[Senate Report 104-250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 362
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-250
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                     LEGAL IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1996

                                _______


                 April 10, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of March 29, 1996

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1665]

    The Committee on the Judiciary reports an original bill (S. 
1665) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change 
the level and revise the preference system for the admission of 
immigrants to the United States, and to provide increased 
protections to American workers, and for other purposes; and 
recommends that the bill do pass.
                                CONTENTS
                                                                   Page
  I.  Purpose.........................................................2
         1. Revision of family-sponsored preference 
            classifications......................................     2
         2. Revision of H-1B ``Specialty Occupation'' program....     3
 II.  Summary of bill's provisions....................................4
         1. Provisions regarding immigrants......................     4
         2. Provisions regarding nonimmigrants...................     5
         3. Miscellaneous provisions.............................     6
 III. Need for current legislation....................................6

 IV.  History of current legislation..................................8
  V.  Section-by-section analysis.....................................9
 VI.  Committee action...............................................14
 VII. Cost estimate..................................................19

 VIII Regulatory impact statement....................................19
   .
 IX.  Additional views of Senator Simpson............................20
  X. Additional views of Senators Abraham and DeWine.................22
 XI. Minority views of Senators Kennedy, Simon, Leahy, and Feingold..25
 XII. Changes in existing law........................................29


                               I. Purpose

     The committee bill is intended to reform legal immigration 
to the United States so that it might better serve the national 
interest. The bill addresses issues regarding both immigrant 
and nonimmigrant visas, and includes several miscellaneous 
provisions.

       1. REVISION OF FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCE CLASSIFICATIONS

The problem

    The current system of family reunification requires reform. 
Current backlogs require families to wait years to be united. 
The backlog of spouses and children of permanent residents, for 
example, is 1.1 million. A permanent resident applying today to 
bring his wife and children to the United States faces a 4- or 
5-year wait. For Americans trying to bring their brothers and 
sisters here, the wait in the 1.6 million-person backlog may be 
20 years or more.
     The current system also gives almost equal priority to the 
various family categories, whether it is for the reunification 
of the ``nuclear family'' (spouses and unmarried minor 
children) or more extended family members. This means visas 
continue to be allocated to adult brothers and sisters of some 
U.S. petitioners--often with their own spouses and children 
(in-laws, nieces, and nephews of the petitioner)--while spouses 
and children of other petitioners wait in line.
     Some have proposed to solve this inequity by abolishing 
the nonnuclear family categories. The subcommittee bill 
followed the Jordan Commission's recommendation to retain 
categories for:
          ``Immediate relatives'' of citizens (parents, 
        spouses, and unmarried minor children), and
          Spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent 
        residents, but to abolish categories for:
          Adult children of citizens,
                  Adult children of permanent residents, and
                  Brothers and sisters of citizens.

Family preference system

     The committee adopted a priority system under which 
nonnuclear family categories would remain, but, after 10 years, 
would get visas only if categories for spouses and children did 
not need them. This system would be phased in over 10 years.
     The system would operate as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                  Current law       Committee bill  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate relatives: Spouses/     Unlimited           Unlimited         
 minor children/parents of         (currently          (currently       
 citizens.                         estimated at        estimated at     
                                   250,000).           250,000).        
Family preference categories                                            
 \1\:                                                                   
    Spouses/minor children of     87,934 (at least    175,000 unused    
     permanent residents           77% of 114,200**).  visas ``flow     
     (``2A'').                                         down'' to lower  
                                                       categories.      
    Adult unmarried sons/         23,400............  (\1\)             
     daughters of citizens                            35,000 floor      
     (``First'').                                      during backlog   
                                                       reduction.       
    Adult married sons/daughters  23,400............  (\1\)             
     of citizens (``Third'').                         40,000 floor      
                                                       during backlog   
                                                       reduction.       
    Adult unmarried sons/         26,266 (up to 23%   (\1\)             
     daughters of permanent        of 114,200 \2\).                     
     residents (``2B'').                                                
    Brothers and sisters of       65,000............  (\1\)             
     citizens (``Fourth'').                                             
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Totals....................  480,000 per year..  425,000 per year. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under current law, unused numbers in family preference categories   
  ``fall down'' to the next lower category, in the following order:     
  First, 2A, 2B, Third, Fourth.                                         
\2\ This number could be somewhat greater depending on the number of    
  immediate relatives and unused employment numbers in the prior year.  

Backlog reduction program

    In addition to these changes in the permanent program of 
family immigration, the Committee adopted a 10-year backlog 
reduction program:

                   TEMPORARY FAMILY-BACKLOG REDUCTION                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                          Committee bill       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spouses/unmarried minor children of         25,000/year for five years  
 permanent residents (1.1 million backlog).  (125,000 total).           
Siblings of adult citizens (1.6 million     50,000/year for first five  
 backlog).                                   years; 75,000/year for     
                                             second five years (625,000 
                                             total).                    
Total backlog numbers.....................  75,000/year for ten years   
                                             (750,000 total).           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          2. revision of h-1b ``specialty occupation'' program

The problem

    The H-1B program provides U.S. employers with temporary 
foreign workers to fill certain ``specialty occupations.'' 
There have been some abuses of the program, usually involving 
employers which pay their H-1B workers less than the prevailing 
wage at the site where the actual work is done. Frequently, the 
``employer'' is a ``job contractor,'' which in effect leases 
the H-1B workers to another firm, where the work is actually 
performed. Such underpayment creates a situation where H-1B 
workers are cheaper and therefore more attractive than U.S. 
workers (citizens and lawful permanent residents), thereby 
posing a threat both to U.S. workers and to companies that pay 
the true prevailing wage.

H-1B reforms

    The bill is intended to curb the abuses of the H-1B worker 
program in a way that does not unnecessarily burden those 
employers who comply with the law. Therefore, it provides for 
greater enforcement through increased monitoring of employers 
that employ H-1B workers and increased penalties on employers 
who violate the law.
    Many violations of current law regarding H-1B workers have 
been committed by employers who depend on H-1B workers for a 
substantial percentage of their workforce. Therefore, the bill 
places these ``H-1B dependent'' employers under stricter 
scrutiny, while relieving employers which are not H-1B 
dependent from certain regulatory requirements.

                    II. Summary of Bill's Provisions

                   1. provisions regarding immigrants

    The current system of family-based admissions is revised in 
order to make possible an eventual reduction in the number of 
family-based immigrants admitted each year (after a backlog 
reduction program is completed), to set priorities for the 
admission of such immigrants, and to address the problem of 
large backlogs of aliens who are the beneficiaries of approved 
visa petitions, but are not immediately admissible because of 
numerical limitations.
    The committee bill revises slightly the preference system 
established for employment-based immigration by eliminating 
visas for unskilled immigrants. Current law authorizes up to 
10,000 visas per year for unskilled immigrants. Under the 
committee bill, such numbers would instead be available for 
skilled-worker categories.
    The ``diversity'' immigrant visa program is reduced from 
55,000 to 27,000 visas per year.
    The committee bill also makes several changes in the system 
of numerical limitations. The worldwide level of family-
sponsored immigrants is determined according to a formula in 
which the number of ``immediate relatives'' (spouses, children, 
and parents of U.S. citizens) in the previous year is 
subtracted from 425,000. The resultant figure is then increased 
by the number of employment-based immigrant visas unused in the 
previous fiscal year. The higher of this number or 175,000 is 
the limit for the family-preference categories. In addition, 
75,000 visas are provided each year for 10 years after 
enactment for ``backlog reduction''. During the first 5 years, 
25,000 of such ``backlog reduction'' visas are made available 
annually to backlogged spouses and unmarried, minor children of 
aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and 50,000 
visas annually are made available to backlogged brothers and 
sisters of adult U.S. citizens. During the second 5 years, all 
75,000 visas are made available to backlogged siblings of 
citizens.
    The number of employment-based immigrants remains at 
140,000 per year.
    The committee bill also sets the per-country limit at 
20,000 annually for preference immigrants, with the exception 
of ``contiguous countries'' (Canada and Mexico), for which the 
annual limit is set at 40,000. Such limit will not be in 
effect, however, for the spouses and children of permanent 
residents as long as backlog reduction numbers are provided for 
such category.
    Assuming a flow of 250,000 ``Immediate Relatives'' of U.S. 
Citizens, (this estimate was given by Senators Kennedy and 
Abraham during the markup), total legal immigration to the 
United States under the committee bill will be 667,000 per year 
for the next 10 years, plus refugees (90,000 currently) and 
asylees (10,000 currently).
    Admissions would be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                  Current law       Committee bill  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate relatives: Spouses/     Unlimited (assume   Unlimited (assume 
 minor children/parents of         250,000).           250,000).        
 citizens                                                               
Family preference categories:                                           
    Spouses/minor children of     91,014 \1\........  100,000 + 25,000  
     permanent residents.                              (backlog) \2\=125
                                                       ,000 total.      
    Adult, unmarried children of  23,400............  35,000.           
     citizens.                                                          
    Adult married children of     23,400............  40,000.           
     citizens.                                                          
    Adult unmarried children of   27,186 \1\........  0 visas (until    
     permanent residents.                              backlog of       
                                                       spouses/minor    
                                                       children         
                                                       eliminated).     
    Brothers and sisters of       65,000............  0 visas + 50,000  
     citizens.                                         (backlog) \2\=50,
                                                       000 total.       
Employment-based visas..........  140,000...........  140,000.          
Diversity visas.................  55,000............  27,000.           
Refugees (fiscal year 1996        90,000............  90,000.           
 level).                                                                
Asylees (estimated).............  10,000............  10,000.           
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total annual immigration    775,000...........  767,000 \3\.      
       next 10 years.                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current law provides that spouses and minor children of permanent   
  residents receive 114,200 visas per year plus the difference between  
  254,000 and the level of ``Immediate Relative'' admissions. This table
  assumes 250,000 ``Immediate Relatives'' admissions per year, so an    
  additional 4,000 visas will be available to the category for spouses  
  and children of legal permanent residents. 77 percent of this total   
  (118,400) must go to the spouses and unmarried, minor children of LPRs
  (91,014), while 23 percent is available for unmarried, adult children 
  of LPRs (27,186).                                                     
\2\ Note on backlog visas: During the first 5 years after enactment,    
  25,000 backlog visas are provided to spouses and unmarried, minor     
  children of legal permanent residents; 50,000 visas per year are      
  provided to siblings of U.S. citizens (and their immediate families). 
  After 5 years, 75,000 backlog visas will be provided to siblings of   
  citizens (and their immediate families); no backlog visas would be    
  provided to spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents.  
  For the backlog visas, the chart reflects the distribution of visas   
  during the first 5 years after enactment.                             
\3\ After 10 years, the backlog reduction visas will expire. For fiscal 
  year 2007 and each subsequent year, immigration levels under the      
  committee bill will be 75,000 lower.                                  

                 2. PROVISIONS REGARDING NONIMMIGRANTS

    The bill amends certain provisions of the law relating to 
nonimmigrants. The bill eliminates the requirement for an 
``objective system'' to determine actual wages paid to H-1B 
workers and authorizes certain large employers to use a system 
certified by the Secretary of Labor. The bill also authorizes 
employers to use various methods to determine the prevailing 
wage level. It increases the penalties imposed upon employers 
who violate the attestations made in H-1B petitions, and 
reduces certain regulatory requirements for employers who are 
not defined as ``H-1B-dependent'' (a status based on the number 
of H-1B workers in an employer's work force). The bill 
authorizes the Secretary of Labor to initiate investigations of 
H-1B-dependent employers.
    The committee bill provides that, with respect to labor 
certification, both for immigrants and for nonimmigrants, the 
prevailing wage level for researchers at an institution of 
higher education, or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity 
or Federal research entity, shall be computed with reference 
only to researchers at other such entities in the area of 
employment.
    The committee bill extends the visa waiver pilot program 
for an additional 2 years, until September 30, 1998. However, 
it establishes a procedure for the termination and removal from 
the program of countries which no longer meet the qualifying 
standards. It also repeals the provision which enabled 
countries to qualify for the program in ``probationary 
status,'' but allows countries which have already qualified in 
such status to remain in the program (subject to the removal 
procedure).

