[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10568-H10574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996 
                               AMENDMENT

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 2920) to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to modify the requirements for 
implementation of an entry-exit control system.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2920

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled,

     SEC. 1 MODIFICATION OF ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.

       Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), strike ``Act,'' and insert ``Act (and not later than 3 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act in the case 
     of land border points of entry),'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1), strike ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in subsection (a)(2), strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``; and'';
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
       ``(3) not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other 
     legitimate cross-border traffic at land border points of 
     entry.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has required the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service to develop and implement a system to track the entry and exits 
of those crossing our borders. The purpose of this bill is to make sure 
that such a system will not substantially impede trade or traffic 
across our borders, both northern and southern.
  The intent is, first, to set a reasonable time frame for the 
development and implementation of an exit/entry system and, second, to 
reaffirm that it is the policy of this Congress that such a system is 
to be developed so that, upon implementation, it will not substantially 
impede trade or border crossings.
  Understandably, this matter may be of particular concern to those 
States along our northern border. Unlike the southern border, there are 
relatively few northern border entry points and they already are 
congested by high volumes of traffic frequently using one- and two-lane 
highways and bridges. Any further slowdown in the flow of such traffic 
could be seen as hurting the economies of many States, especially New 
York, Michigan, and Washington State, but also Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
Maine, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and New 
Hampshire.
  States along our southern border, where 2\1/2\ times as many 
individuals were inspected than were along our northern border in 
fiscal year 1997, are more experienced in addressing these kinds of 
problems. For instance, today in San Diego thousands drove across the 
border and were monitored electronically. Some entry points on our 
southern border have as many as 23 lanes to speed traffic.
  Increased trade with Mexico has spurred investments in the 
construction of major new crossings elsewhere. What this bill does is 
reassure all Americans and our neighbors both to the north and to the 
south that, as the United States exercises its right to control its 
borders, it is also committed to facilitating trade.
  We should expand our Nation's capacities to trade with our neighbors 
as well as facilitate the lawful crossing of citizens on both sides of 
our borders. Unfortunately, many people enter our country along our 
northern and southern borders legally but, wrongfully, never return 
home. Forty percent of the estimated 5 million illegal aliens in the 
country today entered in such a manner, overstaying their visas.
  The United States needs to develop an entry-exit system to fairly and 
effectively address these illegal overstays, but we must do so in a 
manner that does not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other 
legitimate cross-border traffic.
  Some may suggest this bill would set a different standard for people 
crossing our northern border. Any such suggestion is contradicted by 
the facts. This bill treats our southern and northern borders exactly 
the same. It makes no distinction.
  Again, this bill is an affirmation of two important national 
policies; one, that we have a right and duty to control our borders; 
and, two, that it is in the best interest of the United States and our 
neighbors both to the north and south to act so as to facilitate trade 
and border crossings.
  Our task in the House today is to ensure that border crossings will 
not be substantially impeded while we also protect the Nation's 
interest in being able to control our borders. And that is exactly what 
this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the ranking minority 
member.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2920.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
I have had the opportunity this year to learn a great deal about 
America's borders and the importance of securing the borders against 
illegal immigration, narcotic, and alien smugglers, and potential 
terrorists. Because of this, I have supported efforts by the chairman 
of our subcommittee to increase security along the southwest border of 
the United States.
  Because of the success along the southwest border, pressure has 
increased along the northern border. I recognize that there is a long 
tradition of openness between the United States and Canada along the 
northern border, but times are changing, and I believe our policies 
must adjust to reflect these changes.

[[Page H10569]]

