[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E496-E497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2202, IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL 
                          INTEREST ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON ED PASTOR

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 20, 1996

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2202. 
Let me begin by applauding my colleagues for separating the issue of 
legal immigration from the rest of the bill. However, I remain very 
troubled with measures in the bill that hurt children and families.
  By stripping the bill of cuts made to legal immigration, the House 
has reaffirmed the invaluable contributions legal immigrants have made 
and continue to make to our Nation, ``stated chairman Pastor.'' This 
move has assured that our legal immigration system continues to support 
and prioritize family reunification.
  I must remind my colleagues--immigrants are hard-working taxpayers, 
they go to war on our behalf, and they do not abuse the system. The 
truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants 
support themselves without assistance. Studies by The CATO and Urban 
Institutes indicate that immigrants are more likely than the native-
born population to work and contribute $25 billion more in annual taxes 
than they receive in benefits.
  First, I am extremely concerned with items in this bill that harm 
children and families. The Gallegly proposal added to the bill proposes 
to deny public education to undocumented children. This provision has a 
chilling effect by jeopardizing the education of children labeled as 
foreign. This requirement is seriously misguided since the role of our 
teachers is to teach, not serve as immigration enforcement agents. In 
addition, this requirement would deflect scarce educational funds to do 
the job of the INS.
  Second, restrictions in benefits to legal immigrants in H.R. 2202 
will hurt real people who work hard and contribute to this Nation. In 
addition, this bill adds great stress to State and local governments. 
The provisions that extend deeming requirements to all needs-based 
programs are too extreme. We are not looking at solving a problem here, 
but one created to divide our country and promote short-term political 
gain.
  We are talking about stealing the American dream away from 
most immigrants. President Roosevelt once said, ``We are a nation of 
many nationalities, many races, many religions--bound together by a 
single unity, the unity of freedom and equality.'' H.R. 2202 proposes 
to greatly alter these American values. On equality and freedom will be 
no longer.

  Third, the immigrant restrictions would add great stress to State and 
local governments. We are talking about adding more Federal regulations 
and verification burdens to comply with the immigrant restrictions. 
Private and public entities will be required to redirect scarce 
resources from running programs to meeting Federal mandates.
  Listen to the concerns of the National Governors' Association, the 
National Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the National 
League of Cities. In a letter to Speaker Gingrich, they say that the 
immigrant provisions create mandates and cost shifts for States and 
localities. They describe the immigrant verification requirements as a 
very burdensome, top-heavy approach to welfare reform.
  Fourth, this bill makes the Federal Government irresponsible by 
placing the burden of serving some people solely on State and local 
governments. If the Federal Government excludes noncitizens from social 
safety net programs, the need for this safety net will not go away. 
State and local governments will have to serve them under State 
programs, translating into a massive cost shift. That, my colleagues, 
is promoting irresponsibility.
  Last, this bill will advance a climate of intolerance, suspicion, and 
division. It will result in increased discrimination against anyone 
suspected of being a noncitizen. The courts are now reviewing 
constitutional concerns over California's proposition 187. In the 
aftermath of proposition 187, reports document the increase in hate 
crimes against people for simply looking or sounding foreign.
  Mr. Speaker, a responsible Congress cannot accept this immigration 
bill. We must protect our borders, but these provisions take us beyond 
that. We must remain vigilant against excessive government intervention 
and continue to protect our most basic individual freedoms and needs.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2202.
  The following remarks note specific provisions and my concerns:

       Deeming of all programs, including education and medical 
     services: Legal immigrants' access to all programs would be 
     restricted by extending deeming until citizenship for 
     parents; for 7 years for spouses; until age 21 or until 
     citizenship for minor children; or (in all cases) until 
     the immigrant has worked 40 ``qualifying'' quarters (at 
     least 10 years). There are few exceptions, but not for 
     such programs as school lunches, student loans, or 
     immunizations. In addition, there are very few exceptions 
     for deeming to account for persons who become disabled 
     after legally immigrating to the United States.
       Denial of assistance to immigrants results in a cost shift 
     to state and local governments. The loss of federal funds 
     would need to be offset by state and local funds. This 
     provision would also result in capital drain in high 
     immigrant communities, since they would be required to pay 
     taxes while being denied access to the safety-net they help 
     support. In addition, these provisions would jeopardize 
     public health. Public health programs cannot be successful if 
     they exclude segments of the community.
       Public charge provisions would make hard working persons 
     deportable: Under this provision, most immigrants would be 
     deportable if they used any needs-based assistance for an 
     aggregate of 12 months during their first seven years of 
     residency. Thereafter, the immigrant would remain a 
     deportable as a ``public charge'' even after decades of 
     taxpaying prosperity.
       Immigrants who years later have a proven record of 
     taxpaying prosperity would become deportable. It is absurd 
     that an executive of a Fortune 500 company would be 
     deportable as ``public charge'' because s/he needed some 
     assistance years ago. At a minimum, a provision should be 
     added that would allow a person who previously received 
     public assistance to reimburse the government in lieu of 
     deportation. This is in fact current practice, by case law 
     and administrative interpretation.
       Impedes naturalization: Applicants who obtained assistance 
     can't naturalize until they

