[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9642-H9655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2267, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1998

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rohrabacher moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the House 
     and the Senate on H.R. 2267, Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary 
     Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, be instructed to 
     insist on the House's disagreement with section 111 of the 
     Senate amendment, which provides for a permanent extension of 
     section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Kentucky will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct conferees to try to 
prevent the enactment of a permanent rolling amnesty program for 
illegal aliens. Let me repeat that, ``a permanent rolling amnesty 
program for illegal aliens.'' That is what the issue is today.
  Contained in the Senate version of the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill is a perpetual extension of an infamous provision 
of law that has never won an up-and-down vote on the floor of either 
the House or the Senate. In fact, the only direct vote ever taken on 
this provision was taken in this House, and it lost.
  Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows people 
who are in the United States illegally to pay $1,000 to the INS to have 
their legal status changed. I know a lot of my colleagues have been 
told this only deals with people who have come here and overstayed 
their visas. That is absolutely inaccurate, and if they base their 
judgment on that supposed fact, they have been given a 
misrepresentation.
  The INS suggests to us that 62 percent of the people using 245(i) are 
people who have come into this country illegally, did not come in with 
visas, snuck into our country. And, yes, some of them came in with 
visas and just arrogantly overstayed their visas and decided to stay 
here on an illegal status.
  Make no mistake about it, 245(i) is only about illegal aliens who 
have snuck across our borders or who have overstayed their visas. This 
provision exists because it brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, even though they 
have only gotten around to spending about 5 percent of the 245(i) 
revenues.
  This provision is bad for our country because it undermines our laws. 
It ends up costing us a lot more than that $200 million a year, because 
these people often come here, and illegal aliens, as we know, commit 
crimes and cost us in other ways. But it also undermines our trust in 
the law, it violates our national security, and it punishes millions of 
people around the world who are eligible for permanent residence in the 
United States but they are waiting their turn, they are waiting in 
line, and they are separated from their families.
  Last year, we passed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act which was 
widely supported by Americans, immigrants and native-born alike. This 
reform was a promise to the American taxpayers that we would no longer 
reward those who break the law. We promised them that their hard-earned 
tax dollars would not be spent to pay for an immigration system that is 
contradictory and randomly applied. And we promised our newest American 
citizens that we would uphold the integrity of the system that they so 
apparently respected, waiting for months and many times for years to 
come to the United States of America.
  If 245(i) is extended, or what this act wants to do is actually 
extend it in perpetuity, just make it a permanent provision of the law, 
the Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we passed last year is null and 
void, it has been passed in vain; 245(i) not only compromises the 
integrity of our laws, it also compromises our national security.
  The legal immigration process which 245(i) beneficiaries bypass, the 
regular immigration process, requires would-be Americans to undergo 
background checks in their own countries by our State Department 
consuls. These officials, American officials, conduct a thorough 
background check in the applicants' home countries, where there are 
files and there are local officials to call, in order to screen out 
terrorists and criminals. They also check for an applicant's ability to 
stay off welfare.
  Section 245(i) allows and encourages anyone in the world to skip the 
background check and skip the welfare probability check and to come 
here illegally and to pay $1,000. They then undergo a much less 
thorough check through the INS. In the meantime, while they are going 
through this much less thorough check, they are here in the United 
States of America. If they are terrorists or their criminal background 
is evident, they are here legally through the 245(i) process while they 
are being adjudicated. Native country screening for prospective 
Americans is vital to the safety of our citizens and the security of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear from the other side today that 245(i) is 
just a matter of location, again, another piece of misinformation that 
has been passed out: It is just a matter of where someone picks up 
their visa. That is absolutely not true.
  In fact, since most of the beneficiaries of 245(i) have lived here 
illegally for more than 6 months, most of them would not be eligible 
for a home-country visa. Meaning, if they returned home, they would not 
be able to do it anyway because they have already stayed here illegally 
over 6 months. The only possible way that they could get their visa to 
stay here legally would be to use 245(i) in this situation. Thus, what 
do we have? We are making it easier to immigrate illegally into the 
United States then it is for people to immigrate legally.
  We will hear today that without 245(i) the families of illegal aliens 
may be separated, and that is true. There is no doubt about it, and we 
care about these people and these families. They put themselves in this 
situation, unfortunately. But what they will not tell us when we are 
discussing this, and even though our hearts go out to those people who 
are going to be separated, we also have a heart for those family 
members around the world who obey our laws, and they are separated from 
their families and they are waiting for months and sometimes years to 
come to this country. What about these families?
  Permanently extending 245(i) means we are rewarding people who break 
our laws and penalizing those who abide by them. We are siding with the 
families of lawbreakers over those people who stay in line and are 
waiting, apparently, to obey our laws and come here as proud citizens 
of the United States of America.
  Well, we have a chance to right this wrong, Mr. Speaker. We do not 
have to

[[Page H9643]]

tell everyone in the world that the best and quickest way to a green 
card is to break our laws and to come here illegally. We can vote for 
instruction to conferees that will tell our conferees that a permanent 
extension of this gaping 245(i) loophole is unacceptable.
  I would ask for a resounding ``yes'' on this vote for these 
commonsense instructions. Let me remind my colleagues, what we are 
doing today in a motion to instruct is asking our conferees not to go 
along with a permanent extension. That does not mean that we cannot sit 
down and negotiate and try to come up with a compromise on 245(i). But 
if we do not and our conferees go along with this, if our conferees go 
along with a permanent extension, there will be no compromise in the 
future. We have foregone that option.

                              {time}  1445

  Please, let us go for compromise, let us go for trying to mold this 
and make this more humane, but let us try to deal with the issue. I 
would ask for a yes vote on my motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. I am 
opposed to the motion not because I support a permanent extension, far 
from it. I do not. In fact, we are opposing a permanent extension, 
which the Senate would like to do. I think we need to not extend the 
245(i) provision in the future, but by the same token, I think we have 
to leave open for the conferees to work in a fair and equitable fashion 
on the equities of people who have relied upon 245(i) in the past and 
that are presently in the country, who came here with the expectation 
that 245(i) would be available to them. I think we have to be free to 
deal with the equities of families who are here now.
  For those in the future, however, who are thinking of coming here and 
trying to become citizens, they can know that in the future 245(i) will 
not be available. But for those here now, I think we have to be free to 
deal with them in a fair and equitable way.
  I agree with the gentleman on opposing permanent extension. This 
conferee certainly and others are fighting permanent extension as hard 
as we know how. By the same token, I would ask that my colleagues 
defeat the motion to instruct, to leave us some freedom to deal with 
those who are here who find themselves in an awkward situation not of 
their making. I would hope that the Members of the body would leave the 
conferees some flexibility on the matter and not vote for this motion 
to instruct. I would hope that we would vote ``no''.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and ask unanimous consent that she be 
permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Camp]. Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rohrabacher motion. The 
Rohrabacher motion proposes that we disagree with the Senate's 
provision to permanently extend 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act and in the process really ties the hands of the 
conferees. Section 245 allows individuals who are already in this 
country who are eligible to become legal permanent residents to pay a 
fee and adjust their visa status here in the United States instead of 
having to go overseas to do so. Extension of this provision is an 
important immigration policy issue and one with serious financial 
impact implications.
  Let me assure my colleagues that the conferees of the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill are working in good faith to weigh 
the issues associated with 245(i) and arrive at the best solution. I 
ask my colleagues to recognize that, not to tie our hands, and, 
therefore, I urge our colleagues to oppose this Rohrabacher motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Pardon me, but it is nonsense to try to read this proposal to 
instruct conferees and to suggest that it ties the hands of anyone. The 
bottom line is, read this motion to instruct. It just precludes us from 
permanently extending this immigration loophole to which hundreds of 
thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring in and being permitted to 
stay in this country illegally. We can make any type of compromise 
after that. The conferees can agree to anything else. But we are 
preventing a permanent extension of what is an ongoing amnesty program 
for illegal aliens. If we can agree, make some compromises, that is 
totally within this motion to instruct conferees. No one should oppose 
this motion based on that illogical analysis of what my motion is all 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, here we have another attraction for people to 
come here illegally and then realize, well, ``we are sort of dumb here 
and we will say `if you pay us $1,000, you can sort of stay around.'''
  Let us not just think about the young Americans that are pushed out 
of jobs by illegals, which started me on this issue in 1975. The 
leaders of Watts showed me how illegal immigrants were pushing out 
young people who were in entry jobs as teenagers in hotels, in 
restaurants, and in gasoline stations.
  But we are also harming people from other countries who are following 
the rules and want to come here legally.
  Let us look at the three major countries where future citizens are 
waiting for years. The Philippines. These are our allies. These are the 
people to whom we gave independence in 1946. They have been waiting in 
line since September 1986 to come legally to the United States under 
the first preference category.
  India. The richest ethnic community in the United States are the 
people who have come from India legally, doctors, lawyers, Ph.D.s on 
university faculties. Those waiting to come here under the fourth 
preference in India goes back to June 1985.
  Mexico. If you are a brother or a sister of an adult U.S. citizen, 
you have been ``standing in line'' legally in Mexico since 1986. They 
are not part of the 49 countries that pour over our southern border. 
They are trying to obey the laws of this land. How are we treating 
them? We are saying, come on over anytime, extend your stay, and all 
will be forgiven if you pay us $1,000.
  When I see the flyers being passed out at the door on this vote on 
how business looks on this as a great revenue raiser to incarcerate 
criminal aliens, and--gee whiz say these business interests--the $1,000 
resulted in $200 million. Let me tell my colleagues that the State of 
California spends $400 million to $500 million of its own money on 
handling criminal aliens. You are right, there should be something done 
about it. But it is not this way. When people who are coming here 
illegally are also being exploited by businesses, that is wrong.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Rohrabacher 
motion to instruct the conferees on the extension of section 245(i). 
Section 245(i) allows parents, students, doctors and teachers who have 
already received an INS-approved visa petition to renew or adjust their 
immigration status in the United States. The ways in which to receive 
an INS-approved visa petition is to either have an American family 
member or an employer such as Motorola or Texas Instruments, who both 
support this provision, sponsor the person. Section 245(i) would enable 
these American businesses to retain skilled and trained personnel in 
order to prosper.
  Under 245(i), eligible immigrants whom the INS has already determined 
should be allowed to become permanent residents would normally need to 
return to their home consulates to renew their immigration status, 
leaving behind their American spouses and children. By passing an 
extension of 245(i), these people would be allowed to renew their 
immigration status in the United States while remaining in the company 
of their American loved ones. In fact, the only thing that the 
extension of 245 would do is to change the location of where a person's 
immigrant

