[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4308-S4314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar No. 
     361, S. 1664, the illegal immigration bill:
           Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, Craig Thomas, Hank Brown, R. F. 
             Bennett, Dirk Kempthorne, Judd Gregg, Bob Smith, 
             Trent Lott, Jon Kyl, Rod Grams, Fred Thompson, John 
             Ashcroft, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the floor manager and I have visited 
about what we might expect through the evening and into tomorrow. It is 
our best judgment that we will have an amendment dealing with the 
Cuban-Asian adjustment that Senator Graham will speak to this evening, 
and then we will have the final debate as the first order of business 
tomorrow. Then Senator Graham has indicated that he would follow up 
with a presentation on one of his amendments dealing with the welfare 
provisions on the underlying legislation with the opportunity to have, 
again, briefer debate on that measure tomorrow.
  Then it is our hope that we will be able to, as I understand it, go 
from side to side in terms of the amendments themselves. We will 
obviously do the best we can to accommodate different Members and their 
time schedule. That has been certainly the agreement.
  We want to express our appreciation to Senator Simpson for that 
measure. We will move through the course of the day. I have spoken to a 
number of our colleagues to urge the early consideration of their 
amendments in a timely way in the midmorning and later morning so we 
can make some real progress on this bill.

[[Page S4309]]

  We can see that there is no desire on our part to delay this 
legislation. It was a unanimous vote, virtually, on the cloture. As I 
mentioned earlier, what is underlying this whole effort is really the 
question about whether we will get a debate or discussion on the issue 
of minimum wage. I made that presentation earlier.
  We can see from all of our sides we are prepared to move ahead. We 
are going to work with the manager of the bill and try and give as much 
notice to our colleagues as is possible in terms of the amendments that 
are coming up. We urge all of them to give the focus and attention to 
this subject now because there is a series of very important amendments 
that will be coming up through the day and tomorrow, and then it will 
be up to the leaders about how late we meet tomorrow evening and into 
Wednesday.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as always, over the years, in dealing 
with this issue of illegal immigration and legal immigration, I 
appreciated the courtesies and attention of the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  That is evident again. He has a very serious issue he wants to bring 
before the U.S. Senate. We understand that. I understand that. I would 
be doing the same were I in his role. I do regret that the procedural 
aspects of the last few days made it appear that we were doing the 
business all over here, and that was unfortunate.
  We moved some amendments without, perhaps, doing the usual procedure 
of back and forth and back and forth. So we will now go to Senator 
Graham, and that is the Cuban Adjustment Act rather than the Cuban-
Haitian. It is not a Cuban-Haitian issue. It is a Cuban Adjustment Act 
issue.
  I will define it as an anachronism, and in other terms, a little 
later. And then he may, if he desires, go forward with a second 
amendment to reduce my level of guilt.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to assure my good friend from 
Wyoming that reducing his level of guilt, or, frankly, any other 
emotion that he might feel, is not the purpose of this, but it is 
rather to discuss the current relevance, the relevance in the spring of 
1996, of legislation that this Congress passed 30 years ago.
  It was on November 2, 1966, that Public Law 89-732, the Cuban 
Adjustment Act, became the law of the land.
  Mr. President, I want to read, briefly, from that law that was passed 
almost 30 years ago, because an understanding of what this law does--
and, frankly, what it does not do--is crucial to understanding the 
proposal which I will submit to the Senate.
  I will read portions of the Cuban Adjustment Act. It states:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of the Immigration and 
     Nationality law, the status of any alien who is a native or 
     citizen of Cuba, and who has been inspected and admitted, or 
     paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959, 
     and has been physically present in the United States for at 
     least 1 year, may be adjusted by the Attorney General in 
     his--

  Now her--

     discretion, and under such regulations as he or she may 
     prescribe to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence.

  Mr. President, that is the essence of the Cuban Adjustment Act. It 
only relates to people who are lawfully in the United States. It does 
not apply to people who are here illegally. You first had to have been 
admitted into the United States, or paroled into the United States, in 
order to commence the process of 1 year of presence in the United 
States prior to being eligible to request this discretionary act of the 
Attorney General.
  Mr. President, last week, I made some preliminary remarks on this 
legislation, and I stated that one of my concerns is that, although 
this bill has as its title that this is the ``illegal" aliens bill, as 
distinct from a separate ``legal'' alien bill, that in fact the illegal 
aliens bill has spotted throughout it provisions that relate 
primarily--or as in this case, exclusively--to legal aliens.
  So I ask my colleagues to now part the veil of legal and illegal, 
because we are now talking about people who are in this country 
legally, and whose status is about to be affected by a change in a bill 
whose title would lead one to believe that it only relates to those 
persons who are in the country illegally.
  What would the provision in the illegal immigration bill, S. 1664, do 
to those persons who are in the country legally and under current law 
would have the prerogative of asking the Attorney General to exercise 
her discretion to adjust their status? This provision, which begins on 
page 177, would first repeal Public Law 89-732, the Cuban Adjustment 
Act.
  Second, it states a savings provision, which states that ``The 
provisions of such act shall continue to apply on a case-by-case basis 
with respect to individuals paroled into the United States pursuant to 
the Cuban migration agreement of 1995.''
  Let me make some comments on that provision. The savings provision 
states that it applies on a case-by-case basis. As I indicated, in 
current law it is also on a case-by-case basis.

