John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. The Speaker of the House wanted it out. Your colleagues on the Republican side pleaded to have it taken out. And now, after it has been taken out, you march right up again telling us about all the provisions. And now, if there is any time left, I would be happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from California for 15 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you ought to be happy to. But this is the provision that came out of the immigration bill so it would have a life. And it did not come from the President or the Democrats. Guess who wanted it out?

Mr. CONYERS. No, you did not.

Mr. CONYERS. Not yet. I have not completed. Now, my dear friend, Mr. Gallegly, one of the best mayors California ever produced, how come you did not allow this great provision to remain where it was created, in the immigration bill? You have not explained that on the floor.

Mr. CONYERS. Not yet, I have some more to tell you about this subject, sir, and then I will be pleased to yield. Now, it just so happens that the bill that you so avidly support here on the floor is nothing more than a mean-spirited attempt to punish children for the actions of their parents. Did you explain that to your cousins from Australia? And, by the way, what do you think happens to all these hundreds of thousands of kids that you would exclude from schools here? What do they do? Join the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts? Or do they get part- time work? Or do they go the day care centers that their parents will assign to them? Or do they stay out on the streets and become criminals or victims of crime that your nephews fail to understand that you do get punished here in America? You get punished more in America than you do anywhere else in the world.

Mr. CONYERS. I have not finished my question to you yet. It is going to be a little more complicated than that. If you break the law in America, you get rewarded? We have got more people in prison for breaking the law than any nation on the face of the planet, and building more prisons than schools. We are now federally subsidizing the increase of prisons in States, and your cousins in Australia are telling you, a Federal lawmaker, that you get rewarded for breaking the law in America, and you repeat that on the floor of the House without even telling us what you told your cousin.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, also a good friend of mine, from California, said that this cousins in Australia have heard that if you break the law in America you get rewarded. Well, what did you tell them, Mr. Lawmaker?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has worked with great diligence on trying to reform the bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] who is completing his 14th year. He has served with great distinction in the Congress on a variety of committees, including the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a weak ans shameful bill, which does not deserve the Members support in its current form. The final product produced by the conference was given to us at the very last minute, on a take it or leave it basis. There was no Democratic input whatsoever, and we were completely shut out of the amendment process. 1. failing to protect american workers This bill says that we will make it easier for unscrupulous employers to hire illegal aliens once they are here. It also says that, by weakening antidiscrimination laws, it will make it harder for legal workers to get jobs. This bill says a resounding no to more Department of Labor inspectors to check illegal sweatshop and other havens of illegal, undocumented workers. No even though at least 100,000 foreign workers overstay their visas each year. This bill says a resounding no to Labor Department subpoena authority to review employment records, a critical tool needed to combat illegal immigration. This bill says no to more civil penalties for abusive employers who hire the illegals. That's the magnet that brings illegal immigrants here. That's what really counts. But the special interests have had their way with this bill. The Republicans have refused to includes those provisions that can most effectively attack illegal immigration. Therefore this bill is a toothless tiger, an election year special, designed to fool voters in California and elsewhere that we are getting tough. In reality, the Republican leadership is just caving to special interests and bringing us a weak bill. 2. this bill says yes to discrimination It's not enough to simply be weak on illegal immigration. This bill also says yes to more discrimination. Even though not in the original bill, this bill now includes new provisions that tell employers that may engage in patterns and practices of discrimination so long as the discrimination is not so egregious as to lead itself to a showing of intent in a court of law. The conference report also says yes to discrimination by race, gender, and nationality in visa processing. This would allow the Department to select one particular type of nationality and subject them to burdensome and dangerous new visa processing requirements--a practice that has already been found to violate the antidiscrimination laws by the D.C. Circuit. That would have the immediate effect of forcing several dozen Vietnamese nationals who are family members of United States citizens to return to Vietnam to have their visas processed. Because of the hostility and corruption of the Vietnamese Government, those forced back are likely to have their visas languish for many more years. 3. this bill says no to the environment The National Environmental Protection Act, known as NEPA, is the Nations founding charter for environmental protection. But this bill repeals that law, yes repeals that law, when it comes to the broader related construction. That means that when we are constructing roads, bridges, fences, we can ignore the environment. That means that broader construction can pollute our public waterways, dirty our air, create hazardous point sources that can create dangerous run offs, and generally ignore any adverse environmental impact of that construction. This is just one more, yes one more Republican attack on our environment. I plan on offering to recommit the conference report which corrects these glaring flaws. There is still time to come together and achieve a genuine bipartisan agreement on immigration. If you want to reform the Nation's immigration laws and crack down on illegal immigration without taking extreme and counterproductive measures which harm American workers, I urge you to vote for the motion to recommit. If that motion fails, I urge you to vote against the conference report.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to Mr. Barcia, my dear colleague from Michigan, nobody, no doctor would have forced you to have the procedure that is being debated today. Nobody would have recommended it to you without allowing you and your wife to make the choice. So why not let everybody else have that same privilege--that same choice--that you had? Why is it that we as Members of Congress, have now become doctors, Mr. Canady? Who gave us the right, for the first time in American history, to determine what procedures doctors will employ? Where do you think that inures to you as a humble Member of Congress? What medical background do you bring to this debate that is greater than the knowledge of the members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? By what right do you tell people they cannot have this often medically necessary procedure? If Mr. and Mrs. Barcia do not want to undergo the procedure, they don't have to do it. They can choose not to. Now, let me turn to Dr. Coburn from Oklahoma. Dr. Coburn from Oklahoma, I am not totally misinformed. I am seeking information. I do not have a violent position on this. The fact that I am not supporting you, but instead am supporting most of the doctors in your profession, does not make me totally misinformed. Nor does it make me totally pro- abortion. Let us be fair, doctor.