[[Page H9644]]

visa is renewed. Section 245(i) does not give special benefits to 
illegal immigrants. This means that the person who illegally snuck 
across the border, who therefore does not have an INS-approved visa 
petition, does not qualify for 245(i).
  After being subjected to fingerprinting and rigorous background 
checks, immigrants who have never been convicted of a crime provide and 
fund our INS' detention and deportation activities by paying a sum of 
$1,000 to have their status renewed. It raises $200 million to our U.S. 
Treasury.
  That is why Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, 
supports the extension of 245(i). I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Rohrabacher motion and support the renewal of 245(i) because it is 
essential and beneficial to American businesses and, indeed, to the 
American taxpayer. By supporting 245(i), we would support America and 
the scores of organizations and corporations which are depending on our 
vote.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Yes, big business does want this loophole to stay in place because it 
is exploiting illegal aliens and bringing down the pay of American 
workers, who are now having to face competition with people who were 
not meant to be here in the first place. That is immoral. It is an 
immoral thing, but our companies want to make a profit at it; fine, let 
us keep the loophole in place. That is wrong. It is wrong logic. It is 
not right for the Congress of the United States to be representing the 
interests of big business and illegal aliens and not representing the 
interests of the American people in between.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard that a person who illegally comes across 
our border is not eligible for 245(i). That is not the case. That is 
why 62 percent of the people who have used 245(i) are people who have 
snuck across our border and come here illegally. Someone who sneaks 
across the border, comes here illegally, finds himself a big 
businessman who will pay him substandard wages but will be willing to 
sponsor him or anybody else who he suckers into sponsoring him, they 
are then eligible for 245(i). Sixty-two percent of the hundreds of 
thousands of illegal aliens who have used this have come in just that 
way. They have snuck in illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Blunt].
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct 
our conferees. The permanent extension of 245(i) really flies in the 
face of immigration reform. Whatever we need to do to work out 
immigration problems for people who are already in the country I think 
can be done within this motion to instruct. But certainly leaving this 
on the books, making it easier for people to illegally come to the 
country than for people to legally come to the country hurts people who 
are waiting to come to the country. It keeps people's families 
separated who have been in line, who have been waiting to come to the 
country.
  Ending section 245(i) will not be harmful to businesses who employ 
legal aliens. Those individuals are already protected under 245(a), 
which says if you fall through the cracks, if there is some error that 
is not your fault that puts your status here in jeopardy, without 
paying $1,000 you can get that straightened out. This is really 
designed to protect the people who are here legally, working hard, 
having their families together, not to open the door to illegal aliens.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the Rohrabacher motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 
2267. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] seeks to instruct 
the conferees to accept the House position with regard to 245(i) 
extension for illegal immigrants, a position which by allowing for the 
expiration would force hundreds of thousands of immigrants to return 
home in order to apply for a permanent visa. But what is even worse is 
that once these immigrants have left the United States, they would not 
be permitted to return to this country for 3 years or even 10 years in 
certain cases.
  Extension of 245(i) is not a giveaway to illegal immigrants. Rather, 
this section can only be used by those who are already entitled to 
become permanent residents based on family or employer petitions. 
Forcing these people, many of whom have established strong ties with 
families, communities, and employers, to leave the country for 3 years 
or more is unfair and counterproductive. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Rohrabacher motion and signal your support for a reasonable 
response to an important issue that affects hundreds of thousands of 
families in this country.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Florida not only for yielding me time, but for her leadership on 
this important issue, as she has demonstrated on so many other issues 
throughout her tenure, extraordinary tenure, in Congress.
  With the utmost respect for my dear friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], this is the ultimate issue of confusing 
apples and oranges. No one can use section 241(i) unless they are 
eligible for permanent residency in the United States. Unless you 
qualify for legal residency in the United States, you cannot use 
section 241(i).
  I want to repeat that. I think it is important to repeat it, because 
of the confusion that is being spread this afternoon.
  Section 245(i) says that if you are eligible for a green card, if you 
meet all the requirements for a green card, and, as the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida said, if, after meeting the requirements for a 
green card, you apply for permanent residency in the United States 
pursuant to section 245(i), then you have to go through all the 
requirements of getting the background check, criminal check and all 
that other very important procedure.
  So this is not a matter that is appropriately addressed as one of 
illegal immigration. It is a matter of permitting people who are 
eligible and who qualify under all the requirements for permanent 
residency to seek their permanent residency in the United States. So it 
is an issue of common sense. It is an issue of fairness.
  It is also an issue of proportionality. Why do I say it is an issue 
of proportionality, Mr. Speaker? The new immigration law says if you 
have technically at any point fallen out of status in the United 
States, if you were a student and, for example, not meeting your full 
course load and fell out of status for over 6 months, the new 
immigration law says you have to be out of the country for 3 years 
before you can even apply to come back.
  Section 245(i) says if after having been technically out of status 
you qualify, as long as you qualify completely for permanent residence 
in the United States, then you can use 245(i) to seek permanent 
residence in the United States and not be barred for 3 years. So the 
issue of proportionality, I think, is very important.
  I would like to say in addition to fairness, in addition to common 
sense, in addition to proportionality, there is a perception issue 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue has grown to one of immense proportions in 
the Hispanic community throughout the United States. I think it is 
appropriate for all my esteemed colleagues to know that this is 
perceived by the Hispanic community as one directly related to how 
immigrants in the United States are treated. I think it is important 
for all of our esteemed colleagues in this House to know that.
  So, because of fairness, because of common sense, because of 
proportionality, and because of perception, I ask all my distinguished 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on Rohrabacher today, and to give a strong 
vote of confidence to this commonsense 245(i).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal], to talk about why he is opposed to this provision 
that has permitted 400,000 people already to illegally come into the 
United States.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.

[[Page H9645]]

  Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear debates that are emotional, that 
are based on personal points of view and perceptions that we do not all 
agree with. But there is one point of view we should all agree with, 
and that is we are a nation of law. It is our responsibility to make 
that law. It is our responsibility to forge support for the concept of 
law.
  This is a situation, as I view it, in which the prerequisite that is 
indisputable for eligibility under 245(i) is that you be in violation 
of the law.
  Mr. Speaker, can one think of any other statute that we have that 
says to qualify for the provisions of this statute, you must be a law 
violator? I can only think of one. That is where, in order to get a 
pardon, you must be in violation of the law and we forgive your sins 
and pardon you.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing here. We are saying you are in 
violation of the law; no matter how well intended, no matter how many 
family members you have here, no matter how many employers you have 
that say they are willing to give you a job, you are in violation of 
the law.
  If we are a nation of laws, we ought to abide by it, respect it, and 
enforce respect on behalf of those who are citizens and noncitizens.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear to anyone listening, this 
motion to instruct says we must insist on the House's position. The 
House's position is to eliminate section 245(i). It does not talk about 
coming up with some modification or compromise. It says eliminate, 
because we did not do anything on it, so that means it would be 
extinguished.
  Secondly, this is not a section that would serve as a magnet, as one 
of the Members implied earlier in his discussion, to bring in people 
who are undocumented. An individual must have a legal basis for 
obtaining lawful permanent residency in order to qualify for section 
245(i). If you do not have a legal basis to be in this country, you 
cannot apply.
  This is a Nation of laws, and the law says that you can adjust based 
on 245(i) if you meet the conditions. What we are fighting is last year 
we changed the law in midstream on hundreds of thousands of people. 
That is unfair. Due process requires us to say to folks, if we told you 
these were the rules of the game, then that is what you must abide by.
  We should not change. Now is the time for us to be flexible. Section 
245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act provides very needed 
flexibility for our business community and for very close-knit 
families. You have to be a spouse, a child or a parent to qualify, or 
you have to have a job in hand, because the business has proven to the 
Department of Labor that no other worker is available.
  Mr. Speaker, let us understand what this is. Section 245(i) does not 
serve as a magnet for illegal immigration, nor does it give some type 
of benefit to someone who just walks into this country and says ``now I 
want to be able to stay.'' You have to have a legal basis to be in this 
country in order to qualify, and then you pay a fine of $1,000. The 
fine has been used mostly for the purpose of helping to deter future 
illegal immigration. It is well worth it to have it. It provides the 
flexibility. The business community says it is worthwhile. So do 
families who are on the verge of losing a loved one.
  Mr. Speaker, let us support section 245(i) and oppose the Rohrabacher 
motion to instruct.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the esteemed 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the extension of 
section 245(i) and in opposition to the motion by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. The motion to instruct the conferees 
would end an invaluable immigration procedure, will create new and 
unnecessary burdens on our families and on our businesses.
  Section 245(i) will not change the immigration procedures, but rather 
will change the location where individuals obtain permanent residence 
via a green card, either here or abroad. This extension does not allow 
individuals to jump the line and obtain a residency any faster nor does 
it allow them to immediately become legal residents. Whether they 
process their paperwork here or in their home countries, these 
individuals must wait the same amount of time and are placed on a 
waiting list on a first come first serve basis.
  Extending 245(i) will greatly assist our consular offices abroad to 
increase their efficiency and focus and provide better services to our 
American citizens traveling and living abroad. With the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service processing applications for green cards, 
consular offices throughout the world can service Americans with 
overseas emergencies rather than spending the majority of their time 
with noncitizens. Moreover, opponents believe INS does not provide 
adequate background checks on individuals and as a result is putting 
the American public at risk. That is simply not true.
  INS processes all individuals through the same checks as the State 
Department would prior to allowing them to become citizens. Section 
245(i) is not any amnesty program for illegal aliens. The program is 
designed to help people who are already eligible to obtain legal status 
in the form of permanent residence in this country. Those who apply for 
adjustment under section 245(i) must qualify for an immigrant visa 
based on a family or employment relationship, have a visa number 
immediately available and be otherwise admissible to our Nation. 
Section 245(i) does not change the rules or does not make immigration 
any easier.
  It merely changes the location of processing and provides a penalty 
fee which offsets processing costs and funds detention efforts. 
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the extension 
of 245(i) to help families and businesses around our Nation. This 
extension is necessary. Without it, consulates abroad will suffer under 
their increased workload, businesses will be interrupted and families 
torn apart. Moreover, 245(i) has generated $200 million in revenues in 
1997 and over $120 million of that went to the detention and removal of 
criminal aliens.
  I urge that we maintain adequate funding for detaining and deporting 
criminals. Vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher motion.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, for those who are a little bit confused by the 
discussion today, we are talking specifically, in the short-term, about 
whether or not 1 million people who are in this country currently 
illegally, whether or not they should have to go back to their native 
country in order to adjust their status, or whether these people who 
are here in this country illegally, 62 percent of them who came here 
illegally in the first place, but ended up taking jobs from American 
citizens, coming here illegally and taking the food out of the mouths 
of our own working people, whether those people should have to obey the 
law when they came in, which was the law, and go home and adjust their 
status, or whether or not we are going to enforce the law and protect 
the people of the United States against the malicious, illegal 
immigration that has been hurting our country and our people.
  The other thing is, and let us make very clear, this motion to 
instruct conferees opens the door to negotiations. It specifically 
states that we are opposed to a permanent extension of this ongoing 
amnesty for illegal aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Bilbray].
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, we are really talking about fairness and 
common sense here. Now, last year we passed an Immigration Reform Act 
that was based on dividing legal immigration and illegal immigration. 
And about the concept of fairness, that we do not reward those who have 
broken the law and punish those following the law.

