[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10189-H10195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT OF 1996
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XX, and
by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I move to take from the
Speaker's table 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 a
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree
to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to debate
the motion to go to conference?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the customary request which
will enable us to go to conference on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
The motion was agreed to.
motion to instruct offered by mr. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2202 be
instructed to recede to the provisions contained in section
105 (relating to increased personnel levels for the Labor
Department).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
will be recognzied for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering would instruct
conferees to retain the provisions in the Senate-passed bill that
provides for 350 additional Department of Labor wage and hour
inspectors and staff to enforce violations of the Federal wage and hour
laws. It is no more complicated and no less simple than that.
The reason is that the cornerstone of our efforts to control
immigration must be to shut off the job magnet that draws so many
undocumented aliens into the country. Increasing border patrols is of
course important, but that can be done through the appropriations
process, as we have been doing for the last 2 years. But it is
imperative that we enhance the authority to prosecute those employers
who knowingly hire illegal workers instead of American workers.
For example, we know that each year more than 100,000 foreign workers
enter the work force by overstaying their visas. No amount of border
enforcement will deter this, since they enter legally with passports
and visas. No amount of border enforcement will deter the desire, the
magnet that draws people into this country, and that is to seek jobs.
The only way to deter this form of illegal immigration is in the
workplace, by denying them jobs.
Case in point: In the 14-month-old Detroit newspaper dispute we have
reports of illegal immigrants, not replacement workers from within the
United States, but people without a valid passport, no right in this
country, are coming in and they have been investigated, INS is
conducting investigations on them. It is a serious incursion and a
serious charge and it is being investigated by INS now, but this gives
reason for the instruction motion that I would urge that we adopt in as
large a number as possible.
We must enhance the authority to prosecute employers who knowingly
hire illegal workers instead of American workers, and there can be no
doubt that an increased number of Labor Department inspectors will
reduce the possibility that employers will hire illegal workers. The
Jordan Commission, remembering the late Barbara Jordan, recommended
this increase, since studies show that most employers who hire illegal
workers also violate labor standards.
This goes together. We want to deal with this problem and the only
way is to move to the Senate-passed version that authorizes 350
additional inspectors to enforce these violations or alleged violations
of Federal Wage and hour laws.
The report of the Jordan Commission concluded with this statement:
The commission believes that an effective work site strategy for
deterring illegal immigration requires enhancement of
[[Page H10190]]
labor standards enforcement. Now, I expect that the 350 additional
inspectors would be used to enhance enforcement of labor standards in
those areas where high concentrations of illegals are employed.
In fiscal years 1993 through 1995, the Department of Labor recovered
nearly $60 million in unpaid minimum wages for more than a quarter of a
million workers and another $300 million in unpaid overtime for more
than a half million additional workers.
More can be accomplished with these additional personnel. And just as
importantly, increased enforcement will help level the playing field
for those honest employers who play by the rules and hire American
workers and pay them a fair wage.
So all of the Members who like to talk about preventing illegal
immigration, please, let us all repair to this motion to instruct. It
is an important one, it is critical for maintaining good labor
standards in this country, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in
voting yes on a more tough and effective workplace enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees.
The appointment of House conferees for H.R. 2202 marks another
important juncture on the road to immigration reform. Hopefully it also
means that the final destination is very close.
The Immigration in the National Interest Act is just what it says, an
effort to fundamentally reorient national immigration policy so that it
protects first and foremost the needs of American workers, taxpayers,
and families.
We worked long and hard within the Committee on the Judiciary to
bring this bill to the House floor where it passed by a margin of 333
to 87. Other Senate colleagues also labored intensely to bring forth a
slightly different version of this legislation, passed by a vote of 97
to 3. These lopsided majorities clearly reflect the will of the
American people, that Congress get serious about immigration reform.
Not tomorrow. Not next session. But now.
Illegal immigration has reached a crisis. One million permanent
illegal aliens enter the country every 2.5 years. Half of these illegal
aliens use fraudulent documents to wrongly obtain jobs and government
benefits, and one quarter of all Federal prisoners are illegal aliens.
