[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to 
instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rohrabacher moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill H.R. 3355 be instructed to agree to section 5102 of the 
     Senate amendment.

  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, when the Senate considered the crime bill, which is 
now in conference, it adopted, by a vote of 85 to 2, the Exon amendment 
which takes a significant step forward in excluding some illegal aliens 
from certain Government programs. The Exon amendment specifically 
excludes illegal aliens from Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 
Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, Medicare, except for 
emergency care, legal services, assistance under the Job Training 
Partnership Act, unemployment compensation and financial aid for 
postsecondary education.
  The primary effect of this amendment is to effect on persons residing 
under color of law, meaning PRUCOL, aliens. PRUCOL aliens are those 
immigrants who are deportable, but the INS has failed to deport. It 
also includes refugees and others who have a claim to remain in the 
United States but have not had their legal status determined. The Exon 
amendment makes the important distinction between the PRUCOL aliens who 
are simply awaiting deportation and those who have a claim to permanent 
resident status. The amendment cuts off benefits to those aliens who 
are illegally in the United States or aliens who are PRUCOL but are 
only in this country awaiting deportation.

  Some programs covered by the Exon amendment already contain 
prohibitions on illegal alien eligibility, however the Exon amendment 
breaks new ground by cutting off illegals, to illegals, any eligibility 
for the Job Training Partnership Act assistance, and it only takes a 
little bit of common sense that people who are now here legally and are 
not entitled to a job here because they are here illegally, they should 
not be eligible for job training.
  Another program that the Exon amendment reserves to citizens and 
legal residents is college financial aid. We in this House have 
wrangled with the issue over scarce Federal dollars for student aid. 
This provision would cut off illegal alien eligibility for Federal 
postsecondary student aid and help ensure that our own citizens enjoy 
the resources that we have committed to help young people to college.
  This amendment is a blow for fiscal sanity at a time of high deficit 
spending. The CBO estimates that over 5 years the Exon amendment will 
save $2.2 billion. The National Taxpayers Union, which it even further 
studied on this proposal, states that the provision will save over $700 
million a year, each and every year.
  The Exon amendment is compassionate. It says we cannot afford to be 
the welfare benefactor to the whole world. We have citizens who have 
dreams and needs, and we must preserve our social services for those 
who have paid into the system.
  Furthermore, without amendments such as this we are sending an 
unmistakable invitation to needy people everywhere in the world and on 
every continent of the world. We are inviting them to ignore our 
immigration laws, and to come to our country and receive a host of 
taxpayer benefits provided by the taxpayers. Madam Speaker, the 
taxpayers cannot continue to provide such largess to illegal aliens 
wherever they come from in the world.
  This vote presents Members with the most straightforward and clear 
choice on the illegal immigration issue that the 103d Congress has had. 
I say to my colleagues, if you support the giveaway of taxpayer funded 
benefits to illegal aliens, vote against my motion. If, however, you 
believe that we must cut off the illegal aliens from benefits and stop 
the tidal wave of illegal immigration, then a vote for the Rohrabacher 
motion is in order.
  Only a majority vote of this House will ensure that the Exon 
amendment will stay in the conference report. It is time to go on the 
record on this pivotal issue of tax supported benefits for illegal 
aliens.
  I am pleased to note that both of California's Senators; that is, 
Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, as well as Senator Moseley-Braun and 
Senator Murray, have joined as cosponsors of this amendment in its 
present form. I urge my colleagues to join with the overwhelming 
majority of our Senate colleagues. It was an 85 to 2 vote in support of 
this historic change as to what benefits the Federal Government will be 
providing to illegal aliens, the proper amount of money that should be 
going to illegal aliens at a time when we are reducing services for our 
own people.
  Madam Speaker, that is what this amendment is about, is to try to 
reduce the amount of money going to illegal aliens.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker and Members, I rise in opposition to this 
motion for a number of reasons, but let me first try to address a 
couple that were raised by my colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher].
  First, we have to remember we are talking about a crime bill here. 
Yet all of a sudden, through the crime bill, through this motion to 
instruct, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would want us 
to address issues of public benefits which have nothing to do with the 
issue of crime.
  We have a crime bill which is stuck in conference that has not moved 
yet. Now we are trying to clutter it up with more things that relate 
not at all to the issue of crime and making our streets safer. But let 
us go to the issue that the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] 
raises.
  First, Madam Speaker, he says that he is trying to deny undocumented 
immigrants benefits from the Federal Government because it is taking 
taxpayer dollars. Well, what the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] does not tell anyone is that each and every program 
service that he is trying to deny undocumented immigrants, they are 
already denied in Federal law.
  I say to my colleagues, if you look at AFDC, Supplemental Social 
Security Income, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, except emergency 
assistance, as Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, Job Training and 
Partnership Act moneys, unemployment compensation and postsecondary 
student financial aid, each and every one of those that's specified in 
the language in this motion to instruct already is prohibited from 
going to someone who is here without documents as an immigrant. The 
only program that is listed that currently is not restricted is legal 
services, and that's of course because we have a Constitution that says 
someone who is being charged with a crime under this Nation's 
Constitution is afforded a right to counsel.

                              {time}  1820

  Unlike what the gentleman from California says in one of his ``Dear 
Colleague'' letters, this does not pertain just to the Legal Services 
Corporation provision of services. This is legal services of any sort. 
So there is a good chance the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is not only inaccurate in what it says it 
will do, but it is probably unconstitutional.
  The sum of $2.2 billion is what the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] says this particular motion to instruct will save the 
American taxpayer. It will not do so, because most of the benefits that 
he lists are already restricted to the undocumented. But more than 
that, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is basing his 
judgment of $2.2 billion on a Congressional Budget Office report that 
said that $2.2 billion could be saved by a Senate bill that was raised 
back in 1993 that would have struck any provision in Federal law that 
would have provided benefits to the undocumented, including, and this 
is the main point, including emergency medical services that are 
reimbursed by Medicaid.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], just said, and he 
said to be compassionate, we do not restrict emergency medical services 
under Medicaid from reimbursement. So the money that is being saved 
under that 1993 Senate bill of $2.2 billion was based on the fact that 
emergency medical services would be denied.