[[Page H9646]]

  I am listening to the speakers that support 245(i), at least the 
great majority of them. If you go back in the record, you will find 
they did not support the Immigration Reform Act last year anyway. It 
passed by 320 votes, because the American people wanted fairness and 
common sense put back into our immigration law and stop punishing 
people for playing by the rules and stop allowing people to buy their 
way out of illegal status.
  There are those that say, well, they will be legal; they are legal 
anyways, they would qualify. Except they are illegal aliens. If that 
was not true, then why are they opposing this bill? They would not need 
this exemption if they were actually legal as stated.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for placement in the Record a letter by 
James Dorcy, a veteran of 30 years of the Justice Department. He worked 
most of his career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. His 
statement, he writes to me, and I would like to put it in the Record. 
He says that ``245(i) sets up an irreconcilable conflict of interest 
within the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The conflict arises 
with the agency charged with enforcing our laws against illegal 
immigration actually profit from illegal immigration as it does through 
section 245(i). With such a conflict of interest, the INS cannot 
possibly fulfill its duties and obligations to remove aliens ordered 
removed or even to seriously act to prevent illegal immigration.''
  This is an immigration agent, somebody with 30 years experience, 
saying there is a problem here, a major problem.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be fair about this. There are people who did not 
like that vote of 320 votes. Let us not reverse the Immigration Reform 
Act. This compromise just says we will allow a compromise, but we will 
not allow a permanent extension of 245(i). I would challenge anyone 
again to look at the motion. It says we oppose the permanent extension 
of 245(i).
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter I referred to in the Record.

                                                San Diego, CA,

                                                 October 28, 1997.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     Longworth HOB,
     Washington, DC.
     Via Fax: 202-225-2948.

       Dear Brian: I am a retired 30-year veteran of the Justice 
     Department. Most of my career was served in the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service with my last nine years working in 
     the public integrity field in the Office of Professional 
     Responsibility of the INS and later the Inspector General's 
     Office of the Department of Justice.
       It is from my experience in fighting internal corruption in 
     our government that I want to call your attention to an 
     extremely serious flaw in Section 245(i) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act. Sec. 245(i) sets up an irreconcilable 
     conflict of interest within the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service. The conflict arises when the agency 
     charged with enforcing our laws against illegal immigration 
     actually profit from illegal immigration as it does through 
     Sec. 245(i). With such a conflict the INS cannot possibly 
     fulfill its duties and obligations to remove aliens ordered 
     removed or even to seriously act to prevent illegal 
     immigration.
       Hundreds of positions within the INS are becoming totally 
     dependent for their existence on the fees collected from 
     aliens. Employees whose livelihoods are dependent on these 
     fees and their coworkers are so compromised that it is 
     virtually impossible for them to objectively fulfill their 
     duties and responsibilities in enforcing and administering 
     law prohibiting illegal immigration.
       It is estimated that there are more than 2 million aliens 
     now on the immigrant visa waiting list residing in the United 
     States illegally. There are potentially millions more aliens 
     who now qualify or in the future will qualify for immigrant 
     visas who will attempt to enter the United States illegally. 
     For the INS to take action against such aliens, it would 
     forfeit a potential of several billions of dollars in fees 
     that it can collect from these same aliens through Sec. 
     245(i). It is absolutely outrageous that Congress would put 
     an agency into such a position of conflict of interest.
       This provision of law was scheduled to sunset on September 
     30th of this year. It has been temporarily extended but is 
     due to expire on November 7th. The Senate has voted to 
     permanently extend the measure in the appropriation bill for 
     Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary. On Wednesday, 
     October 29th, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher intends to 
     introduce a motion to instruct conferees on this 
     appropriation bill to oppose adoption of this measure into 
     the final bill. I urge you to support and vote for the 
     motion.
       If this law is allowed to continue, we run a terrible risk 
     of institutionalizing corruption that might very well spread 
     throughout our government. Nobody should ever be allowed to 
     buy a pardon for doing wrong, and that is exactly what Sec. 
     245(i) does. For government employees and the agency they 
     work for to be put in a position of profitting from commerce 
     in such pardons defies all reason and rationality. This form 
     of institutionalized bribery is something one might expect of 
     a Third World country, but it has no place in a great country 
     like ours.
       Again, I urge you to support Mr. Rohrabacher's motion to 
     instruct and to do all you can to rid the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act of this corrupting provision.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jim Dorcy.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just ask, does the gentleman whose motion this is 
agree that this motion precludes any compromise with the Senate?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, no, the 
intent of this motion is not that.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The motion reads, to be instructed to insist on the 
House's disagreement with section 111 of the Senate amendment. That 
means all we can do is disagree. That precludes any compromise on this 
issue. If that is the gentleman's purpose, then I think the gentleman 
would oppose his own motion.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
not my purpose. I will be happy to state that for the Record.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the committee is exactly 
right. The motion, if passed, would insist upon the House position, 
which is zip, nothing. In order for us to be able to compromise, the 
gentleman's motion should have been a motion to disagree with the 
Senate provision, with an amendment, allowing a compromise.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. So if the gentleman wants us to compromise, he should 
vote against his own motion.
  Mr. ROGERS. That is right.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rohrabacher motion to 
instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, this motion is opposed by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
AFL-CIO, and all by itself, bringing those organizations together, that 
should be enough to make Members realize that there is merit in this 
245(i) program.
  I do not claim to be an expert on this issue, but to me it just seems 
logical and practical to approach a complex problem within the 
immigration code in this manner. Once the United States has decided a 
person is eligible for a green card so they can legally work in this 
country, it does not make much sense to me to send them all the way 
back to their home country in order to pick up that status.
  What sense does it make to force qualified workers to spend their 
money and time on travel for what amounts to little more than 
bureaucratic nonsense? What business do we have disrupting the 
workplace? The only thing the Rohrabacher motion would seem to 
accomplish is more paperwork, more cost, and more red tape.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the 
Rohrabacher motion.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the subject of the motion to instruct conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H9647]]

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 1 
minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not like disagreeing with my good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], but I do oppose his motion 
to instruct. I would tell the gentleman, 245(i) does not give anybody 
an amnesty or give anybody a pass. It is a procedure whereby people who 
have been in this country and have attempted to regularize their 
status, and have applied and are on a list, and whose number has come 
up and a visa is available, it prevents them from being forced to go 
out of the country and wait either 3 years or 10 years to apply to come 
back. It keeps the families that have been established together. It is 
humanitarian.
  Yes, we are dealing with illegals who can be deported anytime, but it 
is a process for people who are ready to become regularized, to become 
regularized without having to break up the family. It deals with the 
reality that the people are here. If we abandon 245(i), they are going 
to stay here. They are not going to have to leave. But that visa that 
would be used up by one of those applicants will be used by another 
immigrant, so we add to the totality of immigration, not reduce it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, when we hear talk about regularization of status, what 
we are really talking about, and people should understand this, is 
someone who is in this country illegally. The fact that the AFL-CIO has 
again abandoned its defense of the rights of the working people of the 
United States, the citizens of our country and the people who are here 
legally, does not surprise me but it should surprise people on the 
other side of the aisle.
  However, that big business wants to hire illegal immigrants and give 
them the jobs does not surprise me. One of the things that is wrong 
about illegal immigration is that it takes jobs away from the people of 
the United States. We should not permit that to happen. We should watch 
out for our own people. Who do we care for? We are supposed to be 
caring for the citizens of the United States and people who have come 
here legally and people who have respected our laws.
  Second of all, this instruction of conferees clearly, just as in 
disagreement, the word ``disagreement'' is right there in the motion, 
with what the Senate is trying to do, and that is a permanent extension 
of this amnesty for illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, if Members vote ``no" on Rohrabacher they 
certify the encouragement of illegal immigration. I heard the words of 
perception, we are always going to get a race card or something here. I 
oppose illegal immigration, and I oppose illegal immigrants, black, 
white, red, yellow, brown, Martian, or an intergalactic time traveler. 
If you are in America illegally, I oppose you, and I oppose the 
Congress' laws that allow and encourage it.
  Let us look at the law, because most Americans believe Congress needs 
a brain scan performed by a proctologist here. The first law said, if 
you are in America illegally for 5 years, Congress is so confused they 
are going to make you a citizen, and then made you a citizen. Then they 
said, since we made you a citizen, you have your dear family that 
misses you, and we will allow your family to come in and we will make 
them a citizen.
  We set a big blinker out there that says, if you want to come to 
America, jump the fence, because somehow, some way, you are going to 
get certified and we are going to make you a citizen. Some people came 
over here in the belly of a slave ship. There are people that stood in 
line waiting to get in this country. We are now rewarding people who 
jump the fence. Beam me up.
  The Rohrabacher motion says, look, we passed a law. That law made 
certain requirements. Now, the next year we are going to give a 
permanent extension and eradicate the law? Why did we have this debate 
a year ago? Because we could get together over a year ago and put it 
off for another day, and then we will take care of it with another 
machination of Congress. It is wrong, Congress. It is wrong. Our 
borders are wide open. We are destroying the fabric of what our law 
stands for.
  We have had more Mexicans killed on the border than died at Oklahoma 
City, in that same period of time, trying to get in this country 
illegally. We have our borders wide open and narcotics running in here, 
and an epidemic of historic levels of first time use of heroin age 12 
to 17.
  The American people know it. They are fed up. The American people 
say, look, we have nothing against any ethnic group or any color of 
skin; if you are in this country, in the country illegally, get out. 
Congress should throw you out, not make you a citizen, and not 
encourage with laws and promote people who jump the fence. That is what 
we are doing. If Members vote ``no'' today, they are saying to the 
Senate, go ahead, go ahead and get over once again.
  Both parties should be standing on the floor defending the House 
position. It is the position of the American people. I oppose illegal 
immigration. I will not be a part of any ploy that will allow more of 
it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to vigorously oppose 
the motion to instruct, to make sure that the extension is put in place 
permanently to save families in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Representative 
Rohrabacher's motion to instruct the conferees on the Commerce, State, 
Justice appropriations bill directing the House conferees to disagree 
to the permanent extension of section 245(i) that was included in the 
Senate version of the bill.
  In 1994, Congress passed section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, a temporary provision that was to have expired on 
September 30, 1997. This provision has since been extended until 
November 7, 1997, by the two continuing resolutions. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct and to allow section 
245(i) to be extended permanently.
  Section 245(i) allows certain immigrants who have fallen out of 
status, but who are now eligible for permanent U.S. residency, to pay a 
$1,000 fee and have their paperwork processed while they remain in the 
United States. Without 245(i) these immigrants would have to return to 
their native countries for visa processing before once again reentering 
the United States.
  Section 245(i) is only available to those immigrants already on the 
brink of becoming legal permanent residents--people who are already 
eligible to become permanent residents. These are people who the INS 
has already determined should be able to become permanent residents 
based on their family and employment relationships, that is, they have 
been sponsored by either a family member who is a legal resident or 
citizen, or a business willing to employ the applicant.
  Despite the charges of many, section 245(i) is not a vehicle for 
criminals and terrorists to become U.S. citizens. Section 245(i) will 
benefit:
  Persons who unknowingly receive incorrect documents from the INS and 
by the time this error is recognized, they have fallen out of status;
  Corporate executives, managers, and professionals whose status has 
lapsed due to an oversight by a human resource manager;
  The family members of those corporate executives whose status lapses 
inadvertently through oversight;
  A husband who is the sole source of support for his wife and children 
who are U.S. citizens;
  A wife of a legal permanent resident and the mother of children who 
are U.S. citizens; and
  The mother of a 12-year-old girl in my district who is from Honduras; 
the girl would be abandoned, otherwise.
  Section 245(i) will allow businesses to keep valued employees, allows 
families to stay together, and provides substantial resources to the 
INS for border enforcement. Section 245(i) is a humanitarian provision 
of immigration law that allows families to stay together while one 
member seeks an immigrant visa. Any suspension of section 245(i) could 
force hundreds of thousands of people to leave their jobs and families 
in this country. Section 245(i) also provides U.S. businessman who use 
thousands of skilled foreign workers with needed work force continuity.
  My colleagues, I urge you to oppose this motion to instruct and in so 
doing support the permanent extension of section 245(i), a practical 
and effective provision that is narrowly

