[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 40 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2589-H2640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 384 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2202.
{time} 1420
in the committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2202) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
improve deterrence of illegal immigration to the United States by
increasing Border Patrol and investigative personnel, by increasing
penalties for alien smuggling and for document fraud, by reforming
exclusion and deportation law and procedures, by improving the
verification system for eligibility for employment, and through other
measures, to reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal
entries into the United States, and for other purposes with Mr. Bonilla
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
March 20, 1996, amendment No. 18 printed in part 2 of House Report 104-
483, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] had been
disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 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. chrysler
Mr. CHRYSLER. 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. Chrysler: Strike
from title V all except section 522 and subtitle D.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Chrysler] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith],
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman], and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first start out by addressing some unfortunate
distortions concerning our amendment. Our amendment does not increase
immigration levels, and it does not touch the welfare restrictions in
the bill. It does keep families together. Our amendment will simply
restore the legal immigration categories that are defined under current
law, strike the cuts in permanent employer-sponsored immigration, and
keep refugees' admission at the current annual limit.
It is simply wrong that this immigration reform bill prohibits adult
children, brothers, sisters, and parents from immigrating to the United
States. That is right. Under this bill,
[[Page H2590]]
no American citizen will be able to apply for a visa for their close
family members. The excuse being used for the closing the door on the
families of American citizens is that we need to give more family visas
to former illegal aliens who were granted amnesty in 1986. Mr.
Chairman, slamming the door on immediate family members of U.S.
citizens in order to give former illegal immigrants more visas for
their families is unconscionable.
I also have a difficult time with the bill's definition of family as
only spouses, minor children, and parents with health insurance
coverage. I believe that brothers, sisters, parents without long-term
health care coverage, and children over the age of 21 are all part of
the nuclear family. In the interests of families and keeping families
together, our amendment will restore the current definition of
``family'' to include spouses, children, parents, and siblings.
Mr. Chairman, in a country of 260 million people, 700,000 legal
immigrants is not an exorbitant amount. There is simply no need to cut
legal immigration, people who play by the rules and wait their turn, to
500,000. We are all immigrants and descendants of immigrants. In fact,
12 percent of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants.
There are numerical caps on family immigration, per-country limits,
and income requirements placed on sponsors. My amendment does not
change any of these requirements.
In addition, title 6 in this bill will place restrictions on
immigrants from receiving welfare benefits as well as increase the
income requirement on sponsors to 200 percent of the poverty level. I
fully support these requirements, and my amendment does not change
these provisions in the bill.
Immigrants who go through all of the legal channels to come into this
country should not be lumped into the same category as those who choose
to ignore our laws and come into our country illegally. I agree with
most of the illegal immigration reforms that are included in the bill,
and I would like to vote for an immigration reform bill that cracks
down on illegal immigration. But I cannot justify voting for drastic
cuts in legal immigration because of the problems of illegal
immigration. These are clearly two distinct issues that must be kept
separate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant], and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to
yield blocks of time to other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why over 80 percent of the
American people want legal immigration reform, and there are many
reasons why this legislation has attracted such widespread support,
such as from organizations like the National Federation of Independent
Business, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Traditional Values
Coalition, United We Stand America, and, as of today, our endorsement
by the United States Chamber of Commerce.
The reasons to support immigration reform and oppose this killer
amendment are these: First, now is the time to reform legal
immigration. Four times in the past 30 years Congress has acted to
substantially increase legal immigration. There was the Immigration Act
of 1965, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990.
The Commission on Immigration Reform has recommended a permanent
legal immigration system of 550 admissions per year plus an additional
150,000 per year for 5 years to reunify close families. This bill is
very close to those recommendations. In fact, it actually exceeds those
recommendations and, for that reason, is very generous.
Second, this amendment hurts American families and workers. A
fundamental problem in our current immigration system is that more than
80 percent of all illegal immigrants are now admitted without reference
to their skills or education. Thirty-seven percent of recent immigrants
lack a high school education, compared to just 11 percent of those who
are native born. Experts agree that this surplus of unskilled
immigrants hurts those Americans who can least afford it, those at the
lowest end of the economic ladder.
The Commission on Immigration Reform said, ``Immigrants with
relatively low education skills compete directly for jobs and public
benefits with the most vulnerable of Americans particularly those who
are unemployed and under employed, and they total 17 million today.''
{time} 1430
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that low-skilled immigration
accounted for up to 50 percent of the decline in real wages among those
Americans who dropped out of high school. The bill addresses this
problem by reducing the primary source of unskilled immigration,
eliminating the unskilled worker category in employment-based
immigration, but the bill actually increases the number of visas
available for high-skilled and educated immigrants. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment eliminates these reforms. This is the last thing we need to
do, hurt Americans who work with their hands and are struggling in
today's economy.
Third, this amendment will continue the crisis in illegal
immigration. This status quo amendment will continue to drive illegal
immigration. The myth is that millions of people are waiting patiently
for their visas outside of the United States. The reality is very
different. Large numbers of aliens waiting in line for visas are
actually present in the United States illegally. This amendment will do
absolutely nothing to solve this problem. The backlogs will increase,
as will the numbers of those backlogged applicants who decide not to
wait and instead choose to enter the United States illegally.
Meanwhile, we can expect the backlogs to continue to grow.
Setting priorities means making choices. The elimination of the
category for siblings was proposed as early as 1981 by the Hessburgh
Commission on Immigration Policy, and the elimination of all categories
for adult children and siblings was recommended by the Jordan
Commission.
Today, a 3-year-old little girl and her mother could be separated, a
continent away, from the father living in the United States as a legal
immigrant. Meanwhile, in the same city, in the same country, we would
be admitting a 50-year-old adult brother of a U.S. citizen.
The amendment is immigration policy as usual. It is a decision not to
make a decision, not to set priorities, and not to have a real debate
over what level of immigration is in the national interest. These
extended family members, more than any other, contribute to the
phenomenon of chain migration, under which the admission of a single
immigrant over time can result in the admissions of dozens of
increasingly distant family members. Without reform of the immigration
system, chain migration of relatives who are distantly related to the
original immigrant will continue on and on and on.
We need to remember that immigration is not an entitlement, it is a
privilege. An adult immigrant who decides to leave his or her homeland
to migrate to the United States is the one who has made a decision to
separate from their family. It is not the obligation of U.S.
immigration policy to lessen the consequences of that decision by
giving the immigrant's adult family members an entitlement to immigrate
to the United States.
One point raised by the gentleman from Michigan I want to respond to.
That is in regard to the question, Does the bill favor the families of
former illegal aliens over the families of citizens. The answer is no.
The backlog clearance provisions of the bill give first preference to
those who are not relatives of legalized aliens. These will be the
first family members under the backlog clearance.
Last, this amendment allows continued abuse of the diversity program.
Currently, diversity visas are often
[[Page H2591]]
given to illegal aliens, those who deliberately have chosen not to wait
in line, but to break our immigration law. The diversity program has
turned into a permanent form of amnesty for illegal aliens.
The bill eliminates the eligibility for illegal aliens and reserves
diversity visas to those who have obeyed our laws. It also raises the
educational and skills standards for diversity immigrants so we are not
admitting still more unskilled and uneducated immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close by saying to an overwhelming majority
of Americans, we hear you. We understand why we need to put the
interests of families and workers and taxpayers first. To the National
Federation of Independent Business, the Hispanic Business Round Table,
the United We Stand America, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the
United Chamber of Commerce, thank you for our endorsement.
Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity of a generation. We have
the opportunity to reform a legal immigration system, but to do so we
must vote no on this status quo amendment, we must vote no to kill
legal immigration reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say that the report that the
gentleman referred to on the Bureau of Labor Statistics was done by a
graduate student and it had a BLS disclaimer on it, and also the
comment was made that ``I think we made a mistake on this one.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Mrs. Johnson], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the Chrysler-Berman amendment. The case has not been made for reform
of our legal immigration system. The backlog is the result of the past
immigration reform effort and will be taken care of by the system. Any
abuse of the welfare system by legal aliens will be taken care of by
the strengthening of the sponsors obligations in this bill and the
provision in the welfare reform bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote likewise.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work and leadership of my
colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith, and strongly support the provisions
in the bill that would stem the flow of illegal aliens that now impose
unfair financial burdens on many States.
Increasing the number of border patrol agents, improving border
barriers, and cracking down on document fraud are all forceful steps in
the right direction. In addition, limiting the number of public
benefits available to illegal aliens--while still allowing emergency
medical care and school lunches for children--should help States reduce
the now truly overwhelming costs of providing public benefits for
illegal aliens.
But while I agree that illegal immigration is a problem that must be
addressed by Congress, I am not convinced that our legal immigration
program needs reform, and I am concerned that our hard working legal
immigrants have been unfairly criticized during debate on this issue.
Most immigrants come to this country in search of a better life for
themselves and their families, not to receive a welfare check. The
strong work ethic of immigrants has fueled American economic strength
throughout our history and will continue to do so. These immigrants
deeply cherish the freedoms and opportunities of their adopted country,
having left behind family, friends, and the familiarity of their native
land to come here.
H.R. 2202 would significantly restrict the admission of parents of
U.S. citizens, admit only a small number of adult children, and
eliminate the current preference categories for adult children and
brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. Some say we need to do this
because immigrants are more prone to use welfare benefits. Though there
are areas of concern, particularly in regard to the elderly immigrant
and the refugee populations, welfare use among working age immigrants
is about the same as in the nonimmigrant population. It's especially
illogical to reduce legal immigration on the grounds of welfare use,
when other parts of the bill will address the matter by strengthening
the obligation of sponsors to support immigrants and when our welfare
reform bill will reduce access to benefits by limiting the eligibility
for benefits of legal aliens and illegal immigrants.
You will also hear supporters of restricting legal immigration say
that people enter the country legally with tourist and student visas
and then overstay them. This is true and a legitimate problem--however,
it has nothing to do with our family based immigration system. Those
who overstay their visas are nonimmigrants, not family sponsored
immigrants. Do we punish family members overseas who are patiently
waiting to enter the country through legal methods because this country
is not able to adequately track temporary visitors and students who
have overstayed their time here? Of course we shouldn't. The provision
that pilots a new tracking program to make sure that visitors return to
their country of origin is far more appropriate.
Finally, you will hear that we must limit legal immigration in order
to reduce the backlog of family-sponsored immigrants now waiting to
enter this country. This backlog does exist and does need to be
addressed but we do not need to eliminate the visas for the adult
children and siblings of U.S. citizens in order to do so. The backlog
is due to our one-time Amnesty Program in the 1980's overtime is will
be cleared. We do not have to give out extra visas in the name of
backlog reduction at the expense of the family-sponsored immigrants now
on the waiting lists. These are people who have chosen to wait
patiently for years in order to come to America through the proper and
legal methods. Do we punish them by denying them admittance when their
perseverance and values prove that they are just the kind of people who
would thrive given the opportunities America has to offer?
I met with legal immigrants in my district who have been the best
citizens a country could hope for--bright, hard working, and raising
children who will continue in their footsteps. It pains and angers them
to know that legal immigrants like themselves might not be able to
reunite their families, see their siblings, their parents, or their
adult children as their neighbors.
Finally, I want to acknowledge a teach in Connecticut named Jean Hill
who was recognized in the 1995 Connecticut Celebration of Excellence
Program for a lesson she taught in her elementary school class. It's a
lesson from which we all could learn. Titled ``We Came To America,
Too'' foreign students study the Pilgrim's voyage to America and then
compare that experience to their own voyage to the United States and
Connecticut. They learn that they are no different from our Nation's
first immigrants--immigrants who went on to create the country we know
today. We are a nation of immigrants, each with the potential to make
this country a better place. So I ask my colleagues, when you find
yourself swept up in the tide of antilegal immigration fervor this
week--stop--remember your own heritage--and that we came to America,
too.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is really about one's vision of America. I
think it is fundamentally wrong to take the justifiable anger about our
failure to deal with the issue of illegal immigration and piggyback on
top of that anger a drastic, in 5 years, 40 percent cut in permanent
legal immigration, a cause and a force that has been good for this
country; 8 out of 10 Americans polled say, ``Deal with the problem of
illegal immigration before you touch legal immigration.''
I hereby reaffirm my commitment to participate when the Senate, as
they will, sends us over a legal reform mechanism, to participate and
support legal reforms; not these drastic and draconian reforms, but
reforms that deal with situations in the legal immigration system that
can be changed. But do not make it part of this bill. Build a base for
this. Legal immigration has been good for this country. Preserve that
existing system. Do not tear it apart. Do not tear family unification
apart.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, what is really at stake in the consideration of the
Chrysler-Berman amendment is whether we are going to do anything
meaningful with regard to numbers in this whole debate.
The fact of the matter is that legal immigration accounts for about 1
million people a year coming into the country. Illegal immigration,
which we all want to stop, accounts for about 300,000 a year. If
Members are concerned, as I am, about the fact that in about 4 years we
are going to have twice as many people in this country as we had at the
end of World War II, and by the year 2050 we are going to have 400
million people, it is conservatively estimated to be that, and we do
[[Page H2592]]
not want to see our country have that many people in it, and I do not,
then we have to stand up and face the need to deal with the question of
legal immigration, because that is where the numbers are.
If we do not, we will have skipped that opportunity to really deal
with the problem, and we will then have a situation where there will be
a bunch of Members going around there beating their breasts, talking
about how tough they got on illegal immigrants, but they avoided the
tough question where the interest groups are putting the pressure on
everybody; that is, the question of legal immigration.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Members, that is not in the national
interest. We will have made the decision, if we vote for the Chrysler-
Berman amendment, not to set priorities, not to set levels of
immigration in the national interest, and not to address the problem of
chain migration, all of which were addressed in the Jordan Commission,
which recommended significant cuts, bringing us back below the 1991
levels of legal immigration.
I would point out once again, from 1981 to 1985 we had about 2.8
million legal immigrants coming to the country. From 1991 to 1995, we
had 5 million come into the country. We have to deal with the question
of legal immigration, or admit to the country that we are afraid to
act.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the GAO
proved that, on average, it takes 12 years for an immigrant to bring
over the next immigrant.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Brownback], the cosponsor of this amendment.
(Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman], and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], for the
excellent work they have done on the issue of immigration.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a couple of things. I rise in
strong support of the Chrysler amendment. I think the bill as it is
currently written would cut legal immigration far too far. According to
the State Department, and I have a chart up here showing the numbers
from the State Department, it would cut legal immigration a minimum of
30 percent, and maybe as much as 40 percent. That is simply too much.
The Chrysler amendment has broad support from the Christian Coalition
to the AFL-CIO, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the L.A.
Times. It has broad support because it just simply goes too far, the
current bill does.
Mr. Chairman, the Senate has split this legislation already, legal
and illegal immigration. We should pass this amendment, deal with
illegal immigration aggressively, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith] has dealt with illegal immigration very aggressively, and then
take up the issue of legal immigration with the Senate bill.
Finally, I would just like to plead with my fellow Members, we are a
Nation of immigrants. Congress should preserve this proud tradition and
not threaten it. Ronald Reagan, in his final address to the Nation,
spoke often and spoke then of America being a shining city on a hill,
and in his mind it was a city that was teeming with people of all
kinds, living in peace and harmony. Then he went on to say, ``And if
this city has walls, the walls have doors, and the doors are open to
those with the energy and the will and the heart to get in. That is the
way I saw it, that is the way I see it,'' is what Ronald Reagan said
then. That is the way we should see it. Support the Chrysler amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that State Department
speculation is fine, but facts are better. If individuals will look at
the bill and add up the figures, they will see that we average 700,000
for each of the next 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs.
Meyers].
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment and in strong support of the reform of our legal immigration
system contained in H.R. 2202.
The bill would allow an average of 700,000 legal immigrants annually
for the next 5 years, then 570,000 per year. This is comparable to the
average number of legal immigrants coming to this country every year
since the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted--600,000. This doesn't close
America's doors.
What it does do is put more priority on immigrants with skills that
American employers need. We will continue to accept the same number of
employment-based immigrants. It also puts more priority on admitting
spouses and minor children of immigrants, thus reunifying nuclear
families.
The reduction in immigration is primarily in the area of adult
relatives of immigrants. Under current law, these all get preference
over immigrants with skills but no relatives already here. This
misallocation of priorities will be changed by the bill. In most cases
those grown-up children don't continue to live with their parents. We
just have to make a decision as to what is more important, reuniting 10
year olds with their parents, or 30 year olds? In some cases, a sibling
will be brought to this country, go home and marry, thus reuniting a
family that was never disunited.
On the other hand, this amendment will increase legal immigration to
the United States by 500,000 over 5 years. This is not what the
American people want. This amendment will keep all that is wrong with
our current legal immigration system. We need to make changes. Let us
make them now.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, No. 1, the last comment of the gentlewoman is simply
inaccurate. The author of the bill knows that. There was a technical
correction made in the rules, and this bill simply returns to existing
law.
Second, the State Department says it is not 1 million people a year
coming in now, it is 800,000 coming in through permanent legal
immigration.
Third, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] was right, and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] is wrong. His bill will result in a
cut of 30 percent, and a 40-percent cut in overall numbers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dooley].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for the Chrysler-Berman amendment. This amendment will repeal the
antifamily, antigrowth provisions of the underlying bill.
While I support H.R. 2202's attempts to control illegal immigration,
I believe that the issue of legal immigration should be addressed at a
later time by separate legislation. The issues of legal and illegal
immigration are separate and distinct issues, and should be addressed
in separate bills.
As the bill is currently drafted, after a 5-year transition period,
H.R. 2202 cuts legal immigration by 40 percent--a level unprecedented
in the last 70 years. In one fell swoop, H.R. 2202 slashes family
immigration by approximately one-third. In addition to arbitrarily
reducing the number of family members admitted each year, the bill
completely eliminates major eligibility categories. H.R. 2202 not only
eliminates visa categories for adult children and siblings but would
also unfairly wipe out the corresponding backlogs of visa applications.
Individuals who have played by the rules, paid necessary fees, and
waited patiently for as many as 15 years would be summarily rejected
for legal immigration.
The bill also places nearly insurmountable obstacles for parents and
adult children who are attempting to legally reunite with family
members. H.R. 2202's restrictive family based immigration policies
undermine American families and American family values.
In addition to my concerns regarding family based immigration, H.R.
2202 is an antigrowth bill. As our economy grows, the job base expands.
Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times editorial pages
have noted that the U.S. economy benefits from legal immigration. In
fact, in a recent Cato Institute study, not one economist surveyed
believed that reducing legal immigration would increase economic
growth. In addition, not one
[[Page H2593]]
economist believed that reducing the level of legal immigration would
increase Americans' standard of living.
As drafted, H.R. 2202 is an antifamily and antigrowth bill. I urge
Members to support the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment so that we
can address the issues of illegal and legal immigration thoroughly and
responsibly through separate pieces of legislation.
{time} 1445
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply
to say that I think it is extremely unfair and extremely inaccurate for
the advocates of this amendment to describe the bill as antifamily. It
is not antifamily.
What it does is recognize what the Jordan Commission observed, and
that is that we have chain migration and we cannot continue forever
allowing everyone who is allowed to come into the country legally to
bring in brothers and sisters. That is really what is at stake here.
The same recommendation was made in 1981 by Father Hessburgh's
commission. It is not a radical proposal. What is radical is the idea
of doing nothing, which is what they advocate, and letting the
population increase to 500 million people in this country.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just add that I do not know anyone who does not consider their
brothers and sisters extended family.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane], a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. CRANE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I
compliment him on his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think there are many good provisions of H.R. 2202
dealing with illegal immigration, and adding approximately 6,000 people
to monitoring our borders certainly can address that problem. But what
we are proposing in the current language, unless the Chrysler amendment
is adopted, to me runs contrary to all our values.
Just stop and think where your ancestors came from. Why did they join
the cosmic race here? It was for the same reasons that we enjoy being
Americans. It is the land of opportunity and the home of the brave, and
we enjoy a degree of personal liberty that is unprecedented. Looking at
the historic figures, the first time we deviated from our traditional
policy was with the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. We locked Chinese
out for a decade. Then in 1924 we started establishing quotas and we
discriminated against the Orient in that package.
This kind of thing is inconsistent with our historic tradition. Our
percentage of immigrants in this country today is infinitely lower than
it was for the first 150 years. I urge Members to support the Chrysler
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to some of my friends on the
other side of the issue, they may not be aware that the new figures for
the 1995 immigration levels are in. The 1995 level was 715,000. Under
this bill we average 700,000 each for the next 5 years. I might concede
a 2-percent reduction at most.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to briefly ask the
gentleman from Texas a question. That is, having listened to the
comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], with which I
generally agree, that is, that kind immigration and illegal immigration
are rather separate subjects and for various purposes deserve to be
discussed separately. It is the case that this amendment merely splits
the two so that they can be discussed separately, or is it rather the
case that the effect of the amendment would be to strike out all of the
parts of the bill for good that deal with legal immigration?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question by my
friend from California. In point of fact the whole thrust behind this
amendment is not to reform legal immigration. In fact, it is to kill
any reform that we have in legal immigration. There is no separate
legal immigration reform bill on the House side as there is on the
Senate side. The gentlemen who have put forth this amendment to my
knowledge have not proposed one amendment to reform legal immigration.
I think that is very regrettable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Berman-Chrysler amendment.
Proponents of H.R. 2202 have argued that it is profamily. On the
contrary, this legislation would eliminate whole categories of family
sponsored immigration.
Let me talk if I can for one moment about Mary Ward. Mary Ward
emigrated to America at the turn of the century from County Down,
Ireland. Mary Ward became a citizen in her late 50's and raised a
family and worked as a domestic, passing on the very values that we
cherish and honor in this Nation. Mary Ward was as patriotic as any
American in this institution, and loved the opportunities that it
brought to her family.
Our goal here should be to separate legal from illegal immigration.
Legal immigration serves this Nation very well. We acknowledge that
illegal immigration is a problem. But where I live there are thousands
of Polish-Americans and Russian-Americans and Franco-Americans and
Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans and Asian-Americans. They add to
the fiber and fabric and strength of this country. They do not subtract
from it. In many instances they are more patriotic and more loyal than
those who have been here for decades and decades and decades, and we
should not forget about that in this debate.
In our haste to address this crisis, let us not make the mistake of
penalizing those who love the notion and idea that someday they might
be called an American.
Think as you vote on this about Mary Ward from County Down, Ireland.
Mary Ward was my grandmother.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
Supporters of eliminating the bill's reductions in legal immigration
argue that legal and illegal immigration are separate and distinct
issues, and therefore ought to be dealt with in separate bills. But we
all know that if these provisions are dropped now, the chances of the
House acting on legal immigration reform this year are very slim
indeed.
The fact is, legal and illegal immigration are related because they
both affect the size of our country's population. And, we are letting
too many people into our country.
What Congress does with regard to both types of immigration will
determine how many newcomers our communities will have to absorb, how
fierce the competition for jobs will be, and how much the quality of
life in the United States will change in the coming decades.
Fueled by both legal and illegal immigration, the population of the
United States is growing faster than that of any other industrialized
country. By the end of this decade--less than 4 years from now--our
population will reach 275 million, more than double its size at the end
of World War II. Unless we reduce our high rate of immigration--the
highest in the world--our population will double again in just 50
years.
Middle-range Census Bureau projections show our population rising to
nearly 400 million by the year 2050, an increase the equivalent of
adding 40 cities the size of Los Angeles.
But many demographers believe it will actually be much worse, and
alternative Census Bureau projections agree. If current immigration
trends continue--and that's what we're debating here--our population
will exceed
[[Page H2594]]
half a billion by the middle of the next century--a little more than 50
years from now.
Immigration now accounts for half our--and that rate of growth--
proportion is growing. Post-1970 immigrants, and their descendants have
been responsible for U.S. population increases of nearly 25 million--
half the growth of those years.
In other words, much of what demographers consider our natural growth
rate is actually the result of the large number of immigrants in our
country--and the great majority of them have come here legally.
As recently as 1990, the Census Bureau predicted that the population
of the United States would peak, and then level off, a few decades from
now. Since 1994, however, because of unexpectedly high rates of legal
immigration, the Bureau has changed its projections, and now sees our
population growing unabated into the late 21st century--when it will
reach 700 million, 800 million, a billion Americans--unless we start
acting now to lower our levels of legal immigration.
Those of us who represent communities where large numbers of
immigrants settle have long felt the effects of our Nation's high rate
of immigration. Our communities are already being overwhelmed by the
burden of providing educational, health, and social services for the
newcomers.
With a population of 500 million or more, our problems, of course,
will be much, much greater. With twice as many people, we can expect to
have at least twice as much crime, twice as much congestion, and twice
as much poverty.
We will also face demands for twice as many jobs, twice as many
schools, and twice as much food. At a time when many of our communities
are already straining to educate, house, protect, and provide services
for the people we have right now, how will they cope with the needs and
problems of twice as many people or more?
Without a doubt, our ability in the future to provide the basic
necessities of life, to ensure adequate water and food supplies, to
dispose of waste, to protect open spaces and agricultural land, to
control water and air pollution, to fight crime and educate our
children, is certain to be tested in ways we cannot even imagine.
But however we look at it, our current rate of population growth
clearly means that future generations of Americans cannot possibly have
the quality of life that we ourselves have been fortunate enough to
have enjoyed.
The reductions in legal immigration in this bill are very reasonable,
and humane. They are based on the well-thought-out recommendations of
the Jordan Commission, whose purpose was to develop an immigration
policy that serves the best interests of our Nation as a whole. These
proposed changes are designed to enhance the benefits of immigration,
while protecting against the potential harms.
Reducing the rate of legal immigration, as the bill in its current
form would do, constitutes a modest, but absolutely essential, response
to the enormous problems our children and grandchildren will face in
the next century if we do not reduce the huge number of new residents
the United States accepts each year, beginning now.
I strongly urge Members to reject the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback
amendment.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I would just like to point out that the Senate split their
immigration bill, so there will be a separate legal immigration bill
that will come before the House.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman-
Brownback amendment to separating the unique concerns of legal and
illegal immigration.
Proponents of deep cuts in legal immigration are blurring this
distinction in order to make it difficult for us to vote against sorely
needed illegal immigration reform. They know that their cuts in legal
immigration cannot pass on merit alone.
Immigrant bashers argue that America needs to take a time out and
limit or provide a moratorium. In the 1920's, they say, we experienced
unprecedented economic growth the last time the United States had such
a policy.
Mr. Chairman, in response to those specious arguments: One, that was
no time out. That was a policy based on xenophobia and racism.
Two, moreover, when our Nation endured an unprecedented depression in
the 1930's, the same restrictive immigration policy was in place.
I am disappointed with the anti-immigration forces who have denied us
a chance to address the restrictive asylum and humanitarian parole
provisions that were included in H.R. 2202.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important Chrysler-
Berman-Brownback amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Bilbray], whom I understand is the only Member of
Congress who can see the southern border from his home.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, my mother happened to be the first
Australian war bride to become a U.S. citizen. She emigrated in 1944. I
have cousins who would love to emigrate to the United States right now.
But let me tell Members, I am sworn to represent the people of my
district here in America, and I am not sworn to represent my cousins in
Australia or to represent certain businesses that would love to be able
to bring my cousins in to work for them. I am sworn to represent the
general population of the 49th District of the great State of
California.
{time} 1500
I think that we ought to be up front about this. Who are we serving
here with the Chrysler amendment, who is going to benefit from this,
and is it going to be the people of the United States?
Mr. Chairman, it is not only our right to have an immigration policy
for the good of the American national interests, it is our
responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure our decisions on
immigration are for the good of America, and America first. In the
words my mother said to me when I asked her loyalty between Australia
and the United States, she said ``America, America must take care of
America first and that will help the rest of the world.''
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. law does not allow you to petition for your
cousins, your uncles, your nieces, your nephews. It would not under
this bill, it does not under existing law, and it never has. Bogus
arguments should be dispensed with quickly.
Second, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] says 1 million people a
year come in, to show how bad it is. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith] says ``I just got information, 715,000 a year come in. Our bill
only cuts by 15,000.''
The gentlemen from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and [Mr. Smith] are right about
the number. What they do not say is that for the first 5 years, his
bill allows 700,000, and it then has a massive 30 percent drop in legal
immigration to far below that. That is the accurate story.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the daughter of immigrants
in favor of removing the poorly designed and unfairly restrictive legal
immigration provisions from the bill before us. I strongly support and
have cosponsored the tough measures in this legislation to crack down
on illegal immigration. But, like most Americans, although not some
that we have just heard from, I believe that legal immigration is the
lifeblood of this country, enriching our Nation economically and
culturally.
We should, of course, be open to reasonable reforms in our legal
immigration policy, but H.R. 2202 goes too far. By the year 2002, as we
have already heard, the bill will cut legal immigration by 40 percent,
and the bill's cap on refugee admissions, which, fortunately, has
already been removed, would effectively have ended our historical
commitment to helping those who, like my
[[Page H2595]]
father, who grew up in Nazi Germany, flee oppression and genocide.
H.R. 2202 includes important and effective tools for fighting illegal
immigration. Let us not bind those changes to the unacceptable legal
immigration cuts in title IV.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis], a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to commend the gentleman from Texas
for taking on a tough issue. I rise reluctantly to oppose his position
on this and support this amendment.
This amendment continues the current level of immigration. It allows
children and the brothers and sisters of immigrants to apply for
immigration. Otherwise they are barred for the most part.
This amendment does not affect the changes in this bill regarding
immigrant eligibility for public benefits and it does not affect the
provisions relating to illegal immigration, but family reunification
has long been a principal purpose of U.S. immigration policy. This
bill's provisions barring adult children in particular turns that
principle on its head by ensuring that many families will never become
whole.
Why would a child who turns 26 automatically be considered extended
family and not allowed to immigrate under his parents' sponsorship?
Many of these adult children are exactly the type of Americans this
country needs. They help in their prime working years, working many
cases in family-owed businesses, helping them to prosper. They save,
invest, and give back to their communities.
I see the pioneer spirit in this country alive and well in the shops
in my district where you have much of this. They also help care for
their elderly parents and reduce the elderly's use of social services.
Mr. Chairman, I ask approval of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Berman-Chrysler-Brownback amendment to H.R. 2202.
This bill was drafted in response to concerns echoed across this
Nation about the influx of immigrants in this country, both legal and
illegal. However, a vote for this amendment is a vote to kill any
attempt to pass legal immigration reform in the 104th Congress.
We are a country of immigrants. Our ancestors came here for the
promise of a better life and a better place to raise their families.
They wanted the American dream. This bill does not deny this dream to
anyone. Contrary to what has been said about this bill, it maintains
America's historic generosity toward legal immigration and places a
priority on uniting families.
Our current system of legal immigration is clearly flawed. There is
currently a backlog of 1.1 million spouses and young children of legal
immigrants who are forced to wait years to join their families. H.R.
2202 provides for the highest level of legal immigration in 70 years,
averaging 700,000 per year over the next 5 years.
People should not be fooled into believing the rhetoric that only
illegal immigration needs reform. The unfortunate fact is that the
majority of illegal immigrants in this country entered the country
legally with tourist visas. But our Government gives them every
incentive to stay here illegally after their temporary visa has
expired. Just by virtue of being here, they are automatically entitled
to generous Government assistance for health care, food stamps, and
education benefits. Where is the incentive to leave?
We can put up bigger fences, hire more border patrol agents, and
establish a fool-proof system to detect fraudulent documents. However,
until we reform legal immigration, we will continue to face the same
problems.
The Berman-Chrysler-Brownback amendment will kill legal immigration
reform. H.R. 2202 fairly and generously reforms legal immigration, and
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the population projections, I just want
to remind everyone of the demographer Malthus, who looked at population
projections in the early 19th century and concluded that by the end of
the 19th century, there is no way in the world there would be enough
food in the world to feed the people.
I have great faith in the capacity of technology and the economy to
grow, and I believe that is going to deal with the particular issue of
our future ability to handle the population.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Becerra], my friend on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the Chrysler
amendment to try to have a reasoned debate on legal immigration
separate from the very impassioned debate on illegal immigration. I
would urge Members to support that particular amendment.
Let me say that the whole issue here is about family-based
immigration. That is all we are talking about here. In order for
someone to be able to come into this country under the provisions being
debated, you must have an American petition to have that particular
individual come to the country. This issue of chain migration is a
false one. By the time you have someone come into this country, it
usually takes 12 to 13 years before that individual can then petition
to have anyone who is an immediate relative--not a distant relative--
come into this country. So this issue of chain migration is really a
quarter century long before you see any additional relatives possibly
having the chance to come in, if even that soon.
There is no chain migration. What we do have though, if we continue
to go this course with H.R. 2202, is a lack of family-based
immigration, where brothers, sisters, children, and parents will not
have an opportunity to join their U.S. citizen relatives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this particular amendment.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that there are provisions in the
illegal portion of the bill dealing with the problems of visa
overstayers and they are not entitled in title IV.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Chabot], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the
Chrysler amendment, because I deeply value the fundamental character of
this Nation as a land of hope and opportunity and because I cherish our
unique American heritage as a country of immigrants, united by shared
values, a strong work ethic, and a commitment to freedom. Let us not
tarnish that heritage or ignore our greatest strength, which is our
people.
Our legal immigration system doubtless could use reform, and other
titles of this bill will make some useful changes, but I do not believe
the rush to do something about the very real problems of illegal
immigration should cloud our treatment of people who play by the rules
and who come here legally and add to our human capital.
Should we crack down on illegal immigration? Yes. Absolutely. Let us,
for example, not let welfare be a magnet for illegal immigrants to come
here, and let us beef up our border patrols. But legal immigration is a
separate and distinct issue. Let us split the issues of legal and
illegal immigration and let each be determined upon its merits.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for American family values, and I urge
support for the Chrysler amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think that there are two great political issues that
face this country. One is welfare reform and the other is immigration
reform. Unfortunately, the two of them are inextricably linked
together. When you consider the fact that 21 percent of all immigrant
households receive some form of assistance, when you consider that for
[[Page H2596]]
the 12-year period between 1982 and 1994 that the applications for SSI
by immigrant families increased some 580 percent compared with only a
49-percent increase for native Americans, then you have to say that the
two are linked together. Unfortunately, if we do not address one, it is
going to be almost impossible to address and solve the other.
So I would urge that we defeat the amendment that is before the
House.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not touch title VI of the bill.
Title VI requires before any legal immigrant can participate in any
variety of public benefit programs, including Medicaid, AFDC, SSI, that
you have to deem the family sponsor's income. Our amendment does not
touch that particular reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Menendez].
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the guiding principle in our Nation's
immigration policy should be to reward controlled legal immigration and
dissuade illegal immigration.
As an American-born son of legal immigrants, I can tell you this bill
sends the wrong message. Instead of saying to potential immigrants that
if you play by the rules, wait your turn, and follow the law, you will
benefit by becoming a permanent resident, we say, we're going to treat
you just about the same as an illegal immigrant.
