[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11091-H11108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AUTHORIZING STATES TO DENY PUBLIC EDUCATION BENEFITS TO CERTAIN ALIENS 
               NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 530

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4134) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
     authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens 
     not lawfully present in the United States who are not 
     enrolled in public schools during the period beginning 
     September 1, 1996, and ending July 1, 1997. The bill shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or their designees. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 530 is a simple resolution. The 
proposed rule is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of general debate 
divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees. Finally, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  House Resolution 530 was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a 
voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all very familiar with the issue addressed in the 
underlying legislation. During consideration of the comprehensive 
immigration bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], offered 
an amendment which was adopted by a record vote of 257 to 163. The 
Gallegly amendment allowed States the option of providing free 
education benefits to illegal

[[Page H11092]]

aliens. Because the President threatened to veto the immigration 
conference agreement if it contained the Gallegly amendment, even in a 
modified form, the modified form of the Gallegly amendment has been 
introduced as stand-alone legislation, H.R. 4134.
  H.R. 4134, unlike the original Gallegly amendment, will ensure that 
it impacts only prospective illegal immigrant students. The grandfather 
provision provides that a State must provide free public education 
through grade 12 for illegal aliens enrolled in any public school at 
any time during the current school year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this simple rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority seems to have no shame when it 
comes to playing political games. The fact that this House is being 
asked, at what seems to be the 11th hour of this Congress, to consider 
this very bad bill--and under a closed rule--that's right, a closed 
rule--ranks right up there with some of the worst legislative chicanery 
I have seen in the 18 years I have been privileged to serve in this 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why this proposition is being brought 
before us today. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 
this bill is under consideration in a futile attempt to save a 
faltering and failing Presidential campaign. Mr. Speaker, the Gallegly 
amendment threatened to bring down the whole immigration conference 
report and so it was excised and relegated to the trash heap. But now, 
like the phoenix, it rises from the ashes and this House is being asked 
to vote once again on a proposition that directly attacks some of the 
most vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, whether these children should or should not be in this 
country is really beside the point. The fact is that every child, no 
matter his or her race, creed, nationality, religion, or immigration 
status should have a desk in a school. Every child living in this 
Nation should be entitled to an education. Denying the children of 
illegal immigrants access to education will not solve the problem of 
illegal immigration and seal our borders.
  What good does it do to punish children? Is that what this 
Republican-controlled, and family friendly Congress is to be remembered 
for? Mr. Speaker, I cannot be party to standing in the schoolhouse door 
as the Republican leadership seems so willing to do. I urge each and 
every one of the Members of this body to reject out of hand this closed 
rule and this very bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
and strong support of the Gallegly amendment.
  In California alone we spend $2 billion, that is $2 billion every 
year, educating illegal alien children. That is $2 billion that is 
equal to what we spend on the entire University of California system.
  Is this right? No, it is absolutely wrong to spend $2 billion on the 
children of foreigners who have come here illegally. That $2 billion 
should be going to benefit the children of the people of the United 
States of America.
  That is what this vote is all about, it is to determine what our 
priorities are. Our priorities should be what is in the interest of the 
people of the United States. We can care for the children of 
foreigners, we can care about their well-being, but we must first care 
about our own children, our own families.
  It is very clear to me that the people on the other side of the aisle 
who are opposing this and have opposed us every step of the way, and in 
the Clinton administration, have their priorities all screwed up.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we began considering immigration 
legislation after the Jordan Commission gave us a report outlining the 
problems and proposing to us a set of bipartisan solutions. In no part 
of the Jordan Commission report, or in any other study, for that 
matter, that is credible, has anyone ever found that the fact that an 
illegal alien child might be able to get into school causes people to 
leave their homes, walk, ride, swim, if necessary, across very, very 
threatening territory to get into the United States.
  No study has indicated those people come here because they think they 
might be able to get their kids into school. In fact, the police 
agencies, the educational agencies, every expert that has looked at 
this problem has said this is a mistake.
  Do not be led by hot rhetoric on the part of those who see a 
political opportunity, in my view, to make people think that somehow 
this is a solution. Instead, be guided by common sense. There will be 
no impact on illegal immigration if this passes. There will be an 
impact on our communities because notwithstanding the attempts to water 
it down, the fact is the school districts would have to check the 
citizenship of every single child. They do not have the resources to do 
that. And if there is one child in a family that cannot come to school, 
none of them will come to school. We need every kid out there being in 
school.
  The solution to stopping illegal immigration is to stop employers 
from hiring illegal immigrants and to stop illegal immigrants at the 
borders. Leave these kids alone.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think initially here it is clear that the discussion that is going 
to take place over the period of time that has been allotted to us to 
debate the rule is going to get into the substantive issues of the 
bill, so I think it is important that we address what the gentleman 
from Texas has just said.
  First of all, remember that this bill allows every State to make 
their own decision. This is not a mandate upon the States, Mr. Speaker. 
In fact, this bill takes the mandate off the States that is not being 
paid for by the Federal Government.
  What happens right now is Washington, DC, has gone to the States and 
said, we know what is best for you and we want you to pay for it. And 
Washington, DC, has said to States like Texas, or to States like 
Colorado, you pay 95 percent of the tab, we are going to force you to 
put these kids into your school.
  All this bill simply does is to say to the State of Texas or says to 
the State of Colorado, you now have the option. If you want to 
undertake this Federal mandate and pay for 95 percent of the cost, then 
you may choose to do so.
  This does not prevent the State of Texas from continuing to educate 
the children of illegal aliens, and I think it is clear that we justify 
that substance.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I would just pose this question. Does the gentleman think the States 
should be given the power to decide whether or not the schools should 
be integrated?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would respond to the 
gentleman's question by saying, does he think the States should pick up 
95 percent of the cost?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Answer my question first.
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman to respond to mine.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Well, I asked a question of the gentleman: Does 
he think the States should have the power to decide whether or not the 
schools are going to be integrated?
  Mr. McINNIS. Let me say I think every State has a right to determine 
whether or not the Federal Government can mandate upon them an 
expenditure of which they pay 95 percent, as the gentleman just heard 
from the gentleman from California. It is an extensive expense in the 
State of California.
  So the answer is, yes, I do think that States should have the right 
to determine their own future, especially when

[[Page H11093]]

