[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2361-H2376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2202, IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL 
                          INTEREST ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 384

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2202) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to improve deterrence of illegal immigration to the 
     United States by increasing border patrol and investigative 
     personnel, by increasing penalties for alien smuggling and 
     for document fraud, by reforming exclusion and deportation 
     law and procedures, by improving the verification system for 
     eligibility for employment, and through other measures, to 
     reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal 
     entries into the United States, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed two hours to be equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No other 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in 
     part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules and amendments 
     en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     amendment printed in part 2 of the report may be considered 
     only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against amendments made in order by this 
     resolution are waived except those arising under section 
     425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote 
     by electronic device without intervening business, 
     provided that the time for voting by electronic device on 
     the first in any series of questions shall be not less 
     than fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
     report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
     have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
     the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     that were not earlier disposed of or germane modifications of 
     any such amendments. Amendments en block offered pursuant to 
     this section shall be considered as read (except that 
     modifications shall be reported), shall be debatable for 
     twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the 
     purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment 
     printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to 
     the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text 
     originally proposed to be stricken. The original proponent of 
     an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the 
     disposition of the amendments en bloc.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.


  modifications to certain amendments printed in House report 104-483

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
consideration of H.R. 2202, pursuant to House Resolution 384, it shall 
be in order for the designated proponents of the amendments numbered 
11, 12, and 13 in part 2 of House Report 104-483 to offer their 
amendments in modified forms to accommodate the changes in the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary that are reflected in part 1 of that report, and effected 
by the adoption of the rule; and it shall be in order for the 
designated proponent of the amendment numbered 19 in part 2 of House 
Report 104-483 to offer his amendment in a modified form that strikes 
from title V all except section 522 of subtitle D.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. 
All time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, stopping the 300,000 illegal immigrants that 
stream across our border each year in pickup trucks and under barbed 
wire fences is the most important Federal law and order issue in 
generations. This is a modified closed rule providing for comprehensive 
consideration of H.R. 2202, legislation addressing two critical 
national issues: Getting control of illegal immigration, and improving 
our system of legal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, while H.R. 2202 is tough on those who 
enter this country illegally, it maintains and strengthens legal 
immigration, ensuring that immigrants remain a positive force for 
change, growth, and prosperity. This rule provides for 2 hours of 
general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on

[[Page H2362]]

the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill 
except those relating to unfunded Federal mandates.
  I would note that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that 
the mandates in the bill are minimal and do not establish grounds for a 
point of order against the bill.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in 
the nature of a substitute as modified by the amendment printed in part 
1 of the report of the Committee on Rules. That amendment establishes a 
voluntary program to permit businesses to check the validity of Social 
Security numbers in order to help ensure that Federal laws regarding 
the employment of illegal immigrants are obeyed. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute is considered as read.
  The rules provides for the consideration of 32 amendments. Let me say 
that again, Mr. Speaker: 32 amendments have been made in order. That 
are printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. They shall be 
considered only in the order in which they are printed in the report, 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debated for the time specified in the 
report, shall not be subject to amendment unless specified in the 
committee report, and shall not be subject to a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments, other 
than those relating to the unfunded mandates issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, as well as to 
reduce to 5 minutes the time on a postponed question if it follows a 
15-minute vote. The rule also permits the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary or his designee to offer amendments en bloc or germane 
modifications thereof. Amendments offered en bloc shall be considered 
as read and shall be debatable for 20 minutes.
  The issue of both legal and illegal immigration is one of the most 
contentious debates that we will have this year. This rule, while not 
an open rule, is fair and very balanced. It offers the House the 
opportunity to debate nearly all of the important and substantive 
issues surrounding both illegal and legal immigration reform. This 
debate will stretch over more than 2 days, and will highlight the 
important issues addressed by this well-crafted legislation.
  The bill's principal author, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], 
has worked long and hard ensuring that all parties truly interested in 
dealing with the overlapping issues of illegal and legal immigration 
have participated in a bipartisan process.
  Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions in my 
State of California. We deal daily with a flood of illegal immigrants 
who are coming across the border seeking government services, job 
opportunities, and family members. There is simply no question that the 
President, for all his rhetoric, has failed to make this a top 
priority. He opposed California's proposition 187. He vetoed 
legislation establishing that illegal immigrants are not entitled to 
Federal and State welfare services. He vetoed reimbursement to the 
States for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons, and his 
Justice Department has been woefully slow in disbursing to States the 
meager incarceration funds that were appropriated back in 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members well know, California will never support a 
President that is soft on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration 
might just be taking center stage in Washington today, but the issue is 
like an overnight sensation in Hollywood. This is a problem that has 
been building up for years and years. A decade ago my colleague, the 
gentleman from Glendale, CA [Mr. Moorhead], who is retiring after 24 
years of highly distinguished service, offered amendments to strengthen 
the Border Patrol when Congress last addressed immigration reform.
  Many Members of Congress, especially the Members from California, 
like Mr. Kim, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Seastrand, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Gallegly, and 
others, have worked for years to address illegal immigration in the 
comprehensive manner of H.R. 2202. Just as California suffers from more 
illegal immigration than any State, California is home to more legal 
immigrants and refugees than any other State. Those immigrants have 
brought tremendous benefits to our State. I am proud of the fact that 
H.R. 2202 will allow us to maintain one of the highest levels of legal 
immigration in 70 years. That in itself is a good and positive move, 
because this country was founded on legal immigration.

                              {time}  1615

  Legal immigrants continue to provide the United States with a steady 
stream of hard-working, freedom-loving, patriotic new Americans. Legal 
immigrants bringing special skills to our workplace have been 
instrumental in placing American firms, especially many in California, 
on the cutting edge of high technology.
  Mr. Speaker, as we look at the broad range of amendments that will be 
brought forward this week, we will first debate issues relating to 
illegal immigration. Then after addressing that issue, the House will 
address the different but related issue of legal immigration. We will 
clearly have an opportunity to debate nearly all controversial issues.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the chairman of the 
Speaker's task force on illegal immigration, will offer amendments to 
create a mandatory but clearly nonintrusive Social Security number 
verification program to reduce the employment lure for illegal 
immigration. He will also offer a very sensible amendment to clarify 
that States have the right to determine if local and State tax dollars 
will be used to give free education to illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] will offer a commonsense 
amendment to clarify that if someone violates American laws and enters 
the country illegally, then they will no longer be eligible to later 
become a legal immigrant. Legal immigration should be reserved for 
those who respect our laws.
  Mr. Speaker, finally we are certain to have lively debates regarding 
the creation of a tamper resistant Social Security card as well as an 
effort to eliminate the bill's voluntary system to verify the accuracy 
of Social Security numbers. The House bill will also be able to debate 
the legal immigration provisions of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this bill establishes a very generous 
level of immigration by historical standards; however, it focuses legal 
immigration policy on reunifying nuclear families so that spouses and 
young children are reunited in strong families. This is a good and very 
important thing. Nevertheless, there is disagreement on these 
provisions and the House will decide this question.
  The bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Chrysler] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], which seeks to maintain the 
status quo on legal immigration, is in order under this rule. The 
amendment by the Committee on Agriculture to create a new guest worker 
program will also come before this House by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo] and others.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has made in order 32 amendments, 
as I have said. This is a fair rule that will let the House deal 
responsibly with H.R. 2202 and send the legislation to the Senate in a 
timely manner. Immigration reform is important to our Nation's economic 
and social future, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

[[Page H2363]]



  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of March 15, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 59                 61
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 24                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 13                 14
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 96                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                             [As of March 15, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            

[[Page H2364]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY, [Mr. Solomon] chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the vice chairman of the Committee 
on Rules for an excellent explanation of the rule. I thank my good 
friend from California, Tony Beilenson, who is always more than 
reasonable, for letting me go out of order because of an emergency that 
is coming up that may expedite the procedures for the House for the 
next several days. It will inure to his benefit and to all the other 
Members.
  Mr. Speaker, having said that, I do rise in support of this rule and 
the bill that it makes in order, the Immigration in the National 
Interest Act.
  Mr. Speaker, just to put into perspective the problem we will be 
considering over the next 2 days, let me begin with a few facts.
  No. 1: Nationwide more than one-quarter of all Federal prisoners are 
illegal aliens.
  According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in 1980, the 
total foreign-born population in Federal prisons was 1,000 which was 
less than 4 percent of all inmates. In 1995, the foreign-born 
population in Federal prisons was 27,938, which constitutes 29 percent 
of all inmates. The result is an enormous extra expense to be picked up 
by the Federal taxpayers.
  Fact No. 2: the U.S. welfare system is rapidly becoming a retirement 
home for the elderly of other countries. In 1994, nearly 738,000 
noncitizen residents were receiving aid from the Supplemental Security 
Income program known as SSI. This is a 580-percent increase--up from 
127,900 in 1982--in just 12 years.
  The overwhelming majority of noncitizen SSI recipients are elderly. 
Most apply for welfare within 5 years of arriving in the United States. 
By way of comparison, the number of U.S.-born applying for SSI benefits 
has increased just 49 percent in the same period. Without reform, 
according to the Wall Street Journal, the total cost of SSI and 
Medicaid benefits for elderly noncitizen immigrants will amount to more 
than $328 billion over the next 10 years.
  Fact No. 3: In the public hospitals of our largest State, California, 
40 percent of the births are to illegal aliens. Since each newborn is 
automatically a citizen, he or she becomes eligible for all the 
benefits of citizenship.
  Fact No. 4: There is a link between legal immigration and illegal 
immigration. According to the report of the Judiciary Committee on this 
bill, close to half of all illegal aliens come in on legal temporary 
visas, and never return home.
  Fact No. 5: According to a Roper Poll in December of 1995, 83 percent 
of all Americans are in favor of reducing all immigration. Within these 
totals, 80 percent of African-Americans favor reducing all immigration 
and 67 percent of Hispanic-Americans favor reducing all immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, these facts serve to point out the nature of the problem 
we are facing.
  The poll numbers point the direction our constituents want us to go.
  The bill which will be before the House over the next couple of days 
is a giant step toward solving the problems facing our Nation and I 
commend the members of the Judiciary Committee who did the work to put 
it together.
  I would particularly like to commend the chairman of the Immigration 
and Claims Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, and 
his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. John Bryant, 
for long hours spent on this legislation.
  And I also owe thanks to the chairman of that full committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, and his ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers for perseverance under difficult 
circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, any rule that does not make in order every amendment 
requested is going to be unpopular with some. But given the need to 
finish the bill on the floor this week, the Rules Committee has come up 
with a reasonable solution. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion for 
the previous question, and a ``yes'' vote on adoption of this balanced 
rule on the immigration bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, 
which this modified closed rule makes in order, is one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we shall consider this year. There is 
no question that U.S. immigration policy needs to be revised and 
improved to respond to our national interests and this bill is a 
sensible and measured response to that critical challenge.
  I, too, commend our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Smith, the chairman of 
the Immigration Subcommittee, and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Bryant, for their outstanding work in bringing this 
bipartisan bill to the floor. I would also like to point out the 
important work of my friend and fellow Californian, Mr. Gallegly, who 
chaired the Speaker's task force on immigration. As a member of that 
task force, I know how diligently Mr. Gallegly and the other members 
worked to help develop recommendations for the subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would affect many aspects of life in the 
United States and a broad range of national issues and concerns, 
including the availability of jobs for skilled and unskilled American 
workers; the responsibility of businesses and corporations to obey the 
laws we have already enacted to prohibit the hiring of individuals who 
have entered the United States in violation of our border and our 
immigration laws; the serious stress that population growth fueled by 
immigration is creating for our country; and, most important, the kind 
of country we will leave to our children and grandchildren who will 
have to live with the consequences of our decisions in terms of how 
heavily populated the United States will become.
  Because of the significance of this bill, we commend the Committee on 
Rules for allowing debate on 32 amendments. More than 100 amendments 
were submitted to the committee and for the most part, we think, the 
committee did a good job of making in order amendments that cover most 
of the important areas of disagreement in this wide-ranging piece of 
legislation. However, we do want our colleagues to know that we are 
disappointed that the rule did not make in order several important 
amendments. For that reason, after debate on the rule, Mr. Speaker, we 
shall move to defeat the previous question so that we may amend the 
rule to make the following three additional amendments in order:

  An amendment that would delete the H-1B foreign temporary worker 
provisions in the bill and replace them with

[[Page H2365]]

provisions that protect American workers; an amendment that would 
promote self-sufficiency for refugees and make the Federal Government, 
not the States or local communities, assume the cost for refugees; and 
an amendment that would increase civil penalties for already existing 
employer sanctions.
  Mr. Speaker, one of those amendments in particular lies at the heart 
of this debate, the third amendment, the one that would increase the 
civil penalties for already existing employer sanctions.
  The amendment's intent is to finally stop employers from knowingly 
hiring illegal immigrants by making the existing employer-sanction law 
truly effective and meaningful. While H.R. 2202 includes increased 
penalties for document fraud by immigrants, it does not include any 
increased penalties for employers who knowingly violate the law 
prohibiting the hiring of individuals who are here illegally.
  Enhanced employer enforcement penalties have bipartisan support. They 
were advocated by the Speaker's congressional task force on immigration 
reform, by the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan's U.S. Commission on 
Immigration Reform, and by the administration. They were included also 
in the immigration bill reported to the Senate Immigration 
Subcommittee.
  These increased penalties are essential to reducing the incentive 
employers have for hiring illegal aliens and the lure of employment 
that brings illegal immigrants to this country. If we have learned 
anything at all from the failures of the 1986 immigration laws, it must 
be that weak sanctions are meaningless and will do little to prevent 
illegals from seeking jobs and employers from hiring illegals for those 
jobs.
  The need for this amendment is underscored not only by the lack of 
any increased penalties on employers in the bill but also by the rule's 
self-executing provision that makes the Judiciary Committee's modest 
worker verification system voluntary instead of mandatory as the 
committee itself had recommended.
  While the Gallegly amendment to restore the committee-reported 
language will be considered, it is obvious that if we think it is 
necessary to get tougher on employers who break the law by hiring 
illegals, we must also have the opportunity to consider an amendment 
increasing penalties on them.
  In order to reduce the employment magnet for illegal immigrants, 
penalties for knowing violations of the law should be more than merely 
a nominal cost of doing business. In addition, while some illegal 
aliens obtain employment through the use of fraudulent documents, 
others are employed in the underground economy by businesses that do 
not even check documentation. Many of those businesses violate other 
labor standards as well.
  The presence of unauthorized workers too fearful of deportation to 
complain about working conditions may be the very factor that enables 
those employers to break other labor laws. Thus, increased penalties 
and effective enforcement are critical not only to reducing illegal 
immigration but also to protecting the workers themselves from unfair 
labor practices.
  Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would protect Americans from 
losing jobs to those who are here in violation of our laws and it would 
protect Americans from being paid less than they are worth because of 
low-wage competition.

                              {time}  1630

  If we care at all about protecting jobs for Americans and improving 
their economic security, if we really believe that all Americans, those 
seeking jobs and those doing the hiring, should be held responsible for 
obeying the law, then we must defeat the previous question and allow a 
vote on that amendment.
  Despite the absence of the opportunity to debate these amendments, as 
I said earlier, the rule would allow the House to debate a large number 
of amendments, 32 in total, on a wide range of issues. One of the most 
important issues, Mr. Speaker, the amendments will address is the 
bill's employment verification system, which was weakened significantly 
in the full Committee on the Judiciary and which, as I mentioned 
earlier, this rule, through its self-executing provision, will 
unfortunately weaken further by making it voluntary rather than 
mandatory.
  To succeed in reducing illegal immigration, we must do two things; 
tighten control of our borders and remove to the greatest extent 
possible the incentives that encourage illegal immigration. The most 
powerful incentive of all, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity to work in 
this country. When Congress enacted employer sanctions as part of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, we did so in recognition of 
the fact that, because immigrants come here primarily to find jobs, it 
is necessary to deter employers from hiring those who are not here 
legally. What we failed to do at that time, however, was to provide a 
sound and dependable way for employers to determine whether or not a 
prospective employee is here legally. Without that, it is virtually 
impossible, as we have discovered, to enforce the employer sanction 
laws.
  Our failure to establish a reliable means of enforcing the law has 
created other problems as well. The law has generated widespread 
discrimination against U.S. citizens and legal residents who may look 
or sound foreign and has created a huge mulitmillion-dollar underground 
industry, in counterfeit and fraudulent Social Security cards, green 
cards, voter registration cards, and the 26 other kinds of documents 
that can be used to demonstrate one's work eligibility under the 
current law.
  H.R. 2202 wisely reduces that number, but it does not go far enough 
toward making employer sanctions enforceable. Establishing a dependable 
widescale and mandatory system for checking individuals' authorization 
to work in this country is the only way to solve those problems.
  In fact, to crack down on the more than 50 percent of illegal 
immigrants who come here legally and overstay their visas and remain 
often permanently, improving employer sanctions is essential, because 
we cannot obviously stop those immigrants from settling here 
permanently simply by improving border control.
  There will be three amendments dealing with employment verification 
that we would like to bring to our colleagues' attention. One is the 
McCollum amendment, which would provide for development of a 
counterfeit-proof Social Security card. Establishing such a card is, I 
believe, absolutely essential to making the prohibition on hiring 
illegal immigrants enforceable, and I believe it deserves our strong 
support.
  The second is the Gallegly amendment, which would make the bill's 
telephone employment verification system mandatory in the States, where 
it will be tried on an experimental basis, restoring the provision to 
the form it was in when it was reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary. That amendment also deserves our strong support.
  In the same vein, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the Chabot-Conyers 
amendment to eliminate entirely the verification system should be 
rejected if we are at all serious about doing something real about this 
very real problem of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, in another major issue, perhaps the most important one 
to be considered in this debate, will be when to retain the bill's 
reductions in legal immigration. Our decision on that issue will occur 
whether we consider the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment to strike 
the legal immigration sections of the bill. It is essential in the view 
of many of us that we reject that amendment. The limits on legal 
immigration in the bill go to the crucial question that up until now 
has been missing from this debate, which is how big do we want this 
country to be, how populated do we want the United States to be.
  The population of this country, currently about 263 million, is 
growing so quickly that by the end of this decade, less than 4 years 
from now, our population will reach 275 million, more than double its 
present size at the end of World War II. Only during the 1950's, at the 
height of the so-called baby boom, were more people added to the 
Nation's population than are projected to be added during the 1990's.
  The long-term picture is even more alarming. The U.S. Census Bureau 
conservatively projects our population will rise to 400 million by the 
year 2050, a more than 50 percent increase from today's level, the 
equivalent of adding

[[Page H2366]]

more than 40 cities the size of Los Angeles to our population. That is 
by far the fastest growing growth rate projected for any industrialized 
country in the world. But many demographers, Mr. Speaker, believe it 
will even be much worse. The alternative Census Bureau projections 
agree if current trends continue, the Nation's population will more 
than double during this same time period and reach half a billion 
people by the middle of the next century, a little more than 50 years 
from now. The Census Bureau says one-third of the U.S. population 
growth is due to immigration, both legal and illegal. That is a 
misleading statistic; if U.S.-born children of recent immigrants are 
counted, immigration now accounts for more than 50 percent of recent 
growth in the United States.
  Post-1970 immigrants and their descendants have been responsible for 
U.S. population increases of nearly 25 million, half the growth of 
those years. In other words, much of what demographers consider our 
natural growth rate is actually the result of our Nation's large number 
of immigrants. Those numbers have led the Census Bureau to forecast 
much higher population growth over the coming decades than in the past. 
As recently as 1990, the bureau assumed the population of the United 
States would peak about 45 years from now and then decline to and level 
off at about 300 million, about 300 million, Mr. Speaker, by the year 
2050. But as a result of unexpected rates of immigration, the Census 
Bureau revised its figures just 2 years ago by adding another 92 
million to the number of people projected for the year 2050. But that 
projection is probably much too low because the bureau assumes a net 
immigration rate of about 820,000 a year, at least 400,000 below 
today's annual level. And even with that conservative assumption about 
immigration, the Census Bureau estimates about 93 percent, 93 percent 
of the population growth by the year 2050 will result from immigration 
that has occurred since 1991.
  The really frightening change in the Census Bureau's 1994 forecast is 
that it now assumes the population of this country will not level off a 
few decades from now as was thought would be the case and as recently 
as 1990, but will continue to grow unabated into the late 21st century.