  Applications must be made on an individual basis for a person who is 
a native or a citizen of Cuba, who has been inspected, or admitted, or 
paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959, and has 
been physically present for 1 year.
  If you meet all those requirements, then you may apply to the 
discretionary act of the Attorney General to adjust your status. This 
savings provision, however, would only apply with respect to 
individuals paroled into the United States. The current Cuban 
Adjustment Act refers to persons who are inspected and admitted, or 
paroled. So it would narrow the categories of persons who could come 
into the United States to those who are paroled.
  What is the significance of that? As you know, there are a number of 
means by which a person can come into the United States. For those 
persons who have come from Cuba, they have primarily come in one of 
three categories: as parolees, as refugees, or as visa immigrants. This 
amendment, as written in current law, would restrict it to only one of 
those three categories--those who are parolees.
  As an example, in 1995, under the United States-Cuban migration 
amendment--I might say, Mr. President, that was the agreement entered 
into in the spring of 1995 as a culmination of the series of events 
which began almost 9 months earlier with a mass migration of small 
boats from Cuba to the United States, which, in turn, led to the large 
number of persons who were detained at the United States Naval Station 
at Guantanamo Bay. Of those who came into the United States in 1995, 
7,500 came in with the status of refugees. Of those, 7,500 would be 
excluded from the applicability of the Cuban Adjustment Act, under this 
provision, because it would only apply to parolees. Six-thousand came 
as visa immigrants. Those would be excluded from the application of the 
Cuban Adjustment Act. There were 14,000 who came as parolees through 
the migration agreement having applied to the United States-Cuban 
interest section in Havana. Another 10,000 came as parolees, as one of 
those persons who were being detained at Guantanamo. So, last year, 
there would have been 13,500 of those persons who came that would not 
have been eligible because they came in a status other than as a 
parolee, and 24,000 would have been eligible because they came as 
parolees.
  The next major restriction is that you have to come in pursuant to 
the Cuban migration agreement of 1995. There are literally tens of 
thousands of persons who are otherwise eligible for adjustment of 
status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, who have come in by means other 
than the Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995. In fact, from 1990 to 1994, 
an average of almost 20,000 persons a year adjusted their status under 
the Cuban Adjustment Act. None of them came in under the Cuban 
Migration Act because the Migration Act did not go into effect until 
the spring of 1995.
  Assumingly, although there are no precise records, there are still 
many thousands of persons who came prior to the spring of 1995, prior 
to the Cuban Migration Act, who are still eligible because they meet 
the other standards of having come here legally, having resided here 
for 1 year, and are now legally eligible to make a request to the 
Attorney General for a discretionary act of adjusting their status.
  So one of the consequences of adopting the language which is in 1664 
today is to exclude a substantial number of people from the benefits of 
this legislation, people who are just like persons

[[Page S4310]]

who for 30 years have utilized this legislation in order to adjust 
their status.
  Second, this sends a signal that we believe, as the Senator from 
Wyoming alluded, that we think the situation in Cuba has changed so 
dramatically that now legislation passed 30 years ago is a dinosaur, is 
an anachronism, and no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
  In fact, Mr. President, you can read as recently as this morning's 
Washington Post an article that states:

       Cuba Slows Changes, Reemphasizes Ideology, Tighter U.S. 
     Embargo Draws Vow From Castro ``to Resist Another 35 Years.''