it comes to an issue as important as education.
  Now, would the gentleman respond to my question? Should the States 
respond to 95 percent of the tab or would the gentleman be willing to 
have the Federal Government pay for what it mandates?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. In fact, the Federal Government ought to pay the 
full cost of it. The bill included that but the Republicans took that 
out of the bill. So, there.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, for yielding me this time and for his kindness.
  I think it is quite misrepresenting to all of us to put this smoke-
and-mirror legislation on the floor of the House. There is no one that 
does not agree that we want to be fair to all of America, and we 
certainly want to be fair to our children and fair to our communities 
and how they hold the responsibility of educating our children. But I 
take great issue with someone who comes on the floor of the House to 
say that we need to be taking care of our American children, we need to 
be taking care of the children of the United States.
  I say to my colleagues that these are children of the United States. 
And I agree with the gentleman from Texas, we can help fund those 
States that have serious problems with overburdening of children in 
their school systems; but what about the child that comes over that is 
9 months old? They are still in this community, this State, when they 
are 5 years old. Are we now going to deny them the right to a public 
education, an education that has been considered part of our basic 
human rights as signed by many countries around the world?
  What about if there is a family that has a child that is a citizen 
and one that is not a citizen? How do we respond to educating one child 
and not the other?
  And then my Republican friends talk about crime. They want to repeal 
the assault weapons ban, the Brady bill, and now they do not want 
children to be educated. They just want a bunch of people running 
around uneducated, without the opportunity to be able to access the 
virtues of this Nation.
  And so this is a smoke-and-mirrors legislation. It is something to 
make someone else feel good. Well, we do not come to the Chambers of 
the U.S. Congress to make people feel good. We come here to pass good 
legislation. The legislation is to educate our children, to help the 
States who are heavily burdened by such educational needs, and to be 
fair to all American children, all children on this soil, and to 
recognize that this country was founded on the backs of immigrants.
  I will not be like the Little Rock nine, standing in front of the 
schoolhouse, keeping children from going to school.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think that any argument using children as a pawn has no merit on 
this House floor. I think the issue that is important here, and I do 
not know how we got on to the assault weapons bill, the issue is very 
clear here. I do not think I could find a Congressman on the Democratic 
side or on the Republican side that does not believe in a good solid 
education for children. So I wish my Democratic colleagues would quit 
trying to claim the issue of the children as their issue.
  Let us talk about who pays the bill. If we want to talk about smoke 
and mirrors, the smoke and mirrors in this situation is where 
Washington, DC, which by the way think they have a monopoly on common 
sense, reaches beyond the Washington, DC, city limits and says to the 
rest of the country, we mandate upon you that you will educate these 
people.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. No, I will not yield. The gentlewoman can request time, 
however, from the gentleman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would like the gentleman to yield on the 
point----
  Mr. McINNIS. I am sure he would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman. 
But, in fairness, both of us have an equal amount of time, and she can 
do that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, my point here is very clear. If the Federal 
Government wants to put this burden, if Washington, DC, wants to force 
the States in this country to accept this demand, then the Federal 
Government ought to pay for it.
  We know what happens. The Federal Government comes into Colorado, for 
example, mandates this program, demands that Colorado institute it, 
demands that Colorado pay 95 percent of it, and what does it do? It 
dilutes that money. It dilutes the money that needs to go to these 
children.
  So, in summary, let me say I think that the gentlewoman's speech, 
while it was well spoken, certainly does not allow the gentlewoman to 
claim the guardianship of children in this country.
  I think we have to address the real substance of this bill, and the 
real substance of this bill is to allow the States to make their own 
decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I wanted to respond 
if he would have yielded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentlewoman from Texas is 
not recognized.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time.
  I appreciate my good friend from Colorado's response, and let me 
suggest to him that under the Constitution of the United States and the 
equal protection clause, there is a right to treat all individuals on 
our soil equally.
  As I indicated, we would be more than happy to be a partnership with 
local government, both the local school districts and our States' 
governments, as my colleague from Texas, Mr. Bryant, who was one of the 
leaders on this issue of immigration, by helping to fund and respond to 
those States who are heavily burdened by this issue. But we know the 
Republicans did not want to do that, for they wanted to have this kind 
of legislation to present and divide our country.
  What I am suggesting is that I do not want to dominate our local 
school systems and I do not want to burden our States. I do not believe 
in unfunded mandates. I do believe in the right of children to be 
educated.
  And where I got the assault weapons ban from is that all of what I 
hear our Republican friends doing, repealing the assault weapons ban, 
repealing the Brady bill, has a lot to do with promoting crime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas has 
expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. When people are not educated, it has a lot 
to do with not allowing them the opportunity to pursue the American 
dream.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. This is a foolish piece of legislation that 
should not prevail before the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will proceed in order by 
desisting.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield back and I thank the gentleman for 
the time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from 
Texas she will proceed in order and abide by the rules of the House 
when her time for recognition has expired.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, again, as someone who has lived on the 
frontier and close to this issue all my life, I need to ask of our 
colleagues to do a reality check here.
  The fact is that the existing system is wrong, and I would ask my 
colleagues to recognize that in my community, where I went to school, 
in my schools, in my high school, there were

[[Page H11094]]

legal and illegal immigrants going to school there. But under the 
existing law that this body talks about, and we talk among ourselves, 
and this is not where the message is we need to send, we need to send 
it out there, it is illegal to enter the country illegally and go to 
school for free in San Francisco. But if someone crosses the border 
illegally, then they have the guaranteed right from the government for 
a free education.
  And for those individuals who say this has nothing to with people 
coming here illegally, we have documents showing, in fact testimony 
that showed up in the paper where an illegal woman was caught at the 
border with three letters form a school district that said your 
children will get a free education even if you are here illegally.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, in the words of this lady, she said, you want us 
here. You want us to come here illegally. You would not reward us and 
give us free education.
  Mr. Speaker, the message that needs to be sent not here in these 
Chambers but to the rest of the world and America, is that, no, the 
days of encouraging illegal immigration is over. We are not going to 
reward people for breaking the law. We are not going to punish those 
who play by the rules and reward those who break the rules.
  I would ask every Member to consider the fact that 4062 says let us 
reimburse for the cost if we do not want to drop the mandate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for the preceding legislation to come to this 
floor because I believe it is appropriate to toughen the Nation's 
response to illegal immigration. But as to the matter that this rule 
would present before the House, I take a very serious exception. I 
think it is time that we just step back a minute, take a deep breath 
and think about what we are doing here.
  Do any of us possibly think that the illegal activity of a parent 
ought to be taken out on the kid? I think if any of us were asked that 
question, we would say, of course not. You cannot hold the kid, the 
little kid responsible for the illegal acts of the parent.
  That is precisely, however, what the bill this rule would bring to 
the floor would allow. In fact, the scenes that I would create are 
horrible to contemplate. I envision education officials, maybe even INS 
officials, going down the rows of first grade classes trying to single 
out whether Johnny stays, this one leaves and I just think it is, it 
would be awful. Imagine the scene, imagine those of us who have 
children in grade school, what they would think of a little boy or a 
little girl pulled out of their chair, hauled out of class crying 
because they are being sent out of school. That is not something that 
ought to occur in any classroom in any public school in the United 
States of America.

  We think about the family friendly Congress. What kind of family 
friendly Congress would send a 6-year-old home to a house that maybe 
there is no one there because both parents are working, but there is 
nowhere for that 6-year-old to go because they are holding that 6-year-
old responsible for the illegal acts of its parents.
  We worry about gangs and juvenile crime, yet this would take those 
young people that want to learn and put a bar in front of the 
schoolroom door, leaving nothing but gangs and street corners and idle 
time that would in all likelihood be the result of barring these people 
from the opportunity to pursue an education.
  Then finally I worry about the implementation of this strategy 
because how in the world are you going to sort out legals from the 
illegals when you are looking at first graders.
  The thing that comes to my mind is those that look a little 
different. I am the adoptive parents of two children of different 
races, a different race from me. I love these children as much as I 
love anything, as much as any father could love his kids. The fear that 
my children might be pulled out of a classroom because of an inane act 
of Congress that this rule would bring before the House, allowing 
school officials to toss little kids out into the street rather than 
educate them in their schools, is too horrible to contemplate.
  I do not love my kids any more than any other parents love their 
kids. The fear of parents across this country that putting their 
children, any children that do not look, that might look like they are 
somehow at risk of being illegal in the face of being interrogated and 
research as to their background, this is just a bad, bad idea and we 
ought to reject it. We should reject the rule and not even bring it to 
the floor.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know the gentleman very well from the Dakotas. I have a great deal 
of respect for the gentleman. I know that he is compassionate and cares 
about his children and the other children that he represents. But so 
does everybody on this House floor, whether you are Democrat or 
Republican.
  I think it is a diversion for someone to stand up here and say that 
this bill somehow throws young kids out onto the street, that it denies 
them school. What I would do is refer any of my colleagues that somehow 
have been convinced by this argument, I would refer them to something 
very simple, read the bill. Look on page 5. It is very simple. No State 
shall be required by this section, no State shall be required by this 
section to deny public education benefits to any alien not lawfully 
present in the United States. It is very simple.
  What we are doing with this bill is saying that the Federal 
Government ought to pay for what it is demanding the States do. That is 
all. Why should the States have the option if the Federal Government is 
not going to pay for it. If the gentleman from the Dakotas is that 
concerned, he has an opportunity under this rule to offer a motion to 
recommit to do exactly what he is concerned about. But do not be taken 
or diverted aside by these excited statements that say we are going to 
throw kids out of school. That is purely, simply a diversion. It is 
away from the substance of this bill, and it is away from the rule on 
the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill H.R. 4134 is a modified version of the Gallegly 
amendment which passed by a margin of almost 100 votes on this House 
floor during a debate on immigration reform just last March. Like the 
Gallegly amendment which was passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan 
majority, H.R. 4134 does nothing more than remove the Federal 
Government's ability to force States to provide a free public education 
to persons who are not legally in this country. This legislation would 
allow all States full discretion in the way they want to handle the 
public education of illegal immigrants.
  However, unlike the original Gallegly amendment, this bill has been 
modified to ensure that it impacts only prospectively illegal immigrant 
students. This grandfathered provision provides that all illegal aliens 
currently enrolled in any public school at any time during the current 
year up to July 1, 1997, a State could not deny a free public education 
through grade 12. It only ends the current policy by which the Federal 
Government guarantees all future illegal immigrants in every State a 
free public education at the expense of the taxpayers in perpetuity.
  In other words, even if a State determined that they would like to 
deny free public education to illegals, they would only be permitted to 
deny future entrants or future illegal entries to be enrolled. Those 
currently enrolled would be exempt.
  Let me make one other important point. For instance, if my friends 
from the State of Texas, Oregon or New Jersey decide they want to 
provide a free public education to all illegal immigrants, even those 
that arrive here illegally in the future, they would be still perfectly 
entitled to do so under this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for California and it is good for the 
Nation. We must end a policy that encourages future illegal immigration 
which further depletes our funds for public education and results in 
overcrowded

