[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8558-8568]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  SECTION 245(i) EXTENSION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1885) to expand the class of beneficiaries who may 
apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification 
petition and labor certification filings, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1885

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Section 245(i) Extension Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

       Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``2001;'' and 
     inserting ``2001, or during the 120-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of the Section 245(i) Extension Act 
     of 2001;''; and
       (2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for 
     classification, or an application for labor certification, 
     described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 
     14, 1998--
       ``(i) was physically present in the United States on 
     December 21, 2000; and
       ``(ii) demonstrates that the familial or employment 
     relationship that is the basis of such petition for 
     classification or application for labor certification existed 
     on or before April 30, 2001;''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 1885.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
has been a controversial part of our immigration law since its 
inception in 1994. 245(i) allows illegal immigrants who are eligible 
for immigrant visas but who are illegally in the United States to 
adjust their status with the INS in the U.S. upon payment of a thousand 
dollar penalty.
  In the absence of section 245(i), illegal immigrants must pursue 
their visa applications abroad. Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, those who have been 
illegally present in the United States for a year would be barred for 
reentry for 10 years.
  Supporters of section 245(i) argue that it promotes family unity 
because, without it, illegal immigrants would be forced to leave the 
United States and their American families for many years. I believe we 
must also recognize that by allowing illegal immigrants to adjust their 
status in the United States, section 245(i) serves as an open 
invitation to those waiting in the queue for immigrant visas to jump 
the line and enter the United States illegally.
  This is not fair to those immigrants who respect the immigration laws 
of our country and wait patiently in their home countries for visas, 
sometimes for years.
  Such line-jumping negates the deterrent power of the bar on 
readmission for long-term illegal immigrants,

[[Page 8559]]

which was a key reform of our immigration laws.
  As a part of last year's Legal Immigrant Family Equity Act, Congress 
decided to allow illegal immigrants who were in the United States as of 
December 21, 2000 and who would have green card petitions filed in 
their behalf by April 30, 2001 to utilize section 245(i). This was a 
delicately crafted compromise.
  Now that April 30 has come and gone, supporters of 245(i) push for an 
extension of the application deadline, some arguing that we should make 
the program permanent. Many others oppose any extension whatsoever.
  On what grounds can we find a principled compromise? President Bush 
has pointed the way. He has noted that illegal immigrants eligible to 
utilize section 245(i) under the LIFE Act may not have had their 4-
month window to apply that the Act promised them. The INS did not issue 
implementing regulations until this March and bureaucratic delays may 
have prevented many individuals from taking advantage of the 245(i) 
extension, individuals that Congress intended to benefit.

                              {time}  1545

  Furthermore, many illegal immigrants claim to have difficulty 
procuring the services of immigration lawyers in time to apply. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, has introduced a bill that ensures that illegal immigrants 
have the promised 4 months to apply.
  H.R. 1885, the Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001 would allow 
illegal immigrants to utilize section 245(i) as long as they have green 
card petitions filed on their behalf within 120 days of enactment after 
this 245(i) sunsets for good.
  H.R. 1885 retains the LIFE Act's requirement that illegal immigrants 
must have been in the United States as of December 21, 2000, so as not 
to encourage further illegal immigration into the United States.
  This bill also requires that illegal immigrants must have entered 
into family or business relationships qualifying them for green cards 
by April 30, the original filing deadline. This requirement ensures 
that we do not encourage a new wave of marriages designed purely to 
procure green cards.
  Countless news articles have reported that many thousands of illegal 
immigrants rushed to get married to U.S. citizens to beat the April 30 
deadline. Under H.R. 1885, the marriage or employment, in the case of a 
petitioning employer, must have begun by April 30.
  I believe that H.R. 1885 is fair and balanced legislation which does 
not solve the requirements of people who have taken strong positions on 
either side of the issue but which gets the job done. It ensures that 
the intent and compromises embodied in the LIFE Act are carried out. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to congratulate all the parties 
that have worked on the extension of 245(i) because underlying that 
there is the understanding that we realize this is a subject matter 
that needs the kind of bipartisan support for those folks that are 
trying, working so hard as good citizens to get their green card and 
apply for citizenship.
  The President of the United States has indicated that this measure is 
insufficient. There was hope up until 3 minutes ago that this measure 
might be removed from the floor because there is still so much 
negotiation swirling around it. Why? Because even though we are in 
recognition of a difficult problem that there is bicameral and 
bipartisan support for relief for going beyond April 30, we simply do 
not have enough time within the 4-month period that is provided to take 
care of this complex filing and requirements that are needed.
  Number one, the immigration lawyers have already advised myself and 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of 
this Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, that frequently one has to go back to the country of origin 
to get birth certificates, records. Sometimes they are there. Sometimes 
they are not. It is not a simple matter.
  Number two, the Immigration and Naturalization Service itself needs a 
lot more time. They would be inundated under this. Of course, the irony 
of ironies is that the regulations themselves would require, and we 
have been advised this by the reg writers, would require 3 months.
  So compassion may be the order of the day here, Madam Speaker. What 
we need to do is, now that we recognize a problem, now that we are 
resolved to solving it, what we really need to do is step back and look 
at the amount of time that is involved.
  That is why I appeal to the distinguished chairman of the committee 
and the ranking member to understand the detail that we are dealing 
with. We are having people from four different countries, four 
different languages. It is something like buying a movie ticket to go 
to the premier of the show; and by the time one gets up to the door to 
go in, they close the doors.
  Please. Let us see if there is something more we can do to perfect 
the good intentions of all the parties, the White House, the Congress, 
the Senate, to make this measure something that we can all be proud of.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the author of 
the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, the opening statement of the chairman and the response 
by the ranking member have framed the issue very, very well. It is only 
a matter of degree, then, that we now stand before the House to present 
views. How long shall be the extension?
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) says that the lawyers 
involved are the ones who are claiming that they require more and more 
time to complete this process. In December 2000, they had adequate 
notice; all the lawyers in the land, every one of them had notice that 
this issue was pending and about to close its doors in May of this 
current year. Because they faced that big deadline, they were only able 
to handle 450,000 or so applications out of the 600,000 that are 
extant.
  Now, we are supplying an additional 4 months to cover about 200,000 
pending applicants. We think that that is a balanced approach. Today's 
debate on this floor serves as an additional notice to everyone that 
something is afoot.
  The applications have to be filed now. One has another 4 months that 
the proclamation will go out, from the time that the President signs it 
into law, and it is many more months than the 4 months that come from 
this date because we know that this will take another month, 2 months 
to bring into full enactment. So the full notice is there for everyone 
to heed.
  The opening statements were correct. We and the subcommittee had the 
benefit of consultations on every side of this issue, and there are 
many sides to it: from those who opposed even 1-day extension, we 
consulted with them, we listened to them; to those who wanted to make 
it permanent and never visit the subject matter again with whom we 
consulted; with Members of Congress on every side of the issue; with 
advocacy groups; and with the White House itself.
  So we are not without a wealth of views and opinions and facts that 
lead us to the position that we now find ourselves in, asking the House 
to allow a 4-month extension so that we can be fair to the applicants, 
so that we can be fair to the people lined up for legal immigration, 
and so that we will not give incentive for people to become illegal 
aliens, and, most of all, to begin once and for all the process to 
allow our country to seize control of its borders and of its 
immigration policy.