  I am not just saying it. Let me refer to a letter which I know the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has, from Jean Hearne from 
the CBO dated July 13, which says:

       In May of 1993, CBO was asked to provide an estimate of 
     Senate bill 457, a bill that would prohibit the payment of 
     Federal benefits to undocumented illegal aliens. CBO 
     estimated this would save $2.2 in Federal Medicaid payments 
     during the period of 1994 to 1998 because undocumented aliens 
     would no longer be eligible to receive Medicaid reimbursement 
     for emergency services.

  The 2.2 billion is based on savings because there would be no 
reimbursements for medical services under Medicaid. As the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] just told us, he is exempting from 
prohibition the emergency medical services. Therefore, the $2.2 billion 
would not be saved.
  We know from this that there would likely be no savings or negligible 
savings from this particular language in this motion to instruct.
  But forget everything I have said. Do not worry about that. Do not 
vote based on anything I said. Do me a favor. I hope my colleagues will 
do me one favor. Listen to the following, and listen to a couple of 
speakers that will come up.
  I hope Members will listen to this one last point: Regardless of what 
you think about the issues, regardless of whether you think it is 
appropriate for this Congress to repeat and just state, rubber stamp 
again what is current Federal law, which already denies the 
undocumented immigrant Federal services, if you want to make a 
political point, okay. But forget abut that and think about this one 
last point. With the language in this provision, you summarily deny an 
America national from the Island of American Samoa the opportunity to 
apply for Federal benefits. You deny individuals who are here as 
immigrants who are under the protected status of the U.S. law, like El 
Salvador nationals, the chance to be able to obtain some benefits while 
they are here under the legal protection of the law. Why? Because the 
language in this particular provision was drafted very hurriedly, and 
it excluded people who are here under a lawful status.
  So regardless of what you think of the undocumented immigrant, 
understand what you are going to do to folks from American Samoa. You 
are telling them they cannot receive public benefits for which they 
probably paid a great deal of taxes for. I think for that reason alone, 
we should oppose this motion to instruct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the CBO memorandum that the gentleman 
read, who is that signed by?
  Mr. BECERRA. It is a memorandum, so it is not signed. It was faxed 
over, so there is no signature.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it signed by Mr. Reischauer or his deputy?
  Mr. BECERRA. No, it is from Ms. Jean Hearne. We can find out if she 
is willing to subscribe by this.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The documentation of the cost figures that I gave 
were documents signed by those individuals. Those individuals actually 
verified the statistics I gave before. What you have is a document not 
signed by the head of the organization that you are quoting.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time and just say I am 
not trying to verify. Unless the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] is saying there is no such thing as a Senate bill 457 and 
the CBO report that was the basis for the analysis on that Senate bill 
is not the status of that, then I would yield to that. But that is not 
the case. Unless you are saying this person is lying, then I think 
there is a reason to question it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, let us note that there has been 
tremendous pressure put on the CBO to come up with certain figures 
about my proposal. The fact that we have a last minute reneging on 
figures that have gone out from CBO many months before, and now in the 
last minute we are presented a reneging on the part of the CBO and they 
come up with cooked figures, it suggests that at the CBO, there has 
been political pressure applied. I think that is evident to anyone 
listening here.
  The figures that Mr. Exon used when he made his proposal in the 
Senate were backed up by the Congressional Budget Office. They are not 
my only source, however. The National Taxpayers Union and many other 
organizations have done studies indicating that the cost of illegal 
aliens in our society is in the billions and billions of dollars. If 
our friendly opponents on the other side are trying to convince us that 
there is no cost for illegal aliens in our society, and that this is 
bogus, why not just accept my amendment then?
  If indeed what I am saying is already in the law, why is there such 
opposition to us reaffirming the law.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, does the Exon amendment, does S. 457 
exclude emergency Medicaid services?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, the amendment does not exclude 
emergency aid. Let me note this: The fact that we are talking about 
here is how much that emergency aid costs. If it is your contention 
that all the costs of illegal aliens is just emergency aid, and that is 
the full $2.2 billion, we have a real problem in this country that we 
are providing $2.2 billion in emergency aid to people who are coming 
here illegally from all over the world. That cannot be what you 
believe.
  Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, your amendment I 
think very appropriately excludes emergency Medicaid services, the only 
kind of Medicaid services for which people who are not here legally are 
eligible. It would make sense an estimate of $2.2 billion would be 
substantially less, once you exclude that service.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
think this is developing into an interesting debate over a motion to 
instruct conferees on something that is in the Senate crime bill but 
not in the House crime bill. There is a little lesson to be learned 
about this particular debate, about our procedures and what we have and 
have not been doing in the House.
  For one thing, there is no major immigration reform bill of any type 
coming forward in this Congress, this last year or this year, although 
we have got a lot of problems that should be addressed. I serve as the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, 
and Refugees in the House, and I know for a fact that we have 
tremendous problems with the asylum laws of the Nation and the 
definitions that are there, what we should be doing to deal with the 
backlog of now almost 400,000 asylum applicants with no plan of the 
Clinton administration whatsoever to find a way to reduce that huge 
backlog and many other areas of immigration reform that should be 
addressed.
  However, today, we have a very limited opportunity to address this on 
the kind of technical procedure we are involved with here, because the 
Senate does not have the same rules of germaneness the House does. On 
their crime bill, Senator Exon did put this provision in we are 
discussing today. The gentleman from California is seeking to instruct 
our conferees in the House-Senate conference to recede to the Senate on 
this point and let this one immigration matter, with a welfare overtone 
to it, get passed.
  I might add, we also do not look like we are going to see a welfare 
reform bill, despite the President's stated intentions, during this 
Congress. We do not have much time left, and I see no movement to do 
that.
  This is the only opportunity we have to address the matter.

