[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2505-H2534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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, except the vote by electronic
device, if ordered, on amendment No. 10, which will be a 15-minute
vote.
amendment offered by ms. velazquez
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velazquez] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H2506]]
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 151,
noes 269, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 74]
AYES--151
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Canady
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Souder
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOES--269
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cardin
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
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Collins (IL)
Hostettler
Johnston
Moakley
Nadler
Porter
Radanovich
Rush
Stark
Stokes
Waters
1644
Mr. SMITH of Michigan and Mr. SAWYER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. gallegly
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Gallegly] 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 257,
noes 163, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 75]
AYES--257
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
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
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--163
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
[[Page H2507]]
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Morella
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Collins (IL)
Hostettler
Johnston
Moakley
Nadler
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Radanovich
Rush
Stark
Stokes
Waters
1702
Mr. VOLKMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment, as modified, offered by mr. chabot
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Riggs). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment, as modified, offered by
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 260, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 76]
AYES--159
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Bartlett
Becerra
Boehner
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunn
Bunning
Buyer
Camp
Chabot
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
DeLay
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Ewing
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Fox
Funderburk
Gibbons
Gillmor
Green
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King
Kingston
Klug
LaHood
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McDade
McDermott
McHugh
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stockman
Stupak
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
White
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--260
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Neal
Neumann
Nussle
Orton
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Pryce
Quinn
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Studds
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Collins (IL)
Hostettler
Johnston
Moakley
Nadler
Porter
Radanovich
Rush
Solomon
Stark
Stokes
Waters
1317
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Hostettler for, with Mr. Radanovich against.
Mr. GEKAS and Mr. LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. NORWOOD and Mr. PAXON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
1715
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 13 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483, as modified by the order of the
House of March 19, 1996.
amendment, as modified, offered by mr. gallegly
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified, made
in order by the rule.
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. Gallegly:
Amend section 401 to read as follows (and conform the table
of contents accordingly):
SEC. 401. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
Section 274A (8 U.S.C. 1324a) is amended--
[[Page H2508]]
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``(A)'' after
``Defense.--'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Failure to seek and obtain confirmation.--Subject to
subsection (b)(7), in the case of a hiring of an individual
for employment in the United States by a person or entity
that employs more than 3 employees, the following rules
apply:
``(i) Failure to seek confirmation.--
``(I) In general.--If the person or entity has not made an
inquiry, under the mechanism established under subsection
(b)(6), seeking confirmation of the identity, social security
number, and work eligibility of the individual, by not later
than the end of 3 working days (as specified by the Attorney
General) after the date of the hiring, the defense under
subparagraph (A) shall not be considered to apply with
respect to any employment after such 3 working days, except
as provided in subclause (II).
``(II) Special rule for failure of confirmation
mechanism.--If such a person or entity in good faith attempts
to make an inquiry during such 3 working days in order to
qualify for the defense under subparagraph (A) and the
confirmation mechanism has registered that not all inquiries
were responded to during such time, the person or entity can
make an inquiry in the first subsequent working day in which
the confirmation mechanism registers no nonresponses and
qualify for the defense.
``(ii) Failure to obtain confirmation.--If the person or
entity has made the inquiry described in clause (i)(I) but
has not received an appropriate confirmation of such
identity, number, and work eligibility under such mechanism
within the time period specified under subsection
(b)(6)(D)(iii) after the time the confirmation inquiry was
received, the defense under subparagraph (A) shall not be
considered to apply with respect to any employment after the
end of such time period.'';
(2) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (b) to read as
follows:
``(3) Retention of verification form and confirmation.--
After completion of such form in accordance with paragraphs
(1) and (2), the person or entity must--
``(A) if the person employs not more than 3 employees,
retain the form and make it available for inspection by
officers of the Service, the Special Counsel for Immigration-
Related Unfair Employment Practices, or the Department of
Labor during a period beginning on the date of the hiring,
recruiting, or referral of the individual and ending--
``(i) in the case of the recruiting or referral for a fee
(without hiring) of an individual, three years after the date
of the recruiting or referral, and
``(ii) in the case of the hiring of an individual--
``(I) three years after the date of such hiring, or
``(II) one year after the date the individual's employment
is terminated, whichever is later; and
``(B) subject to paragraph (7), if the person employs more
than 3 employees, seek to have (within 3 working days of the
date of hiring) and have (within the time period specified
under paragraph (6)(D)(iii)) the identity, social security
number, and work eligibility of the individual confirmed in
accordance with the procedures established under paragraph
(6), except that if the person or entity in good faith
attempts to make an inquiry in accordance with the procedures
established under paragraph (6) during such 3 working days in
order to fulfill the requirements under this subparagraph,
and the confirmation mechanism has registered that not all
inquiries were responded to during such time, the person or
entity shall make an inquiry in the first subsequent working
day in which the confirmation mechanism registers no
nonresponses.''; and
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new paragraphs:
``(6) Employment eligibility confirmation process.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (7), the Attorney
General shall establish a confirmation mechanism through
which the Attorney General (or a designee of the Attorney
General which may include a nongovernmental entity)--
``(i) responds to inquiries by employers, made through a
toll-free telephone line, other electronic media, or toll-
free facsimile number in the form of an appropriate
confirmation code or otherwise, on whether an individual is
authorized to be employed by that employer, and
``(ii) maintains a record that such an inquiry was made and
the confirmation provided (or not provided)
``(B) Expedited procedure in case of no confirmation.--In
connection with subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall
establish, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social
Security and the Commissioner of the Service, expedited
procedures that shall be used under the confirmation
mechanism in cases in which the confirmation is sought but is
not provided through confirmation mechanism.
``(C) Design and operation of mechanism.--The confirmation
mechanism shall be designed and operated--
``(i) to maximize the reliability of the confirmation
process, and the ease of use by employers, recruiters, and
referrers, consistent with insulating and protecting the
privacy and security of the underlying information, and
``(ii) to respond to all inquiries made by employers on
whether individuals are authorized to be employed by those
employers, recruiters, or referrers registering all times
when such response is not possible.
``(D) Confirmation process.--(i) As part of the
confirmation mechanism, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall establish a reliable, secure method, which within the
time period specified under clause (iii), compares the name
and social security account number provided against such
information maintained by the Commissioner in order to
confirm (or not confirm) the validity of the information
provided and whether the individual has presented a social
security account number that is not valid for employment. The
Commissioner shall not disclose or release social security
information.
``(ii) As part of the confirmation mechanism, the
Commissioner of the Service shall establish a reliable,
secure method, which, within the time period specified under
clause (iii), compares the name and alien identification
number (if any) provided against such information maintained
by the Commissioner in order to confirm (or not confirm) the
validity of the information provided and whether the alien is
authorized to be employed in the United States.
``(iii) For purposes of this section, the Attorney General
(or a designee of the Attorney General) shall provide through
the confirmation mechanism confirmation or a tentative
nonconfirmation of an individual's employment eligibility
within 3 working days of the initial inquiry. In cases of
tentative nonconfirmation, the Attorney General shall
specify, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social
Security and the Commissioner of the Service, an expedited
time period not to exceed 10 working days within which final
confirmation or denial must be provided through the
confirmation mechanism in accordance with the procedures
under subparagraph (B).
``(iv) The Commissioners shall update their information in
a manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide
a process for the prompt correction of erroneous information.
``(E) Protections.--(i) In no case shall an individual be
denied employment because of inaccurate or inaccessible data
under the confirmation mechanism.
``(ii) The Attorney General shall assure that there is a
timely and accessible process to challenge nonconfirmations
made through the mechanism.
``(iii) If an individual would not have been dismissed from
a job but for an error of the confirmation mechanism, the
individual will be entitled to compensation through the
mechanism of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
``(F) Tester program.--As part of the confirmation
mechanism, the Attorney General shall implement a program of
testers and investigative activities (similar to testing and
other investigative activities assisted under the fair
housing initiatives program under section 561 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1987 to enforce rights under
the Fair Housing Act) in order to monitor and prevent
unlawful discrimination under the mechanism.
``(G) Protection from liability for actions taken on the
basis of information provided by the employment eligibility
confirmation mechanism.--No person shall be civilly or
criminally liable for any action taken in good faith reliance
on information provided through the employment eligibility
confirmation mechanism established under this paragraph
(including any pilot program established under paragraph
(7)).
``(7) Application of confirmation mechanism through pilot
projects.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a)(3)(B) and paragraph (3)
shall only apply to individuals hired if they are covered
under a pilot project established under this paragraph.
``(B) Undertaking pilot projects.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the Attorney General shall undertake pilot
projects for all employers in at least 5 of the 7 States with
the highest estimated population of unauthorized aliens, in
order to test and assure that the confirmation mechanism
described in paragraph (6) is reliable and easy to use. Such
projects shall be initiated not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph. The Attorney
General, however, shall not establish such mechanism in other
States unless Congress so provides by law. The pilot projects
shall terminate on such dates, not later than October 1,
1999, as the Attorney General determines. At least one such
pilot project shall be carried out through a nongovernmental
entity as the confirmation mechanism.
``(C) Report.--The Attorney General shall submit to the
Congress annual reports in 1997, 1998, and 1999 on the
development and implementation of the confirmation mechanism
under this paragraph. Such reports may include an analysis of
whether the mechanism implemented--
``(i) is reliable and easy to use;
``(ii) limits job losses due to inaccurate or unavailable
data to less than 1 percent;
``(iii) increase or decreases discrimination;
``(iv) protects individual privacy with appropriate policy
and technological mechanisms; and
``(v) burdens individual employers with costs or additional
administrative requirements.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Gallegly] and a Member opposed will each control 30 minutes.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the modification of the amendment made
[[Page H2509]]
in order by a previous order of the House is at the desk, and I ask
unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the
amendment. I would also like permission to yield half of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] and ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to control said time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 offer this amendment along with several of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We have been debating this
bill for several hours now, and we have more to come. But I am here to
tell you that this is the watershed moment in immigration reform. This
is the litmus test for sincerity. This is where Members will decide to
either get serious about ending illegal immigration, or to just keep
talking about it.
The simple truth is we not fight illegal immigration without a
reliable, reasonable way of determining who is here legally and who is
not. We have to start right there. We need a system, a mandatory
system, to ensure that illegal immigrants are separated from the jobs
that motivate them to come here in the first place.
The voluntary verification system now in this bill will not cut it. I
have often said that a voluntary system will have about as much effect
as a voluntary speed limit, a very little, if any at all. Today the
documents are supposed to provide definitive proof of who is here
legally and illegally. We have got green cards, we have pink cards,
Social Security cards, birth certificates, and a myriad of others.
Unfortunately, the range of documents has only widened the range of
options to counterfeiters. In many areas of this country you can buy a
fake Social Security card good enough to defraud any law abiding
employer for about $30. Just think about it: A $30 investment buys a
lifetime of illegal employment in America. It sounds like a pretty good
deal to me.
That is the beauty of the telephone verification system. This
amendment, which I call 1-800-end fraud, makes counterfeit documents
obsolete because it renders them irrelevant.
Mr. Chairman, there has been an incredible amount of misleading
information spread about this issue in recent weeks. Believe me when I
tell you that Pinocchio has nothing on those who have opposed this
critical effort. I know this because I have personally received calls
from my constituents urging me to vote against my own amendment. When I
asked them what they think we are talking about here, what exactly,
well, first, they pause because responding to questions is not part of
the script that they have been given, and then they say, ``This is a
national I.D. card. This is a dangerous tracking provision that is
going to follow me into my own home and put all my personal private
information into a government computer.''
It is just absolutely incredible. I thought our discussions on
Medicare had established a new low for this body in terms of
misinformation and scare tactics. But that is nothing compared to what
we have been dealing with on this issue.
In the name of truth and reason, I would like to take a second to
review how this pilot program will work. Specifically, within 3 days of
hiring someone an employer would make a simple toll-free telephone call
to ensure that the Social Security number presented by the worker was
valid; that that number matched the name and it was not being used by
40 other people working in 40 other places. That is all there is to it.
This program has been strongly endorsed by the California Chamber of
Commerce, the largest State chamber in the Nation, because it provides
safe harbor for employers and gives them a clear and easy way to comply
with the law.
For too long we have tried to turn employers into junior INS agents.
This amendment shifts the responsibility back where it belongs, to the
Federal Government. Just a few of the facts: This system does not
create any new data base, period. This system does not collect any
information that can later be misused by the Government, period. This
system does not do anything other than verify the people employed in
this country are eligible to work in this country.
Nowhere in this system is there an ability for the Government to know
whether you have got a gun, whether you home school your kids, or
whether you prefer Cheerios or Wheaties at the breakfast table. The
critics of this amendment know all this, but they have taken great
lengths to make sure that the people they claim to represent do not.
A familiar refrain is that we would not need this system if we just
focused more on the border. Well, this bill already does focus on the
border. But it, frankly, is beyond me to know how the border
enforcement can deal with those 4 to 6 million illegal immigrants
already working in this country, or how any provision can provide
determining who they are or who they are not.
I have consistently supported increased border enforcement, but
increased border enforcement will not solve all our problems, and it
certainly will not solve this one. This system puts the teeth into
immigration reform. This system makes immigration reform work. Without
it, we are left with a watered down bill that sounds great, but has
only a limited effect.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, well, forget that we just passed an amendment dealing
with this very same subject, the employment verification system. As a
matter of fact, the name of that amendment, I would say to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], was the voluntary worker
verification system.
Fast forward. A year later we come to the floor and make it
permanent. Well, why wait for a year? Let us vote a temporary system,
and then come right back and vote a permanent system, the same system.
So, to quote my good friend from California, an imminently qualified
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who said in the name of truth
and reason, [Mr. Gallegly] in the name of truth and reason, why are you
offering this amendment, when we just passed the employment
verification system minutes ago?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I think it is very simple. If we have a voluntary system, there is no
compliance.
Mr. CONYERS. No, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, tell me why? No
lectures.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the reason why, the people that are
violating the law today are not going to participate in the voluntary
system. They are not the ones we are looking for. The ones we are
looking for are the ones that intentionally violate the law.
Mr. CONYERS. I understand. Now, why did the gentleman not offer this
amendment in the first place, instead of taking us through the
voluntary charade?
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I am sure the gentleman knows the answer to that: Because it was in the
bill that passed out of the committee, the full committee that we both
serve on, by a vote of 23 to 10, but was changed by leadership prior to
coming to the floor.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just a moment. I am a
senior Member of Congress, but the gentleman says, changed by the
leadership just before it came to the floor.
Now, in the name of truth and reason, first of all, I want to
congratulate my colleague for his candor and his truthfulness and his
honesty. The gentleman can sit down now, because I am not going to
yield anymore.
[[Page H2510]]
Let us analyze this legislation. We pass out millions of books about
``How our laws are made'' in Congress. Before this measure came to the
floor, it was changed by the leadership.
Question. Is that leadership a person whose initials are N.G.? I did
not ask the gentleman that question, Mr. Chairman. He can sit down. It
is a rhetorical question.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think it may have been
someone whose initials are N.G.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not wish to
pursue this matter, nor is it appropriate to belabor the processes, the
internal processes by which legislation is created in the House of
Representatives. Suffice it to say that if we had come back after a
little while of fooling around with a temporary verification system,
and somebody said it did not work, and there were a lot of people
coming in, fine. But amendments back-to-back, do not be offended.
That is the way the system works around here these days in the 104th
Congress. You vote verification; it does not come up in the committee
of jurisdiction, but it takes a little detour through the Speaker's
office on the way to Rules, and, whammo, here we are, strongly
supporting the Gallegly amendment because the leadership said so.
Well, now, we follow the leadership too on our side. The only thing
is we do not have to park our brains at the door. Our leadership does
not operate like that. Relax, sir, please. Our leadership does not
order all of us to be in lockstep, as you are routinely.
I notice it is getting to be a little stressful on the other side,
but this takes the absolute cake. Let us now move from the voluntary to
the permanent, one amendment back-to-back. Hey, this is what we really
needed all the time.
Now, do not think this is 1-800-Big Brother. Please, do not think
that. This is not about Big Brother. This is not about the camel's nose
under the tent. I know that part. This is a perfectly wonderful system,
at which the underground economy is laughing as we debate whether it is
permanent or whether it is temporary. What difference does it make?
They are not going to abide by any of it. Besides, you have not put any
enforcement provisions in the existing I-9 law to begin with.
So I am sure this is going to impress some amount of someone's
constituents somewhere, but, please, it is not a good day for those of
us who would like to have a strong bill on immigration, without
violating anyone's civil liberties.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to
my good friend from Michigan, and he is my good friend, and I have
great respect for him. In fact, I truly admire his wit. I found his
presentation extremely entertaining.
Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I would say to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is the initials in opposition were not N.G. As a
matter of fact, the initials N.G. has said they are very supportive of
the mandatory 1-800 number.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment originally, as we know in the Committee
on the Judiciary we offered an amendment to strike out what I called 1-
800 Big Brother. We were unsuccessful there, but it was very close. It
was 17 to 15. It had bipartisan support. We had 8 Democrat votes and 7
Republican votes. The fact of the matter is, there was so much
opposition to making this mandatory that the proponent of this bill, I
think, knew that were it mandatory, it would have lost.
1730
Now, I had concerns myself, as did the gentleman from Michigan. We
did not even want what was a so-called voluntary system because we knew
where this was going to lead. We knew that within a few years then it
would be mandatory, and we knew within a few years, rather than being
in just five States, it would be all across the country. So it would be
nationwide and it would be mandatory.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that is exactly the way it was originally
in the bill in Committee on the Judiciary. This was going to be not
voluntary, not in just five States, but this was going to be mandatory
for every single hiring decision anywhere in the entire country, all 50
States. That is where they wanted to go originally.
Now, we defeated that and this is what we got sort of as a
compromise. But let us not be misled where the proponents of this want
to go, in order to make it truly effective, is mandatory, nationwide.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], has stated very clearly in
committee that even that will not really work unless we have a national
ID card, which is the ultimate step here. Every American citizen at the
end of this road will have to carry a national ID card around with
their picture, perhaps retina scans, and God knows what is going to be
on this card. But that is where we are headed.
