Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is totally consistent with our agreement.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gilman- Markey amendment. I was in Cambodia not too long ago with a United States team of military personnel trying to clear out mines in Cambodia, and they told me that there was a new mine that they were having trouble teaching the Cambodians how to get rid of, how to defuse, because it was a smart mine, and eventually that mine exploded in the hands of someone trying to defuse it. It was designed to kill Americans or anyone else trying to defuse mines. When they opened it up, what did they find? They found a chip from Motorola, a Motorola chip that was designed specifically to make it impossible to defuse these mines without the loss of American military personnel. We need control of our technology when it is going into the hands of vicious dictatorships like we find in the mainland in China. If we do not impose these restrictions on technology or just handle this issue with care, it is going to come back and haunt us. It is going to hurt our national security, and Americans will be dead if we do not take the proper care. That is what the Gilman-Markey amendment is all about. That is why I support the Gilman-Markey amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we are at a defining moment. The Communist Chinese authorities and the oppressed people of China and other countries around the world are watching. They will note what we are doing here today. During the cold war, America made some strategic alliances with sometimes dictatorial regimes. Perhaps the most blatant of these strategic alliances was that we established a positive relationship between the Communist government of China and the United States of America. The cold war is over. If it ever made any sense for us to be locked arm in arm with an oppressive regime, it makes no sense today. The people, the free people of the world, the people who look to the United States of America, know we mean what we say. President Clinton, during the last visit of this Communist dictator to our country just a few weeks ago, had some words to say. Unless we put muscle behind those words, it will have the opposite impact than what the American people think. It will actually demoralize those people who believe in freedom overseas, and it will create strength among the Communist dictators to hold power, if they think those words about human rights were nothing more than word confetti for the American people. No, today the U.S. Congress is going to act. This piece of legislation is the first of many that will prove to the world that America still is the beacon of hope and justice for all the oppressed people of the world. When it comes down to the bottom line, the American people are serious when we talk about freedom and justice, and that those people around the world who believe in freedom and justice, they will be our friends. We are on their side, and not the side of the oppressor. Mr. Speaker, there is a relationship between peace, prosperity, and liberty. Let us stand for liberty today, and we will have peace and we will have prosperity in the long run. If we do not, it will hurt America.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the following members who were inadvertently not included as cosponsors of H.R. 1702 be placed in the Record at this point: Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania; Mr. Hastings from Florida; and Mr. Brady from Texas.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], our ranking member, has been a tremendous asset to us in this bill and as with all bills dealing with space. I salute that ranking member. I also salute the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman. He has done a terrific job as the newest chairman of the Committee on Science. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and I have worked together. If there is any committee in Congress that exemplifies the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I think it is our committee. I think this piece of legislation is a very positive piece of legislation. It has been made better by that spirit of cooperation. I am sure we can work this way in the future, but I would like to extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who also will be moving on to another committee assignment on the Committee on Appropriations, so we are looking forward to bigger and better things from the gentleman from Alabama as well. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last month we marked the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the space age by recalling that day in 1957 when the Soviet Union orbited Sputnik, the world's first manmade satellite. We have accomplished a great deal in the last 40 years, largely through Federal spending. Because of that history, which is a history of the Federal Government's success in the space endeavor, we sometimes think that only the Government is capable of accomplishing missions in space. As a result, Federal laws and policies are designed around space activities run by the Government for the Government. However, according to a recent study by the investment firm Spacevest and an accounting firm, that is KPMG Peat Marwick, global revenues from commercial space business now exceeds global revenues generated by Government outlays. This is good news, for several reasons. It gives us a broader industrial base to support Federal space missions, lowering costs to taxpayers in the process. Second, it means that the American people are gaining access to a wide range of new space-related goods and services. Third, it means that the country is creating high-technology, high- paying aerospace jobs that are no longer dependent on Government spending for their existence. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it means that our future in space is not bound by the Government's ability to spend money. The spirit of American enterprise will take us to the stars. One problem that we still face is the fact that Government laws, policies, and regulations have not caught up with the way space is developing in the private sector. As a result, sometimes the Government inadvertently hinders commercial space activity. We need to change that so that the American business community can lead the way for the entire planet into space. Fortunately, there has been bipartisan agreement that commercial space is and should be a vital part of America's space enterprise. Most recently, the Clinton administration has adopted several policies regarding space launch, remote sensing, and space-based navigation which help promote the national interest in commercial space. We have introduced H.R. 1702 this year to capitalize on those policies and to incorporate some of the lessons we learned about commercial space over the last few years into law. The bill meets an urgent as well as near-term