                      3. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    The Committee bill repeals current provisions for the 
admission of ``Amerasians,'' effective October 1, 1997.
    The bill makes suspension of deportation unavailable to an 
alien who has entered the U.S. without inspection, unless the 
deportation of such alien would result in ``exceptional and 
extremely unusual hardship.''
    The bill makes excludable any person convicted of, or who 
admits having committed, an act of economic espionage or piracy 
of intellectual property.
    The bill requires international matchmaking organizations 
to disseminate to its recruits (``mail-order brides'') such 
information regarding immigration and naturalization as the 
Attorney General finds appropriate, and provides for civil 
penalties for each violation of that requirement. The bill 
requires the Attorney General to conduct a study of the extent 
of mail-order marriages, the fraud and domestic abuse related 
thereto, and the significance of such marriages for 
implementation of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

                   III. Need for Current Legislation

    The committee bill addresses the problem of escalating 
backlogs in the categories of spouses and children of aliens 
admitted for permanent residence, and brothers and sisters of 
citizens. Backlogs in all family-preference visa categories 
combined have more than tripled in the past 15 years, rising 
from 1.1 million in 1981 to 3.6 million in 1996.
    The estimated level of the backlogs, as of January 1, 1995, 
the latest date for which figures are available, is as follows:



    The four family preferences and their annual numerical 
allocations under current law are as follows:
          1st preference--unmarried adult sons and daughters of 
        U.S. citizens (23,400 plus visa not required for 4th 
        preference);
          2nd preference--2(a): spouses and unmarried minor 
        children of permanent resident aliens; 2(b): unmarried 
        adult sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens 
        (total 2nd preference visas are 114,200 plus visas not 
        required for 1st preference);
          3rd preference--married sons and daughters of U.S. 
        citizens (23,400 plus visas not required for 1st or 2nd 
        preference);
          4th preference--brothers and sisters of adult U.S. 
        citizens (65,000 plus visas not required for 1st, 2nd, 
        or 3rd preferences).
    The backlog of spouses and of unmarried minor and adult 
children of permanent resident aliens (2nd preference) now 
exceeds that for the traditionally oversubscribed brothers and 
sisters preference (4th), for the first time since the basic 
family preference system was established in 1965. This is of 
considerable concern because the reunification of spouses and 
children is of the highest priority.
    Congress, in the Immigration Act of 1990, established the 
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform to examine and make 
recommendations regarding the implementation and impact of U.S. 
immigration policy. The 9-member Commission, chaired by the 
late Barbara Jordan, produced a broad range of recommendations 
related to legal immigration in its July 1995 report Legal 
Immigration: Setting Priorities. The Commission stated its 
conviction that ``our current immigration system must undergo 
major reform to ensure that admissions continue to serve our 
national interests.'' It recommended ``a significant 
redefinition of priorities and a reallocation of existing 
admission numbers to fulfill more effectively the objectives of 
our immigration system.''

                   IV. History of Current Legislation

    The current legal immigration preference system grew out of 
legislative changes begun in 1965. The Immigration Act of 1965 
abolished the ``national origins'' quota system for the 
selection of immigrants and established a per-country limit of 
20,000. Immigrant visas were allocated among seven categories 
based on family reunification, needed skills, and refugees.
    In the late 1970's, the growth of the problem of illegal 
immigration, the significant rise in immigration pressures and 
public concern about immigration, and the increasing numbers of 
refugees in many parts of the world caused Congress to 
establish a panel of distinguished Americans to review our 
immigration and refugee policies and make recommendations for 
appropriate reforms. The 1981 report of the 16-member Select 
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, presented by its 
chairman, the Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, concluded that 
controlled immigration continued to be in the national 
interest. The Select Commission's comprehensive recommendations 
as to both legal and illegal immigration became the basis for 
immigration reform initiatives over the subsequent decade.
    In both the Senate and the House, omnibus immigration 
reform bills based on the Select Commission recommendations 
were introduced, extensively debated and passed in one or both 
houses in the years 1981-86. In what ultimately became the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, however, Congress 
chose to focus solely on issues of illegal immigration, and to 
defer consideration of the Select Commission's recommendations 
for reform of legal immigration. The 1986 Act was based on 
three key elements: enhanced border enforcement, a system of 
sanctions against employers who knowingly hire unauthorized 
aliens, and an amnesty for certain persons illegally in the 
United States.
    Approximately 2.7 million persons received lawful permanent 
resident status through the legalization program from 1989 to 
1993: about 1.6 million as long-term illegal residents and 
another 1.1 million as ``Special Agricultural Workers.'' These 
legalization beneficiaries have the right to file immigration 
petitions under the INA, and have in fact petitioned for their 
relatives, some 800,000 of whom are in the current visa 
``backlog,'' waiting to be admitted as permanent residents to 
the United States.
    The Immigration Act of 1990 made significant changes in the 
immigration preference system put in place by the Immigration 
Act of 1965. The 1990 Act:
          Divided immigration preferences into family-based and 
        employment-based systems;
          Increased employment-based immigration from 54,000 
        annually to 140,000;
          Increased the worldwide annual immigration level to 
        675,000 (a 37 percent increase), including 480,000 
        family-based immigrants, 140,000 employment-based 
        immigrants, and 55,000 ``diversity'' immigrants 
        (intended to provide immigration opportunities to those 
        without relatives in this country).
    In the family-related category, Congress retained the 
policy of numerically unrestricted admission of ``immediate 
relatives'' (spouses, unmarried minor children and parents) of 
U.S. citizens. But the number of persons admitted as immediate 
relatives of U.S. citizens is counted against the total of 
480,000. To ensure a continuing flow of other family-based 
immigrants, which are subject to numerical limitation, Congress 
established a ``floor'' of 226,000 such admissions per year.
    A variety of factors, including the 1986 legalization 
programs and the legal immigration changes of 1990, have 
created historically high levels of immigration (an average of 
1.13 million per year in the years 1991-1994), and have 
dramatically increased the size of the ``backlogs'' of those 
awaiting admission as immigrants.
    S. 1394 was introduced November 3, 1995 by Senator Alan K. 
Simpson. It was ``marked-up'' by the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Immigration November 27, 1995, and reported to the Judiciary 
Committee on the same date by a vote of 5-2. The Subcommittee, 
by a 4-2 vote, agreed to merge S. 1394 with S. 269, also 
introduced by Senator Simpson.
    On March 14, the Judiciary Committee voted to split the 
merged bill, and to consider the two bills, commonly known as 
``the legal bill'' (an original bill containing provisions from 
S. 1394) and ``the illegal bill'' (an original bill containing 
provisions from S. 269), separately. On March 28, 1996, ``the 
legal bill'' was marked up by the Judiciary Committee and 
reported to the Senate.

                     V. Section-by-Section Analysis

                          TITLE I--IMMIGRANTS

            subtitle a--changes in immigrant classifications

Sec. 101. Family-sponsored preference classifications

    Subsection (a) reprioritizes the existing family preference 
categories. (The so-called ``immediate relative'' category (the 
spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens) remains 
unchanged from current law.
    The new priorities are:
          First priority: spouses and unmarried minor children 
        of permanent residents.
          Second priority: unmarried adult sons and daughters 
        of U.S. citizens.
          Third priority: married sons and daughters of 
        citizens.
          Fourth priority: unmarried adult sons and daughters 
        of permanent residents.
          Fifth priority: brothers and sisters of adult 
        citizens.
    The number of visas allocated to the first priority is 
equal to the higher of (a) 175,000, or (b) 425,000 minus the 
``immediate relatives'' in the prior year, plus the unused visa 
numbers in the prior year for employment-based immigrants. Any 
visas not required under that priority then ``flow down'' to 
the second priority. Any visas not required by the second 
priority ``flow down'' to the third, and so on.
    Thus, 175,000 visas (or the alternative number, if higher) 
are available to the family preference categories combined.
    Subsection (b) requires that, for a temporary period, a 
minimum number of such family visas be provided for the second 
and third priorities. The second priority receives a minimum of 
35,000; the third priority, a minimum of 40,000. These minimums 
or ``floors'' continue until backlogs in the first and second 
categories are eliminated. The floors are intended to assure 
that admissions will continue in the second and third 
categories unless, or until, such backlogs are being 
eliminated.
    If either of the priorities does not require the amount 
reserved under the floors, then the remainder goes back into 
the general pool of family preference numbers.
    Subsection (c) freezes new applications for the immigration 
of brothers and sisters until the backlog for such category has 
decreased to 150,000 (it is now 1.6 million).
    Subsection (d) requires the State Department to report to 
Congress within two years its best estimate of the actual 
number of persons on the backlog for brothers and sisters.

Sec. 102. Repeal of preference category for unskilled immigrants

    This section repeals provisions of current law that allow 
up to 10,000 of the 140,000 employment visas available each 
year to be used to admit employment-based immigrants for 
unskilled jobs.

Sec. 103. Not counting work experience as an unauthorized alien

    This section provides that work experience obtained in the 
United States by an alien who was not authorized for such work 
shall not be taken into account in determining the alien's 
eligibility for an employment-based immigrant visa.

Sec. 104. Judicial review

    This section clarifies and reforms the procedure for 
judicial review of the immigrant visa process. It establishes a 
limited period for suits challenging the allocation of visas or 
the adjudication of visa petitions, requiring that suit be 
brought within 90 days of the date of action or decision. Venue 
is solely the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; 
and only actual visa petitioners have standing to sue. The 
section provides that suits may be brought only after 
exhaustion of administrative remedies and may not be brought to 
compel agency action. It specifies that review must be on the 
administrative record, and provides that agency action must be 
sustained unless ``clearly erroneous.'' It bars courts from 
reviewing decisions within an agency's discretion, and provides 
that courts may not reverse or remand an agency's decision 
because an agency's explanation of its action was not extensive 
enough.

Sec. 105. Conforming amendments

Sec. 106. Transition

    This section provides that petitions for preference status 
under certain provisions of current law shall be deemed to be 
petitions under comparable provisions of the law as amended by 
the bill.

         subtitle b--changes in numerical limits on immigrants

Sec. 111. Worldwide numerical limitation on family-sponsored 
        immigration

    This section changes the worldwide level of family 
immigration from 480,000 (current law) to 425,000. This 
includes both those entering under the unlimited ``immediate 
relative'' category as well as those entering under the five 
family preference categories.

Sec. 112. Worldwide numerical limitation on diversity immigration

    This section reduces the number of diversity visas 
available annually from 55,000 to 27,000. It alters the formula 
for determining the number of visas available to low 
immigration countries, and contains an efficiency rule to 
ensure that consulates in countries with very few diversity 
participants are not burdened by the program. The section 
allows the State Department to charge a fee to cover the cost 
of administering the program.

Sec. 113. Numerical limitation on immigration from a single foreign 
        state

    This section re-establishes the per-country limit of 20,000 
for preference immigrants in effect before 1990 (a 40,000 limit 
is established for ``contiguous countries'' and 5,000 for 
``dependent areas''). The limit would not, however, affect 
spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent 
residents as long as backlog-clearance numbers were being 
provided for that category (see sec. 114).
    As under current law, this limit would not restrict the 
level of ``immediate relatives'' of citizens. However, the bill 
would reduce the limit for a particular foreign state in a 
fiscal year by the number of immediate relatives of citizens 
above the 20,000 (40,000 for ``contiguous countries'' and 5,000 
for ``dependent areas'') it sent in the prior year. For 
example, if in fiscal year 1995 the number of nationals from a 
non-contiguous country who entered as immediate relatives was 
30,000, then the per-country limit for such country for fiscal 
year 1996 would be 10,000 (the amount by which 30,000 exceeds 
20,000) fewer than the normal 20,000.

Sec. 114. Transition for certain backlogged spouses and children of 
        lawful permanent residents and brothers and sisters of citizens

    This section allocates 75,000 visas per year for 10 years 
for a backlog reduction program. These visas are available in 
addition to the normal 425,000 worldwide level.
    For the first five years, 25,000 visas per year will be 
allocated for the backlog of spouses and unmarried minor 
children of permanent residents. Two categories of persons on 
that backlog will be ineligible for backlog visas, however. The 
first is those protected from deportation under the ``family 
unity'' provisions of the Immigration Act of 1990. These are 
spouses or unmarried minor children of persons who benefitted 
from the immigration legalization program of the 1986 Act.
    The second is those whose petitioning relative has 
satisfied the residence requirement for naturalization. This 
provision recognizes that the petitioning relative's failure to 
naturalize has kept their family members in the backlog. (If 
the sponsoring relative becomes a citizen, then their 
``immediate relatives'' can come in promptly, without being 
subject to any numerical limit.)
    The remaining 50,000 visas available annually during the 
first five years go to the backlog of brothers and sisters of 
adult citizens.
    For the second five-year period of backlog reduction, all 
75,000 visas available annually are applied to the backlog of 
brothers and sisters.

