[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2475-H2505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 384 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2202.

                                  1142


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. 
Bonilla in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, March 
19, 1996, amendment No. 5, printed in part 2 of House Report 104-483, 
offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate], had been disposed 
of.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order:
  Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson]; amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 120, 
noes 291, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--120

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--291

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Collins (IL)
     Durbin
     Hayes
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Meehan
     Minge
     Moakley
     Olver
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Smith (NJ)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Walker
     Waters

                                  1203

  Messrs. BONO, THORNBERRY, BARR of Georgia, and HOLDEN, Mrs. MALONEY, 
and Messrs. BALDACCI, WARD, and LATHAM changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Ms. PELOSI, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. FLAKE, 
NEAL of Massachusetts, GENE GREEN of Texas, and KENNEDY of Rhode Island 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed further proceedings.


                   amendment offered by mr. mccollum

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H2476]]

                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 221, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--191

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Obey
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Collins (IL)
     Durbin
     Hayes
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Meehan
     Minge
     Moakley
     Olver
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rose
     Rush
     Stokes
     Studds
     Waters

                                  1215

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Radanovich for, with Mr. Porter against.

  Messrs. NETHERCUTT, JEFFERSON, CHRYSLER, GONZALEZ, and TOWNS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Ms. McKINNEY, and Mr. NADLER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6.
  Amendment No. 6 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 104-483.


                 amendment no. 7 offered by mr. latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Latham: At the end of subtitle D 
     of title III insert the following new section:

     SEC. 365. AUTHORITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE IN DEPORTATION.

       Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding after subsection (e) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) The Attorney General may deputize any law 
     enforcement officer of any State or of any political 
     subdivision of any State to seek, apprehend, detain, and 
     commit to the custody of an officer of the Department of 
     Justice aliens subject to a final order of deportation or 
     exclusion under this Act, if--
       ``(1) actions pursuant to such deputization are subject to 
     the direction and supervision of an officer of the Department 
     of Justice;
       ``(2) any deputization, its duration, an identification of 
     the supervising officer of the Department of Justice, and the 
     specific powers, privileges, and duties to be performed or 
     exercised are set forth in writing; and
       ``(3) the Governor of the State, or the chief elected or 
     appointed official of a political subdivision (as may be 
     appropriate) consents to the deputization.
       ``(2) No deputization under this subsection shall entitle 
     any State, political subdivision, or individual to any 
     compensation or reimbursement from the United States, except 
     where the amount thereof and the entitlement thereto are set 
     forth in the written deputization or where otherwise 
     explicitly provided by law.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Latham] and a Member opposed will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Latham.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment in remembrance of 
Justin Younie, the 19-year-old son of Rick and Vicki Younie, who was 
brutally attacked, stabbed, and murdered in the small Iowa town in 
which he was born and raised. Justin's killers were illegal aliens to 
our country, our State, and to the quiet community of Hawarden.
  While Justin's murder is the real tragedy from that night, many in 
the community were further incensed that the crime was committed by 
illegal aliens. In fact, one of his attackers had been through the 
deportation process with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Just as in Hawarden, many communities are fighting an increasing 
battle of illegal immigration. Local law enforcement agencies are 
understandably frustrated by this problem because there is legally 
nothing that a State or local law enforcement agency can do about a 
violation of immigration law other than calling the local INS officer 
to report the case.
  State and local officials are further frustrated when a deported 
illegal alien reappears in their jurisdiction. The only recourse in 
this scenario is to again call the INS office and wait.

[[Page H2477]]

  I offer this amendment today to empower State and local law 
enforcement agencies with the ability to actively fight the problem of 
illegal immigration.
  My amendment will allow State and local law enforcement agencies to 
enter into voluntary agreements with the Justice Department to give 
them the authority to seek, apprehend, and detain those illegal aliens 
who are subject to an order of deportation.
  By allowing--not mandating--State and local agencies to join the 
fight against illegal immigration, we will begin to slow down the 
revolving door at our country's borders, and will hopefully prevent 
tragedies such as the incident in Hawarden, IA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by saying that for anyone who has 
lost a member of the family as a result of some crime or has at the 
hands of someone committing criminal activity suffered harm or injury, 
let us all say that we are in grief for that individual and that we 
should express grave concern and take action to ensure that those types 
of criminal activities do not occur and that people are not hurt or 
injured.
  There is nothing wrong with trying to use our law enforcement 
capacity, whether at a Federal, State or local level, to try to ensure 
that our citizens are able to live in safety and in harmony. But this 
amendment takes a step beyond that, and it does not just talk about 
making sure we have proper, safeguarded law enforcement activity. It 
actually breaks the ground of what we have had in this entire country 
of jurisdictional responsibility for law enforcement in the hands of 
our various law enforcement authorities.
  Your never find the FBI, you never find the border patrol, trying to 
give someone a speeding ticket for speeding. You do not find the 
California Highway Patrol or any other State's highway patrol trying to 
enforce national immigration law. And that is because those are 
separate and distinct activities.
  A California Highway Patrol officer is trained to know what the laws 
on the roads are, to be able to handle situations that occur on the 
road. A police officer is trained to deal with all the different types 
of activities he or she may encounter on the streets of his particular 
city.
  A law enforcement officer with the border patrol is taught and 
trained on how to conduct himself and to be able to deal with the 
situation along the border and in the interior of our country when it 
comes to apprehending those who might be in this country without 
permission or those who are violating our Federal immigration laws.
  But to now break those clear lines of division would have us allow a 
local law enforcement officer do the work of a Federal law enforcement 
officer. This amendment does not say that the local law enforcement 
officer has been trained on the laws of border enforcement or that that 
individual has been trained to deal with activities involving border 
enforcement or immigration law enforcement.
  It is something that for the longest time this country has tried to 
avoid. Even recently in the last couple of years, we have seen how even 
Members of Congress here have expressed grave concern in expanding the 
powers of certain agencies, whether it is the ATF or the FBI or any 
other law enforcement agency. We even see at a local level how our 
police commissions and other agencies that oversee our law enforcement 
authorities are trying to ensure that, one, they have the capacity and 
resources to conduct the activity in their jurisdiction as law 
enforcement authorities, and, two, that they remain within the bounds 
of their jurisdiction.

  This amendment breaches that jurisdictional limit. I believe it will 
lead to situations where we have people who are not trained to do the 
work doing the work beyond their capacity as local law enforcement 
trying to do Federal enforcement activities.
  I must say as someone who is a member of an ethnic minority, it 
disturbs me when I hear that we will now have people who are not 
trained to do a specific type of law enforcement work out there doing 
something which has in the past caused harm, injury, and discrimination 
against certain classes of individuals.
  I would urge Members to look closely at the amendment. I think it is 
well-intentioned. I think the gentleman is trying to deal with a 
situation out there in our country. But I do not believe at this stage 
we should be reaching the stage where we breach those very clear lines 
that have been delegated to our different law enforcement authorities 
from the Federal Government down to the local government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments. This 
actually empowers the local law enforcement agencies. They are the ones 
who are out there every day in the small communities in Iowa. They know 
who is there illegally, under deportation orders, that they are 
criminals, and they are in the front line of law enforcement. That is 
why I think this is not an extension of the Federal control, but it is 
empowering us locally. That is why it is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham]. I offered a similar 
amendment last week in the House to the effective death penalty bill, 
and it was adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, if our State is illustrative of anything, it is that 
illegal immigration is seriously out of control. Consider these 
statistics that the California Department of Justice has provided. 
Ninety-eight percent of all illegal immigrants who are deported for 
committing felonies in California will eventually return to the State. 
Of that number, 40 percent will commit crimes again.
  I pointed out last week and I just observe again, we are seeing this 
in rural America as well. Indeed, the first drive-by shooting in a 
rural town in my district was committed by an illegal alien. He was 
convicted and served his sentence, and within one week after he was 
deported, he was back in the country.
  Now, it turned out that he committed another crime. Interestingly 
enough, the local law enforcement officer had apprehended this 
individual before the second crime was committed, but he could not hang 
onto him because, and I find this amazing, I do not think most people 
really realize this, even if you are a criminal alien not entitled to 
be in the United States, if a local law enforcement officer discovers 
that, the Federal law does not allow this individual to be held. All 
the local law enforcement can do is call up the INS and notify them 
that they have observed this individual in the area and say where they 
saw him, and that is it.

  Well, the INS is overwhelmed right now, Mr. Chairman, with problems 
related to illegal immigrants. It seems absurd to me that the Federal 
law precludes law enforcement from dealing with this situation when 
they discover it.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], which I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of, will give them the tools that they need to 
deal with this. It does not require anything. Only if the local law 
enforcement wishes to assume this responsibility may they under the 
provisions of this bill.
  But the fact of the matter is in the illustration that I gave, had 
local law enforcement had this power thanks to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], then this individual could have been 
detained right then when they found him, instead of being released, 
where he then went and committed a new crime. We all know that this 
country is awash in crime as it is, and maybe this points to one of the 
reasons, because our laws in certain respects are not as strong as they 
ought to be.
  So I think this is an amendment whose time has really arrived, and I 
would strongly urge support for the Latham-Doolittle amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

[[Page H2478]]

  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time, and especially for his leadership on this issue. I am 
trying to understand this amendment, and certainly I think all of us 
come to this issue of immigration and the question of illegal and legal 
immigration hopefully with somewhat of an open mind, but with a sense 
of fairness.

                                  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman who just spoke cite crime 
statistics. I would like us to look at that, because we are told and we 
have documentation by the Justice Department, FBI, and many local law 
enforcements that indicate that over the last couple of years, crime 
has gone down. One of the reasons it has gone down, of course, is the 
proponents and supporters of community-oriented policing, which 
combines prevention along with law enforcement. It means that our law 
enforcement officers on the local level can be focused on dealing with 
local crime issues and becoming part of the community.
  I think this amendment may have good intentions, but it certainly is 
paved wrongly and the road goes in the completely wrong direction. This 
is not the direction we should send local law enforcement, to make them 
the entrappers of individuals who may look different or speak a 
different language. They have worked very well with the INS, the Border 
Patrol, and others in the local communities. But it is perfectly 
obvious that if anyone in a local jurisdiction is committing a crime, 
that local law enforcement can, in fact, act upon that crime. They can 
arrest that person. They can take him down to jail. The person can be 
indicted. That crime can be stopped.
  Mr. Chairman, why should we engage local law enforcement officers in 
jobs they really do not want to be involved in? They have the 
responsibility of bringing law and order to a community, safety to a 
community. They need to do that job. It is the same unnecessary burden 
that we might put on teachers in our public school system for them to 
point out some young child who may be an illegal as they may perceive 
it.
  We force them to do a job that is not theirs. This amendment forces 
local law enforcement, sheriffs and constables and police officers, to 
do a job that is not theirs.
  Mr. Chairman, as someone who has participated in local government and 
worked extensively with our local law enforcement, supporting them 
through safety measures in terms of real gun laws that protect them 
against assault weapons, someone who has been a strong proponent of 
community-oriented policing and prevention activities, I know how 
important it is for local law enforcement to establish trust with all 
of the ethnic and minority groups and communities in their cities. In 
particular, our large cities, like a Houston that has a multicultural 
community, it is important that those communities who speak a different 
language realize that when the police come, they are there to enforce 
the universal laws and prevent crime against those citizens, and anyone 
who is doing a crime will be arrested.
  It is dangerous to put immigration authority in these local law 
enforcements so that they cannot do their real job, which is to protect 
those communities and protect the larger communities and to engender 
trust in the community so that they can get the job done. I appreciate 
the direction of the gentleman, however, I think it is the wrong 
direction. I think we are doing wrong on behalf of our local law 
enforcement to burden them with this responsibility, and I think we are 
also endangering our ethnic and minority communities across the Nation 
who want to work cooperatively with the police.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I ask Members not to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just sort of comment to 
the fact that I support this amendment. As somebody who has spent 20 
years supervising law enforcement agencies, not just in local 
government but local government along the border, I must remind my dear 
colleague from Texas that this amendment does not make it mandatory 
that local law enforcement enforce the immigration aspect of the crimes 
that are being committed by illegal entering. It is voluntary.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues from both California and 
Texas we are talking about the commission of a crime. When somebody 
violates immigration law and comes into this country, they are not 
illegal only when they break another civil law, a local law 
enforcement, they are illegal because they have broken the laws of the 
United States.
  It is, I just have to say, sort of interesting the fact that I do not 
know if my colleague from Texas or California are aware of things like 
the San Diego border task force, which is San Diego police officers 
patrolling the international border and getting in fire fights, gun 
fights with smugglers and other illegal activity that is related to the 
alien problem. I am not so sure that they have talked to the people 
that live along the frontier of this country and watch people jumping 
fences, violating their jurisdiction, but only being told that, well, 
this is a Federal issue and so local government should not be involved 
in the issue.
  In fact, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that some of these people may be 
interested in the fact that 2 years ago, while there was flooding along 
the Tijuana River Valley that citizens were told that their local law 
enforcement should not intervene and stop illegal aliens from walking 
through their areas while looting was going on because somehow this 
might violate the jurisdictional lines between the two.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to my colleague from California 
this is not an issue of the Federal Government encroaching out into the 
community. This is not an expansion of Federal jurisdiction. We are 
talking about the fact of doing what we talk about here, allowing the 
local community to contribute to the Federal effort. That is all we are 
saying, allow them to do it, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the 
amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  In response to my friend from California, let me just say that the 
situation, the example that he cites, is one where currently we have 
the authority to do what is necessary to stop any looting activity, any 
violations that may occur in the neighborhoods of his community, my 
community, any community. We do not need to have the INS go out to any 
community if someone is looting a neighborhood. We do not need to have 
the INS go out if there is an individual that is breaking curfews. All 
those things are currently taken care of. What we are saying, however, 
is that we have to be very careful in having law enforcement try to do 
the work of the INS and Border Patrol officers.
  If I can just cite for my colleagues' consideration at some point the 
reports by the Commission on Civil Rights, which has said that in the 
past there have been occasions when some very aggressive, zealous local 
law enforcement officials have actually detained people because of 
their foreign-looking appearance or because of their racial or ethnic 
appearance.
  We have had instances where local law enforcement officials, 
believing they have the authority, have taken some of these measures 
without that authority and in fact caused the violation of certain 
rights that individuals have in maintaining their own privacy and being 
free of government intrusion, especially if they have committed no 
wrong. Just because one may look foreign does not mean one should be 
apprehended or stopped.
  Those are some of the concerns that a number of communities have 
expressed with this legislation. Also, local law enforcement has 
expressed the concern of having the Federal Government allow the local 
governments to go into that particular field as well.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns. I wish my 
colleague from California was worried about the civil liberties of the 
people

[[Page H2479]]

that are stopped by Federal agents, 70, 100 miles from the border, 
having their cars searched and being reviewed basically because Federal 
agents are now in our neighborhoods stopping all Americans. Frankly, if 
someone is going to stop and take a look at the immigration status, I 
think there is a level of comfort that, if we are going to have Federal 
agents doing it, it is not an intrusion on the community to allow, not 
to mandate but to allow local government to do the same.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
presented by my fellow Iowan. The Latham amendment would give State and 
local law enforcement officials authority to detain aliens violating 
deportation requirements in order to put them in the hands of proper 
INS authorities. This is in response to the brutal murder of Justin 
Younie in January 1995. Two illegal aliens stabbed Justin to death at a 
party in Hawarden, IA. These same individuals were also responsible for 
attacks on four others.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the 
Younie family and the people of Hawarden for their terrible loss.
  When we discuss the immigration problem plaguing our country, we 
immediately think of California, Florida, and Texas. What many may not 
realize is that this crisis also affects America's heartland. It is not 
just Miami, Los Angeles, and New York, but it is also Des Moines, 
Perry, and Hawarden.
  Iowa is currently one of only seven States without an INS office.
  For this reason, over the past year, I have been working diligently 
to get an INS office located in Des Moines, a centrally located office 
to help combat problems like this. A single INS office located in 
Nebraska serves all of Nebraska and Iowa. Federal immigration officials 
admit they are swamped and they cannot keep up with the increasing 
number of undocumented workers in these States. The director of 
Nebraska-Iowa INS says the number of noncitizens committing crimes is 
increasing at, quote, ``an alarming rate,'' about 10 percent a year 
over the last 10 years.

  One of the primary causes of this influx is that displaced migrant 
farm workers have found numerous employment opportunities in 
agribusiness located in Iowa. Jobs at Iowa meat packing plants continue 
to attract large numbers of migrant workers.
  Mr. Chairman, the Latham amendment helps address the problem of the 
paucity of INS officers by giving local law enforcement officers 
authority to apprehend illegal aliens when the INS just is not there to 
do it.
  For the Younie family, Iowa and our Nation, I urge Members to support 
the Latham amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, let us get down to brass tacks. What is 
this debate really about? There are those of us that really want to 
solve illegal immigration problems, and there are those that would like 
to keep it watered down and make sure that we do not have the resources 
to deal with illegal aliens. They would rather put their head in the 
sand than confront this vital issue to America.
  We have been passing the costs on for illegal immigration down to 
State and local governments for years and years and years through our 
Federal mandates in requiring that certain services be provided for 
illegal aliens. Now that they have an opportunity to help us to get our 
hands, our arms around the problem, they want to say no. We are not 
mandating on to the States or the local community. We are simply giving 
them the opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, what this gets down to is that the other side would 
rather put its confidence in the Federal arm of law enforcement rather 
than the local arm, because they do not have confidence in the local 
arm of law enforcement. They believe that they are incompetent, that 
they cannot get the job done. We believe that local governments do a 
much more effective job. We would rather have them than those that 
brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco handling these types of affairs rather 
than the Federal Government ultimately. I think it would be a good 
idea.

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the State and local 
government officials to apprehend and detain illegal aliens who are 
caught violating deportation orders. Currently these officials are 
allowed to notify the INS but not anything else. INS just does not have 
the manpower to apprehend the illegals that are flooding the border 
States, like Arizona, and would welcome the help from local law 
enforcement.
  I have a citizen's task force composed of the chiefs of police from 
all over our valley of Phoenix, and they wholeheartedly endorse this 
measure. They believe they are competent law enforcement officials, and 
this would not run rampant over people's rights, as I think the other 
side who has no confidence in local law enforcement would allege.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the gentleman would demean the 
debate here by saying that there are some of us who would rather see 
criminal activity run rampant and that we are not just as concerned as 
he is about making sure that everyone has a chance to live and work in 
safety. No one here wishes to have anyone worry about being assaulted 
or anything else having to do with criminal conduct.
  What we are saying is that there are some legitimate concerns here. 
There are people that I know who have been apprehended by law 
enforcement for improper reasons, and I want to make sure that that 
never happens. Do I have faith in the local law enforcement agencies 
that I know? Of course I do. I work very closely with them, both the 
Los Angeles Police Department, the LA County Sheriff's Department. They 
are very helpful in many activities that we work on together within our 
community.
  To say that we are not interested in trying to reduce crime and to 
say that we do not trust our local law enforcement agencies, I think, 
just demeans this debate and gets us away from the substance of what we 
are trying to say.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. This may have been raised already, and if it is, I 
apologize. I see a potential for a problem in this in that we certainly 
do not want to discourage victims of violent crimes or robberies or 
burglaries from reporting their conduct to the police. I am a little 
concerned, if this were fully implemented, it may end up having serious 
crimes not reported, which will lead to criminals not being 
apprehended. So I just wanted to raise that particular issue, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                  1245

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have worked very closely with the 
gentleman from California, and I know that he does not support criminal 
activities and those kinds of things, and what I would say is that we 
are not having an attempt for police departments to take over the job 
of INS and Border Patrol. But I think, just like in the military, where 
the Air Force, and the Navy, and the Army, and the Marine Corps not 
working together, there is a detriment to what their goals are, and 
that is national security. The more that we can encourage the 
interoperability of INS, of DEA, of our police departments, and all our 
forces that are dedicated to securing our borders to making sure that 
crime is not illicit and running rampant in the streets, to stop the 
muling of drugs, we need to work together.
  Let me give my colleagues a couple of classic examples. Down in San 
Diego I had an apartment house down in South Bay, San Diego, not even 
my district, but I go along on the San Diego police department drug 
ride-alongs. About 90 percent of the apartment was illegals, and INS 
would go in there and bust some of them, and they would get word, they 
would move out, they would not be there, and we knew that they were 
illegals. But yet San Diego P.D. could not go in there and bust those 
people.

