[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16665-S16671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 1394. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
reform the legal immigration of immigrants and nonimmigrants to the 
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   THE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have stood before my good colleagues so 
many times over the last 15 years seeking their support for reform of 
the immigration laws of our country. Today I do so once again, and this 
time the proposed change is fundamental.
  The bill I am introducing today is the product of many years. It 
would reform the law relating to legal immigration--to reduce the level 
and to revise the criteria of selection. Many of the proposals are 
consistent with recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform and its very able Chairwoman, that remarkable and impressive 
woman, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She and a bipartisan group 
of people put together some very important recommendations for us. The 
members of the Commission were appointed by the Speaker, by the 
Republicans, by the Democrats, by the majority leader, the minority 
leader. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the names were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                       Members of the Commission

       Barbara Jordan, Chair.
       Lawrence H. Fuchs, Vice Chair.
       Michael S. Teitelbaum, Vice Chair.
       Richard Estrada.
       Harold Ezell.
       Robert Charles Hill.
       Warren R. Leiden.
       Nelson Merced.
       Bruce A. Morrison.

  Mr. SIMPSON. They are wonderful, contributing members of this 
society.
  Mr. President, there are those in this country, including some in 
this body, who eternally say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I 
have heard that old, tired canard too many times. They assert that the 
present immigration-related problems of this country relate entirely to 
illegal immigrants, to the failure to prevent rampant violation of 
immigration law--not only by the hundreds of thousands per year who 
cross this border illegally, but also by a perhaps equal number of 
persons who 

[[Page S 16666]]
enter legally on temporary visas, and then remain here even after their 
approved period of stay has expired.
  Mr. President, illegal immigration is, indeed, a major problem, and I 
introduced legislation earlier this year which would greatly improve 
our ability to combat that. In June, that bill, S. 269, was favorably 
reported out of the Immigration Subcommittee, which I have the honor to 
chair.
  Perhaps the most important element of that bill is its proposed 
enhancement of the employer sanction system that is so necessary if we 
are ever to control both forms of illegal immigration, visa overstays, 
as well as illegal border crossing. The employer sanction system has 
been left incomplete and ineffective in the years since enactment of 
the 1986 immigration reform bill, because expected improvements in the 
system that is used to verify work authorization have never been made. 
S. 269 would require a series of pilot programs and within 8 years a 
final verification system. This system would be used not only for 
employment but for welfare or any other form of public assistance.
  The proposals for an improved verification system have been 
controversial. Ironically, I point out to my colleagues that anyone 
getting on an airplane in the United States in the last 3 weeks has 
been asked to present a picture ID of themselves. I have not seen much 
media squawk about that, or any concerned and high-emotion editorials 
about the ``slippery slope,'' or threats to our privacy or civil 
liberties. Perhaps it was partly because no Federal card was involved. 
Yet, even when the President held up before the joint session of 
Congress 2 years ago a card and said, ``This is a health care card and 
everyone will have one,'' not much was said about ``the card'' then--a 
great deal about health care but not much about ``the card.''
  Maybe it was also because such actions have to do with their personal 
interest and their health and safety.
  In any case, the system I favor would involve no ``national ID 
card,'' no new card of any kind--just improvements in various ID and 
other systems that are already in use. I refer to telephone 
verification of a Social Security number--a service already available 
to employers--plus improvements in the State driver's license or ID 
card, and in the birth certificate. That would be it. I honestly do not 
believe the American people have any reason for concern, and I honestly 
do not believe that they will be concerned, else we would have heard a 
little bit about that in these past weeks with what is happening to 
them at each and every airport in this country.
  But, Mr. President, curbing or even stopping illegal immigration is 
not enough. Why do I say this? A major reason is that the American 
people are increasingly troubled about the impact legal immigration is 
having on their country. Poll after poll shows us this.
  The people have made it so very clear they believe the level of 
immigration is too high. The people have been saying more or less the 
same thing for a very long time.
  According to a recent article in the American Enterprise, which 
reviewed 11 major polls taken since 1955, well over 60 percent of the 
American people favor a reduction in immigration, according to most 
polls since 1980--and that has always included legal immigration 
whenever it was specifically asked about.
  Yet, what do people see going on, year after year after year? They 
see steady increases. In 1953, 170,000 new legal immigrants. In 1963, 
306,000; 1973, 400,000; 1983, 560,000; in 1993, 904,000. Thus, in these 
40 years since 1953, the annual level of new immigrants has gone up 
fivefold, rising from 170,000 to 904,000.
  The American people have become increasingly restless and 
dissatisfied at seeing their will ignored. Proposition 187 may be only 
the first of many indicators of their real displeasure.
  Mr. President, there are individuals and groups who are actively and 
obsessively working against the efforts of those of us here and in the 
other body--and on the Commission on Immigration Reform--who are all 
doing our level best to develop and enact into law an immigration 
policy that will better promote the long-term best interests of this 
entire Nation. These individuals and groups form an unholy alliance 
composed of, one, those wanting to preserve the historically high 
current level of immigration and all aspects of current law which 
enable a person to bring to this country extended family members, not 
even part of the nuclear family--a nuclear family being spouses and 
minor children--joined with, two, certain employers who want to avoid 
paying wages high enough to attract U.S. workers, or to preserve their 
``right'' to bring in the employee they really want, notwithstanding 
the impact on any U.S. workers.
  I submit that we must break through all of this clatter. We must not 
allow these defenders of the status quo to deter us from the national 
interest-based policy the American people so deeply want--and deserve.
  Now, I have recently read that one in the other body claimed that to 
reduce legal immigration is to ``punish legal immigrants'' for the 
actions of the illegals. That is surely quite an extraordinary claim. 
To use the word ``punish'' in this way is another fine example of 
rhetorical exuberance--not uncommon around this village, of course. 
But, still, let us try to keep at least one foot on the ground.
  No one has the ``right'' to immigrate to the United States. Hear 
that. There are apparently hundreds of millions who would like to do 
so, but none of them has any ``right'' to do so. For the citizens of 
this country and their legislators to decide to reduce the level of 
legal immigration is not to ``punish'' anybody. ``Punishment'' is 
something imposed because of a judgment that the punished person has 
done ``something wrong.'' It is most usually meted out with an intent 
to encourage more acceptable behavior.
  The issue involved in legal immigration reform is not whether 
individual aliens abroad, who would like to be legal immigrants--or 
even aliens who have already succeeded in becoming legal immigrants--
have done anything ``blameworthy.'' It is simply that the annual 
addition of 800,000 new residents, including hundreds of thousands of 
new workers, has some major consequences--and some of these 
consequences are ones the American people simply and clearly do not 
want. No mystery here; no evil reasoning.
  Taking it as a given that a majority of the American people believe 
that immigration, under current law, has consequences which are harmful 
to their interests, it is appropriate that they demand change. And that 
is exactly what they are doing: demanding change--not punishment--but 
change.
  Mr. President, the American people are so very fed up with being 
told--when they want immigration laws enacted which they believe will 
serve their national interest and when they also want the law to be 
enforced--that they are being cruel and mean-spirited and racist. They 
are fed up with the efforts to make them feel that Americans do not 
have that most fundamental right of any people: to decide who will join 
them here and help form the future country in which they and their 
posterity will live.
  We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these 
wretched rhetorical excesses and the confused non sequiturs and the 
babble used by so many of the opponents of the direly needed reform. 
Let us focus our attention always on the main issue: What will promote 
the best interest of the entire Nation.

