[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.
____________________