The cuts in legal immigration hurt family reunification efforts and
show the hypocrisy of a Congress that promotes family values.
Why does this ``family friendly'' Congress want to prohibit the adult
sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens from entering
the country? Legal immigration reinforces family structure, upholds
family values, and benefits the Nation.
Creating a hardship for U.S. citizens by permanently separating them
from their close family members does not promote family values. It
disintegrates the fabric of American values and jeopardizes the
Nation's future. We can fight illegal immigration and preserve family-
centered legal immigration by supporting this amendment.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Legal immigration
is a basic building block in the cultural development of our United
States. The family is an American tradition. When we talk about our
families, we do not simply speak of our spouse or our young children.
The tradition extends to our grown children, our parents, our brothers
and sisters.
For years we have told new immigrants that if they play by the rules,
their family members will be able to join them. Now, as many as 2
million people may be told that they are no longer qualified family
members.
Having a visa petition approved may not be a guarantee that a person
will actually receive the visa. However, there was an implicit act of
good faith when INS approved the petitions and the people began their
wait. To break faith with such a strong American tradition sends a
strong message and does not address the real concerns of illegal
immigration.
Our immigrant population strengthens the diversity upon which our
great country is built. As a former immigrant and naturalized American,
I urge us to stand up for our families, our traditions, and strike the
cuts in legal immigration.
{time} 1515
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the
reason we have the record percentage, 21 percent of all legal
immigrants on welfare today, is because we admit over 80 percent of all
legal immigrants with absolutely no regard to their education or skill
levels. That is the reason we have the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any question that
we need and must face both legal immigration reform and illegal reform.
If we vote for this amendment today, we are going to kill legal
immigration reform in this Congress.
Why do we need it? Why do we need to attack and change family
unification principles that have been in the law for quite some time? I
will tell my colleagues why, because the system is broken, because we
have a backlog. Millions of close family ties, people who we would like
to see be able to come over here have to wait up to 20 years to come
over. The system is not working. The brothers and sisters cannot
continue to be brought in under the kind of preference we have today
and leave any room for seed immigrants, that is, those who can provide
skills and special things we would like to see but who have no
relatives here at all.
Why should just being a relative be the primary reason you get to
come here? We have to have balance in our system. The current legal
immigration system is imbalanced, out of whack. We need to change it.
Now, there is nothing draconian about the legal reforms we have here
today. If we look at what happened in 1990, we increased legal
immigration in a bill that passed this Congress and went and was signed
into law by 40 percent. This bill reduces it by 20 percent. So we are
kind of compromising.
Over the next 5 years under this bill we will add 3\1/2\ million new
legal immigrants to this Nation which, except for the legalization
years that we had right after 1986, will be the greatest increase in
legal immigration in American history in the last 70 years.
This is a very generous legal immigration bill that the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Smith] has crafted. But what it is doing is extremely
important. It is trying to give us an opportunity which business and
all of us should be pleased with to get more seed immigrants since
almost none can come in today who have no family ties but who have
skills and things they can offer America and should be allowed to come
to this country and get rid of the backlog of those people who are
close family relatives who really should come here, the children and
spouses and so forth, instead of having the broken system we have
today.
So I implore my colleagues to vote against the amendment. As well-
meaning as it may be, it is not a good amendment. Keep legal
immigration in this bill and allow it to exist, because a vote for this
amendment kills legal immigration reform.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Of the 500 fastest growing companies in this country, 12 percent are
headed by legal immigrants. They are, again, a source of economic
strength, the creation of jobs, the growth of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with striking the
family immigration sections of the bill in order to address these
issues in a more seemly and deliberative manner, and I agree with that.
If we are for family values, we need to value families; and that is
what the Berman amendment would do. However, disapproval of the Berman
amendment will also have implications for the business community.
I recently received a letter from a Mr. Yao, who lives in Mountain
View, CA. I cannot read his whole letter, but I can excerpt from it. He
is a senior scientist at his company, an American company, and is
originally from China. When he started with the company, it was a very
small company, but it has since experienced rapid growth and expansion.
Its products are well received. In fact, the company received an award
for outstanding achievement from the White House.
The major reason why the company has done so well is that Mr. Yao has
designed all of the antennas that the company sells and in fact is the
holder of a number of patents. However, a few years ago, he missed his
daughter in China so much that he was going to take his patients and go
home to China. However, the company, fearing to lose him and to lose
their business, petitioned to make him a permanent resident so that his
daughter could come here. He wrote to me to say that
[[Page H2597]]
she is now 30 years old, and he is desperate to see her, but she cannot
come for a visit because of the pending application.
Mr. Chairman, I guess the upshot is that, if the Smith bill passes
without the Berman amendment, Mr. Yao can take his patents and go home
to China. Then we can have the opportunity to compete with a Chinese
company that he founds instead of dominating our economic adversaries
abroad.
I think it is worth noting that one of the fastest growing companies
in our country, Intel, was founded by an immigrant. Sun Microsystems
was founded by immigrants. The Java computer technology that is taking
off on the Internet was devised by an immigrant. We are shooting
ourselves in the foot if we fail to adopt the Berman amendment,
economically, and also hurting families.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the high
level of immigration is responsible for 50 percent of the decline in
real wages for America's lowest skilled workers, that is, those who did
not complete high school. Yet, Members stand on the floor of the House
and tell us that we have an obligation to continue a system of chain
migration in which, when immigrants decide to bring their spouse and
children and come to the United States, they also are allowed later to
bring in their adult children and their brothers and their sisters.
Well, I submit that 20 years of experts recommending that we change
this ought to give us a heads up about something, and that is simply
this. If you do not want to leave your brothers and sisters and do not
want to leave your adult children, then do not leave them. The American
people have no obligation to tell all the people of the world that when
you immigrate here you can bring family members other than one's
spouse, minor children, and parents. We cannot continue to allow new
arrivals to bring brothers and sisters and adult children with them as
well, and expect to maintain a manageable population size.
What about our high school dropouts? What about our low-wage workers?
It is not fair to continue driving down their wages with an immigration
policy that disregards the interests of low skilled American workers.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the backlog the gentleman from Florida was referring
to is the 1 million former illegal aliens that were granted amnesty in
1986. Giving extra visas to former illegal aliens instead of U.S.
citizens is unconscionable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Chrysler amendment and in support of legal immigration. America is a
nation of immigrants. My grandfather came to America from Norway when
he was 16 years old. Like most immigrants, he sought a better life for
himself and his family. Three years after becoming a citizen, he was
drafted, and served with distinction in the battle of the Argonne in
World War I. And his story is one of only millions of immigrant
stories, of hope and opportunity, and of service to our Nation.
If someone is in our country legally, and paying taxes, they should
be able to receive the benefits that their tax dollars pay for.
Legal immigrants are hardworking, taxpaying contributors to our
society. Legal immigrants most often have intact families, college
degrees, and are working. Overall, immigrants generate $25 to $30
billion a year in tax revenues--far more than the cost of services they
may consume.
There is a problem with illegal immigration in our country. We need
to take strict steps to reduce and eliminate illegal immigration. But
let's not destroy what has contributed to America's greatness for past
centuries. Let's not treat legal immigrants as though they had broken
the law, when they are law abiding.
In his farewell address to the Nation, President Ronald Reagan
recalled his favorite metaphor of America as a shining city. President
Reagan stated that ``If there had to be city walls, the walls had doors
and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.
That's how I saw it and see it still.'' I share Ronald Reagan's vision
of immigration; the same vision that brought my grandfather to these
shores and ancestors for generations to come.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], that I
appreciate what he said about the ownership of businesses by
immigrants, and I trust that he will feel better about the bill when I
remind him that we are actually increasing the number of skilled
immigrants whom we admit in the country under H.R. 2202. We want
immigrants who are going to come here to work, to produce and
contribute to our communities and to own and operate businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly], the chairman of the task force on immigration reform.
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, as someone that has dealt with the issue
of illegal immigration in this great House for the last 10 years, I
have focused my energy on trying to find ways to stop the unchecked
flow of illegal immigration.
Initially I was opposed to having legal and illegal immigration
combined, but the more I have studied this issue, the more I realize
that we cannot deal with one without the other. We are a very generous
nation. We allow more people to legally immigrate to this country every
year than all of the rest of the countries in the world combined. This
bill continues to provide that ability for those to continue to
immigrate here. I ask you to oppose this amendment and let us address
the issue of immigration once and for all in a way that will stop
illegal immigration and we cannot do it without addressing legal as
well.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much, and I would like to place, Mr. Chairman, a personal face on this
whole question of legal immigration.
I rise in support of the separation in this legislation of legal
immigration from illegal immigration. Claudia Gonzales left her family
in Houston as a teenager to care for her grandparents in Mexico. She
rejoined her family in Houston at age 23 where she has begun a new job
and is attending school.
Mr. Chairman, under this bill, legal residents would be prohibited
from sponsoring their sons and daughters over the age of 21, hard-
working sons and daughters. The adult children could be deportable or
have no preferential treatment in gaining legal residency. Claudia's
father said, who has lived here since 1967: I have worked hard here and
pay taxes. What am I going to say to my son 21 and my daughter who is
23?
Mr. Chairman, that is the real face of legal immigrants, hard-working
taxpayers. I offered a bill that would have allowed parents to be
brought here. Now we have a situation where parents and children cannot
be united.
Mr. Chairman, I clearly think with all respect to those who worked so
hard on this issue, we would do well to pay respect to hard-working
legal immigrants and to acknowledge that it is now time to separate the
legislation and treat illegal immigration separately.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Chrysler-Berman-
Brownback-Crane-Dooley-Davis amendment, which would strike the parts of
title V-subtitles A, B, and C--that would virtually prevent American
citizens from sponsoring their adult children, siblings, and parents;
reduce America's support for refugees; and place additional experience
requirements that will complicate companies' ability to hire skilled
foreign scientists and engineers.
The current legal immigration system is specifically designed to
strengthen families by reuniting close family members and fueling
prosperity by attracting hardworking individuals. We must not abandon
these principles. At a time when strong family bonds are more important
than ever, restrictions in family based immigration will hurt legal
immigrant families in America.
[[Page H2598]]
It is disturbing to think that Government policy will keep such
families, even parents and their children, apart just because a child
is older than 21 years of age. Energetic young people, about to enter
the work force, are exactly the type of new Americans that complement
the existing work force. Not only will they fuel our economy along with
our existing population, but they will be here to care for their aging
parents. Most Americans do not think that their children, at any age,
are ever distant family members.
I recently read about a family in my hometown of Houston who would be
affected if this legislation became law. Claudia Gonzales left here
family in Houston as a teenager to care for her grandparents in Mexico.
She rejoined her family in Houston at age 23 where she has begun a new
job and is attending school. Under this bill, legal residents would be
prohibited from sponsoring their sons and daughters over the age of 21.
The adult children could be deportable or have no preferential
treatment in gaining legal residency. Claudia's father, who has lived
here since 1967, said: ``I've worked hard here and paid taxes. What am
I going to say to my son, who is 21, and my daughter, who is 23, if
they have to leave this country? I will respect every single day the
laws of this country. But this one would be unjust and I denounce this
law that would hurt many families.''
Similarly, barring entry of brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
because of the current backlog in that visa category is especially
unfair to the citizens and their siblings who have followed the rules
and waited patiently in line--some for 15 years or more.
H.R. 2202 imposes nearly insurmountable obstacles for U.S. citizens
seeking to bring their own mothers and fathers to the United States.
The legislation enables the U.S. Government to control and overrule the
decisions of families by requiring that U.S. citizens purchase high
levels of insurance for their parents and lowers the priority for the
parents' visa category. This category will only receive visas if any
are left over from other categories. The State Department projects that
within 3 years after the law takes effect no visas will be available
for parents.
In addition, H.R. 2202 would require citizens and legal residents to
show that their income will be 200 percent above the poverty line in
order to bring their parents, minor children, or spouses to the United
States. More than 35 percent of Americans--over 91 million people--have
incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line. The bill will have a
devastating impact on American families who will be barred from living
in the United States with their own husbands, wives, and children.
The centerpiece of U.S. immigration policy is, and should be, family
reunification. It is consistent with our Nation's values when we allow
U.S. citizens to reunite with their spouses, children--both minors and
adults--their parents, and their siblings. This policy is good not only
for the individuals involved, but for the Nation as a whole. Our policy
of family reunification brings in energetic, committed new Americans
who work hard, pay their taxes, and enrich the country economically and
socially. There is little rationale for limiting opportunities for
family reunification, when the end results are so positive for everyone
involved.
Since when is America not big enough for the parents of its citizens?
A recent CNN USA Today poll shows that immigrants come with strong
family values and a strong work ethic. These are values we ought to be
promoting, not undermining.
Proposed restrictions in employment-based immigration will hurt the
U.S. economy. It is crucial that the American workplace reflects the
international character of its customers and responds to both domestic
and international competitive pressures. Achieving such a work force
requires looking beyond the U.S. labor market. Employees, researchers,
and professors possessing both innovative technical skills and
multicultural competence ensures our economic viability in world
markets.
Placing a cap on the number of refugees admitted to the United States
ignores the leadership role of this country in providing protection and
safe harbor to those fleeing political and religious persecution.
Strict levels of refugee admissions ignore the changing and urgent
nature of refugee situations. U.S. policy should maintain the
flexibility to respond appropriately to emergency situations.
Mr. Chairman, today, and throughout history, immigrants have come to
the United States in pursuit of the American dream, to make a better
life for themselves and their children. They come to the United States
to join the work force and their families, to educate their children
and contribute to the communities where they live, their professions
and the American economy. They enrich us with their diverse cultures
and languages, and with their skills, education, business, and artistic
talents. The United States, a nation of immigrants, has welcomed
individuals from around the world who came here seeking better economic
futures or fleeing political persecution. We must not abandon this
history. I urge my colleagues to support their amendment.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend
for yielding time to me and especially thank him for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback
amendment, which will help keep the focus where it belongs, on the real
danger of illegal immigration, not on orderly legal immigration by
close relatives of U.S. citizens. I am particularly troubled by the
provision in the current bill that would cut off eligibility for so-
called adult children unless they meet a series of new tests, including
economic dependency. Ironically, supporters justify these restrictions
by suggesting that we somehow protect nuclear families by excluding
other relatives. Most Americans I think would be surprised, perhaps
shocked comes closer to describe it, to know that if their 21-year-old
daughter or son gets a job, he or she is no longer a member of your
nuclear family and can never live with you again.
The present language in the bill also virtually eliminates the
Attorney General's power to use the humanitarian parole to deal with
compelling cases at the margins of our immigration laws. Most
congressional offices have had to deal with cases in which an American
family has adopted an orphan overseas or wishes to sponsor a relative
for a sick family, only to run up against a brick wall. Humanitarian
parole is gone.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Chrysler amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the gentleman
from New Jersey that the bill actually has an additional 10,000 visas
for humanitarian purposes that the Attorney General can disseminate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Goodlatte], a former practicing immigration attorney.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, as he noted, I did practice immigration law, am proud
of the fact I helped people from more than 70 countries immigrate to
the United States during my career as an immigration lawyer, all law-
abiding citizens and hard working. Many people here have noted how
important it is that we maintain our Nation as a nation of immigrants.
Most of us can go back just a few generations and find family members
who immigrated to this country, my grandfather, my wife's parents.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that with this bill, we are going
to continue to do that, continue to be the most generous nation on
earth in terms of our immigration policy. But if this amendment is
passed, it does not simply split legal immigration reforms, which are
needed, both to help the immigration process and to limit it from
illegal immigration, it will kill it outright. We have got to defeat
this amendment because of the fact that our legal immigration process
needs to be reformed.
We need to help immediate family members be reunified more quickly.
Young married couples with young children, they need to be able to come
here more quickly when one member qualifies for a visa than to have
that separation taking place for years, as it does now. How do we pay
for that? By breaking immigration chains that have very remote
connections.
{time} 1530
Now, my colleagues say, how can a brother or sister be a remote
connection? The fact of the matter is it takes 20 years now for a
member of a family to come to this country and go through the process
it takes to petition for another member to come. So we are not talking
about a situation where the family member got left behind last year and
we want to bring them to this country. It is a matter of having to
reform this process to be fair to everybody and fair to everyone in
this country.
This chart shows the problem. First, the highest line shows the
immigration trend over the next 55 years under current law. The second
line shows the trend with the reforms in this bill. Forty million
people is the difference involved there.
[[Page H2599]]
My colleagues, we need reasonable immigration reform. We will still
be very generous. Oppose this amendment and support the bill.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, this debate can more
appropriate be called debate over discrimination, not a debate over
immigration. What we are seeing in collecting both legal and illegal
immigrants is that we are going to treat legal immigrants as if they
are illegal aliens. To me, this is no more than policy by prejudice and
analysis by anecdote.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Berman amendment so
we can differentiate between the two issues here.
I rise today in support of the Chrysler-Brownback amendment and in
support of the generations of immigrants who have built this country
into the great Nation that it is today.
This debate can be more appropriately called a debate over
discrimination--not immigration. H.R. 2202 places drastic restrictions
on legal immigrants--essentially treating them like second-class
citizens who do not deserve the rights and privileges that are afforded
native-born Americans.
This short-sighted action is a part of the unfortunate antiimmigrant
fervor that has swept up this House and swept across the Nation. This
is of great concern to me as the land of liberty, freedom, equality,
and hope will have the image of being an unwelcoming closed nation.
This is a troubling image--one that goes directly against the
cornerstone principles of America.
It is a travesty that in an effort to curb illegal immigration, the
authors of this bill have chosen to blatantly discriminate against
those individuals who are in this country legally. Not only do the
legal immigrant provisions make it extremely difficult for families to
be reunited, but they also deprive parents and children of assistance
should they fall upon hard times. Under this bill, more than one third
of all Americans will be unable to sponsor a family member--simply
because they are not wealthy enough. No longer will a grown child, a
brother or sister be able to join their family here in the United
States. Could any of you imagine being separated from family members so
close? I certainly cannot.
These provisions will only hinder many new Americans who are trying
to put the right foot forward and adapt to a new country. While I agree
that measures must be taken to encourage individuals to stay off the
welfare rolls, denying taxpayers assistance simply because they weren't
born in this country is reprehensible.
In our rush to ensure that we are not allowing foreigners to sneak
across our borders and live off the fruits of our labor, we have lost
sight of what ``America'' means. Have we forgotten the foundation that
this great Nation was built upon? The dreams, hopes, and aspirations
that embody America were first envisioned by our forefathers who
immigrated here in search of freedom and prosperity.
I am also deeply troubled at the tone that this debate has taken.
Rather than looking broadly at the problem of illegal immigration, we
have chosen to fixate on one source of our problem--our southern
border. Have we forgotten that we have a border to the north? That we
have two long coasts with many harbors and ports? Are not these open
doors to Canadians? To Irish? But there is silence here, while the
debate is filled with sound and fury over the menace to our south. This
is not right. It is blind and unfair. It fans the flames of prejudice.
It makes it possible for a bill to deal so callously with our legal
immigrants.
My State of Rhode Island is enriched by the many people who have
brought their cultures and traditions to this great Nation to build a
life for themselves and for future generations. I am proud of these
hard-working Americans, who each day go to work, pay taxes, and make
their contribution toward creating a stronger United States.
The Chrysler-Berman amendment is a vote for equity for all
Americans--new and old. It will ensure that hard-working, tax-paying
legal residents of this country are treated with decency and fairness.
We owe them at least this much.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important to restore the rights to
U.S. citizens to petition for their brothers and sisters and adult
children to come to America.
There are currently provisions to prevent immigrants from becoming
public charges, and there are additional welfare restrictions in this
bill. The amendment does not change these welfare restrictions.
In addition, the Senate split their immigration bill. So we will see
legal immigration reform this year in the House.
I ask my colleagues to support this profamily amendment and vote
``yes'' for this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my friend, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], who just spoke, that the reason we have
the record level 21 percent of all legal immigrants on welfare is
because we do admit over 80 percent without any regard to skills or
education.
The problem with this amendment is that it will continue the status
quo. The bill tries to increase the percentage of individuals who are
admitted on the basis of skills and education. This amendment would
leave us right where we are, and over 80 percent would be admitted
without any regard to that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite some studies that have been done
on the question of how legal immigrants, competition with legal
immigrants, depresses wages and costs jobs, and I just do not see how
the proponents of this amendment can ignore these studies when we know
we are dealing with real lives and real hardship.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, immigration was
responsible for 50 percent of the decline in real wages for America's
lowest scale workers, those who did not complete high school. A recent
study by the Economic Policy Institute says that in the high-
immigration States of Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and
Texas, that men's wages were 2.6 percent and women's wages 3.1 percent
below the average for other States that were not high-immigration
States.
Dr. Frank Morris, the immediate past president of the Council of
Historically Black Graduate Schools, said there can be no doubt that
our current practice of permitting more than 1 million legal and
illegal immigrants per year into the United States, into our already
difficult low-skilled labor markets, clearly leads to both wage
depression and the de facto displacement of African-American workers
with low skills.
The Urban Institute says this. The immigration reduces the weekly
earnings of less-skilled African-American men and women and also that
group most clearly and severely disadvantaged by newly arrived
immigrants is other recent immigrants. A 10-percent increase in the
number of immigrants reduces other immigrants' wages by 9 to 10
percent.
Finally, in a book by Julian Simon, the patrol saint of the open-
borders proponents, he says this: ``There is no doubt that workers in
some industries suffer immediate injury from the addition of immigrant
workers in these same categories.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Could it
please be indicated who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has the right to
close.
Mr. BERMAN. And how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], has 2
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] has 30
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has 1
minute and 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment.
It is a refreshingly bipartisan amendment, and that is because it is
the right thing to do.
This bill is well intentioned. It talks about the legitimate problem,
which is illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it goes too far because it
tries to make changes in legal immigration. We do not have a problem
with legal immigration, and as I listened to the debate, I have not
heard one articulated.
The fact of the matter is we are all immigrants. We are all the
descendants
[[Page H2600]]
of immigrants, some voluntary, and some, like myself, on an involuntary
basis. But the point is we all came to America.
America is a beacon to immigrants. But this bill would reduce legal
immigration by 40 percent over 5 years, and yet there has been no
rationale presented to justify why we should shut people out of our
country, why we should pull families apart.
Why are we doing this?
This bill is not trying to increase immigration. I realize we cannot
accept everyone, but there is no reason to significantly reduce the
level of immigration.
There are those who want to suggest immigrants are a burden on our
society. Not legal immigrants. They earn $240 billion, they pay $90
billion in taxes. They only consume $5 billion in benefits. Clearly, we
need legal immigrants. We ought to vote for this amenement.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, Is yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that there is not a fixed
number of jobs in America, as an American businessman for 25 years. Job
totals have more than doubled from 1960 to 1995, so immigrants do not
take jobs, jobs from natives and actually the bill does, indeed, cut
legal immigration from 775,000 to 542,000 in 2002, and I think that is
unconscionable because I think we are going to need all the workers we
can get as we move into a growth opportunity that we are going to have
in this country.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Abe Lincoln used to say calling a tail a leg does not
make it one. No matter how many times you cite 21 percent of legal
immigrants on welfare, it is wrong. Saying it a lot of times does not
make it true.
The Urban Institute says 7 percent less than the average American who
did not come here as a legal immigrant relies on welfare, 7 percent
less than the average.
Second, you can cite a graduate student who is working at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics for a survey, Manhattan Institute, a survey, top
economists in the country of all ideologies and persuasions. Eighty-one
percent said legal immigration is very helpful to the economy. The
other 19 percent said it is slightly helpful to the economy. No one
said it hurts the economy.
We have put together a coalition on this amendment, with the great
work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] and
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], that includes the AFL-CIO, the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Christian Coalition, the
Americans for Tax Reform, a whole slew of organizations that believe in
economic growth, family values and family reunification.
I urge that the Committee of the Whole adopt this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman for 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 opposition to this
gutting amendment. This amendment would destroy this bill's ability to
reform our notoriously deficient immigration laws.
No one will argue that immigrants have not formed the backbone of our
country. Immigrants from all over the world have helped make this great
Nation what it is today. And, they will continue to bring America
forward in the 21 century.
But, we can no longer espouse an open border/open port immigration
policy. In the face of increasing corporate mergers, downsizing, and
technological advancement, our economy cannot absorb greater numbers of
immigrants, let alone provide jobs to those people who have been laid
off or can't find work.
This is a gutting amendment that refuses to recognize the problems
that legal immigration causes for our country and hard-working American
taxpayers.
Over half of the 400,000 illegal aliens who come to the United States
every year come here legally and overstay their visas. Over 80 percent
of all admitted legal immigrants are low skilled and uneducated which
has resulted in a drop of 50 percent in real wages for those who never
graduate from high school. Legal immigrants receive $25 billion more in
public benefits than they pay in taxes, including a 580 percent surge
in their SSI payments over the past 12 years.
Mr. Chairman, these figures are startling and totally unacceptable.
They are a direct result of our misguided immigration policies of 1986
and 1990 which first granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens, and
second almost tripled employment-based visas and removed limits on
family-related categories for immediate relatives.
Consequently, legal immigration and sponsorship have ballooned. They
continue to drain our welfare system and slow our economy by taking
away jobs from those already here. We can no longer idly sit by and
watch this happen when our own citizens are living below the poverty
level, without health care, without jobs.
That is why we must restructure our current legal immigration system
now. H.R. 2202 does this fairly and sensibly: By offering preference to
nuclear families--spouses, minor/dependent children up to age 25, and
parents whose health care is prepaid--and highly skilled workers, by
allowing entrance to at least 50,000 annual backlogged nuclear family
members, and by keeping categories for refugees and diversity visas.
Even with the bill's numerical limits, we will still be admitting
600,000 to 700,000 legal immigrants annually. Could anyone say that
these levels are not generous? I think not.
Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to implement immigration reform
without tackling legal immigration. Legal immigration feeds illegal
immigration, and feeds on our welfare system. This amendment would not
only gut this legislation, but it would perpetuate both of these
problems. We cannot let this happen.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain said, ``First you get your facts straight,
then you can distort them all you want.'' I am afraid that we have
heard some of that just a minute ago. In point of fact, when we
consider both cash and noncash benefits, there is 21 percent, a record
high percentage, of legal immigrants on welfare.
The point, though, of this amendment is, it is a motion to kill, it
is not just a motion to strike. There is no separate legal immigration
reform bill on the House side, and, as I mentioned awhile ago, the
proponents have not offered any amendments to try to improve our legal
immigration system.
This amendment simply makes a bad situation worse. It will keep the
status quo. It will keep the huge backlogs. It will keep the long
waits, and, in fact, it will allow them to grow larger and longer.
Legal immigration drives illegal immigration. Today almost half of
the illegal immigrants in the country today actually came over here on
legitimate visa, typically tourist visas, and then overstayed, and that
is the result of these huge backlogs and long waits, which is what the
bill fixes and what the amendment ignores.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that one of the worst reasons to go
back to the status quo is because we have a broken legal immigration
system that depresses wages and costs jobs. The American people know
immigration can hurt them because they have to compete with them. This
amendment ignores the wishes of the vast majority of the American
people: 83 percent want us to control immigration including a majority
of African-Americans and Hispanics.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the National Federation of
Independent Business, the Chamber of Commerce, United We Stand,
Hispanic Business Roundtable and Traditional Values Coalition have all
endorsed this bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I rise today in support of the Chrysler-
Brownback amendment which separates the issue of legal and illegal
immigration. Without a doubt, we need to tackle illegal immigration in
this country. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants pour across
our border every year, and quite frankly, people have a right to be
angry. Illegal aliens are after all illegal and their presence is a
reflection of the Federal Government's inability to address the
problem. According to the INS, there are an estimated 4 million illegal
aliens in the United States. New York's share of this figure is
449,000, or 13 percent. This bill gets tough on illegal immigration,
and I commend Chairman Smith for his hard work and diligence in
tackling this issue.
[[Page H2601]]
But I remain unconvinced that we need to target those who play by the
rules, work within the process, and legally immigrate to this country.
Those who are illegal aliens are breaking the law. There are tens of
thousands of family members who have obeyed the law and are within the
legal immigration process who would have the door slammed in their
faces should this provision remain in the bill.
I have heard many of my colleagues talk about how we are a Nation of
immigrants, and then in the same breath argue that we need to cut the
number of legal immigrants. Although it is argued that the decrease is
modest, the question is whether it is really necessary. I have heard
the argument that this reduction in legal immigration is profamily. But
I find it ironic that many of the groups that I have heard from in New
York that would be most affected, such as Irish, Italian, and Jewish
groups, among others, have told me that this would divide families, not
unite them.
Some have argued that legal family-based immigrants have less to
contribute, and there is always the threat that they will become a
public charge. But keeping families--including extended families--
intact, is culturally and empirically, a way to keep people off the
public dole, especially among many foreign cultures from which these
individuals come. Besides, there are other provisions in the bill which
address this without excluding these individuals.
As someone who grew up in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, and,
like most of us, is a descendant of immigrants, I believe that legal
immigration enriches our country, rather than pulling it down. Those
who have come to this country to make a better life for themselves, and
their families, have given our Nation its strength and its unique
character. It is simply unfair to punish those who follow the rules for
the sins of those who do not. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate that we have had over
the last 2 days is a discussion of what steps we should take to address
the serious illegal immigration problem facing our Nation. That is an
important debate, and I welcome it. There may be differences in this
Chamber about what steps will be most effective in addressing the
problem of illegal immigration, but we are in agreement that we must
act and act quickly.
We should complete the illegal immigration debate and send
legislation to the President. I rise in strong support of the amendment
being offered by Mr. Chrysler, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Brownback because I
firmly believe that we should separately address the far more
controversial and questionable contention that legal immigration is
having a negative impact on the United States. The House should affirm,
as the Senate Judiciary Committee has, that it is absolutely
inappropriate to view legal immigration as a part of the same problem
as illegal immigration.
When we talk about legal immigrants, we are talking about individuals
who have waited patiently to enter our Nation, who have come here and
contributed a tremendous amount to our society, our economy, and our
tax base. I would call my colleagues' attention to observations made by
the chairman of the Federal National Mortgage Association, James
Johnson, in assessing the results of a recent survey by the
association. Mr. Johnson wrote the following about legal immigrants in
the Wall Street Journal:
[T]hey are optimistic about our Nation's future; and they
are willing to work and save to buy a home. That desire
translates into millions of American jobs--in homebuilding,
real estate, mortgage banking, furniture and appliance
manufacturing, and the dozens of other industries that are
dependent on a strong housing market. They hold significant
economic power which, if realized, translates into jobs for
Americans and prosperity for our Nation. . . . Before
Congress enacts legislation to further restrict immigration,
it should consider what the costs of ``people protectionism''
are likely to be for neighborhoods, job creation and the
democratic ideals upon which our Nation was founded.
While opponents of this amendment will argue that there is a demand
for legal immigration reform, a prominent Republican pollster has found
that 80 percent of Americans believe that we should address the problem
of illegal immigration first. This polling also suggests that seven of
every eight Americans oppose penalizing those who have played by the
rules in applying to immigrate to the United States. Yet this bill
would slam the door on many individuals who have done exactly that--
applied for visas and waited as long as 17 years to legally enter the
United States.
We ought to reserve judgment on the question of whether changes are
warranted in our legal immigration policy until we have taken effective
steps to address illegal immigration. Let us move forward with that
work before taking radical and unwarranted steps such as denying our
citizens the right to reunite with their siblings, adult children, or
parents.
I thank Mr. Berman, Mr. Chrysler, and Mr. Brownback for offering this
important amendment, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I do so
as someone who believes strongly in immigration reform. In fact, I was
one of three Democrats who voted in support of H.R. 2202 when it was
considered by the Judiciary Committee.
However, I believe the House should address the very different issues
of legal and illegal immigration in separate legislation.
I support reasonable restrictions on legal immigration: the United
States has the right and responsibility to ensure that only those who
are likely to become productive citizens may immigrate to our shores. I
would not support this amendment if I thought it was an effort to
derail these initiatives.
But the issues of legal immigration should not be considered in the
context of the emotionally charged debate on illegal immigration.
Addressing illegal immigration involves criminal laws, border
enforcement, deportation issues, and workplace enforcement. The policy
decisions to be made regarding legal immigration are completely
different and by being thrown in with what is essentially a law
enforcement debate have been, I believe, distorted.
For example, the House ought to consider more carefully the impact of
redefining `family member' for immigration purposes in a way that
excludes parents of U.S. citizens, as well as most children over age
21. Most Americans do not believe that any of their children,
regardless of how old they are, are distant family members. The bill
arbitrarily denies millions of U.S. citizens who have played by the
rules and waited in line, in many cases for as long as a decade after
having paid fees and gotten applications approved, the opportunity to
sponsor and reunite with an overseas family member.
Again, I am not an opponent of reducing the levels of immigration or
of ensuring that immigrants who are admitted are able to support
themselves.
But Mr. Chairman, legal immigrants pay their taxes and abide by our
laws. They are integral parts of our communities. We should give them
the respect they deserve and treat the issues of legal and illegal
immigration separately.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berman, Brownback
and Chrysler amendment, which strikes the provisions in this
legislation which reduce and restrict legal immigration.
I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration
responsibly and effectively. However, as the Berman, Brownback and
Chrysler amendment recognizes, the issue of legal immigration is
clearly distinct and separate.
Legal immigration is currently tightly controlled and regulated. Yet
this legislation proposes the largest cut in immigration in nearly 70
years.
Lawful and orderly family reunification contributes to strengthening
American families. Yet almost \3/4\ of the bill's reductions in the
number of legal immigrants admitted come in family-related categories.
Provisions in this legislation make it impossible for legal
immigrants to be united with some family members. 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.
America has long been a haven for refugees seeking freedom from
political, religious and gender persecution. Yet this bill would cut in
half our current ability to offer asylum to people in dire need.
Immigrants today who come to our country through legal means are not
at all different from immigrants of generations past--our parents or
grandparents. They should have every opportunity to reunite their
families. They should have every opportunity to contribute to our
economy and culture. They have played by the rules. They should not be
punished.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the extraordinary benefits to our
country of legal immigration and support the Berman, Brownback, and
Chrysler amendment.
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-fourth 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
[[Page H2602]]
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% 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
many families, particularly those of Filipino descent, on Guam. It will
prevent many of them from reuniting with their brothers and 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 these 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.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brownback-Chrysler-
Berman amendment. As one of the few first generation legal immigrants
in Congress, I am offended by the merging of the initiatives to combat
illegal aliens with legal immigration reform. While I strongly support
legislative efforts to both eliminate illegal immigration and
substantially reform legal immigration, there is a significant
difference between these two issues.