[[Page H2480]]

  We went into the place, and I mean it was so bad, the conditions, 
that it was unbelievable; I mean the filth, the debris, and I could see 
needles where druggers were using it. We would see a mattress where 
prostitutes were using it, and in the corner was a teddy bear, and yet 
we could not go in. There were violations, and it seemed like there 
were more rules to keep us from resolving the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the problem we are talking about, and we see 
potential problems.
  We are fighting in California a monumental problem with illegal 
immigration, and we are trying to stop that. We look at the drugs 
coming across the flow, and on those drug ride-alongs, 99 percent have 
involved illegal aliens. American citizens that are dealing in drugs 
know that if an illegal is caught, then there is not as much penalty 
that is going to go to them versus if they are an American citizen.
  So they use, I mean they use these people to sell the drugs, and they 
get busted, and it is a disaster in what is happening.
  In shipping, we have ships coming in, and the preferred method of 
getting drugs now into the United States is with cargo because we 
cannot check all those containers. And we have police department, we 
have INS, we have Border Patrol with their dogs, all going through the 
containers from shipping. Now, this is not just our southern border, 
but coming in from all different countries, and they are working hand 
in hand to combat the problems that we have.

  My wife is a principal in Encinitas, and we have many of the illegals 
living in the canyons, and yet the police department cannot go in there 
and bust or arrest these individuals. They are coming up at night, they 
are defecating on the lawn, they are using the water systems because 
they do not have showers down in the canyons, and the teachers are 
literally afraid to go into the classrooms at night and work with 
people in the school system.
  If we cannot put and tie and make it legal to where all law 
enforcement agencies work together in an interoperability and not 
violate the rights of different people, I think that we can move in the 
same direction.
  I wish I could get, as my colleagues know, the support of my friend 
from California because I know he is genuine in his interests. But we 
feel that every time we bring something like this up, that there is 
always a reason not to do it, and proposition 187, people from the 
gentleman's side, it is drastic, but we have a drastic problem and we 
are trying to solve it.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's words because 
I do wish to be able to work with him, and we have been able to work 
together on other issues. The problem we have----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired. Does the gentleman from Iowa yield further 
time?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield another minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the problem some of us have with the 
amendment, though, is it goes beyond what the gentleman just spent 
several minutes discussing, and that is the ability to go in there and 
detain and arrest someone who they know has committed wrongful 
activity, but actually allows now for law enforcement, local law 
enforcement, to seek out.
  Now, my concern is how do we seek out someone who we believe might be 
an undocumented immigrant? How is a local law enforcement agency, do 
they have the information, unless they have been fully advised by the 
Immigration Service that they are doing some of these things?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my short time, Mr. Chairman, what we are 
asking is that our police department be allowed to work with Border 
Patrol, be able to work with INS, be able to work with those agencies 
so when they go in and help, that they can work in interoperability to 
resolve the problem. When there is violation of the law, we got 
somebody there that can really take care of it, and I do not believe 
that is asking too much. I thank the gentleman for the extra time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself a further minute.
  Again, in response to what the gentleman said, if, in fact, there are 
these apartment complexes where there are needles laying around, if 
there is debris and filth, those are violations of our current State or 
local laws which would permit any local law enforcement agency to go in 
there, if for no other reason than to investigate. They would have the 
powers to do that. We would not have to wait for the INS to go in there 
and to do that.
  So we have to be clear. And many times someone viewing this debate 
would say, well, why do these folks not want to let local law 
enforcement agencies uphold the law? That is not the case. Local law 
enforcement agencies currently have that authority.
  What we are saying is, careful, we set up these boundaries for a 
reason. We should not break them unless we have compelling reasons. And 
when we have an amendment that says do not just help the INS apprehend 
people who are here as undocumented, but go out there and actively seek 
them out, that is a big concern. Because my father probably looks like 
someone who would be sought out, and I wonder what it would take to 
have a local law enforcement official say I better stop him.
  And at the end of this debate I hope to be able to bring up one final 
example.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Latham] that he has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] that he has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time that I 
am aware of, and I will reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would also advise that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] does have the privilege of closing.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], and his staff at the Subcommittee on 
Immigration Claims for all their assistance in drafting this amendment.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] for his continued support in efforts to empower local law 
enforcement in the fight against illegal immigration.
  I would also like to thank my staff, and especially Kate Coler, for 
working so hard on this amendment.
  I just want to reemphasize this is a voluntary program where the INS, 
on a voluntary basis, with local law enforcement, or the State, join in 
an agreement, and whatever controls or restrictions put in that 
agreement, it is up to that agreement.
  All we are saying is that the local law enforcement agencies should 
have an opportunity to work with INS, to be their eyes and ears out in 
the local communities. These people are on the frontline. These people 
are the ones who know if someone has violated a deportation order and 
is in their community under a criminal act by violating that order, and 
they should, in fact, have the power to detail, arrest, and transport 
that individual to INS so that they can be deported.
  Quite honestly, we have to empower our local law enforcement. We 
cannot maintain this big control from a Washington base here, and this 
is what we should be looking forward to, have more people at the local 
level empowered to protect their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I believe I began with this debate, I would say 
again, I have no doubt about the gentleman's intentions and his good 
faith in trying to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure 
that law enforcement, whether local or Federal or State, has the 
opportunity to apprehend people who have committed crimes or who we 
strongly suspect of having committed a crime. And if the amendment, 
perhaps,

[[Page H2481]]

had been tailored a little narrower to deal with just that, then 
perhaps the objections being raised by some of us would not then be as 
strong.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I say this does apply specifically to 
individuals who are violating a deportation order. It is very narrow, 
very specific.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that, and I appreciate that 
the gentleman did narrow the amendment to that degree.
  But it allows local law enforcement to seek out individuals. And the 
concern that some of us have is that by going beyond the ability to 
arrest or detain and actually go out there and proactively seek out 
individuals, there is a concern, and it lies on a couple of fronts. 
One, in local communities where we have large immigrant populations or 
large populations of individuals, as I mentioned, like my parents who 
might look or sound foreign, there is a concern that some officials 
within the local law enforcement agencies may be a little bit too 
zealous in their enforcement.
  Now, if the gentleman is trying to ensure that all communities have 
the most effective law enforcement possible, the last thing we want to 
do is deter someone from wanting to report a crime, if he or she may 
have witnessed a crime, because they are afraid that the local law 
enforcement agent will be more concerned about the person's legal 
status than about what they witnessed.
  The second matter is one that personally affected someone in the 
southern California area. This is an individual who happened to be 
driving home from work. He was in a pickup truck. He was dressed 
casually. He was pulled over, and in this case in fact, by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was pulled over, asked for 
identification. He was told that he would have to go with the INS 
officers for detention, and I believe that he did not have his 
particular identification on him except one form of identification, and 
that was his city badge that showed he was the mayor of the city of 
Pomona.

  This was a gentleman from a city of about 95,000 people who was 
elected to be the mayor of the city of Pomona, and he was detained and 
was about to be taken in by these agents because they suspected that he 
might be undocumented.
  Now, I grant that that is an isolated case that rarely occurs, and 
most individuals who are in our law enforcement agencies do their 
utmost to protect all of us, and we should appreciate that. But it does 
happen.
  What we are saying is, careful, if there is a reason to breach that 
division, then let it be a compelling reason because local law 
enforcement agencies under current law are not prevented from being 
able to enforce the laws to stop criminal activity. And Federal law 
enforcement agencies have every right to go into the situation, as was 
expressed by the gentleman from California [ Mr. Cunningham], earlier 
of a situation where 90 percent of the people in a housing complex may 
be undocumented. If, in fact, they are undocumented, the INS should be 
up on top of that building in a minute, and if they are not, then we 
should be getting on the INS for not doing its job.
  It does not require local law enforcement agencies to pull people off 
from patrolling the street and stopping folks who are committing other 
crimes to go out there enforcing the laws that the INS is supposed to 
enforce. We have the ability to let local law enforcement agencies 
protect the citizenry, make sure we are secure. And we have, and we 
should provide the INS the resources so they have adequate resources to 
put border patrol and law enforcement agents from the INS in the field 
to protect us from violations of our immigration laws.
  So I would just say to the Members, please, consider what this is. I 
do not doubt, as I said, the intentions of the gentleman. I think, 
though, in practice, the intentions will not play out the way he 
believes, and there would be problems.
  So I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Latham 
amendment, giving State and local law enforcement officials authority 
to apprehend immigrants violating deportation orders.
  Giving this important authority to local law enforcement agencies 
will do more to increase the public's distrust of the law rather than 
to increase the effectiveness of immigration enforcement.
  Our local law enforcement agencies are charged with the great 
responsibility of protecting citizens from crime. With this authority, 
the police will lose their effectiveness.
  This amendment endangers the life and health of many people. A 
particular concern is the case of victims of domestic violence or 
spousal abuse. Women who fear the repercussions for their husbands or 
themselves will not venture forward to seek help or report abuse.
  This provision also will serve to obstruct justice. Witnesses of 
violent crimes who fear deportation for themselves or someone close to 
them will choose not to come forward and cooperate with police because 
it would be too great a risk.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Latham amendment, and allow 
our State and local law enforcement officials to protect and serve 
within communities, rather to increase the fear.

                                  1300

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Before putting the question, the Chair will make a 
brief announcement. The Chair must reiterate a portion of the Speaker's 
announcement of September 27, 1995, concerning the use of handouts on 
the floor.
  In addition to meeting the standards of decorum, each handout must 
bear the name of the Member who authorizes its distribution.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.


              amendment offered by mr. bryant of tennessee

  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bryant of Tennessee: At the end of 
     section 604(b), add the following: ``Such procedures shall 
     include, in the case of such an individual who is 18 years of 
     age or older and not lawfully present in the United States, 
     the hospital or facility promptly providing the Service with 
     the individual's name, address, and name of employer and 
     other identifying information that the hospital or facility 
     may have that may assist the Service in its efforts to locate 
     the individual.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Bryant] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that I believe fits with the 
philosophy of this Congress and of the American people. It certainly 
fits with the intent of H.R. 2202, which is to reform this country's 
immigration policy in the national interest, and I stress, in the 
national interest.
  This amendment would do two things. First, it would require medical 
facilities to provide the INS with identifying information about 
illegal aliens who have received free emergency medical treatment from 
that medical facility which seeks reimbursement from the Federal 
Government. Second, it would waive this requirement in cases if the 
patient is a child under the age of 18 years old.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, this bill allows public medical facilities 
to seek to obtain Federal reimbursement for the cost of providing 
emergency medical services to illegal aliens. The bill

[[Page H2482]]

also requires medical facilities to confirm the patient's identity and 
immigration status with the INS as a condition of reimbursement.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we want to get around the argument right now that 
we are asking hospitals and medical providers to serve as policemen. 
Already they are required to obtain the patient's identity and 
immigration status in connection with the furnishing of this medical 
treatment.

  My amendment simply takes the next step. It would require the medical 
facility, as a condition to obtaining Federal reimbursement from 
taxpayer dollars that we are pay in this country, it requires this 
medical facility to provide the INS with this information it already 
has; again, identifying information, such as the name, address, and 
employer of this person. Hopefully, this information will allow the INS 
to then come out and find that illegal alien and send that person out 
of the country.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this requirement would be waived if the patient, 
the illegal alien, is under the age of 18 years old. Also, Mr. 
Chairman, the requirement of information disclosure would only apply 
when the medical facility is actually seeking to obtain Federal 
reimbursement, again, from taxpayer dollars.
  This amendment is intended to ensure that the INS receives the name, 
address, last known employer, and any sort of information that might be 
available on the illegal aliens. This information would certainly help 
them to locate these illegal aliens and enforce our immigration laws.
  Let me state what this amendment does not do. It would not impose any 
additional paperwork burden on the hospitals or other medical 
providers. This information is already gathered, probably upon the 
patient'sadmittance, and certainly when the medical provider is ready 
to fulfill the bill's requirement of confirming the individual's 
immigration status when they seek to obtain Federal reimbursement from 
taxpayers' dollars. Further, this amendment would not pose any threat 
to the quality of medical care the illegal alien receives. This 
information disclosed is simply identifying information and not medical 
records.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the Federal Government should get something 
in return for its payment of taxpayer dollars. That something in this 
case is information that may help in the enforcement of our laws 
against illegal immigration.
  Half of H.R. 2202 deals with cracking down on illegal immigrants. 
Opponents may argue that requiring disclosure of the patient's identity 
and location would deter illegal aliens from seeking medical care for 
fear of getting caught. I understand how a minor child of an illegal 
alien would be caught up in the middle of this situation and, 
therefore, my amendment does waive or exempt this disclosure 
requirement when the patient is under the age of 18.
  However, when the injured person is an adult, he or she is fully 
responsible for their presence in this country. They are aware that 
they are here illegally, and they assume the risk all the time they are 
in this country of getting caught. Mr. Chairman, this argument with 
respect to adult illegals, that they would not seek needed medical 
care, certainly does not hold water. Illegal aliens need goods and 
services which they buy at public places where they could be caught, 
yet they go out and buy these. They often come into this country for 
jobs and use fraudulent documents to obtain jobs, and they take the 
risk of getting caught there.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment and this issue are not about a denial of 
medical care to illegal aliens. The bill already specifies that they 
may receive emergency medical services and public health immunizations, 
though the bill makes the illegal aliens ineligible for public 
assistance, contracts, and licenses.
  We would never deny emergency medical care to another human being, 
even to a lawbreaker, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is 
that an illegal alien, healthy, sick, or injured, is still an illegal 
alien. Anyone present in the United States illegally is a lawbreaker, 
and should expect to suffer the consequences if caught. Mr. Chairman, 
an illegal alien assumes the risk of getting caught. If he is injured 
while here, it is merely incident to his unlawful immigration status.
  Still, I think the national interest now, the national interest, is 
best served by helping the INS do a better job of catching these people 
who may be illegally in the country, to enforce our Nation's 
immigration laws. Certainly, hospitals would report an escaped criminal 
who came into the emergency room for treatment. We would expect a 
citizen to report a robbery in progress, and to tell the policeman the 
direction the robber ran and give a description of him. We call this 
civic duty.
  Why would we not require such identifying information to be disclosed 
from an illegal alien when a facility is seeking reimbursement for 
having treated him from the Federal Government, from all our taxpayers 
in this country? Is that too much to ask of one who will receive 
Federal dollars? Surely the medical provider has an obligation to 
cooperate with the Federal Government if seeking these Federal dollars.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment would further 
improve on an already very good bill, of which I am proud to be a 
cosponsor, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I must say that we have an amendment that sounds 
reasonable on its face, as something that we would want to make sure we 
could do to try to help curtail illegal immigration. And certainly the 
gentleman from Tennessee, whom I serve with on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, has always proven himself as someone who is interested in 
trying to do the right thing. Again, I do not doubt whatsoever that he 
is, again, attempting to do so.
  This is an amendment that I know he had in committee that did not 
pass. It did fail in committee. I would say that the reason it failed 
was because, as the hospitals had expressed to us and as others have 
said, this would cause a dramatic chilling effect within our medical 
care system. What we would have is a situation where people may in fact 
not go for treatment or take a family member for treatment for fear of 
what would happen as a result of trying to approach a hospital.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read from a letter which I will later submit for 
the Record. This is a letter from the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, the Clinton administration in this letter indicating that it 
is opposing the Bryant amendment.
  The letter from Secretary Donna Shalala says as follows:

       While the administration strongly opposes undocumented 
     immigration and supports the denial of means-tested 
     government benefits to undocumented immigrants, the Bryant 
     amendment would impose burdensome unfunded mandates on health 
     care providers, seriously jeopardize the health of many U.S. 
     citizens and legal immigrant children, and endanger overall 
     public health.

  The concern that the administration and others have expressed here, 
including hospitals, is that we would, in essence, chill the ability of 
health care providers to conduct the primary purpose of their being in 
our hospitals and our health care facilities, and that is, to provide 
medical assistance. What would happen in many cases is you would have 
to have these facilities acting as INS agents to try to find out if, 
indeed, the individual they are treating or are about to treat is here 
legally or is a U.S. citizen.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to take the example of someone, a friend, 
a relative in your family, who gets into a car accident and has to be 
rushed to a hospital. If a hospital looks at this individual and knows 
that it is under an obligation to do some reporting on status, 
immigration status of an individual, what will this hospital do or have 
to do in order to satisfy that requirement as it looks at a person who 
is seeking emergency medical care?
  I would say that we are placing something that is of less 
importance--status--above health. I would hope that what we would do is 
first understand that the primary purpose of being a doctor, a nurse, a 
medical provider, is to be able to help those who are in need of 
medical assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, again, it is difficult on 
its face to

[[Page H2483]]

argue against because it seems like this is something that could easily 
be done, but in practice, again, the effects will be very difficult, or 
will have a very dramatic effect on both the provider of the health 
care and the recipient, the prospective recipient, of the health care. 
I would say, as well-intentioned as I know the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Bryant] is, I must stand in opposition to the amendment, and urge 
Members to vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would pay the same compliment to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra]. Again, I respect him a great deal, and he is 
certainly a strong spokesman for these issues of immigration. We simply 
have a disagreement here.
  Mr. Chairman, I might say, in quick comment to the administration's 
letter saying this would be in effect an unfunded mandate, I would 
disagree with that position. Again, keep in mind what we are talking 
about here are public hospitals operated by the State who are seeking 
Federal reimbursement. They are seeking taxpayers' money, including 
their State and from the other 49 States, to help offset their costs. 
If they do not want to get into this business of trying to help us 
catch illegals in this country, then they simply do not have to seek 
that reimbursement. It is strictly voluntary.
  Mr. Chairman, second, the hospitals would complain, and I would 
expect that, I guess, but they are already accumulating this 
information. They already have it. In fact, they must submit this 
information in order to claim reimbursement. We are just asking them to 
also send it over to the INS.
  I would like to think, again, that there is some degree of civic duty 
left in this country. If we saw a crime committed, we certainly would 
report that. We do not even get any money for it. The hospitals are 
actually getting paid for this, so I certainly would hope that that 
would not be their real motivation for not wanting to abide by this 
type of amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] has 2 minutes 
and 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, in my district we had a gentleman 
named Fernando Pedrosa who came from El Salvador several years ago. He 
was a fine man, a wonderful human being, Fernando Pedrosa was a 
wonderful human being, but he had leukemia. By the time he died at a 
hospital in my district, hundreds of thousands of dollars had been 
spent. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars that he had never 
contributed to whatsoever.
  We owe it to the people of the United States to see that this problem 
is dealt with. We cannot have people coming in here from all over the 
world, no matter how wonderful they are, and they are good people, and 
getting cancer treated, getting leukemia treated, getting new kidneys, 
getting new hearts, whatever it is; and event if they are in an 
automobile accident, yes, they should be taken care of if it is an 
emergency. We are never going to throw someone out in that situation.
  But if they are in this country illegally, I have no apologies, we 
have no apologies, that person should be treated for the emergency and 
then they should be sent home to their native country, because they are 
here illegally.
  In Los Angeles, there was a breakdown in the Los Angeles County 
public health care system. It required a $364 million bailout of our 
health care system in Los Angeles, mainly due to the fact that we have 
been treating so many millions of people who are in this country 
illegally. We cannot let this go on. We owe it to our own citizens to 
be responsible, and at the very least, we should say if people are 
being treated and the taxpayers are being given the bill, that the 
hospitals provide information to those who are trying to enforce the 
law so this problem does not get bigger and bigger and bigger. We do 
not want to encourage people to come from other countries here in order 
to get hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment. This bill 
goes a long way. I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee [Ed Bryant] 
on his diligence and responsibility.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to my friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher], he probably is aware, as I am aware, that the only 
medical services that someone who is undocumented is entitled to are 
emergency services. Someone who goes in for leukemia treatment cannot 
go in and get this treatment and get it covered unless they are going 
in under an emergency. It is not an emergency if you are about to die 
in a year or in 6 months. An emergency is something where your life is 
in danger at the moment that you are going into the hospital.

