mr. pierluisi: i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: the matters that are being raised in this motion are premature, are irrelevant, actually, because all that this

bill, h.r. 2499 does is consult the people of puerto rico on the four available options that they have regarding our status, the current status, the territory, statehood, independence and free association. the people of puerto rico have not yet expressed by a majority that they want to join the union as a state. i hope that they -- that comes about and when it comes about, puerto rico will comply with the 2nd amendment the same way that all the other states must comply with the 2nd amendment. the same goes for the english language. it shouldn't be an issue now in puerto rico and will not be an issue at the time when it becomes a state.

puerto rico now has two official languages, english and spanish. 90% of our parents want their children to be fluent in english. and so, we're proud of having english as a language and we want to improve it. in fact, i have two bills pending before this congress for that very purpose. so both issues are being unfairly placed or that's what the motion seeks on the ballot that the people in puerto rico would be having in front of them. what the motion seeks is to somehow tell the people of puerto rico, you can have statehood but only english only and only if you comply with the 2nd amendment. i oppose this motion because it is untimely. the day will come when we debate these issues, but that day is not now. i yield one minute to our majority leader.

mr. hoyer: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 2:40 remaining. mr. hoyer: i rise in opposition to this motion. i traveled throughout the soviet union, to captive nations with many of you and i rose in those nations and said to their leaders, you need to give your people self-determination. many of you have said the same thing on this floor. you talked about tyrant governments that kept their peoples from practicing their own religions, from speaking their own language, from adopting their own laws. and you spoke out against it. and there were foreign nations, and it was easy to do. but now we talk about puerto rico, a territory of the united states of america.

what mr. pierluisi seeks to do, what his governor wants to do, what 2/3 of his legislation wants to do is to give them the opportunity to exercise that self-determination. now, we've adopted an amendment on this floor for which many spoke that we ought to give four alternatives rather than three. we've done that. there will be four alternatives for the people of puerto rico on the second ballot. let us now defeat this amendment designed only to defeat this bill. hawaii was not made to do this. alaska, as the gentleman from alaska, don young, was not made to do this, as he said on the floor. and we did not ask that to occur in any one of the captive

nations that we spoke up on. ronald reagan did not ask for that. let us not ask for it. let us give an honest up or down vote to the people of puerto rico who for 112 years have perceived themselves as a colony. now, there are some who want statehood, some who want independence and sovereign status, there are some who want commonwealth. there are some who want this relationship with the united states, somewhat like australia has with great britain. do not diminish this principle however with the future of the politics, as the gentleman from puerto rico said. this will be debated when and if puerto rico asks for statehood. your republican governor asked for a vote for this bill and

against this motion to recommit. i ask my party to do the same. give puerto rico its chance today. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the knows have it and the motion is not adopted. mr. hastings: i ask for a reported vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote will be on passage if ordered. this shall be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 194, the nays are 198, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. it the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this shall be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 223, the nays are 169, one voting present. the bill is passed. without objection, motion to without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays of the motion to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 375 be via indicated to the end that the resolution be considered as adopted in the form considered by the house on tuesday, april 27, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection to the request? without objection, the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules and adopt house resolution 375 as amended is vacated.

accordingly, 2/3 having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is agreed to and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the the gentleman from from maryland for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the republican whip for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend while the house will be in order. the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: thank you very much,

madam speaker. our former colleague is on the floor, the governor of puerto rico, congratulations to him. on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thursday, 10 a.m. for legislative business. on friday, no votes are expected in the house. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspensions will be announced by close of business tomorrow. we will consider h.r. 5019, the home star energy retrofit act of 2010. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i notice that my friend, the majority leader, did not mention the budget or the supplemental for afghanistan and iraq for next week's schedule. obviously, both are extremely critical and i would like to

ask, madam speaker, when does he expect those items to come to the floor and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his question and i appreciate him yielding. as i have said before on the floor with respect to scheduling, i agree with him on both items. the budget is important and the supplemental is clearly important and i hope to move both of those as soon as possible. we are working on both. i know the appropriations committee is working on the supplemental. and i know mr. spratt is working on the budget. so i tell my friend i share his view of their importance and we hope to be able to move those to the floor within the near future. i cannot give him a date, but within the near future. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for that. we reiterate our concern as he just expressed, the need for us to focus on fiscal

responsibility and ensure that the house during regular order hopefully with a supplemental bill. i know there were some reports that that supplemental would come directly to the floor. and i can yield to the gentleman. and if he has anything to respond to that. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't have anything specific. i have talked to mr. obey. and i don't have the specifics of how he's going to consider that. obviously, that is an appropriations matter, as the gentleman well observes. and i would be glad to talk to mr. obey specifically about how he's going to proceed and let the gentleman know. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and in order to sum up in the shortest colloquy yet, i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask that when the house adjourn today it meet at 10:00 a.m. on monday next and when the house adjourns on that

day it adjourn to meet at 12:30 on tuesday, may 4, 2010, for morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, today on april 29, 2010, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in an open session to consider four resolutions for the u.s. army corps of engineers. in accordance with 33 united states code subsection 542. the resolution authorized corps surveys or studies of water resource needs and possible solutions. the committee adopted the resolutions by voice vote with a quorum present. enclosed are copies of the resolutions adopted by the committee. sincerely, james l. oberstar. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations.