Mr. Chairman, to me that is big brother, and that is the reason I
fought this in the committee. That is the reason, along with the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], we have been fighting this on
the floor today. Voluntary, it, in my opinion, was an unprecedented
assertion of Federal power. To make it mandatory, which is what this
amendment would do, clearly is unprecedented. From now on in those five
States, every employment decision is going to have to be confirmed,
affirmed by the Federal Government. That goes too far.
I think it is just the opposite of why we were sent here. Many of us
feel that we were sent here to reduce the scope and the power of the
Federal Government. We do not all agree. Some people do not mind bigger
government, some of us do. I happen to mind it very much.
Another thing that I have heard this sold as, I have had several
folks from California mention, well, the business people in California
want this, to have a 1-800 number so that they can protect themselves
in case there has been some foulup on the I-9 forms or some of the
other Federal requirements. Let us look at what that basically means.
Mr. Chairman, we have big government with the I-9 forms and all the
rest. Since that did not work, then we are going to go to the next
level, which is additional big government. The I-9's and that system
did not work, so we are going to the next stage. This does not replace
the I-9 forms. It does not replace that at all. It is an additional
requirement that people will have.
The gentleman from California just said before, he said the voluntary
system, which we just passed, the so-called voluntary system, the
previous amendment that we just passed, he said it was not going to
work. The bad guys, the people who are hiring illegal aliens off the
books, paying them cash right now, they are not going to call this 1-
800 number. They are going to continue to keep hiring these illegal
aliens and paying them under the table.
Mr. Chairman, who is going to be affected? The law-abiding citizens,
as usual. Those are going to be the people that would have the
additional level of bureaucracy, the additional Federal requirements to
call the Federal Government and get their OK before we can hire
somebody. That is wrong. There are clearly going to be errors in this
system.
There was an L.A. Times article, and this was previously mentioned,
that estimated the Social Security department had estimated that there
would be 20-percent error rates. Then they said that would be early on.
Then it would likely back off to, say, 5 percent. The Social Security
Administration has indicated they really do not know what the error
rate would be at this point. Even if it is 1 percent, we are talking
about hundreds of thousands of American citizens that are going to get
caught up in this system. They have to verify that, yes, indeed, they
are employable, who could conceivably lose their jobs and have their
lives put on hold if there are mistakes.
I know in our office we have dealt many times with people in my
community that have problems with the IRS where they have made
mistakes, with the Social Security that has made mistakes, with
Veterans that has made mistakes. In this debate, the previous debate, I
have heard my name pronounced Cabot, Chabot, Chaboy, just
[[Page H2511]]
about every name one can think of. I am dead meat in this system, you
know, if it were pronunciation and the spellings. We have got the
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], we have the gentleman from
California [Mr. Radanovich]; there is the spellings. All you have to do
is have one letter that is thrown off, and you are caught up in the
system. It is going to be a nightmare for these people.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from something here that we got
from the NFIB. This is what the NFIB sent out on this. It says:
On behalf of the more than 600,000 members of the National
Federation of Independent Business, the NFIB, I urge you to
oppose the Gallegly amendment which would mandate that
employers in at least five of the seven States with the
highest illegal immigrant population call a 1-800 number to
verify every new hire's work eligibility. This amendment will
be offered, et cetera.
Small businesses across this country have sent a strong message time
and time again that they do not want any more government one-size-fits-
all mandates coming from Washington. In fact, a recent survey found
that 62 percent of NFIB members oppose being required to call a 1-800
number for every new hire.
Please let small business owners know we hear their pleas for less
government requirement and that it is not Washington as usual. Vote no
on the Gallegly amendment.
Again, we lost on the so-called voluntary, but this is not voluntary
anymore. This is clearly mandatory and it is clearly wrong, and for
that reason, we strongly oppose this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as Members will see as the debate goes
on, there is strong bipartisan support as evidenced by our next
speaker.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gallegly
amendment. I want to answer the question why. The question we simply
have to ask over and over is, do we have an illegal immigration problem
or do we not? If Members answer as I do, we do, then this amendment
makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment would create a pilot program in five of
the seven States with the highest populations of illegal aliens to test
a mandatory worker verification system. The system is simple: An
employer makes an inquiry through a toll-free 1-800 number, a toll-free
facsimile number, or other electronic media to confirm whether an
individual is authorized to be employed in the United States.
This system will protect employers from civil and criminal liability
for any action taken in good faith reliance on information provided
through the worker verification system.
For those who believe this amendment is antibusiness, I could not
disagree more. While much has been made about this being a mandate on
employers, it will actually protect business men and women from harsh
employer sanctions. Currently, hardworking, honest business people can
do everything they are supposed to and still be held liable for
unknowingly hiring an illegal alien. In addition, it will reduce the
current burden on employers to be INS experts on fraudulent documents.
Currently, there are a list of 29 documents that can be used for
employment verification. Fortunately, H.R. 2202 reduces this number to
six. However, counterfeiters have proven quite adept at tampering with
or reproducing most of our identification documents. We cannot expect
the business men and women in this country to be INS investigators or
experts on fraudulent documents. We must provide them with the
manageable and affordable tools necessary to comply with the law. It
would be irresponsible of us not to provide American employers with
this type of support.
Under current law, an employer is required to see two forms of
identification and fill out the I-9 form. An employer can comply with
this and still unknowingly hire an illegal alien who presented
fraudulent documentation. This employer can face thousands of dollars
in fines from employer sanctions even though they followed the correct
procedure for verifying eligibility. Their only mistake is not being
able to detect counterfeit identification.
The unfortunate consequence of this uncertainty under our current
system, is that an employer may not want to take a chance on hiring an
individual with a foreign sounding name or appearance for fear of
hiring an illegal alien. Because this amendment requires the employer
to verify eligibility for every employee, it removes the incentive for
employers to treat applicants differently because of their appearance
or surname.
While I do not believe this is the perfect fix to our illegal
immigration problem, I do believe that it takes a big step in the right
direction. A pilot project, try it, test it, experiment with it, see
what works, see what does not work. Junk that does not work, but try it
before we mandate it nationwide, but a voluntary system, as has been
said, will not work. I also believe that we are going to have to
address the counterfeiting of breeder documents, such as birth
certificates, to insure that an employee is eligible to work.
Without a worker verification system in place with adequate
resources, we will not be able to put a dent in our illegal immigration
problem. I urge my colleagues to support employers and oppose illegal
immigration by voting for the Gallegly-Bilbray-Seastrand-Stenholm-
Beilenson-Frank amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to find out how many Members of
Congress understand what business wants and needs and what they know is
best for business. Yet when we get the reports and the letters and the
calls from business organizations, they are saying just the opposite.
They say they do not want it.
They do not want it. They do not want it even if we think they want
it. They do not want it if we think they need it. They do not want it
if we think that it is good for them, even if they do not know that
they would be better off for it. The do not want it.
Do my colleagues get it? The business community has spoken on this
pretty clearly, and yet Member after Member, in support of the Gallegly
amendment, explains to us how much better off business will be and how
they will learn to love this as soon as they try it and let us give it
a chance.
By the way, forget voluntary. Let us go to mandatory right now. The
next amendment that might be up, if it could be made in order, is to
make it nationwide. I mean, why wait for a few months? Let us do it
tonight, tonight, tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, we know what business needs. We know, whether they like
it or not, it is going to be good for them. The problem has been
revealed by the previous speaker, the gentleman from Texas. It is that
they are forging all the documents on which we are going to base the
phone call a mile a minute. That is why the phone call is going to be
no more worth the document than it was based upon. That document may
likely well be fraudulent.
Do we not see, mandatory programs like this are not going to work.
Stepping on people's rights and trying to make class distinctions
within our society is not a good way to go.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Members on both
sides of this issue. We have remained on the issues and people have
spoken, no matter how strongly they feel, and remained on the issues.
Most of this debate has dwelt on those issues. Even though those
feelings are strong in many cases, they have remained that, and I think
that is where we want this floor to remain most of the time. I would
say all the time.
That working environment was degraded when the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant] personally attacked the Speaker of the House. The Speaker,
like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], went point by point by
point on his issues and spoke only to the issues of the Gallegly
amendment. Then when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], attacked
the Speaker, got into personal references, I think that was wrong. I
would say to my friend that it is uncharacteristic of
[[Page H2512]]
him and I know him as a friend, and I say this because myself, I have
lost my temper on the House floor and I have done very similar things.
But I think when we chastise the position of the Speaker, which this
Gallegly amendment was overwhelmingly passed, we chastise the motive of
the rest of us. When over 60 percent of my voters in California support
that position, I think that was wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I say that with the intention that I have done the same
thing, and I think in this particular case it does disservice to what
we are trying to do, and I just think it was wrong.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to quote from the Employers for
Responsible Immigration Reform, and what they state in their
correspondence to us is that fully one-third of the Nation would be
required to participate in the creation of a huge new Federal
bureaucracy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that this
system will work. They oppose the Federal mandate under the Gallegly-
Stenholm-Seastrand-Bilbray-Stenholm amendment.
I would just like to list a number of these business groups, because
it has been stated in here that business wants this particular
amendment.
1745
Those who oppose this amendment, among them are the American
Association of Nurserymen, the American Hotel and Motel Association,
the American Meat Institute, the Associated Landscape Contractors of
America, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General
Contractors, the College and University Personnel Association, the Food
Marketing Institute, the International Association of Amusement Parks
and Attractions, the International Foodservice Distributors
Association, the National-American Wholesalers Grocers' Association,
the National Association of Beverage Retailers, National Association of
Convenience Stores, the National Federation of Independent Business,
who in the last particular amendment took essentially a neutral
position, not opposing nor endorsing the amendment that we took up
before, but they oppose this amendment; the National Retail Federation,
the Society for Human Resource Management, the National Retail
Federation, the Christian Coalition, the Citizens for Sound Economy,
Small Business Survival Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union,
Concerned Women for America, National Center for Home Education, the
American Bar Association, Eagle Forum, U.S. Catholic Conference, and
on, and on, and on, and there are other groups that I did not have time
to read.
But this is a bad amendment. For that reason we oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think really what I hear here is a
different perception of the immigration issue, and to try to sensitize
this institution to the fact of the level of concern we should have
about this immigration issue, let me just show my colleagues the
different perspective.
All over America, when people drive down a highway, this is what they
see, and I am sure many of my colleagues, that is what they see in
their neighborhoods. But let me show my colleagues what the people of
California see and people around the border see, and this is 70-80
miles north of the border. This is the kind of thing that we are
confronted with, with absurdity. CalTrans from California was kind
enough to send this sign to try to sensitize my colleagues to the fact
that Washington must wake up and address this absurd, immoral
situation.
Mr. Chairman, people are being slaughtered on our freeways because
Washington needs to address this issue and has been ignoring it. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment makes it possible for us to try to address the
reason why people are coming here: Jobs. Jobs are what are drawing them
across our freeways and being killed and slaughtered. The fact is this
amendment will finally address the issue in the least intrusive way of
addressing the issue of trying to keep people from hiring people who
are not qualified.
Mr. Chairman, there may be those who think that this is a bad idea,
but ask those who know that are affected. The Chamber of Commerce of
California supports this amendment because they know. They have the
reality of today of illegal immigration. They are not sitting in some
insulated place, way off away from the problem. They know the problem,
and they want this amendment.
I would ask my colleagues to recognize that those who are against the
national ID system should support this amendment. It is the least
intrusive alternative to a national ID card.
And those of my colleagues who say that they support the concepts of
business, small business, more than any other segment of our society,
uses telephonic, and listen to this. Of any part of society, small
business is using telephonic verification now and has developed a
dependency on it for business more than anyone else.
All we are saying is let us learn from business, and Government
should learn to use technology for the benefit of our society, just as
the private sector is, and we should use technology for the benefit of
protecting our citizens and noncitizens, and their freedoms and
liberties.
So support this amendment. It is the best nonintrusive, efficient way
to be able to get the job done.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] for defensive remarks.
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham], made remarks which apparently the Speaker
sent him in here to make, and then he left. I do not see him anywhere.
I also regret that they would bother to take time in the debate to come
and make remarks like that. That is patently absurd.
I will say this. I will just reiterate what I said before. This
reminds me a little bit of the lobby bill in 1994. We worked for a 2-
year period trying to put that bill together. It was a totally
bipartisan effort until the last minute when the Speaker, now Speaker,
sensed the possibility of political advantage and came in at the last
minute, blind sided us, and opposed it and tried to kill it. Mr.
Chairman, we overcame it.
Today, once again we worked for two, virtually a year and a half now,
trying to put together an immigration bill everybody can be for. There
are two deal-breakers in it; one is this on education, and one is the
deal on hospitals. And then the Speaker of the House, unable to resist
political opportunity, comes to the floor, the Speaker of the House
comes to the floor and makes a speech about this one amendment and
talks about liberals this and about how we have these evil illegal
aliens that are taking away our children's education and so forth.
It was, in my view, a performance beneath the rank of the Speaker. It
was, in my view, a performance designed to make this into a political
opportunity instead of a bipartisan bill, and he may have succeeded. It
is a shame.
Mr. Chairman, I think that passionate objection to his action was
clearly warranted. I regret very much the mischaracterizations by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], no doubt probably
calculated by some speech writer in the Speaker's office of anybody out
here losing their temper. I have not seen anybody lose their temper
today, but I have been willing to stand apart and say, ``You know, Mr.
Smith and I worked a long time to put this bill together to make it
work, and along comes the Speaker of the House and basically tries to
bring us down to the lowest common denominator.''
Do my colleagues know why what I am saying is true? Because these
guys over here whipped that amendment, they whipped it hard to make
sure that they would win, to make sure they would have a political
issue, not a bill, not a new policy for the public, but an issue, and
with that kind of leadership on their side and with that guy in charge
of the House of Representatives, I submit to my colleagues I think the
public is not long going to be on their side. I regret it.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H2513]]
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have great
personal respect for our relationship. We have worked hand in hand on
the issue of illegal immigration for many years.
But I think the gentleman would be the first to yield to the fact
that this is an issue that I have worked very hard for a long, long
time without any partisan involvement at all. It is a philosophical
issue that I have a tremendous passion for, that I think affects all
Americans. I think that is one of the reasons that we saw a fairly
significant number of Democrats that voted for that as well.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I agree with everything the
gentleman said, except I want to make very clear to him that it was
made clear in the very beginning there were a couple of issues along
the way that would derail this bill and get it vetoed and cause a bunch
of us to feel like we could not continue to support it. And those two
were brought up today, and one failed and one passed. The gentleman's
passed. The gentleman has been consistent from the very beginning.
The fact that the Speaker of the House came down here and made the
kind of speech that he did, in my view, brought a bill that really was
bipartisan down to a very partisan level and was not, in my view,
fitting of the office of the Speaker of the House, and I----
Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would further yield, I would hope that
he would still consider strongly supporting the bill, in the final
analysis, that he has worked so hard on, like so many others of us
have.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I would like to. I just hope my colleagues do
not make it any worse.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
Today we are offering this amendment that would call, and I want to
underline this, for a 3-year mandatory pilot program in 5 of 7 States:
California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and New
Jersey. And these States are most impacted by illegal immigration.
As is pointed out, this amendment simply is going to put back into
the bill the original language that was passed by the House Committee
on the Judiciary.
Now, I want to stress that the requirement that illegal aliens be
verified for work eligibility is crucial to true immigration reform. I
want to repeat that this does not establish a national ID card or even
a system by which a worker can be tracked throughout their career.
This amendment does none of the following: It does not require any
new data to be supplied by the employee. It does not require any new
personal information on the employee. It does not create a new
Government data base. It is a pilot program that cannot be expanded
into a national program without a specific vote by this House.
I think anyone who has watched my voting record would agree that I am
opposed to any Government intrusion, and this is a simple way to keep
American jobs by people that come here legally.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
If a citizen is not approved to work, and that is really what this is
all about here, is what the committee report says happens. And I would
like to read from the committee's own report. If he or she wishes to
contest this finding, secondary verification will be undertaken.
Secondary verification is an expedited procedure set up to confirm the
validity of information contained in the Government data bases. Under
this process, the new hire will typically contact or visit the Social
Security Administration and/or the INS. The employee has 10 days to
reconcile the discrepancy. If the discrepancy is not reconciled by the
end of this period, the employer must then dismiss the new hire as
being ineligible to work in the United States. I find that to be very
objectionable; in fact, outrageous.
It is the individual employee, the individual American, that is the
person who is really going to be hurt in this. The individual innocent
American employee gets caught up in the mess because perhaps they used
a maiden name or perhaps there was a typo or one of the numbers was
typed in wrong or whatever.
As I mentioned earlier today, we had a situation in my district where
for 4 months they still have not been able to clear up the Social
Security, the fact that they are married and ought to have a married
name on there.
What we also heard earlier referred to today is that it took 8 months
to prove to Social Security that one particular woman was not dead.
That is the proof she was not dead 8 months, and they still have not
cleared it up. So that is the type of problem we got with this, and
this particular person could be an American citizen, perfectly legal,
has 10 days to clear it up, or they are out of work. And that is not
the way it should be in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho
[Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, there are a
number of groups who oppose this amendment. Among them are Americans
for Tax Reform, the ACLU, the Small Business Survival Committee, the
National Retail Federation, Empower America, Citizens for a Sound
Economy, NFIB, and the Food Marketing Institute.
Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with Grover Norquist, who is the
president of Americans for Tax Reform, when he said, whether voluntary
or mandatory, employment verification represents an enormous intrusion
by the Federal Government into the rights of individuals.
The debate should not be over what type of employment verification
systems we have but whether we really have an employment verification
system at all. I realize, living in Idaho, that we have problems with
illegal immigration, but let us not reach so far that we violate our
own civil rights.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson], who is from the San Fernando Valley and
parts of Ventura County.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
1800
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of any of those fine
groups that either the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], or the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], mentioned, so I am free,
apparently, to rise in strong support of this amendment.
If we are serious about stopping illegal immigration, then we must
provide a sound method for employers to find out if prospective
employees are legally authorized to work in the United States.
Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to enforce the existing law
against hiring.
The telephone verification system included in the bill, provides a
very promising way for employers to easily determine whether a
prospective employee is legally authorized to work. It was, as Members
know, one of the key recommendations of the Jordan Commission, which
did an extremely thorough and creditable job of producing very
reasonable recommendations for regaining control over our Nation's
immigration system.
But for the telephone verification system to work, it has to be
mandatory rather than voluntary in the States where it would be tried
on an experimental basis. If it is not, those employers who intend to
flout the law will obviously not participate in the system, and the INS
will have no way of determining whether the system is actually working.
The Committee on the Judiciary, as Members again were reminded,
recognizes the importance of making this system mandatory.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules changed the system to a voluntary
one, to some of us who serve on that committee in what was an egregious
example of overreaching by our own committee, in disregard for the
deliberative process of the committee of jurisdiction.
This portion of the bill should now be restored to the form it was in
when it was approved by the Committee on the Judiciary. Employers
should welcome
[[Page H2514]]
this telephone verification system, since it would give them a simple,
reliable way of determining who is legally authorized to work here and
who is not. Right now they do not have a sound and dependable way to do
that because we failed to provide any such method when Congress enacted
employer sanctions as part of the Immigration Reform Control Act of
1986.
Mr. Chairman, much is being said about the potential for governmental
intrusiveness in hiring practices that would result from this new
system. Nothing could be further from the truth. All this verification
system does is to provide a way for us to finally enforce the existing
10-year-old law against hiring illegal immigrants and for employers to
be able to confirm that they are in fact obeying the law.
The only people who will experience any negative effects are the
people who should feel those effects, employers who are breaking the
law by deliberately hiring illegal immigrants, and immigrants who are
breaking the law by trying to get a job here when it is illegal for
them to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this very important
amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Calvert].
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, illegal immigrants are from all over the world. They
are not just from South America, they are from Asia, they are from
Europe, they are from Russia. One thing they all have in common, they
mostly want a job.
As an employer, you have certain responsibilities in this country.
One of those responsibilities is to fill out an I-9 form. That has
given employers a cover, because once you have that I-9 form in the
personnel jacket, along with two pieces of identification, along with
that Social Security card, in every case, if the INS comes into your
establishment and you have met that criteria, even though you have a
great number of illegals working in that business, you are not held
accountable for that, because there is no way for you to verify whether
or not a Social Security card is a fraudulent document.
This is all that does. It gives an opportunity for an employer to
call a number and check a name to a number. This is a system that we
must have, and quite frankly, if it is a voluntary system, those people
that are not very good employers and who are knowingly hiring illegals
are going to continue to do so.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Esteban Torres, who has a great deal of experience in
this matter.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California. The amendment would take a Federal
employer verification system to new Orwellian heights. For the past
hour we have debated the merits of a voluntary employer verification
system. The amendment before us would require every employer, in at
least five States, to call a toll-free number to verify the name and
Social Security number of every new hire.
You can be sure that these States won't be Rhode Island, Delaware,
Montana, Alaska, and North Dakota.
No, the States will likely include New York, California, Texas, and
Florida--or nearly half the population of this country.
From a small business standpoint, this amendment piles on more
bureaucratic redtape and more costly reporting requirements. The INS
estimates that the compliance cost per employer will be at least
$5,000.
If this amendment is enacted there is no guarantee that the Federal
Government could handle even a small percentage of those employers
mandated to use the Big Brother system. Not only would we have problems
with compliance, there is no guarantee that the system would approach
any level of useful accuracy.
The current database upon which the system would be based is grossly
unreliable and would cause citizens and legal residents to be denied
employment. Experts estimate that 20 out of every 100 legal job
applicants would be denied jobs under this flawed system.
And the price tag for this gargantuan Big Brother computer
verification system would sink us even deeper in red ink.
We can't even afford to pay the INS to keep up with its current
workload, much less pay for a giant new system. And in the end, even if
all these problems could be resolved, nothing, I repeat, nothing in
this Big Brother verification system will prevent the black market from
selling stolen Social Security numbers. Nor will it prevent a situation
like the sweatshop owner in El Monte, CA, who deliberately broke the
law and hired undocumented workers.
The Big Brother approach will serve only to impose new requirements
on businesses that are already complying with the law and do nothing to
punish those that are not.
Let us not forget the basic principle that makes this country great:
Freedom. Let us not be tempted to rule our citizens through an
identification card. This is a terrible amendment and I ask you to vote
no.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will begin by stipulating
that I do not purport to represent business here. I understand that a
lot of businesses do not like this amendment. A lot of businesses,
unfortunately, like to hire people who are here illegally. They find
them easily exploitable. That is why there was, for many in the
business community, opposition to what is really the central point
here, whether or not we have employer sanctions.
In fact, during this debate people have been blaming a verification
system, when in most cases they should have been complaining about
sanctions. It is logical to say we should not have employer sanctions.
Understand that that is a decision we made in 1986. We said, and by the
way, people should understand, there is a universal recognition here in
this debate that people come to this country, whether legally or
illegally, to get jobs. We recognize that. That is the magnet. It is
not illegal welfare, and so forth, it is jobs.
We have said that when people come here illegally and get jobs, they
jeopardize our ability to maintain rules and laws that maintain
occupational safety and health, minimum wages, et cetera. When you are
here illegally, you cannot claim your rights.
In 1986, this is when business got the mandate. In 1986 Ronald Reagan
signed the law that said, ``You cannot hire people who are here
illegally.'' It set up the verification system. That was set up in
1986. The difference now is that we believe we have a more rational
verification system. The current system gives a whole bunch of
documents that can be used. That is where you get counterfeiting. That
is where you get inconsistency in who is asked and who is not.
What we are saying is that given we have sanctions, and nobody has
moved to repeal them, given that the employer is responsible for
verification, and nobody has moved to repeal that, then the only
question is what is a more efficient way to do it. We are saying that
the most efficient way, the fairest way, is to say, not that you single
out anybody, that is just a nonsensical argument, but this in fact says
everybody who comes in must be verified. We have a 10-day period to
catch up.
No, I do not believe 20 percent of the American people are unfairly
identified as illegal aliens. That is an exaggerated figure. We also
have in here 10 days in which you can straighten it out. I believe my
office can help people prove that they are here legally.
Then we are told, ``But it is going to interfere with privacy.'' We
have had a lot of inconsistencies here today. My favorite are the
people who think that asking people to prove that they are here legally
is an invasion of their privacy, but checking their urine is not,
because we have people who have been for drug testing, mandatory drug
testing, and they have imposed that on people, but no, we cannot ask
people whether or not they are here legally.
Now we have the question, ``Well, would the government abuse it?'' I
understand some of my friends on the left who, I think, are unduly
suspicious here, because I think it is in the interests of working
people to have a good
[[Page H2515]]
verification system. On the right, I guess we are dealing in part with
the Republican wing that we were told on the floor of the House trusts
Hamas more than the American Government. Maybe we can pick up a couple
of votes if we subcontracted this out to Hamas, but I do not think they
are here legally, so they could not work for us, fortunately.
What we are talking about is efficiency. We have on the books the
sanction system. If Members do not like it, they should be moving to
repeal sanctions. We have on the books a requirement that we verify
that you are here, but with a lot of documents in an inconsistent way.
This is the most logical way to carry out the existing legal
requirements.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the 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 strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], and
appreciate his leadership on this issue.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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 appreciate the gentleman yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, because it
is a pro-small-business amendment. If we look at our State of
California, California's Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of
this. Many of the people who are opposing this amendment claim that
they understand the small business sector of our economy. The author of
the amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], has been,
throughout his entire lifetime, adult lifetime, a small-business man,
up until he joined this distinguished body a decade ago.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in businesses myself before I came
here, and I still am. Quite frankly, I believe if we look at the issue
of employer sanctions, which my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts was just discussing, there were many of us who opposed
the employer sanctions provision, believing that we should not force
those employers to be responsible for what clearly is a Federal issue.
They should welcome the prospect of having this process of
verification, which is easier than going and expending $10 at a K-Mart
store.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we should join in a bipartisan way
supporting the Gallegly amendment. I urge my colleagues to do that.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would only close our debate on this amendment in
opposition to it by pointing out that we have gone from voluntary to
mandatory. Maybe next month we will hit nationwide. We are up to 3
years and counting. But do not worry about it. The wonderful
patronizing statements of my colleagues, who are my friends, that tell
us that employees should welcome this telephone verification system,
one Member went as far as to suggest that one reason they might not
welcome it is because they themselves support illegal immigration. I do
not think that is a fair canard. I do not think it is the thing we
should be saying about these business associations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has expired.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very interesting debates here today.
I support this amendment because I think it is a common-sense
amendment. I would like to tell the Members why I think it is good
common sense. On the one hand, we have a system in which we as
taxpayers spend millions of dollars, hire tens of thousands of
employees, to maintain a Social Security system that is designed to
have records that relate to employment and records that relate to your
contributions as an employee into the system. We also have tens of
thousands of people and spend millions of dollars trying to put in
place a system that will verify those who are legally in our country,
and we have purposes in doing so.
On the other hand, we have hundreds of thousands of people who are
illegally in our country who are likewise spending, probably, millions
of dollars trying to duplicate and reproduce the same kinds of
documents that those that are employed by the taxpayers are also doing.
Then we have the employer in the middle, and the employer, because of
the way our system operates, is faced with an individual standing in
front of him, presenting him with documents. He does not know whether
they are produced by the legal system or by the illegal system.
Yet the employer says, ``Well, if I am a taxpayer paying for the
legal system to be in place, whey can I not just ask that system to
tell me if these are true or forged documents?'' And the system does
not allow him to do so. That, to me, makes no common sense at all. If
we are going to make the employer the enforcer, we ought not to put him
in a position of simply saying, ``We are going to send the INS into
your office, and if you did not have the right documents there, then
gotcha.''
We all know, ``Don't ask, don't tell.'' I say that this is a system
of ``Do ask, do tell.'' We ought to ask, as an employer, and as the
Government, we ought to tell whether or not these are in the one
category of legal documents, or in the other category of illegal
documents. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.
1815
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to make very clear that those of us
that oppose this amendment do very much want to crack down on illegal
immigration.
There are many things which I support. I supported the Tate amendment
which basically stated that if, for example, somebody does try to come
into this country illegally, they will then not be able to come into
this country legally at some later time, so do not even bother to try
to come in again. One-strike-and-you're-out. I think that is good
policy. Harsh, tough, but I think it is good.
I also very strongly support eliminating welfare as a magnet. We have
got too many American citizens, I believe, on welfare in this country
right now. I think we ought to completely overhaul the welfare system.
We have got far too many people that ought to be supporting themselves
and their own kids that are American citizens right now. But
unfortunately we have got people coming into this country because
welfare is too often a magnet. I do not think welfare ought to be given
to illegal aliens.
There are many things. We ought to beef up the patrols on our borders
to keep illegal aliens out. But to have one more requirement on
American businesses to call the government before they hire somebody or
right after they hire somebody and clear everything up within 10 days,
I think that is the wrong way to go.
Malcolm Wallop, for example, a former Senator from Wyoming for whom I
have a tremendous amount of respect said, ``This is one of the most
intrusive government programs that America has ever seen.''
The Wall Street Journal called this system odious. The Washington
Times asked, ``Since when did Americans have to ask the government's
permission to work?''
The National Retail Federation said, ``It's yet another Federal
Government mandate on business and we're trying to get rid of
government mandates.'' This is a government mandate in essence that
would require every American to get the government's OK to work in this
country. It should not be that way.
Many of us believe very strongly that we were sent here to lessen the
intrusiveness of the Federal Government in their lives. This goes in
just the opposite direction. It runs against the grain of many of us
who are trying to reduce Federal involvement in our life.
That is the reason I oppose this amendment. Also, it is not going to
work. As I stated before, the bad guys that are hiring illegal aliens
now, they are not going to call the number. So it is not going to work.
It is just more government. We ought to oppose it.
[[Page H2516]]
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the previous remarks
highlight the disconnect between reality and what the opponents are
saying. There is now on the books such a mandate. The gentleman acts as
if this amendment would create it.
The law now says, and has for 10 years, that you must show to the
employer that you are legally entitled to work in the United States.
Employers are legally at risk. If they fail to ask and it turns out
they have hired someone who is not legally entitled to work, they are
at risk.
I do not understand this argument. If you want to abolish sanctions,
okay, but you cannot argue that this amendment creates an obligation
which we have had for 10 years. I would point out, by the way, that it
is so onerous an obligation that most people apparently do not even
realize we have it.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Gallegly amendment, although
in a conference committee I want to make sure, if this bill reaches a
conference committee, that what he is proposing here is truly feasible.
But I would like to just go construct my notions of why I think this is
important.
No one in this House, as far as I know it, is in favor of illegal
immigration. There are some people who believe in open borders, but I
have not heard anyone in this House ever articulate that.
Now the issue is, are we going to stop with border enforcement, or
are we going to have some interior enforcement? I am sorry to say that
my friends in the majority do not seem to want to put a lot of
resources into investigating industries that historically recruit
undocumented workers, but now we have the question of the employment.
As the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has just mentioned,
employer sanctions were established to make it illegal to hire someone
who is not here legally.
The voluntary program now in the bill has none of the privacy
protections, none of the discrimination protections, none of the
protections against mistakes that the Gallegly amendment has. The
Gallegly amendment says if this system wrongfully terminates a person
from a job, they have a remedy to recover their lost compensation. The
Gallegly amendment provides for testers which can go out and make sure
that any employer is doing this across the board as to all of his
employees, not just the ones who might have a foreign accent.
It has the protections, it deals with the issue of making sanctions
enforceable, and the only question now for me which I hope to learn
about in the months ahead as we deal with this legislation is, is it
feasible? I am not sure it is, but I think we should give this approach
a boost because it is the right approach, at least in concept.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am rising here today to support the
Gallegly amendment. If things are going to be made illegal, we have to
provide the means of enforcing that decision. Otherwise we are just
philosophizing. Our voters did not send us here to sit down and talk
together about ideas. They wanted us to change the way things are in
the United States.
It is not enough to say you are against illegal immigrants flooding
into our country. You have got to be able to do something about it, or
that is not what your public life is all about. We are not here to
philosophize with one another. We are here to try to solve a problem.
In California and elsewhere, we have a mammoth tide, a wave of
illegal immigration, sweeping across our country. We should give the
people the tools to make sure that those illegal immigrants when they
come here are not the recipients of workers' comp, unemployment
insurance, Social Security, and all the other government benefits that
go with being employed in this country.
The fact is that we have made it illegal for an employer to hire
these people. Otherwise, let us just take off that ban. If you want to
take off that ban, that is fine. Or, if you want to say it is legal for
illegal immigrants to get government benefits, fine, make that your
position.
But do not tell the American people you are against illegal
immigration if you are trying to undercut every single attempt that is
being made to try to enforce that decision. We are here not to just
philosophize, we are here to solve problems and get things done. Please
take your heads out of the clouds and make sure your feet are on the
ground.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 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 rise in support of the Gallegly
amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume 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 this
amendment. I would like to thank the three sponsors from California for
their commitment to seeing that we put this mandatory pilot program
back into the bill--a commitment which they know I strongly share.
I strongly believe that we cannot accurately claim that these are
effective and efficient reforms without this amendment. And, above all,
I urge that the business community recognize its responsibilities and
that they become part of the solution and not part of the problem.
As we all know, the original bill, as passed by the Judiciary
Committee, contained this mandatory pilot program. Its purpose is to
make it easier for employers who continue to struggle understanding the
enforcement and eligibility requirements of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 [IRCA].
Under IRCA, employer sanctions are imposed on any employer who
knowingly hires an illegal alien unauthorized to work in the United
States. Employers are required to verify worker eligibility and
identity by examining up to 29 documents and completing an INS I-9
form. In enforcing these measures, employers are allowed a good faith
defense and are not liable for verifying the validity of any documents,
but instead are only responsible for determining if the documents
appear to be genuine.
Unfortunately, between the proliferation of fraudulent documents, and
the overconcern of INS with sanctioning employers for paperwork
violations, such as incorrectly completing I-9 forms, little has been
done to catch unauthorized/illegal workers.
Mr. Chairman, opponents of the pilot program claim that it will
become a big brother program giving the Federal Government the sole
power to decide who will work for an employer. This is just not true.
It seems to me that this argument is being used more and more liberally
every time it is perceived by some that the Federal Government is
overstepping its powers when it clearly isn't.
Furthermore, opponents claim to fear that mistakes made by the
computer data base could either be used against an employer as evidence
of hiring an illegal alien or could be used against a prospective
employee as evidence of discrimination. Well, come on my colleagues.
This is a weak argument that no one would deny, and an easy one to use
as justification for opposing the pilot program.
Even without computer verification, these same problems still persist
because of paperwork/administrative mistakes. With increasing uses of
computer technology in all public and private sectors, this is a real
problem that we deal with every day and will continue to deal with
every day in the future. The bottom line is that there are always going
to be computer errors and data entry mistakes. Should we therefore pass
a blanket prohibition on computers in the workplace? I think not.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, under this program an employer is provided
with a good faith defense similar to that provided under IRCA,
shielding him from liability based on the confirmation number he
receives after verifying an employee's Social Security number. And, if
an employee is not offered a position because of an informational error
which cannot be resolved within a 10-day period, then he is entitled to
compensation under existing Federal law.
The success of phone verification has been proven in southern
California which has in place a similar pilot program that began with
220 employers. After 2,500 separate verifications and a 99.9-percent
rate of effectiveness, it is now being used by almost 1,000 businesses.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the mandatory pilot program is to make
it easier for employers to verify the work eligibility of prospective
[[Page H2517]]
employees. It will help to prevent confusion over documents and
alleviate concerns about hiring/not hiring someone who looks like he is
illegal. It is in the direct benefit and interest of all employers
because it will help to eradicate all of the fears, uncertainties, and
arbitrary sanctions that employers have complained about for the past
10 years.