  There have been numerous incidents of alien smugglers bringing in 
hundreds of illegal immigrants across the border between Ontario and 
upstate New York. One of the terrorists on trial for participating in 
the conspiracy to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel in New York entered the 
United States from Canada. The Canadian border must be as secure as the 
southern border. Otherwise, we might as well put a neon light over the 
Canadian border inviting immigrants to come across it with impunity.
  Section 110 provides that by October 1, 1998, the Attorney General 
will develop an automated entry and exit control system that will 
collect a record of departure of every alien departing the United 
States and match the records of departure with the records of aliens 
arriving in the United States. This would enable the Attorney General 
to identify folks who are overstaying their visas or staying in the 
country illegally.
  In fairness, the language of this bill is neutral on its face and 
makes no direct reference to Canada. Make no mistake about it, however; 
this bill is about treating Canada and the northern border differently 
from Mexico and the southern border.
  There are already stringent entry control systems in place along the 
southwest border. Because the INS has a record of every entry from 
Mexico, it is able to determine when someone entered the United States 
and whether they overstayed or violated the terms of that entry. This 
is not the case along the Canadian border.
  Crossing into the United States from Canada is not unlike driving 
through a toll booth. Passengers answer some routine questions, and if 
they are citizens or legal permanent residents of either Canada or the 
United States, they are flagged through. Once in the United States, 
Canadians are virtually indistinguishable from other Americans. Perhaps 
that is why Canada ranks fourth as the source country for illegal 
immigrants in the United States.
  There are at least 120,000 Canadians working illegally in the United 
States, and none of these people entered the country illegally. Nearly 
half of all the illegal immigrants in the United States overstaying the 
terms of their valid tourist or student visa came in through the 
Canadian border. Overstaying or violating the terms of valid visas is 
the illegal immigration method of choice for Canadian, Europeans, and 
others who know that the INS will never find them.
  Section 110 of the illegal immigration reform bill was specifically 
designed to give the INS the tools to combat this problem. If my 
colleagues are truly committed to combating illegal immigration in all 
its forms, if my colleagues want an immigration policy that does not 
distinguish between white Canadians and colored Mexicans, then we must 
enforce the laws on an equal basis and do it in a racially color-blind 
way.

  I think this bill does not support that proposition, and I rise in 
opposition to the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Smith] for yielding me the time.
  I really am sorry that this bill is being characterized as dealing 
with only one of our borders. And I really am upset with the 
Congressional Quarterly, which put out a publication this morning here 
which said ``U.S.-Canadian border controls,'' and it talks about our 
legislation.
  Well, our legislation is sponsored by Members from all of the borders 
from all over the country. It is not just, sure, I am concerned about 
it because it deals with New York State. But my colleagues ought to, I 
think, listen carefully to the debate.
  Last year, Congress did pass legislation which would require the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to document the entry and 
departure of every alien in the United States beginning no later than 
September 30, 1998. That is really just around the corner when we start 
talking about putting in this kind of a program.
  This legislation, with the best of intentions, was designed to 
prevent visa overstays and control the flow of illegal immigrants and 
the transmission of illegal drugs, terrorism, and other things. The 
problem is that this legislation, as it is currently drafted, could 
have a devastating effect on commerce, on tourism, along the Texas 
border, the California border, and all across all of the borders across 
the northern United States, on both sides of the borders.

                              {time}  2345

  In New York State, we have many, many corporations that have 
corporations right across the border, and many United States citizens, 
New Yorkers, live in New York and work in Canada. There are many other 
corporations who have the same businesses in both countries and they 
have Canadian citizens that come across the border daily. Many of them 
are nurses and doctors, of which we have a real shortage in northern 
New York, for jobs.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McHUGH. The gentleman made mention of treating the two borders 
differently and I think that is an important fact. It is my 
understanding that this bill treats both borders equally, that the 
delay applies equally to both borders. So I would suggest to the 
gentleman that is not an issue in this particular context.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say that this bill is simple. It delays the 
implementation of the exit and entry control system until 1999. It will 
take that long to implement the system, anyway, even if we were to let 
it go ahead.
  In addition, it adds statutory language which specifically requires, 
and I think this is what we need to listen to, because this affects 
American jobs, this adds statutory language which specifically requires 
that any automated system, implemented by the INS, will not disrupt 
trade, tourism or any other legitimate border crossing traffic.
  Mr. Speaker, the value of trade crossing on all our borders is 
immense. For instance, direct trade between New York State and Canada 
totaled $24 billion last year alone. I could go on and on. In New York 
State, many merchants and communities along the Canadian border owe at 
least 50 percent of their business to Canadian visitors. The same thing 
is true in Texas and in California. I hope my colleagues can support 
the legislation. It is very important to us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce].
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, first, I strongly support this bill, 
although the bill does not go far enough. I support it in the hope that 
we can go further within conference with the Senate. Why does the bill 
not go far enough? Because it simply delays the effective date with 
respect to land borders from September 30, 1998 to September 30, 1999. 
The Clinton administration has said to this Congress section 110 cannot 
be enforced. The Clinton administration has said to this Congress with 
respect to land borders, repeal section 110 because it cannot be 
implemented. They have submitted legislation to this Congress calling 
for its repeal, and all we are doing in this bill is delaying the 
effective date for one year. The Clinton administration says it cannot 
be enforced, repeal it with respect to land borders.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced some other bills. In September I 
introduced H.R. 2481. Yesterday I introduced a companion bill to 
Senator Abraham's bill, H.R. 2955. I believe that the bill that Senator 
Abraham has introduced in the United States Senate, to which a few 
dozen of us cosponsored yesterday, is the more appropriate approach.
  I am not an expert on the Mexican border. I consider myself an expert 
on the Canadian border, however. When I was a young boy, I lived 
perhaps two blocks away from the Peace Bridge going from the United 
States to Canada and vice versa. That is where I played baseball, that 
is where I learned how to swim, play tennis. We used to walk across the 
Peace Bridge to Canada, to go swimming, to go fishing as easily as one 
would go from Virginia to Maryland to the District of Columbia, as 
easily as one would go from North Carolina to South Carolina. We pride 
ourselves on a shared border, on an