need to establish a regulatory framework that will allow commercial entities to reenter spacecraft and payloads from space to Earth. Basically, what we are talking about here is allowing companies who are investing in reusable launch vehicles to legally operate this new type of exciting spacecraft that we believe will be the basis of our whole space exploration utilization effort in the years ahead. The bill improves the legal framework for commercial remote sensing by requiring that license applications be examined by Secretaries of Defense and State to ensure their consistency with U.S. national security and international obligations. However, we are also giving the Government hard deadlines to act upon these applications. In business, time is money and it can make the difference between success or failure. The past failures of Federal departments to coordinate implementation of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act in a timely fashion have made it difficult for U.S. companies to retake the international lead in commercial remote sensing from a multitude of other countries. Finally, the bill we are discussing today requires the Government to purchase commercial space launch services instead of relying on burdensome procurement rules in the purchase of rockets themselves. Mr. Speaker, the Commercial Space Act of 1997 is a culmination of 2 years of extensive bipartisan consultation and cooperation. It would not have been possible to bring this bill to the floor today without the real dedication and commitment by Members of both sides of the aisle and, I might say, on both sides of the aisle in the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. There are three significant changes in the bill. By working together, we have come up with these changes to meet the request by committee members since our markup. We add today a new section on shuttle privatization, which contains the same language as the Civilian Space Authorization Act the House passed this April. In it we direct NASA to prepare for the potential privatization of the space shuttle system. In the bill's amendments to the Commerce Space Launch Act, the language addressing ``launch not an export'' has been modified to underscore the intent of the original language in the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. The committee intends that payloads launched pursuant to foreign trade zone procedures be considered as exports only for the purpose of customs entry procedures so that such payloads will be in complete compliance with the duty deferral program. The third change, which we made at the request, I might add, of ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], is to add an exception to the bill's mandate that the Federal Government purchase launch services from U.S. commercial providers. We allow for an exception for reasons of foreign policy purposes but with a requirement that Congress pass a law in order to approve the exception. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this bill is also a product of excessive consultation and cooperation with the Clinton administration. This bill moved through the committee; and as it did, it attracted the attention of various bureaucrats, departments, and agencies. During the markup, we have made over three dozen changes at the request of these agencies and will make several more today. In most cases, these changes improve the bill and we are happy and were happy to make them. In particular, the provisions that cause the administration the most concern have been changed. For example, we deleted a requirement that the Defense Department and State Department publish lists of national security concerns and international obligations. We also added a reference to the international policies that exist in current law. The other changes to this section include the promotion of greater access to remote sensing by scientific researchers and educators, making the current regulations for this growing industry consistent with the national security and foreign policy considerations of the United States, streamlining the application procedures for a commercial license so that the needs of the Government are addressed while ensuring that agencies are responsive to the highly competitive environment in the commercial sector. In the sections on space science and Earth science data buys, we modified proposed language to include consideration of the data requirements of scientific researchers and other Federal agencies beyond NASA. Finally, we made a change in the section on acquisition of commercial space transportation services to accommodate the Defense Department. Unfortunately, it has become clear that some Federal departments do not agree with either the President's own policy supporting commercial space development or the intent of Congress as expressed in previous laws supporting space enterprise. Those departments have asked us to make changes that have no other purpose than to fight bureaucratic turf battles or to enhance their own self-importance. We have rejected such changes. Departments and agencies work for the American people, who have made it clear they want goods and services and the jobs of commercial space development is here and has been created here and to have these things done here instead of going overseas because of bureaucratic impediments. These continued efforts by the entrenched Government bureaucrats to enhance their own power and, basically, these things conflict with the American people and our own national interest, and that national interest is that we lead the world in new space enterprise and industry. As this bill moves through the Senate, we need to challenge our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to be on guard against scare tactics by bureaucrats and by bureaucracies attempting to enhance their own power by changing this bill. We must also challenge the President and Vice President, who have developed very sound policies that this bill supports. But we like them and we want to make sure they stick to their guns. We must challenge the White House to impose order on the interagency process and to reject the special pleas of bureaucratic interest to change the bill in order to enhance certain bureaucrats' own authority. If the White House is serious about its public pronouncements on space policy, and I believe the White House is sincere in this, then it needs to bring all Federal agencies into line with the goals of the American people rather than subverting those goals to accommodate different power bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. With the President's support and with the discipline to reject the pleas from special interests, especially those within Government, to modify this bill further, we can give the American people sound, bipartisan legislation that will help build a better future and ensure that America remains the No. 1, power in space and especially the No. 1 space commercial power. I would ask all of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for the hard work that he has put in. This has truly been a bipartisan effort, and I congratulate him for the hard work he has put in and thank him for that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1702) to encourage the development of a commercial space industry in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. He has been fighting this battle for a long time. He has taken many arrows and slings on various issues, whether it is 245(i) or other issues that have come before this body dealing with the illegal immigration issue. Those of us in California know the deleterious effect that illegal immigration is having on our society and the harmful impact it is having on the lives of our citizens. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1493, a bill that will make permanent and build upon a highly successful INS criminal alien identification program in Anaheim, CA. This program places INS agents at the Anaheim city jail to identify illegal aliens after they have been arrested prior to arraignment, as we have heard. This provides the judge the information a judge will need to prevent a suspect's release if he or she is in this country illegally. Now, Members should understand the significance of what that means. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1493 because I believe it is a commonsense approach in dealing with those who have broken our immigration laws. This legislation will also send a clear message to those who are here illegally that blatantly violate our immigration laws will no longer be rewarding. In the first 10 months of this year alone, illegal aliens were suspects in 22 percent of Anaheim's, this is the city we are talking about here, Anaheim's murders and 53 percent of all rapes. Illegal aliens made up 1,800 of the total Anaheim arrests so far this year. It does not surprise me that those who would not respect our immigration laws would disregard the civil and criminal laws of our country as well. Without a program to identify these individuals as illegal aliens, they will be released into our society after they are arraigned. So it is imperative for us to make sure that judges understand who is in this country illegally so that they will just not be released. These people, if anybody, should be deported. Contrary to what some Members say, a major reason we have a systematic process for legal immigration to this country is to keep an eye on individuals who we are finding now showing up in our jails. Our attempts last week to defeat 245(i) were defeated. Section 245(i) helps screen out; if we would eliminate that process, illegal aliens were being screened out because they had criminal backgrounds. But with 245(i), sometimes illegal aliens end up in this society. Now we are trying to do this to ensure that there is an identification process. And one last word, and that is, I congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] who have worked so hard on this. The INS, under this administration, has been putting up roadblocks for us to try to get these illegal aliens in our jails from being deported from this country. This legislation is a good first step toward deporting illegal immigrants who are committing crimes and attacking our citizens.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1702.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]; the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]; and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for the excellent work that they are doing on this intellectual property rights issue. Intellectual property rights, especially when it concerns the entertainment industry and the software industry, is a vital part of the economy of California. We are talking about billions of dollars directly affecting the well-being of the people of my State and, yes, the people of our country. We have a balance of payment problem as well. Software and entertainment play such an important role in keeping America's balance of payments manageable. So these bills today, both the one we are discussing now and the one we discussed just prior to this, represent hard work and responsibility on the part of this committee, and I would like to congratulate these gentlemen for a job well done.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, for those who are a little bit confused by the discussion today, we are talking specifically, in the short-term, about whether or not 1 million people who are in this country currently illegally, whether or not they should have to go back to their native country in order to adjust their status, or whether these people who are here in this country illegally, 62 percent of them who came here illegally in the first place, but ended up taking jobs from American citizens, coming here illegally and taking the food out of the mouths of our own working people, whether those people should have to obey the law when they came in, which was the law, and go home and adjust their status, or whether or not we are going to enforce the law and protect the people of the United States against the malicious, illegal immigration that has been hurting our country and our people. The other thing is, and let us make very clear, this motion to instruct conferees opens the door to negotiations. It specifically states that we are opposed to a permanent extension of this ongoing amnesty for illegal aliens. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray]. (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is not my purpose. I will be happy to state that for the Record.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, when we hear talk about regularization of status, what we are really talking about, and people should understand this, is someone who is in this country illegally. The fact that the AFL-CIO has again abandoned its defense of the rights of the working people of the United States, the citizens of our country and the people who are here legally, does not surprise me but it should surprise people on the other side of the aisle. However, that big business wants to hire illegal immigrants and give them the jobs does not surprise me. One of the things that is wrong about illegal immigration is that it takes jobs away from the people of the United States. We should not permit that to happen. We should watch out for our own people. Who do we care for? We are supposed to be caring for the citizens of the United States and people who have come here legally and people who have respected our laws. Second of all, this instruction of conferees clearly, just as in disagreement, the word ``disagreement'' is right there in the motion, with what the Senate is trying to do, and that is a permanent extension of this amnesty for illegal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, for the United States of America, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I wish the gentleman would quote the motion at hand rather than quoting what he thinks it should say. Mr. Speaker, the fact is the motion is very clear. It is very clear that it is the House's disagreement on section 111 of the Senate amendment, that we are simply disagreeing with the Senate's permanent extension of this amnesty program for illegal aliens who are here in this country illegally. We are disagreeing with that permanent extension, for the record. And as we know, I would suggest that my words as the author now letting people know on the record what the purpose of this is, as well as the intent of the language as well as the language itself, does not in any way preclude this body from coming to a compromise on this issue. In fact, all it does is prevent a permanent extension of this amnesty for people who are here illegally. That is all it does, and I am stating that for the record as the legislative intent.