[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11071-H11091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2202, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 
                  IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 528 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 528

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Drier] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Woodland Hills, 
CA [Mr. Beilenson], pending which, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous materials.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is a major problem that 
exists in this country, and nearly every one of us knows it. In my 
State of California, this may be the single most important law and 
order issue we have faced in a generation. Three million illegal 
immigrants enter the country each year, 300,000 to stay here 
permanently. More live in California than in any other State. In 3 
years, that is enough people, Mr. Speaker, to create a city the size of 
San Francisco.
  Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly clear that this Congress is dedicated 
to results. I believe results are what the American people want from 
their representatives here in Washington, both in Congress and at the 
White House. When there is a national problem like illegal immigration, 
they want action. Today, with this bill that we are considering that 
was crafted so expertly by chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Texas, [Mr. Lamar Smith], we are giving them a response.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, back in the 19th century, the German practitioner of 
politics Otto von Bismarck made a very famous statement, with which we 
are all very familiar, that people should not watch sausage or laws 
being made.
  That dictum has never been more true than in looking at what has 
taken place over the past couple of years. Under the barrage of 18 
months and tens of millions of dollars of special interest attack ads, 
as well as the political rhetoric that came along with Congress 
changing hands for the first time in four decades, Washington has not 
presented a pretty picture to the American people.
  But look beyond the rhetoric, the soundbites, and the smokescreens, 
Mr. Speaker. Look at the results. We have gotten bipartisan welfare 
reform, bipartisan telecommunications reform, bipartisan health 
insurance reform, a line-item veto measure that passed with bipartisan 
support, environmental protections that have had bipartisan support, 
and now a major illegal immigration bill that also enjoys tremendous 
bipartisan support. In each case, the final product from this Congress 
has been a major accomplishment where past Congresses have 
unfortunately produced failure.
  Mr. Speaker, in California, illegal immigration is a problem in its 
own right, but it is also a factor that contributes to other problems. 
It undermines job creation by taxing local resources, it threatens wage 
gains by supplying undocumented labor, it has been a major factor in 
public school overcrowding, forcing nearly $2 billion in State and 
local resources to be spent each year educating illegal immigrants 
rather than California's children.
  As with other major national problems, the American people want 
results, not rhetoric, as I was saying. H.R. 2202 fills that bill. It 
is not perfect. There are Members of this House who spent years trying 
to address illegal immigration who think that the bill could be better, 
and I am one who thinks that this bill could be better. This conference 
report is not the answer to all of our problems.
  However, that is not a fair test, and it is not the test that the 
American people want us to use. People do not want us to kill good 
results in the name of perfection. There is no question that this 
conference report, filled with bipartisan proposals to improve the 
fight against illegal immigration, should pass, and pass with broad 
bipartisan support, as I am sure it will.
  The bill dramatically improves border enforcement, fights document 
fraud and targets alien smuggling, makes it easier to deport illegal 
immigrants, creates a much needed pilot program to get at the problem 
of illegal immigrants filling jobs, and makes clear that illegal 
immigrants do not qualify for welfare programs. Together, Mr. Speaker, 
this is not just a good first step; it takes us a good way toward our 
goal of ending this very serious problem of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, I must note that the 104th Congress did not just come 
around to this problem at the end of the session. This important bill 
only adds to other accomplishments, other results.
  Congress tripled funding, Federal funding, to $500 million to 
reimburse States like California for the cost of housing felons in 
State prisons if they are illegal aliens. The remarkable fact is that 
we are 1 week from the close of fiscal year 1996 and the Clinton 
administration has not distributed $1 in fiscal year 1996 money to 
States like California.
  The welfare reform bill, signed by the President, disqualified 
illegal immigrants from all Federal and State welfare programs and 
empowered State welfare agencies to report illegals to the INS. 
Congress also created a $3.5 billion Federal fund to reimburse our 
hospitals for the cost of emergency health care to illegals, only to 
see that provision die due to a Presidential veto.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must add that promoting economic growth and 
stability in Mexico, in particular, whether through implementing the 
North American Free Trade Agreement or working with our neighbor to 
avoid a financial collapse that would create untold economic refugees 
on our Southern border is critical to the success of our fight against 
illegal immigration. We want to do what we can to

[[Page H11072]]

give people an opportunity to raise their families at home rather than 
come to this country for jobs and other benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for final action on this important 
illegal immigration bill. California must deal every day with that 
flood of illegal immigrants who are coming across the border seeking 
government services, job opportunities, and family members. There is 
simply no question that the President, for all his rhetoric, has failed 
to make this a top priority. Once again, as with welfare reform, we can 
give the President a chance to live up to his rhetoric. Let us pass 
this rule, pass this conference report, and give the American people 
another issue of which they can be very proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes of debate time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say at the outset, I say it gently and nicely, this is not 
directed personally to my truly good and close friend whom I admire, 
respect and like a huge amount from California, but I want to say to 
our friends on the other side that I am personally shocked and 
astounded by the lack of comity and collegiality that was shown in this 
particular instance. This is the first time I can recall in my 18 years 
of service on the Rules Committee where the majority party started 
taking up a rule before the minority party was here, and in fact we 
learned of the rule being taken up at this time after having been 
assured, I know it is not the gentleman's fault, so I am not directing 
my comments at all to him, I say to my good friend, but to whoever is 
responsible for changing or speeding up the course of action here. We 
were assured this would not be taken up for some time, until sometime 
after we had disposed of the intelligence bill and after at least some 
of the other bills on suspension would be taken up, and our people are 
not prepared or are not so prepared as they would have been an hour or 
two from now to debate this matter.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I just want to say that I agree with the gentleman. I 
wish that it had been run in a more orderly fashion. I was assuming 
that there would have been a recorded vote on that intelligence bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. I understand. As I said to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], my friend, I know it was not the gentleman's 
doing. I just wanted to say if we seem a little hurried on this side 
and some of our folks have not arrived yet, it is because they did not 
expect to have to be over here quite at this time. At any rate, let us 
get down to the matter. We do have the remainder of the day to deal 
with this and its other matter. Mr. Gallegly's amendment, and we could 
have given ourselves a little more time, it seems to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we do oppose this rule and the legislation it makes in 
order, the conference report on the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
  By waiving all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration, this rule allows the leadership to bring this measure to 
the floor fewer than 24 hours from the time it emerged from the 
conference committee. Hardly anyone besides the majority Members and 
staff who worked on the conference report knows much about its specific 
provisions. We know that it does not contain Mr. Gallegly's amendment 
on educating children of illegal immigrants, which is, we think, good. 
That is, it is good that it does not contain it, but that is the only 
provision that has received much attention in the press. We are being 
asked to rush to judgment on a matter that needs far more deliberation 
and discussion than it will have prior to the vote on final passage. 
Furthermore, the rule essentially sanctions House consideration of 
legislation that is not the product of a legitimate House-Senate 
conference committee. There is good reason why no Democratic member 
except for one signed the conference report. Democratic members who had 
worked hard on this legislation along with their Republican colleagues 
from its inception were completely shut out of the conference process. 
There was no consultation with Democrats over the past 5 months after 
the House and Senate had both passed immigration bills of their own. 
Democratic members went to the conference meeting yesterday not knowing 
what was in the final product and were not given the opportunity to 
offer amendments despite the fact that the proposed conference report 
contained many new items and quite a few that were outside the scope of 
the conference itself and no vote was taken on the report. And now here 
on the floor we are being asked to endorse this egregious practice by 
adopting this rule. We should not do that, we should defeat this rule 
or, failing that, we should defeat the conference report itself.

  Mr. Speaker, those of us who represent communities where large 
numbers of immigrants settle have been working hard for a number of 
years to get Congress and the administration to stop the flow of 
illegal immigrants into the United States. Many of us have also been 
trying to slow the growth or slow the rate at which legal immigrants 
are flowing into our country.
  Our efforts have been supported by not only people who are affected 
directly by rapid population growth resulting from immigration, but 
also by the vast majority of Americans everywhere. More than 80 percent 
of the American people, according to poll after poll, want Congress to 
get serious about stopping illegal immigration, and they want us to 
reduce the rate of legal immigration. Unfortunately, this legislation 
would do neither. This measure is a feeble and misguided response to 
one of the most significant problems facing our Nation. For us to spend 
as much time and energy as we have identifying ways to solve our 
immigration problems and then produce such a weak piece of legislation 
is, I think it is fair to say, a travesty, and eventually the American 
people, perhaps soon, I hope soon, will understand that we have not 
fulfilled our responsibilities in this matter.
  If we truly care about immigration reform, we must vote down this 
conference report today so that the Congress and the President will be 
forced to revisit this issue next year. Otherwise, I am afraid the 
Congress and the administration will have an excuse to put this issue 
aside and it will be years again, literally years, before we get really 
serious about stopping illegal immigration and reducing legal 
immigration.
  One of this bill's greatest defects is its lenient treatment of 
employers who hire illegal immigrants. An estimated 300,000 illegal 
immigrants settle permanently in the United States each year. As we all 
know, virtually all of them are lured here by the prospect of jobs 
which they are able to obtain because the law allows them to prove work 
authorization through documents that can be easily forged.

  That will continue to be the case despite this legislation's 
reduction in the kinds of documents that can be used to prove work 
eligibility. As a result, it is next to impossible for employers to 
determine who is and who is not authorized to work in the United 
States.
  This is not a problem we recently discovered, Mr. Speaker. Congress 
knew a decade ago and more when we first established penalties for 
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants that it would be 
difficult to enforce the law, impossible actually, if we did not have 
some kind of system requiring employers to verify the authenticity of 
documents that employees use to show work authorization.
  Moreover, because more than 50 percent of illegal immigrants come 
here legally and then overstay their visas, we cannot stop these types 
of immigrants simply by tightening border control. The only real way we 
can stop them is by forcing employers to check their work authorization 
status with the government.
  But despite knowing full well that the lack of an enforceable 
verification system is the largest obstacle to enforcing employer 
sanctions and thus the biggest hole in our efforts to stop illegal 
immigration, this legislation fails to cure that major principal 
problem.
  For employment verification, the bill provides only for pilot 
programs in

[[Page H11073]]

States that have the highest numbers of undocumented workers. Because 
these pilot programs will be voluntary, employers will be able to avoid 
checking the status of their employees. Thus, businesses that hire 
illegal immigrants, and there are plenty of them, Mr. Speaker, who do, 
will continue to be able to get away with it the same way they do now, 
by claiming that they did not know that employees' work authorization 
documents were fraudulent. And that will continue until the Congress 
revisits the issue and passes legislation making verification 
mandatory.
  To make matters worse, the bill fails to provide for an adequate 
number of investigators within either the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service or the Labor Department to identify employers 
who are hiring illegal immigrants.
  The other glaring failure of this piece of legislation is its failure 
to reduce the huge number of legal immigrants who are settling in the 
United States each year. Many people have been focusing on the problem 
of illegal immigration, which is understandable. Undocumented 
immigrants and employers who hire them are breaking our laws and should 
be dealt with accordingly. But if a fundamental immigration problem we 
are concerned with, and I believe it is, it certainly is amongst the 
people I represent back home, is the impact of too many people arriving 
too quickly into this country, the sheer numbers dictate that we cannot 
ignore the role that legal immigration plays. About three-quarters of 
the estimated 1.1 million foreigners who settle permanently in the 
United States each year do so legally.

                              {time}  1215

  It is the 800,000, more or less, legal immigrants, more so than the 
estimated 300,000 illegal ones, who determine how fierce the 
competition for jobs is, how overcrowded our schools are, and how large 
and densely populated our urban areas are becoming. More importantly, 
the number of foreigners we allow to settle in the United States now 
will determine how crowded this country will become during the next 
century.
  The population of the United States has just about doubled since the 
end of World War II. That is only about 50 years ago. It is headed for 
another doubling by the year 2050, just 53 or 54 years from now, when 
it will probably exceed half a billion people. Half a billion people in 
this country. Immigration is the engine driving this unprecedented 
growth.
  Natives of other lands who have settled here since the 1970's and 
their offspring account for more than half the population increase we 
have experienced in the last 25 years. The effects of immigration will 
be even more dramatic, however, in the future. By the year 2050, more 
than 90 percent of our annual growth will be attributable to immigrants 
who have settled here since the early 1990's; not prior immigration, 
but just the immigration that is occurring now and will continue to 
occur if this bill is allowed to pass.
  As recently as 1990, the Census Bureau predicted that U.S. population 
would peak and then level off a few decades from now at about 300,000 
people. In 1994, however, just 4 years later, because of unexpectedly 
high rates of immigration, the bureau changed its predictions and now 
sees our population growing unabated into the next century, into the 
late 21st century, when it will reach 800 million, or perhaps 1 billion 
Americans, in the coming century.
  Now, a year ago, there was a near consensus among Members and others 
working closely on immigration reform that we needed to reduce the 
number of legal as well as illegal immigrants entering this country. 
The Clinton administration has proposed such reductions, and both the 
House and Senate Judiciary Committee versions of the immigration reform 
legislation also contained those reductions. All three proposals were 
based on the recommendations of the immigration reform commission, 
headed by the late Barbara Jordan, which proposed a decrease in legal 
immigration of about a quarter million people a year.
  The commission's recommended reduction would still, of course, have 
left the United States in a position of being by far the most generous 
nation in the world in terms of the number of immigrants we accept 
legally. We would continue to be a country which accepts more legal 
immigrants than all of the other countries of the world combined.
  But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, after intensive lobbying by business 
interests and by proimmigration organizations, both the House and the 
Senate stripped the legal immigration reduction from this legislation 
entirely, and did so with the Clinton administration's blessing. Now, 
unless the Congress defeats this legislation today, reductions in legal 
immigration, are unlikely for the foreseeable future.
  Our failure to reduce legal immigration will only be to our Nation's 
great detriment. The rapid population growth that will result from 
immigration will make it that much more difficult to solve our most 
pervasive and environment problems such as air and water pollution, 
trash and sewage disposal, loss of agriculture lands, and many others, 
just to name some of the major ones.
  More serious environmental threats are not all that we will face when 
our communities, especially those in large coastal urban areas, 
speaking mainly, of course, at the amount, of California and Texas and 
Florida and New York and New Jersey, but there are others that are 
already being affected and more that will be in the future, areas that 
are magnets for immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are already 
straining to meet the needs of the people here right now. There could 
be no doubt that our ability in the future to provide a sufficient 
number of jobs or adequate housing and enough water, food, education, 
especially health care and public safety, is certain to be tested in 
ways that we cannot now even imagine.
  However we look at it, Mr. Speaker, however we look at it, failing to 
reduce the current rate of immigration, legal and illegal, clearly 
means that our children and our grandchildren cannot possibly have the 
quality of life that we ourselves have been fortunate to have enjoyed. 
With twice as many people here in this country, and then more than 
twice as many, we can expect to have at least twice as much crime, 
twice as much congestion, twice as much congestion, twice as much 
poverty, twice as many problems in educating our children, providing 
health care and everything else.