[[Page 8560]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield to me?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas), subcommittee chairman, hits a nerve, he said how long. That is 
what we have been saying in the civil rights movement for a long time, 
Madam Speaker. How long? How long will it take? Well, it is taking not 
enough time, it is not long enough this time. So I am glad the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania brought that refrain of the civil rights 
movement back into this debate.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is interesting, without 
dialoguing with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), we have the 
same sort of line of reasoning. But I would like to thank those who 
have gathered here on the floor with the particular singular point, and 
that is that, of course, we need an extension.
  I think the only redeeming value of this debate is that we are on the 
floor of the House saying that 245(i) should not have ended on April 
30, 2001. Frankly, it should have been extended primarily because, 
Madam Speaker, the regulations that those who were seeking legal access 
to immigration, legalization, did not come into play until March 26, 
2001. So it is evident that we have a problem.
  It is interesting that the ranking member chose to draw upon the 
civil rights analogy. Let me draw it a little further. As I heard the 
debate on the floor, I have heard a comment that we spoke to many 
persons. We even spoke to those that do not want even 1 day.
  I am reminded of the work of Lyndon Baines Johnson at the passage of 
the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voter Rights Act of 1965. There were 
enormous numbers of Americans and elected officials who did not want 
any legislation. But I am gratified that that Texan, the President of 
the United States at that time, saw fit to do the right thing, to 
ensure that, regardless of the opposition, we do the right thing.
  Today of course I believe that we have not done fully the right thing 
in the 4-month extension and hope that we will have an opportunity to 
see this process go forward, to work with the Senate, and to work 
reasonably around time to address the concerns that we need to address.
  First of all, Madam Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues that all 
these Members cannot be wrong. These Members are supporting permanent 
extension, 1-year extension, 6-month extension. So there is no great 
weight of authority for what we call a 4-month extension. That is not 
going to be enough time even with added language that says that one 
must define or one must have been in the family relationship on April 
30 or a business relationship, employment relationship, which means 
that the INS will have to draft more regulations.
  245(i) is not opening the doors to illegal immigration. It is, in 
fact, providing access to legalization. It is reuniting families. It is 
pro business so that people who are engaged in the work that they have 
already been doing, paying taxes, can in fact have the opportunity to 
continue in a legal manner.
  There are a number of bills that I have been gratified to support, by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), a previous bill by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King), my bill, H.R. 1615, for a 1-year extension. I am gratified to 
work with Members of the other body who have a 1-year extension with 20 
cosponsors. I certainly hope that that will be the rule of the day.
  Four months is not enough time, because the INS itself is not 
structurally prepared to deal with visas, the V visas, the K visas that 
have to be done. These are other visas that have to be dealt with.
  A 4-month extension creates a greater risk that mistakes will be made 
or that the application will be improperly filed. Madam Speaker, I will 
submit these articles into the RECORD; but it shows the enormous lines 
that occurred at the time, where people were attempting not to be 
illegal, not to have employees that are illegal, not to have families 
that are broken up, but to be legal. Look at these lines. Look at the 
pain.
  Similar to the civil rights movement when people were standing in 
line to access accommodations, to access equality and the right to 
vote, we had to stand up and do the right thing and be against those 
who would do the wrong thing.
  A 4-month extension will cost the government more money. It will cost 
the government additional dollars. Four months will end right at the 
appropriations time frame. We will not be finished. We will not know 
whether or not we have to give a supplemental appropriation to rush the 
last group in. We do not know what may transpire.
  It opens itself up to people to be abused, going after anybody who 
gives them permission to say or suggest that I can get you in.
  I believe we can do the right thing. I will just suggest to my 
colleagues in closing that we have many stories of people like Norma 
who settled in North Carolina and married a United States citizen. They 
have been married over 2 years, have a child, and expecting another 
one. They are torn apart because of this lack of 245(i).
  I know there are good intentions on the floor. I hope we can extend 
this and move this bill forward.
  Madam Speaker, as we know in Section 245(i) allows some people to 
remain in the country while pursuing legal residency, instead of 
returning to the native countries to apply for U.S. residency, which 
breaks up families. Section 245(i) is an immigration policy which 
provides a path to legalization. Furthermore, it encourages family 
reunification and is also pro-business. Any time period short of a year 
will deny family reunification and access to legalization for many. 
Thus a four month extension gives no real opportunity to anyone.
  H.R. 1885, introduced by Congressman Gekas only allows for a four 
month extension of section 245i. This is a bad bill. We have been 
giving the message to immigrants who come to the United States that we 
are a nation of immigrants. However, this message that we are 
attempting to communicate in a unified voice is muffled by the wrong 
bills such as the one on the floor today.
  H.R. 1885's four month extension is going to fuel the fire of all the 
problems that we have right now in immigration. A four month extension 
is simply masquerading itself as help to those in need. H.R. 1885 is 
merely skating over the problem that has occurred--an estimated number 
of 200,000 people who were not given enough time to benefit from taking 
advantage of section 245i. Such a short extension is surely to cause 
another round of mass confusion that we have already witnessed.
  How do we know that a four month extension is simply not enough time 
for people to benefit from section 235(i)? We know this from consulting 
with immigrants, immigration advocates, and nonprofit groups that work 
with immigrants.


                    bills with a one-year extension

  My bill H.R. 1615 allows for a year extension. My bill provides that 
the April 30, 2001 deadline should be extended to April 30, 2002. 
Congressman Rangel has a bill, H.R. 1195 which provides for the same 
one year extension. Furthermore, Senator Hagel has a one year extension 
with a sunset date of April 30, 2002. A one year extension is the 
proper amount of time to allow people to take advantage of section 
245(i). A year is necessary for the following reasons:


                reasons why we have a one-year extension

  1. Four months is not enough time for people to get the help that 
they need to file before the deadline. Regulations for the new V visas, 
K visas and late legalization are due out at the end of this month. 
This will cause attorneys' workloads to rise at an unprecedented rate. 
Immigration attorneys when dealing with only section 245i said they 
have never been so busy before and did not have enough time to schedule 
appointments with people who sought out their expertise. If that was 
the case with section 245i we can only imagine the chaos that will 
ensue with the issuance of the regulations for the new V visas, K visas 
and late legalization. People will not be able to get appointments with 
legal service providers in a

[[Page 8561]]

four month period and as a result will be unable to take advantage of 
section 245i. This is why a year extension is necessary.
  2. A fourth month extension creates a greater risk that mistakes will 
be made or that the applications will be improperly filed. Without 
access to legitimate and professional assistance, many people will be 
forced to try and figure this law out for themselves. In some cases, 
the process is very difficult. Even in simple cases, there is enormous 
confusion about who is eligible, which applications must be filed by 
the deadline, where to the applications, what office to file 
applications with, and what are the filing fees. Without a fair 
opportunity to have these questions answered, eligible applicants may 
submit incomplete or incorrect applications and be unable to correct 
the mistakes before the deadline passes. Thousands of eligible 
applicants will lose their right to apply simply because they made an 
innocent mistake.
  3. Short deadlines benefit scam artists. If people are not given the 
chance to schedule appointments with attorneys then they may fall into 
the wrong hands--those of scam artists, who ripped thousands of people 
off during the previous 245i extension. These scam artists charged 
thousands of dollars to prepare applications that were never filed, or 
submitted applications on behalf of people who were not eligible. 
Another short four month extension guarantees that scam artists will 
benefit once again.
  4. A four month extension will cost the government more money. 
Providing a short window of opportunity will dramatically increase the 
need for government services. As a result of the previous short four-
month extension of Section 245(i), tens of thousands of people rushed 
to government offices to collect documents, request applications, and 
ask questions. Thousand of people camped overnight at INS offices to 
get copies of application forms or request information about their 
eligibility. With a four month extension the same problems will occur. 
Petitions and applications will suffer while INS diverts resources to 
deal with the long lines of people outside their office. Providing a 
one year extension would spread this work out.
  5. The new language of H.R. 1885 will require new regulations that 
could not be implemented in four months. H.R. 1885 adds a new 
requirement that applicants show that ``the familial or employment 
relationship'' that is the basis for the application existed before 
April 30, 2001. ``Familial Relationship'' and ``Employment 
Relationship'' are not simple terms and will have to be defined. INS 
will have great difficulty drafting this restriction, especially for 
employers. and as we have seen before, INS will be unable to issue 
these regulations until most of all of a four-month extension is over.
  6. Finally, The physical presence requirement in the LIFE Act already 
ensures that people will not be coming to the United States to apply. 
Under the LIFE Act, only those people who were in the United States on 
December 21, 2000 are eligible to apply for the new extension of 
Section 245(i). This limitation addresses the fear that the extension 
of 245(i) will be a magnet for people to come into the United States 
illegally.
  Let me provide you with two examples of how people are affected by 
section 245i.
  A. Norma entered the United States illegally from Mexico. She settled 
in North Carolina and married a United States citizen. They have been 
married over two years, have a child, are expecting another this fall, 
and have recently purchased a new home for their growing family. Norma 
and her husband are torn on what to do about her immigration status. As 
the wife of a citizen, she qualifies for an immigrant visa. However, if 
she returns to Mexico to obtain her visa, she would be barred from re-
entering the United States for 10 years. Norma does not want to leave 
her husband, her children, or her home for 10 years. Restoration of 
245i would allow this family to stay together.
  B. Apolinaro came to the United States illegally from El Salvador 
four years ago. He came from a large, poor family and moved to the U.S. 
to find work to support his parents and siblings. After being here for 
a couple of years he met his present wife. After they were married, his 
wife wanted to start the paperwork to naturalize him, but he is 
undocumented. The couple was faced with the harsh reality: the only way 
Apolinaro could become a legal resident was to go back to El Salvador 
and be barred from re-entering the U.S. for ten years. On his one-year 
wedding anniversary, Aploinaro returned to El Salvador and does not 
know when he will see his wife again. He and his wife could not imagine 
being separated for 10 years, but if the harsh provision of the 1996 
law is not changed, this separation may become a reality.