Think of the human cost in pain and suffering to innocent victims.
Think of the financial cost to taxpayers of incarceration in the
criminal justice system.
H.R. 2202 will better secure our borders by doubling the number of
border patrol agents and cracking down on repeat illegal border
crossings. It will increase interior enforcement and make it more
difficult for illegal aliens to take jobs away from American citizens.
{time} 1400
And it will reduce the number of criminal aliens and the flow of
illegal drugs into our country.
The bill adopts the most comprehensive overhaul of our deportation
system in this century. Deportation procedures are streamlined, and
opportunities for illegal aliens and criminal aliens to ``game the
system'' in order to stay in the United States disappear. Aliens who
show up with no documents to legitimately enter the United States will
be quickly turned back, rather than be given lengthy immigration
hearings to which a vast majority new show up.
H.R. 2202 also tackles the pressing problem of immigration and
welfare. Our official national policy for almost a century has been
that aliens should not be admitted to or remain in the United States if
they become a ``public charge''--dependent on welfare.
Today, that presumption is turned upside down. Noncitizens receive a
disproportionate share of welfare benefits in large States such as
California. When all types of benefits are included, immigrants receive
$25 billion more in benefits than they pay in taxes. The number of
immigrants on Supplemental Security Income increases by 50 percent each
year. We cannot continue down this road.
America's generosity towards those immigrants who want to work and
produce and contribute will continue. But we should not admit
immigrants who will live off the American taxpayers.
H.R. 2202 ensures that sponsors of immigrants will be legally
responsible for those they bring into the country. The bill also
ensures that sponsors first have the means to meet this financial
commitment. It makes no sense, as current law allows, for sponsor who
are themselves on welfare to promise that they will keep the new
immigrants they sponsor off of welfare. Obviously, this is a promise
that cannot be kept, and the taxpayer foots the bill.
This is truly landmark legislation. And it is long overdue. It's time
to put the interests of American workers, taxpayers, and families
first. It's time to push through to the finish, and complete passage of
the Immigration in the National Interest Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Immigration, who more than any other member on the committee fought
to protect American workers, who started out with the Smith-Bryant
bill, got cut out by the leadership and we now meet here at this
juncture before we go to conference.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me the time and for his kind words.
Mr. Speaker, a bill that began as a bipartisan effort to address a
very difficult problem for our country, the problem being immigration
and illegal immigration, has at this stage, I think it is fair to say,
degenerated into a bill that is now going to be a partisan contrivance
designed to somehow isolate certain Members and make them subject to
political attacks and maybe try to do the same thing to the President.
I heard the comments of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] a moment
ago about the difficulties this country faces with immigration. I agree
with every one of the things he said. But the problem is that the bill,
apparently, the conference committee proposal that will be taken up
tomorrow, the provisions within it do not address the problems. It is
just that simple.
Consider this: Much has been made of the Jordan commission report
because of the enormous credibility Barbara Jordan has in this country
and in this institution. This bill was advertised over and over, both
by me back when I was proud to cosponsor it because at that time I
think it was a constructive action, Mr. Smith and others, as a bill
designed to implement the bipartisan recommendations of the Jordan
commission. Yet on point after point after point, the bill has
abandoned those important provisions and yet kept the name and the
implied sponsorship of a great woman who led a commission that did a
very good job.
The most recent apparent abandonment of those provisions is the fact
that the Jordan commission observed that studies show that most
employers hiring illegal workers also violate labor standards.
Accordingly, the Jordan commission recommended that we increase the
number of Labor Department wage and hour inspectors to help us stop
that and directly help us stop illegal immigration. What happened?
We came out of the committee with 150 additional inspectors, just as
the Jordan commission reported, but before it came to the floor, the
Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, the gentleman from new York, Mr. Solomon, the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the powers that be, while listening
to the whisperings in their ears of lobbyists for employers, said we
are not going to let that stay in the bill.