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the 
Washington Post of April 29 be printed in the Record immediately after 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I cite this as the most recent evidence of 
the fact that we are not dealing with an anachronism. Fidel Castro is 
an anachronism. But the Cuban Adjustment Act, which was designed to 
respond to the human rights abuses, to the circumstances that forced 
thousands of native citizens of Cuba to flee that country, 
unfortunately, the Cuban Adjustment Act still serves its humanitarian 
purpose in 1996 as it did when it was adopted by the Congress in 1966.
  Third, the adoption of the language in 1664 would have the practical 
effect of turning a substantial amount of the U.S. immigration policy, 
substantial amount of our responsibilities to make decisions as to what 
is in the best interests of the United States of America, over to Fidel 
Castro.
  Why is that? All Fidel Castro would have to do, if this language in 
Senate bill 1664 were to be adopted, would be to abrogate the Cuban 
Adjustment Act, the Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995, and no person 
would henceforth be eligible to utilize the Cuban Adjustment Act as a 
means of changing their status and securing the benefits of permanent 
residence in the United States.
  We would be telling Fidel Castro, ``If you wish to amend United 
States immigration law, all you have to do is abrogate the only window 
which is now available by which a Cuban citizen who has flown the 
tyranny of your government to secure the benefits that have been 
available for 30 years to tens of thousands people to adjust their 
status.'' I do not think this Congress wants to accede to Fidel Castro 
the ability to influence our policy.
  Mr. President, I do not think the Cuban Adjustment Act needs to be a 
permanent part of American law. Frankly, I wish it had never been 
necessary. I wish once it was determined necessary and enacted, it 
would have been in a position to have been repealed as quickly as 
possible because its existence is testimony to Fidel Castro's continued 
existence and tyrannical rule over the citizens of the island of Cuba.
  So, Mr. President, what I propose, joined by a number of our 
colleagues, including Senators Dole, Mack, Abraham, Bradley, and Helms, 
is an alternative approach. Our amendment would say that the Cuban 
Adjustment Act shall be repealed, but it shall be repealed only upon a 
determination by the President under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act of 1996--what is frequently referred to as the Helms-
Burton legislation--only when a determination has been made by the 
President pursuant to the standards in that legislation that in fact a 
democratically elected government is now in power in Cuba. Once there 
is a democratic government in Cuba, then the need for the Cuban 
Adjustment Act will have been fulfilled, and there would be a 
celebration of repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act.
  So, Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been filed as No. 
3760 with the provision that I have just stated.
  Mr. President, I urge this Senate not to precipitously adopt the 
language that is in 1664, not to close the opportunity for thousands of 
Cubans, Cubans who arrived prior to the Cuban Migration Agreement of 
1995, and those Cubans who arrived under it in a status other than 
parolees.
  Let us not inadvertently send a signal to Fidel Castro that, in spite 
of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we have found some reason 
to believe there has been a transformation, a reformation, from the 
tyranny of 35 years into a government in which we are prepared to give 
some respect and dignity. The fact is no such transformation has 
occurred, and we do not wish to give such evidence that there has been. 
We certainly do not wish to turn over to Fidel Castro the ability to 
affect our immigration laws.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment which is at the 
desk, and look forward to its consideration at the earliest opportunity 
tomorrow.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 29, 1996]

 Cuba Slows Changes, Reemphasizes Ideology--Tighter U.S. Embargo Draws 
             Vow From Castro ``To Resist Another 35 Years''

                           (By Douglas Farah)

       Havana.--Facing a freeze in Cuban-U.S. relations and 
     slipping state control of the economy, Cuba's ruling 
     Communist Party has slowed moves toward free-market 
     economics, raised pressure on dissidents and reemphasized its 
     orthodox Marxist rhetoric.
       Around the country, old propaganda signs are being 
     refreshed, new billboards denouncing the U.S. economic 
     embargo are going up, and buildings housing the Committees 
     for the Defense of the Revolution are being repaired. 
     Reaffirming the Marxist, socialist nature of the Cuban 
     revolution is again the focal point of speeches.
       While changes permitting some private enterprise and 
     foreign investment will not be rolled back, according to 
     senior government officials and diplomats, the pace of future 
     moves toward a market economy--especially those related to 
     increasing self-employment--are likely to slow down or be put 
     on hold.
       President Fidel Castro, in a ceremony on April 16 marking 
     35th anniversary of his declaration of the revolution as 
     socialist, said that Cuba has resisted pressure to change and 
     that ``we're prepared to resist another 35 years, and 35 
     times 35 years.''
       In part, the call to return to ideological purity reflects 
     increased concern that a growing sector of the economy in 
     moving out from under state control, according to diplomats 
     and Cubans analysts. Another factor often cited is increased 
     government optimism that this year's crucial sugar harvest is 
     on target to reach 4.5 million tons, up from last year's 
     disastrous 3.3 million tons, the lowest in 40 years.
       If the harvest reaches that goal, the government will be 
     able to pay off the $300 million in commercial loans it took 
     out last year, at 18 percent interest, to rebuild the 
     industry, which is vital to returning the economy to 
     sustained growth. Official figures show the economy shrank 
     by 36 percent from 1989 to 1992, following the collapse of 
     the Soviet Bloc, which heavily subsidized Cuba.
       Since 1993, Cuba has legalized use of dollars, authorized 
     limited self-employment, allowed farmers to sell surplus 
     produce on the open market and offered cash incentives to 
     workers in key sectors of the economy to produce more. The 
     result has been not only an upturn in the economy, but also 
     the creation of a class with access to goods and services not 
     available to those who work for the state at fixed wages in 
     Cuban pesos, usually about $16 a month.
       ``We need time to assimilate and consolidate the steps we 
     have already taken, especially in self-employment,'' Alfredo 
     Gonzalez, senior adviser in the Ministry of Economics and 
     Planning, said in an interview. ``The moves have had 
     contradictory effects. When some people start to get rich, it 
     has a social impact. University professors and social 
     workers, who earn only in pesos, are starting to ask, `When 
     will it be my turn?' ''
       Some of the party faithful are not waiting. A professor of 
     Marxism at the University of Havana can be found most nights 
     harmonizing with a musical trio that strolls through a plush 
     dollar restaurant, singing romantic ballads for tips. He said 
     he made more in two nights there than at his academic job in 
     a month.
       University students, long praised as the vanguard of the 
     revolution, are trying desperately to get into business 
     administration and computer classes. According to academic 
     sources, only seven students signed up last semester to study 
     Marxism, once one of the most popular courses.
       The opening salvo in the ideological rollback was fired by 
     Raul Castro, brother of the president and head of the armed 
     forces, in a March 23 speech to a meeting of the party's 212-
     member Central Committee. It was only the fifth full meeting 
     of the committee since Fidel Castro took over in 1959, and 
     the first since 1992.
       Raul Castro called for renewed ideological vigor, 
     especially in the watch committees. He sharply criticized 
     some parts of the economic changes already implemented, 
     including foreign influences spread through the growing 
     tourism industry, and the relative wealth of some people who 
     are now legally allowed to form their own small businesses.
       ``Fundamentally, it is understood that ideology is at the 
     root of everything.'' Raul Castro said.
       The meeting was held a month after Cuban-U.S. relations 
     took their sharpest plunge in three decades, when Cuban air 
     force shot down two small airplanes belonging to the Miami-
     based exile group Brothers to the Rescue. In response, 
     President Clinton signed into law the Helms-Burton Act, which 
     seeks to strengthen the 34-year-old U.S. economic embargo 
     against Cuba.