                               conclusion

  A four month extension will not provide the necessary relief. And as 
proof we will see the exact same reaction that we saw on April 30, 
2001--thousands of people who were not given enough time to take 
advantage of a law that benefits them and were left confused and 
frustrated because they did not have enough time to file the required 
paperwork. Furthermore, there is no question that at the end of this 
proposed four month extension, people will claim that it was not enough 
time and will seek another extension.
  Only a year extension will guarantee people a chance to see an 
immigration legal service provider as well as guarantee parties a 
sufficient period of time to file the proper applications. We must 
remember that while this is a nation of laws, it is also a nation of 
immigrants.
  Madam Speaker, the articles that I referred to earlier are as 
follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 1, 2001]

   A Rush for Residency--Immigrants Flood INS as Special Program Ends

             (By Mary Beth Sheridan and Christine Haughney)

       Tens of thousands of undocumented foreigners packed U.S. 
     immigration centers, besieged lawyers' offices and said ``I 
     do'' in assembly-line weddings yesterday as they scrambled to 
     apply for residency under a special program that expired at 
     midnight.
       The Immigration and Naturalization Service kept many of its 
     offices open until the last minute to handle the record 
     crush. Still, many immigrants missed the deadline because 
     overwhelmed lawyers could not give them appointments to help 
     them with the necessary paperwork, immigrant advocates said.
       Several members of Congress and a key U.S. Catholic bishop 
     called in vain for an extension of the program, which gave 
     illegal immigrants a four-month window to apply for residency 
     without first having to leave the United States.
       ``The deadline must be extended,'' insisted Bishop Nicholas 
     DiMarzio of Camden, N.J., chairman of the U.S. Catholic 
     Bishops' Migration Committee, which organized efforts to help 
     immigrants fill out the forms. ``Our programs have been 
     unable to meet the demand for services.''
       Like many immigration offices across the country, the 
     Washington area INS center on North Fairfax Drive in 
     Arlington opened its doors yesterday to a line snaking around 
     the building. Throughout the day, the office was a tableau of 
     desperation and confusion.
       Santos Hernandez, a Mexican landscape worker, had driven to 
     Arlington from North Carolina after discovering that he was 
     required to pass a physical--and that all the INS-approved 
     doctors in his area were too booked to give him one.
       After waiting in line for several hours yesterday, 
     Hernandez and his brother stared blankly as a frazzled 
     immigration officer demanded in English to know what they 
     wanted.
       ``We came for the program that expires today. Everyone 
     talks about this,'' Hernandez murmured in Spanish, clutching 
     a tan envelope of tattered documents. But his quest would end 
     in failure an hour later.
       Just a few miles away, the D.C. Department of Employment 
     Services took applications from immigrants being sponsored by 
     businesses in the area. ``This is the busiest we've ever seen 
     it,'' supervisor Dorothy Robinson said. She said her office 
     alone was on track to receive at least 1,000 applications by 
     midnight--as many as it usually receives in a year.
       Usually, undocumented immigrants seeking U.S. residency 
     must apply at the U.S. consulate in their native land. But in 
     December, Congress passed the special measure that allowed 
     them to apply while still in the United States, as long as 
     they did so by April 30 and paid a $1,000 penalty. The change 
     was important because most illegal immigrants are barred from 
     returning, for a period of three to 10 years, if they leave 
     the United States.
       INS officials estimated that 640,000 illegal immigrants 
     nationwide would apply for residency under the measure, which 
     required that the immigrant be sponsored by an employer or a 
     close family member.
       The lines didn't form just at INS offices. Across the 
     country, couples rushed to get married so that one spouse--
     the legal U.S. resident--could sponsor the other.
       In New York, couples had gathered as early as 2 a.m. in 
     recent weeks to secure one of the 700 daily passes for 
     weddings at the Manhattan municipal building, said Denise 
     Collins, spokeswoman for the Department of Citywide 
     Administrative Services. The number of marriage ceremonies 
     and licenses citywide was twice as high on Friday as for the 
     same date last year, according to city clerk Carlos Cuevas.
       Yesterday, Lynda Rosado lined up at 4 a.m. for one of the 
     passes, finally tying the knot after nine years of dating 
     Bernardino Hernandez, an undocumented Mexican immigrant. 
     Around her, couples exchanged sweet nothings in English, 
     Spanish and Cantonese. Vendors hawked $20 bouquets and 
     cardboard ``you and me forever'' frames.

[[Page 8562]]

       But Rosado quickly got down to business. ``We'll celebrate 
     later,'' she said after the brief wedding ceremony. ``Now 
     we're going straight to a lawyer.''
       Not everyone was lucky enough to get into a lawyer's 
     office, however. Many lawyers were booked solid weeks ago, 
     said Judy Golub, a lobbyist for the American Immigration 
     Lawyers' Association. Although a lawyer's assistance was not 
     required, many immigrants needed help filling out the complex 
     forms.
       Because such problems caused some immigrants to miss the 
     deadline, several U.S. legislators have submitted bills to 
     extend the special measure, known as Section 245(i). But they 
     have been unsuccessful.
       In an effort to avoid a last-minute crush, immigrant aid 
     groups such as the Spanish Catholic Center in Gaithersburg 
     worked frantically to spread the word about the program and 
     make appointments for people who needed help with 
     applications.
       One recent Friday night, Celia Rivas, the immigration 
     services coordinator, started appointments to work on 
     immigrant applications at 6:30 p.m. She was so swamped she 
     finished 24 hours later.
       ``I wanted to avoid April 30 being the day everyone came 
     for services,'' she said.
       Still, many immigrants didn't find out about the measure 
     until the last few days or were confused by it.
       Hernandez, the Mexican landscaper, thought he could just 
     drop off his documents at the Arlington INS office. But he 
     needed to fill out special forms. So he went to the car and 
     returned with his longtime American girlfriend, Renee 
     Garland, 33. Nearly three hours after they had arrived at the 
     INS office, with their two small children in tow, the couple 
     made it to the front of the documents line.
       It was a short-lived victory.
       ``He's your boyfriend?'' the officer asked Garland, who 
     nodded yes, ``When you gonna get married?'' the officer 
     asked.
       Garland suggested that her boyfriend could be sponsored by 
     his employer. But the landscaper had simply typed a one-
     paragraph letter verifying that Hernandez worked for him.
       ``Where's the form from his boss?'' the immigration officer 
     asked. Garland, crestfallen, acknowledged that she didn't 
     know he needed one. And Hernandez wasn't about to get married 
     yesterday. Garland slunk away from the line, hitting a 
     seemingly insurmountable roadblock on the road to her 
     boyfriend's citizenship.
       ``I don't know what I'm going to do,'' she sighed.
                                  ____