the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any specialereders heretofore entered into, the following -- special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be allowed to talk. mr. forbes for today, mr. moran for may 6, myself, in poe, for may 6, mr. jones for may 6 and mr. shimkus for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey for five minutes, ms. kaptur for five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and and you previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey, california. mr. moran from kansas. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. poe, texas. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. i want to bring to the attention of the house a serious problem that we have encountered. it seems as though we have such a problem on our borders that now in southeast texas, in a small port city called port arthur, three illegal brazilians have shown up in the last couple of days. they've come into the port of port arthur and they were stow aways on this massive ship that was bringing in brazilian paper pulp. 13,000 tons of this pulp was brought in on this ship and through inspection by federal authorities, they found three stow aways, three illegals from the nation of brazil. now, you probably assume that i'm talking about people but i am not. here is one of those stow aways. one that they actually captured and gave an identification number.

you see, the three stow aways turned out to be three grass hoppers. little, bitty critters. but yet our united states agricultural department was able to investigate and find these little three illegal stow aways on this massive amount of paper pulp from brazil. and so they took the pulp and it's sitting on the dock, it's going to be sprayed down for any disease, they gave one of these grass hoppers even an official government i.d. number. and here it is down here, 234735719. and of course the grasshopper was found in jefferson county, texas. the other two apparently didn't look quite as bad as this one. they thought that this one might be carrying some type of disease and it has lo and behold been brought to washington, d.c., to be examined further by federal authorities to see if it was carrying any type of disease or

contamination from the nation of brazil. now, madam speaker, i bring this to the house's attention for this reason. our united states department of agriculture is so good and so competent that they are able to keep out of the united states illegal grasshoppers about three inches long, they're able to find them on this massive ship in the port of port arthur, texas, carrying 13,000 tons of paper pulp, they're able to capture these grasshoppers, send one to washington, d.c., to be examined, to see if it's carrying disease. i commend the department of agriculture for their work and tenacious activity in making sure illegal brazilians that are grasshoppers don't enter the united states without being caught. now, it seems to me that if we are so advanced with technology

and man power and competence that we can cap turrill legal grasshoppers -- capture illegal grasshoppers from brazil in a little place in port arthur, texas, on a river that separates texas from louisiana, if we're able to do that as a country, how come we cannot capture the thousands of people that cross the border every day on the southern border of the united states? you know, they're a little bigger than grasshoppers and they should be able to be captured easier. maybe it's because the country doesn't have the moral will, the government doesn't have the moral will to protect the borders from people coming in. well, we sure have the moral will as a nation to keep these grasshopper critters from coming into the united states from brazil and maybe we need to make the guy down there in southeast texas that captured this grasshopper from brazil, he ought to be in charge of homeland security. if he's able to do this with

grasshoppers, just think what he could do on the southern border of the united states. so, madam speaker, we have the technology, we have the capability, we need the moral will as a nation to secure the border of the united states. that is the responsibility of the federal government and the federal government should take some lessons from the guy that captured this grasshopper and make sure that the southern border of the united states is protected from people who come here without permission. we can do it, let's have the moral will. let's send the national guard if necessary to the border to protect the dignity of the nation. because that's the job of the federal government. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair recognizes mr. defazio from oregon. mr. jones from north carolina. for what purpose does the

gentleman rise? without objection. mr. burton: let me just -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. let me just say that, mr. poe from texas, my good friend who just spoke, he added a little bitive levity but it was very important, the point that he was making, in that we have the ability in this country to really deal with things like agriculture and insects that might come in and contaminate our crops. but we have a serious, serious problem on the 1,980-mile border between us and mexico. the administration has cut some of the money from the whole project of putting fences and more border patrol agents on that border and it's a war zone, as mr. poe has said. mr. poe is the leader in pointing out the problems with what's going on the border between texas and mexico as well as the border all the way between the united states and the whole country of mexico. and so i'd just like to say, if i were talking to the president or anybody in his administration, listen to mr.

poe and the guys who have been down there on that border, they know and the sheriffs and the police in arizona and all of them know that this is a war zone. american lives are at risk. and we're not doing anything from the federal level to really deal with the problem. and as mr. poe said in a letter that he wrote that i co-signed the other day, they need to send, if necessary, the national guard down there to augment the board par petroleum agents, some of whom are -- border patrol agents some of whom are at risk. if i were talking to the administration on behalf of my good friend, mr. poe, and all of us that are concerned about the border and the illegals that are coming in by the thousands and now into the millions over the years, we really need to do something to protect that border. no more talking about it. let's do it. let's send the national guard down there with the ability to do whatever is necessary when they're dealing with armed drug dealers or people coming across the border who mean to do harm to american citizens.