                                  1315

  So the situation the gentleman has just brought up, if it occurs, 
should not have occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would simply make a point of 
order as to who has the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Tennessee that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] has the right to close.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself such time as I 
may consume, I would just simply state that this is a very commonsense 
measure. Again, the States that are at issue here are asking the other 
States in this country to spend taxpayer money to reimburse their 
public hospitals for this type of treatment.
  Again, any type of immigration bill which is geared toward the 
national interest, the interest of this entire country, ought to 
respect this type of amendment and ought to agree to it. It simply just 
states that if we are going to help fund this type of treatment, then 
we ought to be able to be given the necessary information to locate 
these folks who are violating the laws of this country and to apprehend 
them.
  I think it is a reasonable measure. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Just for the purposes of edification for the Members here, let me 
read another paragraph from the letter from Secretary Shalala:

       Under current law as well as under H.R. 2202, the only 
     Federal public health benefits and services for which 
     undocumented immigrants are eligible are emergency medical 
     services, immunizations, and testing for communicable 
     diseases. These exceptions are made to provide immediate 
     protection for the seriously ill and to protect the public 
     health from disease that may otherwise go untreated in the 
     community.

  The situation the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] raised 
cannot occur under current law. We do not need this amendment to 
address that. Therefore, we should not be misled by the 
mischaracterization by the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is recognized for 
5\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have, I think, as consistent and 
as tough a record in trying to deal with the problem of illegal 
immigration as any Member of this House of either party. But there have 
been two exceptions that we have always made with regard to this 
question. One of them is emergency rooms, and the other has been 
education of children. They are critical exceptions and they are in the 
interest of the United States. They are not simply compassionate 
exceptions. They are exceptions that are in the interest of the United 
States.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] said a moment ago, 
this amendment deals with one narrow area only, and, that is, emergency 
rooms,

[[Page H2484]]

because that is the only kind of medical care to which an illegal 
immigrant is entitled. That is because we do not want anybody to be 
wandering around out there who has just been injured and not able to go 
get care in an emergency situation.
  The fact of the matter is that this is in the law for the benefit of 
our public. Think about two things. First of all, if one has been to an 
emergency room anytime in recent years, he knows what a chaotic 
situation they are in. Our hospitals are understaffed, they are 
overworked, they have a great deal of difficulty just getting to the 
service of the patients that are there.
  Imposing upon them the additional requirement of checking the papers 
of somebody who has just come in on a gurney or somebody who has just 
staggered into the emergency room needing assistance is outrageous. For 
that reason, the medical community has spoken out loudly against this 
amendment. They did so when it was presented in California in the form 
of proposition 187 and they have done so since.
  I think we ought to ask ourselves also as Americans if it is not a 
departure from our normal basic view of our obligation to each other as 
human beings to discourage an illegal immigrant who has been in a car 
wreck or has suddenly been stricken by a heart attack or by any other 
emergency to tell them, ``You better not go to the emergency room, 
because if you do they're going to give your name and address to the 
INS and you're going to be deported.''
  In every other instance we ought to do all we can to catch them and 
deport them if they are not here legally. In the instance of emergency 
rooms, it is cruel and wrong to do it.
  We have tried to put together a bill here that leaves off the 
extremes of proposition 187 and leaves off whatever extremes might have 
been brought to the bill from the left, as well. This is an extreme 
from the right. It is wrong for our people, it is very bad for public 
health, it is a nightmare for hospitals, and it is flatly wrong, 
morally wrong, to have a system in place where somebody who has been 
badly injured cannot go and get treatment, is afraid to go and get 
treatment.
  The sponsor says, ``Well, this is different because it doesn't 
involve children.'' Members know very well that the word is going to go 
out to people that are here as undocumented aliens that ``you can't go 
to the hospital because no matter what your reason for going, they're 
going to turn you in to the INS,'' and that is going to end up applying 
to children as well.
  For goodness sakes, let us leave sacrosanct the two things that we 
have always made as exceptions to this whole debate, and, that is, 
education of children and emergency room treatment. I reiterate one 
more time, the law does not allow for medical care or any other public 
service to be extended to people that are here illegally. The exception 
is education of children and emergency rooms. Emergency rooms is all 
that this amendment affects.
  I strongly urge Members to vote down the Bryant of Tennessee 
amendment, to vote with Bryant of Texas and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra]. Let us keep this bill in the middle and make 
it able to be passed. Do not add provisions to it that are going to 
cause Members not to be able to vote for it because it is just plain 
fundamentally, morally wrong.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Bryant of Tennessee amendment, which would require public medical 
facilities to provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] 
with identifying information about illegal aliens who are over 18 years 
old that they have treated.
  This amendment is a threat to public health. It will discourage sick 
people from seeking treatment, and healthy people from seeking 
preventative care. When this issue was presented in California in the 
form of proposition 187, the medical community was overwhelmingly 
opposed to it, on the grounds that it would place an undue burden on 
medical personnel.
  This amendment will undermine immigration enforcement by undercutting 
the existing enforcement priorities of the INS. The INS is already 
overburdened. If enforcement personnel cannot move quickly enough to 
deport persons who have been convicted of crimes, it makes little sense 
to expect them to divert resources to follow up on reports made by 
medical clinics.
  This amendment will be difficult and costly for medical facilities to 
implement. Under this provision, hospitals and medical clinics will be 
forced to go through extensive documentation procedures for everyone 
they treat. Medical personnel are not immigration experts. This 
amendment places unnecessary burdens on already overworked medical 
facilities and their personnel.
  In addition, medical personnel are likely to be confused about 
immigration status and immigration documents. This confusion could lead 
to the harassment of U.S. citizens and legal residents. U.S. citizens 
often do not carry documents which prove their citizenship. Individuals 
who are mistaken for undocumented immigrants may be harassed when they 
seek medical care for themselves or their children. This will only 
contribute to a climate of fear which already negatively affects 
Americans whose appearance or speech leads others to mistake them as 
illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this country could address its 
immigration concerns without resorting to chasing immigrants in the 
emergency room and burying this country's medical personnel in 
paperwork. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bryant 
amendment, which would require public medical facilities to report 
cases of patients who appear to be undocumented.
  This amendment risks lives, threatens public health, and harasses 
U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. Medical personnel have devoted 
their lives to treating and preventing illnesses. They cannot 
effectively perform their duties if they are constantly concerned with 
policing their patients based solely on suspicion of undocumented 
status.
  Medical professionals are also unable to perform their duties if 
patients who need their help are so fearful of being caught and 
deported that they neglect to seek treatment for serious or infectious 
disease. The spread of infectious disease could increase dramatically 
in this country because of this requirement.
  Medical personnel are not immigration experts. Imposing this 
requirement on medical facilities would feed the climate of fear and 
zenophobia in this country. People who are mistaken for undocumented 
immigrants because of their appearance or their accent face the 
possibility of harassment when they seek needed medical care for 
themselves and their families.
  When a person is ill or suffering, it is not appropriate or humane to 
ask him or her to brandish the necessary immigration documents prior to 
treatment. If we are to remain a country of compassion, I ask my 
colleagues to defeat this harmful amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant]
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 104-483.


                   amendment offered by ms. velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Strike section 607 and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Velazquez] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Gallegly], each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today every Member of this body has a chance to show 
their support for our children, not just immigrant children but U.S.-
born children who are U.S. citizens. In a rush to show our constituents 
that this Congress can be tough on illegal immigration, something much 
worse has been achieved. This body is about to prove how harsh it can 
be, not on illegal immigration, but on American children.
  These antichild provisions are contained in section 607, whose 
supposed purpose is to bar illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. 
I would like to remind my colleagues that illegal immigrants are 
already barred from receiving benefits by current law. The

[[Page H2485]]

only law this provision can claim to change is the 14th amendment of 
the Constitution.
  The actual effect of section 607 would be to keep over 100,000 U.S.-
born children from having full access to public aid programs. And as 
Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York has stated, this section 
is ``punitive and will result in enormous costs to State and local 
governments.''
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment fixes this problem by striking these 
provisions from the bill and allowing all U.S.-born children full 
access to benefits. If Members care about our children and about their 
constitutional rights, then vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  This section of the bill makes it virtually impossible for many 
American children to receive public benefits. It creates a two-tier 
caste system where U.S.-born children of immigrants are treated 
differently from the children of U.S. citizens. This ignores the 
premise of equal protection, a blatant violation of these children's 
constitutional rights.
  This provision affects far more than just the children of 
undocumented parents. It also affects the U.S.-born children of legal 
permanent residents. These are American children of parents who work 
hard and pay taxes, who start businesses and create jobs. Under these 
provisions, they too would be unable to file for benefits on behalf of 
their U.S. citizen children.
  If these provisions are not removed, Congress will create a costly 
and overburdened administrative system. Our children will be forced to 
choose between a bureaucratic nightmare or relying on the kindness of 
strangers. This surely is a recipe for disaster.
  I am sure that everyone will agree that our No. 1 priority should be 
keeping children healthy and safe. But by preventing parents from 
filing for assistance on behalf of their U.S.-born children, we will be 
victimizing the most vulnerable members of society, our kids. By doing 
so, we will be devastating the future of our Nation.
  Let us fix one of the worst problems of this legislation. Vote 
``yes'' for the Velazquez/Roybal-Allard amendment and show that this 
Congress truly cares about protecting the constitutional rights and 
welfare of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Velazquez/Roybal-Allard amendment.
  My colleague, Ms. Velazquez, has ably highlighted the injustices to 
American children that will result from section 607.
  I would therefore like to focus on an additional three compelling 
reasons to strike this section.
  First, section 607 will create an administrative nightmare.
  Under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, local 
governments will be required to provide services to American children 
whose parents have been deemed ineligible.
  The result will be a tremendous administrative burden on local 
governments, who will be forced to create a huge bureaucracy to manage 
and allocate benefits for these citizen children.
  Most likely this will be accomplished by instituting a costly 
guardianship system.
  Local government agencies will be required to locate, screen, and 
appoint a guardian for these American children.
  Furthermore, they will have to provide continued oversight to prevent 
fraud by these third-party guardians.
  Second, it is important to note that there is no funding 
authorization provided under this bill for reimbursement to local 
governments.
  Therefore, section 607 would impose a costly unfunded mandate at a 
time when States and local governments are already struggling with 
limited resources and expanded demands for services.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of 
establishing the guardianship system to be approximately $250 for each 
individual case.
  Localities with large numbers of affected American children, such as 
Los Angeles County, will be forced to maintain thousands of 
guardianship caseloads.
  And third, section 607 abandons Congress' earlier commitment to 
relieve States and local governments of Federal unfunded mandates.
  If section 607 is not deleted, States and local governments will be 
forced to deny needy American children the benefits they are guaranteed 
as citizens under Federal statute and the U.S. Constitution or to 
divert already scarce social dollars from programs critical to the 
well-being of local communities.
  Simply put, section 607 is a costly and an unworkable, unnecessary, 
unfunded mandate that serves absolutely no legitimate national 
interest.
  We must not punish innocent American citizen children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Velazquez/Roybal-Allard 
amendment.

                                  1330

  Simply put, section 607 is a costly and an unworkable, unnecessary, 
unfunded mandate that serves absolutely no legitimate national 
interest.
  We must not punish innocent American citizen children. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Velazquez-Roybal-Allard amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
seeks to overturn a provision I sponsored during the Committee on the 
Judiciary markup of H.R. 2202. The basic idea behind my original 
amendment was that the Federal Government should, under no 
circumstances, make benefit payments directly to those who we know are 
in this country illegally.
  This is precisely what is happening today. When an illegal alien 
present in this country gives birth to a child who, under the 14th 
amendment, becomes an instant American citizen, the American citizen is 
eligible for a whole range of social benefits. Today these benefits are 
awarded directly to the illegal immigrant with the intention that she 
pass them on to her child.
  While I believe that only a small portion of these Federal funds find 
their way to the desired recipient, I have a deeper problem with the 
status quo. I simply do not believe that the Federal Government should, 
under any circumstances, cut checks to those who have qualified for the 
aid by violating the laws of our Nation.
  Approving the amendment before us today will do nothing but preserve 
the status quo and perpetuate the message we have issued all too often 
to those who violate our laws by coming here illegally. That message is 
clear. It is illegal for you to violate our borders, but if you somehow 
can successfully do so, then you can have whatever you want. It is 
illegal for you to break into a candy store, but if somehow you find a 
way to smash the door down and get inside, then by all means, clear the 
shelves with impunity.
  I for one think this is wrong. I do not believe that we should reward 
those who break our laws and then remain here illegally with generous 
welfare checks. My feeling is that if we can find illegal immigrants to 
send them a check, we should find a way to provide bus service to 
return them to their homeland.
  Supporters of this amendment say that we should not punish the 
children for acts of the parents, that isolating illegal immigrants 
from benefits many improperly receive will somehow separate families.
  My response is that we are not trying to separate families under any 
circumstances. What we are trying to do is reunite the families and 
allow them to celebrate their status as legal residents of 
their respective countries and see that they be returned to their 
country of origin.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
some of the gentleman's remarks.
  My amendment is not about letting undocumented immigrants receive 
benefits. It is about keeping the U.S. Congress from creating a two-
tier system that puts U.S.-born children of immigrant parents in 
another category and children born to U.S. citizens in another 
category.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, our duty as Members of the House of 
Representatives is to uphold and defend

[[Page H2486]]

the Constitution of the United States. Sometimes this is not popular. 
If it were popular, we would not have to take an oath to uphold and 
defend the Constitution of the United States, but we do occasionally 
what we must, even when it is not popular.
  It is not popular to stand up and say anything good in favor of the 
children of those who have come here illegally. But it matters as an 
issue of law and our Constitution that such children born here are 
American citizens. There is no debate on this issue. There is no 
dispute on this between both sides. Both sides have agreed these are 
American citizens.
  Now, what do you do with the child who is an American citizen? The 
child cannot receive benefits except through the parent. There is no 
other way. You do not give benefits directly to children.
  Accordingly, the bill as presently presented and without the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from New York would constitute a violation 
of the 14th amendment. It would deny to some citizens, on the basis of 
nothing they have done wrong, benefits to which other citizens are 
entitled.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unconstitutional; we must vote against this 
policy and for this amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, as I listened to my colleague 
from California, that my colleagues from all over the country recognize 
that for those of us that operated public assistance programs locally, 
this law, this amendment, is an amendment to mandate welfare fraud. You 
do not understand this. Let me correct you.
  The fact here is if this mandate passes, you have somebody who is 
illegally in the country, who will be getting a public assistance 
payment only for their child; and the Federal law says that it is 
illegal for that person to work, it is illegal for that person to be in 
the country, and it is illegal for the parent to use the welfare check 
to support themselves.
  This is what we run into in southern California many times. You have 
parents of legal citizens who are taking checks. It is illegal for them 
to work, it is illegal to support themselves with the check, and that, 
Mr. Chairman, is why in one study we found 75 percent fraud in this 
category, and the rest of it basically is obviously fraud because it is 
a catch-22.
  So you are in a situation that when you say you are going to give 
illegal aliens public assistance funds for their children, you are de 
facto either giving them money to support themselves in violation of 
the welfare law, or you are condoning the fact that they are working in 
violation of the law. They are not declaring income, which is a 
violation of their welfare status for their child. So what we have is a 
catch-22 in an absurd situation.
  I know theoretically for the lawyers and the rest of them this thing 
should be handled a certain way. But I am telling you in practical 
application, common sense says that we should not have a Federal law 
that mandates fraud, and this amendment would encourage us to go back 
to a system that mandates welfare fraud.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from San Diego, CA, Mr. Cunningham.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from 
California, this is a system that is working backwards. We spend 
millions and millions of dollars in border patrol and INS and signs at 
the border saying ``Do not come across.'' It is illegal to cross into 
this country illegally. It is illegal. But yet once they get here, we 
say once you have run that gauntlet, we are going to give you all kinds 
of services. That is an oxymoron in itself.
  The American public is saying that we want a priority, we want a 
priority on American citizens for limited dollars, and our deficits are 
going up. We want priority on those that are legally immigrating into 
this country, that those services are being taken away from. We want 
priority for our chronologically gifted people, because they are taken 
away from Medicaid dollars and they are taken away from welfare dollars 
we are trying to get down to help those people.
  It is working backward, and we are saying that has got to come to a 
stop. Illegals, if we can identify who they are, then we ought to give 
them a ticket out of here, out of this country. We ought to stop them 
at the border. If they are illegal in this country, I do not care if 
they are from China or Ireland, my national heritage, or whatever 
country, they ought to go back. The only thing they deserve is a ticket 
out of here.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about undocumented aliens, this is about 
children. How do we value American children?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up on the points made by 
the two gentlemen from San Diego. First of all, as to the comments by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], in theory there is a great 
deal of validity to what the gentleman says. But the notion that 
undocumented aliens, illegal aliens, are not here in this country 
working, is a fiction, because employer sanctions in their present 
state without verification is a fiction. So the notion that everyone 
who is here undocumented has children on AFDC is nonsense, pure 
nonsense. The GAO reported back in 1992 that 2 percent of the funds are 
going to the children of undocumented aliens, two percent of the funds. 
That puts it in perspective.
  Remember what the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] said. If 
you want to get to this issue, propose a constitutional amendment to 
change the 14th amendment. Do not create a big government, cumbersome, 
guardian process to deny U.S. citizens their rights. Change the 
Constitution which makes them citizens. I will fight it with every 
ounce of my energy, but that is the honest way to go.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York, when she said this was 
not about illegal aliens, it was about children. That could be the 
furthest thing from the truth. This provision does one thing and one 
thing only: It denies anyone illegally in this country from being paid 
directly a check from the Federal Government. It says nothing about 
children; only that an illegal alien cannot receive a check.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from California I would say again, I 
know we have talked about these issues many times, and I know he is 
very sincere and has legitimate concerns. But I must go along with what 
my colleague from California [Mr. Campbell] said earlier, and again 
reiterate: There is a Constitution in this country, and thank God for 
it, because over the years we have found that it has held us in good 
stead. As much as there is a concern in having someone as an adult who 
is not legally in this country going in to receive a benefit for a 
child who is a U.S. citizen, I must say to you that ultimately the 
Constitution says if you have a citizen, there is an entitlement to a 
particular benefit, a particular protection, and we should not start 
attacking the Constitution.
  If we are going to attack the Constitution, let us remember why we 
are attacking it. In this case we are attacking it because we are 
attacking children. In this Congress, when we get to the stage where we 
are going after kids and penalizing them for the sins of adults, I 
believe that we have not only sinned against the Constitution, but, 
quite honestly, we have forgotten what our task is as Members 
representing this country.