  Those of us who represent communities where large numbers of 
immigrants have settled have long felt the effects of our Nation's high 
rate of immigration, the highest in the world. Our communities are 
being overwhelmed by the burden of providing educational, health, and 
social services for the newcomers. With a population of half a billion 
or more, it will be extremely difficult to solve our most serious 
environmental problems, such as air and water pollution, water 
disposal, waste disposal and loss of our arable land. But the 
challenges of having our population double our current size will go far 
beyond dealing with simply environmental problems. With twice as many 
people, we can expect to have at least twice as much crime, twice as 
much congestion, twice as much poverty. We will also face demands for 
twice as many jobs, twice as many schools, twice as much food at a time 
when many of our communities are already straining now to educate, 
house, protect, provide services for the people we have right now, Mr. 
Speaker. How will they begin to cope with the needs and problems of 
twice as many people?
  The legal immigration provisions of this bill constitute a relatively 
modest response to the enormous problems our children and grandchildren 
will face in the next century if we do not reduce the enormous number 
of new residents the United States accepts each year beginning now.
  So I urge Members, Mr. Speaker, to reject the Chrysler-Berman-
Brownback amendment when that proposal is offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my dear friend and 
Committee on Rules colleague, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. 
Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and generous rule which allows 
for a broad debate on a massive subject. I congratulate Mr. Smith for 
persevering in bringing H.R. 2202 to the floor--and I am proud to be a 
cosponsor. This is about the failure of the Federal Government to 
control our borders and the impact that failure has had on our society. 
Although I agree that the issues of illegal and legal immigration are 
distinct, I know that they are closely related. All immigration is out 
of control. We cannot consider either legal or illegal in a vacuum 
without looking at the other--a conclusion with which many Americans 
agree. In recent weeks the Wall Street Journal reported that 50 percent 
of Americans surveyed oppose any legal immigration. Such views are born 
of years of watching the system fail. Mr. Speaker, the problems of 
illegal immigration are readily definable. Today more than one quarter 
of all Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants; fraudulent employment 
and benefit documentation is rampant; and criminal aliens linger in our 
country at significant taxpayer expense. Well, H.R. 2202 doubles the 
number of Border Patrol agents; dedicates more resources to prosecuting 
illegal aliens; streamlines the rules for removal of illegal and 
criminal aliens; and strengthens penalties against those who disobey 
orders to leave. H.R. 2202 also clamps down on illegal aliens accessing 
public benefits. And it implements a program to address a major 
incentive of today's illegal immigration--the promise of jobs--by 
setting up a 1-800 number for employers to call and verify citizenship 
status. This provision does not--repeat, does not--create a ``Big 
Brother is watching you'' system with a new national identity card. And 
this provision is not an unfair burden on employers. In fact, employers 
who have tried it have given it rave reviews.
  When it comes to legal immigration, there are also serious problems. 
Today there are approximately 1.1 million cases pending in the system, 
which can translate into a 40-year waiting period. Those who get caught 
up in this bureaucratic nightmare suffer from prolonged separation from 
their families and uncertainty about their futures. It's no surprise 
that they get frustrated and seek to jump the line. H.R. 2202 increases 
the percentage of immigrants admitted on the basis of needed skills and 
education. It places emphasis on core family units, favoring ``nuclear 
family'' admission over ``extended family'' admissions. And it 
guarantees a way for bona fide refugees to enter our country in an 
orderly manner.
  Immigrants have contributed immeasurably to the greatness of this 
Nation. This legislation doesn't close the door--but it does seek to 
balance the generous nature of Americans with the reality of limited 
resources. That is a laudable result.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the well to regrettably indicate that I 
do not intend to vote for this rule, and I do intend to support the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] in his motion, because I 
think the Committee on Rules made a major mistake in deciding which 
amendments they were going to allow this House to vote on.
  We have a very serious issue facing this country with respect to 
refugees, and I am talking about legal refugees, not illegal refugees. 
The problem is that the U.S. Government makes a foreign policy decision 
to allow thousands and thousands and thousands of refugees to come into 
this country and then it dumps the cost of educating and training and 
supporting those refugees onto local units of government.
  Now, I think that ought to stop. So I offered an amendment before the 
Committee on Rules which would simply say that if the Federal 
Government is going to make a foreign policy decision to allow refugees 
into this country, that they then ought to pay for the cost of 
educating and training them and providing worker training and providing 
language training so that a foreign policy decision of the U.S. 
Government does not become an unfair burden on local taxpayers.
  Now, Gov. Pete Wilson of California has been making this point 
strenuously for years with respect to immigrants. I think the point is 
equally correct with respect to refugees. So my amendment would have 
required that Uncle Sam

[[Page H2367]]

pay for the costs of those refugees for the first 3 years rather than 
dumping it off on the local governments, and it would have required 
something which both the Bush administration and the Clinton 
administration tried to do but which they were blocked from doing by 
the court. And that is to require that, for the first year, those 
refugees be enrolled in intensive language training programs and job 
training programs so that they do not become long term burdens to local 
taxpayers.

                              {time}  1645

  I see absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with that amendment, and I 
would point out this is not a new idea. Catholic Charities tested this 
approach in Chicago and they reduced the long-term percentage of 
refugees who remained on welfare by astounding percentages. They tried 
the same thing in San Diego and had similar very successful results. 
They tried it in Florida and also had very successful results.
  So what the amendment would have tried to do is simply take a 
proposal which has already been tested at the local level in pilot 
projects and implement it, so that we require for any refugee that 
comes into this country for the first year, rather than marching them 
right into the local welfare office, as now occurs, that what you do is 
instead put them in a private program run by local PVO's to teach them 
job training and to teach them English. The long-term savings of that 
cannot be doubted. For the life of me, I do not understand any 
substantive reason why the Committee on Rules did not make that 
amendment in order.
  We can talk all we want about cleaning up the immigration and refugee 
problems that this country faces, but until this Congress recognizes 
that they have absolutely no moral right to stick local property 
taxpayers with the cost of foreign policy decisions, this Congress is 
not living up to its job in dealing with major problems presented to 
local governments by actions of the Federal Government.
  I do not see, for instance, why local school districts should be 
burdened with the inordinate cost of providing education and language 
training to legal refugees, rather than having the Federal Government 
meet the costs, since the Federal Government made the decision to 
require those costs to be incurred by somebody in the first place.
  This is a case of the Federal Government, in my view, bugging out on 
its responsibilities to both the refugees they allow into this country 
and to the local communities and school districts who get hit with the 
consequences; and I think it is also a case in this instance of the 
Congress itself bugging out on its responsibilities to correct the 
situation, which is why I intend to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from California, if given that opportunity.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], a tireless advocate of border 
security, my classmate from El Cajon, CA.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me join with him in thanking the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly] for his great work on helping to put together 
this package. If he is not here to offer his amendments, I know a 
number of us will be carrying the torch for him.
  We also owe a great deal of thanks to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Smith] who had a very difficult job of putting together in a very 
statesmanlike way a package that involved not only a lot of figures and 
a lot of issues, but a lot of passions.
  We have put together a package here, and I think we should pass this 
rule and pass this bill, that brings some degree of order to illegal 
immigration and to legal immigration.
  The illegal immigration we deal with by adding Border Patrol, by 
forward deploying those Border Patrolmen to the border, by putting in 
roads, and by putting in a triple fence, that will make it more 
difficult for smugglers to move people across the southern border of 
the United States.
  The legal immigration we bring some degree of order to by bringing in 
accountability. That means when people sponsor other people, 
immigrants, to come to this country, the sponsor has to give some 
fiscal accountability. That person cannot just come in and get on 
welfare and bog our system down to the degree of $28 billion a year 
which the present legal immigrants are costing the system.
  So it is important that we deal with these two questions together. It 
is important that we bring order to illegal immigration and to legal 
immigration. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has done an excellent 
job of balancing these competing interests and giving us an excellent 
package. We should vote for the rule and for the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say two things: First, I am going to join the 
gentleman in supporting his motion so that we can get another shot at 
the rule. In general I would say that there are lots of amendments that 
were good amendments, fine amendments, in terms of improving and honing 
this bill, that were not allowed. In certain cases it seems that the 
most extreme amendments were allowed, but not those that would have 
moved the bill in a more moderate direction. I think that is 
regrettable. It looks a little bit political. I understand that we 
should not have politics in this Chamber, but it is a little too much.
  The fact that our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bryant, only got one 
small amendment, the gentleman from California, Mr. Becerra, who has 
strong views on this issue, some of which I disagree with, but he got 
no amendments at all, I find bothersome.
  I want to speak specifically about the issue of asylum. I had an 
amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] which would have gone a long way 
toward resolving the asylum problem.
  With asylum we face a very difficult issue. I think most Americans 
believe that that torch that shines so brightly in Madam Liberty's hand 
should remain lit; there are those that face persecution that we have 
to, we do not have to, but we ought to allow to come to America.
  On the other hand, there is no secret that the asylum process was 
totally abused and that hundreds of thousands of people, literally, in 
the last decade, have used the asylum process, some on their own, some 
at the urging of smugglers, some at the urging of lawyers, to abuse it. 
They did not deserve asylum. But because the system worked in such a 
rinky-dinky, jerry-built way, they asked for it.
  The amendment we proposed I think would have dealt with that issue in 
the right way. It would have been tougher than the present bill in 
eliminating all defensive asylum. In other words, the idea you come 
into this country, are here illegally or overstay your welcome, that 
you would no longer be allowed when the INS caught up with you and said 
you have to go home, to say ``Wait a minute, I claim asylum.'' You have 
no right in my judgment if you believe in America to not come forward 
affirmatively.
  On the other hand, the bill does make a step forward in saying that 
if you come forward affirmatively, you should have to do it in 180 days 
rather than 30 days. However, I have become convinced, and I was the 
original sponsor of the 30-day bill, that there are lots of people, or 
a good number of people, who truly deserve asylum, who cannot come 
forward in that period of time.
  The amendment that we had proposed would have been tougher on 
defensive asylum, but let some of these deserving people come into the 
country. I regret it has not been allowed to be debated, because I 
think we had solved the problem in the most equitable way, and yet we 
are not allowing it, and that is one of the reasons I will support the 
gentleman's amendment to modify the rule and allow that amendments like 
this one, carefully thought out, reasonable, dealing with the abuses, 
but not cutting off immigration altogether, be allowed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher], my very good 
friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, but 
with a major reservation. I had planned to