                        TITLE II--NONIMMIGRANTS

Sec. 201. Changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrants

    Subsection (a) expands the power of the Secretary of Labor 
to investigate whether ``H-1B dependent'' employers have 
complied with the terms of their applications for H-1B 
employees. It allows the Secretary to initiate such 
investigations without first receiving a complaint against the 
employer from a third party. This section does not authorize 
the Secretary to conduct similar investigations of employers 
that are not H-1B dependent unless a complaint has first been 
filed against the employer by a third party.
    Subsection (b) increases the penalties on employers who 
fail to comply with the terms of their applications for H-1B 
workers. The maximum monetary penalty for each such violation 
is increased from $1,000 to $5,000. In the case of an employer 
who has committed a second violation of its attestations more 
than one year after its first violation, the minimum period 
during which the employer will be barred from petitioning for 
additional H-1B workers is increased from one year to five 
years.
    Subsection (c) defines an H-1B dependent employer as one 
which: (a) has fewer than 21 full-time employees who are 
employed in the U.S. and employs 4 or more H-1B workers, or (b) 
has 21 or more full-time employees who are employed in the U.S. 
and employs H-1B workers in a number equal to at least 20 
percent of its work force.
    The subsection includes a mechanism by which an H-1B 
dependent employer can be treated as a non-dependent employer 
for a probationary period of five years provided that such 
employer has developed a plan to reduce the number of H-1B 
workers in its work force within 5 years and such plan has been 
approved by the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor must 
review the implementation of such plan on an annual basis. 
Failure to successfully implement the plan will result in 
termination of the probationary status.
    Subsection (d) provides that when determining the actual 
wage paid to its employees, an employer need not rely upon an 
``objective system'' (a requirement of current law). Large 
employers (over 1,000 employees in the U.S.) may rely entirely 
upon their own compensation and benefits system for determining 
the actual wage, provided that such system has been certified 
by the Secretary of Labor.
    This subsection creates greater flexibility for employers 
in choosing a measure of prevailing wage that is accurate for 
their industry and location. It specifies that an employer can 
select a prevailing wage determination made by any legitimate 
public or private source, provided that the Secretary of Labor 
does not reject such determination within 45 days. In the case 
of both immigrants and nonimmigrants, the determination of the 
``prevailing wage'' of a researcher at an institution of higher 
learning, or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, or a 
nonprofit or Federal research institute or agency, may take 
into account only the prevailing wage at similar institutions 
in the area of employment.
    Subsection (e) relieves employers that are not H-1B 
dependent from the obligations of (a) posting certain notices 
at worksites other than the ones listed on the application for 
the H-1B employee if such worksites are in the area of 
employment listed, and (b) filing an application for an H-1B 
employee with respect to worksites other than the employee's 
principal place of employment and those in which the employee 
spends over 45 working days a year (or 36 working days in any 
36-month period).

Sec. 202. Visa waiver program

    This section extends the visa waiver pilot program for an 
additional two years, until September 30, 1998. A procedure is 
established for the termination and removal of countries whose 
``disqualification rate'' exceeds 2.0 percent, including a 
probationary period of three years in which the country can try 
to re-qualify for waiver-country status. Section 217(g) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes countries to 
qualify for the program in a ``probationary status,'' is 
repealed, although countries which qualified for the program in 
accordance with its terms may remain in the program.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 301. Repeal of Amerasian immigration law

    This section repeals section 584 of the Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988 
(as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100-102; 8 U.S.C. 
1101 note), effective October 1, 1997. During fiscal year 1997, 
an Amerasian, as defined in such Act, will be authorized to be 
accompanied only by his or her spouse and children. Any 
eligible Amerasian, and his or her spouse and children, who are 
interviewed and approved before the expiration of the Amerasian 
Immigration Act on October 1, 1997 will be entitled to enter 
the United States until October 1, 1998.

Sec. 302. Change in standards for suspension of deportation for aliens 
        who entered without inspection

    This section provides that aliens who entered the United 
States without inspection on or after the date of enactment 
must meet the stricter standards for suspension of deportation 
set forth in section 244(a)(2). The required period of physical 
presence becomes 10 years, and the standard to be applied by 
the Attorney General in cases involving persons who entered 
without inspection is changed from ``extreme hardship'' to 
``exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.''

Sec. 303. Exclusion for economic espionage or the piracy of 
        intellectual property

    This section provides that aliens convicted of, or who 
admit having committed, an unlawful act pertaining to economic 
espionage or the piracy of intellectual property are 
excludable.

Sec. 304. Mail-order bride business

    This section requires that international matchmaking 
organizations offering information on ``mail-order brides'' 
disseminate to their recruits such information regarding 
immigration and naturalization as the Attorney General 
determines to be appropriate, and provides that such 
organizations may be assessed civil penalties up to $20,000 for 
each violation of that requirement. The Attorney General is 
directed to conduct a study of the extent to which marriage 
fraud and domestic abuse are related to mail-order marriages, 
and their impact upon the provisions of Immigration and 
Nationality Act and the objectives of the Violence Against 
Women Act of 1994. The report shall be submitted to the 
Congress not later than one year from the date of enactment.

                       TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATES

Sec. 401. Effective dates

    This section provides that the Act, and the amendments made 
by the Act, except as specifically noted, shall take effect on 
October 1, 1996.

                          VI. Committee Action

    On March 28, 1996, with a quorum present, by a vote of 13 
yeas to 4 nays, the committee ordered an original bill 
containing provisions from S. 1394, ``The Immigration Reform 
Act of 1995'' offered by Senator Simpson, to be favorably 
reported, as amended. A number of amendments were agreed to by 
unanimous consent, voice vote, or roll call vote, while others 
were rejected. Following is a list of the amendments considered 
by the committee.

                             recorded votes

    1. Simpson amendment to strike employment sections (303, 
304, 309(2) and 312) was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 12 
yeas to 4 nays.
        YEAS (12)                     NAYS (4)
Hatch                               Biden (by proxy)
Thurmond (by proxy)                 Kennedy (by proxy)
Simpson                             Simon
Grassley (by proxy)                 Feingold
Brown
Thompson
Kyl
DeWine
Abraham
Leahy (by proxy)
Kohl (by proxy)
Feinstein

    2. Kennedy/Abraham offered a family and diversity amendment 
which was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 11 yeas to 4 nays, 
with Senator Kohl noted as having voted present.

                                                                        
      YEAS (11)             NAYS (4)                PRESENT (1)         
                                                                        
Hatch                 Thurmond             Kohl                         
Specter (by proxy)    Simpson                                           
Thompson (by proxy)   Brown (by proxy)                                  
DeWine                Kyl                                               
Abraham                                                                 
Biden (by proxy)                                                        
Kennedy                                                                 
Leahy (by proxy)                                                        
Simon (by proxy)                                                        
Feinstein                                                               
Feingold                                                                
                                                                        


    3. Kennedy amendment on non-displacement of U.S. workers 
(layoff protections) was defeated by a rollcall vote of 5 yeas 
to 11 nays.
        YEAS (5)                      NAYS (11)
Biden (by proxy)                    Hatch
Kennedy                             Thurmond
Leahy (by proxy)                    Simpson
Simon                               Grassley
Feingold                            Specter (by proxy)
                                    Brown
                                    Thompson
                                    Kyl
                                    DeWine
                                    Abraham
                                    Feinstein

    4. Kyl amendment to Senator Specter's amendment on H-1B 
nonimmigrants, to strike section subsection (a) was agreed to 
by a rollcall vote of 8 yeas to 6 nays.
        YEAS (8)                      NAYS (6)
Hatch                               Grassley (by proxy)
Thurmond                            Specter (by proxy)
Simpson                             Abraham
Brown                               Kennedy
Thompson (by proxy)                 Simon
Kyl                                 Feingold
DeWine
Feinstein

    5. Specter amendment offered by Senator Abraham, to make 
changes relating to H-1B nonimmigrants was agreed to by a 
rollcall vote of 11 yeas to 5 nays.
        YEAS (11)                     NAYS (5)
Hatch                               Brown
Thurmond                            Kennedy
Simpson                             Leahy (by proxy)
Grassley (by proxy)                 Simon
Specter (by proxy)                  Feingold
Thompson (by proxy)
Kyl
DeWine
Abraham
Heflin (by proxy)
Feinstein

    6. Kennedy amendment on recruitment of U.S. workers was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 6 yeas to 10 nays.
        YEAS (6)                      NAYS (10)
Grassley (by proxy)                 Hatch
Biden (by proxy)                    Thurmond
Kennedy                             Simpson
Leahy (by proxy)                    Specter (by proxy)
Simon (by proxy)                    Brown
Feingold                            Thompson (by proxy)
                                    Kyl
                                    DeWine
                                    Abraham
                                    Feinstein

    7. Feinstein second degree amendment to Senator Kennedy's 
amendment to reduce the number of employment-based visas from 
100,000 to 85,000 was defeated by a rollcall vote of 5 yeas to 
10 nays.
        YEAS (5)                      NAYS (10)
Kyl                                 Hatch
Kennedy                             Thurmond
Leahy (by proxy)                    Simpson
Simon                               Grassley (by proxy)
Feinstein                           Specter (by proxy)
                                    Brown
                                    Thompson (by proxy)
                                    DeWine
                                    Abraham
                                    Feingold

    8. Kennedy amendment to reduce the number of employment-
based visas to 100,000 was defeated by a rollcall vote of 7 
yeas to 9 nays.
        YEAS (7)                      NAYS (9)
Kyl                                 Hatch
Kennedy                             Thurmond
Leahy (by proxy)                    Simpson
Simon                               Grassley (by proxy)
Kohl (by proxy)                     Specter (by proxy)
Feinstein (by proxy)                Brown
Feingold                            Thompson
                                    DeWine
                                    Abraham

    9. Specter, offered by Senator Hatch, to exempt 
professional athletes from the labor market screening 
requirement was defeated by a roll call vote of 5 yeas to 9 
nays, with Senator Kohl noted as voting present.

                                                                        
      YEAS (5)              NAYS (9)                PRESENT (1)         
                                                                        
Hatch                 Thurmond             Kohl                         
Simpson               Grassley (by proxy)                               
Specter (by proxy)    Brown                                             
Thompson              Kyl                                               
Abraham               DeWine                                            
                      Kennedy                                           
                      Leahy (by proxy)                                  
                      Simon                                             
                      Feingold                                          
                                                                        


    10. Kennedy amendment to delete the permanent unskilled 
worker category, effective June 1, 1997 was agreed to by a 
rollcall vote of 15 yeas to 0 nays.
        YEAS (15)                     NAYS (0)
Hatch
Thurmond
Simpson
Grassley (by proxy)
Brown
Thompson (by proxy)
DeWine
Abraham
Biden
Kennedy
Leahy (by proxy)
Simon
Kohl (by proxy)
Feinstein
Feingold

    11. To favorably report the bill, as amended, as an 
original bill:
        YEAS (13)                     NAYS (4)
Hatch                               Kennedy
Thurmond                            Leahy (by proxy)
Simpson                             Simon
Grassley (by proxy)                 Feingold
Brown
Thompson (by proxy)
Kyl
DeWine
Abraham
Biden
Heflin (by proxy)
Kohl (by proxy)
Feinstein

    The following amendments were agreed to by unanimous 
consent:
          1. Senator Simpson's amendment to revise the backlog 
        reduction program for spouses and children of permanent 
        residents.
          2. Senator Simpson's amendment to exempt U.S. 
        sponsored J-visa holders from student visa fee.
          3. Senator Simpson's amendment to extend the visa 
        waiver pilot program.
          4. Senator Kyl's amendment to prohibit aliens from 
        using work experience acquired while not authorized to 
        work to become permanent residents.
          5. Senator Kyl's amendment to limit suspension of 
        deportation for aliens who entered without inspection, 
        as modified.
          6. Senator Simon's amendment to establish separate 
        prevailing wage determinations for academic and 
        nonacademic researchers.
          7. Senator Brown's amendment to deny travel visas to 
        persons associated with economic espionage or the 
        piracy of intellectual property.
          8. Senator Kohl's amendment to add a new section to 
        require a study on the mail-order bride business.
          9. Senator Specter's amendment, offered by Senator 
        Simon, to strike bill sec. 306 on ``Effect of approved 
        immigrant visa petition'' with an agreement that 
        parties would work to further modify the language.
    The following amendment was agreed to by voice vote:
          Senator Simpson's amendment to repeal the Amerasian 
        law, with Senators Simon and DeWine noted as having 
        voted nay.

                           VII. Cost Estimate

    The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of 
this measure and compliance with the requirements of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been requested but was not 
received at the time the report was filed. When the report is 
available, the Chairman will request that it be printed in the 
Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate.