                                  1345

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2487]]

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think this debate highlights the 
fact that we have a serious problem in this country in terms of those 
who come into the country, give birth to children and citizenship being 
granted upon that birth and, obviously, it will require apparently a 
constitutional amendment. I think this highlights the necessity for 
that.
  I think we have all seen situations in which we have heard the 
traditional description of bootstrapping your way into a benefit. This 
is booty-strapping. This is a situation in which, by virtue of the act 
of illegal entry on the part of a parent, the birth of the child gives 
the right to benefits from the taxpayers' coffers.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I think that it does 
highlight the fact that we have a situation of rewarding those who 
would violate our immigration laws.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 second to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the Velazquez amendment. 
This is under the category of if only the American people understood. 
With budget costs out of control, with so many American citizens not 
getting the benefits for which they logically and rightfully qualify, 
we have no alternative but to cut off these welfare payments. Besides, 
the law is the law. We define legal and illegal, then we should apply 
the law.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman]. We do need a verification for employers, 
and we will be voting on that later today. But in the meantime, we make 
decisions here to cut spending both nationally and locally on programs 
that are important to all American citizens in this country. Now we 
have an amendment to pay tax dollars to people who have entered this 
country illegally. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, and we 
should oppose this amendment as it comes forward.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have heard the opposition claim that section 607 of the bill will 
keep illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. But current law 
already does that. The only thing that this section can claim to do is 
violate the Constitution and hurt children.
  If what Members want to do is to deny benefits to kids, then amend 
the Constitution, then say that. If we here in Congress are concerned 
about our children and committed to protecting family values, then vote 
yes on this amendment and protect the right of American children.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I would just like to say there have been a lot of things 
said here in the past few minutes, but, very simply put, this issue is 
very straightforward. The issue simply put is that we, as U.S. 
taxpayers, should not be using our Federal dollars to reward those that 
have illegally come to this country, broken the laws, and reward them 
with a welfare check.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing 
this amendment that would provide welfare benefits to those that have 
broken the law and illegally come to this country. Please vote no on 
this amendment and put sanity back into the bill where it was passed 
out of the full committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by 
Representatives Velazquez and Roybal-Allard, which would strike 
provisions in this bill prohibiting legal immigrant and citizens 
children from obtaining Government assistance through their parents if 
their parents are ineligible for benefits.
  This provision is mean-spirited, unnecessary, and does nothing to 
advance immigration enforcement efforts. It also violate constitutional 
rights. Children born in the United States are entitled to equal 
protection under the law. Preventing U.S. citizens from obtaining 
benefits because their parents are ineligible violates equal protection 
laws.
  This provision would necessitate State and local governments 
implementing a complex guardian system for children who already have 
capable, competent, and loving parents. This provision would not save 
money or improve enforcement efforts. The only purpose it would serve 
is a political one--making needy and hungry children an example because 
of the immigration status of their parents.
  Children should not be held responsible in this debate. I urge my 
colleague to vote for the Velazquez/Roybal-Allard amendment and strike 
this provision from the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez], 
will be postponed.
  The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 104-483.


                   amendment offered by mr. gallegly

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. GALLEGLY: At the end of subtitle A 
     of title VI insert the following new part:

                   PART 3--PUBLIC EDUCATION BENEFITS

     SEC. 615. AUTHORIZING STATES TO DENY PUBLIC EDUCATION 
                   BENEFITS TO ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new title:

  ``TITLE VI--DISQUALIFICATION OF ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES FROM CERTAIN PROGRAM


 ``congressional policy regarding ineligibility of aliens not lawfully 
       present in the united states for public education benefits

       ``Sec. 601. (a) Because Congress views that the right to a 
     free public education for aliens who are not lawfully present 
     in the United States promotes violations of the immigration 
     laws and because such a free public education for such aliens 
     creates a significant burden on States' economies and 
     depletes States' limited educational resources, Congress 
     declares it to be the policy of the United States that--
       ``(1) aliens who are not lawfully present in the United 
     States not be entitled to public education benefits in the 
     same manner as United States citizens and lawful resident 
     aliens; and
       ``(2) States should not be obligated to provide public 
     education benefits to aliens who are not lawfully present in 
     the United States.
       ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     expressing any statement of Federal policy with regard to--
       ``(1) aliens who are lawfully present in the United States, 
     or
       ``(2) benefits other than public education benefits 
     provided under State law.


                         ``authority of states

       ``Sec. 602. (a) In order to carry out the policies 
     described in section 601, each State may provide that an 
     alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is not 
     eligible for public education benefits in the State or, at 
     the option of the State, may be treated as a non-resident of 
     the State for purposes of provision of such benefits.
       ``(b) For purposes of subsection (a), an individual shall 
     be considered to be not lawfully present in the United States 
     unless the individual (or, in the case of an individual who 
     is a child, another on the child's behalf)--
       ``(1) declares in writing under penalty of perjury that the 
     individual (or child) is a citizen or national of United 
     States and (if required by a State) presents evidence of 
     United States citizenship or nationality; or
       ``(2)(A) declares in writing under penalty of perjury that 
     the individual (or child) is not a citizen or national of the 
     United States but is lawfully present in the United States, 
     and
       ``(B) presents either--
       ``(i) alien registration documentation or other proof of 
     immigration registration from the Service, or
       ``(ii) such other documents as the State determines 
     constitutes reasonable evidence indicating that the 
     individual (or child) is lawfully present in the United 
     States.

     If the documentation described in paragraph (2)(B)(i) is 
     presented, the State may (at its option) verify with the 
     Service the alien's immigration status through a system 
     described in section 1137(d)(3) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)(3)).
       ``(c) If a State denies public education benefits under 
     this section with respect to an

[[Page H2488]]

     alien, the State shall provide the alien with an opportunity 
     for a fair hearing to establish that the alien is lawfully 
     present in the United States, consistent with subsection (b) 
     and Federal immigration law.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new items:

  ``TITLE VI--DISQUALIFICATION OF ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES FROM CERTAIN PROGRAM

``Sec. 601. Congressional policy regarding ineligibility of aliens not 
              lawfully present in the United States for public 
              education benefits.
``Sec. 602. Authority of States.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California, 
[Mr. Gallegly], and a Member opposed, each will be recognized for 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we add an 
additional 20 minutes total time to the debate on this particular 
amendment, 10 minutes split evenly between those in support and those 
in opposition to the amendment. I do so in recognition of the fact that 
we have numerous speakers, too many to be accommodated with only the 10 
minutes that are available.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous-consent request is to extend 
the debate by 20 minutes to be split evenly by each side, therefore 
making debate time on each side 25 minutes; is that correct?
  Mr. BECERRA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I am not 
sure what the policy is, and I would ask for a parliamentary ruling. Is 
a unanimous-consent request in order for the purpose of extending the 
time period?
  The CHAIRMAN. A unanimous-consent request is in order as long as the 
time would apply equally to each side.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Understanding that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], and a 
Member opposed, each will be recognized for 25 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that most of my colleagues here share my view 
that the Nation's education system is in crisis. Classrooms are 
overcrowded. Teachers are in many cases overburdened and resources are 
in short supply. Experts in the field agree that we are barely able to 
provide a basic education to American students today.
  We know that there is a problem, but the body has historically 
refused to acknowledge the devastating effect of illegal immigration on 
our education system. This amendment would change that by giving States 
the option of denying free taxpayer-funded education to those with no 
legal right to be in this country. Last year, more than 40,000 Pell 
grants worth a combined $70 million were awarded to illegal immigrants. 
It is estimated that California alone spends more than $2 billion each 
year to educate illegal immigrants at the primary, secondary, and post-
secondary level. New York spends $634 million; Florida, $424 million; 
Texas, $419 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on, but the dollars and cents are 
only part of the story. Equally important is the fact that illegal 
immigrants in our classrooms are having an extremely detrimental effect 
on the quality of education we are able to provide to the legal 
residents. When illegal immigrants sit down in public school 
classrooms, the desk, textbooks, blackboards in effect become stolen 
property, stolen from the students rightfully entitled to those 
resources.

  I want to be very clear here. This amendment does not apply to the 
children of illegal immigrant who were born in this country and 
instantly became citizens under the 14th amendment to our Constitution. 
My amendment applies only to those who have themselves illegally 
entered this country or who have entered legally and then remained 
beyond the valid terms of their visa. In its 1982 decision in the case 
of Plyeler versus Doe, the Supreme Court ruled by 5 to 4 that States 
were required to provide a free education to all students, regardless 
of their legal status under the equal protection clause to the 
Constitution.
  Many of my friends who oppose this amendment will invoke this 
constitutional mandate as justification for their opposition. But 
something that the defenders of the status quo ignore is that in the 
1982 decision the court also ruled that Congress had failed to do its 
job. In the court's majority opinion, Justice William Brennan said 
Congress shared some responsibility for illegal immigrants occupying 
public schools. He wrote:

       Faced with an equal protection challenge respecting the 
     treatment of aliens, we agree that the courts must be 
     attentive to the congressional policy. The exercise of 
     congressional power might well affect the States' 
     prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular 
     class of alien.

  Today the House takes up Justice Brennan on this invitation and 
exercises that power. Some will argue that we have a responsibility to 
educate illegal immigrants simply by virtue of the fact that they have 
successfully broken into our country. My feeling is that an act of 
geography is not the same as an act of jurisprudence. Just because 
someone has busted through the front door, that does not entitle them 
to the contents of your home.
  The promise of free education is only one of the magnets we hold up 
to those who would break our laws by violating our borders. It is clear 
to me that any solution to our immigration crisis must include an 
elimination of such incentives. Allowing our States to make their own 
decision on this education serves this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has received strong endorsement of the 
Republican Governors Association, National Taxpayers Union and many 
others.
  Mr. Chairman, illegal immigrants belong back in their countries of 
origin, and we should do everything possible to encourage them to 
embrace that simple truth. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as stated earlier when we debated 
the Bryant of Tennessee amendment, there have been two areas which we 
have always excepted from our hardline approach to trying to deal with 
the question of illegal immigrants. Those have been emergency room care 
and education of children. We have always done that.
  It would be a tragedy if the Gallegly amendment were added to this 
immigration bill. We have tried to write a bill that deals 
constructively with the problems facing the country, that leaves off 
the extremes of the right or the left. This is one of the extremes of 
the right. This is a proposition 187 type proposal. It is not in the 
interest of the American people. It is not in the interest of our 
future as a country. It is absolutely illegal.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that for good reasons the 
Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that we will not visit the sins of 
the father and the mother upon the children when it comes to the 
question of education. This bill should not contain a provision that 
does this even if it were constitutional, but it is not constitutional. 
It will not save anybody any money.
  Bear in mind that, in order to implement the Gallegly proposal to let 
States deny education to little children who have no responsibility for 
their status at all, would mean that the schools would have to document 
the immigration status of every student in order to know which of those 
are in an undocumented status. The school systems do not have the money 
or the time to do this. The obvious impact on them is one that they do 
not welcome and do not need, and it is not in our interest.

[[Page H2489]]

  Why would we want a population of children to be in this country not 
in school? What will they be doing if they were not in school? Well, 
certainly nothing that we want them to be doing.
  This promotion of ignorance on the part of any category of immigrants 
is an outrage. These are children. We have exempted them from the 
efforts that we have made over the years to try to deal with illegal 
immigration, starting back in 1986. We should continue to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I want a tough illegal immigration bill. I am the 
cosponsor of this bill. But do not add these kinds of amendments that 
are unreasonable, illegal and not in the interest of the public.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                  1400

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gallegly 
amendment giving States the option of denying public education to 
illegal aliens.
  As many of you know, in 1982 the Supreme Court ruled in Plyler versus 
Doe that, based on the 14th amendment to the Constitution which makes 
anyone born in the United States a citizen, illegal alien children are 
entitled to a public and secondary education. This has proved to be a 
powerful magnet or open invitation, if my colleagues will, to break the 
laws of this country.
  However, last November, in ruling against California's proposition 
187 which allowed California to deny public benefits to illegal aliens, 
a Federal judge said that the authority to regulate immigration belongs 
exclusively to the Federal Government. In other words, in the absence 
of Federal action, the State must provide public benefits, including 
education, to illegal aliens.
  This amendment is entirely consistent with this decision. Through 
congressional action, each State would be able to decide whether or not 
it wants to divert resources away from educating the children of its 
hard-working taxpayers.
  In the case of New Jersey, if the State chose this option this would 
mean having an additional $150 million available to improve public 
education for the State's children of taxpaying citizens. These are the 
people who are paying taxes to fund State and local education services. 
Unfortunately, the additional $150 million that could be going toward 
improvement in school programs and infrastructure to better our 
children's education is instead being spent on the children of illegal 
aliens. This is just plain wrong. Add to this the fact that New Jersey 
is straining to provide a change in funding that is putting in direct 
competition urban, suburban, and rural school systems. We can not 
further strain our resources and community support by demanding that 
the children of illegals are being educated.
  And, if a State is found to be in violation of the Constitution by 
denying public education to these children, then I would suggest that 
it might be time to explore a constitutional remedy to correct this 
problem.
  Again, this comes under the category that If only the American public 
knew they would opt for this choice.
  The Supreme Court made the wrong decision 14 years ago. The 
bottomline is that we are talking about illegal aliens, and they are 
not entitled to hard-working American taxpayer money when there is not 
even enough money to go around for the taxpayer.
  Give States the option. Support the Gallegly amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time 
to me.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly].
  With respect to illegal immigration, if I may say so, there are very 
few areas where the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and I 
disagree. We have worked together for several years on many of the 
issues that are addressed in this bill, but denying public education to 
the children of illegal immigrants would, in my opinion, be an 
ineffective and overly punitive way to try to stem the flow of illegal 
immigrants into this country.
  Let me make two brief points about the amendment. First, the 
provisions of the bill itself, if enacted, will go a long way toward 
stopping illegal immigration at the border, and, even more importantly, 
reducing the lure of job opportunities. The denial of access of 
education for children here illegally, children who have not chosen 
themselves to break our laws, will not act as a further disincentive 
for illegal immigration. People cross our borders illegally in search 
of employment. The fact that they bring their children along is usually 
incidental.
  Furthermore, supporters of this proposal often mention the cost to 
our school systems, and, of course, they, are substantial. But the 
societal costs, Mr. Chairman, of allowing States to deny public 
education to children are even greater. Such a policy would contribute 
to crime, to illiteracy, to ignorance, to discrimination. It would 
clearly run counter to the long-term interests of American communities 
and American society. Denying an education to any child, I think, is 
unwise and inhumane.
  A second point is about this bill in general. Our colleagues from 
Texas, Mr. Smith and Mr. Bryant, have done an outstanding job in 
managing a fragile bipartisan coalition in support of H.R. 2202. In 
addition, there are many of us on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked long and hard for legislation that deals thoughtfully with the 
problem of illegal immigration. It also makes meaningful reforms in our 
legal immigration system.
  However, adoption of this amendment would make it very difficult for 
Members on both sides of the aisle who would otherwise do so to support 
this bill and, therefore, I think would seriously jeopardize our goal 
of passing substantial immigration reform legislation this year.
  Mr. Chairman, for those reasons I ask our colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] has 19 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has 21 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the United 
States, the people of the United States, spending $2 billion to educate 
illegal aliens just in California, $634 million just in New York, $424 
million in Florida, and $419 million in Texas. We are talking about $70 
million worth of Pell grants being given to illegal alien children.
  Whose children do we care about? Why are we here? Who are we 
representing? We are supposed to care about the people of the United 
States of America. All of these children are wonderful children who 
have been brought here by illegal aliens. We care about them. But we 
have to care about our own kids first.
  That is what this debate is all about. That is why we could never get 
through any illegal immigration legislation when the Democrats were in 
control of this body. We care about our children first, and we have no 
apologies about it. If we keep educating everybody in the world who can 
sneak across our border and bring their families, anybody who cares 
about their children throughout the entire planet will do everything 
they can possibly do to get their kids into our country, and who can 
blame them?
  Mr. Chairman, they are wonderful people, they care about their 
children. We cannot afford to spend all of these billions of dollars, 
when our own education system is going broke, on educating the children 
of other people who are not citizens of the United States and have come 
here illegally. It makes no sense.
  This amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] is 
offering, is a salvation to Americans who want their kids educated, and 
know that their local communities are lacking the dollars to do so.

[[Page H2490]]

  What makes sense; to keep subsidizing this education of illegal alien 
children and having more and more and more children come from all over 
the world? That makes no sense at all. Let us protect the people of the 
United States of America. Let us protect our own families and our own 
children. Let us educate those kids. Let us not spend all of our money 
on illegal aliens' children and then attract more and more here until 
our system totally breaks down.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly] wholeheartedly.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if we have illegal children and illegal 
families in this country, it is our duty to deport the family and 
deport those who came here illegally. If we do not do that because we 
have not devoted enough resources to immigration and naturalization, 
then at the very least we should not impose the cost upon our States. 
It is a Federal failure that has led to this influx, and the Federal 
Government owes the States its support. But if both of these have not 
occurred, and that is the case today, we are left with children in this 
country.
  Now in that world it is far better that those children be educated 
and be in school than that they be on a street corner or in a gang. The 
first best preferred outcome is, of course, that those who came here 
illegally be returned to the country of their origin with their 
children, and that would be constitutional to do because the children 
are under the custody of the parent. But we do not have the resources 
to do that. This bill does not give us the resources to do that. We are 
not hiring INS agents to expel every illegal family that is here.

  So, Mr. Chairman, I put to my colleagues the essential tradeoff. Is 
it better to have such children in school, or kept out of school at the 
risk that their parents would be turned in to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service? Are there gangs in Los Angeles waiting to 
recruit such children? Are there gangs in San Jose willing to recruit 
such children? Are there gangs in San Francisco and every major city of 
my State of California? Of course there are. If these children are 
here, we must educate them rather than have them be recruited, if those 
are our options.
  Finally, I want to compliment the author of this bill, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith]. In the structure and fabric of his bill he 
exempted Head Start and school lunch programs. I surely appreciate his 
doing so, and he did it because he realized the importance of not 
having the termination of Federal programs that apply to education.
  Mr. Chairman, it is inconsistent with the fabric of this bill to 
adopt the Gallegly amendment. With reluctance, because of my high 
regard for the author, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Gallegly amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 brief seconds to 
respond to a couple comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California said far better to have 
the children in school than out in the streets and gangs. I could not 
agree with him more. He says that we do not have the resources, the 
financial resources, to incarcerate or deport these children. I would 
say, if we have the resources to educate, we should have the resources 
to deport.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego [Mr. 
Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to my colleague 
from California, too. We will hear the business community say that if 
the illegals are here, it is better if they have a job than to just be 
hanging around unemployed, and so there are always excuses for 
encouraging the violation of immigration law.
  Mr. Chairman, my high school, Mara Vista, had many people coming to 
it that lived in Mexico, crossed the border and came to our high 
school. That was against the law, and it is against the law. But the 
absurdity of the Federal system, if we do not approve this amendment, 
is that it will be illegal to come into the country legally and go to a 
public school, but it will be legal to enter the country illegally, and 
then they have a guaranteed right to go to public education, and this 
is a $1.5 billion price tag to the people of California.
  Let me remind our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this is not an issue that 
affects the rich, white people of this country. This is an issue that 
hits the school districts of the working class in this country. It is 
something that disproportionately is being placed on the working class 
school districts, and the Federal Government wants to put this mandate 
on and pay for the mandate totally. Do not ask the working class of 
this country to bear this responsibility.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment because it is 
unconstitutional, runs counter to our Nation's commitment to the value 
of education, and is morally repugnant.
  First, it violates the equal protection clause by granting States the 
option of denying undocumented children the same rights to a public 
education extended to other children residing in their States history 
documents the idiocy of challenging the constitutional and moral right 
of children to a free public education?
  Second, 2 years ago, when the Congress reauthorized the elementary 
and secondary education act, we inserted the following statement of 
principle into that law:

       That a high-quality education for all individuals and a 
     fair and equitable opportunity to obtain that education are a 
     societal good, are a moral imperative, and improve the life 
     of every individual, because the quality of our individual 
     lives ultimately depends on the quality of the lives of 
     others.

  We did not qualify that principled position. We did not say that it 
applied to some children, and not to others; we did not say that it did 
not apply to undocumented children. We applied that statement to all 
individuals.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman there is no moral currency in denying 
undocumented children an education. We have no right to use education 
as a tool to enforce our immigration laws. All we will succeed in doing 
is punishing innocent children for the transgressions of their parents. 
We have no right to impose responsibility for enforcement of our 
immigration laws on our schools. All we will succeed in doing is 
turning our teachers into de facto INS agents. We have to no right to 
point fingers at children and block their entrance to the schoolhouse. 
All we will succeed in doing is stigmatizing children and encouraging 
negative behavior.
  In defense of our Constitution and our values, and for the sake of 
humanity and compassion, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gallegly 
amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
San Diego, California [Mr. Cunningham], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Education that deals with our elementary education 
K through 12, who has been long-time committed to education.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the teachers in San Diego County just 
recently went through a strike, and I think up in Santa Barbara they 
are going through a strike also. We have times when our State Colleges 
have to increase their tuition costs, and we look at less than 12 
percent of the schools in this Nation have got a single phone jack, 
whey we are trying to proceed into the 21st century and do what the 
President says, which I support, is getting the fiber optics and the 
computers and high-technology education into the system.
  But quite often, when they argue for higher pay or classroom upgrades 
or even bond elections to extend taxes, they do not look and see why 
they do not have the dollars available. There are, just in the State of 
California, 800,000, 800,000 illegal children in our school system K 
through 12.