  We are so fortunate in having the substantial assistance in our 
efforts of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, who have worked 
so diligently and so well to produce their recommendations on changes 
to be made to the system of legal immigration. Their ideas have been of 
immense help to me. As I describe my bill, I will refer frequently to 
their well-founded and thoughtful recommendations.
  We are also most fortunate in having such talented and dedicated 
legislators working in a consistent, bipartisan fashion in the other 
body, the House of Representatives--especially my friends, Lamar Smith 
and John Bryant. The steady, patient, and fair way they have proceeded 
in the processing of a bill under the chairmanship of Senator Henry 
Hyde--a lovely friend of many years--is something we would do well to 
keep in mind as we go forward with our work here. I and my immigration 
sidekick here in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, will heed their 
lessons. 

[[Page S 16667]]

  Mr. President, the people are demanding change--and soon--and they 
are so right.
  Most immigration to our United States is of a legal nature and, thus, 
many of the impacts the people find most troubling are due to legal 
immigration.
  For too many U.S. workers, the impact of immigration includes adverse 
affects on their own wages and individual job opportunities.
  At this time--when major U.S. employers like IBM, AT&T, and GM are 
laying off workers by the tens of thousands, when the defense industry 
has undergone a major downsizing, when we read of the difficulty so 
many young American college graduates are facing in finding a job in 
their own field--we must then reconsider some of the increases that we 
authorized in 1990, before so many of these events had occurred and 
when certain experts were predicting to us shortages of scientists and 
engineers, shortages that would not have occurred even if the 1990 
increases in immigration had not come about.
  The current major reform of the Nation's welfare system, which we 
will complete this session, is another reason why we must revise the 
present system. It is expected that these reforms will add large 
numbers of unskilled workers to the labor market. That is how the law 
will read: ``After 2 years on welfare, if you are able bodied, you will 
work.'' As a result, it is increasingly inappropriate for U.S. 
employers to be able to continue to petition for unskilled or low-
skilled workers. That adversely affects the job opportunities and wages 
of the least-advantaged U.S. workers.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today contains new and lower 
limits on immigration; and assigns a ``higher priority'' to immigrants 
with skills and other characteristics that are consistent with the 
needs of the entire Nation--rather than primarily the needs or wishes 
of those abroad who would wish to come to this country, or the fraction 
of our own population who wish to bring in their relatives or who want 
to employ foreign workers.
  Mr. President, in 1990 the level of legal immigration was increased 
substantially, by 37 percent. This was done partly because Congress and 
the President believed that the 1986 immigration reform law had 
instituted workable measures--including sanctions against employers who 
knowingly employ illegal aliens--that would greatly reduce illegal 
immigration. Unfortunately, the belief was overly optimistic. As a 
result, total immigration--legal plus illegal--had been in excess of 1 
million per year.
  For this reason--and because the American people so clearly want it--
the annual level of legal immigration to the United States must--at 
least for the time being--be significantly reduced.
  The bill I am introducing today would reduce the annual level of 
regular nonrefugee legal immigration from 675,000 to about 540,000. 
This would include 90,000 employment-related immigrants, plus 450,000 
family immigrants--composed of 300,000 of the ``nuclear family,'' that 
is, spouse and minor children citizens and permanent residents, and 
150,000 per year to reduce the backlog of spouses and unmarried minor 
children of permanent residents who are already eligible to come here.
  Mr. President, I believe my colleagues should be aware that most 
other bills in this area introduced in this Congress and in the last 
Congress have proposed nonrefugee totals much lower than mine. Most 
have proposed 300,000, or even less.
  Now, I do know that some do find the constant talk about numbers to 
be quite distasteful, but I sense that many who feel this way are not 
in very close touch with the American people--who observe firsthand 
just how much these ``numbers'' mean to conditions in the heavily 
impacted areas of this country. Yes, the issue of ``numbers'' is an 
essential element of the problem and the people will not let us forget 
that.
  Yes, I know full well that the numbers represent human beings--human 
faces--and that to reduce immigration because it is in the interest of 
the entire Nation, nevertheless has its cost. And this cost may, 
indeed, involve many fine individuals in many places outside of this 
country giving up their dreams of a lifetime. This is not easy for us, 
and that is why we must keep focused always on the ultimate issue of 
what will promote the long-term best interests of the American people--
those of us here.