Illegal aliens have knowingly and willingly violated the law by
entering the United States without permission. They defraud the
taxpayer. On the contrary, legal immigrants have patiently waited, paid
all the requisite fees and deposits, and followed all the rules and
regulations for resettling in the United States. They will soon be
proud, patriotic citizens. They dutifully pay their fair share of
taxes. They join current citizens in totally opposing illegal aliens
and their criminal actions. Thus, to consider the status of these two,
totally opposite groups in the same bill is both unfair and an insult
to legal immigrants.
The Brownback amendment gives this House the opportunity to deal with
illegal and legal immigration issues separately--as they should be.
Without reservation, I strongly endorse the tough, anti-illegal
immigration provisions in H.R. 2202. As a member of the Republican Task
Force on Immigration Reform, I helped craft some of these very
provisions and I am committed to enacting them into law and enforcing
them in the field. Mr. Chairman, we have the votes to pass these
important barriers to illegal immigration and thereby help stem the
tide of illegal immigration that is engulfing my State of California.
Let's do it now.
The Brownback-Chrysler amendment does not affect in any way our anti-
illegal alien initiatives. Furthermore, I disagree and challenge the
validity of the claims by critics of the Brownback-Chrysler amendment
that it is nothing more than a back door attempt to scuttle legal
immigration reform. From my perspective, it is not.
I agree fully with immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith that
our country's legal immigration system and priorities are in desperate
need of reform. And, while I do not agree with every, single legal
immigrant-related provision in H.R. 2202, overall I support the bill's
priority for immediate family unification and I understand the need to
slow down the current rate of immigration by reducing the number of
annual visas. I am ready and willing to consider and pass comprehensive
legal reform legislation today. It is needed.
But, I again stress, that we should deal with legal immigration
independently of legislation combating illegal aliens so as to ensure
that these two very different issues are not confused. The Brownback-
Chrysler amendment affords us this opportunity and I urge its passage.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chrysler, Berman,
Brownback amendment and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks. This provision would enable the bill to be divided into
separate legislation to deal with illegal and legal immigration reform.
This is the key aspect to the immigration debate.
The greatest danger to an immigration debate in this country is the
merging and confusing of issues concerning legal and illegal
immigration. In truth they have nothing to do with one another. Legal
immigrants strengthen America. They should not be linked with those who
come here illegally.
Illegal immigration on the other hand is a matter that has reached
enormous proportions and which Congress must pursue earnestly. I
strongly support efforts to halt illegal immigration by strengthening
our borders. I also strongly support increasing the number of border
patrol agents along our borders and providing them with the resources
needed to get the job done.
Those who enter this country illegally exert strain on our economy
and Nation. As Representative of a border district, I am uniquely aware
of the burden that illegal immigration poses on local communities.
Illegal immigration must be curtailed but it is a mistake to link this
important goal with legal immigration.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the
Berman, Brownback, Chrysler amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, almost all Americans realize the value
of past immigration. They look with pride at their ancestors, who came
to this country full of energy with empty pockets and were able to
succeed and improved the quality of life of all Americans.
Yet, many people doubt the value of immigration today. Too many
Americans wrongly believe that today's immigrants drain our economy and
use far more welfare than native-born citizens. There is nothing
further from the truth.
Today's immigrants come to this country with the same desire, energy,
and enthusiasm to succeed and looking for opportunities, not
guarantees.
I have one of these immigrants working in my office. A legislative
fellow now on my office staff arrived in this country only 7 years ago
without knowing English and with only a ninth grade education.
In only 5 years, this young woman managed to learn English, get a
high school diploma and graduate from the School of Foreign Service at
Georgetown University. She, like many of those immigrants who came to
this country within the past 100-plus years, came with empty pockets
and a tremendous desire to succeed and take advantage of the
opportunities that America still offers.
The Chrysler, Berman, and Brownback amendment would keep the doors
open to law abiding immigrants, who like the fellow in my office, come
to this country not only looking for a better life, but also bring with
them the desire and energy that has made America a great Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 183, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 84]
AYES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunn
Camp
Campbell
Cardin
Chabot
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
[[Page H2603]]
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spratt
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--183
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
Longley
Lucas
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Quillen
Ramstad
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Traficant
Vucanovich
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--10
Collins (IL)
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Rose
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Waters
Wise
{time} 1600
Mr. LUCAS, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. de la GARZA, McINTOSH, and WELDON of Florida changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] wish to offer this
amendment?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the preceding amendment having
been adopted, the Bryant amendment as listed is rendered moot. I do not
wish to offer it at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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. Rohrabacher: Amend section 808 of
the bill to read as follows:
SEC. 808. LIMITATION ON ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF INDIVIDUALS
NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 245(i) (8 U.S.C. 1255), as added
by section 506(b) of the Department of State and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-317, 108
Stat. 1765), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``pursuant to section
301 of the Immigration Act of 1990 is not required to depart
from the United States and who'' after ``who'' the first
place it appears; and
(2) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following:
``For purposes of subparagraph (A), the ground of
inadmissibility described in section 212(a)(9) shall not
apply.''.
(b) Effective Date.--(1) The amendment made by subsection
(a)(1) shall apply to applications for adjustment of status
filed after September 30, 1996.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (a)(2) shall take
effect on the title III-A effective date (as defined in
section 309(a)).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Rohrabacher] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant], will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will close an immigration loophole opened
2 years ago by a rider to the fiscal year 1995 Commerce-State-Justice
appropriations bill. This loophole, which was put into the bill by
Senator Kennedy, rewards many illegal aliens who are in the United
States illegally. Let me repeat that. This only deals with people who
are in the United States illegally by allowing them to apply for
permanent resident status and remain here while their applications are
pending. That was the loophole that was put into that bill by Senator
Kennedy.
While waiting for their applications to be adjudicated, these illegal
aliens are considered PRUCOL, Persons Residing Under Color of Law.
Those individuals that we are talking about are here illegally, but
they are then eligible for several taxpayer-funded government benefits.
This loophole also has serious repercussions for the security of our
Nation. Under the Kennedy loophole, certain people who sneak across our
border or illegally overstay their visas can apply for permanent
resident status at the local INS office. That is right, right here in
the United States, in their local communities, at the local INS office.
Even these aliens who have flagrantly violated our immigration laws
are now able to avoid an examination by the State Department officials
in their home countries because they are applying to the INS here
locally. In their home countries may be, however, the only place where
information such as criminal records or terrorist activities can be
found. Thus, the INS does not have the availability of that information
when looking at this request, but the State Department would have had
that information.
Allowing these lawbreakers to apply for permanent status in the
United States, rather than having to return to their home countries to
do so, circumvents a screening process that has been carefully
established to protect our country's security. If the records are in
their native countries, how can the INS employees whose job it is to
look at this request thoroughly investigate the backgrounds of these
illegal aliens?
Last year I asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the
impact of this new law. During the first 5 months this loophole was in
effect, nearly 80,000 illegal aliens used it to stay in the United
States. INS officials anticipated that that number would double by the
end of 1995.
This means that possibly as many as 160,000 illegal aliens now have
access to
[[Page H2604]]
public assistance benefits who otherwise would not have had access had
this loophole not been snuck into the law. We must stretch even further
our overstrained welfare system to cover these people who broke our law
to come here in the first place.
This new provision of law is an absolute travesty. To reward those
who have consciously violated our immigration law is an insult not only
to the citizens of this country but to those persons in foreign
countries who have obeyed our laws and are now waiting in line for
their turn.
I hope Members will join the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and
myself in supporting this amendment to close this loophole which
rewards people who have flagrantly violated our laws, people who are
here illegally, and also puts our country at a security risk.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I guess to some extent I am a little mystified as to
why this would even be proposed. Years ago before I ran for Congress, I
taught immigration law, at the University of Santa Clara. At the time I
pointed out to my students that the provision that this amendment would
reinstate made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The correction that is now part of current law makes a lot of
practical sense. For people who are here, who entered the United States
legally and who have become legal residents under the current law,
there is absolutely no reason to force them to buy an airplane ticket,
go to an American consulate overseas and then reenter the United
States. The correction that the Rohrabacher amendment seeks to undo
recognizes that.
I will give an example, a circumstance where this might happen. You
have a student who legally enters the United States under an F visa to
attend graduate school. The individual receives their Ph.D. in physics.
They graduate, and for two days they are not employed until they
receive a temporary visa to do research in a high-tech Silicon Valley
company. Later they fall in love and get married, and the U.S. citizen
spouse decides to petition for the individual to make them a permanent
resident.
Under the current law, you can pay a penalty fee to the U.S. Treasury
and have your paperwork done here so long as you did not work in an
unauthorized capacity. However, the Rohrabacher amendment would say,
``No, no, you can't do that. Instead you have to buy an airplane
ticket, go to the overseas consulate, get your visa there, and then
come back.''
There is no benefit to the U.S., there is no benefit to the integrity
of our immigration laws. There is no benefit to anyone. There is no
benefit to the U.S. citizen spouse, the company or anyone else. The
only one who benefits are the travel agents and United Airlines. I
would rather have the money go to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service in the form of fees.
This has nothing to do with illegal immigrations. It has nothing to
do with anything but having a sensible, pragmatic approach to having
our immigration laws work smoothly.
I would add that for the business community in particular, they were
strong advocates of this change in the law, because having an
individual pulled out of a company to do paperwork abroad can disrupt
the flow of important high-tech work, and when there is no good reason
for the U.S. Government to do this, it makes no sense.
I strongly urge opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has the right to
close.
Mr. ROHRBACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] joins me in
supporting this amendment because it closes a loophole which, although
it has been presented today by my colleague from California as being
somewhat innocent, means that 160,000 illegal aliens who otherwise
would have to go to their home countries in order to have their status
readjusted now can remain in the United States.
What does that mean? What that means is during that time period when
it may take years, maybe 5 or 6 years, those people are eligible for
government benefits. The questions we have to ask ourselves, if someone
did overstay their visa, even if it was a graduate student from a
university, why should that person who violated our law be provided a
status in which they would be able to partake from government benefits?
Also that graduate student, for all we know, is a criminal in his
home country. The loophole that we are closing permits the State
Department to thoroughly investigate the background of those people
because they have those resources in the person's home country. For
security's sake, for the sake of a strained budget, I would propose
that we close this loophole.
{time} 1615
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
The Chairman. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me make sure I make this as clear as I can: Section
245(i) within the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which this
amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would
repeal, does not permit anyone to gain lawful permanent residence who
would otherwise be disqualified. So if you are someone who crossed over
our border without documents, you cannot qualify for adjustment to
status to be a permanent resident. This only applies in the cases where
people would otherwise qualify. You cannot be eligible for this program
unless you meet the criteria.
What this particular provision in the code currently does is it just
takes away the fiction of having someone fly back home just to submit
an application to the U.S. consulate office in that country of origin
and then come back here, because the person will be entitled to come
back. These are people who will be entitled to gain lawful permanent
resident status.
Let me give you a quick example. If an engineer is working on a
project that terminates prematurely, and this person cannot line up new
employment immediately and fill out all the immigration paperwork
quickly enough, the engineer would need to make a planned trip back
home to the country of origin to get the green card that he or she is
entitled to get. That would disrupt work, school, other things in
lining up the new employment, but the person would ultimately qualify.
What 245(i) was meant to do within the act was to take care of this
situation.
We charge these particular individuals much higher sum to apply for
permanent residency status. The reason we do that is we say to them
rather than pay for the airline ticket to go back and submit paperwork
to the consulate office, which is already overworked, give the money
directly to the INS and let them use it immediately. That is one of the
reasons why we got close to $100 million last year to do work for the
INS, for border enforcement activities, for filling out paperwork for
those naturalizing, and also helping people become U.S. citizens who
are lawful permanent residents and have the right to be here.
This is a good provision in the law. It does not allow those who are
crossing illegally to come in. This is not a good amendment. Defeat the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. pombo
Mr. POMBO. 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. Pombo:
[[Page H2605]]
Subtitle B--Guest Worker Visitation Program
SEC. 821. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Temporary Agricultural
Worker Amendments of 1996''.
SEC. 822. NEW NONIMMIGRANT H-2B CATEGORY FOR TEMPORARY
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
(a) Establishment of New Classification.--Section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``or (b)'' and inserting ``(b) having a residence in
a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who
is coming temporarily to the United States pursuant to
section 218A to perform such agricultural labor or services
of a temporary or seasonal nature, or (c)''.
(b) No Family Members Permitted.--Section 101(a)(15)(H) (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)) is amended by striking ``specified in
this paragraph'' and inserting ``specified in this
subparagraph (other than in clause (ii)(b))''.
(c) Disqualification if Convicted of Ownership or Operation
of a Motor Vehicle in United States Without Insurance.--
Section 214 (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(l)(1) An alien may not be admitted (or provided status)
as a temporary worker under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) if
the alien (after the date of the enactment of this
subsection) has been convicted of owning (or knowingly
operating) a motor vehicle in the United States without
having liability insurance that meets applicable insurance
requirements of the State in which the alien is employed or
in which the vehicle is registered.
``(2) An alien who is admitted or provided status as such a
worker who is so convicted shall be considered, on and after
the date of the conviction and for purposes of section
241(a)(1)(C), to have failed to comply with a condition for
the maintenance of status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).''
(d) Conforming Redesignation.--Subsections (c)(5)(A) and
(g)(1)(B) of section 214 (8 U.S.C. 1184) are each amended by
striking ``101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)'' and inserting
``101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c)''.
SEC. 823. ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL TEMPORARY WORKER PROCESS
USING ATTESTATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is
amended by inserting after section 218 the following:
``ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM
``Sec. 218A. (a) Condition for the Employment of H-2B
Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--No alien may be admitted or provided
status as an H-2B alien (as defined in subsection (n)(4))
unless--
``(A) the employment of the alien is covered by a currently
valid labor condition attestation which--
``(i) is filed by the employer, or by an association on
behalf of the employer, for the occupation in which the alien
will be employed;
``(ii) has been accepted by the qualified State employment
security agency having jurisdiction over the area of intended
employment; and
``(iii) states each of the items described in paragraph (2)
and includes information identifying the employer or
association and agricultural job opportunities involved; and
``(B) the employer is not disqualified from employing H-2B
aliens pursuant to subsection (g).
``(2) Contents of labor condition attestation.--Each labor
condition attestation filed by or on behalf of, an employer
shall include the following:
``(A) Wage rate.--The employer will pay H-2B aliens and all
other workers in the occupation not less than the prevailing
wage for similarly employed workers in the area of
employment, and not less than the applicable Federal, State
or local statutory minimum wage.
``(B) Working conditions.--The employment of H-2B aliens
will not adversely affect the working conditions with respect
to housing and transportation of similarly employed workers
in the area of employment.
``(C) Limitation on employment.--An H-2B alien will not be
employed in any job opportunity which is not temporary or
seasonal, and will not be employed by the employer in any job
opportunity for more than 10 months in any 12-consecutive-
month period.
``(D) No labor dispute.--No H-2B alien will be employed in
any job opportunity which is vacant because its former
occupant is involved in a strike, lockout or work stoppage in
the course of a labor dispute in the occupation at the place
of employment.
``(E) Notice.--The employer, at the time of filing the
attestation, has provided notice of the attestation to
workers employed in the occupation in which H-2B aliens will
be employed.
``(F) Job orders.--The employer will file one or more job
orders for the occupation (or occupations) covered by the
attestation with the qualified State employment security
agency no later than the day on which the employer first
employs any H-2B aliens in the occupation.
``(G) Preference to domestic workers.--The employer will
give preference to able, willing and qualified United States
workers who apply to the employer and are available at the
time and place needed, for the first 25 days after the filing
of the job order in an occupation or until 5 days before the
date employment of workers in the occupation begins,
whichever occurs later.
``(3) Establishment as pilot program; restriction of
admissions to pilot program period.--
``(A) In general.--The program under this section is deemed
to be a pilot program and no alien may be admitted or
provided status as an H-2B alien under this section except
during the pilot program period specified in subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Pilot program period.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the pilot
program period under this subparagraph is the period (ending
on October 1, 1999) during which the employment eligibility
verification system is in effect under section 274A(b)(7) (as
amended by the Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995).
``(ii) Consideration of extension.--If Congress extends
such verification system, Congress shall also extend the
pilot program period under this subparagraph for the same
period of time.
``(C) Annual reports.--The Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress annual reports on the operation of the pilot
program under this section during the pilot program period.
Such reports shall include an assessment of the program and
of the need for foreign workers to perform temporary
agricultural employment in the United States.
``(4) Limitations on number of visas.--
``(A) In general.--In no case may the number of aliens who
are admitted or provided status as an H-2B alien in a fiscal
year exceed the numerical limitation specified under
subparagraph (B) for that fiscal year.
``(B) Numerical limitation.--The numerical limitation
specified in this subparagraph for--
``(i) the first fiscal year in which this section is
applied is 250,000; and
``(ii) any subsequent fiscal year is the numerical
limitation specified in this subparagraph for the previous
fiscal year decreased by 25,000.
``(b) Filing a Labor Condition Attestation.--
``(1) Filing by employers--Any employer in the United
States is eligible to file a labor condition attestation.
``(2) Filing by associations on behalf of employer
members.--An agricultural association may file a labor
condition attestation as an agent on behalf of its members.
Such an attestation filed by an agricultural association
acting as an agent for its members, when accepted, shall
apply to those employer members of the association that the
association certifies to the qualified State employment
security agency are members of the association and have
agreed in writing to comply with the requirements of this
section.
``(3) Period of validity.--A labor condition attestation is
valid from the date on which it is accepted by the qualified
State employment security agency for the period of time
requested by the employer, but not to exceed 12 months.
``(4) Where to file.--A labor condition attestation shall
be filed with such agency having jurisdiction over the area
of intended employment of the workers covered by the
attestation. If an employer, or the members of an association
of employers, will be employing workers in an area or areas
covered by more than one such agency, the attestation shall
be filed with each such agency having jurisdiction over an
area where the workers will be employed.
``(5) Deadline for filing.--An employer may file a labor
condition attestation at any time up to 12 months prior to
the date of the employer's anticipated need for workers in
the occupation (or occupations) covered by the attestation.
``(6) Filing for multiple occupations.--A labor condition
attestation may be filed for one or more occupations and
cover one or more periods of employment.
``(7) Maintaining required documentation.--
``(A) By employers.--Each employer covered by an accepted
labor condition attestation must maintain a file of the
documentation required in subsection (c) for each occupation
included in an accepted attestation covering the employer.
The documentation shall be retained for a period of one year
following the expiration of an accepted attestation. The
employer shall make the documentation available to
representatives of the Secretary during normal business
hours.
``(B) By associations.--In complying with subparagraph (A),
documentation maintained by an association filing a labor
condition attestation on behalf of an employer shall be
deemed to be maintained by the employer.
``(8) Withdrawal.--
``(A) Compliance with attestation obligations.--An employer
covered by an accepted labor condition attestation for an
occupation shall comply with the terms and conditions of the
attestation from the date the attestation is accepted and
continuing throughout the period any persons are employed in
an occupation covered by such an accepted attestation,
whether or not H-2B aliens are employed in the occupation,
unless the attestation is withdrawn.
``(B) Termination of obligations.--An employer may withdraw
a labor condition attestation in total, or with respect to a
particular occupation covered by the attestation. An
association may withdraw such an attestation with respect to
one or more of its members. To withdraw an attestation the
employer or association must notify in writing the qualified
State employment security agency office with which the
attestation was filed of the withdrawal of the attestation.
An employer who withdraws an attestation, or
[[Page H2606]]
on whose behalf an attestation is withdrawn by an
association, is relieved of the obligations undertaken in the
attestation with respect to the occupation (or occupations)
with respect to which the attestation was withdrawn, upon
acknowledgement by the appropriate qualified State employment
security agency of receipt of the withdrawal notice. An
attestation may not be withdrawn with respect to any
occupation while any H-2B aliens covered by that attestation
are employed in the occupation.
``(C) Obligations under other statutes.--Any obligation
incurred by the employer under any other law or regulation as
a result of recruitment of United States workers under an
offer of terms and conditions of employment required by the
H-2B program is unaffected by withdrawal of a labor condition
attestation.
``(c) Employer Responsibilities and Requirements For
Employing H-2B Nonimmigrants.--
``(1) Requirement to pay the prevailing wage.--
``(A) Effect of the attestation.--Employers shall pay each
worker in an occupation covered by an accepted labor
condition attestation at least the prevailing wage in the
occupation in the area of intended employment. The preceding
sentence does not require employers to pay all workers in the
occupation the same wage. The employer may, in the sole
discretion of the employer, maintain pay differentials based
on experience, tenure with the employer, skill, or any other
work-related factor, if the differential is not based on a
criterion for which discrimination is prohibited by the law
and all workers in the covered occupation receive at least
the prevailing wage.
``(B) Payment of qualified state employment security agency
determined wage sufficient.--The employer may request and
obtain a prevailing wage determination from the qualified
State employment security agency. If the employer requests
such a determination, and pays the wage determined, such
payment shall be considered sufficient to meet the
requirement of this paragraph if the H-2B workers--
``(i) are employed in the occupation for which the employer
possesses an accepted labor condition attestation, and for
which the employer or association possesses a prevailing wage
determination by the qualified State employment security
agency, and
``(ii) are being paid at least the prevailing wage so
determined.
``(C) Reliance on wage survey.--In lieu of the procedures
of subparagraph (B), an employer may rely on other
information, such as an employer generated prevailing wage
survey and determination, which meets criteria specified by
the Secretary by regulation. In the event of a complaint that
the employer has failed to pay the required wage, the
Secretary shall investigate to determine if the information
upon which the employer relied complied with the criteria for
prevailing wage determinations.
``(D) Alternate methods of payment permitted.--
``(i) In general.--A prevailing wage may be expressed as an
hourly wage, a piece rate, a task rate (described in clause
(ii)), or other incentive pay system, including a group rate
(described in clause (iii)). The requirement to pay at least
the prevailing wage in the occupation and area of intended
employment does not require an employer to pay by the method
of pay in which the prevailing rate is expressed. However, if
the employer adopts a method of pay other than the prevailing
rate, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate
that the employer's method of pay is designed to produce
earnings equivalent to the earnings that would result from
payment of the prevailing rate.
``(ii) Task rate.--For purposes of this subparagraph, a
task rate is an incentive payment based on a unit of work
performed such that the incentive rate varies with the level
of effort required to perform individual units of work.
``(iii) Group rate.--For purposes of this subparagraph, a
group rate is an incentive payment system in which the
payment is shared among a group of workers working together
to perform the task.
``(E) Required documentation.--The employer or association
shall document compliance with this paragraph by retaining on
file the employer or association's request for a
determination by a qualified State employment security agency
and the prevailing wage determination received from such
agency or other information upon which the employer or
association relied to assure compliance with the prevailing
wage requirement.
``(2) Requirement to provide housing and transportation.--
``(A) Effect of the attestation.--The employment of H-2B
aliens shall not adversely affect the working conditions of
United States workers similarly employed in the area of
intended employment. The employer's obligation not to
adversely affect working conditions shall continue for the
duration of the period of employment by the employer of any
H-2B aliens in the occupation and area of intended
employment. An employer will be deemed to be in compliance
with this attestation if the employer offers at least the
benefits required by subparagraphs (B) through (D). The
previous sentence does not require an employer to offer more
than such benefits.
``(B) Housing required.--
``(i) Housing offer.--The employer must offer to H-2B
aliens and United States workers recruited from beyond normal
recruiting distance housing, or a housing allowance, if it is
prevailing practice in the occupation and area of intended
employment to offer housing or a housing allowance to workers
who are recruited from beyond normal commuting distance.
``(ii) Housing standards.--If the employer offers housing
to such workers, the housing shall meet (at the option of the
employer) applicable Federal farm labor housing standards or
applicable local or State standards for rental, public
accommodation, or other substantially similar class of
habitation.
``(iii) Charges for housing.--An employer who offers
housing to such workers may charge an amount equal to the
fair market value (but not greater than the employer's actual
cost) for utilities and maintenance, or such lesser amount as
permitted by law.
``(iv) Housing allowance as alternative.--In lieu of
offering housing to such workers, at the employer's sole
discretion on an individual basis, the employer may provide a
reasonable housing allowance. An employer who offers a
housing allowance to such a worker under this subparagraph
shall not be deemed to be a housing provider under section
203 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823) merely by virtue of providing
such housing allowance.
``(v) Security deposit.--The requirement, if any, to offer
housing to such a worker under this subparagraph shall not
preclude an employer from requiring a reasonable deposit to
protect against gross negligence or willful destruction of
property, as a condition for providing such housing.
``(vi) Damages.--An employer who offers housing to such a
worker shall not be precluded from requiring a worker found
to have been responsible for damage to such housing which is
not the result of normal wear and tear related to habitation
to reimburse the employer for the reasonable cost of repair
of such damage.
``(C) Transportation.--If the employer provides
transportation arrangements or assistance to H-2B aliens, the
employer must offer to provide the same transportation
arrangements or assistance (generally comparable in expense
and scope) for other individuals employed by the employer in
the occupation at the place of employment who were recruited
from beyond normal commuting distance.
``(D) Workers' compensation.--If the employment covered by
a labor condition attestation is not covered by the State
workers' compensation law, the employer must provide, at no
cost to the worker, insurance covering injury and disease
arising out of and in the course of the workers' employment
which will provide benefits at least equal to those provided
under the State workers' compensation law for comparable
employment.
``(E) Required documentation.--
``(i) Housing and transportation.--No specific
documentation is required to be maintained to evidence
compliance with the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and
(C). In the event of a complaint alleging a failure to comply
with such a requirement, the burden of proof shall be on the
employer to show that the employer offered the required
benefit to the complainant, or that the employer was not
required by the terms of this paragraph to offer such benefit
to the complainant.
``(ii) Workers' compensation.--The employer shall maintain
copies of certificates of insurance evidencing compliance
with subparagraph (D) throughout the period of validity of
the labor condition attestation.
``(3) Requirement to employ aliens in temporary or seasonal
agricultural job opportunities.--
``(A) Limitations.--
``(i) In general.--The employer may employ H-2B aliens only
in agricultural employment which is temporary or seasonal.
``(ii) Seasonal basis.--For purposes of this section, labor
is performed on a seasonal basis where, ordinarily, the
employment pertains to or is of the kind exclusively
performed at certain seasons or periods of the year and
which, from its nature, may not be continuous or carried on
throughout the year.
``(iii) Temporary basis.--For purposes of this section, a
worker is employed on a temporary basis where the employment
is intended not to exceed 10 months.
``(B) Required documentation.--No specific documentation is
required to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of
subparagraph (A). In the event of a complaint, the burden of
proof shall fall on the employer to show that the employment
meets such requirement.
``(4) Requirement not to employ aliens in job opportunities
vacant because of a labor dispute.--
``(A) In general.--No H-2B alien may be employed in any job
opportunity which is vacant because its former occupant is
involved in a strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course
of a labor dispute in the occupation at the place of
employment.
``(B) Required documentation.--No specific documentation is
required to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of
subparagraph (A). In the event of a complaint, the burden of
proof shall fall on the employer to show that the job
opportunity in which the H-2B alien was employed was not
vacant because the former occupant was on strike, locked out,
or participating in a
[[Page H2607]]
work stoppage in the course of a labor dispute in the
occupation at the place of employment.
``(5) Notice of filing of attestation and supporting
documentation.--
``(A) In general.--The employer shall--
``(i) provide notice of the filing of a labor condition
attestation to the appropriate certified bargaining agent (if
any) which represents workers of the employer in the
occupation (or occupations) at the place of employment
covered by the attestation; or
``(ii) in the case where no appropriate bargaining agent
exists, post notice of the filing of such an attestation in
at least two conspicuous locations where applications for
employment are accepted.
``(B) Period for posting.--The requirement for a posting
under subparagraph (A)(ii) begins on the day the attestation
is filed, and continues through the period during which the
employer's job order is required to remain active pursuant to
paragraph (6)(A).
``(C) Required documentation.--The employer shall maintain
a copy of the notice provided to the bargaining agent (if
any), together with evidence that the notice was provided
(such as a signed receipt of evidence of attempt to send the
notice by certified or registered mail). In the case where no
appropriate certified bargaining agent exists, the employer
shall retain a copy of the posted notice, together with
information as to the dates and locations where the notice
was displayed.
``(6) Requirement to file a job order.--
``(A) Effect of the attestation.--The employer, or an
association acting as agent for its members, shall file the
information necessary to complete a local job order for each
occupation covered by an accepted labor condition attestation
with the appropriate local office of the qualified State
employment security agency having jurisdiction over the area
of intended employment, or with the State office of such an
agency if workers will be employed in an area within the
jurisdiction of more than one local office of such an agency.
The job orders shall remain on file for 25 calendar days or
until 5 calendar days before the anticipated date of need for
workers in the occupation covered by the job order, whichever
occurs later. The job order shall provide at least the
minimum terms and conditions of employment required for
participation in the H-2B program.
``(B) Deadline for filing.--A job order shall be filed
under subparagraph (A) no later than the date on which the
employer files a petition with the Attorney General for
admission or extension of stay for aliens to be employed in
the occupation for which the order is filed.
``(C) Required documentation.--The office of the qualified
State employment security agency which the employer or
association provides with information necessary to file a
local job order shall provide the employer with evidence that
the information was provided in a timely manner as required
by this paragraph, and the employer or association shall
retain such evidence for each occupation in which H-2B aliens
are employed.
``(7) Requirement to give preference to qualified united
states workers.--
``(A) Filing 30 days or more before date of need.--If a job
order is filed 30 days or more before the anticipated date of
need for workers in an occupation covered by a labor
condition attestation and for which the job order has been
filed, the employer shall offer to employ able, willing, and
qualified United States workers who apply to the employer and
who will be available at the time and place needed for the
job opportunities covered by the attestation until 5 calendar
days before the anticipated date of need for workers in the
occupation, or until the employer's job opportunities in the
occupation are filled with qualified United States workers,
if that occurs more than 5 days before the anticipated date
of need for workers in the occupation.
``(B) Filling fewer than 30 days before date of need.--If a
job order is filed fewer than 30 days before the anticipated
date of need for workers in an occupation covered by such an
attestation and for which a job order has been filed, the
employer shall offer to employ able, willing, and qualified
United States workers who are or will be available at the
time and place needed during the first 25 days after the job
order is filed or until the employer's job opportunities in
the occupation are filled with United States workers,
regardless of whether any of the job opportunities may
already be occupied by H-2B aliens.
``(C) Filing vacancies.--An employer may fill a job
opportunity in an occupation covered by an accepted
attestation which remains or becomes vacant after expiration
of the required preference period specified in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (6) without regard to such
preference.
``(D) Job-related requirements.--No employer shall be
required to initially employ a worker who fails to meet
lawful job-related employment criteria, nor to continue the
employment of a worker who fails to meet lawful job-related
standards of conduct and performance, including failure to
meet minimum productivity standards after a 3-day break-in
period.
``(E) Required documentation.--No specific documentation is
required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
this paragraph. In the event of a complaint, the burden of
proof shall be on the complainant to show that the
complainant applied for the job and was available at the time
and place needed. If the complainant makes such a showing,
the burden of proof shall be on the employer to show that the
complainant was not qualified or that the preference period
had expired.
``(8) Requirements of notice of certain breaks in
employment.--
``(A) In general.--The employer (or an association in
relation to an H-2B alien) shall notify the Service within 7
days if an H-2B alien prematurely abandons the alien's
employment.
``(B) Out-of-status.--An H-2B alien who abandons the
alien's employment shall be considered to have failed to
maintain nonimmigrant status as an alien described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and shall leave the United States or be
subject to deportation under section 241(a)(1)(C)(i).
``(d) Acceptance By Qualified State Employment Security
Agency.--The qualified State employment security agency shall
review labor condition attestations submitted by employers or
associations only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies.
Unless such an agency finds that the application is
incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the agency shall accept
the attestation within 7 days of the date of filing of the
attestation, and return a copy to the applicant marked
`accepted'.
``(e) Public Registry.--The Secretary shall maintain a
registry of all accepted labor condition attestations and
make such registry available for public inspection.
``(f) Responsibilities of the Qualified State Employment
Security Agencies.--
``(1) Dissemination of labor market information.--The
Secretary shall direct qualified State employment security
agencies to disseminate nonemployer-specific information
about potential labor needs based on accepted attestations
filed by employers. Such dissemination shall be separate from
the clearance of job orders through the Interstate and
Intrastate Clearance Systems, and shall create no obligations
for employers except as provided in this section.
``(2) Referral of workers on qualified state employment
security agency job orders.--Such agencies holding job orders
filed by employers covered by approved labor condition
attestations shall be authorized to refer any able, willing,
and qualified eligible job applicant who will be available at
the time and place needed and who is authorized to work in
the united States, including H-2B aliens who are seeking
additional work in the United States and whose eligibility to
remain in the United States pursuant to subsection (h) has
not expired, on job orders filed by holders of accepted
attestations.
``(g) Enforcement and Penalties.--
``(1) Enforcement authority.--
``(A) Investigation of complaints.--The Secretary shall
establish a process for the receipt, investigation, and
disposition of complaints respecting an employer's failure to
meet a condition specified in subsection (a) or an employer's
misrepresentation of material facts in such an application.
Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person or
organizations (including bargaining representatives). No
investigation or hearing shall be conducted on a complaint
concerning such a failure or misrepresentation unless the
complaint was filed not later than 12 months after the date
of the failure or misrepresentation, respectively. The
Secretary shall conduct an investigation under this
subparagraph if there is reasonable cause to believe that
such a failure or misrepresentation has occurred.
``(B) Written notice of findings and opportunity for
appeal.--After an investigation has been conducted, the
Secretary shall issue a written determination as to whether
or not any violation described in paragraph (2) has been
committed. The Secretary's determination shall be served on
the complainant and the employer, and shall provide an
opportunity for an appeal of the Secretary's decision to an
administrative law judge, who may conduct a de novo hearing.
``(2) Remedies.--
``(A) Back wages.--Upon a final determination that the
employer has failed to pay wages as required under this
section, the Secretary may assess payment of back wages due
to any United States worker or H-2B alien employed by the
employer in the specific employment in question. The back
wages shall be equal to the difference between the amount
that should have been paid and the amount that actually was
paid to such worker.
``(B) Failure to pay wages.--Upon a final determination
that the employer has failed to pay the wages required under
this section, the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty
up to $1,000 for each failure, and may recommend to the
Attorney General the disqualification of the employer from
the employment of H-2B aliens for a period of time determined
by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year.
``(C) Other violations.--If the Secretary, as a result of
an investigation pursuant to a complaint, determines that an
employer covered by an accepted labor condition attestation
has--
``(i) filed an attestation which misrepresents a material
fact; or
``(ii) failed to meet a condition specified in subsection
(a),
the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty not to exceed
$1,000 for each violation. In determining the amount of civil
money penalty to be assessed, the Secretary shall consider
the seriousness of the violation, the good faith of the
employer, the size of the
[[Page H2608]]
business of the employer being charged, the history of
previous violations by the employer, whether the employer
obtained a financial gain from the violation, whether the
violation was willful, and other relevant factors.