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first let me state that it is clear that on both sides of this issue there are people who love the United States of America, good Americans, and they love their fellow citizens and they love people of the world. So I have no dispersions on anybody's love of country or love of fellow human beings. But 245(i) is also supported by people who are not necessarily good hearted. There are big businessmen who have a big stake in keeping 245(i) in place so that they can hire people who come here illegally or are here illegally instead of hiring American citizens. Let us make that very clear. When Members see the handout when they come in, they will see the big business organizations supporting 245(i). If they go along with that, they are along with putting our people out of jail and our people are people who have come here legally and U.S. citizens and giving those jobs to people who are here illegally. Even if she is from India and a biotech person and a wonderful human being, if she was not in this country legally, maybe someone else like an American citizen should have had that job that she had. Even though we sympathize with her, we sympathize with the American people and the law-abiding people who did not break the law more than we do this young lady from India that was just described. Four hundred thousand people have already used this loophole, this amnesty for illegal immigrants to get to stay in our country, 400,000. Sixty-two percent of them snuck into this country and did not come here legally at all; $1,000 made up for that, for the fact that they broke our law. With that $1,000, which will, of course, enable a million more and millions more in the future who are here illegally to normalize that status, we are going to pay for 14,000 spaces at detention centers. That is great. One-fourth of all of the criminals in California jails are illegal aliens. That does not come anywhere near the cost of illegal immigration into our country. Section 245(i) does what? It undermines the background checks that we do in other countries to prevent criminals from coming here in the first place. Do not tell me we are going to build 14,000 new detention center spaces. That does not come anywhere near the price, plus the heartache of letting criminals come into this country. What it does more than anything else, it undermines respect for our law. There are people like Charles Mensah from Ghana. Here is Charles Mensah's family. He came here legally. He has been waiting and separated from his family for years. Here they are waiting in Ghana. He is going to be a proud American citizen and he has obeyed the laws. What we are doing is slapping him in the face and saying, if you would have disobeyed our laws, skipped over, come here illegally or snuck your family in here illegally, we would reward you for that. Section 245(i) breaks down all respect for our law. It jeopardizes our security by taking out the security clearances and the background checks. We need to end this practice, to vote for the motion to instruct conferees that will then permit us a chance to get a compromise on this issue. Support this conference instruction.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Yes, big business does want this loophole to stay in place because it is exploiting illegal aliens and bringing down the pay of American workers, who are now having to face competition with people who were not meant to be here in the first place. That is immoral. It is an immoral thing, but our companies want to make a profit at it; fine, let us keep the loophole in place. That is wrong. It is wrong logic. It is not right for the Congress of the United States to be representing the interests of big business and illegal aliens and not representing the interests of the American people in between. Mr. Speaker, we just heard that a person who illegally comes across our border is not eligible for 245(i). That is not the case. That is why 62 percent of the people who have used 245(i) are people who have snuck across our border and come here illegally. Someone who sneaks across the border, comes here illegally, finds himself a big businessman who will pay him substandard wages but will be willing to sponsor him or anybody else who he suckers into sponsoring him, they are then eligible for 245(i). Sixty-two percent of the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have used this have come in just that way. They have snuck in illegally. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Pardon me, but it is nonsense to try to read this proposal to instruct conferees and to suggest that it ties the hands of anyone. The bottom line is, read this motion to instruct. It just precludes us from permanently extending this immigration loophole to which hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring in and being permitted to stay in this country illegally. We can make any type of compromise after that. The conferees can agree to anything else. But we are preventing a permanent extension of what is an ongoing amnesty program for illegal aliens. If we can agree, make some compromises, that is totally within this motion to instruct conferees. No one should oppose this motion based on that illogical analysis of what my motion is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], to talk about why he is opposed to this provision that has permitted 400,000 people already to illegally come into the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one is swayed by this nonsensical analysis. First of all, we know how much teeth a motion to instruct conferees has. This motion will in no way prevent a compromise. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] if he really believes that a motion to instruct conferees will prevent a compromise on this issue. Is that the gentleman's position?