Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that I actually rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment, and my opposition is reluctant for two reasons. First of all, I know that the proponents of the amendment are well intentioned. Second, I know that we share the same goals, and that is a generous level of admission for refugees. But still, in my judgment, Congress should set the level of refugee admissions. The bill ensures that Congress, not the White House, sets refugee admission levels that are responsive to humanitarian needs and that serve the national interest. To me this amendment in many ways is the equivalent of Congress saying that we do not trust ourselves with the responsibility of setting those refugee admission levels and that only an administration, regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration, could handle the responsibility. The bill also gives the President acting in consultation with Congress, though, sufficient flexibility to meet emergency humanitarian situations by admitting additional refugees. The bill sets refugee admissions at a target level of 75,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 50,000 per year thereafter. Under current law, refugee admissions are set by the President with minimal impact from Congress. Under the bill, the target level may be exceeded either if Congress approves a higher level or if the President declares a refugee emergency. Based on administration projections of future refugee resettlement needs, the bill will not result in a reduction of refugee admissions. The administration projects that refugee admissions will be 90,000 this year, 70,000 in fiscal year 1997, and 50,000 in fiscal year 1998, which is almost exactly in line with what the bill has as its targets. In fact, in one of those years the bill actually has 5,000 refugees more than the administration recommends. The refugee provisions in H.R. 2202 also follow recommendations of the bipartisan commission on immigration reform chaired by the late Barbara Jordan. Given the positions of the State Department and the Jordan commission, the bill reflects a consensus on the need for permanent resettlement of refugees into the United States. Mr. Chairman, current refugee admissions consist primarily of refugees admitted through special programs operating in the former Soviet Union and in Indochina. Of the 90,000 refugees who will be admitted this year, 70,000 will come from just those two resettlement programs. Since these programs are due to phase out soon in the next couple of years, the targets contained in the bill will ensure that refugee admissions do not drop below historically generous levels. H.R. 2202 creates a new category in immigration law that allows 10,000 visas to be granted every year to those who do not qualify for refugee status but whose admission is of a humanitarian interest to the United States. Congress should get back into the business of setting refugee admission levels. We simply cannot afford to continue to give any President unfettered discretion in determining refugee policy. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing two points. The first is that we are not really talking about any difference in numbers. Both the bill, the commission on immigration reform, and the administration through its State Department, have all recommended the exact same levels concluding 2 years from now in a level of about 50,000. So numbers are not the issue. We all know what the numbers are going to be. The second point is that the real question is who gets to decide. Should it be the President alone? Or should Congress have a role in determining our refugee policy? Historically, Congress has always had a role in setting immigration policy. Quite frankly, under the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress is supposed to have an equal role with the President, with the administration, in establishing refugee policy. We know that is not the case, that consultation procedures that we now go through have in effect become a situation where the administration dictates to Congress what the refugee levels will be. So the whole point of this amendment again is to guarantee that we have generous levels of refugee admissions. In fact the commission on immigration reform said in testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims that the reason they recommended the target of 50,000 is because they were afraid that if we did not have a target of 50,000, the levels would drop below that 50,000. For example, as I have already explained, 70 of the 80,000 refugees expected this year are in two categories that are soon to expire. So the motive behind the bill again was to continue a generous level of refugees in accordance with the projects by the State Department and the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform. Again, the second point is that I think that Congress does have a role to play when it comes to setting refugee policy, and that is why I have to say that I reluctantly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier amendment, which brings equity back to the process of allocating refugee assistance funds. Each year for the last decade, one State has received more than 10 times the amount of Federal refugee assistance per refugee than the national average. The Dreier amendment will allow all qualifying countries to receive the same amount of targeted assistance per refugee. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which again, brings equity back to the process of allocating refugee assistance funds.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to respond briefly to my friend from New York and repeat what I said awhile ago, that the bill, as it stands right now, does not cut or is not expected to cut the levels of refugees. The State Department, the Commission on Immigration Reform, and the bill all have projected levels that have virtually the same; that is, 50,000 in 2 years. So the intent was not to cut any refugees, and in fact the Commission on Immigration Reform recommended that we have a level of 50,000 in there so that we would not go below 50,000 when the two resettlement programs now in operation expire. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from Florida for expressing these concerns. It is clearly not the intent of this bill to preclude new Border Patrol agents from serving in coastal States with a high incidence of illegal entry into the United States. I recognize the serious nature of the illegal immigration problems facing Florida and the importance of maintaining a strong Border Patrol presence in that State. I can assure the gentleman that I will be supportive of his efforts to prevent a further degradation of Florida's Border Patrol. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the concerns of my colleagues that have been expressed about the provision of the bill that has the legal immigration provisions sunsetting in the year 2006 and explain to my colleagues the reason for having this provision in the bill. It was put in there at the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims simply because we wanted to force Congress to address the very complex subject of immigration on a regular basis. There was no nefarious plot here involved in trying to sunset the legal immigration numbers. In fact, I am on record numerous times as being opposed to a moratorium. So I hope my friend will realize that, although he suggested I was endorsing a moratorium, I have never done such, nor is that the purpose of this provision of the bill. Once again, the motive is very good, and I have agreed to this amendment to try to avoid any misinterpretation or misconstruction of the original provision. Mr. Chairman, the motive again was to force Congress to do something that it has never really done before, and that is take a look at our immigration policy on a regular basis. We have found so often in the past that by not forcing Congress to address this subject, our immigration policies oftentimes have developed in ways unexpected. And we certainly hope that will not be the case here. I might say also I hope we will not come to regret that this amendment passes and 7 or 10 years down the road want to address immigration but not have any mandate to do so. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. 1900