                                  1415

  Take just half of that, just half, 400,000. At $5,000 each to educate 
a child, and of course in New York it is much higher than that, that is 
$2 billion a year. Take 5 years, that is $10

[[Page H2491]]

billion with which we could upgrade all of our schools in California, 
we could pay teachers, we could hold down the cost of tuition. The 
school meals program, take two meals, not three. That is $1 million a 
day for illegals.
  Mr. Chairman, the vote, the very famous ruling by the Supreme Court, 
was based on a decision because Congress did not have a position on 
illegal immigration. What we are saying is that as of today, when this 
bill passes, we will have the congressional response for that court 
decision, and we prioritize American citizens and those that are coming 
into this country legally, and I think that ought to be the priority, 
not illegals.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask, we do not accept the 
figures offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], and 
I dispute them, but assuming that they were true, what would those kids 
be doing if they were not in school? Would they be on the streets, 
joining up in gangs, just withering away? How is that in the interests 
of the country?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, and I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, as all of us know, a free public education is a 
hallmark of our American society. It is, indeed, an essential 
ingredient in the foundation of our diverse, and, yes, inclusive 
democracy. The Gallegly amendment would seek to deny a number of our 
children the opportunity to go to a free public education system. Why? 
Because their parents made a choice on behalf of their children. But 
the children did not choose to be in the United States illegally. They 
do not deserve, therefore, to be punished for the actions of their 
parents.
  The assumption here, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a financial 
burden to the schools for having illegals in our system, but I would 
counter that the cost to us as a nation would be far greater by 
excluding these children from our schools. Schools would then assume a 
law enforcement burden that is both costly and counterproductive.
  These children will not leave the United States simply because they 
are not in school. They will be, as all of our speakers pointed out, on 
the streets, joining gangs, left at home alone, for there is a price to 
be paid in terms of community health and community well-being, not to 
mention the harm to the children themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this mean-spirited 
attempt that will hold children responsible for their parents' actions. 
They are the innocent ones in this battle. Let us not punish them for 
something they cannot control.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to a 
couple of comments that the gentlewoman made.
  First of all, the gentlewoman is a friend of mine, and I take some 
personal dissatisfaction with a comment made, ``mean-spirited.'' As a 
parent of four and as someone who is a product of the city school 
system in Los Angeles, I am a strong supporter of public education.
  But one of the comments that she made was that these people were not 
participants in the decisionmaking process. I would submit to her that 
there were 40,000 adults that came to this country last year, illegally 
to this country, and received Pell grants that cost this country $70 
billion. That was a decision they made, not their parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the concern I have about this amendment is the way it 
is drawn and the actual application when it is out in the schools. This 
amendment, I think, could create a violation of the Constitution, 
specifically the 5th and 14th amendments, and the equal protection. I 
think it sets up a good equal protection argument, that it gives the 
States the ability to decide, whether it is in Texas or California, New 
Mexico or Arizona. It think we would see that come back to the Supreme 
Court, and they would probably rule the same way they did on an earlier 
Texas case. The amendment would give the power of Congress to the 
States to decide whether they could deny that education to the children 
of illegals.
  Mr. Chairman, the other concern I have is the procedure in the 
amendment. Again, I am trying to bring what we do on the floor down 
into what is going to happen into the Houston Independent School 
District, or the Alvin District, or any of the districts in the 
country.
  A child may be a citizen, but their parents may be illegal. What is 
the procedure in this amendment to the affidavit that is going to be 
signed? Are the parents going to sign? That that child is entitled to 
an education because that child is a citizen, even though the parents 
may not be here legally. I think there are so many questions about this 
amendment that cause us concern. It would place an enormous burden on 
our educational system.
  Mr. Chairman, we want teachers to be teaching. We want to take away 
some of the paperwork that is being required, not just by Federal law, 
but by State and local rules, and we want teachers to be teaching. What 
this amendment sets up is that our teachers would be doing more 
administrative work than they should be. We want them to be teaching 
those children, because those are the problems we have with public 
education. The education is done in the classroom, and that is where it 
should be. We do not punish our small children by taking away their 
ability to get education.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gallegly 
amendment. I want to congratulate him for his hard work as chairman of 
the Speaker's task force on illegal immigration.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many arguments that have been made very 
eloquently by a number of my colleagues in opposition to this. One of 
the points that has been made consistently by those who would oppose 
this amendment out in California is that as we look at people who have 
come into this country illegally, we have a choice of having them on 
the streets committing crime or in the classrooms; which would we 
rather have? Well, of course we do not want to have people on the 
streets committing crime. One of the major reasons that we are dealing 
with this legislation is to comprehensively reform, reform our law as 
it relates to illegal immigration.
  We have amendments that I am pleased to say have passed and will go a 
long way toward dealing with that, but quite frankly, we need to 
recognize that this is not a mean-spirited amendment. This is an 
amendment that simply follows down the road that we have been pursuing 
over the past 15 months; that is, trying to allow State and local 
governments to have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves.
  Clearly, the Plyler decision that was made in 1982 was a bad 
decision. I believe that as we look at this question, the cost that has 
been imposed by way of this unfunded Federal mandate on States has been 
overwhelming. The Urban Institute did a study for this administration. 
They found in looking at only seven States that the cost was over $3 
billion.
  We obviously want to have the best educated people. I suspect there 
will be more than a few States who, when this amendment passes and 
becomes law, will make the decision that they want to continue to 
provide education to those who have come into this country illegally, 
but we should not be forcing them, through an unfunded Federal mandate, 
to do that. Unfortunately, that is what the Plyler decision has done. 
Fortunately, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], has been 
courageous enough to step forward and say that we need to make some 
kind of modification.

[[Page H2492]]

  If we look at where we are headed, we are trying to decrease the 
magnet which draws people illegally into this country. There are a wide 
range of reasons they come in. Seeking family members, I remember the 
President of Mexico told me at one point, was the No. 1 reason; job 
opportunities, obviously, another very important reason. But the 
tremendous flow of government services is obviously another magnet 
which draws people illegally into this country.
  We need to do what we can to encourage economic improvement, 
following President Kennedy's great line that a rising tide lifts all 
ships. We need to improve the economies of countries throughout this 
hemisphere, not through foreign aid but by engaging with them more 
through trade and other opportunities, so their economies will improve 
and people will not be encouraged to come across the border illegally. 
But if we continue to provide this magnet of more and more government 
service, we will be in a position where they will continue to flow.
  Strongly, strongly support the Gallegly amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will jointly, in a bipartisan way, do it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I just heard from the 
previous speaker. He referred to the problem of unfunded mandates. If 
he is so concerned about those unfunded mandates, why did he oppose my 
amendment in the Committee on Rules that would have required that for 
all refugees who come into this country, that the Federal Government 
assume the full cost of educating and training those refugees, rather 
than dumping those very same costs onto the local units of government?
  I would also like to know why they refused to support the idea that 
we ought to have the Federal Government provide for the education 
costs, rather than dumping those costs, as we do now for legal 
refugees, onto the backs of local school districts. I know I am talking 
about legal refugees, as opposed to illegal immigrants, but the fact is 
every time a refugee is allowed into this country, that is a foreign 
policy decision made by the national Government. Why should local 
governments be stuck with meeting the costs of those foreign policy 
decisions?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, one would think that we would not need an amendment 
like this in this bill. One would think that the law would already 
provide that if somebody is illegally in this country, they would not 
be entitled to receive Government benefits; that they would, instead, 
once known, be required to depart from the country.
  Unfortunately, we have a court decision that makes it necessary to 
enact this amendment to make very clear the will of the Congress that 
when someone is unlawfully in the United States, they are not entitled 
to Government benefits except under certain emergency circumstances 
that this bill provides for; for example, with regard to emergency 
medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where we have already put into this 
bill a very fine amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox] that enables local law enforcement authorities to be 
designated by the Attorney General of the United States to assist in 
the apprehension and the deportation process of removing people who 
have entered this country illegally, or have entered this country 
legally and have overstayed their legal admission period, and therefore 
are not entitled to be in the country any longer.
  That authority, giving to local governments the ability to remove 
people who are in the country improperly, would contradict an amendment 
that says that nonetheless, if they are here illegally, they would be 
entitled to free public education.
  We need to have local government working hand in hand with the 
Federal Government, and we need to make sure that we do not have 
magnets that draw people to this country, and free public education, 
free health care, other welfare benefits, are exactly the kinds of 
things that attract people to the country and cause them to violate our 
laws in entering the country. So I strongly support the position 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], regarding this 
issue, and I thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, putting aside the fact that this amendment 
appears to be unconstitutional, and also putting aside--for discussion 
purposes--whether it is good for our country to have an entire class of 
people who are likely to live here their whole lives who are 
uneducated, I would just like to mention those in my county that 
opposed this provision when we had this discussion in California a few 
years back: our Republican sheriff opposed it, our Republican district 
attorney opposed it, the police chief opposed it, and the Chamber of 
Commerce opposed it.
  We know that most juvenile crime occurs between the hours of 3 p.m. 
and 6 p.m., when kids are out of school and their parents are still at 
work.

                                  1430

  If we think we have trouble with juvenile crime now, try throwing 
several thousand kids out of school to hang around all day long and get 
into nothing but trouble. That is why our police chief opposes this. I 
urge Members to consider that aspect of this very ill-advised and, I 
would say, mean-spirited amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
San Diego, California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, in the San Diego Union there was an 
article a few months ago that really pointed out the problem here. That 
is, there was a woman from the interior of Mexico who had actually 
taken the time to write three letters to the school district to make 
sure that her children could get a public education in the United 
States even if they were illegal. She could not believe it, so she 
waited three times to get an answer back that says, ``If I bring my 
children here, from Mexico, do I have to show they're legally here?'' 
And they said, ``No, you have no problem at all getting them educated 
in this country.'' I think that is the message we must stop sending.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important as we 
look at this particular amendment to really ask where the impact will 
be felt.
  First of all, I am very proud of the leadership in the State of Texas 
that has chosen not to make a whipping boy out of the children of 
immigrants, legal or illegal. In essence, this amendment does that. It 
ignores the Plyler versus Doe decision of the Supreme Court that says 
making access to education dependent on immigration status is a 
violation of the equal protection clause. It clearly makes armed guards 
out of principals and teachers.
  It also says that rather than investing in children who are here, 
this in some way is going to prevent illegal immigration. That is not 
correct. What it simply does is create an unfunded mandate by requiring 
local jurisdictions now to scratch their heads and ask the question, 
what do we do with these children who need education? Ban them?
  This is a bad amendment. It is bad for the future of America, it is 
bad for those who believe in education, and it certainly is bad for 
those who have to provide education to children in their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gallegly amendment which 
would allow States the option of denying education benefits to 
undocumented children. This amendment is unconstitutional. It is a 
direct attack on Plyer versus Doe, the Supreme Court decision which 
said that making access to education dependent on immigration status is 
a violation of the equal protection clause.
  This amendment runs counter to the goals of American public 
education. Any State that

[[Page H2493]]

makes access to education dependent on immigration status would remove 
school employees from their traditional role as educators and turn them 
into quasi-INS agents. Financially strapped schools would be forced to 
shift scarce resources from teachers, books, and infrastructure to the 
training of school personnel and enforcement costs.
  The Gallegly amendment unfairly punishes undocumented children for 
the actions of their parents. Denying children access to education will 
create an underclass of illiterate, uneducated individuals, at a moment 
when America needs a skilled work force to compete in the global 
economy. Ultimately, it makes more sense to have children in the 
classroom rather than on the streets.
  The goal of American public education is to impart the values of 
democracy such as equal opportunity and justice for all people, and a 
respect for your neighbor, no matter what his or her ethnicity, race, 
or religion. Public education prepares our young people to become 
productive citizens and mature adults.
  As a nation, we must turn our attentions to strengthening our public 
education system and making it work better for our children. Instead, 
we are debating an amendment which seeks to restrict the access to 
education for children who are already in this country.
  The Gallegly amendment would create an atmosphere of suspicion and 
hostility in our schools. Our schools are intended to have a climate 
conducive to open minds and learning. This amendment however, promotes 
an atmosphere of animosity toward children who look or sound foreign.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which does 
nothing to control undocumented immigration. The Gallegly amendment is 
unconstitutional, but we must not allow it to pass and wait for the 
Supreme Court to strike it down as such. We cannot, in good conscience, 
deny young people the opportunity to learn. I believe that we all know 
in our hearts that this amendment is unfair and that it violates our 
sense of justice. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for a 
clarification.
  The point that needs to be made, that has not been made so far, is 
that this amendment does not deny educational benefits to anyone. It 
does not require schools to do anything. It simply gives the State the 
discretion to decide whether it wants to continue to provide illegal 
aliens with a free public education at taxpayers' expense. Nothing 
less, nothing more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, CA 
[Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, several points have been brought up that I 
think need to be addressed.
  One, it is better that the children of illegals not go to gangs, 
better to have them in the classroom. The last thing that illegal 
children want to do is to be picked up and arrested, because they will 
be sent home and they do not want that. The vast majority of the gangs 
in this country are made up of citizen youth, not illegals.
  Second, we ought to educate them so that they will be qualified to 
get a job. Illegals cannot legally work in this country. If we educate 
them, they still cannot work legally here in this country.
  We have school buses going to the border in San Diego to pick up 
children that walk across the border and get on the buses to fill the 
classrooms. We already have classrooms that are overcrowded, oversized. 
We cannot get new textbooks. We cannot build new classrooms for those 
that are here legally.
  Gov. Pete Wilson points out that the largest single fiscal burden to 
the California taxpayers is the mandate that States provide a public 
education to illegal children. Over 355,000 of them are educated in our 
schools at a cost of almost $2 billion. If we could put that into 
lowering classroom sizes and buying better and more modern textbooks 
and building facilities for our citizen children, then we would have 
less gangs from citizen children and we would not have to worry about 
the illegals.
  I strongly support the Gallegly amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, one of the most admirable 
characteristics about the United States is that our Nation 
distinguishes between the conduct of parents and their children. So 
many times I have seen in, for example, European countries, the 
children of immigrants in the streets because in those nations there is 
no distinguishing between the illegal conduct of their parents and the 
children.
  We do not blame the children for the conduct of their parents. That, 
among other reasons, is why we are the moral leader of the world. I 
truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would be making a very grave 
mistake by adopting this amendment today, and that is why I have risen 
in opposition to it.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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. Chairman, this amendment would create more 
problems than it will ever solve.
  At a time when juvenile violence is on the rise, this amendment would 
deprive a large group of children in our communities of the only thing 
that can keep them out of trouble, and that is an education.
  This amendment will not save States money but it will pose a 
significant community health and safety hazard. Children thrown into 
the streets by this amendment will not simply disappear. They will be 
left with nothing to do during school hours, tempting them to pursue a 
host of noneducational activities. One can only imagine the 
possibilities.
  In addition, depriving children of their fundamental human right to 
learn how to read and write will wreak havoc on their life. These 
future men and women will be incapable of performing the most basic 
public responsibilities and will be unable to contribute to the society 
at large.
  Let us not fool ourselves. The money this amendment is trying to save 
by depriving kids of an education will have to be spent on more law 
enforcement, more incarceration and more rehabilitation. With this 
amendment, we are doing nothing more than just trading schools for 
prison, a policy wrought with problems.
  Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment is a very good Member of 
this body. But this is not the right approach. This is an amendment 
that does not strike at the core of the basic decency of our country. 
These are kids. They do not have lobbyists. They do not have those 
protecting them. This is not the right thing to do. We should reject 
this amendment.
  Let us retain at least this basic element of education. This is what 
will teach these young men and women to be productive citizens, maybe 
not in this country but in the country that they came from.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a good amendment and it should be defeated.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker remaining before 
closing. I do believe I have the right to chose; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Byrant] has the right to 
chose.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to confirm that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] as the offeror of the 
amendment has the right to close and is reserving the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The minority manager in this case is supporting the 
committee's position on the amendment and, therefore, has the right to 
close.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Gallegly amendment 
which would reverse the Supreme Court Plyler versus Doe decision and 
permit the States to decide for themselves whether to provide a free 
public education to illegal aliens.
  Those in this country without the knowledge or permission of our 
Federal, State and local governments take advantage of our public 
assistance programs. They do not pay into the tax base, and they 
actually defraud our

[[Page H2494]]

own taxpaying citizens of critical education, health and welfare 
assistance. I would simply point out that providing a free public 
education to illegal aliens cost California taxpayers $1.7 billion last 
year.
  I strongly urge support of the Gallegly amendment. I would authorize 
States to put the needs of their own citizens above those of illegal 
aliens, and it is good, sound public policy.
  Mr. Chairman, as we begin the debate on the Immigration in the 
National Interest Act, I want to bring to your attention an amendment 
that my colleague from California, [Mr. Gallegly] will be offering. 
Other members of the California delegation and I strongly support this 
amendment.
  Our amendment is fashioned after California's widely supported 
proposition 187, which received 59 percent of the vote on November 7, 
1994. It will allow States the option of not providing illegal aliens 
with a free public education in much the same way that they are 
currently not obligated to do so for residents of other States. This 
will remove a substantial incentive for illegal aliens to come to this 
country. Most importantly, it will allow the States to spend very 
limited educational dollars on its own citizens and legal residents.
  The widespread support for proposition 187 is only one manifestation 
of a new social climate across the Nation. This new attitude demands 
accountability from Federal, State, and local governments. It 
recognizes the inability of government to pay for many public services. 
Illegal immigrants have been identified as major contributors to the 
demands placed on these public programs, and thus to the budget 
deficits facing several States and localities.
  In the 1982 court case of, Plyler versus Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 
against the State of Texas, saying that there was nothing in Federal 
law authorizing denial of educational benefits to illegal immigrants.
  The Gallegly amendment would overturn this Supreme Court decision and 
permit States to mirror Federal law, denying illegal aliens a free 
public education. It would eliminate one of the more egregious of 
border magnets: free public education.
  The issue, Mr. Chairman, is whether States have the right to decide 
for themselves whether or not to provide a free public education to 
illegal aliens.
  Those in this country without the knowledge of or permission from our 
Federal, State of local governments, take advantage of our public 
assistance programs. Illegal immigrants defraud our own taxpaying 
citizens of critical education, health and welfare assistance.
  Our amendment would provide Federal affirmation of the States' right 
to deny a free public education. It would authorize States to put the 
needs of its own citizens above those of illegal aliens.
  We must end the free lunch for illegal immigrants. Unlike citizens or 
legal aliens, they do not pay into the tax base and, therefore, have no 
right to claim any public education benefits.
  States which are already struggling with tight budgets, are forced, 
by Federal mandate, to spend billions of dollars each year educating 
illegal aliens while basic services for U.S. citizens and legal 
immigrants are being reduced or eliminated. It is time that this 
Federal Government removes this huge unfunded mandate on the States.
  In the seven States most heavily impacted, education benefits for 
illegal immigrants are costing taxpayers over $3.5 billion annually--
not including the cost of higher education or adult education.
  California alone is home to 1.7 million illegal immigrants--43 
percent of the Nation's total. It will cost California over $2.9 
billion to provide federally mandated services to these illegal 
immigrants: including $563 million for incarceration costs, $395 
million for health cost, and $1.8 billion for fiscal year 1996 for 
education. Imagine the cost to our taxpayers by the year 2000.
  To illustrate my point, let's look at what we, in the State of 
California, could do for our own students with $2.9 billion.
  We could hire 80,555 more teachers at an average annual salary of 
$36,000. We could significantly reduce class sizes, and we could infuse 
our public education system with more text books, computers and 
desperately needed classroom supplies.
  By removing this mandate, we are ending a long-standing policy that 
encourages illegal immigration, bankrupts States and results in a less 
than quality education for our own children.
  Let's remember, every dollar spent on educating illegal aliens is a 
dollar we don't spend on our own children. Every teaching hour spent on 
instruction for illegal immigrants is an hour lost to our own students.
  A child must have access to a comprehensive basic education to give 
children a fighting chance at life. We must guarantee that right for 
our own children. The only way to ensure that right is to enable the 
States to make the most prudent fiscal decisions possible. Aliens who 
are in the United States illegally should not be entitled to receive 
any of the privileges or benefits of membership in American society. It 
is simply unfair to our citizens and legal residents. Poll after poll 
shows that American people are tired of footing the bill for those who 
are in the country illegally. The passage or proposition 187 in 
California, and other similar movements in Florida and Arizona are 
evidence of this.
  The availability of public education benefits is one of the most 
powerful magnets for illegal aliens. As a matter of immigration policy, 
Congress must remove all of the incentives that lure illegal aliens to 
the United States--that means giving the States the right to deny 
public education benefits.
  I urge this House to carefully consider the Gallegly amendment and 
vote in favor of it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, not coming from a State that has a 
serious immigration problem, I have tried to listen and learn about 
this issue. I have been particularly intrigued by this amendment 
because I was a teacher before I came to Congress, will be a teacher 
after I leave, and have served on the Education Committee while I have 
been here.
  It seems to me it is inherently wrong and the majority of the 
American people would not want to kick any kid out of school, including 
the child of parents who have illegally come to this country. But let 
us all understand something. The question here is not whether people 
can come to this country, be here illegally and then just stay, put 
their child in school, get all kinds of services from the government, 
from the taxpayer, and stay in this country. That is not at issue here. 
Families who are found to be here illegally are sent back. They are 
deported.
  The question is, while we are finding them and while the deportation 
process is going forward, should their children be on the streets 
unsupervised or in the schools? I think the vast majority of American 
people would say, ``well, they should be in the schools. They should 
not be out running loose as gangs unsupervised on the streets.'' That 
is all this amendment is about. It does not have to do with the parents 
being here illegally. It has to do with unsupervised children.