[[Page H9648]]

tailored to allow immigrants to obtain legal U.S. residency without 
leaving the country and leaving their families, their jobs and their 
hopes for better future behind.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
motion to recommit. The families affected by 245(i) have their backs to 
the wall. Right now the futures of thousands and thousands of 
immigrants are at stake.
  I want my colleagues who oppose this act of fairness to think about 
Elvi Blanco when they cast their vote. Her husband, a legal resident, 
has prostate cancer. Her two children are U.S. citizens. Elvi has been 
here for 9 years and will qualify for permanent resident status, but 
she will have to leave her ailing husband and her two children if 
245(i) is not extended. Once she returns to El Salvador, it could take 
up to 2 years for her visa application to be processed.
  If some people have their way, families like the Blancos will be 
split up, lives will be disrupted, and innocent people will suffer. I 
urge my colleagues to extend a small degree of fairness for immigrants. 
Vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. Section 
245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality act permits, as we have 
heard, certain family and employment-based immigrants, family and 
employment-based immigrants, to adjust their status to that of 
permanent residents, some that are not permanent residents because of 
clerical errors, while remaining in the United States, rather than 
requiring immigrants to return to their home country to obtain an 
immigrant visa.
  We are not talking about if they become legal or when, but where. Do 
we kick them away from families until the paperwork is completed? Do we 
deprive families from being together and receiving support from the 
family member who is deported?
  Section 245(i) was the product of efforts by the Department of State 
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to expedite the process 
of granting immigrant visas, generate revenues, and free U.S. 
consulates abroad to fulfill their primary functions. Rather than 
requiring individuals already in the United States to return to their 
home countries to obtain their immigrant visas, this provision permits 
immigrants to remain in the United States while adjusting their status, 
but it imposes a fine on those who choose this option.
  The enactment of section 245(i) generates, according to an INS 
spokeswoman, $200 million in fines this year alone. This additional 
revenue for the U.S. Government helps to reduce the State Department's 
visa processing case load by 30 percent, in addition.
  Last year's immigration bill increased the fine to $1,000 from the 
previous $650, and required that at least 80 percent of the funds 
generated be deposited in a new INS account to be used only for 
detention. Failure to extend this provision of the law would result in 
a shortage of resources for both the INS and the State Department. It 
would create a backlog in application processing, a shortage of funds 
for detention, and undercut the primary functions of our consulates 
abroad, which is to advance foreign policy objectives.
  I just think that for families, for children, for spouses, for 
employment, it behooves us to disapprove this motion to instruct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, for the United States of America, I 
yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct conferees to disagree 
with the Senate provision that makes permanent an immigration provision 
known as 245(i). The overriding objective of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, enacted by overwhelming 
margins in 1996, was to remove incentives for illegal immigration and 
require illegal aliens to return to their home countries or be removed.
  Section 245(i) directly contradicts this goal. Section 245(i) permits 
illegal aliens who have become eligible for an immigrant visa to adjust 
to legal immigrant status without having to follow the normal procedure 
for obtaining an immigrant visa, applying for the visa at a U.S. 
consulate.
  By allowing illegal aliens to bypass the legal process, we reward 
illegal behavior, and actually encourage aliens to enter or stay in the 
United States illegally. Section 245(i) rewards those who jump the 
line, and insults aliens who follow the law and wait for their visa 
before entering the United States. As a result, law-abiders have to 
wait to be with their families, while law-breakers do not.
  The penalty paid by 245(i) applicants for the right to adjust status, 
a fee of $1,000, is minuscule compared to the multi-billion dollar cost 
imposed on taxpayers as a whole by illegal immigration. While the 
Federal Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to 
prevent illegal immigration and to remove illegal aliens on the one 
hand, it is encouraging illegal behavior with 245(i) on the other.

                              {time}  1530

  That simply does not make any sense. The chief beneficiaries of 
245(i) are the relatives of formerly illegal aliens legalized under the 
amnesty passed in 1986, proving once again that amnesties are among the 
worst possible options in immigration policy.
  The requirement to undergo visa processing in one's own country is 
not a mere formality. Waiting for a visa outside of the U.S. allows 
more time, if required, for problem cases. If the visa should be 
denied, the alien is already outside of the United States and does not 
need to be deported. In addition, consular officers often are in a 
better position than INS to identify circumstances particular to a 
country of origin, such as a criminal background, that warrant closer 
examination or even denial of the application.
  Mr. Speaker, having said all of this, it might be difficult to just 
end 245(i). There are people in the pipeline who, rightly or wrongly, 
have relied on its existence and have pending applications. I believe 
that we can draft a fair and compassionate solution to this situation 
by allowing persons who have already begun the process to continue to 
have their 245(i) applications processed, a type of grandfathering for 
those already in the pipeline.
  Mr. Speaker, this approach allows both family and business-sponsored 
petitioners who have already taken significant steps to get their green 
cards to continue doing so, but says no to anybody thinking of 
benefiting from illegal behavior in the future.
  As for U.S. employers, a provision could be drafted that allows 
processing to continue for cases where a short lapse in status has 
occurred due to processing errors or where more technical problems have 
occurred, but would not encourage illegal entry or other illegal 
behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, allowing 245(i) to exist permanently would be like 
Congress passing a second amnesty. It would say, ``Even if you ignore 
or intentionally violate U.S. immigration laws, we will forgive you and 
reward you with a green card.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion and 
say ``no'' to rewarding illegal behavior.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, I think, has made 
an excellent statement. I would ask the gentleman if the conferees came 
back with a conference report that reflected the gentleman's 
recognition that we have to deal with those in the country who have 
relied upon 245(i) in the past, but repealed it for the future, is that 
something that the gentleman would agree with?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky is 
absolutely correct.