[[Page H11095]]

classrooms. There has been a lot of debate about the children. But we 
have forgotten about the children that have a legal right in this 
country, whether they are legal residents or citizens.
  In California our State continues to spend millions and millions of 
dollars every year, more than the previous year, and we have gone from 
number 4 or 5 in the Nation based on scholastic scores and the quality 
of education to number 43 in the Nation.
  Let me remind my fellow colleagues, we cannot forget these children 
either. This Congress must continue to dismantle the system of public 
benefits that convinces people to come here illegally. It must continue 
to decentralize the Federal Government and shift the power to States.
  This revised version of my amendment accomplishes both of these 
critical objectives. The only thing that this amendment does not do is 
provide an entitlement in perpetuity that guarantees that anyone that 
might come here illegally in the future, the Federal Government would 
force the States to provide them with a free public education. It 
eliminates that guarantee after July 1997.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman, it 
takes away that entitlement, but it allows every State to have what 
options?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. It allows the States to continue to educate anyone they 
want, legal or other wise. The only thing that it does do is after 
1997, it puts those illegally entering this country or considering 
illegally entering this country on notice that they may not be provided 
a guarantee to a free public education in the State of their choice.
  Mr. McINNIS. Which is exactly what we are saying here; that is, the 
States now will have this option, where before they had to pay the bill 
and had no option even to debate this within the boundaries of their 
own State.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Absolutely. One point I think is very important to 
further note. This does not turn any school teacher into a border 
patrol agent or a law enforcement person. All it does is provide the 
person that enrolls students at the beginning of the year the same 
right of asking to verify what their status is in this country as they 
verify immunization records, as they verify residency, and so on, to 
determine whether they live on the right side of the street as to 
whether they go to this school or that school. This does not turn 
anybody into removing anybody from school now or in the future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, first let me respond to the issue of no 
costs would be involved if this legislation were passed. Let us just 
debunk it right now because if there were no costs involved, then you 
would not have organizations like the California School Board 
Association that represents every single school board in California 
opposed to this legislation. You would not have most of the law 
enforcement agencies in this Nation opposing this particular 
legislation. You do because they know the costs would be tremendous, 
tremendous to the schools because someone would have to administer it, 
tremendous for law enforcement because someone would have to watch 
these kids that would not be in school but on the street. These 
organizations know what happens in real life practical terms and they 
are opposed to it.
  We can say all we want, but until you are going to put some money 
where your month is, it is going to cost and someone will pay and the 
locals will have to pay the price.
  Let me read from a few of the letters, just a few of the many that 
have come in. The International Union of Police Associations:

       Make no mistake, our position is not based on partisan 
     election year politics.

  They are opposed:

       It is not based on broad social theory. But we do clearly 
     object to denying any child access to schools and education 
     within our borders regardless of origin. We base our position 
     on immediate pragmatic concerns that can only come from 
     collective years on the streets of America. How can anyone 
     advocate throwing thousands of children onto the street 
     without supervision where they will become both victims and 
     criminals? Local law enforcement officers, our members will 
     be overwhelmed at a time when we can ill afford the extra 
     pressure.

  That is, as I said, the International Union of Police Associations.
  CLEAT, the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, says:

       Numerous officials and organizations within the law 
     enforcement community have contacted you and other 
     congressional conferees in a unified position of opposing the 
     Gallegly bill. This issue as we see it is very simple. We 
     must do all we can to support every child's right to receive 
     an education. Legislation that promotes the notion of keeping 
     children out of school is only going to act as another avenue 
     of increasing the already unacceptable practice of placing 
     more children on the streets.

  I could go on and on. The city of Elmhurst in Illinois, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, which represents over 185,000 law 
enforcement officers and 3,500 police associations, opposed to this 
bill. The Sioux City, ID, police chief, the city of Chicago's police 
chief, the city of San Jose's police chief. The 47 Senators, Democrat 
and Republican, who signed a letter asking that the Gallegly bill be 
defeated. It goes on and on and on.
  Let us be real. We can set policy in this Chamber, but we can talk 
politics. This was a measure, an amendment that was included in the 
immigration bill that we just voted on that passed by a pretty wide 
margin. It was pulled by the Republicans yesterday. Why? Because they 
were afraid it would jeopardize the entire immigration bill. Now we 
have it. Miraculously, in less than a day we have a bill go from 
inception to the floor.
  Folks, understand this, whether you are on this floor getting ready 
to vote or watching on television, this is a bill that is on the floor 
being debated today when we have hundreds of other bills that will 
never be heard because we are about to end the session that went from 
nothing, because it was not a bill we were considering, to all of a 
sudden being debated on the floor of the House. It did not go through 
the committee. It never was heard in the committee on jurisdiction. But 
here it is being debated on the House floor. We could have debated it 
in the immigration bill that we just passed, but it was pulled because 
there were some discussions that had been taking place over the last 
several months.

                              {time}  1600

  A lot of them were with Bob Dole in his campaign about how to do best 
to politically structure this debate, and what do we have? It is this 
debate on the floor. We know the President is going to veto this bill, 
so what are we doing? Why are we wasting this time when we are really 
at the end of this session and we have other things that are more 
important to deal with?
  Well, there is a point to be made here, there are some political 
points to be made here, and unfortunately what we are going to run into 
is a situation where, damn the cops, damn the school administrators, 
damn the teachers, damn, the least important of which, I guess, in many 
people's eyes, the children; let us do this because there are points to 
be had. It is fortunate that practical people are against this bill. We 
should be against it, too.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is an obligation for accuracy for 
statements made on this floor, and let me tell the gentleman, the 
preceding speaker, that there certainly was a meeting last night in the 
Committee on Rules. No, the gentleman did not find time to be there, 
the gentleman was not there. But for a statement to be made that this 
was not discussed thoroughly in a committee meeting is not accurate.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. No. I will not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Gallegly].
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding----
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege. I believe the 
gentleman said----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not raise a point of 
personal privilege.
  Mr. BECERRA. Parliamentary inquiry then? When would a point of 
personal privilege be----