and if we give them that right and we put the national guard down there with the ability to defend themselves against these people that crumbing across the border, we can -- that are coming across the border, we can stop the illegal immigration. then we could start talking about a real viable immigration reform bill. but until we secure the border we shouldn't be talking about that. that's the number one objective. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. posey of florida. mr. forbes from virginia. without objection. without objection. mr. shimkus: i'd like to read a letter from a former chrysler leader in my district. i'd like to co-response -- thank you for co-sponsoring the economic rights restoration act of 2009 and h.r. 3179, the financial services and

government appropriations act for fiscal year 2010. the letter i received from you dated august 7, 2009, was appreciated. h.r. 3288 bill has no doubt done a great deal of good for a lot of g.m. and chrysler dealers. however the bill did not address the dealerships that lost everything and has no possible way of going back into business. when chrysler informed me on may 14, 2009, that my franchise was going to be terminated effective at the close of business on june 9, 2009, i had 263 new chrysler vehicles in inventory and 412,000 of chrysler parts. in their letter they say thed -- stated, we intend to maintain, quote-unquote, business as usual and after a rejection, we want to work with you in the resist of the redistribution of new vehicles and parts to ease the burden on you. they did nothing except lie to congress. chrysler went out of their way to make sure i could not stay in

business. the week of may 18 they sent letters to all my customers informing them that this could not be a chrysler dealer as of june 10, 2009, and they need service work to take their vehicles to another dealership. at that time i was terminated, my dealership was in the top 5% of sales, my customer satisfaction was one of the highest chrysler had. in 2006 my parts and service managers both were awarded chrysler manager of the year and i was runner-up for dealer of the year. i could not believe i was being terminated. when i tried to call and inquire as to why i was terminated, no one would answer my call. to this day, no one has explained why i lost my franchise. by the close of business on june 9, the dealership had sold all by 186 vehicles at retail and reduced the parts inventory to 352 -- $3 52,000. when i called chrysler about what i should do the leftover new vehicles, i was told they had other issues to deal with

and would get back to me in a few months. they also stated that i could not retain the vehicles as new and the vehicles would not qualify for any of the factory rebates or factory warranties. i was forced to sell all of the 186 vehicles to other chrysler dealers at $3,000 to $4,000 loss per vehicle which amounted to a loss of $700,000 of cash. when i tried to sell my chrysler parts to other dealers, they received phone calls and were told if they need parts to call chrysler, not dave croft motors. madam speaker, this is just the first page of three that i'm submitting for the record which talked about really the theft of personal property in the government bailouts of automobile companies. this is individual family -- this is an individual family business that had existed for decades that was destroyed,

abused and left with nothing. he ends with, i will keep telling my story to anyone who will listen, i hope that some kind of law will be put in place so this cannot happen to another business in the future. i still have to tell myself that i live in america and not in china. what he experienced is the government intervention and taking over of personal private wealth in this country and it's an indication of a sad direction this country has taken when it thwarts the capitalist model of raising capital, taking a risk and either benefiting from that risk or losing everything. when we get involved in bailing out wall street banks and then we don't bail out small main street businesses, well, -- what we have here is a discrepancy. if we would allow the market to work, it's not compassionate,

it's not emotional, it's very, very tough but it is the best way to turn around the economy, small businesses around this country will continue to get rolled over by big business and big government and with that i ask unanimous consent to submit the entire letter for the record and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, twain, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i'll be joined by some of thinkmy colleagues, including mr. ellison and others who might join us. we want to speak about a topic that's been in the news lately and is incredibly important to the american people, and that is immigration, securing our borders, immigration reform. a lot of us were frankly

shocked at some of the steps arizona took a few weeks ago which sent a powerful message that we need to act. it's not up to states to patrol their borders to enforce workplace laws. it's the responsibility of the federal government. the federal government has failed to enforce our immigration laws. it's time to have comprehensive immigration reform. i have heard the message from arizona loud and clear and i hope that passage of that bill provides impetus for us to take the politically challenging but critical steps necessary to pass comprehensive immigration reform. today was an exciting day in immigration reform. the senate proposed their proposal for immigration reform. it's not a bill. we have a bill in the house that i proudly join about 100

members as co-sponsor of but this is the first step toward the bill and the senate -- in the senate which i hope will be introduced soon and will be bipartisan. it starts out, 1-a, securing the border first before any steps taken to change the status of people in the united states illegally. as long as they're failing to secure the border there won't be meaningful reform in our own country. they will count to see people entering our company illegally. it's ridiculous that in this day and age a sovereign nation, the greatest nation, can't secure our own border. it's also critical to know who is here. the senate plan and the house plan require all undocumented population to register and undergo a background check.