[[Page H2368]]

offer an amendment which I feel is vital to stem the tide of illegal 
immigration pounding our Nation, but the Rules Committee did not make 
this amendment in order.
  My amendment would have simply applied the employer telephone 
verification system in title IV of H.R. 2202 to Government agencies and 
require administrators of federally funded Government assistance 
programs to use the verification system to check the eligibility of 
applicants for public benefits.
  As the bill stands now, only employers can use the telephone 
verification system to check on the eligibility of job applicants. Why 
shouldn't public agencies use the same verification system to check on 
the eligibility of applicants for federally funded benefits?
  If the bill is left the way it is, it threatens to create a perverse 
incentive that makes it safer for illegal aliens to apply for welfare 
than to apply for jobs. This is insane. With our welfare system nearly 
stretched to the breaking point, why in the world are we making it 
easier for illegal aliens to get welfare than jobs?
  We all know that a large number of illegal aliens use fake documents 
to get jobs. This is why we need a telephone verification system. But 
what everyone seems to be forgetting is that illegal aliens can use 
these same fake documents to get billions of dollars in public 
benefits.
  I am glad to see that the Senate version of this bill does includes a 
verification system which is to be used to verify a person's 
eligibility for both welfare and employment. Hopefully, the House 
conferees will agree to the Senate's provision. If we truly want to get 
serious about stemming the tide of illegal immigration, we must 
eliminate the magnets which draw them here.
  There are free enterprisers who claim not to care if illegal aliens 
come here to work.
  But there is a dynamic at play that needs consideration. Many illegal 
immigrants work at wages so low even the illegal immigrants wouldn't 
accept the job--if not for the health care, education and other 
benefits provided by the taxpayers.
  Government benefits subsidize the exploitation on illegals. As it 
turns out American taxpayers and illegal aliens are being exploited by 
avaricious businessmen who are not offering a living wage. Correcting 
the error of providing benefits will help solve the job problem as 
well.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, historically our country has made few 
distinctions between legal immigrants and American citizens. Instead we 
have always drawn a clear line between legal immigrants and 
undocumented workers.
  Our current debate, however, combines legal and illegal immigration 
and focuses mainly on the economic outcomes while neglecting our 
social, cultural and moral goals.
  Too many people wrongly believe today that today's immigrants drain 
our economy and use far more welfare than native born Americans. Plain 
and simple, this is not true. Legal immigrants not only pay taxes and 
can be drafted in time of war, which are the main legal obligations of 
citizens, but they also start businesses, purchase goods and services, 
and create jobs, which is essential for the well-being of our economy.
  We must address this issue in the rule and we should support the 
Chrysler-Berman amendment. If we are going to have immigration reform, 
legal immigration and reform, we should first of all promote the 
strength of families and their values through family reunification. We 
should also protect American workers from unfair competition while 
providing employers with appropriate access to international labor 
markets to promote our competitiveness. Third, we should promote 
naturalization to encourage full participation in the national 
community.
  Instead, the bill as it is today drastically and unnecessarily 
restricts the ability of American citizens to reunite with family 
members, even clogs family members such as parents and some children. 
This bill fails to protect American workers in the legal immigration 
provisions. Last, it fails to recognize the role that naturalization 
can serve to advance the Nation's immigration policy.
  But what really, really is the most dramatic and in a way 
hypocritical part of this proposal is the provision on guest workers. 
We have a new agricultural guest worker program. At the same time we 
are saying no to immigration, we are saying it is OK to bring guest 
workers into the country.
  What this provision would do is it would increase illegal 
immigration, it would reduce work opportunities for American citizens 
and other legal residents, it would depress wages and work standards 
for U.S. farm workers, and it is not a sustainable solution to any 
labor shortage which might develop.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill because it strikes at the core 
of the men and women in this country. We are a Nation of immigrants. 
Let us do this bill right, let us do it humanely, let us try to be 
efficient about it. The first thing we should do is separate legal 
immigration and illegal immigration. They are two different parts of 
the issue, of our society, of our morals. And then let us also be 
consistent. Let us find ways to deal with deterring illegal 
immigration, finding ways to improve the legal immigration program, but 
not go ahead and start a guest worker program which is totally 
antithetical to what we are trying to do.
  Historically, our Nation has made few distinctions between legal 
immigrants and American citizens. Instead we have always drawn a clear 
line between legal immigrants and undocumented aliens.
  Our current debate, however, combines legal and illegal immigration 
and focuses mainly on the economic outcomes while neglecting our 
social, cultural, and moral goals.
  Despite the fact that the majority of nonrefugee immigrants of 
working age use welfare far less than their American counterparts, and 
that the Federal Government spends less on immigrants than on citizens, 
this bill denies legal residents the same benefits as other Americans.
  Too many people wrongly believe that today's immigrants drain our 
economy and use far more welfare than native-born Americans. Plain and 
simple, this is not true.
  Legal immigrants not only pay taxes and can be drafted in time of 
war, which are the main legal obligations of citizens, but also start 
businesses, purchase goods and services, and create jobs, which is 
essential for the well-being of our economy.
  The Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995 treats legal and 
illegal immigration as if they were the same issue, places extreme 
income restrictions and eliminates family preference categories which 
will permanently keep American families apart.
  Making good and fair policy requires clear separation of these two 
distinct parts of U.S. immigration policy.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, a recent survey I conducted found that over 
90 percent of my constituents who responded support some type of 
immigration reform. Since my district is in Florida, that is not 
surprising. Florida consistently ranks among the top five States of 
residence for illegal immigrants, and consistently high levels of 
immigration exact a heavy toll upon our State's taxpayers and 
infrastructure. Our citizens also pay the price for unchecked 
immigration in the form of health, education, and welfare benefits that 
are diverted from lawful citizens to illegal aliens.
  The overwhelming support for immigration reform that characterizes my 
district is not unique to Florida, however. It is mirrored across the 
Nation. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I believe that Congress 
has an obligation to respond to the concerns of the American people and 
reform our immigration laws.
  The problems caused by illegal immigration are obvious. But a poorly 
constructed legal immigration system is also contrary to our national 
interest. America cannot be both the land of opportunity and the land 
of welfare dependency, and current law encourages many legal immigrants 
to participate in welfare programs directly or to bring elderly family 
members to the United States to retire at the taxpayer's expense. Our 
immigration system should reward those who bring

[[Page H2369]]

skills and initiative into this country, but it is not right to 
penalize our citizens by forcing them to pay benefits to people who 
have never contributed to the system.
  Support for immigration reform cuts across all economic strata, as 
well as ethnic and social lines. Without compromising our commitment to 
opportunity and diversity, we must take the initiative and reform our 
immigration laws in such a way that they serve the needs of our lawful 
citizens. The Immigration in the National Interest Act provides this 
opportunity, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me first acknowledge the work of the 
chairman of the subcommittee which I sit on, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith] for his work in trying to bring forward a bill on 
immigration.
  Let me say that I am very disappointed in the rule today because, 
despite what we have constantly heard over the last 2 years from the 
new majority about having open rules, this is a very, very closed and 
restricted rule. Although we have about 32 amendments on the floor for 
debate, some for only 5 to 10 minutes, we had over 130 amendments that 
we wished to have heard, and unfortunately very few of those are now 
made in order.
  This is also a very unfair bill. Despite the characterizations of 
this as a very fair bill, it is a very unfair bill for both American 
families and for American workers. Unfair for American families because 
the only choice American families have under this legislation to 
preserve their opportunity to bring in a spouse, a child, a brother or 
sister is to try to strike an entire portion of this bill. If we leave 
in that particular portion of the bill that deals with immigration of 
family members, what we will see is devastation for families trying to 
bring in their immediate family relatives.

  For American workers, it is a devastating bill because it has no 
protection for American workers. In fact, on the contrary, what we see 
is a program that will allow up to 250,000 temporary foreign workers to 
be imported into this country to do the work that American workers are 
dying to be able to do. That is unfair to America's workers.
  It is also unfair that this bill does nothing to try to enhance 
worker protections or the ability to enforce our current labor laws so 
that at the workplace we know that workers, American and those legally 
allowed to work in this country, are protected from abuse.
  Everyone should strive for immigration reform. Talk to anyone. It 
makes no difference what poll we take or what poll we listen to. 
Everyone wants to see reform of our immigration laws. But it should be 
meaningful reform of our immigration laws. We should not be targeting 
legal immigrants because we have to attack the issue of illegal 
immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all the Members here to look closely 
at this legislation and vote with their heart and their mind. This is 
not a good bill. Vote against the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my California colleague that 
we have made 32 amendments in order, which will allow for a full 2 days 
of debate looking at almost every aspect of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from Roanoke, VA [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule. I think it is a very fair 
rule. This legislation has been marked up very, very extensively in the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and in the full Committee on the 
Judiciary for weeks and weeks, and I think the legislation we brought 
forward is outstanding.
  We have allowed nonetheless 32 separate opportunities to amend the 
bill, and I commend the Committee on Rules for their work and strongly 
support this rule. I also strongly support the underlying legislation.
  I want to particularly call to my colleagues' attention an amendment 
that I strongly oppose, and that is the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback 
amendment that deals with what some are representing as splitting out 
the legal portion of this bill and only dealing with illegal 
immigration. The fact of the matter is this does not split the bill. In 
the Senate, they voted to split the bill and are actually moving two 
separate bills forward. But this amendment would not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is kill legal immigration 
reform because there is no provision anywhere to move forward with 
those provisions of the bill dealing with legal immigration. Therefore 
I would strongly urge the Members of the House to oppose that amendment 
when it comes up for consideration probably tomorrow.
  I also would urge strong support for the amendment that I will be 
offering dealing with the H-2B program as a much more reasonable reform 
of the current H-2A program than to go with the Pombo amendment which 
sets up an entirely new program with 250,000 new nonimmigrants coming 
into the country. That is not good, and I would urge opposition to that 
and support for the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the hard-working 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my heritage is German, Irish, Polish, and even a little 
Bohemian, and my children are all of that plus Norwegian, and I 
appreciate America as a melting pot.
  Our current immigration laws are broken and they must be fixed. One-
quarter of all Federal prisoners are illegal aliens. Forty percent of 
all births in California's public hospitals are due to illegal aliens. 
In Los Angeles alone, 60 percent of all births in the county hospital 
are to women who are in this country illegally.
  In the last 12 years, the number of immigrants applying for Social 
Security income has increased by 580 percent. These facts signal an 
immigration crisis in America. This bill is a bipartisan, reasonable 
bill that addresses serious flaws in the current law. The legislation 
doubles the number of border patrol agents, streamlines rules and 
procedures for removing illegal aliens and makes it tougher for illegal 
immigrants to fraudulently obtain jobs and take those jobs away from 
our citizens who need them.
  Mr. Speaker, we must act quickly and decisively or the economic and 
social consequences for this country could be devastating. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Miami, FL [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], who is here on the floor with her very 
able assistant Patty.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am an immigrant to this country. I 
arrived here in 1960 as a refugee from a tyranny that still rules the 
country of my birth, Cuba.
  Immigration is an issue that has caught this country by storm, and 
the problems created by a growing number of illegal immigrants as well 
as by the reality that we do not have control over our borders have 
spilled over and clouded our collective judgment on legal immigration. 
I would like to make four quick points today.
  First, there is a genuine need to address the problems of illegal 
immigration. Second, placing a cap on legal refugees is not in the best 
interest of the United States. Third, the assault on the current 
distribution of Federal funds through targeted assistance will leave my 
home area of Dade County with an unfunded mandate of at least $16 
million.
  Finally, I would like to salute the provisions in the bill which 
emphasizes becoming a U.S. citizen. As a naturalized American, I know 
that this is the type of positive approach that we needed more of in 
this bill, a positive, not a punitive approach. That is the way to 
solve our immigration crisis.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], the ranking member 
of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

