[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2534-H2538]
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 the second amendment on which the
Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. DREIER.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by a 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 359,
noes 59, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 79]
AYES--359
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--59
Andrews
Beilenson
Bilirakis
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Canady
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Gephardt
Gibbons
Goss
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
[[Page H2535]]
Hilliard
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Kennedy (RI)
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McCollum
McDermott
Meek
Mica
Miller (FL)
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Quillen
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Scarborough
Shaw
Sisisky
Skelton
Spratt
Stearns
Thompson
Thurman
Torricelli
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop
Brewster
Collins (IL)
Hostettler
Johnston
Livingston
Moakley
Radanovich
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
2111
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BROWN of California and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Immigration in
the National Interest Act, H.R. 2202. This bill is a misnomer, for it
denounces a historical tradition of the United States--to welcome
different cultures that add to the richness of this diverse land. On
the contrary, H.R. 2202 is not in the national interest of the United
States. It further reinforces the modern conservative tactic for
solving the Nation's current economic and social woes: Blame the poor,
our children, African-Americans, women, and immigrants.
H.R. 2202 is an underhanded assault on the foreign-born, in general.
This bill would punish those who illegally exploit America's
generosity, along with those who legitimately seek an opportunity in
America. By unifying the illegal and legal immigration problem, H.R.
2202 makes the mistake of lumping everyone together, whether they
commit a crime or not. The bill reflects a number of misconceptions
that have infiltrated the policy debate on immigration.
Unconscionably, H.R. 2202 would reduce the number of legal immigrants
by 30 percent. This reduction unreasonably implies that the United
States is plagued by an illegal and legal immigration invasion. The
number of foreign-born that enters this country each year is 1 million.
Of that number, 700,000 are legal immigrants. Currently, the foreign-
born represent only 8 percent of the total population as opposed to the
period between 1870 and 1920 when nearly 15 percent, or 1 out of every
7 individuals was foreign born.
H.R. 2202 would limit the immigration of people under the Immigration
and Naturalization Service's [INS] family sponsored category. This bill
would restrict entry for parents, adult children, and siblings. In
effect, this new policy would impose America's definition of a family
onto the culture of immigrants. Excluding more than 100,000 children,
parents, and brothers and sisters from reuniting with family members in
this country is not a pro-family policy.
It is distressing that the term immigrant has been smeared to connote
a terrible meaning. My Republican colleagues have resorted to ignoring
the contributions that immigrants have made to this country.
Immigrants do not come to America just to hop on the public dole. In
fact, according to the Urban Institute, immigrants generate an
estimated $25 billion in surplus revenues over what they receive in
social services.
Furthermore, immigrants create more jobs than they fill by starting
new businesses and buying U.S. goods and services. No conclusive data
have proven that even illegal immigrants have an adverse effect on job
opportunities for native workers. Ironically, the person most likely to
be displaced in a job by an illegal immigrant is another illegal
immigrant who has resided in this country for some time.
Clearly, the United States must address the dangers of illegal
immigration; but, in the interim, legal immigrants should not have to
defend their rights, integrity, and culture. In light of the imminent
rollback on affirmative action, possible abolishment of the welfare and
Medicaid entitlement, and this current unfair immigration reform
proposal, I challenge my colleagues to stop this Congress from going
down in history as the most vicious and regressive Congress since
reconstruction.
We must not forget the 1987 Hudson Institute's pioneer study,
Workforce 2000; in the next century, America's workforce will be more
female and more ethnically diverse with native-born white males
comprising only 15 percent of the new labor market. It is time to
accept this fact and addresses the real problem. I urge a ``no'' vote
on H.R. 2202.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the immigration bill, H.R. 2202,
that we are debating this week in the U.S. House of Representatives
exploits the deep hostilities felt across this land, that the problem
of illegal immigrants has grown out of control needing drastic measures
to curb, and seizes upon this issue to justify other changes in current
law which drastically change the family reunification principle which
has governed how we decide to grant visas for new entrants.
This merger of the issue of illegal immigration with changes in the
family preference categories currently allowed is unwarranted. These
two matters should be separated. H.R. 220 should be confined to a
debate on how to deal effectively with the problems of illegal
immigration. There is no disagreement that this is a matter of concern
which must be dealt with on the national level.
But to be asked to vote for changes in family preference categories
because you support proposals to curb illegal immigration is unfair to
families who have waited for years for their numbers to be called up so
that they could call for their adult children to join them in America.
H.R. 2202 repeals family preferences which currently allow
reunification of family members including adult children, and siblings.