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], and appreciate his leadership on this issue.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, 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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would totally undermine our efforts to stop illegal immigration. A vote for this amendment is a vote for continued illegal immigration. A vote for this amendment is a vote against protecting jobs for American citizens. In order to cut illegal immigration, controls at the border are not enough. Almost half of all illegal aliens come into this country legally and stay after their jobs, after their visas have expired. Why? Jobs. Jobs are the No. 1 attraction for illegal aliens coming to this country. If we can reduce the attraction of this magnet, we can save taxpayers untold millions of dollars and improve the prospects of vulnerable American workers now competing with illegal aliens for jobs. For the past decade, employers have checked the identity and work eligibility documents of new employees. Unfortunately, the easy availability of counterfeit documents has made a mockery of the law. Fake documents are produced in mass quantities in southern California. Just from 1989 to 1992, there were 2.5 million bogus documents seized. This amendment would strike the quick check system in the bill that allows employers to verify the identity and work eligibility of new hires. The bill proposes only that we have a pilot program to be set up for 3 years in five States and then it expires. The amendment would deny employers the opportunity to choose to do what is in their own interest. It says that Congress knows better than businesses what is best for them. Now talk about big brother. American workers will benefit from the quick check system. It will ensure that they will not be competing for jobs with illegal aliens. Confirmation systems like that in the bill have been tested. Since 1992, the INS has tested a telephone verification system with over 200 employers. Every single employer who has tried this system tried the INS pilot program, was pleased with the results. In fact they recommended that the pilot program be implemented on a permanent basis. Mr. Chairman, electronic confirmation requires no national ID card, no new data base, and it ends in 3 years. This is not a first step toward anything. That is also why the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Rifle Association, and the Traditional Values Coalition do not oppose the voluntary quick check system. Now let me set the record straight on one other matter, and that is the alleged error rates that we have been hearing about. These percentages are not error rates. There is no such error rate. These refer to a secondary verification. Secondary verification is understandably ordered whenever employees provide information that is not accurate. They have to double check on the inaccurate information. Secondary verification does not necessarily mean inaccurate data. It more often means that it is the fault of employees mistakenly providing erroneous information or, quite frankly, being caught providing fraudulent information. In short, the ultimate big brother is Congress saying they know better than employers how to run their businesses. Let us trust business owners to decide what is best for them. The quick check system is a convenience many want, and that is why the National Federation of Independent Business does not oppose this quick check verification system. Let us follow the lead of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform which recommended a verification system very similar to the one we have in this bill. The commission found that such a system would reduce the use of fraudulent documents, would protect American jobs and would reduce discrimination. That is exactly what this volunteer pilot program that expires in 3 years will do, and I urge my colleagues to vote very strongly against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the 30 minutes. I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and I ask unanimous consent that he may be allowed to yield blocks of time to other Members.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman this question. It is my understanding that your amendment is designed to deny immigration benefits to individuals who intentionally enter the United States illegally, is that correct?

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, as I understand the gentleman, he was asking for a description----

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc pursuant to the authority granted in the rule, consisting of No. 2 Traficant; No. 11 Cardin, as modified, No. 25 Lipinski; No. 26 Farr, No. 27 Traficant; No. 29 Vento; No. 30 Waldholtz; No. 31 Kleczka; and No. 32 Dreier, and I ask unanimous consent that the modification to amendment No. 11 be considered as read and printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, for his help on the manager's amendment. His amendment is included in it. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a number of technical and conforming changes to the underlying attacks of H.R. 2202, and in addition it includes several amendments that were proposed by several of my colleagues; specifically, the gentleman from California, Mr. Cox, the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Foley and Mr. McCollum, and the gentlemen from California, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Campbell, were each responsible for significant portions of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.