At the same time, just as we require legal and illegal aliens to
comply with the law, so too must employers. This program will also hold
employers accountable for their hiring decisions. By this I mean that
unscrupulous employers could no longer get away with knowingly
employing illegal aliens because they would have to verify their work
eligibility.
And, my friends, this is the end to the means for the 400,000 illegal
aliens who enter our country every year. As long as the jobs are there,
and someone is willing to hire them to do the work, they will always
keep coming.
Reducing the number of allowable documents from 29 to 6 and
increasing by 500 the number of INS employment inspectors, which this
bill does, is a strong step in the right direction. But, it is not
enough.
This is another commonsense amendment, and one that should be
supported by everyone, including the business community.
Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to show their support for a
simpler yet more complete employer verification system by voting for
this amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Packard].
(Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the claim that this amendment intrudes on
our civil rights is a bogus argument. We see people in the grocery
lines, at the cash register, and we never hear them complain about
having to have calls made to verify their checks before they can take
their groceries home. We cannot tighten up the enforcement of employer
sanctions, which we are requiring and asking to be done, and then not
give the employers a chance to be assured that they are hiring legally.
Most of my employers, which really employ a good deal of the alien
labor pool, both legal and illegal, are begging for a chance to verify
their legality. They want to be legal. It would be a shame not to allow
them a system that would give them the verification that they are
hiring appropriately and legally. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the
Gallegly amendment.
I rise in support of the Gallegly-Bilbray-Seastrand-Stenholm
amendment which would make the employer verification pilot program
mandatory.
Since I first became a Member of Congress, I have worked to put an
end to the illegal immigration problem that has plagued my district, my
State of California and now the Nation. Quite frankly, I have found
that there are two compelling reasons that pull illegal immigrants to
our country. One is the wide range of Federal benefits our country has
to offer. This is being taken care of by this bill.
The second is the lure of jobs. Requiring all employers in a pilot
project State to make a simple call to verify the eligibility of a new
hire will put an end to the lure of jobs for illegals. A voluntary
system is simply inadequate. A voluntary system allows likely illegal
immigrants to believe that a job waits for them on the other side of
the border. Perhaps their employer will not check. We send illegal
immigrants a far stronger message if they know all employers will be
checking their status. No job waits for you on the other side.
Our current system of determining whether a person applying for work
is legal or illegal is lacking. In fact, it is so unbelievably easy to
obtain false documentation in California, that employers are at a high
risk of hiring illegals without even knowing it. A mandatory employer
verification system will protect innocent employers from hiring
illegals with false documentation.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will protect employers and destroy the
job magnet that brings illegal immigrants into our country. It is a
pilot project that will be tested for only 3 years. If it does not
work, Congress will have the ability to revamp it or cancel it
completely. However, only by making it mandatory, will we be able to
ensure that the employer verification pilot program will work as it is
intended.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, the American people need to support this
amendment. We need to support it. It is shameful that we would bend to
the special interests and not vote for the Gallegly amendment. I fully
support it.
Mr. Chairman, the American people elected a Republican majority in
1994 to end politics as usual and accomplish real reform. Without the
Gallegly mandatory verification amendment, this bill is another example
of do-nothing, special-interest business as usual in Washington.
Illegal immigrants come here for jobs. If we are serious about
stopping illegal immigration, we need to make it impossible for illegal
aliens to get jobs. Only a mandatory system in States most affected by
illegal immigration would achieve that. Not enough employers would
verify their employees' eligibility without one.
Stand up to the special interests. Vote for the Gallegly mandatory
verification amendment.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Gallegly-Bilbray
amendment to create a mandatory pilot program. We need a driver's
license to board an airplane. We need identification with a credit card
or a check.
This is not big brother. This is enforcing laws. Some of our own
legal residents have found there are errors in their Social Security
numbers. They have found payments being made to other people's accounts
after 5 years.
This system will not only deter illegal immigration but will help
perfect our own domestic work force. It is not onerous. It is not
burdensome. Employers universally will call past employers to find out
about backgrounds, past landlords to find out about the worthiness of
the employee. We are asking a simple step.
How many people in this audience use the 1-800 number to find out
about their check balances, the last five checks cashed, the last five
deposits? It takes 15 to 20 seconds. It is not a difficult process.
Anyone can do it. It is not complicated. It will ensure that we are not
hiring illegal employees.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I would like to say that I have spent the overwhelming
majority of my adult life as a small business person. This is the
reason right here that we need a verification system. This is a
counterfeit document that will meet the employer sanction requirements
that a person can pick up on almost any street corner in any major city
for about $30.
Let us bring some sanity to this debate. Let us stop the flow of
illegal immigrants coming into this country for easy access to jobs,
protect American workers, and protect this country from more illegal
immigration. I would ask the strong support of the Gallegly amendment
for mandatory verification.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, my vote for the Gallegly-Bilbray-
Seastrand amendment will be cast for three reasons:
First, it should not be the employer's burden to decide whether work
permission documents are real or phony.
Second, the guest worker program for agriculture, which I shall
support when it is brought up later in this debate, will work better
with 800 number verification.
Third, finally--and most importantly--I am committed to immigration
reform, especially putting a stop to illegal immigration.
U.S. borders are breached by those looking for work here.
American employers should be able to pick up the phone and quickly
and accurately determine whether an applicant is legally entitled to
work. Those who aren't won't be hired. They'll have little reason to
stay, and there'll be reduced incentive for others to follow the same
wrong route.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86,
noes, 331, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H2518]]
[Roll No. 77]
AYES--86
Baker (CA)
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bono
Borski
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Condit
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dreier
Duncan
Eshoo
Farr
Foglietta
Foley
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Geren
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goss
Holden
Horn
Hunter
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
LaFalce
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lowey
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCollum
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Moorhead
Neal
Obey
Packard
Pallone
Payne (VA)
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Schumer
Seastrand
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stenholm
Torricelli
Traficant
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waxman
Wilson
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--331
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--14
Collins (IL)
Hayes
Hostettler
Johnson (CT)
Johnston
Moakley
Nadler
Radanovich
Rose
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tate
Waters
1847
Messrs. BISHOP, PORTER, HOBSON, GRAHAM, SAXTON, McDERMOTT, EMERSON,
and RIGGS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SABO, and Ms. McKINNEY 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. 14 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. gutierrez
Mr. GUTIERREZ. 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. Gutierrez: Amend section 505 to
read as follows (and conform the table of contents
accordingly):
SEC. 505. REQUIRING CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF WORLDWIDE LEVELS
EVERY 5 YEARS.
Section 201 (8 U.S.C. 1151) is further amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Requirement for Periodic Review of Worldwide
Levels.--The Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate shall undertake during
fiscal year 2004 (and each fifth fiscal year thereafter) a
thorough review of the appropriate worldwide levels of
immigration to be provided under this section during the 5-
fiscal-year period beginning with the second subsequent
fiscal year.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Gutierrez], and a Member opposed, each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Brownback-Gutierrez amendment deletes the new
Immigration and Nationality Act sections 201(g)(2) and 201(g)(3).
This is a rather simple amendment that would preserve a very simple
idea. America's immigration policy should continue to allow families to
be reunited with their loved ones.
At first glance, the section of the bill we seek to delete might
appear to do nothing more than require a periodic congressional review
of the numerical limits placed on immigration. Unfortunately, this is
not the case. The bill actually requires specific legislation
reauthorization as early as the year 2004 for our Nation to continue to
allow any family-based and employment-based immigration.
Let me be clear. This Congress will have to pass a specific
legislative reauthorization in the year 2004 if our Nation is to allow
any family-based or employment-based immigration.
Reuniting with family members accounts for 60 percent of all legal
immigration to the United States, and this bill puts that type of
critical legal immigration in danger.
The bill says that without congressional action, brothers and
sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives will be prevented
from reuniting in the United States. In effect, this bill creates a
sunset provision on the most important and positive reason people come
to the United States. It creates a sunset provision on our basic and
fundamental commitment to any immigration policy at all.
Well, I do not want this Congress to allow the Sun to set on our
Nation's desire to offer opportunity to newcomers from throughout the
world. I do not want the Sun to set on our Nation's commitment to
serving as a source of hope and for those who desire to work and
contribute to make America a better, stronger nation. I do not want the
Sun to set on America's commitment to one of the most basic family
values, allowing immigrants to reunite with the people they love.
Yet, this is precisely what the proponents of this bill are
suggesting. Passage of this bill with this provision would be a huge
victory for extremists whose only interest in immigration is ending it
forever.
[[Page H2519]]
But do not take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal wrote on
their editorial page last week that the sunset clause would ``stop all
job-based legal immigration and provide a powerful lever to immigration
restrictionists after the turn of the century.''
The bipartisan Brownback-Gutierrez amendment is our opportunity to
take away that powerful lever from those who would like to completely
abandon our Nation's commitment to legal immigration. I urge my
colleagues not to be swayed by the argument that reauthorizing this
bill is just a formality, that it is really no big deal. The history of
the U.S. Congress clearly shows that immigration legislation is never a
formality. It is always a big deal.
Mr. Chairman, the author of this legislation has said over and over
again that this represents only the third time this century that
Congress has dealt with an immigration bill of this magnitude. I
believe the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] recognized the facts and
he does not oppose this amendment, which I appreciate very much.
So we should all realize that reauthorization, which will decide
whether mothers are reunited with sons, will not come easily unless we
correct this potential problem today.
The sunset provision is a silver bullet that is aimed at every heart
of our commitment to immigrants. By passing this amendment, we can
unload that silver bullet.
To use the language that so many of my friends on the other side of
the aisle are using, we can truly take a stand for family values. We
send a clear signal that we value keeping family members united and
together, that we value a policy of fairness for every person who wants
to come to our country legally, to be with family they love and care
about, that we value the history and character of our Nation and that
the United States values inclusion and understanding and opportunity,
rather than exclusion, blame, and fear.
If my colleagues value these ideas, I urge them to join us in
supporting this amendment today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr.
Gutierrez] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] for being so
diligent and looking at the specifics of this bill and determining that
this egregious provision had been retained that would sunset the quotas
and all of the priorities that were set for the family reunification
principle.
The families that are being permitted to enter under these various
privileges are extremely limited already. The siblings are not going to
be permitted to come in, and adult children are not going to be able to
come in. In many cases, parents are not going to be able to come in.
But under the limitations which this bill provides, what has happened
under the legislation is that, after a certain period of time, the
provisions will sunset.
Now, if we have any questions as to the interpretation of this
section, I would like to call our attention to the Congressional
Research Service opinion dated February 28 in which it says under the
sunset provisions of section 504, categories of aliens who are subject
to worldwide levels of admission under section 201 of the Immigration
Act could be admitted after fiscal year 2005 only to the extent set by
future law.
That is the difficulty. What if the Congress did not pass a law? As
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] said, what if there was a
filibuster in the Senate that prevented this legislation from being
authorized? What would happen is that our families that were waiting
for these loved ones to come in would not be permitted. It would have
the effect of a moratorium on immigration.
So I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and urge that
this House adopt it. I understand that the majority will accept this
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to respond to the concerns of my colleagues that have
been expressed about the provision of the bill that has the legal
immigration provisions sunsetting in the year 2006 and explain to my
colleagues the reason for having this provision in the bill. It was put
in there at the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims simply because we wanted to force Congress to address the very
complex subject of immigration on a regular basis.
There was no nefarious plot here involved in trying to sunset the
legal immigration numbers. In fact, I am on record numerous times as
being opposed to a moratorium. So I hope my friend will realize that,
although he suggested I was endorsing a moratorium, I have never done
such, nor is that the purpose of this provision of the bill. Once
again, the motive is very good, and I have agreed to this amendment to
try to avoid any misinterpretation or misconstruction of the original
provision.
Mr. Chairman, the motive again was to force Congress to do something
that it has never really done before, and that is take a look at our
immigration policy on a regular basis. We have found so often in the
past that by not forcing Congress to address this subject, our
immigration policies oftentimes have developed in ways unexpected. And
we certainly hope that will not be the case here.
I might say also I hope we will not come to regret that this
amendment passes and 7 or 10 years down the road want to address
immigration but not have any mandate to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
1900
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the
subcommittee yielding me this time for a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes an increase in Border Patrol
agents by 1,000 agents each year from 1996 through the year 2000. Yet,
the report language requires the deployment of these new agents at
sectors along the borders of the United States in proportion to the
number of illegal border crossings. Therefore, I am concerned that some
States which are not officially designated as border States, such as
Florida, will be overlooked when the INS distributes the new agents.
Earlier this year, the INS temporarily deployed eight Border Patrol
agents from Florida to the Southwest border. Border Patrol agents in
Florida have gradually diminished from 85 agents a few years ago to
just 41 agents today. In my home district, the Palm Beach Border Patrol
office has just three agents and one supervisor who are responsible for
covering eight counties and 120 miles of coastline. These are not
enough resources to effectively protect our shores from illegal
immigration. Florida experienced an estimated 52-percent increase in
Border Patrol apprehensions from 1994 to 1995. One in nine of our
Nation's illegal immigrants now reside in Florida and could be as high
as 450,000.
These alarming statistics clearly demonstrate the critical need for a
strong Border Patrol force in Florida. While I support a strong Border
Patrol force for the entire Nation, it seems that the unique illegal
immigration problems facing Florida has not been fairly recognized by
the INS. Therefore, I would seek the support of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith] on this issue during conference and the
appropriations process to ensure that in the distribution of the new
agents, States such as Florida will receive their fair share.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
thank the gentleman from Florida for expressing these concerns. It is
clearly not the intent of this bill to preclude new Border Patrol
agents from serving in coastal States with a high incidence of illegal
entry into the United States. I recognize the serious nature of the
illegal immigration problems facing Florida and the importance of
maintaining a strong Border Patrol presence in that State. I can assure
the gentleman that I will be supportive of his efforts to prevent a
further degradation of Florida's Border Patrol.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Pastor], chairman of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] for giving us this amendment. Even though
[[Page H2520]]
we heard that the motive is very simplistic and does not mean to cause
any problems, the so-called sunset provision is still troubling. We
heard the chairman, and the majority will contend that this provision
merely amends section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to
require periodic congressional review of the numerical limits placed on
immigration. In reality, according to the Congressional Research
Service, this so-called sunset provision will end all family and
business preference immigration, all diversity immigration and all
humanitarian visas into the United States after the fiscal year 2004,
the year the bill designates as the first period of review.
This provision is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to have a
moratorium on immigration, and, therefore, I ask that my colleagues
support the Gutierrez amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I simply want to end by saying I want to thank the chairman, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, for his support of this
amendment, and I want to apologize for any inference that I might have
made with the probably bungling of the reading of my statement, because
that is the only way I can come to that conclusion that I might have
stated in any way, shape or form that it was his intent to have a
moratorium. I do not believe that, and so I probably just misread
something into the Record.
But, fortunately, we sent a copy up there that I am sure will clarify
what I really meant to say, and I apologize to the gentleman and thank
him for his support on what I think is a very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have to tell my colleagues how much I appreciate the gentleman from
Illinois' generous comments, and I certainly understand what he was
saying, and, as he just suggested, the intent here was never to end
legal immigration. It was just to force Congress to do its job and
regularly review our immigration numbers. And I do appreciate the
gentleman from Illinois making his statement clear and appreciate his
being so open and honest about the whole subject.
Mr. Chairman, let me also commend the gentleman for his amendment and
for rectifying the situation that none of us anticipated, but at least
we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chrysler-
Berman-Brownback amendment to H.R. 2202.
In its current form, H.R. 2202 dramatically reduces family-related
immigration. About three-fourths of the bill's reductions in the number
of legal immigrants come in the family-related category. It eliminates
the current preference category for brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens. The bill limits the number of adult children immigrants
admitted to include only those who are financially dependent upon their
parents, unmarried, and between the ages of 21 and 25. It also allows
parents of citizens to be admitted only if the health insurance is
prepaid by the sponsor.
What practical effect will these provisions have on law-abiding
Americans who want to reunite with members of their immediate nuclear
family? According to this legislation, virtually no American would be
able to sponsor their parents, adult children, or brothers and sisters
for immigration. If your only son or daughter turns 21 then he or she
ceases to be a part of your ``nuclear'' family and would never be able
to immigrate once he or she turns 26. If you have a brother or sister,
they're not part of your nuclear family either. And if you cannot
afford the type of health and nursing home care required in the bill
then your mother and father are not part of your nuclear family either.
While the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment would strike these
provisions, I would point out that there is one area which it does not
cover. Unfortunately, this amendment does not deal with the so-called
200-percent rule. Another title of the bill requires that an individual
sponsoring an immigrant must earn more than 200 percent of the poverty
line. This provision effectively means that about 46 percent of all
Americans cannot sponsor a relative to enter the United States. The
message this sends to all Americans is that in the future we will
continue to be a nation of immigrants, but only rich immigrants.
On Guam, we put a high premium on the role of families, which
includes mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and brothers. In our
community, supporting families means helping them stay together. That's
what we consider family values.
If this bill becomes law, it will have a definite practical effect on
may families, particularly those of Filipino descent, on Guam. It will
prevent many of them from reuniting with their brothers or sisters,
even though in some cases they have waited for upwards of 10 to 15
years. Furthermore, it will shut out all future family reunification,
even in categories that were not eliminated, for many immigrants on
Guam because they do not earn over 200 percent of the poverty line or
cannot afford to pay for their parents' health insurance.
In each of the cases of sponsoring families, you are talking about
people who have played by the rules. They have worked through the
system and petitioned to be reunited with their nuclear family. They
have waited patiently. Now we will turn our backs on them.
