[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          A CHALLENGE TO THE ROHRA- BACHER AMENDMENT ON H.R. 6

  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks, and 
include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to ask the 
Members to join with me and the Texas delegation today to celebrate 
Texas Independence Day. March 2, 1836, was the day Texas declared its 
independence. It took us a few weeks to win it, though. But today is 
Texas Independence Day at home.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to the 
upcoming debate on the Rohrabacher amendment to H.R. 6 and state my 
opposition to this misguided approach to immigration policy.
  The Rohrabacher amendment would require local school districts to 
compile statistics each year on the number of students who are not 
lawfully in the United States. While this may seem like a good policy 
to some it really only amounts to a massive unfunded mandate and an 
impossible administrative burden to our school districts.
  The courts have ruled that we must educate a child that shows up at 
our schools and treating any child differently due to their race or 
parents background would seriously undermine that child's right to an 
education. I agree that something must be done to stop illegal 
immigration but our schools are not the place to fight that battle. Our 
teachers are not immigration agents and it is the job of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to enforce our countries 
immigration laws not our public schools.
  This amendment will not solve the problem of illegal immigration, nor 
will it ease the number of children crowding our schools. It will only 
shift the financial burden. I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment because this education bill is not the appropriate forum to 
debate immigration policy and furthermore, we should not punish 
children for the status of their parents.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service opposes this amendment as 
does the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

         Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization 
           Service,
                                Washington, DC, February 28, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to express the strong opposition 
     of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the 
     amendments to H.R. 6, the ``Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1994,'' which have been proposed by Congressman Dana 
     Rohrabacher. The first amendment would require local school 
     districts to provide annually to the Department of Education 
     the number of students who are not lawfully in the United 
     States, and the number unlawfully here who do not have at 
     least one parent or legal guardian who is lawfully in the 
     United States. The second amendment would bar the use of 
     Federal funds for assistance to any individual who was not a 
     citizen or national of the United States, a permanent 
     resident alien, or an alien who is a parolee, asylee or 
     refugee.
       As a practical matter, school districts cannot by 
     themselves make immigration status determinations about 
     students or their parents and therefore would have to work 
     with INS to implement these amendments, which would be 
     extremely difficult and enormously burdensome for the INS. 
     INS would have to divert scarce resources from other 
     enforcement priorities, including border enforcement and the 
     removal of criminal aliens, to check both our automated and 
     other records of aliens in the United States. The local 
     educational authorities could not be directly linked to our 
     automated databases without creating vast opportunity for 
     privacy violations. Finally, the labor-intensive requirements 
     contemplated by these amendments could not be assumed without 
     extensive new resources.
       In addition, the first amendment would require the local 
     educational agency to count students who are not lawfully in 
     the United States, which is a category that does not 
     correlate with the one used in the second amendment to define 
     alien students who could benefit from the Federal funds--
     ``permanent resident aliens, parolees, asylees, and 
     refugees.'' Certain other aliens are deemed by statute, 
     regulation and court decision to be ``lawfully in the United 
     States.''
       I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this amendment. We 
     share a concern that illegal aliens not be allowed to remain 
     in the United States, but INS believes that these amendments 
     will not further that end.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. The Office 
     of Management and Budget has advised that there is no 
     objection to the submission of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Doris Meissner,
     Commissioner.

                          ____________________