[[Page H11096]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
McInnis] yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. McINNIS. I do not. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the floor 
belongs to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] to whom I 
yielded 30 seconds.
  Mr. BECERRA. I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] 
then to yield for 10 seconds.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. To yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. BECERRA. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding for a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BECERRA. My parliamentary inquiry would be, at what point would 
it be appropriate to raise a point of personal privilege when the 
gentleman from Colorado indicated that I inaccurately stated some 
facts, when I think I stated them correctly when I said the committee 
of jurisdiction never heard this bill? I never spoke of the Committee 
on Rules.
  So I am asking, when would a point of personal privilege be 
appropriate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The remedy of a Member is to engage in 
debate as it is not appropriate to raise a point of personal privilege 
at this point.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is my 
intention, when they are through, to yield some additional time to the 
gentleman in the well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Gallegly] has expired.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
additional time, and I will not take much time, I will not consume it 
other than to say that I appreciate what the gentleman from Colorado is 
attempting to say, but I do not believe I misstated any fact, because 
when I said that this bill has not gone through committee, I said the 
committee of jurisdiction, which is the Committee on the Judiciary, 
upon which I sit. It may have gone through the Committee on Rules at 
about 8 o'clock at night on, perhaps, 3 hours' notice, that is true, 
when a number of us had many things pending throughout that night of 
work.
  I will say this though. In all the months, and we have been debating 
the immigration bill since last year, and my friend from California 
knows this, the originator of the amendment knows this because he is on 
the committee with me in Judiciary: Not once did we debate the 
substance of his amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary when we 
had a chance to do so.
  But my point here is, we have a bill that has gone through the 
process in less than 12 hours, or 24 hours, when we have a lot of 
substantive legislation that affects the lives of Americans in this 
country that will never see the light of day because we are going to 
run out of time.
  Let me yield back my time, and, as the gentleman from Colorado said, 
we each have time to yield.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I just want to 
respond to one comment.
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California if it is a 
brief comment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman said we have not had an 
opportunity to debate this, I would remind the gentleman that we 
debated this for 2 hours on the floor of this House, which is a bigger 
committee and a broader committee than any individual committee. It was 
debated; it was included in the bill; it passed by a 100-vote margin on 
a bipartisan level; it was taken out at the conference committee level.
  So with all due respect to my good friend from California, this bill 
has had the attention, and for the sake of expediting the overall bill, 
I suggested that we have it as a stand alone. That is the reason it 
came. This is where it should be.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from California. He is correct that it was debated on the floor, never 
having gone through committee, but it did get debated on the floor.
  I will say this. While it got debated on the floor, at least it came 
up through the process of the immigration debate. This came up as a 
result of having been extracted from an immigration bill. We could have 
debated it in the bill that just took place, because it was there, Mr. 
Gallegly. The gentleman and I know it. It was taken out, for whatever 
reason.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield, we did not want to give 
our President an excuse to kill a very important bill.
  Mr. BECERRA. He is still going to, I hope, veto this. But the point 
remains that back when we debated it earlier and today, law enforcement 
organizations, the school board associations, a lot of folks are saying 
this is not a practical bill, this is not a way to go, it is not only 
going to deny kids an education, but it is going to put kids on the 
street to either be victims of crime and perhaps even be criminals 
themselves, and for that reason my colleagues continue to see 
objections from the folks who will have to administer this.
  It is not a good piece of legislation, and it should be defeated for 
those reasons, least of which are the procedural matters, which I 
believe violate the spirit of democracy.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly].
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding this time to me.
  I would just like to respond to my good friend's, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra], comments, and he is a good friend. We agree 
to disagree on many things, and this happens to be one of them.
  He mentioned the list of people that were opposing this provision. 
Let me give my colleagues a list of some of those, a partial list, that 
are supporting it: Fraternal Law Enforcement, California, Arizona 
chapters; Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the largest law 
enforcement organization in the Nation; Hispanic Business Round Table; 
Republican Governors Association; National Taxpayers Union; Americans 
for Tax Reform; Traditional Values Coalition; Eagle Forum; the 
Congressional Task Force on California; and on and on and on.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to yield back the balance 
of our time if the gentleman from Texas would like to do so.
  Mr. FROST. The gentleman has no more speakers?
  Mr. McINNIS. We are prepared to yield back at this time.
  Mr. FROST. At this point then, Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance 
of our time and ask for a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of time, urge a 
yes vote, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call 
the bill (H.R. 4134), to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
authorize States to deny public education benefits to aliens not 
lawfully present in the United States who are not enrolled in public 
schools during the period beginning September 1, 1996, and ending July 
1, 1997, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 4134 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4134

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING STATES TO DENY PUBLIC EDUCATION 
                   BENEFITS TO CERTAIN ALIENS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT 
                   IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is 
     amended by adding after title V the following new title:

[[Page H11097]]

     ``TITLE VI--AUTHORIZING STATES TO DISQUALIFY CERTAIN ALIENS 
                   NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 
                   PUBLIC EDUCATION BENEFITS


 ``congressional policy regarding ineligibility of aliens not lawfully 
       present in the united states for public education benefits

       ``Sec. 601. (a) Statement of Policy.--Because Congress 
     views that the right to a free public education for aliens 
     who are not lawfully present in the United States promotes 
     violations of the immigration laws and because such a free 
     public education for such aliens creates a significant burden 
     on States' economies and depletes States' limited educational 
     resources, Congress declares it to be the policy of the 
     United States that--
       ``(1) aliens who are not lawfully present in the United 
     States are not entitled to public education benefits in the 
     same manner as United States citizens, nationals, and lawful 
     resident aliens; and
       ``(2) States should not be obligated to provide public 
     education benefits to aliens who are not lawfully present in 
     the United States.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as expressing any statement of Federal policy with 
     regard to--
       ``(1) aliens who are lawfully present in the United States,
       ``(2) benefits other than public education benefits 
     provided under State law, or
       ``(3) preventing the exclusion or deportation of aliens 
     unlawfully present in the United States.


                         ``authority of states

       ``Sec. 602 (a) In General.--In order to carry out the 
     policies described in section 601, each State may provide, 
     subject to subsection (f), with respect to an alien who is 
     not lawfully present in the United States that--
       ``(1) the alien is not eligible for public education 
     benefits under State law; or
       ``(2) the alien is required, as a condition of obtaining 
     such benefits, to pay a fee in an amount consistent with the 
     following:
       ``(A) In the case of a State that requires payment of a fee 
     of nonresidents as a condition of obtaining such benefits, 
     the amount of such nonresident fee.
       ``(B) In the case of any other State, an amount specified 
     by the State, not to exceed the average per pupil 
     expenditures for such benefits (as determined by the State 
     and selected by the State either for the State or for the 
     local educational agency involved).
       ``(b) Individuals Not Lawfully Present in the United 
     States.--For purposes of subsection (a), an individual shall 
     be considered to be not lawfully present in the United States 
     unless the individual (or, in the case of an individual who 
     is a child, another on the child's behalf)--
       ``(1) declares in writing under penalty of perjury that the 
     individual (or child) is a citizen or national of the United 
     States and (if required by a State) presents evidence of 
     United States citizenship or nationality; or
       ``(2)(A) declares in writing under penalty of perjury that 
     the individual (or child) is not a citizen or national of the 
     United States but is an alien lawfully present in the United 
     States, and
       ``(B) presents either--
       ``(i) documentation described in section 1137(d)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act, or
       ``(ii) such other documents as the State determines 
     constitutes reasonable evidence indicating that the 
     individual (or child) is an alien lawfully present in the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Procedures for Screening.--If a State provides for 
     immigration eligibility screening pursuant to this section 
     for individuals who are seeking public education benefits, 
     the State shall provide for such screening for all 
     individuals seeking such benefits.
       ``(2) A State may (at its option) verify with the Service 
     the alien's immigration status through a system for alien 
     verification of eligibility (SAVE) described in section 
     1137(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-
     7(d)(3)).
       ``(d) Opportunity for Fair Hearing.--If a State denies 
     public education benefits under this section with respect to 
     an alien, the State shall provide the alien with an 
     opportunity for a fair hearing to establish that the alien 
     has been determined by the Service to be lawfully present in 
     the United States, consistent with subsection (b) and Federal 
     immigration law.
       ``(e) No Requirement to Deny Free Public Education.--No 
     State shall be required by this section to deny public 
     education benefits to any alien not lawfully present in the 
     United States.
       ``(f) No Authority to Deny Free Public Education to 
     Students Enrolled At Any Time During the Period Beginning 
     September 1, 1996, and Ending July 1, 1997.--(1) A State may 
     not deny, and may not require payment of a fee as a condition 
     for the receipt of, public education benefits under this 
     section with respect to a protected alien.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `protected 
     alien' means an alien who is not lawfully present in the 
     United States and is enrolled as a student in a public 
     elementary or secondary school in the United States at any 
     time during the period beginning September 1, 1996, and 
     ending July 1, 1997.
       ``(g) No Impact on Immigration Status.--Nothing in this 
     section or section 601 shall be construed as affecting the 
     immigration status of any alien, including the conferring of 
     any immigration benefit or change in any proceedings under 
     this Act with respect to the alien.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new items:


    ``TITLE VI--AUTHORIZING STATES TO DISQUALIFY CERTAIN ALIENS NOT 
  LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES FROM PUBLIC EDUCATION BENEFITS

``Sec. 601. Congressional policy regarding ineligibility of aliens not 
              lawfully present in the United States for public 
              education benefits.
``Sec. 602. Authority of States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bryant] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].


