[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.
____________________