Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. In response to my friend from California, let me just say that the situation, the example that he cites, is one where currently we have the authority to do what is necessary to stop any looting activity, any violations that may occur in the neighborhoods of his community, my community, any community. We do not need to have the INS go out to any community if someone is looting a neighborhood. We do not need to have the INS go out if there is an individual that is breaking curfews. All those things are currently taken care of. What we are saying, however, is that we have to be very careful in having law enforcement try to do the work of the INS and Border Patrol officers. If I can just cite for my colleagues' consideration at some point the reports by the Commission on Civil Rights, which has said that in the past there have been occasions when some very aggressive, zealous local law enforcement officials have actually detained people because of their foreign-looking appearance or because of their racial or ethnic appearance. We have had instances where local law enforcement officials, believing they have the authority, have taken some of these measures without that authority and in fact caused the violation of certain rights that individuals have in maintaining their own privacy and being free of government intrusion, especially if they have committed no wrong. Just because one may look foreign does not mean one should be apprehended or stopped. Those are some of the concerns that a number of communities have expressed with this legislation. Also, local law enforcement has expressed the concern of having the Federal Government allow the local governments to go into that particular field as well.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by saying that for anyone who has lost a member of the family as a result of some crime or has at the hands of someone committing criminal activity suffered harm or injury, let us all say that we are in grief for that individual and that we should express grave concern and take action to ensure that those types of criminal activities do not occur and that people are not hurt or injured. There is nothing wrong with trying to use our law enforcement capacity, whether at a Federal, State or local level, to try to ensure that our citizens are able to live in safety and in harmony. But this amendment takes a step beyond that, and it does not just talk about making sure we have proper, safeguarded law enforcement activity. It actually breaks the ground of what we have had in this entire country of jurisdictional responsibility for law enforcement in the hands of our various law enforcement authorities. Your never find the FBI, you never find the border patrol, trying to give someone a speeding ticket for speeding. You do not find the California Highway Patrol or any other State's highway patrol trying to enforce national immigration law. And that is because those are separate and distinct activities. A California Highway Patrol officer is trained to know what the laws on the roads are, to be able to handle situations that occur on the road. A police officer is trained to deal with all the different types of activities he or she may encounter on the streets of his particular city. A law enforcement officer with the border patrol is taught and trained on how to conduct himself and to be able to deal with the situation along the border and in the interior of our country when it comes to apprehending those who might be in this country without permission or those who are violating our Federal immigration laws. But to now break those clear lines of division would have us allow a local law enforcement officer do the work of a Federal law enforcement officer. This amendment does not say that the local law enforcement officer has been trained on the laws of border enforcement or that that individual has been trained to deal with activities involving border enforcement or immigration law enforcement. It is something that for the longest time this country has tried to avoid. Even recently in the last couple of years, we have seen how even Members of Congress here have expressed grave concern in expanding the powers of certain agencies, whether it is the ATF or the FBI or any other law enforcement agency. We even see at a local level how our police commissions and other agencies that oversee our law enforcement authorities are trying to ensure that, one, they have the capacity and resources to conduct the activity in their jurisdiction as law enforcement authorities, and, two, that they remain within the bounds of their jurisdiction. This amendment breaches that jurisdictional limit. I believe it will lead to situations where we have people who are not trained to do the work doing the work beyond their capacity as local law enforcement trying to do Federal enforcement activities. I must say as someone who is a member of an ethnic minority, it disturbs me when I hear that we will now have people who are not trained to do a specific type of law enforcement work out there doing something which has in the past caused harm, injury, and discrimination against certain classes of individuals. I would urge Members to look closely at the amendment. I think it is well-intentioned. I think the gentleman is trying to deal with a situation out there in our country. But I do not believe at this stage we should be reaching the stage where we breach those very clear lines that have been delegated to our different law enforcement authorities from the Federal Government down to the local government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we add an additional 20 minutes total time to the debate on this particular amendment, 10 minutes split evenly between those in support and those in opposition to the amendment. I do so in recognition of the fact that we have numerous speakers, too many to be accommodated with only the 10 minutes that are available.