So by the time the bill got to the floor, the 150 new inspectors
designed to help us deal with the problem Mr. Smith was talking about
were gone. The U.S. Senate passed the bill. When the U.S. Senate passed
the bill, there were 350 additional Labor Department wage and hour
inspectors. But we saw the draft of the Republican conference committee
proposal that will be taken up tomorrow. What does it have? Zero.
The question is whether we are going to legislate here in the
interest of the American people, write legislation that really deals
with the problem that we are facing, and it is a big problem, with
regard to illegal immigration and the displacement of American workers
or whether we are going to do what the lobbyists tell us to do.
[[Page H10191]]
I urge the Members of the House to come to this floor and vote in
favor of the Conyers motion to instruct and to tell whoever it is that
is calling the shots behind the scenes, we want 350 wage and hour
workers back in this bill. We want them to be able to augment the
efforts of our other Government agencies in trying to fight illegal
immigration. We want a bill that does what the advertisers and the
sponsors of this bill say they are trying to do. And that is stop
people who do not live in this country, who are not supposed to be in
this country from taking the jobs of working Americans. Vote for the
motion to instruct.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Gallegly], chairman of the House task force on
illegal immigration.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most critical challenges facing
the 104th Congress is the passage of comprehensive and effective
immigration reform legislation. For many years the American people have
expressed frustration that its leaders in Congress have failed to enact
policies to eliminate the unacceptable high levels of illegal entry
into our country.
Under the able leadership of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar
Smith, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
the House of Representatives will soon consider a conference report
which finally addresses the public concern over this problem in a
serious and comprehensive manner.
One of the most important elements of this conference report is the
so-called Gallegly amendment. This provision is really quite
straightforward. It simply eliminates the ability of the Federal
Government to force States to provide a free public education to
illegal immigrants.
This unfunded mandate is especially disturbing considering that 95
percent of the cost of providing a public education is born by State
taxpayers. In addition, my amendment has been modified to make
absolutely sure that illegal immigrant children who are already
enrolled in public schools will not be removed from those schools. This
compromise provides that illegal immigrants who are currently enrolled
in a public school will continue to receive a free public education
through the highest grade either in elementary or secondary school.
For example, an illegal immigrant student in 2d grade could get a
free education until the 6th grade or an illegal student in the 7th
grade could continue through the 12th grade, provided they remained
within the same school district.
It is important to keep in mind that all these provisions dealing
with illegal immigrants currently enrolled in public schools apply only
to the States that choose to deny illegal immigrants a free public
education. If a State, be it New York, Oregon, or any other State,
wants to continue to provide a free public education to illegal
immigrants as they currently do, they would be perfectly entitled to
continue that policy.
Mr. Speaker, California alone spends over $2 billion per year to
educate illegal immigrants, and our Nation spends over $4 billion in
this unfunded mandate. It is time that we at least give the States this
important tool for reducing incentives for illegal immigrants to stay
in our country.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, a member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very
important subject. I agree that we should be acting to try to diminish
illegal immigration. It is for that reason that I deplore as seriously
as I can both the method by which this bill has been considered and the
substances.
I am a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration as I have been since
coming to Congress. I am very proud of the bipartisan efforts in which
I participated in 1986 and in 1990 and at other times to deal with
immigration legislation. For the first time in the 16 years I have been
a Member of Congress, gross partisanship has run this process. Those of
us who participated in good faith have assurances from the chairman of
the subcommittee that this would be done in a bipartisan way in the
deliberations at the committee stage. Those of us who were Democrats
were completely excluded from the process to the point where, despite
our repeated requests, we could not even see a copy of this complex
legislation until 9:30 last night.
My colleagues will remember that the Republican leadership was ready
to push this bill through before the recess, and only our objection
stopped it. They were going to put it through without our having
a chance to see it. Then, despite the fact that it was ready to be
passed in August, they withheld it from us, despite our requests to be
able to look at it until last night.
This substitution of partisan exclusion for a bipartisan process is
the reason why we may very well not have a bill. The fault will lie at
the feet of those who changed a tradition of bipartisanship. I believe
the chairman of the subcommittee when he said, do not worry, we are
just talking among ourselves. We will have a participatory process.