  It is time to slow down, to reassess, to make certain that we are 
assimilating well the extraordinary level of immigration the country 
has been experiencing in recent years. Yes, I say ``assimilating.'' 
Barbara Jordan uses that term, too. That should not be a ``politically 
incorrect'' term. Terms like ``assimilation" and ``Americanization'' 
should not be ``politically incorrect.''
  Mr. President, my bill also proposes major reform of the criteria for 
selecting immigrants, including both family-sponsored and employment-
based immigrants.
  The bill would reserve family-sponsored immigration for those most 
likely actually to be living with the relatives in the United States 
with whom they are in theory being ``reunited.''
  Mr. President, in 1965 the United States adopted an immigration law 
that was primarily oriented toward family reunification. With some 
modifications, this emphasis has continued ever since.
  The policy has not been limited to reunification of the closest 
family members, those most likely to actually llive together in the 
United States; that is, spouses and unmarried minor children: what is 
called the ``nuclear family''--the family unit the American people 
believe is most conducive to the raising of healthy, productive, and 
happy children.
  No, the current policy has also given preference to adult or married 
children, parents, and brothers and sisters, who are much less likely 
to live with the U.S. relative who has petitioned for them. Last year, 
family immigrants outside of the nuclear family totaled more than 
150,000.
  This policy of admitting immigrants who are relatives of citizens and 
immigrants but outside of their nuclear families is serving primarily 
the interests of the immigrants themselves and those of their relatives 
in the United States
  Because the American people want immigration reduced, and because 
eliminating the preferences for nonnuclear family would not greatly 
offend the family values of the American people, this is an area where 
significant change should be made.
  Accordingly, the bill would narrow the presently numerically 
unlimited category of ``immediate relatives'' of U.S. citizens to 
include only: spouses and unmarried minor children, plus parents 65 or 
older, if the greatest number of their sons and daughters reside in the 
United States. It would also reserve numerically limited family 
immigration for spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful 
permanent resident aliens--``green card'' holders--at an annual ceiling 
of 85,000, still above the current level of new petitions coming in on 
behalf of such immigrants.

  The Commission on Immigration Reform also recommends this elimination 
of most family classifications not related to the nuclear family.
  In addition, ``special immigrant'' status would be provided for 
severely disabled adult sons and daughters of citizens or permanent 
residents, which is again consistent with the recommendations of the 
Commission on Immigration Reform. This provision would require a 
showing of being able to provide adequate medical and long-term care 
insurance for any such dependent immigrants.
  The bill would also provide for a very generous program to reduce the 
current backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent 
residents--now 1.1 million. The bill would authorize 150,000 additional 
visa numbers per year until all who are now ``on the waiting list'' 
have been reached. This too was recommended by the Commission.
  Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues of a final point on 
family immigration. Neither the Government of these United States, nor 
the American people are responsible in any way for ``breaking up'' 
extended families abroad. Please hear that. No, immigrants who have 
come here consciously chose to do so and, by doing so, they personally 
chose to leave most of their family behind--to ``break up'' their 
family. No one else is responsible.
  The American people will continue to generously favor allowing 
individual citizens and permanent residents to 

[[Page S 16668]]
``sponsor'' members of their immediate family--their spouse or 
unmarried minor children, even those disabled sons and daughters and 
elderly parents who they want to have live with them. But it is not in 
the best interests of the American people to continue to allow the 
immigration of the entire ``rest of the family'' they made a conscious 
choice to leave behind, and then witness the spawning of the chain 
migration of the in-laws, and in-laws of in-laws, to which this clearly 
leads.
  Mr. President, the bill's proposed changes in the employment-related 
classifications are intended to protect the wages and job opportunities 
of our U.S. workers, especially those who are first entering upon their 
careers, and to preserve long-term incentives for Americans to acquire 
needed skills and education, and for employers to continually encourage 
them to do so.
  We have a wonderful group of fine young people who have acquired an 
excellent and often very expensive education--and much of it, 
interestingly enough, paid for directly or indirectly by the U.S. 
taxpayers. It is in the national interest that their learned and 
natural abilities be fully utilized before employers are permitted to 
employ foreign workers.
  At this time then I will review briefly the bill's employment-related 
provisions.