  In terms of both process and outcome, this conference report is a 
grave disappointment. It is notable more for what it is not than for 
what it is. Instead of a conference report that reflects only the views 
of the majority party, this measure could have been a bipartisan 
product as immigration bills traditionally are, but it is not. Instead 
of a measure developed in someone's office, this continuing resolution 
could have been the result of a conference committee, but it is not. 
Instead of legislation that is lax or lenient on employers who hire 
illegal immigrants, this could have been a measure that finally 
established a workable system that enforced penalties against those who 
knowingly hire illegal immigrants, but it is not.
  Instead of a bill that fails to slow the tide of legal immigrants, 
except by singling them out for unfair treatment, as it does, this 
could have been a bill that reduces the rate at which immigrants settle 
here and thus help solve many problems which confront us as a society 
already, but it is not.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill this rule makes in order, does not, to be frank 
about it, deserve our support. I urge our colleagues to vote it down, 
both the rule and/or the conference report, so that Congress and the 
President, and the administration, which did not do its duty, it seems 
to this Member by these issues, both the Congress and the President 
will be forced to return to this issue next year and to produce the 
kind of immigration reform legislation that the American people want 
and that our country badly needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the comments by opponents of this legislation simply do 
not represent the views of most Americans.

[[Page H11074]]

They do not even represent the desires of a majority of the Members of 
their own party. Every substantive provision in this compromise 
conference report has already been supported by a majority of Democrats 
and a majority of Republicans either in the House or Senate.
  I find it curious that when the American people want us to reduce 
illegal immigration, every single criticism made by the opponents of 
this bill would make it easier for illegal aliens to enter or stay in 
the country, or it would make it easier for noncitizens to get Federal 
benefits paid for by the taxpayer.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Sanibel FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Budget and Legislative Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the vice chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], for 
yielding. I wish to commend the gentleman for his efforts on this 
important bill. I can say that he has been persistent and he has been 
instrumental in getting us to this point.
  I support the rule, but I do agree with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] that there was a mixup in the scheduling, and I think 
that we have understood there was nothing sinister behind it. A vote 
dropped off, so we got ahead of ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, many months ago the House passed 2202 to reform our 
Nation's broken immigration system.
  This landmark legislation will tighten our borders, block illegal 
immigrants from obtaining jobs that should go to those who are in the 
United States legally, streamline the process for removing illegals, 
and make illegal immigrants ineligible for most public benefits.
  All along in this process, the drumbeat from the American people has 
been very clear--it's long past time for reform. We have come to 
understand that reform is not for the faint of heart--that there are 
tough choices to be made and that there are real human beings on all 
sides of the immigration process. In the end, I believe we have 
legislation that is tough but fair--legislation designed to keep the 
door open for those who want to come to America but are willing to do 
it via an orderly, legal process, not sneak in the back or side door.
  H.R. 2202 will add 5,000 new border patrol agents over the next 5 
years Yes, 5,000. It will make illegal immigrants ineligible for many 
public benefits, while still allowing them access to emergency medical 
care. It also requires future sponsors to take more responsibility for 
their charges--a prospective change that is a win for immigrants and 
for American taxpayers alike, reducing the $26 billion annual tab 
American taxpayers currently pay. H.R. 2202 sets up a 3-year voluntary 
pilot program in five States so employers can use a phone system to 
verify Social Security numbers of prospective employees. If the pilot 
is successful, we may finally have a simple and effective way for 
employers to fulfill their legal responsibility to hire only eligible 
workers. There is no national identity card and no big brother database 
in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as with all things that are borne of 
compromise, this legislation is not without disappointments. In my 
State of Florida, we know that undocumented immigrants cost Florida 
taxpayers millions of dollars every year in education costs. The 
Governor's office estimated the cost for 1 year to have been $180 
million. Nationwide for 1 year the estimate was more than $4.2 billion. 
We simply cannot afford to educate all of the world's children while 
extending a magnet that fuels illegal entry into our country. Although 
I am disappointed it's not in this bill, I am pleased that this House 
has a chance to debate the Gallegly language as a separate measure, to 
end the current unfunded Federal mandate and give States an opportunity 
to make their own decision about how to handle this problem.
  Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is a solid bill. It is one more example of 
this Congress, under our new majority, living up to its commitments. 
One more time we have promises made, promises kept.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
California for yielding me time. Tony, we will miss you next year and 
all your work you have done for not only our district, but the people 
of California, and the people of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus that illegal immigration is a 
national problem that needs to be addressed. I believe our immigration 
laws need to be strengthened. But this conference agreement ignores the 
real reasons for illegal immigration and does little to protect 
American jobs. The reason people are in our country illegally is not to 
go to school, it is to get a job.
  A successful control of illegal immigration requires comprehensive 
efforts not only to police our borders, but also to effectively reduce 
the incentives to employ illegal immigrants.
  The bill has serious deficiencies in regard to employment and work 
site enforcement. The conference report does not contain the Senate 
provision that would authorize 350 additional enforcement staff for the 
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, to enhance worksite 
enforcement of our laws.
  This conference report does not contain the Senate provision 
authorizing enhanced civil penalties for employers who violate the 
employment sanctions and specified labor laws. Higher penalties would 
also serve to reduce the incentives to employ and thereby deter illegal 
immigration.
  This conference report does not contain the Senate provision that 
would have provided subpoena authority to the Secretary of Labor to 
carry out enforcement responsibilities under this act.
  Even though I served on the conference committee, and I was honored 
to do so, I nor other Democrats were given the opportunity to offer 
amendments to correct these deficiencies: We will have real immigration 
reform when we as Democrats are not locked out of the process.
  Is this bill better than no bill? Maybe. But the people of America 
want something that will stop illegal immigration. This will not stop 
it. It may be better than the status quo because of the additional 
border patrol, but it does not go as far as the American people want it 
to go to deter illegal immigration. That is why this is not the panacea 
that you may hear from the other side of the aisle. It is an election 
year gimmick to say we passed immigration reform, but we have not.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas just said, this 
bill is clearly better than the status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Orlando, FL [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 2 
minutes to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment. There are a few things in 
this bill that maybe I could quibble over, but very few. There are a 
number of things that are not in this bill that I would like to see 
here, and I know many other Members would. But, overall, this is an 
excellent work product. There are some very significant things in this 
bill.
  One of the things this bill does is to reform the whole process of 
asylum, that is the question where somebody seeking to come here or to 
stay here claims that they have been or would be persecuted for 
religious or political reasons if they return to the country of their 
origin.
  We have had lots of people coming in here claiming that. Most of them 
who claim it have no foundation in claim at all. Once they get a foot 
in the airport or wherever, they make that claim, they get into the 
system, many of them are never heard from again. We do not get the kind 
of speedy process we need to resolve this.
  Under this legislation there is a system much better than we have 
today for resolving the whole question of asylum from A to Z. We have 
an expedited or summary exclusion process that will be guaranteed in 
the sense you get two bites at the apple. If you ask for asylum at the 
airport, an asylum officer specially trained will screen you. If you 
think you have been given a raw deal

[[Page H11075]]

and he says you do not have a credible fear of persecution and decides 
to return you straight home, you get to go before an immigration judge. 
That has to be done though within a matter of 24 hours, 7 days at the 
most.
  It is a very, very positive provision, because it you do not qualify, 
you are going to be shipped right back out again, and do not get caught 
up in our system. And the list goes on and on.
  So this is a very important and positive bill. But there are a couple 
of things that I think should have been in here that are not. One of 
them is the strengthening of the Social Security card that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] talked about at some length. 
We need a way, a very difficult way, to get rid of document fraud, in 
order to make employer sanctions work. All too many people are coming 
into this country today getting fraudulent documents for $15 or $20 on 
the streets, including Social Security cards, drivers licenses or 
whatever, and then they go get a job. There is no way to make a law 
that says it is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien work.

                              {time}  1230

  And until we solve this fraud problem and we do more than we are 
doing in this bill to do that, we will never make it such that we can 
cut the magnet of people coming in here illegally.
  But the bill is excellent. Let us vote for this bill and work on 
these other matters in the next Congress.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  And let me say at this point briefly to my friend from California, 
whom I have had the honor of serving with, and we were in the same 
class together, been here for 20 years, how much I have appreciated his 
friendship and his counsel and all that he has done for this 
institution. He is truly one of the most decent people I have ever 
served with in public life, one of the brightest people I have ever 
served with, and I will miss him dearly as we go into our next 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my friend from 
California in opposing this rule and opposing this conference report. I 
do so for the following reasons:
  This conference report weakens protection for American workers while 
making it easier for employers to hire illegal workers. The conference 
report includes broad language that is not contained in the House-
passed bill which rolls back antidiscrimination protections and makes 
it more difficult for American workers to bring employment 
discrimination claims.
  Workers will now have to prove that an employer deliberately had an 
intent to discriminate, which is an almost impossible standard to meet. 
Workers who are wrongfully denied employment because of computer 
errors, and we know in this brave new world we live in that is becoming 
more and more common, under this bill they will not be able to seek 
compensation from the Federal Government because of that error because 
they were just kind of wiped out on the list and were not able to get a 
job.
  At the same time it does this, it does something else. It will make 
it easier for employers to hire illegal workers. The conference report 
does not include the Senate provision that would have increased 
penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.
  Now, that is significant, because each year more than 100,000 foreign 
workers enter the work force by overstaying their visas. Many are hired 
in illegal sweatshops, in violation of minimum wage laws. And we have 
seen what the Labor Department has unveiled in this regard over the 
last couple of years: Sweatshops all over this country with illegal 
people who are working in these sweatshops and no crackdown on the 
employers. The conference report does not include the additional 350 
labor inspectors.
  Let me also say something about class. This is a bill that 
discriminates against average working people in this country and 
average folks. Millions of Americans would be denied the ability to 
reunite with their spouses or minor children because they do not earn 
more than 140 percent of the poverty level, which is the income 
standard set by the conference report in order for it to sponsor a 
family member to come here.
  A third of the country would be ineligible to bring in folks under 
this particular conference report. But if you have a few bucks, no 
problem. If you are an average worker in this country, we are sorry.
  Another point in this bill that I think Members should pay attention 
to: An individual serves his country. They are here not as a citizen 
but as a legal immigrant, and they decide to serve in the armed forces, 
the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Army, and they put in 2 years or 4 
years, and then they leave and get in an automobile accident and take 
advantage of some medical benefits. They can go under this bill. They 
can be deported.
  There are a lot of things in this bill that are discriminatory 
against a lot of people who care about this country. I think it is a 
bad piece of legislation. Say no to the rule. Say no to the bill. We 
will come back and do it right in the next Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and would say to my friend, if he does not like the sponsor provision 
that exists today, he should try to get rid of it rather than leaving 
it absolutely meaningless.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Huntington 
Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher], my friend, and one of the strongest 
proponents of legal immigration.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, millions of illegal aliens have been pouring into our 
country, and we have heard year after year after year a reason of why 
we should not act. There is always going to be a reason that the other 
side will prevent us from acting.
  In fact, for years those of us on the Republican side have begged for 
an immigration bill, and we have been prevented time and time again 
from having any type of legislation where we could come to grips with 
this problem.
  In California, our health facilities and our schools have been 
flooded with illegal aliens. Our public services are stretched to the 
breaking point. Tens of billions of dollars that should be going to 
benefit our own citizens are being drained away to provide services and 
benefits to foreigners who have come here illegally.
  Who is to blame? Certainly not the immigrants. We cannot blame them 
if we are to provide them with all these services and benefits. This 
administration and the liberal Democrats, who have controlled both 
Houses of Congress for decades, have betrayed the trust of the American 
people.
  We are supposed to be watching out for our own people. When we 
allocate money for benefits, for service, SSI and unemployment 
benefits, it is supposed to benefit our citizens, the people that are 
paying taxes, who fought our wars. Instead, when we have tried to make 
sure these are not drained away to illegal aliens, we have been stopped 
every time by the Democrats who controlled this House.
  This bill finally comes to grips with the problem that has threatened 
the well-being of every American family. And, yes, we are going to hear 
a little nitpicking from the other side of why it is not a perfect 
bill. But the American people should remind themselves, it is this type 
of nitpicking that has placed their families in jeopardy for decades 
and permitted a problem of illegal immigration to mushroom into a 
catastrophe for our country.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California, and let me say as a new Member of Congress, I have admired 
his leadership, his determination, and particularly the demeanor in 
which he has led not only his district, the State of California, but 
the Nation, and I thank him very much for his services.
  It is important as we rise to the floor, Mr. Speaker, on this issue, 
to chronicle for the American people just how far we have come. This 
legislation started out as a combination of some effort in response to 
legal immigration and illegal immigration.
  Unfortunately, the provisions of the legal immigration part of this 
legislation were extremely harsh and, in fact,