                   VIII. Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with subsection (b) of paragraph 11 of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is hereby stated 
that the only significant regulatory impacts will arise from 
Sec. 304(b), which requires international matchmaking 
organizations to disseminate immigration information to 
recuits. No other significant impact will result from the 
implementation of the Committee bill, which largely reforms 
existing regulations and procedures without adding to them.
                IX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR SIMPSON

    I voted to favorably report the Legal Immigration Act of 
1996, but I have serious concerns over the failure of the 
legislation to address two important issues: (1) the desire of 
the American people to reduce immigration, and (2) the problem 
of ``chain migration.''
Reduction in immigration
    In 1990, believing illegal immigration was under control, 
and, in fact, declining, I cosponsored legislation which 
increased overall legal immigration by 37 percent--the largest 
single increase in our Nation's history.
    Unfortunately, we were overly optimistic in our assessment 
of the effectiveness of our efforts to control illegal 
immigration, and within a year of the 1990 act, illegal 
immigration to the United States was again on the increase. We 
estimate that 300,000 aliens now immigrate illegally every year 
(after taking into account the illegal aliens who leave every 
year). These are in addition to the 675,000 immigrants who come 
legally.
    As a result of the 1990 increase in legal immigration, and 
the growing illegal immigration, the United States has 
experienced immigration at historically high levels. We have 
averaged more than 1.1 million immigrants annually over the 
past 5 years.
    The American people have responded to this growth in 
immigration by calling on Congress to reduce immigration, and 
the Congress has received unmistakable signals that the state 
and local governments will take the matter into their own hands 
if Congress fails to act. The unexpectedly strong support for 
Proposition 187 in California is a stark illustration of this 
public concern and the message it sends to Washington.
    Although the committee bill appears to make a small 
reduction in current immigration--from 675,000 under present 
law to about 667,000 under the committee bill--the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service estimates that immigration under the 
Committee bill will actually increase, substantially, over the 
next several years.
    I believe that if Congress fails to reduce immigration--if 
it permits the committee bill to become law in its present 
form, thereby allowing immigration to increase substantially in 
the coming years--we will see more Proposition 187's. The 
people are not likely to accept the argument that Congress 
knows best what should be done in this area--especially not the 
people in the impacted states and localities who deal with the 
consequences of high immigration in their daily lives. They 
know they are far better judges of the real-world effect of 
immigration policy.
Chain migration
    Under current immigration law we purport to establish 
``preferences'' with regard to family immigration. Under this 
system of preferences we put the spouses and children of 
permanent residents in a higher preference category than the 
married sons and daughters of citizens and the brothers and 
sisters of citizens. This, of course, is appropriate. The 
spouses and children are the family members most likely to live 
together in the same household and are, therefore, the ones who 
should not be separated any longer than necessary. 
Nevertheless, under the current system, spouses and children 
(the ``nuclear family'') are forced to wait as long as five or 
more years before they can join their immediate family here in 
the United States. At the same time, despite their lower 
``preference,'' we admit more than 75,000 married sons and 
daughters of citizens, brothers and sisters of citizens, and 
their families every year. These nonnuclear-family relatives 
are primarily adults, who frequently enter with their own 
spouses and unmarried minor children (the in-laws and nieces 
and nephews of the U.S. petitioner). It is the preferences for 
these other adult relatives, and their children and spouses, 
who generate the heavy demand for the entry of members of 
entirely new family lines and thus the process of chain 
migration.
    We should treat the ``preferences'' as true preferences. 
Visas should be made available to the highest preferences--
those immediate family members who are most likely to live 
together in the same household with their relative here in 
America--before we admit the extended family members who have 
likely established their own households--as is the case with 
married sons and daughters and with many brothers and sisters 
of adult U.S. citizens.
    Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration reform 
recommended that we provide the available visas to the members 
of the nuclear family--spouses and unmarried children--and 
abolish the preferences for the extended family members. I 
support that recommendation. I do not believe it is in the 
national interest to keep spouses and minor children separated 
for years.
    To solve this problem of extended separation we can do one 
of two things. We can increase legal immigration and provide 
visas for, not only the immediate family, but also the married 
sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of citizens; or we 
can limit the visas to those closest family members, the 
spouses and the unmarried children of legal residents of the 
United States. For the reasons mentioned above, the American 
people strongly oppose an increase in immigration at this time. 
I believe they will support limiting visas to the members of 
the immediate family.
    The committee bill will continue, for at least the next ten 
years, to provide a guaranteed number of visas to the extended 
family while the members of the nuclear family are required to 
wait to join their husband or wife, father or mother, in the 
United States. This is not a sustainable immigration policy.

                                                        Al Simpson.
            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS ABRAHAM AND DeWINE

    We would like to express our support for the final legal 
immigration reform bill (S. 1394) worked out by this committee. 
We are particularly pleased that the committee saw fit, by a 12 
to 6 majority, to separate reforms aimed at stemming the flow 
of illegal immigrants from reforms to our structured, highly 
regulated legal immigration system. This separation is in 
keeping with the views of more than 8 out of 10 voters who 
believe that ``Congress should settle the problem of illegal 
immigration before worrying about reducing the number of legal 
immigrants.'' It is in keeping with the views of the full 100 
percent of economists surveyed by the Cato Institute who agree 
that immigration has had a favorable impact on the country's 
economic growth. And it is in keeping with our traditional 
commitment to equal opportunity and fair play because it makes 
it possible for us to concentrate on tracking down, expelling 
and keeping out those who would flout our laws without unduly 
burdening individuals and businesses who play by the rules.
    We have too many illegal aliens. We do not, however, have a 
legal immigration crisis. The Immigration and Naturalization 
Service recently reported that 720,461 immigrants came to this 
country in 1995--more than 20 percent fewer than in 1993. As of 
1990 immigrants made up only 8.5 percent of our population, far 
less than the averages of over 13 percent between 1860 and 
1920.
    During debate on this bill, many argued that illegal 
immigration reforms alone would be insufficient because over 
half of our illegal aliens first entered this country legally. 
These people come in on student or tourist visas, however, not 
(as charged) as family-sponsored immigrants. And S. 269, the 
illegal immigration reform bill, addresses the problem by 
focusing precisely on those immigrants who come to this country 
legally, then stay past the expiration dates of their visas. In 
contrast, eliminating whole categories of family sponsored 
legal immigration, as originally proposed in S. 1394, would do 
nothing to solve the problem of visa overstayers.
    As important, the phenomenon of ``chain migration''--by 
which one immigrant is said to flood the country with the 
relatives he or she immediately brings to America--is more 
fiction than fact and so should not drive our policy decisions. 
It takes an immigrant an average of 12 years before he or she 
sponsors even the first relative for entry into the U.S. At 
that slow pace any stampede of family-related immigrants is 
impossible. In fact, the General Accounting Office concluded in 
a 1988 study that the data ``failed to confirm the existence or 
future likelihood of massive chain migration.''
    Yet some continue to claim that immigrants put a strain on 
our economy and local infrastructure by sponsoring many, often 
``distant,'' relatives for entry into the U.S. This is not the 
case. Under U.S. immigration law no ``extended family'' 
categories exist. This means no one can sponsor an aunt, uncle, 
cousin, or nephew for immigration. On the other hand, a U.S. 
citizen now can sponsor a parent, spouse, sibling or a minor or 
adult child. Proposed provisions to limit immigration to 
members of the original immigrant's ``nuclear family'' would 
simply hurt American citizens by disallowing their traditional 
right to bring their adult children and/or parents to this 
country. We believe that is wrong. If your only son or daughter 
turns 21 he or she does not cease to be a part of your family. 
And we strongly disagree, therefore, with the Committee 
Report's characterization of adult children as ``distant'' 
relatives.
    As we and others made clear from the outset of this debate, 
we are committed to making common-sense reforms to our legal 
immigration system provided that the issues of legal and 
illegal immigration are kept separate and distinct. Thus, when 
the Judiciary Committee took up legal immigration, we offered 
with Senator Kennedy an amendment that will eventually reduce 
levels of family and diversity immigration by over 15 percent, 
give clear priority to close family members, and freeze 
applications for the brother and sister category.
    These reforms transform the current family immigration 
preference system, with its rigid numerical quotas allocated to 
each family category, into a more flexible system with a 
carefully designed ``spilldown'' mechanism. This will ensure 
that spouses, minor children, and parents receive priority over 
adult sons and daughters, who in turn receive priority over 
brothers and sisters. With certain exceptions, visas will be 
available to lower priority categories only to the extent visas 
are not ``soaked up'' by higher priority categories. New 
applications for the brother and sister category will be frozen 
altogether.
    Our amendment also includes a temporary backlog reduction 
program to address two temporary phenomena: the waiting list of 
spouses and children of legal permanent residents, and the 
existing backlog of brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. By 
allowing for the speedier reunification of those husbands, 
wives, and minor children who are separated, and by providing 
some visas to brothers and sisters who have played by the 
rules, we can address these temporary problems in a fair and 
reasonable manner while shifting to an improved permanent 
system.
    We emphasize, however, that the vast majority of persons on 
the backlog for spouses and children of permanent residents are 
already in the country, having been granted quasi-legal status 
to remain here with their amnestied sponsors. Thus, most of the 
concern about ``the separation of nuclear family members'' is 
misplaced. In that crucial respect, at least, the current 
immigration system is not broken.
    Our proposal is also crafted so that in the ``family 
preference'' and diversity categories it will always make 
available fewer visas than would current law. In the family 
preference categories (spouses and minor children of permanent 
residents, adult unmarried and married children of citizens, 
adult unmarried children of permanent residents, siblings of 
citizens, and diversity visas) our amendment authorizes a total 
of 202,000 visas (175,000 family and 27,000 diversity), as 
compared with present law, which authorizes a total of 285,000 
(230,000 family and 55,000 diversity). That is a cut of 83,000 
permanent visas. Even with the inclusion of backlog reduction 
visas, which last during the first ten years of our regime, our 
total is 277,000, which amounts to 8,000 fewer visas than under 
current law.
    We should also point out that our new ``spilldown'' 
allocation would not, as the Committee Report suggests, somehow 
take effect only after 10 years pass. The spilldown mechanism 
would take effect as soon as the family immigration provisions 
generally take effect. It is true that our amendment 
establishes certain ``floors'' of minimum visas for adult 
children of citizens so long as the backlog in the new 1st 
preference (spouses and children of permanent residents) 
remains. But those temporary floors simply ensure that the 1st 
preference does not soak up all of the visas available. It also 
is true that, for a period of 10 years, our amendment provides 
for backlog visas as well as spilldown visas. But that in no 
way means that the spilldown itself somehow would not take 
effect for 10 years. On this point the committee report is 
simply mistaken.
    Finally, in the area of employment immigration, we offered 
with Senator Specter an amendment to establish further 
safeguards against potential abuses of the H-1B program. 
Specifically, the amendment as adopted by the committee would 
sharply increase fines and penalties for H-1B program 
violation, allow the Department of Labor to initiate 
investigations of ``H-1B-dependent'' employers, and otherwise 
subject H-1B-dependent employers to strict oversight. These 
changes will protect American workers while preserving the H-1B 
programs for employers with a genuine need for it.
    It is our hope that this bill will continue to focus on 
solving specific problems in our immigration system, rather 
than simply penalizing legal immigrants, their families, and 
employers. As the bill continues through the legislative 
process we will work to see that that is the case.

