[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E456-E457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     H.R. 2202, IMMIGRATION REFORM

                                 ______


                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 26, 1996

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the floor 
debate on immigration reform due to business in my district. However, I 
would like to submit my views on H.R. 2202 for the Record. 
  As a Californian, I am well aware of many of the problems and 
economic strains associated with illegal immigration. However, we must 
not deter people, many who come here seeking freedom and opportunity, 
and many who have become productive citizens, from legally entering the 
United States. Many legal immigrants come to this country with a desire 
to work. Our challenge is to manage that flow rationally.
  H.R. 2202 is an extreme measure that not only attempts to stop 
illegals from crossing our borders--often in unworkable and repressive 
ways--but also limits many of our family members such as sisters, 
brothers, parents, and adult children from joining us in America. This 
bill actually punishes legal residents and citizens by unreasonably 
restricting family reunification visas. It denies adult children and 
siblings of citizens and legal residents--many who have waited years to 
enter the United States--the chance to reunite with their families in 
America. This change in law would unfairly punish families that depend 
on their loved ones, not the Government, for support.
  This bill also imposes annual refugee caps, limiting the number of 
eligible refugee applications to 50,000 per year--that's almost half of 
the current number. These people may be terrorized by their government, 
and have no other recourse than to flee their nation. Under this 
legislation, refugees could be turned away if the immigration quota of 
50,000 for that year has been filled. This is a disgrace for a nation 
with a solid tradition of immigration, and a history of being a refuge 
for those who flee terror and deprivation.
  I am disillusioned that some of my colleagues seek to make this bad 
bill worse by amending it to deny children an education, simply because 
they happen to be born to undocumented parents. Such a move would only 
further hurt an already disadvantaged child. It is absolutely cruel to 
punish innocent children for their parents' decisions.
  This provision would also take a financial toll. In Los Angeles 
County alone--my home, and the home to nearly 30 percent of 
California's public school population of almost 1.5 million--the 
administrative costs for verification

[[Page E457]]

could total as much as $97 million over a 7-year period, at $37 per 
student plus startup costs. It makes more sense to educate our 
children, rather than waste our resources verifying their 
citizenship, while risking discriminating against our own citizens in 
the process.

  Other provisions, such as those which would force public hospitals to 
identify illegals before being reimbursed, are equally immoral. This 
could threaten public health and possibly increase harassment and 
discrimination in our hospitals.
  It is my hope that we may vote to divide this bill into two parts, 
one which deals with legal immigration and the other with illegal 
immigration. I support securing our borders with more agents, better 
equipment, and sturdy barriers. I applaud the deportation of criminals 
and increased penalties for people who fraudulently reproduce U.S. 
documents. However, I do not back the provision to enhance the power of 
Federal law enforcement, including increasing wiretap authority. This 
is a complex bill with more weaknesses than strengths, at this point. 
Splitting the bill could allow us to focus on the real problem, which 
is stopping illegal, not legal, immigration.
  Let us decrease the flow of illegal immigrants to our Nation, while 
proceeding to advance legal immigration. Our country continues to 
obtain its ultimate strength from diversity. Our tradition as a nation 
of immigrants obligates us to find a fair and just way to handle that 
responsibility.
  Specifically, on the amendments, had I been present, I would have 
voted as follows:
  Amendment No. 3, offered by Representative Beilenson--``yes'';
  Amendment No. 4, offered by Representative McCollum--``yes'';
  Amendment No. 7, offered by Representative Bryant (TN)--``no'';
  Amendment No. 9, offered by Representative Velazquez--``yes'';
  Amendment No. 10, offered by Representative Gallegly--``no'';
  Amendment No. 12, offered by Representative Chabot--``no'';
  Amendment No. 16, offered by Representative Canady--``no'';
  Amendment No. 18, offered by Representative Dreier--``no'';
  Amendment No. 19, offered by Representative Chrysler--``yes'';
  Amendment No. 22, offered by Representative Pombo--``no'';
  Amendment No. 24, offered by Representative Goodlatte--``no'';
  Amendment No. 28, offered by Representative Burr--``no'';
  Bryant motion to recommit--``yes''.
  Final passage--``no''.
  In addition, on Thursday, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 
80, ``no'' on rollcall vote 81, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 82, and ``no'' 
on rollcall vote 83.
  And, on the motion to go to conference on the omnibus continuing 
appropriations bill, I would have voted ``yes''.
  Finally, on Friday, I would have voted ``no'' on both the rule and 
final passage of H.R. 125, to repeal the assault weapon ban.

                          ____________________