                              {time}  1830

  Now, I pose a query, if all of these matters are covered, and I do 
not believe they are, by present law, excluding all the illegal aliens 
from the various benefits that are proposed to be excluded under this 
proposal, then why is there such an objection to this anyway? I heard a 
couple of things being raised on the other side of the aisle, but they 
sound exceedingly technical to me. I do not read in my interpretation 
of the language anything so abhorrent about it.
  I would say to my colleagues that ther are technical matters of 
coverage that are not presently excluded for illegal aliens, people who 
are here who are receiving benefits, welfare benefits, and other 
benefits.
  Madam Speaker, one of the problems is the so-called PRUCOL area that 
was described by the gentleman from California a moment ago. We have 
left in the law various loopholes for those who are not really here 
legally to be receiving various and sundry benefits under some of these 
provisions that are covered by the so-called Exon proposal that we are 
here asking our conferees to accept.
  There is no reason why we should not close that loophole, and that is 
what at the very least this would do.
  As far as legal services are concerned, I would remind my colleagues 
that the very stated language of this provision says that no direct 
Federal financial benefit or social insurance benefit may be paid for 
legal services. We are talking now not about cutting off the 
opportunity for criminal assistance by State public defenders. That is 
State law and a State matter. We are talking about Federal benefits.
  I would encourage the adoption of this. I think this is an excellent 
motion to instruct, and it really should not be that controversial.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the majority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, supporters of this amendment would have us 
believe that as we have just heard that this bill would just apply to 
undocumented immigrants, that it would just exclude undocumented 
immigrants from receiving certain services.
  But the truth is, the truth is that current law already does what the 
gentleman from California is trying to do with his amendment.
  Undocumented immigrants are already excluded from receiving aid to 
families with dependent children. They are already excluded from 
receiving supplemental security income. They are already excluded from 
receiving food stamps. They are already excluded from receiving 
Medicaid.
  Current law excludes undocumented immigrants from receiving these 
services. If that is the intent of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], we do not need it. But in fact, the Rohrabacher amendment 
is not just limited to undocumented immigrants. As the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] has so eloquently pointed out at the beginning 
of this debate, this amendment will not just affect undocumented 
immigrants. It affects the legal, documented immigrants as well.
  The fact is, this amendment is drafted in such a way as to exclude 
people who are lawfully in the United States from receiving benefits 
that they are eligible for under the law, because of constitutional 
requirements under our system of government which the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra] referred to and because of benefits earned.
  We will hear more about that as other speakers speak, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, we may have disagreements about how best to deliver 
these services. We may have disagreements about who is eligible to 
receive services, and we may have disagreements about who is covered 
under these agreements and the services. But this is a crime bill. It 
is not a welfare bill. And this is not the place to address these 
issues.
  Once again, the gentleman from California is trying to take, I think, 
a highly emotional issue, an issue that has nothing to do with this 
bill and waste the time of the House to debate something that he knows 
is best addressed elsewhere.
  The fact is, what he claims this bill will do is already part of 
current law. And what he will also do with this amendment is exclude 
people who are lawfully entitled to the benefits through our 
constitutional guarantees and through other means which we will hear in 
a little while.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and against the Rohrabacher 
motion.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, it is difficult to imagine that the language 
that we are now debating was drafted by a Democratic Senator and was 
voted for by every liberal in the U.S. Senate, comprised, last time I 
checked, of many Democrats and many liberals. The vote was 85 to 2 in 
favor. Only 2 out of 100 U.S. Senators voted against this amendment.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], made it seem 
as if somehow there was something wrong or something not liberal with 
this amendment. In fact, the Rohrabacher motion is a motion to 
instruct. There is no Rohrabacher language. This is Senator Exon's 
language. It is not changed one iota.
  All that my colleague from California is asking this body to do is 
what the other body already did by a vote of 85 to 2. And of course, we 
in California, which have over half of the Nation's illegal aliens, are 
especially concerned about this. And thus, we ought not to be surprised 
that Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, our former colleague here in the 
House, and that Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California voted 
in support of this.
  There is no reason whatever that Democrats in the House hold en masse 
behave differently than Democrats in the Senate, unless somehow there 
is a political fix in and this is not on the level. But I cannot 
imagine that that is so.
  We are told that because this is a crime bill, we cannot vote for 
this motion to instruct. Yet the language is already in the bill. Four 
years ago this very same thing happened. Four years ago Senator Exon 
had a similar bill passed, but the House and Senate negotiators dropped 
it out of the final bill. That is why we need a motion to instruct. 
Otherwise this is all a charade, providing political cover for Senators 
in an election year. We would not want that.
  We are told that all of these programs already deny benefits to 
illegal aliens. If that were true, why would we get this resistance? 
Why would Members not want to go ahead and vote ``aye'' on this motion 
to instruct?
  The answer is that current law is not enforced.
  Current law is not enforced. Yes, it is true that in theory the law 
prevents an illegal alien from picking up welfare benefits, from 
picking up food stamps, from picking up SSI. And yet, certainly in 
California, certainly in Texas, certainly in New Jersey and New York 
and Illinois, Arizona, and Florida, we all know that illegal aliens do 
this every day because they break the law with some success and because 
those laws are not enforced.
  As a matter of fact, the assassin of Mr. Colosio, the PRI candidate 
for President in Mexico, was an illegal alien in California, registered 
to vote in California, who actually voted in two Democratic primaries.
  These laws must be enforced. They are not enforced, and in order to 
enforce them, we need the Exon language. That is why what the other 
body accomplished is not an idle act. That is why it is so important.
  The Exon language begins, ``Notwithstanding any other law, no direct 
Federal financial benefit or social insurance benefit may be paid.''
  This is a vitally important measure. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``aye'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
motion to instruct on the crime bill offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The drafters and supporters of the amendment in question thought, no 
doubt, that it struck only at those who are illegally in this country.
  Well, Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The 