[[Page H11076]]

did not capture the spirit of the Statue of Liberty, which indicates 
that this Nation, bar none, regardless of the standards used by other 
countries, we do not follow, we lead, was not a country that would 
close its doors to those seeking opportunities for work but 
opportunities for justice and liberty and freedom.
  So I am delighted that we were able to separate out the major parts 
of legal immigration and to acknowledge that, yes, we must work with 
regulating the influx of those coming into this country, but we should 
never deny the opportunity for those seeking political refuge and 
needing social justice and fleeing from religious persecution. Our 
doors should never be closed.
  I am disappointed, as we now look at illegal immigration, we have 
several points that need to be considered. This is not a good jobs bill 
for America because it does not give to the Department of Labor the 350 
staff persons needed to make sure that employers are following the 
rules as they should.
  And, likewise, I would say that this is an unfair bill with respect 
to those who are here legally, for it says if they want to bring their 
loved ones, their mother, their father, their siblings, they must not 
be a regular working person, but they have to be a rich person.
  I thought this country was respective of all working citizens, all 
working individuals who worked every day. But now we require a high 
burden of some 200 percent more over the poverty level than had been 
required before in order for a legal resident, a citizen, to bring in 
their loved ones to, in essence, join their family together. I think 
that is unfair.
  Then we raise a much higher standard on those citizens who now, or 
those individuals who are seeking employment who may be legal 
residents. Now they must prove intentional discrimination. I think that 
is extremely unfair.
  We likewise determine that we do not have the ability for redress of 
grievances by those individuals who have been discriminated against. 
That is unfair.
  And let me say this in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me 
say that we treat juveniles unfairly and we should vote down the rules 
and vote down the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mount Holly, NJ [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I support the rule and I will vote 
in favor of the bill itself today. However, I am deeply disturbed by 
one aspect of the bill.
  Most of the provisions of the bill, I think, are in accord with good 
sound policy. However, this bill does contain one provision, to exempt 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service from both the Endangered 
Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
  This provision is intended to address an issue that has to do with 
the California-Texas-Mexico border. However, the way this section is 
written, the exemption applies to the entire border of the United 
States, not just the California-Mexico border near San Diego.
  This waiver is not necessary, either in theory or in reality. Section 
7, as a matter of fact, of the Endangered Species Act provides the 
framework to address any fence building. I have letters from the 
Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior stating that 
these waivers are not necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, if it is important enough to exempt the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service from these important environmental laws, then we 
have to grow food, why do we not just exempt the Department of 
Agriculture? We have to get around in this country, so why do we not 
just exempt the Department of Transportation? And flood control is 
extremely important in my district, so why do we not just exempt the 
Corps of Engineers?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad provision, and while I am going to vote 
for this bill, I pledge to spend the next 2 years making sure we 
straighten out this part of the bill which, to me, is a serious 
problem.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California, a friend of mine, for yielding me this time.
  I also want to join all my colleagues who are acknowledging the many 
years of service the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has 
provided to this institution and to the people of America. They 
probably do not realize how instructive he has been in helping us 
fashion all sorts of policy, and I certainly will miss him, and I hope 
that he continues to be involved in policy for this country, because he 
has been a voice that has brought reason and, I think, a great deal of 
wisdom to this country's policies and laws.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go on to say that I am very disappointed in what 
we have here today, for a couple of reasons, not only because I think 
substantively this is a bill that needs a great deal of improvement, 
but because procedurally it is disappointing to see, in the greatest 
democracy in the world, that the Republicans, the majority in this 
Congress, saw fit not to allow anyone to participate in the structuring 
of this final version of the bill unless one happened to be Republican.
  Not one point in time, since the bill first passed out of the House 
of Representatives back in March, have Democrats had an opportunity to 
provide amendments to this particular conference report or to 
participate even in discussion of amendments on this report.
  We had a conference committee yesterday that was only for the purpose 
of offering an opening statement. We did not have a chance to make an 
offer of an amendment that say, ``This is a provision that needs to be 
changed; can we change it?'' Not a word. We were not allowed one 
opportunity to do so.
  This has come to the floor, with changes made in the back room in the 
dead of night, and some people are only now finding out what some of 
the provisions are.
  I want to give you one example of how procedurally this bill has gone 
wrong. In conference we happened to have found out, because we were 
handed a sheet that same morning, that a provision in the bill that we 
thought was in, which would deny a billionaire a visa to come into this 
country after that billionaire had renounced his U.S. citizenship.
  In other words, we have a billionaire in this country who renounces 
his U.S. citizenship, says, ``I do not want to be a U.S. citizen any 
more.'' Why? Because he wants to avoid taxes. If an individual is not a 
U.S. citizen, they do not pay U.S. taxes.
  So he renounces his citizenship, goes abroad, and then comes right 
back, applies for a visa to come back into this country. He has not 
paid any taxes, and he gets to come back into the country.
  We had a provision in the bill that said, no, if an individual 
renounces their U.S. citizenship because they want to avoid taxes, they 
cannot come back in. We walk in that morning, and that provision is no 
longer there. So these billionaires can come back into the country 
without having paid their taxes.

                              {time}  1245

  We said, why did you put that back in there? Why did we not have a 
chance to discuss this?
  Good news? Billionaires cannot come back in, if they renounce their 
citizenship. Bad news? We did not know it until this morning when we 
walked in and found it is back in the bill. That is the democratic 
process that we have undergone in this bill, where Members are not told 
what is in the bill until the last moment.
  What is the result? One Member called it, one colleague called it 
nitpicking. I do not call it nitpicking when through a stealth move we 
remove increased penalties for employers who we know are hiring people 
who are not authorized to work in this country.
  Why? I do not know. Who does it hurt? Only those employers who are 
violating the law. Why do we want to reduce the penalties on employers 
who are violating the law?
  Final point I will make, young student in college, tries to get 
financial aid, has been valedictorian in high school. Because he is a 
legal immigrant, he happens to be qualified for a Pell grant. Gets a 
Pell grant for 1 year, is now deportable because the person qualified 
for a Pell grant or maybe a student loan. Crazy.

[[Page H11077]]

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth], my thoughtful and hard-
working and eloquent colleague.
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for 
this time. Mr. Speaker, I would make the observation that despite the 
prevailing winds of what is politically correct, this is one of the few 
instances in official Washington where a description accurately fits 
the act it is describing, for this rule and this legislation addresses 
the problem of illegal immigration. By its very definition, it is an 
act against the law. And for that reason primarily, if an action is 
taken which is illegal, there should be sanctions against those who 
would participate in that illegal act. That is why I rise in strong 
support of the rule and the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from the border State of Arizona. It is of great 
concern to the people of Arizona that we close the door on illegal 
immigration. Hear me clearly, on illegal immigration, because by 
closing this illegal back door, we can keep the front door open to 
immigrants who have helped our society and helped our constitutional 
Republic.
  I think of one of them who hails from Holbrook in the sixth district 
of Arizona, who makes that place her home. Her name is Pee Wee Mestas. 
She is a restaurant owner. She came to this Nation legally. Her mother 
applied for a visa, went through the necessary legal steps to become a 
citizen. Her mother worked hard, going to school, going to cosmetology 
classes while working as a domestic servant to provide for her family. 
Pee Wee's mom was willing to work hard and follow the rules. Because 
she was, she raised up a generation of citizens, citizens who work hard 
and play by the rules.
  That is the basic issue here. End an illegal act and instill 
responsibility. If it is good enough for the Mestas family, it should 
be good enough for the United States of America. Support the rule. 
Support the legislation. Let us take steps to end illegal immigration.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. VELAZQUEZ].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
offer thanks to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for his 
guidance, leadership, and vision, and we all are going to miss him.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to this 
conference report. This so-called immigration reform bill not only 
attacks a wide range of very hard-working Americans but, worst of all, 
it wreaks havoc on the lives of children. When did we become such a 
distrustful society that we would even turn on our most vulnerable 
members?
  In a frenzy to shove undocumented immigrants out of the country, the 
Republican majority has crafted one of the most offensive pieces of 
legislation ever. They did not make this bill any better simply by 
removing the bar on undocumented children attending public school. The 
conference agreement still severely restricts legal immigrants' access 
to benefits, even though they play by the rules, they work hard and 
they pay taxes. But yet those multibillionaires who renounce their 
citizenship just so they cannot pay taxes, they are welcome to come 
back.
  I ask my colleagues and urge them to vote down the rule and vote this 
legislation down.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lula, 
GA [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of terms here 
the today. One is unfairness. Let me talk about the greatest unfairness 
there is. That is those citizens and those legal immigrants who are 
finding their jobs taken away from them, who are finding their taxes 
increased to pay for the jobs that are going to those who are illegally 
in this country and the benefits that are going to them.
  There are a lot of things that we as Americans hold dear. One is 
citizenship. Those of us who are lucky to achieve it by the virtue of 
birth or those who have achieved it by virtue of immigration and 
naturalization. Another thing we hold dear is that we are a country 
that has a system of law.
  I submit to you that the ever-increasing tide of illegal immigrants 
undermines both of these things. Citizenship should not be cheapened. 
Respect for the law, which includes immigration laws, should not be 
denigrated.
  This bill is the first major step this institution has taken in the 
direction of dealing with illegal immigration in more than a decade. Is 
it perfect? Certainly not. But does it begin to restore the sanctity of 
citizenship and respect for the law, yes, it does.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to my colleague from 
California, whom I have known for 34 years, who walked precincts in his 
first campaign, that I will truly, sincerely and sorely miss him. He is 
a model legislator and a pleasure to work with. I wish him well.
  The gentleman from Arizona, who spoke a few minutes ago, is so 
totally wrong when he says this is the bill that will finally do 
something about illegal immigration. Everyone knows, when they think 
about it, the only effective ways to do something to deter illegal 
immigration are at the border, and this bill authorizes more Border 
Patrol, but already the Committee on Appropriations and the 
administration have gone far beyond the authorization contained in this 
particular bill to do that. Setting up and committing to a national 
verification program to make employer sanctions meaningful. This bill 
started out like that but totally fell apart on the House floor, 
primarily at the behest of the majority party Members. And then to go 
after those industries that systematically recruit and employ illegal 
immigrants in order to have a competitive edge in wages and working 
conditions in their own operations.
  The Border Patrol increase is being done by the administration and 
the other 2 provisions are outrageously ignored in this conference 
report.
  I voted for this bill when it came out of the House of 
Representatives. I indicated I would vote for it in the form it was in 
if the Gallegly amendment was removed. The Gallegly amendment was 
removed, but in a dozen different ways the conference report is worse 
than the House bill and in many cases, notwithstanding the Committee on 
Rules waivers, exceeds the scope of what either House did in the most 
draconian ways. Draconian against illegal immigration? No. Draconian 
against legal immigrants.
  This is truly a desire by the people who lost on both the House and 
Senate floor in their efforts to cut back on legal immigration to do 
the same thing, but in the most unfair fashion, not straightforwardly 
by reducing the numbers but by focusing on the working class people in 
the society and stripping them of their right to bring legal immigrants 
over.
  The new welfare law bars legal immigrants from programs such as SSI 
and food stamps and from Medicaid for 5 years. It gives States the 
ability to permanently deny AFDC and Medicaid to legal immigrants.
  This conference report goes much, much further than that, makes legal 
immigrants not ineligible for these three or four programs but subject 
to deportation for use of almost every means-tested program for which 
they are eligible under the welfare law. In other words, what the 
welfare conference did not do, they decided to do here, and not declare 
ineligibility but make you subject to deportation.
  Let me tell you what that means. You are a legal immigrant child who 
goes through high school, applies to a college based on your superb 
academic performance and test scores. You get admitted to an expensive 
university, ivy league college, Stanford. You apply for a student loan. 
If you are on that student loan for more than a year, you are subject 
to deportation. What an outrageous provision that is. What a slap in 
the face of this country's traditions that is.
  Let me tell you how much else they do here. For the first time in 
American history, an U.S. citizen will be subject to an income test 
before he can bring his spouse into the country.

