Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the reason we have the record percentage, 21 percent of all legal immigrants on welfare today, is because we admit over 80 percent of all legal immigrants with absolutely no regard to their education or skill levels. That is the reason we have the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], whom I understand is the only Member of Congress who can see the southern border from his home.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to some of my friends on the other side of the issue, they may not be aware that the new figures for the 1995 immigration levels are in. The 1995 level was 715,000. Under this bill we average 700,000 each for the next 5 years. I might concede a 2-percent reduction at most.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question by my friend from California. In point of fact the whole thrust behind this amendment is not to reform legal immigration. In fact, it is to kill any reform that we have in legal immigration. There is no separate legal immigration reform bill on the House side as there is on the Senate side. The gentlemen who have put forth this amendment to my knowledge have not proposed one amendment to reform legal immigration. I think that is very regrettable. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have a devastating impact on immigration policy. It will lead to increased illegal immigration. It would lawfully admit a quarter of a million individuals who otherwise would be called illegal aliens. If Congress is serious about reducing illegal immigration, we will reject this amendment. The legitimate and understandable needs of American fruit and vegetable growers will be met by the Goodlatte amendment, which we will consider in just a few minutes. This amendment would worsen our illegal immigration crisis by letting in 250,000 unskilled guest workers in the first year alone. Guest workers are not going to leave when their work ends. This is a lesson to be learned from guest worker programs around the world. The lure of American jobs at significantly higher pay than in the homelands is just too great. There will be no labor shortage in the future. Some growers are concerned that the employment eligibility quick-check system in this bill will reveal their farm workers to be illegal aliens, but we have made the verification system voluntary. If growers do not want to use it, they do not have to use it. Under a voluntary system, any rationale for a new guest worker program simply vanishes. Even if part of the seasonal agricultural labor force that is presently illegal were to disappear, there would still be no shortage. The bill contains a backlog reduction program that will add substantial numbers of new permanent residents who are likely to go into agricultural work. The program will provide approximately 500,000 visas for spouses and children of permanent residents, to eliminate the current 1 million-plus backlog. Supporters of the amendment seem to forget that we already have an agricultural guest worker program. It is called the H-2A program. I know that growers have had concern about the workability of the program, but the Goodlatte amendment will address every concern the growers raised at hearings we have had on the H-2A program. The current guest worker program does not provide a grower with foreign guest workers unless he or she has shown that there are no available American workers. The amendment that we are considering requires no recruitment on the part of the growers. One of the most fundamental principles of immigration law is that foreign workers should not displace qualified American workers. That would be violated by this amendment. The current guest worker program should be improved. We know that. That is exactly what the Goodlatte amendment will do in just a few minutes. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat Pombo and support the Goodlatte amendment. It does meet the legitimate needs of growers without striking at the heart of our efforts to reduce illegal immigration. Vote ``no'' on the Pombo amendment and ``yes'' on the Goodlatte amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why over 80 percent of the American people want legal immigration reform, and there are many reasons why this legislation has attracted such widespread support, such as from organizations like the National Federation of Independent Business, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the Traditional Values Coalition, United We Stand America, and, as of today, our endorsement by the United States Chamber of Commerce. The reasons to support immigration reform and oppose this killer amendment are these: First, now is the time to reform legal immigration. Four times in the past 30 years Congress has acted to substantially increase legal immigration. There was the Immigration Act of 1965, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990. The Commission on Immigration Reform has recommended a permanent legal immigration system of 550 admissions per year plus an additional 150,000 per year for 5 years to reunify close families. This bill is very close to those recommendations. In fact, it actually exceeds those recommendations and, for that reason, is very generous. Second, this amendment hurts American families and workers. A fundamental problem in our current immigration system is that more than 80 percent of all illegal immigrants are now admitted without reference to their skills or education. Thirty-seven percent of recent immigrants lack a high school education, compared to just 11 percent of those who are native born. Experts agree that this surplus of unskilled immigrants hurts those Americans who can least afford it, those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. The Commission on Immigration Reform said, ``Immigrants with relatively low education skills compete directly for jobs and public benefits with the most vulnerable of Americans particularly those who are unemployed and under employed, and they total 17 million today.'' The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that low-skilled immigration accounted for up to 50 percent of the decline in real wages among those Americans who dropped out of high school. The bill addresses this problem by reducing the primary source of unskilled immigration, eliminating the unskilled worker category in employment-based immigration, but the bill actually increases the number of visas available for high-skilled and educated immigrants. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates these reforms. This is the last thing we need to do, hurt Americans who work with their hands and are struggling in today's economy. Third, this amendment will continue the crisis in illegal immigration. This status quo amendment will continue to drive illegal immigration. The myth is that millions of people are waiting patiently for their visas outside of the United States. The reality is very different. Large numbers of aliens waiting in line for visas are actually present in the United States illegally. This amendment will do absolutely nothing to solve this problem. The backlogs will increase, as will the numbers of those backlogged applicants who decide not to wait and instead choose to enter the United States illegally. Meanwhile, we can expect the backlogs to continue to grow. Setting priorities means making choices. The elimination of the category for siblings was proposed as early as 1981 by the Hessburgh Commission on Immigration Policy, and the elimination of all categories for adult children and siblings was recommended by the Jordan Commission. Today, a 3-year-old little girl and her mother could be separated, a continent away, from the father living in the United States as a legal immigrant. Meanwhile, in the same city, in the same country, we would be admitting a 50-year-old adult brother of a U.S. citizen. The amendment is immigration policy as usual. It is a decision not to make a decision, not to set priorities, and not to have a real debate over what level of immigration is in the national interest. These extended family members, more than any other, contribute to the phenomenon of chain migration, under which the admission of a single immigrant over time can result in the admissions of dozens of increasingly distant family members. Without reform of the immigration system, chain migration of relatives who are distantly related to the original immigrant will continue on and on and on. We need to remember that immigration is not an entitlement, it is a privilege. An adult immigrant who decides to leave his or her homeland to migrate to the United States is the one who has made a decision to separate from their family. It is not the obligation of U.S. immigration policy to lessen the consequences of that decision by giving the immigrant's adult family members an entitlement to immigrate to the United States. One point raised by the gentleman from Michigan I want to respond to. That is in regard to the question, Does the bill favor the families of former illegal aliens over the families of citizens. The answer is no. The backlog clearance provisions of the bill give first preference to those who are not relatives of legalized aliens. These will be the first family members under the backlog clearance. Last, this amendment allows continued abuse of the diversity program. Currently, diversity visas are often given to illegal aliens, those who deliberately have chosen not to wait in line, but to break our immigration law. The diversity program has turned into a permanent form of amnesty for illegal aliens. The bill eliminates the eligibility for illegal aliens and reserves diversity visas to those who have obeyed our laws. It also raises the educational and skills standards for diversity immigrants so we are not admitting still more unskilled and uneducated immigrants. Mr. Chairman, I want to close by saying to an overwhelming majority of Americans, we hear you. We understand why we need to put the interests of families and workers and taxpayers first. To the National Federation of Independent Business, the Hispanic Business Round Table, the United We Stand America, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the United Chamber of Commerce, thank you for our endorsement. Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity of a generation. We have the opportunity to reform a legal immigration system, but to do so we must vote no on this status quo amendment, we must vote no to kill legal immigration reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. The amendment will provide for a 6-month extension of H-1A nonimmigrant program for nurses as originally enacted by the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989. I support this extension of the H-1A program which originally was effective for just 5 years. This will permit the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims to conduct hearings and otherwise investigate the competing interests relevant to this program. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] for taking the lead on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this extension of the nurses program.