                                  1445

  So I would encourage my colleagues to support a bill that is tough on 
enforcement, that is tough on finding the parents who are here 
illegally, but let us not be tough in a way that is going to cut off 
society's nose to spite its face. Let us not say that while we are 
looking for these parents, we are going to assure that their children 
run loose on the streets. At least let us provide this general use of 
American education to try to contain, and, yes, improve those children, 
remembering that their parents are here illegally, and, when found, are 
sent back.
  Nobody has a right to be here illegally, to receive all of these 
services, and stay here, even after they are found. Once the are found, 
they are deported. The only question is what shall we do with their 
children in the meantime.
  The Republican answer is to put them on the street, leave them out 
there unsupervised, and create these gangs, I suppose. We Democrats are 
saying that the children should be in school. I agree with the position 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California, [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend's 
amendment. Except for possibly emergency medical services, the only 
other public benefit that I think it is wrong to deal with on this 
basis is public education, for all the reasons the gentleman from 
Montana just eloquently stated.
  But the real question I have for the gentleman is why do you think, 
if your amendment passes and becomes law, why do you think that there 
is any chance in the world this will be more seriously enforced, more 
effective in doing what the gentleman wants to do, even though I think 
what you want to do is wrong, than employer sanctions are?
  Without an adequate verification system in place, this is all a game. 
Proposition 187 was a game because it sent a message, but it had 
nothing to do with

[[Page H2495]]

verification. And until you do something here on verification, you have 
already collapsed a mandatory verification system; you have an 
amendment in a minute to wipe out any verification system; and then you 
are going to say we were tough. We got them out of the schools. You are 
not going to get anybody out of the schools without verification. That 
is why this amendment standing alone is really empty.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Gingrich] the Honorable Speaker of the 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start by, at least in part I think, answering 
the very good question of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. 
The gentleman and I, I think, agree that we want to strengthen and 
support legal immigration to the United States, that this is a Nation 
of legal immigrants, and that we in no way want to send any signal to 
legal immigrants who are willing to obey the law.
  But I think there are five questions you have to answer before you 
decide to vote ``no'' on the Gallegly amendment. The first one is very 
simple, and it keeps getting asked rhetorically, and I cannot quite 
believe the answers the liberal friends give themselves.
  Does offering money and services attract people? This used to be the 
land of opportunity. It is now the land of welfare. Do we believe 
people in some countries might say ``I would like to go to America and 
get free goods from the American taxpayer?''
  Now, if you believe people are totally coming to America with no 
knowledge of the free, tax-paid goods they are going to get, then I 
think you are living in a fantasy land. I think there is no question 
that offering free, tax-paid goods to illegals has increased the number 
of illegals. That is question No. 1.

  Question No. 2: Is it the United States Federal Government's 
responsibility to close and protect the borders? This is not 
California's failure, this is not Florida's failure; this is a Federal 
failure.
  If it is a Federal failure, then question number three is, should we 
impose an unfunded mandate? Last year the House voted 394 to 28 against 
unfunded mandates. By 394 to 28 we said the U.S. Congress should not 
impose on State and local governments those things the U.S. Congress 
refuses to pay for.
  Well, guess what this is? This is a Federal unfunded mandate, which, 
by my calculation, for four States alone, is $3.2 billion a year. It is 
the U.S. Congress saying ``You will spend your taxpayers' money.'' I 
want to come back in a second.
  Fourth, are we really prepared to overrule the citizens of 
California? Sixty-four percent of the citizens of California said they 
are fed up with their State becoming a welfare capital for illegal 
immigrants, and 64 percent of the people of California, after a long 
and open campaign, voted for proposition 187. The fact is that they 
voted to say they are tired of their tax money paying for illegals. But 
we are now being told we should overrule the voters of California, we 
should impose an unfunded mandate.
  So here is my proposition. If this amendment goes down, I move that 
we take the money out of the rest of the budget and we absorb federally 
the cost of these children. I am going to tell you, you start going out 
there in a tight budget when we are trying to get to a balanced budget 
and you start telling your citizens, ``I want to take care of illegal 
immigrants so much that I am going to give up my grant, I am going to 
give up money coming to my schools, I am going to give up money coming 
to my colleges, so I can send it.''
  But it is totally unfair. The State of California spends a minimum of 
$1.7 billion a year, the State of New York spends a minimum of $634 
million a year, the State of Florida spends $424 million, and the State 
of Texas spends $419 million.
  Now, if they want to spend it, that is fine. Texas said they want to 
spend it. That is their right, to voluntarily in their State 
legislature decide do tax themselves. But for this Congress to say we 
are going to impose on you this mandate, we are going to require you to 
tax your citizens for a Federal Government failure, is absurd.
  It is the Federal Government that has failed. I think it is wrong for 
us to be the welfare capital of the world. I think it is wrong for us 
to degrade immigration, from the pursuit of opportunity to the pursuit 
of tax-paid welfare.
  I think that this is a totally legitimate request by the people of 
California, and I hope that every Member will vote yes for Gallegly, 
because this is the right thing to do, to send the right signal around 
the world. Come to America for opportunity; do not come to America to 
live off the law abiding American taxpayer.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is recognized for 
4\3/4\ minutes.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, every American, every American, 
should despair of our ability as a Congress to act in any significant 
way in a bipartisan fashion after that speech by Mr. Gingrich, the 
Speaker of the House. We have tried to bring a bill out here that would 
address the problem of legal and illegal immigration in a bipartisan 
fashion, Mr. Smith and I did, and we worked very hard on it. We have 
Members of both parties trying to make it pass.
  There are about three things that will kill this bipartisan 
consensus, one of which is this pernicious proposal, which is also 
unconstitutional, to provide that States can deny education to kids 
they think happen to be the children of illegal immigrants. Mr. 
Gingrich knew that when he came to the floor. He asked a question. He 
said, Should the States have to pay the costs of what is the result of 
the failure of a Federal responsibility?
  I agree with the answer. No, they should not. But, Mr. Gingrich, if 
you really believe what you said, and you do not, if you really believe 
what you said, you would not have instructed your Committee on Rules to 
forbid the offering of an amendment that would do exactly that.
  It is an outrage that the Speaker of this House would come down and 
seize upon this bill to make partisan gain. We have tried to put 
together a bill that is in the interests of all the people and that can 
pass. And of all people in this body to come forward and try to seize 
upon it to try to draw a line between us, it should not be the Speaker 
of the House. For what he just said, I say shame on you, Mr. Speaker.
  The fact of the matter is that we have made two major exceptions to 
the entire question of illegal immigration from the very beginning, and 
that has been emergency medical care and little kids who show up at the 
schoolhouse. And for the Republican majority now to come forward, I 
might say except a few brave ones over here who have been reasonable 
and courageous and stood up today, but for the Speaker of this side to 
come forward and say we ought to abandon that and jeopardize the 
ability to pass this bill, smacks of nothing more than raw political 
opportunism. It is an outrage.
  I hope that this House will vote resoundingly against the Gallegly 
amendment, not only to repudiate a very bad policy that is not in the 
interest of the public, but to repudiate a total failure of leadership 
by the Speaker of the House himself.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last speaker's comments, 
I would point out the Speaker of the House certainly did not 
personalize his comments. But I am wondering, given the fact that the 
last speaker attempted to impugn the integrity of the Speaker, whether 
it would be appropriate to take that gentleman's words down if he were 
to repeat those same remarks, or whether those remarks constitute a 
violation of the House rules?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole cannot 
respond to the parliamentary inquiry. A demand by the gentleman was not 
made at the appropriate time.

[[Page H2496]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gallegly 
amendment, which would deny a public education to undocumented 
immigrant children.
  This amendment is cruel, does not save money, and does nothing to 
advance immigration control. Once more, we see innocent children being 
made the scapegoat in the immigration policy debate. The plan seems to 
be to use any means to punish the children of undocumented immigrants.
  To deny anyone the opportunity to be educated is short-sighted and 
inhumane. If undocumented children cannot be educated, they will have 
nowhere to go but the streets. These children will not just go away if 
we continue to deny them benefits. They will be sent reeling into the 
cycle of poverty that we are seeking to end.
  Moreover, this particular provision will be a nightmare for already 
overburdened school districts to enforce. It will take an enormous 
investment of funds and time to document the status of every child 
enrolled in public schools.
  Schools should be a safe place of learning and opportunity for young 
people. The doors should not be shut to innocent children in order to 
punish their parents. Children should not grow up learning that only 
some of them are fit or qualified to receive an education. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Gallegly amendment.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I support the Gallegly amendment to 
allow a State to exercise the right to refuse illegal immigrants 
admission to public schools.
  Public schools are supported by taxpayers. The children of these men 
and women properly derive the benefit of education in public schools.
  By telling illegal immigrants that the attraction of free education 
for their children no longer exists, we send a powerful message. It 
says those who are lawfully present in the United States are welcome to 
participate in its privileges. But, those who have broken the law to 
enter our country or to remain here after their lawful entry expired 
deserve no benefit from the taxpayer.
  Illegal immigration is a threat to our national security. By adopting 
this amendment, we can enlist the States--and I assure my colleagues 
that California will move on it immediately--in a concerted and 
comprehensive campaign to end this menace.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in part 2 of 
House report 104-483, as modified by the order of the House of March 
19, 1996.


          amendment no. 12, as modified, offered by mr. chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Chabot: Modify the 
     amendment to read as follows: Strike section 401.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot], will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half of the time in support of 
the amendment to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and I ask 
unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield blocks of time to other 
Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and claim the 30 minutes. I yield 10 minutes of my time to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and I ask unanimous consent that 
he may be allowed to yield blocks of time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the extremely 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. It is a real honor for me to be 
associated with the gentleman in this bipartisan effort.
  Despite all the tactical shifts, Mr. Chairman, there really are only 
two sides to this debate. There are some people, some very well-
intentioned people, who believe that we need a national computerized 
system through which the Federal Government would specifically approve 
or disapprove every hiring decision that is made in this country. Then 
there are those of us, myself and the gentleman from Michigan included, 
who do not believe that such a system is appropriate.
  That is the issue. The Chabot-Conyers amendment would strike from the 
bill that section which asserts the Federal Government's power to sign 
off on new employment decisions as they are made.
  Now, because of massive opposition to this scheme, its proponents 
have decided to get a foot in the door by starting with an initial so-
called voluntary pilot project. But the system that it establishes is 
neither really voluntary nor a simple pilot. I will expand upon that 
point in a minute.

  More importantly, we know where this program is designed to lead. The 
end goal is and always has been a national mandatory system by which 
the Federal Government would assert the power to sign off on the 
employment of every U.S. citizen. That was what was in the bill to 
start with, and that is what its proponents have said they want. In 
fact, some of them cannot even wait beyond today to ratchet up a level 
of coercion. The very next amendment with its very explicit employer 
mandate clearly shows where all this is headed.
  As former Senator Malcolm Wallop has written, he calls this ``One of 
the most intrusive government programs America has ever seen.'' The 
Wall Street Journal calls it odious. The Washington Times asks in 
editorializing against the system and for our amendment, ``Since when 
did Americans have to ask the government's permission to go to work?''
  Now, even if the Government always worked perfectly, we would have 
huge philosophical objections to this procedure. But, as Senator Wallop 
says, ``Americans can spend eight months just trying to prove to the 
Social Security Administration that they are not dead.''

                                  1500

  Mr. Chairman, here, remember, we are talking about citizen's ability 
to work, about their very livelihood. And no one has argued that errors 
will not be made, causing heartache for those citizens who lose their 
jobs.
  The L.A. Times reported just last month that anonymous sources within 
Social Security fear that, quote, 20 percent of legal workers might be 
turned down by the system when it is first implemented. Over time, that 
270 percent error rate would fall to around 57 percent, officials 
estimate. Officially, Social Security now says that it, and I quote 
again, cannot predict the verification results for a pilot project. The 
Social Security Administration further states that in addition to 
attempted fraud, quote, nonmatches can occur for many reasons, 
including keying errors, missing information, erroneous information and 
failure of the individual to notify Social Security of legal name 
changes, et cetera.
  Indeed, a constituent of mine was in my office just yesterday on 
another issue and told me that he and his new bride have been trying 
for 4 months now to get Social Security to record her married name, and 
they still have not got it straightened out, although we are trying.

  The bill in fact explicitly contemplates errors that deprive American 
citizens of their jobs. Its answer? More litigation. Victims could sue 
the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That prospect should 
be cold comfort, either to somebody who has lost a long-sought job 
because of this program or to the taxpayers who will have to foot the 
bill. Well, at least this new Government program is voluntary, we are 
told. Not for the employees, it is not.
  Let me repeat. Employees, American citizens, have absolutely no 
choice

[[Page H2497]]

whatsoever about whether they are covered under this section, nor is it 
truly voluntary for employers. To quote Senator Wallop again, the 
strong-arm incentive for the business owners to join the system is that 
they will be targeted for additional Federal enforcement if they choose 
not to participate.
  The Small Business Survival Committee says the system would create 
unprecedented employer liability. They oppose it, as do, for example, 
the Associated General Contractors, the National Retail Federation, and 
many, many others.
  As for this being a pilot, well, as Stuart Anderson notes, the 
covered States have a population in excess of 90 million Americans, 
about one-third of this country. Together, these so-called pilot States 
would be the 11th largest nation in the entire world.
  Mr. Chairman, this system is to be added on top of the burdensome I-9 
document review requirements that started us down the road, down the 
path of making employers into basically Federal agents. Congress was 
assured in 1986 that that program would, quote, terminate the problem. 
Well, it has not. Remarkably, that program's very failure is advanced 
as a justification for proceeding further down that path. So this 
addition is proposed.
  Do my colleagues know what? It will not work, either. We will hear 
shortly from the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], and others 
that it cannot work unless it is explicitly made mandatory on 
employers. Even then employers who knowingly hire illegals simply call 
the 800 number. Moreover, others in this body argued that without a 
national ID, anyone could buy fake documents with corresponding numbers 
and cheat the system. So we know what is coming next, a national ID 
card in all likelihood.
  The bottom-line question, though, Mr. Chairman, is whether this 
Government of ours should be in the business of saying yea or nay 
whenever an American citizen takes a new job. I say no. So do the 
Catholic Conference, the ACLU, the National Center for Home Education, 
Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Cato 
Institute, Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Christian 
Coalition, and virtually all the legal experts who have taken a look at 
this, including the American Bar Association.
  All these groups and others that I will try to mention later support 
the Chabot-Conyers amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would totally undermine our efforts to 
stop illegal immigration. A vote for this amendment is a vote for 
continued illegal immigration. A vote for this amendment is a vote 
against protecting jobs for American citizens. In order to cut illegal 
immigration, controls at the border are not enough.
  Almost half of all illegal aliens come into this country legally and 
stay after their jobs, after their visas have expired. Why? Jobs. Jobs 
are the No. 1 attraction for illegal aliens coming to this country. If 
we can reduce the attraction of this magnet, we can save taxpayers 
untold millions of dollars and improve the prospects of vulnerable 
American workers now competing with illegal aliens for jobs.
  For the past decade, employers have checked the identity and work 
eligibility documents of new employees. Unfortunately, the easy 
availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the law. 
Fake documents are produced in mass quantities in southern California. 
Just from 1989 to 1992, there were 2.5 million bogus documents seized. 
This amendment would strike the quick check system in the bill that 
allows employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of new 
hires.
  The bill proposes only that we have a pilot program to be set up for 
3 years in five States and then it expires. The amendment would deny 
employers the opportunity to choose to do what is in their own 
interest. It says that Congress knows better than businesses what is 
best for them. Now talk about big brother. American workers will 
benefit from the quick check system. It will ensure that they will not 
be competing for jobs with illegal aliens.
  Confirmation systems like that in the bill have been tested. Since 
1992, the INS has tested a telephone verification system with over 200 
employers. Every single employer who has tried this system tried the 
INS pilot program, was pleased with the results. In fact they 
recommended that the pilot program be implemented on a permanent basis.
  Mr. Chairman, electronic confirmation requires no national ID card, 
no new data base, and it ends in 3 years. This is not a first step 
toward anything. That is also why the National Federation of 
Independent Business, the National Rifle Association, and the 
Traditional Values Coalition do not oppose the voluntary quick check 
system.

  Now let me set the record straight on one other matter, and that is 
the alleged error rates that we have been hearing about. These 
percentages are not error rates. There is no such error rate. These 
refer to a secondary verification. Secondary verification is 
understandably ordered whenever employees provide information that is 
not accurate. They have to double check on the inaccurate information.
  Secondary verification does not necessarily mean inaccurate data. It 
more often means that it is the fault of employees mistakenly providing 
erroneous information or, quite frankly, being caught providing 
fraudulent information. In short, the ultimate big brother is Congress 
saying they know better than employers how to run their businesses. Let 
us trust business owners to decide what is best for them. The quick 
check system is a convenience many want, and that is why the National 
Federation of Independent Business does not oppose this quick check 
verification system.
  Let us follow the lead of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform 
which recommended a verification system very similar to the one we have 
in this bill. The commission found that such a system would reduce the 
use of fraudulent documents, would protect American jobs and would 
reduce discrimination. That is exactly what this volunteer pilot 
program that expires in 3 years will do, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote very strongly against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  OK, this is the famous camel's nose under the tent amendment. This is 
the one where it starts off real nice. Not to worry, folks. It is OK. 
Trust us. We will make it a pilot project. Will that make it OK? We 
will make it a temporary project. We will make it voluntary. We will do 
it just like we did the Japanese internment program when we said we are 
going to find out who the Japanese are that need to be rounded up. And 
how did they do that so quickly? They used the census data. Government 
trusters, that is where that came from. So congratulations, voluntary, 
temporary program for employment verification.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] and others 
on this side should be congratulated, because there is a simple problem 
here. The basic flaw in the verification scheme in this bill is an 
assumption that we have got to impinge upon the privacy of law-abiding 
citizens in hiring illegal aliens. The problem is the few unscrupulous 
employers who evade the law today will continue to do it tomorrow, even 
if we pass this verification scheme in whatever form. How? Because they 
can simply continue to hire illegals underground and off the record as 
they do today. That is how we get illegals in, not that all the people 
that are busy breaking the law are now going to come forward and call 
the U.S. Government to determine whether one is an illegal or not and 
they should hire them. They are going to continue it in the underground 
economy.
  Is that difficult, complex? No. But this is the beginning of the 
progress of the system that will maybe ID everybody in the country. Now 
maybe it will not. But I am not here to take a chance today. This is 
not my job, to bank on what the future is going to do when we let these 
lousy programs get started. I think it is unnecessary.