[[Page H11078]]

  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the conference 
report.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], former mayor of Carlsbad, now of Oceanside, 
CA.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule 
and the conference report. Immigration has been the most significant 
critical problem in my State for many, many years. I have worked a 
lifetime, it seems, on trying to resolve our serious illegal 
immigration problems. They are affecting southern California and 
California generally and the Nation generally in very significant ways.
  In fact, the two bills that I introduced on the first day that I 
started this session of Congress, the 104th Congress, have been 
incorporated into this bill, one of which would increase the Border 
Patrol to 10,000 agents, and the second would deny Federal benefits to 
illegal aliens. In essence, that was Prop 187 in California.
  But this bill is not only about protecting our borders from those who 
are entering here illegally. It is about protecting American taxpayers 
from being forced to pay for those who are breaking our laws just to be 
in this country. California alone pays out billions of dollars per year 
to deal with the problems of illegal immigration. This bill will help 
to ease this problem by removing the incentives for immigrants to cross 
our borders illegally, and by reimbursing those States who have to 
incarcerate illegal immigrant felons.
   Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of a process that began in 
California with Prop 187 and continued through the Immigration Task 
Force called by the speaker. I want to congratulate all those who have 
worked so hard on it. I particularly want to congratulate Lamar Smith, 
who has worked to put this bill together. I also want to congratulate 
Elton Gallegly for his efforts, and certainly I will support his bill 
and the vote on this issue.
  Let me conclude by simply telling the minority leader of the 
Committee on Rules, Mr. Beilenson, at least on this issue how much I 
have appreciated working with him. He is one of the gentlemen of the 
House. It has been a real pleasure to work with him over these years. 
We will miss him dearly.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly], my very good friend who has chaired our Task 
Force on Illegal Immigration, former mayor of Simi, CA.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
today in strong support of this rule.
  For the better part of the past decade I have been working to bring 
badly needed reforms to our Nation's immigration laws. Unfortunately, 
for far too long I have felt like I was talking to myself.
  That is clearly no longer the case. Immigration reform is an issue on 
the minds of nearly all Americans, and nearly all express deep 
dissatisfaction with our current system and the strong desire for 
change. Today we are delivering that change.
  I truly believe that this conference report that we will be hearing 
shortly represents the most serious and comprehensive reform of our 
Nation's immigration law in modern times. It also closely follows the 
recommendations of both the Speaker's Task Force on Immigration Reform, 
which I chaired, and those of the Jordan Commission. Approximately 60 
percent of the recommendations made by the Speaker's Task Force have 
been included in this conference report.
  They include, in part, provisions to double the number of Border 
Patrol agents stationed at our borders to 10,000 agents; expanded 
preinspection at foreign airports to more easily identify and deny 
entry to those persons with fraudulent documents or criminal 
backgrounds; tough new penalties for those who use or distribute fake 
documents, bringing the penalty for that offense in line with the use 
or production of counterfeit currency.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibilities of any sovereign nation are 
the protection of its borders and enforcement of its laws. For too long 
in the area of immigration policy, we at the Federal Government have 
shirked both those duties. It may have taken a long time, but policy 
makers in Washington are finally ready to acknowledge the devastating 
effects of illegal immigration on our cities and towns.
  Finally, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith], who chairs the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims for all the effort that he has put into this, putting his heart 
and soul into this legislation. I would also like to thank him for 
welcoming the input of myself and other members of the task force in 
crafting this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
rule and let us pass immigration reform that this Nation sorely needs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend the 
gentleman from Imperial Beach, CA [Mr. Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who lives on the border with 
Mexico and grew up with the immigration issue, I am very concerned to 
hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``Let's not do 
it now. Let's put it off and try to do something else in the next 
Congress.''
  I as a mayor and as a county supervisor, I worked with the problems 
in our community with illegal immigration, crime, the impacts on our 
health care system. In fact, if my colleagues go to our hospitals 
today, they will see there are major adverse impacts. Talk to our law 
enforcement people about the major impact of illegal immigration. The 
cost is not just in dollars and cents.
  And I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you 
don't care about the cost to the working class people, because this 
illegal immigration does not affect the rich white people, illegal 
immigration hurts those who need our services and our jobs in this 
country more than anything else, those who are legally here. But if you 
don't care about that, let me ask you to care about the humanity that 
is being slaughtered every day along our border because Washington, not 
Mexico, not Latin America, not anywhere else in the country, but 
Washington and the leadership in Washington has pulled a cruel hoax 
that says, ``Come to our country illegally, and we will reward you. 
Come to our country, and we will give you benefits.''
  I ask my colleagues to consider this:
  In my neighborhoods in south San Diego, we have had more people die 
in the last few years being slaughtered on our freeways, drowned in our 
rivers, run off of cliffs. More people have died, my colleagues, trying 
to cross the border illegally in San Diego than were killed in the 
Oklahoma bombing.
  Now I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted to 
delay and put it off, Would you delay addressing one of the greatest 
terrorist acts that we have seen in our neighborhoods and along the 
border than we have seen in our lifetime? If Oklahoma's explosion was 
so important that we address that slaughter, please do not walk away 
from the loss of humanity down in San Diego and in California along the 
border. There are people that are dying because they are told to come 
to this country and we will reward them.
  Please join with us. Support the rule. Let us reform illegal 
immigration and let us do it now. Quit finding excuses.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we urge, as we have before, a ``no'' vote 
on this rule. The rule allows consideration of a conference report that 
was not given proper consideration by the conference committee, a 
conference report on which the minority party had no involvement. More 
importantly, the conference report that this rule makes in order is a 
feeble and misguided response to one of the most significant problems 
facing our Nation. Passage of this legislation will allow employers who 
hire illegal immigrants to continue to do so and to get away with it. 
Passage of this legislation will let Congress say that we have done 
something about illegal immigration when in fact we have not done the 
real work that we know that we have to do.

[[Page H11079]]

  The real tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my friends, is that we 
have missed here a great opportunity to know what to do. The Members 
who have worked hardest on this issue know what we need to do.
  So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we defeat this rule and force the 
Congress and the President to revisit this issue next year and then 
produce the kind of immigration reform legislation that the American 
people want and that this country so badly needs.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
simply say that this may be the last rule that will be managed by my 
very good friend from California and to join in letting my colleagues 
know that he will be, by me, sorely missed. He has been a great friend 
and, I do appreciate the advice and counsel that he has given me over 
the years.
  Let me say on this particular measure, Mr. Speaker, that as we look 
at this issue, it has been a long time in coming. Getting to this point 
has been a struggle, and I should say to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle that I can certainly relate to the level of frustration 
that those in the minority have felt, because having gone through four 
decades of serving in the majority, they find that they are not able to 
have quite the control that they did as now members of the minority.
  But I believe that, as was the case when this bill first emerged from 
the committee, that it will in the end enjoy tremendous bipartisan 
support. The measure earlier this year had a tremendous number of 
votes. As I recall, there were only 80 some odd votes against the bill 
itself and 330 votes in support of it, and so the vote may not be 
identical to the earlier one, but I do believe that there will be 
Democrats and Republicans alike recognizing that this Congress has done 
more than past Congresses to deal with this problem of illegal 
immigration.
  The American people have asked us to do it, and the 104th Congress 
has been result-oriented as we go through the litany of items from 
telecommunications reform, welfare reform, line-item veto, unfunded 
mandates. We have provided tremendous results, and this immigration 
bill is further evidence of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. 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 254, 
nays 165, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               YEAS--254

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     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
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     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
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Diaz-Balart
     Gibbons
     Heineman
     Lincoln
     Mascara
     Moran
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1327

  Mrs. CLAYTON and Messrs. DEUTSCH, TORRES, LEWIS of Georgia, and 
LUTHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. FURSE, and Mr. ARMEY changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 528, I 
call up the conference report on 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.

[[Page H11080]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Riggs). Pursuant to House Resolution 
528, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Tuesday September 24, 1996, at page H10841.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report gives Congress the best 
opportunity in decades to address the illegal immigration crisis. Every 
3 years, enough illegal aliens enter the country permanently to 
populate a city the size of Boston or Dallas or San Francisco. 
Classrooms bulge; welfare jumps; the crime rate soars. Innocent victims 
pay the price, and law-abiding taxpayers foot the bill.
  This bill secures America's borders, penalizes alien smugglers, 
expedites the removal of criminal and illegal aliens, prevents illegal 
aliens from taking American jobs, and ends noncitizens' abuse of the 
welfare system.
  By doubling the number of Border Patrol agents and securing our 
borders, we will protect our communities from the burdens imposed by 
illegal immigration: crime, drug trafficking, and increased demands on 
local police and social services. The benefits of securing our borders 
will be felt not only in border States but throughout the entire 
Nation.
  If we cannot control who enters our country, such as illegal aliens, 
we cannot control what enters our country, such as illegal drugs. To 
control who enters, this bill increases criminal penalties for alien 
smuggling and document fraud. The Nation cannot allow alien smuggling 
to continue, especially since many alien smugglers are also kingpins in 
the illegal drug trade.
  Illegal aliens should be removed from the United States immediately 
and effectively. Illegal aliens take jobs, public benefits, and engage 
in criminal activity. In fact, one-quarter of all Federal prisoners are 
illegal aliens. This bill will lower the crime rate, lower the cost of 
imprisoning illegal aliens, and make our communities safer places to 
live.
  This legislation also relieves employers of a high level of 
uncertainty they face by streamlining the hiring process. It makes the 
job application process easier for our citizens and legal residents by 
establishing voluntary employment quick-check pilot programs in 5 
States. The quick-check system will give employers the certainty and 
stability of a legal work force.
  Since the beginning of this century, immigrants have been admitted to 
the United States on a promise that they will not use public benefits. 
Yet every year the number of noncitizens applying for certain welfare 
programs increases an astonishing 50 percent. America should continue 
to welcome those who want to work and produce and contribute, but we 
should discourage those who come to live off the taxpayer. America 
should keep out the welcome mat but not become a doormat.
  This legislation also ensures that those who sponsor immigrants will 
have sufficient means to support them. Just as we require deadbeat dads 
to provide for the children they bring into the world, we should 
require deadbeat sponsors to provide for the immigrants they bring into 
the country. By requiring sponsors to demonstrate the means to fulfill 
their financial obligations, we make sure that taxpayers are not stuck 
with the bill, now $26 billion a year in benefits to noncitizens.
  The provisions in this conference report are not new. These are the 
same reforms that passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 333 to 87, 
and in the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 97 to 3. And these are the 
same reforms that President Clinton has urged Congress to pass and send 
to his desk.
  This bill will benefit American families, workers, employers, and 
taxpayers across the Nation, but especially in California, Texas, 
Florida, and other States that face the illegal immigration crisis on a 
daily basis.
  Mr. Speaker, America is not just a nation of immigrants. It is a 
nation of immigrants committed to personal responsibility and the rule 
of law. It is time for Congress to stand with the American people and 
approve this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a bill that is so 
flawed, we will need a lot of speakers to make it clear why Members 
should not support the immigration conference report that is now before 
them.
  What we do to the environment is a crime. The National Environmental 
Protection Act is the Nation's founding charter for environmental 
protection, and this bill repeals that law, in effect, when it comes to 
border-related construction. That means when we are working on 
highways, roads, bridges, fences, that it is OK to ignore the 
environment. Do my colleagues really mean that?
  This conference report means that border construction can pollute our 
public waterways anyway, dirty our air, create hazardous point sources 
that can create dangerous runoffs, and generally ignore any adverse 
environmental impact of that construction. Do my colleagues really want 
that in a conference report?
  This is yet another Republican attack on the environment. If it 
pleases my colleagues on the Democratic side, I will offer a motion to 
recommit the conference report to correct these glaring wrongs.
  The next matter that my colleagues should carefully consider is the 
part that deals with the American workers. What we are doing here is 
giving us a conference report, and the lack of procedure has been amply 
dealt with, but what we are doing now is that we are being told to take 
it or leave it. I think that this amendment process, which we were 
completely shut out of, deserves a no vote on the conference, 
regardless of anything Members may like about it.
  It was the Republicans, I say to Chairman Hyde, that railed and 
railed about how unfair we were. It was the Speaker of the House, Newt 
Gingrich, that has railroaded every conference bill for the last year. 
We do not even come to conference and have a right to offer an 
amendment. The process alone deserves every Member of this House to 
reject this conference report on due process procedural grounds.
  And then what about the discriminatory aspects of this bill? Not only 
do we weaken illegal immigration but we say yes to more discrimination, 
because we now have onerous material that was not even in the bad bill 
I opposed in committee and on the floor.
  We now have included unilaterally provisions that tell employers that 
they may engage in practices of racial discrimination so long as it 
cannot be proved that they had intent to violate the law. Coming out of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I think it is a very sad day for any 
legislation to come out doing this to the most sensitive problem in our 
society.
  Vote ``no'' on the conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds and say 
that the last provision that the gentleman from Michigan referred to 
was in the Senate bill which passed by 97 to 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the last gentleman in the well 
and I am a little bewildered because we marked this bill up, it took us 
9 days, and we dealt with 103 amendments, 39 of which were decided by 
rollcall vote. The bill, when we finally got it to the floor, passed 
333 to 87 in the House and 97 to 3 in the Senate. Prior to introducing 
the bill, the House Immigration Subcommittee heard from more than 100 
witnesses and the Democrats were present and participated fully. So the 
gentleman, I think, is mistaken.
  In any event, this is among the most important pieces of legislation 
this Congress will handle. A country has to control its borders. A 
country has the right to define itself. I think this is a