                 [From the New York Times, May 1, 2001]

Illegal Immigrants Race Against Clock to Get through a Small Window of 
                              Opportunity

                         (By Michael Janofsky)

       Denver, April 30.--Some arrived as early as Saturday night, 
     with sleeping bags, reclining chairs, even dining room chairs 
     to make the wait more bearable. By today, when the 
     immigration office here opened at 6 a.m., the crowd had 
     swelled to several thousand, and many more were on the way.
       With a midnight deadline approaching, the scene was 
     repeating at immigration offices all around the country as 
     illegal immigrants scrambled to take advantage of a program 
     that allows those with family or employer sponsors to apply 
     for legal status in the United States without leaving the 
     country.
       ``They tried to line up on Saturday when they heard the 
     lines were starting,'' said Michael Comfort, acting district 
     director for the Denver Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service office. ``I suppose we all do that when it comes to 
     taxes and other deadlines,'' he added.
       Known as 245(i), the program was passed by Congress in 
     December, creating a four-month window in which immigrants 
     would be spared the cost and anxieties of returning to their 
     home countries to fill out the paperwork. Immigration 
     officials estimated that more than 600,000 people might be 
     eligible for the program, even though waiting for their 
     applications to be approved could take years, during which 
     they could still face deportation, as several people in Ohio 
     recently discovered.
       Acting on information provided in applications, immigration 
     agents in Cleveland arrested seven people at their homes and 
     initiated deportation. Officials in Washington have since 
     stepped in to prevent such actions, instructing all its 
     districts not to arrest illegal immigrants on the basis of 
     their 245(i) applications.
       The program has been so widely applauded by human rights 
     groups that some have urged Congress to extend the deadline. 
     Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Camden, N.J., chairman of the 
     national Roman Catholic bishops' committee on migration, 
     said, ``without immediate Congressional action, many 
     immigrant families in the United States face unnecessary 
     upheaval and possibly lengthy separations.''
       Congressional officials said tonight that the White House 
     was expected to support a bipartisan bill to extend the 
     program by one year.
       Supporting the measure would be another step for President 
     Bush toward fulfilling the pro-immigrant positions he 
     articulated during the campaign. Mr. Bush has pledged to work 
     closely with Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico, to 
     improve border safety and working conditions for Mexicans 
     living in the United States.
       The crowds of people seeking the change in status today 
     were especially thick in cities with large numbers of illegal 
     immigrants. Luisa Aquino, a spokeswoman for the immigration 
     service in Houston, said nearly 2,000 people had applied by 
     midday and by midnight the number was expected to have 
     doubled. Immigration officials in Los Angeles said 2,600 
     people were standing in line when the office reopened at 6 
     a.m.
       In New York this morning, the police said the line 
     stretched from the entrance of the Federal Building, winded 
     its way through six rows of metal barriers and around a 
     corner.
       Elba Contreas, 51, sat on the building steps this afternoon 
     with her brother, Jaime de la Fuente, 55, who is from Chile. 
     ``We're going to be very happy when this is all over,'' said 
     Mrs. Contreas, who is a citizen.
       Walter Diaz, 22, and his wife, Maria, beamed after they 
     dropped off Mrs. Diaz's application. ``I feel like a weight 
     has been lifted from my shoulders,'' Mrs. Diaz, who is from 
     Honduras, said as she kissed her husband, who is a citizen.
       By 3 p.m. in Chicago, officials at the Chicago Loop 
     district had accepted nearly 600 applications, and in Boston, 
     where the immigration office typically handles paperwork from 
     35 to 50 people a day, officials said they expected to 
     process as many as 700 by midnight.
       ``The staff is mentally and physically exhausted,'' said 
     Steven J. Farquharson, the Boston district director.
       An immigration service spokesman in Washington, William 
     Strassberger, said several offices around the country had 
     reported lines snaking for blocks around buildings. In 
     Montgomery County, Md., he said, couples were being married 
     every 15 minutes at county courthouses to enable them to beat 
     the midnight deadline. Denver and other cities also reported 
     a recent surge in marriage license applications.
       Many immigrants said they had waited so long because of the 
     difficulties of raising the minimum filing fee of $1,000.
       ``It's the money, that's what we've been waiting for,'' 
     said Gladys Duran, 20, who stood in line in Chicago with her 
     husband of one year, Carlos, 29, a painter.
       The same was true for Jose Melendez, 23, a native of 
     Chihuahua, Mexico, who works as a drywall specialist in 
     Sterling, in northeast Colorado. He is the father of two of 
     his wife's five children.
       ``We didn't have no money,'' he said, as his wife of two 
     years, Stephanie, 24, waited in line.
       Like other immigration offices, the one here had been 
     dealing with crowds swelling by the day. Last week, officials 
     said, they had arranged for two portable toilets to be 
     stationed outside the building. Today, they added two more. A 
     food truck selling only tacos and burritos pulled up and 
     quickly had its own line.
       Roxanne Calderon, a 30-year-old cashier at a Safeway 
     supermarket, sat on a curb with her husband, Juan, 24, a 
     drywaller from Zacatecas, Mexico. He joined the line for the 
     paperwork at 9 p.m. Sunday; she joined him at 6 a.m. today.
       ``I want liberty, not to be hiding from deportation,'' he 
     said in Spanish. ``I want to go to Mexico and come back 
     without being deported.''

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1885, 
sponsored by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and the ranking minority member, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and I thank the distinguished 
chairman of our Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for bringing this measure to the floor 
at this time.
  Madam Speaker, this measure expands the class of individuals who may 
apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act by expanding the deadline for classification 
petition and labor certification filings by employers by 120 days.
  Section 245(i) is a vital provision of our U.S. immigration law 
allowing immigrants who are on the brink of becoming permanent 
residents to apply for their green cards in the United States rather 
than returning to their home countries to apply. The beneficiaries of 
245(i) are immigrants residing in our Nation or are sponsored by close 
family members or employers who cannot find necessary workers in our 
Nation to perform the duties.
  Immigrants applying for permanent status under this section are 
eligible

[[Page 8563]]

