From the debate on a bill to allow children of immigrants who attend Connecticut high schools for four years and then graduate to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities - transcript of the Connecticut House of Representatives - May 17, 2007:

REP. O'NEILL: (69^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to say that I think I'm finished with questions, so I will release the Chairwoman. It seems to me this is very similar to the legislation that we had before us a couple of years ago in which I think we had an extended debate and I think it was defeated at that time.

And I pulled up a copy of the legislation that was in the Higher Education Committee and it seems pretty much the same, although it didn't have the number four plugged in there.

It did say any person attending any public school in this state for grades nine through 12, inclusive. And that would give you four years.

And so you would end up with the same kind of requirement in the original piece of legislation that was in front of the Committee, although it was phrased a little differently than it is here, as far as I can tell.

But this has been considered by the Higher Education Committee, which decided not to report out a bill. And it's been considered by the House of Representatives and I think in both cases it's been rejected.

And I have to say that after we've considered this legislation, especially when we considered it late one night and the following day, I got quite a few phone calls and e-mails and other communications from citizens of my hometown and my District and around the State of Connecticut who were quite amazed that we were considering doing such a thing as this.

And I got another flurry of similar kinds of communications from people who found out that there was an individual who had come to this country with his parents, apparently been abandoned, become a ward of the State of Connecticut, and then by virtue of some legislation, this was not well publicized, but by virtue of some legislation at the federal level, became possible for the State of Connecticut to have that person's status changed so that they became a legal resident of the United States.

And the State of Connecticut was paying for that individual to go to college, I believe somewhere else in New England, not in the State of Connecticut, at a private college at a fairly high cost to the State of Connecticut for doing that.

And those folks who called me up were very, very unhappy that these kinds of things were happening when they themselves had to scrimp, save, sacrifice, and their children had to perhaps go to a community college for a couple of years before they were able to go a four-year university in the State of Connecticut, all because of cost.

And the idea that someone would become eligible for in-state tuition who hadn't complied with any of those rules, regulations and requirements seemed highly offensive to a lot of the folks that called me up.

So I think this is a piece of legislation, which as has been indicated earlier, does not comply with federal law, may in fact end up being at substantial variance with federal law.

We were told in 2005 that the Dream Act had passed, and then we found out that the Dream Act hadn't passed, but it was pending, but there was a good chance it was going to pass back then. It didn't pass then. It hasn't passed since then.

We're told that, well, maybe it's going to pass this year because the United States Senate has come up with something, but again we're a long way, and those of us in the Legislature, whether it's in Washington or Hartford, know how far apart passage of a bill is from a compromise being announced by someone.

We're a long way from seeing that Act pass. So the whole predicate of this piece of legislation seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is very premature and I think that the general public is not clamoring for it, at all.

It seems to me the general public, as they find out about this, are not happy about this kind of legislation that makes this kind of an adjustment in the tuition rates, which are fairly expensive for a lot of people.

Tuition is a barrier for a lot of people to be able to get into our public institutions of education. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.