``(D) Program disqualification.--
``(i) 3-years for second violation.--Upon a second final
determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages
required under this section, the Secretary shall report such
determination to the Attorney General and the Attorney
General shall disqualify the employer from the employment of
H-2B aliens for a period of 3 years.
``(ii) Permanent for third violation.--Upon a third final
determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages
required under this section, the Secretary shall report such
determination to the Attorney General and the Attorney
General shall disqualify the employer from any subsequent
employment of H-2B aliens.
``(3) Role of associations.--
``(A) Violation by a member of an association.--An employer
on whose behalf a labor condition attestation is filed by an
association acting as its agent is fully responsible for such
attestation, and for complying with the terms and conditions
of this section, as though the employer had filed the
attestation itself. If such an employer is determined to have
violated a requirement of this section, the penalty for such
violation shall be assessed against the employer who
committed the violation and not against the association or
other members of the association.
``(B) Violation by an association acting as an employer.--
If an association filing a labor condition attestation on its
own behalf as an employer is determined to have committed a
violation under this subsection which results in
disqualification from the program under paragraph (2)(D), no
individual member of such association may be the beneficiary
of the services of an H-2B alien in an occupation in which
such alien was employed by the association during the period
such disqualification is in effect, unless such member files
a labor condition attestation as an individual employer or
such an attestation is filed on the employer's behalf by an
association with which the employer has an agreement that the
employer will comply with the requirements of this section.
``(h) Procedure for Admission or Extension of H-2B
Aliens.--
``(1) Aliens who are outside the united states.--
``(A) Petitioning for admission.--An employer or an
association acting as agent for its members who seeks the
admission into the United States of H-2B aliens may file a
petition with the District Director of the Service having
jurisdiction over the location where the aliens will be
employed. The petition shall be accompanied by an accepted
and currently valid labor condition attestation covering the
petitioner. The petition may be for named or unnamed
individual or multiple beneficiaries.
``(B) Expedited adjudication by district director.--If an
employer's petition for admission of H-2B aliens is correctly
filled out, and the employer is not ineligible to employ H-2B
aliens, the District Director (or the Director's designee)
shall approve the petition within 3 working days of receipt
of the petition and accepted labor condition attestation and
immediately (by fax, cable, or other means assuring expedited
delivery) transmit a copy of the approved petition to the
petitioner and to the appropriate immigration officer at the
port of entry or United States consulate (as the case may be)
where the petitioner has indicated that the alien beneficiary
(or beneficiaries) will apply for a visa or admission to the
United States.
``(C) Unnamed beneficiaries selected by petitioner.--The
petitioning employer or association or its representative
shall approve the issuance of visas to beneficiaries who are
unnamed on a petition for admission granted to the employer
or association.
``(D) Criteria for admissibility.--
``(i) In general.--An alien shall be admissible under this
section if the alien is otherwise admissible under this Act
and the alien is not debarred pursuant to the provisions of
clause (ii).
``(ii) Disqualification.--An alien shall be debarred from
admission or being provided status as an H-2B alien under
this section if the alien has, at any time--
``(I) violated a material provision of this section,
including the requirement to promptly depart the United
States when the alien's authorized period of admission under
this section has expired; or
``(II) has otherwise violated a term or condition of
admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant, including
overstaying the period of authorized admission as such a
nonimmigrant.
``(E) Period of admission.--The alien shall be admitted for
the period requested by the petitioner not to exceed 10
months, or the remaining validity period of the petitioner's
approved labor condition attestation, whichever is shorter,
plus an additional period of 14 days, during which the alien
shall seek authorized employment in the United States. During
the 14-day period following the expiration of the alien's
work authorization, the alien is not authorized to be
employed unless the original petitioner or a subsequent
petitioner has filed an extension of stay on behalf of the
alien.
``(F) Issuance of identification and employment eligibility
document.--
``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall cause to be
issued to each H-2B alien a card in a form which is resistant
to counterfeiting and tampering for the purpose of providing
proof of identity and employment eligibility under section
274A.
``(ii) Design of card.--Each card issued pursuant to clause
(i) shall be designed in such a manner and contain a
photograph and other identifying information (such as date of
birth, sex, and distinguishing marks) that would allow an
employer to determine with reasonable certainty that the
bearer is not claiming the identity of another individual,
and shall--
``(I) contain a fingerprint or other biometric identifying
data (or both);
``(II) specify the date of the aliens authorization as an
H-2B alien;
``(III) specify the expiration date of the alien's work
authorization; and
``(IV) specify the alien's admission number or alien file
number.
``(2) Extension of stay.--
``(A) Application for extension of stay.--If a petitioner
seeks to employ an H-2B alien already in the United States,
the petitioner shall file an application for an extension of
stay. The application for extension of stay shall be
accompanied by a currently valid labor condition attestation.
``(B) Limitation on filing an application for extension of
stay.--An application may not be filed for an extension of an
alien's stay for a period of more than 10 months, or later
than a date which is 2 years from the date of the alien's
last admission to the United States as a H-2B alien,
whichever occurs first. An application for extension of stay
may not be filed during the pendency of an alien's previous
authorized period of admission, nor after the alien's
authorized stay in the United States has expired.
``(C) Work authorization upon filing an application for
extension of stay.--An employer may begin employing an alien
already in the United States in H-2B status on the day the
employer files its application for extension of stay with the
Service. For the purpose of this requirement, the term
`filing' means sending the application by certified mail via
the United States Postal Service, return receipt requested,
or delivered by guaranteed commercial delivery which will
provide the employer with a documented acknowledgment of
receipt of the application. The employer shall provide a copy
of the employer's application for extension of stay to the
alien, who shall keep the application with the alien's
identification and employment eligibility card as evidence
that the extension has been filed and that the alien is
authorized to work in the United States. Upon approval of an
application for extension of stay, the Service shall provide
a new employment document to the alien indicating a new
validity date, after which the alien is not required to
retain a copy of the application for extension of stay.
``(D) Limitation on employment authorization of h-2b aliens
without valid identification and employment eligibility
card.--An expired identification and employment eligibility
card, together with a copy of an application for extension of
stay, shall constitute a valid work authorization document
for a period of not more than 60 days from the date of
application for the extension of stay, after which time only
a currently valid identification and employment eligibility
card shall be acceptable.
``(3) Limitation on an individual's stay in h-2b status.--
An alien having status as an H-2B alien may not have the
status extended for a continuous period longer than 2 years
unless the alien remains outside the United States for an
uninterrupted period of 6 months. An absence from the United
States may break the continuity of the period for which an H-
2B visa is valid. If the alien has resided in the United
States 10 months or less, an absence breaks the continuity of
the period if its lasts for at least 2 months. If the alien
has resided in the United States 10 months or more, an
absence breaks the continuity of the period if it lasts for
at least one-fifth the duration of the stay.
``(i) Trust Fund to Assure Worker Return.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
of the United States a trust fund (in this section referred
to as the `Trust Fund') for the purpose of providing a
monetary incentive for H-2B aliens to return to their country
of origin upon expiration of their visas under this section.
``(2) Withholding of wages; payment into the trust fund.--
``(A) In general.--Employers of H-2B aliens shall--
``(i) withhold from the wages of their H-2B alien workers
an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the wages of each H-2B
alien worker and pay such withheld amount into the Trust Fund
in accordance paragraph (3); and
``(ii) pay to the Trust Fund an amount equivalent to the
Federal tax on the wages paid to H-2B aliens that the
employer would be obligated to pay under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act and the Federal Insurance Contributions
Act.
Amounts withheld under clause (i) shall be maintained in such
interest bearing account with such a financial institution as
the Attorney General shall specify.
``(3) Distribution of funds.--The amounts paid into the
Trust Fund and held pursuant to paragraph (2)(A)(i), and
interest earned thereon, shall be paid by the Attorney
General as follows:
[[Page H2609]]
``(A) Reimbursement of emergency medical expenses.--To
reimburse valid claims for reimbursement of emergency medical
services furnished to H-2B aliens, to the extent that
sufficient funds are not available on an annual basis from
the Trust Fund pursuant to paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (4)(B).
``(B) Payments to workers.--Amounts paid into the Trust
Fund on behalf of a worker, and interest earned thereon, less
a pro rata reduction for any payments made pursuant to
subparagraph (A), shall be paid by the Attorney General to
the worker if--
``(i) the worker applies to the Attorney General (or the
designee of the Attorney General) for payment within 30 days
of the expiration of the alien's last authorized stay in the
United States as a H-2B alien;
``(ii) in such application the worker establishes that the
worker has complied with the terms and conditions of this
section; and
``(iii) in connection with the application, the worker
tenders the identification and employment authorization card
issued to the worker pursuant to subsection (h)(1)(F) and
establishes that the worker is identified as the person to
whom the card was issued based on the biometric
identification information contained on the card.
``(4) Administrative expenses and emergency medical
expenses.--The amounts paid into the Trust Fund and held
pursuant to paragraph (2)(A)(ii), and interest earned
thereon, shall be paid by the Attorney General as follows:
``(A) Administrative expenses.--First, to the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of State
in amounts equivalent to the expenses incurred by such
officials in the administration of section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and this section.
``(B) Reimbursement of emergency medical services.--Any
remaining amounts shall be available on an annual basis to
reimburse hospitals for emergency medical services furnished
to H-2B aliens as provided in subsection (k)(2).
``(5) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this subsection.
``(j) Investment of Trust Fund.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Secretary of
the Treasury to invest such portion of the Trust Fund as is
not, in the Secretary's judgement, required to meet current
withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States. For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired--
``(A) on original issue at the price; or
``(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
The purposes for which obligations of the United States may
be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code,
are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of
special obligations exclusively to the Trust Fund. Such
special obligations shall bear interest at a rate equal to
the average rate of interest, computed as to the end of the
calendar month next preceding the date of such issue, borne
by all marketable interest-bearing obligations of the United
States then forming a part of the public debt, except that
where such average rate is not a multiple of one-eighth of 1
percent next lower than such average rate. Such special
obligations shall be issued only if the Secretary of the
Treasury determines that the purchase of other interest-
bearing obligations of the United States, or of obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States on original issue or at the market price, is not in
the public interest.
``(2) Sale of obligation.--Any obligation acquired by the
Trust Fund (except special obligations issued exclusively to
the Trust Fund) may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury
at the market price, and such special obligations may be
redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
``(3) Credits to trust fund.--The interest on, and the
proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held
in the Trust Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the
Trust Fund.
``(4) Report to congress.--It shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Treasury to hold the Trust Fund, and (after
consultation with the Attorney General) to report to the
Congress each year on the financial condition and the results
of the operations of the Trust Fund during the preceding
fiscal year and on its expected condition and operations
during the next fiscal year. Such report shall be printed as
both a House and a Senate document of the session of the
Congress to which the report is made.
``(k) Reimbursement of Cost of Emergency Medical
Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish
procedures for reimbursement of hospitals operated by a State
or by a unit of local government (or corporation owned or
controlled by the State or unit) for the reasonable cost of
providing emergency medical services (as defined by the
Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services) in the United States to H-2B aliens for
which payment has not been otherwise reimbursed.
``(2) Source of funds for reimbursement.--Funds for
reimbursement of hospitals pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be
drawn--
``(A) first under subsection (i)(4)(B), from amounts
deposited in the Trust Fund under subsection (i)(2)(A)(ii)
after reimbursement of certain administrative expenses; and
``(B) then under subsection (i)(3)(A), to the extent that
funds described in subparagraph (A) are insufficient to meet
valid claims, from amounts deposited in the Trust Fund under
subsection (i)(2)(A)(i).
``(l) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
``(1) Applicability of labor laws.--Except as provided in
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), all Federal, State, and local
labor laws (including laws affecting migrant farm workers)
applicable to United States workers shall also apply to H-2B
aliens.
``(2) Limitation of written disclosure imposed upon
recruiters.--Any disclosure required of recruiters under
section of 201(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1821(a)) need not be given
to H-2B aliens prior to the time their visa is issued
permitted entry into the United States.
``(3) Exemption from fica and futa taxes.--The wages paid
to H-2B aliens shall be excluded from wages subject to
taxation under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and under the
Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
``(4) Ineligibility for certain public benefits programs.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and except as provided in subparagraph (B), any alien
provided status as an H-2B alien shall not be eligible for
any Federal or State or local means-tested public benefit
program.
``(B) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
following:
``(i) Emergency medical services.--The provision of
emergency medical services (as defined by the Attorney
General in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services).
``(ii) Public health immunizations.--Public health
assistance for immunizations with respect to immunizable
diseases and for testing and treatment for communicable
diseases.
``(iii) Short-term emergency disaster relief.--The
provision of non-cash, in-kind, short-term emergency disaster
relief.
``(m) Consultation on Regulations.--
``(1) Regulations of the secretary.--The Secretary shall
consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Attorney
General shall approve, all regulations dealing with the
approval of labor condition attestations for H-2B aliens or
enforcement of the requirements for employing H-2B aliens
under an approved attestation.
``(2) Regulations of the attorney general.--The Attorney
General shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture on
all regulations dealing with the approval of petitions for
admission or extension of stay of H-2B aliens or the
requirements for employing H-2B aliens or the enforcement of
such requirements.
``(n) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section:
``(1) Agricultural association.--The term `agricultural
association' means any nonprofit or cooperative association
of farmers, growers, or ranchers incorporated or qualified
under applicable State law, which recruits, solicits, hires,
employs, furnishes, or transports any agricultural workers.
``(2) Agricultural employment.--The term `agricultural
employment' means any service or activity included within the
provisions of section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or section 3121(g) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and the handling, planting, drying,
packing, packaging, processing, freezing, or grading prior to
delivery for storage of any agricultural or horticultural
commodity in its unmanufactured state.
``(3) Employer.--The term `employer' means any person or
entity, including any independent contractor and any
agricultural association, that employs workers.
``(4) H-2B alien.--The term `H-2B alien' means an alien
admitted to the United States or provided status as a
nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b).
``(5) Qualified state employment security agency.--The term
`qualified State employment security agency' means a State
employment security agency in a State in which the Secretary
has determined that the State operates a job service that
actively seeks to match agricultural workers with jobs and
participates in a multi-State job service program in States
where significant supplies of farm labor exist.
``(6) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Labor.
``(7) United states worker.--The term `United States
worker' means any worker, whether a United States citizen, a
United States national, or an alien, who is legally permitted
to work in the job opportunity within the United States other
than aliens admitted pursuant to this section.''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 218 the
following new item:
``Sec. 218A. Alternative agricultural worker program.''.
At the end of section 308(g)(10), add the following:
(H)(i) Section 214(l)(2), as added by section 822(c), is
amended by striking ``241(a)(1)(C)'' and inserting
``237(a)(1)(C)''.
(ii) Section 218A(c)(8)(B), as inserted by section 823(a),
is amended by striking ``deportation under section
241(a)(1)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``removal under section
237(a)(1)(C)(i)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Pombo] and a Member opposed will each control 30 minutes of time.
[[Page H2610]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I believe
accomplishes two very important goals. First, and most important, my
amendment creating a pilot guest worker program makes H.R. 2202 a
better bill--a more effective bill--that will strengthen our ability to
curb illegal immigration. Second, my amendment will ensure that should
H.R. 2202 create shortages in the availability of seasonal,
agricultural labor, that non-Americans can be used--on a temporary
basis--to pick the crops and manage the herds. This is in everyone's
best interest.
Contrary to some of the rhetoric on this issue, my amendment supports
and enhances immigration control. The increased employer sanctions
already in H.R. 2202 for hiring illegals--coupled with strong
incentives to leave this country when the growing season ends--creates
a vast improvement over current law. Added to that is the mandatory
withholding of 25 percent of the worker's salary to be returned to his
country of origin and collected when he returns. Even now, without the
sanctions in H.R. 2202 or the incentives to leave in my amendment, very
few alien agricultural workers overstay their visas. We can expect even
this small number to drop under my proposal.
This pilot program represents a substantial improvement over current
law and provides numerous sanctions and incentives to stem the tide of
illegals coming to America.
At the same time, this pilot program would allow non-Americans to
provide the farm and ranch labor when--and only when--we cannot find
Americans to do it. Every consumer enjoys lowcost food benefits from
this.
My amendment accomplishes this not through loopholes or
underenforcement of law, but rather by creating a workable program
addressing a real shortage of Americans able and willing to provide
seasonal farm and ranch labor, accompanied with strict control and
enforcement.
I also want to reiterate that this program would only be used if
there is a shortage in American labor. If all those who say that there
will be no shortage of workers are right--then this program will never
be used and that's fine. But should these people be wrong, my amendment
provides an insurance policy against fields of rotting, unharvested
crops, which inevitably raises food prices.
Finally, this amendment will not cost one American job. Any American
who wants to do this work must be given the opportunity--as is already
the case with the H2-A program.
Currently, the only program designed to address this shortage of farm
and ranch labor is the H-2A program. Anyone familiar with that program
can speak of its shortcomings and constraints, and why it is largely
unworkable for the agricultural needs of many States. It is my hope
that the pilot program in my amendment can serve as the model for
replacing the current H-2A program.
My amendment is supported by an unprecedented coalition of nearly 70
State and Federal agricultural organizations including the American
Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Association, National Council of
Agricultural Employers, and many others. I urge my colleagues to
support this pilot program as both an important tool to fight illegal
immigration and as an insurance policy against unharvested food, closed
farms and higher food costs. Please vote ``yes'' on the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to this amendment?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and I ask unanimous consent
that he may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a Committee on Agriculture member, I too have heard
the concerns of agriculture employers who call the current H-2A guest
worker program unworkable and thus understand that my colleagues want
to give the growers a program that works. I agree that growers need
some relief and must be able to depend on a reliable source of foreign
workers.
But the Pombo-Chambliss amendment takes the completely wrong
approach. We should not create an entirely new, untested, massive guest
worker program when we have a program already. Let us fix the H-2A
program instead.
The Pombo-Chambliss amendment creates an institutionalized program
which could bring up to 250,000 aliens into our country per year.
The Goodlatte compromise amendment is based on hearings held on the
H-2A program in both the Committee on Agriculture and Committee on the
Judiciary. It will cap the number of visas available for H-2A workers
at 100,000. Seventeen thousand guest workers are currently coming into
the United States under the H-2A program. That allows for a very
substantial increase. It pays for workers' way home, it protects
American workers by making sure that guest workers do not adversely
affect wages and working conditions of American workers, and it will
also require that growers actively recruit for U.S. workers before they
can get guest workers. It lifts the burdensome regulations on growers,
such as the 50 percent rule and the 3-4 guarantee, and cuts 33 percent
off the application processing time for the H-2A certification.
Take a lesson from the history books. The Bracero Program was the
beginning of our illegal immigration problem we are attempting to curb
in H.R. 2202. Hundreds of thousands of braceros became accustomed to
the American standard of living and wages. Once the Bracero Program
ended, many braceros resorted to coming to this country illegally. That
trend continues today.
Supporters of the Pombo-Chambliss amendment claim unless we create a
massive new guest worker bureaucracy, the illegal immigration patterns
begun with the Bracero Program will simply grow. How can it get any
worse? National organizations representing the growers have on the
record stated that at any given time, at least 50 percent of their work
force is comprised of illegal aliens. If we enact the H-2B program in
the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, we will simply take the inroad we have
made in H.R. 2202 to cut illegal immigration and throw them away.
This program will let in 250,000 unskilled foreign workers a year.
That is four times the number of skilled workers we are going to admit.
We are limiting the number of visas for family reunification. What is
the point if we create this new program? This flies in the fact of
evidence that there is now a great surplus of domestic farm workers. In
the agriculture counties of California, there has been a 10 to 20
percent unemployment rate even in the summer months of peak demand by
growers. The research director of the U.S. Commission on Agricultural
Workers, which was evenly balanced with grower representatives, stated
that there is and has been for many years an overall agricultural labor
surplus in the United States and there will not be a labor shortage in
the future. H.R. 2202's employment verification system is voluntary.
Agriculture employers do not have to use it unless they choose to.
Even if the 25 percent of the seasonal labor force which is presently
illegal were to magically disappear, there will still be no shortage.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by the late Barbara
Jordan, recently found that if the supply of illegal farm workers dried
up tomorrow or if growers chose to stop hiring illegal workers, the
supply of work-authorized farm workers is ample, even in peak harvest
months.
Let me talk about some of the specific problems with the Pombo-
Chambliss H-2B program. This program would gut protections for guest
workers and U.S. workers. It is an attestation program. The current H-
2A system is a certification program. Under a certification procedure,
an employer has to prove to the Secretary of Labor
[[Page H2611]]
that it has met certain conditions before the Secretary will permit the
entry of an alien worker.
With an attestation program, such as the one set up by Pombo-
Chambliss, there are no controls on the number of foreign workers a
grower brings in until after the growing season is over. The Secretary
will permit the entry of an alien worker based on the employer
promising it will meet certain conditions in the future. Only if an
interested party, such as a union, complains to the Secretary that the
employer is not fulfilling an attestation, will the Secretary initiate
an investigation.
This type of program invites abuse. It has no practical provision for
enforcement. In addition, no mechanism for enforcement exists for its
recordkeeping and other requirements. Guest workers cannot be expected
to leave the United States and return home when their work contracts
end. The program that currently exists, that previously existed, has
taught us that lesson. The lure of American jobs at much higher pay
than available back home is just too great. Once settled and plugged
into their job networks, they will then encourage their families and
friends to come illegally and join them. We must stop this trend from
continuing. Let us fix the H-2A program, not create an immigration
nightmare.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Bryant], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, this should be an easy decision for all of us. This is
an amendment that proposes to allow 250,000 foreign workers to come
into the country to do work that could be done by American workers.
We have already been through this once. In 1986 we faced this
situation, and many will remember that we at that time granted amnesty
to what ultimately were, I think, 1.1 million people that had become
workers on whom growers principally in southern California were
dependent.
It was the hardest vote and the most difficult decision of the entire
bill. We did it because it was the right thing to do. We should not be
in a position to have to do it again. That is exactly where this
amendment is going to lead us.
Second, we have got to get away from this idea that we have the
obligation or the need to bring foreign workers into the country in
order to deal with our economic needs. The fact of the matter is, there
is a surplus of seasonal farm workers, and in fact even now 50 percent
of seasonal farm workers live in poverty. There is a surplus of these
folks. There are thousands of them available.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to the authors of the amendment and to those
listening to this debate that there is not any credible study that
indicates there is a need to bring in 250,000 people to do work on our
farms in this country, and I urge Members to vote against it.
{time} 1630
It will clearly, in my view, lead to not only making life more
miserable for folks that do very tough work at very low wages already
by, in effect, reinstating the old bracero program, but it also will
lead to increased illegal immigration because we are not being
realistic if we expect guest workers to leave at the end of every
worker contract. That simply is not going to happen. They are going to
stay here.
In fact, the terms of the amendment allow them to stay as long as 2
years if their initial stay is extended and to do so legally. We have
got to start sticking up for American workers. We have an American work
force that can do this work. Maybe they do not want to do it at dirt-
level wages. Maybe they need to have their wages raised. But we have
the people to do this work.
We ought not to pass this amendment. We ought not to vote in favor of
letting 250,000 people come into the country to do work that ought to
be done and can be done and will be done by American workers.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, under ordinary circumstances, I would
be interested in supporting an amendment of this nature, but the way
that we have handled this bill throughout the day, I must oppose it.
One cannot say to people, you cannot bring your mother, you cannot
bring your father, you have to speak English, you cannot come, we do
not want you, get the dickens out of this country, but if you come to
work temporarily when we can withhold 25 percent of your wages, when we
can tell you if you have insurance for your car and not have insurance
for your car, then you can come and work.
I can get all the workers we want in my congressional district, and
they are good hard workers. But in the spirit in which we are dealing
here today, to me it is insulting, it is demeaning. These will be
indentured servants in the United States of America, indentured to
individuals who will withhold under law 25 percent of their pay, maybe
or maybe not get housing or be charged for housing or forced to buy it
at the ranch store or the company store.
It is bad as it is, but I cannot accept all of the other things that
are coming through. We are almost to the point where I am tempted to
offer an amendment that anyone who is a descendant of a foreigner has
to go back to the country of origin. That is about what we are up to.
We even might want to change my name from Garza to Crane. It has gotten
to the point where it is now ridiculous.
If we have problems with population, we work on the numbers, work on
the numbers legitimately. I do not have any objection if we are
overpopulated. But let me say to my California friends, if not one more
alien comes to California, by 2012 California is more than 50 percent
Asian and Hispanic. So, listen to that; 12, 15 more years, more than 50
percent, no matter what else is done. So I would think that we would be
interested in seeing what we can do legally.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are interested in numbers, I am with
them. We have to work on that. But saying they are going to be
terrorists, they are going to come blow the countryside apart, they are
going to come and destroy the Government, they are only talking about
Mexico and Central America, and they have to admit that. They have to
admit that.
Anyone that does not look like, I do not know, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo] and I look alike. But maybe like the gentleman
from California [Mr. Berman] then his is OK. If he looks like Mr. Pombo
and me, he is not OK, throw him out, send him back. I cannot support
this under this, the way that we are handling it.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the former ranking member, and I do
agree with many of his sentiments. I hope in the future we do have a
chance to work on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo-
Chambliss amendment to H.R. 2202 to establish a pilot program to allow
temporary, and I want to underline temporary, guest workers into this
country to help out in the agricultural industry. This amendment is
carefully constructed to allow only guest workers into this country
after, after a series of steps have been taken to find domestic workers
to fill agricultural jobs.
In addition, the bill provides strong incentives for guest workers to
return to their native homeland by withholding 25 percent of their
wages until they return home. In addition, the number of workers
allowed in this country has a capped span of 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out how important this is to
my district on the central coast of California and give an example of
how this is important to a farm in my district. The Logoluso Farms in
my district is located in Cuyama, a very isolated area. They farm 1,100
acres of Fuji apples and they are going to need at least 600 workers at
peak harvest time.
Now they are very concerned as to where the labor is going to be
coming from because their farm, their acreage,
[[Page H2612]]
is located some 60 miles away from the nearest small town. A temporary
guest worker program that mandates strict labor conditions be met along
with adequate housing facilities is a safety valve needed in case the
labor supply cannot be met domestically. Most importantly, there are
strong incentives here in this amendment, and I would just ask that my
colleagues vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Jones].
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, my district consists of approximately 18,000 farms.
Most of these farms engage in the production of cucumbers, sweet
potatoes, tobacco, and peanuts, very labor-intensive work. Roughly 80
percent of the produce in my district is harvested by seasonal migrant
workers. Throughout our Nation, as in North Carolina, seasonal workers
have helped labor-intensive farm commodities to become the fastest
growing sector of the U.S. agricultural world.
However, farmers in the South are having a very difficult time
finding people to do farm work. If it was not for the migrant workers,
our farmers would not be able to harvest their crops. We need to
guarantee our farmers an ample supply of legal workers. The Pombo-
Chambliss amendment creates a workable solution to this important
issue. It admits temporary workers by creating a 3-year pilot program
with an annual cap on the number of workers admitted.
Congress is trying to control illegal immigration, not destroy the
work force of the American farmer. Please support the Pombo amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2202 provides comprehensive reform
of our immigration laws but ignores an irrefutably broken H-2A program.
This H-2A program has failed to provide temporary migrant farm workers
when domestic workers are unavailable. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment is
an essential part of illegal immigration control. It admits workers
temporarily and provides guarantees they will return home and not
remain. Twenty-five percent of the workers' wages are withheld until
they return to their home countries. Future participation is barred if
workers don't return home on time. This program has a users' fee that
pays for the government administrative costs.
The Goodlatte amendment tinkers with a broken H-2A program rather
than fixing it, but in fact makes a bad program worse.
First and foremost, we must assure an adequate work force during
harvest. Without this Pombo amendment, our cucumber, sweet potato,
tobacco and other farmers could be out of business, meaning a
tremendous loss of food and jobs in the Second District of North
Carolina--something we can't afford. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Pombo and ``no'' on Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from North
Dakota, I just want to point out that in the gentleman from North
Carolina's district, rural unemployment is now 9 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy], a member of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The statistic just quoted shows exactly what this bill is about. This
bill is not about desperately needed workers to fulfill jobs. This is
about having a cheap supply of labor to hold wages down. The have been
some in favor of immigration reform that want to have it both ways:
Crack down on immigration, triple fence the border, but by golly, do
not disrupt our ability to get that cheap supply of unskilled labor up
from south of the border. They want to have it both ways, but you
cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Chairman, I am reminded a bit of how the French chose to
construct their defense in anticipation of World War II. They
constructed an invincible line called the Maginot Line, and it was to
withhold any German attack. The Germans flanked the Maginot Line and of
course rendered the defense useless. We build triple fences, our
Maginot Line against immigration, and we are going to provide the
transport. We ourselves are going to allow the transport of unskilled
workers up from Mexico around the fences and on to farms where they can
wander off and become a continuing part of the illegal immigration
problem this country has had an experience with.
Make no bones about it, the Pombo amendment blows a hole in
everything we are trying to do to crack down on illegal immigration and
that will even more be the case when the other immigration reforms take
effect under the law. Already we see under the guest worker program
overstays represent 12 percent of the program, meaning 12 percent of
the workers stay longer than they are authorized to under the program.
That will only increase if this amendment should be incorporated into
this law.
Mr. Chairman, in addition, we have a revenue estimate today from the
Congressional Budget Office that shows a loss in revenue of $23 million
and an increase in direct spending of $67 million if the Pombo
amendment is enacted. This amendment would cost us at a minimum $90
million a year while compounding the illegal immigration, unskilled
worker problem in our country. Please join me in voting down this
amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Condit to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the
amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Condit to the amendment offered by
Mr. Pombo.
In section 823(a), in the section 218A(a)(3)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act inserted by such section, add
at the end the following:
``(iii) Consequences of permanent extension.--If the
Congress makes the program under this section permanent,
Congress shall provide for a two-year phase out of admissions
(and adjustments of status) of nonimmigrants under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a). In the case of such a phase out, the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor shall provide for
the application under this section of special procedures (in
the case of occupations characterized by other than a
reasonably regular workday or workweek) in the same manner as
special procedures are provided for under regulations in such
a case for the nonimmgrant workers under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Condit] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, at this time we are moving on to the
amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], in which case
5 minutes will be accorded to both those supporting and those opposing.
My parliamentary inquiry is, what happens to the time that had been
allotted for the Pombo amendment? Does that remain at the end of the
debate of the Condit amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. All remaining time would be reserved on the Pombo
amendment that is currently pending.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment from the
gentleman from California, it is an amendment to the Pombo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. Under the rule, an individual opposed to the amendment
has 5 minutes of time to control; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. So this will be 5 minutes in addition to the remaining
time on the Pombo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
[[Page H2613]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, let me commend the gentleman from California [Mr.
Pombo] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] for their efforts
in this issue. They both have demonstrated leadership, and my amendment
to their amendment is a friendly amendment and it is pretty
straightforward.
{time} 1645
It simply says and assures that should the pilot guest worker program
established by this amendment gain permanent status, that we will be
left with only one guest worker program. As it stands right now, if the
Pombo amendment passes, Pombo-Chambliss, it will create two guest
worker programs. I do not believe that is the intent of the Committee
on Agriculture, nor is it the intent of the author of the amendment to
create two programs.
So basically what it does, simply, whenever it becomes permanent, it
will be one program, and it will encompass all the people that need to
be serviced under a guest worker program.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct. The intention of the amendment,
because it is a pilot program and is a temporary program, if it were to
be made a permanent program, the repeal of the H-2A program so that we
would have one program, would be the intention of the committee. And I
would support the gentleman's amendment and accept it.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California?
Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to call for a rollcall vote on this
amendment. It is the Pombo amendment, with or without the Condit
amendment, that I seek to defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Torres].
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, today we are here to debate immigration reform. Most
people agree that immigration reform needs cutting back on the number
of illegal immigrants entering this country. Some would go further to
say that it means cutting the number of legal immigrants entering this
country. Never mind the problems each of us may have with the bill, at
least we can debate these issues on the merits. But this amendment, the
Pombo amendment before us, flies in the face of the purported goals.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] is offering an amendment
that would open a back door to allow 250,000 foreign agricultural
workers into this country.
What is the power behind this amendment?
It is agribusinesses. Agribusinesses want to circumvent the market
system by carving out a giant government loophole in the immigration
system, and while everybody knows that there is no shortage of labor in
this country, agribusinesses insist that there is.
In simple terms, agribusiness is saying that this immigration bill
goes too far. It is saying that it does not want to pay fair wages for
legal farm workers. Agribusiness is saying that bringing a quarter of a
million foreign agricultural workers into this country will help
control illegal immigration. This is tantamount to saying that one can
put out a fire with gasoline. We cannot have it both ways, my
colleagues.
For too long the U.S. Government has granted select agricultural
growers a privilege which few other industries have. Many of us
remember the old Bracero program, which brought in and contracted
Mexican workers to come here and work. I saw that program in action. As
a young man, I went to the Central Valley in California, and I picked
crops, and I saw the squalor and the deprivation in which these people
worked and had to live.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot commit this mistake again in this country. It
would be scandalous. It would be insidious.
Instead of allowing to bring in foreign workers with virtually no
rights, agricultural employers should turn to market methods for
recruiting American workers. It is simple, it is simple to recruit
them. Just offer American workers adequate pay, decent wages decent
working conditions, and let us stop the deception that we are seeing
here with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not repeat those mistakes of
history and vote ``no'' for the Pombo amendment.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas].
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Come on, folks. The operative word in the gentleman from
California's statement that he just spoke was ``was.'' He is talking
about yesterday.
I know it is not useful sometimes, or even politic, to deal factually
with amendments in front of us on this floor, but this is not the re-
creation of a guest worker or Bracero program from 20 or 30 years ago.
We can relive the problems, if my colleagues want to, in a kind of a
nostalgic way and talk about Wilga, and talk about workers rights, but,
come on. This is 1996.
Let us take a look at what is the Pombo amendment actually requires.
No. 1, we got to give preference to U.S. workers. Now, unemployment
figures have been cited in various counties. Let me tell my colleagues
unemployment figures and willing workers are two different things.
Sometimes they are night and day. But if people are willing to work,
they have got a job. We do not go without jobs. Our problem is we have
difficulty sometimes finding willing workers, especially in peak
harvest periods when, for example, in a 7-day period in Fresno County
more than 50,000 people are needed to pull those what were grapes, now
sun-dried into raisins, down onto the ground, put them on clean paper,
and in a very short period of time prepare that product for market. I
say to my colleagues, you need labor when you need it in the
agricultural arena.
Starvation wages? The Pombo amendment says,
You have to pay at least the prevailing wage in the
occupation area, at least the prevailing wage, and you have
to pay it the same to the U.S. worker and the alien. You have
to provide comparable transportation, U.S. worker and alien.