amendment does not affect the undocumented at all in the programs it 
lists. The undocumented, under existing law, are already ineligible for 
every single one of them.
  This amendment was aimed to strike at illegal aliens, but it does not 
affect them at all.
  The people it would affect, however because it was so poorly drafted, 
are American Samoans and other nationals of the United States living 
legally in this country. That is why, as Chair of the Asian Pacific 
American Caucus, I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
motion to instruct.
  American Samoans are U.S. nationals, and when they come to this 
country, they are here legally. They pay taxes just like every other 
legal resident, and they receive social services benefits just like any 
other legal resident.
  The amendment which the gentleman from California would have us 
support would strip U.S. nationals and American Samoans of their 
eligibility for legal aid assistance, AFDC, and Medicaid. American 
Samoan students going to school here would lose their guaranteed 
student loans.
  Mr. Speaker, that is flatly wrong--and I am positive that it was 
never the intention of either the author of the amendment in the other 
body or the gentleman who offers this motion to instruct from 
California.
  But the fact remains, the amendment in question is poorly drafted, it 
accomplishes nothing with regard to the undocumented, and it would 
inflict real pain on territorial citizens who are legally in this 
country.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Rohrabacher 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, Madam Speaker, this language, which was voted on by 85 
U.S. Senators, including almost all of the leadership of the Democratic 
Party, minus just two people who opposed it, makes it very clear in the 
language that we are talking about people who are not lawfully present 
within the United States. It defines what is not lawfully present very 
clearly. This is what their own leadership voted on 85 to 2.
  However, as my colleague, the gentleman from California, pointed out, 
sometimes people do things in the other body when they are just trying 
to make a political point because they think that here we will be 
prevented from acting on this side. I do not know if that is the case 
on this side. I would hate to think that people were making political 
points.
  Madam Speaker, under current law, the illegal immigrants are not, are 
not, excluded by current law under the Job Training Partnership Act and 
college aid. This proposal today deals specifically with those two 
programs. If it is illegal for an immigrant trying to come here and 
have a job in the first place. We always hear from that side, why 
should we give them free job training? It is crazy.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from San Diego, California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, so may times we are on the House floor 
and we have heard that the problem of illegal immigration is best 
addressed elsewhere. When we had an earthquake with illegals applying 
for services, it was best addressed elsewhere. When we had an education 
bill on the House floor, it was best addressed elsewhere. In committee, 
on the health care bill, it was best addressed elsewhere.
  Madam Speaker, we need to come to task with the problems that we have 
in this entire country on illegal immigration. Why has the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] brought this to the floor? It is not 
just the issue that he is talking about. In the State of California, 
and especially the border States, illegal immigration is costing 
American taxpayers and preventing health care and education from 
Americans. We have to come to grips with that.
  Illegal aliens are receiving services today, not only in the State of 
California, but all over this Nation. It has been by reputable factors 
$37 billion a year that it costs this Government for illegal aliens in 
this country, in the United States, $37 billion a year. Now take that 
times five, over a 5-year period, take half of that. Say ``Duke, your 
figures are inflated.'' That is $93 billion. You want to figure out how 
to pay for the other 5 percent of the health care bill? There it is. It 
would be easy to cover Americans instead of illegal immigrants in the 
services that they receive. Only those illegal aliens already that are 
not affected, I want to tell the Members I can take them down in San 
Diego and show them five different places where someone can get an ID 
card saying you are an American citizen as an illegal alien. Again, 
that is why we need an ID card that specifies if a person is an 
American citizen or not.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. MAZZOLI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, who is a very valuable member of the 
subcommittee, for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I have somewhat of a different opinion than the 
gentleman does about what we should do on this amendment, or on this 
motion to instruct. Let me say, Madam Speaker, first of all I do not 
feel it is appropriate to use the term ``illegals,'' as the gentleman 
from California has used in his letter to all of us. I think it is a 
disparaging term and I think it ought not to be too quickly resorted to 
because it conjures up a lot of emotionalism that I think this debate 
does not need. We have enough emotion in looking at it 
straightforwardly.
  Madam Speaker, having said that, and also what my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], has said, this is really a 
crime bill, and this proposed instruction really has no place here. It 
was a very hastily drafted amendment. The gentleman and I have talked 
about the loose wording in here, the uncertainty of some of the 
phrasing, and it can be actually speculated, as my staffers said, that 
it, might actually expand rather than contract the types of people who 
might get these benefits.
  But having said that, I think that my problem here is based on the 
fact that as long ago as last October, October 1993, our subcommittee 
reported a bill which was a bill drafted by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and myself, 
the gentleman from Kentucky, dealing with asylum reform, dealing with 
the question of expedited exclusion of people who try to come into the 
country illegally using asylum as the recommendation, and then trying 
to have some preclearance, so people are prevented abroad from coming 
in here using false and fraudulent paper.
  That bill was passed by our subcommittee. It has languished, and I 
use that term advisedly, languished at the full committee since October 
1993. I even asked as recently as today what the prospects are of 
taking up that sensible, multifaceted, balanced, highly principled bill 
that would do something about the back door.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that I think the instruction of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] ought to be adopted. I 
think it would help to do something about closing the back door in 
order that we could keep the front door open.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, illegal alien is a pejorative term and we certainly do 
not feel right about using terms that are not positive terms about 
other human beings, but when you struggle to try to find definitions of 
what is going on, the fact is many people are coming into our society 
illegally and they are participating in services, they are consuming 
money that was supposed to go for benefits for our own people, and when 
we struggle to come up with funds for different programs here, and we 
know that we are not even providing all the funds we need for our own 
people, and then we find out that someone who has come out illegally 
from another society is consuming those resources, it is not right.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, I do not argue the righteousness of 
anything. What I do argue is the use of the terminology. I do take 