that's an important step because right now we don't know who is here in our own country. that's a security threat every american should take seriously. i think it's critical we know who is here. arizona has triggered a national crisis. it's underlined the critical need for action at the federal level this ridiculous measure that arizona passed and i should point out that we should expect if congress continues to fail to take action, other states to pass misguided and extreme state laws but this arizona law has triggered a moral crisis by forcing american citizens, families who are american citizens, live in fear. what does this law mean? it means that as american citizens, our -- as american citizens are going about their business, going to school, going to 7-eleven, whatever they're doing, if an officer thinks, thinks, suspects, that

they might be an illegal immigrant, could bit the cloltes they wear, could it be their race, could it be an accent they speak with? that officer can demand proof of their legal status in the u.s. i ask you who carries the proof of their american citizenship with them? i doe noah i don't when i go out shopping or go for a walk. so these americans will be detained, they could spend days, weeks, even months away from their families as they have to prove their american citizenship and request the documentation to do so. that can frequently take a long time. i've been to immigrant detention facilities, we have one in aurora, colorado. that's the type of facility that an american citizen will be taken to, simply because they are not walking and going about with the documentation of their american citizenship. this threatness to turn arizona into a police state. it threatens to strike fear in

the hearts of hundreds of thousands of arizonans, particularly arizonans of particular ethnic heritages. that's why i feel very strongly this bill is a racist bill, one born of xenophobea, but one that will affect the rights of american citizens. will it lead to the apprehension of more undocumented immigrants? it might. it will, on the margin. but it will lead to the detention of american citizens accidentally because american citizens, as we go about our own business in our own country should not have to carry with us proof of our citizenship in this great nation. where does this overreach of government end? this new law has triggered a political crisis in arizona, effectively causing the law enforcement community which has strongly opposed this bill in arizona, to face the choice of

going after people based on their race or protecting people from crime. the fastest growing segment of our electorate will continue to pay attention to this issue. latinos want to know that we have an interest in fixing the broken immigration system and making sure that no other states overreach and go after american citizens like arizona does. and yet, we can all understand, me from colorado, others across the nation, why arizona felt it had to fall to them to take action on this issue. it's because the federal government has failed to act on comprehensive immigration reform. immigration is a national issue that requires a national solution. it can't be solved on a state-by-state basis. we need the federal government to take bold and decisive action and we need to pass comprehensive immigration reare form now. we stand with the arizona association of police chiefs,

yuma county sheriff, mesa police chiefs and other law enforcement officials opposed to senate bill -- arizona senate bill 1070 because it makes arizona less safe and threatens american citizens with detention. if people are afraid their families, neighbors, and friends will be rounded up by police they live in constant fear of government and police that are there to serve and protect. the arizona immigration enforcement law is the example of the chaos created by the federal government's fail wrur to protect our borders and act on comprehensive immigration reform. the arizona law is an attack on american values. it undermines the basic notion of fairness we cherish as americans. this is a challenge to who we are as a nation and who we are as human beings and whether we stand up for our nation or not.

let's do the right thing and fix our broken immigration system. that's the challenge to us here in congress. and it shouldn't take courage for members of congress to talk about support and pass and pass immigration reform. to the contrary, it should take courage to avoid passing immigration reform because the american people overwhelmingly want immigration reform and those members of congress who stand in the way of securing our borders and that people can only work legally risk not being re-elected next year. this is one of the few issues that has broad agreement among my constituents in colorado. i've said this to a number of audiences when we talked about health care, many of my constituents supported health care reformmark opposed it. with regard to immigration, i have not found one constituent on the left or right that believes we are doing everything right with regard to immigration.

it is broken. conservatives agree it's broken. liberals believe it's broken. nobody believes our immigration system works perfectly. we have an undocumented population of over 10 million people. we have thousands, hundreds of thousands of businesses across this country that violate the law every day. the rule of law across our great nation has been challenged and undermined. but we in congress -- i hope that we in congress have heard the cry from arizona, the cry from 49 other states, the cry from the american people demanding that we in congress take action to fix our broken immigration system and restore the rule of law to this great nation. i see i'm joined by my friend in minnesota who i will yield to. mr. ellison: thank you for yielding. congressman keith ellison here from the state of minnesota and it's timely we're here to talk

about immigration. the fact of the matter is, it's a symptom of congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform that we get these draconian pieces of legislation such as were signed into law in arizona on april 23, 2010, just a few days ago. if the united states government would take hold of this immigration debate, pass comprehensive immigration reform, states would not have to resort to these extreme measures, unconstitutional in my view that arizona has taken. let me point out a few things. the law says that police officers can stop and detain people who are suspected of being illegal aliens and demand that they provide proof that they are u.s. citizens. the fact of the matter is, is that some people have said, keith this could make people who may have a brown complexion and dark hair, who sort of have

a typical mexican appearance, that may subject them to unfair and illegal stops. my response is, that's true. it may stop latinos, but it will stop anybody. there's no way a certain person looks -- there's wide diversity throughout the university, people look all kind of ways. they can stop the most anglo person in arizona could be stopped and demanded to show proof of citizenship and if they don't have it, could be carted off. the fact is, i'm making this argument because i don't want americans of any background to think they are going to be somehow safe from a law as sweeping and unfair as this one. no one is safe when the constitution is offended in such a dramatic way as this arizona law. at the same time, i have no sympathy for the arizona law but i will say it's a symptom of the congress' failure to