[[Page H9649]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the problem is this motion would preclude that. That is why I am 
opposed to it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one is swayed by this nonsensical 
analysis. First of all, we know how much teeth a motion to instruct 
conferees has. This motion will in no way prevent a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] if 
he really believes that a motion to instruct conferees will prevent a 
compromise on this issue. Is that the gentleman's position?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think so. That is the reason. I am opposed 
for this reason. The gentleman's motion insists upon the House 
position.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I wish the gentleman 
would quote the motion at hand rather than quoting what he thinks it 
should say.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is the motion is very clear. It is very clear 
that it is the House's disagreement on section 111 of the Senate 
amendment, that we are simply disagreeing with the Senate's permanent 
extension of this amnesty program for illegal aliens who are here in 
this country illegally. We are disagreeing with that permanent 
extension, for the record. And as we know, I would suggest that my 
words as the author now letting people know on the record what the 
purpose of this is, as well as the intent of the language as well as 
the language itself, does not in any way preclude this body from coming 
to a compromise on this issue. In fact, all it does is prevent a 
permanent extension of this amnesty for people who are here illegally. 
That is all it does, and I am stating that for the record as the 
legislative intent.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher], my dear friend, I think he and I more or less agree 
on what should be the final result: No permanent extension. I believe 
sincerely that the gentleman's motion, if successful, would prevent 
that. Otherwise, I would support it. My staff tells me that that is the 
case.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee, for clarifying 
this very important point.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher motion.
  Mr. Speaker, it is rare that the U.S. Senate casts a 99-to-0 vote, 
but that is what they did earlier this year when faced with a decision 
to eject nearly 1 million people from this country. The U.S. Senate 
said ``no.'' They said no because they knew that nearly 1 million 
people would be forced to leave their families, their businesses, their 
jobs, despite having a legal basis for obtaining permanent residency in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, these 1 million hard-working immigrants, some of whom 
reside in my district in California, have a legal basis for retaining 
residency, yet if we adopt this motion they will be required to leave 
the country and wait years to be reunited with their families in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for the immigration bill last year, and there 
were some important changes that we made in the law to combat some of 
the problems of illegal immigration. But this provision of the law is 
unworkable and unfair, and it is inciting fear in many people who have 
built lives and families and businesses here and who are contributing 
to our communities and to our economy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], my good friend, and his 
motion to instruct conferees.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary, I would have to say, first and foremost, that 245(i) is an 
important undertaking in which we restore some compassion to the 
actions we took last year in immigration reform.
  I supported immigration reform as a much-needed device in which we 
can separate the very big problem of illegal immigration in this 
country versus the problem of legal immigrants. People who have played 
by the rules come to this Nation and want to enjoy so much that this 
Nation has to offer, as many of our ancestors did when they came to 
this country.
  This is about compassion, keeping families together, making sure that 
employers who want to keep talent in this country are able to do so. 
This is not about aiding illegal immigration. This is about compassion. 
This is tightening up on immigration reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to the motion of the 
gentleman from California, my friend.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion 
and urge its adoption.
  It is very important for my colleagues to understand what we are 
talking about here. This is a vote against a permanent extension. It 
does not, I repeat, does not preclude legislative actions on how to 
fairly resolve the issue, as was previously discussed by our colleagues 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. Speaker, actually what are we doing if we permanently extend it? 
We are violating all the people that have come here honestly and 
legally in this country. We are telling all of those people that are 
sitting in files in our offices back in our districts that they do not 
have to obey the law, that they have been waiting legally in line for 
years to come in, but we are going to reward those who break the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I also must point out that there are costs involved in 
this issue. Many of us, including New Jersey, I might say, are very 
concerned about how this benefit system has been a magnet for many 
illegal immigrants. In New Jersey alone we spend $146 million a year to 
educate children of illegal aliens. The costs go up from there. So we 
are not only talking about the law, we are also talking about taxpayer 
costs here.
  I must stress that there are extenuating circumstances, I understand 
it and my colleagues understand it, to the INS paperwork backlogs and 
the bureaucratic snafus and there are situations where there might be 
delays for families who have put down roots here. But it would be wrong 
as a consequence of those snafus to extend this permanently.
  What we should say is that as of the day that the bill is signed into 
law, any immigrant in this country who is trying to address their 
status might be considered independently and apply that, as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith] have already indicated.
  I believe this is the fairest way to deal with the situation, and not 
violate those good people who have legally come to this country and not 
cause the taxpayers a greater cost on their tax bills.
  The argument has been made that by allowing section 245(i) to stay on 
the books, the INS makes up to $150 million in revenue received from 
the $1,000 fee that aliens pay to obtain legal status. But, this money 
pales in comparison to the multi-billion dollar cost imposed on 
taxpayers as a result of the devastating consequences of illegal 
immigration.
  At the same time many of us are concerned that our benefits system 
acts as a magnet for many illegal immigrants. For example, many 
children of illegal immigrants receive a free education in U.S. public 
schools at the expense of American taxpayers, driving up the cost of 
education and taking resources away from U.S. children. The State of 
New Jersey alone spends an estimated $146 million a year to educate 
about 16,000 children of illegal aliens.
  The cost associated with providing Federal benefits to illegal 
immigrants is astronomical. While as a society, we do not turn people

[[Page H9650]]

away from an emergency room or deny food to the hungry. Nor should we. 
However, I do not believe we should reward illegal immigrants by 
allowing them to stay.
  Nevertheless, I must stress that I understand that there are 
extenuating circumstances due to INS paperwork backlogs and 
bureaucratic snafus. And there are situations where, because of these 
delays, families who have put down roots, would be split up because of 
an automatic cessation of 245(i).
  Because of this, we should create a time-table for the sunsetting of 
245(i). We should say that as of the day the bill is signed into law, 
any immigrant in the country, who is trying to adjust their status with 
the INS and would be considered in violation of the law under an 
expiration of 245(i), will be allowed to stay and complete the process. 
But as of that day, any new immigrant to this country will be subject 
to the new law that does not include the 245(i) loophole.
  I believe that this is the fairest way to deal with this situation. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose permanent extension of section 245(i) and 
to work in a good faith effort to solve this problem fairly while 
remaining true to immigration law reform. This motion urges opposition 
to a permanent extension of 245(i). It does not preclude any discussion 
on finding the fairest way to phase out this section with the least 
possible impact on those involved.
  I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion offered by my good 
friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Although I have the deepest 
respect for the gentleman from California, I feel strongly that Section 
245(i) has been beneficial to our country and should be extended.
  Section 245(i) allows an individual who is technically out of status 
to pay a fee and correct problems with his or her immigration status.
  The majority of the people affected by this problem have merely 
overstayed the terms of their visas while they await permanent 
residence arising out of valid immigrant petitions.
  Those qualified to use section 245(i) are already eligible for visas 
that will be immediately available to them under U.S. law.
  Without section 245(i), these soon-to-be green cardholders are faced 
with an ironic problem: they are approved to be legal permanent 
residents, but have to return to their home countries to get their 
visas and, then, face a 3- to 10-year bar to reentry.
  This result undermines the principle of family unification which 
forms the bedrock of our immigration code by separating spouses and 
children from their families. It would also adversely affect businesses 
by forcing important employees to leave the United States to adjust 
their status.
  Several benefits accrue to the United States from permanent 
codification of this section.
  Due to the $1,000 fee charged to those who utilize section 245(i), 
the INS expects to generate up to $200 million in revenue this fiscal 
year, alone. These moneys are used to offset the costs of detention and 
adjudications of illegal immigrants.
  Furthermore, by allowing individuals to adjust status here, U.S. 
consular staff abroad have more time and resources to provide better 
services to traveling Americans.
  I think it is important to note that the Senate has already agreed to 
extend section 245(i).
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the choice is clear: support extension of 
section 245(i) and oppose the motion to instruct.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House and my friendship for 
the gentleman from California compel me to restrain myself in 
characterizing and in dealing with the gentleman's characterizations of 
this issue. But, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is on so many different 
issues the gentleman is factually wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is not a rolling amnesty. It is not a stagnant 
amnesty. It is not an amnesty. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is about where an 
individual can adjust their status. It has nothing to do with what 
their status was before; 245(i) has nothing to do with a stay of 
deportation or a defense against deportation. An individual who is in 
this country illegally can be deported at any time, and nothing about 
245(i) provides a defense or a stay of that deportation.
  And 245(i) does not allow any single individual to cut ahead of 
anyone else. It only applies when their number comes up and, as the 
gentlewoman from Florida has mentioned, it only involves where they 
actually make their status adjustment. It allows no one to cut ahead.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] keeps saying he is 
for compromise. The gentleman fought the 1-year bill in 1994. He fought 
it in 1995. He fought it in 1996. He keeps calling it an amnesty. He 
keeps saying it is a way to keep out of being deported. He keeps saying 
it allows people to jump ahead of line against lawful immigrants. Each 
time the gentleman is wrong. Each year the gentleman is wrong.
  Now the gentleman says compromise, but he writes language which 
insists on the House position, which is no extension. The gentleman 
could have so easily drafted this motion to instruct to say that he 
would agree with the Senate with an amendment, and the amendment could 
have been the grandfather clause, the amendment could have been the 
compromise he now claims to have.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the gentleman from California does not 
want to see 245(i) extended for 1 day. This is not about a permanent 
extension. This is about destroying this program and having people 
believe it is something far different than it really is.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. 
We should not be misled by those who want to distort the facts about 
245(i) and give inaccurate information; 245(i) does not give special 
benefits to illegal immigrants. It does not allow anyone to cut in line 
ahead of any other person. We should not be penalizing those who are on 
the way to becoming legal immigrants.

                              {time}  1545

  Section 245(i) keeps families together. It enables businesses to 
retain skilled workers. It brings in $200 million a year to the U.S. 
Treasury. Half of the projected increase in funding for criminal 
detention space will come from the $1,000 per immigrant fees paid. 
Without this funding, detention space for an estimated 14,000 criminal 
aliens will not be available. That is an unsettling thought for many 
communities. Without that funding, inadequate space may mean that 
criminals that should be held in detention will not be with all the 
potential calamities that that will lead to.
  Even if this possibility is unnecessary, if we simply extend 245(i), 
do not tie the hands of those negotiators and let us get a settlement 
on this issue. Reject the Rohrabacher motion.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich].
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what has been said 
before about 245(i). Section 245(i) will not help anybody who does not 
have a legal basis to stay. If you are an immigrant, you do not have a 
legal basis to stay. If you jump the fence to get into the United 
States, not all the king's horses nor all the king's men nor 245(i) 
will help you stay in the United States.
  This is about immigrants who have a legal basis to stay. It is about 
the hardship on families for those who are here who sooner or later are 
going to get their adjustment in immigration status. The question is, 
do we disrupt families, do we send them back and keep families from 
being together and making those leave the United States and go to their 
host country to await adjustment of status, or do we keep them here and 
keep families together? That is the question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has 2 minutes remaining and has the right 
to close.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of rhetoric about what has 
become the common currency of those who oppose immigrants. I hope that 
instead today we will listen to some common sense.