[[Page H10570]]

open border. Do not regress in history. Do not turn aside 200 years of 
history and build a wall around the United States. Do not say to 
individuals, before you can leave the United States, we must document 
each and every person leaving the United States. We have never done 
that before, we ought not to do it now. At the very least, delay its 
implementation until September 30, 1999 rather than September 30, 1998, 
when cooler heads might be able to prevail.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I have some concerns about H.R. 
2920 that have been raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
LaFalce]. I do believe that section 110 of this immigration reform bill 
does require some revision, or some study.
  As a Representative from Michigan, a State which shares a wide border 
with Canada, I have strong concerns about the impact that section 110 
may have on States all across the northern border. Implementation of 
this system would slow commerce to a virtual standstill. Let me give 
Members an example in my State of Michigan. For example, in Detroit 
alone, in Port Huron, some 30,000 motorists, actually more than that, 
30,000, at the Ambassador Bridge alone cross daily. In fact, the 
President of the International Bridge Company has testified that that 
could result in backups, delays, and I am talking about people that 
work on both sides of the river, both sides, it would back up traffic 
perhaps halfway to Flint, Michigan, 40 or 50 miles, and on the Canadian 
side even further. In particular, this system would cripple the 
automotive industry and the local economy which, as Members, know 
depends upon just in time deliveries.
  What I would like to do, if I could, I wanted to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman to make a determination, and I think the 
way the bill reads right now is that border crossings will not be 
substantially impeded. We have a great deal at risk here. I wanted to 
get the gentleman's assurance that that would be the case.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is correct. The language in this 
bill is mandatory and says that the entry-exit system shall not 
significantly disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate cross border 
traffic. I believe the bill will do exactly what the gentleman would 
like to see done.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If I could reclaim my time, I would like to just say 
that I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] has an idea that 
is shared by a number of others. We want to do what obviously is best. 
We have some time now to do that. I thank the gentleman for making a 
clarification.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  To the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, we never had hearings on this. This was introduced up in 
the Committee on Rules and shot through here like a bullet. This is a 
very important subject. Does the gentleman have any idea why we did 
not? It is our committee. It is the gentleman's subcommittee. We never 
had hearings. I guess that does not matter.
  Now he comes here in the middle of the night telling us this is a 
very critical matter. We have all kind of hearings all year long on 
everything in the gentleman's subcommittee. I, for one, if I have any 
sympathies for this measure, do not like the process that it was 
carried on in.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2920, providing for a 1-year 
delay in section 110 of last year's immigration bill (requiring a 
border card on the Canadian and Mexican borders).
  No Member is more concerned about the potential problems caused by 
section 110 than I am. We can see Windsor, Canada from my district. 
Last year United States trade with Canada was over $355 billion making 
it the largest exchange between any two countries in the world. Of that 
figure, 57 billion dollars worth of goods were traded with Michigan--
giving it a larger share of trade with Canada than any other State. The 
State Department has stated, ``Section 110 represents a serious speed 
bump on the continued expansion of our economic relationships--one 
which could literally cause traffic across our northern land border to 
slow to a crawl.''
  However, H.R. 2920 is the wrong fix at the wrong time. This is a 
difficult problem which involves sensitive and complex issues 
concerning trade, drug running, tourism, and illegal immigration. Yet, 
the bill comes to this floor without the benefit of any committee 
hearings, debate, or report.
  The bill is strongly opposed by the Canadian Government. They have 
written:

       In a nutshell, Canada opposes the bill because it would 
     only postpone a problem that really needs to be eliminated . 
     . . under the present circumstances, the best course of 
     action would be to refer H.R. 2920 to Committee, in order for 
     it to be properly debated before being brought before the 
     full House for a vote.

  From my perspective, there are far preferable approaches available. 
The Senate has already conducted two hearings on the issue and Senator 
Abraham has introduced legislation (S. 1360) which provides for a full 
exemption from the land border crossing requirements while we study the 
problems of implementing this vast new bureaucracy. A counterpart bill 
(H.R. 2955) has been introduced in the House which is supported by the 
administration.
  In order to consider these and other responses, we need to vote this 
bill down today, so we can look at this issue in the Judiciary 
Committee with more than 24 hours notice.
  H.R. 2920 is a ``Band-Aid quick fix'' which does not provide the 
proper solution for our border control concerns. Section 110 is not 
scheduled to be implemented until October 1998. We have plenty of time 
to hold committee hearings and develop a practical bipartisan solution 
to this problem.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I just want to mention that I know this legislation is approved 
also by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the 
committee. I think this is critical. I am glad that we are acting, 
because the implementation date of September 30, 1998 could cause 
tremendous disruption in Michigan, not only to tourist traffic but to 
trade and to our economy. I think this new statutory requirement that 
this automated system will be delayed until 1999, and it will not 
disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate cross border traffic is a 
good thing. I strongly support the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just find it very amazing that all of 
these representations are being said about what disruption is going to 
happen on the Canadian border as if the same disruptions do not happen 
on the southeastern border and the southern border. There is absolutely 
no distinction between the northern border and the southern border. The 
same arguments that apply on the northern border apply on the southern 
border. All these people are talking about, well, 50 years ago I used 
to play on the Canadian border. Fifty years ago we all used to keep our 
doors unlocked at night. But nobody does that now. We have turned up 
the pressure on the southern border and people are going around, coming 
in the northern border as if it is a sieve. It was the Republicans who 
kept telling us last year that we had to secure our borders. Now they 
are back making exception after exception after exception.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Everett]. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am confused about who is managing the 
time on that side of the aisle. I have heard the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] yield time, but then I am told that the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has the time. Who is managing 
the time on that side of the aisle? And how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is 
managing the time for the minority.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
has 10\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] 
has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. McHugh].

[[Page H10571]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McHugh was allowed to speak out of order.)


 Request for Authority for Speaker to Designate Time for Resumption of 
 Proceedings on Remaining Motions to Suspend Rules Considered Monday, 
                           September 29, 1997