[[Page S4311]]

       Using the threat of covert U.S. operations, the Cuban 
     government stepped up attacks on dissident groups, 
     independent journalist and even reformist academic groups 
     that were largely financed by the Communist-Party. Academic 
     sources said that committees are reviewing the work of 
     academic centers, their finances and their foreign contacts.
       The tone was set by Raul Castro, who accused the United 
     States of financing ``the proliferation and growth of small 
     groups of traitors within the country.''
       Ricardo Alarcon, president of the National Assembly, 
     defended the crackdown on Communist Party-financed think 
     tanks, which won international attention by pushing for 
     faster, deeper economic change. ``The party has the right to 
     question and analyze whether a center that depends on it for 
     material and human resources is doing what it is supposed to 
     do, and if not, to correct things,'' he said.
       Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), representing the United 
     States at the U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, 
     accused Havana last week of carrying out ``the most 
     repressive wave we have seen in the recent history of Cuba.'' 
     On Tuesday, the commission passed a resolution condemning 
     Cuba for not allowing freedom of assembly and expression.
       Caught in the middle are the dissidents themselves.
       Vladimiro Roca, a dissident whose father, Blas Roca, was a 
     founder of the Cuban Communist Party, said he is awaiting a 
     crackdown. ``Our meetings are being blocked, we can no longer 
     get foreign newspapers, it is getting ever more hard,'' Roca 
     said in an interview at his home. ``The shoot-down and the 
     Helms-Burton act have made life more difficult.''
       But just how tough mobilizing people has become was tacitly 
     acknowledged by Raul Castro when he said people's ``number 
     one daily concern is food.'' Still, he called for 
     revitalizing the watch committees, powerful political 
     structures set up in each block of every city and town to 
     monitor ideology and instill revolutionary fervor.
       Instead of going to meetings, people spend much of their 
     time trying to put food on the table or seeking scarce 
     transportation to work or markets. The committees gradually 
     have lost influence, especially around Havana, and in some 
     areas hold almost no meetings.
       Officials and businesses people who travel here regularly 
     said two reform programs already approved are still on track. 
     One is to revive a commercial banking system abandoned in the 
     1960s, and the other is to break down large state companies 
     into smaller, more efficient units.
       Gonzalez and Alarcon said one of the pending changes most 
     cherished by reformers and long rumored to be imminent--
     allowing the creation of small and mid-size companies under 
     private overship--is being studied, but there are no plans to 
     go ahead with it soon.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, under the rules under which we are 
currently operating, the amendment 3760 has been filed.
  Would the appropriate motion be to call up the amendment at this 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                amendment no. 3760 to amendment no. 3743

  (Purpose: To condition the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act on a 
       democratically elected government in Cuba being in power)

  Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3760 to amendment No. 3743.
       Beginning on page 177, strike line 13 and all that follows 
     through line 4 on page 178, inserting the following:
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     repeal of Public Law 89-732 made by this Act shall become 
     effective only upon a determination by the President under 
     section 203(c)(3) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 that a democratically 
     elected government in Cuba is in power.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President I thank the Senator from Florida.
  This is an issue that continues, and I hope my colleagues can hear it 
and understand what it is that we have done here over the years.
  This is the Cuban Adjustment Act. It has not anything to do with the 
Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act. This is a measure that went on the books 
in the early 1960's when the freedom flotillas were bringing in 
hundreds of thousands of Cubans who were being given parole. People 
say, ``What is parole?'' It is a very distinctive remedy. It is just 
bringing them here, really outside the scope of immigration laws, in a 
sense. It is a temporary status, and the only way to change to 
permanent status is through adjustment. Hence, the Cuban Adjustment 
Act.
  The Cuban Adjustment Act is a relic of the freedom flights of the 
1960's and freedom flotillas in the late 1970's. The Senate repealed it 
first in 1982, if I recall, and then it went to the House, and it was 
left out of conference. The Senate has repealed it again--I do not 
recall that date--and it was replaced in conference.
  At the time of the original Cuban Adjustment Act--it was a time of 
crisis, obviously a time of crisis has been continuing in that part of 
the world--Cubans were brought to the United States by the tens of 
thousands, even the hundreds of thousands. Most were given this parole 
status, which is this indefinite status which you cannot remain in, and 
it requires an ``adjustment'' in order to receive a permanent immigrant 
status in the United States.
  So since we welcomed these Cubans, and we should have, and we 
intended that they remain here, the Cuban Adjustment Act provided--and 
here is the issue--that after 1 year in the United States of America 
all Cubans could claim a green card and become permanent residents 
here.
  Since 1980, we have discouraged, thoroughly discouraged the illegal 
entry of Cubans, and there is no longer any need for the Cuban 
Adjustment Act. The provision in the bill which repeals the Cuban 
Adjustment Act exempts--and I hope all hear this--those Cubans who come 
under the current agreement between the Castro Government and the 
Clinton administration. Those 20,000 Cubans per year who are chosen by 
lottery and otherwise to come here, under that agreement they will be 
able to have their status adjusted under the committee bill provisions. 
There is no change in the status of those people. However, other than 
that one exception, there is simply no need for the Cuban Adjustment 
Act, and it should be repealed.
  It is very clear. No other group or nationality in the world, 
regardless of what is going on in their country, no other group or 
nationality in the world, in the entire world is able to get a green 
card merely by coming to the United States legally or illegally and 
remaining here for a year.
  That is what you have here. It is an extraordinary thing. Millions of 
persons who have a legal right to immigrate, to join family here, are 
waiting in the backlog sometimes for 15 or 20 years. It makes no sense 
to allow a Cuban to come here illegally on a raft or an inner tube or 
to fly in with a visitor's visa to see friends in Miami and then simply 
stay on a year, violating our laws in doing so, and then be rewarded 
with the most precious thing we can give, and that is the green card. 
It strains all reason.
  You have a situation where a person comes on a tourist visa, goes 
immediately to the home of a relative in Florida, stays there, to be 
sure to pick up a receipt or show something they did with a date on it, 
a rent receipt or something, and in a year you go into the INS and you 
show anything you have to show that you have been here a year and you 
get a green card.
  We do not do that with people fleeing the most oppressive realms on 
the Earth. We do not do it with anybody. It is a total anachronism. It 
does not fit. I know that we are all trying to whack Cuba and whack 
Castro. I am ready to do that day and night. I admire what Senator 
Helms has been up to on that. There are others--Senator Graham, Senator 
Connie Mack--I understand that, and I have joined that. But if we are 
going to have a law on the books which does not have anything to do 
with oppression, it has to do with the most remarkable lapse that we 
can ever imagine in our immigration law, the Cuban Adjustment Act I 
think should be repealed.
  Even though this is a different and quite unique amendment than 
previously, it still is a situation where it is the only country on the 
face of the Earth where you come, stick around a year under any 
circumstances--even if you violated the law--and walk in and get a 
green card, whereas if anybody else did that, if they had their 
adjustment lapse, they would be pitched.
  So that is where we are. It is an interesting vote again. We will 
make the decision and move on. It has been thoroughly debated in years 
past, and I admire my friend from Florida. You cannot represent Florida 
and not do this. Senator Connie Mack is the same. And I understand 
that. For anyone who would miss the significance, this is

[[Page S4312]]

very critically important for them to be doing, and they do it with 
great directness and authenticity, and I commend them.
  Mr. President, since there seems to be a lack of spirited debate on 
this issue, I wonder if the Senator from Florida would wish to go 
forward with the second amendment and perhaps debate that and then when 
Senator Kennedy returns, I believe he is supporting the Senator's 
position, is that not correct? Is Senator Kennedy supporting the 
Senator's position on this?
  I am trying to determine if we have proponents and opponents, but we 
need not do that. If the Senator is ready to go forward with the second 
amendment, I would ask that we simply set aside this amendment for the 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the cordiality of our 
colleague from Wyoming. I would move on to the second amendment, which 
is really one of what I anticipate will be a cluster of amendments. 
Again, it goes to an issue raised in the previous amendment, which is 
that while we are dealing with the bill S. 1664 that has as its title: 
``To Increase Control Over Immigration in the United States by 
Increasing Border Patrol and Investigative Personnel,'' et cetera, a 
bill designed to restrain illegal immigration, in fact there are 
provisions which apply substantially or totally to persons who are in 
the country legally.
  Many of those provisions also go to a second major concern for the 
structure of this legislation, and that is the degree to which it 
represents a significant unfunded mandate, a transfer of financial 
obligations from the Federal Government to State and local communities.
  Mr. President, for many years, as you well know, I have been 
seriously concerned with the fact that while the Federal Government has 
the total responsibility for determining what our immigration policy 
will be and has the total responsibility for enforcing that immigration 
policy, where the policy is either misguided or where the policy is 
breached, it is the local communities and the States in which the 
aliens reside that most of the impact is felt. That impact is 
particularly felt in the area of the delivery of critical public 
services, from health care to education to financial assistance in time 
of need. It has been my feeling that fundamentally the Federal 
Government ought to be responsible for all dimensions of the 
immigration issue. It sets the rules. It enforces the rules. It should 
be responsible when the rules are not adequately enforced and there are 
impacts, especially financial impacts on individual communities.