[[Page H9651]]

  The truth about 245(i) is that it is a family unifier. It keeps 
families together, children with their mothers, dads with their wives. 
It is a revenue raiser. It will raise more than $200 million in fiscal 
year 1997. It promotes effective immigration control, that so many 
Members speak about, by raising the $200 million.
  It supports American business by helping them retain the skilled and 
highly qualified workers that they insist upon, that they insist upon. 
Those are the facts and the figures. But when is it more important to 
talk about fairness than today?
  I think we should quote a man who spoke about fairness. When Martin 
Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington he said, we refuse to believe 
that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there 
are insufficient funds in the great vault of opportunity in this 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, America's immigrants want only to share in the riches of 
freedom, to know that the security of justice extends to them also.
  Please join me in sharing this freedom, extending this justice and 
saying yes to families and fiscal responsibility and fairness above 
all.
  Let us keep the families together. Let us keep the moms with their 
children, mom and dad together raising them in this great Nation of 
ours. That is what we are based on. Oppose this motion.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand before you today 
to send a very strong message that I support the permanent extension of 
245(i) and I oppose the Rohrabacher motion. Section 245(i) is a very 
important provision of our immigration law that affects hundreds of 
thousands of individuals and families who have come to our country and 
are eligible for permanent residency.
  Section 245(i) is profamily. It is pro-business. It is principles 
that have always been central to our national immigration policy. 
Section 245(i) helps hard-working individual Americans and families all 
across our country who could be needlessly disrupted.
  Members have heard others before me on both sides of the aisle 
express their support for this provision and their opposition to the 
Rohrabacher motion. Before I leave today, I would like to make Members 
aware of a story of one person and one family who would be deeply 
affected.
  Rajesh Dua came to this country from India to seek a Ph.D. degree. In 
1992, Rajesh received his Ph.D. degree in medicinal chemistry and 
received several awards for his postdoctoral work in making safer and 
more effective drugs to fight illnesses like epilepsy.
  In 1994, he obtained his green card and in 1995, he married Tomoko 
Nakagawa, a citizen of Japan who was also studying in the United States 
on a student visa. Rajesh and Tomoko decided to make the United States 
their home and they applied for Tomoko's green card in 1995. But 
because Tomoko was misinformed by a foreign student advisor who told 
her that she would not need to apply for a student visa while she was 
waiting for a green card, she is out of status.
  Now, listen to Rajesh's own words:

       Currently, I am employed as a lead scientist in a biotech 
     company in Seattle, Washington. I am actively involved in 
     creating new agents against cancer, inflammation, and corneal 
     epithelium injury. Tomoko and I are law-abiding, taxpaying 
     citizens who own a home and are contributing to our society 
     with community service.
       Tomoko has never worked illegally, has never sought any 
     form of governmental assistance. She is fully covered by 
     health care. She has a retirement account, life insurance, 
     and is the equal owner of our home. We are expecting a baby 
     in November of 1997. To me, it is atrocious to separate a 
     healthy, loving, law-abiding, self-sufficient couple who have 
     realized their American dream. I hope that somebody can 
     understand our pain and frustration and help us obtain some 
     sort of waiver so that people like myself and my wife can 
     stay until she gets a green card.

  There is case after case. People are calling our offices, a foreign 
national Ph.D., a primary care physician, a wife of an executive in 
valid status, on and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a moral issue. Let us please vote down the 
Rohrabacher motion and keep this 245(i) in continuity for all of these 
people who are counting on us to vote the right way today.
  Vote ``no'' on the Rohrabacher motion.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me state that it is clear 
that on both sides of this issue there are people who love the United 
States of America, good Americans, and they love their fellow citizens 
and they love people of the world. So I have no dispersions on 
anybody's love of country or love of fellow human beings. But 245(i) is 
also supported by people who are not necessarily good hearted. There 
are big businessmen who have a big stake in keeping 245(i) in place so 
that they can hire people who come here illegally or are here illegally 
instead of hiring American citizens.
  Let us make that very clear. When Members see the handout when they 
come in, they will see the big business organizations supporting 
245(i). If they go along with that, they are along with putting our 
people out of jail and our people are people who have come here legally 
and U.S. citizens and giving those jobs to people who are here 
illegally.
  Even if she is from India and a biotech person and a wonderful human 
being, if she was not in this country legally, maybe someone else like 
an American citizen should have had that job that she had. Even though 
we sympathize with her, we sympathize with the American people and the 
law-abiding people who did not break the law more than we do this young 
lady from India that was just described.
  Four hundred thousand people have already used this loophole, this 
amnesty for illegal immigrants to get to stay in our country, 400,000. 
Sixty-two percent of them snuck into this country and did not come here 
legally at all; $1,000 made up for that, for the fact that they broke 
our law. With that $1,000, which will, of course, enable a million more 
and millions more in the future who are here illegally to normalize 
that status, we are going to pay for 14,000 spaces at detention 
centers. That is great. One-fourth of all of the criminals in 
California jails are illegal aliens. That does not come anywhere near 
the cost of illegal immigration into our country.
  Section 245(i) does what? It undermines the background checks that we 
do in other countries to prevent criminals from coming here in the 
first place. Do not tell me we are going to build 14,000 new detention 
center spaces. That does not come anywhere near the price, plus the 
heartache of letting criminals come into this country. What it does 
more than anything else, it undermines respect for our law.
  There are people like Charles Mensah from Ghana. Here is Charles 
Mensah's family. He came here legally. He has been waiting and 
separated from his family for years. Here they are waiting in Ghana. He 
is going to be a proud American citizen and he has obeyed the laws. 
What we are doing is slapping him in the face and saying, if you would 
have disobeyed our laws, skipped over, come here illegally or snuck 
your family in here illegally, we would reward you for that.
  Section 245(i) breaks down all respect for our law. It jeopardizes 
our security by taking out the security clearances and the background 
checks. We need to end this practice, to vote for the motion to 
instruct conferees that will then permit us a chance to get a 
compromise on this issue. Support this conference instruction.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to 
the motion by Mr. Rohrabacher.
  There are many misconceptions about 245(i) that I would like to clear 
up. Section 245(i) is only for people who qualify for permanent 
residency. It does not allow people to break in line, and it does not 
give them any preference. It simply allows them to stay in the country 
while their applications are being processed.
  It reduces paperwork at consulate offices abroad, and generates $200 
million a year in revenues for INS, an agency that cannot take anymore 
cuts.

[[Page H9652]]

  These are not people who are not contributing to our society. These 
are people with family ties, jobs, and a stake in this country. These 
are people on their way to becoming legal residents.
  If 245(i) is allowed to expire, it will not only be a tragedy for the 
people who are deported, but also for the families that they leave 
behind.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the extension of section 
245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and to oppose this effort 
to blatantly force immigrants to endure unnecessary hardship.
  Section 245(i) enables prospective lawful permanent residents to 
adjust their status while in the United States. This provision 
generates, through fees, more than $150 million in additional annual 
revenues, reduces the caseload of U.S. consulates overseas, and allows 
immigrants to remain with their families and businesses as they adjust 
their status in the United States rather than being forced to process 
their adjustments abroad.
  This provision is designed to encourage immigrants to comply with the 
law and become legal residents. It punishes people for their 
infractions and fines them $1,000, and only then does it allow 
immigrants to adjust their status and become legal residents. If the 
provision did not exist, some immigrants may continue to evade the law 
in order to remain in this country and stay with their families. This 
provision is a practical and effective tool that has benefited the U.S. 
Government as well as thousands of now legal immigrants.
  If we fail to extend this provision, we will have shifted enormous 
workloads back to U.S. consulates abroad, sacrificed desperately needed 
funds, and forced undue hardship on legal immigrants and their 
families.
  We ought to extend section 245(i), and extend it permanently.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in objection to the motion 
to instruct conferees on H.R. 2267. In this motion is an effort to 
close the process of Americanization to thousands of qualified human 
beings who are a valuable part of America's future. Mr. Speaker, 245(i) 
permits certain family and employment-based immigrants to adjust their 
status to that of permanent residence while remaining in the United 
States.
  The enactment of Section 245(i) has generated between $100 and $200 
million annually in additional revenues for the U.S. Government and 
reduces the State Department's visa processing caseload by an average 
of 30 percent. In 1996 the immigration law increased the fine from $650 
to $1,000 and required that at least 80 percent of the funds generated 
be deposited in a INS account, to be used as the INS wishes. Failure to 
extend this provision of the law would result in a shortage in 
resources for both the INS and the State Department and create a 
backlog in application processing.
  Section 245(i) is not an amnesty, it does not allow illegal 
immigrants to buy their U.S. status. It can only be used by prospective 
lawful permanent residents and under close and careful scrutiny of 
Federal authorities. In order to adjust their status under this 
provision of the law, eligible immigrants must meet the same criteria 
as they would if their visa applications were processed overseas.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I believe in the words of Ms. Emma 
Lazurus when she wrote:

     Give me your tired, your poor,
     Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
     The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
     Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
     I lift my lamp beside the golden door?

  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this motion 
and believe in the words of Emma Lazurus and I ask her clarion call 
become a relic of history? No, it is and will remain a viable statement 
of American values.
  Thank you Mr. Speaker and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
this motion to recommit, but also to express my hope that a compromise 
policy can be worked out in conference. I support the goal of this 
motion expressing support for House position to allow section 245(i) to 
sunset as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act because I 
believe that the Senate legislation, which would permanently extend 
this section 245(i), leaves a loophole which could encourage illegal 
immigration and allows those who violate our Nation's laws to buy a 
reprieve.
  But, while I agree with the intent of this motion to close a 
loophole, I believe that in doing so we should make allowances for 
those folks and their families and employers who will be greatly 
impacted by the loss of section 245(i). I am convinced that there is 
middle ground to be found here, and I support looking for a compromise 
between the House and Senate bills to provide for a temporary extension 
of this legislation to give us time to study its impact on illegal 
immigration or an extension which would help those folks who have made 
a good faith effort to comply with all our Nation's immigration laws 
and who fall out of legal status. To me, their situations are different 
from those folks who enter this country illegally.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to instruct 
conferees but also urge conferees to continue working to find the 
middle ground on this issue. While we should do everything in our power 
to encourage compliance with our Nation's immigration laws and to 
discourage illegal immigration, we must take into account the cases in 
which exceptions can be made and should be made which will not 
jeopardize these goals. I support and encourage my colleagues to 
support a compromise between the extremes of the House and Senate bills 
which will serve the interests of all American citizens.

                               Memorandum

     TO: CWS
     FROM: Julie Turner
     DATE: October 29, 1997

     RE the Rohrbacher Motion to Instruct Conferees on Commerce-
         State-Justice (The permanent extension of section 245(i) 
         of the Immigration Act)


                               background

       Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was a 
     temporary provision to allow individuals who are eligible for 
     an immigrant visa because of their employment or family 
     status to adjust their status (from illegal to legal) if they 
     pay a $1,000 fine to the INS. This provision was set to 
     sunset on September 30th. It was extended by the continuing 
     resolution, and the Senate Commerce-State-Justice 
     appropriation bill extends it permanently.