for green cards but are unable to obtain them in the United States 
because they are not in a legal nonimmigrant status. The immigrants 
situation may materialize on technical ground regarding the visa 
process or because of INS delays.
  In most instances, the question is not whether these individuals are 
eligible to become permanent residents, because they already are. The 
issue is where they can apply from. Each applicant must pay the 
processing fee of $1,000. Not only does 245(i) generate revenue for our 
INS, but it does not cost the taxpayers one cent.
  Section 245(i) is supported by the 60,000 attorneys that comprise the 
American Immigration Lawyers Association, and this extension will 
afford those who, due to a lack of legal resources, could not file. To 
force these hard working immigrants to return to their home countries 
to apply for their green cards after they, in many cases, have built a 
life for themselves in our Nation, creates an even greater injustice.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure which will allow those immigrants, who satisfy critical labor 
shortages, to apply for their green cards while living in our Nation 
and not having to return to their home countries to wait for what could 
be many years to get their approval.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
granted 15 additional minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, let me thank the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing me to 
enter into this debate, which of course they have had so much 
sensitivity, so much expertise, and have done so much work on.
  Madam Speaker, I value American citizenship so much that I would hate 
to see the day that we did not have rules that were strict or standards 
that were high, because I think that citizenship is such a precious 
thing that it should not be gained that easily. The thing that concerns 
me, however, is how so many people whose families were able to come to 
America under different standards, how sometimes when they get here, 
they so easily forget and find it not only comfortable to pull the 
ladder up behind them, but almost get emotional and angry in terms of 
other people just trying to live here and trying to become citizens. It 
is such a contagious disease that sometimes people who have yet to 
learn to master the English language are condemning those who would 
want to enter the United States.
  I want to commend those Members of Congress that have asked us to 
extend the time for good people to file. As the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) has said, these are people who, by every standard, have 
done everything that they can. Some have families. Some have children 
that have been born and are already citizens of this great country.
  We cannot value being an American so much so we lose, as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has said, the compassion of being 
American. That is a part of it. And I would think those of us who did 
not ask to come here or were brought from our country, torn away from 
the breasts sometimes of mothers as they came as chattel, as slaves, 
can almost visualize in our own congressional districts almost the same 
thing happening, as people who work every day, work on farms, work in 
diners, work in menial jobs, and then would have to believe that they 
are going to be deported or they would have to leave and leave their 
families.
  Now, the President has paused and asked the Congress to take a deep 
breath. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) has said 4 months, 
but of course we need to take a look at the technicalities and how high 
the bar is, we need to try to understand what has to be done. Come and 
visit my office and see the number of people that have no idea as to 
what I can help or what I cannot help them to do, but they actually 
come in and they come begging and they come crying, they come bringing 
their children with little American flags saying, ``Congressman, help 
me.''
  Now, I know that this Congress is not going to say that we value that 
flag so much that it has to fly so high that so many hardworking people 
who love this country are not going to be given the opportunity to 
abide by our rules, to abide by our regulations, and to keep our 
standard and become Americans. And I know the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. King) knows this: They will become better Americans than those who 
were just born here and take it for granted.
  So let us not feel so proud when we are able to say we gave those 
people enough time. They should have known. They should have had 
lawyers. They should have understood. No, no, no. We are the ones that 
have to understand. We are the ones that God blessed. We are the ones 
that were born in this country. We are the ones that set the rules, and 
we are the ones that can open our doors and our hearts to allow them to 
become citizens.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 1885. And in doing 
so, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for his work, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas), but also my colleagues on the Democratic side, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), and others who have put so much effort into this.
  I also want to commend the President for coming forward on this 
issue, which can be an emotional issue, and setting the standard and 
saying that 245(i) must be extended.
  I introduced a bill myself, a bill which would have extended it 6 
months. I also was an original cosponsor of the bill introduced by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which would have extended it 1 
year. It was important to me 245(i) be extended because of the fact I 
strongly believe immigrants are the lifeblood of our society.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, in 
many cases, they become the very best Americans because they are here 
by choice and they overcame great adversity to be here. Also, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), even though I am considerably 
older than she is, we had the good opportunity to grow up in the same 
borough in New York City, so we saw firsthand the tremendous impact and 
positive impact that immigrants have had on our city, our State and our 
country. So that is why I support strongly an extension of 245(i).
  Now, today's bill is a 4-month extension. Some wanted 6, some wanted 
a year, some wanted it to be permanent. But as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) said, this 4-month extension, when it all 
plays out, will be closer to a 6-month extension. Let us not let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good. Let us get what we can at this time 
and protect those 200,000 people whose fortunes and lives are very 
literally in our hands. It would be a tragedy if, by trying to get 
more, we lost everything.
  So I again commend the people who have put the time and effort into 
this. I fully understand the sentiments for those who want a longer 
extension. As I said, I could have supported a longer extension myself. 
But the reality is there are many voices in the Congress; not all the 
voices support the same thing. Not everyone supports an extension at 
all. So to make sure that we protect the rights, the human rights of 
those people living in this country who are entitled to have legalized 
status, but because of the fact they could not file their papers on 
time, for whatever reason, let us, not them, become victims by our 
trying to achieve more than we can. Let us do the possible; let us do 
what is real; what can be done.

[[Page 8564]]

  Even the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) mentioned President 
Johnson. The fact is, President Johnson did not do everything in 1964 
or in 1965. There were further civil rights bills to continue that 
revolution. Nothing is ever final. Let us get through what we can. Let 
us do the art of the possible. Let us do the art of the practical and 
stand together in our commitment to the American Dream, which is to, 
yes, encourage immigration, do it in a legal way, but let us not make 
the mistake today of not going forward on what is, at base and in 
substance, a very sound piece of legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud now to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), chairman of the Hispanic Task 
Force on Immigration.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I thank all those working on this issue.
  Let me just say that it would be nice to do what is possible, but let 
us get one thing very, very clear. There was a vote on this House floor 
in 1997, after the program was eliminated, and the House voted 
affirmatively not to extend but to reinstate 245(i). That is the record 
of the House of Representatives. It is the record of the Senate on more 
than one occasion that they have voted to reinstate 245(i), the problem 
is when it comes to conference.
  So I think some of our colleagues think too little of the compassion 
and of the justice that can be done in this House. It is my belief that 
if we brought a vote back here for the reinstatement of 245(i), it 
would pass the House of Representatives. This should have been dealt 
with in the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, marked up in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and brought before this House to have a 
full debate so that we could amend it, so that we could listen to other 
points of view.
  I am standing here asking myself if my recollection of history has 
somehow failed me. Last year, it was the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 
who went to Member after Member after Member; who went to the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the 
Democratic Caucus, members of the Republican Party, and we put together 
a coalition where over 155 Members of the House signed a letter stating 
that they would not vote for any final budget unless there was a 
reinstatement of 245(i). Forty-six Senators signed the same letter 
saying they would vote for it. It was the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 
that 2 months ago sat with President George Bush, and we did not ask 
for an extension of the program with an arbitrary deadline of May 1, we 
asked for a reinstatement of the program. That is what we asked for.
  And then it seems almost spectacular to me that we come on this House 
floor and everybody has been spoken to. I do not remember one occasion 
where members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus or those of us that 
have put in bills have been spoken to. This is a one-way dialogue that 
we are having here. If anyone had spoken to us, we would have all come 
together. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and many, many 
others know what is necessary, and I think they do not truly have a 
sense of what this House would do.
  Now, let me state very, very clearly who we are talking about and 
what is wrong with this legislation. It says that an individual had to 
have qualified by April 30 in order to get in on the program. That is 
wrong. Why is it wrong? I want to tell my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) why it is wrong. Because there are tens of 
thousands of people who have waited 2, 3, and 4 years for their 
application for citizenship. They are still processing them; gathering 
dust. And because of those years and years and years of delay on the 
part of our government, on the part of our government, where people 
have played by the rules, they cannot apply for their loved ones to get 
their visas, since they are waiting for years, and they are going to 
continue to wait for more years, and then we have an arbitrary 4 
months.
  Now, if all that backlog were cleared up, I could understand it. The 
fact is that if tomorrow a citizen of the United States becomes 21 
years old, tomorrow, they cannot go and apply for a visa under 245(i) 
for their mother, for their father. Yes, some may say they are here 
undocumented illegally. That does not mean that is not their mother and 
their father and they do not want to keep their families together. 
Think about it a moment.