                             general leave

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
4134.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself whatever amount of time I 
shall consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4134. This is a 
modified version of the original Gallegly amendment which passed this 
House by a vote of 257 to 163 during the debate of the immigration 
reform bill just this past March.
  I might remind my colleagues that the entire immigration bill, which 
at the time contained the original Gallegly amendment, passed this body 
by a strong bipartisan vote of 333 to 87. Like the original amendment, 
today's bill does nothing more than ensure that the Federal Government 
will no longer be able to force the States to educate those who are in 
this country illegally.
  This legislation will allow all States full discretion in the way 
they want to handle public education and illegal immigration. However, 
unlike the original Gallegly amendment, this bill has been modified to 
ensure that it impacts only prospective illegal immigrants. In other 
words, all we are trying to do through this legislation is stop an 
entitlement that would otherwise exist in perpetuity.
  This modified version of my amendment does not kick one child out of 
school, but it does serve notice to those who have not yet come to this 
country illegally, using education as a magnet, that public school may 
not be available. It does not offer the States the option of closing 
the school door to those who have arrived there currently.

  Today this education represents an enormous unfunded mandate the 
Federal Government imposes on the States. California alone spends an 
estimated $2 billion annually providing education to illegal 
immigrants. That is enough to hire 51,000 new teachers or put 1 million 
new computers in every classroom. If we fail to act, States will be 
forced to provide a free public education to illegal immigrants until 
the end of time, and that is not right.
  As the primary funders of public education, State lawmakers and the 
State taxpayers they represent should have the ability to decide 
whether illegal immigrants should continue to receive a free public 
education.
  This Congress must continue to dismantle the system of public 
benefits that convinces those in foreign lands to come here illegally. 
It must also continue to decentralize the Federal Government and shift 
the power to the States. The revised version of the Gallegly amendment 
accomplishes both of these critical objectives, and I urge passage of 
H.R. 4134.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been best, 
frankly, had my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Gallegly], who I believe to be quite sincere about this, had simply 
brought to the floor the original amendment which says flatly that we 
are going to prohibit the children of illegal aliens, illegal 
immigrants, from going to school. This is a repackaged version which 
attempts to make it seem like it is a little more

[[Page H11098]]

palatable, but it has really the same effect. I know that my friend 
from California would argue that point. But it has the same lack of 
effect as well.
  Illegal immigrants do not come to the United States so they can get 
their kids in school. It really is, if my colleagues think about it, 
ridiculous to allege that they do. They come here to get jobs. The fact 
that we have illegal immigrants in the schools is the fault of our 
Federal policy which has, particularly in Mr. Gallegly's State and mine 
of Texas, border States and big border States, resulted in an awful lot 
of kids being in the school system; there is no question about it. It 
is aggravating, and it is expensive.
  We put in the immigration bill a provision to require the Federal 
Government, who is to blame for the situation, to require them to pay 
the cost. It is not fair to make the schools of Texas, the school 
districts in Texas or California or anywhere else, pay this cost. Well 
that disappeared somewhere along the line in a House in which the 
Republicans are the majority. That is gone. The blame for that must be 
laid on the Republican side of the aisle.
  The fact of the matter is, this is not a solution to illegal 
immigration. None of the studies have said that it is. A Jordan 
Commission report, which began this whole effort to change the 
immigration laws, did not ask for this kind of a measure, and that is 
because, as I said a moment ago, illegal immigrants do not come here to 
get their kids in school; they come here to get a job.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if they are coming to get a job and 
they have kids, the kids are coming. Do we want, as a matter of 
national policy, to have these kids wandering the streets?
  We might hear it said in a moment, well, the new version of this does 
not require that, it simply says the States can keep them out of school 
or can charge them tuition prospectively, beginning, I believe, with 
the class of next year. It does not make any difference. How many of 
these kids can pay tuition? Zero. They cannot pay tuition.
  Second, if there is any possibility that their being in school is 
going to result in any type of notice being taken of them or their 
parents by the Immigration Service, they are not going to bring the 
kids to school. Some of my colleagues might say that is great, that is 
exactly what we want. I ask them to think again. That is not what we 
want. That is not what the police departments want, that is not what 
the school districts want. Nobody gives this a second thought.
  We cannot afford to have a huge population of kids, no matter who 
their parents are, on the streets. Ultimately, that is exactly where 
this is going to lead. That is why every responsible institution in 
this country has said, do not pass this amendment; it sounds good, but 
it will cause an enormous amount of trouble. I urge Members to look 
twice at this.
  I also urge them to take a look at how the public views this matter. 
I think originally everyone was quite afraid of the issue, afraid to 
vote against it and so forth, because they thought at election time it 
might come back to haunt them.
  I have noticed even some Republicans are beginning to speak up and 
say they are against it, including, in my State, my two Senators and my 
Governor. All three Republicans have come out against this approach, at 
least the original Gallegly approach. I would have to let the gentleman 
speak with regard to the modified version, but certainly with regard to 
the original one, they were against it.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. It is 
my understanding that the Governor of the State, George Bush, supported 
the Gallegly amendment in its original form. However, he did support 
his right to continue to provide a free public education and said he 
would probably continue that policy, but he did like the idea of having 
the option, which is all this amendment is about.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply 
observe that of the two of us, I am the one that reads the daily 
newspapers of Texas, and I believe I can produce the reports that would 
say differently than that.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the impractical result of 
this alluring proposal is obvious to those who study it carefully. I 
urge Members to do what is right for our kids, do what is right for our 
neighborhoods, do what is right for our police departments. Do not put 
another burden on the school districts, and vote against this bill.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it should be abundantly clear as a result of the 
debate on the previous bill and on this bill here that the enforcement 
of our immigration laws has a very low priority in the minds of some, 
and perhaps not the same degree of urgency that it has in the minds of 
others who have appeared before this body today to speak.
  I would simply say that we are dealing with two very separate and 
different issues here. One is truly the issue of unfunded mandates. By 
definition, we have traditionally thought of that as this body passing 
laws that have costs that are associated with other levels of 
government paying for them; namely, States and local communities.
  Here we are not talking about passing laws, we are talking about the 
failure of the Federal Government to enforce its existing laws, that 
is, namely, our immigration laws; and by failing to do so passing on, 
by virtue of court decisions, the costs to States and to local 
communities in the cost of education.
  If we are not serious about doing anything about unfunded mandates, 
then simply let us defeat this proposal. But if we are serious about 
it, then we should restore to the level of government that is having to 
pay for these decisions the power to make the decisions: namely, States 
and local communities.
  My State, like most States, I am sure, divides that cost up, the cost 
of education. In our State of Georgia roughly half of the cost is paid 
by the State, the other half being paid by local property taxpayers. We 
have heard a lot of talk about compassion here, compassion for 
children. I would submit to the Members, there is another element of 
compassion, the senior citizen, the widow who is fighting to hold onto 
her home, and every year sees her ad valorem taxes go up, and part of 
that reason, a significant part, being the cost of education.
  I would say that this is a matter of compassion, to restore to those 
who are paying the cost for our failure to enforce our immigration laws 
the ability to make a decision: Should they or should they not allow 
those who are illegally in our country to participate in the education 
system? That is a decision that they are paying for. They should have 
the right to make that choice. I say that is compassion. That is 
putting meaning into doing away with unfunded mandates.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would observe that the same taxpayers that the 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal, was speaking of would have to pay the 
cost of the law enforcement which would result from having all these 
kids on the street, the cost of the schools checking the citizenship of 
every kid in the school in an effort to find a handful who might not be 
here legally, and all the other attendant costs. That is why these 
institutions all oppose this approach.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Sheriffs 
Association of the State of California, the largest sheriffs 
association in the Nation, supports this legislation is the cost of 
education far exceeds the cost of enforcing the law.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that the 
Association of Elected Sheriffs, who are politicians like us, may have 
come out with a resolution like that, but the professional police 
departments and the school districts and those that have to