That apparently consists of us seeing the bill last night and then
trying to run it through conference tomorrow. That is their
participatory process. Now, I understand why they did it that way.
There are in this bill several provisions which do not deal with
illegal immigration, they deal with discrimination. They make it easier
for people to discriminate against American citizens of Hispanic or
Asian origin in particular.
In 1986, back in the bipartisan days, now long over with us, we
adopted legislation that said, if you hire people who are here
illegally, you will be punished. We feared that that would lead to
discrimination. People would say, I better not hire anybody who is
Hispanic or Asian who might be foreign because they might be here
illegally. We had a variety of safeguards in there including
antidiscrimination provisions which were unanimously agreed to finally
by the conference.
We put provisions in there that said, if you are denied work by
someone who is motivated by fear of sanctions, despite your having done
the right things, we are going to protect you. And we said to
businesses, you cannot use the rules against hiring people illegally as
a justification for saying, Mexicans are too much trouble, Asians are
too much trouble.
This bill weakens that. This bill deliberately, clearly and
intentionally, to use the word this bill likes, weakens those
protections for Hispanics. By the way, we had a study by the General
Accounting Office. They said the provisions were not strong enough. The
General Accounting Office said, yes, the sanctions have led to
discrimination. Understand, we are not here talking about keeping out
people who are here illegally. We are talking about Mexican-American
citizens, Asian-American citizens. And some employers say, I do not
want to mess with you guys because you might be here illegally. We
said, you cannot do that. You cannot simply refuse. You have to give
them a chance to prove that they are here legally.
We had provisions there that protected people. They now changed that
law. Those provisions are not before us. This sanction proposal, we are
not dealing with that. What they did in this bill is gratuitously go
back to the 1986 law and weaken the antidiscrimination provisions by
saying that you will be found guilty to discriminating only if the
Government proves intent. In other words, if you are by now dumb enough
to use bigoted words, we can do it. but if it is overwhelmingly clear
from the way you have behaved, from your work force, et cetera, that
you are discriminating, we will not be able to protect you.
We also have problems from people who apply and are illegally turned
down because the Government makes a mistake. We said, what if somebody
said, I will hire you if you are here legally and the Government makes
a mistake. My friends on the other side talk frequently of the fact
that the Government makes mistakes. We know the Government makes
mistakes. So we said, if you are in fact someone who is here legally
and you are refused a job because the Government made an error, we will
allow you to recover damages from the Government.
Do my colleagues know what they did? They knocked that out. What does
[[Page H10192]]
that have to do with illegal immigration? We put provisions in there to
protect people who are lawfully here, American citizens, people who may
have been born here. We put in provisions to protect them from harmful
error. My colleagues knocked it out.
{time} 1415
No wonder they did not want to let us see it until last night. They
weakened anti-discrimination provisions that have been in the law for
10 years, that the GAO said should have been strengthened. They
weakened out ability to have Americans get money back from the
Government.
We passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights for the IRS. But if the IRS
and the Social Security Administration, somebody else, makes a mistake
about one's eligibility to work, and they lose a job because of it,
they do not get any help, and do my colleagues know what the Republican
answer was? ``Oh, well, there's a reciprocal problem there because you,
if you were illegally turned down for the job, you lost the job, but
the employer has also been hurt because the employer didn't get to hire
you.'' That is the kind of equivalence we get here.
We have legislation that addresses an important subject, and up until
the committee process we dealt with it in a bipartisan way, and once it
got out of committee somebody made a decision, and I do not know; we
could not find out who. Everybody I talked to thought it was a terrible
decision. Apparently the decision was made by the ether. But the
decision was to withhold from the Democratic members of this
subcommittee and full committee and others in the House, and I am told
this happened on the other side as well, any chance to look at this
complicated bill.
We got it at 9:30 last night, and they plan to pass it tomorrow,
quite contrary to the assurances I received from the chairman of the
subcommittee and others, and they also, having let us play games,
having apparently made us feel good, pretending they were paying
attention to us, it seems to me, during the committee process, they
then systematically weakened or took out of that bill everything that
would protect American citizens against discrimination, American
citizens against government error.