[[Page E497]]

     can verify that their sponsor does not have outstanding 
     payments due to the government for services rendered. This 
     provision was added as part of making affidavits of support 
     enforceable.
       While there is no opposition to making affidavits of 
     support enforceable, this provision places barriers on 
     something as important as naturalization. Naturalization 
     applicants should not be penalized for their sponsors' 
     violation of the law. In addition, this provision does not 
     discern between sponsors who fully intend to settle any 
     outstanding obligation and ``dead beat'' sponsors.
       U.S. citizen children of immigrants denied equal benefits: 
     ``Ineligible'' immigrants would be precluded from collecting 
     benefits on behalf of eligible family members. Thus, a U.S. 
     citizen child or disabled person would be precluded from 
     obtaining needed assistance unless that person's mother or 
     father could prove eligible status, or unless the agency 
     would undertake the administrative paperwork and expense of 
     appointing a representative payee who could accept the 
     benefit on behalf of the child.
       Denying benefits to U.S. citizen kids because of the 
     immigration status of their parents is a violation of the 
     constitutional right to equal protection. This provision 
     would force counties to find and monitor administrative 
     payees to collect the benefits and distribute them to the 
     children. This would be enormously costly and subject to 
     abuse by unscrupulous payees.
       Only affluent Americans allowed to sponsor family members: 
     To sponsor a family member, an American would be required to 
     earn more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. 
     Sponsors must demonstrate that they have an income above 200% 
     of the poverty level for their family plus the immigrant(s) 
     they seek to sponsor.
       This is an anti-family provision that would affect one 
     hundred million Americans. Family reunification would be 
     unattainable for less affluent Americans who would be 
     prevented from sponsoring their spouses and children.
       Proposition 187 requirements and INS reporting: With few 
     exceptions, schools, hospitals and others would have an added 
     responsibility of verifying citizenship status of all program 
     participants. All public, non-profit, and charitable entities 
     who administer any government funded, means-tested programs 
     would have this responsibility. In addition to needs-based 
     programs, contracts, business loans, and commercial and 
     professional licenses would be subject to the verification 
     requirement. Public hospitals would also have to report the 
     identity of any undocumented immigrant who receives emergency 
     services, and have that status verified by the INS, to obtain 
     reimbursement. In addition, provisions would allow federal, 
     state, and local agencies to report to the INS the 
     immigration status of individuals. Current law prohibits 
     public agencies from exchanging immigration information with 
     INS in order to ensure the integrity of such entities. For 
     example, current law is in place to assure the protection of 
     witnesses who are cooperating with a police or federal 
     investigation.
       This provision may discourage private-public partnerships 
     at a time when these partnerships are growing. Charitable 
     entities which feel these requirements are overburdensome may 
     be discouraged from administering community-based programs.
       Mandating localities to verify citizenship status and other 
     requirements are federal, unfunded mandates, according to the 
     National Governor's Association, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures, National Association of Counties, U.S. 
     Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. 
     Enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility. To 
     comply with these federal regulations, state and local 
     agencies would become de facto INS offices.
       Primary education Gallegly amendment to Title VI: Rep. 
     Gallegly plans to introduce an amendment on the House floor 
     to allow states to deny primary education to undocumented 
     children. This amendment would attempt to repeal the Supreme 
     Court decision in Plyler v. Doe which ruled that undocumented 
     children cannot be denied a public education. This amendment, 
     if enacted, would be unconstitutional in our country's 
     schools.

                          ____________________