[[Page H2498]]

  Why, oh why did the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] omit the tester 
program? Was there something wrong with that? The tester program would 
at least keep us honest, because that would allow people that were 
supposed to look foreign looking, whatever that is, to go in and see if 
they are really being treated the same way. But in the manager's 
amendment, carefully the gentleman took that out.
  Should I be alarmed? Oh, not to worry. Hey, what is the problem? You 
are getting a little sensitive. Let us just go ahead with the ID 
program and we will make it pilot program. We will make it temporary. 
We make it voluntary. We will make it anything, but get the nose under 
the tent today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as much as I admire my 
friend the ranking member, his talking about the camel's nose under the 
tent reinforces my view that, if we were to restrict free speech at 
all, we should make it illegal to use metaphors in the discussion of 
public policy. We are not talking about camels, noses and tents. We are 
talking about whether or not we have a rational approach to enforcing 
the laws against illegal immigration.
  I have to say that, of all the things in my life that puzzle me, why 
so many of my liberal friends have such an aversion to this simple 
measure is the greatest. As a matter of fact, if we do not use an 
identification system, let us be very clear, we are not talking about a 
card anybody has to carry anywhere. What we are saying is what would 
seem to be the very noncontroversial principle, if one were applying 
for a job, one of the things one should be asked to do is to verify 
that one is legally eligible to take the job and is in this country 
legally.
  During the great period of time in life when one is not applying for 
a job, which for most of us is most of the time, then one will not be 
bothered with this. It only applies when applying for a job.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, what are the alternatives? If we do not do this, 
what are the alternatives? The alternatives are much more interference 
with liberty. If in fact we do not try to break the economic nexus that 
has people hired illegally and the only way we can do that is by simply 
requiring that people identify, that they are here legally, then we get 
into much more repressive efforts. We get into much more interference 
with liberty.
  A free society like ours with enormous numbers of people coming and 
going, with enormous amounts of goods flowing in and out cannot 
physically bar entry. We understand that most people who come here come 
here to work. What this says is all we are going to say is that if you 
in fact come here to get a job, one of the things you will have to do 
when you give all this information--by the way, the notion that you are 
now allowed to apply for a job in perfect anonymity seems puzzling. 
This is an invasion of privacy. What the invasion of privacy? When 
going and applying for a job, one has to prove that one is here 
legally.

                                  1515

  Now, I think they have to prove maybe what their education is, maybe 
they have to prove their age, maybe they have to prove a lot of things. 
How can it be logically argued that it is an invasion of privacy to add 
to all the information they already have to give, their social security 
number, and et cetera; and, oh, by the way, can we please establish 
that they are here legally? It does not make any sense. I have friends 
on the left who react; I do not understand why.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the Japanese roundup, one of 
the worst periods in American history and wholly irrelevant to this. It 
has absolutely nothing in common, absolutely nothing in common at all. 
Locking people up because of their ancestry has nothing in common with 
saying, by the way, in addition to social security, educational 
qualifications and everything else, we want to make sure that they are 
here legally.
  That puzzles me. As a matter of fact, the only way to prevent 
discrimination based on national origin, or to minimize it; we can 
never prevent anything; but the way to minimize it is to, in fact, have 
a better system of identification. The better the system of 
identification, the less likely we are to have this discrimination.
  So I do not understand. Yes, people are afraid of forms of national 
identification. That is not what we are talking about. And on the other 
side we have the conservative trend that has grown up that we saw in 
the terrorism bill, and apparently on the right wing we now have this 
increasing view that the American Government is the enemy and is to be 
prevented from enforcing any of its laws.
  Now, I do not believe that a purely voluntary system makes sense. If, 
in fact, we cannot go beyond this to adopt an amendment that makes this 
a binding thing, we are talking about simple rhetoric. But this is 
obviously the first step in that war. And let us be clear what we are 
talking about. We are requiring that when one applies for a job or 
applies for a benefit, where being legally in this country is a 
prerequisite under the law, they have to prove it. To turn this into 
some act of oppression makes no sense whatsoever, and, as a matter of 
fact, the opposite is the case. If we do not allow ourselves to use 
this simple, straightforward system of requiring verification when one 
applies, we will be inviting a great deal more in the way of 
repression.
  Unless my colleagues are prepared to say that all the laws on the 
books about illegal immigration can be flattened at will because, 
without this kind of verification, that is what happens, then my 
colleagues are to vote against this amendment and vote later for an 
amendment that will begin to make this a requirement.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Chabot amendment to strike the telephone verification system for 
prospective new employees. I am a strong supporter of turning off the 
economic magnet that draws illegal workers into our country. However, 
we cannot turn off this magnet with a system that is flawed. If we do, 
we are asking for trouble.
  An error rate in the data base on even the smallest percent means 
thousands of people will be denied the ability to earn a living. With 
65 million hiring decisions made each year, an error rate of only 1 
percent would deny 650,000 American citizens their jobs. The Social 
Security Administration says it cannot predict what the error rate 
might be. However, in 1994 there was a 2\1/2\-percent nonmatch rate 
with social security.
  We all employ case workers in our offices, and we all know firsthand 
how difficult and time-consuming it can be to correct an error in an 
official government record. Try convincing the Internal Revenue Service 
that they have made a mistake, for example. Yet the employee has only 
10 days to correct any errors made by Social Security before being 
fired.
  While the employer can hire someone else, what happens to the person 
who needs a job and is denied it because Social Security has made a 
mistake?
  Some have said no new data bases are created by phone-in 
verification. But that is not correct. Employers must keep a permanent 
record of each approval code they obtain from the government. In order 
to know which approval matches which employee, there must be a new data 
base. To avoid further liability, employers also need to keep records 
of any negative responses they receive.
  Whether we like it or not, this is an unfunded mandate, an increased 
paperwork burden on American business. Phone-in verification is an 
addition to the I-9, not a substitute. Employers must keep this 
additional information in order to prove they obey the law.
  Even though the bill calls for a voluntary pilot program, it also 
calls for additional inspectors for enforcement to check the records of 
employers who choose not to participate in the program. That is not 
what I call voluntary. And I urge the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page H2499]]

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that we must pass, because if we 
do not, we set in motion some omnious measures that will not only 
affect our privacy, but our job security.
  Let me first say that we have to remember that there are 66 million 
job transactions that occur in this country every single year. In other 
words, someone is either hired or somebody changes jobs and gets a new 
job 66 million times every year in this country.
  Are there errors that occur in the systems that we have in place with 
the Social Security Administration and with the INS' own data base? I 
must answer the chairman's, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], own 
statement that there are no errors and say, Mr. Chairman, there are. We 
know it.
  The Social Security Administration itself has said that they cannot 
guarantee anything better than probably a 20-percent error rate in the 
first couple of years. And they are hoping they are lucky enough get it 
down to a 5-percent error rate in providing information. Why? Because 
the Social Security number was never meant to be an identifying number, 
but that is what we are using it for.
  The INS admits that in its own worker verification pilot programs 9 
percent of the time the people that they say were authorized to work 
were, in fact, not authorized to work.
  In addition, in the INS's own pilot program, they tell us that 28 
percent of the time they could not give the accurate information or 
information whatsoever to be able to make a hiring decision, and they 
had to go through a second, more complicated, more consuming step.
  Then we have the whole issue of, well, verification is going to be. 
OK. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank] is arguing that this 
is not going to harm anyone. Well, let me tell my colleagues something. 
If it is not going to harm anyone, what would be the harm of leaving 
in, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], said, the tester 
program that allows us to send a decoy in who acts like a prospective 
applicant for the job and check to see that employers are abiding by 
the law? No, that was taken out of the bill even though in committee, 
with the chairman's support, it was put in. In the dead of night, 
behind closed doors, it was taken out.
  Mr. Chairman, this is something my colleagues better be concerned 
about because it leads us along the lines of big brother telling us, 
``Show me your ID before not only I give you a job, but anything else 
in this country.''
  Vote for the Chabot amendment. Vote against any worker identification 
program.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just wanted to respond to one point the gentleman from California 
just made, and that is the Social Security Administration testified 
before the subcommittee that they would guarantee 99.5 percent accuracy 
if all we were asking was the person's name and number, not address, 
nothing else like that. All we are asking for in this pilot program, 
99.5 percent accuracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. 
Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise and 
speak in opposition to this amendment. Even though I am a colleague of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is a sponsor of it, I 
disagree with him on this one.
  I have concern about some of the arguments that have been made about 
the Government approval, and how they are going to make mistakes, and 
how we are asking employers to do all these things. In reality, we all 
know that the I-9 process already exists out there that the employers 
must use with potential employees. But right now we put these employers 
in a catch box. As my colleagues know, if they ask too many questions 
of a potential applicant for a job, they question the documents as to 
whether they are counterfeit, they can be sued by these applicants. But 
on the other hand, if they do not ask enough questions and they hire an 
illegal, then the INS can come in and fine them.
  So we are putting these employers in difficult situations, which this 
process, by use of the 1-800 number on a voluntary basis, will help 
alleviate. It will be a defense to those employers, and again it is a 
voluntary situation, using existing data, the Social Security number, 
which is used on income tax forms already by the Government in so many 
ways.
  I think it is a reasonable provision within the bill, and I hope this 
amendment goes to defeat. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a pilot program working in this area already. 
The result is that employers who have been in the pilot program like 
it, and the other result is that there have been no claims of 
discrimination come out of the pilot program. So the fears raised both 
on the part of prospective employers that might be placed under this 
provision and the fears raised by potential discrimination simply do 
not have any basis in our experience, having operated pilot programs 
elsewhere already.
  The fact of the matter is that employer sanctions now in the law; 
that is to say, the law that says it is against the law for an employer 
to hire someone who is not legally present in the United States, those 
sanctions are not working any longer. They used to work, but they do 
not work any longer because job applicants have discovered how to 
counterfeit any one of or all of the 29 documents which can be 
presented to prove one's legal status.
  Without verification in this bill, we really have no way to make this 
most significant improvement, and that is how to get around document 
fraud that completely undermines the law that prohibits employers from 
hiring somebody who is not a legally present individual.
  It is a simple system. The Social Security number is looked at, and a 
check is made to see if a number is valid and if it belongs to the name 
on the card. That is all there is to it. It is not an intrusion on 
civil liberties. It is not a threat to anybody's employability. It is 
certainly not an inconvenience to employers. If anything, it is a 
convenience to them and a protection to them against getting involved 
in some type of a dispute over whether or not they hired someone 
knowing that their documents were not valid.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that if we are serious, we have to keep this 
provision in the bill, and I urge Members to vote against this Chabot 
amendment. If the Chabot amendment succeeds, we are right back to the 
status quo, we are right back to where we started about 16 months ago. 
Illegal workers will still be working, and they will still be working 
and taking American jobs.
  This is a simple procedure. It is one that has worked in the pilot 
programs that have tested it. It has worked for the benefit of those 
applying for the jobs as well as for the benefit of those doing 
the hiring.

  I urge Members to vote against the Chabot amendment and maintain the 
Smith language that is in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a very distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chabot 
amendment.
  At a time when our Government is trying to get smaller, get out of 
people's lives, at a time when big brother is finally moving away from 
the direction it has gone, when it is trying to be less intrusive, I 
think that this is not the direction we need to be going.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] gave us some very 
excellent practical arguments against this system. Mr. Bryant gave us 
the alternative argument, which is very good as well. It says, if we 
are going to have a rule that is going to make employers be required to 
be INS agents or have some of those functions, at least let us make it 
easy for them. Mr. Bryant on this side then went on further still and 
said let us make it a convenience for that employer to be able to do 
that better so they are not held up by the system.
  I say to my colleagues that this is not the direction we need to go 
to

[[Page H2500]]

make it easier for private citizens to have to do the job of 
Government, to be able to stand up and say, no, we are not going to 
require citizens of the United States to get permission from the 
Federal Government to work. And that is what this pilot program, if it 
becomes a total program, would do.
  To have the Federal Government of the United States be a last word on 
whether someone works today or whether someone does not is particularly 
odious. It is anathema to the reason most of us came here. To have the 
Federal Government of the United States say, ``You may work today 
because we have decided that you're here legally, and we're going to 
trust that all the records are right, that we're going to go ahead and 
say that there's no glitch in it,'' and all in an effort to make the I-
9 form, odious by itself, work better is wrong-headed as well as being 
merely wrong.

                                  1530

  We should go the step in the other direction, to provide positive 
incentives for employers to help us solve the problem of illegal 
immigrants working. We should go in the direction of bringing the 
employers enlisted into the battle against illegal workers, rather than 
impressing them into the battle and making it as harmful as possible to 
the people who work for them, but as harmless to them as possible. We 
are not going in the right direction. We must reject this portion of 
the bill. I urge a vote for the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I tried the metaphor, but when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts does not use it himself, it should be outlawed. I will 
try another one, the Ponzi scheme. That is that whatever amendment is 
on the floor, if we do not pass this, we will never stop illegals from 
coming in.
  Remember the McCollum amendment that would put your picture on an ID 
card, on a Social Security card and make it tamper-proof? Have we 
forgotten that one already? That was the one we had to have or we would 
never stop illegals. We moved that one on. Now we have the nose under 
the tent, and if we do not get this one in, we will never stop 
illegals.
  Forget the fact that all the fraudulent employers that want to use 
illegals are never going to report them through the proper methods 
anyway. They will all be violating not only this amendment, but all the 
other immigration laws. So the underground economy is laughing as we 
finally put the nail on illegal immigrants by a foolproof ID card.
  Mr. Chairman, what does the Japanese internment program have to do 
with this? Some say nothing, and some say it has something to do. Where 
did they find out who the Japanese were and where they were to go get 
them? They found out through the census program, which was not started 
out for that, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank]. The census system was not started off for that purpose. It got 
to be used that way.
  Social Security was not started off to be ID. It was for Social 
Security. Now it is ID. It is on your driver's license. Now we have 
deteriorated a little bit more and a little bit more, and then someone 
says, ``This is not the nose under the tent, the camel's nose under the 
tent, this is innocent, freestanding, vital to the immigration bill; we 
have to get it or we will never stop illegal immigrants.''
  I say hogwash. Support Chabot.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my 
friend that apparently we have now found out that the serious threat to 
civil liberties is the census. I would say in that case it is too late 
to worry. I do not myself regard the census as a threat, but if it is a 
threat, it is already there, so if people were going to manipulate 
things like the census, they would already have it and they would not 
need anything else.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I will throw up my hands, then. It is all 
over; we have had it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, let us be up front about this. There are 
those who do not want us to be able to enforce our immigration law and 
want to remove every reasonable tool. They want to find excuses for 
that. There are those that say that somehow it is terrible to the 
employer.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give a letter from Virginia, who works for G.T. 
Bicycles. She said that the telephone verification program has given 
her peace of mind with the knowledge that G.T. Bicycles is complying 
with the law regarding employment, because if you are an employer, you 
have no way of knowing that the law requires you to get a Social 
Security number and to fill out an I-9 form, but you do not know if 
that number belongs to the person.
  There are those that are going to try to find excuses to strike this 
system and eliminate any reasonable point of enforcement of our 
immigration laws. So please do not say you are against illegal 
immigration, do not say you are against illegals getting public 
assistance, do not say you are against illegals taking jobs from 
people, but then say, Oh, but I am against having a reasonable 
enforcement vehicle. It is a cop-out. Let us be up front about it. Let 
us say, I really do not think illegal immigration is a real problem. I 
think these people ought to be allowed to come into our borders.

  But this system is a system that is the most nonobtrusive approach we 
can possibly do, in a system where we require reporting so we can raise 
taxes, so we can get money for the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes time for us to participate in the 
securing of our national frontiers, of our national sovereignty, the 
Federal Government's number one obligation and responsibility, when it 
comes to that responsibility, Members are willing to walk away and find 
excuses to cop out. All I have to say is, if it is good enough and it 
is reasonable enough for us to move forward with some programs so we 
can enhance our coffers, then doggone it, it is time that we do the 
reasonable thing to control illegal immigration. But let us not sit 
there and vote for this amendment and then say, I really am against 
illegal immigration. This amendment will decide which way you stand, 
and the American people will know it.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Chabot 
amendment. What I would love to see, Mr. Chairman, is to get the 
rollcall of the Chabot amendment and the people who voted in favor of 
striking the verification system, and then the people who vote for the 
Gallegly amendment to knock all the children of illegal immigrants out 
of the public schools, and the Bryant amendment, to report all the 
names of illegal immigrants to the INS, and all these other Prop 187 
amendments, and match the two, because there will be a lot of people 
who vote ``yes'' on Chabot and then ``yes'' on Gallegly on the public 
education and ``yes'' on Bryant, and then we will know how rhetorical 
the discussion on doing something on illegal immigration is; because 
they will have sat there and gone back to their districts and said, 
``We did something about public services, employment, and illegal 
aliens. We just knocked out any way of ever enforcing it,'' the Chabot 
amendment.
  I have great respect for the gentleman, I have listened to him both 
in committee and on the floor, and I know he feels this passionately, 
but it is intellectually flawed, because there should be one additional 
provision. It should repeal employer sanctions. If we do not have 
verification, we have no meaning in employer sanctions. We have the 
present situation.

  Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of what creates a more cynical public 
than the notion that the Government saying, as we said in 1986, ``We 
are doing something about this,'' and then denying the mechanisms to 
try and do anything about it. That will only intensify the hostility 
between the public and their elected officials.

[[Page H2501]]

  If employer sanctions are going to mean anything, Mr. Chairman, 
verification is at the heart of what we are supposed to do. The problem 
with the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Texas, is that 
ideally I think we have to do some pilot projects before we can 
implement a full 800-telephone verification system. But the problem 
with the amendment of the gentleman from Texas, which Chabot seeks to 
strike, and which Gallegly seeks to strengthen in a subsequent 
amendment, is that it has none of the protections that we put in. And 
as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] pointed out, it may be 
voluntary for employers, but it is mandatory for employees.
  There are no protections on privacy, there are no protections on 
errors, there is no enforcement of discrimination in that particular 
program. A mandatory system at the point where it is feasible and 
implemented, if done right, will stop discrimination which now exists, 
because the person who wants to comply with the law is not going to 
accept the documents coming in under the I-9 requirements, is going to 
assume that person is illegal and is going to discriminate, not because 
that person is racist, but because that person does not want to run 
afoul of employer sanctions and does not understand that employer 
sanctions have no meaning under the present situation.
  It can protect against privacy innovations, just like we did in 1986 
with the legalization program, where we had INS legalize 1.8 million 
people and never once give the names of the people that came forward to 
the enforcement wing. You can protect against all of those kinds of 
things.
  The amendment in front of us is bad because it, without repealing 
employer sanctions, renders employer sanctions totally meaningless. The 
base language is bad because it has none of the protections we need. 
That is why the Gallegly amendment, I am forced to conclude, is the 
only feasible fashion for dealing meaningfully with this whole subject.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chabot-Conyers 
amendment. I found it very interesting that the good gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bryant] indicated there were no examples of abuse by the 
Government in the present system.
  Whereas I agree that illegal immigration is a very serious problem, 
there has also been a very serious problem in the enforcement of the 
existing rules and regulations, and as currently stated in the bill, 
the employment verification system will add to and not replace the 
current I-9 verification.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district there is a fruit farmer, Mr. Stanley 
Robison, who has been in business for 60 years. Whereas the INS 
requires all kinds of verifications, Mr. Robison set about acquiring 
those verifications. They were all in a separate file, according to the 
laborer or the worker. When the Department of Labor came in and audited 
his files, they found that he had asked for too much verification, and 
that had consisted of employer and worker harassment. This man was 
fined $72,000 before he ever had a day in court.
  Mr. Chairman, this kind of abuse cannot go on. Please support the 
Chabot-Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Torres].
  Mr. TORRES. Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Chabot-Conyers 
amendment to strike the so-called voluntary employment verification 
system. I ask my colleagues here today to listen and to listen closely 
as I relate a personal story about the dark side of employment 
verification, because no matter how well-intentioned this system 
appears, the consequences can be ominous.
  I raised my kids in France for a few years while I served as the U.S. 
Ambassador to UNESCO in Paris. One day my son was coming home from 
school alone. He was apprehended by the French police and asked to 
produce his national identity card. He did not have it with him. He was 
detained, arrested, and taken to jail. I had to go take him out, simply 
because he did not have a card. He did not look French.
  Are we ready, as a bastion of freedom and democracy, to subject the 
citizens of this country to the same type of insidious mistakes? If we 
do not pass the Chabot-Conyers amendment to strike, I think we will be 
doing that. Do we want to impose a so-called voluntary system on 
employers that has no protection for employees? From my own family's 
experience in Paris, I can assure the Members that individuals that 
appear foreign will be unfairly treated. In this so-called era of less 
government, why would we want to impose costly regulations upon the 
engine of our economy and our Nation's job creators?
  Mr. Chairman, do not be deluded. This employment verification is only 
the first step. As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has said, 
this is the nose under the tent towards a national identification card, 
a first step towards the loss of our freedom. Remember this, only a 
small percentage of employers knowingly hire undocumented workers.
  We have laws on the books that require reporting for every new hire, 
the I-9, but we do not spend any money on enforcement. We have a law 
that requires that employers pay minimum wage and withhold Social 
Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, but we do not spend any money 
on enforcement. These employers are violating the law now, and nothing 
in this bill will force them to comply with a new verification law.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues here today to vote yes on the 
Chabot-Conyers amendment to strike.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                                  1545

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment offered by my good friend the gentleman from Ohio. The author 
may be well meaning but he is simply wrong on this issue of 
verification, and his amendment will only serve to protect those 
special interest businesses who currently violate U.S. immigration 
laws.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truly a litmus test of our 
seriousness to curtail illegal immigration, protect jobs for Americans, 
and stifle low wages.
  Mr. Chairman, preventing illegal entry is a key to prevention and 
deterrence, but Congress can ill afford to ignore the 4 to 6 million 
illegal immigrants already residing and working in this country.
  This is where the gentleman from Ohio is misinformed. He completely 
ignores the fact that the illegal immigration problem must also be 
addressed in the Nation's interior, well away from the border.
  I agree that enhanced border enforcement is important. This bill 
addresses that. I also agree that stiff fines and employer sanctions 
are very helpful. These measures are fine, but simply not enough.
  Like it or not, Mr. Chairman, there are businesses in this country 
who knowingly break U.S. law and hire illegal immigrants. Short of more 
random checks and unannounced raids, alternatives that I am sure the 
gentleman from Ohio would oppose, a verification system is direly 
needed, and a 1-800 number is by far the easiest way to do this.
  The gentleman in his remarks makes inaccurate, misleading, 
unsubstantiated and maybe even ridiculous arguments against 
verification. A system of verification does not establish a data base. 
It does not create a Federal hiring approval process.
  The gentleman's amendment would wipe out any type of verification 
and, in effect, would only serve to protect those unscrupulous 
businesses which break U.S. law. His amendment would perpetuate a 
system which replaces American workers with low-wage employees. I urge 
sound defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.