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in response to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], he probably is aware, as I am aware, that the only medical services that someone who is undocumented is entitled to are emergency services. Someone who goes in for leukemia treatment cannot go in and get this treatment and get it covered unless they are going in under an emergency. It is not an emergency if you are about to die in a year or in 6 months. An emergency is something where your life is in danger at the moment that you are going into the hospital. 1315 So the situation the gentleman has just brought up, if it occurs, should not have occurred. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that, and I appreciate that the gentleman did narrow the amendment to that degree. But it allows local law enforcement to seek out individuals. And the concern that some of us have is that by going beyond the ability to arrest or detain and actually go out there and proactively seek out individuals, there is a concern, and it lies on a couple of fronts. One, in local communities where we have large immigrant populations or large populations of individuals, as I mentioned, like my parents who might look or sound foreign, there is a concern that some officials within the local law enforcement agencies may be a little bit too zealous in their enforcement. Now, if the gentleman is trying to ensure that all communities have the most effective law enforcement possible, the last thing we want to do is deter someone from wanting to report a crime, if he or she may have witnessed a crime, because they are afraid that the local law enforcement agent will be more concerned about the person's legal status than about what they witnessed. The second matter is one that personally affected someone in the southern California area. This is an individual who happened to be driving home from work. He was in a pickup truck. He was dressed casually. He was pulled over, and in this case in fact, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was pulled over, asked for identification. He was told that he would have to go with the INS officers for detention, and I believe that he did not have his particular identification on him except one form of identification, and that was his city badge that showed he was the mayor of the city of Pomona. This was a gentleman from a city of about 95,000 people who was elected to be the mayor of the city of Pomona, and he was detained and was about to be taken in by these agents because they suspected that he might be undocumented. Now, I grant that that is an isolated case that rarely occurs, and most individuals who are in our law enforcement agencies do their utmost to protect all of us, and we should appreciate that. But it does happen. What we are saying is, careful, if there is a reason to breach that division, then let it be a compelling reason because local law enforcement agencies under current law are not prevented from being able to enforce the laws to stop criminal activity. And Federal law enforcement agencies have every right to go into the situation, as was expressed by the gentleman from California [ Mr. Cunningham], earlier of a situation where 90 percent of the people in a housing complex may be undocumented. If, in fact, they are undocumented, the INS should be up on top of that building in a minute, and if they are not, then we should be getting on the INS for not doing its job. It does not require local law enforcement agencies to pull people off from patrolling the street and stopping folks who are committing other crimes to go out there enforcing the laws that the INS is supposed to enforce. We have the ability to let local law enforcement agencies protect the citizenry, make sure we are secure. And we have, and we should provide the INS the resources so they have adequate resources to put border patrol and law enforcement agents from the INS in the field to protect us from violations of our immigration laws. So I would just say to the Members, please, consider what this is. I do not doubt, as I said, the intentions of the gentleman. I think, though, in practice, the intentions will not play out the way he believes, and there would be problems. So I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I believe I began with this debate, I would say again, I have no doubt about the gentleman's intentions and his good faith in trying to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that law enforcement, whether local or Federal or State, has the opportunity to apprehend people who have committed crimes or who we strongly suspect of having committed a crime. And if the amendment, perhaps, had been tailored a little narrower to deal with just that, then perhaps the objections being raised by some of us would not then be as strong.