                   Reform of preference requirements

  Section 103 would reform the ``employment-based'' preference 
classifications, generally again along the lines recommended by the 
Commission. Two of the three components of the existing first 
preference--priority workers--would be essentially retained in the 
first two new preferences: First, aliens with extraordinary ability--
the ``superstars''--and second, executives and managers of 
multinational firms. The first would be modified, as recommended by the 
Commission, by the addition of aliens with the clear potential for 
extraordinary achievement. The second provision, relating to 
multinational executives and managers, would be modified by the 
addition of a definition of the current multinational firm and a 
requirement for meeting a longer period of prior work experience.
  Both of these classifications would be exempt from the new labor 
certification requirements I will also explain.
  Also exempt from the labor certification requirement would be two 
other classifications in current law: third, investors and fourth, 
``special immigrants,'' which includes clergy and other religious 
workers, as well as several other classifications, such as former 
employees of the U.S. Government.
  The ``outstanding professors and researchers'' category would be 
dropped, but please be assured that more than enough ``numbers'' would 
be provided under our ``extraordinary ability classification'' to 
accommodate all of these genuinely outstanding individuals.
  In addition to the four classifications that would not be subject to 
the new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three 
classifications that would then be subject to labor certification: 
fifth, professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 years 
experience in the profession practiced outside of the United States 
after the receipt of their degree, sixth, professionals with a 
baccalaureate degree and at least 5 years experience in their 
profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of 
their degree, and (7) skilled workers with at least 5 years experience 
gained outside of the U.S., plus having at least a high school 
education, and 2 years of college or of specialized vocational 
training.
  The foreign work experience requirement is basically intended to 
provide protection for U.S. workers who are just beginning their 
careers.
  These three classifications would also require a minimum score on a 
test of the English language. Again, this is employment-based only. We 
are not talking about family. No test there.


                  New labor certification requirements

  Section 104 proposes that the present labor certification process be 
replaced with a new system involving two alternative approaches. Under 
the first alternative, a petitioning employer would be required to pay 
a fee equal to 25 percent of annual compensation and to demonstrate 
they have made appropriate efforts to recruit U.S. workers, including 
the offering of at least 100percent of the actual wage paid by the 
employer for such employment or 105percent of ``prevailing wage,'' 
whichever is higher. The fees would be paid into private, industry-
specific funds that would use the money solely to finance training or 
education programs or in other ways to reduce the industry's dependency 
on foreign workers.
  This section also proposes that the permanent resident status to be 
obtained under the preferences subject to the labor certification would 
be ``conditional''--as is the status obtained as the result of 
marriage. The conditional status would become full permanent resident 
status after 2 years if the alien were still employed by the 
petitioning employer and had also received the required wage.
  This first approach to labor certification generally follows the 
recommendations of the Commission, although they did not recommend a 
particular amount for the fee. Twenty-five percent was chosen because 
it is a balance between the standard fee charged by recruiters in the 
computer programming industry and ``recruitment'' for other positions. 
The goal is to make an employer's ``cost'' of obtaining and employing a 
foreign worker at least as expensive as the cost of paying a 
professional recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying all of the 
worker's wages and benefits.
  Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized 
to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or labor surplus does 
exist in the United States with respect to one or more occupational 
classifications. If there was a determination of labor shortage made, a 
labor certification would be deemed to have been issued. The fee would 
still be required, in order to provide funding for the private, 
industry-specific funds mentioned earlier, and to maintain the basic 
incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to increase the 
supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a determination of a labor 
surplus, no labor certification could be issued.


            Numerical limit for employment-based immigrants

  Section 112 would reduce the total for employment-related immigrants 
to 90,000. Although the total immigrants allowable under current law, 
as the result of the 1990 act, is 140,000, the actual entries in fiscal 
year 1994 were about 93,000--excluding unskilled workers and immigrants 
under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act. Thus, this provision of the 
bill would reduce the employment-based numerical limit to about the 
current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker categories. We 
believe it to be fair.


                             Nonimmigrants

  The bill also contains provisions relating to nonimmigrants, 
including temporary foreign workers.


  Prohibition of ``dual intent''; reduction of maximum stay to 3 years

  Section 201 would, first, prohibit what is commonly known as ``dual 
intent'' for the visa classifications of H-1B--temporary foreign worker 
in a ``specialty occupation''--or L--intra-company transferee.
  Before 1990, an overseas consular officer could refuse a visa 
applicant if the officer thought the applicant ``intended'' to remain 
in the United States permanently--in other words, if he or she had the 
intent to become, ultimately, an immigrant, as well as the similar 
intent to be, initially, a temporary worker. The 1990 act authorized 
this ``dual intent'' for H-1B and L visas.
  After the change proposed by my bill, those visas would once again 
not be issued unless the applicant had a ``residence'' in a foreign 
country which he had no intention of ever abandoning--which is the rule 
for all other temporary visas.
  The second change proposed by this section is that the ``maximum 
stay'' under these visas would be reduced to 3 years--from 6 years--for 
H-1B and H-2B--or from either 5 or 7 years--for L. A 3-year maximum is 
more consistent with the ``supposedly'' temporary nature of the job--
and of the stay of the worker. It would also reduce the total number of 
such foreign workers who could be in the United States at any one time.