For a Nation concerned about family, it is unjustifiably cruel to cut
off this long-awaited hope that the family could be reunited. Legal
immigrants deserve to be treated better.
Even more punitive is the provision in H.R. 2202 which although
allowing parents to be included in the definition of family allowed
entry, requires that before they are issued visas they must have
prepaid health care insurance.
H.R. 2202 reduces the number of immigrants allowed in next year under
the family preference category from the current 500,000 to 330,000.
This number would be reduced each year until it reached only 110,000.
H.R. 2202 limits the number of adult children admitted to those who
are financially dependent on their parents, are not married and are
between the ages of 21 and 25 years. An exception is provided for adult
children who are permanently physically or mentally impaired.
Employment-based visas will be issued each year to 135,000
immigrants. Refugee visas will be limited to 50,000 per year.
These measures dealing with changes to legal immigration should be
separated out and dealt with under a separate bill. There is no
justification for repealing the family categories and denying adult
children and brothers and sisters from ever being reunited.
All sections of the bill that deal with legal immigrants should be
eliminated from H.R. 2202.
The 1990 Immigration Act established a worldwide annual immigration
limit of 675,000, not including refugees and other categories. Within
this limit, 480,000 are family-related immigrants, with 226,000 set
aside for: unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens--23,400;
spouses and children of permanent resident aliens--114,200; married
sons and daughters of U.S. citizens--23,400; and brothers and sisters
of adult U.S. citizens--65,000.
The 1986 amnesty provisions of the immigration law increased the
number admitted to a high which occurred in 1991 of 1,827,167. But this
was due to amnesty and not because of the family reunification policy.
There are currently 1.1 million spouses and minor children of lawful
permanent legal residents on the waiting list.
The backlog should be cured by allowing all spouses and minor
children to be admitted irrespective of country limits.
The committee bill argues that the need to allocate numbers to other
family members prevents spouses and minor children from being admitted.
This is the reason they state that they are repealing the other
preference categories.
The family unit for most Asian families includes all children. It
does not arbitrarily exclude adult children. It does not arbitrarily
exclude siblings. Any family reunification policy must allow for these
members of the family unit to be admitted. No matter how long the wait,
these family members deserve the hope and expectation that U.S.
immigration policy does not cut them off without any hope of
reunification.
The Committee Report states that the State Department records
indicate the following wait listings: First, unmarried adult sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens: 63,409--annual admissions allowed is
23,400; second, unmarried adult sons and daughters of permanent
resident aliens: 450,579--annual admissions allowed is 36,266; third,
married adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens: 257,110--23,400
annual allowed admissions; and fourth, brothers and sisters of U.S.
citizens: 1,643,463--65,000 annual admissions allowed.
Because of this backlog of 2.4 million persons eligible for admission
but denied due to category or country limits, the Committee report
concludes that this large backlog undermines the integrity of the
immigration policy and therefore repeals them.
To rescind these categories undermines our national integrity. These
persons, heretofore found eligible for admission being forever barred
is a cruelty beyond description. Destroying their hope they have clung
to 10 or 15 years that someday they would be reunited with their
families is without justification.
[[Page H2536]]
I urge the separation of all provisions dealing with immigration
policy from this bill. Let's today deal with the issue of illegal
immigrants, and leave to another time the matter of what changes are
needed regarding the family preference system.
I urge this House to support the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment
which deletes title V from this bill.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate I signaled my
support for the guest worker program involving American agriculture.
This can be a potent solution to two pressing needs: assuring an
adequate labor supply for the farm fields of our country and delivering
a body blow to illegal immigration.
We of California's San Joaquin Valley recognize the critical
requirement for farm labor during certain seasons. Allowing those from
abroad to fill the gap from shortages of American workers makes good
sense--economically, agriculturally, and socially.
Noteworthy, I believe, is the strong stance of the Nisei Farmers
League. Its president, Manuel Cunha, has told me, ``this is the ideal
program to meet the seasonal employment needs of agriculture.''
This amendment is good on all sides. It has safeguards that protect
domestic employees, that provide payment of prevailing wages, and to
see workers return when the work is over. I support it and urge my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Smith for his hard work
on the illegal immigration provisions in H.R. 2202, the Immigration in
the National Interest Act of 1995. I would like to draw attention to
the role played by the U.S. Customs Service on our borders in the
processing and interdiction of illegal passengers, conveyances, and
cargo. While H.R. 2202 calls for additional Immigration and
Naturalization Service [INS] inspectors and certain infrastructural
improvements along borders, it should not be forgotten that primary
responsibility for policing our borders falls on the Customs Service.