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure and pride that I rise today to recognize Mr. Andy M. Camacho and Dr. Mary Louise Ozohan for their personal and professional achievements. These exemplary individuals are not only an inspiration to their three children but to others as hard-working professionals, model citizens, and dedicated volunteers. Andy Camacho was born and raised in Los Angeles, CA. He is a graduate of East Los Angeles College, obtained a bachelor of arts degree in political science from California State University at Los Angeles and holds a law degree from Southwestern University. He has held numerous positions including director of operations for the East Los Angeles Health System, Special Ambassador to South America, board member of the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau, and partner of the law office of Camacho & Kunkel. In addition to establishing his law firm, Mr. Camacho is the proprietor of four successful Mexican restaurants in the Los Angeles area. He is known to be very generous and offers his restaurants to community organizations and nonprofit agencies to hold their various functions. One would assume that someone like Andy would be too busy for community involvement; but quite the contrary, he is a board member of the Latino Museum of Art, History and Culture, an advisory board member for the Los Angeles Boys & Girls Club, and an advisory board member for the East Los Angeles Chapter of Life Is Feeding Everyone [LIFE]. Time and time again he has demonstrated that whenever he is asked to serve, he serves. Dr. Mary Louise Ozohan is a successful and respected medical doctor specializing in radiation oncology. Born and raised in Canada, Dr. Ozohan attended the University of Manitoba, College of Medicine, and completed her residency at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. She currently practices radiation oncology at the Medical Center of Tarzana in the San Fernando Valley. Dr. Ozohan's contributions to the field of medicine are outstanding. The community is fortunate that she has utilized her talents to improve the lives of so many people. Her commitment to win the battle against cancer is commendable. She is especially dedicated to executing proactive community education and prevention measures to combat cancer. In addition to Mary Louise's role as wife, mother, and doctor, she should be commended for her voluntarism in such organizations as the University of Southern California Mexican-American Alumni Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard Parents Association, and the Juniors of Social Service Auxiliary. Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 1996, colleagues and friends will gather at a special dinner to pay tribute to both Andy and Mary Louise for their contributions to the community. They will both receive the American Cancer Society's Hermanos en la Lucha Contra el Cancer League Life Achievement Award. It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Andy Camacho and Dr. Mary Louise Ozohan for their outstanding service to the Los Angeles community.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. In his amendment, there is also a line at the very end of his amendment which strikes a provision that we have put in in committee and I have fought for to make sure people who can no longer sponsor an immigrant get reimbursed the fee they paid. If they cannot get the service, they should be reimbursed the fee they paid. That is now taken out of the bill in the amendment. I was wondering if the gentleman knew that.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will not be opposing the amendment so much as asking some questions and perhaps maybe some clarification. A couple of the amendments are of interest to me because, for example, the Lipinski amendment would adjust the status of approximately 800 Poles and Hungarians from parolee to permanent resident status. Now, I do not question whether that is something that is worthwhile or not. I just am wondering why we do it for some groups and not others, and it seems to me that this legislation, I hope, is going to be meaningful reform. We have another amendment that is part of the en bloc, which I see here would require the Department of State to refund fees to Poles who were erroneously notified of their eligibility for visas but did not receive a visa. If I recall correctly, I had an amendment very similar to this, but it did not apply just to Poles, it applied to anyone who applied for a visa. But as a result of the elimination of categories of immigrants in the bill, there were a number of people who should be refunded moneys by the State Department for fees paid for something they would no longer receive, and that is an opportunity to have an immigrant emigrate to this country. If I can try to simplify what I am saying, right now, in order for someone to emigrate into this country, a fee must be paid typically by the sponsor of the immigrant, someone who says I will state here that I will be responsible for this immigrant to make sure that this person does not become a public charge as he or she wishes to enter this country; I will pay a fee to have the application for admission processed. As a result of H.R. 2202, various categories of individuals will no longer qualify for visas, siblings of U.S. citizens. For example, adult children of U.S. citizens can no longer come into the country in most cases. Yet fees were paid by U.S. citizens to get these folks, their relatives, to come into the country. Now as I understand it, that is no longer part of the legislation we are considering. Yet, in the case of one of these en bloc amendments, we will be reimbursing fees paid by some individuals even though what we are doing in this bill is saying that they no longer qualify or because they no longer qualify for admission as immigrants in this case. We are doing this for the Poles that are mentioned in this particular amendment. Again I have no problems in doing so, because I think it is only fair that if somebody paid a fee and now the service the fee is meant to provide can no longer be rendered, then someone should get that fee reimbursed. But it is not just Poles who have paid a fee, that should be reimbursed. It seems to me that anyone who has paid for something is entitled to either receive the service or get the money reimbursed, and I would have that reservation. I would still support all of the amendments, including those that I just mentioned, but I would have the reservation. It seems we should be doing this on an equal and fair basis and not in some particular cases.