deal with comprehensive immigration reform. the argument has been made that somehow this is about addressing issues of crime and law enforcement. you know, if that were true, why would the arizona association of chiefs of police oppose a law for fiscal and public safety reasons, noting it would diminish the public's willingness to cooperate with police and criminal investigations and would negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies to fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner. law enforcement officials who know something about law enforcement don't like this law, they are right, and the fact is, this law is offensive to our constitution. again, it calls into question what we are doing here in congress on comprehensive immigration reform, which is nothing much. the fact is, we need to get busy on immigration reform, the

american people know it, it is popular, it's something the american people have asked for and the congress should step forward and do something about it right away. let me yield back to the gentleman from the great state of colorado and just point out that comprehensive immigration reform is something that i believe we need and i just want to say that there's just a few principles before i yield back i want to mention that is, progressive immigration reform agenda, passed by the progressive caucus, believes in keeping families together, creating a path toward citizenship and employment verification. as much as we talk about securing the border, and we should secure the border you can't always secure the border at the border. we need the cooperation of all officials who hire -- employers -- to make sure they are doing employment verification so we can make sure the border is being secured, yes, at the border, but also at the point of employment which people are drawn to. there's more to be said about this but i yield back to the

gentleman right now. mr. polis: thank you and i appreciate you bringing up employer verification. one of the key components of the senate outline requires biometric employment verification. this is not a, you know, a social security number that could be used by somebody who is 6'1" and 52 one day and somebody who is 5'3" and 42 the next day. this is a real biometric i.d. no later than 18 months after the day of enactment of this proposal, the social security administration will issue biometric social security cards, fraud resistant, tamper resistant and machine readable, contain a photograph and a microprocessor which has a unique identifier for each person, could be a fingerprint or an eye scan. we'll be serious about knowing who can work and who is not legally employable, we need to

be sure it's the right person we're talking about. there are hundreds of thousands if not million of violations of this area of employment law every day in this country and we are not even remotely serious about cracking down on those. that's why we urgently need, why arizona and the rest of the country has called on congress, to address this issue and why we only ignore them at our own peril. we're joined by one of my colleagues from california who in her time here has already become a champion of comprehensive immigration reform and making sure that we can fix our broken immigration system. i'm glad to welcome congresswoman chu from california. chuchu thank you. today i -- chew chew thank you. today i -- ms. chu: thank you. i stand here today to say that this is critically important to the prosperity of our nation. of course i have a much different opinion on how to fix it than some on the other side

of the aisle. where they see an attack on american culture and way of life i see a chance to strengthen our nation with the new generation of productive and active citizens. where they see fear and paranoia i see an opportunity to do the right thing, the humane thing, and bring 12 million immigrants out of the shadows and into society. what they don't see is the ongoing family separations, the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers, the true human costs of our broken immigration system. i get calls every day in my district from families who have sacrificed and worked hard to put food on the table and send their children to school. take the case of maria, an american citizen who came into our district office last month with her two children, ages 2 and 4, crying tears. she wases tryinging to do the right thing -- she was trying to do the right thing. her husband was undocumented. she'd gone to mexico with her husband for an appointment with an immigration official where

she was petitioning for her husband to receive legal status. the immigration officer denied it saying that there was insufficient hardship. it is now more than a year since her husband was left stranded. even married to an american citizen he is barred from re-entering the country for up to 10 years because of a law passed by congress in the 1990's making it tougher for undocumented immigrants to acquire legal status through marriage. in the meantime maria has lost her house, forced to do a short sale because she could not keep up with the mortgage payments without her husband's income. her children wake up in the middle of the night crying for their daddy. to me that does sound like insufficient -- like sufficient hardship. these family separations are cruel and counterproductive to both legal immigrants and citizens. it is families that have historically helped immigrants assimilate into american life

and help prevent health and social problems. family networks give individuals the support and resources they need to become successful, productive members of our society. and if congress doesn't act to fix our immigration system, states will do their own thing and we will be stuck with an unfair and impractical patchwork system. just like week the state of arizona passed the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations in any state. the law makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and gives the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. now, i don't walk around with my birth certificate or passport which is expensive and out of financial reach of many. and neither does a commercial truck driver living in arizona. last week on the heels of the governor signed this new law he was shackled by the police and detained by the phoenix

immigration and customs enforcement office. now, he was born a citizen of the united states, he has a job, he pays taxes, he speaks english, his wife is a natural born citizen of the united states, she, too, has a job, she also speaks english, she pays taxes, but he was pulled over and arrested. why? not because he was speeding, that's for sure. when the officer demanded his papers, he could only produce a driver's license and a social security number. not good enough. at routine commercial weigh station on a regular work day, he made the mistake of not carrying his birth stert with him. that's right -- birth certificate with him. that's right, his birth certificate. why did the police really pull him over? it's now apparently the law of the state of arizona that you can arrest people, citizens or not, simply for appearing hispanic.