[[Page H11081]]

good bill. It cannot please everybody, but it pleases a lot of people 
and I think it ought to pass.
  I am pleased to speak in support of the conference report on H.R. 
2202, because I believe it will facilitate major progress in addressing 
one of our Nation's most urgent problems--illegal immigration. In 
reconciling House and Senate versions of this landmark legislation, we 
provide for substantially enhanced border and interior enforcement, 
greater deterrents to immigration related crimes, more effective 
mechanisms for denying employment to illegal aliens, and more 
expeditious removal of persons not legally present in the United 
States.
  The most difficult matter for the conferees to resolve concerned 
public education benefits for illegal aliens. Because public education 
is a major State function, the House had recognized the interests of 
each individual State in issues involving public school attendance at 
State taxpayer expense.
  In that connection, we appreciated the fact that concerns about the 
welfare of unsupervised children and adolescents might lead many States 
to continue providing free public education to undocumented aliens--and 
we did nothing to discourage such choices at the State level. The 
compromise House and Senate conferees initially developed, both gave 
expression to the right of a State to choose a different course and 
extended important transitional protections to current students. 
Because of an explicit veto threat from the President, however, we 
subsequently decided that it would be preferable to address this entire 
issue in the context of other legislation rather than place at risk the 
many needed enforcement-related provisions of this bill.
  The conferees also struggled with the issue of how to fairly and 
expeditiously adjudicate asylum claims of persons arriving without 
documents or fraudulent documents. We recognized that layering of 
prolonged administrative and judicial consideration can overwhelm the 
immigration adjudicatory process, serve as a magnet to illegal entry, 
and encourage abuse of the asylum process. At the same time, we 
recommended major safeguards against returning persons who meet the 
refugee definition to conditions of persecution.
  Specially trained asylum officers will screen cases to determine 
whether aliens have a ``credible fear of persecution''--and thus 
qualify for more elaborate procedures. The credible fear standard is 
redrafted in the conference document to address fully concerns that the 
``more probable than not'' language in the original House version was 
too restrictive.
  In addition, the conferees provided for potential immigration judge 
review of adverse credible fear determinations by asylum officers. This 
is a major change providing the safeguard of an important role for a 
quasi-judicial official outside the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service.
  The conference document includes a House provision I offered in the 
Committee on the Judiciary to protect victims of coercive population 
control practices. Our law--which appropriately recognizes persecution 
claims in a number of contexts--must not turn a blind eye to egregious 
violations of human rights that occur when individuals are forced to 
terminate the life of an unborn child, submit to involuntary 
sterilization, or experience persecution for failing or refusing to 
undergo an abortion or sterilization or for resisting a coercive 
population control program in other ways. A related well-founded fear 
clearly must qualify as a well-founded fear of persecution for purposes 
of the refugee definition.
  Our modification of the refugee definition responds to the moral 
imperative of aiding victims and potential victims of flagrant 
mistreatment. We also take a public stand against forcible interference 
with reproductive rights and forcible termination of life--a stand that 
hopefully will help to discourage such inhumane practices abroad.
  This omnibus legislation includes a number of miscellaneous 
provisions that are responsive to a range of problems. For example, 
certain Polish applicants for the 1995 diversity immigrant program 
reasonably anticipated being able to adjust to permanent resident 
status; by facilitating their adjustment in fiscal year 1997 we 
effectively rectify a bureaucratic error. We also recognize the 
equities of certain nationals of Poland and Hungary who were paroled 
into the United States years ago--and thus entered our country 
legally--by affording them an opportunity to adjust to permanent 
resident status. I welcomed the opportunity to seek appropriate 
conference action in these compelling situations.
  This omnibus immigration legislation makes major needed changes in 
the Immigration and Nationality Act. The primary thrust of the 
conference document is to respond in a measured and comprehensive 
fashion to a multifaceted breakdown in immigration law enforcement. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] who is completing his 14th year. He 
has served with great distinction in the Congress on a variety of 
committees, including the House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank my good friend from Michigan for 
yielding me this time and for those nice remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Smith] have spoken of a bill that passed by wide 
margins. Indeed it did. But it is not the bill before the House today, 
and that is the whole point that we are making. It was changed 
radically before it even got to the floor by the leadership. It has 
been changed radically since, and that is why we say to Members today, 
vote for the motion to recommit but do not vote for this bill.
  Members of the House, I was a cosponsor of this legislation. I stood 
in a press conference alongside the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] 
and said we have got to do something to reduce legal immigration and to 
reduce illegal immigration. With a great deal of criticism from many 
people on my side, I said we had to pass a bill, and I was for the bill 
we introduced. But that is not the bill that is before the House today.
  We put together a bill that was to have reflected what the Barbara 
Jordan Commission recommended to us was to have been a bipartisan bill. 
It was going to be tough on employers that hire illegal aliens and 
include tough measures to stop illegal aliens from coming into the 
country and taking jobs.
  But somewhere along the way, in the back rooms, the stuff that was 
tough on the folks that bring illegal aliens here, and that is to say, 
the employers that attract them here with a promise of jobs, somehow it 
disappeared, and in its place was put a list, a wish list offered up by 
lobbyists for the biggest employers of these illegal aliens in the 
country.
  The bill that passed the House committee included 150 wage and hour 
inspectors that were asked for by the Jordan Commission. The Senate 
bill included 350. Why? Because people that hire illegal aliens also 
violate the wage and hour laws. Why? Because half of the jobs in this 
country that are lost to illegal aliens are lost to illegal aliens that 
did not get here by sneaking across the border. They are the ones that 
got here with a visa, but then they did not go home, they overstayed 
the visa. You can put a million Border Patrol agents at the border, but 
you are not going to find that one-half of the problem. The only way 
you are going to find it is with wage and hour inspectors. Those are 
gone from the bill. Why? Because some lobbyist for an employer 
somewhere wanted it done.
  The bill eliminates the increased civil penalties for employers to 
tell them we are not going to put up any more with chronic violators of 
the laws that say you cannot hire people that are not citizens or are 
not here legally. Those enhanced civil penalties are gone. Why? Because 
the American people wanted them gone? Because the Jordan Commission 
said that they ought to be gone? Of course not. Because a lobbyist for 
an employer that hires illegal aliens came down here and said, ``Mr. 
Gingrich, you Republicans do your job and get us off the hook.'' And 
that is exactly what they did.

                              {time}  1345

  They also added into the bill gratuitous language that eliminates the 
anti-discrimination provisions in the current law. Not in the bill, but 
in the current law. We passed a bill in 1986. Many Hispanics said this 
is going to result in inadvertent discrimination against Americans who 
are of Hispanic descent because they are going to be confused with 
somebody who is here illegally.
  The GAO, after the bill was passed, did a study and found that they 
were right, so we included in the law strong prohibitions on 
discriminating against people in the course of asking for a job by 
asking them for too many papers or giving them a hard time when they 
come to the workplace. The law says you can ask for one of several 
papers, and that is all you can do.
  But now the Republican provision says it does not make any difference 
if you ask them for all the papers in the world. If you cannot prove 
you intended to discriminate against them,

[[Page H11082]]

you are not guilty of discrimination. That is a fundamental violation 
of the compact that we made between the groups in this country that 
make up our population, so that no one would be disadvantaged by the 
enforcement of a bill and law that is difficult to enforce. Well, it is 
gone.
  The simple fact is this: What the employers that hire illegal 
immigrants wanted got done in this bill, and what working Americans who 
need to have their jobs protected, from being lost to illegal aliens, 
was not done. Worse, those that are the subject of discrimination, 
inadvertent or advertent, now have lost their protection.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill. I can see the handwriting on 
the bill. I know it is an election year. Anti-immigration rhetoric is 
real good in an election year, and I am sure we are probably going to 
see a lot of folks coming down here thinking well, I should not vote 
for this, but I am probably going to have to. You do not have to. Vote 
for the motion to recommit. We fix all of these problems and a few I do 
not have time to mention. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote against 
the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Seastrand], who has been such a fighter in our 
effort to reduce illegal immigration.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 2202. It has completely rewritten the laws 
regarding the apprehension and removal of illegal aliens and will fully 
fund initiatives to double the size of our Border Patrol and increase 
the level of immigration enforcement in the interior of these United 
States. It will implement a strategy of both prevention and deterrence 
at our Nation's land borders.
  This legislation will require aliens who arrive at our airports with 
fraudulent documents to be returned without delay to their point of 
departure, making it far more difficult for aliens to enter the United 
States, either across our land borders or through our airports. It will 
also aggressively attack immigration-related crimes. It is going to 
increase penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud and expand 
the enforcement capacity against such crimes. It will also make it 
easier for employers to be certain that they are hiring legal workers 
by providing a toll-free worker verification number that employers may 
call to verify the eligibility of employees to work legally in the 
United States.
  I will just tell you, America, and especially California, needs 
immigration reform, and we need it now.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who has worked with great diligence on 
trying to reform the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we have here Congress and 
American politics at its absolute worse. We have a very important 
issue, illegal immigration.
  I worked for a very long time in a bipartisan way with departing 
Senator Al Simpson, whose departure I regret now even more than before, 
and others, in 1986 and in 1990 to fashion legislation in a bipartisan 
way to deal with this problem. Bipartisan, because this is not and 
ought not be an ideological issue. Some issues are legitimately 
partisan.
  I was sorry to here hear the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary defend the shabbiest legislative procedure I have ever seen 
here. Yes, we had full markups; yes, we had full debates. And then once 
we did, this bill disappeared into a series of secret meetings between 
the Republican House and Senate staffs, it seemed to me, with some 
input from the Members, and the Dole campaign, and virtually all of the 
things on which we seriously worked in committee disappeared, and 
others appeared.
  Now, this is a popular issue, getting rid of illegal immigrants to 
the extent that we can, as it ought to be. Unfortunately, this is a 
bill which does not do nearly as much as it could to diminish illegal 
immigration, and, instead, as the gentleman from Texas noted, makes it 
a little easier than it used to be for people to take advantage of them 
once they are here.
  This is a bill that says gee, it would be nice if there were not so 
many illegal immigrants, but as long as they are here, maybe we can get 
a little cheap work out of them. That is the general thrust.
  But then it does other things. I want to talk about one thing that 
appeared that was in neither bill.
  At the Republican Convention we had speakers who talked about AIDS 
and how terrible it is. When the Republican leadership amended the 
military bill to say that if you are HIV positive you would be forced 
out, that was recognized to be a mistake and it was repealed. But here 
they go again.
  What they have done is to take the issue of illegal immigration, a 
popular issue, and use it as a shield behind which to do ugly things to 
vulnerable people. The gentleman from Texas pointed out the extent to 
which they are weakening the civil rights protection. Here is another 
thing they do. It was not in either bill. It has not been voted on, and 
in the most extraordinary arrogance ever seen, we were not allowed to 
offer an amendment on this or any other thing in the conference. 
Because I will give my Republican leadership friends credit, they know 
how embarrassing this is, and therefore they are determined not to let 
anyone vote on it, so they did it in a forum in which you could not 
vote.
  They simply say, OK, we got a bill on illegal immigration. By the 
way, they are going to stick in a couple of these things, and you have 
no way to vote, other than no on the whole bill.
  The one I am talking about has to do with people who are HIV 
positive. This bill says if you are a legal immigrant, you came here 
legally, and there has been some economic misfortune and you get very 
sick, you cannot take federally-funded medical care for more than a 
year. That in and of itself seems to me to be cruel and unfair.
  But then they say, well, in the interest of public health, we do not 
want epidemics around, we will make an exception for communicable 
diseases. That was in the bill as it came out.
  Then, in the mysterious darkness that they use instead of a 
conference report, they gave an exception to the exception. What is the 
exception to the exception? If you are here legally and you are HIV 
positive, you may not get any treatment if you need Federal funds. If 
you are here legally and you contracted this terrible illness, which 
they profess to think is something we ought to fight, then you are, by 
this bill, condemned to death, with no help, because you cannot get 
Federal assistance.
  I guess when they tote up the death penalties that they want to take 
credit for, they ought to add one: Legal immigrants here with HIV 
illness.
  They created an exception for communicable diseases, but then they 
created an exception to the exception, so that if you are here legally 
and you get HIV, no matter how, and, by the way, we have changed the 
law, I did not agree with it, but this is the law, no one is now 
challenging it, so if you are known to be HIV positive and we test you, 
you cannot come in. So we are not talking about becoming a magnet for 
people who are HIV positive to come here. There is already a limit on 
that. What we are talking about are people who are here and become HIV 
positive, or who are here and become HIV positive when they got here, 
and they are denied medical treatment for more than 12 months, which, 
of course, if you are HIV positive, is the medical treatment you need.
  What is the reason for that? What is that doing in a bill to deal 
with illegal immigration? I am talking about illegal immigrants. They 
can be deported if they take advantage of this medical care. I do not 
think it is a good idea to deny medical care to people in need 
elsewhere.
  But this? We said ``Gee, we made a mistake. We should not kick people 
who are HIV positive out of the military.'' Should we kick them out of 
existence? Because that is what you do when you say to people who are 
here and do not have a lot of money and who are HIV positive, that you 
cannot get any medical treatment beyond 12 months.
  I take it back. When they are about to die, then I guess they can get 
some.
  This is an unworthy substantive and procedural piece of legislation, 
and it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from

[[Page H11083]]

Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, and I commend the gentleman from Texas for his outstanding 
work, in working so hard to put together a bill that has had very, very 
difficult times getting different pieces of legislation included.
  I agree with some of the Members on the other side that I would like 
to see legal immigration reforms. I would like to see an employer 
verification system that really will help employers screen out 
fraudulent documents. But it is time for us to do and see the good 
things that are in this bill.
  So I strongly disagree with those who did not get one piece of 
legislation into this bill that they would like or dislike and are 
going to vote against the entire bill, which they admit has dozens and 
dozens of positive, good illegal immigration reforms dealing with 
cracking down on illegal entry at our borders, dealing with illegal 
overstays in the country, dealing with cutting off access to government 
benefits for people who are not lawfully in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support for this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], one of the only two medical doctors in the 
House.
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to answer a couple of questions 
about this in terms of HIV in regard to AIDS. This bill does not deny 
treatment to legal immigrants that have AIDS. What it says is the 
government does not have a responsibility to pay for that treatment on 
non-U.S. citizens. I think if we poll the vast majority of the people 
in this country, I think they would agree with this.
  The second thing is most Americans in this country pay for their own 
health care, either through a health plan, insurance payment, or 
working. They pay for their health care. We have created a class in 
this country that does not feel that it should pay for its health care 
on a disease that at this point in time the vast majority of which is a 
preventible disease.
  The third point that I would like to make is that this bill does deny 
AIDS treatment to illegal immigrants, illegal. Yes, it does. Illegal 
immigrants, those people who are here illegally. So what we are saying 
with this bill is that if you have a sponsor and you are here legally, 
that sponsor should cover for your cost of the AIDS treatment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I understand why the 
gentleman did not want to yield. The bill does not say that legal 
immigrants can get AIDS treatment and illegal cannot. It gives 
disabilities to both of them for getting it with Federal funds. Anybody 
who can pay for it on their own the bill does not affect. The bill says 
with regard to legal and illegal immigrants, they cannot get it with 
Federal funds. The distinction between legal and illegal does not exist 
in the bill. The degree of penalty may be different. In both cases the 
bill says if you are here legally or illegally and you have HIV, you 
cannot be treated with Federal funds. That includes legal immigrants.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say 
what the bill says, and that is it does not deny AIDS treatment to 
legal immigrants. It simply says the immigrant's sponsor, not the 
American taxpayer, should pay for the treatment.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts. [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is a good sign that they 
are uncomfortable when it is described accurately. It does not just say 
you go after the sponsor. If you are a legal immigrant and you are 
treated, you can be deported for it. It becomes a deportable offense to 
be a sick person who gets treated if you have AIDS. At least describe 
accurately the harm you are inflicting on people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, let me take 10 seconds out of the beginning 
of my short remarks here as a border State Congressman from California.
  One of the greatest selling jobs of all-time was to take the 
behavioral conduct ring out of the word AIDS. If we were discussing 
this as what it is, a fatal venereal disease, and it had the ring of 
syphilis, which is no longer fatal, I do not think we would be going 
back and forth like this. We would say illegal immigrants cannot get 
treatment for syphilis, and if they are legal then their sponsor has to 
take care of it.
  But because we have done this magnificent PR on the only fatal 
venereal disease in the country, we still go back and forth as though 
AIDS is a badge of honor. It shows you are a swinger and you are part 
of the in crowd in this country. Sad.
  I cannot add anything to the brilliance of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly] or the gentleman from Texas or the people who 
have worked out an excellent piece of legislation. I just, for my 5 
grown children and my constituents, want to get up and say: Illegal-
legal. Illegal is lawbreaking; law breakers have no rights in this 
country.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my other colleagues in 
indicating how sorely I will miss my friend from Texas, who is really a 
great Member of Congress, and I am sorry he will be leaving this body.
  The people of my congressional district and of southern California, 
and probably the entire country, desperately want us to do something 
effective to stop illegal immigration. It is wrong to conclude that the 
people who voted for Proposition 187 are racist or xenophobes. They are 
people who are looking at what has happened: The employer sanctions did 
not work, the other strategies did not work, the refusal or earlier 
administrations to fund the Border Patrol and the Congress to 
appropriate the money left the border essentially unprotected. They 
want something done.
  The problem with this bill is it cons the American people into 
thinking major new steps are going to be done.
  This President is the first President to put the money where the 
mouth is. He has proposed, and the Committee on Appropriations, to its 
credit, has funded massive increases in Border Patrol. He has initiated 
through Executive order an expedited procedure for asylum, which has 
reduced those frivolous asylum applications by 58 percent. We are 
depositing more criminal aliens and more illegal immigrants than we 
ever did before, and all the trend lines are up.
  What the Jordan commission and every single independent academic 
study of this issue says, without a verification system we will never 
make employer sanctions meaningful. Nothing else. Nothing else is 
serious if we do not do that and make a commitment to do that.
  Second, we know there are industries that systematically recruit and 
hire illegal immigrants, and for reasons that I do not know, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] has a theory which sounds plausible 
to me, this conference committee struck inspectors and investigators to 
cover those industries. We should not be conned.
  Let me turn to what it does with legal immigrants. For the first time 
in American history, even when we had the moratoriums on immigration, a 
U.S. citizen, and, remember, this bill puts an income requirement on 
petitioning for spouses. An individual has to make 140 percent. Fifty-
three percent of the unmarried American people do not make 53 percent, 
do not make 140 percent of the poverty standard. Mr. Speaker, 53 
percent of the American people do not make it.
  A graduate student woman in medical school, who is not making that 
money, falls in love and marries a physician in France. She cannot 
bring him in because, even though he is affluent, has all the assets 
needed, there is no indication in the world he will go on any 
government program, she cannot bring him in.
  This is the stupidest as well as the meanest provision I can imagine. 
When

[[Page H11084]]

we had moratoriums on immigration in this country, we allowed U.S. 
citizens to bring in their spouses. Why would we want to change that 
now?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on a bill that is soft on illegal immigration 
and harsh and mean on legal immigrants.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter], who has contributed so much to this bill.
  Mr. HUNGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for my friend who just spoke, let me set the record 
straight. When he claimed the Clinton administration has funded 
thousands and thousands of Border Patrol agents, Republican amendments 
have added 1,700 Border Patrol agents over the last 3 years above and 
beyond what the Clinton administration requested. President Clinton cut 
93 Border Patrol agents in the fiscal year 1994 budget. We added 600. 
The next year we came with an additional 500, and the next year with an 
additional 400 agents.
  The Clinton administration has been dragged kicking and screaming to 
the border. They have opposed the border fence every step of the way.
  My last point is, even after they opposed the additional Border 
Patrol agents, President Clinton then sent his public relations people 
to San Diego to welcome the agents that he had opposed. If these people 
just linked arms, all the Clinton public relations people, we would not 
need a Border Patrol because they would stretch across the entire 
State.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from 
California knows that no President has proposed more Border Patrol 
agents than this President. The Committee on Appropriations, not the 
authorizing committee, the Committee on Appropriations has funded those 
positions and more. He has signed those bills. We are doing more now 
than we ever did before.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Gallegly], the chairman of the House task force on 
illegal immigration.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is truly a humbling moment for me because this 
conference report is something that truly I wondered if we would ever 
see in this body.
  I came to Congress nearly a decade ago, and since that time my 
overwhelming focus has been on two things: to stop the unchecked flow 
of illegal immigration in this country and to find a way to convince 
those that are already illegally in this country that it is time to go 
home. This conference report goes a long way toward accomplishing both 
of those objectives.
  For many years many of us in California, Texas, and other States that 
have been disproportionately impacted by illegal immigration have been 
walking through the halls and through this body ringing alarm bells. We 
have been urging this Congress to wake up to the fact that our country 
is, in effect, under a full-scale invasion by those that have no legal 
right to be here yet who come by the thousands every day and consume 
precious social benefits that are denied every day to legal residents 
who are truly entitled to those benefits.
  Today this is a different bell ringing in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, 
and the bell is a bell of change. The passage of this conference report 
finally signals the willingness of this Congress to seriously address 
the issue of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a generous Nation, by far the most generous 
Nation on the face of the Earth. This legislation does not endanger or 
threaten that generosity but, in fact, it does nothing more than to 
preserve it.
  The simple fact is that the greatest potential threat to legal 
immigration is illegal immigration. There are many who would see us 
close the front door to legal immigration because the back door to 
illegal immigration is off the hinges. We simply cannot allow this to 
happen. I believe this conference report goes a long way toward 
ensuring that it never will happen. I urge its passage.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to point out a couple of important health consequences 
from this bill.
  In the welfare bill we excluded legal aliens from health care but we 
left those who are already patients to be covered under Medicaid. They 
are now excluded.
  Second, we exclude any legal alien from any Medicaid services 
whatsoever. That is going to put a burden on the counties and the 
States and on the hospitals and on people who pay for private insurance 
when that insurance goes up, because a lot of people are still going to 
get care, but their care is going to have to be paid for by someone 
else.
  On the AIDS issue, what we are doing is really a disastrous policy. 
This bill provides that all people can be tested but they cannot get 
care. Why would anybody want to come to know whether they are HIV 
positive if they cannot then get any medical care to assist them? They 
will rather be ignorant about it and spread the disease.
  For those of us who call ourselves pro-life, understand that this 
bill would allow a pregnant women to be tested; but when she is 
determined to be HIV positive, she will not be allowed to have the 
Government pay for her AZT to stop the transmission of HIV, which is 
successful under this treatment to two-thirds of those children.
  We will condemn babies to getting AIDS when it could have been 
prevented. That, to me, is antilife and nonsensical, and this bill 
smacks of a lot of injustices that have not been thought through.
  I want to point this out to Members as another reason to vote against 
a very unjust bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, every substantive issue in the bill 
before us today has been voted on by the House or the Senate. I would 
say to my colleagues on the other side that even in welfare, many of 
them, no matter what we did, they would vote against it, both for 
political reasons and issue reasons.
  In California over two-thirds of the children born in our hospitals 
are to illegal aliens. Members should take that into effect when they 
are talking about helping the poor and American citizens and taking 
away funds from Medicaid.
  We have over 400,000 children K through 12. At $5,000 each to educate 
a child, that is over $2 billion. They should try to take that out of 
their State for education.
  Some 70 percent of the environment is done at the State level. 
Members should think about $3 billion taken out of their States. They 
could not afford that.
  This bill does not help all of those things. Prop 187, that the 
Gallegly amendment was in, passed by two-thirds in California. It has 
been taken out of this.
  There are some things in here that I do not like as well, but I would 
ask my colleagues on the other side to think about how they could 
afford it in their States, and I think it would be very difficult.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report and commend the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his 
great leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  As legislators we work on an endless number of issues, but today we 
are addressing one of our Nation's most critical, that of protecting 
our borders. H.R. 2202 not only secures our borders with the addition 
of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents, it also streamlines the deportation 
of criminal aliens, protects American jobs and holds individuals 
responsible to support immigrants that they sponsor, and, finally, 
eases the tax burdens on all Americans.
  It is no longer possible to ignore the magnitude of the illegal 
immigration problem. These reforms will go a long way toward restoring 
reason, integrity, and fairness to our immigration policy and to 
controlling our borders. Through the adoption of this conference 
report, the 104th Congress achieves another commonsense change for a 
better America.

[[Page H11085]]

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which contains some valid 
provisions to enforce our immigration laws, has been poisoned with 
unconscionable provisions that violate fundamental American values.
  The bill would deny treatment to people with AIDS but not to people 
with syphilis. It would promote discrimination in employment by 
removing provisions of Federal law, of present law, designed to prevent 
that.
  The bill would not permit an American citizen, denied a job because 
the Federal Government made a computer mistake, from recovering 
damages. This is outrageous and will result in Americans being denied 
jobs and having no recourse.
  The agreement will undermine American family values by curtailing the 
ability of American citizens to sponsor the entry of family members 
into the community.
  The bill exempts the Immigration and Naturalization Service from our 
environmental laws, even though none of these laws have ever hindered 
the enforcement of immigration laws.
  The bill will send genuine refugees back to their oppressors without 
having their claims properly considered. If a person arrives at the 
border without proper documents, the officer at the border can send 
that person back without a hearing. Guess who cannot get proper papers? 
Refugees. A refugee cannot go to the Gestapo and KGB and say: I am 
trying to escape your oppression, please give me the proper papers so I 
can go to America.
  The bill eliminates judicial review for most INS actions. Just think, 
a Federal bureaucracy with no judicial accountability. When did the 
Republicans become such spirited advocates of unrestrained big 
government? No government agency should be allowed to act, much less 
lock people up or send them back to dictatorships, without being 
subject to court review.

                              {time}  1415

  Should we ensure that our immigration laws are respected and 
enforced? Of course. Do we need to undercut public health efforts, 
destroy our environment, debase our fundamental values, violate the 
rights of American citizens and waste taxpayer dollars on foolish or 
dangerous enterprises in order to enforce our immigration? Of course 
not.
  This bill is not a credit to this country. I hope Members stand up 
for American values and vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of this important 
immigration conference report. The American people want and expect the 
Federal Government to do its job of controlling our borders. We have a 
strong obligation in protecting our citizens from illegal criminal 
aliens, who prey on them with drugs, and other crime-related activity.
  I am particularly proud to support this immigration bill which 
includes some of my own initiatives directed at these serious threats 
from criminal aliens, engaged in both the illicit drug trade as well as 
international terrorism.
  The first provision provides clear authority to our National Guard 
units to allow them to move criminal aliens facing deportation to INS 
deportation centers, when these aliens have engaged in drug related 
offenses. In the past, many States did so effectively with their 
National Guard units. My provision restores that vital authority to our 
National Guard as part of its counterdrug mission.
  The National Guard can now help expedite the deportation out of the 
U.S. on Guard air flights of large numbers of these criminal aliens 
involved in the deadly drug trafficking in our communities after they 
serve their jail time, and before they can return to the streets, and 
once again in their trade in drugs. I hope many Guard units will do so.
  The provision recognizes the limits on the INS's inability to 
individually transport numerous criminal aliens for deportation, using 
INS personnel on commercial flights. We have provided one more 
effective tool in the war on drugs, the use of our National Guard in 
the deportation of criminal aliens involved in drugs.
  Nearly one-fourth of our Nation's jail cells in the United States, 
are occupied by criminal aliens, mostly those who have engaged in drug 
related offenses. We need more effective and creative tools to handle 
this crisis. I hope that our State and local authorities and the INS 
takes advantage of this assistance that the National Guard can provide.
  New York City Mayor Giuliani on ``Face the Nation'' recently said it 
best with regard to our Nation's drug crisis, including criminal 
aliens, on what the Federal Government can best do to combat the 
serious drug problems facing our cities and local communities:

       What the Federal Government could do is to deport more of 
     the illegal drug dealers that we have in our city (sic) 
     unfortunately, very few deportations take place of the people 
     who are actually selling drugs who are illegal immigrants and 
     that would be very helpful.