                                                   Spencer Abraham.
     MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS KENNEDY, SIMON, LEAHY AND FEINGOLD

    Any reform of legal immigration--by which people come to 
the United States legally under our laws--must meet three 
goals. First, it must allow for reunification of families. 
Second, it must protect American workers, while allowing our 
companies access to foreign workers when qualified Americans 
are unavailable. And third, it must ensure access to our 
country by immigrants from all parts of the world.
    This legislation meets two of these goals. It allows for 
reunification of families, though at levels below current law. 
It continues the ``diversity visa'' program by which countries 
with low immigration can still qualify under our immigration 
laws, but with a 50 percent cut.
    Regretfully, however, this bill fails to provide urgently 
needed protections for American workers under our immigration 
laws. In fact, the provisions in the current bill hurt American 
workers, rather than help.
    First, section 201(a) weakens current enforcement and is a 
giant step backward for American workers. It states that the 
Department of Labor can only act against violations of 
immigration laws by employers if there is a complaint filed by 
a worker. This means the Department cannot initiate 
investigations if it receives a tip, cannot initiate random 
audits, and cannot even act on hard evidence of violations 
unless a formal complaint is filed by a worker.
    Few workers will be willing to file complaints. Foreign 
workers will be fearful of losing their jobs. And U.S. workers 
will fear being ``blackballed'' by employers.
    Though section 201(b) raises the penalties against 
employers who violate worker protections, these penalties are 
meaningless under the crippled enforcement scheme in this bill.
    Second, the bill provides no protection against companies 
that lay off American workers to hire foreign workers, often at 
lower wages. Current law allows this practice, and the bill 
does nothing to change matters.
    Third, the bill does not require employers to recruit U.S. 
workers before hiring foreign workers. Under the current 
temporary foreign worker program (the so-called ``H-1B'' visa), 
almost 400,000 workers are in the country at any given time. In 
no way are their employers required under U.S. law to recruit 
Americans before requesting temporary foreign workers.
    Finally, the bill will result in lower wages for foreign 
workers, and will therefore undercut the wages and working 
conditions of U.S. workers. Section 201(d) states that 
employers may devise their own formulas for prevailing wage 
determinations, and gives the Department of Labor only 45 days 
in which to disprove the determination or else it is approved 
automatically. At the same time, the provision provides the 
Labor Department with no resources or personnel to carry out 
this function. Therefore, it allows employers almost complete 
autonomy in determining the wage to be paid to the foreign 
workers they bring in.
    Any immigration reform that deserves that name must address 
the abuses of working Americans which arise under our current 
immigration laws. We intend to offer amendments on the floor to 
strengthen our immigration laws to protect working American 
families, while enabling employers to get foreign workers when 
they truly need them.
    The reforms must include at least the following elements to 
protect American workers:

  I. Recruitment: Jobs Should Be Offered First to U.S. Workers Before 
                 Employers Can Bring in Foreign Workers

    In those cases in which temporary and permanent foreign 
workers are truly the people who create jobs and enhance our 
global competitiveness--our immigration laws should enable 
their entry.
    Americans would be appalled to learn, however, that under 
current law, employers bring in hundreds of thousands of 
foreign workers to fill normal skilled and professional jobs--
all without having to offer the jobs first to U.S. workers. 
Almost 400,000 of these foreign workers are in the country 
today. They are called ``temporary'' foreign workers, but can 
stay for six years. Over 60 percent of these workers make under 
$50,000. Half of the requests from employers for these 
``temporary'' workers is for physical therapists. A quarter of 
the requests are for computer programmers, mostly at the entry 
level.
    When employers truly cannot find qualified American workers 
to perform these good middle class jobs, our immigration laws 
should be there to help them get the workers they need. It is 
our strong belief, however, that our immigration laws should 
give American workers first crack at these good jobs. But 
today, our laws do not give U.S. workers that opportunity.
    Though employers are not required to recruit for U.S. 
workers before seeking temporary foreign workers, they are 
required to recruit at home before bringing in permanent 
immigrants. However, even this requirement currently is 
meaningless. The Employment Service refers U.S. workers to 
employers who claim they need to bring in an immigrant worker. 
And employers are required to advertise the job and interview 
any U.S. applicants.
    Under the recruitment requirement in current law, the U.S. 
worker gets the job only one-half of a percent of the time. 
That means that there is only a one in two hundred chance that 
the current recruitment requirement will result in the hire of 
a U.S. worker. In fact, in most cases,1  the employer 
already has the foreign worker on the payroll either as a 
temporary worker or an illegal immigrant and is simply trying 
to keep the worker permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Department of Labor estimates that as many as 90% of 
employers seeking permanent immigrants for employment in fact already 
have the foreign worker on the payroll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  II. It Should Be Illegal To Replace Qualified American Workers With 
                            Foreign Workers

    Under our immigration laws today, it is legal for an 
employer to bring in foreign workers to replace qualified 
American workers. American workers have fallen victim to this 
practice in recent years. In a number of instances, the U.S. 
workers were required to bear the humiliation of training their 
foreign replacements, who were then given the job at wages 
lower than those paid to the American worker.
    This practice hurts almost everyone concerned. It hurts the 
American worker who loses a good job. It is unfair to the 
foreign worker, who is doing the same job, but for less pay. 
And it hurts employers who are playing by the rules and 
treating their workers fairly, but who must compete against 
firms that are abusing our immigration laws to get cheap 
foreign labor.
    This practice will spread unless it is stopped in its 
tracks.

III. The Labor Department Needs Personnel and Authority To Enforce our 
                            Immigration Laws

    The protections available to U.S. workers under current 
law--as well as any Congress may adopt in the future--offer 
little protection unless the Labor Department has the resources 
and authority to enforce them. Today it has neither.
    Current law contains lopsided immigration enforcement 
provisions. When it comes to enforcement of laws related to 
temporary workers, the Labor Department can respond to 
complaints from U.S. workers, initiate investigations and 
conduct random audits. However, these authorities do not exist 
for enforcing our laws pertaining to permanent immigrants. With 
permanent immigrants, once the immigrant arrives, the Labor 
Department has no further role. An employer can pay an 
immigrant below market wages, for example, thereby undercutting 
U.S. workers. Since the immigrant is already here, there is 
nothing the Labor Department can do about this offense.
    We believe also that the Labor Department should be 
authorized to charge a modest fee to those who request foreign 
workers. The funds should be retained by the Labor Department 
to pay for personnel needed to facilitate employers' 
applications and enforce the law. Both the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the State Department's consular 
bureau charge fees to cover their costs. The Labor Department 
should be permitted to do the same.

         IV. Making Temporary Foreign Workers Really Temporary

    Temporary foreign workers under current law can remain to 
fill a specific job for up to six years. For most Americans, 
that is the same as taking away that job permanently. Six years 
is longer than most Americans stay in a job. According to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, 
Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 change jobs on average 
every 3.5 years. Those ages 35 to 44 change jobs every six 
years.
    We believe that most temporary foreign workers should be 
authorized to remain only for a shorter period--perhaps three 
years. Only in extraordinary cases should temporary workers be 
permitted to stay longer.

   V. The Number of Permanent Employment-Based Immigrants Should Be 
                   Reduced To Reflect Current Demand

    If Congress is to reduce immigration numbers, it should cut 
here, too.
    Already, this bill cuts family and diversity visa numbers 
below current demand in those categories. For the family visas 
alone, there are 3.5 million people--mostly relatives of 
American citizens--who are waiting in line due to the scarcity 
of visas.
    Yet, at the same time, this bill continues to make 
available far more employment visas than employers are using.
    Current law authorizes 140,000 employment visas. However, 
in 1995, employers used only 73,238 employment visas.2 
Similarly, in 1994, employers used only 82,604 visas.3 
Indeed, at no time since the number of employment visas has the 
number of skilled employment visas actually used exceeded 
100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     2 This number discounts unskilled immigration, which was 
eliminated under a Kennedy amendment accepted by the Committee. Current 
law permits up to 10,000 of the 140,000 authorized visas to be used for 
unskilled immigrants.
     3 Again, this figure discounts unskilled immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Congress is to be serious--and fair--in reducing 
immigration, immigration numbers should be reduced in this 
category, just as the Committee has done for family and 
diversity immigration.

                                   Ted Kennedy.
                                   Russ Feingold.
                                   Patrick Leahy.
                                   Paul Simon.
                      XII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 605, as reported, are shown as follows existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman):

                    IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

          * * * * * * *

                         TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

                      CHAPTER 1--SELECTION SYSTEM

          * * * * * * *

                     worldwide level of immigration

    Sec. 201. (a) In General.--Exclusive of aliens described in 
subsection (b), aliens born in a foreign state or dependent 
area who may be issued immigrant visas or who may otherwise 
acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United 
States for permanent residence are limited to--
          * * * * * * *
    [(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--
(1)(A) The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under 
this subsection for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraph 
(B), equal to--
          [(i) 480,000, minus
          [(ii) the number computed under paragraph (2), plus
          [(iii) the number (if any) computed under paragraph 
        (3).
      [(B)(i) For each of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, 
465,000 shall be substituted for 480,000 in subparagraph 
(A)(i).
      [(ii) In no case shall the number computed under 
subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.]
    Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--(1)(A) The 
worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this 
subsection for a fiscal year is, subject to subparagraph (B), 
equal to--
          (i) 425,000, minus
          (ii) the number computed under paragraph (2), plus
          (iii) the number (if any) computed under paragraph 
        (3).
          (iv) the number (if any) specified in section 113 of 
        the Legal Immigration Act of 1996.
    (B) In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph 
(A) be less than 175,000.
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--The worldwide 
level of diversity immigrants is equal to [55,000] 27,000 for 
each fiscal year.

            numercial limitation to any single foreign state

    Sec. 202. (a) Per Country Level.--
          [(1) Nondiscrimination.--Except as specifically 
        provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 
        201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, no person shall receive any 
        preference or priority or be discriminated against in 
        the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the 
        person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or 
        place of residence.
          [(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and 
        employment-based immigrants.--Subject to paragraphs (3) 
        and (4), the total number of immigrant visas made 
        available to natives of any single foreign state or 
        dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 
        203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the 
        case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the 
        case of a dependent area) of the total number of such 
        visas made available under such subsections in that 
        fiscal year.
          [(3) Exception if additional visas available.--If 
        because of the application of paragraph (2) with 
        respect to one or more foreign states or dependent 
        areas, the total number of visas available under both 
        subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar 
        quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who 
        otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) 
        shall not apply to visas made available to such states 
        or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter.
          [(4) Special rules for spouses and children of lawful 
        permanent resident aliens.--
                  [(A) 74 percent of 2nd preference set-aside 
                for spouses and children not subject to per 
                country limitation.--
                          [(1) In general.--Of the visa numbers 
                        made available under section 203(a) to 
                        immigrants described in section 
                        203(a)(2)(A) in any fiscal year, 75 
                        percent of the 2-A floor (as defined in 
                        clause (ii)) shall be issued without 
                        regard to the numerical limitation 
                        under paragraph (2).
                          [(ii) 2-A floor defined.--In this 
                        paragraph, the term ``2-A floor'' 
                        means, for a fiscal year, 77 percent of 
                        the total number of visas made 
                        available under section 203(a) to 
                        immigrants described in section 
                        203(a)(2) in the fiscal year.
                  [(B) Treatment of remaining 25 percent for 
                countries subject to subsection (e).--
                          [(i) In general.--Of the visa numbers 
                        made available under section 203(a) to 
                        immigrants described in section 
                        203(a)(2)(A) in any fiscal year, the 
                        remaining 25 percent of the 2-A floor 
                        shall be available in the case of a 
                        state or area that is subject to 
                        subsection (e) only to the extent that 
                        the total number of visas issued in 
                        accordance with subparagraph (A) to 
                        natives of the foreign state or area is 
                        less than the subsection (e) ceiling 
                        (as defined in clause (ii)).
                          [(ii) Subsection (e) ceiling 
                        defined.--In clause (i), the term 
                        ``subsection (e) ceiling'' means, for a 
                        foreign state or dependent area, 77 
                        percent of the maximum number of visas 
                        that may be made available under 
                        section 203(a) to immigrants who are 
                        natives of the state or area under 
                        section 203(a)(2) consistent with 
                        subsection (e).
                  [(C) Treatment of unmarried sons and 
                daughters in countries subject to subsection 
                (e).--In the case of a foreign state or 
                dependent area to which subsection (e) applies, 
                the number of immigrant visas that may be made 
                available to natives of the state or area under 
                section [203(a)(2)(B)] 203(a)(4) may not 
                exceed--
                          [(i) 23 percent of the maximum number 
                        of visas that may be made available 
                        under section 203(a) to immigrants of 
                        the state or area described in section 
                        203(a)(2) consistent with subsection 
                        (e), or
                          [(ii) the number (if any) by which 
                        the maximum number of visas that may be 
                        made available under section 203(a) to 
                        immigrants of the state or area 
                        described in section 203(a)(2) 
                        consistent with subsection (e) exceeds 
                        the number of visas issued under 
                        section 203(a)(2)(A),
                [whichever is greater.
                  [(D) Limiting pass down for certain countries 
                subject to subsection (e).--In the case of a 
                foreign state or dependent area to which 
                subsection (e) applies, if the total number of 
                visas issued under section 203(a)(2) exceeds 
                the maximum number of visas that may be made 
                available to immigrants of the state or area 
                under section 203(a)(2) consistent with 
                subsection (e) (determined without regard to 
                this paragraph), in applying paragraphs (3) and 
                (4) of section 203(a) under subsection (e)(2) 
                all visas shall be deemed to have been required 
                for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and 
                (2) of such section.]
          (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and 
        employment-based immigrants.--(A) Subject to 
        subparagraph (C), the total number of immigrant visas 
        made available in any fiscal year to natives of any 
        single foreign state or dependent area under section 
        203 (a) and (b) may not exceed the difference (if any) 
        between--
                  (i) 20,000 in the case of any foreign state 
                (or 5,000 in the case of a dependent area) not 
                contiguous to the United States, or 40,000 in 
                the case of any foreign state contiguous to the 
                United States; and
                  (ii) the amount specified in subparagraph 
                (B).
          (B) The amount specified in this subparagraph is the 
        amount by which the total of the number of immediate 
        relatives (as defined in section 201(b)(2)) admitted in 
        the prior fiscal year who are natives of such state or 
        dependent area exceeded 20,000 in the case of any 
        foreign state (or 5,000 in the case of a dependent 
        area) not contiguous to the United States, or 40,000 in 
        the case of any foreign state contiguous to the United 
        States.
          (C) In any fiscal year in which immigrant visas 
        numbers are made available under section 114(a)(1) the 
        Legal Immigration Act of 1996, the per country 
        limitation specified in subparagraph (A) shall not 
        apply to aliens who are allotted visas under section 
        203(a), except that the number of immigrant visas made 
        available to the natives of any foreign state or 
        dependent area under section 203(a) for such fiscal 
        year shall be subtracted from the level specified in 
        subparagraph (A) for purposes of the application of 
        such level to immigrants from such state or area under 
        section 203(b) for such fiscal year.
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Speotment of immigrant visa numbers to natives under 
subsections (a) and (b) of section 203, visa numbers with 
respect to natives of that state or area shall be allocated (to 
the extent practicable and otherwise consistent with this 
section and section 203) in a manner so that--
          (1) the ratio of the visa numbers made available 
        under section 203(a) to the visa numbers made available 
        under section 203(b) is equal to the ratio of the 
        worldwide level of immigration under section 201(c) to 
        such level under section 201(d);
          * * * * * * *
          (3) the proportion of the visa numbers made available 
        under each of paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 
        203(b) is equal to the ratio of the total number of 
        visas made available under the respective paragraph to 
        the total number of visas made available under section 
        203(b).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the 
number of visas that may be issued to natives of a foreign 
state or dependent area under section 203(a) or 203(b) if there 
is insufficient demand for visas for such natives under section 
203(b) or 203(a), respectively, or as limiting the number of 
visas that may be issued under section [203(a)(2)(A)] 203(a)(1) 
pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(A).