Customs inspectors and agents protect American citizens from the entry
or importation of illegal goods. In fact, the Customs Service seizes
more illegal drugs than all other Federal agencies combined. A lesser
known fact is that in addition to their own obligations along the
southwest border, Customs has a cross-designated responsibility with
the INS to identify and detain illegal immigrants. Customs holds the
line on our borders, and INS plays it role, too.
In considering H.R. 2202, I ask my colleagues to remember these
facts. First, unlike the INS, Customs deploys its personnel along the
border according to changing threats, not the absolute numbers of
passengers in any given period. Customs has targeted inspections based
on intelligence from its agents, some of whom operate beyond our
borders to protect vital national interests. Second, decisions by the
INS to build commuter lanes, open new ports, or establish additional
preinspection facilities must be made in consultation with the
Secretary of Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs. Third, INS
infrastructural needs at the border are much smaller than those of
Customs, which must process people, vehicles, and cargo. Appropriations
for the INS for changes in infrastructure or personnel at our borders
must take into account any new demands placed on Customs by these
changes. I am confident that the Attorney General and the Secretary of
the Treasury will consult with each other to ensure the continued
coordination of interdiction efforts along our borders.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2202,
the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995. This bill is
badly flawed in numerous ways.
H.R. 2202, for the first time, would combine two entirely different
issues in one bill. Combining efforts to secure our borders with
reforms to our system of legal immigration serves only to confuse the
debate. It plays on the public's understandable concern over illegal
immigration but twists that concern into the misguided notion that all
immigration is harmful and all immigrants are undocumented, sneaking
into our country by night. Neither notion, of course, is true, but
dealing with both illegal and legal immigration in one bill serve to
fuel hostility and even prejudice toward all immigrants.
The sponsors of this legislation appear to hope that the always-
popular issue of fighting illegal immigration will be a strong enough
engine to pull unnecessary and unwise changes in our process of
admitting legal immigrants to the United States through the legislative
process.
I would not argue against reasonable improvements in enforcing our
national borders; indeed, border enforcement is one of the principal
obligations of a sovereign nation. But I cannot support such
micromanagement as mandating a particular type of fence--and one that
the Border Patrol considers dangerous for its officers.
Nor can I support that bill's system to enable employers to confirm
that newly hired workers are eligible to work in the United States.
Voluntary or mandatory, such a system ultimately can't work without
databases that are far more accurate than those we have, as well as a
national ID card to tie a person to the name and number he or she
present to a potential employer.
Moreover, such a system is likely to lead to discrimination,
especially now that the tester program has been taken out. After all,
if I'm an employer, and I've gone through the entire hiring process--
interviews, testing, reference checks, and all--and I've hired my top
candidate only to learn that he or she is not authorized to work and
that I must begin the process all over again, why should I include
anyone who might turn out to be inelligle in my next candidate pool?
Why should I risk wasting time considering anyone with an accent, or a
foreign-sounding surname? No, I will support the chabot amendment to
strike this system.
Another major national obligation is to screen would-be immigrants
and admit those whose relationships to American citizens or legal
permanent residents the Nation wants to foster or whose skills the
Nation needs to prosper, as well as refugees fleeing their homelands
for valid reasons. Immigrants, despite faulty statistics that have been
used during this debate, are a net plus for this country, working,
creating jobs, paying taxes, becoming Americans. H.R. 2202 turns its
back on this tradition by sharply reducing the numbers--and even the
kinds--of legal immigrants permitted to enter the United States each
year.
Particularly with family-based immigration, when did children and
siblings cease to be parts of the nuclear family? Why should we deny
American citizens and legal permanent residents the opportunity to
bring these close relatives together? H.R. 2202 would also increase the
income a family must have to bring a family member into a level that
would deny 40 percent of Americans the change to reunite with loved
ones.
H.R. 2202 would also cut the number of refugees admitted each year by
almost one-half from the 1995 level and change our system of
determining eligibility for asylum that would make it impossible for
most bona fide refugees to qualify. This is both in conflict with
international law and immoral.
H.R. 2202 would also unfairly deny public assistance to legal
immigrants--in some cases, legal immigrants would be denied assistance
that undocumented immigrants would remain eligible for, because
Congress has recognized the benefits to the public health and safety
when everyone living here is served.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I must assert that this bill is most
definitely not in the national interest. The list of its defects goes
on and on, and, worst of all, the Rules Committee and the Republican
leadership have denied this House the opportunity even to debate
changes in important areas of the bill--especially the public
assistance provisions of title VI.