  My provision helps do just that. Senator Dole has wisely urged an 
even greater role for our excellent National Guard already involved in 
the battle against illicit drugs. Today we provide the first 
installment on Senator Dole's wise call for additional Guard action.
  My other provision in the conference provides for criminal asset 
forfeiture penalties for visa and passport fraud and related offenses 
surrounding misuse or abuse of these key entry and travel documents.
  Nine of the original indictable counts in the World Trade Center 
terrorist bombing involved visa or passport fraud. It was clear that 
those responsible for that bombing misused our travel and entry 
documents to facilitate their deadly terrorist blast. By this measure 
we have made those who would make and help create fraudulent visas and 
passports to promote terrorism and drug smuggling here at home, subject 
to even tougher penalties.
  The potential loss of the printers, copiers, buildings, and large 
financial proceeds of this massive illicit business in key U.S. travel 
and entry documents, should help further deter terrorism and other 
criminal activity, facilitated by these fraudulent travel documents.
  Although this is a good bill, I am hopeful that the sponsors will 
review provisions in the conference report that would greatly expand 
``deeming'' for legal immigrants beyond the compromise agreed to in the 
recently enacted welfare bill, which combines the income of the 
immigrant and the sponsor for Medicaid eligibility determination. 
Regrettably, the deeming provisions may adversely affect many States 
with high immigrant populations, including New York, which are 
implementing welfare reform. The result may potentially cause a marked 
increase in the amount of uncompensated care for area hospitals and 
increase the costs of the Ryan White treatment program. I have brought 
this issue to the attention of Chairman Smith and have asked him to 
consider the contention that confusion is likely to result as the 
States implement the language of the two bills and I thank him for that 
consideration.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the conference 
report, and urge its adoption.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report. Today when this bill passes, the American people 
will be able to judge for themselves who is on their side and who is 
for draining dollars meant for our people, draining those dollars away 
from American families and taking them and giving them to foreigners 
who have come to this country illegally.
  We have had to fight for years, first through a democratically 
controlled Congress and now this administration which has fought us and 
dragged us by the feet every step of the way but we have finally got a 
bill to the floor.
  Giving illegal aliens benefits that should be going to our own people 
is a betrayal of our people. People who are sick, they come to our 
borders. Yes, we care about them. I do not care if it is AIDS or 
tuberculosis. But if someone is sick and illegally in this country, 
they should be deported from this country to protect our own people 
instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that should go for 
the health benefits of our own citizens. The question is, To whom do we 
owe our loyalty? Who do we care about? The American people should come 
first.

[[Page H11086]]

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray] who actually lives on the border and 
faces the crisis of illegal immigration every day.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Simpson for 
the leadership they have shown on this bill. I would also like to 
commend Senator Feinstein of California for her commitment to make the 
conference report work and encourage the President to sign it into law.
  I think that the public is sick and tired of seeing the partisan 
fighting on important issues such as this. Senator Feinstein had a 
major concern about one portion of the bill, part of the bill I feel 
strongly about, and that is the issue of the mandate of the Federal 
Government that we give free education to illegal aliens while our 
citizen and legal resident children are doing without. But, Mr. 
Speaker, this Member, and I think the American people, are not willing 
to kill this bill because of a single provision.
  I think there are those who will find excuses to try to kill this 
bill and try to find ways not to address an issue that has been ignored 
for over a decade.
  We must not forget that California has been disproportionately hit 
with paying $400 million a year in emergency health care, $500 million 
for incarceration costs, and $2 billion in providing education for 
illegal aliens in our State.
  Congress must still recognize that these are federally mandated costs 
and it is up to the Federal Government to either put up or shut up in 
ending these unfunded mandates.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill today. It 
is a very, very fine product. H.R. 2202 is a much needed boost to our 
efforts against illegal immigration.
  Included in the bill are 5,000 new border patrol agents, more INS 
agents to track alien smugglers and visa overstayers, more detention 
space for illegal aliens, and the list goes on and on.
  I am most pleased that many of the asylum reform provisions that we 
have needed for years and I worked on with the gentleman from Texas for 
years are now in this bill. We have very generous asylum laws but now 
we are going to have provisions that make it a lot more difficult for 
somebody to come here and claim that they have a fear of persecution if 
they are sent back home to their native country, when they really do 
not, and be able to overstay and stay and get lost in our country and 
never get kicked out. Instead we have got a provision that I think is 
very fair for summary and expedited exclusion which, by the way, is 
already law as a result of the antiterrorism bill earlier this year but 
which we are making much more livable and a better product today.
  Also we have in here some efforts to try to get document fraud under 
control. We lessen the number of documents used in employer sanctions 
where we attempt to cut off the magnet of jobs by a 1986 provision that 
makes it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. 
There were far too many documents that could be produced to get a job. 
Now we have reduced that number to a manageable number.
  What is left to be done is we need to find a way to get document 
fraud out of it. I think that some steps are taken in this bill, not 
enough, and I have introduced another separate piece of legislation I 
hope passes the next Congress to make the Social Security card much 
more tamper-proof than it is today.
  We also have some provisions in here I think are important with 
regard to Cuba. We have allowed the Cuban Adjustment Act to continue to 
operate and with regard to the expedited exclusion issue, we have made 
a special provision so that those Cubans who arrive by air are going to 
be not subject to that particular provision.
  We have also taken care of student aid problems that were earlier in 
this bill, whereby if you are deemed to have the money value in your 
pocket of your sponsor, you no longer will be in the case of education, 
at least for student aid purposes, excluded from those benefits.
  The bill is an excellent bill. I urge my colleagues to adopt it and 
we need to send it down to the President and get it put into law.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for generations immigrants have played a 
vital role in our economy, but today immigrants play the role of 
villain in the Republican's morality play. By exploiting a false image 
of millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border into the United 
States, Newt Gingrich and his Republican allies have crossed the border 
from decency to indecency.
  After all, under this bill the simple idea of uniting with your 
closest family members will become a luxury that only the wealthiest 
will be able to afford. The Republicans say they want to get tough on 
crime, so how do they do that? Under this bill legal immigrants are 
deportable for the crime of wanting to improve their education to 
adding something to this country. That is right, under this bill if you 
are a legal immigrant and you use public benefits, including a student 
loan for more than a year, you are shown the door. What does that 
accomplish? It means that we throw our young people who are taking 
steps to gain an education and job skills and, yes, improve their 
English skills also. It means that this bill does not simply punish 
immigrants, it punishes all Americans who benefit from contributions 
that immigrants make to our Nation. Let us defeat this sad, cynical, 
and shortsighted legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, legal immigration, yes; illegal immigration, 
no. Californians and residents of other border States have been 
fighting illegal immigration for years. It took the current Republican 
majority to take a serious look at this issue. Do not listen to the 
charges of those who oppose this bill. It is not cruel to ask 
immigrants and their sponsors to live up to their obligations. It is 
not heartless to try to put some teeth in our immigration laws. It is a 
pretty sad day when you can jump a fence, have more rights in this side 
of the border than when you are coming through legally. We need to 
protect legal immigration.
  Recently I held a hearing near the border. Our border in southern 
California is still a sieve. They have simply moved the problem 40 
miles east. They refuse to indict those that are coming over with 
drugs. And generally it is chaotic still. What it means, we had gained 
more congressional seats but that will not be good for everybody east 
of California, I am sure. So I would hope we would have the help of our 
colleagues throughout this Chamber because this is a national problem, 
not just a Southwest, Southeast problem.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and the 
ranking member. They worked very hard with this bill. There are still 
some problems. The common perception is that once you get the Gallegly 
amendment out, the bill is OK. The problems are still there and more 
work is needed on this bill.
  The Endangered Species Act, nobody has talked about it today, but it 
is part of this package. In other words, the Environmental Policy Act 
and the Endangered Species Act are waived if we are talking about 
construction of roads and barriers at the border. That is not right.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also rolls back three decades of civil rights 
policy by establishing an intent standard. It exacerbates the results 
and the effects of the welfare reform law but now it seems that we are 
castigating legal immigrants.
  This bill includes back-door cuts in legal immigration by 
establishing a

[[Page H11087]]

new income standard. It guts the American tradition we have always had 
to refugees by including summary exclusion provisions that are going to 
require instant return of any refugee.
  Perhaps, most importantly, what this bill does is it is tougher on 
legal immigrants and American workers than on illegal immigration. It 
makes life harder for American workers and easier for American 
businesses. Eliminated are provisions in the bill to increase the 
number of inspectors for the Department of Labor to enforce worker 
protections, the Barney Frank amendments that allowed us in the past to 
vote for this bill. This bill also strips authority from the courts 
with provisions that will eliminate the power of the courts to hold the 
INS accountable and eliminate protections against error and abuse.
  I want to return to the Barney Frank provisions that allowed many 
civil libertarians, those concerned with civil rights, when we passed 
very tough employer sanctions in the old immigration bill, to support 
this bill because we knew there would be recourse if there was 
discrimination. All of these inspectors, all of these that enforce 
civil rights provisions are eliminated from this bill. That is a key 
component that is going to hurt American workers.
  This bill eliminates also longstanding discretionary relief from 
deportation that will say to American family members of immigrants 
being deported that you get no second chance. I know there are enormous 
pressures for dealing with illegal immigration bill. There are 
political pressures that are very intense. But we should not allow the 
politics and the fact that this is a wedge issue to prevent us from 
doing the right thing. The right thing is that this bill needs more 
work. We do want to have strong measures against illegal immigration. 
There are a lot of provisions here in the bill that are good, that make 
sense. But the attack on legal immigrants, American workers, right now, 
is stronger than on illegal immigration. Therefore, I think that we 
should reject this bill. Give it one more shot.
  There is additional time. I understand we will be in next week now. 
Let us do the right thing. Let us defeat this conference report.


                             general leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, several times today, various opponents have mentioned 
that we do not have in this legislation the Department of Labor 
inspectors.

                              {time}  1430

  But I want to remind them that they have already lost that argument 
twice. That provision was taken out on the House floor by amendment, 
and then subsequent to that we passed the House bill without those 
inspectors in it. That means two times it has come before this body and 
two times the Members have spoken.
  The point is that we have already debated that, we have already 
voted.
  The other thing about the inspectors that seems to be conveniently 
overlooked is that in this bill we have added an additional 900 
inspectors, 300 each year for 3 years, and these are INS inspectors. It 
makes far more sense to have Immigration and Naturalization Service 
inspectors enforcing immigration laws than the Department of Labor.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I also want to itemize some of the provisions that 
are in this bill that might have been overlooked.
  We have heard tonight by Members on both sides of the aisle that this 
bill doubles the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years. 
That is the largest increase in our history.
  It also streamlines the current system of removing illegal aliens 
from the United States to make it both quick and efficient.

  It increases penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud.
  It establishes a three-tier fence along the San Diego border, which 
is the area with the highest number of illegal border crossings.
  It strengthens the public charter provisions and immigration laws so 
that noncitizens do not break their promise to the American people not 
to use welfare.
  It ensures that sponsors have sufficient means to fulfill their 
financial support obligation.
  It also strengthens provisions in the new welfare law prohibiting 
illegal aliens from receiving public benefits, and it strengthens 
penalties against fraudulent claims to citizenship for the purposes of 
illegally voting or applying for public benefits.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I know my friend from 
Texas, Mr. Bryant, opposes this bill, but I still want to say that he 
deserves public credit for many of the provisions still in the bill 
that he would consider beneficial, even if he does not consider the 
entire bill beneficial.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue the comments I was making a 
while ago and express to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] my 
appreciation for his constructive role in the process. Even if he 
cannot support the entire bill, he has played a significant role in 
getting us to this point, and especially at the beginning when he was a 
cosponsor of this bill.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point once again that the 
opponents who we are hearing from this afternoon do not represent a 
majority of their own party. They certainly are entitled to try to kill 
this bill or block the bill or defeat the bill, but we have every 
right, those of in the majority, to try to pass this legislation.
  The reason I say that they do not even represent a majority of their 
own party is simply because every major provision in this conference 
report, which is itself a compromise, is the result of either the House 
passage of the bill which passed by 333 to 87, or the Senate 
immigration bill which passed by a vote of 97 to 3.
  So there is wide and deep bipartisan support for the provisions in 
this bill, and I expect to see that bipartisan support continue when 
the bill comes on a conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, only to say that I once again take issue with this 
characterization of the bill. This is not the bill that the House voted 
on; it is not the bill the Senate voted on. It is a bill that the 
Republicans spent 4 months behind closed doors cooking up so it would 
serve their electioneering and political interests this year.
  The fact of the matter is that this bill now does not have wage and 
hour inspectors in it which are necessary, it does not have the 
subpoena authority for the Labor Department which is necessary, it does 
not have the requirement that employers participate in the verification 
project. In other words, they have done exactly what the employers 
wanted them to do so that the draw of illegal aliens into this country, 
which is to get a job, has not been effective.
  Oh, yes, we are talking about more people on the border if the 
Committee on Appropriations goes along with this. That sounds good. I 
am certainly for that. But the only way we are ever going to solve this 
problem is to deal with the fact that there are people out there who 
habitually hire illegal aliens, and we had many, many inspectors in the 
House committee, had many, many inspectors in the House committee 
version, the 150. We had 350 in the Senate bill. They are gone. Of the 
enhanced penalties that we had in the bill, the enhanced penalties that 
we had in the bill so that habitual offenders would suffer for their 
acts have now been removed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the 
subcommittee has given the perfect rationale for voting against the 
bill and for our motion to recommit. He says many of these provisions 
are here in part because of the gentleman from Texas, the ranking 
member. That is exactly right, and if this bill had only those 
provisions, it would not be controversial. He has conceded the point.