[[Page H2502]]

  Mr. Chairman, there is a truism that I think applies in life as it 
does in legislation, that one excuse is just as good as another if we 
do not want to do anything. We have heard a lot of excuses today. I am 
afraid that this amendment, as well intentioned as it may be, is just 
another excuse. If we really do not want to do anything about the 
immigration problem and the employment of those who are not legally in 
our country, then this excuse is just as good as another.
  I cannot refute all of the excuses that have been offered as a 
support for this amendment, but let me take one, the idea that there is 
an error rate in the Social Security office and that somebody may be 
denied the opportunity to work because there has been some mix-up in 
their Social Security number.
  I want to suggest that if we put in place this bill without this 
amendment, we will do two things. First of all, let an American citizen 
who is legally in this country and legally entitled to be employed be 
denied an opportunity because somebody has made an error in his Social 
Security rate, two things are going to happen. First of all, they are 
going to correct his Social Security records, which ought to have been 
done in the first place, and second, he is going to get the job.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the Chabot amendment takes the teeth out 
of this bill. Illegal immigrants come to this country for one reason, 
jobs.
  The immigration bill of 1986 tried to move in the right direction, 
but it failed to maintain an adequate workplace enforcement provision. 
What it did was create a system where employers are forced to be pseudo 
INS agents. With the fear of fines, employers must decide which 
documents are fake and which are real.
  This is an unfair, unrealistic burden. 1-800 is not big brother. It 
simply gives employers an easy, cost-effective way to make sure they 
are following Federal law.
  As a former small businessman who ran several restaurants in southern 
California, I saw my share of suspicious documents over the years. 1-
800 would give me peace of mind as a small employer.
  When I first proposed a toll-free workplace verification system back 
in 1994, I had no idea it would attract such attention. I am glad that 
it has, but like many hot issues, certain untruths have cropped up.
  1-800 is not big brother; it is not an intrusion into small business; 
it is not discriminatory; it is not an ID number or system. It is, 
however, cost-effective, nondiscriminatory, business-friendly and, most 
importantly, the most effective tool we have at stopping illegal 
immigration once and for all.
  It may come as a surprise, but many employers knowingly hire illegal 
immigrants in this country. These employers hide behind the current 
law. The I-9 form, which I have used on thousands of occasions as an 
employer, is cover. Get your fake documents, xerox them on the back of 
the I-9 form and when the INS comes in, you are OK.
  That is wrong. We need to have a verification system that employers 
can rely on. If you vote for Chabot, you are voting for the status quo. 
I urge Members to vote to support tough action against illegal 
immigration and oppose the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the last 
gentleman. They were points well made.
  I want to also respond briefly to a comment made early by the 
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth]. I think she misheard me. I 
said that the pilot program now working to test this system that the 
Chabot amendment would eliminate has not yielded any complaints from 
employers and not yielded any instances of discrimination against 
potential employees.
  The example the gentlewoman gave a moment ago is exactly the example 
we are trying to avoid. I do not know the specifics of her hypothetical 
situation, but we want employers to be able to rely upon this check to 
know that they do not have to worry about whether or not they have 
somehow violated the current laws with regard to all these documents.
  We want them to be able to do what the provision says and that simply 
is, check the number and see if it is a valid number, and, second, see 
if it belongs to the name on the card. That is all this does. It is an 
effort to protect the employer and to protect the employee, as well, 
and to make the system simple.
  We are left with the situation that if this is taken out of the bill 
by virtue of adoption of the Chabot amendment, we simply cannot enforce 
employer sanctions, and employer sanctions, which once worked before 
document counterfeiting became so widespread, are not working now. 
Please vote against the Chabot amendment. Let us keep some meaning in 
this bill with regard to employer sanctions.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Chabot 
amendment, and also in recognition of the fine job that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith] and others have done in working on this overall 
issue of illegal immigration. I think they have done an outstanding 
job. However, on this issue I have a dispute and a disagreement with 
them on it.
  I think the Members in looking at this amendment should consider and 
ask themselves three questions in being up-front about what is going 
on. First, where are we headed with this? If there is a legitimate 
thought in your mind that where we are headed with this is a potential 
of a national identification card system, and you disagree with that, 
you should vote for the Chabot amendment.
  Second is, what precedent are we setting in putting forward this 
provision? If you are questioning the precedent that we are setting is 
something that we are going to go toward a national ID system, again 
you should vote for the Chabot amendment.
  Finally I would ask Members, the question is how competent is the 
Government to do this? If you have a question about the competency, 
call the IRS right now with a tax question. I think that might answer 
some questions about how competent is the Government to get this right 
when we have got a huge nation of so many people.
  For those reasons and for the reason of which I think I was sent here 
to Congress, which is to get the Federal Government off of people's 
backs and out of their pockets, I am supporting the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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. Chairman, this is an issue of civil liberties and 
personal privacy. We do not need big brother to keep track of our 
citizens, and this is what we are doing with a national ID system. If 
you are blond and fair-skinned, you are not going to be asked to 
provide an identity. But if you are a member of the congressional 
Hispanic or Black or Asian Caucus, you probably are.
  This is the nub of this argument. People whose accent, appearance, or 
family background make them look like foreigners would be screened out 
of jobs as employers attempt to avoid the inevitable problems which 
this verification process would cause. Why would an employer bother to 
hire somebody that, quote, looks foreign?
  What makes everybody think that this system is going to work? I have 
heard Members on both sides rail about the inefficiency of Government, 
the IRS, IRS computers and verification system, that we are creating a 
gigantic bureaucracy. Yet for some reason many on that side and on our 
side think that it is going to work. This is a case of personal 
privacy. This is a case of civil liberties.
  All Americans recognize that illegal immigration is a problem, but a 
solution to this problem is not the creation of a database of 
unprecedented scope that invades the privacy of all our citizens and 
requires employers to ask the Government's permission before they make 
hiring decisions. Business people should not be bureaucrats and INS 
officers. This is what we are doing.

[[Page H2503]]

  The establishment of a massive and costly verification system to 
access information from existing Government databases, such as the INS 
and the Social Security Administration, is not going to solve the 
problem but just create new ones.
  Once again, this is a violation of the privacy of all Americans. It 
is a good, bipartisan, left, right, center amendment that should be 
adopted.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chabot-
Conyers amendment. As a business owner, I find it quite disturbing that 
the Federal Government would want to be involved in every hiring 
decision that I make. While I understand the bill now calls for a 
voluntary verification system, I believe this program is intentioned to 
become yet another big government mandate on businesses across America.
  The cost of this new Government program will be unavoidably passed on 
to consumers through higher prices. I believe we were sent here to 
reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government and that this big 
government proposal simply goes in the opposite direction. To have to 
call a 1-800 number and ask permission of the Federal Government each 
and every time we hire an employee is simply wrong. A 1-800 big brother 
is not good for business, it is not good for employees, it is not good 
for the direction we should be taking America.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very dear friend from Texas for 
yielding me this time. I would like to again extend hearty 
congratulations to him for a job well done. He has been working 12 
hours a day on this issue for many, many months. We are all grateful to 
finally see this issue coming forward.
  Let me address the question that we have right now. Clearly the 
system that we have today has a very simple and basic message. It says, 
``Please go buy false identification papers before you get a job.'' 
That is what we have that exists today.
  What we are proposing is clearly the least intrusive way to deal with 
this. Many arguments have been made that this is going to create a 
problem for business. Quite frankly, this will be very helpful to the 
business community. Why? Because they will not have any liability once 
they have utilized this 1-800 number to make the call and make the 
determination as to whether or not the verification is true and has 
taken place.
  I think that as we look at this question, it is key for us to do 
everything that we possibly can to step up to the plate and encourage 
people to determine whether or not someone is, in fact, qualified for 
employment.

                                  1600

  This is a pilot program and it is based on a very successful test 
that has been utilized in my State of California. Participating 
employers actually liked it. They found that it was helpful because it 
eases government regulation, and workers liked it because it eliminated 
possible discrimination and it allowed quick and very easy hiring.
  So this is a very, very responsible move, the committee's position. I 
hope that we can move ahead at least with this, and I urge opposition 
to the amendment that is before us.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Chabot amendment. I would just 
like to make the observation to anybody who is paying attention to this 
debate, any of our colleagues, that if you oppose illegal immigration, 
you must oppose the Chabot amendment. There is no way to control 
illegal immigration unless we can cut the magnet of jobs and stop the 
incentive of people coming here, and that means making employer 
sanctions work; making the law we have and have had for 10 years on the 
books that says it is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal, make it 
work.
  I can put every person in the United States military across our 
Southwest border, I can seal it with a wall, and I cannot stop the 
people who are going to come here illegally, because they are going to 
come for jobs one way or another. Over half who are here illegally 
today, and there are four million present and 300,000 to 500,000 a year 
coming here to stay here permanently, are here because they have come 
on legal visas and overstayed. And the incentive for all of this is to 
get a job.
  Employer sanctions is not working. The only way it can be made to 
work is to get some of the fraud out of the business. I suggested 
enhancing the Social Security card earlier. On a very close vote, it 
lost.
  The only other option left to us in this bill is the 1-800 number, 
which is no new data base, no new information. Just simply have a pilot 
program to let us test to see if it will not work to make it easier for 
employers and effective law enforcement to have, when somebody comes to 
seek a job, have the employer, when they see the Social Security number 
that they are going to see, they have that law right now, to call the 
telephone number that they have, for free, and find out if the number 
matches the name being given to them. It is as simple as that.
  If it does not match, then why should they not reject the employment 
of that person? Because they have been presented obviously a fraudulent 
document, which is the way they are getting employed.
  It is a very simple process. It is not complicated. It is not big 
brother. There are places and roles that government must play. This is 
a simple one, and it is one of them.
  Immigration is a Federal responsibility. Nobody believes in reducing 
the size and scope of the Federal Government any more than I do. But I 
must tell Members, there are times and places, including national 
defense and immigration, where the Federal Government has a role. I 
urge a vote against the Chabot amendment so we can control illegal 
immigration. If we do not vote against it, we can never control illegal 
immigration.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the same gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
who just told us on an earlier amendment that if we did not pass the 
photo ID amendment, that immigration would collapse and we would be 
overrun. That did not succeed, so now he is here on the telephone 
verification, and now once again the world will go down in smoke if we 
do not pass this amendment.
  Please, let us fact the facts: If people come in on student visas and 
overstay, a telephone verification system is not going to stop them. If 
people come in here as visitors and do not go back, telephone 
verification will not do a thing in the world about it.
  I love everyone advising our business friends how helpful this will 
be to them. They happen to oppose it through an organization. By the 
way, the American Bar Association, which is for strong immigration 
rules, is 100 percent for the Chabot-Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what was designed as a coercive mandatory and permanent 
program now is being sold as voluntary and temporary. The principal 
argument in its favor apparently is it is not as bad as it could be. 
Well, we all know that government programs do not stay voluntary or 
temporary very long. This one is not voluntary to begin with, and as 
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform pointed out yesterday, 
income tax withholding was introduced as a temporary funding mechanism 
in World War II. The concept of American citizens having to obtain 
government working papers, or in the language of the bill, a 
confirmation code, in order to work, is antithetical to the principles 
I was sent here to support.
  But I ask my colleagues to think ahead 5 or 10 or 15 years from now 
and decide whether you want to look back and say yeah, I did vote to 
put that system into place, or no, I did the right thing. I voted to 
stop it when it could

[[Page H2504]]

have been stopped. Please join me and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] in supporting this amendment, along with everyone from the 
Christian Coalition to the ACLU, to the ABA, and every business group 
that has taken a stand.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues that the NFIB in 
fact supports this bill and in fact they do not oppose the very 
voluntary system that we have in the bill for a pilot program for 
verification. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is 
recognized for 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment and 
in favor of the employer verification system. In fact, I support making 
the system mandatory and will be supporting the amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] later on.
  But it is important to make it very clear that this is simply a 
voluntary system that everybody can participate in if they choose to. 
Those who have chosen to participate in this system thus far in the 
pilot program in Los Angeles have found it to be an excellent system; 
220 employers participated, and they found a 99.9 percent accuracy rate 
on the employment verification checks that were done under that system.
  Why do we need this system? Because the current system, the 
bureaucratic I-9 system, which would hope this would be the first step 
toward evolving a system that would work very effectively and 
efficiently and get employers away from the intrusive bureaucratic 
ineffective I-9 system, does not work.
  We have a magnet that draws people to this country, jobs. Who can 
blame anybody for wanting to come to this country for that opportunity? 
But we have already taken the step of making it illegal to employ 
people. Now we have got to give employers the means to effectively 
screen those people out.
  Fraudulent documents are a massive problem: Just a few days ago in 
Los Angeles, a major raid on a factory manufacturing illegal green 
cards, Social Security cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, 
all manner of fraudulent documents that cannot be properly screened out 
by employers. All we do here is say match the Social Security number 
that they bridge in with the Social Security number in the file. No new 
data base, no ID card. Simply give the opportunity for employers to get 
a real verification. Employees ought to love it, too. If you go in and 
you get a job and they have the wrong Social Security number for you 
and that money that your employer and you pay in in taxes to the Social 
Security System does not get credited to your account, you have lost 
out in your retirement days. So you are going to know right when you go 
in that your Social Security number is matched up with the one that is 
on file with the Social Security Administration.
  This is a system that is simple, it is a simple system that is fair, 
it is a system that will work, it is a system that is voluntary, and I 
urge every Member of this body to support a voluntary employer 
verification system.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 1 minute 
and 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for his direction in this issue, and I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], for his continued persistence on a 
very important issue.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, the question should be asked, who we are 
trying to help today? I rise in support of a perfectly legal system, 
the I-9 system, that required us in this Government to verify 
employment eligibility. It was a system that had a fingerprint, coded 
information, and a picture. The question is whether or not that system 
has fully worked or there are problems, and whether or not we can 
reform that system.
  It seems that if we would add this big brother system, however, that 
there would be a number of industries in my community; for example, the 
Houston grocery store owners and the food industry, which have 
indicated this labor intensive industry would be severely burdened, 
employing some 3 million people cross the Nation and experiencing high 
turnover.
  Some stores hire 50 to 150 new employees each week during the 
Christmas season. Telephoning the Government would amount to an 
impossible burden on store managers. Around 65 million hirings take 
place every year. The phone system and the bureaucracy would be totally 
unbearable and unnecessary.
  Could you prevent fraud? I think not. To have someone provide you 
with a Social Security number and name, it could possibly be verified 
that they were that person. I believe I have the strong support of 
civil rights, Mr. Chairman. This is not the right direction. I support 
the Conyers-Chabot amendment and believe we should move toward helping 
our employers and helping our workers.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chabot-Conyers 
amendment. While I commend the sponsors of the bill for removing the 
horrendous mandatory employment verification system included in the 
bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, this voluntary employment 
verification system has major flaws. The prospect that millions of 
people would lose or be denied jobs because of unreliable data or 
employment discrimination is too great a risk to take in a free 
society.
  We already know from an INS telephone verification pilot project 
currently underway in southern California that there are major flaws in 
a system that tries to merge INS data with Social Security 
Administration data. And, who suffers most when a verification system 
makes errors or is too slow? The job seeker is the one most harmed.
  It is unfortunate that proponents of this voluntary system chose to 
delete critical civil rights protections that were included in the 
Judiciary Committee text, particularly provisions that provided for 
testers to identify discriminatory employer behavior that would likely 
result from the verification system. This technique has been effective 
in identifying other types of discrimination, including housing 
discrimination. Such civil rights protections must be part of any fair 
employment verification system, voluntary of mandatory.
  I share the concern that we begin to go down a very dangerous path by 
establishing an employment verification system that will require every 
employee in the United States to get permission to work from the 
Federal Government through a national computer registry. This response 
to legitimate concerns about illegal employment is way out of 
proportion to the actual problem. The INS estimates that undocumented 
persons represent less than 1 percent of the U.S. population; and yet 
under this voluntary system approximately 20 million employees could 
face the very real threat of being denied employment or victimized by 
employment discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot-Conyers 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the Chabot-Conyers amendment to strike the establishment of 
a new and additional employment eligibility confirmation process. I 
oppose the worker verification system, which is really a 1-800 big 
brother system, because it is an onerous imposition on businesses in my 
district and in my State of Texas.
  I have spoken with Houston grocery store owners and those in the food 
industry in Houston, and they have voiced to me their concerns about 
the call-in verification system. A call-in system will not prevent 
fraud because verifying a new hire's name and Social Security number 
does not prevent the fraud of an illegal alien using the name and 
Social Security number of someone else who is eligible to work. The 
grocery industry is labor intensive, employing more than 3 million 
people, and experiences high turnover. Some stores hire 50 to 150 new 
employees each week during the Christmas season. Telephoning the 
Government would amount to an impossible burden on store managers. 
Around 65 million hirings take place every year. The phone system and 
the bureaucracy necessary to handle this volume efficiently and 
accurately would be staggering in size and cost.
  Verification systems would rely on highly flawed Government data. The 
INS database slated for use has missing or incorrect information 28 
percent of the time, while Social Security Administration data has 
faulty data 17 percent of the time. Even a low 3-percent

[[Page H2505]]

error rate could cost nearly 2 million Americans to be wrongly denied 
or delayed in starting work each year.
  Furthermore, I am a strong supporter of civil rights, and this system 
would represent a major assault on the privacy rights of all Americans. 
The verification would lead to an intrusive national ID card. Just as 
we have seen the uses for Social Security cards being expanded beyond 
its original purpose, there are already calls being raised to use a 
national verification system to give police broader access to personal 
information and to retrieve medical records.
  In committee, I also voted for an amendment to strike the provisions 
for an employment verification system, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me today in voting ``yes'' on the Chabot-Conyers amendment and voting 
``no'' on the Gallegly-Bilbray-Seastrand-Stenholm amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot], as modified.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], will be 
postponed.


          SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
following order:
  Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Bryant of Tennessee; amendment No. 9 
offered by Ms. Velazquez of New York; amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. 
Gallegly of California; and amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Chabot of 
Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series, except the electronic vote, if 
ordered, of amendment No. 10, which will be a 15-minute vote.


              amendment offered by mr. bryant of tennessee

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 250, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 73]

                               AYES--170

     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Collins (IL)
     Hostettler
     Johnston
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Stark
     Stokes
     Waters

                                  1634

  Messrs. HYDE, ZELIFF, FOX of Pennsylvania, EMERSON, LIGHTFOOT, DIXON, 
HOBSON, LONGLEY, and DOOLITTLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. WELLER, PACKARD, LAUGHLIN, BATEMAN, HEFLEY, BOEHNER, PAXON, 
RAMSTAD, SOLOMON, and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________