I urge my colleagues, at a minimum, to vote to remove the provisions
reducing the number and categories of legal immigrants and to the
employment eligibility verification system. But the better response is
simply to reject this misguided bill. Vote no in the national interest.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
immigration reform bill, H.R. 2202.
I agree with my colleagues that we have a legitimate national
interest in ensuring that people come to our country through legal
means. There is ample need for a reasoned and balanced debate about
reform of our immigration system. However, the provision in this
legislation fall far short of achieving the goal of effective
immigration reform in a responsible, fair, and humane manner.
I have many areas of concern in this bill. H.R. 2202 goes too far in
placing extreme restrictions on legal immigration, decreasing by 30
percent total annual number of the legal immigrants admitted into this
country.
Legal immigration has been of central importance to our development
as a nation. We began as a nation of immigrants, and our country
continues to reap untold benefits from the energy, ideas, talents, and
contributions of those who arrive in this country seeking the
opportunity to prove themselves and to contribute to the greatest
Nation on Earth.
H.R. 2202 sanctions discrimination against the families of legal U.S.
residents who have paid their taxes, served in the Armed Forces, and
contributed to the growth of the Nation's economy and to the cultural
diversity of our society.
In a Congress which heralds family values as its prevailing theme,
this bill is extreme antifamily legislation. Restrictions to family
reunification in this bill ensure that American families may be forever
separated from their loved ones. Under this legislation, virtually no
Americans would be able to sponsor their parents, adult children, or
siblings for immigration. Not all Americans subscribe to the
restrictive definition of family imposed in the bill--nor should they.
The bill will cut annual refugee admissions in half. Can we be so
cold as to tell these victims of persecution to go away, our doors are
[[Page H2537]]
shut, our country is full? This extreme cap would severely limit the
flexibility of the U.S. refugee system to respond to unpredictable
humanitarian crises.
The proposal for summary exclusion included in the bill would
eliminate many of the procedural protections to ensure that legitimate
asylum seekers receive full consideration of their asylum claims.
Nervous, frightened, exhausted victims are charged with one chance to
prove their claims of persecution. If an error is made, they face
immediate deportation. A victim of rape, torture, or gender persecution
may have difficulty effectively discussing his or her case under
restrictive procedures.
The severe restriction of benefits to immigrants is yet another point
of great concern in this legislation. Only 3.9 percent of immigrants
who come to the United States to join their families or to work, rely
on public assistance, compared to 4.2 percent of native-born citizens.
Yet, the myth persists that welfare benefits are the primary purpose
for immigration to the United States.
This bill does not achieve the goals of real and rational immigration
reform. It hurts families, it hurts children, it hurts hard-working
Americans. For the reasons just mentioned and for many more, this
legislation is not good for our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this harmful legislation.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, illegal immigration hits my district
harder than just about any other in the country. It is estimated that
more than 43 percent of all illegal immigrants reside in California--
and there may be many more.
Today we face a major crisis. California public hospitals must deal
with an overwhelming number of births to illegal aliens--almost 40
percent of their deliveries. Incredibly, illegal immigrants cross our
borders at a rate which could populate a city the size of San Francisco
in less than 3 years. Half of the 5 million illegal aliens in the
United States use fraudulent documents to obtain jobs and welfare
benefits.
We have finally found the resolve to make the much-needed overhaul of
the Nation's immigration laws. Chairman Smith and I have worked very
hard to ensure the bill contains provisions crucial in securing our
borders. The first of these provisions increases the border patrol to
10,000 agents. The second initiative cuts off all Federal benefits--
except emergency medical care--to illegal aliens. By eliminating
benefits to illegal aliens, we eliminate the incentive for them to
cross our borders.
Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues and I have worked with
unprecedented resolve to clamp down on illegal immigration. I urge all
of my colleagues to do what is right for California and the Nation--
support H.R. 2202.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lipinski
amendment to H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act,
and commend Congressman Lipinski for his leadership on this issue. This
amendment will rectify a problem that should have been resolved long
ago. In late 1989, some 800 or so Polish and Hungarian citizens were
paroled into the United States by our Attorney General. They have been
stuck in this status, which gives them the right to reside here
indefinitely, ever since.
As parolees this small group of people cannot obtain citizenship or
even obtain permanent residency status. These people have lived in this
country for over 6 years, established homes, and become productive
members of American society. Yet without action by Congress these
Polish and Hungarian parolees can never obtain legal immigration
status.
These 800 or so parolees did not come here illegally. Our Attorney
General saw fit to grant them parolee status and they have been here
ever since.
Although these people have the right to live here for as long as they
like, it is time for this group of people to have the ability to obtain
residency status. The Lipinski amendment does that, it provides
residency status for these Polish and Hungarian parolees.