  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be 
authorized to designate a time not later than the legislative day of 
November 14, 1997, for resumption of proceedings on the seven remaining 
motions to suspend the rules originally debated on September 29, 1997.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
object, I am afraid I did not understand what the gentleman was doing 
in the midst of the debate on this bill. Would the gentleman restate 
what he is doing?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am informed 
that the unanimous-consent request had already been agreed to and I was 
reading the text of that into the Record.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. There cannot be a unanimous consent that 
is agreed to if he is asking unanimous consent on the floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] 
has reserved the right to object.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unanimous consent request, 
and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, evidently my good friend, the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and he is a good friend, did not hear 
my testimony earlier. I spoke about the borders of California, about 
the borders of Texas.
  As my colleagues know, we are talking about all of the borders of 
this land. This legislation affects the borders on California, the 
borders on Texas, the borders on all across the northern part of the 
country. They are all affected the same, and we should not be trying to 
mislead, and I thank the gentleman from New York for having yielded me 
the time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would just add to my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], he asked why have we not had any hearings, 
and I think that is an appropriate point. I would suggest to him that 
this arose very quickly because very quickly the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service came to us in my office and said, ``By the way 
you will be the lucky recipient of a test program.'' We felt that that 
had not had hearings. That indeed had not been an issue discussed, and 
I would suggest to the gentleman that the entire point behind delaying 
the implementation of this bill for years was to provide the gentleman 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and others who have a direct 
and very understandable interest in this with the opportunity to have 
the hearings, and therefore I believe we should support this for the 
very reasons he stated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Now there is no urgency on this bill. This is not an appropriation. 
This is not anything. It has not had a hearing, and here we are at 
midnight and one of the last days of the first session of the 105th 
Congress talking about a 1-year extension. We had plenty of time to 
hold all the hearings in the world in the Committee on the Judiciary, 
which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has never held on this 
subject. Now the Senate has held hearings on this subject, and by the 
way, the other body has no inclination whatsoever, whatsoever to pass 
this measure.
  So what I am saying is that the best reason to be against this 
measure is that we do not understand its import and we are not in any 
rush. This measure does not expire until October 1998.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I do not want to get caught in the crossfire of who had or did not 
have hearings, but there is some urgency to this matter, and it is very 
uncomplicated.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for this immigration bill to begin with 
because I thought it was going to have many of the problems that have 
come up because it is so complicated, and the border between the United 
States and Canada is one of the most complex. It is also the longest 
open, free, unguarded border in the entire world. Every day a billion 
dollars in goods and services cross the border from Canada to the 
United States and back and forth.
  In an era of just-in-time delivery of goods, it is extremely 
important that we have a smooth flow across the U.S.-Canada border for 
that billion dollars daily of economic activity to survive. But with 
this legislation the more than 76 million people who enter the United 
States by land from Canada are going to line up, be checked in, have 
long waiting lines.
  And let me just tell, my colleagues, what happens from the 
International Falls Daily Journal newspaper, the northern border of my 
district, a place that most of my colleagues will recognize as the cold 
spot of America. Right across the water is Fort Francis, Canada. Mark 
Elliot crosses the International Bridge of the United States nearly 
every day to visit his girlfriend in International Falls. Crossing 
between these countries normally takes very little time because he is 
such a familiar face, he and many other residents. But a law scheduled 
to take effect in 1998 will make his visits more difficult.
  That is what it is all about. It comes down to one human being. This 
is a border control, this is an entry/departure control measure, it is 
not an inspection requirement. It is going to build up complexity 
between our two countries. It is going to build up complexity between 
the United States and Mexico. The amendment that we are considering 
tonight applies to both borders, will resolve these complexities.
  I do not address the United States-Mexico situation because I do not 
live there, and I do not understand that problem, but I do understand 
United States-Canada, and for every individual to have to have an entry 
or departure control document is going to, for those 76 million 
crossings, is going to be extraordinarily complex. I can imagine it 
would be even worse on the United States-Mexican border.
  It is not difficult to understand the problem. This is a very simple 
fix of 1 year delay. Give us time to adjust, to think out, what this 
language means. We should not have passed that bill in the first place, 
but having passed it, this mistake ought to be corrected.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  To the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], my ranking member on 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my best friend, No. 
1, that guy with the girlfriend in Canada, one of them ought to move. 
No. 2, the Canadian Government, not that we give a hoot about their 
opinion, is totally opposed to what we are doing, not that that 
matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Reyes].
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and now I can perhaps give some personal perspective to what is 
being discussed here this evening in the hypothetical, although I will 
tell my colleagues that hearing some of the impassioned reasons like 
trade, commerce, long waiting lines, tourism, congestion; as my 
colleagues know, they are discussing Canada, but they are describing 
the southern border with Mexico, and my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], made mention that perhaps this bill should 
never have been passed.
  Well, absolutely there were a lot of things that were passed in this 
House before I was able to be here that should not have been passed. 
There were a lot of things that we are going to have to go back and 
address because they are simply not fair, and what we are doing here 
this evening is simply not fair.
  And I can tell my colleagues as a ex-immigration officer, as an ex-
border patrol chief, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is 
absolutely correct. If we shut down the southern border, guess where 
they are going to smuggle from? Guess where intelligence today tells 
the United States

[[Page H10572]]