issue with the gentleman's terminology, because I think it disparages 
people, human beings, many of whom are here doing good things and 
working hard and making a go of it, adding in some cases burdens to 
States like the gentleman's, but I think what it does is add an 
emotional edge. It puts a context here which is very difficult for us 
to deal with.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is emotional 
for a lot of people who depend on programs. In California they see 
money that should be going for their own children's education being 
eaten up by a flood of illegal immigrants from other countries.
  Yes, it is emotional for them, and we do not want to create hatred 
between one person and another, but the worst thing we can do is let 
this problem fester and continue to have an invitation to people from 
all over the world to come here.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is the 
point of the gentleman from Kentucky, unless we do something to end 
this festering, we are going to have a worse problem.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to see if I can add to the discussion. The 
term ``illegal alien'' is harsher than ``undocumented worker,'' there 
is no question. I do not know which is more accurate, however. But we 
do use a lot of terms that I think we could soften. I have often 
thought a bank robber could be called a holder not in due course. A 
dope dealer could be called an unlicensed pharmacist. There are lots of 
changes we could make. I should commend them to my friend.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] did not use the term 
``illegal alien,'' he used ``illegals,'' i-l-l-e-g-a-l-s, and 
``illegals'' has a pejorative connotation that ``illegal alien'' does 
not have.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Trade and the ranking majority member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, which, of course, is the 
committee that would have jurisdiction over these issues relating to 
public benefits.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I might just say that the gentlemen on the other side 
of the aisle have made reference to the fact that on the Senate side, 
85 Members, liberals included, voted for the Exon amendment. Let me 
explain why that happened, I believe. The Exon amendment passed the 
Senate floor on November 5, 1993, last year. I do not believe a lot of 
attention was paid to that legislation on the Senate side when it was 
passed. We received some 6 days later on November 11, the Committee on 
Ways and Means which has jurisdiction over many of these benefits, from 
the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service which 
all of us use as an authoritative body that analyzes legislation, the 
CRS said 6 days after the Exon amendment passed, ``The primary effect 
of the Exon amendment as adopted may be to deny AFDC, SSI, full 
Medicaid coverage, and unemployment compensation to aliens,'' now, 
listen, ``allowed to remain in the United States under certain 
exercises of administration discretion.''
  Madam Speaker, it will not affect illegal aliens, because illegal 
aliens are not allowed to collect benefits under current law. The 
gentleman did talk about the Job Training Partnership Act. We will 
close that loophole when we deal with the retraining legislation if, in 
fact, it is a problem.
  I will say to the gentleman that it is an issue of enforcement in 
terms of making sure illegal aliens do not receive resources. What the 
gentleman is going to affect is people who are residents in this 
country, permanent residents in this country under color of law. They 
got here perhaps on an illegal basis, but because the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service feels that for some reason they should stay 
through their discretion, by laws passed by the United States, now we 
are going to deny those legal residents, although they are illegal 
aliens in the true sense, benefits.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman is just going to affect a small number 
of people but people that have been welcomed into this country, and it 
is not going to have any impact on illegal aliens because it is an 
issue of enforcement.
  Madam Speaker, I might just conclude by saying, I do not question 
that the gentleman's amendment or proposal will pass. But it is a shame 
that this issue is brought up in the way it is, because frankly I think 
reality would say that this is an issue that is being exploited time 
and time again in the recent past.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, by saying that it is not the 
intent, I do not think, of the amendment as drafted, neither is it the 
intent of any of the Senators, the 85 of them who voted for it, to 
include within the term ``persons not lawfully present within the 
United States'' people who actually are lawfully present within the 
United States. I do not believe a judge would ever interpret those 
words in that fashion.
  Madam Speaker, the argument that is being made would require a 
Federal judge to interpret the words ``persons not lawfully present 
within the United States'' to mean people who are lawfully present 
within the United States, that is the only way to reach the territorial 
residents referred to and so on.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MATSUI. Under the CRS report on this issue, it basically says 
that those that are permanently residing under color of law do not 
necessarily reside legally in the United States, but what they are 
allowed to do is through an administrative action stay in this country 
but are not under any illegal categories in this country.
  Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, in a colloquy off the floor, another one of 
our California colleagues on the Democratic side and I discussed this. 
There is no question that the list of categories in the definition of 
the term ``persons not lawfully present within the United States'' 
should be if and when our conferees get a chance to include this 
language in the crime bill, should be deemed inclusive rather than 
exclusive. But we have to keep in mind here, we are voting on a motion 
to instruct. Routinely our conferees reject our instructions. We ought 
to clearly with one voice let them know we want to cut out welfare 
benefits for illegal aliens. That is the point of the Exon amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], chairman of one 
of the subcommittees of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I think this debate can at least get the 
author of the motion to instruct, whom I have great respect for, and I 
know he believes in what he is doing, to acknowledge that there is some 
obligation here to draft precisely when dealing with these kinds of 
issues. The fact is the way the motion to instruct is drafted and by 
incorporating the Exon amendment, what the gentleman has done or what 
he is urging the conference committee to do is to pass a law which 
excludes from a whole series of benefits they are otherwise eligible 
for, Nicaraguans who fled the Sandinistas in the mid-1980's who were 
granted temporary protected status in 1990, who were then given 
deferred extended departure status in 1992 and who would like to apply, 
perhaps, because their parents are part of the working poor, they are 
getting straight A's in school and they want to get some kind of 
college assistance, people who we have given work authorization to, who 
we have said can live in this country.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], my friend, does not 
want to exclude these people from these kinds of programs. He does not 
want to tell American Samoans that they cannot get certain kinds 
of benefits. He does not want to tell people whom we have allowed to 
come into this country under the Cuban-Haitian Entrance Act that they 
are ineligible for the whole series of benefits and the people he does 
want to tell that they are not eligible are for the most part already 
ineligible for the programs the gentleman is mentioning.