There is precedent for such action. In 1990 Congress changed the
status of Indochinese and Soviet parolees. This amendment will allow us
do the same for these Polish and Hungarian parolees who have been in a
state of limbo since their arrival in the United States. It is not fair
to these individuals to have to continue living their lives in our
country not knowing if they will ever have the opportunity to become
legal permanent residents of a country they dearly love, the United
States of America.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lipinski amendment to provide
legal residency status for this small group of Polish and Hungarian
parolees.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2202, the
Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1996. This act is one of
the most important pieces of legislation this Congress will consider
this year.
Illegal immigration impacts my State of California more than any
other State in the union. In fact, it is estimated that 1.7 million or
43 percent of all illegal immigrants reside in California. That is why
the voters of California overwhelmingly supported proposition 187 which
denies State-funded benefits to illegal immigrants.
I have been involved in combating the illegal immigration problem
since I first became a Member of Congress. On the opening day of the
104th Congress, I introduced a legislative package aimed at solving the
illegal immigration crisis. I am pleased that Chairman Smith has chosen
to incorporate some of my ideas into this legislation.
First, this bill before us will increase the size of the border
patrol to 10,000 agents. I wholeheartedly support this effort to
effectively control our borders. For too long, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service has been unable to stop illegal immigration at
our borders. By increasing the resources at the border, by increasing
the number of border patrol agents who must patrol our borders every
day, we can begin to stem the rising tide of illegal immigrants who
cross our vast border unchecked.
Second, this bill will help put an end to one of the greatest lures
our country provides to immigrants who would attempt to cross
illegally--and this is our Federal social safety net. It is no secret
that in California, illegal immigrants pose a serious burden on both
State and Federal benefits programs. Immigrants as a whole account for
over 20 percent of all households in California but they account for 40
percent of all benefit dollars distributed.
By ending this incentive and allowing Federal agencies to take
reasonable steps to determine the alien status of those seeking
benefits, we will be making great strides toward stopping illegal
immigration. No longer will American taxpayers have to support people
who are in this country illegally.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Smith and his capable staff for their
dedication and hard work in crafting such a fine bill. In addition, I
want to mention Elton Gallegly and the Immigration Task Force which
provided another avenue for Members to present ideas to help solve the
illegal immigration problem. Let there be no mistake, Illegal
immigration is a national problem. This is landmark legislation will go
a long way toward ending it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in strong support of the Tate-
Hastings-Roukema amendment--an amendment which will finally bring force
to our Nation's immigration laws. The United States has always been a
beacon of hope for millions of people worldwide. And although
immigration laws may not be popular, they are nevertheless vital to
America's efforts to control our Nation's borders and protect our
national interest for all citizens. Unfortunately, every year, millions
of illegal aliens intentionally break these laws.
According to the U.S. Border Patrol, the estimated number of illegal
aliens in our State of Washington has jumped from 40,000 to 100,000 in
the past decade, and many of these illegal immigrants have settled in
my agricultural district. In addition, many aliens not only enter the
United States illegally, they thumb their nose at the system by forging
documents and falsifying Social Security numbers to obtain employment
and social welfare benefits. Yet, even when these individuals are
apprehended and returned to their native country, many return again and
again without additional penalty.
As a result, additional burdens are placed on our local law
enforcement officials, jails, and local and State governments. Illegal
immigrants cost taxpayers more than $13.4 billion in 1992--draining the
budgets of State and local governments. What's more, illegal immigrants
make up more than 25 percent of the Federal prison population, and over
450,000 aliens are criminals on probation or parole. Breaking the law
also undermines the incentive of all immigrants to enter the United
States legally.
This amendment is fair, and is simply common sense. Our immigration
policies were enacted for a reason, and must be enforced. If
individuals want to risk breaking our immigration laws, then they ought
to face the consequences if they are caught. It is no longer enough to
give illegal aliens a free trip back to their homeland with the hope
that they will not return. We must also send potential illegal aliens a
clear warning: ``one strike, and you're out.'' In other words, if you
break the law, you forfeit the privilege that millions of Americans
have struggled to achieve.
I strongly urge the passage of this important, commonsense amendment.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Smith of Michigan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonilla, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
[[Page H2538]]
the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 2202) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
improve deterrence of illegal immigration to the United States by
increasing border patrol and investigative personnel, by increasing
penalties for alien smuggling and for document fraud, by reforming
exclusion and deportation law and procedures, by improving the
verification system for eligibility for employment, and through other
measures, to reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal
entries into the United States, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________