You have got to cover all of the alien workers, as you do
U.S. workers, with Workmen's Comp, comparable insurance. You
have to go through a whole series of procedures. You have got
to guarantee these aliens don't replace striking workers. You
have got a procedure here that says these workers will
receive every opportunity that workers who otherwise would be
working will receive with one additional factor, they can
only be here 10 months, a portion of their wages are
withheld, that portion that's withheld is paid interest, and
that pot of money, which is the reason these people came here
in the first place, that pot of money is available to them if
they go home on time. If they don't go home on time, they
lose the pot of money
I heard a figure in which 12 percent of these individuals move away
from those jobs. Guess what percent of the workers who run across the
border and risk their lives in freeway traffic, what percent of those
folks go home when the job is up? The answer is zero, 100 percent of
those people do not.
Without a responsible program to allow people who want to work to
come in to work when the work is needed we are going to have more
illegals. The Pombo amendment is a creative, positive 1996 respective
amendment, and I ask for its adoption.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield I might just point out that in Kern
County, the base county of the gentleman from California who just
spoke, I wonder what the 13.6 percent unemployed people in that county
will say about this effort to go.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Barrett].
[[Page H2614]]
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is a powerfully bad
program that should not be enacted. I find it ironic that we are
hearing for the last 2 days how terrible it is that we have all these
people coming into our country, we do not want these people in our
country, we do not want these people who cannot pass an English test to
come to our country. But we do want them if they will be cheap labor,
we do want them if it is going to be easy for us to send them home like
they are widgets at the end of a period of time.
Mr. Chairman, that is not how this country should act. That is not
how this country should operate.
Let us look at the people who are going to be coming to work in this
program. These are people who are coming here for a better life. They
would not be coming here if they were not doing better economically,
and the proponents of this program are saying at the end of this time
they are just going to go home. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think they
are just going to go home because they came here to have a better life,
and then we are going to have more problems with more people in prison,
we are going to have more problems with more people on welfare because
they are still going to have a better life, even if they are living in
the underground in the United States, many times, than in their old
communities.
Now people say that we need this. I find it ironic that the
proponents of this program who are pushing so hard do not want to rely
on the time-tested notion of using the free market. This is a
capitalistic society. If there is a shortage of workers, and we hear
people talking about unemployment rates of 13 percent, 9 percent, I
will tell my colleagues how we can get more workers: Pay them more. Pay
them more money, and they will come. That is how we have done it for
hundreds of years.
Let us continue to do it, Mr. Chairman, Let us not have this program.
Let us defeat this program and help American workers.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of this
amendment. I represent a district that provides most of the tropical
foliage for the United States. Without passage of the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment, the immigration bill will severely hurt U.S. agricultural
producers in south Florida. This bill will make it tougher to hire
workers during peak harvesting periods.
Some of my colleagues will argue that this amendment hurts American
workers by allowing employers to hire illegal immigrants. This is
simply not true. In fact, the Pombo-Chambliss amendment requires an
employer to give preference to U.S. workers for a minimum of 25 days
before the position can be offered to an immigrant. Moreover, no aliens
can be employed at a position which is open due to strikes or labor
disputes.
Let us be clear. This amendment helps the American economy. And it
does not sacrifice our desire to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.
It allows agricultural producers to hire guest workers only when there
is a temporary shortage of American workers. It requires employers to
withhold 25 percent of the guest workers pay until they return home.
Finally, those immigrants that violate this program can be deported and
prevented from participating with this program in the future. This
amendment does not weaken the immigration bill. Rather, it enhances the
effectiveness of this bill and helps the American economy.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr], a member of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I represent a lot of agriculture, 2.4 billion dollars' worth
of agriculture, and what we do in agriculture is we honor labor, and
this Congress honors labor. We are always talking about productivity
and how great American workers are. We have done that with the
autoworker industry and the aerospace industry, and we ought to be
doing it more with farm labor supply. We have got 18-percent
unemployment in most rural counties in America.
This is not an issue about labor shortage. This is an issue about
wages. If my colleagues think people will not go out and do hard work,
just look at all the people that flee to Alaska when they can catch
salmon and have to work all day and night to do it because the wages
they get out of that process is very high.
I urge my colleagues to really honor American labor. Honor farm
productivity by not allowing 250,000 foreigners to come in and say to
this country, ``You can't do your own work.'' We produce quality
agriculture in America, we can do it with our own labor. We do not need
a foreign supply. Vote ``no'' on the Pombo amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that there is no time
left in opposition to the Condit amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
There is no time left on the Condit amendment only.
Mr. BERMAN. That is the Condit amendment which amends, but does not
improve, the Pombo amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the amendment that amends the Pombo amendment.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1700
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say today that I do support the Pombo
amendment, because we have a problem today in agriculture. We have a
problem with illegal immigrants working in our agriculture. The most
conservative estimates are 50 to 60 percent of those working in our
fields today across this Nation are in this country illegally. That was
confirmed by the Jordan Commission. Most of them have their families,
one, two, three, four members here, most of which are living on public
subsidies.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today and we have been here for the past 3
days debating legislation that will significantly reduce the number of
illegal immigrants in this country. All this amendment says is that if
we can prove that there is a need for temporary guest labor to keep the
crops from rotting in the fields, then we will allow a limited number
of workers into this country to prevent that from happening, based on
the following provisions: One, it must be proven that there is no
domestic labor available to fill these jobs. Also, the employer must
assume all financial responsibility for any and all benefits that would
be a burden to the taxpayer. Further, temporary workers could not bring
family workers along with them. Further, the program must provide a
strong, positive verification provision through the use of biometric
data, and it must include strong financial incentives for the workers
to return to their homeland after the job is done, in the form of
withheld wages.
Mr. Chairman, these are the elements that the Pombo amendment
provides for. We know the existing H-2A program is unworkable. If it
were not, we probably would not be here today. We can do better. We
must do better. The Pombo amendment provides for that. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
[[Page H2615]]
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have a devastating impact on
immigration policy. It will lead to increased illegal immigration. It
would lawfully admit a quarter of a million individuals who otherwise
would be called illegal aliens. If Congress is serious about reducing
illegal immigration, we will reject this amendment.
The legitimate and understandable needs of American fruit and
vegetable growers will be met by the Goodlatte amendment, which we will
consider in just a few minutes. This amendment would worsen our illegal
immigration crisis by letting in 250,000 unskilled guest workers in the
first year alone. Guest workers are not going to leave when their work
ends. This is a lesson to be learned from guest worker programs around
the world. The lure of American jobs at significantly higher pay than
in the homelands is just too great.
There will be no labor shortage in the future. Some growers are
concerned that the employment eligibility quick-check system in this
bill will reveal their farm workers to be illegal aliens, but we have
made the verification system voluntary. If growers do not want to use
it, they do not have to use it. Under a voluntary system, any rationale
for a new guest worker program simply vanishes.
Even if part of the seasonal agricultural labor force that is
presently illegal were to disappear, there would still be no shortage.
The bill contains a backlog reduction program that will add substantial
numbers of new permanent residents who are likely to go into
agricultural work. The program will provide approximately 500,000 visas
for spouses and children of permanent residents, to eliminate the
current 1 million-plus backlog.
Supporters of the amendment seem to forget that we already have an
agricultural guest worker program. It is called the H-2A program. I
know that growers have had concern about the workability of the
program, but the Goodlatte amendment will address every concern the
growers raised at hearings we have had on the H-2A program. The current
guest worker program does not provide a grower with foreign guest
workers unless he or she has shown that there are no available American
workers.
The amendment that we are considering requires no recruitment on the
part of the growers. One of the most fundamental principles of
immigration law is that foreign workers should not displace qualified
American workers. That would be violated by this amendment. The current
guest worker program should be improved. We know that. That is exactly
what the Goodlatte amendment will do in just a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat Pombo and support the
Goodlatte amendment. It does meet the legitimate needs of growers
without striking at the heart of our efforts to reduce illegal
immigration. Vote ``no'' on the Pombo amendment and ``yes'' on the
Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], from the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation where we just finished a day and
a half worth of debate, where we were talking about eliminating about
300,000 visas for U.S. citizens to be able to bring in their family
members, their parents, their children, their brothers, their sisters.
Now we are dealing with an amendment that says, ``Let us bring in
250,000 imported foreign workers to do work in our fields.''
Mr. Chairman, probably the worst part about this amendment is the
following: In 1992, the rural unemployment rate in the United States
was 11 percent. It was even higher for young people working in rural
areas. It was close to 19 percent. A substantial number of those that
are employed in rural areas, about 40 percent, earned wages below the
poverty threshold for a family of four. Real wages for rural workers
have declined between 1979 and 1992 by over $1 an hour.
The rural unemployment rate is even more pronounced in those areas
and in those counties with high concentrations of migrant and seasonal
agricultural workers, the same kind of people that we want to import
from other countries. Even during the peak months of agricultural labor
demand, we still see very high rates of unemployment.
During July 1995, which is a very high, peak time of year for
agricultural work, in California, in 19 of the biggest counties of
California dealing with agriculture, 17 of those 19 counties had
double-digit unemployment rates. Only two of those counties did not
have unemployment rates in the rural areas below 10 percent. One county
had an unemployment rate exceeding 32 percent. Yet, most of these folks
that we are talking about importing in to do agricultural work would go
into those areas of California with these high rates of unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, one other very disturbing aspect of the Pombo
amendment. It would dispense with any requirement that the Government
verify that growers are in fact experiencing labor shortages, and that
the growers have made a good-faith effort to recruit domestic American
workers. This amendment would simply ask that growers self-attest that
they made efforts to recruit locally, without any independent
verification. This amendment should be defeated.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho
[Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Pombo
amendment. The main arguments against this amendment are that
supposedly there are a lot of workers in America who will be displaced
by guest workers, and that they will be displaced by the intent of
providing lower wages.
The fact, again, is that the Pombo amendment requires that American
workers get first crack at the job. It requires that they must get that
crack without having to compete against guest workers. Employers must
list job opportunities with the job service and give qualified U.S.
workers the first preference for the first 25 days. There is no
incentive to use guest workers if there are U.S. workers available.
What about the issue of wages? The fact is that farm work is one of
the highest paying low-skill, entry-level occupations in the United
States. The average hourly wage for field and livestock workers in 1995
was $6.12 per hour, almost $2 above the minimum wage. The average for
piece rate workers was $7.30 per hour. The fact is that since the
Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed in 1986, farm wages have
outperformed nonfarm wages 35 to 27 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is a
good amendment, and it will help.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
(Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pombo
amendment to create a 3-year agriculture guestworker program.
Mr. Chairman, by all accounts the current guestworker program needs
to be reformed because it is not working for farmers or for
guestworkers. And it is clear that this immigration bill will reduce
the number of foreign workers available to farmers. As the Agriculture
Committee Report on the Pombo amendment states, ``Without an adequate
guestworker program, illegal immigrants fill the void. The Department
of Labor estimates that 25 percent of the 1.6 million agricultural
workers are illegal aliens.''
Let me repeat: Without an adequate guestworker program, illegal
immigrants fill the void.
The new H-2B program created by the Pombo amendment will fix the
problems with the current program and help eliminate the use of illegal
aliens in agriculture. And by requiring growers to hire U.S. citizens
if they are available, this program will not displace American jobs.
Some opponents have characterized this amendment as nothing but a
benefit to agri-business. This is simply not the case. I represent
numerous family growers with small farms in southern New Jersey. These
growers depend on short-term labor, but the present program is
difficult and cumbersome to use. The small, family growers in southern
New Jersey and around the country need a new guestworker program.
[[Page H2616]]
Mr. Chairman, let's not pretend we are cracking down on illegal
immigration by opposing the Pombo amendment. This amendment will help
to reduce the number of illegal farm workers by creating a workable
program for Americas farmers.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pombo
amendment, and against the Goodlatte amendment.
For those Members who see the Goodlatte amendment as a compromise on
the guest worker program, don't be fooled.
The Goodlatte amendment is another Band-Aid fix to the H-2A program--
and fails to provide growers with a workable system for hiring
temporary workers.
The current H-2A program is a program only a bureaucrat could love.
Like most government-run programs, it's too complex--time-consuming--
and inflexible for the real world.
Our produce industry in eastern and southern Oregon will be
devastated if they don't have the ability to hire farm workers in a
timely manner.
As we begin to crack down on immigration, our growers need a program
that will strike a balance between their needs--and those who fear that
a guest worker program will lead to more illegal immigration.
The Pombo amendment strikes that balance.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pombo amendment, and oppose the
Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment. This amendment is vital to the success of immigration
reform.
Without this amendment immigration reform could have the unintended
consequence of causing a widespread labor shortage for American
agriculture.
That in turn could cause the industry to lose valuable markets to
foreign competition and could cause hardships to millions of American
consumers by raising the cost of the food they buy.
The Pombo-Chambliss amendment creates a new H-2B guest worker program
that is farmer friendly, while respecting our need to control
immigration.
Simply put, it would allow workers to enter our country on a
temporary basis and return to their country when their term of
employment is over.
The provision cuts paperwork and administrative costs dramatically.
Mr. Chairman, my State of Idaho is representative of much of the
Nation on this issue.
Even though Idaho is a Northwestern State, guest workers provide an
essential source of labor for our agricultural industry.
The president of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation wrote me an
impassioned plea for this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
He argues that without the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, the Farm Bureau
cannot support H.R. 2202.
This amendment is also strongly supported by such agriculture groups
as the Western Range Association, the Idaho Cattlemen's Association,
and the Idaho-Oregon Fruit and Vegetable Association.
The Pombo-Chambliss amendment is essential to making H.R. 2202 good
law. I urge a yea vote.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from the Idaho Farm
Bureau Federation.
The letter referred to is as follows:
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation,
Boise, Idaho, March 15, 1996.
Re Pombo amendment--nonimmigrant H2-B category for temporary
agricultural workers.
Hon. Helen Chenoweth,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Chenoweth: Thank you for your letter of
March 6 and the opportunity to respond to Congressman Pombo's
amendment to H.R. 2202.
H.R. 2202 does three things that could adversely effect the
number of agricultural workers in this country. This
legislation will significantly increase interior enforcement
seeking to find illegal aliens at their places of employment,
increase border interdiction, and impose some sort of
employment eligibility verification.
It is imperative that a temporary alien worker program be
included in H.R. 2202. This can be accomplished with the
adoption of the Pombo amendment. The temporary alien worker
program, coupled with the verification process already
outlined in H.R. 2002 will help assure agricultural employers
that they and their employees are complying with the law. The
three year pilot program established by Rep. Pombo's
amendment will help meet the administrative and labor supply
needs of the agricultural industry.
The Idaho Farm Bureau Federation can support H.R. 2202 with
the inclusion of the Pombo amendment. It is of utmost
importance that the Pombo amendment be included in original
form, without amendment. Without the Pombo amendment, the
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation will oppose H.R. 2202 or any
immigration reform legislation that does not consider the
needs of our industry.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this
matter.
Sincerely,
V. Thomas Geary,
President.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with my
respected colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I joined
with my colleague in cosponsoring his bill, but we badly need the Pombo
amendment. I will tell the Members why. We will never have an effective
program to contain illegal immigration without having an effective,
reasonable, and legitimate program for temporary guest workers in this
country. I quote from statistics prepared for none other than Senator
Edward M. Kennedy in 1980, a report at his request when he chaired the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This report reads the following:
``Illegal immigration was brought to a halt in the mid-1950's by a
greatly increased law enforcement effort on the part of the U.S.
Government, combined with a subsequent expansion of the bracero program
as a substitute legal means of entry.''
{time} 1715
Without question the Bracero program was also instrumental in ending
the illegal alien problem of the mid 1940's and 1950's. It should be
noted that throughout its duration, and particularly during the 1950s,
one of the major arguments used in support of the Bracero program was
that it offered an alternative and therefore at least a partial
solution to the illegal alien problem. The other part of the solution
was effective law enforcement, which this Smith bill does do. Here is
the graph. Here it shows what happened. We went from over 1 million
apprehensions of illegals in 1954 to where it was brought down in 1959
to just over 45,000.
Mr. Chairman, history shows this program works. We need to
incorporate this into the Smith bill to give us the maximum protection
against illegal immigration. Today the Labor Department's own
statistics say that 25 percent of the seasonal agricultural workers
self-identify as illegals. The INS will tell you that indeed it is much
higher. Support the Pombo amendment. Oppose the Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Pombo-Chambliss amendment.
One of the promises I made to the farmers in Kentucky's second
district was to help relieve the regulatory burden the Federal
Government has placed on them.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will cut paperwork, save farmers money
and better control illegal immigration.
Our farmers must be able to obtain the needed and legal work force to
competitively compete in the growing world market, so they can continue
to provide the safe and abundant supply of food and other agricultural
products Americans have come to expect.
I challenge anyone here to tell a Kentucky farmer there are enough
domestic workers. Again and again farmers tell me that one of the
biggest problems they face is a willing and qualified work force. These
jobs are mostly seasonal, temporary, and there simply are not enough
domestic workers to do the hard work for short periods that are still a
big part of agriculture production needs.
It is important to note this amendment requires employers to give
preference to U.S. workers who apply for
[[Page H2617]]
these jobs, ensuring that domestic workers are not displaced.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond briefly to my
good friend from California [Mr. Doolittle] and the comments he made a
while ago. Actually the chart that he showed shows the exact opposite,
if I may say so.
At the beginning of the Bracero program we had an increase in the
number of illegal aliens coming into the country. The decrease that was
caused was not by the Bracero program. It was by President Eisenhower
instituting what was then called Operation Wetback that effectively
sealed the border. It had nothing to do with the Bracero program. The
reduction in illegal aliens was because of the President's policy at
that time. The Bracero program at the beginning of it actually
increased the number of illegal aliens coming in, because more people
were encouraged to come and try to get into the country.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my
good friend from California [Mr. Pombo] to create a new guest worker
program. At a time when our focus is on reducing immigration levels,
the Pombo amendment attempts to allow an additional 250,000 nonskilled
temporary workers to help the agricultural industry because they feel
there will not be a sufficient work force once this legislation becomes
law.
We know that there is currently a surplus of agricultural workers in
this country. We know that half of the illegal aliens currently working
in this country remain here past their visa time. We know that the work
force has helped to drive down the wages to agricultural workers to the
point where most low-skilled U.S. citizens simply cannot afford to take
these jobs.
Knowing this, do we fix these problems by creating another program
out of fear of what could happen? Or do we reform our current H-2A
program to create a compromise solution while continuing to address a
problem that actually has happened?
The problem is that our immigration system is broken. Our
agricultural workers' wages are down because the system is broken. The
last thing we should do now is bring in more temporary agricultural
workers who will not want to leave.
We do not want to create more problems for farmers with the INS. I
think the Pombo amendment will do that. We do not want to create more
problems for our farmers with legal aid. We do not want more conflict
with the local job market.
Local people in your community will not be hired if there is a flood
of foreign workers who wages may sound high, but far too often the
foreman, the person in charge of bringing in these workers, often takes
much of that money away from the workers.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Pombo amendment and an ``aye'' vote on
the Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
(Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Pombo-
Chambliss amendment to H.R. 2202. As a representative from one of the
leading agricultural production regions in the United States, I am
concerned with the potential impact of H.R. 2202 on the agricultural
labor force.
Measures in H.R. 2202 to control illegal immigration through
effective border and interior enforcement and improving the employment
verification system could significantly reduce the work force currently
entering the United States illegally and working with false
documentation, I support those efforts.
At the same time, we must recognize that the agricultural industry in
the United States has historically been faced with a need to supplement
the domestic work force, especially during peak harvesting periods.
Agricultural employers estimate that between 50 and 70 percent of the
seasonal work force find employment using fraudulent employment
eligibility documents. if provisions included in H.R. 2202 are enacted,
agricultural growers could be facing a severe shortage of skilled
seasonal workers during peak employment periods.
History has shown that the current H-2A program has been a regulatory
and bureaucratic nightmare, rendering the program unusable for the vast
majority of agricultural employers. Thus agriculture has no reliable
means for ensuring an adequate supply of temporary and seasonal workers
if the border and interior enforcement measures included in this
legislation are really effective in controlling the entry of
undocumented workers.
An adequate supply of skilled seasonal labor is necessary to maintain
the competitiveness of U.S. labor intensive agriculture, and to
maintain the jobs and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of farmers,
U.S. farm workers, and workers in related industries. I urge you to
support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to talk about illegal
immigration when we talk about the Pombo amendment. We have talked a
lot about that in these last few days. Now we are talking about
bringing in a quarter of a million agricultural workers a year, and we
are saying that that will do nothing to increase illegal immigration.
That is a ludicrous idea.
As someone who worked in the immigration field for many, many years,
I have been thinking as I have heard the rhetoric today, who are these
people? Not the farmers, but who are the people that will leave their
families behind for months at a time, come to America, work very hard
in hot fields, picking crops for very modest wages? Who are these
people?
These are people who are desperate for a better way of life and they
do not plan to go home. They will send their money back to their
families so their families will have something to live on. I do not
have anything against these people. I admire their courage. But I also
know they will not go home.
The 25 percent of the wages that would be withheld from these
individuals is probably less than what they would pay to a coyote to
come across the border today. So to think that we are somehow going to
be remedying the problem of illegal immigration by bringing in a
quarter of a million desperate agricultural workers a year is
absolutely ludicrous.
Those who would say with a straight face that we are doing something
about illegal immigration in a bill that contains the Pombo amendment
should have red faces indeed. I urge everyone to oppose the amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment which will
ensure a steady supply of labor for one of the most important sectors
of our economy.
The issue before us today is quite simple: The illegal immigration
provisions in the underlying bill could create a shortage of labor in
the agricultural sector of our economy. This must not be allowed to
happen and the gentleman from California's amendment is, in my view, a
reasonable attempt to ensure the continued survival of labor-intensive
agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, a series of joint hearings held late last year made it
clear that agriculture had legitimate concerns which had not yet been
addressed. In responding to these concerns, this amendment installs a
workable mechanism for importing needed labor. It caps the number of
program participants, and permits the entry of legal temporary farm
workers only when American workers cannot be found. Producers are
required to pay a decent wage and ensure humane treatment and living
conditions for their workers.
The House must understand, Mr. Chairman, that the competitiveness of
[[Page H2618]]
U.S. agriculture--especially the fruit and vegetable industry--depends
on a reliable labor supply. It is also important to note the thousands
of U.S. jobs that depend on the continued success of these industries.
We should accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
and provide agriculture the labor it needs to survive.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to
the last speaker.
The Center for Immigration Studies just released a study by Wallace
Huffman, professor of economics and agricultural economics at Iowa
State University, finding that the complete elimination of the supply
of illegal labor, and we know we are not going to accomplish that with
any of the legislation we have here, but the complete elimination would
only result in a 1 percent increase in U.S. imports of fruits and
vegetables.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Pastor].
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this amendment, how we are
going to deter illegal immigration. But the motive, Mr. Chairman, is
greed. That is the motive, greed. Right now with undocumented people,
we are keeping the wages on the fields low. Once they are gone, we want
to bring in guest workers to keep the wages low. It is greed, Mr.
Chairman.
Today we hear how these guest workers will be treated, housing,
decent wages. Mr. Chairman, in practical terms, the industry is going
to get around it by hiring labor contractors who will not give the
guest workers the time of day. They will abuse them, they will use them
and send them back.
Mr. Chairman, it is a bad amendment and I would ask for a ``no''
vote.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Collins].
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pombo-
Chambliss temporary guest worker amendment. First, I want to thank my
colleague from California and my neighboring colleague from Georgia for
addressing this issue.
Currently there is a shortage of farm labor in many parts of this
country. This is definitely the case in my home State of Georgia. A
major reason for this shortage is clear. The U.S. Government's welfare
system has lowered the work ethic in many areas of the labor market and
has almost ruined the farm labor. As a result of this shortage, farmers
are forced to import laborers from other countries.
Until we break the cycle of dependency on the Federal Government,
their will continue to be a great need for seasonal agricultural labor.
American farmers should not be forced to bear the burden of misguided
social programs. In fact, Mr. Chairman, farmers tell me it is difficult
for their paycheck to compete with that of the welfare check.
This guest worker amendment offers a viable remedy. It establishes a
process through which farmers can acquire legal immigrant labor when no
domestic workers are available. Bear in mind that under this amendment,
farmers must still look to the domestic market labor first.
This amendment will provide a means to track and ensure the return of
imported laborers, something the existing program does not do.
Additionally, the number of immigrants brought in is based on need,
which will vary from year to year.
Further, the amendment extends work visas for a maximum of only 10
months and the program bans aliens who overstay from future
participation. As an additional incentive, 25 percent of the laborer's
paycheck is withheld until they return home.
On another point, Mr. Chairman, the recent farm bill removes many
restrictions on how much farmers will be able to plant. As a result,
farm production will dramatically increase over the next few years,
creating a greater need for farm labor than ever before.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment. It
will help the farmers throughout this country obtain labor because they
do not have the labor force today to draw from.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
{time} 1735
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, but, you know,
it is not my first choice and it is not the first choice of the farmers
in Georgia. The first choice of the farmers in Georgia are American
workers, and the Pombo-Chambliss amendment will not change that a bit.
American workers will still get the first crack at these jobs.
But, sadly, if you ate fresh fruit or vegetables today at lunchtime,
whether you were in New York, Washington, DC, New Jersey, or Georgia,
those vegetables probably were picked not by a migrant worker, but
probably by an illegal alien. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment responsibly
addresses this problem by allowing guest workers to come over here,
but, unlike the current broken system, it withholds some of their pay,
so that when they return home, then they get the rest of it.
This is a responsible choice, but, again, it is a second choice. The
first choice of the American farmers is the same choice as the American
people, and that is welfare reform.
In Glennville, GA, a small town in the First District that I
represent, an onion farmer told me recently that he pays $9 an hour for
people to pick Vidalia onions, but he cannot get Americans to do the
work because they make too much money enjoying the public largesse that
we call welfare reform.
We have a President who was elected, among other reasons, because he
promised to end welfare as we know it. Well, so far he has not
submitted a welfare reform bill, and he has vetoed the only one that
came across his desk.
I believe that the choice of the American farmers is still going to
be American workers. Then they want welfare reform. But in the absence
of that, support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, because it is our only
chance to assure an abundant food supply and having it picked today and
on your plate fresh tonight at dinner time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I simply would point out that in San Joaquin County,
the home county of my friend from California, the author of the
amendment, unemployment is 12.2 percent. In the counties of the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], who just spoke, rural
unemployment is 19.3 percent, 11.9 percent, 10.4 percent, and 10.3
percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute 45 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be
rejected because it simply is ludicrous on its face.
The American public watching this debate must wonder if we have lost
our minds. We spend a day-and-a-half trying to decrease illegal
immigration into the country. We have spent months trying to reform the
welfare system. The entire country is worried by wage anxiety and their
jobs.
Now we have an amendment on the floor that allows you to drive down
wages of American workers, allows you not to employ American workers
who are desperately looking for jobs, and undermines the idea of taking
able-bodied Americans and putting them to work and taking them off of
welfare. That is what this Pombo amendment does.
For the employer, they self-certify. They say, ``I cannot find
anybody; bring my workers from Mexico or some other country.'' We know
in a highly regulated program that those people overstay their visa six
times what tourist or education visas overstay.
We are asking for illegal immigrants. The notion that somehow you are
going to say to people, ``Well, just go home,'' we have people now who
risk their life, pay thousands of dollars to come here, with no job.
Now we bring them here with a job for 10 months, we
[[Page H2619]]
pay them, and we say, ``By the way, would you mind going home?''
Have you lost your mind? Have you simply lost your mind with respect
to what is a concern of the American public? Are you so deep into the
agribusiness corporations of this country that you cannot see what
bothers Americans when they see unemployment rates of 19 percent? Our
Central Valley runs double digit unemployment rates around the year,
and you want to bring in people to take away their jobs?
We have people in the gentleman's district and Mr. Dooley's district
and my district and Mr. Condit's district sitting on the streets
looking for work. Your answer is to say open the borders, to say,
``Come here, we will pay your way, and we will hope you go home?''
``We hope you go home?'' No, this is unacceptable.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute to respond to my
colleague from California.
Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting that the gentleman is so
concerned about the unemployment in my districts, after he stole all
the water from my farmers. It is very interesting that all of a sudden
he is interested in the unemployment in my district, when he tries to
shut down my farms through the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water
Act. All of a sudden he is interested in the unemployment in my
district.
I am sure that the gentleman misspoke when he said that we were going
to hope that they go home. They are required to go home. And if he
wants to know what the American people are really angry about, I think
it is partly what has gone on on this floor today.
We have got half these guys down here who want to give them welfare,
who want to give them anything that they want, but if they want to come
in and work, oh, we do not want that. We do not want anybody to come in
and work. But if they want welfare, if they want free education, if
they want free medical care, all of that, hey, that is all right. That
is fine. But if they want to work, oh, no, no, no, this program is
crazy.
Now, we are talking about good, decent people who want a job and want
to come in and work, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my friend, the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thought the whole purpose
of this bill was to cut down people coming into this country. I voted
against NAFTA because I did not want to send American jobs to Mexico.
Unfortunately, the majority voted to send American jobs to Mexico. But
the only thing worse than NAFTA is bringing in a bunch of Mexicans to
take American jobs.
Now, that is what this is all about. If you are for your folks, vote
against it. If you are for those folks, vote for the Pombo amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the coauthor of this
amendment, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today and urge my colleagues to
support the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, which establishes a pilot
program for temporary agricultural workers in this country. This
amendment would allow farmers all over the country to harvest their
crops using a workable program.
The farm labor shortage is not a California problem, it is not a
Georgia problem, it is a nationwide problem. In the Southeast alone we
have seen increased production of fruits and vegetables in the last 10
years. This has greatly impacted the farm labor situation in my State.
These seasonal crops are handpicked crops: Peaches, tomatoes, other
vegetables, tobacco.
In the past, the farm labor consisted of generations of family
members living on the farm and working on the farm. Those family farms
are disappearing. Therefore, the labor pools are disappearing. Farmers
desperately need workers who are willing to work seasonally. But to use
this program, this legislation requires that the farmer first look to
the American people for those workers. If they can find American
workers to do the work, they must hire Americans. But, unfortunately,
that is not the case. They are simply not able to find those workers.
This amendment solves other problems, too. No. 1, it is temporary.
They can work for no more than 10 months at a time. Second, it
circumvents a crop disaster by allowing farmers to plant and harvest
their crops in a timely manner. Third, and most importantly, it
requires that the guest workers that are allowed in legally, that are
now coming in illegally, to return home in order to get the 25 percent
of their paycheck that is withheld. We do this with the understanding
that those workers must go home.
Why is this amendment needed? The reason is very simple: The current
system simply does not work, and that is why we need a new system put
in place that will allow our farmers a strong supply of workers to
harvest their crops.
Now, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] hit this on the head
a little bit earlier. Folks, this is 1996. We have talked about old
programs that do not work anymore or old programs that cause problems.
This is 1996. If those folks who have gotten up here and have read
these figures that some bureaucrat in Washington put together, and I am
sure I am fixing to hear in my home county there is an unemployment in
the rural areas of x percent, let me tell you, if those same folks that
believe those figures will go home and talk to their farmers, like I do
every weekend when I go to Colquitt County or Bacon County or Berrien
County or Bleckley County, those farmers are the ones that I care about
and they are the ones that tell me I cannot get my crops harvested
without using these workers.
Now, if as the opponents of this bill suggest, that there is a large
pool of workers out there to draw from, then the provisions of this
bill will not take effect, and I do not understand why they oppose it
on that basis. If there are American workers that want to go to work,
the farmers must put them to work. But first of all, in my State the
Georgia Department of Labor must certify that there is a shortage of
workers in the rural areas where the application for the provisions of
this bill are asked to take effect.
If there is a shortage declared, only then may this bill come into
effect. And even then there must be a notice posted that this bill,
there are workers coming in to perform this certain agricultural work.
If there are farmers that come in and say hey, I see where in the case
that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] referred to, that the
farmer is willing to pay me $9 an hour to pick onions, that job must go
to an American worker. But I can tell you, folks, you are sticking your
head in the sand if you think that American workers are out there to do
the work.
Please pass this bill. It is a good bill. It is going to make this
program workable.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1
minute and 45 seconds.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we just heard in this Chamber
are the same arguments that were given to justify slavery before the
Civil War. If we could find American, or in that case, free people, to
do the work, we would not need to rely on slaves.
Let me tell you, this is the most audacious amendment I could imagine
on this bill, because this is an amendment that in the name and in the
context of trying to do something meaningful about illegal immigration,
creates a program which is going to result in the most massive entry of
guest workers who every economist in agriculture will tell you are one-
way immigrants. The overstay rate, even in the highly, tightly
regulated H-2A program is six times as high, six times as high, as the
overstay rate for tourists, students or people here on other
nonimmigrant visas.
You are opening up a blatant, massive loophole in a serious effort to
try and do something about illegal immigration. And what for? Rather
than figuring out the ways to the reform of the welfare system, through
the utilization of the 1.1 million agricultural workers legalized in
1987, through the recruitment, the training, the effort, private and
public, to help agriculture get more U.S. workers doing this particular
work.
The unemployment rates in these counties are astoundingly high. There
[[Page H2620]]
is a massive surplus. The Department of Labor says at any given time,
190,000 agricultural workers are unemployed, 12 percent unemployment
rates at the peak season in agriculture.
Please defeat the Pombo amendment. Do not undermine this bill like
that. Do not destroy American jobs like that.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by saying that
this program that we are trying to adopt is needed. There is a shortage
of legal labor in America today. But if my colleague is correct and
there is no shortage of labor, then this program will never be used,
because they would have to certify that there is a labor shortage, that
there is no domestic workers who are able and willing to do the work.
{time} 1745
They would have to certify that they could not find domestic workers
to do the work. They would have to meet all Federal, State, and local
labor laws in order to employ people under the guest worker program.
We have heard a lot about illegal immigration. This is not illegal
immigration. This is a legal and controlled program. We have heard
about the H-2A program. The H-2A program does not work, or else there
would not be the need to install this type of a program.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] is going to bring up an
amendment shortly here today to try and change the H-2A program to
work, and, quite frankly, his effort fails miserably. It makes it worse
than it currently is. It is not an alternative to our amendment. We
have heard a lot about the 250,000 figure. That was not my amendment.
That was the Goodlatte amendment that the gentleman put on in the
Committee on Agriculture.
My effort was to try to develop some type of a formula that would
ensure that we not have any more come in under the Guest Worker Program
than was absolutely necessary.
In short, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say we do
have a problem in this country. We have a serious problem with
immigration in this country. But what makes people angry, what makes
people mad is those people who illegally come into the country or
legally come into the country and take advantage of it, who have never
provided anything and take advantage of that service.
What this program is saying is that we want to take care of our
domestic issues and we want to reward those who work.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is
absolutely correct. This is an audacious amendment to this bill. Just
an hour ago, we defeated the legal reforms in this legislation. We took
them all out that would have had some modest reduction in legal
immigration, and now what do we have? We are going to go the opposite
direction and add 250,000 new workers in this country.