Border Patrol, the United States Customs, the United States Immigration 
Service, the United States Secret Service, guess where the focus of 
entry is? Guess where the only documented cases of entries into this 
country for terrorism have come through? It has not been through 
Mexico, because, no, we have been pretty darn tough on Mexico. It has 
been through the Canadian border, because, as several of my colleagues 
have said, heck, we have an open border up there.
  I grew up there. I played baseball. I went back and forth. There is a 
gentleman that has got a girlfriend and goes back and forth. Well, 
guess what? Those same things could describe the relationship between 
Texans and Mexico, between New Mexicans and Mexico, between Arizona and 
Mexico, between southern California and Mexico. All of those things are 
appropriate, all of those things apply to the southern border of the 
United States as well.
  And my point here tonight is that this issue is about fairness. This 
issue is about listening to ourselves as we make these arguments in 
some inane way where the people on the southern border cannot 
understand us. First my colleagues want to be tough, then they want to 
be not so tough on the northern border. Well, my colleagues, it does 
not work that way. It does not work that way because the men and women 
that enforce the laws of this country, myself included for 26\1/2\ 
years, are impartial. We do not want to enforce one law on the southern 
border and another law on the northern border. We do not want to treat 
Canadians one way and Mexicans a different way.
  Let us get a grip. If we want to be fair, if this country is going to 
remain the beacon of fairness, the beacon of liberty, the beacon of 
opportunity, then for God's sake let us do the right thing and let us 
apply the law equally on the northern border as it is on the southern 
border.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to the concern of 
the gentleman and others who have spoken about shifting of drug 
trafficking from one border to another. I tell my colleagues we have 
got a wilderness border between the United States and Canada in my 
district, and the timberwolves will get them before anybody else gets 
across that border, believe me. There is no trafficking across that 
border.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  There is not any trafficking across that part of the northern border, 
but there is plenty of drugs increasingly coming in at the northern 
border.
  And one more thing, my colleagues. This bill is being represented as 
a temporary fix. What the real deal is is that it is going to be 
permanent, and we will never get to the hearings on the bill that 
everybody is for or against it. It never had hearings.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], earlier tonight. When my other 
dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], talks about 
the fact that there is absolutely no distinction between these two 
borders, we are simply coming here tonight to tell our colleagues in a 
very calm, experienced way that we think there might be some 
distinctions, and we would like to share some of those differences with 
our colleagues if we see some. My other friend from Texas says that 
they are all the same, and I would suggest to him that this is exactly 
the reason we want to try to treat them the same.
  Now, we had an opportunity tonight to hear about statistics and 
numbers and the amount of trade and the tourism that goes back and 
forth between at least the border that we know best, the Canadian 
border. I would like to suggest to the rest of my colleagues as we look 
at 2920 that there is also the people that are involved here entering 
into that equation.
  When my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], talks 
about his knowledge and experience in the Buffalo area at the Peace 
Bridge, I want to add to that my own experience, and it is not ancient 
history, colleagues, it is not something that happened 50 years ago or 
60 years ago, it is happening today. It is happening right now, and it 
is happening with young people, experienced people, whether it is 
drivers, whether it happens to be jobs, it is happening now.
  And all we are suggesting to our colleagues is that we would like the 
time that 2920 suggests to have some of the hearing and some of the 
time that has been talked about, but we are not just trying to tell our 
colleagues that we are telling someone else what they should do. We 
have some experiences there, we know what is happening at that border, 
and we are suggesting to our colleagues that if this plan is 
implemented now, it will be disastrous to affect not only trade, not 
only jobs, not only commerce, all the good things my friend from Texas 
talked about, but also affecting people's everyday lives.
  And it is not political, and it is not Democrat, or it is not 
Republican. We have got people from both parties here trying to add 
some intelligence to the discussion.

