Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is correct. The language in this bill is mandatory and says that the entry-exit system shall not significantly disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate cross border traffic. I believe the bill will do exactly what the gentleman would like to see done.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh]. (By unanimous consent, Mr. McHugh was allowed to speak out of order.) Request for Authority for Speaker to Designate Time for Resumption of Proceedings on Remaining Motions to Suspend Rules Considered Monday, September 29, 1997

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky is absolutely correct.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct conferees to disagree with the Senate provision that makes permanent an immigration provision known as 245(i). The overriding objective of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, enacted by overwhelming margins in 1996, was to remove incentives for illegal immigration and require illegal aliens to return to their home countries or be removed. Section 245(i) directly contradicts this goal. Section 245(i) permits illegal aliens who have become eligible for an immigrant visa to adjust to legal immigrant status without having to follow the normal procedure for obtaining an immigrant visa, applying for the visa at a U.S. consulate. By allowing illegal aliens to bypass the legal process, we reward illegal behavior, and actually encourage aliens to enter or stay in the United States illegally. Section 245(i) rewards those who jump the line, and insults aliens who follow the law and wait for their visa before entering the United States. As a result, law-abiders have to wait to be with their families, while law-breakers do not. The penalty paid by 245(i) applicants for the right to adjust status, a fee of $1,000, is minuscule compared to the multi-billion dollar cost imposed on taxpayers as a whole by illegal immigration. While the Federal Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prevent illegal immigration and to remove illegal aliens on the one hand, it is encouraging illegal behavior with 245(i) on the other. That simply does not make any sense. The chief beneficiaries of 245(i) are the relatives of formerly illegal aliens legalized under the amnesty passed in 1986, proving once again that amnesties are among the worst possible options in immigration policy. The requirement to undergo visa processing in one's own country is not a mere formality. Waiting for a visa outside of the U.S. allows more time, if required, for problem cases. If the visa should be denied, the alien is already outside of the United States and does not need to be deported. In addition, consular officers often are in a better position than INS to identify circumstances particular to a country of origin, such as a criminal background, that warrant closer examination or even denial of the application. Mr. Speaker, having said all of this, it might be difficult to just end 245(i). There are people in the pipeline who, rightly or wrongly, have relied on its existence and have pending applications. I believe that we can draft a fair and compassionate solution to this situation by allowing persons who have already begun the process to continue to have their 245(i) applications processed, a type of grandfathering for those already in the pipeline. Mr. Speaker, this approach allows both family and business-sponsored petitioners who have already taken significant steps to get their green cards to continue doing so, but says no to anybody thinking of benefiting from illegal behavior in the future. As for U.S. employers, a provision could be drafted that allows processing to continue for cases where a short lapse in status has occurred due to processing errors or where more technical problems have occurred, but would not encourage illegal entry or other illegal behavior. Mr. Speaker, allowing 245(i) to exist permanently would be like Congress passing a second amnesty. It would say, ``Even if you ignore or intentionally violate U.S. immigration laws, we will forgive you and reward you with a green card.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion and say ``no'' to rewarding illegal behavior.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997. This legislation is necessary to protect a basic civil right for all Americans: Protection against governmental confiscation of homes, farms, and businesses. Today, the fundamental liberties of all of our citizens are threatened by a regulatory regime imposed by Government officials. The Government is able to confiscate the property of workers, farmers, and families without providing compensation. Adding insult to injury, is a landowner's inability to have their day in court. Not only is the Government taking the private landowner's property, but is using a legal maze to prevent landowners from presenting and receiving a fair hearing on the merits of their case. Without H.R. 1534, property owners will continue to find themselves trapped in a legal nightmare from which they are unable to escape. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam 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. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt] for his comments and also for his help in shepherding the bill to the point where we are at today. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], and also in the process I want to thank the gentlewoman for being a longtime proponent of the changes that we propose in this bill as well.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I was pleased to support the efforts of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] last year to include a vaccination requirement for all new immigrants in the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996. This revision, section 341 of the 1996 act, is an important measure to protect the public health. In recent months, adoptive parents have become concerned about whether implementation of the new vaccination requirements will compromise the health of their foreign-born adopted children. These parents have raised legitimate arguments that the administration of vaccines to their adopted or prospective adopted children should take place here in the United States. We have every confidence that these parents will see to the immunization needs of their new children. The amendment made in committee will require parents to attest to their intention to fulfill the vaccination requirements in an appropriate time after their children have been admitted into the United States. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2464) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt internationally adopted children under age 10 from the immunization requirement, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until 6 p.m. Tuesday, October 14, 1997, to file legislative reports on the bills, H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997, and H.R. 2578, Extending the Visa Waiver Program. The ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], has agreed to this request.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not correct. The ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Conyers, has in fact been consulted, and has in fact agreed to this.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point my friend from Texas is making. I am sure the subcommittee will be happy to consider the proposal and to evaluate the gentleman's situation. I thank him for calling it to my attention.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.