                              {time}  1615

  An American citizen who has a wife, a person that he loves, and that 
couple may be bringing children into this world, may not qualify under 
this program because they have consummated the marriage after the 
arbitrary deadline.
  Madam Speaker, we are talking about keeping families together. Some 
say, ``They are here illegally.'' Maybe that is the case, but we eat 
the fruits that they pick and labor for. We know that they are here in 
our restaurants and our hotels. They work and slave every day. Let us 
give them the chance to become full partners in this great democracy.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a distinguished member of the Hispanic 
Caucus, a leader on our side of the aisle.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, what is section 245(i)? For my colleagues who may be 
watching in their offices, to the American people listening to the 
debate, it was the law of the land. It was the law of the land.
  We actually had as part of our immigration law a recognition for 
several years as part of the immigration law that United States 
citizens who have a member of their family, their husband or wife, 
their mother or father, their brother or sister, their son or daughter, 
who could be naturalized or seek permanent residency through them, 
would have the opportunity to do so under that part of what was the law 
of the land, and so that they could keep families together. That was 
the law until not too long ago. So that is what we are debating about.
  Madam Speaker, why not reinstitute what was the law of the land and 
worked well. We have a public policy that I have heard debated on this 
floor so many times in a domestic context about family unification and 
the role of the family in our society, and the importance of family in 
our society.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues have hundreds of thousands of United 
States citizens and permanent residents who cannot keep their family 
together because in a previous Congress we stripped what was the law of 
the land and we took it away from all of them. Therefore, their 
families were forced to make a decision: stay together but not be here 
in a legal context; or divide and strip families apart.
  We simply believe that 245(i), which was the law of the land, should 
be the law of the land again because it produces a basic fundamental 
public policy which I believe both sides of the aisle, but certainly my 
Republican colleagues, have said time and time again is a primary 
context of their efforts, which is the preservation of the family. That 
is why 245(i) should proceed.
  This is not about getting at the head of the line, not about getting 
something that otherwise cannot be obtained because you will through 
your relationship with a United States citizen ultimately be able to 
become a permanent resident. Through a relationship with a permanent 
resident of the United States, you will ultimately be able to get your 
residency in terms of a spouse or a child. So why not keep these 
families together? That is the public policy question before us.
  Yes, we recognize that 4 months is an effort in the minds of some, 
but it does not ultimately reach the goal that we want. Let us turn 
this temporary extension into a permanent one. Let us understand if we 
had a vote in this House, we would have a positive vote for a permanent 
extension of 245(i), as we had in the last Congress.

[[Page 8565]]

  Let us do the right thing. Let us seek a permanent extension, and let 
us give the dignity to those families of United States citizens to be 
able to keep their families together.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair will remind Members 
to address their remarks to the Chair and not to persons outside the 
Chamber.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, a distinguished lawyer.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for bringing this matter to the floor.
  I wish we could all say that it is the complete solution to the 
problem that we encounter, that many families in America encounter, but 
it is not. We are taking a step forward.
  We were pleased to receive the word from the President recently that 
he also believes that we need to address the problem under section 
245(i), but we are going to come back. We are going to be back here 
again because this will not be the final solution. In 4 months you will 
not address the problems that are facing American families. You cannot 
tell a spouse or a father or a daughter to stop trying if 4 months cuts 
them off. That is not how you handle policies in Congress. We need to 
move forward, but we are not going to do it in 4 months. I say we are 
going to come back. We shall return.
  Madam Speaker, we have to recognize something. In the past we were 
just trying to get this Congress to do the right thing. Well, at least 
now we are getting Congress to do the right thing; but we have to get 
Congress to do the thing right.
  That is where I hope that we will recognize that this is a way to go 
about it. It is not going to deal with the problems that many of 
America's families will face if we truly are about family unification 
and if we are concerned about family values. We will recognize that. It 
is not good enough if we leave one child out, if we leave one spouse 
away from home. It is not good enough if we tell that one father, that 
one daughter, that one sister, sorry, they missed the cutoff date. It 
is time for us to try to deal with this in a permanent way.
  Madam Speaker, we are here on the floor. We are going to move 
forward, but I guarantee my colleagues, we will be back. I appreciate 
the work that is being done on both sides of the aisle. I hope the 
President recognizes that Members are working this issue, and we will 
work together to try to fashion a solution to this that will tell 
American families that we believe in family unification, and the value 
of American families being part of the fabric of life.
  Madam Speaker, I support this measure understanding that we will 
still have to come back.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I want to take the gentleman from 
California's approach also and thank the majority party and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for bringing this measure to 
the floor; and I will vote for it tonight.
  However, upon voting for it I will continue to insist that we make 
this a permanent situation. Obviously, bringing a bill to the floor 
indicates a desire to solve this problem; but the 4-month extension 
does not solve the problem. The President's comment about fixing this 
problem means that he recognizes a need to do the right thing, but he 
did not say 4 months, he said just fix it.
  The INS, which came before the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, said that they will accept at 
the minimum a 1-year extension. Everyone has said that they will take 
longer to solve the problem, and yet it has been decided to curtail the 
time; and, thus, create perhaps another problem.
  Let me remind my colleagues what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) said. ``The folks that we are talking about are the folks who 
will make the next generation of great Americans; who are, in fact, 
today doing all those jobs Americans do not want to do, and doing those 
things that so many of us need to have done.''
  These are people who want to keep their families together, and that 
is what this country is about. It is about immigration and it is about 
family. It is ironic that this side, who gets accused for not talking 
about family, we are the ones who are saying, let the time be so these 
folks can stay in the country and continue to work and continue to make 
our country strong.
  Like my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and so 
many others, if one were to go to my district office on any given day, 
over 80 percent of all the case work that we do is on the issue of 
immigration. This issue is really hurting a lot of people.
  If my colleagues had opened it up and said everyone can come in for 4 
months, that still would have been better. But to suggest only those 
who were ready April 30 to have their paperwork done, that is still 
setting more stumbling blocks.
  Yes, I will support this bill tonight. Hopefully my colleagues have 
the votes to get it done. But immediately, let us begin to work on a 
permanent situation. Madam Speaker, notice that I have mastered the 
English language enough to know that it is incorrect to say a 
``permanent extension,'' because somehow that is improper use of the 
language. But let us do the right thing so we can all do what is right 
for America and for these folks.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a compromise, as was the provision in the 
omnibus appropriation bill that was passed at the end of last Congress 
was a compromise.
  The 4-month provision in this bill seems to be attacked from all 
sides. There are some who would like to make section 245(i) permanent; 
and there are those who argue that we should not extend 245(i) because 
there was a deadline, and the people who missed the deadline knew full 
well what it was and did not file timely applications. This bill 
attempts to take a middle course.
  What is so wrong with 4 months? The provision in the omnibus 
appropriation bill which was signed by former President Clinton on 
December 21, 2000, established a period of 4 months and 10 days for 
245(i) applications to be timely filed.
  A lot of people did not timely file their 245(i) applications because 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service waited until the middle of 
March in order to issue the regulations for the extension. That was not 
the fault of those who were eligible to apply; that was the fault of 
the Immigration Service, and I think most of us who have immigration 
cases in our own congressional office realize that this agency is 
probably more dysfunctional or nonfunctional than any of the other 
agencies of the Federal Government.
  But they did get their act together until 2\1/2\ to 3 months after 
the time established by the law went by. What this bill does is it says 
okay, the INS goofed up and did not give everybody the 4 months, and so 
we will start the clock ticking again. The 245(i) deadline will be 4 
months from the date of enactment of the law that is proposed in H.R. 
1885.
  Now, whether the extension is 4 months or 6 months or a year or some 
other time, human nature, being what it is, everybody waits until the 
last minute to file their applications.
  Madam Speaker, I think that the word should go out today from this 
House of Representatives that if this legislation passes, do not wait 
until the last day to file an application. I would hope that the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service would be geared up to receive 
these applications, and I