                              {time}  0015

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we need experts like that to testify at a hearing. You 
know, we are at midnight talking about all the experts on immigration 
at the northern border, and we have not had one hearing on this whole 
thing. I suggest this suspension be turned back and that the Committee 
on the Judiciary do its job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we screw up, and when we do, we 
need to take steps to fix it. When we passed the illegal immigration 
reform bill, that put on to the INS the requirement to develop a system 
for documenting every alien entering and leaving this country by 
October of 1998. We put in place a system that could not work, that 
will not work, and that threatens commerce on both borders.
  This is about delaying the effective date of that one year, and I 
believe we will even have to take additional steps, as outlined by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] and others.
  Let me just show you North Dakota. I represent this State. It is a 
State that shares one of the longest borders with Canada in the entire 
country. It is absolutely vital to our commerce, more than $50 million 
of commerce to North Dakota coming back and forth every year, 2 million 
border crossings in North Dakota alone.
  This has not been a problem. What the people back home cannot 
understand is, when Congress makes a mistake, we all make mistakes, but 
why can we not fix the mistake before people get hurt?
  I have got letters here from small businesses all across the State of 
North Dakota. Now, they are not involved in any of the high stakes and 
the high rhetoric about the immigration reform. All they know is, they 
need the daily flow of commerce like they have had it.
  Please, please, do not hurt North Dakota's economy on a mistake that 
we did last year. Let us fix this mistake, or at least delay the 
implementation 1 year. Please pass this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides to listen 
to the discussion. I heard my colleague talk about when the borders 
used to be open in Canada. I remember walking up and down the beaches 
along the Mexican border all the time. We do it today.
  But this debate is really showing that we need to have internal 
enforcement. Do not try to do it all at the border. I do not care if it 
is in my neighborhood, that of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes] and 
mine with Mexico, or Canada.
  I call on everyone saying that they want to see the good things 
continue to go across the border and to stop the bad things; let us 
finally sit down and work on internal enforcement. Do not try to do it 
all on the borders or all in the Canada neighborhoods or in the Mexico 
neighborhoods of those of us who live next door to it.
  Let us get together and say all of America should be participating in 
controlling illegal immigration. Not

[[Page H10573]]

just those of us on the frontier who just happen to live along the 
border, but all Americans should join in this. Let us take this debate 
and accept that there is a problem here and in Mexico. Back and forth, 
we need to have a check system. In Canada we need it. But we also need 
a check system on every employer and every social program in America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Pease]. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. 
Baldacci] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am almost hesitant to wade into this discussion going 
on, but I feel I must, especially since Maine does border Canada and we 
have been very deeply involved in this.
  This is a very technical matter. It is a technical correction that is 
being offered, and it is something that is not a fight between the 
Mexican border or the Canadian border. Unfortunately, Section 110 
overlooks the history and tradition of the longest peaceful border in 
the world, and that is shared northern borders with Canada.
  For decades, most Canadian nationals have been exempt from 
registering with the I-94 documentation for entry into the United 
States. In 1996, more than 116 million people entered the United States 
by land from Canada, and 76 million more were Canadian nationals or 
U.S. permanent residents. Imposing a registration requirement on 
Canadians who otherwise are not required to possess a visa or passport 
will cause traffic tie-ups of chaotic proportions.
  All this bill purports to do is, it purports to delay the 
implementation of the requirements on both borders. It is a technical 
correction.
  Mr. WATT or North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, people 
keep saying that. Understand, the Mexican border, the entry system is 
already in place. So this notion that we are delaying and it is just 
applying to equally is just not true.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this bill is a 
technical bill that only delays the implementation on both borders. It 
does not show a preference on one border or the other. It delays the 
implementation of the rule on both borders, so it is not showing 
preference. This is very badly needed because of the interests, 
especially of what we are talking about, because the Canadian 
Government does not only support moving in this direction, but they 
want to do it permanently. They are not in opposition to the direction, 
they just would like to have more instead of less.
  We are 99.9 percent problem-free. We have an agreement between the 
United States and Canada that was a border agreement accord which was 
the framework of the border inspections.
  I urge Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to appeal to the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman to consider withdrawing this bill. It is clear we 
need hearings. The smart thing for us to do at 12:20 in the morning is 
to take this thing back to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it has 
never been.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the chairman in the beginning of this 
debate that said that this country has the right and the duty to 
control our borders. Well, if we pass H.R. 2920, we will be asserting 
our right but we will be ignoring our duty.
  You see, back in 1996, just a year ago, we passed a law that said 
that we must inspect our borders, both in terms of people entering and 
people leaving. For Mexico, last year we imposed that entry check, so 
anyone coming into this country from our southern border right now must 
go through this entry check.
  It was not until this year, a year later, that the exit check for 
both Mexico and Canada was to take effect, along with the entry check 
for Canada, which did not take effect when the entry check for Mexico 
took place. Only now is that entry check now going to take effect in 
Canada.
  But where was the outrage about the disruption to commerce, to 
tourism, to family ties, when we imposed the entry check on the U.S.-
Mexico border? Now we hear the outrage. The same thing applies, but it 
is different treatment. What people are saying today is, if it was good 
enough for one part of the border, it is good enough for the rest of 
the borders.
  What we have to understand is, what we do today if we pass this bill 
is say we are allowing and willing to allow people to come into this 
country, overstay their visas, and become undocumented individuals in 
this country.
  Understand, there are people that cross through all parts of our 
border. If you vote for this bill, you are saying you are willing to 
allow people to overstay and become, as many of you term it, ``illegal 
aliens.'' So understand, do not make any mistake about it, this is not 
to just conform the law, this is not to try to take care of disruption 
for commerce and family, this is an attempt to try to withhold the 
function of the law, the application of the law, for one place but not 
for others. If it is fair for one place, it should be fair for all the 
others.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say my friend from California has, I believe, 
made a statement that was inaccurate. The point of this bill, H.R. 
2920, is not to eliminate an entry-exit system but simply to make the 
system more workable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
LaFalce].
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to reiterate one 
point: That is, the Clinton administration favors repeal of section 110 
with respect to land borders. The Canadian Government favors repeal 
also. This bill does not call for repeal; it calls for a 1-year 
additional delay.
  I also want to thank the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], 
for, number one, being an original cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 2481, 
repealing it; for being an original cosponsor of H.R. 2955, repealing 
it; for having testified before Senator Abraham's hearing in Detroit 
respecting it; and for indicating at that time that when the technical 
corrections bill is taken up in the Committee on the Judiciary, he 
would offer an amendment to the technical corrections bill seeking 
repeal of section 110 with respect to land borders.
  Until we get to that point though, let us delay its effective date 
for 1 year.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, this issue is very critical to my district. 
I have the second largest traffic in the whole country, I believe, from 
the Blaine border crossing. It is very critical, very important. I 
believe this is a technical correction, and it is just very vital.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2920. It 
will do two things: It will facilitate trade, and it will protect our 
borders. Most importantly of all, it has one fair standard for both 
borders, north and south.
  Mr. Speaker, it will affirm America's commitment to facilitate lawful 
trade and border crossings with our northern and southern neighbors and 
also support development of a workable, and I emphasize the word 
``workable,'' border entry-exit system for all our borders.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2920, 
introduced by my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon. H.R. 2920 would 
delay the implementation of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (P.L. 104-