[[Page H11099]]

deal with this really on the ground do not agree.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for the hard work and tremendous leadership and expertise of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], on this particular issue, 
which is of tremendous concern and importance to California citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously there are many things that we can do to at 
least reduce the tide, the flow of illegal immigration into California 
and our other border States, but the best way to control our border is 
by demagnetizing it. That was clearly pointed out in the Jordan 
Commission, the commission headed up by the late Congresswoman of 
Texas, who said we had to reduce and ultimately eliminate social 
welfare benefits, including a free public education, for illegal 
aliens, if in fact again we were going to do a good job of controlling 
our borders.
  This is just so important in California, and it is pretty clear the 
direction that this Congress should take. We have to have a national 
policy which specifies that the Federal Government no longer can impose 
mandates on State and local governments by forcing them, which is what 
current law does, by forcing them to provide taxpayer-financed benefits 
to illegal immigrants. The decision should rest solely in the hands of 
State and local authorities to decide where their resources go. That 
certainly applies in the area of education.
  One of the more compelling of the border magnets is the free public 
education California and the other border States are mandated to 
provide the children of illegal immigrants, who are themselves illegal 
immigrants. This year their education will cost California taxpayers 
over $1.8 billion. That is an increase of 144 percent over just 8 
years. So make no mistake about it, the availability of free public 
education is attractive.
  In the fiscal years 1988 to 1989 there were 187,000 illegal immigrant 
children in California. Today, there are almost 380,000. That is a 
doubling in just 7 years. That number continues to grow every year. 
That is why California voters spoke very loudly, very clearly, in 1994 
when they approved the California statewide ballot initiative, 
Proposition 187, by nearly a 60 to 40 margin.
  Let me just put this in a little different perspective, though. If 
not compelled by Federal mandate to spend $2 billion annually to 
educate illegal immigrants, California could instead hire more than 
58,000 new teachers, install at least 1 million computers in 
classrooms. Are they listening, our Democratic colleagues in the 
Clinton administration? Because, of course, we have heard the President 
talking about linking every single classroom in the country to the 
Internet, making sure that everybody is on line. And with that funding 
we could construct 23,400 new classrooms to ease overcrowding in 
California public schools. That is clearly the direction that the 
California State Legislature and the Governor want to go, on a 
bipartisan basis.
  One other bit of perspective on this. The $2 billion we are spending 
annually to educate illegal immigrants is equal to the total amount the 
State spends to run all nine campuses of the University of California. 
So the Gallegly provision is very necessary to allow California 
taxpayers to protect themselves from these exploding costs.
  We are hearing objections from congressional Democrats and from the 
Clinton administration, saying California taxpayers must educate any 
illegal immigrant, even those who have yet to enter the country. That 
clearly is not what California voters want. I think those of us who are 
elected to this House have a first and foremost responsibility, 
obviously, to represent the constituents of our districts and our home 
States.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the 
gentleman how he distinguishes here between this and other questions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). The time of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs] has expired.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
   Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would respond to my 
question. The gentleman says that the school systems ought to decide 
whether or not, the States should decide whether or not this Federal 
issue should be dealt with locally or not. Does the gentleman think 
that the States should be deciding whether or not we require them to 
integrate the schools, or should the Federal Government require them to 
integrate the schools?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman say integrate or immigrate?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Integrate. The Federal Government now requires 
the school systems to be integrated, to permit all students to come to 
schools. Do you think that we should continue that policy?
  Mr. RIGGS. That has been a matter of Federal policy for years, of 
course.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. How does the gentleman distinguish, now? We are 
talking about a Federal issue here. Ought it not be the same in all 
States also, that we require they be in school?
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me put it in 
the words of Gov. Pete Wilson: Should a State want to commit its 
educational resources in this area, and I think the gentleman is 
correct, that is the course his home State of Texas would like to take, 
it would be free to do so under the Gallegly amendment, because the 
decision under the Gallegly amendment is left to the States.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Certainly it is no wonder the Speaker Gingrich chose to elevate 
another anti-education proposal in these waning hours, precious hours, 
and to say he will place this above all the other issues that face the 
American working families today. For, indeed, this has been the most 
consistently anti-education House in memory.
  We have replaced decades, if not centuries, of a bipartisan 
commitment to Federal aid to education with extremism, with a hatchet 
that goes after one program after another. This is the same crowd that 
in the last 2 years has attempted to cut almost $20 million from 
Federal student loans. It is the same crowd, this Gingrich Congress, 
that tried to raise the cost of going to college by $5,000. It is the 
same crowd that said to thousands of American citizens that we will 
give their children a wrong start, not a Head Start. And whether it was 
Head Start or college or anything in between, they went after every 
title in the education code, whether it was safe-and-drug-free schools 
bilingual education or any other provision.
  So when we have a Congress that is that extreme and that anti-
education, how can it be a wonder to anyone that they would want to cut 
off educational opportunities to the newest arrivals, because they have 
had little use for education for Americans who have been here for 
generations.
  Basically, this new crowd, this Gingrich Congress, its position is 
that we should terminate the entire Federal commitment to education. 
They just plan to do it one program at a time. This is just part of the 
overall scheme.
  As for the specific children that the Speaker wants to deny education 
to today, the plan is simple enough. When the kids get old enough and 
they have gotten above the pre-Head Start level and the Head Start 
level, when they get old enough to join a gang, the program being 
advanced here today is to give them an education, all right, give them 
a education in the street, education of the gang, of drugs and of 
crime. That is why, instead of learning their ABCs, they will learn how 
to break into your house or car. That is why every major law 
enforcement organization nationwide, almost, has come out against this 
provision.

                              {time}  1630

  Of course this nonsensical approach is antieducation, and it is not 
going to

[[Page H11100]]

work in the interest of our law enforcement officers.
  The supporters of this measure continue to insist that ignorance is 
cheaper than education. When we look back over this Congress, we look 
at the $1.5 billion wasted on costly government shutdowns. The legacy 
of destruction and ignorance in this Congress is great indeed when we 
look back over the costly government shutdowns. When we look at all the 
education programs this Congress has tried to wreck under the 
leadership of Speaker Gingrich, I think we can certainly say that the 
cost to the American people of ignorance has been dear indeed.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  First of all, this is not antieducation, it is proeducation. It is 
proeducation for the students that have a legal right to be in this 
country, that are either legal residents or citizens. This is the most 
proeducation bill we have had in a long time.
  And on the issue of law enforcement, as the gentleman from Texas 
knows, it is broadly supported by more law enforcement people across 
this country than it is opposed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my fellow Californian, 
Congressman Elton Gallegly. He has fought a long and hard battle to get 
this issue to the floor and to have our Government come to grips with a 
major threat to the well-being of the people of the United States of 
America.
  This Congressman, when I first came here in 1989, took me aside and 
we spoke about the illegal immigration problem, and that was back in 
1989. We have worked together diligently ever since, and he has 
provided enormous leadership on this issue. We were never able to get 
this to the floor for a vote. Why is that? Because when the liberal 
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, 
they were not about to let any honest debate on this issue take place. 
Perhaps it is because there is an alliance, a political alliance 
somewhere that someone wants to maintain that is costing the American 
people the right to run their own country and the right to educate 
their children and the right to actually control our own borders.
  The fact is that, until the Republicans took control of the House, 
the liberal Democrats put us down every time we tried to discuss this 
issue. We could never get a vote. Thank God that at last this problem 
is being confronted. Since Mr. Gallegly and I talked in 1989, millions 
upon millions of illegal immigrants have flooded into our home State of 
California and across the country as well. Those millions of illegal 
immigrants that have come here, they may be fine people, but they are 
consuming resources and benefits that are meant for the people of the 
United States of America.