[[Page 8566]]

know I speak for most of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
to inform the INS that we are going to be all over them so they will 
receive the applications as of the date of the enactment of the law; 
but the immigration groups and the immigration bar should not tarry so 
that the immigration petitions under section 245(i) will end up being 
filed well before the deadline so that the INS can be in the process of 
adjudicating them and issuing the proper visa.
  Madam Speaker, this is a compassionate compromise to a very 
contentious issue. I think that 4 months is a legitimate extension 
because it was just a little more than 4 months that was contained in 
the omnibus appropriation bill.
  I would strongly urge the House to endorse this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for a 
real extension of Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, and my concern that the four-month extension in this bill is far 
too short.
  Section 245(i) allows undocumented immigrants who are in the United 
States and who become eligible for permanent residency because of their 
family relationships or job skills to remain in the country while they 
seek to adjust their status. They must qualify and pay a $1,000 penalty 
before they obtain permanent residency.
  In last year's final budget agreement, this provision was extended by 
four months, through April 30 of this year. With the expiration of 
Section 245(i), immigrants who wish to apply for legal residence must 
return to their country of origin, where they are barred from returning 
to the U.S. for up to 10 years. I know from my constituents that this 
requirement will create a serious hardship for many families, forcing 
loved ones to live apart for years.
  The extension of Section 245(i) through April 30 offered a woefully 
insufficient window of opportunity for immigrants to pursue legal 
status. There simply were not enough community, professional, and INS 
resources to meet the demand in such a brief amount of time. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1195, introduced by Mr. Rangel, which 
would extend the deadline by a full year.
  The bill we are considering today, while it takes a step in the right 
direction by extending Section 245(i) by four months, would result in a 
replay of the same problems we witnessed leading up to the April 30 
deadline. At the INS office in my district in San Francisco and around 
the country, thousands of individuals stood in line on April 30, trying 
to beat the deadline. Many were unsuccessful. Four months is simply too 
short.
  I will continue my efforts to implement a long-term solution to this 
problem. If we care about families, we need to help keep them together.
  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House of 
Representatives will act today to extend the Section 245(i) program 
which would allow family and employment-based immigrants who are 
already eligible to become legal permanent residents to adjust their 
immigration status while remaining in the U.S.
  The four month extension provided in H.R. 1885, offers a direct 
benefit to many people who are the immediate relatives of U.S. 
citizens. Those individuals who are eligible for permanent residence 
status will be able to remain in the U.S. while their visa applications 
are processed. This relief will protect families from separation as 
they seek to finally regularize their status. Without this extension, 
many immigrants would be forced to make the difficult choice of leaving 
the country and being barred from re-entry for as long as 10 years, or 
remaining in the U.S. as undocumented aliens.
  I am pleased that we are able to take this humanitarian step today to 
promote family unity for thousands of people who will soon become our 
``newest Americans''. I am hopeful that the House's vote today will 
lead to quick action by the Senate and a bill being signed into law by 
the President. And I would urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of an extension of 
section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In fact, on 
May 3, 2001, Congressman Gutierrez and I introduced H.R. 1713 which 
would permanently extend this critical section.
  The 245(i) provision allows for eligible immigrants to apply for 
residency while remaining with their families and in their jobs in the 
United States, provided they pay a $1,000 penalty. Section 245(i) does 
not change the rules under which a visa is granted, merely the location 
where the processing of the visa occurs. Those who participate in this 
section must be eligible to obtain legal status in the form of 
permanent residence in this country and must qualify for immigrant 
visas on a family relationship or an offer of employment. They must 
also have a visa number immediately available and must be otherwise 
admissible to the United States.
  With passage of the ``Legal Immigrant and Family Equity Act of 2000'' 
during the waning days of the 106th Congress, the grandfather clause 
deadline of Section 245(i) was extended from January 14, 1998 until 
April 30, 2001. The April 30th deadline is now well past. Eligible 
immigrants are now required to apply at American consulates in their 
home countries and, therefore, must risk being barred from returning to 
their families and American jobs for anywhere between 3 and 10 years.
  As the April 30th deadline approached, many immigrants suffered from 
confusion surrounding 245(i) eligibility, as well as frustration with 
fraudulent immigration service providers, commonly known as notarios. 
In my District Office, my staff and I heard about many such cases each 
and every month.
  President Bush himself stated that roughly 200,000 immigrants who had 
been eligible to file to adjust their status failed to do so in time. 
He indicated that much of the confusion was a result of the United 
States' government failure to issue instructions in a timely fashion.
  President Bush even suggested that section 245(i) should be extended 
for one year. For this reason, I support Congressman Gekas' legislation 
only with the hope that it would lead to a longer extension or even a 
permanent one.
  A temporary extension is only a temporary solution. It is only with a 
permanent extension of the deadline for Section 245(i) that Congress 
will forever end the suffering of immigrant families that are ripped 
apart by technicalities in immigration law.
  In America, in the land of the free, we must restore our tradition as 
a nation of immigrants, and a nation of justice, by enacting such 
corrective legislation. The extension of 245(i) is pro-family, pro-
business, and overall humane policy.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 
1885, a bill which will expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply 
for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification petition 
and labor certification filings.
  H.R. 1885 will allow immigrants to apply for legal residence while 
remaining in the United States, four months from the date of enactment 
of this legislation. This extension is consistent with the Legal 
Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act's intention to provide a small 
window--which has been cut short due to administrative problems--to 
permit aliens to adjust their status.
  Immigrants may qualify if they have been in the United States since 
December 21, 2000. I believe this legislation is fair and equitable 
because it does not encourage illegal immigration or punish those who 
are presently waiting to enter the United States legally. In addition, 
H.R. 1885 requires that the family relationship or employment exists by 
April 30, 2001 to discourage the possibility of false marriages by 
illegal immigrants. Furthermore, H.R. 1885 will assist only the group 
of immigrants eligible by the April 30th date, but failed to meet the 
deadline.
  This is an important adjustment to the law because Section 245(i) 
allows prospective family and employment based immigrants to adjust 
their status to that of permanent resident while remaining in the 
United States, rather than requiring them to return to their home 
country to obtain an immigrant visa.
  I believe that failing to extend the 245(i) provision would burden 
American families and businesses, effectively splitting families apart 
and placing business projects on hold for an inordinate and undue 
amount of time. This is not in America's best interest.
  I, therefore, encourage Members from both sides of the aisle to 
support this fair and equitable adjustment to present immigration law.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1885, the 245(i) Extension Act of 2001.
  Section 245(i) is a vital provision of U.S. immigration law that 
allows some immigrants on the brink of becoming permanent residents to 
apply for their green cards while staying in the United States, rather 
than having to return to their home countries to complete this time 
consuming process.
  Unfortunately we allowed this law to expire on April 30, 2001, 
despite the fact that the INS said they had not had enough time to 
notify everyone who was eligible to take advantage of this status. 
Although I believe 245(i) should be permanent, extending it for 120 
days through H.R. 1885 is a step in the right direction.

[[Page 8567]]