[[Page H10574]]

208) at land-based border entry ports from October 1, 1998, to October 
1, 1999. Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service [INS] to implement an entry-exit system at all entry points to 
the U.S. H.R 2920 would still require the INS to implement an entry-
exit system at U.S. airports and seaports by October 1, 1998, and would 
also require the INS to implement Section 110 in such a way that would 
not significantly disrupt or impeded trade or tourism.
  I was a proud supporter of immigration reform last year, and believe 
that an entry-exit system should be an integral part of U.S. efforts to 
address illegal immigration. However, I believe Congress should provide 
the INS additional time to implement Section 110 at land-based border 
entry points. There are simply too many land-based entry points into 
the U.S., six in my district, for the INS to implement an entry-entry 
system by the end of next year. Allowing the INS to first implement an 
entry-exit system at U.S. airports and seaports should give the INS 
additional time to implement an entry-exit system in such a way that 
would not cause unnecessary delays at border crossing. Mr. Speaker, 
there have been numerous legislative proposals to address concern about 
Section 110, and I have been supportive of legislative corrections to 
Section 110. It is possible that Congress will pass such corrective 
legislation next year, but I believe this is too important an issue to 
leave unresolved until then. I thank my colleague from New York for 
introducing his bill at this time, and ask my colleagues to support 
H.R. 2920.
  Mr. McHugh. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2920.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. 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 325, 
nays 90, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 627]

                               YEAS--325

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--90

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McKinney
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boucher
     Burton
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Ewing
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Johnson, Sam
     Klug
     Largent
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Norwood
     Riley
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  0055

  Messrs. WYNN, TORRES, ABERCROMBIE, LoBIONDO, SHADEGG, BOB SCHAFFER of 
Colorado, SCARBOROUGH, and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``yeas'' to 
``nays.''
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MOAKLEY, and Mr. KENNEDY of 
Massachusetts changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________