[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.
____________________