  If we do not extend this law tonight people who are fully eligible 
for green cards will be forced to return to their home countries and 
barred from returning to the United States for anywhere from 3 to 10 
years, despite the fact that they have homes, jobs, and families here.
  I firmly believe that restoring 245(i) is pro-family, pro-business, 
fiscally prudent, and a matter of common sense. It will allow 
immigrants with close family members here in the United States to stay 
with their relatives while applying for legal permanent residence; it 
will allow businesses to retain valuable employees; and it will provide 
the INS with millions in annual revenue with absolutely no additional 
cost to taxpayers.
  Extending section 245(i) will not give special benefits to illegal 
immigrants and it will not allow anyone to cut in line ahead of others.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation that is so important to thousands of American families.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 
1885, 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. This 245(i) proposal in the House 
is insufficient in time and stingy in scope.
  The White House has stated support for an extension of 245(i) for 6 
to 12 months, and there is bipartisan legislation in both Houses of 
Congress for similar extensions. This new proposal of a limited 4-month 
extension with restrictions has come to the floor without a hearing and 
without appropriate, fair consideration. It is not consistent with the 
spirit of President Bush's letter where he advocated for policies that 
strengthen families and recognized that there was not enough time with 
the previous four-month extension.
  In December 2000, when Congress passed a 245(i) extension that 
expired April 30, 2001, it took the INS over 3 months to issue the new 
regulation, causing great panic and confusion among immigrants and 
creating an opportunity for unscrupulous and fraudulent immigration 
``advisors.'' This new provision, needing new regulations will only 
create more delay, chaos and unnecessary hardship on immigrants with 
real claims to legal status.
  A 245(i) provision helps people in this country who otherwise qualify 
for legal permanent residency. It is not an amnesty, but rather a way 
for people with deep roots in this country to reunite their families 
and work their way towards citizenship and full participation in their 
adopted country. A meaningful extension must go beyond 4 months and 
should not impose new arbitrary requirements.
  This proposed extension is a superficial and transparent political 
gesture, which recreates problems we are seeking to rectify from the 
last extension we passed. It appears to do something positive for 
immigrant families. However, I believe that it is a proposal that 
demonstrates that we have not learned anything from our previous 
mistakes. We need to pass and implement a comprehensive solution to 
families that are separated from their loved ones and not prolong, 
perpetuate, or further complicate their problem. While I fully support 
a 245(i) extension that provides real relief to families, I strongly 
stand in opposition to this hastily considered, incomplete and 
impractical proposal before us now.
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about H.R. 1885, which 
would extend Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for 
four months.
  I am disappointed that H.R. 1885 will only allow the extension of 
245(i) for four months. This small extension will not offer enough time 
for thousands of people to apply. Section 245(i) needs to be extended 
for a longer period of time because thousands of immigrants were not 
able to meet the April 30, 2001 deadline.
  I am also concerned that the new requirements of H.R. 1885 will force 
the INS to issue regulations that will take three months or more to be 
implemented. This will only leave people with a month or less to apply.
  H.R. 1885 also imposes unfortunate new restrictions on eligibility 
that will greatly limit the pool of potential beneficiaries.
  The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has written a letter to President 
Bush stating our disappointment in H.R. 1885. In order to unite and 
strengthen families, we need a permanent extension of 245(i). A 
permanent extension will keep the maximum number of families united, 
help avoid fraud perpetrated against immigrants seeking assistance, and 
allow for a steady stream of funding for Department of Justice 
programs.
  This month President Bush sent a letter to Congress indicating his 
support of a six to twelve month extension of 245(i). I do not 
understand why the Republican leadership has chosen to advance a bill 
with only a four month extension when the Bush Administration clearly 
supports a longer extension.
  H.R. 1885 does not do enough to help immigrants in need. I hope 
Congress and the Administration can work together in the future to 
implement either a one year or permanent extension of 245(i).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1885, a bill 
that will extend by four months the time for eligible individuals to 
apply for permanent resident status in the United States. While this 
bill does not extend the deadline by a year or make it permanent as I 
would prefer, it is a humane effort and a good first step to assist 
people eligible for permanent residency.
  To be eligible to apply for permanent residency, an individual must 
have family in the US or must be sponsored by an employer. However, 
under current law, eligible individuals cannot file while in the US. 
Instead, they must leave the country and file from abroad. By forcing 
people to leave the country, we are ensuring that lives are uprooted, 
families are separated, and valuable jobs are lost.
  Expanding Section 245(i) of the immigration code is necessary to keep 
families together and to promote steady employment. It would grant no 
special rights or status for immigrants but would instead clear an 
expensive and time-consuming procedural hurdle for people already 
living in the United States who are eligible to apply for permanent 
residency status. As the deadline approached last month, INS offices 
across the country remained open for extended hours to allow eligible 
people to apply in the US. Almost all the people who apply are 
approved, therefore, we should extend the deadline. H.R. 1885 is a 
logical and humane response to a provision of the law that does not 
make sense and should be changed. It is my hope and understanding that 
although this bill does not make this section of immigration law 
permanent, Congress will act soon to enact further extensions. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong opposition 
to H.R. 1885, the 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. By allowing illegal 
aliens to buy legal permanent residence for $1,000, Section 245(i) 
places American lives at risk.
  Although the current legal immigration structure is by no means 
perfect, it does provide for crucial health screening and criminal 
record background checks which determine if potential immigrants will 
place the well-being and security of American citizens and legal 
immigrants in danger. To make such determinations is not only the right 
of the United States as a sovereign country, it should be its foremost 
responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) ultimately rewards those people who 
have thwarted the legal immigration structure by entering the country 
illegally or by allowing their legal status to lapse. Simultaneously, 
the policy penalizes potential immigrants who have patiently waited 
many years, completed many forms, and undergone appropriate screenings 
for the privileged opportunity to be reunited with family members and 
to work in the United States.
  Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) was a bad policy when it was first 
enacted in 1994. It was not worthy of being re-instated during the 
previous 107th Congress, and it should not be further extended.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of 
at least a minimum one-year extension to the April 30, 2001, filing 
deadline under Section 245(i), allowing certain persons to remain in 
the United States while they pursue legal residency.
  The bill before us, H.R. 1885, would extend the immigration filing 
deadline under Section 245(i) for only four months. At best, it 
acknowledges the importance of this program. However, it is absolutely 
inadequate time to resolve the problem.
  In the 106th Congress, the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act 
(LIFE) had a filing deadline of April 30, 2001. INS did not finalize 
the regulations for LIFE until March 26, 2001. This allowed only barely 
a month--just over 30 days--for petitioners to be informed of the 
regulations and to file their applications. This short time frame 
fostered the dissemination of wrong or inadequate information.
  Additionally, H.R. 1885 requires that an applicant seeking to adjust 
his status under 245(i) must prove that he was physically present on 
December 21, 2000, and that they established a familial or employment 
relationship that serves as the basis of their petition. Fulfilling 
this requirement is not an easy process. Obtaining the necessary 
documentation will require more than 4 months.
  At the April 30, 2001, deadline, 200,000 persons had pending 
applications. This is due partly to the fact that INS was not able to 
handle the tremendous influx of applications.
  Madam Speaker, a minimum one year extension of the filing deadline is 
imperative in order to fulfill the purpose and intent of the LIFE Act.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a minimum 
one-year extension of the filing deadline under Section 245(i). It is 
the right thing to do.

[[Page 8568]]


  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, it goes without saying 
that, as legislators, our goal is to pass the best legislation 
possible. Extending the deadline for people to adjust their immigration 
status under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 
is the right thing to do. In this case, the goal is to allow everyone 
who is eligible under the law, to obtain permanent legal residence. 
Unfortunately, I fear a four month extension is an incomplete remedy.
  Consideration of this legislation says volumes about the way business 
is conducted in the House. The Speed with which this bill has been 
brought to the floor was noticeably absent on April 30th. This House 
was uncharacteristically silent about the pending deadline. While I'm 
pleased that we finally have the opportunity to talk about extending 
the deadline, I'm concerned about the circumvention of the committee 
process and the noticeably shorter extension period. We have not had a 
fair hearing on the alternatives, such as the bill Congressman King and 
I introduced after working closely with state and local officials in 
New York, that gives eligible people an adequate window of opportunity 
to adjust their status by extending the deadline by six months.




  The process of adjusting one's immigration status can be confusing 
and that misinformation is rampant in the immigrant community. As we 
cast our votes for or against this bill, we have to ask ourselves a 
number of important questions: is four months enough time; are we 
setting ourselves up for a repeat of the last deadline, when long lines 
of eligible people inundated the I.N.S. offices and many were excluded; 
and finally, is this bill a fair and reasonable compromise designed to 
help those who deserve it. I fear it is something less. We could have 
done better. The people deserve better.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the House 
Resolution 1885 to expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for 
adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and 
National Act.
  As I understand it, the purpose of this legislation is to enable 
eligible illegal immigrants to apply for legal residence in the United 
States without being forced to leave the country while waiting for 
clearance.
  Whereas President Bush would like this program to be extended for 
another 12 months, the four-month extension proposed by my colleague, 
Representative George Gekas is a sensible approach. This alternative 
approach would be beneficial to all concerned parties, particularly if 
family or employment ties are already in existence.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1885.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________