[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.

                          ____________________