[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.

                          ____________________