Mr. CONYERS. Have you performed this procedure?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration, who more than any other member on the committee fought to protect American workers, who started out with the Smith-Bryant bill, got cut out by the leadership and we now meet here at this juncture before we go to conference.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering would instruct conferees to retain the provisions in the Senate-passed bill that provides for 350 additional Department of Labor wage and hour inspectors and staff to enforce violations of the Federal wage and hour laws. It is no more complicated and no less simple than that. The reason is that the cornerstone of our efforts to control immigration must be to shut off the job magnet that draws so many undocumented aliens into the country. Increasing border patrols is of course important, but that can be done through the appropriations process, as we have been doing for the last 2 years. But it is imperative that we enhance the authority to prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegal workers instead of American workers. For example, we know that each year more than 100,000 foreign workers enter the work force by overstaying their visas. No amount of border enforcement will deter this, since they enter legally with passports and visas. No amount of border enforcement will deter the desire, the magnet that draws people into this country, and that is to seek jobs. The only way to deter this form of illegal immigration is in the workplace, by denying them jobs. Case in point: In the 14-month-old Detroit newspaper dispute we have reports of illegal immigrants, not replacement workers from within the United States, but people without a valid passport, no right in this country, are coming in and they have been investigated, INS is conducting investigations on them. It is a serious incursion and a serious charge and it is being investigated by INS now, but this gives reason for the instruction motion that I would urge that we adopt in as large a number as possible. We must enhance the authority to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegal workers instead of American workers, and there can be no doubt that an increased number of Labor Department inspectors will reduce the possibility that employers will hire illegal workers. The Jordan Commission, remembering the late Barbara Jordan, recommended this increase, since studies show that most employers who hire illegal workers also violate labor standards. This goes together. We want to deal with this problem and the only way is to move to the Senate-passed version that authorizes 350 additional inspectors to enforce these violations or alleged violations of Federal Wage and hour laws. The report of the Jordan Commission concluded with this statement: The commission believes that an effective work site strategy for deterring illegal immigration requires enhancement of labor standards enforcement. Now, I expect that the 350 additional inspectors would be used to enhance enforcement of labor standards in those areas where high concentrations of illegals are employed. In fiscal years 1993 through 1995, the Department of Labor recovered nearly $60 million in unpaid minimum wages for more than a quarter of a million workers and another $300 million in unpaid overtime for more than a half million additional workers. More can be accomplished with these additional personnel. And just as importantly, increased enforcement will help level the playing field for those honest employers who play by the rules and hire American workers and pay them a fair wage. So all of the Members who like to talk about preventing illegal immigration, please, let us all repair to this motion to instruct. It is an important one, it is critical for maintaining good labor standards in this country, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in voting yes on a more tough and effective workplace enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Xavier Becerra, who I have asked to conclude this discussion by saving him for last to use the remaining time on our side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] who has been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary for a considerable period of time and is widely reputed to be an expert on immigration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].