The gentleman is correct, the amendment that he offered in the
Committee on Agriculture had no limit. I offered an amendment to put
the 250,000 cap on it. Before that it had no limit. It could have had
half a million new workers, as one of the people from California who
testified in the committee indicated would occur. We would have a half
a million new workers. We could have a million new workers. This
undercuts the rights of the American people and we cannot accept an
amendment like this.
We have a program right now, the H-2A program for agricultural
workers. It allows no limit. It has 17,000 participants. The gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo] and others have complained that it is not
an effective program. I have offered six modifications of that program,
so many that I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]
thinks I have offered too many. Yet, the gentleman says my amendment
makes it worse. It does not do that. It improves the program
considerably.
There has been, unfortunately, material circulated that claims that
we add to the burden of farmers with regard to the three-quarter rule.
We do not do that. We improve the three-quarter rule to say that, if
you bring workers into the country under the current program and they
work less time than contracted because of weather conditions or pests,
that they do not have to be paid for that portion of the time. My
amendment improves the current law and makes it workable.
We do not need an amendment that increases the number of people
authorized to work in this country by the enormous amount that this
program or before it was modified to even higher amounts. We need to
reform immigration, not open it wide open. We have very high
unemployment in many, many rural areas in this country. We need to also
take into account the fact that with welfare reform we are going to be
asking millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and to take
work.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to increase immigration. Now is the
time to defeat this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Pombo-Chambliss amendment to implement an effective guestworker
program
Mr. Chairman, my constituents in central Washington State are no
different from the great majority of Americans who support immigration
reform. But my constituents realize that our biggest industry--
agriculture--must be protected.
The fact of the matter is that agriculture is a seasonal business.
Pruning, thinning, and harvesting all have their time throughout the
year. These activities are labor intensive. And the labor required has
historically been migrant labor. To not recognize this basic fact
places a huge burden on the largest industry in Washington State.
The Pombo-Chambliss amendment addresses this concern and, at the same
time transfers the enforcement burden to the Department of Labor to
correct what was a shortcoming of the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act.
At the same time, in conjunction with a strengthened Border Patrol,
the Pombo amendment would reduce illegal immigration by providing
incentives for seasonal workers to comply with our immigration laws.
I strongly support this commonsense proposal, and encourage my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Pombo-Chambliss amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Pombo-Chambliss
amendment.
This amendment seeks to establish a new agricultural guestworker
program, not in place of the existing temporary agricultural worker
program, but in addition to it.
Recently, the bipartisan commission on immigration reform, chaired by
our former colleague, the late Barbara Jordan, studied the issue of
introducing a new agricultural guestworker program and reached an
unambiguous conclusion.
The Commission believes that an agricultural guestworker
program, sometimes referred to as a revisiting of the
``bracero agreement,'' is not in the national interest and
unanimously and strongly agrees that such a program would be
a grievous mistake.
The amendment before us would increase illegal immigration, reduce
employment opportunities for U.S. citizens, and depress the wages and
working conditions of U.S. farmworkers.
The current H-2A program includes preferences for and protections of
U.S. workers. This amendment substantially weakens those protections by
providing an alternative means of bringing in foreign workers,
regardless of whether a true labor shortage exists.
Current law ensures that foreign workers are not brought into the
United States for the purpose of undermining the wages and working
standards of U.S. agricultural workers. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment
would ensure that foreign workers will be brought in for just that
purpose.
Current law requires employers to provide housing and transportation
to agricultural workers, areas where the documented abuse of migrant
workers has been greatest. This amendment effectively wipes out those
protections.
It is hard to imagine a more nefarious proposal. I urge its defeat.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo/Chambliss
amendment modifying the agriculture guestworker program to allow more
guestworkers to enter the country. It does not make sense that a bill
which aims to limit immigration would endorse a program that loosens
immigration restrictions.
There is no evidence of a shortage of agricultural workers in the
United States. Almost half of the farmworkers in the U.S. currently
cannot find work in agriculture. This amendment makes it easier to hire
alien temporary workers than under current law, which would make that
unemployment problem worse.
[[Page H2621]]
This amendment very clearly promotes the unemployment of American
agricultural workers and the exploitation of foreign agricultural
workers. It will result in denying jobs to U.S. farmworkers, decreasing
wages and unsafe working conditions. The amendment provides weaker
worker protection than the current H-2A program.
Under this amendment, employers would no longer be responsible for
housing for guestworkers. Since affordable farmworker housing,
especially in my home State of California, is in short supply, we would
be ensuring an increase in homelessness.
The Pombo/Chambliss amendment is not fair to the American farmworker
or the foreign worker. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a big paradox.
The main purpose of the Immigration in the National Interest Act of
1995 is to reduce, specifically, illegal immigration and secure jobs
for Americans. Yet, the Pombo/Chambliss amendment does exactly the
opposite. It exacerbates the very problems that this bill is trying to
correct.
This amendment would modify the current temporary agriculture worker
program known as H-2A to make it easier for agricultural companies to
bring in hundreds of thousands of new, exploitable workers to harvest
the Nation's crops.
This will increase illegal immigration, will increase unemployment of
American workers and will exploit guestworkers.
According to immigration experts, past guestworker programs, like the
bracero program, led to today's illegal immigration problems since it
permitted the so-called braceros to establish networks that allowed
them to continue their employment after the termination of their
contract.
Furthermore, this amendment does not protect American farmworkers
from the stagnation and decline in prevailing wages caused by the
presence of foreign workers.
In addition, this amendment does not ensure that American workers are
recruited before employers seek foreign help. Instead, it removes the
statutory regulation to locate qualified U.S. workers before employers
are allowed to hire foreign workers.
The amendment would also hurt foreign farmworkers since it has no
requirement for growers to provide transportation, housing, and written
contracts to the guestworkers.
In short, there is absolutely no reason to support this amendment
which would increase illegal immigration, deny jobs to U.S.
farmworkers, degrade working conditions and allow abusive treatment of
foreign workers.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 242, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 85]
AYES--180
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Forbes
Fox
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hutchinson
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Riggs
Roberts
Rose
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOES--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Buyer
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dornan
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Clay
Collins (IL)
Hayes
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Stark
Stokes
Waters
{time} 1808
Messrs. PARKER, HEFNER, PICKETT, LAZIO of New York, and EWING changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24,
printed in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
amendment offered by mr. goodlatte
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte: After section 810,
insert the following new section (and conform the table of
contents accordingly):
SEC. 811. CHANGES IN THE H-2A PROGRAM.
(a) Placing Responsibility for Certification Within the
INS.--Section 218 (8 U.S.C. 1188) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of Labor'' and ``Secretary''
each place either appears (other than in subsections
(b)(2)(A), (c)(4), and (g)(2)) and inserting ``Attorney
General''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (g) to read as
follows:
``(3) There are authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of
enabling the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to
make determinations and certifications under this section and
of enabling
[[Page H2622]]
the Secretary of Labor to make determinations and
certifications under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i).''.
(b) Reduction in Time Required for Positive Recruitment.--
Section 218 (8 U.S.C. 1188) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4), by adding at the end the
following: ``The employer shall not be required to engage in
positive recruitment for more than 20 days.'', and
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``60 days'' and
inserting ``40 days''.
(c) Elimination of 50 Percent Rule.--Section 218 (8 U.S.C.
1188(c)(3)) is amended by amending subparagraph (B) to read
as follows:
``(B) An employer is not required, in order for its labor
certification to remain effective, to provide employment to
United States workers who apply for employment after the end
of the required period of positive recruitment.''.
(d) Permitting Housing Allowance.--Section 218(c)(4) (8
U.S.C. 1188(c)(4)) is amended by inserting ``(A)'' after
``.--'' and by adding at the end the following:
``(B) In lieu of offering housing under subparagraph (A),
an employer may provide a reasonable housing allowance, but
only if housing is reasonably available in the area of
employment.''.
(e) Modified \3/4\ Rule.--Section 218(c)(3) (8 U.S.C.
1188(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) An employer, in order for its labor certification to
remain effective, shall guarantee to offer an H-2A worker at
least 8 hours of employment in each of at least \3/4\ of the
workdays in which the task (or tasks) for which the H-2A
worker was hired to perform are being performed. The employer
is not required to guarantee to offer an H-2A worker
employment in any portion of the total periods during which
the work contract and all extensions thereof are in effect.
(f) Cap.--Section 214(g)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)) is
amended)
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C),
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) may not exceed
100,000, or''.
(g) Effective Date.--The H-2A amendments made by this
section shall apply to applications for certification filed
on or after October 1, 1996, and to fiscal years beginning on
or after such date.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Goodlatte] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, many of the Members from agricultural
areas noted problems with the H-2A agricultural worker program that
currently exists.
{time} 1815
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment to the current guest
worker program, the H-2A program. My amendment will significantly
improve it. I have listened to the concerns of the growers who have
come to speak to me and have streamlined the guest worker program that
now exists to make it more grower-friendly.
Unlike the changes proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Pombo] to the guest worker program, my amendment does not create a new
program. It fixes the current one. In addition, it works within the
spirit of the bill by fixing the number of aliens allowed into the
country at 100,000. Why do we have a 100,000 cap? Because even though
only 17,000 workers used this program last year, we are making
significant improvements to the program, and want to make sure that we
do not have an unreasonable number of people utilizing this program
from outside of the country.
In recent years, about 17,000 farm workers have been granted visas
each year under the H-2A guest worker program. The Goodlatte amendment
provides for an increase to 100,000 workers. This will more than meet
any needs of fruit and vegetable growers that are not being met by
domestic farm workers.
Many fruit and vegetable growers assert that the big problem with the
H-2A program is that the Department of Labor administers in bad faith,
intending to make it unworkable and unattractive to growers. My
amendment transfers the certification process from the Department of
Labor to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This move will
ensure that the fundamentally sound H-2A program is administered
fairly.
Growers also complain that it takes too long to get workers under the
current H-2A program. They must file applications at least 60 days
before the date of employment. My amendment slashes this period by 33
percent and creates a 40-day application period. it will ensure growers
the workers they need when they need them.
The Goodlatte H-2A guest worker compromise amendment modifies the
three-quarter guarantee to answer the concerns of growers. Under the
current H-2A guest worker program, growers must pay guest workers for
75 percent of the agreed work contract period, and under 20 CFR section
655, they must pay an average of at least 8 hours of work a day for
that 75 percent period, even if the harvest is cut short by weather or
pests. A copy of this three-quarter guarantee regulation is available
to those who would like to see it, because there has been a suggestion
that we make the three-quarter requirement more onerous. Actually, we
make it better.
The Goodlatte amendment requires that the grower pay his guest
workers for three-quarters of the time the harvest actually takes. This
ensures that growers hit by setbacks are not further burdened. Under
Goodlatte, they will still have to pay for 8-hour workdays, just as
they do now, but for a fewer number of days if their harvest period is
shortened.
The Goodlatte amendment will prevent growers from having to pay guest
workers for days that they do not work if the contract period is cut
short. My amendment repeals the unfair 50-percent rule. Fruit and
vegetable growers have told me that the H-2A program's 50-percent rule
is patently unfair. The rule requires a grower to hire any domestic
farm workers who apply for work under the H-2A guest worker program, as
long as they have completed half their work contract period, even if
the grower already has all the workers needed. My amendment repeals
this rule.
My amendment also allows growers to pay a housing allowance. Fruit
and vegetable growers want to be allowed to pay actual housing. The
Goodlatte amendment permits housing allowances. If housing is
reasonably available in the area, guest workers will not be forced into
homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment. It addresses
the concerns of the agriculture community, but does not allow our
borders to open for one segment of the economy. The Goodlatte amendment
controls illegal immigration while providing our fruit and vegetable
growers with the labor they need to harvest their produce. I urge the
adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goodlatte
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Torres].
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today I expressed my vehement opposition to the
Pombo amendment. I rise now to voice my strong opposition to the
Goodlatte amendment.
The proponents of this amendment would have us believe that it
addresses the problems contained in the Pombo amendment and therefore,
it is a more moderate, more acceptable proposal. In short, it's being
sold as Pombo ``Lite.''
Don't be fooled by the packaging. The Goodlatte amendment is just as
bad as Pombo and maybe worse.
Mr. Goodlatte is seeking to make it easier for agribusiness to bring
foreign workers into the United States. Simultaneously, the amendment
would eliminate, I repeat, eliminate essential worker protections that
exist under current law.
The Goodlatte amendment would eliminate the requirement for employers
to seek qualified U.S. workers through State employment services.
The Goodlatte amendment would eliminate the requirement to provide
housing for their foreign workers. Employers, who are now required to
provide housing for their workers, would only be required to give a
housing allowance. But only if housing is reasonably available in the
area.
Don't you believe it.
[[Page H2623]]
I've worked in the labor camps that these guestworkers would be
herded into. Yes, that was some years ago, but conditions have not
changed. They don't have running water or indoor plumbing, they crowd
dozens of workers into unheated hovels. In short, the growers literally
enslave these workers to reduce their overhead and increase their
profits. Just how long do you think these guestworkers will endure
these squalid conditions before they escape to seek a better life? How
long do you think it will take for these hardworking and industrious
guestworkers to find that there are better paying jobs and better
conditions under which to work?
It's time to treat agribusiness like the other industries--make it
compete for labor and pay fair wages to U.S. farmworkers.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this misguided amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Goodlatte
amendment. We already have an agricultural guest worker program. It is
called the H-2A program. The Goodlatte amendment makes needed changes.
It ensures a program that works for farmers and yet one that retains
the bedrock protections for American workers.
The Goodlatte amendment responds to the complaints from fruit and
vegetable growers and the complaints that they have lodged against the
H-2A program. There is a widespread belief among growers that the
Department of Labor administers the program in bad faith, intending to
make it so unworkable that it will not be used. The Goodlatte amendment
transfers the upfront certification process from Labor to the INS. This
move will ensure both that growers get the workers they need, and that
program abuse will not go uncorrected.
Mr. Chairman, growers complain about the time it takes to get H-2A
workers, that they must file applications at least 60 days before the
date of need. The Goodlatte amendment cuts this period by 20 days. It
ensures growers will get the workers they need when they need them.
Growers believe the current 50 percent rule is unfair. The rule
requires a grower to hire any domestic farm workers who apply for work
until the H-2A guest workers have completed half their work contract
period, eve if the grower already has all the workers needed. The
Goodlatte amendment repeals this rule.
Growers also complain about the H-2A program's three-quarters rule.
This rule requires that they pay guest workers for 75 percent of the
agreed work contract period, even if the harvest is cut short by
weather or pests. The Goodlatte amendment requires that a grower pay
his guest workers for three-quarters of the time the harvest actually
takes. This assists growers hit by setbacks while protecting guest
workers.
Fruit and vegetable growers want to be allowed to pay guest workers a
housing allowance instead of having to build actual housing. The
Goodlatte amendment permits housing allowances if housing is reasonably
available in the area. This ensures that guest workers will not be
forced into homelessness.
The Goodlatte amendment sets a ceiling of 100,000 guest workers per
year. In recent years, about 17,000 to 19,000 aliens have been granted
visas under the H-2A program. This ceiling is large enough to meet the
needs of farmers who want to replace illegal workers with legal
workers. By keeping the requirement of recruiting and hiring U.S.
workers first, the Goodlatte amendment would meet the needs without
undermining U.S. immigration policy and harming domestic workers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Goodlatte
amendment. It is good for guest workers and it is good for growers.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres]
whether or not his vehement opposition to Pombo is stronger than his
strong opposition to Goodlatte.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, a little bit.
Mr. CONYERS. I would ask the gentleman, a little bit what?
Mr. TORRES. A little bit more.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman objects to the Pombo amendment more than
the Goodlatte amendment, or the Goodlatte amendment more than the Pombo
amendment?
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I object to both of them. I think it is an
equal state. Goodlatte has new packaging. It is Pombo Lite.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on the Judiciary for yielding me 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad the ranking member did not ask me that
question, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], the
sponsor of this amendment, was eloquent and effective in his opposition
to the Pombo amendment, and I am very grateful for this.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with his amendment here, because I know it
was well-intentioned, because I know how he wants to handle these
issues, but the problem is that it fundamentally erodes and existing
requirement in the H-2A program that U.S. workers have priority. We can
debate whether that makes sense or not, but to me, when we get rid of
the 50-percent rule, we get rid of the requirement that a U.S. worker
who comes for a job gets priority over the guest worker coming from the
foreign country.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the difference between the current H-2A
program and the Pombo amendment is that the H-2A program requires an
independent third party to certify whether there is a need for the
workers. That is the big objection to the earlier legislation that we
just defeated.
The difference here is that we have to have an independent party, the
U.S. Government, certify that workers are needed. If they certify they
do not have them, what difference does it make whether or not there is
a 50-percent rule? It is unfair, if an independent party says there are
not sufficient workers available, to tell a grower that they cannot use
more than 50 percent labor.
Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time that I so generously yielded the
gentleman, Mr. Chairman, the way the gentleman has written this
amendment, first of all, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely
right; one major difference is that that was a self-attest
anticipation. ``Grower, say certain things, get workers.'' This
requires an independent, no longer Department of Labor, if I recall
correctly, but an independent Government certification.
But the gentleman cuts off the growers' obligation to recruit U.S.
workers 20 days before the season even begins. When you are dealing
with migrant workers, they know the patterns of labor in this area.
They come into an area to get hired just as you get into the peak
harvest season. By eliminating the obligation to hire U.S. workers 20
days before the start of the growing season, and we do not need to be
doing that, we are wiping out, in effect, the priority for U.S.
workers. That is the problem I have.
Under the existing situation, that priority still exists. The
Department of Labor certifies whether or not there will be a need, but
if U.S. workers show up, U.S. workers have priority. I think U.S.
workers should have priority in these kinds of programs.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the fundamental change the gentleman is
making, right now they have to provide housing for farmworkers. By
giving this allowance, the gentleman knocks out the housing
requirement. He makes an assumption there will be housing available.
[[Page H2624]]
{time} 1830
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to respond to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman 100 percent that U.S.
workers should have the priority in every instance. But the fact of the
matter is that while we still require them to actively recruit and we
should require them to actively recruit U.S. workers, it has to be done
in such a fashion that once that recruitment period is over, there is a
reasonable amount of time to get the paperwork processed and get
workers there when they have actively recruited and have not been able
to get those workers.
My amendment simply requires that they have a little more time, 20
more days, to get that paperwork processed and get the workers there.
We have had many instances, in fact some of the people on the other
side of the last amendment spoke about the fact that they go through
the process, by the time all the work is done they are halfway through
the harvest season and they do not get the opportunity to get the
workers when they need them.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick. What do you do? All
right, you have made a recruitment, you do not think you have workers
available, it has been certified by the Government. As you are
approaching your harvest season, 150 U.S. workers coming from the
earlier crop show up. Are these people turned down because 10 days from
now they will be getting some foreign guest workers? Do they turn these
U.S. workers down and say, ``No, no job available for you because I've
already gotten approval to bring in 100 foreign guest workers?''
It is all how you want to balance this thing. When you are dealing
with people who make on an average of $5,000 a year, they are our
lowest paid workers, I think we have been tilting so heavily on the
side of agribusiness that this is one little protection they have. Do
not eviscerate that. That is my problem with your amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I respect that, but, reclaiming my time,
let me say two things.
First of all, given the fact, as we have heard all day here, that
there is a need for workers, those workers are going to find
employment.
Second, if you have already entered into a contractual relation with
somebody to have somebody come and do some work because you have
established that you could not find a U.S. worker, what are you going
to do when those people arrive?
That is the bottom line. You have got to have an arrangement in
advance. You have got to give U.S. workers the maximum opportunity to
have an opportunity to apply for the job. But then once they apply and
you hire them, and you still have a need for additional workers and you
enter into a contractual relationship, you have got to be able to enter
into that contract and have a reasonable amount of time to get that
processed before they come.
That is all we are asking with that amendment. It is eminently fair,
both to the U.S. workers who can also enter into contracts and get the
priority, but if they do not, then the farmer has the opportunity to
get the work in a timely fashion, so that they get it and get the crop
harvested. That is all we are asking for. It is eminently reasonable
and I would think the gentleman would accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have a guest worker program. It is now
called the H-2A program, it used to be called the H-2 program. It has
certain conditions. This year, 17,000 agricultural workers came in
under those requirements.
The difference between 17,000 and it shooting up in the case of your
amendment to the 100,000 cap is the balance and retention between the
potential for domestic workers. The moment you cut off the requirement
to hire 20 days before the season starts, in every situation what you
will find is the department saying, ``Since I can't promise them X
number of workers when that season starts, I'm going to have to grant
his petition.
The only thing that keeps this process honest is the requirement to
continue to recruit, to prioritize and hire U.S. workers if they show
up, and to hire them at any point 50 percent through the season. Fifty
percent through the season was done for the benefit of the growers.
Once the guy had been there for 50 percent of the time, do not displace
him because somebody now showed up. Let them finish the entire season.
You are taking what was done for the benefit of the growers and you
are totally repealing it, and that is the big problem I have with your
amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman well knows,
we put a cap on this program to make sure that there was a limitation
because of the fact that with only 17,000 using it right now, we know
that there are far more people than that out there who would utilize
it, who are utilizing illegal immigrants right now. Therefore, we
wanted to make sure that we had every encouragement on growers to have
every effort made to recruit U.S. workers. And they are going to have
to make every effort to recruit U.S. workers if, as they say, they use
a half a million illegal immigrants right now.
So the 100,000 cap is, I think, a very, very stringent cap, but also
we have to make the program usable within that cap. Obviously, with
17,000 legal workers and a half a million illegal workers, we do not
have a reasonable program right now. So let us modify the program, make
some improvements, and still protect U.S. workers.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the one problem with the amendment that my friend from
Virginia has not discussed is that it eliminates the requirement to
provide workers with free housing. The H-2A employers must provide or
pay for housing for their workers. This amendment replaces the housing
provision with a housing allowance but, quote, only if housing is
reasonably available in the area of employment, end quote.
I find that restrictive, onerous and another sop to the growers, who
probably would rejoice in having us revisit this measure as we did in
1986.
I think that we have got a problem here. It is tough enough to get
Americans to do this kind of labor, and to make it harder for them to
get under the program by the eliminations or restrictions around the
recruiting process I think is not good. I will not say it is un-
American, but it sure does not help the few Americans that want to work
in this very onerous area.
Remember, the pay is bad, the conditions are horrible, the work is
temporary. Maybe that is why we have to bring in people to work on it.
So the few Americans that are willing to work in this field, I would
encourage them to do so.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the important thing to note here is that only in places
where housing is widely available do we allow a grower to issue a
housing allowance instead of to provide the housing itself. That is
only a matter of flexibility, not only for the grower but also for the
worker. Because if you are providing them with an allowance, they then
have the opportunity to choose the housing they want rather than the
place that the grower might choose for them and assign to them. I think
it makes far more sense to give that kind of flexibility for the
benefit of both the worker and the grower.
Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate that. I have heard this kind of argument
that we know what is best for the workers. They do not want this. Their
organizations that support them do not want it. But really if they need
it, they would be happy to have it.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Our real difference is you say 17,000 guest workers, half
a
[[Page H2625]]
million illegal immigrants working in our fields. Got to do something.
I say we legalized 1.1 million agricultural workers in 1986. We have
double-digit unemployment in almost every rural county in America,
astronomical unemployment in the areas that most want this, Western
agriculture, and what we need to do is the government working with
agriculture, welfare reform, going back to the people who left the
fields and who know how to pick.
This is honorable work. There are Americans who will do this work if
they do not have alternatives, and if there is decent pay and good
working conditions. This should be our focus, not trying to figure out
how to do this guest worker thing where they really do not go back. I
mean, huge numbers we lose. That is the problem. I think that should be
our focus.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with anything the gentleman says. The
fact of the matter is, though, the difference between 500,000 and
100,000 is 400,000 people. There is plenty of room there to work on
welfare reform and improving opportunities for U.S. citizens, and we
certainly want to do that.
The problem is, and you have acknowledged earlier that the current H-
2A program does not work well and, as a result, reforms are needed. We
disagree on exactly what those reforms should be, but if we have a
program and it only utilizes 17,000 people but there are a half a
million out there working illegally, it seems to me that some reform of
that program is in order.
I would appreciate the gentleman working with us on making the
program work a little better, and in return I am giving you something
that I would hope that you would want, and that is a cap on the
program. There is no cap on the H-2A program right now. If Government
works with agriculture to make this program work better without these
amendments, we would have a program that had no limit on it. Let us
have a good compromise that puts a cap on it but makes it more
workable.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if we had a verification system in this
bill that went into effect immediately, I think the gentleman's request
would be incredibly reasonable.
We have the most voluntary and ephemeral verification system left in
this bill now. Do we think tomorrow there are not going to be any more
undocumented workers employed in agriculture? They are not vanishing.
There is no system for them to vanish.
There is no meaningful verification in this bill. The gentleman tried
to get it but he lost, and I voted with him. We both lost. So when you
do that verification, come back to me and I will talk to you about a
good transition guest worker program.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Why am I suspicious? The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] is a
wonderful human being with whom I have enjoyed a great relationship.
But there are little problems. Housing eliminates the requirement to
provide workers with free housing. Then he explains, ``It's for the
workers' benefit, John,'' not to worry.
Reduces the required time to recruit domestic workers. ``That will
help Americans, so don't worry about that.''
Eliminates the 50-percent rule. ``No problem,'' he says.
Eliminates the three-fourths guarantee. Good explanation for it.
What I am beginning to think, this is a great solution in search of a
problem. And I will tell the gentleman, there is another little nervous
provision in here from my point of view. The certification of the
workers goes from the Department of Labor to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
{time} 1845
Does that raise a red light with anybody in this body besides me? One
other person, a few more.
Look, INS is particularly unqualified to make labor certifications.
They are looking for people who do not belong here. So these things, I
would say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], make me
reluctant to be enthusiastic about this amendment. As a matter of fact,
it does not lead me to the strong opposition of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Torres], or the vehement opposition that he had on
Pombo, but I cannot support it. I think that the arguments presented by
our resident expert on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Berman], are overwhelming and persuasive.
Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from Michigan if
he has any other speakers?
Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan has the
right to close, I yield myself such time as I may consume to conclude.
Mr. Chairman, let me say to my good friend from Michigan that I am
disappointed, because it seems to me that we have lost all opportunity
here to find a middle ground, to try to work together to improve a
program that we both agree is a bad program. We worked together to make
sure that we did not have an out of control program that allowed
250,000 new workers in the country, but now here we have an opportunity
to make the program work a little better so that growers have the
opportunity to meet their needs when they truly can justify them, when
they can have an independent certification by a Government agency that
the need exists and in exchange we put a cap on the program of 100,000
workers.
It seems to me that is fair to everybody involved, and that is what I
strove to do. In fact, my offering this amendment I think was very
careful in making the case that the other amendment was not needed. So
it disappoints me that the gentleman would attack these modest reforms
we are making, including one that simply says for both the worker and
the grower, hey, why have a specific grower tell the worker where they
have got to live? That is crazy. If there is adequate housing in the
area, allow the worker to choose their own housing by giving them a
housing allowance. It does not eliminate the requirement to give them
free housing. It simply says when it is done, they both can have a
little flexibility in the process.
So I think these modifications are needed by our agricultural
industry in this country. I think these modifications are very
reasonable and workable, and I think that this is a vast improvement
over the current program. I would urge the Members of the House to
support it. Let us not both defeat the amendment and leave a failed
non-workable program out there. Let us do the reasonable thing in the
middle, which is to take the current program, reform it, and make it
better.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, more sneaking reservations continue to
crop up. Let me call the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Goodlatte] to the fact that the growers like this idea. If the
gentleman had only contacted the National Council of Loraza that
represents the workers, they would have come back to you, we would not
have to do what I am going to propose now.
Because of his integrity and our close working relationship on the
committee, why do we not work together, as the gentleman says, and he
withdraw this amendment, and I promise him, with all the good faith I
can muster, that I and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], will
sit with him and try to work out the program?
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, we have had this
conversation. I am for trying to streamline and deal with the problems
and the impediments that exist in the existing H-2A program. The
administration is committed to doing that. There would be
[[Page H2626]]
ample opportunity in the conference committee to work out a program
that would be good for agriculture and be good for workers and be
supported bipartisanly.
In all fairness, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], did not
discuss with us his proposal. I asked my friend, the chairman of the
subcommittee, if he would involve me in alternatives to the Pombo
amendment, but he did not, so we were sort of left out in the cold.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would be very anxious to work with the
gentleman on making this amendment better, but I would encourage him to
support the amendment, and then we can work together to improve it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge opposition to
this amendment.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, hired labor is one of the most important
and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion
on hired labor expenses in 1992--one out of every 8 dollars of farm
production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and
horticultural section, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of
production costs.
The labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialties
sector accounted for more than $23 billion of agricultural sales in
1992, an increase of 32 percent for 5 years earlier. The
competitiveness of U.S. agriculture depends upon the continued
availability of hired labor at reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including
producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly
with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and
foreign commodity markets.
U.S. farmers are producing for global markets and competing at world
market prices. More than one-third of U.S. fruit and vegetable
production is now exported. On the other hand, about one-quarter of our
fruit and vegetable consumption is now imported. If the labor supply is
restricted and production costs rise, U.S. growers will lose market
share to overseas producers. This decline in production will cost
thousands of U.S. workers their jobs. Based on relative shares of
agricultural production, at least one-quarter of the job loss will be
in California.
The availability of adequate seasonable labor has enable U.S.
producers to expand production and exports of labor-intensive
commodities. This has created tens of thousands of jobs for U.S.
workers in ``upstream'' and ``downstream'' industries. Appropriately
three off-farm jobs depend directly on each on-farm job.
In California, due to the nature of the crops and the vast
geographical and seasonal range, this need for labor over a short
period is particularly intense. California is about 900 miles long,
north to south. If you transpose it to the east coast we are talking
about a distance from approximately the north of Florida almost to
Massachusetts. Obviously, you have a significant timeframe in terms of
growing. In this regard, the existing H-2A program has failed to be a
reliable source of temporary and seasonal agricultural workers. The
regulatory burdens leave employers waiting with uncertainty and anxiety
whether they will be certified by the Department of Labor to obtain
workers in a timely manner.
What American farmers require is a temporary worker program which
addresses these concerns. Recently the Agriculture Committee passed an
amendment to H.R. 2202, sponsored by Congressman Richard Pombo of
California, which would create a streamlined, temporary agricultural
worker program. The Pombo amendment would create a 3-year pilot program
with an annual cap of 250,000 workers admitted per year decreasing by
25,000 each year for the final 2 years of the program. Agricultural
work generally is characterized by periods of peak demand for migratory
workers that cannot be met by domestic labor sources. Under the Pombo
language, employers would file attestations with the Department of
Labor indicating the number of workers needed, as well as the specific
terms of employment. Qualified U.S. workers would always receive first
preference for these jobs. It is essential that such a proposal which
protects agricultural labor needs to be included in the final language.
In contrast, the Goodlatte amendment is not adequate protection for
the agricultural community. The Goodlatte language proposes to swap one
bureaucracy for another by moving the H-2A certification process from
the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. Further, the
Goodlatte amendment imposes an unrealistic cap of 100,000 annual
admissions under the H-2A program. As an example of this inadequacy,
raisin growers in Fresno County employ nearly 51,000 agricultural
workers between late August and late September each year; under the
Goodlatte amendment's cap, if any significant portion of these workers
are found to be employment ineligible by a verification system, or are
interdicted at the border or detected by border enforcement, it is an
open question whether there will be sufficient slots under the cap to
meet the raisin producer's needs at that point in the growing season.
The Goodlatte amendment also proposes a significantly tighter three-
quarter guarantee than that currently applied to the H-2A program. The
amendment would mandate an 8-hour workday, a requirement that would be
impossible to meet on many days due to uncontrollable weather or crop
conditions. Under the language of Goodlatte, if as few as one-quarter
of the workdays were not full 8-hour workdays, the grower would be
required to pay workers for periods of no work, regardless of how much
work was provided on the remaining days, clearly unreasonable to the
agriculture community.
Mr. Speaker, amending H.R. 2202 with a workable temporary and season
agricultural worker program is essential to achieve true immigration
reform. The end result of failure to provide a legal temporary alien
worker program for U.S. agriculture will be to reduce U.S. farm
production and agribusiness employment.
The following agricultural organizations urge your support
for the Pombo/Chambliss amendment. We strongly oppose the
Goodlatte amendment
National Council of Agricultural Employers;
Agri-labor Support Organization;
Agricultural Affiliates from Western New York;
Agricultural Producers;
American Association of Nurserymen;
American Farm Bureau Federation;
American Mushroom Institute;
California Farm Bureau;
California Floral Council;
California Grape & Tree Fruit League;
Colorado Sugarbeet Growers Association;
Florida Citrus Mutual;
Florida Citrus Packers;
Florida Farm Bureau;
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association;
Florida Nurserymen & Growers Association;
Florida Strawberry Growers Association;
Frank B. Logoluso Farms;
Frederick County Fruit Growers;
Fresno County Farm Bureau (CA);
Fruit Growers League of Jackson County, Oregon;
Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California;
Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Santa Barbara and
San Obispo Counties;
Hanes City Citrus Growers Association;
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association;
Illinois Specialty Growers Association;
International Apple Institute;
Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board;
Michigan Farm Bureau Federation;
Midwest Food Processors Association;
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture;
National Cattlemen's Association;
National Christmas Tree Association;
National Cotton Council;
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;
National Peach Council;
National Watermelon Association; New England Apple Council;
New York Apple Association, Inc.; Nisei Farmers League; North
Carolina Apple Growers Clearinghouse; North Carolina Growers
Association; North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission; Northern
Christmas Trees & Nursery; Oregon Farm Bureau Federation,
Patterson Firm (MA); Shoreham Cooperative Apple Producers,
Association (VT); Snake River Farmers Association;
Society of American Florists; Sod Growers Association of
Mid-America (IL); Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Florida; Sun-
Maid Growers of California; Texas Citrus & Vegetable
Association; Texas and Soutwestern Cattle Raisers
Association; Texas Cotton Ginner's Association; Tobacco
Growers Association of North Carolina, Inc.; United
Agribusiness League; United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable
Association; Valley Growers Cooperative (NY);
Ventura County Agricultural Association; Vidalia Onion
Business Council; Virginia Agricultural Growers Association,
Inc.; Virginia State Horticultural Society; WASCO County
Fruit & Produce League; Washington Growers Clearing House
Association; Washington Growers League; Washington State
Horticultural Association; Western Growers Association;
Wisconsin Christmas Tree Producers Association; and Wisconsin
Nursery Association.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Goodlatte will be
postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed
in part 2 of House Report 104-483.