[[Page H2370]]

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we appreciate the good work, the outstanding 
work, actually, of the Committee on the Judiciary in developing a 
thoughtful piece of legislation. It tries to deal with our immigration 
system which virtually everybody agrees is badly in need of reform.
  We also appreciate the fairly good work of the Committee on Rules. We 
question only the fact that the Committee on Rules did not make in 
order several amendments which we think should have been made in order, 
and we urge our colleagues to defeat the previous question so that at 
least three of those amendments can be made in order.
  We have mentioned them earlier. One of those amendments would replace 
the H-1B temporary-foreign temporary-worker provisions in the bill with 
provisions that protect American jobs. The second would promote self-
sufficiency for refugees and make the Federal Government responsible 
for the full cost of refugees. That was the amendment spoken to earlier 
from the well by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The third one which I discussed at some length in my opening 
statement would hold businesses responsible for their hiring practices 
and for helping to protect jobs for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the intent of that amendment, which 
would increase civil penalties for already existing employer sanctions, 
is to finally stop employers from knowingly hiring immigrants who are 
here illegally. Increased penalties on employers have bipartisan 
support. They were advocated by our congressional task force on 
immigration, by the Jordan Immigration Commission, by the 
administration.
  We have to take this opportunity, it seems to me, to strengthen the 
weak sanctions we approved 10 years ago. Penalties on employers who 
knowingly break the law have to be severe enough to deter them from 
coming to flout our immigration laws.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are really serious about preventing illegals from 
seeking jobs and serious about employers from hiring illegals for those 
jobs which should be protected for Americans, we will pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment that 
we are proposing, as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 384

       After the period on page 5, line 13, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 3.--Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution it shall be in order to consider the following 
     amendments as if printed at the end of part 2 of the report 
     to accompany this resolution as amendments No. 33, No. 34, 
     and No. 35. Each amendment shall be debatable for 20 
     minutes.''


          no. 33, to be offered by mr. beilenson of california

       At the end of title IV, add the following new sections (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly);

     SEC. 408. EMPLOYER SANCTIONS PENALTIES.

       (a) Increased Civil Money Penalties for Hiring, Recruiting, 
     and Referral Violations.--Section 274A(e)(4)(A) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324(e)(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``$250'' and ``$2,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000'' and ``$3,000'', respectively;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``$2,000'' and ``$5,000'' 
     and inserting ``$3,000'' and ``$8,000'', respectively; and
       (3) in clause (iii), by striking ``$3,000'' and ``$10,000'' 
     and inserting ``$8,000'' and ``$25,000'', respectively.
       (b) Increased Civil Money Penalties for Paperwork 
     Violations.--Section 274A(e)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5)) is 
     amended by striking ``$100'' and ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``$200'' and ``$5,000'', respectively.
       (c) Increased Criminal Penalties for Pattern or Practice 
     Violations.--Section 274A(f)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1324a(f)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``$3,000'' and ``six months'' and 
     inserting ``$7,000'' and ``two years'', respectively.

     SEC. 409. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR EMPLOYER SANCTIONS 
                   INVOLVING LABOR STANDARDS VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Employer Sanctions.--Section 274A(e) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) Authority for increased penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administrative law judge shall have 
     the authority to require payment of a civil money penalty in 
     an amount up to two times the level of the penalty prescribed 
     by this subsection in any case where the employer has been 
     found to have committed willful or repeated violations of any 
     of the following statutes:
       ``(i) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by the Secretary 
     of Labor or a court of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(ii) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), pursuant to a final 
     determination by the Secretary of Labor or a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(iii) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary of Labor and the 
     Attorney General shall consult regarding the administration 
     of the provisions of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Anti-Discrimination.--Section 274B(g) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324b(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Authority for increased penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administrative law judge shall have 
     the authority to require payment of a civil money penalty in 
     an amount up to two times the level of the penalty prescribed 
     by this subsection in any case where the employer has been 
     found to have committed willful or repeated violations of any 
     of the following statutes:
       ``(i) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by the Secretary 
     of Labor or a court of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(ii) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), pursuant to a final 
     determination by the Secretary of Labor or a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(iii) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by a court 
     of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary of Labor and the 
     Attorney General shall consult regarding the administration 
     of the provisions of this paragraph.''
       (c) Section 274C(d) (8 U.S.C. 1324c(d) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Increased Penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administrative law judge shall have 
     the authority to require payment of a civil money penalty in 
     an amount up to two times the level of the penalty prescribed 
     by this subsection in any case where the employer has been 
     found to have committed willful or repeated violence of any 
     of the following statutes:
       ``(i) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by the Secretary 
     of Labor or a court of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(ii) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act, (29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), pursuant to a final 
     determination by the Secretary of Labor or a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(iii) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.), pursuant to a final determination by a court 
     of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Secretary of Labor and the 
     Attorney General shall consult regarding the administration 
     of the provisions of this paragraph.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 410. INCREASED CIVIL PENALTIES FOR UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-
                   RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(g)(2)(B)(iv) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324(g)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``$250'' and ``$2,000'' 
     and inserting ``$1,000'' and ``$3,000'', respectively;
       (2) in subclause (II), by striking ``$2,000'' and 
     ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$3,000'' and ``$8,000'', 
     respectively;
       (3) in subclause (III), by striking ``$3,000'' and 
     ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$8,000'' and ``$25,000'', 
     respectively; and
       (4) in subclause (IV), by striking ``$100'' and ``$1,000'' 
     and inserting ``$200'' and ``$5,000'', respectively.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to unfair immigration-related employment 
     practices occurring on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 411. RETENTION OF EMPLOYER SANCTIONS FINES FOR LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 286(c) (8 U.S.C. 1356(c) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``and that all monies received during each fiscal 
     year in payment of penalties under section 274A in excess of 
     $5,000,000 shall be credited to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service Salaries and Expenses appropriations 
     account that funds activities and related expenses associated 
     with enforcement of such section and shall remain available 
     until expended.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply beginning with fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 413. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

       (a) Immigration Officer Authority.--
       (1) Employer sanctions cases.--Section 274A(e)(2) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324(e)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting``, and''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph
       ``(C) immigration officers designated by the Commissioner 
     may compel by subpoena the attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of evidence at any designated place

[[Page H2371]]

     prior to the filing of a complaint in a case under paragraph 
     (3).''.
       (2) Document fraud cases.--Section 274C(d)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1324(A)(3)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) immigration officers designated by the Commissioner 
     may compel by subpoena the attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of evidence at any designated place prior to the 
     filing of a complaint in a case under paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Secretary of Labor Subpoena Authority.--(1) The 
     Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after 
     section 293 the following new section:


               ``SUBPOENA AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF LABOR

       ``Sec. 294. In General.--The Secretary of Labor may issue 
     subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses 
     or the production of any records, books, papers, or documents 
     in connection with any investigation or hearing conducted in 
     the enforcement of any immigration program for which the 
     Secretary of Labor has been delegated enforcement authority 
     under the Act. In such hearing, the Secretary of Labor may 
     administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. 
     For the purpose of any such hearing or investigation, the 
     authority contained in section 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 49, 50), relating to the attendance 
     of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and 
     documents, shall be available to the Secretary of Labor.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 293 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 294. Subpoena authority of Secretary of Labor.''.


             no. 34, to be offered by mr. obey of wisconsin

       At the end of subtitle B of title VIII insert the following 
     new sections:

     SEC. 837. EXPANSION OF PERIOD AND SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF 
                   SPONSORING AGENCY.

       (a) Sponsoring Agency Responsible for First 12 Months.--
       (1) In general.--Section 412(a)(7)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(a)(7)(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end following: ``Such responsibility shall 
     extend over the 12-month period beginning with the first 
     month in which such refugee has entered the United States and 
     shall include responsibility for health insurance.''.
       (2) Increase in grant amounts to reflect additional 
     responsibilities.--The grant amounts provided under section 
     412(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for refugees 
     who enter the United States on or after October 1, 1996, 
     shall be increased by such amount as may be necessary to 
     permit sponsoring agencies to assume the additional 
     responsibilities required under the amendment made by 
     paragraph (1), including providing greater case management 
     in order to facilitate refugees' promptly securing 
     employment and assimilating into the community.
       (b) Limitation on Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance.--
     Section 412(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1522(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during 
     the first 12 months of such 36-month period, during which the 
     sponsoring agency is responsible under subsection (a)(7)(C) 
     for meeting basic needs (including health insurance), only 
     elderly and disabled refugees are eligible for any Federal or 
     State program of cash or medical assistance.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to refugees who enter the United States on or 
     after October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 3. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT AID.

       (a) In General.--Section 412(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary of Education is authorized to make 
     grants, and enter into contracts, for payments to local 
     educational agencies which are identified as being heavily 
     and disproportionately impacted by groups of refugees that 
     are historically dependent on welfare or otherwise 
     historically more difficult to assimilate into the community.
       ``(B) The amount of payment to a local educational agency 
     shall be based on the number of refugees served by the agency 
     and the average per pupil costs in the State in which the 
     agency is located.
       ``(C) Funds provided under this paragraph may be used to 
     pay for educational services for refugees, including purposes 
     described in section 7307 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(D) The number of refugees shall be computed under this 
     paragraph without regard to the period of time in which the 
     refugees have been in the United States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1997.


              no. 35, to be offered by mr. bryant of texas

       Amend section 806 to read as follows:

     SEC. 806. CHANGES RELATING TO H-1B NONIMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Attestations.--
       (1) Compensation level.--Section 212(n)(1)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (A) in subclause (I), by inserting ``100 percent of'' 
     before ``the actual wage level'',
       (B) in subclause (II), by inserting ``100 percent of'' 
     before ``the prevailing wage level'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``is offering and 
     will offer during such period the same benefits and 
     additional compensation provided to similarly-employed 
     workers by the employer, and''.
       (2) Displacement of united states workers.--Section 
     212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E)(i) The employer--
       ``(I) has not, within the six-month period prior to the 
     filing of the application, laid off or otherwise displaced 
     any United States worker (as defined in clause (ii)), 
     including any worker obtained by contract, employee 
     leasing, temporary help agreement, or other similar basis, 
     in the occupational classification which is the subject of 
     the application and in which the nonimmigrant is intended 
     to be (or is) employed; and
       ``(II) within 90 days following the application, and within 
     90 days before and after the filing of a petition for any H-
     1B worker pursuant to that application, will not lay off or 
     otherwise displace any United States worker in the 
     occupational classification which is the subject of the 
     application and in which the nonimmigrant is intended to be 
     (or is) employed.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `United 
     States worker' means--
       ``(I) a citizen or national of the United States;
       ``(II) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; and
       ``(III) an alien authorized to be so employed by this Act 
     or by the Attorney General.
       ``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `laid 
     off', with respect to an employee, means the employee's loss 
     of employment, other than a discharge for cause or a 
     voluntary departure or voluntary retirement.''.
       (3) Recruitment of united states workers.--Section 
     212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraph (2), 
     is further amended by inserting after subparagraph (E) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) The employer, prior to filing the application, 
     attempted unsuccessfully and in good faith to recruit a 
     United States worker for the employment that will be done by 
     the alien whose services are being sought, using recruitment 
     procedures that meet industry-wide standards and offering 
     wages that are at least--
       ``(i) 100 percent of the actual wage level paid by the 
     employer to other individuals with similar experience and 
     qualifications for the specific employment in question, or
       ``(ii) 100 percent of the prevailing wage level for 
     individuals in such employment in the area of 
     employment, whichever is greater, based on the best 
     information available as of the date of filing the 
     application, and offering the same benefits and additional 
     compensation provided to similarly-employed workers by the 
     employer.''.
       (4) Dependence on h-1b workers.--Section 212(n)(1) (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraphs (2) and (3), is 
     further amended by inserting after subparagraph (F) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(G)(i) Whether the employer is dependent on H-B workers, 
     as defined in clause (ii) and in such regulations as the 
     Secretary of Labor may develop and promulgate in accordance 
     with this paragraph.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an employer is 
     `dependent on H-1B workers' if the employer--
       ``(I) has fewer than 41 full-time equivalent employees who 
     are employed in the United States and employs four or more 
     nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); or
       ``(II) has at least 41 full-time equivalent employees who 
     are employed in the United States, and employees 
     nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) in a 
     number that is equal to at least ten percent of the number of 
     such full-time equivalent employees.
       ``(iii) In applying this subparagraph, any group treated as 
     a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of 
     section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     treated as a single employer under this subparagraph. Aliens 
     with respect to whom the employer has filed such an 
     application shall be treated as employees, and counted as 
     nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), under this 
     paragraph.''.
       (5) Job contractors.--(A) Section 212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraphs (2) through (4), is 
     further amended by inserting after subparagraph (G) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) In the case of an employer that is a job contractor 
     (within the meaning of regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of Labor to carry out this subsection), the 
     contractor will not place any H-1B employee with another 
     employer unless such other employer has executed an 
     attestation that the employer is complying and will continue 
     to comply with the requirements of this paragraph in the same 
     manner as they apply to the job contractor.''.
       (B) Section 212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

[[Page H2372]]

       ``(E) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to 
     complaints respecting a failure of another employer to comply 
     with an attestation described in paragraph (1), that has been 
     made as the result of the requirement imposed on job 
     contractors under paragraph (1)(H), in the same manner that 
     they apply to complaints of a petitioner with respect to a 
     failure to comply with a condition described in paragraph (1) 
     by employers generally.''.
       (b) Special Rules for Employers Dependent on H-1B 
     Workers.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) No alien may be admitted or provided status as a 
     nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) if the 
     employer who is seeking the services of such alien has 
     attested under paragraph (1)(G) that the employer is 
     dependent on H-1B workers unless the following conditions are 
     met:
       ``(i) The Secretary of Labor has determined and certified 
     to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that the 
     employer who is seeking the services of such alien is taking 
     steps described in subparagraph (C) (including having taken 
     the step described in subparagraph (D)).
       ``(ii) The alien has demonstrated to the satisfaction of 
     the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that the 
     alien has a residence abroad which he has no intention of 
     abandoning.
       ``(B)(i) It is unlawful for a petitioning employer to 
     require, as a condition of employment by such employer, or 
     otherwise, that the fee described in subparagraph (A)(i), or 
     any part of it, be paid directly or indirectly by the alien 
     whose services are being sought.
       ``(ii) Any person or entity which is determined, after 
     notice and opportunity for an administrative hearing, to have 
     violated clause (i) shall be subject to a civil penalty of 
     $5,000 for each violation, to an administrative order 
     requiring the payment of the fee described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), and to disqualification for 1 year from petitioning 
     under section 204 or 214(c).
       ``(iii) Any amount determined to have been paid, directly 
     or indirectly, to the fund by the alien whose services were 
     sought, shall be repaid from the fund or by the employer, as 
     appropriate, to such alien.
       ``(C)(i) An employer who attests under paragraph (1)(G) to 
     dependence on H-1B workers shall take timely, significant, 
     and effective steps (including the step described in 
     subparagraph (D)) to recruit and retain sufficient United 
     States workers in order to remove as quickly as reasonably 
     possible the dependence of the employer on H-1B workers.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), steps under clause (i) 
     (in addition to the step described in subparagraph (D)) may 
     include the following:
       ``(I) Operating a program of training existing employees 
     who are United States workers in the skills needed by the 
     employer, or financing (or otherwise providing for) such 
     employees' participation in such a training program 
     elsewhere.
       ``(II) Providing career development programs and other 
     methods of facilitating United States workers in related 
     fields to acquire the skills needed by the employer.
       ``(III) Paying to employees who are United States workers 
     compensation that is equal in value to more than 105 percent 
     of what is paid to persons similarly employed in the 
     geographic area.

     The steps described in this clause shall not be considered to 
     be an exhaustive list of the significant steps that may be 
     taken to meet the requirements of clause (i).
       ``(iii) The steps described in clause (i) shall not be 
     considered effective if the employer has failed to decrease 
     by at least 10 percent in each of two consecutive years the 
     percentage of the employer's total number of employees in the 
     specific employment in which the H-1B workers are employed 
     which is represented by the number of H-1B workers.
       ``(iv) The Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed under section 204 or 214(c) with respect to an employer 
     that has not, in the prior two years, complied with the 
     requirements of this subparagraph (including subparagraph 
     (D)).
       ``(D)(i) The step described in this subparagraph is payment 
     of an amount consistent with clause (ii) by the petitioning 
     employer into a private fund which is certified by the 
     Secretary of Labor as dedicated to reducing the dependence of 
     employers in the industry of which the petitioning employer 
     is a part on new foreign workers and which expends amounts 
     received under this subclause consistent with clause (iii).
       ``(ii) An amount is consistent with this clause if it is a 
     percent of the value of the annual compensation (including 
     wages, benefits, and all other compensation) to be paid to 
     the alien whose services are being sought, equal to 5 percent 
     in the first year, 7.5 percent in the second year, and 10 
     percent in the third year.
       ``(iii) Amounts are expended consistent with this clause if 
     they are expended as follows:
       ``(I) One-half of the aggregate amounts are expended for 
     awarding scholarships and fellowships to students at colleges 
     and universities in the United States who are citizens or 
     lawful permanent residents of the United States majoring in, 
     or engaging in graduate study of, subjects of direct 
     relevance to the employers in the same industry as the 
     petitioning employer.
       ``(II) One-half of the aggregate amounts are expended for 
     enabling United States workers in the United States to obtain 
     training in occupations required by employers in the same 
     industry as the petitioning employer.''.
       (c) Increased Penalties for Misrepresentation.--Section 
     212(n)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C) in the matter before clause (i), by 
     striking ``(1)(C) or (1)(D)'' and inserting ``(1)(C), (1)(D), 
     (1)(E), or (1)(F) or to fulfill obligations imposed under 
     subsection (b) for employers defined in subsection (a)(4)'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000'';
       (3) by amending subparagraph (C)(ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
     filed with respect to that employer (or any employer who is a 
     successor in interest) under section 204 or 214(c) for aliens 
     to be employed by the employer--
       ``(I) during a period of at least 1 year in the case of the 
     first determination of a violation or any subsequent 
     determination of a violation occurring within 1 year of that 
     first violation or any subsequent determination of a 
     nonwillful violation occurring more than 1 year after the 
     first violation;
       ``(II) during a period of at least 5 years in the case of a 
     determination of a willful violation occurring more than 1 
     year after the first violation; and
       ``(III) at any time in the case of a determination of a 
     willful violation occurring more than 5 years after a 
     violation described in subclause (II).''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If a penalty under subparagraph (C) has been 
     imposed in the case of a willful violation, the Secretary 
     shall impose an additional civil monetary penalty on the 
     employer in an amount equalling twice the amount of 
     backpay.''.
       (d) Limitation on Period of Authorized Admission.--Section 
     214(g)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)'' after 
     ``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)''; and
       (2) by striking ``6 years'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``3 years''.
       (e) Requirement for Residence Abroad.--Section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is 
     amended by inserting ``who has a residence in a foreign 
     country which he has no intention of abandoning,'' after 
     ``212(j)(2),''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by this section shall take effect 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The amendments made by subsection (d) shall apply with 
     respect to offenses occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again I rise in strong support of this very fair and 
balanced rule. The issue of illegal immigration and legal immigration 
are among the most pressing that we will face in the 104th Congress. 
The Federal Government, through the legislative branch, is finally 
stepping up to the plate and acknowledging its responsibility to deal 
with the issue of illegal immigration, and we are calling for the very 
important reforms to legal immigration that the American people believe 
are essential.
  I said the legislative branch because, unfortunately, this 
administration has failed time and time again to deal with the issue of 
illegal immigration. As we looked at questions like proposition 187 in 
California, it was designed to end the magnet of government services 
drawing people illegally across the border. President Clinton fought 
hard against proposition 187. Fortunately the voters of California 
overwhelmingly passed proposition 187.
  When we look at the issue of the Federal Government reimbursing the 
States for the incarceration of illegal immigrant felons, what 
happened? President Clinton vetoed that legislation. When we look at a 
wide range of proposals, we have had to tackle this issue time and time 
again. Our friend down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has stood in the way 
of our attempts to deal responsibly with this.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, would my friend yield on that subject?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give my closing remarks.
  Mr. BEILENSON. They are the same as your opening remarks, I would say 
to my friend. I want to say this only in fairness. As the gentleman 
well knows, this is a bipartisan issue that many of us on both sides 
have been working hard together on. And I really think it is fair to 
point out that the gentleman's comment about the President, his 
position, is unfair and uncalled for.

                              {time}  1715

  This is the first administration in history that has tried to help us 
do something about illegal immigration. Neither he, nor we, have been 
entirely successful.