Mr. Speaker, we do not stop illegal immigration by diminishing the
rights of Americans citizens, but that is what this bill does. I do not
like the amendment offered by the gentleman from California regarding
education. The right of children to go to school the second to the
sixth grade does not seem to me a great right, and if my colleagues
believe that education stops at the sixth grade, I guess it does to my
colleagues, too.
But I want to say that that is not the only provision of this bill
that bothers me and there are provisions of the bill that
systematically reduce rights that are now available to American
citizens who, if they happen to be Hispanic or Asian, might get caught
up in the web. I am very disappointed that the Republican leadership
choose a partisan method and choose to give in to these kinds of fears
because they will be responsible for the likely result: no legislation.
We pass immigration legislation when we do it in a bipartisan and
cooperative way. We defeat it when we use these kinds of partisan
methods, particularly when they are used to diminish rights that
already exist among American citizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] who has been a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary for a considerable period of time and is
widely reputed to be an expert on immigration.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of our Committee
on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of the motion to instruct the conferees. It is a
funny situation when we deal with a provision in the bill that is the
critical increase in the number of wage and hour inspectors in order to
make immigration reform meaningful by giving us the resources to go to
the work site where the big problem is, and the Senate bill provided, I
believe, 200, 300. The House bill provided 150. It was taken out by a
floor amendment that had nothing to do with the issue of wage and hour
inspectors. It dealt with collapsing from a meaningful verification
program to a weak verification program, and that was taken out, and now
we come back with a proposed draft, the rumors are, and it is more than
rumors. The proposed conference committee document that has very kindly
been shown to out side of the aisle before the conference indicates
there will be no increase in wage and hour inspectors.
If my colleagues want to get a handle on the issue of illegal
immigration, putting all of the rhetoric aside, there are some key
steps. At the border, meaningful verification; right now employer
sanctions are a joke, and a systematic effort to take those industries
and employers who systematically recruit and hire illegal immigrants
because of their desire to violate wage and hour standards and take a
very exploitable work force and utilize them in order to produce their
product at below average scale and capture the market in that fashion.
This bill goes along with the Clinton administration's effort to
increase the border patrol, does a whole bunch of other things which in
some cases are very incendiary, dilutes its initial attempts to provide
meaningful verification, thereby rendering fairly ineffective, to my
way of thinking, all of the efforts to deal with denial of employment
or public benefits to illegal immigrants and strips away any serious
increase in wage and hour supporters, wage and hour division
inspectors, which could provide the kind of policing of those employers
who want to hire illegal immigrants in order to exploit them in callous
disregard of Federal law knowing that those people will never utilize
the remedies available to them.
So the motion to instruct is a very important one.
The other larger question which I think the majority has to consider
is do they want the bill? They are insisting. The Governor from
California came out yesterday and joined the Speaker of the House in a
press conference, insisting on including a provision in this bill, an
amended form of the Gallegly amendment that all law enforcement tells
us is crazy, that all educators tell us is bad, which requires that the
children of people who came here illegally at one point or another be
refused admission or kicked out of the public schools.
The President has made it quite clear that that will result in a
veto.
When I read that the Governor of California came back to Washington,
came back to Washington to insist on a provision which he knows will
require a veto, I tried to think why, since he ballyhoos himself as
somebody who is trying to do something about illegal immigration. I
think Ron Prince, who was the chairman; he was the chairman of the
committee to pass proposition 187, probably put it most accurately when
he indicated that there are some Republicans in this House and in the
Senate and in the Republican campaign who want to veto a bill. They do
not want to do anything about illegal immigration. They want an issue.
So they take the one provision that has drawn a clear statement of a
veto and insist that that provision be kept in the bill even though it
is bad public policy, even though all of law enforcement says that it
will make their job much more difficult. All educators, nearly all
educators oppose the provision. I wonder what the agenda is of the
people who would make that the condition for this conference report.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the statement pass, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding, that all law enforcement opposes it
when I know my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman],
knows that not to be true. In fact, just 3 days ago one of the largest
law enforcement agencies in the country, the California Sheriffs
Association, strongly endorsed it. The National Alliance endorsed it. A
large portion of the rank and file of the Fraternal Order of Police
endorsed it. So I would say to the gentleman the cops on the street
support it.
Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I should amend my
statement. The vast majority of leadership
[[Page H10193]]
and individual chiefs of police of jurisdictions most affected by this
provision think it would be a terrible idea.
Now I am trying to understand what the motivation is for someone like
Governor Wilson to come to Washington, hold a press conference, urge
passage of a bill with a provision that he knows will draw a veto.
There is two cynical, but perhaps accurate, interpretations of the
motivations for this action.
One is again to have an issue rather than a law. All the time and
effort spent by the chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Simpson to
try and improve our ability to deal with illegal immigration will be a
waste of time if this bill is vetoed. Those people want an issue.
The other even more cynical interpretation of the motivations of the
Governor is what happened on both the House and Senate floors. Actually
the Senate did not even take it up. The large growers in California
hate anything which makes efforts to enforce our laws against illegal
immigration tougher because they have historically relied on bringing
in undocumented workers to pick the crops. They came in with a rather
brazen effort on the House floor to try and create a new 500,000 farm
worker-guest worker amendment to bring in these people. That amendment
got trounced on a bipartisan basis. My view is that those same growers
do not want to see this bill pass, but no one can be against this kind
of a bill from that community. So instead they and the Governor, as
their representative, comes here and insists on a provision he knows
will result in a veto.
It is a pretty cynical story. It is a pretty sad story. It means a
lot of important provisions in this bill, provisions providing for
reimbursement for health care institutions, provisions that at least go
down the road toward some meaningful verification, hopefully all of
those will go down the drain because of an insistence on this one
provision.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Gallegly].
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman], I just could not let some of these statements stand without
some form of rebuttal, as he referred to the element of farm worker
issue being drowned.
I have to remind the gentleman that it was only 3 months ago that
this very body passed the bill that we are discussing, only a much
tougher bill, 333 to 87, including the education issue, and in fact on
a stand-alone vote, whether we should give the States the rights to
make the decision for themselves, it passed by almost a hundred votes,
stand-alone.
The people of California have been crying for this support, and the
issue, the issue of where we were 3 months ago with a 333 to 87 vote;
how many votes do we have in this body that we get that many folks to
agree on? Just let me finish this, and I will be happy to yield. Three
hundred thirty-three to eighty-seven this body voted to support this
immigration bill including a provision, unmodified provision, that
would allow the States to deny a free public education to those that
have no legal right to be in this country. Since that time we have
modified it to the point of giving a grandfather clause to all of those
in K through 6 and those in 7 through 12, watered it down considerably,
and now even with a much more modified version the President of the
United States is saying he would veto something that almost a 4 to 1
margin in the House supported, a strong bipartisan vote, and the people
of California in an initiative 2 years ago voted by almost a 2 to 1
margin. It appears to me the President of the United States, if in fact
he really is talking seriously about a veto, is not listening to the
people of California.
And further I would just like to add that with all the due respect
that I have for our President, he has talked about vetoes in the past.
Sometimes he does what he says; sometimes he does not. I am just saying
that I do not believe that he would veto this bill, I do not think that
it is the right thing for him to do, he knows it is not what the people
of California want.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from
California.
{time} 1430
Mr. BERMAN. The gentleman misunderstood me. First of all, the 333
votes the gentleman referred to included a number of us who made it
very clear that we want a great part of what is in this bill, we do not
want, with all due respect, the gentleman's amendment in the bill, and
that we would move it on to conference in the hope that a conference
committee would convene and decide to pull that amendment out, since it
was not in the Senate.
The second point I wanted to make was my point about the growers had
nothing to do with the 333 vote. It was why would the Governor of
California do that, with a chance to get meaningful provisions.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], this issue is very clearly I
think an issue that the gentleman, my good friend, would agree is
something that I have worked on for many years.