  Annual fee; recruitment and other attestations; foreign experience 
                              requirement

  Section 202 would require the petitioning employer to pay an annual 
fee 

[[Page S 16669]]
in order to employ an H-1B worker. The fee would be used for the same 
purposes as the fee for immigrants that I mentioned earlier, although 
the H-1B fee would be lower--5 percent in the first year, 7.5 percent 
in the second, and 10 percent in the third.
  The section would also require petitioning employers to make several 
``attestations'' in addition to those that are required under current 
law before entry of an H-1B worker could be approved: the employer 
would have to agree: First, to pay the H-1B worker at least 100 percent 
of the actual compensation as paid by the employer for such workers or 
105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher; second, 
not to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement 
worker were paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation 
paid to the replaced workers; third, to take ``timely, significant, and 
effective steps'' to end dependence on foreign workers; and fourth, if 
it is a job contractor, to require its clients to make the same 
attestations as would the direct employers. The employer would also 
have to attest that it had attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering 
at least 100 percent of the actual compensation paid by the employer 
for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever 
is higher.
  Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers have 2 years 
experience in their specialty while working outside of the United 
States after obtaining their most recently received degree. Similar to 
the foreign work experience required for immigrants, this is intended 
basically to protect job opportunities for U.S. workers who are just 
entering their careers.


              Definition of multinational firm for L visas

  Section 203 would apply to L visas--intracompany transferees--the 
same definition of ``multinational firm'' as is contained in the bill 
for purposes of describing the employment-based immigrant 
classification as used for certain multinational executives and 
managers.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. President, the citizens of this Nation very much want, and they 
do surely deserve, an immigration policy that is designed primarily to 
promote their own long-term interests--their Nation's--and the 
interests of their descendants. This has thus been the fundamental 
criterion in the drafting of my own bill--together with my own 
intuition and feelings about the realities of today's political world. 
We must remain reasonable and responsive in pursuing this legislation 
and avoid the efforts of extremists, revisionists, and restrictionist. 
And be assured, this fundamental national-interest criterion will be my 
constant and steady guide as I move the bill through the ofttimes 
treacherous waters of the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
summary of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Summary of the Immigration Reform Act of 1995

       This bill would amend provisions of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, primarily those relating to the numerical 
     limits and selection criteria for immigrants and 
     nonimmigrants.


                   changes in family classifications

        Sec. 101. Immediate relative classification.
        This would narrow the immigrant classification ``immediate 
     relatives'' of U.S. citizens (a numerically unlimited 
     classification). At present, the classification includes 
     spouses and unmarried minor (under 21) children of citizens, 
     plus parents of adult citizens. After the change, only a 
     portion of the parents would be included: those 65 or older, 
     whose sons and daughters reside for the most part in the 
     United States (the latter is often called the ``Australian 
     rule''). The goal is to provide immigrant visas to 
     ``reunify'' the parents most likely to live with their U.S. 
     citizen sons or daughters, but only if there is not another 
     country with a greater number of sons and daughters with whom 
     the parent could live.
        The section also proposes an amendment to the ``public 
     charge'' exclusion that would condition admission of these 
     parents on adequate medical and long-term care insurance.
        Parents not qualified to immigrate to the U.S. under the 
     new ``immediate relative'' classification would be able to 
     immigrate through one of the employment-related 
     classifications or to visit their U.S. relatives with a 
     tourist visa.
        Sec. 102. Family-sponsored preference classifications.
       This would limit family preferences to the nuclear family 
     (spouse and unmarried minor children) of lawful permanent 
     residents. (However, severely disabled sons and daughters of 
     citizens or permanent residents would have ``special 
     immigrant'' status; see below.)
        Thus, the section would eliminate or greatly narrow 
     several non-nuclear family preferences, as recently 
     recommended by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform:
        4th (brothers and sisters of adult citizens)
       3rd (married sons and daughters of citizens)
       1st (unmarried adult sons and daughters of citizens)
       2B (unmarried adult sons and daughters of permanent 
     residents)
        These classifications would be eliminated, except that 
     bill section 105 would create a new ``special immigrant'' 
     classification for ``disabled'' adult sons and daughters of 
     citizens or lawful permanent residents, consistent with the 
     Commission's recommendations.