                     allocation of immigrant visas

    [Sec. 203. (a) Preference Allocation for Family-Sponsored 
Immigrants.--Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
section 201(c) for family-sponsored immigrants shall be 
allotted visas as follows.
          [(1) Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens.--
        Qualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or 
        daughters of citizens of the United States shall be 
        allocated visas in a number not to exceed 23,400, plus 
        any visas not required for the class specified in 
        paragraph (4).
          [(2) Spouses and unmarried sons and unmarried 
        daughters of permanent resident aliens.--Qualified 
        immigrants--
                  [(A) who are the spouses or children of an 
                alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
                residence, or
                  [(B) who are the unmarried sons or unmarried 
                daughters (but are not the children) of an 
                alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
                residence.
        [shall be allocated visas in a number not to exceed 
        114,200, plus the number (if any) by which such 
        worldwide level exceeds 226,000, plus any visas not 
        required for the class specified in paragraph (1); 
        except that not less than 77 percent of such visa 
        numbers shall be allocated to aliens described in 
        subparagraph (A).
          [(3) Married sons and married daughters of 
        citizens.--Qualified immigrants who are the married 
        sons or married daughters of citizens of the United 
        States shall be allocated visas in a number not to 
        exceed 23,400, plus any visas not required for the 
        classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
          [(4) Brothers and sisters of citizens.--Qualified 
        immigrants who are the brothers or sisters of citizens 
        of the United States, if such citizens are at least 21 
        years of age, shall be allocated visas in a number not 
        to exceed 65,000, plus any visas not required for the 
        classes specified in paragraphs (1) through (3).]
    Sec. 203. (a) Preference Allocation for Family-Sponsored 
Immigrants.--Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
section 201(c) for family-sponsored immigrants shall be 
allotted visas as follows:
          (1) Spouses and children of permanent resident 
        aliens.--Qualified immigrants who are the spouses or 
        children of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
        residence shall be allocated visas in each fiscal year 
        in a number equal to the worldwide level of family-
        sponsored immigrants calculated under section 
        201(c)(1), plus any visas not required in the previous 
        fiscal year for the admission of immigrants under 
        section 203(b).
          (2) Unmarried sons and daughters of citizens.--
        Qualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or 
        daughters of citizens of the United States shall be 
        allocated visas not required for the class specified in 
        paragraph (1).
          (3) Married sons and daughters of citizens.--
        Qualified immigrants who are the married sons and 
        daughters of citizens of the United States shall be 
        allocated visas not required for the classes specified 
        in paragraphs (1) and (2).
          (4) Unmarried sons and daughters of permanent 
        residents.--Qualified immigrants who are the unmarried 
        sons or unmarried daughters (but are not the children) 
        of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
        shall be allocated visas not required for the classes 
        specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
          (5) Brothers and sisters of citizens.--Qualified 
        immigrants who are the brothers or sisters of citizens 
        of the United States, if such citizens are at least 21 
        years of age, shall be allocated visas not required for 
        the classes specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
        (4).
    (b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based 
Immigrants.--Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year 
shall be allotted visas as follows:
          (1) Priority workers.--Visas shall first be made 
        available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of 
        such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for 
        the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to 
        qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of 
        the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):
          * * * * * * *
          (7) Not counting work experience as an unauthorized 
        alien.--For purposes of this subsection, work 
        experience obtained in employment in the United States 
        with respect to which the alien was an unauthorized 
        alien (as defined in section 274A(h)(3)) shall not be 
        taken into account.
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Diversity Immigrants.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in 
        section 201(e) for diversity immigrants shall be 
        allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:
                  (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) Distribution of visas.--
                          (i) No visas for natives of high-
                        admission states.--The percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives of a high-
                        admission state is 0.
          * * * * * * *
                          (v) Limitation on visas for natives 
                        of a single foreign state.--The 
                        percentage of visas made available 
                        under this paragraph to natives of any 
                        single foreign state for any fiscal 
                        year shall not exceed 7 percent.
                          (vi) No visas for natives of certain 
                        countries.--(I) Except as provided in 
                        subclause (III), the percentage of 
                        visas made available under this 
                        paragraph to natives of any state 
                        described in subclause (II) is zero.
                          (II) A state described in this 
                        subclause is a state for which the 
                        average annual admission of natives of 
                        that state is less than 1 percent of 
                        the per country limit applicable under 
                        section 202(a) to natives of that state 
                        in the previous fiscal year.
                          (III) The limitation contained in 
                        subclause (I) shall not apply to the 
                        territory specified in subparagraph (F) 
                        unless the average annual admission of 
                        diversity immigrants from such 
                        territory under this subsection is less 
                        than 1 percent of the total number of 
                        diversity immigrant visas which may be 
                        made available to natives of the 
                        territory in the most recent fiscal 
                        year for which data are available.
                          (IV) For purposes of this clause--
                                  (aa) the average annual 
                                admission of natives of a 
                                foreign state is determined by 
                                dividing the number determined 
                                under subparagraph (A) by five; 
                                and
                                  (bb) the average annual 
                                admission of diversity 
                                immigrants is determined for 
                                the most recent 5-fiscal-year 
                                period for which data are 
                                available on, if data are not 
                                available for 5-fiscal years, 
                                the next longest period of the 
                                fiscal years for which data are 
                                available, by dividing by five, 
                                or the appropriate lesser 
                                number, as the case may be, the 
                                total number of aliens who are 
                                natives of the territory and 
                                who were admitted or otherwise 
                                provided lawful permanent 
                                resident status under this 
                                subsection.
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Maintenance of information.--The Secretary of 
        State shall maintain information on the age, 
        occupation, education level, and other relevant 
        characteristics of immigrants issued visas under this 
        subsection.
          (4) Fees.--Fees for the furnishing and verification 
        of applications for visas under this subsection and for 
        the issuance of visas under this subsection may be 
        prescribed by the Secretary of State in such amounts as 
        are adequate to compensate the Department of State for 
        the costs of administering the diversity immigrant 
        program. Any such fees collected may be deposited as an 
        offsetting collection to the appropriate Department of 
        State appropriation to recover the costs of such 
        program and shall remain available for obligation until 
        expended.
          * * * * * * *
    (i) Except as otherwise provided in section 203(h)(2) and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to any 
civil action against any agency which involves a cause or claim 
regarding the allocation of immigrant visas or determinations 
made on immigrant visa petitions under this section--
          (1) suit must be brought within 90 days of the 
        challenged action or determination;
          (2) venue shall lie only in the District Court for 
        the District of Columbia;
          (3) suit may be brought only by persons who have 
        petitioned for the issuance of an immigrant visa and 
        have exhausted all available administrative remedies;
          (4) no suit may be brought to compel the agency to 
        adjudicate a pending visa petition;
          (5) review of a denial of a visa petition shall be 
        solely on the administrative record; and
          (6) the court--
                  (A) must sustain the agency's action unless 
                it has been shown by the petitioner to be 
                clearly erroneous;
                  (B) may not review any exercise of the 
                agency's discretion; and
                  (C) may not reverse or remand a determination 
                on the basis, in whole or in part, that the 
                agency's explanation of its action was not 
                sufficiently extensive.
          * * * * * * *

                procedure for granting immigrant status

    Sec. 204. (a)(1)(A)(i) Any citizen of the United States 
claiming that an alien is entitled to [classification by reason 
of a relationship described in paragraph (1), (3), or [(4)] (5) 
of section 203(a)] paragraph (3) or (5) of section 203(a) or to 
an immediate relative status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) may 
file a petition with the Attorney General for such 
classification.
          * * * * * * *
    (B)(i) Any alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
claiming that an alien is entitled to a classification by 
reason of the relationship described in section [203(a)(2)] 
203(a)(1) may file a petition with the Attorney General for 
such classification.
    (ii) An alien who is the spouse of an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence, who is a person of good moral 
character, who is eligible for classification under section 
[203(a)(2)(A)] 203(a)(1), and who has resided in the United 
States with the alien's legal permanent resident spouse may 
file a petition with the Attorney General under this 
subparagraph for classification of the alien (and any child of 
the alien if such a child has not been classified under clause 
(iii)) under such section if the alien demonstrates to the 
Attorney General that the conditions described in subclauses 
(I) and (II) of subparagraph (A)(iii) are met with respect to 
the alien.
    (iii) An alien who is the child of an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence, who is a person of good moral 
character, who is eligible for classification under section 
[203(a)(2)(A)] 203(a)(1), and who has resided in the United 
States with the alien's permanent resident alien parent may 
file a petition with the Attorney General under this subsection 
for classification of the alien under such section if the alien 
demonstrates to the Attorney General that--
          * * * * * * *
    (2)(A) The Attorney General may not approve a spousal 
second preference petition for the classification of the spouse 
of an alien if the alien, by virtue of a prior marriage, has 
been accorded the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence as the spouse of a citizen of the United 
States or as the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence, unless--
          (i) a period of 5 years has elapsed after the date 
        the alien acquired the status of an alien lawfully 
        admitted for permanent residence, or
          (ii) the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the 
        Attorney General by clear and convincing evidence that 
        the prior marriage (on the basis of which the alien 
        obtained the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence) was not entered into for the 
        purpose of evading any provision of the immigration 
        laws.
In this subparagraph, the term ``spousal second preference 
petition'' refers to a petition, seeking preference status 
under section [203(a)(2)] 203(a)(1), for an alien as a spouse 
of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
          * * * * * * *

 CHAPTER 2--QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF ALIENS; TRAVEL CONTROL OF 
                          CITIZENS AND ALIENS

          * * * * * * *

general classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and excluded from 
                 admission; waivers of inadmissibility