I have 20-some provisions in this bill that I strongly believe in. We
have modified, we have cut back. We have made compromises that quite
frankly I do not think we should have made, but for the sake of moving
the bill ahead, I have supported it. I think we have come to the point
where we cannot continue to chisel away and have a real bill.
The people of California can no longer afford to provide a free
public education to everyone. It has a denigrating effect on the
citizens of our States in providing an education to the children of
legal residents and citizens. I think that issue has been sorely missed
in this debate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I in no way question the sincerity of the gentleman's
commitment to his amendment. I think he is wrong, but I think he is
sincere. He has always had this position. He has pushed for it for a
long time.
I just wish that, given that he had two strong efforts in this bill,
major efforts, one for a meaningful verification system that could give
some meaning to employer sanctions, and what I think is a somewhat
crazy scheme on how to try and help deal with the problem of illegal
immigration by kicking kids out of schools, he had been able to prevail
on the first and yielded on the second, rather than yielding on
meaningful verification and insisting on his provision.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute and 30
seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
this leadership, and the leadership of the members of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary. I
certainly want to acknowledge the bipartisan approach of my colleague,
the gentleman from Texas, in the effort to distinguish and separate
illegal immigration from legal immigration.
However, it is important to note that we still have an open question.
Even now there is just a GAO study about taking rights away from
citizen children. It is a study with the intent, of course, that we
ultimately may deny the children born in the United States their
rights.
Then I might say, as I rise to support the motion to instruct of my
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Conyers], how can we
eliminate the Labor Department inspectors that would in fact be able to
eliminate some of the very problems that the Honorable Barbara Jordan
from Texas, as leader of the President's commission, indicated we had
to do to protect workers, and to avoid the paying of wages below the
minimum wage and unsafe working conditions?
We have already determined that the Labor Department and its
inspector division has found some millions of dollars of situations
where minimum wages were not paid, or unsafe conditions. It seems if we
are truly sincere about reform in immigration that we will have those
inspectors.
[[Page H10194]]
Last, let me say how unfortunate it is that if some of our citizens
who have to be verified, particularly Hispanic citizens with Hispanic
surnames, find out that they are legal and then they have no remedy, no
way to address their grievances, I would say we need to look at making
this a better reform and do a better job. I rise to support the motion
to instruct.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was give permission to revise and extent his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, when we get carried away in this body, we really get
carried away. If ever I heard overkill, we are talking about overkill
today.
In the conference agreement you have agreed to 900 new people in INS
over a 3-year period, 900. I know what the Members are going to say,
but they do no check on wage and hour. No, but if they do their job,
there is no necessity for anybody to be checking on wage and hour. We
are giving them 900 new people over a 3-year period.
Second, in the conference agreement you have agreed to the new
workplace verification rule. Let us give them a chance. Let us give the
900 a chance, and let us give the new workplace verification system an
opportunity to work. Then we can determine whether we need anything
else.
I do not know how much experience you have with wage and hour people,
but I have had a lot of experience in the school business. In fact, I
had to threaten them, to tell them never, ever to step in again to my
business manager's office, that they will come through the
superintendent. Why? Because he was very, very valuable to me and to
that school system. I could not have him have a stroke over the
insensitivity of the gentleman who appeared there and said, do not tell
me you are not doing anything wrong. I will stay here until I find it.
He went all over my district doing the same, until I got him
transferred to the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade]. I figured he would have a tougher time up there.
Now, let us get back again to the point: 900 new people in INS. If
they do their job, and we are giving them the opportunity by giving
them more people, then we are getting to the root of the problem we are
talking about, and we have eliminated that problem. That is what we
have done. Also you have done it if our new verification system works
the way we hope it will work.