  Thus, I am concerned with this legislation, which instead of moving 
in the direction I think represents fair and balanced policy, goes in 
the opposite direction and is now going to have the Federal Government 
withdrawing from its level of financial responsibility for legal as 
well as illegal aliens, and will be, by its default, imposing that 
responsibility on the communities and States in which the aliens live.
  Compounding that is the uncertainty of just which of these programs 
that are intended to provide some assistance to the alien will be 
affected by this shift of responsibility. As currently written, S. 1664 
would require that the income of the sponsor, that is the person who is 
sponsoring the legal alien to come into the United States, would 
require that the sponsor's income be deemed to be the income of the 
alien for ``any program of assistance provided or funded in whole or in 
part by the Federal Government, by any State or local government entity 
for which eligibility for benefits is based on need.'' That is the 
standard by which there will be this transfer of responsibility, 
assumedly, from the Federal Government to the sponsor of the legal 
alien. But in reality, if that sponsor is not able to meet his 
obligations, it is going to be a transfer to the local community, 
private philanthropy, or government services, when the legal alien 
becomes old, unemployed, injured, or otherwise in need of services that 
he or she is unable to pay for.
  The amendment which I am offering, which has been filed as No. 3803, 
and in which I am joined by Senator Specter, says if we are going to do 
this, if we are going to require this deeming, that at least we ought 
to know precisely what it is we are talking about because no one can 
say, reading the language that I just quoted from the legislation, what 
programs, Federal, State or local, would be impacted by these very 
broad and sweeping words.
  What are some of the programs? I would like to ask the sponsors and 
supporters of the bill whether or not the following programs are 
intended to be impacted by S. 1664.
  Minnesota has a program called ``MinnesotaCare,'' would that be 
affected? Rhode Island's ``Rite Care,'' would that be affected? Hawaii 
has a program called ``Healthy Start,'' would that be affected? My own 
State of Florida has a program called ``Healthy Kids,'' would that be 
affected? Texas's ``Crippled Children's'' program, Chapter I programs 
in the public schools, Maryland's ``Minds Across Maryland,'' Florida's 
``Children's Emergency Services,'' Texas's ``Indigent Health Care,'' 
local government public defenders, immunization programs in public 
health clinics, services in our Nation's public hospitals, State and 
local public health services, programs to take children out of abusive 
environments, gang prevention programs, children's lunches and 
nutrition programs, special education programs--which of these are 
intended to be covered?
  Whatever you think about the underlying policy, there can certainly 
be no virtue in ambiguity. At least the people at the State and 
community level, citizens and those charged with the responsibility for 
providing services alike, we owe to them the obligation of clarity of 
what it is we intend, in terms of those programs that will be affected 
by the sweeping language, ``any program of assistance provided or 
funded in whole or in part, for which eligibility for benefits is based 
on need'', shall require deeming.
  For example, Virginia uses Community Development Block Grant money to 
fund community centers and extension services that provide lunch 
programs, after-school tutoring, English classes, and recreational 
sports programs to residents of the community. Will Virginia have to 
deem participants in everything from children's soccer leagues to 
mobile meals to English classes? Do we intend that? If we do, let us 
say so.

  Program providers, State and local governments and others, including 
the public, need to know the answers to these questions and more. They 
deserve nothing less. Moreover, Members of Congress should know the 
impact of the legislation before we are asked to decide as to whether 
it is appropriate public policy, policy to be enacted into laws of the 
United States of America. The majority leader said on the Senate floor 
during the debate of the unfunded mandates legislation on January 4 of 
1995:

       Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative 
     truth in advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a 
     piece of legislation they need to know how it would impact 
     the States and localities they represent. If Members of 
     Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to 
     make the tough choices needed to pay for it.