[[Page H2373]]

  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am simply stating the 
facts on what this administration has done. The President vetoed the 
bill that called for funding for reimbursement to the States for the 
incarceration of illegals. The President opposed proposition 187.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, and that money is 
flowing to California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] declines to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very kind remarks from my 
friend from Los Angeles.
  Mr. Speaker, I am stating the facts as to what this administration 
has done. The President stood here in his State of the Union message 
and said he is what my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] just said, the first President to stand up and deal with 
this issue. The fact of the matter is when he has had opportunities to 
deal with it he has not.
  Yes, the legislative branch in a bipartisan way is recognizing the 
importance of this, and this rule allows us to bring forward bipartisan 
amendments and amendments the Democrats offer. We will have 32 
amendments that will be considered.
  Now it is my hope that we will be able to pass this quickly over the 
next couple of days, get an agreement with the Senate on this and get 
it to the President, so he can sign this legislation and so that he 
will be able to be exactly what my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], claims that he is. Unfortunately he has not 
been that up to this point, but we are going to give him a chance to do 
it.
  Pass this rule, pass this very important legislation, so that we can 
turn the corner on these very important problems that we face.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 2202, the 
Immigration in the National Interest Act.
  Before the House begins debate on the immigration reform measure 
before us today, I wanted to set the stage for this debate and to put 
H.R. 2202 into a proper perspective.
  For many years the American people have expressed frustration that 
its leaders in Congress have failed to enact tough policies which would 
eliminate the high levels of illegal entry into our country.
  After the highly controversial amnesty of 1986 and today's feeling of 
deja vu all over again, the American people are demanding action.
  Sensing this national frustration and recognizing that one of the 
most critical challenges facing the 104th Congress was the passage of 
comprehensive and effective immigration reform legislation, Speaker 
Gingrich last year appointed me chairman of a Congressional Task Force 
on Immigration Reform.
  This 54-member, bipartisan task force was asked by the Speaker to 
review existing laws and practices to determine the extent of needed 
reform and to provide a report with recommendations to him by June 
1995.
  To expedite our work, the task force was organized into 6 working 
groups focusing on the most crucial areas of immigration policy--border 
enforcement, workplace enforcement, public benefits, political asylum, 
deportation, and visa overstays. I want to again thank the chairs of 
those groups, Representatives Royce, Deal, Goss, McCollum, Condit, and 
Goodlatte for all their hard work.
  In order to obtain a first-hand understanding of the problem, the 
task force reviewed the record of the Immigration Reform and Control 
Act of 1986, received testimony and reports from a wide range of 
individuals and organizations and conducted 3 fact-finding missions to 
San Diego, New York, and Miami. With an estimated 4 million persons 
illegally crossing the border each year the issues of border 
enforcement and enhancement, political asylum, and refugees were 
explored at these major ports of entry. The insights we gained during 
these trips were critical to our efforts to find effective solutions to 
the problem of illegal immigration. I would like to thank all of the 
members who accompanied me on those visits.
  Once the investigating and fact finding concluded the task force set 
out to produce a comprehensive and results oriented report.
  On June 29, the task force presented to the Speaker its findings and 
recommendations.
  Our Task Force concluded that the 1986 IRCA law had failed to deter 
illegal immigration; that the Federal Government did not provide the 
necessary resources to combat the problem; and that the incentives 
which bring people here illegally--employment, social welfare benefits, 
and free education--had to be seriously addressed or our success at 
ending this problem would be minimal.
  Our Task Force made 100 separate recommendations ranging from ways to 
enhance and enforce existing policies such as additional border patrol 
agents and new barriers, to proposing enactment of new, but forceful 
laws regarding criminal incarceration and verification.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know task forces come and task forces go and 
little is ever accomplished. We knew that our work to produce the 
report was just the beginning and that we had to translate our efforts 
into meaningful legislation.
  Working closely with Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith, 
who deserves so much praise for his efforts, the task force was 
successful in including over 25 of our recommendations in H.R. 2202 
when it was first introduced.
  By the time H.R. 2202 emerged from the subcommittee and full 
Judiciary Committee markups, over 80 percent of our recommendations 
were incorporated into what I consider a forceful bill.
  In conclusion my colleagues, America is often described as a land of 
immigrants. But it is also true that certain areas of this Nation have 
become a land of illegal immigrants. Despite the amnesty of 1986, it is 
estimated that between 4 and 6 million persons are in this country 
illegally with that number growing by 300,000 each year.
  America is also referred to as the ``land of opportunity.'' Again, 
that is true. But America is not the land of unlimited resources. The 
impact of illegal immigration is profound: It severely affects our 
Federal budget as well as those of our State and local governments. It 
contributes to high crime rates and is often linked to criminal 
activities such as narcotics trafficking. It displaces American 
workers. And most of all, it is in itself against the law.
  My colleagues, the legislation before you today is the product of a 
very intense and comprehensive review of our current immigration 
crisis. And believe me, we are in a crisis.
  The provisions of H.R. 2202 provide the legislative reforms and 
enforcement procedures necessary to accomplish our two principle 
objectives--discouraging and preventing illegal entry, and identifying, 
apprehending, and removing illegals already here.
  I am proud of the work of the task force which I chaired which has 
become such an integral part of H.R. 2202. I urge all Members to 
support this bill--it is legislation which is absolutely needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an Executive Summary of the 
Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform.

     Members of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform

       Chairman: Elton Gallegly (R-CA).
       Matt Salmon (R-AZ).
       Bob Stump (R-AZ).
       Duke Cunningham (R-CA).
       Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).
       Bill Baker (R-CA).
       Brian Bilbray (R-CA).
       John Doolittle (R-CA).
       Jane Harman (D-CA).
       Stephen Horn (R-CA).
       Jay Kim (R-CA).
       Carlos Moorhead (R-CA).
       George Radanovich (R-CA).
       Andrea Seastrand (R-CA).
       Porter Goss (R-FL).
       Charles Canady (R-FL).
       Cliff Stearns (R-FL).
       Nathan Deal (R-GA).
       Michael Flanagan (R-IL).
       Dan Burton (R-IN).
       Billy Tauzin (D-LA).
       Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV).
       Bill Martini (R-NJ).
       Jim Saxton (R-NJ).
       Charles Taylor (R-NC).
       John Duncan (R-TN).
       Bill Archer (R-TX).
       Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
       John Shadegg (R-AZ).
       Tony Beilenson (D-CA).
       Gary Condit (D-CA).
       Ed Royce (R-CA).
       Howard Berman (D-CA).
       Ken Calvert (R-CA).
       David Dreier (R-CA).
       Wally Herger (R-CA).
       Duncan Hunter (R-CA).
       Buck McKeon (R-CA).
       Ron Packard (R-CA).
       Frank Riggs (R-CA).
       Christopher Shays (R-CT).
       Karen Thurman (D-FL).
       Bill McCollum (R-FL).
       Mark Foley (R-FL).
       Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
       Thomas Ewing (R-IL).
       Jan Meyers (R-KS).
       Bill Emerson (R-MO).
       Joe Skeen (R-NM).
       Marge Roukema (R-NJ).
       Susan Molinari (R-NY).
       Frank Cremeans (R-OH).
       Ed Bryant (R-TN).
       Pete Geren (D-TX).


                  task force mission and organization

       The Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform was 
     created by Speaker Newt Gingrich at the beginning of the 
     104th session of Congress. It has become apparent to many 
     Americans that the federal government has failed in its 
     efforts to enforce existing laws, to enact new laws or adopt 
     effective policies to prevent illegal immigration.

[[Page H2374]]

       Speaker Gingrich created the Task Force to find solutions 
     to the on-going crisis of illegal immigration. Specifically, 
     the Speaker charged the Task Force with stopping all illegal 
     immigration at the border and finding the means to remove 
     illegal aliens who are already in the United States.
       Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-CA) was named Chairman of the 
     Task Force, which is comprised of fifty four Members of 
     Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. The Task Force was 
     asked to provide a report to the Speaker and relevant 
     congressional committees by June 30, 1995. Chairman Gallegly 
     was asked by the Speaker to develop recommendations to end 
     illegal entry and to encourage those residing in our country 
     illegally to return to their homeland.
       In preparing this report, the Task Force on Immigration 
     Reform reviewed existing laws; committee reports; testimony 
     before Committees of Congress; and various existing reports 
     prepared by a wide-range of organizations and individuals. To 
     enhance the expertise of the panel and obtain a first-hand 
     view of the problem, the Task Force conducted fact-finding 
     missions to San Diego, California; New York, New York; and 
     Miami, Florida.
       The Task Force was organized into six working groups to 
     focus on the most crucial areas of immigration policy that 
     need to be reformed: Border Enforcement, Chaired by 
     Congressman Royce (R-CA); Workplace Enforcement, Chaired by 
     Congressman Deal (R-GA); Public Benefits, Chaired by 
     Congressman Goss (R-FL); Political Asylum, Chaired by 
     Congressman McCollum (R-FL); Deportation, Chaired by 
     Congressman Condit (D-CA); and Visa Overstays, Chaired by 
     Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA). These working groups made 
     specific recommendations to the entire Task Force.
       This report represents the findings and recommendations 
     agreed to by the members of the Immigration Reform Task 
     Force, as requested by the Speaker. Members who were not in 
     agreement with recommendation of the Task Force were invited 
     to present dissenting views. They are included in Appendix II 
     of this report. The recommendations contained within this 
     report are to serve as the basis for administrative and 
     legislative reform of immigration policy during the 104th 
     Congress.


                           executive summary

                               Background

       America is often described as a ``land of immigrants''. 
     That is true, but it is also true that certain areas of the 
     United States have become a land of illegal immigrants. The 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates there are 
     over four million illegal aliens in the United States and the 
     number is growing by 300,000 to 400,000 per year. These 
     figures indicate a failure of the federal government to honor 
     its constitutional obligation to secure the nation's borders. 
     Only the federal government can pass, implement, and enforce 
     immigration laws.
       America is also often described as a ``land of 
     opportunity.'' While that is also true, our nation is not a 
     nation of unlimited resources. The impact of illegal 
     immigration is profound: it severely affects certain local, 
     state and federal budgets; it increases the crime rate and 
     threat to public safety; it displaces American workers; and 
     it is linked to narcotics trafficking. But most of all, 
     illegal immigration is in itself against the law.
       This report discusses the various impacts of illegal 
     immigration at federal, state and local levels. The Task 
     Force finds that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
     1986 (IRCA), the last major attempt by Congress to deal with 
     illegal immigration, has failed. Provisions to deter illegal 
     entry and to identify, apprehend and deport individuals 
     residing in the nation illegally have failed in large measure 
     due to the lack of resources provided to INS to do its job 
     and to do it well.

                            Recommendations

       The recommendations of the Task Force provide the 
     legislative reforms and enforcement procedures necessary to 
     accomplish the two principal objectives identified by the 
     Speaker--to prevent illegal entry and to identify, apprehend 
     and remove illegal aliens already in this country. The 
     Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform is confident 
     that if the recommendations set forth in this Report are 
     implemented, the federal government can accomplish both of 
     these goals and put an end to illegal immigration.