this is a sadly familiar story, but one that was thought to be safely in the past. in the years following the civil war, states began to implement a series of discriminatory laws designed to control former slaves and free blacks. under the vague ransy laws, police could -- vagrancy laws police could stop anyone anywhere. but what if you forgot to carry your employment records with you when you left the house that morning? what if you were like so many regular citizens unaware of the an -- of the laws? what if you were simply unemployed? it might be your last mistake as a free citizen of the united states. sound familiar? well, it does to thousands of arizonans. we cannot solve our immigration woes by simply creating new problems.

instead we must pass a comprehensive bill that actually fixes our immigration system, that penalizes employers who would hire undocumented workers and exploit their status for their own gain. we need a bill that protects the family and repair the bureaucratic system that forces citizens and immigrants to live apart from their loved ones. we need a bill that provides a clear path to citizenship and employment for otherwise law-abiding immigrants, undocumented or not. america would not be the great nation it is without the passion, ingenuity and perseverance of the millions of immigrants who have come to our shores looking for a better life for themselves and their families. mr. polis: thank you, congresswoman chu, for your leadership on this issue. and very powerful words that you shared with some of your constituents' stories. the stories that you shared, those individuals are not alone. there are hundreds of thousands

of people across our country every day that have powerful stories about what has happened to them through immigration -- through our immigration system. let me briefly mention something that the congresswoman alluded to aboutdy tension -- detention. it could be -- about detention. it could be an american citizen or someone who is undocumented who is discovered, taken to a detention. that means that taxpayers are paying their way. taxpayers are paying $120 a day on average in these detention facilities. so if this arizona law leads to more undocumented people being apprehended, then we are putting them up for free at a government hotel. rather than out there working and not being a burden on society, basically arizona's new law forces taxpayers to put up illegal immigrants and feed them and clothe them and house them at taxpayer expense. i bet if the people of arizona knew that they'd have second thoughts about this law but

that's exactly what will happen. not only that, there will be american citizens who are swept up in this. again, you go out for coffee, run your errands, don't bring your proof of citizenship with you, boom, you're in a detention facility. american taxpayers are paying $120 a night for you. and it might take a week, a month, however long it takes so you can get your documentation, god forbid you're visiting from alaska, visiting from florida, were born through a midwife and don't have a hospital birth certificate. you could be in that detention facility, even though you're an american citizen, for months. all at taxpayer expense. i think the solution that the american people want is a lot better than that. i don't think the american people want to put up illegal immigrants in hotels for months or years at a time. i think the american people want to make sure we don't have an undocumented population in this country and that's exactly what

the house comprehensive immigration reform bill would do as well as the senate one proposed. it would require the senate bill that anybody who's here has to register and have a background check and they would get a immigrant status, a transitory temporary status to be here. and eventually if they learned english, went through all these steps, they could become a permanent resident. but that is quite a long way down the road. in the meantime -- and by the way, to ever achieve lawful permanent residence they would have to speak english, have basic citizenship skills, updated terrorism, criminal history and background checks, pay all federal income taxes, fees and civil penalties and register for selective service after eight years on the temporary status. no, the american people don't want to put illegal immigrants up in hotels like jan brewer and

the arizona legislature are proposing. the american people don't want to have a large undocumented population. i'd also like to point out the problems that this law has imposed on our relationship with the south, mexico. i'm a founder of the u.s.-mexico friendship caucus, to facilitate one of our most important trading partners, the flow of ideas and goods between the u.s. and mexico is an important part of the prosperity we have here and the growing economy in helping mexico meet the demands of its growing middle class. and yet this law is hurting bilateral relationship with mexico. before i got to congress i occasionally used to travel internationally. i'd been to places like egypt and i've been to australia and in the department of state there's a site where they list any country that has a warning.

warning, don't go to this country, it has a civil war and there's terrorists. i would always heed that and i didn't want to -- my mother wouldn't have liked it if i went to a place where our own department of state said you might die if you go there. well, you know what? mexico is now advising their citizens, their tourists, into the to go to arizona. one of our very own states is being warn against -- warned against visiting by a country that sends many tourists to our nation. i represent some of the ski resorts in colorado. we have tens of thousands of tourists from mexico every year. it's one of our larger countries that sends tourists that keep americans employed and spend money in colorado. but by criminalizing the whole status of people, any mexican tourists would have second thoughts about going to arizona. it saddens me as an american,