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and I have been through a lot on a year-long journey to implement immigration reform legislation. I feel like we are a little like the two characters in Lonesome Dove, Woodrow and Gus. While we may sometimes disagree, I am not going to take any shots at my partner in this endeavor. Instead, I do want to tell my colleagues why this is such a good bill and why it puts the interest of American families, workers, and taxpayers first. This legislation will reduce illegal immigration and reform legal immigration. It will help secure our borders, reduce crime, and protect jobs for American citizens. It will encourage legal immigrants to be productive members of our communities and ease the burden on the hardworking taxpayers. For only the fourth time this century, Congress now considers comprehensive immigration reform. I thank my colleagues for their patience, for their interest, and for their support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Goodlatte amendment. We already have an agricultural guest worker program. It is called the H-2A program. The Goodlatte amendment makes needed changes. It ensures a program that works for farmers and yet one that retains the bedrock protections for American workers. The Goodlatte amendment responds to the complaints from fruit and vegetable growers and the complaints that they have lodged against the H-2A program. There is a widespread belief among growers that the Department of Labor administers the program in bad faith, intending to make it so unworkable that it will not be used. The Goodlatte amendment transfers the upfront certification process from Labor to the INS. This move will ensure both that growers get the workers they need, and that program abuse will not go uncorrected. Mr. Chairman, growers complain about the time it takes to get H-2A workers, that they must file applications at least 60 days before the date of need. The Goodlatte amendment cuts this period by 20 days. It ensures growers will get the workers they need when they need them. Growers believe the current 50 percent rule is unfair. The rule requires a grower to hire any domestic farm workers who apply for work until the H-2A guest workers have completed half their work contract period, eve if the grower already has all the workers needed. The Goodlatte amendment repeals this rule. Growers also complain about the H-2A program's three-quarters rule. This rule requires that they pay guest workers for 75 percent of the agreed work contract period, even if the harvest is cut short by weather or pests. The Goodlatte amendment requires that a grower pay his guest workers for three-quarters of the time the harvest actually takes. This assists growers hit by setbacks while protecting guest workers. Fruit and vegetable growers want to be allowed to pay guest workers a housing allowance instead of having to build actual housing. The Goodlatte amendment permits housing allowances if housing is reasonably available in the area. This ensures that guest workers will not be forced into homelessness. The Goodlatte amendment sets a ceiling of 100,000 guest workers per year. In recent years, about 17,000 to 19,000 aliens have been granted visas under the H-2A program. This ceiling is large enough to meet the needs of farmers who want to replace illegal workers with legal workers. By keeping the requirement of recruiting and hiring U.S. workers first, the Goodlatte amendment would meet the needs without undermining U.S. immigration policy and harming domestic workers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Goodlatte amendment. It is good for guest workers and it is good for growers.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond briefly to my good friend from California [Mr. Doolittle] and the comments he made a while ago. Actually the chart that he showed shows the exact opposite, if I may say so. At the beginning of the Bracero program we had an increase in the number of illegal aliens coming into the country. The decrease that was caused was not by the Bracero program. It was by President Eisenhower instituting what was then called Operation Wetback that effectively sealed the border. It had nothing to do with the Bracero program. The reduction in illegal aliens was because of the President's policy at that time. The Bracero program at the beginning of it actually increased the number of illegal aliens coming in, because more people were encouraged to come and try to get into the country.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues that the NFIB in fact supports this bill and in fact they do not oppose the very voluntary system that we have in the bill for a pilot program for verification. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 1545

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to respond to one point the gentleman from California just made, and that is the Social Security Administration testified before the subcommittee that they would guarantee 99.5 percent accuracy if all we were asking was the person's name and number, not address, nothing else like that. All we are asking for in this pilot program, 99.5 percent accuracy. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to tell my colleagues how much I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' generous comments, and I certainly understand what he was saying, and, as he just suggested, the intent here was never to end legal immigration. It was just to force Congress to do its job and regularly review our immigration numbers. And I do appreciate the gentleman from Illinois making his statement clear and appreciate his being so open and honest about the whole subject. Mr. Chairman, let me also commend the gentleman for his amendment and for rectifying the situation that none of us anticipated, but at least we are doing the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.