John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, briefly, this amendment would extend the temporary program and allow foreign nurses into the United States for another six months. Case closed. I mean, we need more foreign nurses coming into the United States for longer periods of time like Hershey needs candy bars. So that is not a good deal, because the current supply of nurses is adequate and may even increase in the coming years due to the downsizing of the American health industry. I hope my colleague will answer this before the debate is over.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], ranking Democrat, who has led this immigration bill as well as he could under the circumstances. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate that. I have heard this kind of argument that we know what is best for the workers. They do not want this. Their organizations that support them do not want it. But really if they need it, they would be happy to have it.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, more sneaking reservations continue to crop up. Let me call the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] to the fact that the growers like this idea. If the gentleman had only contacted the National Council of Loraza that represents the workers, they would have come back to you, we would not have to do what I am going to propose now. Because of his integrity and our close working relationship on the committee, why do we not work together, as the gentleman says, and he withdraw this amendment, and I promise him, with all the good faith I can muster, that I and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], will sit with him and try to work out the program?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. OK, this is the famous camel's nose under the tent amendment. This is the one where it starts off real nice. Not to worry, folks. It is OK. Trust us. We will make it a pilot project. Will that make it OK? We will make it a temporary project. We will make it voluntary. We will do it just like we did the Japanese internment program when we said we are going to find out who the Japanese are that need to be rounded up. And how did they do that so quickly? They used the census data. Government trusters, that is where that came from. So congratulations, voluntary, temporary program for employment verification. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] and others on this side should be congratulated, because there is a simple problem here. The basic flaw in the verification scheme in this bill is an assumption that we have got to impinge upon the privacy of law-abiding citizens in hiring illegal aliens. The problem is the few unscrupulous employers who evade the law today will continue to do it tomorrow, even if we pass this verification scheme in whatever form. How? Because they can simply continue to hire illegals underground and off the record as they do today. That is how we get illegals in, not that all the people that are busy breaking the law are now going to come forward and call the U.S. Government to determine whether one is an illegal or not and they should hire them. They are going to continue it in the underground economy. Is that difficult, complex? No. But this is the beginning of the progress of the system that will maybe ID everybody in the country. Now maybe it will not. But I am not here to take a chance today. This is not my job, to bank on what the future is going to do when we let these lousy programs get started. I think it is unnecessary. Why, oh why did the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] omit the tester program? Was there something wrong with that? The tester program would at least keep us honest, because that would allow people that were supposed to look foreign looking, whatever that is, to go in and see if they are really being treated the same way. But in the manager's amendment, carefully the gentleman took that out. Should I be alarmed? Oh, not to worry. Hey, what is the problem? You are getting a little sensitive. Let us just go ahead with the ID program and we will make it pilot program. We will make it temporary. We make it voluntary. We will make it anything, but get the nose under the tent today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is the same gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] who just told us on an earlier amendment that if we did not pass the photo ID amendment, that immigration would collapse and we would be overrun. That did not succeed, so now he is here on the telephone verification, and now once again the world will go down in smoke if we do not pass this amendment. Please, let us fact the facts: If people come in on student visas and overstay, a telephone verification system is not going to stop them. If people come in here as visitors and do not go back, telephone verification will not do a thing in the world about it. I love everyone advising our business friends how helpful this will be to them. They happen to oppose it through an organization. By the way, the American Bar Association, which is for strong immigration rules, is 100 percent for the Chabot-Conyers amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I tried the metaphor, but when the gentleman from Massachusetts does not use it himself, it should be outlawed. I will try another one, the Ponzi scheme. That is that whatever amendment is on the floor, if we do not pass this, we will never stop illegals from coming in. Remember the McCollum amendment that would put your picture on an ID card, on a Social Security card and make it tamper-proof? Have we forgotten that one already? That was the one we had to have or we would never stop illegals. We moved that one on. Now we have the nose under the tent, and if we do not get this one in, we will never stop illegals. Forget the fact that all the fraudulent employers that want to use illegals are never going to report them through the proper methods anyway. They will all be violating not only this amendment, but all the other immigration laws. So the underground economy is laughing as we finally put the nail on illegal immigrants by a foolproof ID card. Mr. Chairman, what does the Japanese internment program have to do with this? Some say nothing, and some say it has something to do. Where did they find out who the Japanese were and where they were to go get them? They found out through the census program, which was not started out for that, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. The census system was not started off for that purpose. It got to be used that way. Social Security was not started off to be ID. It was for Social Security. Now it is ID. It is on your driver's license. Now we have deteriorated a little bit more and a little bit more, and then someone says, ``This is not the nose under the tent, the camel's nose under the tent, this is innocent, freestanding, vital to the immigration bill; we have to get it or we will never stop illegal immigrants.'' I say hogwash. Support Chabot. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Esteban Torres, who has a great deal of experience in this matter.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] for defensive remarks. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to find out how many Members of Congress understand what business wants and needs and what they know is best for business. Yet when we get the reports and the letters and the calls from business organizations, they are saying just the opposite. They say they do not want it. They do not want it. They do not want it even if we think they want it. They do not want it if we think they need it. They do not want it if we think that it is good for them, even if they do not know that they would be better off for it. The do not want it. Do my colleagues get it? The business community has spoken on this pretty clearly, and yet Member after Member, in support of the Gallegly amendment, explains to us how much better off business will be and how they will learn to love this as soon as they try it and let us give it a chance. By the way, forget voluntary. Let us go to mandatory right now. The next amendment that might be up, if it could be made in order, is to make it nationwide. I mean, why wait for a few months? Let us do it tonight, tonight, tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, we know what business needs. We know, whether they like it or not, it is going to be good for them. The problem has been revealed by the previous speaker, the gentleman from Texas. It is that they are forging all the documents on which we are going to base the phone call a mile a minute. That is why the phone call is going to be no more worth the document than it was based upon. That document may likely well be fraudulent. Do we not see, mandatory programs like this are not going to work. Stepping on people's rights and trying to make class distinctions within our society is not a good way to go. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not wish to pursue this matter, nor is it appropriate to belabor the processes, the internal processes by which legislation is created in the House of Representatives. Suffice it to say that if we had come back after a little while of fooling around with a temporary verification system, and somebody said it did not work, and there were a lot of people coming in, fine. But amendments back-to-back, do not be offended. That is the way the system works around here these days in the 104th Congress. You vote verification; it does not come up in the committee of jurisdiction, but it takes a little detour through the Speaker's office on the way to Rules, and, whammo, here we are, strongly supporting the Gallegly amendment because the leadership said so. Well, now, we follow the leadership too on our side. The only thing is we do not have to park our brains at the door. Our leadership does not operate like that. Relax, sir, please. Our leadership does not order all of us to be in lockstep, as you are routinely. I notice it is getting to be a little stressful on the other side, but this takes the absolute cake. Let us now move from the voluntary to the permanent, one amendment back-to-back. Hey, this is what we really needed all the time. Now, do not think this is 1-800-Big Brother. Please, do not think that. This is not about Big Brother. This is not about the camel's nose under the tent. I know that part. This is a perfectly wonderful system, at which the underground economy is laughing as we debate whether it is permanent or whether it is temporary. What difference does it make? They are not going to abide by any of it. Besides, you have not put any enforcement provisions in the existing I-9 law to begin with. So I am sure this is going to impress some amount of someone's constituents somewhere, but, please, it is not a good day for those of us who would like to have a strong bill on immigration, without violating anyone's civil liberties. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would only close our debate on this amendment in opposition to it by pointing out that we have gone from voluntary to mandatory. Maybe next month we will hit nationwide. We are up to 3 years and counting. But do not worry about it. The wonderful patronizing statements of my colleagues, who are my friends, that tell us that employees should welcome this telephone verification system, one Member went as far as to suggest that one reason they might not welcome it is because they themselves support illegal immigration. I do not think that is a fair canard. I do not think it is the thing we should be saying about these business associations.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, just a moment. I am a senior Member of Congress, but the gentleman says, changed by the leadership just before it came to the floor. Now, in the name of truth and reason, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague for his candor and his truthfulness and his honesty. The gentleman can sit down now, because I am not going to yield anymore. Let us analyze this legislation. We pass out millions of books about ``How our laws are made'' in Congress. Before this measure came to the floor, it was changed by the leadership. Question. Is that leadership a person whose initials are N.G.? I did not ask the gentleman that question, Mr. Chairman. He can sit down. It is a rhetorical question.

Mr. CONYERS. I understand. Now, why did the gentleman not offer this amendment in the first place, instead of taking us through the voluntary charade?