[[Page H2627]]
amendment offered by mr burr
Mr. BURR. 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. Burr: At the end of subtitle B of
title VIII insert the following new section:
SEC. 837. EXTENSION OF H-1A VISA PROGRAM FOR NON-IMMIGRANT
NURSES.
Effective as if included in the enactment of the
Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-238),
section 3(d) of such Act (103 Stat. 2103) is amended--
(1) by striking ``To 5-Year Period'',
(2) by striking ``5-year'', and
(3) by inserting ``and ending at the end of the 6-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995'' after
``Act''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Burr] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this
amendment to allow a 6 month extension of the H-1A nonimmigrant nurse
program which expired in September. Our country's nursing homes and
senior health care providers will face a dire situation unless we act
now to temporarily reauthorize the program.
It allows health care facilities to bring foreign registered nurses
into the country on a temporary basis. These nurses are not taking
American jobs, because they fill needed positions in rural areas where
there is a shortage of American nurses. These shortages continue,
despite fiscal year 1995 and 1996 appropriations of $78 million each
year for the National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Program
to recruit American nurses for these rural areas.
Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a six month extension. During this
time the concerned committees will have the opportunity to examine the
program and develop a long-term solution to the shortage of qualified
nurses in rural America. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, briefly, this amendment would extend the temporary
program and allow foreign nurses into the United States for another six
months. Case closed. I mean, we need more foreign nurses coming into
the United States for longer periods of time like Hershey needs candy
bars. So that is not a good deal, because the current supply of nurses
is adequate and may even increase in the coming years due to the
downsizing of the American health industry. I hope my colleague will
answer this before the debate is over.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. I think everybody
needs to understand what it is. It is simply a period of time during
which the committee, the subcommittee, in particular, on Immigration,
can listen to all sides of this and make a reasoned decision.
There are a lot of folks in rural areas who have been telling us
there is still a nurse shortage, they do need the foreign nurse program
for that purpose. In some of the urban areas, the nursing organizations
are very concerned, because they say they do not need it any more.
Maybe we can craft something that would be responsible for everybody.
So the rural folks, if they really have a shortage, can have that
relieved, and the urban areas can also be free of anything that might
be impeding their having domestic homegrown nurses. I do not know the
answer. I am not sure about it.
But I would like to have the time as a member of the subcommittee to
consider this. We have not been having that time. I think we should
leave the nurse program alone and create the period of time that is
created in this amendment. I think the gentleman from North Carolina
has produced a good one.
So I urge an ``aye'' vote to leave the opportunity there for the
subcommittee over 6 months to consider the matter, have hearings, and
so forth. I urge the adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the H-1A nurses program was established to
deal with a nursing shortage that has now evaporated. I understand the
claim is that this program is still necessary for rural communities.
However, it is important to note that four-fifths of the nurses who
entered under the H-1A program went to metropolitan areas. In fact,
one-third of them went to New York City. For those rural areas that
need nurses, they have the ability to petition for nurses under the H-
1B Program, and they should certainly utilize that.
This extraordinary program that was useful for our country at one
time expired in September, and it should stay dead. We had 6,000 nurses
enter from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA in 1994 alone. Many nurses
that came in through this program, and many more are still coming in
through NAFTA.
We have a nursing surplus right now, and the New England Journal of
Medicine is predicting a 54 percent decrease in hospital beds. We are
going to be awash in nurses. I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just wish the gentlewoman had an opportunity to go to
rural North Carolina and see the shortages
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois,
[Mr. Rush].
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment offered
by my colleague, Mr. Burr from North Carolina, that will extend the H-
1A non-immigrant nurse program for 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, the effect of the sunset of this program was brought to
my attention by Sister Elizabeth Von Straten, who is my constituent and
who serves as the President-CEO of Saint Bernard Hospital which is also
in my district. Saint Bernard Hospital has employed nurses solely from
the H-1A program since 1991 when it was determined that they could save
over 3 million dollars a year in nursing salaries.
Without this program the hospital is forced to rely on registry
nurses. Registry Nurses require a salary that is double that of the H-
1A nurse or they will not work in the Englewood area. This program
provides qualified foreign nurses at a cost saving that enables Saint
Bernard to continue to serve as the only remaining hospital in an area
designated both as one of Chicago's health professional shortages area
and also as a medically undeserved area.
Mr. Chairman, the Englewood community needs to have this hospital. Of
the patients that are served by Saint Bernard, 86 percent are below 150
percent of poverty. These is a 3,600 to 1 patient to physician ratio
and all of the hospital patients are on Medicaid or Medicare.
The Hospital is also the largest employer in Englewood with 640 full
time positions in an area that is one of the most economically
depressed communities in the Chicago area.
Mr. Chairman, I want to give my colleagues a thumb-nail sketch of the
role Saint Bernard Hospital plays in one of Chicago's most impoverished
neighborhoods. It represents their only beacon of hope. The glow of
that beacon dimmed last September 30.
That's when the H-1A visa program for nonimmigrant nurses was
sunseted. If we do not extend this program in order to determine the
impact that ending the program will have on Hospitals like Saint
Bernard's and communities like Englewood then the beacon of hope will
become pitch dark.
Mr. Chairman, Saint Bernard Hospital must have at least this
temporary 6 month extension of the H-1A visa program to determine how
to keep serving the residents of Englewood who depend on them for jobs
and health care.
This is truly a matter of life and death.
[[Page H2628]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Burr amendment to
extend the H-1A visa program for 6 months.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 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 opposition to the Burr amendment.
The Burr amendment will allow an outdated program to continue, and it
will do real harm to American nurses. We must protect American nurses
and American workers.
The H-1A program, which passed in 1990, allowed an unlimited number
of foreign nurses to enter the United States. However, the medical
industry has changed radically in the last six years. Not only do we no
longer need the foreign nurses, we actually have a potential glut of
nurses in this country.
Simply put, we have more nurses than we have jobs. The hospital
industry has gone through a massive restructuring. As hospitals have
merged, closed or ``scaled back'' in order to become more competitive,
the number of nursing positions has decreased. At the time time, the
pool of nurses is actually increasing.
We simply do not have a need or the jobs for the H-1A nurses. The H-
1A visas sunsetted on September 1, 1995. We should allow the program to
end. Think about the American nurses who have dedicated their lives to
helping sick people. Let's face it, people do not become nurses to get
rich or to become famous--they do it to help others. The least that we
can do is to make sure that American nurses have jobs. I urge you to
defeat the Burr amendment.
{time} 1900
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The H-1A
temporary visa program was created in 1990 as a result of a nursing
crisis shortage of the 1980's. While I acknowledge the very real need
for foreign nurses in those years, this program expired in September
1995, and I see no need to revive or perpetuate this program.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant], ranking Democrat, who has led this immigration bill
as well as he could under the circumstances.
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in the
subcommittee we had hearings on parts of this bill. We had no hearings
on this. No evidence was brought forth to tell us if there was a need
to import nurses to take the jobs of American nurses that are working
today. Without any evidence of that and with clear evidence having been
brought forth in this debate that there is no need whatsoever for this
program to be extended, I strongly urge Members to vote no.
The fact of the matter is that these American nurses deserve to be
able to compete for jobs inside of our domestic economy without having
to worry about imported workers working more cheaply.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, this is a health care issue, it is not a
nursing issue. I do not think it is outdated to supply adequate care to
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith] who has worked so hard on the immigration bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
offering this amendment.
The amendment will provide for a 6-month extension of H-1A
nonimmigrant program for nurses as originally enacted by the
Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989. I support this extension of the
H-1A program which originally was effective for just 5 years. This will
permit the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims to conduct hearings
and otherwise investigate the competing interests relevant to this
program.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr]
for taking the lead on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this
extension of the nurses program.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
This is a classic case. I was very active in supporting the extension
of the nurses program in the 1990 bill. The problem has been solved. A
combination of recruitment, of this incorporation of many of the people
who came here to work in nursing, all of these things have taken care
of the shortage. I have heard from no hospital in the areas of greatest
need that need this program.
I would suggest that this amendment be defeated. Organized labor
opposes this. This is going to displace available U.S. workers. I urge
it be defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Xavier Becerra.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for saying my name
so well.
I, too, stand in opposition to the amendment. We have no evidence
that there is a need for this. We should preserve jobs in our hospitals
and our clinics for the nurses that have gone through the programs in
this country and are ready to serve the people that are in need of
medical care.
Mr. Chairman, there is no need to reach out at this time. There was a
perceived need back in the early 1990s. If there was a need, it has
been met by those temporary or foreign nurses that came in. We do not
need the program. It expired last year. There is no need to revive it.
Let us get on with this and let us preserve jobs that are available for
American nurses.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, let me say, as we started this debate, that
the American Hospital Association has just called in support of this
amendment, as well as the American Health Care Association.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, there is probably no one in
this House that has more affection for American nurses. And I do not
think this bill will hurt American nurses. My mother was a nurse and is
retired now.
But folks, this is not unreasonable, what we are asking to do here. I
saw an editorial, in the American Journal of Nursing, January 1996,
that is a couple months ago, which said that the only true nursing
shortage that currently exists exists in rural America, accounting for
92.4 percent of the remaining shortage areas.
There is truly a question in this country if there is a nursing
shortage in rural America. And all we are asking to do here, this is
not unreasonable, is simply extend this program for 6 months so that
we, as an immigration subcommittee, as promised by our chairman, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], can conduct hearings. We do not want
to put American workers out of jobs, but if we truly have shortages in
rural areas, which the American Journal of Nursing says we do, as in
January 1996, then we need to find out. We need to have these hearings
and extend this bill, if necessary.
I ask Members to vote for this, 6 months only.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Burr] has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Bryant] that the nurses do not want this. I am glad the gentleman is
reading the nurses' literature, but here is what the nurses union say.
Recent restructuring and downsizing of hospitals and other
health care facilities have caused the displacement of
thousands of qualified nurses. They should be put back to
work before still another program is instituted to import
nurses from abroad.
Dated, March 21, 1996.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The program which the gentleman seeks to restore was originally
created
[[Page H2629]]
to address a short-term shortage of qualified nurses. The shortage has
been addressed and no longer exists.
In fact, changes in the structure and management of the Health Care
System makes it likely that we will soon have a large pool of American
nurses from which employers may recruit. In addition, the most recently
available statistics indicate that the number of graduate nurses
continues to increase.
Even if this should not be the case, nurses could still be recruited
from Mexico and Canada under NAFTA; more than 6,000 nurses entered the
United States under NAFTA in 1994. Nurses may also be recruited under
H-1B Visa Program and the permanent employment-based Immigration
Program.
I urge Members to join me in rejecting the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] will
be postponed.
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the
following order: Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]; and amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
amendment offered by mr. goodlatte
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 59,
noes 357, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 86]
AYES--59
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boucher
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Campbell
Clinger
Combest
Davis
Ehrlich
Ensign
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gekas
Geren
Goodlatte
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Latham
Linder
McCollum
Moran
Myers
Myrick
Ney
Oxley
Parker
Quillen
Ramstad
Rogers
Roukema
Saxton
Schaefer
Shaw
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stenholm
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--357
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Barr
Bunn
Clay
Collins (IL)
DeLay
Dicks
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Rose
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
{time} 1926
Messrs. WYNN, MOORHEAD, PACKARD, SHADEGG, WAMP, and DUNCAN changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CAMPBELL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 86, I was unavoidably
detained due to my attendance at the funeral of a close friend. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. burr
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Burr] 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 262, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
AYES--154
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bevill
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Boucher
Brewster
Brownback
[[Page H2630]]
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
de la Garza
Deal
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Durbin
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Funderburk
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kim
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Payne (VA)
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Quillen
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
White
Wicker
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOES--262
Ackerman
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Beilenson
Clay
Collins (IL)
DeLay
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Rose
Spence
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
{time} 1935
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. DeLay for, with Mr. Radanovich against.
Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. PETERSON of Minnesota, COOLEY, HOBSON,
SAXTON, LONGLEY, SHAW, and Ms. PRYCE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. LaHOOD and Mr. PICKETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2202.
In fairness, this bill is more acceptable now than it was when it
first came to the floor on Tuesday. Several of my principal concerns
have been addressed. In particular, adoption of the Chrysler-Berman
amendment deleting unneeded reforms to our system of legal immigration
has put this bill back on track to addressing the primary immigration
problem which our constituents have identified--illegal immigration. In
addition, the change under the manager's amendment allowing for the
filing of asylum petitions within 180 days instead of the 30 days in
the original bill recognizes the concern which I and others had
expressed regarding the impossibility for most people of filing a
complete claim in 30 days. Finally, adoption of the Schiff-Smith
amendment removing caps on annual refugee admissions restores the
humaneness of U.S. refugee policy and assures necessary flexibility to
respond to global events.
I regret that the same humaneness and compassion is not reflected in
the provisions in this bill dealing with children. To allow States the
option to deny an illegal alien child, who cannot be held responsible
for his or her presence in this country, the right to an education is
not only unconstitutional, but also cruel to the child and
counterproductive for our communities. What is the point of the
Constitution if we are to decide that States may opt out of assuring
its guarantees? The same can be said for the bill's provisions denying
Medicaid, AFDC, and food stamps to U.S. citizen children whose parents
are illegal aliens. Failure of the House to adopt the Velazquez
amendment relegates these Americans to second class status. I hope
these provisions will be removed in conference.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2202,
the Immigration in the National Interest Act. Let me state from the
beginning that I strongly object to this legislation's failure to
distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Exploiting concerns
about illegal immigration, H.R. 2202 unreasonably limits the number of
immigrants who can be legally admitted to the United States. This
restriction clearly violates the basic tenets of fairness and justice
upon which our Nation, a nation of immigrants, was founded. I believe
that America must honor its pledge of being a nation that will reunite
families, provide asylum to a reasonable number of refugees, and
protect the legitimate rights of both American workers and legal
immigrants.
The Immigration in the National Interest Act would cut the number of
immigrants who can be legally admitted to the United States annually by
more than 200,000 persons. This draconian attack on America's immigrant
population would be accomplished by dramatically limiting the number of
family immigration visas, and by cutting in half the number of people
granted asylum. Slashing legal immigration by 30 percent and refugee
admission by 50 percent is unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to emphasize that most of the legal
immigrants entering the United States are allowed for the purpose of
family reunification. Our current policy requires that they are coming
to this country to join an immediate relative who has been granted
permanent residency status. It is incomprehensible that provisions in
H.R. 2202 would attack our national policy of family reunification.
This bill's drastic reductions in the number of legal family
reunification through numerical caps and earnings tests will have only
one result, families will be divided.
In addition to hurting American families, H.R. 2202 recklessly cuts
the U.S. participation in humanitarian efforts by limiting the number
of refugees who can enter the United States by 50 percent. This
heartless exclusion of persons fleeing oppression and war is not only
contrary to the interest of refugees, it also damages America's role as
a world power. It would be an abdication of the U.S. humanitarian
leadership worldwide to support this provision of H.R. 2202.
Another harmful element of this legislation is its requirement that
both the sponsoring individual or family and the immigrant have an
income of 200 percent of the poverty level. These unreasonably high
family-sponsor caps will ultimately result in the disproportionate
exclusion of the families of poor and minority immigrants. Such
unreasonable and blatant discriminatory immigration policies should be
actively resisted.
There are numerous other harmful provisions in this measure--
including making illegal
[[Page H2631]]
immigrants ineligible for most Federal benefits and establishing a
telephone verification of citizenship policy--that compel me to oppose
it. The unjustified hostility to legal immigration this bill fosters is
simply un-American.
It is important to recognize that the history of the United States is
largely one of immigration, and that this nation is rich because of its
blend of cultures and ethnic backgrounds. America is a nation of
immigrants that--without their creativity, intelligence, and vitality--
would not have achieved the greatness with which it is recognized. This
shortsighted legislation will impose an unbalanced and unfair set of
priorities that will hurt America much more than it would help.
Mr. Speaker, the truth about H.R. 2202 is that it fails to not only
distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, but that it reflects
some of my colleagues' desires to sacrifice the interests and
obligations of the American people in exchange for isolationism. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, few areas of the Nation confront the
challenges and suffer the impacts of illegal immigration as much as
southern California. I strongly support provisions of H.R. 2202 which
seek to control this problem through enhancements in our borders,
increases in the numbers of border control agents, and increases in
penalties for smuggling and document fraud. I will vote for passage of
H.R. 2202, as amended, and continue to support the substantial
increases in funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
stem the tide of illegal immigration.
However, I have reservations about several of the provisions of this
legislation, and will carefully scrutinize the conference agreement on
this legislation prior to giving that bill my support. I want to
specifically highlight my strong objections to inclusion of the
amendment which grants States the option to deny all public education
to illegal aliens.
The amendment may be good politics. Clearly, it is appealing to many
who are concerned about tight education budgets and the need to spend
what moneys are available on American children, rather than educating
those illegally in the country. However, the amendment is harsh in its
treatment of children; is highly questionable as a disincentive to
illegal immigration; and will create far more problems for schools and
communities impacted by illegal immigration than it seeks to rectify.
I fail to understand how proponents of this measure believe that
creating a situation where school officials will be forced to determine
a student's legal immigration status will be beneficial to our
educational systems. The costs of educating these children will merely
be shifted to the administrative burden of determining immigrant
status.
We will not be controlling illegal immigration by keeping some young
people out of school. What we will be doing is putting those same young
people on our streets, unattended and unsupervised. This is hardly the
result that many in our communities are seeking as they look to
Congress to address illegal immigration. Moreover, stigmatizing certain
school children in this manner, can only lead to potential
discrimination against those children who may merely look different.
Claiming the provision as a disincentive to illegal immigration is
questionable, at best. I do not believe that a free education for their
children is a primary incentive among individuals seeking to enter the
United States illegally.
Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration. But punishing
children not legally in this country through no fault of their own,
while placing the burdens of defining who is and who is not legal on
our public educational system, is a misguided attempt at solving that
problem.
With these reservations in mind, I support the legislation before us
as we continue to enhance federal efforts to control our borders and
ease the burdens of illegal immigration on our communities, cities, and
States.
Mr. MARTIN. I rise today in support of the Immigration in the
National Interest Act, H.R. 2202.
I am pleased that we are finally addressing one of the most important
problems facing America today, I am of course referring to the issue of
Immigration reform.
As I have traveled around my District over the last few weeks from
senior centers to Main Street the one issue about which people have
repeatedly expressed concern is our failed immigration policy. These
visits with my constituents reinforce my belief that we must institute
common sense immigration reforms.
The United States of America has always been known as a land of
immigrants--the melting pot or in today's climate of political
correctness, ``the tossed salad'' of the world.
Over the last 200 years, millions of families have traveled thousands
of miles to embrace opportunities found only in America. In fact, my
grandparents traveled from Italy to settle in North Jersey where they
built a successful business, raised four children and truly fulfilled
the American dream.
Unfortunately, we have gotten away from the brand of immigration
represented by my grandparents and others of that proud generation.
Today, illegal immigration and fraudulent legal immigration runs
rampant through our system.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 20 percent of the legal immigrants in this
country are on welfare. Furthermore, one-quarter of all federal
prisoners are illegal aliens. Does this sound like an immigration
policy that is operating at 100 percent efficiency, Mr. Speaker? I
think not.
Neither did the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform headed by
the late Barbara Jordan. The Commission concluded, ``The United States
must have a more credible immigration policy that deters unlawful
immigration while supporting our national interest in immigration.''
As a member of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration, I
strongly support the commission's findings.
H.R. 2202 is a strong, but fair bill, Mr. Speaker. It establishes a
positive framework to prevent illegal aliens from feeding at the public
trough. I do not believe it is extreme to stop the flow of federal
taxpayer dollars to illegal immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, enactment of H.R. 2202 would reduce illegal immigration
by 50 percent over the next 5 years. By stemming the tide of illegal
immigration now, we will preserve American jobs for Americans. In fact,
this legislation may be the most pro-job and pro-family bill we
consider in the 104th Congress.
Some of my colleagues in this body would like to separate legal
immigration reform from illegal immigration reform. I, on the other
hand, do not believe that we can address one problem without fixing the
other.
H.R. 2202 is a family friendly bill that does not attempt to deprive
members of the immediate family of legal residents from relocating to
the United States. This legislation recognizes the importance and
strength of family relationships by providing no annual limitation to
the immigration of immediate family members to citizens of the United
States.
In fact, H.R. 2202 will allow more legal immigrants into the United
States on an annual basis than we have admitted 60 of the last 65
years.
In short, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2202 places more emphasis on proactive
measures that eliminate the incentives to illegally enter the country,
while still providing ample room for immigrants who truly desire to
pursue the American dream.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this much needed
immigration reform.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the problem of illegal
immigration has reached historic proportions. Past attempts by Congress
to reform immigration laws have provided nothing more than greater
incentives and promised benefits for illegal aliens. The result is the
present system which actually encourages immigrants to come to America
illegally.
Today, I am proud to support an historic change in our Nation's
immigration policy. Today, we are going to pass a reform bill with real
teeth in it. A bill that cracks down on illegal immigrants already
here, and one that secures our borders against future immigrants who
would seek to enter illegally. Past legislation this House has
considered, which I strongly opposed, did nothing to alleviate the
problems of illegal immigration. At long last, I look forward to
supporting a bill which acknowledges these problems and takes action to
address them.
While past legislation sent the message you could come to the U.S.
illegally and expect to receive welfare benefits, food stamps and free
health care, this legislation finally puts an end to this outrage. As a
Member from the State of Florida, I have seen first-hand the financial
burden these ill-gotten attempts at reform have placed on States forced
to bear the brunt of this failed immigration policy. Past Congresses
refused to stop the excessive flow of illegal immigrants and to
eliminate the enormous costs associated with this broken system. Today,
we own-up to our responsibilities with a hard-nosed approach that
substantially increases border control, provides the Immigration and
Naturalization Service with the tools necessary to find and deport
illegal aliens, and pays for the Federal Government's financial
obligations to the States.
Mr. Chairman, my State of Florida has long been overburdened by the
flood of illegal immigration. Since the Mariel boatlift in 1980, we
have been the destination of a disproportionate number of immigrants,
making us the third-largest recipient of immigrants among our 50
States. Although immigration policy is the sole jurisdiction of the
United States Government, history has proven that States like Florida
are typically left with the cost and responsibility of providing
expensive social services to illegal aliens.
With the enactment of H.R. 2202, we have an opportunity to minimize
the enormous expenses that we force upon our States by denying most
public benefits to illegal aliens, removing public charges, and holding
sponsors personally responsible for the financial well-
[[Page H2632]]
being of an immigrant they bring into our country. Most importantly,
this bill requires the Federal Government to reimburse States and
localities for any expenses incurred from providing federally mandated
services to illegal immigrants. Based upon various formulas, it is
estimated that the State of Florida has spent an average of $651
million per year from 1989-1993, or a total of $3.25 billion for
services provided to illegal immigrants. If the costs to local
governments are included, the total burden rises to $15 billion for
that same 5-year period.
Unlike past immigration reform bills, H.R. 2202 will actually
discourage the illegal entry of immigrants by increasing our border
control agents by 5,000 personnel, improving physical barriers along
our borders, including a triple-layer fence, authorizing advanced
border equipment to be used by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and instituting an effective removal process to discharge
illegal immigrants with no documentation. This bill provides the
Department of Justice with 25 new U.S. Attorneys General and authorizes
350 new INS inspectors to investigate and prosecute aliens and alien
smugglers.
This bill also strongly supports the American worker by cracking down
on the use of fraudulent documents that illegal immigrants use to get
American jobs and by enforcing strict penalties for employers who
knowingly violate these laws. The Department of Labor is authorized 150
new investigators to enforce the bill's labor provisions barring the
employment of illegal aliens.
Mr. Chairman, the American people demand that Congress take action to
secure our borders against illegal immigrants. With the explosion in
the amount of drugs and criminals coming across our borders, and with
the flood of illegal immigrants, many of whom settle in Florida, it is
eminently important that we do all we can to protect our national
borders.
While past Congresses refused to address this national crisis, today
we deliver, with a much needed and long overdue first step in this
renewed effort. Today we will approve legislation with unprecedented
prevention and enforcement mechanisms. The message to illegal aliens is
no longer one of indifference. The new message is simple--try to enter
the United States illegally and we will stop you, should you get in, we
will find and deport you, and should you remain in hiding, don't expect
much in the way of support.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, after having a conversation with Mr.
Goodling, the chairman of the opportunities committee, I wish to
clarify, for the record, section 606 of H.R. 2202.
The Department of Education recently signed a computer matching
agreement with the Social Security Administration which is to go into
effect for the 1996-1997 school year.
The purpose of the matching program is to ensure that the
requirements of section 484(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 are
met.
This matching program will enable the Department of Education to
confirm that the social security number and the citizenship status of
applicants for financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act are valid at the time of application.
I would further note that the details of the matching arrangement can
be found in the Federal Register publications of March 23, 1995,
September 21, 1995, and December 1, 1995.
The matching agreement addresses my concerns about the verification
of a student's status and eligibility for student aid.
However, we all know that statutory language is a much better source
of authority than regulations. So, I just want to make sure that the
verification takes place, that's all. That's why I have included the
statutory language. If the Attorney General and the Secretary of
Education agree that the matching agreement adequately meets the
verification requirements of section 606 of the bill, then that is fine
with me.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call attention to
the important action of the House in deleting the proposed ``refugee
cap'' which would have made dramatic cuts in the number of refugees the
United States accepts each year. In particular, the ``refugee cap''
would have necessitated the elimination of the in-country programs for
Jews and Evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union, and for
pro-American political prisoners, religious dissidents and other people
at risk of persecution by the Communist government of Viet Nam.
political and religious dissidents around the world
Make no mistake: the proposals for refugee cuts do not reflect a
decline in the worldwide level of political, racial, and religious
persecution. The dictatorship in Nigeria recently staged a public
hanging of eight members of the Ogoni ethnic minority, including highly
respected novelist and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Iran
followed up by sentencing a member of its Baha'i religious minority to
death for a crime it calls ``national apostasy.''
vietnamese political and religious dissidents
Nor is the upsurge in persecution limited to so-called ``pariah''
regimes. A week after Warren Christopher raised the flag on the new
United States Embassy in Viet Nam, the government of that country
staged two show trials--apparently to disabuse its own people of the
idea that economic and diplomatic relations with the West would lead to
greater respect for human rights. Six of the nation's top Buddhist
leaders were sentenced to long prison terms for persisting in their
refusal to join the state church. Nine people were convicted of ``using
freedom and democracy to injure the national unity'' because they had
requested permission to hold a conference on the subject of democracy.
So this is no time to think about shutting down the Orderly Departure
Program for people who have suffered for their pro-American, pro-
freedom beliefs and associations. Nor is it a time to think about
dumping thousands more high-risk political and refugees, currently
long-time residents of refugee camps in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia,
back to persecution in the Workers' Paradise. Yet this is what the
international refugee bureaucracy is about to do. The United States has
traditionally stood against this sort of thing, even when our efforts
were regarded as unhelpful by the governments of other nations and by
officials of international organizations. We must recapture that proud
American tradition of resistance to persecution and solace for the
persecuted--and not just when it is convenient or popular.
persecution of jews
The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, of
which I have the honor of serving as Chairman, recently heard expert
testimony on the persecution of Jews around the world. Our witnesses
testified about the continued survival, as we face the turn of the
Twenty-First Century and celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the war
that ended the Holocaust--of systematic and severe mistreatment of
Jews, simply because they are Jews.
The recent firebombings in Jerusalem, which killed many innocent
people, show that there is literally nowhere in the world where Jews
are safe from hatred and violence. But the worst problems appear to be
in places that have a history of anti-Semitism combined with an
unstable present and an uncertain future.
The hearing on persecution of Jews was conducted with the active
assistance of a number of organizations that have been instrumental in
helping to keep the attention of Congress focussed on this issue,
including the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League of
B'nai B'rith, the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, the National
Conference on Soviet Jewry, the National Jewish Coalition, the Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society, and the Council of Jewish Federations. Our
witnesses--including academic experts, a former member of the Russian
Duma, and several people who are themselves refugees from persecution--
told us about the situation in the newly independent states of the
former Soviet Union. We also heard accounts of persecution in Iran and
Syria. These are certainly among the worst cases, but it is important
to remember that anti-Semitism and the violence it brings in its wake
are not confined to one or two regions of the world. The evidence is
unfortunately all around us: the bombing of a synagogue in Argentina,
the ``skinhead'' movement in Western Europe, resurgent ethnic politics
in Central and Eastern Europe, even the desecration of a small Jewish
cemetery by the dictatorship that rules Burma.
The situation of Jews in the former Soviet Union is particularly
important, not only because the struggle for the freedom of Soviet
Jewry was among the finest hours of the American people, but also
because the story could still end badly. There has been a tendency in
recent years, even among those of us who fought long and hard for the
rescue of Soviet Jews, to feel that now we can relax. Unfortunately,
the free world has a long history of relaxing too soon. In the case of
Jews living in the former Soviet Union, what we must avoid is slamming
the door too soon. It is true that the Twentieth Century totalitarian
states based on ideologies that are anti-God and anti-human being, such
as Nazism and Communism, may have had a capacity to do evil whose scope
and degree was unique in all human history. Evil, however, takes many
forms and respects no boundaries. The year in which Zhirinovsky begins
his campaign for President is not the year in which we should decide
that the coast is clear for ex-Soviet Jews.
This hearing also helped us to assess the performance of our
government, and of international institutions such as the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in responding to the pleas of
the Jewish communities that are at risk around the world. Our
government had to be prodded for years before it made freedom of
emigration for persecuted Soviet Jews a foreign policy priority. More
recently, our foreign policy establishment was also slow to recognize
and react to the persecution of Jews in Iraq.
[[Page H2633]]
We must remind ourselves, and then we must remind our government,
that refugee policy is not just an inconvenient branch of immigration
policy. Human rights policy is not just a subset of trade policy. The
protection of refugees, the fight for human rights around the world,
are about recognizing that good and evil really exist in the world.
They are also about recognizing that we are all brothers and sisters.
If we recognize these truths, we can build a coalition to preserve and
strengthen United States policies designed to protect our witnesses
today--and to protect all others who are persecuted because of their
religion, race, nationality, or political beliefs--and to restore these
policies to the place they deserve as a top priority in American
foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, the former Soviet refugee program has already been
reduced from 35,000 refugees in fiscal year 1995 to 30,000 in fiscal
year 1996. Although the governments of the newly independent states do
not endorse the persecution of these groups, in many cases have been
unwilling or unable to prevent it. Instability and resurgent ultra-
nationalism and anti-Semitism counsel against a premature closing of
the door to members of these historically persecuted groups.
PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights also
recently heard expert testimony on the persecution of Christians around
the world. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first hearing of its
kind, ever. Our witnesses testified about the systematic and severe
mistreatment--including but not limited to harassment, discrimination,
imprisonment, beatings, torture, enslavement, and even violent death--
meted out to believers simply because they are believers.
The subject of religious persecution is a familiar one for the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. This
subcommittee and its members have held hearings, introduced
resolutions, and otherwise helped to focus the attention of Congress
and the nation on the persecution of Soviet Jews, of Bosnian Muslims,
of Bahais in Iran, of Buddhists in Tibet and Viet Nam, and of others
who have been oppressed for practicing their chosen faith. This,
however, is the first hearing to focus specifically on persecuted
Christians, and to do so in a way that makes clear this is not an
isolated or occasional outrage, but one that is perpetrated every day
upon millions of people around the world.
We held the hearing on worldwide persecution of Christians in order
to advance several important goals. First, the very act of bearing
witness is important in itself. Even if we could accomplish nothing
else this afternoon, we would have an obligation to shed light on facts
that need to be known, and to give a forum to voices that need to be
heard.
We hope, however, to accomplish much more. In this age when human
rights are always in danger of subordination to other objectives--
whether the love of money, the feat of immigrants and refugees, or the
desire to get along with governments that mistreat their own people--we
need to be reminded that when people are persecuted in distant lands,
it is often because they are like us. The victims we so often ignore,
whether the issue is refugee protection or most-favored-nation status
for China, are usually the very people who share our values. We need to
see their faces, and to be reminded that they are our brothers and
sisters.
It is also important that we assess the performance of our
government, and of international institutions such as the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in responding to the pleas of
persecuted Christians. In the past we have heard that these
institutions have been reluctant to acknowledge the plight of
persecuted Christians. Most of us can remember the Pentecostals who
sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during the 1980s, and who
were finally rescued only after they had been pressured and cajoled for
months to leave because they were cluttering up the courtyard. The so-
called ``Comprehensive Plan of Action'' for Southeast Asian asylum
seekers has returned thousands of Christians, including priests, nuns,
ministers, and seminarians, to Viet Nam after they were callously
labeled ``economic migrants.'' And applications for asylum or refugee
status from Christians who have managed to escape from Islamic
extremist regimes have typically been rejected, despite the draconian
punishments often administered against them.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the hearing afforded an
opportunity for a broad coalition of respected voices, from Amnesty
International to the Southern Baptist Convention and the Family
Research Council, to bear witness to their own recognition of the
plight of persecuted Christians. This is an issue that should unite
liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, even
internationalists and isolationists. Whatever our differences, we are
Americans. There are such things as American values, and there are some
things Americans will not tolerate. We can build a coalition to restore
the protection of these oppressed believers--and of all others who are
persecuted because of their religion, race, nationality, or political
beliefs--as a top priority in American foreign policy. The continuing
persecution of Christian religious demonstrates--and too often the
turning of a deaf ear by U.S. officials and others charged with refugee
protection--is yet another reason that this is a terrible time to talk
about reducing the scope of U.S. refugee programs.
SLAVERY IN MAURITANIA AND SUDAN
The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights also
held a hearing on the practice of chattel slavery, which is still
widespread in Mauritania and Sudan. Most of us had believed, until
quite recently, that this horrible practice belonged only to the past.
But several of our witnesses testified of having seen it first hand,
having spoken with slaves and with slave masters.
According to accounts by anti-slavery activists, including some of
our witnesses, chattel slavery in Mauritania and in the Sudan is
substantially identical to slavery as it was practiced in other
centuries. It represents the subjugation of one race by another, and
often of members of one religious group by members of another. It
frequently includes the grossest forms of degradation of women and
children. Slavery is not to be confused with similar institutions,
such as serfdom or indentured servitude: however wrong these
institutions are, they involve only the ownership of one person's labor
by another. In true slavery, the master owns the slave's body. He owns
the right to decide whom the slave will marry. When babies are born,
the master owns the babies, and can buy them and sell them. True
slavery is about treating people as though they were not people, as
though they were things without souls.
In the modern world, we often speak of ``fundamental human rights.''