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the changes being made are purely technical, in the modification. Mr. Chairman, I am being advised that the changes are technical in nature in the modification. I would accept the representations that are made. Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I was wondering if we could just take a moment to just go quickly through the amendments. I do not wish to have all the amendments discussed. I just want to make sure I know which amendments are being consolidated in the en bloc amendments. If I could just take a moment to pull out my list of the amendments, I would just like to make sure, if the gentleman would run through those.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me mention one other provision within this amendment that does cause some concern, and that is a change again that was made to what came out of committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, in the immigration bill. That is a change that would permit someone who was sponsoring an immigrant coming into this country, and in the process of trying to meet the income threshold required to be able to sponsor, we provided for the case where there might be a joint sponsorship, so that if one wanted to come into this country and we had sponsors who were willing to obligate themselves to provide the support necessary for this immigrant to come into the country, that that would make it possible for this individual, this immigrant, to make it into the country. The change that is being made in this amendment would no longer allow individuals to be able to be jointly sponsoring an immigrant that wishes to come into this country, as a family member of otherwise. It makes it a requirement that the joint sponsor be a citizen. In and of itself, that is not bad. But if you have the case where you have a lawful, permanent resident who may have been in this country 25 years, is awaiting the INS to process an application to be a citizen and there is a spouse, or a child, or a parent of a citizen that wishes to come in, we have a situation now where that legal immigrant, who is financially capable of sponsoring that individual and a lawful permanent resident who is not only financially able to sponsor or help jointly sponsor this immigrant that wishes to come in but is also preparing to become a U.S. citizen himself or herself, is now no longer qualified under this new change to be able to be a joint sponsor to allow this immigrant to come in. I do not understand the rationale for it. It would have been, I think, preferable had we had an opportunity in committee to discuss this, especially since in committee, both subcommittee and full committee, we had the opportunities to do the changes and provide for certain aspects of sponsorship. Yet here we find all of a sudden that out of committee and onto the House floor the bill looks different. The manager's amendment is now making additional changes which we did not have a chance to debate in committee. I think it is unfortunate because what we will do in the cases of very worthy individuals who are seeking to provide sponsorship, the financial obligation to have someone come into this country under family-based unification, that now that will no longer be possible. I do not understand the rationale for it and perhaps before the debate is over we will hear it. But to me it seems unfortunate that we are making changes that did not get the light of day and we are being told that this is meaningful reform. This is just another reason why I believe that ultimately this is going to be a bill that will be difficult for at least this Member of Congress to support, but certainly on the manager's amendment there are sufficient reasons to object to the bill. Having said that, I would urge Members to oppose this particular manager's amendment.

Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I would agree with the remarks of the gentleman from Texas in opposing this particular amendment. We currently have in existing law prohibitions, civil penalties, criminal penalties as well, jail terms that would be served by someone who was in the country without documentation. We also have under current law provisions that would cause the deportation and exclusion of an individual from this country for many years. Under this bill that we have before us, the penalty is increased even more as the gentleman from Texas mentioned, up to 10 years, you would be banned from being able to come into this country if you are caught without documents. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes the final step and says, ``If we catch you, you can never return.'' It takes into account not one bit what the circumstances may have been for that individual who was in the country. If that individual happened to be here and had a great deal of family here and made the mistake of trying to come in here without documents, let us make the person pay a price. But to forever banish that individual from seeing a family member in this country I think is extremely harsh. Ten years is very severe punishment to serve and that is already in the bill. But let me mention something that most Members probably are not aware of that this amendment does not do. Here we have again an amendment that treats classes of people differently. If you happen to be here through a visitor's visa or a student visa, you have come into this country legally. You entered with proper documentation and the authority of this country to be here. If you overstay the tenure of that visa, whatever the term may be, then you have now become undocumented because you no longer have a right to be in this country. Yet this particular amendment does not address that problem. Is it a big problem? More than 50 percent of all the people that are in this country as undocumented come into this country legally. They they overstay their visas and do not return, and then they become undocumented individuals. Yet this amendment would do nothing to those individuals who have come into the country under legal means, yet overstayed and are now undocumented. Here again we seem to see an amendment that attacks the issue with a very small perspective, with blinders, and says only to those who have crossed a border, and certainly the focus is on the southern border, and certainly it is in regard to people who look like they come from across the southern border, and its says to those individuals, ``Forever more you will be denied access to this country.'' Admittedly, you committed a wrong, and everyone should admit that, and that person should be punished, not only with deportation but with punishment that would require that person not be able to come into this country for a time. But this amendment goes well beyond and says never again will you set foot in this country regardless of how compelling your case is to perhaps at some point come back. At the same time while it is doing this as dramatically to this one individual, this immigrant, in denying him or her access, it says to fully 50 percent or more of those who are undocumented into this country, that they do not have to worry about this amendment because it will not apply. I think that is not only unfair treatment but unwise policy. I would urge Members to reject this amendment and vote against it.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, are we in the process of consolidating amendments en bloc, which the rule provides?

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me commence by doing the same thing I did during the debate on the rule, and that is, of course, to acknowledge the work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. I will echo the words of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] in saying that I think Mr. Smith worked as faithfully and as honestly as he could to try to craft a bill that could come to the floor and get the vote of every Member of this House, and I am proud to have been able to work with him. I must, unfortunately, still say I oppose the bill for a number of reasons. I do not believe, unfortunately, that what we have before us is a bill that really does reform, in a meaningful way, legal immigration. And I believe that we have gone beyond the realm of reasonableness on the issue of illegal immigration. Let me touch on some of those matters. First, as much as this Congress likes to talk about being family friendly and believing in family values, this bill will ultimately break up families. When you consider as distant relatives within this bill a child of a U.S. citizen or a parent of a U.S. citizen, or a brother or sister of a U.S. citizen, I think you have gone astray. But this bill does exactly that. When you tell a refugee, someone who has had to flee a country in fear of death, that they have a very limited time period within which to make that claim for refuge to the United States and that they lose all chance of being able to prove a claim that they are trying to escape death or persecution, we have lost the great meaning of the Statue of Liberty. Then the bill tells American workers in two respects something very onerous: First, we are in this bill going to preserve and protect businesses, but workers, no--because there is great pressure right now for this bill to be amended to help businesses continue to be able to bring in foreign workers, especially those with substantial skills. I do not object to that. But I do object to the fact that political pressure is probably going to help certain interests gain something in this bill while other interests--families, citizens trying to bring in their relatives, their children--will not gain anything. But perhaps the most onerous provision in this bill is the one that says that growers in our agricultural sector can bring in upwards of 250,000 foreign temporary workers--import workers--just in the first year alone to do the work that we have thousands, if not millions, of Americans prepared to do who are unemployed a good portion of the year, but willing to do. That, I believe, is a sin against America's workers who are saying, ``I am ready and willing to work.'' But we have before us a proposal in this bill that would say exactly that: Let us import at least 250,000 foreigners temporarily. Then we have the issue of the problem of undocumented immigration. And we find in this bill that perhaps the greatest source of undocumented immigration, those who come into this country legally through some visa--a visitor's visa, a student visa--and then stay beyond their time, that they are permitted into the country and then become undocumented because their visas expire and they no longer have a right to be here. Those individuals can continue to come in, and we do nothing in this bill to try to prevent that. Yet, we are being very harsh by telling a young child who probably had no say whatsoever in what his or her parent would do in coming over into this