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct conferees to try to prevent the enactment of a permanent rolling amnesty program for illegal aliens. Let me repeat that, ``a permanent rolling amnesty program for illegal aliens.'' That is what the issue is today. Contained in the Senate version of the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill is a perpetual extension of an infamous provision of law that has never won an up-and-down vote on the floor of either the House or the Senate. In fact, the only direct vote ever taken on this provision was taken in this House, and it lost. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows people who are in the United States illegally to pay $1,000 to the INS to have their legal status changed. I know a lot of my colleagues have been told this only deals with people who have come here and overstayed their visas. That is absolutely inaccurate, and if they base their judgment on that supposed fact, they have been given a misrepresentation. The INS suggests to us that 62 percent of the people using 245(i) are people who have come into this country illegally, did not come in with visas, snuck into our country. And, yes, some of them came in with visas and just arrogantly overstayed their visas and decided to stay here on an illegal status. Make no mistake about it, 245(i) is only about illegal aliens who have snuck across our borders or who have overstayed their visas. This provision exists because it brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, even though they have only gotten around to spending about 5 percent of the 245(i) revenues. This provision is bad for our country because it undermines our laws. It ends up costing us a lot more than that $200 million a year, because these people often come here, and illegal aliens, as we know, commit crimes and cost us in other ways. But it also undermines our trust in the law, it violates our national security, and it punishes millions of people around the world who are eligible for permanent residence in the United States but they are waiting their turn, they are waiting in line, and they are separated from their families. Last year, we passed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act which was widely supported by Americans, immigrants and native-born alike. This reform was a promise to the American taxpayers that we would no longer reward those who break the law. We promised them that their hard-earned tax dollars would not be spent to pay for an immigration system that is contradictory and randomly applied. And we promised our newest American citizens that we would uphold the integrity of the system that they so apparently respected, waiting for months and many times for years to come to the United States of America. If 245(i) is extended, or what this act wants to do is actually extend it in perpetuity, just make it a permanent provision of the law, the Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we passed last year is null and void, it has been passed in vain; 245(i) not only compromises the integrity of our laws, it also compromises our national security. The legal immigration process which 245(i) beneficiaries bypass, the regular immigration process, requires would-be Americans to undergo background checks in their own countries by our State Department consuls. These officials, American officials, conduct a thorough background check in the applicants' home countries, where there are files and there are local officials to call, in order to screen out terrorists and criminals. They also check for an applicant's ability to stay off welfare. Section 245(i) allows and encourages anyone in the world to skip the background check and skip the welfare probability check and to come here illegally and to pay $1,000. They then undergo a much less thorough check through the INS. In the meantime, while they are going through this much less thorough check, they are here in the United States of America. If they are terrorists or their criminal background is evident, they are here legally through the 245(i) process while they are being adjudicated. Native country screening for prospective Americans is vital to the safety of our citizens and the security of this country. Mr. Speaker, we will hear from the other side today that 245(i) is just a matter of location, again, another piece of misinformation that has been passed out: It is just a matter of where someone picks up their visa. That is absolutely not true. In fact, since most of the beneficiaries of 245(i) have lived here illegally for more than 6 months, most of them would not be eligible for a home-country visa. Meaning, if they returned home, they would not be able to do it anyway because they have already stayed here illegally over 6 months. The only possible way that they could get their visa to stay here legally would be to use 245(i) in this situation. Thus, what do we have? We are making it easier to immigrate illegally into the United States then it is for people to immigrate legally. We will hear today that without 245(i) the families of illegal aliens may be separated, and that is true. There is no doubt about it, and we care about these people and these families. They put themselves in this situation, unfortunately. But what they will not tell us when we are discussing this, and even though our hearts go out to those people who are going to be separated, we also have a heart for those family members around the world who obey our laws, and they are separated from their families and they are waiting for months and sometimes years to come to this country. What about these families? Permanently extending 245(i) means we are rewarding people who break our laws and penalizing those who abide by them. We are siding with the families of lawbreakers over those people who stay in line and are waiting, apparently, to obey our laws and come here as proud citizens of the United States of America. Well, we have a chance to right this wrong, Mr. Speaker. We do not have to tell everyone in the world that the best and quickest way to a green card is to break our laws and to come here illegally. We can vote for instruction to conferees that will tell our conferees that a permanent extension of this gaping 245(i) loophole is unacceptable. I would ask for a resounding ``yes'' on this vote for these commonsense instructions. Let me remind my colleagues, what we are doing today in a motion to instruct is asking our conferees not to go along with a permanent extension. That does not mean that we cannot sit down and negotiate and try to come up with a compromise on 245(i). But if we do not and our conferees go along with this, if our conferees go along with a permanent extension, there will be no compromise in the future. We have foregone that option. Please, let us go for compromise, let us go for trying to mold this and make this more humane, but let us try to deal with the issue. I would ask for a yes vote on my motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.