So let us not get carried away and add 350 more here and another
thousand some other place. Let us, as a matter of fact, see whether we
have not gotten to the root of the problem, and solved the problem with
the 900 and with the new verification system.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is understandably confused, because he thought we were
using regular procedures. He kept saying, you have agreed in the
conference report. No, there is not any conference report. There was an
internal Republican discussion, and they produced something that they
intend to ram through the conference in a day. But in fact the
gentleman mistook the current situation for regular legislative
procedure.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Xavier Becerra, who I have
asked to conclude this discussion by saving him for last to use the
remaining time on our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]
is recognized for 2 minutes and 45 seconds.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems with this so-called
conference report, not least of which is the backroom deals that
occurred on the majority side of the aisle in both Houses which did not
allow anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle to participate in
any of the negotiations that took place over the last 3 to 4 months.
Now we are going to try to pass out a bill in about 48 hours, never
having seen or had a chance to discuss any of these so-called changes.
It is upsetting to see that the Republicans have decided to weaken
protections against discrimination for U.S. citizens. They are gutting
even a compromise that was reached in the light of day in committee,
and the backrooms deals were cut, and that language that protected
people from discrimination was removed.
It is sad to see that this Congress has now reached the stage where
it is going to blame children and punish children for the acts of
adults. I have never seen that happen in a court of law, but here we
go, not punishing adults for the acts of children, but punishing
children for the acts of adults. That is what this Congress wishes to
do by denying kids the access to education.
By the way, talking about unfunded mandates, doing what they want to
do in this bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the
schools throughout this Nation. That is not my statement, that is the
statement of the California School Board Association, which is opposing
the Gallegly amendment.
What is worst about all of this is jobs. The reason people come into
this country, whether with or without documents, is to get a better
paying job for their family. This bill, unfortunately, does little, if
anything, to try to preserve and protect American jobs. We had a
provision in the Senate bill that said, let us provide 350
investigators to make sure we inspect the workplaces in this country to
make sure jobs are held for American citizens.
We have right now a total of 750 investigators nationwide to cover 6
million places of employment. That is about 8,000 places of employment
per investigator, to investigate to find out if someone is hired with
the authorization to work in this country.
The Senate, including the Republicans in the Senate, said let us give
the Department of Labor the opportunity to do a better job of
investigating. Why? Because we have found we have been able to recoup
money for a lot of American citizens that would have otherwise not been
employed, and those people who are not employed and are in jobs that
are not authorized, to get them out and leave the jobs for the American
citizens.
What we find is that that was all gutted. This so-called conference
report that Democrats have never even seen until today does not include
any funding for that. Why? If we are really out to protect jobs for
Americans, if we are really out to reform our immigration laws, then
let us do the thing that most Americans wish to see most, jobs, jobs
for Americans, or those entitled to work in this country. This bill
does not provide that type of protection.
I am amazed, we found somehow the capacity in this Congress to give
moneys, funds for 300 additional border patrol agents more than even
what the administration, the Clinton administration, requested. The
President requested about 700 new border patrol officers. This Congress
said, we are going to give you 1,000. When the administration said we
need more investigators to make sure people are employed because they
are authorized to work, this Congress said no, you cannot do it. So
there we have.
We are going to find a situation, unlike what the chairman of the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities said, that you can
stop them all at the border. I wish it was true but it is not, because
almost half of the people undocumented in this country come legally
through a visa, a student visa or a work visa. Then they overstay and
become illegal after that. They are the ones you will never catch. Half
of the people, they will continue to be employed and you will not have
the investigators to spot them. Bad bill. Vote against this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
[[Page H10195]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Dreier)
announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 236, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 408]
YEAS--181
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--236
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
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
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--16
Brown (FL)
Buyer
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Ganske
Hayes
Heineman
McNulty
Mollohan
Norwood
Pastor
Portman
Riggs
Scott
Torkildsen
Zeliff
{time} 1503
Mr. TANNER, Mr. BAESLER, and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALLARD, McINNIS, and LUTHER changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Hyde, Smith of Texas, Gallegly, McCollum, Goodlatte, Bryant
of Tennessee, Bono, Conyers, Frank of Massachusetts, Berman, Bryant of
Texas, Becerra, Goodling, Cunningham, McKeon, Martinez, Gene Green of
Texas, Shaw, and Jacobs.
There was no objection.
____________________