These proposed restrictions and eliminations of entire categories is
unwarranted and unnecessary. The Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment
would strike the restrictions and restore the current system which
supports family-based reunification.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Chrysler-Berman-
Brownback amendment to restore the family categories and reject these
arcane provisions. While I regret that it does not cover the 200-
percent rule, I believe that its passage will make the bill better than
what we have in the current bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. kim
Mr. KIM. 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. Kim: In section 512(a), in the
matter proposed to be inserted--
(1) in paragraph (1), strike ``and (3)'' and insert
``through (4)'',
(2) in paragraph (3), strike the closing quotation marks
and period that follows at the end of subparagraph (D)(iv),
and
(3) add at the end the following:
``(4) Other sons and daughters of citizens.--Immigrants who
are the sons or daughters (other than qualifying adult sons
or daughters described in paragraph (3)(C)) of citizens of
the United States, who had classification petitions filed on
their behalf under section 203(a) as a son or daughter of a
citizen before March 13, 1996, and who at any time was not
unlawfully present in the United States shall be allocated
visas in a number not to exceed the number of visas not
required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) through
(3), plus a number equal to the number by which the maximum
number of visas that may be made available for the fiscal
year under subsection (b) exceeds the number of visas that
will be allotted under such subsection for such year.
``(5) Brothers and sisters of citizens.--Immigrants who are
the brothers or sisters of citizens of the United States, if
such citizens are at least 21 years of age, who had
classification petitions filed on their behalf under section
203(a) as a brother or sister of such a citizen before March
13, 1996, and who at any time was not unlawfully present in
the United States shall be allocated visas in a number not to
exceed the number of visas not required for the classes
specified in paragraphs (1) through (4), plus a number equal
to--
``(A) the number by which the maximum number of visas that
may be made available for the fiscal year under subsection
(b) exceeds the number of visas that will be allotted under
such subsection for such year, reduced by
``(B) any portion of such excess that was used for visas
under paragraph (4) for the fiscal year.
Amend section 519(b)(1)(A) to read as follows:
(A) in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``paragraph
(1), (3), or (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2), (3), (4),
or (5)'';
Strike section 555 (and conform the table of contents
accordingly).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Kim] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
(Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a legal immigrant myself, I believe it is important to recognize
the difference between legal and illegal immigration. My compliance
with the law and subsequent naturalization has instilled in me a sense
of pride and responsibility. I am sure that these same
[[Page H2521]]
feelings are shared by all legal immigrants who come to the United
States in search of American dreams and a better life for their
families.
The close ties between family members provide a sense of family
responsibility and unity, something many in this country appear to have
forgotten. This is why I strongly support this bill's basic principle
of family reunification. However, I believe it is unfortunate that, in
the rush to reform our immigration system, we have overlooked a key
part of that basic premise.
As currently written, the bill eliminates immigration by adult sons
and daughters and brothers and sisters. I am concerned by the arbitrary
determinations being made about which family member is more important
than the other member. They are based on age alone.
According to the bill, someone's 20-year-old son is considered their
son, but once he turn 21, he is no longer their son unless he is
unmarried. Then he is their son, all right, but until, only until, he
turns 26. Let me try this again. It is no longer their son when he is
over 21. He is no longer their son if he is married and over 21, but
under 26. Does it make sense to anyone? I do not think so.
Why are we punishing marriage? Is that not the core of family values?
This really arbitrarily makes absolutely no sense, and I simply do not
understand why the age or relationship between family members makes any
differences as to their importance to the family. As far as I know,
families last a lifetime.
My amendment is a compromise effort to fix this oversight. The
amendment makes sons and daughters and siblings who have filed the
petitions before March 13, 1996, qualified. It is a grandfather
amendment giving those legal immigrants currently in the line a chance
to be reunited with their families. How? They would be eligible to use
any unused family- or employment-based visas on an annual basis.
It does not raise immigration numbers. It simply allows sons and
daughters and siblings the chance to immigrate on the space-available
basis using any leftover quotas.
Let me repeat again: It does not raise immigration numbers. It does
not jeopardize the overall bill or any priorities. These individuals
have followed our immigration laws impatiently waiting for many, many
years.
These honest immigrants deserve a chance to be with their families.
Some have already made financial and personal arrangements by putting
their homes on the market and preparing for resettling in America.
Otherwise, we slam the door in the face of this law-abiding immigrant.
This retroactive denial is unfair, downright un-American.
My amendment is a responsible way to fix this injustice. Remember, it
only applies on a space-available basis, using any leftover quotas.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5-minutes allocated
under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the amendment?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs.
Mink] for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make my comments at this
point. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] for
his amendment, for being able to present it, and to have been accorded
the opportunity to offer the amendment is a point of great distinction.
What his amendment does is to recognize that H.R. 2202 contains
provisions which totally categorically eliminate family preferences for
adult children and siblings, and that is a very, very unthinking, and
cruel amendment repealing the opportunities of family reunification
which have been part of the law for the last 30 years.
It is not enough to say children under the age of 21 may come in
accompanied with parents or the spouses may come in or parents under
certain circumstances. The family context is the wider family which
includes all children. The fact that they are over 21 or married or
have other kinds of circumstances does not indicate that they are no
longer part of the family.
If we are going to preserve the idea of family reunification, which
the bill attempts to do, the sacrifice of adult children and siblings,
is a very, very cruel elimination from this bill.
So what our colleague from California, Mr. Kim, has done is to
grandfather all applications which have been filed over the years,
because as he indicated, there are some people that have been waiting
over 10 years to fit into the categorical limitations for adult
children, unmarried or married, or the sibling category. Some of them
have waited in my district well over 15 years, and now they are
panicking, and calling, and writing letters and saying they have read
in the newspapers that we are about to eliminate this category, and
they have been waiting patiently for their numbers to be called. Some
of them probably will have their numbers called as early as next year,
and yet, if this bill passes, they will have completely lost that
opportunity to be reunited with their families in America. I think that
that is a very, very cruel blow.
What the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] has done is to indicate
that we should grandfather these categories of people who have applied
by March of 1996 and use space-available vacancies that may come along
on an annual basis and allow these family members to come in.
The cruelty of this provision however, I need to point out, is that
the likelihood of any vacancies and space becoming available are
unlikely for maybe another decade or two. There will not be any excess
numbers that can be allocated to this category.
So, while the concept and the compassion that is contained in the Kim
amendment is worthwhile, I am taking the floor to say that it does not
correct the basic exclusions that have been made to this legislation.
I do not believe that we can stand on the floor of the Congress and
comment about family reunification, and now important the family is,
and how allowing the people who become new Americans to bring their
families into the United States is an important step integrating and
moving them forward toward their full responsibilities as Americans. To
deny them the opportunity to reunify their family puts us back to the
period when many Asians were not even permitted to come into this
country because of the 1924 Exclusion Act, which was only repealed in
1965. Until 1965 Persons from the Asia Pacific perimeter were refused
entry and again under this bill will not be able to bring their
families. They have been waiting for so many years to bring their
families in, and this Congress is going to exclude them again.
The rule did not permit us to offer specific amendments to this
issue. This is the only opportunity to address these very, very
important and egregious actions which have been taken in H.R. 2202. I
cannot support H.R. 2202 because of what it does to families.
1915
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have always supported strengthening families and fair
treatment for legal immigrants. Many people have waited for years to be
reunited with their families,while others have blatantly disregarded
U.S. policy and flooded our Nation with illegal immigrants.
We must not place more restrictions on those who await reunification
with their families. We must not go back on our promise to reunite the
families of these law-abiding United States citizens with their
parents, their children, brothers, and sisters who have waited for this
day.
Mr. Chairman, in support of the integrity of our Nation, of
controlling illegal immigration, and encouraging the use of correct
procedures for legal immigration, I strongly strongly support the Kim
amendment, and hope that my colleagues will do so as well.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question. In his amendment, there is also a
line at
[[Page H2522]]
the very end of his amendment which strikes a provision that we have
put in in committee and I have fought for to make sure people who can
no longer sponsor an immigrant get reimbursed the fee they paid. If
they cannot get the service, they should be reimbursed the fee they
paid. That is now taken out of the bill in the amendment.
I was wondering if the gentleman knew that.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Kim].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed
in part 2 of the House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. canady of florida
Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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. Canady of Florida: Amend
subsection (c) of section 514 to read as follows:
(c) Establishing Job Offer and English Language Proficiency
Requirements.--Paragraph (2) of section 203(c) (8 U.S.C.
1153(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Requirements of job offer and education or skilled
worker and English language proficiency.--An alien is not
eligible for a visa under this subsection unless the alien--
``(A) has a job offer in the United States which has been
verified;
``(B) has at least a high school education or its
equivalent;
``(C) has at least 2 years of work experience in an
occupation which requires at least 2 years of training; and
``(D) demonstrates the ability to speak and to read the
English language at an appropriate level specified under
subsection (i).''.
Redesignate section 519 as section 520 and insert after
section 518 the following new section (and conform the table
of contents, and cross-references to section 519,
accordingly):
SEC. 519. STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY FOR MOST
IMMIGRANTS.
Section 203 (8 U.S.C. 1153), as amended by section 524(a),
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) English Language Proficiency Standards.--(1) For
purposes of this section, the levels of English language
speaking and reading ability specified in this subsection are
as follows:
``(A) The ability to speak English at a level required,
without a dictionary, to meet routine social demands and to
engage in a generally effective manner in casual conversation
about topics of general interest, such as current events,
work, family, and personal history, and to have a basic
understanding of most conversations on nontechnical subjects,
as shown by an appropriate score on the standardized test of
English-speaking ability most commonly used by private firms
doing business in the United States.
``(B) The ability to read English at a level required to
understand simple prose in a form equivalent to typescript or
printing on subjects familiar to most general readers, and,
with a dictionary, the general sense of routine business
letters, and articles in newspapers and magazines directed
to the general reader.
``(2) The levels of ability described in paragraph (1)
shall be shown by an appropriate score on the standardized
test of English-speaking ability most commonly used by
private firms doing business in the United States.
Determinations of the tests required and the computing of the
appropriate score on each such test are within the sole
discretion of the Secretary of Education, and are not subject
to further administrative or judicial review.
``(3) The level of English language speaking and reading
ability specified under this subsection shall not apply to
family members accompanying, or following to join, an
immigrant under subsection (e).''.
Amend paragraph (3) of section 513(a) to read as follows:
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(8) Not counting work experience as an unauthorized
alien.--For purposes of this subsection, work experience
obtained in employment in the United States with respect to
which the alien was an unauthorized alien (as defined in
section 274A(h)(3)) shall not be taken into account.
``(9) English language proficiency requirement.--An alien
is not eligible for an immigrant visa number under this
subsection unless the alien demonstrates the ability to speak
and to read the English language at an appropriate level
specified under subsection (i).''.
In section 553(b)--
(1) in paragraph (1), strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert
``paragraphs (2) and (3)'', and
(2) redesignate paragraph (3) and paragraph (4), and
(3) insert after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
(3) In determining the order of issuance of visa numbers
under this section, if an immigrant demonstrates the ability
to speak and to read the English language at appropriate
levels specified under section 203(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (as added by section 519), the immigrant's
priority date shall be advanced to 180 days before the
priority date otherwise established.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady] and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would establish an English language
proficiency requirement for immigrants arriving in the United States
under the Diversity Immigrant Program and the Employment-Based
Classification. Under the amendment, proficiency in English would be
determined by a standardized test established by the Secretary of
Education.
The amendment would also establish a preference for backlogged
spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens who
demonstrate English language proficiency. Such immigrants would have
their priority date advanced by 180 days.
This amendment would be an important addition to the underlying
legislation. It is our common language that brings us together as a
nation. As de Toqueville said, ``The tie of language is perhaps the
strongest and most durable that can unite mankind.''
There is a substantial body of empirical evidence to support the
proposition that there is a direct correlation between an individual's
ability to speak English in America and that person's economic
fortunes.
The 1990 census found that nearly 14 million Americans did not have a
high level of proficiency in the English language, more than two-thirds
of them immigrants.
A study conducted by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio
University concludes that if immigrant knowledge of English were raised
to that of the native born population, their income levels would have
increased by over $63 billion a year.
In April of 1994, the Texas Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs
published a study of Southeast Asian refugees in Texas which
demonstrated that among that population, individuals proficient in
English earned over 20 times the annual income of those who did not
speak English.
Another study which focused on Hispanic men concluded that those men
who did not have English proficiency suffered up to a 20 percent loss
of earnings compared with those who were English proficient.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, there are substantial costs incurred by
government at all levels in providing services in languages other than
English. For example, the Office of Legislative Research of the
Connecticut General Assembly was able to identify over $3 million of
State funds spent on providing services in a language other than
English--and this amount does not include expenditures for bilingual
instruction in schools.
My amendment is targeted at bringing in legal immigrants to our
society who will arrive with the most important skill necessary to
succeed in America--command of the English language. By focusing on the
Diversity Immigrant Program and Employment-Based Classification visas,
the amendment would require that immigrants fully capable of becoming
proficient in English do so before coming to the United States.
The amendment also will provide an incentive to those backlogged
spouses and children of lawful permanent resident aliens who
demonstrate English language proficiency. We should encourage all
immigrants who come to America to speak English. With my amendment, we
will provide a tangible benefit to potential immigrants who can speak
English--and who sometimes wait up to 10 years to enter this country--
by modestly advancing them on the waiting list.
Support for an amendment of this kind cuts across the ideological
spectrum of the immigration debate. Ben J. Wattenberg, a Democrat and a
distinguished demographer and commentor, has written and spoke
extensively in support of increasing the levels of legal immigration to
the United States. In a February 1, 1993 article in National
[[Page H2523]]
Review, Mr. Wattenberg wrote that, ``We would do well to add English
language proficiency * * * '' to our immigration laws.
Similarly, Peter Brimelow, author of the well-known book on U.S.
immigration policy Alien Nation and a strong proponent of decreasing
legal immigration, makes the point that an English language requirement
for potential immigrants would make Americanization easier.
I suggest that when Ben Wattenberg and Peter Brimelow agree on
anything having to do with immigration policy, we should pay attention.
My amendment takes the important contributions to the immigration
debate of these two experts and incorporates them into a fair and
workable provision that will enhance our immigration laws.
Critics of requiring English language proficiency for certain
immigrants or giving any advantage for English language skills argue
that we might pass over the best and the brightest the world has to
offer simply because they lack English skills.
In my view, it does little good for a person to be the best and the
brightest if it is impossible for that person to impart knowledge in
our society because of inability to communicate in our society. It is
virtually impossible to think of a situation where a highly skilled
immigrant, for which the employment-based classification is designed,
would not have English skills or be capable of acquiring them before
coming to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, we all know intuitively that to succeed in the United
States, one must have a command of the English language. Our
immigration policy should support this goal. Unfortunately, current
immigration laws do not take this into account.
By establishing an English language proficiency requirement for
immigrants who are fully capable of learning the language and providing
an incentive to learn English for people waiting to be admitted, we
will help ensure that immigrants are better equipped to succeed in
America.
Mr. Chairman, although this amendment does not address this problem
across-the-board, I believe that the amendment makes a big step in
moving us in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I know we all share the goal of speeding the success of
immigrants in our society. My amendment is an important contribution to
that goal, and I urge Members to support the 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 15 minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. It really is connected to a
debate that we have been having in various other committees having to
do with the establishment of English as the official language. I think
this amendment probably is an attendant idea connected to that
proposition.
The amendment to add an English-speaking requirement to the existing
requirements for the diversity immigrant program and the employment-
based program I believe is diametrically opposite to the original
intent of these programs. It serves no real purpose except to pander to
this wave of antiimmigrant foreigners coming to the United States, and
one of the criteria that this amendment is seeking to attach to this
kind of notion is if the person is not fluent in the English language.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Members that the specific intent of the
diversity immigrant program is to expand the ability of people in
underrepresented countries of origin to have the opportunity to come to
the United States, not only English-speaking people but everyone
throughout the world. Those that are not represented in sufficient
categories coming to the United States have special opportunities
through this lottery system to apply and to have the opportunity to
qualify for admission.
Mr. Chairman, each year 55,000 of these persons are selected through
the lottery system. They have to meet educational criteria in order to
qualify. When they come in, they may also be accompanied by spouse and
minor children. Mr. Chairman, the intent is to diversify the people
that are coming into this country, both under the work employment
classification category and also in the diversity category.
When we impose upon this idea of opening up opportunities to people
of other countries than those that have applications and visas, to
increase the diversity of our visa admittees to other places in Asia,
other places in Latin America and Africa and so forth. When we impose
this English-speaking requirement, we are eliminating wide sectors of
individuals who would otherwise qualify, and render a nullity the basic
concepts of diversity.
Diversity by definition means that you do not set exclusionary
criteria. You want a diverse group of people coming to the United
States that are sufficiently educated so they can come in, find jobs,
and be well integrated, but no necessarily fluent in English as
indicated in this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, to the same extent that the English-speaking
requirement will impinge upon the diversity program, it also will have
a very detrimental effect on the employment-based classification,
extremely counterproductive to what was intended: to bring in people
who are uniquely qualified in the medical, scientific, technological
categories.
There are people that have come and testified and sent letters to us
suggesting that this is a terrible amendment, because the kinds of
people who have particular technological skills or have special
competencies, may not meet the English-speaking requirement.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members think seriously about the
rationale of adding this kind of burdensome requirement to this special
category of diversity and employment based admissions and I hope that
we will defeat this amendment.
If the concern is the ability of these people to become readily
integrated and become a major part of the communities, we have all
sorts of ways in which this highly educated group of people can become
competent once they get here, learn English, and participate as
citizens in our society. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that
under all of these considerations, that this amendment will be
defeated.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that would
establish an English-language proficiency requirement for immigrants
arriving in the United States under the diversity immigrant program and
under the employment-based classification.
These are people who are coming here with the stated purpose of
working here, living here, being permanent residents here, and
hopefully, eventually becoming citizens of the United States of
America. There are a whole host of other immigration programs in which
people come in on a different basis and which this amendment would not
involve at all, but these are people who live here permanently.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is our common language, English, that
unites us and brings us together as a nation. Proficiency in English is
the civic responsibility of all U.S. citizens, as well as those
individuals residing in this country while seeking citizenship. Being
proficient in English is an indispensable part of educational, social,
and professional assimilation into our society and into our culture.
1930
It is clear that we have an increasing number of immigrants entering
our country, entering our society, who are not proficient in the
English language. In my district in northwest Arkansas, in one school
district, the Rogers school district, in the last 4 years the English
as a second language program has increased from 80 students in the
1991-92 school year to 760 students this year. That is a ninefold
increase in 4 years. That is just one evidence, and I think that story
can be repeated over and over again across our country and throughout
our society, that we have this great increase of those coming
[[Page H2524]]
into our country not proficient in the English language.