  I think the gentleman has an obligation as the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] I think at least implied to draft this language 
correctly. The gentleman says, ``Oh, we are only talking about persons 
not lawfully present within the United States.'' But look at the 
language.
  In this section, ``persons not lawfully present in the United 
States'' means persons who at the time they applied for, receive, or 
attempt to receive, a Federal benefit are not either, and then the 
gentleman specifies a series of things, and he leaves out a large 
number of other people. He leaves out registry entrants who were here 
before 1971 and, therefore, under the pre-1986 immigration law are here 
legally at this particular time and they have work authorization. The 
gentleman leaves out U.S. nationals from the U.S. territories. The 
gentleman leaves out persons granted withholding of deportation status 
and a whole series of categories by the way this is done.
  The gentleman does not want to do that, and I think since apparently 
a motion to instruct can be made every day, he can come back tomorrow 
with one that is drafted right.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this one.

                              {time}  1900

  Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I think that most people who are 
listening to this debate understand we are talking about language that 
has already passed the U.S. Senate. It is good language. The fact is we 
are trying to do something that has been needed to be done.
  I am totally frustrated on this issue, because I have to go to such 
great lengths to get a vote. Finally, we have a vote, an up-and-down 
vote on the issue of benefits for illegal aliens.
  People who followed this issue know that I have to go so far as to 
ask people to oppose a motion to rise so that I can then get a vote on 
the issue.
  Do not tell me to come back tomorrow. I cannot come back tomorrow, 
because you will not give me an up-and-down vote on this issue. You 
will not give anybody on this side of the aisle who has been struggling 
so that we do not have to waste our resources on people who are coming 
here illegally. You will not give us those up-and-down votes.
  Now, we had an up-and-down vote in the Senate, and that is why it 
passed so overwhelmingly, 85 to 2.
  So do not tell me to come back and draft it again. I did not draft 
it. A Democratic Senator drafted this language.
  Under current law, under the Job Training Partnership Act, the 
college aid goes to illegal aliens. This will cover that. People who 
have come here temporarily, whom my last colleague just mentioned, if 
you come here temporarily, whether from Nicaragua or elsewhere, if you 
overstay the time you are permitted to be here, you should not be 
collecting welfare; you should not be getting college aid. That money 
should be going to our own citizens.
  We are taking food out of the mouths of our own people if we refuse 
to be responsible when it comes to aid to illegal aliens.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  The other previous speaker from California mentioned how this body is 
reluctant to deal with the issue of illegal immigration.
  We hear a lot about gridlock. This is majority party gridlock at its 
finest. This is the same old thing. We cannot get a good bill on the 
floor because we cannot get it through the Committee on Rules or 
through subcommittees, and so we are here one more time, not here, not 
now, not this time, not this committee, not this vehicle, not this 
subcommittee. Now, it is a drafting problem, from people who routinely 
pass bills they have never read.
  I certainly hope that the other side of the aisle is just as careful 
when it comes to health care, because we are going to be passing some 
bill that will be about that thick, and none of us will get it until 
the day of the vote.
  I hope everybody keeps this in mind.
  Madam Speaker, as you know, this is only a motion to instruct. If 
there is a true language problem and not just a political problem here, 
then the conferees can work that out. If that is the case, the counsel 
confers with it. This is saying we are making a statement about 
benefits to non-Americans, non-tax-paying people who are in our 
country.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, outside of the jurisdictional, 
nongermaneness issues, there are a multitude of major policy 
shortcomings with the Exon amendment that have been aptly pointed out 
by my colleagues.
  I join my colleagues in their objections and concerns. As a Member 
representing the Territory of American Samoa, I am particularly 
concerned with the sloppy drafting of this measure.
  Let me say why. Although it may be intended for the measure to 
prohibit Federal benefits from being received by those illegally in the 
United States, the way the measure is drafted though, unfortunately, is 
that as presently constituted, the measure would disqualify some 
100,000 U.S. Nationals currently living in the United States; for that 
matter, even those of my constituents living in the territory of 
American Samoa.
  What is a U.S. national? Madam Speaker, by definition of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act, a U.S. national is any person who 
owes permanent allegiance to the United States but who is neither a 
citizen or an alien, and our territory seems to have the distinct honor 
of being classified under this Federal statute of being the only U.S. 
nationals currently living under the U.S. flag.
   Madam Speaker, U.S. nationals have fought and died at least for all 
the wars that our country has faced, and I want to say that the 
gentleman's motion will, in effect, deny thousands of U.S. nationals 
who served honorably in the armed services the benefits that I 
certainly feel they should be allocated like all others legally 
residing here in the United States.
  So I ask my colleagues to defeat the motion to instruct.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, this may come as quite a shock to my 
good friend from California, but I do think if we are going to have a 
motion to instruct, we might take a look at what is actually written in 
the bill. That would be strange for some of us, because you are intent 
today upon exploiting anxieties and fears over immigrants.
  Every time someone brings up something that actually shows the 
weakness of the language that has been drafted here, you go off on a 
tangent about illegal aliens. The fact of the matter is that the 
definition under this prohibition on payment, section 5102 that you are 
referring to, leaves vulnerable all American nationals.
  I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and I am 
sure you did not intend to do that, and what you need to do is draft 
language where the meaning is precise. This is legislation, friends, 
that we are passing on behalf of the people of the United States. This 
is not something to appeal to your constituents on the political 
fashion of the moment, and we ought to respect this institution enough 
not to pass slopping language that, in effect, says it is all right to 
be an American-Samoan and die for this country, it is OK to play 
football in southern California and exploit them that way, it is OK to 
take 100,000 people; after all, that is not very many. And so what if 
we have to use them up? So what if they have to be sacrificed on the 
great altar of bashing immigrants because that happens to be something 
that will sell in someone's political constituency today?
  These are people. These are American nationals. They are not a 
drafting problem. Someone has stood up today and actually said, ``So 
there are a few drafting problems, pass it anyway. We can sell it.''
  Look, we are better than that. We have had this conversation before, 
my good friend from California. You do not really want to do this kind 
of thing to people. You would be the last person. We know one another. 
You would be the last person to say let us sacrifice American nationals 
like loyal American-Samoans, because you want to get at a greater 
issue.
  I understand the bigger issue that you want to get to. This is not 
the way to do it. This is a motion to instruct, and it is a motion to 
instruct on very bad language, and if that language is written by a 
Democrat, it should be denied; if that language is written by a 
Republican, it should be denied.
  You cannot come down here and say, ``Well, the Democrats wrote it, 
and it is not very good language, but because they did, we can take 
advantage of it and do something for another purpose.'' What we need to 
do is remember that this is a motion to instruct, and it is language 
that I do not think anybody can look the gentleman from American Samoa 
[Mr. Faleomavaega] in the eye and say, ``Well, it is too bad you people 
have to go on the altar, but we had a larger purpose in mind. We wanted 
to make sure that everybody knows we are on the right side with respect 
to illegal immigrants, illegal aliens,'' or whatever the fashionable 
phrase of the moment is.
  If that is what you want to do, let us draft language to do that. You 
are capable of it. You have spoken on this issue very, very clearly; 
let us not take the language and try to make something good of it.
  Let us defeat this motion. Put language forward that you can be proud 
of.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The language is very clear in this bill. It states very clearly that 
it is aimed at those who are illegally residing in the United States. 
That is illegally residing in the United States.
  This idea that I can just go back and write something else: The 
American people who have been watching this either at home or are 
reading about it in the Congressional Record should understand that the 
people making that argument know full well that I am not permitted to 
do that, and every time that I have tried over and over and over again 
to try to get a vote on the issue of illegal immigration into this 
country, I have been cut off one time after another. Very rarely do I 
ever get even close to a vote, and there is a reason, because of that. 
The reason is that on that side of the aisle, which controls the debate 
here, you do not have a clean debate on whether or not we should give 
benefits to illegal aliens.
  This language is clear. It is aimed at those illegally residing in 
the United States. If those illegally residing in the United States 
should not get benefits, you should vote ``yes'' on my proposal.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Madam Speaker, I have only spoken on this 
issue once, but I have seen so many red herrings flying around this 
room tonight, I think we will review the issue from a Californian's 
standpoint.
  The sum of $2.8 billion in California's thinly passed budget this 
year goes to illegal alien benefits.