                                  pros

       Extending section 245(i) is important to high tech 
     businesses who rely on foreign workers (such as Texas 
     Instruments, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, etc).
       Extending 245(i) helps keep families together when some 
     members are here legally and others in the family are here 
     illegally or may have originally been here legally then 
     fallen into illegal status by overstaying their visa or 
     otherwise violating immigration laws.
       Section 245(i) does not apply to all illegal immigrants. It 
     applies only to those who are prospective lawful citizens who 
     must meet the same eligibility requirements they would face 
     if they were applying from their home country.
       The fine generated $130 million in revenue which the INS 
     used to detain illegal aliens, and eliminating the provision 
     would require these folks to go back to their home countries 
     to be processed thus shifting the burden of doing paperwork 
     including background checks to the State Departments consular 
     offices.
       Supporters of extending Section 245(i) include Colin 
     Peterson, Gary Condit, and Grover Norquist.


                                  cons

       This provision allows folks who are here illegally (either 
     by entering this country illegally or by falling out of legal 
     status) to simply pay a fine to erase their illegal status.
       Section 245(i) is used by people who entered this country 
     illegally but who gained a right to apply for legal status by 
     marrying a legal immigrant or having a child in the U.S.
       Supporters of ending Section 245(i) include Lamar Smith, 
     Brian Bilbray, and Dana Rohrbacher.
                                  ____


                     A Loophole in Immigration Law

              (By Steven A. Camarota and Jessica Vaughan)

       Just a year after Congress overwhelmingly passed a landmark 
     bill aimed at curbing illegal immigration, it is poised to 
     approve a loophole that renders one of the 1996 law's most 
     important reforms meaningless.
       The provision in question is section 245(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows illegal aliens 
     to undergo visa processing (i.e., receive a green card) in 
     the United States, provided they pay a fine of $1,000. Until 
     a few years ago, most of these individuals who have been 
     required to apply for a visa in their home country. This 
     controversial provision was scheduled to sunset on Sept. 30. 
     However, at the beginning of the month, after a flurry of 
     media coverage and intense pressure from interest groups, 
     Congress extended it for 23 days and is considering extending 
     it permanently.
       By definition, all of the beneficiaries of 245(i) are 
     illegal aliens. Proponents of high immigration have taken 
     pains to describe them as ``almost legal'' or ``on track for 
     a green card.'' While it is true they have approved petitions 
     from sponsors, giving them permission to apply, this is not 
     the same as being approved for a green card. Their 
     applications have yet to be screened for criminal and medical 
     history, the likelihood that the applicant will become 
     dependent on welfare or other disqualifers.
       The sunsetting of 245(i) is necessary in order to activate 
     a powerful enforcement tool passed last year. Anyone who has 
     been in the United States illegally for at least five months 
     can now be barred from reentering legally for either three or 
     10 years, depending on how long they were here illegally. In 
     the past, illegal aliens could apply for permanent residence 
     without penalty, even if they had been violating the law by 
     living in the United States for years. If 245(i) ends as 
     scheduled, any illegal alien who aspires to a green card will 
     have to return home within six months or be subject to the 
     new bar. The

[[Page H9653]]

     three-year/10-year bar was passed specifically with the 
     sunset of 245(i) in mind. If 245(i) is extended, illegal 
     aliens are shielded from the bar, rendering it meaningless.
       The advocates of extending 245(i) argue that because these 
     individuals are already here, there is little point in 
     forcing them to return home for their visa processing. Beyond 
     the disregard for the rule of law that this view represents, 
     it is also troubling because it fails to appreciate the 
     message it sends to those overseas who are considering 
     entering the country illegally.
       Illegal aliens are in effect being told that they may come 
     whenever they want and stay illegally for as long as it takes 
     until they get a visa. in fact, according to a recent 
     analysis by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 
     last year roughly 25 percent of legal immigrants were 245(i) 
     recipients--about 230,000 individuals. What's more, the State 
     Department estimates that perhaps 1 million people on visa 
     waiting lists are residing in the United States illegally. 
     Clearly, such a system encourages illegal immigration.
       In addition to contributing to illegal immigration, 245(i) 
     has other problematic aspects. The program creates a 
     potential conflict of interest for the INS. In fiscal year 
     1996 the INS collected roughly $200 million in fines from 
     245(i) recipients. Thus, the INS is in the awkward position 
     of arguing that illegal aliens should be allowed to stay 
     because the agency needs the money their fines generate.
       What's more, what does the 245(i) program say to those who 
     are playing by the rules and patiently waiting their turn to 
     come to the United States? This is the immigration policy 
     equivalent of the Redskins ignoring the waiting list for 
     season tickets and allowing anyone who manages to sneak into 
     Jack Kent Cooke Stadium to stay and watch the game from 
     whatever seat they can find, provided they pay a $50 fine.
       There is also the question of which agency can best process 
     visa applications. Recently the blue ribbon commission on 
     Immigration Reform recommended that the State Department take 
     over all visa functions from the INS. State Department 
     personnel abroad know the local languages and customs and are 
     in contact with local authorities. Thus, they are far better 
     equipped to evaluate visa applications than the INS. 
     Moreover, allowing people to apply for visas from within the 
     United States makes any effort to keep out those who are 
     found ineligible, such as criminals, totally ineffective 
     because even if their applications are denied their chances 
     of being deported are slim.
       Clearly, any policy that results in more illegal 
     immigration should be carefully considered. There are now 
     about 5 million illegal aliens living in the country, with 
     400,000 more settling each year. Ample research indicates 
     that the presence of illegal aliens depresses wages for other 
     workers who are forced to compete with them for low-wage 
     jobs. Also, illegal aliens work disproportionately in the 
     underground economy and hold low-wage jobs, and thus 
     typically pay very little in taxes--yet, they sue such costly 
     taxpayer-provided services as education, public hospitals and 
     the criminal justice system.
       The upcoming decision on section 245(i) is ultimately about 
     whether Congress places a higher value on the convenience of 
     illegal aliens or on effective and fair immigration 
     enforcement.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 October 23, 1997.
       Dear Member of Congress: I would like to respond to some of 
     the misinformation that has been disseminated in the context 
     of the debate over extension of Section 245(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Those who claim that business don't need Section 245(i) are 
     being either intentionally misleading or don't understand 
     immigration law. Allegations that 245(i) only benefits 
     ``illegal aliens'' are simply not true. Section 245(i) is the 
     sole method for certain individuals to adjust their status 
     here in the United States. Section 245(i) cannot help an 
     ``illegal alien'' who does not already have a legal basis for 
     obtaining permanent residency.
       Section 245(i) does not, under any circumstances, give an 
     individual a substantive right to convert his or her status 
     from illegal to legal. Section 245(i) helps many people who 
     have unintentionally violated their status. For example, a 
     foreign student here on a non-immigrant visa who drops a 
     class one summer to lighten his course load may unwittingly 
     change from a full-time student to a part-time student. If 
     this is the case, this student has violated the terms of his 
     non-immigrant visa. This innocent and unknowing violation of 
     his status makes him ineligible to adjust his status through 
     Section 245(a). His only option is 245(i).
       Sunset of this provision will have a highly detrimental 
     impact on U.S. businesses. Our business community hires many 
     foreign nationals with crucial, hard to obtain skills. These 
     individuals are an integral part of operations at companies 
     such as Motorola, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and Bell 
     Atlantic. These individuals are often sponsored by their 
     employers to adjust their status to permanent residence 
     because of their importance to company operations.
       An approved non-immigrant visa petition must be constantly 
     updated, with no room for any margin of error. If a person 
     works for a company that has gone through a merger or an 
     acquisition, or if the person is transferred or has undergone 
     a change of job title, that person's application must be 
     updated and re-filed. Many times this is overlooked, because 
     the individual and the company are not immigration law 
     experts, and are unaware that failure to update the 
     application renders the individual out of status.
       Section 245(i) is the only way valued employees can adjust 
     their status if they have, at any time, gone out of status. 
     Extension of Section 245(i) becomes even more crucial to U.S. 
     business when viewed in conjunction with the Illegal 
     Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (IIRAIRA). IIRAIRA bans individuals who have violated their 
     status from entering the United States for 3 or even 10 
     years. If Section 245(i) is not permanently extended and an 
     employee must leave the country to obtain permanent 
     residence, that employee could be barred from entering the 
     United States for at least 3 years, and possibly 10. Their 
     absence will greatly disrupt U.S. companies, and put them at 
     a distinct disadvantage in a competitive marketplace.
       Section 245(i) raises badly needed revenue for the INS. 
     This provision raised over $200 million in fiscal year 1997. 
     Most of those funds went directly to the INS to combat 
     illegal immigration. It is baffling why those opposed to 
     245(i) would eliminate a provision that aids in the fight 
     against illegal immigration.
       Permanent extension of 245(i) makes sense because it can 
     only be used in individuals who are already eligible for 
     permanent residence, it raises badly needed revenue for the 
     INS to combat illegal immigration, and it gives U.S. 
     companies the flexibility they need to attract and retain 
     crucial, highly-skilled employees. I urge you to support 
     permanent extension of Section 245(i).
           Sincerely,
                                                Laura Foote Reiff,
                                        Partner, Baker & McKenzie.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion 
to instruct conferees to block the extension of section 245(i).
  According to INS statistics, two-thirds of those using 245(i) are the 
spouses and children of American citizens and lawful permanent 
residents. Another portion is used by skilled immigrants sponsored by 
companies.
  Section 245(i) can only be used by prospective lawful permanent 
residents and under careful scrutiny of Federal authorities. In order 
to adjust their status, eligible immigrants must meet the same criteria 
they would if their visa applications were reviewed overseas.
  Allowing section 245(i) to expire will force a cruel separation of 
families. Silas Archila, who lives in my district in San Francisco, is 
in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. He and his wife run a child 
care center. If his wife is not able to adjust her status through 
section 245(i), she will be forced to leave him to be a single parent 
of their 4-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, and she will be barred 
for 3 years from immigrating to the United States.
  Allowing section 245(i) to expire will force many battered immigrant 
women to return to countries that cannot protect them--even though, as 
part of their Violence Against Women Act case, each woman has already 
proven to the INS that returning to that country and being forced to 
leave the United States would cause her and her children extreme 
hardship.
  Failure to permanently extend this provision places unnecessary 
burdens on families and businesses, which will also suffer from the 
loss of skilled workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this motion as I understand it would 
effectively terminate the 245(i) program which permits immigrants who 
have overstayed their travel student visas to qualify for legal 
citizenship by remaining in the United States and paying a $1,000 fee 
to the INS. I fully understand the concerns of many Oregonians who 
support extending this program indefinitely. However, I have also heard 
from some of my constituents who oppose extending this program because 
it would invite illegal boarder crossings. I do not support any measure 
that would unravel the progress we have made in enacting tough 
immigration reform laws passed during the 104th Congress.
   I have long been a strong advocate of sensible immigration reform. 
That is why I voted for the Immigration Reform Act of 1996, which 
increases the number of border patrol agents and cuts the number of 
legal immigrants entering the United States. However, this motion 
places an arbitrary limit on the hundreds of legal immigrants who are 
currently being processed for residency status.
  The 245(i) program applies to immigrants who have overstayed their 
visa and are eligible for residency status. The program also applies to 
individuals who are here legally and are seeking citizenship so that 
they do not have to return to their native country and wait 3 years 
before they can enter the United States as a legal immigrant. Most 
applicants of this program are spouses and children of U.S. citizens 
who would otherwise become eligible for permanent resident status. 
However, for those who enter illegally, this program should not apply.
  I will vote present on this motion because it does not let Congress 
take a more pragmatic approach. I believe we can balance the concerns 
of both points of view. This motion does not distinguish between legal 
and illegal immigrants but 245(i) would apply for both. I believe we 
should make this important distinction