The Canady amendment does not solve all of those problems, but it is
a start. It is narrow, it is targeted, it is modest, but it is a step,
and it addresses the issue of speeding the success of immigrants in our
society, a goal, I believe, that we all share.
By requiring immigrants arriving in the United States under certain
programs to demonstrate a firm command of the English language, we
recognize English, our common language, as part of the glue, as a
component of the bond that brings us together as a people, as a
society, and as a culture.
I believe that anyone who truly desires that we have immigrants in
our society who are better equipped to assimilate and thrive in
America, those Members of this body who want to speed the success of
those coming into our society, making contributions to it, will support
the Canady amendment.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Guam [Mr. Underwood].
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Canady amendment,
which would give preference to those immigrants who have proficiency in
English, in effect the English-only immigrant. There is no disguising
the fact that this is connected to a number of issues relating to
language and language policy in this country.
I was particularly struck in that context by the remarks of the
previous speaker that this amendment is circumscribed in its
application and that it is a start. That is the dangerous part. If we
are going to start having this kind of a policy for a very limited
group, but we frame it in the discussion of language policy for the
country and we talk about it as just being the start, well, one wonders
what is remaining.
This amendment is a prime example of all the contradictions in this
immigration reform bill. Earlier we were told that this bill would make
it easier for spouses and children to be reunited even though the
number of visas are going to be slashed by 240,000. Then in the Kim
amendment we are told that adult children and siblings of legal
immigrants may be eligible for unused visas in other categories, such
as employment-based visas, even though very few could qualify under the
strict employment-based criteria. It was an amendment meant to go
nowhere.
Now we are told that every child, or even if a child or sibling could
do all that, we find in the Canady amendment a new hurdle, one that is
weighted clearly in favor of European immigrants at the expense of
Latin American countries, Asian countries, African countries, where
there are other vibrant and equally intelligent languages at work. We
all know what the practical effect of this amendment will be on the
diversity program.
When the last major attempt at immigration reform in the 1920's moved
away from ethnically and racially based immigration reform, we were all
happy and we all endorsed that. However, this particular amendment is
in effect a backdoor attempt that introduces an ethnic element into the
discussion of immigration policy.
We all know what the underlying motive is for English requirement
proposals, and it clearly is not economic. You want immigrants that
sound like you because chances are they are going to look like you,
too. If you want to separate families, let us have a straight-up vote
on that. If you want to favor certain European countries, let us have a
straight-up vote on that. But let us stop claiming to be pro-family and
nondiscriminatory in these proposals.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this issue of the English language has become more and
more pronounced in our country in the last number of years, but
basically it has always been an issue ever since the founding of this
country. The wonderful blessing that we have had is that we Americans
are people from every corner of the globe, every religious, every
ethnic, every linguistic background, but we are one Nation and one
people. Why? Because we have had a wonderful commonality, a common
glue. What? It is called the English language.
We are losing that today to a large degree. One out of every seven
Americans does not speak English. Basically, as I interpret this
amendment, what this amendment is saying is this: That we are giving
immigrants an incentive to learn the English language. That is not only
helping our country keep it one Nation, one people, but it is also
helping the immigrants that are coming to our shores.
How can a person climb the ladder of opportunity in America today, in
the United States if they do not have a good foundation in the English
language? All the want ads, the Congressional Record, newspapers,
everything is in English.
I think by giving people an incentive to learn English when they come
here, it is really helping the immigrant. It is not only helping our
Nation as a whole but it is also helping the immigrant.
For 200 years when people came to these shores, they adopted English
as the language. Even in our own household, in our own State, people
may have spoken one language at home but when they worked with the
government, when the youngsters went to schools, it was all done in
English. It has been a historical tradition here in America.
Thanks be to God that it has been because we have been able to keep
this Nation one country and one people. Take a look all over the world
what has happened. Take a look, for example, at Quebec in our
neighboring country of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in this because I am concerned
about what is happening to America. I think that America is splitting
up into groups. I do not want to see that happen. I want to keep this
one Nation, one people. Woodrow Wilson in 1918 said that as long as you
consider yourself a part of a group, you are not really American,
because America is not a nation of groups. America is a nation of
individuals.
So we want people, immigrants and others, of course, to assimilate,
to become part of this country. The way we do that, one of the
wonderful melting ingredients in the melting pot is the English
language.
I think that this is a good amendment. It not only helps the
individual but also helps our country.
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber has read ``One Nation, One
Language?'' recently in U.S. News. It is becoming more and more of an
issue. It talks about the people who have not assimilated, who have not
adopted English, and the tough time they are having.
I think that the gentleman's amendment is a praiseworthy amendment
and one that I hope the Chamber will vote for.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
It is unfortunate that more Members of this body were not able to
attend or chose not to attend a recent citizenship swearing-in ceremony
that was held here in the Capitol. I believe that was the first time in
the history of this Nation that we had a citizenship swearing-in
ceremony held here in the Capitol of this country. I am surprised to
learn that, but I think that is in fact the case.
We had over 100 people from over 40 or 50 countries come to this
Capitol and take the oath saying that they are committing themselves as
U.S. citizens, they are relinquishing their previous citizenship, and
they are binding themselves to this country. I must tell the Members
that a number of those people probably still cannot communicate
extremely well in English but, by God, I must tell you, you look at the
faces of each and every one of those people and not a one of them would
have said to you that there was a prouder American in this country at
that time.
To believe that there are people in this country who are saying, ``I
wish to legally emigrate and become a lawful permanent resident of this
country,'' in essence saying, ``I want to permanently reside here,''
and believe that these are folks that are saying they do not wish to
learn English I think is myopic. I do not believe that we can really
claim that we are interested in what the Statue of Liberty has always
stood for if we take that type of position.
[[Page H2525]]
Even more to the point, this amendment deals with those immigrants
who are coming in based on employment offers from a firm in this
country or those who are coming in from countries where we see smaller
numbers of people emigrating, so we want to make sure that there is
diversity in the pool of people that come into this country. To believe
that someone who wishes to get employment and has an offer of
employment is not interested in learning English, to me really seems
very contradictory to what the initiative of that individual is. The
diversity requirement, we want to make sure we get folks from
everywhere. This amendment makes it almost impossible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me read some of the language from the bill which makes very clear
that this requirement is not an onerous requirement. Here we are
talking about demonstrating the ability to speak English at a level
required, without a dictionary, to meet routine social demands and to
engage in a generally effective manner in casual conversation about
topics of general interest, and to have a basic understanding of most
conversations on nontechnical subjects. Also, the ability to read
English at a level required to understand simple prose in a form
equivalent to typescript or printing on subjects familiar to most
general readers.
This is not an onerous requirement. Also, I think it is important for
us to understand that this applies only to those individuals coming in
the employment-based classification and under the diversity program who
will be permanent residents here. These are people who are coming to
live in this country and to stay.
There are a variety of classifications under which nonimmigrant visas
can be issued to people for business reasons. We have temporary
visitors for business; registered nurses; alien in a special
occupation; representatives of foreign information media; intracompany
transferees of an international firm; aliens with extraordinary ability
in sciences, art, education, business or athletics; artist or
entertainer in a reciprocal exchange program; artist or entertainer in
a culturally unique program; and a variety of other nonimmigrant visa
categories that allow people to come in for a limited period of time
for a particular purpose.
We are focusing here on people that are going to be coming to this
country to stay. Furthermore, with respect to the employment-based
classification, we are talking about people who start a process that in
most cases is going to take a couple of years before they are ever
going to get the visa to get in. I believe that from the outset of that
process, if they are on notice that they need to be proficient in
English, they have an opportunity before they come here to develop that
skill so they can come here and become part of our society and make a
contribution from the very start.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to pose a question to the
gentleman from Florida.
Is there some report or some evidence or some indication that we have
a problem with immigrants in these categories coming over here and
refusing to learn to speak English? Because you describe them as people
who are coming here to stay. If they are coming here to stay, they
better become a citizen and they cannot become a citizen unless they
learn to speak English.
So what is the origin of your concern?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. The evidence that we have is not broken down
by specific categories, but we know that there are 14 million Americans
who do not have a high level of proficiency in English.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Are these immigrants?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Two-thirds of those are immigrants. That is
based on the 1990 census.
1745
Two-thirds of those without the high level of proficiency in English
are immigrants. Not all of them, but two-thirds.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they
presumably are on a track toward citizenship, and you cannot become a
citizen unless you learn to speak English. My point is we have
historically required of everyone who becomes a citizen English
proficiency. This is the first time I have ever heard about a proposal
that says you cannot come in the door unless you already speak English
in these categories. There is no evidence, nobody has come forward and
said this is a problem. We have had no hearings that indicated this is
a problem. This is sort of out of the blue.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, it is a
demonstrated problem. We have 14 million people in the country, two-
thirds of which are immigrants, who cannot speak the English language.
We have heard evidence of school districts where the number is going up
among children who need instruction in English as a second language.
There is an increasing problem. Now, I do not suggest this is going to
solve the whole problem, but I believe it is a step in the right
direction.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just
point out of these people, these figures you are using of these people,
they are not going to be in this category that your amendment applies
to anyway, No. 1.
No. 2, the fact is, we have got no evidence indicating that there is
a problem with regard to this category of immigrant. They come into the
country and they immediately start trying to learn how to speak
English. You probably heard the figures a moment ago, but the
Department of Education reports there are 1.8 million people in this
country in English as a second language classes. In New York City, 35
community colleges, 14 CBO's, community based organizations, are
offering English as a second language, and there is a waiting list of
18 months. It is the same with Los Angeles, and I know it is the same
situation in my own city of Dallas. It is not like the people are
refusing to learn to speak the language.
I just say to the gentleman that you are just continuing to invent
these things, to bring them up, and really I think this is for this
purpose of raising an issue everybody is concerned about, and that is
English in the country, as opposed to addressing the practical concern,
because there is just no evidence that people in these categories are
coming here and refusing to speak English.
They are described by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] as the
category of immigrant that comes here and plans to stay. That is true.
You cannot stay unless you learn to speak English. So what is the point
in making them learn to speak English before they get here?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, obviously they can stay without learning to speak English. We
have many people who do not become citizens. That is the problem.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
described these people himself as people that are going to stay here if
they come, because that is the nature of the immigration category. If
that is the case, they have to learn to speak English.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, that is not true, because they do not have to become
citizens. We have many people who are coming and staying, not learning
English, and not becoming citizens. I do not think that is good for
them or good for our country. We should be moving people into
citizenship as quickly as possible.
Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman will yield, we have to remember, we are
talking about a category of immigrants, especially those under the
employment-based category, that are coming here to secure jobs. These
are jobs that have been offered to them by employers here in the United
States. What are the chances that these are individuals who wish to
never learn English, knowing that they are coming
[[Page H2526]]
here because a job has been offered to them? My goodness.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, to address the question my friend from Texas
raised, the question I think can be asked, what harm would this
amendment cause? The amendment would cause no harm. I think that we do
have a problem. We do have a problem today with English. We do have a
problem that our country is breaking up into linguistic groups.
I was on a call-in show in Canada, and one of the people called in
and said, ``Don't you Americans realize how fortunate you are to have
this one language, this commonality? Look what is happening here in
Canada, where they are tearing the heart out of our country. Yet in
America, you have hundreds of little Quebecs.'' I think that is clear.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said what harm would
the amendment cause? That is not the right standard. The question is,
Do we have some reason to indicate we need this?
The harm is simply this. The diversity program, in my opinion, is a
bad program anyway, because it is really a scheme to let a lot of white
folks into the country, because some folks do not like it if there are
a lot of people coming in from Asia and the Hispanic areas of the
world.
Now, that is not your amendment, that is not your fault. That was put
in the bill in 1991, and the law in this bill carries it forward. This
amendment that the gentleman is putting in here is going to guarantee
that nobody comes in under that category, except the very nondiverse
group, and that is principally folks from Ireland, folks from England,
and so forth like that. I suggest to you it does not solve the problem
at all. These people are going to learn to speak English as soon as
they get here.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The points that the gentleman has been making I believe support the
position we are taking. The people that are going to be affected by
this in the business classification, the employment-based
classification, are the very people that will have the easiest time
complying with this requirement.
The fact of the matter is, most of these people wait for a couple of
years before they enter the country, and all we are saying is they
should take advantage of that opportunity during that period of time
that they are waiting to become proficient in the English language, to
prepare them better for becoming full participants in our society from
the day they arrive in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished Speaker of the House.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, I think
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has offered the sort of perfect
minimum amendment. Here is what it basically says: It says that there
ought to be an incentive to learn English by moving up the priority for
people who learn English. It says that English is a language American
citizens should know.
Now, I would suggest to you that America is a unique country held
together in part by its culture. This is not like France or Germany or
Japan. You are not born American in some genetic sense. You are not
born American in some racist sense. This is an acquired pattern.
English is a key part of this.
I read recently you can now take the citizenship test in a foreign
language administered by a private company, so you never actually have
to acquire any of the abilities to function in American civilization,
and as long as you can memorize just enough to get through the test in
your native language, you can then arrive. It seems to me that is
exactly wrong.
The fact is we have to begin the process. Look at Quebec. Look at
Belgium. Look at the Balkans in Bosnia. We are held together by our
common civilization and our common culture. English is a key part of
that. This is the narrowest, smallest step of saying to be an American
you should at least know enough English to be able to take the test in
English to be a citizen.
I would simply say to all of my colleagues, this is the first step in
what is going to be a very, very important debate over the next few
months. I would urge every one of my colleagues to look at the Canady
amendment with the greatest of favor, because it takes the right first
step and says we want you to be legal citizens. We are eager for you to
come to America. We are eager for you to have your citizenship. But
learn English so you can get a job and you can function in American
society, and you can truly be part of the American way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I just commend the gentleman for having the courage to
take this and offer it. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the Canady amendment.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, if I can just say to the Members who are
here and to the Speaker, who just finished with his remarks, all you
have to do is go to the community colleges, the night schools for
adults, the community-based organizations that are doing this at their
own cost, and you will see that every night the rooms are filled with
people trying to learn English. They are turning people away. There are
18-month wait lists. There are 50,000 people being told you will have
to come back at a later time, because they are trying to learn English.
It so happens that this Congress chose to cut funds for English as a
second language for those who are trying to learn English. Make sense
out of that.
What we see is that for the first time in this Nation since 1924, we
have an amendment on immigration that would give a preference to a
certain group of people, and what we are doing is we are limiting, we
are crunching, we are narrowing those who can come into this country.
With this amendment what we are saying is we really only want those who
sound like us, who can speak like us, and it is unfortunate, because
for the longest time and through this diversity program that is being
attacked, we are trying to make sure that we give folks from every part
of the world a chance.
Unfortunately, this amendment will make it difficult. This amendment
will deny the employers an opportunity to hire somebody they definitely
need because of the high skill level that person brings with them, and
it is unfortunate. What we see is we are turning this all around.
People are starving, yearning to learn English, and here we see a
Congress saying ``Yeah, you may be, but we don't believe you. We are
going to stop you from ever coming into these doors to prove it.''
That I think is the wrong message to send those yearning to come to
this country to provide us with their skills, their benefits, and make
this a better country. That is not the history of this country. We
should reject this amendment for that reason.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the Canady amendment to require English proficiency for immigrants
arriving under the diversity immigrant program and under the
employment-based classification. Never before has English proficiency
been required of immigrants, and it is not necessary now. Immigrants
who come to this country are strongly motivated to learn English,
because they know that their economic livelihood depends upon it.
Immigrant parents instill in their children a pride in their native
culture but they also encourage their children to learn English because
as parents they know too well that their children's educational and
employment opportunities will hinge on their ability to master the
English language.
We have seen that there is an enormous demand for English classes.
Nationwide, English-as-a-second-language classes serve 1.8 million
people each year. In fact, immigrants are very motivated to learn
English as they even wait on waiting lists for ESL classes.
I worry that this amendment will have a discriminatory effect as a
back-door way of excluding certain groups of immigrants such as those
from Spanish-speaking countries, as well as from Africa and Asian
countries where the native language is not English. In 1990, Congress
rejected a similar proposal that would have given preference to
English-speaking immigrants in the diversity lottery because of
concerns that the amendment was
[[Page H2527]]
designed to favor immigrants from certain parts of the world over
others.
Furthermore, I believe that this amendment is not favorable to the
interests of business in this country. Employment-based immigration is
designed to allow businesses to bring in limited numbers of highly
skilled workers. If the employer believes that a future employee has
the skills to do the job, the Government should not impose additional
requirements.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Canady
amendment, which would require English proficiency for certain
immigrants.
Americans all share a common set of ideas and values. It is the
common belief that common goals rather than a common language bond us
together.
To insist that a common language be a prerequisite for entry into our
country is unnecessary. Immigrants realize that learning English is
imperative and are not reluctant to do so. In Los Angeles, the demand
for English as a second language class is so great that some schools
run 24 hours a day. Current generations of immigrants are learning
English more quickly than those of previous generations.
This amendment sets up a system to exclude certain groups of
immigrants. It contributes to an atmosphere of intolerance for
diversity. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Canady amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that they ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] will be
postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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. Smith of New Jersey: In section
521 (relating to changes in refugee annual admissions),
strike subsection (a), and in subsection (c) strike
``subsections (a) and (b)'' and insert ``this section.''
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] and a Member opposed will each control 15 minutes of debate
time.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, many of us are supporting numerous sections of the bill
before us because it is time to crack down on illegal immigration. It
is therefore ironic and I believe very unfortunate that the very
deepest cuts imposed by the bill as presently written is not on illegal
immigrants, it is not even on legal immigrants, but it is on refugees.
Refugees would be cut from an authorized level of 110,000 last year
to 50,000 in 1998 and succeeding years, a reduction of 55 percent,
compared to less than 25 percent for other legal immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, the refugee cap would be a dramatic departure from U.S.
human rights policy. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights, the committee that has prime jurisdiction
over our refugee policy, and also over the budget from the authorizing
level perspective, and also over human rights in general around the
world, I would submit that it would be a tragedy and just plain wrong
to slash refugee admissions to the United States and to depart from
what is now the current law adopted back in 1980 of an annual
consultation between the Congress and the executive branch to prescribe
the correct number of admissions for that year.