having, you know, looked a at these warnings that our -- looked at these warnings that our state of department has -- department of state has, i'm glad i don't live where this is or where that is, well, now one of our closest and most important friends and neighbors, the great country of mexico, has listed one of our states on their warnings. that's a blow to the american pride. i mean, i'm proud to be an american and to think that our country has some of these problems that only developing dictatorships or free states have had in the past, not only disgraceful but really undermined the economy of arizona, their tourism money will dry up. and it won't just be arizona. it won't just be mexico that adds it. i have a feeling many other countries will follow suit in east asia and latin america because who wants their citizens to be subject to being

apprehended and based in -- placed in detention for months at a time? that would be a very reasonable response. i certainly hope and join my colleagues in hoping that this law is tossed out as soon as possible. again, it's important for to us understand why arizona passed it. it was a message. a message addressed in congress that congress has failed the american people. congress has failed to enforce our borders and implement real employment enforcement, real security and indeed congress' lack of action is leading to the undermining of american sovereignty. not only in arizona but in many states including my home state of colorado. that has hundreds of thousands of people who live there illegally. we don't know who they are, where they are. work, in most cases, because federal enforcement has been a joke. this is a solution that we can solve.

it's not a solution that should involve posturing from the left or the right, it's one of the american people and the people of arizona very rightfully so have demanded action on with a shot across our bow. i hope the people of arizona don't suffer too much under this law because they understand and sympathize with their goals. i hope it's overturned soon. certainly if it's allowed to continue it will hurt their economy, they'll lose jobs, arizonans will lose work, americans will be forced into detention at taxpayer expense. i hope that that doesn't happen. i hope this law is overturned before that happens. but the shot across has been received and i hope, i hope that it provides the urgent impetus for us in congress to move forward now on comprehensive immigration reform. i yield to my friend from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman from colorado for raising these issues. i want to say that the progressive caucus has some

essential principles we believe are essential to have in any immigration bill. we know that a version was dropped in the senate. there's another dropped in the house earlier. we want -- what we say is we think we've got to keep families together. we have to create a path to earned citizenship. this isn't handing out citizenship to anybody. people have to take care of the business that the gentleman from colorado already mentioned, paying all taxes. going through courses in english and citizenship. making sure that they do everything that they have to do to make sure that -- that at least they're allowed to be on a path that will lead them to citizenship and that there be employment verification. there are other important values there i think we should talk about as well. the fact is, one of those values is respect. another value is identifying

the fact that young people studying hard every single day graduating from an american high school, brought to this country by their parents, you know in my view, should be able to go to a college in their state and pay in-state tuition and so that's another value i think is very important and enhances education. values and achievement. it indicates to young people who have lived their lives here, grow up here, came here through no fault, no choice of their own, can have a future. the fact is that there are some basic principles i think we should pursue. the thing that does concern me, though, is that sometimes we hear people, madam speaker, say things like, well, you know, this bill is dead on arrival that bill is not going to go anywhere. they declare bills to be not in motion, sometimes. i believe that whether comprehensive immigration reform moves or not sup to the

-- is up to the people of america. immigration reform can move because the people are demanding it, the same way financial reform is moving, immigration reform can move because people say, we got to have this, we need it. no more living in the shadows we need a legitimate path toward citizenship, that isn't amnesty that does involve real accountability, at the same time allows people to come out of the shadows and have some status they can have so they can do what they need to do for themselves and their families. the fact is that this is the decent thing to do, it's the right thing to do. i point out, madam speaker, there is a growing and strengthening coalition for immigration reform. in my own state of minnesota, we used to have immigrant groups, people who are directly affected by immigration policy,

from new american groups, whether latino or east african or southeast asian or whatever community, a lot of times they'd be at the forefront of the question of immigration reform. but then we began to see labor coming to the conversation. labor does not want an exploitable, abuseable group of people who are in the shadows that can undercut their wages. they want everybody above board, walking through the front door, to have a status so they can organize them and so that they can have some stability. even the chamber of commerce in my city said, we're for comprehensive immigration rereform as well. i'm not speaking for the united states chamber of commerce, but there are a lot around the country that know it's important. we have a coalition that's coming together, it's deepening and coming together to demand this.

i guess my message, madam speaker is to say, never say that we can't get comprehensive immigration in 2010. it can happen with a strong will and with a committed champion and with people who demand it of their leaders who are charged with the responsibility of representing them in congress. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. polis: the people of this country are tired thabt problem being used for political purposes on the left and right. the american people want to see this issue solved. the american people are smart. they realize the longer we delay taking action, the bigger, the bigger the problem gets. our immigration laws should reflect our interests as americans, and our values as americans. but we need to treat this as something to solve, not an opportunity for politicians to score points on the left or

points on the right by preying on our legitimate concerns or prejudices. we truly are a nation of laws but we are a nation of immigrants. we need to make sure that immigrants obey all laws, learn english, pay their taxes and that we welcome them as our american brothers and sisters. it's amazing to see some of the nonconventional alliances, groups that have been pushing for immigration reform in the strongest is the faith-based community. while i have many people who have supported me in the past who are of the catholic faith, the archbishop in denver is somebody who i don't agree with on a lot of social issues. he and i disagree on many issues such as a woman's right to choose. but on this issue, he and i joined together at an event in denver in support of immigration reform that 1,500