country, across the border, that that child will no longer be educated even though there is a Supreme Court decision saying children should not pay for the sins of their parents and they are entitled to be educated. Who are the winners, and who are the losers? Well, I have mentioned a few. Let me mention a couple more. The Federal Treasury and the IRS, because in this bill we are telling legal immigrants they must pay taxes, abide by our laws, in fact, even pay the greatest sacrifice of serving this country in time of war, yet they will not be able to receive services provided by the Federal Government. Why? Well, because they are not yet citizens. So they cannot vote, and most of these folks probably do not give a lot of money to political campaigns. So there is no political risk in going after these folks. I think that is perhaps one of the most onerous things about this debate. That is the one issue that probably will get the fewest votes on behalf of immigrants, because, you know what, there is no support in this House for legal immigrants because there is no need to support someone who works hard, is law-abiding, church-going, starts up a business more often than a native-born U.S. citizen--the studies tell us that--works longer hours than most citizens do, is healthier than most citizens, has a longer life span than U.S. citizens--because they do not have some of the unhealthy habits that most citizens grow up with--but can't vote. Yet we are telling them pay your taxes and be ready to fight for this country in time of war, but yet if you should by some chance lose a job, you will not have access to the services U.S. citizens have. The only distinction you have compared to another American is you have not yet been able to become a U.S. citizen. I think that is so egregious. I believe the Statue of Liberty and everything this country has stood for in its Constitution is being abrogated as we go this last step of telling folks who are legally here, we want your money but we do not want you to be able to take part fully in American life as those who reside in this country as citizens. I would oppose this bill for that and a number of other reasons which I have not had an opportunity to discuss.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to echo what the gentleman from Texas is saying. My friend and colleague from California misrepresents the facts. In fact, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] knows, under the Democratic watch 2 years ago and with a Democratic President, for the first time in the history of this country we got a President who was willing to give moneys to States to reimburse them for the cost of incarceration of undocumented immigrant felons. We, also, for the first time in more than a decade got an increased amount of funding for the INS to conduct border enforcement activities so they would not have to work with outdated equipment, with broken night scopes, all of the things that were being requested by the INS which certainly did not get fulfilled before the President, President Clinton, took office. So certainly we have to acknowledge that there have been efforts, and hopefully we will recognize that they have been bipartisan efforts, not only by one particular party or another.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me first acknowledge the work of the chairman of the subcommittee which I sit on, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] for his work in trying to bring forward a bill on immigration. Let me say that I am very disappointed in the rule today because, despite what we have constantly heard over the last 2 years from the new majority about having open rules, this is a very, very closed and restricted rule. Although we have about 32 amendments on the floor for debate, some for only 5 to 10 minutes, we had over 130 amendments that we wished to have heard, and unfortunately very few of those are now made in order. This is also a very unfair bill. Despite the characterizations of this as a very fair bill, it is a very unfair bill for both American families and for American workers. Unfair for American families because the only choice American families have under this legislation to preserve their opportunity to bring in a spouse, a child, a brother or sister is to try to strike an entire portion of this bill. If we leave in that particular portion of the bill that deals with immigration of family members, what we will see is devastation for families trying to bring in their immediate family relatives. For American workers, it is a devastating bill because it has no protection for American workers. In fact, on the contrary, what we see is a program that will allow up to 250,000 temporary foreign workers to be imported into this country to do the work that American workers are dying to be able to do. That is unfair to America's workers. It is also unfair that this bill does nothing to try to enhance worker protections or the ability to enforce our current labor laws so that at the workplace we know that workers, American and those legally allowed to work in this country, are protected from abuse. Everyone should strive for immigration reform. Talk to anyone. It makes no difference what poll we take or what poll we listen to. Everyone wants to see reform of our immigration laws. But it should be meaningful reform of our immigration laws. We should not be targeting legal immigrants because we have to attack the issue of illegal immigration. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all the Members here to look closely at this legislation and vote with their heart and their mind. This is not a good bill. Vote against the rule.