[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    STATE LAWSUITS AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RE: IMMIGRATION COSTS

  Mr. REID. Madam President, yesterday I had the opportunity to testify 
at what may be the only hearing on immigration this year in the 
Congress. Representatives of the administration and Members of the 
Senate were allowed to testify about their views concerning various 
proposals aimed at resolving what I believe to be an immigration 
crisis. The stories we are reading on a daily basis evidence that, 
unless we deal with this crisis now, we risk jeopardizing the health 
and welfare of future generations of Americans.
  I hesitate to use the word ``crisis'' in describing the current 
situation, but I really cannot think of another word that more 
accurately describes the current state of our Federal immigration laws. 
How else can we explain the flurry of lawsuits being brought by the 
States against their own Government, the Federal Government? That is 
right. The States are now suing the Federal Government. Florida, 
California, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, and New Jersey have either 
brought lawsuits or are considering bringing them against the Federal 
Government. They are all seeking financial reimbursement for the costs 
associated with Washington's failed immigration policies.
  Whether these lawsuits ultimately prevail on their merits is really 
not the point. The point, quite simply, is that the State Governors are 
sending a wake-up call to Washington to do something--anything--to deal 
with the escalating problem of illegal immigration. The unduly 
burdensome costs imposed on the States are staggering.
  For example, Florida estimates that it spent over $1 billion 
providing assistance and benefits to those not lawfully within the 
country.
  California estimates that it will spend over $3.6 billion this year 
to provide services and benefits to those not lawfully within the 
country.
  New York estimates that it will spend over $1 billion this year to 
provide services and benefits to those not lawfully within the country.
  In Texas, a Rice University study estimated that in 1992 alone, the 
State of Texas paid more than $1.2 billion for these costs.
  These costs are staggering.
  I believe it is regrettable that States have reached the point where 
the only remedial avenue available to them, is to seek redress in a 
court. What is even more regrettable is that even if the States prevail 
on the merits of their claims in the court system, the problem will not 
go away.
  The unfortunate result of these lawsuits is that they have the 
combined effect of increasing the tensions between the State and 
Federal Government and escalating anger at the current Federal policy. 
To ignore this would be a mistake. It is an abdication of our 
legislative and even our constitutional responsibilities to set the 
laws of the land.
  Our response to this problem so far has been wholly inadequate. We 
have allotted a mere $35 million--and remember the figures I have gone 
over from these States involve billions and billions of dollars--we 
have allocated $35 million to deal with this problem. I realize there 
are other bailout solutions proposed. But I would suggest that even if 
the Federal Government wanted to, it would not be able to adequately 
compensate the States for the costly burdens owing to our failed 
immigration laws. And even if we did, the real solution would not 
simply be to throw money at the States. Without reforming our policies, 
these costs will have been borne year in and year out. If we could just 
bail out the States with these, in effect, lump sum payments, that 
would be one thing. But it would be a payment every year of 
multibillions of dollars.
  It does not require an economic analysis to determine that the way we 
are headed is not economically feasible.
  The Attorney General often talks about attacking the crime plaguing 
our society, concentrating on the root causes of crime. I believe that 
the best way to determine the solutions to our immigration-related 
problems is to focus on the root causes of the problems.
  Arguably, the greatest root cause of our current problem is a porous 
border. Our Border Patrol is understaffed and our enforcement 
operations are underfinanced. I introduced legislation earlier this 
year that directly addresses this problem and offers a solution that 
will fund itself. My legislation, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 
1994, Calls for the creation of a border control trust fund. This fund 
will be financed by the imposition of nominal border crossing fees. 
Those crossing by car or truck will be required to pay between $3 and 
$5 depending on whether the vehicle is privately owned. For those who 
cross the border frequently, this legislation directs the Commissioner 
of the INS to establish a reduced multiple-crossing fee.
  Madam President, this is not anything that is unusual. To go into 
some of our national parks and some of our State parks and you pay a 
fee. We have toll roads all along our highway system in this country. 
It has worked well.
  These fees would be placed directly--that is the border crossing 
fees--into the Border Control Trust Fund. It would allow us to increase 
the full-time Border Patrol agents to 9,900 by the year 1998. That 
sounds like a lot of people, almost 10,000. But if you think of the 
thousands of miles of border we are obligated to maintain for 24 hours 
a day, that really is not a lot of people. But we need those people.
  This fund will also be used to provide financial assistance to State 
and local law enforcement agencies that have entered into cooperative 
arrangements with the INS. In short, it beefs up our border security 
and eliminates the often adversarial relationship between the Federal 
and State and local governments that is fostered under current law.
  While the border may be the root cause of our problems, it is also 
the smoking gun evidence that States will use in proving their case 
against the Federal Government. The case has to be made that protecting 
our borders is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government.
  Why should the States be burdened with the negligence, for lack of a 
better word, or the malfeasance of the Federal Government?
  If the State of Texas were still a republic, Governor Richards would 
not be justified in asking Congress to take steps to reduce illegal 
immigration. If Texas were still a republic, controlling its southern 
border would unquestionably be Texas' responsibility. All decisions 
regarding that border would be made not in Washington, but in Austin, 
TX.
  However, the days of the Lone Star Republic are gone. The 
responsibility for defending and controlling this border rests with the 
Federal Government. And, the duty we owe to defend this border from our 
enemies is no less important than the duty we owe to control this 
border to prevent unlawful entry.
  Again, Madam President, I want to emphasize that the root cause of 
our problems is law enforcement. It is not immigrants.
  In recognizing that the root cause is one of law enforcement--or lack 
thereof--we must ask ourselves what price are we willing to pay by 
allowing our laws to carry meaning only in the books in which they are 
printed? The States suing the Federal Government make a pretty 
compelling case that this price is enormous.
  The benefits and services provided in this country are great. Medical 
services, unemployment compensation, aid to families with dependent 
children, emergency medical assistance, education and many, many other 
social services are provided by the Government. In part, because of the 
easy access to fraudulent identification documents, almost anybody can 
obtain these benefits and services.
  It is because all of these services are easily available that the 
tenor of this whole debate has become so heated. It is also why some 
States have resorted to suing the Federal Government. There are Members 
in the other body who are offering amendments requiring a cutoff of all 
forms of benefits whatsoever--including education and emergency medical 
care.
  I believe this kind of solution is short-sighted and often mean 
spirited. As a humane nation, we cannot refuse to provide emergency 
medical assistance because someone is unlawfully within the country. As 
a nation dedicated to education and justice, we cannot refuse to 
educate those children borne to illegal immigrants. That is unfairly 
punitive and does not serve the interests of building a more productive 
society.
  There are other benefits and services, however, that should not go to 
people who are not legally within this country. Welfare, unemployment 
compensation, Supplemental Social Security, and housing subsidies are 
only a few of the benefits and entitlements that we should stop people 
who are not legally within this country from obtaining. We must do 
something with the operations of our country to ensure that the 
recipients who receive these benefits are lawfully within the country. 
Should we not be doing more to ensure that the scarce funds provided 
for in these benefits go to those who are lawfully within the country? 
The recipients of many of these benefits are often the poorest and most 
downtrodden of our society. It is manifestly unjust for the Government 
of the United States not to protect and care for the citizens of the 
United States.
  I find it interesting that many of those opposed to reforming our 
immigration laws argue that this Nation has historically been able to 
absorb large waves of immigration. This may be true. But they forget to 
point out that almost all of the benefits and services available today 
were not available during many of the earlier waves of immigration.
  There are other more unfortunate costs that States must bear for our 
failed immigration policies. Those are the costs of incarcerating 
criminals who are not lawfully within the country. According to the 
California Department of Corrections, there will be some 18,000 
undocumented individuals in their persons--the California State 
prisons--next year. The annual cost of keeping one inmate in prison in 
the State of California is almost $21,000 a year.