Sometimes we say these words without thinking about what they mean. I
believe that the idea of human rights has meaning only if rights are
God-given, inalienable, and indivisible. Slavery is the ultimate denial
of all these ideas. Toleration of slavery, even when it is far away and
in another country, is the ultimate statement of radical cultural
relativism. We must do whatever it takes to abolish slavery, not only
because its victims are our brothers and sisters, but also because as
long as there is anyone in the world who is a slave, none of us is
truly free.
victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must point out that even at our current
levels of refugee admission, the number of refugee spots we allocate
for people fleeing the People's Republic of China--one of the most
repressive regimes on Earth--is zero. This is particularly tragic in
light of the continuing recurrence of one of the most gruesome human
rights violations in the history of the world: forced abortion.
On Good Friday of last year, thirteen Chinese women in INS detention
were moved to a deportation holding center in Bakersfield, California.
Five of these women had fled China after being forced to have
abortions. Others had been forcibly sterilized, or had escaped after
being ordered to undergo abortion and/or sterilization. Their asylum
claims were rejected. Some of them were deported to Ecuador. It appears
that the deportation of the remaining women to the PRC is imminent.
These women and others like them may be forced back to China because
of a novel and bizarre interpretation of U.S. asylum law, under which
those who resist forced abortion or forced sterilization are regarded
as common criminals rather than victims of persecution. After all, they
did break the law--and never mind what kind of law they broke. Never
mind fundamental human rights and broken lives. A law is a law, and
people who break a forced-abortion law or any other law must be sent
back to take their punishment. This is the kind of thinking we are up
against. This is why we need section 522 of this bill, which would
restore the humane policy of regarding victims of forced abortion and
forced sterilization as refugees. It is also one of the reasons we need
a resettlement program for Chinese refugees.
The anti-life, anti-woman interpretation of the refugee laws, which
has resulted in denials of asylum to women fleeing forced abortion, was
adopted by INS in August 1994. It reversed the long-standing policy of
granting asylum to applicants who can prove a well-founded fear of
forced abortion, forced sterilization, or other forms of persecution
for resistance to the PRC coercive population control program.
Section 522 would restore the traditional interpretation and save
these women. Such a provision should not be controversial. Almost all
Americans, whatever their views on the moral and political questions
surrounding abortion, regard forced abortion and forced sterilization
as particularly gruesome violations of fundamental human rights.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is not about immigrants, it is about
refugees. Contrary to
[[Page H2634]]
some of the scare tactics that have been used from time to time against
protecting victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, such
protection has been tried in the past, and has not brought billions of
economic migrants from China or anywhere else. This provision will
protect a tiny handful of genuine refugees--the 13 Bakersfield women
and a few others every year--who face a gruesome fate if we send them
back, or who have already suffered such a fate.
It is important that we put aside myths and consider the facts:
The number of people involved is very small. Section 522 of this bill
has a track record. It simply restores the law as it was interpreted
from 1987 through 1993. It also imposes a statutory cap of 1,000
refugees and asylees. This statutory cap is unfortunate and
unnecessary, but it probably will not make any difference. The number
of people granted asylum on the ground of persecution for resistance to
the PRC population control policy was between 100 and 150 per year--not
1.2 billion.
Each applicant would be required to prove his or her case. Section
522 does not enact a special rule for people who resist the PRC
population control program. It merely gives each applicant an
opportunity to prove his or her case under exactly the same rules as
every other applicant. The only change this provision would make from
current law is to restore eligibility for an applicant who can prove
that he or she individually had a well-founded fear of forced abortion,
forced sterilization, or other persecution for resistance to the
population control policy--or has actually been subjected to such
measures.
It's the right thing to do. Forced abortion, forced sterilization,
and other severe punishments inflicted on resisters to the PRC program
are persecution on account of political opinion. PRC officials have
repeatedly attacked resisters as political and ideological criminals.
The infliction of extraordinarily harsh punishment is also generally
regarded as evidence that those who inflict such punishment regard the
offenders not as ordinary lawbreakers but as enemies of the state.
Forced abortions often take place in the very late stages of
pregnancy. Sometimes the procedure is carried out during the process of
birth itself, either by crushing the baby's skull with forceps as it
emerges from the womb or by injecting formaldehyde into the soft spot
of the head.
Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on persons whose
resistance is motivated by religion. According to a recent Amnesty
International report, enforcement measures in two overwhelmingly
Catholic villages in northern China have included torture, sexual
abuse, and the detention of resisters' relatives as hostages to compel
compliance. The campaign is reported to have been conducted under the
slogan ``better to have more graves than more than one child.''
The dramatic and well-publicized arrival of a few vessels containing
Chinese ``boat people'' has tended to obscure the fact that these
people have never amounted to more than a tiny fraction of the
undocumented immigrants to the United States. The total number of
Chinese boat people who arrived during the years our more generous
asylum policy was in force, or who were apprehended while attempting to
do so, was fewer than 2000. This is the equivalent of a quiet evening
on the border in San Diego.
Nor is there evidence that denying asylum to people whose claims are
based on forced abortion or forced sterilization will be of any use in
preventing false claims. People who are willing to lie in order to get
asylum will simply switch to some other story. The only people who will
be forced to return to China will be those who are telling the truth--
who really do have a reasonable fear of being subjected to forced
abortion or forced sterilization. The solution to credibility problems
is careful case-by-case adjudication, not wholesale denial.
Finally, we should be extremely careful about forcibly repatriating
asylum seekers to China in light of evidence that a number of those
sent back by the United States since 1993 have been subjected to
extended terms in ``re-education camps,'' forced labor, beatings, and
other harsh treatment.
Mr. Chairman, on the one hand we tell people not come here illegally
to apply for asylum, not even if they are fleeing persecution. But then
we fail to use the legal tools at our disposal, the programs
specifically provided by law, to assist thee vulnerable people in
escaping persecution in ways that do not violate immigration laws. It
is a serious deficiency that should be addressed by the allocation of
an adequate number of places for refugees from persecution at the hands
of the totalitarian regime in Beijing.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, as the House of Representatives
considered overhauling our nation's immigration policies, members had
an opportunity to separate legal immigration from illegal immigration
issues. I supported efforts to delete the legal immigration provisions
from H.R. 2002, the ``Immigration in the National Interest Act.''
Some might question my motivation for doing this, however, it is my
contention that just as the problems relating to legal and illegal
immigration are different, so too are the solutions. You could argue
that the work of a brain surgeon and a barber both involve the human
head, yet no one would think of going to a barber for brain surgery or
a brain surgeon for a haircut. This is precisely the type of ill-
conceived logic we employ if we attempt to lump illegal and legal
immigration into one reform package.
The two issues deserve separate consideration, and that is why I
supported the measure to give each reform vehicle the attention it
deserves. The U.S. Senate has already seen fit to separate legal from
illegal immigration, again with the belief that our proposed reforms of
legal immigration go too far. The legal immigration provisions
contained in H.R. 2002 would drastically reduce legal immigration--up
to 40 percent by some estimates. It also would reduce the potential for
families to be reunited and would decimate the intake of refugees.
History has not been kind to us as a nation when we have followed
similar paths before.
During the 104th Congress, I have had the great pleasure of serving
as a member of the Council for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington. In my capacity on council, I have had been afforded the
time and luxury to delve deeper into the history surrounding the
Holocaust, and I have paid particular attention to the emigration of
Jews from Germany in the 1930s. It strikes me that as we consider
reforming our legal immigration policy, we should study this tragic
period in history carefully, as there are many lessons to be learned.
In July 1938, delegates from 32 countries including the United
States, France and Great Britain met at the Evian Hotel in Evian,
France, for what has become known as the Evian Conference. The purpose
of this conference was to determine what these countries should do in
response to the thousands of Jewish refugees who were shunned both by
their home country and abroad. Unfortunately, little was accomplished
at the Evian Conference because no country was willing or had the
fortitude to accept large numbers of Jews, including the U.S.
Since the early 1930s, Jews had been fleeing Germany for a variety of
reasons. Initially, the German government encouraged those who could
flee to do so, and to take whatever possessions they could with them.
Eventually, however, the Nazis made this increasingly more difficult,
slapping emigration taxes on Jews and making it impossible for them to
survive elsewhere because their funds were tied up in German banks.
The anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany, as we all know, was oppressive.
The Nazis wanted to make Germany a place devoid of Jews. As a result,
Jews fled by the tens of thousands, often entire families at once. They
sought refuge in Western Europe, the U.S., Central and South America,
and even China. It is believed that as many as 90,000 Jews emigrated
from Germany to the U.S. during this period in history, and many more
would have come to our fair land had the U.S. been more willing to
accept them. Unfortunately, we were not.
Our country's unwillingness to accept these Jewish refugees took a
most tragic turn in May 1939, for it was at this time that the S.S. St.
Louis, a German passenger ship, left Germany for Cuba. There were
nearly 1,000 Jews on board the St. Louis as it headed toward Havana,
yet when it finally reached its destination the ship was turned away by
Cuban authorities. The St. Louis then pleaded with U.S. officials to
let the nearly 1,000 refugees enter America, yet the U.S. denied the
ship permission to land and denied entry visas to the refugees. In June
1939, the ship turned around and returned to Europe.
Fortunately for those on board the St. Louis, the countries of Great
Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium agreed to accept the
Jewish refugees, although this blessing would be brief and mixed. The
following year, in 1940, German forces occupied the region. Many of the
passengers aboard the St. Louis--those same passengers America turned
away--were dealt the cruelest of fates. Many were subjected in their
new homelands to the same horrors from which they had fled--the full
wrath of the Holocaust--ghettos, concentration camps, deportations and
death chambers.
Fear, prejudice and ignorance allowed America to turn its back on
those who sought refuge here in May 1939, with the most tragic of
outcomes. America is supposed to be a haven for those oppressed by
other nations; it is supposed to be the land of hope and opportunity.
Ours is a country that welcomes those who want to come here, contribute
to society, and live the American dream.
[[Page H2635]]
It is regrettable that we as a nation have been unable to respond to
the severe problems of illegal immigration in a sensible, meaningful
way. It would be just as regrettable to gut a rich heritage of
providing safe harbor for those who seek to come here legally because
we cannot deal with a failed illegal immigration policy.
As a nation, we must take full responsibility for our generosity in
welcoming others to our land, and full responsibility when that
generosity backfires or fails. In separating legal from illegal
immigration reform, we have our best chance to answer that call to
responsibility. Just as we should not reward those who refuse to make a
difference as Americans, we should not punish those who come here and
strive to do so. Throughout history, legal immigrants have enriched our
economy and the goodness of our country.
We will never know what kind of productive lives those aboard the St.
Louis might have led on American soil because we did not give them the
chance. It is a shame we will always bear. Legislative action or
inaction in Europe and the United States contributed greatly to a
tragedy we cannot repeat.
Ours is a country made up of immigrants, and the rich tapestry we
enjoy is because so many people, including many of our own grandparents
and great-grandparents, had the hear and the will to come here. More
importantly, the United States had the heart and the will to welcome
them, and it is not something to relinquish now.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the United States has always
been a beacon of hope and opportunity for generations of people who
come to our shores searching for what cannot be found in any other
nation on Earth. Few of us here are not the heirs of immigrant
determination to make a better life for families and loved ones--or to
seek a safe haven from repression. Some of our colleagues in the House
are themselves living proof that this Nation continues to be enriched
by the strong immigrant community which is our heritage.
However, Mr. Chairman, today the people of the United States are
faced with a new challenge from which we cannot back away--the
challenge of illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration has reached epidemic proportions in the United
States. Each year our borders are flooded with many thousands of people
who enter the U.S. undocumented, usually unskilled, often without the
resources to provide for their own needs.
Mr. Chairman, it is currently estimated that there are between 2 and
4 million illegal immigrants in the United States, with about 300,000
added to that number each year. I want to emphasize that these are
estimates--the numbers could be even larger than the estimates.
According to a study by the Rand Institute, one-half of all illegal
immigrants enter the United States by crossing the land border. Many
use fraudulent documents to derive benefits from social programs, thus
depriving U.S. citizens, legal residents, and refugees who deserve
these benefits and robbing taxpayers of millions of dollars.
Twice this House has attempted to right this wrong. Twice President
Clinton vetoed those attempts. Thousands of people each year blatantly
disregard U.S. laws but are rewarded once they arrive here. This magnet
of benefits draws people from all over the world who simply abuse the
system with no intent on ever contributing. This is wrong. And once
again we have the opportunity to address the issue. We must remain firm
in our commitment to provide for those who are in need, to offer
assistance to those who experience temporary setbacks. But we cannot
simply be a well from which all may draw without ever giving back, or
with no intention of ever leaving the well.
But the welfare problem is only one symptom of the illegal
immigration epidemic. Jobs of U.S. citizens and legal residents are
affected by the number of illegal immigrants willing to work longer
hours for lower wages. Illegal immigrants reduce the employment
opportunities of low-skilled workers, and even of skilled workers in
areas where the economy is already weak and opportunities less
plentiful. According to a New York Times article by Roger Waldinger, a
professor of sociology at U.C.L.A., says that the African-American
community suffers the most from jobs lost to illegal immigration. Legal
immigrants are also hurt by the growing influx of illegal immigrants,
their opportunities decreased and the hopes they brought with them
dimmed or extinguished. Many of these U.S. citizens and legal
immigrants are then forced into dependency on social programs,
increasing the cost that illegal immigration imposes on the American
public.
Not only does illegal immigration cost jobs, it also costs wages.
Statistics show that low-skilled workers may experience as much as a 50
percent decline in real wages and that the growing number of illegal
immigrants is leading to an increased wage gap between skilled and
unskilled workers.
I have in my office stacks of reports from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, documenting hundreds of illegal immigrants who
are employed here illegally. The jobs they hold are jobs that
rightfully belong to U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
But there are more symptoms of this epidemic. U.S. prisons are
overflowing with criminal aliens--and the vast majority of these are
illegal immigrants. In addition to the stacks of reports from the INS
which document the employment of illegal aliens, there are pages of
reports on the growing number of illegal immigrants who are involved in
criminal activity. Many of them enter our judicial and prison systems
where, again, millions of dollars are spent on dealing with their
criminal activities.
Those who enter the United States illegally and who continue to
violate our laws--especially those who by violence add to the growing
problem of violent crime and fear in this country--do not deserve to
stay here. Like other violent criminals, they have complete disregard
for the values that U.S. citizens and legal immigrants hold dear and
strive for each day.
It is no secret that I support the plight of refugees who seek relief
from oppression in their homelands. This empathy for people who love
freedom is a basic tenet of our American tradition. But such empathy
should not be confused with support for those--regardless of
nationality--who would instill fear and terror on the law-abiding
citizens of our Nation.
I should also make clear that I do not mean to imply that most
immigrants--or even most illegal immigrants--come here to commit
violent crimes. Many undocumented immigrants are driven by the same
economic and social factors that cause all of us to want to improve our
situations in life. But the United States is first and foremost a
nation of laws, and we have a right to insist on obedience to the law.
Mr. Chairman, earlier I quoted the Rand Institute's figure that 50
percent of all illegal immigrants come to the U.S. by crossing our land
border. We owe a word of support and commendation to the men and women
who make up our border patrols and stave off hundreds of people who
otherwise would have gotten into the United States without
documentation. They place their lives on the line each day to protect
the integrity of our borders. They are our first and best line of
defense against illegal immigration. They are overworked and in need of
more support. We must do everything we can to strengthen our border
patrol and improve this first line of defense.
The elimination of any epidemic calls for strong and decisive
measures. This epidemic of illegal immigration demands the same.
Eliminate the benefits that illegal immigrants receive when they
arrive. Enforce and strengthen the laws which prohibit the hiring of
illegal immigrants. Protect U.S. jobs for U.S. workers, especially for
those who are most harmed when their jobs are given to illegal
immigrants. Deal swiftly and decisively with criminal aliens through
expedited deportation proceedings. These measures are only a start to
address this epidemic. But we must start somewhere.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, our national policy regarding immigration
is overdue for change. We need to balance our proud history of
diversity with the economic reality of high national unemployment and
over-burdened social services. We must consider reforms that address
the needs of U.S. citizens first and recognize the fiscal reality of
Federal and State government.
Congress is now considering a major proposal to dramatically change
our Nation's immigration policy. I support the goal of ending illegal
immigration. But I also believe we must reduce the number of people
legally immigrating to our Nation. We simply cannot hold the door open
for every one of the world's dissatisfied citizens. Continued high
immigration hurts our environment, it hurts our low wage workers and it
is increasingly hurting higher skill and higher wage workers, as well.
High levels of immigration may have been a boon to our Nation at one
time. They have ceased to make any sense today.
Representative Berman has proposed an amendment to strike the legal
immigration provisions of the bill. I'm concerned that if we eliminate
the attempt in this bill to reform the Nation's legal immigration
policy--as flawed as this bill's legal immigration reforms may be--the
impetus for reform will die. I, therefore, cannot support his
amendment.
I'll continue to work for tighter borders and responsible immigration
control, and press for strong protection for our Nations work force.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act. I want to bring to
my colleagues' attention to one particular provision of this measure
that will strengthen America's asylum laws.
America's asylum laws are intended to provide refuge for aliens whose
lives or freedom are threatened on account of their race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion. But our current asylum system is riddled with abuse. For
[[Page H2636]]
example, 31 percent of aliens who apply for asylum never show up for
the INS interview that is scheduled to evaluate the legitimacy of their
asylum claim. In addition, thousands of aliens who are in the process
of being deported claim political asylum at the very last opportunity,
thereby triggering a lengthy process of hearings and appeals which
further delay deportation.
Last August I introduced legislation, H.R. 2182, that would prohibit
an alien from seeking asylum in the United States if the alien had
first traveled through a country that offers political asylum. These
countries are called countries of safe haven. My legislation sought to
restore the integrity of our asylum laws by requiring asylum seekers to
remain in the first country that would offer them safe haven in an
effort to seek better economic opportunities in the United States would
be prohibited from entering our country with certain exceptions.
I am pleased that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has adopted
many elements of my legislation in H.R. 2202.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2202 closes the loopholes in our current system,
restores the original intent of our asylum laws and maintains generous
asylum policies for those fleeing persecution and oppression. I
strongly support passage of this bill.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman I rise today in support of an amendment I
drafted to address a fundamental problem being experienced by legal
U.S. residents, the Hmong. This measure would expedite the
naturalization of Hmong people who served in Special Guerrilla Forces
assisting the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.
My amendment corrects a serious problem affecting Hmong people in the
United States today who served alongside United States soldiers in
Southeast Asia. It expedites the naturalization of aliens who served in
these units in Laos and their spouses or widows by waiving the language
requirement and the residency requirement aliens normally must meet.
These two significant barriers to citizenship today affect the Hmong in
a unique manner.
From 1960 to 1975 Hmong people of all ages fought and died alongside
United States soldiers in units recruited, trained, and funded by the
CIA. During the war, between 10,000 and 20,000 Hmong tragically were
killed in combat and as the conflict resulted in a bitter conclusion,
100,000 Hmong had to flee to refugee camps to survive the persecution
and retribution that surely would have followed. The Hmong stood
loyally by the United States during the long bitter course of the
Vietnam War, but because the Hmong did not serve in regular United
States military units, they are not eligible for expedited
naturalization as other uniformed U.S. veterans and others may be. The
Vento amendment would remedy this problem and inequity.
Current law permits aliens or noncitizen nationals who served
honorably during World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, and
the Vietnam war to be naturalized regardless of age, period of
residence or physical presence in the United States. In other words,
there is established precedent for modifying naturalization
requirements for U.S. military service by non-U.S. citizens. In fact,
Congress included provisions expediting the naturalization of World War
II Filipino Scouts during consideration of the 1990 immigration bill.
My amendment would continue our long tradition of recognizing the
service of those who come to the aid of the United States in times of
war. Ironically, most past conflicts did not preclude the nonnational
United States service persons from returning to their homeland, so
their plight, in most cases, is not as desperate as the Hmong
involvement in a conflict with a difficult result.
The percentage of Hmong who served in the Special Guerrilla Hmong
units who have achieved United States citizenship is very low in great
part today because the Hmong have found passing the citizenship test
difficult. By waiving the language requirement my amendment would lift
the greatest obstacle the Hmong face in becoming American citizens. The
late arrival of some Hmong who have often served 10 to 15 years in the
Hmong unit and then have spent another 10 or even 20 years in Asian
refugee camps should not now have a 5-year residency requirement, hence
the Vento amendment waives this proviso.
I want to emphasize that my amendment does not open new immigration
channels nor does it confer veteran's status on Hmong patriots. Those
who served in the Special Guerrilla units will not be made eligible for
veteran's benefits under my amendment.
As I mentioned earlier in my statement, Congress has included
provisions for other nonnationals, the Filipino Scouts, in omnibus
immigration legislation as recently as 1990. Given the heavy
legislative agenda we face for the remainder of the 104th Congress,
this will almost certainly be our best opportunity to consider this
necessary but modest effort to recognize the service of the Hmong
veterans who fought so bravely and sacrificed so much for America.
The practical impact is the citizenship and privilege to participate
in our U.S. democracy--to have the right of preference in immigration
and family reunification--a significant and humanitarian impact. But,
in my mind's eye, of equal value is the United States Congress' and the
United States Government's recognition and the honor we bestow on the
Hmong patriots who lost so many lives in Southeast Asia and saved many
American lives. I urge my colleagues to support this Vento amendment
which honors the Hmong and their outstanding service to our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I'm including some personal examples of Minnesota
Hmong, some from my neighborhood and close to my deceased grandparents'
home. These examples of the personal history, the biographies of Hmong
soldiers' experiences in Southeast Asia underline the importance and
significance of their lives and service. The Hmong may not pass the
language tests but they know inherently the cost of freedom and the
price they have paid means that they have passed the test in a more
important and special way. The following monographs illustrate that
implicitly.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Riggs) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonilla, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of 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, pursuant to House Resolution
384, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. bryant of texas
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro temore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read the motion, as follows:
Mr. Bryant of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2202,
back to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the bill back forthwith with the following amendment:
Amend section 806 to read as follows:
SEC. 806. CHANGES RELATING TO H-1B NONIMMIGRANTS.
(a) Attestations.--
(1) Compensation level.--Section 212(n)(1)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (I), by inserting ``100 percent of''
before ``the actual wage level'',
(B) in subclause (II), by inserting ``100 percent of''
before ``the prevailing wage level'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ``is offering and
will offer during such period the same benefits and
additional compensation provided to similarly-employed
workers by the employer, and''.
(2) Displacement of united states workers.--Section
212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)) is amended by inserting after
subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
``(E)(i) The employer--
``(I) has not, within the six-month period prior to the
filing of the application, laid off or otherwise displaced
any United States worker (as defined in clause (ii)),
including
[[Page H2637]]
any worker obtained by contract, employee leasing, temporary
help agreement, or other similar basis, in the occupational
classification which is the subject of the application and in
which the nonimmigrant is intended to be (or is) employed;
and
``(II) within 90 days following the application, and within
90 days before and after the filing of a petition for any H-
1B worker pursuant to that application, will not lay off or
otherwise displace any United States worker in the
occupational classification which is the subject of the
application and in which the nonimmigrant is intended to be
(or is) employed.
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `United
States worker' means--
``(I) a citizen or national of the United States;
``(II) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence; and
``(III) an alien authorized to be so employed by this Act
or by the Attorney General.
``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `laid
off', with respect to an employee, means the employee's loss
of employment, other than a discharge for cause or a
voluntary departure or voluntary retirement.''.
(3) Recruitment of united states workers.--Section
212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraph (2),
is further amended by inserting after subparagraph (E) the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) The employer, prior to filing the application,
attempted unsuccessfully and in good faith to recruit a
United States worker for the employment that will be done by
the alien whose services are being sought, using recruitment
procedures that meet industry-wide standards and offering
wages that are at least--
``(i) 100 percent of the actual wage level paid by the
employer to other individuals with similar experience and
qualifications for the specific employment in question, or
``(ii) 100 percent of the prevailing wage level for
individuals in such employment in the area of employment,
whichever is greater, based on the best information available
as of the date of filing the application, and offering the
same benefits and additional compensation provided to
similarly-employed workers by the employer.''.
(4) Dependence on h-1b workers.--Section 212(n)(1) (8
U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraphs (2) and (3), is
further amended by inserting after subparagraph (F) the
following new subparagraph:
``(G)(i) Whether the employer is dependent on H-1B workers,
as defined in clause (ii) and in such regulations as the
Secretary of Labor may develop and promulgate in accordance
with this paragraph.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an employer is
`dependent on H-1B workers' if the employer--
``(I) has fewer than 41 full-time equivalent employees who
are employed in the United States and employs four or more
nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); or
``(II) has at least 41 full-time equivalent employees who
are employed in the United States, and employs nonimmigrants
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) in a number that is
equal to at least ten percent of the number of such full-time
equivalent employees.
``(iii) In applying this subparagraph, any group treated as
a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of
section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
treated as a single employer under this subparagraph. Aliens
with respect to whom the employer has filed such an
application shall be treated as employees, and counted as
nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), under this
paragraph.''.
(5) Job contractors.--(A) Section 212(n)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)), as amended by paragraphs (2) through (4), is
further amended by inserting after subparagraph (G) the
following new subparagraph:
``(H) In the case of an employer that is a job contractor
(within the meaning of regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor to carry out this subsection), the
contractor will not place any H-1B employee with another
employer unless such other employer has executed an
attestation that the employer is complying and will continue
to comply with the requirements of this paragraph in the same
manner as they apply to the job contractor.''.
(B) Section 212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to
complaints respecting a failure of another employer to comply
with an attestation described in paragraph (1), that has been
made as the result of the requirement imposed on job
contractors under paragraph (1)(H), in the same manner that
they apply to complaints of a petitioner with respect to a
failure to comply with a condition described in paragraph (1)
by employers generally.''.
(b) Special Rules for Employers Dependent on H-1B
Workers.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) No alien may be admitted or provided status as a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) if the
employer who is seeking the services of such alien has
attested under paragraph (1)(G) that the employer is
dependent on H-1B workers unless the following conditions are
met:
``(i) The Secretary of Labor has determined and certified
to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that the
employer who is seeking the services of such alien is taking
steps described in subparagraph (C) (including having taken
the step described in subparagraph (D)).
``(ii) The alien has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that the
alien has a residence abroad which he has no intention of
abandoning.
``(B)(i) It is unlawful for a petitioning employer to
require, as a condition of employment by such employer, or
otherwise, that the fee described in subparagraph (A)(i), or
any part of it, be paid directly or indirectly by the alien
whose services are being sought.
``(ii) Any person or entity which is determined, after
notice and opportunity for an administrative hearing, to have
violated clause (i) shall be subject to a civil penalty of
$5,000 for each violation, to an administrative order
requiring the payment of the fee described in subparagraph
(A)(i), and to disqualification for 1 year from petitioning
under section 204 or 214(c).
``(iii) Any amount determined to have been paid, directly
or indirectly, to the fund by the alien whose services were
sought, shall be repaid from the fund or by the employer, as
appropriate, to such alien.
``(C)(i) An employer who attests under paragraph (1)(G) to
dependence on H-1B workers shall take timely, significant,
and effective steps (including the step described in
subparagraph (D)) to recruit and retain sufficient United
States workers in order to remove as quickly as reasonably
possible the dependence of the employer on H-1B workers.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), steps under clause (i)
(in addition to the step described in subparagraph (D)) may
include the following:
``(I) Operating a program of training existing employees
who are United States workers in the skills needed by the
employer, or financing (or otherwise providing for) such
employees' participation in such a training program
elsewhere.
``(II) Providing career development programs and other
methods of facilitating United States workers in related
fields to acquire the skills needed by the employer.
``(III) Paying to employees who are United States workers
compensation that is equal in value to more than 105 percent
of what is paid to persons similarly employed in the
geographic area.
The steps described in this clause shall not be considered to
be an exhaustive list of the significant steps that may be
taken to meet the requirements of clause (i).
``(iii) The steps described in clause (i) shall not be
considered effective if the employer has failed to decrease
by at least 10 percent in each of two consecutive years the
percentage of the employer's total number of employees in the
specific employment in which the H-1B workers are employed
which is represented by the number of H-1B workers.
``(iv) The Attorney General shall not approve petitions
filed under section 204 or 214(c) with respect to an employer
that has not, in the prior two years, complied with the
requirements of this subparagraph (including subparagraph
(D)).
``(D)(i) The step described in this subparagraph is payment
of an amount consistent with clause (ii) by the petitioning
employer into a private fund which is certified by the
Secretary of Labor as dedicated to reducing the dependence of
employers in the industry of which the petitioning employer
is a part on new foreign workers and which expends amounts
received under this subclause consistent with clause (iii).
``(ii) An amount is consistent with this clause if it is a
percent of the value of the annual compensation (including
wages, benefits, and all other compensation) to be paid to
the alien whose services are being sought, equal to 5 percent
in the first year, 7.5 percent in the second year, and 10
percent in the third year.
``(iii) Amounts are expended consistent with this clause if
they are expended as follows:
``(I) One-half of the aggregate amounts are expended for
awarding scholarships and fellowships to students at colleges
and universities in the United States who are citizens or
lawful permanent residents of the United States majoring in,
or engaging in graduate study of, subjects of direct
relevance to the employers in the same industry as the
petitioning employer.
``(II) One-half of the aggregate amounts are expended for
enabling United States workers in the United States to obtain
training in occupations required by employers in the same
industry as the petitioning employer.
(c) Increased Penalties for Misrepresentation.--Section
212(n)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C) in the matter before clause (i), by
striking ``(1)(C) or (1)(D)'' and inserting ``(1)(C), (1)(D),
(1)(E), or (1)(F) or to fulfill obligations imposed under
subsection (b) for employers defined in subsection (a)(4)'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``$1,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000'';
(3) by amending subparagraph (C)(ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions
filed with respect to that employer (or any employer who is a
successor in interest) under section 204 or 214(c) for aliens
to be employed by the employer--
``(I) during a period of at least 1 year in the case of the
first determination of a violation
[[Page H2638]]
or any subsequent determination of a violation occurring
within 1 year of that first violation or any subsequent
determination of a nonwillful violation occurring more than 1
year after the first violation;
``(II) during a period of at least 5 years in the case of a
determination of a willful violation occurring more than 1
year after the first violation; and
``(III) at any time in the case of a determination of a
willful violation occurring more than 5 years after a
violation described in subclause (II).''; and
(3) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end the
following: ``If a penalty under subparagraph (C) has been
imposed in the case of a willful violation, the Secretary
shall impose an additional civil monetary penalty on the
employer in an amount equalling twice the amount of
backpay.''.
(d) Limitation on Period of Authorized Admission.--Section
214(g)(4) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(4)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)'' after
``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)''; and
(2) by striking ``6 years'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``3 years''.
(e) Requirement for Residence Abroad.--Section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is
amended by inserting ``who has a residence in a foreign
country which he has no intention of abandoning,'' after
``212(j)(2),''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments
made by this section shall take effect 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The amendments made by subsection (d) shall apply with
respect to offenses occurring on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit incorporates
an amendment which the Committee on Rules would not allow us to offer
in the course of the debate on the immigration bill which would change
the current law in a way that is beneficial and positive for American
workers.
The current law allows people to enter this country on temporary work
visas, up to 65,000 a year, and to be put to work in companies where
often they take the jobs of American workers.
The fact of the matter is, that between 1992 and 1995 we had 234,000
foreign temporary workers enter the country and take the jobs of
American workers. Mr. Speaker, the H-1B program that was created in
1990 was designed to alleviate some short-term needs with some
temporary worker visas. It has now turned into a program in which
companies have replaced, in some cases, entire departments with
imported workers coming in on temporary visas, and they are allowed to
stay as long as 6 years.
This motion to recommit would change that program, and would say
that, U.S. workers can not be laid off and replaced with H-1B foreign
workers, that the temporary visa will only be good for 3 years not 6.
It would require that employers dependent on H-1B workers would have to
take timely, significant, and effective steps to recruit and retain
sufficient U.S. workers to remove that dependency.
It is an outrage that we have had situations in this country where
companies have brought in large numbers of temporary H-1B workers. They
have asked their domestic work force to train the imported workers.
Then they have fired the domestic workers and put to work the newly
trained foreign workers that were brought in under the H-1B program. It
should not be permitted. This motion to recommit would forbid it
forever in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers.].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I congratulate my colleague
on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr.
Bryant], for an incredibly diligent job.
The motion here to recommit with the amendment may be the most
important vote we may consider this year from the perspective of the
American worker, because it puts before us the identical immigration
reform bill, with just one exception, and here it is: that American
companies should attempt to recruit American workers for skilled jobs
before trying to recruit foreign workers for these jobs.
{time} 1945
That is what it is about, that is all it is about. The administration
has produced a record of 8 million new jobs. Some of the Republican
candidates, by contrast, or one in particular is still figuring out
that jobs is a major issue with Americans. It translates here into the
GOP leadership.
The Rules Committee blocked this amendment and so we are bringing it
up now in a motion to recommit. Please support this motion to recommit
whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that under this motion to recommit
employers who are dependent on H-1B orders would have to take effective
steps to recruit and retain U.S. workers to remove that dependency, and
that U.S. workers could not be laid off and replaced with H-1B workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I strongly support
his amendment. This amendment should have been allowed in the rules. We
should have been able to debate this on the floor.
I just want to take 15 seconds of my time to indicate that in this
bill, which is coming up for final passage, is what I believe to be an
unconstitutional and just horrible on public policy amendment with
respect to children and public schools. I am going to support this bill
because it is so much better than it was through this House. If this
amendment does not come out in conference committee, I will oppose the
bill on the floor when it comes back from conference with every ounce
of my energy.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would simply conclude by saying
that this motion to recommit would put into the immigration bill a
provision that ensures that U.S. workers cannot be laid off and
replaced with foreign temporary workers. Every Member of this House
ought to vote in the interest of the American work force for the motion
to recommit.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bryant] and I have been through a lot on a year-long journey to
implement immigration reform legislation. I feel like we are a little
like the two characters in Lonesome Dove, Woodrow and Gus. While we may
sometimes disagree, I am not going to take any shots at my partner in
this endeavor. Instead, I do want to tell my colleagues why this is
such a good bill and why it puts the interest of American families,
workers, and taxpayers first.
This legislation will reduce illegal immigration and reform legal
immigration. It will help secure our borders, reduce crime, and protect
jobs for American citizens. It will encourage legal immigrants to be
productive members of our communities and ease the burden on the
hardworking taxpayers.
For only the fourth time this century, Congress now considers
comprehensive immigration reform. I thank my colleagues for their
patience, for their interest, and for their support. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on
final passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of
rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if
ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:
[[Page H2639]]
[Roll No. 88]
AYES--188
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stockman
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--231
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--12
Clay
Collins (IL)
DeLay
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Rose
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
{time} 2005
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. Radanovich against.
Mr. STOCKMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 333,
noes 87, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
AYES--333
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
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)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
[[Page H2640]]
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--87
Abercrombie
Becerra
Beilenson
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
King
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Ward
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--12
Clay
Collins (IL)
Dornan
Johnston
Moakley
Radanovich
Rose
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Waters
Wilson
{time} 2013
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Radanovich for, with Mr. Stokes against.
Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________