  The underlying bill, S. 1664, fails to meet these tests as 
established by the majority leader. Members of Congress have no idea 
what programs will be impacted by this legislation. Are 60 programs 
impacted? Are 88 programs? Are 417 programs? Are 3,812 programs? We 
have no idea and we will not, until regulations are implemented or the 
courts have decided what the meaning is of the phrase, programs by 
which ``eligibility for benefits is based on need.'' Why should we turn 
over such a decision to regulators and the courts? We should decide. We 
should partake in a little ``legislative truth-in-advertisin'' 
ourselves.
  Moreover, Members of Congress have not made the tough choices needed 
to pay for it. In fact, the National Conference of State Legislators 
has prepared a study to determine the imposed impact these deeming 
requirements will have, that is the requirement that the sponsor be 
financially responsible for the sponsored alien who is applying for a 
needs-based program. The National Conference of State Legislators has 
prepared a study on just 10 of those programs which they believe will 
probably be impacted. The programs that the NCSL studied were school 
lunch, school breakfast, child and adult care food programs, vocational 
rehabilitation, title 20 social service block

[[Page S4313]]

grants, foster care, title IV-A child care, title IV-D child support, 
and Medicaid qualified Medicare beneficiaries.
  The administrative costs alone of deeming these programs, of 
determining who is and who is not eligible, would exceed $700 million, 
according to the National Conference of State Legislators study. As a 
result, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National 
Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities have 
endorsed the amendment which is before the Senate this evening, to 
substitute a clear and concrete list of programs to be deemed. As they 
write, ``This amendment assures that Congress and not the courts will 
decide which programs are deemed.''
  Let me repeat. This amendment assures that Congress, and not the 
courts, will decide which programs are deemed.
  If the Senate chooses to impose new administrative requirements on 
State and local governments, we should do so, as the majority leader 
said, and ``be willing to make the tough choices needed to pay for 
it.''
  For these reasons, we take a different approach by eliminating the 
vague language which is in S. 1664 and replacing that vague language 
with a list of 16 specific programs that would be required to be 
implemented under the new deeming provisions.
  These programs are: Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 
Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, section 8 low-income housing 
assistance, low rent public housing, section 236 interest reduction 
payments, homeowner assisted payments under the National Housing Act, 
HUD low-income rent supplements, rural housing loans, rural rental 
housing loans, rural rental assistance, rural housing repair loans and 
grants, farm labor housing loans and grants, rural housing preservation 
grants, rural self-help technical assistance grants, and site loans.
  Those would be the 16 programs that would be subjected to deeming.
  Mr. President, I do not submit that these 16 programs came from a 
mountain and were inscribed on tablets. These are 16 programs which we 
and responsible organizations have identified as what they think would 
be appropriate to apply the deeming standard. If someone wishes to 
subtract or add to or modify this list, that would be the subject of a 
reasonable debate. But we would be in a position to be telling States 
and local communities and their citizens exactly what we mean. We would 
be deciding to which programs we would apply this requirement that the 
income of the sponsor be added to the income of the alien in 
determining eligibility. We would not be leaving that judgment up to 
bureaucrats through regulation or to the courts through laborious 
litigation.
  I will be happy to work with the sponsors of this bill to work out an 
agreement with the State and local units impacted by deeming so what 
programs should be included will be understood and, hopefully, will be 
the result of a consensus judgment. However, I firmly agree with the 
majority leader that we should at least have a little ``legislative 
truth-in-advertising.''
  In addition to the strong support of the National Conference of State 
Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and the National 
League of Cities, this amendment is also supported by the National 
Association of Public Hospitals, the American Association of Community 
Colleges, Catholic Charities, United States Catholic Conference, and 
the Council of Jewish Federation among others.
  Mr. President, this is the first of what I anticipate will be a 
series of amendments that relate to the issue of the eligibility of 
legal aliens to receive a variety of benefits and the circumstances 
under which the Federal Government should restrict its, as well as 
other governments's ability to provide those need-based services for 
legal immigrants.
  This is not a matter which should pass quietly and without considered 
judgment, particularly in a bill which advertises itself as dealing 
with illegal aliens. We are here talking, Mr. President, about the 
financial rights of access to public programs of people who are in the 
country legally, who have played by the rules that we have established, 
who are paying taxes, who are subject to virtually all the requirements 
that apply to citizens, except the right to vote and the right to serve 
on juries. Yet, we are about to say in a retroactive way, including to 
those persons already in the country today under the standards that 
were applicable when they entered, that they are going to have their 
rights severely restricted and without clarity as to what those 
restricted rights will be.
  I think that is bad policy. I think it violates the principles of the 
unfunded mandate legislation, the first legislation to be passed by 
this Congress. I think it undercuts the essential thrust of the 
legislation that is intended to be dealing with the impact of illegal 
immigrants.