        Changes in employment preferences and special immigrants

       Sec. 103. Employment-based preference classifications.
       This would reform the employment-based preferences. Two of 
     the three components of the existing 1st preference (priority 
     workers) would be essentially retained in the first two new 
     preferences: (1) aliens with extraordinary ability (the 
     ``superstars''), and (2) executives and managers of 
     multinational firms. The first would be modified, as 
     recommended by the Commission, by the addition of aliens with 
     the potential for extraordinary achievement. The second 
     provision, relating to multinational executives and managers, 
     would be modified by the addition of a definition of 
     multinational firm and a requirement for a longer period of 
     prior work experience. These classifications would be exempt 
     from the new labor certification requirements (see below).
       Also exempt from the labor cert. requirement would be two 
     other classifications in current law: (3) investors and (4) 
     ``special immigrants.'' The investor classification would be 
     modified to eliminate the ``set-aside for targeted employment 
     areas'' and by a requirement that the new jobs which must be 
     created be for citizens or lawful permanent residents (not 
     ``other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the 
     United States;'' thus, for example, jobs for H-1B temporary 
     workers would not be counted).
       ``Special immigrants'' include, among other classifications 
     (e.g., former employees of the U.S. government), clergy and 
     other religious workers. One proposed change: the required 
     two years of experience in religious work would have to have 
     been abroad. (The major change for the ``special immigrant'' 
     classifications, however, would be the addition, in section 
     105 of the bill, of a new classification: severely disabled 
     adult sons and daughters of citizens and lawful permanent 
     residents.)
       The outstanding professors category would be eliminated, 
     but more than enough numbers would be provided for the 
     extraordinary ability classification to accommodate 
     professors who are genuinely outstanding.
       In addition to the four classifications not subject to the 
     new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three 
     classifications that would be subject to labor certification: 
     (5) professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 
     years experience in the profession outside the U.S. after 
     receipt of the degree, (6) professionals with a baccalaureate 
     degree and at least 5 years experience in the profession 
     outside the U.S. after receipt of the degree, and (7) skilled 
     workers with at least 5 years experience outside the U.S. and 
     at least a high school education plus two years of college or 
     specialized vocational training. The foreign work experience 
     requirement is intended to provide additional protection for 
     U.S. workers just beginning their careers.
       The latter three classifications would also require a 
     minimum score on a test of English.
       The first of the seven employment-based classifications 
     would have complete priority over the second (only the visa 
     numbers available after demand under the first classification 
     had been completely satisfied would be available for the 
     second). Similarly, the 2nd classification would have 
     complete priority over the 3rd, the 3rd over the 4th, and so 
     on--with two exceptions: (a) there would be a numerical limit 
     on most ``special immigrants'' under the 4th classification, 
     and (b) the 5th classification (professionals with an 
     advanced degree) and 6th classification (professionals with a 
     baccalaureate degree) would each be allocated half of the 
     numbers available after demand in higher classifications had 
     been satisfied. The allocation between the 5th and 6th 
     classifications reflects their current relative levels, as 
     well as the fact that a professional with a baccalaureate 
     degree in a particular field may contribute more to the 
     economy than a professional with an advanced degree in a 
     different field, one in less demand.
       Sec. 104. Labor certification.
       This proposes that the present labor certification process 
     be replaced with a new system providing two alternative 
     approaches. Under the first alternative, a petitioning 
     employer would be required to pay a fee equal to 25% of 
     annual compensation and to demonstrate appropriate efforts to 
     recruit U.S. workers, including the offering of at least 

[[Page S 16670]]
     100% of the actual compensation paid by the employer for such 
     employment, or 105% of ``prevailing compensation,'' whichever 
     is higher.
       The lawful permanent resident status obtained under the 
     preferences subject to labor certification would be 
     conditional (like the status obtained as the result of 
     marriage). The conditional status would become full lawful 
     permanent resident status after 2 years if the alien were 
     still employed by the petitioning employer and had received 
     the required wage (105% of prevailing wage). This section of 
     the bill contains many provisions describing the procedure to 
     be followed to upgrade the conditional status. Such 
     provisions are modeled on INA section 216 (intended to combat 
     marriage fraud).
       Such approach generally follows recommendations of the 
     Commission. The Commission did not recommend a particular 
     amount for the fee. 25% was chosen because it is in the 
     middle of the range of fees charged by professional 
     recruiters in various industries. The goal is to make an 
     employer's cost of obtaining and employing a foreign worker 
     at least as expensive as the cost of paying a professional 
     recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying the worker's 
     wages and benefits. The fees would be paid into private, 
     industry-specific funds, which would use the money to finance 
     training or education programs or in other ways to reduce the 
     industry's dependence on foreign workers.
       Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be 
     authorized to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or 
     labor surplus existed in the United States with respect to 
     one or more occupational classifications. If there were a 
     determination of labor shortage, a labor certification would 
     be deemed to have been issued. The 25% fee would still be 
     required, in order (a) to provide additional funding for the 
     industry-specific private funds, and (b) to maintain the 
     incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to 
     increase the supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a 
     determination of a labor surplus, no labor certification 
     could be issued.
       Any person could request that the Secretary make such a 
     determination, by submitting evidence relevant to whether or 
     not the claimed labor shortage (or surplus) existed. The 
     burden of proof would be on the person making the request. 
     The request could not be considered unless the requester had 
     provided notice to other persons with an interest (as 
     determined by the Secretary). Such other persons, or anyone 
     else, could submit documentary evidence relevant to the 
     Secretary's determination.
       Sec. 105. Special immigrant classifications.
       This section would create a new ``special immigrant'' 
     classification for severely disabled sons or daughters of 
     citizens or lawful permanent residents. It contains a 
     definition of ``disabled son or daughter'' which would 
     require a ``severe mental or physical impairment'' that is 
     likely to continue indefinitely and that causes 
     ``substantially total inability to perform functions 
     necessary for independent living.'' Providing such a 
     classification is consistent with recommendations of the 
     Commission.
       The definition is based on several Federal statutes 
     relating to disability, modified to refer to the degree of 
     disability consistent with the policy of this ``special 
     immigrant'' classification. Such policy is that it should 
     cover only the sons and daughters who cannot take care of 
     themselves and whose parents in the U.S. want to care for 
     them at home.
       The section also proposes an amendment to the ``public 
     charge'' exclusion that would condition admission of these 
     disabled sons and daughters on a showing of adequate medical 
     and long-term care insurance. Failure to provide such 
     insurance would subject the sponsor to civil penalties.