[[Page H9654]]

so that people entering illegally will not be allowed to enter under 
the same conditions as those who enter legally. This approach does not 
let immigrants violate current immigration laws but would allow those 
currently seeking residency status to complete the process.
  In the spirit of enacting fair and sensible immigration policy, 
Congress should adopt a more realistic termination date so that current 
applicants waiting to join their families here are not forced to leave 
the U.S. immediately.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
motion to instruct conferees on Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 
for fiscal year 1998.
  This motion to instruct would throw another roadblock before the 
conferees, by insisting on House language that allows section 245(i) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act to sunset.
  A significant proportion of people who use 245(i) never intended to 
break the law. Rather, they were tripped up by the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, which is arguably second only to the Tax Code in its 
sheer complexity. My colleagues who have criticized the Internal 
Revenue Service for strictly enforcing arcane tax laws will agree that 
honest mistakes happen. Likewise, these 245(i) applicants are not 
running from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not 
fighting the paperwork requirements or griping about the $1,000 
penalty. All they want is to retain the opportunity they now have in 
the law to set things right and get on with their lives.
  Let us be clear: To be eligible to adjust status under section 
245(i), these intending immigrants must meet all other immigration 
requirements: they must not have a criminal record; they must not be 
terrorists; they cannot belong to the Communist Party; they may not 
have an illness that presents a public health hazard; and they cannot 
be at risk of becoming a public charge. They still go through the 
criminal background and health checks that any other visa applicant 
does--they simply do it here in the United States.
  For this same reason, section 245(i) will not stop deportations. In 
the first place, it is extremely rare for persons who find themselves 
in deportation proceedings to have a visa approved, ready and waiting 
for them, so they could not even apply to adjust status under 245(i). 
This fiscal year, INS removals skyrocketed to nearly 100,000, despite 
the fact that 245(i) was in effect. Clearly 245(i) has not interfered 
with deportations in the slightest.
  Foes of 245(i) call it a unique, special concession under immigration 
law. This is untrue. Every day we allow people to cross our borders on 
fiancee visas, so they can marry U.S. citizens. Yet, we allow these 
fiancees to complete their immigrant processing here in the United 
States.
  Furthermore, keeping section 245(i) makes fiscal sense. At least 80 
percent of the penalties paid--$74 million this year alone--pay for 
detaining criminal aliens whom the INS seeks to deport. The INS budget 
receives $100 million per year from 245(i) penalties, but unfortunately 
this motion to instruct does not say where we should cut to make up the 
loss of funding.
  Meanwhile, the State Department would have to shoulder a greatly 
increased burden of visa processing. Since fiscal year 1994 when 245(i) 
was instituted, appropriators have been able to significantly cut 
spending on U.S. consular staff abroad, because 30 percent of their 
immigrant visa traffic was using 245(i) to be processed stateside by 
INS. This appropriations bill does not restore this lost funding for 
overseas consular staff, so the Department of State will leave visa 
applicants subject to ever longer delays in processing and will create 
a bureaucratic nightmare for thousands of U.S. families and businesses.
  The Senate voted overwhelmingly--99 to 0--to adopt its version of the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, which included language 
to make 245(i) permanent. They had good reason to do so. Not only does 
245(i) keep families intact until permanent residency becomes 
available, it also helps businesses keep some of their most unique, 
valuable, skilled employees. This skill base keeps hundreds of U.S. 
firms competitive in the international marketplace.
  Scores of America's leading companies support making 245(i) a 
permanent part of U.S. law, including: AT&T, Apple Computers, Bayer 
Corp., Digital Equipment Corp., Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Co., Hewlett-
Packard, INTEL, Maytag, Merck, Microsoft, Monsanto, Motorola, Procter & 
Gamble, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, TRW, Westinghouse 
Electric, and Xerox. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants 245(i) to 
continue. I am baffled as to why my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would not listen to these business and industry leaders on this 
issue.
  This debate is not a question of whether these intending immigrants 
will eventually get a green card. They will get a green card, so long 
as American relatives or employers sponsor them.
  Killing 245(i) will not bring integrity to our immigration system. 
What it will do is cost the INS revenue for detaining criminal aliens, 
drop a staggering, unfunded workload onto the Department of State, 
disrupt family reunification, and interrupt business activity and 
innovation in our leading industries--just so we can send a message 
that minor immigration violations will not be tolerated.
  Kicking hundreds of thousands of immigrants out of the country for 
minor violations makes no practical or fiscal sense. It doesn't help 
America fight illegal immigration. It is merely a way for hard-line 
immigration opponents to make an example of the very people who are 
trying to do the right thing.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today we will have a vote on a 
provision of the Nation's immigration law referred to as section 
245(i). I hope my colleagues will vote against repealing this provision 
of the law.
  Section 245(i) allows individuals who are on the brink of becoming 
legal permanent residents to adjust their status without having to 
leave the country. The majority of these individuals are the spouses 
and children of American citizens.
  Without this provision we tell these future citizens they must leave 
the country and leave their families and wait for perhaps years to be 
reunited with them in the United States. During that waiting time, they 
cannot re-enter the country to visit their families for any reason--not 
to attend a family wedding not to attend a family baptism, not even to 
attend a family funeral.
  Having said that, I understand what my colleague from California is 
trying to accomplish and I have to believe that somehow we can 
negotiate and draft legislation that will punish the bad and not the 
good.
  Compassion is a hallmark of the American people; it is part of our 
character as a nation. Today's vote will be a test of our compassion. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose repeal of this law.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against the 
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2267, the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
  I support section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 
provision allows certain immigrants to have their papers processed here 
in order to become permanent residents, rather than requiring them to 
return to their home country. Section 245(i) is available only to 
people who are already eligible to become permanent residents, that is, 
those who are sponsored by close family members or by employers who 
cannot find eligible U.S. workers, and whose ``priority date'' is 
current under existing quotas. The provision does not, as alleged, give 
illegal immigrants the right to live in the United States. Nor does the 
provision change the order in which a person's claim is adjudicated. 
There is one single worldwide line for everyone waiting for their 
immigrant visa.
  People adjusting status under section 245(i) are screened to make 
sure that they are barred from obtaining a green card on grounds such 
as criminal offenses, health problems, becoming a public charge, or 
other thresholds of inadmissibility. In addition, people applying under 
section 245(i) must submit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to verify that they have no disqualifying criminal 
history in the United States or in their home country.
  If section 245(i) is not extended, both the Immigration and 
Naturalization [INS] and the State Department will be adversely 
impacted by a significant shift in workload. INS will lose personnel 
and money now earmarked for badly needed apprehension and detention 
efforts. Section 245(i) generated about $200 million in revenues in 
fiscal year 1996, of which 80 percent was used for detention. U.S. 
consulates abroad will be under great strain due to the increased 
workload without the additional resources that section 245(i) provides. 
U.S. citizens who seek services from one of these agencies will suffer, 
not just those individuals who could have used section 245(i).
  Section 245(i) allows business to keep valued employees, allows 
families to stay together, and pays for detention.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
important motion.
  In my view, our Nation can only be secure when its borders are 
secure. In recent years, and Nation's illegal alien population has 
reached intolerable levels--levels that threaten American jobs and 
place tremendous burdens on government services. America can no longer 
withstand the flood of illegal immigration.
  Last year, Congress passed landmark legislation that, once and for 
all, cracked down on illegal immigration to our great Nation. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision of law known as 
245(i), which I believe undermines the intent of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform Act, sends the wrong message to the world, and 
seriously threatens our national security. It does so by allowing 
illegal aliens to

[[Page H9655]]

pay the INS $1,000 to change their status from illegal to legal without 
appropriate back ground checks.
  Who benefits most from 245(i)? People who illegally cross our borders 
or overstay their visas. In other words, it benefits illegal aliens. 
Consequently, 245(i) sends a dangerous message to the world. The 
message. ``Don't wait to legally enter the United States. Come 
illegally and have your status adjusted for only $1,000.''
  Mr. Speaker, 245(i) also creates a very real threat to our Nation's 
national security and to the safety of our citizens. While many aliens 
who come to this country illegally do so to find a better way of life, 
others have more sinister reasons. The recent arrest in New York of two 
possible suicide bombers illustrates how easily criminals and 
terrorists can evade our immigration controls. Simply put, 245(i) makes 
it easier for dangerous criminals and terrorists to enter and remain in 
this country. Worse yet, they can stay without being subjected to 
criminal background checks in their home countries.
  If this is true, then why would the INS support 245(i)? The answer is 
simple, Mr. Speaker. The INS supports 245(i) to make a buck and to 
lighten their caseload. For example, INS argues that it needs 245(i) 
because the provision expedites thousands of green card applications a 
year. They also say that the provision raises more than $200 million a 
year in badly needed funds. Yet, at $1,000 per person, INS is allowing 
more than 200,000 additional illegal aliens a year to remain in this 
country. I do not believe that INS should continue to risk American 
lives, create additional burdens on government services, and cost 
American jobs just to make a buck or to lighten their caseload.
  Mr. Speaker, 245(i) may work well for illegal aliens and INS, but it 
does not work well for the American people. It is time we do the right 
thing and let 245(i) expire. I urge your support of this important 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 153, 
nays 268, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 541]

                               YEAS--153

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Houghton
     Kelly
     McIntosh
     Payne
     Riley
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1617

  Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. McINNIS and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HEFLEY, SOLOMON, PACKARD and DeLAY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________