[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''.

                          ____________________