people on a sunday, after mass, packed into a church in strong universal support for comprehensive immigration reform. across the faith-based community, from the evangelicals to catholics to jews to humanists and atheists, there was strong support for comprehensive immigration reform. there was also support, and this is unusual in terms of politics from both organized labor and unions and businesses in the chamber of commerce. among the strongest advotcass -- advocates for immigration reform are high-tech businesses, chambers of commerce, 5r78 in arm with their workers -- arm in arm with their workers, their unions. it's rare to see that happen. yet why hasn't congress achieved anything? it seems like politicians on both sides of the aisle preferred to keep this issue out there, as if to rally their base, as if to talk about

undocumented, why they need more time to do something, yet both sides have refused to take action. it will take both sides working together to solve this issue with an american solution. obey our laws, learn english, pay taxes and welcome to america. that has always been our message and needs to continue to be the underlying values with which we construct an immigration system that works, restore the rule of law to our nation, and a good opportunity for us in congress to rise to the challenge of the people of arizona -- that the people of arizona have put before us the frustrated voters in cities and states across the country have put to us. if congress doesn't act to -- doesn't act to pass comprehensive immigration reform and solve this issue, i believe that the american

people will elect a congress that will. i yield to my friend from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: i want to go back to an important point the gentleman from colorado made a moment ago. congressman polis, madam speaker, made the point that, look, you know, people are in detention for months and months as they await immigration proceedings and the decision, and these are not people who were robbed -- who have robbed or hurt anyone or sold dope or anything like that, they are waiting a decision in their immigration case. they're not criminals. they're awaiting immigration proceedings decisions and these folks, people in the immigrant detention, are just languishing, rotting. there have been, since 2003, 107 people who have died in custody because they were detention. if they were out, could they have got then medical attention they needed? i'm sure in many cases they

could have. the fact is that these are folks who are not serving criminal sentences. they haven't been convicted of hurting anyone or stealing people's property or doing anything wrong. they're just awaiting detention. in fact, madam speaker, i was at a graduation, an eighth grade graduation only a few days ago and my daughter, who i was so proud of, was there with her friends, had all her little -- they were all abuzz, you know how kids that age can be. i talked to another adult who i had known for a number of years because my older children went to school with her children and one of her children was in my daughter's class. and she said, she said to me, you know, i want you to know, it's good to see you. i was in detention. i recently got out of immigration detention. this is what this lady said to me. it shocked me because my son,

who is now 22 years old, was buddies with her son who is now 22 years old, they were running around my house when they were both 7, 8, 9 years old, and now here she is, i hadn't seen her in a while, she tells me she had been there herself and i didn't even ask her how howe she got out. i was glad she was out but the fact is, she had been in detention herself and this is a woman who, bright lady, smart, capable, raising children on her own, doing the best she can , happens to find her roots in mexico. i didn't ask her about the details of her life but i was concern shed found herself in that awful situation. i connected her with my office to see -- to do everything we could for her but the fact is, there's a human toll being taken on people every single day, people around us, people we know, people we don't even know what they're doing through, but they have their

own immigration nightmare that they're struggling through every single day. her children, i know the younger ones were born in the united states. i know the older ones they came here at a very early age. they're my kids' close friends but the fact is, it kind of struck me right across the face like a cold bucket of water that here's this lady who i know, i couldn't exactly call her a friend, but i could say this is a person who i know, who i respect, and who was living her own private nightmare with regard to immigration. it seems to me that the rules out to be clearer, fairer, ought to be predictable and it seems to me that the children who come here at an early age ought to be able to pursue their education at an institution in their state and not pay exorbitant out-of-state fees. it seems we ought to try to unite families. as americans we value family and ought to do something about that. the fact is, people in immigration detention, they are

often some of the most abused people in our community, madam speaker. i think -- just referring again to what the congressman from colorado mentioned a moment ago, detention, people are there for months. these folks, some of them have been through tremendous ordeals. some are torture victim, some are victims of trafficking. some are from other vulnerable groups and are detained for months and even years, further aggravating their ice ration, depression, sometimes mental health problems. the fact is, is that, you know, situation is not right. these people are not criminals. they should not be held this way, and they're held at our expense. we're the ones who fork it over. it's no picnic for them either. the fact is, we have to do something about it. over 30,000 people are held in immigrant detention on any given day at an average cost of more than $100 or $120 a day. this has resulted in over

380,000 people held in detention in fiscal year 2009. that's an incredible expense we are paying because our immigration system has not been corrected, has not been addressed and the fact is, we have to do something about it. since 2005, i.c.a. has -- i.c.e. has increased the number of detentions by 10%. d.h.s. spends about $1.7 million on the operation. the fact is, the human toll is being taken, the broken immigration system offends our sense of fairness, offends our sense of being a humanitarian country and we've got to do something about it. mr. polis: could i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 17 minutes remaining. mr. polis: i'm glad fr