                              {time}  1810

  That is the problem. The problem is we are paying $350 million to 
house 14 percent of our State prison population, which is not and has 
never been in California legally. Twenty-one thousand dollars per year 
we spend on each prisoner. Fourteen percent of our population, around 
20,000 of our prisoners, in California are here illegally and came here 
not for opportunity but to commit crimes. That is the problem.
  Over a billion dollars is spent in educating people who came to 
California illegally. That is the problem.
  We spend over a billion dollars in California in health and welfare 
expenditures, health and welfare expenditures for people who came to 
California illegally. That is the problem.
  What Mr. Rohrabacher is doing is repeating a Senator Exon amendment 
to the crime budget which says in his letter to us:

       I have been trying to get an amendment passed since 1988 
     which would cut off funding to illegal aliens.

  Now, we have heard of all of the screwball definitions of illegal, 
but I am not a lawyer so I just read it as meaning not legal. Senator 
Exon said also:

       I have designed this amendment to prohibit the payment of 
     Federal benefits to illegal aliens. That amendment is a 
     modification of a bill I have introduced in this Congress 
     since 1988. At times I quote this to show how far out of step 
     Congress is with the taxpaying public, at times due to 
     congressional inaccuracy or expansive court interpretation, 
     Federal statutes have been used to provide Federal financial 
     benefits for illegal aliens. The amendment which I offered 
     set a basic governmentwide policy.

  A basic governmentwide policy, ``prohibiting the payment of such 
benefits.'' That is what we are asking. Let us uphold the law. If we 
have laws against illegal aliens entering this country and laws which 
require people to stay here 5 to 10 years in order to come here 
legally, then we ought to uphold those laws.
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Just quickly in order to respond: It bothers me no end to constantly 
hear people throw out these numbers that they know they cannot prove. 
On several occasions I have asked my colleagues, Mr. Baker and Mr. 
Rohrabacher, to provide me the documentation of these very inflated 
numbers that they continue to cite. Not once, not once have they 
responded to give me the documentation or the source for that 
information. Why? Because they cannot provide it, but it sounds very 
good.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume], chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] for some clarification on this issue of American national, 
which I thought was rather clear? Is the gentleman saying that the bill 
does not exclude American nationals from receiving benefits?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, it is aimed specifically at people who are not 
lawfully present in the United States. The intent of this is very 
clear. When it gets into conference, if there is any lack of 
definition, they can clear it up. But to me it seems very clear that 
they are not lawfully in the United States.
  Mr. MFUME. I happen to have the bill here, and on page 831, this is 
the wording:

       (c) ``Persons not lawfully present within the United 
     States'' means persons who at the time they applied for, 
     receive, or attempt to receive a Federal benefit are not 
     either a United States citizen, a permanent resident alien, 
     an asylee or asylee applicant, a refugee, a parolee, a 
     nonimmigrant in status under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, * * *.