                 Preventing and Deterring Illegal Entry

       Restoring credibility to our immigration policy must start 
     with preventing illegal entry into the United States: 
     Tightening security at the border and imposing severe 
     consequences on those who attempt to illegally enter the 
     country. Lax law enforcement efforts have had grave public 
     safety, economic and social consequences on the U.S. side of 
     the border while causing death and misery to illegal aliens 
     attempting to cross into the United States.
       The key recommendations by the Task Force to improve 
     security at and between ports of entry include:
       Merge Customs enforcement with INS enforcement at ports of 
     entry to overcome management deficiencies and streamline 
     operations.
       Double the number of border patrol agents stationed at the 
     border to 10,000 in three years.
       Form a mobile border patrol response team so that INS is 
     prepared and can respond to emergency situations.
       Construct triple barrier fences and lighting at appropriate 
     urban areas on the border to assistance law enforcement.
       Expand pre-inspection in foreign airports to more easily 
     deny entry to persons with fraudulent documents or criminal 
     backgrounds.
       In order to effectively deter illegal immigration, laws 
     must be strengthened and enforced so there are consequences 
     for individuals who attempt to enter the country illegally. 
     The Task Force offers the following main recommendations in 
     this area:
       Impose a mandatory fine of no less than $50 and no more 
     than $250 for aliens who attempt to enter the country 
     illegally.
       For illegal aliens caught re-entering the country twice 
     within one year, the INS would have the ability to seize 
     assets.
       Mandatory prosecution and full sentencing of all illegal 
     aliens caught re-entering the United States over 2 times.
       Increase penalties for immigrant smuggling so that first 
     offenses carry fines and a minimum of three years 
     imprisonment, assessed on a per immigrant (rather than 
     transaction) basis; a doubling of penalties for employers who 
     knowingly use immigrant smugglers; and adding immigrant 
     smuggling to the list of crimes punishable under current 
     anti-racketeering laws (RICO).
       The most powerful ``pull'' factors are access to jobs and 
     public benefits. Taking away access to jobs and public 
     benefits will deter future illegal entry while acting as an 
     incentive for illegal aliens already in the country to return 
     to their country of citizenship. Task Force recommendations 
     in this area include:
       Implement an aggressive campaign against fraudulent 
     documents by creating an interstate database of birth and 
     death records and standardizing birth certificates.
       Increase criminal penalties for possession and production 
     of fraudulent documents from five years to fifteen years.
       Implement two pilot programs for worker verification: One 
     pilot would provide for a computerized registry using INS and 
     Social Security data and the other would provide for a 
     tamper-proof social security card.
       Increase penalties on businesses who hire illegal aliens.
       Deny all federal public benefits to illegal aliens except 
     emergency medical services.
       Provide states with the ability to provide or deny public 
     education for primary, secondary, and post-secondary 
     education to illegal aliens.
       Require illegal aliens who have received or are receiving 
     public benefits or services illegally to pay back the full 
     costs of these benefits and services, with penalties.
       Allow states to notify INS of the presence of illegal 
     aliens so that INS can apprehend and deport such individuals.
       End birthright citizenship to children of illegal 
     immigrants.

        Removal of illegal aliens residing in the United States

       The United States must have the will and capability to 
     remove illegal immigrants. An important part of the Task 
     Force's strategy involves the deportation and exclusion of 
     illegal aliens, as well as reform of the political asylum 
     process. INS must be equipped, both in terms of resources and 
     legislative reforms, to detain and physically remove aliens 
     who have forfeited the right to be in this country.
       The key recommendations by the Task Force to exclude or 
     deport aliens who are violating our laws are:
       Increase INS detention space to at least 9,000 beds.
       Use closed military bases for the detention of inadmissable 
     or deportable aliens.
       Provide for expedited exclusion at ports of entry to 
     prevent the entry of illegal aliens.
       Streamline deportation process to reduce time to process 
     cases.
       Keep deportation orders in force for deported aliens who 
     re-enter the United States illegally to more efficiently use 
     INS' limited resources.
       Extend minimum deportation period from five to ten years 
     for illegal aliens.
       Designate aliens who enter without INS inspection as 
     excludable, placing them in the same position as aliens who 
     attempt to enter illegally at a port of entry.
       Require detention of all criminal aliens.
       Provide for Federal reimbursement to state and local 
     governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.
       Mandate INS to take custody of criminal aliens on probation 
     and parole before they are released onto our streets.
       Modify prisoner transfer treaty programs to save taxpayers' 
     dollars.
       Deport criminal aliens to the interior of their native 
     country to prevent immediate re-entry.
       Significantly increase resources to prosecute deported 
     felons who illegally re-enter our country.
       Develop computerized system to identify visa overstays to 
     increase deportations of long-term violators.
       Deny long-term visa overstays from receiving future visas.
       Tighten visa issuance procedures in problem countries.
       Eliminate consulate shopping for persons seeking visas to 
     improve screening of visa applicants.
       Restrict visa waiver program to countries with low visa 
     overstay rates.
       This strategy also includes long overdue political asylum 
     reforms. Simply put, the abuse in this system has to be 
     stopped. Persons with valid claims who are fleeing 
     persecution abroad need to be processed and approved quickly. 
     On the other hand, those

[[Page H2375]]

     with fraudulent applications need to be adjudicated and 
     returned overseas without tying up our courts for years. Key 
     recommendations are:
       Provide procedures for expedited exclusion of persons 
     claiming asylum.
       Streamline present exclusion procedures and decrease length 
     of asylum process.
       Deny political asylum to alien terrorists.
       Establish proactive interdiction programs to respond more 
     effectively to immigration emergencies.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule.
  I had filed two important amendments with the Rules Committee be made 
in order. Although these amendments have drawn bipartisan support in 
this House, and far reaching support from religious organizations, such 
as the U.S. Catholic Conference and major Jewish and Protestant 
organizations, the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow debate on 
either of them.
  This decision is especially troubling because, unless these major 
flaws in this bill are corrected, this country will inevitably deport 
those fleeing persecution back into the hands of their oppressors.
  The first amendment I proposed would have ensured that individuals 
subject to deportation as accused terrorists would have a reasonable 
opportunity to answer those charges, with appropriate due process. 
Under the bill as reported, an alien, including a permanent resident 
who may have resided in the United States for decades, accused of being 
a terrorist may be removed based on classified evidence that the 
accused may not review. In fact, the accused need not be provided with 
so much as a declassified summary of the information.
  Moreover, the bill provides for a special panel of attorneys who 
would be appointed by the court and precleared to review the classified 
information, but who could not discuss that vital evidence with their 
clients. All such evidence would be reviewed by the court in camera and 
ex parte. While deporting alien terrorists must remain a high priority, 
experience demonstrates that there is no need to give the Attorney 
General the unchecked power to declare individuals as terrorists and 
deport them.
  My amendment follows the approach taken by the Congress in enacting 
the Classified Information Procedures Act [CIPA], a statute that has 
worked well in criminal cases which have a higher burden of proof. In 
fact, the Judiciary Committee received no evidence that CIPA had not 
worked well in practice. Under CIPA, if the Government believes some of 
the evidence is too sensitive to reveal, it may present the accused 
with a summary of the evidence that would provide the accused with the 
same ability to prepare a defense. If no such summary is possible, that 
information may not be used in the case.
  Without this amendment, H.R. 2202 will establish the modern 
equivalent of the ``Star Chamber'' court, in which the accused could be 
deported without the opportunity to know the charges or evidence and 
with no realistic opportunity to answer those charges.
  My second amendment would have modified the procedure for expedited 
exclusion of individuals arriving at the border without appropriate 
documents. The bill presumptively considers such individuals to be 
presumptively engaged in immigration fraud and allows their exclusion 
merely on the unreviewed judgment of an immigration officer and his or 
her supervisor. That false presumption actually gets the case backward. 
It is precisely those who are fleeing persecution who are least likely 
to receive proper travel papers, whether they are fleeing coercive 
population policies in China or religious persecution in Iran. Their 
fate should not be left to the unreviewed judgment of an immigration 
officer and his or her supervisor.
  My amendment would have ensured that fraud is controlled without this 
Nation sending individuals who are truly fleeing persecution into the 
hands of their persecutors.
  I believe that, while all Americans want us to do everything we can 
to ensure that our immigration laws are respected and enforced, they do 
not want us to violate individual rights in ways that would send 
innocent people back into the hands of repressive governments.
  Many of our families arrived on these shores seeking a better life of 
freedom and justice. We violate that basic American birthright if we 
pass these draconian and unnecessary provisions. At the very least, 
this House deserves the opportunity to examine whether there is a 
better, more just way to achieve the important end of ensuring the 
strict enforcement of our immigration laws.
  I urge the rejection of this closed rule.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking minority member on 
the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration. I am an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. I 
have supported the bill and worked to improve it throughout the 
legislative process to date.
  I did not expect to have every amendment I might have wanted to offer 
on the House floor to be made in order, so I only filed three. I told 
the members of the Rules Committee that I considered two to be crucial. 
Only one was made in order under this rule. Inexplicably, my amendment 
to protect American jobs for American workers was not.
  While the H-1B language in H.R. 2202 makes some improvement, it does 
not go far enough. Under the bill skilled American workers still can be 
laid off and replaced with H-1B nonimmigrant foreign workers to do 
their jobs. It was contrary to good public policy when it was enacted--
and I voted against it--and it is contrary to good public policy now.
  My amendment will protect skilled U.S. workers from being laid off to 
benefit foreign workers. It will require employers to recruit U.S. 
workers who have the skills for these jobs. it will require employers 
to help train U.S. workers who want these jobs. And, it will give U.S. 
workers a better shot at getting those jobs. H.R. 2202 does none of 
this.
  And, don't be fooled by assertions that my amendment will somehow 
cause America to lose its competitive edge, that we won't be able to 
get the best and the brightest brains from around the world. The 
Department of Labor reports that 50 percent of all H-1B workers brought 
in are physical and respiratory therapists and that most of the jobs 
taken by H-1B foreign workers pay less than $50,000.
  Not one single American job should be jeopardized by U.S. immigration 
policy. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
my amendment to protect American workers can be considered by the full 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of adoption of the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 152, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               YEAS--233

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff

[[Page H2376]]


     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thurman
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Bishop
     Bryant (TN)
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Costello
     Dellums
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Gutierrez
     Hayes
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Latham
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Maloney
     Martini
     Meehan
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Olver
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Rush
     Stokes
     Talent
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Walker
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  1736

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Radanovich for, with Mr. Filner against.

  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. SEASTRAND changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 68, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 68. I was 
unavoidably detained due to a late flight on my return from Iowa. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 68.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 68 on the previous 
question to House Resolution 384, I was unavoidably detained because of 
a flight being late. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 68 on 
the previous question to House Resolution 384, I was on the same flight 
and detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________