  In California, we see our health care system breaking down. We hear 
and see our education system breaking down. We know something must be 
done, but we have been prevented from doing so because the people who 
ran this House for all of those years refused to let Mr. Gallegly 
present a bill and get it to the floor of the House of Representatives.
  I applaud Congressman Gallegly and the others who have worked so hard 
on this, because we care. We care about the people of the United States 
of America, and we know that the people are not going to buy the line 
that this is antieducation because we want education dollars to go to 
the benefit of our children rather than foreigners that have come here 
illegally. That is antieducation? Nobody buys that. That is the type of 
arrogance that has been rejected by the people of this country.
  I hope that when they go to the polls a month from now that they 
realize that type of arrogance is a thing of the past and put it to bed 
forever. The fact is the people of the United States expect the tax 
dollars that are being taken from them to be used for their benefit.
  The Gallegly amendment basically focuses on education, which is of 
major concern. For us to say that those people coming from other parts 
of the world do not care about their children, are not coming here to 
give their children a free education is ridiculous. All the Gallegly 
bill now does, and I do not think it should have been compromised 
before, I mean the fact is it was much stronger before, saying illegal 
aliens who are here should not get the benefit, but this bill now 
before us just says future illegal immigrants should not get this right 
of education.
  Let us end this attraction to illegal immigrants. This bill at least 
cuts off the attraction to future illegal immigrants from taking away 
those limited tax dollars that we have available for education.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just wonder if the gentleman was reading the papers back in 1986 
when the House of Representatives under Democratic leadership took up 
the fundamental immigration law for the first time in many, many years 
and passed legislation making it against the law for people to hire 
illegal immigrants who are in this country. The gentleman gave us a 
pretty hard time there talking about how all the evils of the world are 
a result of the fact that you could not get the Gallegly amendment up 
on the floor. The fact of the matter is we passed about three 
immigration bills in the time that I have been here which is 14 years.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, to answer the 
gentleman's question, I remember the 1986 bill. That is the one that 
granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and sent the message 
out to all the people in the world, ``Come to the United States because 
if you get in, eventually they're going to wear down and they're going 
to give you amnesty.'' That bill precipitated this flaw.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I would like to ask the gentleman further, have 
you not read the bill? It did not say to the rest of the world, ``Come 
on in, you can get amnesty.'' I do not know where you got that. But I 
suggest you read the bill and read some history before you come to the 
floor and indict the last 10 years of this Congress.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. We know what happened after that bill passed.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am going to go back a bit, because a number of speakers have come 
up here and said, and I suspect will get up here and say about the 
costs of illegal immigration and the immigrants that are coming, and 
California and the costs. Certainly there are costs, but it would not 
be a full and honest debate, I say to each and every Member that is 
going to get up here and say that, if you did not also say what they 
are contributing. Whether it is the food you eat, the clothes you wear, 
you are able to purchase it for a decent price because of the work that 
some of these folks do.
  On top of that, it would not be an honest debate whether they are 
here legally or not. Because if they are not legally here, I think 
everyone agrees that they should be deported; but while they are here 
and working, if they happen to buy an article of clothing the way you 
or I do, they pay the same sales tax that you and I have paid. If they 
purchase a car, or furniture, they pay the same sales tax that you and 
I have paid. If they own property, and many of them do, they pay 
property taxes the way you and I do. If they do not own property but 
they rent, they are ultimately still helping to pay for the property 
tax on that property through their rent. If they own a business, and 
many of these folks do, they pay business taxes to the local 
government.
  All of that, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] had mentioned, 
all of that is the basis of the payment for education in most States. I 
know for a fact in California, most of the money comes from sales tax 
and local property taxes for the schools in our State. So please, if 
you are going to make an honest debate, if you are going to talk about 
the estimated cost because it only can be an estimated cost, what the 
estimated cost is of having a child go to school if he or she happens 
to be undocumented, also mention what is contributed by these families 
because they are not just languishing. Most of them are providing some 
payment.
  Another point: In bad times or in good times, we have had folks in 
this

[[Page H11101]]

country who do not have documents who are, as I said before, and 
everyone will agree, deportable. Bad times or good times. In good 
times, folks were not saying that they were costing our schools all 
this money and as a result our kids were not getting educated, our 
people were not getting their health care.
  In good times or in bad times, they have been here. When the economy 
shot up, when the economy has shot down, they have been around. It just 
so happens that in bad economic times, you look for the scapegoats, and 
it is easy to point your finger at those individuals.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, I am not suggesting 
these are bad economic times.
  Mr. BECERRA. I am not suggesting that. I am just saying whether it is 
good or bad times. Mr. Speaker, I suspect the gentleman will agree with 
me, as a Republican, that these are good economic times.
  Let me continue if I may. This whole argument really, if you boil it 
down, is the following. I think everyone in this Chamber will 
ultimately agree, if you kick a kid out of school, you will not drive 
the parents out of the country. What you do is you kick a kid out of 
school and you put the kid on the street. The parent is probably here 
because he or she probably has a job, probably in the underground 
economy, is going to stay here because chances are in the home country 
the person would not be making as much money. In the home country there 
is a good chance the kid would not get educated anyhow.
  So they are probably going to stay here whether or not you place a 
kid out on the street. The real concern, as most of the law enforcement 
officials and Sherm Block, the Sheriff of L.A. County, will attest to 
this, and he is a Republican, he is opposed to this particular 
provision by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], he will 
attest, it is better to have a child in school than on the street.
  If this is meant to drive people out of the country who are here 
without documents, it is going to fail miserably. And if it is, what 
are the consequences? You and I will not see the consequences because 
we are here in Washington, DC, making the policy. The consequences will 
be faced by the school districts and the school boards that are opposed 
to this measure and most of the law enforcement officials who are 
opposed to this measure because it does not help them take care of 
their worries locally.
  How much will it cost? This really is antieducation. Why? Because if 
you think someone is going to have their child pay tuition, this 
proposal says, well, these people who are undocumented can pay tuition 
for their kids to go to school if they want to continue using the 
public schools.
  Let me tell you, if you are going to use $5,000 or $6,000, I 
guarantee you most people would send their kids to some private school 
for that amount of money if they could because they would avoid the 
problem to begin with of having their kids go to a public school and 
being caught. You are not going to do anything with this measure, no 
kid is going to be able to afford to pay the tuition for a public or 
private school.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will yield, there is no tuition in the 
amendment here.
  Mr. BECERRA. But the real issue in terms of cost and why this is so 
antieducation is the following. In California, which by the way, 
unfortunately, our Governor has been unwilling to fund education in our 
schools the way it should be. We are now ranked one of the last in this 
country. We used to be one of the first back in he 1950's in terms of 
education funding. But we provide about $6,000 per pupil in California 
in money. That is in school.
  You drive a kid off on the streets, and you are going to have come 
costs to the local law enforcement to try to make sure that they are 
making sure these kids that are on the street now are not committing 
crimes or becoming victims of crime. But should they become involved in 
criminal activity, this young child who has been kicked out of school 
will probably be incarcerated, not imprisoned because they do not take 
them to adult prisons. They take them to the youth offender facilities, 
which cost about $33,000 per year in the State of California.
  So if you think $6,000 is expensive in our public schools, then 
$32,000 is surely much more expensive than that. That is what you are 
driving towards with this particular piece of legislation.
  A couple of more points: Why we would want to set as a national 
policy a principle that says we are going to hit the kid, we are going 
to punish the kid for the acts of an adult, I am not certain. I know 
the courts right now are debating whether you can punish a parent for 
the acts of a child. Some of these delinquents, children who become 
delinquents, we are now having some local laws that say, OK, let us 
punish the parents for letting this kid become a delinquent.
  The courts have not decided yet if, in fact, you can punish the 
parent for the acts of a child. Not only are you going beyond what the 
courts have even permitted, but you are turning it on its head, you are 
saying punish the child for the acts of the adult, as if a 2-, 4- or 7-
year-old could tell his or her parent, ``Don't cross that border 
without documents, Mom or Dad, because, if you do so, we're in 
trouble.''
  Be realistic. This is not sound policy. If we are going to address 
the issue of illegal immigration, let us do it where it most counts, at 
the border. We did that in the bill that just passed. We did provide 
additional funding to Border Patrol.
  We could have done more to provide more protections at the workplace 
to make sure people do not work without documentation. We did not. This 
is just another measure that sounds good. That is why it is bottled up 
in California after Prop 187, because it does not work. We should be 
about the business of passing laws that will work, not just because 
they sound good but because they will work. Unfortunately, this will 
not work.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4134, a bill that allows States to deny public education benefits to 
illegal immigrants.
  This bill is only a matter of fundamental fairness. States are trying 
hard to balance their budgets. Meanwhile, a growing population of 
illegal immigrants strain the public resources of the State and local 
governments.
  We order the States to give taxpayers funded public education, to 
who? To those who are here illegally. Is this not an unfunded Federal 
mandate, which we just passed legislation to discontinue?
  Come on. At a time when we are trying to introduce common sense to 
Washington, DC, let us get rid of these senseless mandates. Let us have 
compassion for the hard-working taxpayers of this country. Let us let 
the people of the States decide whether or not they want to spend their 
tax dollars on public education for illegal immigrants.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of actually 
discussing and negotiating this issue at length with representatives in 
Mexico of the Senate and the Congress. Let me tell you, I heard the 
same arguments in Mexico that I am hearing on the floor right now of 
excuses not to do the reasonable thing.
  What is interesting is I do not think any of us think that Mexico is 
xenophobic or antiimmigrant. But the fact is in Mexico, they have a law 
that says you must prove you are a legal resident, if you are not a 
citizen, before you even get into a private school, let alone a public 
school. So the xenophobic issue, I think, is pretty settled and Mexico 
agrees it is a reasonable approach.
  But I ask you, who are the children we are talking about here? I hear 
people on the floor saying ``our children.'' Are they talking about the 
legal citizen children who are not getting their fair share of 
education in the States impacted? Or are they talking about ``our 
children'' who are the legal resident aliens, who have played by the 
rules, who are not getting their fair share of the revenue for their 
education? Or are they talking about ``our children'' as being the 
illegal aliens in school right now? Because this bill