   new provision on the effect of an approved immigrant visa petition

       Sec. 106. Effect of approved immigrant visa petition.
       This would reduce a problem in current visa practice which 
     arises from the division of visa responsibility between INS 
     and the State Department. At present, when an applicant is 
     found ineligible for an immigrant visa by a consular 
     officer--e.g., because the alien does not have the claimed 
     occupation or family relationship--the officer may only 
     ``suspend action'' and return the petition to INS. At that 
     point, INS caseload is frequently such that the petition is 
     once again approved, without additional investigation, and 
     sent back to the consular officer. If the officer does not 
     have additional factual evidence indicating that the alien is 
     not entitled to immigrant status, the visa is issued. Section 
     106 would authorize the officer to deny the visa and return 
     the petition to INS for appropriate action. This section is 
     based on the view that the consular officer, who has the 
     petition beneficiary before him, is in a better position to 
     make the final determination of eligibility than an INS 
     officer considering only the paperwork, usually hundreds of 
     miles from the petitioner and thousands of miles from the 
     beneficiary.


  new provision on judicial review of agency actions on visa petitions

       Sec. 107. Judicial review.
       This would establish limitations and conditions on judicial 
     review of agency actions relating to petitions for a visa or 
     adjustment of status.


           changes in numerical limits for family preferences

       Sec. 111. World-wide numerical limitation on family-
     sponsored immigration.
       This would reduce the numerical limit for family preference 
     immigrants to 85,000, approximately the current level of new 
     petitions for spouses and unmarried minor children of 
     permanent residents (the only remaining family preference 
     classification in the new system). Unused visa numbers would 
     not carry over from one year to the next.
       The result would be a decrease of about 140,000 from the 
     current annual total of about 226,000 (for the full current 
     group of 4 family preferences). Together with the likely 
     reduction of at least 35,000 in ``immediate relatives'' of 
     citizens that would result from limiting the admission of 
     parents to those 65 or older, this provision would result in 
     a level of family immigrants of about 300,000, a reduction of 
     about 175,000 per year. Most of this saving (up to 150,000 
     per year) would be devoted to reducing the 1.1 million 
     backlog in spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful 
     permanent residents, resulting in overall family immigration 
     of about 450,000 until the backlog is eliminated.


         changes in numerical limits for employment preferences

       Sec. 112. World-wide numerical limitation on employment-
     based immigration.
       This would reduce the limit to 90,000. The total allowable 
     under current law is 140,000. However, the actual entries in 
     FY94 were about 93,000 (excluding unskilled workers and 
     immigrants under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act). Thus, 
     this provision of the bill would reduce the annual numerical 
     limit for employment-based immigrants to approximately the 
     current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker 
     categories.


                    Changes in the per-country limit

       Sec. 113. Numerical limitation on immigration from a single 
     foreign state.
       This would reestablish the per-country limit of 20,000 for 
     preference immigrants in effect before 1990 (a 40,000 limit 
     is proposed for ``contiguous countries'' and 5,000 for 
     ``dependent areas''). The limit would not, however, affect 
     spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent 
     residents as long as the backlog-clearance numbers were being 
     provided (see sec. 114 below).
       As under current law, this limit would not restrict the 
     level of ``immediate relatives'' of citizens. However, the 
     bill proposes to reduce the limit for a particular foreign 
     state in a fiscal year by the number of immediate relatives 
     of citizens above the 20,000 (40,000 for ``contiguous 
     countries'' and 5,000 for ``dependent areas'') such 
     foreign state sent in the prior year. For example, if in 
     fiscal year 1995 the number of nationals from a non-
     contiguous country who entered as immediate relatives was 
     30,000, then the per-country limit for such country for 
     fiscal year 1996 would be 10,000 fewer than the normal 
     20,000.