  So, technically, then, if you are from American Samoa and you have 
fought and died for this Nation and just happened to be living here at 
the time and you go and apply, because you are not a citizen, you are 
not qualified?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I do not believe 85 Members of the Senate intended 
that. That would never be upheld by any court whatsoever. Obscuring the 
issue in that way is not going to hold water.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request: May the 
gentleman from California and I proceed for another 30 seconds?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Becerra] has the time.
  Mr. MFUME. I am making a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, is there 
time left on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is time left on each side. There is 3 
minutes on this side and 4 minutes on this side.
  Mr. LINDER. So if there is time left on each side, Mr. Mfume has the 
right to get more time from Mr. Becerra.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. LINDER. I object.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, let me say I understand this was drafted on the Senate 
side and by a person who happens to be a Democrat, but that individual 
is absolutely wrong. This is bad language, and we are hurting people 
who have fought and died for this country. While many people might want 
to move toward supporting this, this is such a discriminatory act the 
way it is drafted that I think it requires a defeat, and I would urge 
Members of this House to defeat it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman is only concerned about technical 
problems, he knows those things can be taken care of. The fact is that 
that is not the intent of this bill. The intent is to hit illegal 
aliens.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I have one additional speaker and 30 
seconds to close. I do not know if the gentleman from California [Mr 
Rohrabacher] has additional speakers.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, do I have the right to close? And if 
so, how much time do I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has the right to close, yes, and there are 3 minutes 
remaining on his side. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining on the other 
side.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the State of Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, this is not a matter to be 
lightly considered. The House is being asked to instruct conferees on a 
crime bill. The amendment that we are debating today is really 
nongermane, as far as the House rules are concerned. But someone has 
felt it important to instruct our conferees on a matter that has been 
raised in the Senate.
  We are being asked to adopt language that was inserted in the Senate 
that could egregiously hurt and harm at least 100,000 persons who live 
in the continent of the United States and in my State of Hawaii; at 
least 100,000 persons from American Samoa who have come into the United 
States by right because they are U.S. nationals, and yet, unthinkingly 
a Senate provision is going to say to these individuals, who are just 
like us, who are represented by the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. 
Faleomavaega], who is here as a Member of this body, that somehow 
because you come from American Samoa and because the designation you 
have received under the laws of this country is not as a U.S. citizen 
but as a national, that from henceforth because we have deemed it to be 
because of defective language, that these individuals cannot get 
student loans, cannot get any of the entitlements of unemployment 
compensation when they work in my district and they lose their job, are 
not entitled to all the other benefits like you and I. We are being 
asked to adopt defective language which goes against the public policy 
of this institution.
  Why have we allowed Eni to sit in this Chamber unless we have 
accepted the fact that he and the people he represents are just like 
us, American citizens? Let us not just dismiss this as defective 
language; we are being asked to put aside a very important principle 
which was accepted under the Constitution, to allow American Samoans to 
come in and be part of this country and to receive all the benefits and 
entitlements of this country and, yes, to go to war and die for this 
country.
  So please, do not be dismissed by the notion that we can go to 
conference and fix it. This is not our idea. Our conferees can discuss 
it. They can bring it before the table and debate it.
  What we are being asked is to endorse, to give thus the approval of 
this language which has no place in any deliberative body in the United 
States, which discriminates and denigrates citizens of this country who 
belong here but who, because of their status, are regarded as U.S. 
nationals.
  I rise in great indignation this afternoon and ask you to vote down 
this motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, Members, please do not close your eyes to 
defective language. We are asking the highest body of this Nation to do 
what we would not expect a first grader, a sixth grader, or a twelfth 
grader in our schools to do, and that is to accept something that we 
know is wrong.
  It makes no difference what the intent of the Senators or the 
Representatives in this House is. We all know that it is the letter of 
the law, the express meaning of each word, that counts. If we pass 
this, we know what will happen. American Samoans will be deprived 
benefits.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Don't pretend you do something with a bill 
that it doesn't do. This doesn't help. It just hurts.''
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Madam Speaker, it is a sophomoric debating 
technique to challenge one's opponent to give them some facts.
  On August 31, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra] asked me for facts regarding illegal aliens and the 
expenditures in California. On September 3, 1993, for eight categories 
I sent the gentleman those facts.
  Mr. BECERRA. Never got them.
  Mr. BAKER of California. It does not surprise me.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  There have been articles; there have been studies; there have been 
countless studies and examinations of the illegal alien problem, and 
all the ones that I have seen conclude that the flood of illegal 
immigration into this country is causing a great hardship upon our 
people. It is stretching our own social infrastructure to the breaking 
point.
  We are being told by the other side that that is already taken care 
of, go ahead, vote against Rohrabacher because the illegal alien 
problem is already taken care of. Well, if my colleagues do not believe 
there is an illegal alien problem in this country, fine. Vote against 
what I am proposing today. But if they believe that the millions of 
illegal aliens that have come into our country are consuming limited, 
scarce benefits that should be going to our people is a major problem 
in our society, they should be voting for my proposition because I 
probably will get very few chances of ever presenting this on the floor 
again.
  Madam Speaker, I have time and again had to go through maneuvers on 
this floor to try to get a vote and have been denied almost every time 
a chance to get a direct vote by those people who now say, ``Just 
correct the language and come back and get another vote when it's 
absolutely perfect.'' There was a vote on this issue. It was 85 to 2 in 
the Senate.

  Now we are told that all of those Senators, including the two 
Senators from my State, well, they were too imperfect to pass it here 
in the House. I would think that there might be some other motivation 
besides total perfection in terms of the opposition to my proposal. The 
fact is that, if there is, and I deny that there is any problem in 
terms of the issue that is being brought up, the fact is, if there is a 
problem, everyone on that side knows, and everyone here knows, we have 
worked here, it could be cleared up in conference committee, made 
absolutely perfectly clear.
  Madam Speaker, there is no problem with that at all. What the real 
opposition to my proposal is is that those folks who are opposed to 
this proposal, the fact is that they do not want to deal with the 
illegal immigration issue no matter how we bring it forward. They 
believe that we are being inhumane.
  I say to my colleagues, ``I grant you you have good hearts, you are 
wonderful people. The fact is we all have love in our hearts. I say we 
have a responsibility to our own citizens to make sure that those very 
scarce resources that we have in this country are channeled to our own 
citizens rather than to illegal aliens.''
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, to date, the debate on illegal immigration 
has been marked by a great deal of vitriol and relatively little 
wisdom. On one extreme, there have been those who claim that 
immigrants--both legal and illegal--are responsible for every ill 
facing this country. And on the other extreme, there are those who 
claim that borders are meaningless, and that there is no such thing as 
an illegal immigrant.
  This motion today provides a rare opportunity to be reasonable. It 
allows us to clearly support a very basic principle: Illegal immigrants 
are not entitled to Government benefits. They are not entitled to AFDC. 
They are not entitled to food stamps, SSI, unemployment compensation, 
or routine health care.
  It is not racist to say to. And it is not heartless to believe that 
American borders ought to be respected.
  This debate about illegal immigration is not just some academic 
exercise. Illegal immigration affects millions of Americans who are 
here legally, and to ignore those impacts is irresponsible.
  This motion simply states that illegal immigrants are not entitled to 
receive benefits like AFDC, food stamps, and nonemergency health care, 
and I support it strongly.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the privileged motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 289, 
nays 121, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               YEAS--289

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--121

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Applegate
     Armey
     Bishop
     Boehner
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Gallo
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Michel
     Murtha
     Obey
     Oxley
     Rowland
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Wilson

                              {time}  1943

  Messrs. MOAKLEY, ACKERMAN, and GEJDENSON, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Ms. 
FURSE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________