  The bottom line is that the State of California, on this one aspect 
of their burden, is having to spend $375 million a year on a 
responsibility that fairly and realistically should be borne by the 
Federal Government.
  California is not alone in dealing with the growing number of 
undocumented criminals residing in our prisons. Texas and Florida are 
also saddled with enormous costs, and their prisons too are overcrowded 
with undocumented criminals. In Texas, Governor Richard's office 
estimated it costs the State and local governments almost $56 million 
just to incarcerate criminals who are not lawfully within the country. 
That is only for the State of Texas. In Florida, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service continually releases asylum claimants before 
their asylum status or criminal history is even checked.
  Keep in mind that in discussing the costs and burdens placed on the 
States for incarcerating these individuals we are not even counting the 
cost that society pays for the transgressions committed. The States are 
not the only victims. U.S. citizens and those individuals in this 
country lawfully are being twice victimized by this phenomenon; first, 
by the crimes committed against them, and, second, when their tax 
dollars are being used in apprehending, trying and imprisoning 
criminals who, but for the failure of our current laws, should not have 
been here in the first place.
  What has been the Federal Government's response? Sadly, the crime 
bills contain language calling for Federal reimbursement for the 
incarceration costs--if we provide the money, which we probably will 
not do--or, in the alternative, that the Federal Government take 
custody of undocumented criminals. The taxpayers are paying for this 
whether they are taxpayers of the State of Texas, California, Florida, 
Nevada, Washington, Kentucky--we are all paying for this.
  Again, the solution is not going to be found simply by throwing money 
at the States and wishing the problem away. Reform is needed, or the 
States will be facing this problem again next year, the year after, the 
year after, and for the foreseeable future.
  The New York Times, a paper that none would argue as being anti-
immigrant, best summarized the burdens giving rise to these State 
lawsuits in an editorial that said among other things:

       [These States] didn't invite illegal immigrants; nor did 
     these States create the poverty that plagues those 
     unfortunate families. Illegal immigrants are no more the 
     responsibility of the taxpayers in Los Angeles than they are 
     of the taxpayers in Butte [Montana]. After all, Washington 
     sets the Nation's immigration laws; it also decides how 
     carefully its laws are enforced. It follows that Washington 
     ought to pay for the consequences of porous borders. [These 
     States] pleas are just.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be 
printed in its entirety in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. REID. It is time we ask ourselves whether we are going to have 
our immigration policies decided in the Federal courts or in the 
Congress, where the Constitution and the people of this country have 
deemed they should be decided do not engage in meaningful reform of our 
current immigration policies, the courts will decide our immigration 
laws. That is where the policy will be set. It will be set in the 
chambers of judges in all the circuits of this country when it should 
be decided in the Chambers of the House and the Senate. It is 
regrettable that these suits are being filed. It would be even more 
regrettable to allow the courts to set our immigration policies.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 11, 1994]

                     The Unfair Immigration Burden

       A handful of states have been inundated by illegal 
     immigrants and are unfairly bearing the costs that should be 
     borne by the entire nation. They deserve a helping hand when 
     President Clinton submits his budget to Congress next month.
       Only a few states--California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, 
     New York and New Jersey--account for the vast majority of the 
     estimated five million illegal, often poor immigrants who 
     have entered the U.S. over the last decade. California alone 
     may account for half. Cities like Los Angeles and New York 
     have been pounded by costs associated with new immigrants.
       The Governors of Florida and California are planning to sue 
     Washington for money their states spend providing education 
     and emergency health care for illegal immigrants. Their plea 
     is just.
       Gov. Pete Wilson says California wants Washington to pay 
     more than $2 billion a year that his state spends on 
     education, emergency health care, prisons and other outlays 
     on illegal immigrants. Gov. Lawton Chiles of Florida wants 
     Washington to pick up the $750 million tab that his state has 
     spent on illegal immigrants from Cuba, Nicaragua and Haiti, 
     among others. New York spends at least $800 million a year on 
     illegal immigrants. But to help meet these huge budget hits, 
     Congress has allotted a measly $35 million.
       California and Florida didn't invite illegal immigrants; 
     nor did these states create the poverty that plagues those 
     unfortunate families. Illegal immigrants are no more the 
     responsibility of taxpayers in Los Angeles than they are of 
     taxpayers in Butte. After all, Washington sets the nation's 
     immigration laws; it also decides how carefully its laws are 
     enforced. It follows that Washington ought to pay for the 
     consequences of porous borders.
       If Congress refuses to recognize the plight of Florida, 
     California and New York, the political mood will inevitably 
     turn ugly. Governor Wilson has already proposed denying 
     illegal immigrants education and some other services. And if 
     such costs are piled onto already strapped state budgets, 
     states may react with stingy services for all poor residents. 
     Worse, demagogues will be tempted to demonize all immigrants, 
     legal and illegal, many of whom are guilty of no more than 
     fleeing political oppression and economic degradation.
       There's a humane palliative. Congress can find the few 
     billion dollars a year it would take to ease the burden on 
     the worst-hit state budgets. The costs of illegal immigration 
     in the U.S. aren't huge in total. But they are back-breaking 
     in cities like New York and Los Angeles. Congress needs to 
     rescue hard-pressed localities. Then it can turn to the 
     harder task of rescuing individuals trapped in poverty--
     taking them off welfare rolls and connecting them permanently 
     to useful work.

                          ____________________