Our first refugee laws were enacted just after World War II, when it
became clear that we had effectively sentenced hundreds of Jewish
refugees to death by forcing them back to Europe. The most dramatic
instance was the voyage of the St. Louis, many of whose 1,000
passengers died in concentration camps after being excluded from the
United States in 1939.
Let us be very clear about what we are talking about. The four
largest groups of refugees admitted to the United States are all people
who are in deep trouble because they share our common values about
human rights and freedom: First, Jews and evangelical Christians and
Ukrainian Catholics from the former Soviet Union. There has been a lot
of talk about how these people are not really refugees. But my
subcommittee and also the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, which I also chair, has held several hearings on the resurgence
of repression aimed at people of faith and people who, just because
they are Jews or Christians or evangelicals, find themselves at the
wrong end of their government.
Mr. Chairman, those hearings made it crystal clear that it is not the
time now to stop worrying about resurgent anti-Semitism and ultra-
nationalism. The communists may be back in power. We heard from Mr.
Kovalev, Yeltsin's human rights leader, but sacked because of his
criticisms in Chechnya. Just a couple of weeks ago, he came to our
commission, he is still a member of the Duma, and he said within 6
months democracy could be lost in Russia. Recently the President of
Belarus stated that modern governments had a lot to learn from Adolf
Hitler.
2000
Second, Mr. Chairman, are old soldiers and religious refugees from
places like Vietnam. These are the people who served years in
reeducation camps for their pro-American and pro-democracy activities.
There are many thousands of them still in the pipeline, but the
proposed refugee cap would effectively require that the Vietnamese
refugee program be shut down.
I have been to the camps in Southeast Asia and looked into the eyes
of these people who fought with us in Vietnam. Yet, they are on line to
be forcibly repatriated, minimally the cap keeps open that possibility
of bringing them here or to some other country of asylum. These people
are our friends and they are our former allies. They risked their lives
for freedom, and Americans do not abandon those who risk their lives
for freedom.
Mr. Chairman, the next largest refugee groups are victims of ethnic
cleansing, in Bosnia, in the few thousand refugees again, mostly
political prisoners, and persecuted Christians who we managed to get
out of Cuba every year. The refugee camp would almost certainly require
cuts in these groups as well.
Opponents of this amendment complain that refugees cost money. Well,
everything costs some money. But again we are talking about a
humanitarian pro-human rights policy that helps those who are fleeing
tyranny, who have a well-founded fear of persecution. We ought not
remove the welcome mat to these very important people.
Mr. Chairman, finally, this amendment is backed by a whole large
number of individuals and organizations, like the United States
Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Services, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,
Church World Services, the U.S. Committee for Refugees, Americans for
Tax Reform, the Family Research Council, and the list goes on and on. I
urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] is recognized for
15 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that I actually rise in
reluctant opposition to this amendment, and my opposition is reluctant
for two reasons. First of all, I know that the proponents of the
amendment are well intentioned. Second, I know that we share the same
goals, and that is a generous level of admission for refugees. But
still, in my judgment, Congress should set the level of refugee
admissions. The bill ensures that Congress, not the White House, sets
refugee admission levels that are responsive to humanitarian needs and
that serve the national interest.
To me this amendment in many ways is the equivalent of Congress
saying
[[Page H2528]]
that we do not trust ourselves with the responsibility of setting those
refugee admission levels and that only an administration, regardless of
whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration, could handle
the responsibility.
The bill also gives the President acting in consultation with
Congress, though, sufficient flexibility to meet emergency humanitarian
situations by admitting additional refugees. The bill sets refugee
admissions at a target level of 75,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 50,000
per year thereafter. Under current law, refugee admissions are set by
the President with minimal impact from Congress.
Under the bill, the target level may be exceeded either if Congress
approves a higher level or if the President declares a refugee
emergency. Based on administration projections of future refugee
resettlement needs, the bill will not result in a reduction of refugee
admissions. The administration projects that refugee admissions will be
90,000 this year, 70,000 in fiscal year 1997, and 50,000 in fiscal year
1998, which is almost exactly in line with what the bill has as its
targets.
In fact, in one of those years the bill actually has 5,000 refugees
more than the administration recommends. The refugee provisions in H.R.
2202 also follow recommendations of the bipartisan commission on
immigration reform chaired by the late Barbara Jordan. Given the
positions of the State Department and the Jordan commission, the bill
reflects a consensus on the need for permanent resettlement of refugees
into the United States.
Mr. Chairman, current refugee admissions consist primarily of
refugees admitted through special programs operating in the former
Soviet Union and in Indochina. Of the 90,000 refugees who will be
admitted this year, 70,000 will come from just those two resettlement
programs. Since these programs are due to phase out soon in the next
couple of years, the targets contained in the bill will ensure that
refugee admissions do not drop below historically generous levels.
H.R. 2202 creates a new category in immigration law that allows
10,000 visas to be granted every year to those who do not qualify for
refugee status but whose admission is of a humanitarian interest to the
United States. Congress should get back into the business of setting
refugee admission levels. We simply cannot afford to continue to give
any President unfettered discretion in determining refugee policy.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing two points. The first
is that we are not really talking about any difference in numbers. Both
the bill, the commission on immigration reform, and the administration
through its State Department, have all recommended the exact same
levels concluding 2 years from now in a level of about 50,000. So
numbers are not the issue. We all know what the numbers are going to
be.
The second point is that the real question is who gets to decide.
Should it be the President alone? Or should Congress have a role in
determining our refugee policy? Historically, Congress has always had a
role in setting immigration policy. Quite frankly, under the Refugee
Act of 1980, Congress is supposed to have an equal role with the
President, with the administration, in establishing refugee policy. We
know that is not the case, that consultation procedures that we now go
through have in effect become a situation where the administration
dictates to Congress what the refugee levels will be.
So the whole point of this amendment again is to guarantee that we
have generous levels of refugee admissions. In fact the commission on
immigration reform said in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims that the reason they recommended the target of
50,000 is because they were afraid that if we did not have a target of
50,000, the levels would drop below that 50,000. For example, as I have
already explained, 70 of the 80,000 refugees expected this year are in
two categories that are soon to expire.
So the motive behind the bill again was to continue a generous level
of refugees in accordance with the projects by the State Department and
the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform.
Again, the second point is that I think that Congress does have a
role to play when it comes to setting refugee policy, and that is why I
have to say that I reluctantly oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. He is one of the
cosponsors of this amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate working with the gentleman
from New Jersey in putting together this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say first that even though I am offering an
amendment to this bill, I want to express my personal appreciation to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] who is the sponsor of the bill.
This is the first attempt to look at our immigration laws in 10 years,
and I think that it is something that is obligated to be done by the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it is obviously something that is not easy to do. All
of the Members of the House and all of the public watching us know what
difficult issues and questions we have to review and resolve here in
this issue, and we are here because of the leadership of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Smith] on this bill. I want to add also that although
there is always room for legislation, there is always room to consider
new laws, I have become convinced that in the area of immigration,
along with numerous other areas, the real solution ultimately is
enforcing the laws that are already on our books.
Mr. Chairman, I am informed that a significant percentage of those
people in the country illegally at this time entered legally. They
entered on student visas or tourist visas or some other legal way of
entering the United States and simply would not leave when their time
expired. We have such a poor system of keeping track of these
individuals that basically they stay with impunity and ignore our laws,
just as much as people who enter illegally in the first place. A
portion of this bill would try to improve our system in terms of
keeping track of these individuals. But I think that if we simply are
able to more efficiently enforce laws we have, we will go a long way
toward solving the immigration problems that have been identified.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of this amendment. This
amendment would eliminate the new refugee process that is placed in the
bill. Currently, the refugee limits every year are set in a
consultation process between the President and the Congress. The bill
would change that to making the figure whatever it is set in statute,
so that it could only be changed by law. Congress must pass a bill, the
President must sign the bill. Otherwise, there can be no change in the
figure, upward or downward, for refugees regardless of the world
situation. We would have a fixed figure virtually forever.
The reason the provision is in the bill to change the refugee system
is that the bill argues that the consultation process could be abused.
In other words, the administration, Republican, Democrat, or
Independent, could say these are the figures and we will just pretend
to have consultation about it, but we are not going to change.
Therefore, that is the justification for changing the process to a
statute.
Mr. Chairman, there is no serious allegation that the consultation
process has been abused. There is no allegation that the refugee
figures set over the last number of years and then distributed among
various countries was not the proper setting of the refugee figures and
the allocation among the different countries which have refugee
problems at this time. In other words, we are changing the law because
of a hypothetical problem that could exist in the future but no one has
demonstrated it has existed yet.
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, I hope we never reach such a problem.
If we do, if the consultation process is ever abused, then I would have
to say we should, at that time, consider the provision in the bill. At
the present time, what we are doing is stratifying the system. We are
taking the refugee number, we are setting it in granite. We cannot
raise it. We cannot lower it unless we actually have literally an act
[[Page H2529]]
of Congress, and signed by the President. I think that is too much
rigidity that is unnecessary at this time and, therefore, that is why I
am supporting this amendment to keep the consultation process, because
I think it has worked as it is supposed to have worked in the years
past.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith-Schiff
amendment. Not too long ago, the Congress of the United States
established a U.S. Commission On Immigration Reform, or CIR. It was a
very distinguished panel. They have made their recommendations to the
Congress. Among the more active members of that Commission was our late
distinguished colleague from Texas, Ms. Barbara Jordan. I think that we
should pay attention to what they recommended.
Mr. Chairman, here are the most important recommendations, and they
are consistent with the legislation coming from the committee. The
United States should allocate 75,000 refugee admission numbers in 1997
and 50,000 admission numbers each year thereafter to the entry of
refugees from overseas not including asylum adjustments. Second, they
said other than in an emergency situation, refugee admissions could
exceed the 50,000 admissions level only with the direct and affirmative
participation by Congress. That should occur instead of the current,
and I think very ineffective, consultation process that actually works
today, or does not work.
Third, in the case of the emergency, the President may authorize the
admission of additional refugees upon certification on the emergency
circumstances necessitating such action. The Congress may override the
emergency admissions only with the two-House veto of the Presidential
action. That is what the Commission has recommended. The legislation
before us, if we do not amend it, implements those kind of
recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, some time ago, there was a story about a very high
official of the United States visiting with a very high official, the
highest, of the People's Republic of China, and they were talking about
Jackson-Vanik. Jackson-Vanik relates to immigration issues. The story
goes that we were querying the Chinese about whether immigration was
possible from their country, and they said, how many would you like?
Would you like 5 million, 10 million, or 15 million Chinese a year? No
problem.
Mr. Chairman, now we have a very interesting kind of process underway
today where some people are trying to suggest that refugee status
should follow what is alleged to be, by a person, coercive abortion
practices. Now, if that happens, I want to ask my colleagues, how many
refugees do you think we will have in this country from China alone or
from any place else that allegedly has these kind of activities, or
which has them in some parts of their society? Do we expect to have 2
million, 3 million, 4 million? What is going to be the limit of the
refugees we have coming in under that kind of situation?
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues about three very
important points here. First, the provisions of this act that is before
us today are consistent with the recommendations of the congressionally
mandated U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.
Second, they place Congress in control of determining U.S. refugee
policy. Currently, the administration, I will say, unilaterally sets
the numbers with very minimal congressional input.
Third, the legislation before us provides sufficient flexibility in
the legislation to allow the administration to increase admission
numbers in an emergency, which is defined, or for Congress to take
action to increase the numbers in any single year.
2015
That is what is in the bill now. That is what the Smith-Schiff
amendment eliminates.
My colleagues, I am urging that we stick with the Commission. It was
a legitimate effort. It was conducted by very distinguished Americans.
They made their best recommendations, and in this area I think the
burden of proof should lie on those that want to reject the amendments
of the Commission.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], one of the cosponsors of the
amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think the arguments have been made quite well. Let us make no
mistake about this. First of all, let us distinguish between refugees
and asylees. There has been a good deal of abuse in the asylum process.
We have tried to fix that in this bill. In fact, it has been fixed
almost too far, from my judgment, and that is one of my regrets about
this bill.
But refugees are the people not only who have been persecuted, but
who have waited on line. They have not tried to come hear illegally.
They cannot claim refugee status here. They wait and wait and wait,
oftentimes risking political persecution, torture and everything else
until the time is for them to come hear.
So these, if there was ever a meaning to the Statute of Liberty, it
is in the refugee allotment. The refugees who come are those who have a
well-founded fear of persecution, are those who have waited in line a
long time and are those that make the fact that we accept them, makes
America the beacon that it is to citizens who cannot point to us on
map, who do not know English, but around the world it brings us an aura
of goodness, an aura of doing the right thing, an aura of being the
hope and the last great hope of the world, as a poet said, more than
anything else.
The benefits to America are beyond the benefits that so many refugees
have contributed in terms of science and the arts. The benefits are
that around the world we are looked up to as the best country. That is
a benefit we should not throw out lightly to reduce a number by 30,000
or 40,000.
I dare say, talk to business people, and diplomats and people like
that. They will say the benefits come back economically because we are
so well thought of for this small amount of people that we take in.
So, while I certainly agree that immigration must be reformed,
cutting back on refugees beyond what is in the present law goes way too
far, and I would urge respectfully that my colleagues support the
amendment that Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff,
myself, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, have sponsored.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to respond briefly to my friend from New York and repeat
what I said awhile ago, that the bill, as it stands right now, does not
cut or is not expected to cut the levels of refugees. The State
Department, the Commission on Immigration Reform, and the bill all have
projected levels that have virtually the same; that is, 50,000 in 2
years.
So the intent was not to cut any refugees, and in fact the Commission
on Immigration Reform recommended that we have a level of 50,000 in
there so that we would not go below 50,000 when the two resettlement
programs now in operation expire.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor
of this worthy amendment to the Immigration in the National Interest
Act. I am distressed by H.R. 2202's treatment of section 521, which
would limit annual refugee admissions to 50,000 by the fiscal year
1998.
Most of my colleagues will recall that the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] recently held a hearing on the persecution of Jews
worldwide. That testimony vividly demonstrated that anti-Semitism is
still rampant in the former Soviet Union. It is expected to get much
worse with the rise of reactionary forces throughout the republics.
Attacks on synagogues and grave sites are on the rise again. Men and
women have been beaten by gangs and skinheads.
[[Page H2530]]
In just as ominous a sign is the Russian Duma voting overwhelmingly
to condemn the 1991 decision to break up the Soviet Union.
We all know the public policy cannot be altered quickly enough to
meet the challenges in the suddenly changing world. What would
opponents of this amendment suggest if a new regime in Moscow sanctions
discrimination against its minorities, that we ask Russia's new leaders
to wait until we repeal our refugee ceiling before they persecute Jews
or evangelical Christians or other minorities.
Mr. Chairman, if we had a refugee policy that was engineered to meet
the needs of persecuted peoples in 1939, there would not have been the
tragic ending of the voyage of the St. Louis, where hundreds of Jewish
passengers died in concentration camps after they were excluded from
entering the United States.
Refugee policy is not any social or economic concern. It is a
question of morality.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-
Schiff-Gilman-Schumer-Boucher-Fox amendment to H.R. 2202.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment.
History has shown us what happens when the United States closes its
doors to the refugees of the world.
In 1939 930 Jews fled Nazi Germany for Cuba on the ship the St.
Louis. Although the refugees had valid visas, the Cuban Government
refused to let the St. Louis dock when it arrived in Havana. From
Havana the St. Louis sailed to the United States. Sailing close to the
Florida shore, the passengers could see the lights of Miami. But the
United States Government refused to let the refugees land--because we
had a refugee cap. U.S. Coast Guard ships even patrolled the waters to
ensure that no one on the St. Louis swam to safety.
So the passengers of the St. Louis were forced to return to Europe--
where they were sent to the Nazi death camps and murdered.
This incident is a blight on our Nation's history--and it must never
happen again.
Mr. Chairman, innocent people die when the United States closes its
doors to refugees. The United States must always be a safe haven for
persecuted victims.
I urge you to strike the refugee cap that is contained in this bill.
Support the Smith amendment. Lives depend on it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, as one of the three Democrats who voted for
H.R. 2202 in the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment which would eliminate the cap on refugee
admissions to the United States. The United States has historically
played an important role in addressing the needs of persons from other
countries with a well-founded fear of persecution and I believe the
United States should remain sensitive to levels of international
refugee migration. This is not to say that this policy should be open-
ended. The current process for setting refugee admissions, determined
annually by the President in consultation with the Congress, is
restrictive yet flexible. It allows for the President and Congress to
adjust to international conditions that are continuously changing.
The United States has been a leader in humanitarian and foreign
policy, and legislating a cap on refugee admissions would send the
wrong message to nations that share the responsibility for the world's
refugees. I believe the current process in which the Congress has an
opportunity to participate is the most responsible and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our
time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] a tenacious fighter for
human rights who has been to the Sudan, People's Republic of China,
Romania. He has been in prison camps. No one has fought harder on
behalf of persecuted Christians, Jews, and others.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I rise in very strong support of the Smith amendment. I want to thank
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], and his cosponors. The adoption
of this amendment will help so many people who do not even know today
that they are going to be in need of this amendment. So I take my hat
off to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
There is tremendous presecution still going on. Anti-Semitism is
alive and well all over the world, in the Middle East and in Russia. In
fact, as it has been said, in Russia they are not privatizing anti-
Semitism in Russia. The persecution of Christians in the Middle East,
the persecution of Christians around the world, the persecution of
Christians in China, the persecution of Christians in Vietnam, in fact,
is the issue that this Congress will have to deal with in the next
Congress. It is the persecution of Christians that is going on around
the world; and this administration and this Congress, but for tonight,
has been silent on this issue.