    Sec. 212. (a) Classes of Excludable Aliens.--Except as 
otherwise provided in this Act, the following describes classes 
of excludable aliens who are ineligible to receive visas and 
who shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
          (1) Health-related grounds.--
          * * * * * * *
          (2) Criminal and related grounds.--
                  (A) Conviction of certain crimes.--
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) Certain aliens involved in serious 
                criminal activity who have asserted immunity 
                from prosecution.--Any alien--
          * * * * * * *
                  (F) Economic espionage and piracy of 
                intellectual property.--Any person convicted 
                of, or who admits having committed, an act in 
                violation of any law, or who has violated any 
                law, as determined by a court, pertaining to 
                economic espionage or the piracy of 
                intellectual property is excludable.
                  [(F)](G) Waiver authorized.--For provision 
                authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of 
                this paragraph, see subject (h).
          * * * * * * *
          (6) Illegal entrants and immigration violations.--
                  (A) Aliens previously deported.--
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) Smugglers.--
                          (i) In general.--Any alien who at any 
                        time knowingly has encouraged, induced, 
                        assisted, abetted, or aided any other 
                        alien to enter or to try to enter the 
                        United States in violation of law is 
                        excludable.
                          (ii) Special rule in the case of 
                        family reunification.--Clause (i) shall 
                        not apply in the case of alien who is 
                        an eligible immigrant (as defined in 
                        section 301(b)(1) of the Immigration 
                        Act of 1990), was physically present in 
                        the United States on may 5, 1988, and 
                        is seeking admission as an immediate 
                        relative or under section [203(a)(2)] 
                        203(a)(1) (including under section 112 
                        of the Immigration Act of 1990) or 
                        benefits under section 301(a) of the 
                        Immigration Act of 1990 if the alien, 
                        before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, 
                        induced, assisted, abetted, or aided 
                        only the alien's spouse, parent, son, 
                        or daughter (and no other individual) 
                        to enter the United States in violation 
                        of law.
          * * * * * * *
    (d)(1) The Attorney General * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (11) The Attorney General may, in his discretion for 
humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is 
otherwise in the public interest, waive application of clause 
(i) of subsection (a)(6)(E) in the case of any alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded 
abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and 
who is otherwise admissible to the United States as a returning 
resident under section 211(b) and in the case of an alien 
seeking admission or adjustment of the status as an immediate 
relative or immigrant under section 203(a) (other than 
paragraph [(4)] (5) thereof) if the alien has encouraged, 
induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only the alien's spouse, 
parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the 
United States in violation of law.
          * * * * * * *
    (n)(1) No alien may be admitted or provided status as a 
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) in an 
occupational classification unless the employer has filed with 
the Secretary of Labor an application stating the following:
          * * * * * * *
    (2)(A) The Secretary shall establish a process for the 
receipt, investigation, and disposition of complaints 
respecting a petitioner's failure to meet a condition specified 
in an application submitted under paragraph (1) or a 
petitioner's misrepresentation of material facts in such an 
application. Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person or 
organization (including bargaining representatives)[.], except 
that the Secretary may only file such a complaint in the case 
of an H-1B dependent employer (as defined in subparagraph (E)) 
or when conducting an annual review of a plan pursuant to 
subparagraph (F)(i) if there appears to be a violation of an 
attestation. No investigation or hearing shall be conducted 
with respect to an employer that is not an H-1B Dependent 
employer except in response to a complaint filed under the 
preceeding sentence. No investigation or hearing shall be 
conducted on a complaint concerning such a failure or 
misrepresentation unless the complaint was filed not later than 
12 months after the date of the failure or misrepresentation, 
respectively. The Secretary shall conduct an investigation 
under this paragraph if there is reasonable cause to believe 
that such a failure or misrepresentation has occurred.
          * * * * * * *
    (C) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
for a hearing, a failure to meet a condition of paragraph 
(1)(B), a substantial failure to meet a condition of paragraphs 
(1)(C) or (1)(D), a willful failure to meet a condition of 
paragraph (1)(A), or a misrepresentation of material fact in an 
application--
          (i) the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General 
        of such finding and may, in addition, impose such other 
        administrative remedies (including civil monetary 
        penalties in an amount not to exceed [$1,000] $5,000 
        per violation) as the Secretary determines to be 
        appropriate, and
          [(ii) the Attorney General shall not approve 
        petitions filed with respect to that employer under 
        section 204 or 214(c) during a period of at least 1 
        year for aliens to be employed by the employer.]
          (ii) the Attorney General shall not approve petitions 
        filed with respect to that employer (or any employer 
        who is a successor in interest) under section 204 or 
        214(c) for aliens to be employed by the employer--
                  (I) during a period of at least 1 year in the 
                case of the first determination of a violation 
                or any subsequent determination of a violation 
                occurring within 1 year of that first 
                violation;
                  (II) during a period of at least 5 years in 
                the case of a determination of a willful 
                violation occurring more than 1 year after the 
                first violation; and--
                  (III) at any time in the case of a 
                determination of a willful violation occurring 
                more than 5 years after a violation described 
                in subclause (II);
    (D) If the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity 
for a hearing, that an employer has not paid wages at the wage 
level specified under the application and required under 
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall order the employer to 
provide for payment of such amounts of back pay as may be 
required to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1), 
whether or not a penalty under subparagraph (C) has been 
imposed. If a penalty under subparagraph (C) has been imposed 
in the case of a willful violation, the Secretary shall impose 
on the employer a civil monetary penalty in an amount equaling 
twice the amount of backpay.
    (E) In this subsection, the term ``H-1B dependent 
employer'' means an employer that--
          (i)(I) has fewer than 21 full-time equivalent 
        employees who are employed in the United States, and
          (II) employs 4 or more nonimmigrants described in 
        section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); or
          (ii)(I) has at least 21 full-time equivalent 
        employees who are employed in the United States, and
          (II) employs nonimmigrants described in section 
        101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) in a number that is equal to at 
        least 20 percent of the number of such full-time 
        equivalent employees.
    (F)(i) An employer who is an H-1B dependent as defined in 
section 212(n)(2)(E) may nevertheless be treated as an H-1B 
nondependent employer for 5 years on a probationary status if--
          (I) the employer has demonstrated to the satisfaction 
        of the Secretary of Labor that the employer has 
        developed a plan for reasonably reducing the percentage 
        of H-1B workers in its workforce over a 5-year period, 
        and
          (II) annual reviews of that plan by the Secretary of 
        Labor indicate successful implementation of that plan.
If the employer has not met the requirements established in 
this subparagraph, the probationary status shall terminate and 
the employer shall be treated as an H-1B dependent employer 
until such time as the employer demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that the employer no 
longer is an H-1B dependent employer as defined in section 
212(n)(2)(E).
    (ii) The probationary status accorded in this subparagraph 
shall cease to be effective 5 years after the date of enactment 
of the plan to reduce dependence on H-1B workers. In applying 
this subparagraph, any group treated as a single employer under 
subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as a single employer 
under this subparagraph. For purposes of this subparagraph, 
aliens employed under a petition for nonimmigrants described in 
section 101(a)915)(H)(i)(B) shall be treated as employees, and 
counted as nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
    (G) Under regulations of the Secretary, the provisions of 
this paragraph shall apply to complaints with respect to a 
failure of another employer to comply with an attestation 
described in paragraph (1)(E)(ii) in the same manner as they 
apply to complaints of a petitioner with respect to a failure 
to comply with a condition described in paragraph (1)(E)(i).
          (3) For purposes of determining the actual wages paid 
        under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), an employer shall not be 
        required to have and document an objective system to 
        determine the wages of workers.
          (4) For purposes of determining the actual wage level 
        paid under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), an H-1B nondependent 
        employer of more than 1,000 employees in the United 
        States may demonstrate that in determining the wages of 
        nonimmigrants described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(B), 
        the employer utilizes a compensation and benefits 
        system that has been previously certified by the 
        Secretary of Labor (and recertified at such intervals 
        the Secretary of Labor may designate) to satisfy all of 
        the following conditions:
                  (A) The employer has a company-wide 
                compensation policy for its full-time 
                equivalent employees which ensures salary 
                equity among employees similarly employed.
                  (B) The employer has a company-wide benefits 
                policy under which all full-time equivalent 
                employees similarly employed are eligible for 
                benefits or under which some employees may 
                accept higher pay, at least equal in value to 
                the benefits, in lieu of benefits.
                  (C) The compensation and benefits policy is 
                communicated to all employees.
                  (D) The employer has a Human Resources or 
                Compensation function that administers its 
                compensation system.
                  (E) The employer has established 
                documentation for the job categories in 
                question.
        An employer's payment of wages consistent with a system 
        which meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) through 
        (E) and which has been certified by the Secretary of 
        Labor pursuant to this paragraph shall be deemed to 
        satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(A)(i).
          (5) For purposes of determining and enforcing the 
        prevailing wage paid under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) 
        employers may provide a published survey, a State 
        employment agency determination, a determination by an 
        accepted private source or any other legitimate source. 
        Not later than 180 days from the date of enactment of 
        this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall provide for 
        acceptance of prevailing wage determinations not made 
        by a State employment security agency. The Secretary of 
        Labor or his designate must either accept such non-
        State employment security agency wage determination or 
        issue a written decision rejecting the determination 
        and detailing the legitimate reasons that the 
        determination is not acceptable. If a detailed 
        rejection is not issued within 45 days of the date of 
        the Secretary's receipt of such determination, the 
        determination shall be deemed acceptable. An employer's 
        payment of wages consistent with a prevailing wage 
        determination not rejected by the Secretary of Labor 
        under this paragraph shall be deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements of paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II).
          (6) In computing the prevailing wage level for 
        researchers in an area of employment for purposes of 
        paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) and subsection (a)(5)(A) in the 
        case of an employee of (A) an institution of higher 
        education (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965), or a related or affiliated 
        nonprofit entity, or (B) a nonprofit or Federal 
        research institute or agency, the prevailing wage level 
        shall only take into account researchers at such 
        institutions, entities, and agencies in the area of 
        employment.
          (7) In carrying out this subsection, in the case of 
        an employer that is not an H-1B dependent employer--
                  (A) the employer is not required to post 
                notices at worksites that were not listed on 
                the application under paragraph (1) if the 
                worksites are within the area of intended 
                employment listed on such application; and
                  (B) if the employer has filed and had 
                certified an application under paragraph (1) 
                with respect to one or more nonimmigrants 
                described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(k)(b) for 
                one or more areas of employment--
                          (i) the employer is not required to 
                        file and have certified an additional 
                        application under paragraph (1) with 
                        respect to such a nonimmigrant for an 
                        area of employment not listed in the 
                        previous application because the 
                        employer has placed one or more such 
                        nonimmigrants in such a nonlisted area 
                        so long as either (I) each such 
                        nonimmigrant is not placed in such 
                        nonlisted areas for a period exceeding 
                        45 workdays in any 12-month period and 
                        not to exceed 90 workdays in any 36-
                        month period, or (II) each such 
                        nonimmigrant's principal place of 
                        employment has not changed to a 
                        nonlisted area, and
                          (ii) the employer is not required to 
                        pay per diem and transportation costs 
                        at any specified rates for work 
                        performed in such a nonlisted area.

  conditional permanent resident status for certain alien spouses and 
                           sons and daughters

    Sec. 216. (a) In General.--
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Definitions.--IN this section:
          (1) The term ``alien spouse'' means an alien who 
        obtains the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence (whether on a conditional basis or 
        otherwise)--
                  (A) as an immediate relative (described in 
                section 201(b)) as the spouse of a citizen of 
                the United States,
                  (B) under section 214(d) as the fiancee or 
                fiance of a citizen of the United States or
                  (C) under section [203(a)(2)] 203(a)(1) as 
                the spouse of an alien lawfully admitted for 
                permanent residence,
        by virtue of a marriage which was entered into less 
        than 24 months before the date the alien obtains such 
        status by virtue of such marriage, but does not include 
        such an alien who only obtains such status as a result 
        of section 203(d).
          * * * * * * *