                           Backlog reduction

       Sec. 114. Transition for certain backlogged spouses and 
     children of lawful permanent residents.
       This would authorize 150,000 additional visa numbers in the 
     first fiscal year beginning on or after the bill's effective 
     date for reduction of the current backlog of spouses and 
     unmarried minor children of permanent residents (now 1.1 
     million). After such first year, the quantity of backlog 
     reduction numbers would be equal to the lesser of 150,000 and 
     the amount by which the level of family immigration in the 
     prior fiscal year was below the current level of about 
     475,000. The full 150,000 would be available, for example, if 
     the level of nuclear family of permanent resident aliens were 
     85,000 (the limit provided in the bill) and the level of 
     immediate relatives of citizens were no more than about 
     240,000 (if the bill's provisions were now in effect, the 
     current level would be no more than 215,000, probably much 
     less). The goal is for the total level of family immigrants 
     (including those using backlog reduction numbers) to be no 
     higher than currently.
       The backlog numbers would go first to the spouses and 
     children of permanent resident aliens who had not obtained 
     immigrant status through the amnesty program of the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (``IRCA''). 
     Backlog numbers would be provided for as long as anyone now 
     on the waiting list had not been reached.


                 review of numerical limits by congress

       Sec. 115. Congressional review of numerical limitations.
       This would require that after the present backlog of 
     spouses and children of permanent resident aliens had 
     declined to 10,000, or 5 years after enactment, whichever 
     came later, the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate 
     each hold a hearing on the subject of whether the annual 
     numerical limitations on family-sponsored or employment-based 
     immigrant classifications should be changed. If, within 30 
     days of such a hearing, a bill pertaining solely to such a 
     change was reported, that bill would be considered by the 
     House and Senate under expedited procedures described in this 
     section.


                             nonimmigrants

       Sec. 201. Changes in H and L classifications.
       This would, first, prohibit ``dual intent'' (present intent 
     to work temporarily, but with the ultimate intent to 
     immigrate permanently). After the change, an H-1B 
     (temporary foreign worker in a ``specialty occupation'') 
     or L (intra-company transferee) visa could not be issued 
     unless the applicant had a residence in a foreign country 
     which he had no intention of abandoning, which is the rule 
     for all other nonimmigrant visas.

[[Page S 16671]]

        Second, the maximum stay under these visas would be 
     reduced to three years--from six years (for H-1B and H-2B) or 
     from either five or seven years (for L).
        Sec. 202. Changes in H-1B classification.
       This would require a petitioning employer to pay an annual 
     fee in order to employ an H-1B temporary foreign worker. The 
     fee would be used for the same purposes as the fee under bill 
     section 104.
        The section would also require petitioning employers to 
     make several additional attestations before entry of an H-1B 
     worker could be approved: the employer must agree (1) to pay 
     the H-1B worker at least 100% of the actual compensation paid 
     by the employer for such workers or 105% of the prevailing 
     compensation (whichever was higher); (2) not to replace U.S. 
     workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement worker were 
     paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation 
     paid to the replaced workers; (3) to take ``timely, 
     significant, and effective steps'' to end dependence on 
     foreign workers; and (4) if it is a job contractor, to 
     require its clients to make the same attestations as direct 
     employers. The employer would also have to attest that it had 
     attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering at least its 
     current actual compensation for the job, or 105 percent of 
     the prevailing compensation in the area, whichever was 
     higher.
        The section would also provide that ``prevailing 
     compensation'' for an occupational classification, such as 
     researcher, could not be considered to vary depending on the 
     characteristics of the employer, except to the extent there 
     is a difference in either (a) working conditions (for example 
     the presence or absence of conditions that could make the job 
     so attractive or unattractive relative to similar jobs for 
     other employers that wages would be affected), or (b) the 
     functional requirements of the job.
        Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers 
     have two years experience in their specialty outside the U.S. 
     after obtaining their most recently received degree.
        Sec. 203. Changes in L classification.
       This would provide the same definition of ``multinational 
     firm'' contained in bill section 103 for purposes of the new 
     employment-based immigrant classification for certain 
     multinational executives and managers.
        Sec. 204. Pilot program on information and tracking system 
     relating to nonimmigrant foreign students.
       This would establish a pilot program to collect from 
     colleges and universities certain information relating to 
     nonimmigrant students and make it available in electronic 
     form to selected U.S. consulates and INS officers. Such 
     information would include whether an alien is enrolled, or 
     has been accepted for enrollment, in a U.S. college or 
     university; current U.S. address; and whether the alien is a 
     full-time or part-time student and is making normal progress 
     toward the degree.


                         note on total numbers

       Under the bill, the numerical limits are: 85,000 for family 
     preferences and 90,000 for employment preferences. The 
     current level of spouses and children of citizens, plus 
     parents 65 or older, is appropoximately 215,000. These 
     numbers together total 390,000. Adding the backlog reduction 
     of 150,000 brings the total to 540,000 (not including 
     refugees).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would very much like to commend the 
Senator from Wyoming for his work on immigration.
  I am privileged to serve on his subcommittee on immigration on the 
Judiciary Committee, and it has been very wonderful for me to be able 
to watch him work out various problems in what has been a most 
difficult arena in which to legislate.
  So I would just like to say to him, I am delighted he has presented 
his bill. I look forward to reading it. I hope I will be able to 
cosponsor it. I look forward to work with him in the committee as this 
bill is moved.
  I think, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming understands the 
need to move a bill in this session of the Congress. So I would like 
him to know that I am very respectful and grateful for his work in this 
area.
                                 ______