                Amendment No. 3803 to Amendment No. 3743

(Purpose: To clarify and enumerate specific public assistance programs 
          with respect to which the deeming provisions apply)

  Mr. GRAHAM. So, Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3803.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr. 
     Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 3803 to amendment No. 
     3743.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 198, beginning on line 11, strike all through page 
     201, line 4, and insert the following: for benefits, the 
     income and resources described in subsection (b) shall, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, be deemed to be 
     the income and resources of such alien for purposes of the 
     following programs:
       (1) Supplementary security income under title XVI of the 
     Social Security Act;
       (2) Aid to Families with Dependent Children under title IV 
     of the Social Security Act;
       (3) Food stamps under the Food Stamp Act of 1977;
       (4) Section 8 low-income housing assistance under the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937;
       (5) Low-rent public housing under the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937;
       (6) Section 236 interest reduction payments under the 
     National Housing Act;
       (7) Home-owner assistance payments under the National 
     Housing Act;
       (8) Low income rent supplements under the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1965;
       (9) Rural housing loans under the Housing Act of 1949;
       (10) Rural rental housing loans under the Housing Act of 
     1949;
       (11) Rural rental assistance under the Housing Act of 1949;
       (12) Rural housing repair loans and grants under the 
     Housing Act of 1949;
       (13) Farm labor housing loans and grants under the Housing 
     act of 1949;
       (14) Rural housing preservation grants under the Housing 
     Act of 1949;
       (15) Rural self-help technical assistance grants under the 
     Housing Act of 1949;
       (16) Site loans under the Housing Act of 1949; and
       (b) Deemed Income and Resources.--The income and resources 
     described in this subsection include the income and resources 
     of--
       (1) any person who, as a sponsor of an alien's entry into 
     the United States, or in order to enable an alien lawfully to 
     remain in the United States, executed an affidavit of support 
     or similar agreement with respect to such alien, and
       (2) the sponsor's spouse.
       (c) Length of Deeming Perior.--The requirement of 
     subsection (a) shall apply for the period for which the 
     sponsor has agreed, in such affidavit or agreement, to 
     provide support for such alien, or for a period of 5 years 
     beginning on the day such alien was first lawfully in the 
     United States after the execution of such affidavit or 
     agreement, whichever period is longer.
       (d) Exception for indigence.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination described in paragraph 
     (2) is made, the amount of income and resources of the 
     sponsor or the sponsor's spouse which shall be attributed to 
     the sponsored alien shall not exceed the amount actually 
     provided for a period--
       (A) beginning on the date of such determination and ending 
     12 months after such date, or
       (B) if the address of the sponsor is unknown to the 
     sponsored alien, beginning on the date of such determination 
     and ending on the date that is 12 months after the address of 
     the sponsor becomes known to the sponsored alien or to the 
     agency (which shall inform such alien of the address within 7 
     days).
       (2) Determination described.--A determination described in 
     this paragraph is a determination by an agency that a 
     sponsored alien would, in the absence of the assistance 
     provided by the agency, be unable to obtain food or shelter, 
     taking into account the alien's own income, plus any cash, 
     food, housing, or other assistance provided by other 
     individuals, including the sponsor.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page S4314]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I know there is an obligation for many of 
us at 6:45. I am going to be very brief, and I will cover this issue in 
more complete detail tomorrow so that we might meet those obligations.
  This is a very fascinating amendment. It is, I gather, a list of only 
the issues or the programs that would be deemed to be income. I hope 
people can hear what we are trying to do here. There are two choices: 
Either the sponsor pays for a legal immigrant or the taxpayers do. That 
is about the simplest kind of discussion I can come to.
  This issue of deeming is very simple. Deeming is this, and I hope we 
can try to keep toward this in the debate: The purpose of deeming is to 
make the sponsor of the immigrant responsible for the needs of the 
immigrant relative, that immigrant relative that the sponsor brought to 
this country.
  Everything we have done here with regard to this immigration issue, 
including the new affidavit support requirements, says if you bring 
your relative to the United States, you are going to be sure that they 
do not become a public charge. That has been the law since 1884 in the 
United States of America.

  The question is very simple. Either you deem the income of the 
sponsor, and every other thing that this person is going to get, or the 
taxpayer will pave to pick up the slack. That is where it is. Any other 
assistance will be required to be picked up by the citizens of the 
United States.
  If you are going to be specific, as in this amendment--and remember 
that we are told that this is for clarity--these are the issues, these 
are the programs that are deemed to be judged as support. We have not 
even talked about Medicaid, Pell grants, State general assistance, 
legal services, low-income heating, as if they were not there.
  This is one that needs the clear light of morning, the brilliant sun 
coming over the eastern hills so we can pierce this veil, because this 
is a concept that will assure that someone who sponsors a legal 
immigrant will be off the hook and that an agency will provide services 
and not be able to go back against the sponsor.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the whole purpose of this exercise is to say, 
``If you bring in a legal immigrant, you give an affidavit of support, 
you pledge that your assets are considered to be the assets of that 
person. And that will be so for 5 years or until naturalization. And if 
you do not choose to do that, then know that the sponsor is off the 
hook and the taxpayers are on the hook.'' I do not think that is what 
the public charge provision of the law ever would have provided.
  With that, Mr. President, unless the Senator from Florida has 
something further, I will go to wrap up, if I may. I thank the Senator 
from Florida for his courtesy.

                          ____________________