             visa waiver pilot program for certain visitors

    Sec. 217. (a) Establishment of Pilot Program.--The Attorney 
General and the Secretary of State are authorized to establish 
a pilot program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
``pilot program'') under which the requirement of paragraph 
(7)(B)(i)(II) of section 212(a) may be waived by the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of State, acting jointly and in 
accordance with this section, in the case of an alien who meets 
the following requirements:
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Definition of Pilot Program Period.--For purposes of 
this section, the term ``pilot program period'' means the 
period beginning on October 1, 1988, and ending on September 
30, [1996] 1998.
    [(g) Pilot Program Country With Probationary Status.--
          [(1) In general.--The Attorney General and the 
        Secretary of State acting jointly may designate any 
        country as a pilot program country with probationary 
        status if it meets the requirements of paragraph (2).
          [(2) Qualifications.--A country may not be designated 
        as a pilot program country with probationary status 
        unless the following requirements are met:
                  [(A) Nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for 
                previous 2-year period.--The average number of 
                refusals of nonimmigrant visitor visas for 
                nationals of the country during the two 
                previous full fiscal years was less than 3.5 
                percent of the total number of nonimmigrant 
                visitor visas for nationals of that country 
                which were granted or refused during those 
                years.
                  [(B) Nonimmigrant visa refusal rate for 
                previous year.--The number of refusals of 
                nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of the 
                country during the previous full fiscal year 
                was less than 3 percent of the total number of 
                nonimmigrant visitor visas for nationals of 
                that country which were granted or refused 
                during that year.
                  [(C) Low exclusions and violations rate for 
                previous year.--The sum of--
                          [(i) the total number of nationals of 
                        that country who were excluded from 
                        admission or withdrew their application 
                        for admission during the preceding 
                        fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, 
                        and
                          [(ii) the total number of nationals 
                        of that country who were admitted as 
                        nonimmigrant visitors during the 
                        preceding fiscal year and who violated 
                        the terms of such admission,
                was less than 1.5 percent of the total number 
                of nationals of that country who applied for 
                admission as non-immigrant visitors during the 
                preceding fiscal year.
                  [(D) Machine readable passport program.--The 
                government of the country certifies that it has 
                or is in the process of developing a program to 
                issue machine-readable passports to its 
                citizens.
          [(3) Continuing and subsequent qualifications for 
        pilot program countries with probationary status.--The 
        designation of a country as a pilot program with 
        probationary status shall terminate if either of the 
        following occurs:
                  [(A) The sum of--
                          [(i) the total number of nationals of 
                        that country who were excluded from 
                        admission or withdrew their application 
                        for admission during the preceding 
                        fiscal year as a nonimmigrant visitor, 
                        and
                          [(ii) the total number of nationals 
                        of that country who were admitted as 
                        visitors during the preceding fiscal 
                        year and who violated the terms of such 
                        admission,
                is more than 2.0 percent of the total number of 
                nationals of that country who applied for 
                admission as non-immigrant visitors during the 
                preceding fiscal year.
                  [(B) The country is not designated as a pilot 
                program country under subsection (c) within 3 
                fiscal years of its designation as a pilot 
                program country with probationary status under 
                this subsection.'''.
          [(4) Designation of pilot program countries with 
        probationary status as pilot program countries.--In the 
        case of a country which was a pilot program country 
        with probationary status in the preceding fiscal year, 
        a country may be designated by the Attorney General and 
        the Secretary of State, acting jointly as a pilot 
        program country under subsection (c) if--
                  [(a) the total of the number of nationals of 
                that country who were excluded from admission 
                or withdrew their application of admission 
                during the preceding fiscal year as a 
                nonimmigrant visitor, and
                  [(B) the total number of nationals of that 
                country who were admitted as nonimmigrant 
                visitors during the preceding fiscal year and 
                who violated the terms of such admission,
        was less than 2 percent of the total number of 
        nationals of that country who applied for admission as 
        nonimmigrant visitors, during such preceding fiscal 
        year.]
    (g) Duration and Terminations of Designation.--
          (1) Program countries.--(A) Upon determination by the 
        Attorney General that a visa waiver program country's 
        disqualification rate is 2 percent or more, the 
        Attorney General shall notify the Secretary of State.
          (B) If the program country's disqualification rate is 
        greater than 2 percent but less than 2 percent but less 
        than 3.5 percent, the Attorney General and the 
        Secretary of State shall place the program country in 
        probationary status for a period not to exceed 3 full 
        fiscal years following the year in which the 
        designation of the country as a pilot program is made.
          (C) If the program country's disqualification rate is 
        3.5 percent or more, the Attorney General and the 
        Secretary of State, acting jointly, shall terminate the 
        country's designation effective at the beginning of the 
        second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which 
        the determination is made.
          (2) End of probationary status.--(A) If the Attorney 
        General and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, 
        determine at the end of the probationary period 
        described in subparagraph (B) that the program 
        country's disqualification rate is less than 2 percent, 
        they shall redesignate the country as a program 
        country.
          (B) If the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
        State, acting jointly, determine at the end of the 
        probationary period described in subparagraph (B) that 
        a visa waiver country has--
                  (i) failed to develop a machine readable 
                passport program as required by subparagraph 
                (C) of subsection (c)(2), or
                  (ii) has a disqualification rate of 2 percent 
                or more,
        then the Attorney General and the Secretary of State 
        shall jointly terminate the designation of the country 
        as a visa waiver program country, effective at the 
        beginning of the first fiscal year following the fiscal 
        year in which the determination is made.
          (3) Discretionary termination.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of this section, the Attorney General 
        and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, may for any 
        reason (including national security or failure to meet 
        any other requirement of this section), at any time, 
        rescind any waiver under subsection (a) or terminate 
        any designation under subsection (c), effective upon 
        such date as they shall jointly determine.
          (4) Effective date of termination.--Nationals of a 
        country whose eligibility for the program is terminated 
        by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, 
        acting jointly, may continue to have paragraph 
        (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 212(a) waived, as authorized 
        by subsection (a), until the country's termination of 
        designation becomes effective as provided in this 
        subsection.
          (5) Nonapplicability provisions.--Paragraph (1)(C) 
        and (3) shall not apply unless the total number of 
        nationals of a designated country, as described in 
        paragraph (6)(A), is in excess of 100.
          (6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term ``disqualification rate'' means the ratio of--
                  (A) the total number of nationals of the visa 
                waiver program country--
                          (i) who were excluded from admission 
                        or withdrew their application for 
                        admission during the most recent fiscal 
                        year for which data is available, and
                          (ii) who were admitted as 
                        nonimmigrant visitors during such 
                        fiscal year and who violated the terms 
                        of such admission, to
                  (B) the total number of nationals of that 
                country who applied for admission as 
                nonimmigrant visitors during such fiscal year.
          * * * * * * *

              CHAPTER 5--DEPORTATION; ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS

                  general classes of deportable aliens

    Sec. 241. (a) Classes of Deportable Aliens.--Any alien 
(including an alien crewman) in the United States shall, upon 
the order of the Attorney General, be deported if the alien is 
within one or more of the following classes of deportable 
aliens:
          (1) Excludable at time of entry or of adjustment of 
        status or violates status.--
                  (A) Excludable aliens.--Any alien who at the 
                time of entry or adjustment of status was 
                within one or more of the classes of aliens 
                excludable by the law existing at such time is 
                deportable.
          * * * * * * *
                  (E) Smuggling.--
                          (i) In general.--Any alien who (prior 
                        to the date of entry, at the time of 
                        any entry, or within 5 years of the 
                        date of any entry) knowingly has 
                        encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, 
                        or aided any other alien to enter or to 
                        try to enter the United States in 
                        violation of law is deportable.
                          (ii) Special rule in the case of 
                        family reunification.--Clause (i) shall 
                        not apply in the case of alien who is 
                        an eligible immigrant (as defined in 
                        section 301(b)(1) of the Immigration 
                        Act of 1990), was physically present in 
                        the United States on May 5, 1988, and 
                        is seeking admission as an immediate 
                        relative or under section [203(a)(2)] 
                        203(a)(1) (including under section 112 
                        of the Immigration Act of 1990) or 
                        benefits under section 301(a) of the 
                        Immigration Act of 1990 if the alien, 
                        before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, 
                        induced, assisted, abetted, or aided 
                        only the alien's spouse, parent, son, 
                        or daughter (and no other individual) 
                        to enter the United States in violation 
                        of law.
          * * * * * * *

            suspension of deportation; violuntary departure

    Sec. 244. (a) As hereinafter prescribed in this section, 
the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend 
deportation and adjust the status to that of an alien lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence, in the case of an alien 
(other than an alien described in section 241(a)(4)(D)) who 
applies to the Attorney General for suspension of deportation 
and--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (2) is deportable under paragraph (1)(B), (2), (3), 
        or (4) of section 241(a); has been physically present 
        in the United States for a continuous period of not 
        less than 10 years immediately following the commission 
        of an act, or the assumption of a status, constituting 
        a ground for deportation, and proves that during all of 
        such period he has been and is a person of good moral 
        character; and is a person whose deportation would, in 
        the opinion of the Attorney General, result in 
        exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien 
        or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of 
        the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence; or
          * * * * * * *

                        IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990

          * * * * * * *

                     Subtitle B--Preference System

                  PART 1--FAMILY-SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS

SEC. 111. FAMILY-SPONSORED IMMIGRANTS.

    Section 203 (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
        subsections (d) through (g), respectively, and
          (2) [Omitted; revised text of subsection (a) of 
        section 203.]

SEC. 112. TRANSITION FOR SPOUSES AND MINOR CHILDREN OF LEGALIZED 
                    ALIENS.

    (a) Additional Visa Numbers.--
          * * * * * * *
    (b) Order.--Visa numbers under this section shall be made 
available in the order in which a petition, in behalf of each 
such immigrant for classification under section [203(a)(2)] 
203(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is filed with 
the Attorney General under section 204 of such Act.
          * * * * * * *

                       Subtitle D--Miscellaneous

SEC. 151. REVISION OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS RELATING TO 
                    RELIGIOUS WORKERS (C SPECIAL IMMIGRANTS).

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 155. EXPEDITED ISSUANCE OF LEBANESE SECOND AND FIFTH PREFERENCE 
                    VISAS.

    (a) In General.--In the issuance of immigrant visas to 
certain Lebanese immigrants described in subsection (b) in 
fiscal years 1991 and 1992 and notwithstanding section 203(c) 
(or section 203(e), in the case of fiscal year 1992) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (to the extent inconsistent 
with this section), the Secretary of State shall provide that 
immigrant visas which would otherwise be made available in the 
fiscal year shall be made available as early as possible in the 
fiscal year.
    (b) Lebanese Immigrants Covered.--Lebanese immigrants 
described in this subsection are aliens who--
          (1) are natives of Lebanon,
          (2) are not firmly resettled in any foreign country 
        outside Lebanon, and
          (3) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, are 
        the beneficiaries of a petition approved to accord 
        status under section [203(a)(2)] 203(a)(1) or 203(a)(5) 
        of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect as 
        of the date of the enactment of this Act),
or who are the spouse or child of such an alien if accompanying 
or following to join the alien.
          * * * * * * *

           Subtitle E--Effective Dates; Conforming Amendments

SEC. 161. EFFECTIVE DATES.

    (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall 
take effect on October 1, 1991, and apply beginning with fiscal 
year 1992.
          * * * * * * *
    (c) General Transitions.--
          (1) In the case of a petition filed under section 
        204(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act before 
        October 1, 1991, for preference status under section 
        203(a)(3) or section 203(a)(6) of such Act (as in 
        effect before such date)--
          * * * * * * *
          (2) Any petition filed under section 204(a) of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act before October 1, 1991, 
        for preference status under section [203(a)(4)] 
        203(a)(5) or section 203(a)(5) of such Act (as in 
        effect before such date) shall be deemed, as of such 
        date, to be a petition filed under such section for 
        preference status under section 203(a)(3) or section 
        [203(a)(4)] 203(a)(5) respectively, of such Act (as 
        amended by this title).

      D. Virgin Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act of 1982

 (Public Law 97-271, Sept. 30, 1982; 8 U.S.C. 1255 note, as amended by 
                      the Immigration Act of 1990)

                        short title and findings

    Section 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the ``Virgin 
Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act of 1982''.
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 2. (a) The status of any alien described in subsection 
(b) may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion 
and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an 
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
          * * * * * * *
    (c)(1) The numerical limitations described in sections 
201(a) and 202 of the Act shall not apply to an alien's 
adjustment of status under this section. Such adjustment of 
status shall not result in any reduction in the number of 
aliens who may acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted 
to the United States for permanent residence under the Act.
          * * * * * * *
    (4) For purposes of this subsection, the terms ``second 
preference petition'', ``fourth preference petition'', fifth 
preference petition'', and ``immediate relative petition'' 
mean, in the case of an alien, a petition filed under section 
204(a) of the Act to grant preference status to the alien by 
reason of the relationship described in section 203(a)(2), 
03(a)(4) 203(a)(5) 203(a)(5), or 201(b), respectively of the 
Act (as in effect before October, 1, 1991 or by reason of the 
relationship described in section 203(a)(1), 203(a)(3), or 
[203(a)(4)], or 201(b)(2)(A)(i), respectfully, of such Act (as 
in effect on or after such date).
          * * * * * * *

              M. Soviet Scientists Immigration Act of 1992

                 (Public Law 102-509, October 24, 1992)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Soviet Scientists 
Immigration Act of 1992''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC 4. CLASSIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT STATES SCIENTISTS AS HAVING 
                    EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall designate a 
class of eligible independent states and Baltic scientists, 
based on their level of [expertise], education and experience 
as aliens who possess ``exceptional ability in the sciences'', 
for purposes of section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(A)), whether or not such 
scientists possess advanced degrees.
          * * * * * * *