As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] said, this is what
America is about, is a fundamental major moral issue, and quite
frankly, in many respects the world is more dangerous today and more
turbulent with more wars and more persecution going on than almost any
other time, and perhaps this is needed more now than it was even back
in the 1980's or any other time.
So I want to commend the sponsor of the amendment. I hope and pray
that this thing passes overwhelmingly because the number of people
unfortunately, unfortunately that will need this amendment, will be
more than we will ever realize, and I strongly urge, hopefully, almost
a unanimous vote for the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Schiff
amendment, striking the provision which cuts refugee admissions.
The 50,000 refugee cap is a drastic, arbitrary reduction that will
cut annual refugee admissions in half. This extreme cap represents less
than half of our country's current admissions.
This is an unfair and unnecessary provision. The cap would severely
limit the flexibility of the U.S. refugee system to respond to
unpredictable humanitarian crises. For example, the administration set
aside 2,000 refugee admission slots for Bosnians, many of which were
filled by women who had been systematically raped by Serb forces. There
are atrocities occurring throughout our world that cannot be factored
accurately into a fixed number of refugee admissions.
Women and children constitute 80 percent of the world's refugees.
This cap would have a tremendous negative effect on these people
fleeing from danger and persecution.
If this provision is passed, the United States will be sending a
clear signal to the international community that it is backpedaling
from its commitment to refugee protection.
I urge my colleagues to exercise their compassion for the world's
refugee population and vote for the Smith-Schiff amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. dreier
Mr. DREIER. 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. Dreier: After section 810, insert
the following:
SEC. 811. COMPUTATION OF TARGETED ASSISTANCE.
Section 412(c)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1522(c)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Except for the Targeted Assistance Ten Percent
Discretionary Program, all grants made available under this
paragraph for a fiscal year shall be allocated by the Office
of Resettlement in a manner that ensures that each qualifying
county shall receive the same amount of assistance for each
refugee and entrant residing in the county as of the
beginning of the fiscal year who arrived in the United States
not more than 60 months prior to such fiscal year.''.
[[Page H2531]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] and a Member opposed, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Meek], will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are about to embark upon 10 minutes of action-packed debate on a
very important issue. The amendment I offer today seeks to provide for
fair distribution of targeted refugee assistance. The Targeted Refugee
Assistance Program [TRAP] provides aid to counties with high
concentrations of refugees that suffer from high welfare dependency
rates. This Federal assistance is needed to help those refugees achieve
economic independence.
Congress appropriates nearly $50 million annually for this program.
However, currently over 40 percent of this aid goes to just one county
with only about 7 percent of all those eligible refugees. This
concentration of resources means that every other participating county
nationwide must pick up the added cost of training refugees to get them
into the work force or providing them social services.
Mr. Chairman, the existing earmark dates back over a decade and was
intended to ease the resettlement of refugees who arrived in 1980.
Advocates of the current distribution may argue that certain areas of
the country are dealing with communities that remain especially
difficult to make self sufficient. But the parameters of the TRAP
program set this as a requirement for every county that participates.
The regulations governing the award of assistance state that the
services funded are required to focus primarily on those refugees who,
and I quote, ``because of their protracted use of public assistance or
difficulty in securing employment continue to need services beyond the
initial years of resettlement.''
2030
Mr. Chairman, no qualifying county, regardless of the community
served, can claim to be more deserving of this aid than any other
county in the Nation.
My amendment would maintain the existing 10 percent discretionary
set-aside for counties that are heavily impacted by refugees but do not
otherwise qualify for formula TRAP assistance. Apart for this, aid
would have to be distributed on an equal per-refugee basis. Let me say
that again. Under this amendment, aid would have to be distributed on a
per-refugee basis.
This amendment requires the Federal Government to pay for its refugee
policy. It recognizes that all counties with significant refugee
populations deserved equal assistance in helping them become self-
sufficient. Failure to enact a fair formula for distribution of TRAP
aid is tantamount to another unfunded mandate on State and local
governments. I am going to urge my colleagues to support this, Mr.
Chairman. It is a very fair and balanced amendment. I believe it will
address the concerns of the entire country.
Mr. Chairman, I included for the Record the following letter.
The City of New York,
Washington Office,
Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.
Re refugee assistance amendment H.R. 2202, Immigration in the
National Interest Act of 1995.
To: Members of the New York Delegation
From: Alice Tetelman, Director
I am contacting you to inform you of the City's support for
an amendment on the Refugee Targeted Assistance Program that
will be offered by Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) during
consideration of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National
Interest Act of 1995.
The Refugee Targeted Assistance Program, which is
administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the
Department of Health and Human Services, provides grants
(through states) to counties and local entities that are
heavily impacted by high concentrations of refugees and high
welfare dependency rates. This funding is intended to
facilitate refugee self-employment and achievement of self-
sufficiency. This includes training, job skills, language and
acclimating to the American workplace.
Under the current Targeted Assistance Program, New York
City's refugee population, which is the largest in the
nation, does not receive their fair share of assistance
because the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have
traditionally earmarked a disproportionate share of these
funds for Cuban and Haitian entrants. For example, of the $50
million allocated for targeted assistance nationally in FY
1995, the state of Florida received $18 million, with a per
capita rate as high as $497 in some areas. In contrast, New
York State received only $4.1 million of the FY 1995 funding,
with only $30 available for each refugee residing in New
York. The national average is $35 per refugee among non-
Florida recipients.
The Dreier amendment would ensure that all qualifying
counties would receive the same amount of targeted assistance
per refugee. Thus, all refugees who have been in the U.S.
under five years would receive the same level of assistance
as others under this program. Enactment of the Dreier
amendment will restore fairness and equity to a very worthy
program and the City urges you to support its passage.
Please do not hesitate to contact Tom Cowan (624-5909) in
the City's Washington office if you or your staff should have
any questions or need additional information on this
amendment. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
____
State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA, March 20, 1996.
Hon. David Dreier,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear David: I am writing in support of your amendment to
the pending immigration reform legislation regarding the
equitable distribution of refugee targeted assistance funds.
As you know, roughly one-third of the refugees in the
United States reside in California, yet California receives
less than 23 percent of these funds. In FY95, Congress
appropriated a little over $49 million for the Refugee
Targeted Assistance Program to assist communities highly
impacted by refugees. Of this amount, approximately $19
million, or nearly 40 percent was set aside for one state.
This disproportionate allocation comes only at the expense of
other participating counties in California and around the
nation.
Your amendment will eliminate this set aside and give
California its fair share by providing that qualified
counties receive refugees targeted assistance per refugee,
thereby ensuring an equitable allocation. Further, California
counties, which are highly impacted by high concentrations of
refugees and welfare dependency, would receive approximately
$7.5 million in additional targeted assistance funds. These
additional funds could be used to facilitate training in job
skills and language, as well as assisting refugees in
adapting to the American workplace.
Again, I endorse your amendment and commend you for your
leadership in this area.
Sincerely,
Pete Wilson,
Governor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment. First
of all, Mr. Chairman, and my dear friend, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier], who is my hallmate, in this amendment I do not think
there is anyone in this House that would oppose Cuban and Haitian
children who are already in this country, and already here; they are
not coming. There will be about 20,000 more of them coming because of
the policies that this Federal Government has already agreed upon.
My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], speaks
about equality in distributing targeted assistance funds, but we are
talking more about fairness in terms of the guidelines of targeted
assistance.
No. 1, the money is targeted for counties that have a large number of
Cuban and Haitian immigrants. What the gentleman from California wants
to do, he wants to take away the target from the Cuban and Haitian
immigrants and wants to waive it, so other people who are not Cubans
and Haitians, he lets it remain. He lets it remain for the Hmongs, the
Laotian, Cambodians, and the Soviet Pentacostals. I am saying that that
is not fair in that we already have Cubans and Haitians in this
country, but his amendment would take it away from us and distribute it
to all the other counties.
I want to tell our colleagues why south Florida needs most of this
money. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] is well-intended, but it is not fair. It is the Federal
Government's immigration policy, not ours. If Members hate Fidel
Castro, and they have already demonstrated that, they supported the
Libertad bill, just as I did, that we passed, and if they oppose
dictatorships in Haiti and El Salvador and Nicaragua and Guatemala,
they should vote against this amendment. They should be with me,
against this amendment, because the people who are fleeing these
dictatorships come to Miami
[[Page H2532]]
and to Florida. The Dreier amendment would cut them out.
If Members think that this targeted assistance earmark is a gain to
the United States taxpayers, they are wrong. I will mention, we chose
this as a Federal Government. Now we want to come back and seek to take
the funds away from Dade County and south Florida. The funds are
already there, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
minute.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment her for her statement. Mr.
Chairman, this is money that has already been earmarked. South Florida
has been pelted with the burden of caring for so many of these people
that are coming onto our shores. Even as we speak tonight, more and
more people are being awarded visas with the deal that the Clinton
administration made with the Castro people in order to try to stop the
flow of refugees into this country. They come into Florida and they
stay in Florida. We all know well about the exodus that we have had
from Haiti.
Regardless of where Members come down on this particular issue, we
know that they remain in south Florida, and they become the burden of
the taxpayers in south Florida. This money was earmarked. It should
stay earmarked. I think we, in the Congress, are really starting a
dangerous precedent if we start looking around the country and find out
where certain moneys have been, and then start getting into raiding
these particular funds.
Believe me, Florida is not coming out on this deal at all. It is
costing us much more in health care, social services, than we are
getting from the Federal Government. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Dreier
amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not aimed at Florida or any other
State. The refugee targeted assistance program is designed specifically
to provide assistance to counties that are heavily impacted by refugees
and who have had a hard time moving them into the work force. No
county, in Florida or elsewhere, has a greater claim to this assistance
than any other.
The Dreier amendment maintains a 10-percent discretionary set-aside
for counties that do not qualify for formula assistance but are
nevertheless impacted by refugees. Counties that do participate in this
program currently bear an unfunded mandate, either providing additional
money to move refugees into the work force, or paying for social
services where they cannot find work.
The city of New York's mayor's office sent us the following note:
``Enactment of the Dreier amendment will restore fairness and equity to
a very worthy program. New York City urges support for its passage.''
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Dreier
amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my
colleague, the gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the Dreier amendment is dressed in a cloak of fairness,
but it is not fair. The Dreier amendment talks about standardizing this
targeted assistance for refugees, and yet it excepts, there is an
exception for the aid that California gets for Laotian and Cambodian
refugees, which by the way, I think should remain.
We are not trying, and I do not think we should try to except out
that aid; so why, then, except out the aid that south Florida gets for
the refugees from the Caribbean? It is not fair, and it is really an
artificial cloak. Let us defeat it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, Snohomish County in my district is a recipient of TRAP
funding. This vital program provides essential training for refugees.
However, currently Snohomish County receives less than 7 percent of the
funding per refugee that some other counties receive. For example,
Snohomish County gets $31 per refugee. Another county in this country
gets $497 per refugee; $31, $497. This is not right. TRAP funding is
intended to benefit all refugees in this Nation, no special population.
I support the amendment of the gentleman from California, to bring
fairness and equity to this program.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida Mr. Porter Goss.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I rise in opposition to the
position taken by my colleague from California. But I am opposed to the
Dreier amendment, which would alter the current allocation of targeted
refugee assistance. The issues here are insufficient Federal funds and
geography--and the proper response of the Federal Government to the
disruption that has been caused by the failure of Federal immigration
policies. Mr. Dreier proposed dividing up 90 percent of the funds for
refugees assistance among all impacted counties.
On its face, that might seem reasonable. But the problem is that the
Dreier amendment instead of seeking additional justified funding--robs
areas that are already hurting badly from lack of funds.
The amendment ignores today's reality, as well as the recent past,
attempting to treat all regions of the country as if they were starting
at the same place when it comes to refugee policy. The fact is that
certain regions of the country have suffered a systemic
disproportionate and cataclysmic impact from Federal refugee programs.
That's why we have in place currently the practice of targeting
portions of the refugee assistance funds to deal with specific refugee
crises, such as those in recent years that have substantially affected
Florida.
Although the program as it stands was set up to deal with the massive
refugee flows of the Mariel boatlift, the last few years of United
States policy in Cuba and Haiti have meant that Florida's need for
special refugee assistance has not subsided. Florida counties have done
their part through the ups and downs of successive administrations'
policies in the Caribbean by welcoming refugee influxes from places
like Cuba and Haiti. We have willingly done so, and at a very great
cost to our State. However, Floridians have consistently argued that
the Federal Government must be made to facilitate the resettlement of
those refugees in our State. We are, after all, talking about the
direct result of Federal immigration and foreign policies. As such, we
support the current program because it recognizes the importance of
distributing funding to areas with the greatest need. The Dreier
amendment would reverse this policy. Mr. Dreier has argued that this is
a matter of principle--a question of equality on its face. If that is
the case, I am somewhat surprised to find that my colleague's amendment
leaves in place a 10 percent discretionary program for counties
impacted by Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet Pentecostal refugees
entering the United States after 1979. If equality is the issue, I
would think that Mr. Dreier would argue that all 100 percent of the
available funds should be on the table. Otherwise, if we are going to
have targeted assistance, doesn't it make sense to lay out a formula
that truly addresses the need? I oppose this amendment and hope my
colleagues will join me in doing the same. The idea is to put the money
where the need really is--not rely on some Washington one-size-fits-all
response.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close debate as the
author of the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] does have
the right to close debate.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, originally this impact aid or targeted
assistance program was designed exclusively for the Cuban and the
Haitian refugees in Florida. It was $19 million.
[[Page H2533]]
It has been continued at that level ever since because that is what is
needed there. It is great that we have added the pot up to $50 million,
but there is absolutely no justification for reducing the $19 million
that was originally there that we have each year allocated to south
Florida to the Cuban-Haitian impact area. We need to keep it there. If
we want to expand it more, fine, but what is going to happen is south
Florida is going to get next to nothing when you start spreading this
around.
In California, the gentleman's State is going to get almost all of
the $50 million. Very little is going to go anywhere else. Let us leave
the law alone as it is. If we need to add money for California, let us
do it, but south Florida cannot survive the impact if we take the $19
million away.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier. My colleague's
amendment would alter the distribution of funds made available under
the targeted assistance program, which offsets the costs associated
with absorbing refugee populations. As you know, Florida has been
adversely impacted by incoming refugees from Cuba and Haiti.
Florida's proximity to Cuba and Haiti has made it the natural
destination for those fleeing these two countries. However, there is
nothing in Florida that makes it naturally equipped to deal with sudden
and large influxes of refugees.
Realizing this, Congress wisely established the targeted assistance
fund--then called impact aid--to deal with the Mariel boatlift. This
fund has subsequently subdivided. In subdividing these funds,
appropriators have traditionally considered the original impact aid
intent of service to Cuban- and Haitian-impacted counties. In fiscal
year 1995, appropriators had three separate funds: First, the set aside
reminiscent of impact aid totaling $19 million for communities affected
by the massive influx of Cubans and Haitians; second, a 10 percent
discretionary fund for grants to localities heavily impacted by the
influx of refugees such as Loatian Hmong, Cambodians, and Soviet
Pentacostals; and third, the generic county impact pot that divided the
remaining funds according to a formula regardless of specific refugee
nationality.
My colleague's amendment would delete the impact aid set-aside,
returning the funds to the general pot. If this were to become law,
Dade County would face a larger financial crunch than they already do
in trying to cope with the large numbers of Cuban and Haitian refugees.
I understand my colleague's call to be fair in distributing refugee
assistance funds. However, at some point the sheer number of refugees
requires special attention and additional funds. This is the case in
Dade County. Furthermore, if the issue is one of fairness, I must
wonder why my colleague preserves the 10 percent discretionary set-
aside, which primarily benefits his State of California. If it is an
issue of fairness, all set-asides should be deleted.
Mr. Chairman, in the end, neither of the set-asides should be deleted
as both serve specific purposes. I would hope my colleagues take the
situation in Dade County into account before supporting Mr. Dreier's
amendment. A reasonable look at the situation would reveal the need for
the status quo arrangement. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the
Dreier amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in
allowing that, among other things, if we had a fair formula in Florida
and if we received the taxpayers' fair share, we would not need this
exceptional refugee funding. One size does not fit all in this country.
We have a unique problem in Florida that demands a unique solution.
This influx causes a severe impact on our social, economic, and health
services.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the Dreier amendment is
grossly unfair in that it wants to cut out monies that are already
going to Florida. We need it. Our people are there. They need health
services and they need educational services. If we take away that now,
we are intervening in a process which has worked very well in the past.
I would like to say, if we need more money, fund it, but please do not
cut Florida out of its funding.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee
on the Judiciary, to close debate on the fair, balanced, and equitable,
even for Florida, Dreier amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from California, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier amendment, which brings
equity back to the process of allocating refugee assistance funds. Each
year for the last decade, one State has received more than 10 times the
amount of Federal refugee assistance per refugee than the national
average. The Dreier amendment will allow all qualifying countries to
receive the same amount of targeted assistance per refugee. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment, which again, brings equity back
to the process of allocating refugee assistance funds.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. 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. Dreier] will be
postponed.
sequential votes postponed in the 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. 16 offered by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Canady], and amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote.
amendment offered by Mr. Canady of florida.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 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 210,
noes 207, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No 78]
AYES--210
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Boehner
Bono
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Quillen
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Saxton
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
[[Page H2534]]
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stupak
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
White
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Bliley
Brewster
Chrysler
Collins (IL)
Ford
Hostettler
Johnston
Moakley
Obey
Radanovich
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
2102
Messrs. PORTMAN, DAVIS, McDADE, and JOHNSON of South Dakota, and Ms.
DUNN of Washington changed their vote for ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BASS and Mr. PORTER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was unavoidably away from
the Chamber and missed a number of recorded votes. On rollcall No. 73,
the Bryant of Tennessee amendment, I would have voted ``no''; on
rollcall No. 74, the Velazquez amendment, I would have voted ``yes'';
on rollcall No. 75, the Gallegly amendment, I would have voted ``no'';
on rollcall No. 76, the Chabot amendment, I would have voted ``yes'';
and on rollcall No. 77, the Gallegly amendment, I would have voted
``no''.
____________________