[[Page H11088]]

There is a core of agreement on measures to restrict illegal 
immigration that would not be controversial.
  But here is what happens, and people should understand people 
sometimes think the party does not mean anything. Yes, party control 
means something. The Republicans are in control of this Congress. That 
means their ideological agenda and the interest groups that they are 
most interested in get served.
  What that means is that we do not get a chance to vote just on the 
bill dealing with illegal immigration. It comes with illegal 
immigration and an unbreakable format, a conference I have never seen 
before, where the chairman just decided no amendments would be allowed 
because he is afraid to have his members vote on these things.
  Other provisions are there. Well, what are the other provisions? One 
provision reaches back to antidiscrimination language. It has nothing 
to do with illegal immigration. We have said that we feared, when we 
put employer sanctions into the law, that this would lead to 
discrimination against people born in America who were of Mexican 
heritage. The GAO said, ``You're right, it's happened.'' What they have 
done in this bill is to reach back to that section not otherwise before 
us and made it much harder for us to protect those people against 
discrimination.
  Then we will have a recommit to undo that. My colleagues could vote 
for the recommit and it will not effect their commitment on illegal 
immigration.
  With regard to the people with AIDS, that is a provision that was in 
neither bill. The gentleman from Texas who does not want to defend 
things on the merits says, ``Well, the majority is with me.'' Well, 
that was not in the House bill, and it was not in the Senate bill. It 
is an add-on in that secret conference that they had.
  What this bill does is to weaken our enforcement powers against those 
who employ people who are here illegally and then, serving the 
Republican ideological agenda, says ``If you're here legally and you 
have AIDS, you may die if you need Federal funds because you will get 
none. If you are a Mexican-American born here, we will make it easier 
for people to discriminate against you. If you are an American legally 
eligible to work and the Government falsely certifies that you weren't 
and makes a mistake, in the House version of the bill we had a 
protection for you.'' In this version of the bill there is none. if 
they apply for a job, having been born in this country, and they are 
turned down because the government inaccurately reported that they were 
not eligible to work, they have no recourse. Our bill would have given 
some recourse.
  This bill protects the employers. This bill makes it harder if 
someone is a potential victim of discrimination, or if they are a 
perfectly legal resident of the United States with AIDS, including a 
child. Children with AIDS who are not yet eligible to become citizens, 
children who are brought here; they did not sneak in, not these 
terrible people my colleagues are worried about, children who are here 
with AIDS are denied Federal health benefits in certain circumstances 
by this bill. That is shameful.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the States have indicated that there is likely to be 
confusion in the interpretation of title V of this bill in the recently 
enacted welfare bill. The intent of some of the provisions in title V 
may need to be addressed in the later bill. Until that time the States 
should be held harmless on issues which are ambiguous.
  However, the immigration bill is not intended to change in any way 
the eligibility provisions in the recent welfare bill. Non-citizens are 
not eligible for SSI or food stamps, and future immigrants are not 
eligible for Medicaid as well as for their first 5 years, and this bill 
simply does not change that.
  Mr. Speaker, I also on a different subject want to reiterate the fact 
that all of us who are strong supporters of this bill also are strong 
supporters of employer sanctions. That is why in this bill we have 
increased Interior enforcement, we have increased the number of INS 
inspectors, we have increased the penalties, and we have this quick-
check system that will allow employers to determine who is eligible to 
work and who is not.
  So this bill goes exactly in that direction, which of course is 
supported by a majority of the American people as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today, as we debate 
this immigration reform legislation, from a State that has been 
impacted and sometimes devastated by a lack of a national immigration 
policy.
  I notice we have some reforms in here, and there are some good 
reforms. We are doubling the number of Border Patrol, but also in this 
we are also restricting some payments, some benefits, to illegal 
aliens, and we should go even beyond that.
  But I tell my colleagues that unless we stop some of the benefits, 
unless we demagnetize the magnet that is attracting these folks to come 
to our shores--we can put a Border Patrol person every 10 yards across 
our border, and we will not stop the flow because people will come here 
because of the attraction of the benefits.
  How incredible it is that we debate whether we give education 
benefits or medical benefits and legal benefits and housing benefits 
and other benefits to illegal aliens and even legal aliens in this 
country when we do not give the same benefits in this Congress, and 
that side of the aisle has denied them to our veterans who have served 
and fought and died for this country in many cases, or their families, 
and to our senior citizens. So this is a much larger debate.
  Finally, my colleagues, we must have a President who will enforce the 
laws, and we have not had a President who will enforce the immigration 
laws, and we have a new policy every day, and we cannot live that way.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to this 
so-called immigration reform bill. There must be some confusion over 
what immigration actually means, over what immigration actually is. The 
dictionary defines immigration as ``coming into a country of which one 
is not a native resident.''
  Basic logic tells us that any attempt to reform immigration should 
address those issues that directly relate to immigration: strict border 
control, effective verification of citizenship, and penalizing those 
businesses and industries who knowingly employ undocumented immigrants.
  Most Americans would agree with those goals. But this bill goes way 
beyond these sensible, logical goals. Instead, it attacks the very 
principles upon which this country was founded. America's Founding 
Fathers built this country on the principles of fairness and equality, 
on honoring the law and creating safeguards against any kind of 
discrimination. Throughout history, our country has welcomed those 
immigrants who play by the rules, pay their taxes, and contribute to 
our cherished diversity.
  But this bill ignores those traditions and attacks the very people 
who we say are welcome--legal immigrants. The welfare bill effectively 
stripped legal residents of many safeguards, and this bill goes on to 
clean up what the welfare bill missed.
  Under this bill, legal immigrants who enter the country and begin the 
process of living the life of an American resident would lose the 
protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
  Employers would be given the go-ahead to discriminate by a bill that 
does not enforce current immigration requirements and citizenship 
verification. Employers would be allowed to exploit workers by 
weakening civil rights protections and gutting wage and law 
enforcement.
  This bill is not about immigration reform, it's about punishing women 
and children who play by the rules and represent the very best in our 
country. Most legal immigrants work hard for low to moderate wages, 
with little or no health insurance. Should the family need Federal 
assistance, too bad. Because if one of these workers ends up in the 
hospital and cannot pay his bill, and the sponsor cannot pay his bill,

[[Page H11089]]

that worker will be deported. Never mind that he has been paying taxes 
for the past few years. Suddenly, it just doesn't matter that he has 
contributed to our economy and has followed our laws.
  It doesn't stop there. It isn't just the worker. It's his family, his 
children. If his child needs medical care and he can't pay, his tax 
money suddenly isn't available. This bill sends the child to school 
sick, with the fear of deportation always looming in the background.
  Legal immigrant children must have their sponsor's income deemed for 
any means-tested program. This effectively bars these children from 
child care, Head Start, and summer jobs and job training programs.
  What does reducing a legal resident's access to health care and 
Federal benefits have to do with restricting illegal immigration I 
would argue--nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this is not about 
reducing illegal immigration. If it were, I would not be standing 
before you asking these simple questions.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this blatant 
offense to our sense of fairness, justice, and equal protection for 
every American resident.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about playing by the rules.
  If this bill is not passed, those who have broken immigration law and 
entered this country legally have more rights than those who are 
waiting patiently at the ports of entry to enter into this country. 
That kind of confuses me, because my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have no problem with an immigration agent turning away 
somebody at the port of entry if they are coming to a legal port of 
entry, without a judge's rulings, without court cases, without lawyers. 
But if somebody jumps the fence, breaks the law, then they want to 
continue to empower these people with more rights than those who are 
playing by the rules.

                              {time}  1445

  I have to say, this is the absurdity of Washington, that we are even 
discussing this issue. But they are saying, what if this legislation 
passes, what could happen?
  Let me tell the Members, as somebody who lives on the border, let me 
say what happened today and what has happened in the past. San Diego 
County, when I was a supervisor, spent $30,000 sending people back to 
foreign countries in body bags, because of how many people are dying 
because of this problem.
  The fact is, there are law-abiding citizens who are doing without in 
their hospitals because the Federal Government is actively dumping 
patients onto working-class hospitals and expecting those communities 
to pay the bill that Washington has played the deadbeat dad and walked 
away from. This bill will finally correct that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman of the committee said quite 
clearly, we want to have a welcome mat out for legal immigration, but 
there is a difference between having a welcome mat and being a doormat. 
Our taxpayers have a right to expect that citizens do have rights and 
should be first in our priorities for social programs and for the 
taxpayers' dollars; the fact that illegal aliens should not be given 
preference over legal residents and citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, if our colleagues from the other side of the aisle want 
to walk away from this issue, then they are walking away from a major 
mandate, not just from the people of California, but across this 
country. We had bipartisan support at finally addressing the issue of 
the absurdity of welfare, and we passed a welfare reform bill the 
President signed. It is time to be bipartisan. Pass this bill. Give the 
President the chance to sign this bill, too.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee 
for his hard work on H.R. 2202.
  Mr. Speaker, let us just say everybody is in bipartisan support of 
this bill. The House passed the bill 333 to 87. The Senate bill passed 
97 to 3. This bill secures our borders, cuts crime, protects American 
jobs, and saves taxpayers from paying billions of dollars in benefits 
to noncitizens.
  The conference report doubles the number of Border Patrol agents, 
expedites the removal of illegal aliens, increases penalties for alien 
smuggling and document fraud, prohibits illegal aliens from receiving 
most public benefits, and encourages sponsors of legal immigrants to 
keep their commitment of financial support.
  My grandmother came from Poland with a sponsor, a job, and a clean 
bill of health. We should expect no less from any other person coming 
to this country. We must stop illegal immigration. We must stop the 
waste of Treasury dollars towards people who come here illegally. We 
need to clean up our communities. This bill goes a long way to doing 
it.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues, coming 
here the wrong way is not the American way. I support this bill. I 
compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] for the work he has 
done.
  As a Representative from a State heavily impacted by our Nation's 
immigration policies, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support 
the immigration in the national interest conference report. The 
sweeping reforms in H.R. 2202 will stem illegal immigration, secure our 
borders, and encourage personal responsibility for legal immigrants.
  While America is a nation of immigrants, its borders must be 
protected from illegal immigrants. According to INS there are 4.5 
million illegal aliens in the United States. By doubling the number of 
border patrol agents, H.R. 2202 protects legal residents from the 
social and economic burdens of illegal immigrants.
  H.R. 2202 improves legal immigration policies to ensure those who 
sponsor immigrants have the means to support them. If we don't require 
sponsors to fulfill their financial obligations, taxpayers will 
continue to pay $26 billion annually for legal immigration. Sponsors 
must honor their obligations so legal immigrants may become self-
reliant, productive residents of the United States rather than 
dependents of the welfare state.
  Again, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2202.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] is recognized for 15 seconds.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that Members 
should vote for the motion to recommit. All of the things that will 
strengthen this bill are in it, plus the things that have been talked 
about by the other side.
  Second, I regret the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and I we did 
not work together on this bill at the end. He is a good friend of mine. 
I appreciate so much the spirit in which we began. I look forward to 
working with him on something we agree on in the future. I thank the 
gentleman very much.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] is 
recognized for 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
his generous comments. I feel the same.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of American families, American workers, and 
American taxpayers, we have to pass immigration reform right now. To 
secure our borders is a worthy effort. If we secure our borders, we are 
going to reduce crime, we are going to reduce the number of illegal 
aliens coming into the country, we are going to protect jobs for 
American workers, and we are going to save taxpayers billions and 
billions of dollars.
  In addition to that, we have to distinguish and say to legal 
immigrants, we want you if you are going to come to contribute and work 
and produce, but you cannot come to take advantage of the taxpayer. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report, and against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.

[[Page H11090]]

  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


                           motion to recommit

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bryant of Texas moves to recommit the conference report 
     on the bill H.R. 2202 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to take 
     all of the following actions:
       (1) Enhancing Enforcement of Protections for American 
     Workers.--
       (A) Recede to (and include in the conference substitute 
     recommended by the committee of conference, in this motion 
     referred to as the ``conference substitute'') section 105 of 
     the Senate Amendment (relating to increased personnel levels 
     for the Labor Department).
       (B) Recede to (and include in the conference substitute) 
     section 120A of the Senate Amendment (relating to subpoena 
     authority for cases of unlawful employment of aliens or 
     document fraud).
       (C) Recede to (and include in the conference substitute) 
     section 119 of the Senate Amendment (relating to enhanced 
     civil penalties if labor standards violations are present).
       (2) Preserving Safeguards Against Discrimination.--
       (A) Disagree to (and delete) section 421 (relating to 
     treatment of certain documentary practices as unfair 
     immigration-related employment practices) in the conference 
     substitute and insist, in its place, and include in the 
     conference substitute, the provisions of section 407(b) 
     (relating to treatment of certain documentary practice as 
     employment practices) of H.R. 2202, as passed the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Disagree to (and delete) section 633 (relating to 
     authority to determine visa processing procedures) in the 
     conference substitute.
       (C) Insist that the phrase ``(which may not include 
     treatment for HIV infection or acquired immune deficiency 
     syndrome)'' be deleted each place it appears in sections 
     501(b)(4) and 552(d)(2)(D) of the conference substitute and 
     in the section 213A(c)(2)(C) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (as proposed to be inserted by section 551(a) 
     of the conference substitute).
       (3) Preserving Environmental Safeguards.--Disagree to (and 
     delete) subsection (c) of section 102 (relating to waivers of 
     certain environmental laws) in the conference substitute.

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit 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. 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.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. 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.
  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 agreeing to the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 247, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               YEAS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--247

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     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)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     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
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gibbons
     Heineman
     Lincoln
     Mascara
     Peterson (FL)
     Williams
     Wilson

                              {time}  1511

  Messrs. CUNNINGHAM, EWING, LINDER, CHRISTENSEN, McDADE, BAESLER, and 
SKELTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. YATES, WYNN, and LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H11091]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 305, 
noes 123, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--305

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     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 (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     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
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--123

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gibbons
     Heineman
     Lincoln
     Mascara
     Peterson (FL)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1521

  Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KIM, BROWN of California, and HOSTETTLER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________