[[Page H11102]]

does not affect any of those people. It says if you are illegally here 
today, you can continue to go to school.
  It just says that the people who are thinking of coming here to the 
United States, who are not here now, we will not require a free 
education to be given to your children.
  So when you say ``our children,'' are you talking about the people 
here in the United States today, or are you saying this Congress 
represents the illegal immigrants who are not even in this country 
today, that are thinking of coming, that they take priority over 
everyone else in the educational system today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to pass this bill, because it is for our children, 
both those who are legally and illegally here today, and the citizens. 
All it asks is that those who have not come here and made the decision 
to break our laws not be rewarded and encouraged to do that. That is 
all we are asking for.
  I would ask my colleagues, when you talk about this, think about the 
fact that the message we are sending around the world, to my cousins in 
Australia who say ``We hear if you break the laws of America you get 
rewarded.'' It is time we stop sending that message, not just to Latin 
America and Australia, but the rest of the world. Let us play by the 
rules.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
observe, this bill does not relate to or exempt the kids that are not 
here today; it exempts the kids that are not in school today. Those 
kids that are not in school today would not be able to get in school in 
the future, and they would remain on the streets. Heaven knows what 
would happen to these little kids if they were left on the streets.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, also a good friend of mine, from 
California, said that this cousins in Australia have heard that if you 
break the law in America you get rewarded.
  Well, what did you tell them, Mr. Lawmaker?
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I have not finished my question to you yet. It is going 
to be a little more complicated than that.
  If you break the law in America, you get rewarded? We have got more 
people in prison for breaking the law than any nation on the face of 
the planet, and building more prisons than schools.
  We are now federally subsidizing the increase of prisons in States, 
and your cousins in Australia are telling you, a Federal lawmaker, that 
you get rewarded for breaking the law in America, and you repeat that 
on the floor of the House without even telling us what you told your 
cousin.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. Not yet, I have some more to tell you about this 
subject, sir, and then I will be pleased to yield.
  Now, it just so happens that the bill that you so avidly support here 
on the floor is nothing more than a mean-spirited attempt to punish 
children for the actions of their parents. Did you explain that to your 
cousins from Australia?
  And, by the way, what do you think happens to all these hundreds of 
thousands of kids that you would exclude from schools here? What do 
they do? Join the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts? Or do they get part-
time work? Or do they go the day care centers that their parents will 
assign to them? Or do they stay out on the streets and become criminals 
or victims of crime that your nephews fail to understand that you do 
get punished here in America? You get punished more in America than you 
do anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield now?
  Mr. CONYERS. Not yet. I have not completed.
  Now, my dear friend, Mr. Gallegly, one of the best mayors California 
ever produced, how come you did not allow this great provision to 
remain where it was created, in the immigration bill? You have not 
explained that on the floor.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes, sir, I did.
  Mr. CONYERS. No, you did not.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I will be happy to.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, you ought to be happy to. But this is the 
provision that came out of the immigration bill so it would have a 
life. And it did not come from the President or the Democrats. Guess 
who wanted it out?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I will tell you.
  Mr. CONYERS. The Speaker of the House wanted it out. Your colleagues 
on the Republican side pleaded to have it taken out. And now, after it 
has been taken out, you march right up again telling us about all the 
provisions.
  And now, if there is any time left, I would be happy to yield to my 
distinguished colleague from California for 15 seconds.
  Mr. BILBRAY. If I may answer the question, what I told my cousin in 
Australia is: Tom, just because in the past America has rewarded people 
for breaking our immigration law----
  Mr. CONYERS. Stop, I do not yield any more. Because if you told them 
that we once used to reward people for breaking the law, then you have 
failed your obligation as a Federal lawmaker. I am not yielding to you, 
sir, because you are giving misinstruction on the Federal law to your 
relatives in your family. Now, they ought to check with the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary if they want to know what 
happen to people that break the law in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to my distinguished friend, the 
subcommittee chairman on Judiciary, for 15 whole seconds.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend, and he 
is my friend, from the great State of Michigan for yielding, to answer 
his question about whose idea it was to change this. I think the 
gentleman would agree that this was something that I wanted in this 
bill or I would not have brought it to the floor during the debate in 
March.
  Mr. CONYERS. Why was it taken out?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Let me remind the gentleman, if the gentleman will give 
me 10 seconds uninterrupted, I will give him a complete answer. Will 
the gentleman yield me 10 seconds?
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, the majority of my colleagues want me to do it, so 
I will do it.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The reason this was 
taken out is the President of the United States, our President, said he 
would veto any bill that gave the States anything short of an unfunded 
mandate in perpetuity, guaranteeing a free public education entitlement 
for anyone, whether they are here today or in the future. We did not 
want to see a very important immigration bill threatened. The President 
said we only had that in there so he would veto it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in other words, you are 
blaming the President of the United States for Newt Gingrich's decision 
to remove it?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. It was my suggestion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Is that the idea?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it is not.
  Mr. CONYERS. It was your suggestion to remove it?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Because I would not allow the President to hold this 
hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to finish that. I think it is 
very important the American people understand why this provision is a 
stand-alone bill. In March this provision passed overwhelmingly in the 
House. We brought it back after we modified it. The President said I 
will veto this bill, I will veto this bill.
  We were not going to allow the President to have an excuse to veto 
this bill. I suggested we remove it, let it stand alone. I believe in 
the democratic process. If the people of this Congress say, Gallegly, 
your bill is bad, so be it. I do not think that is going to be the 
case. That is the reason it is here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, those that are going directly toward the 
issue, I laud that. That is fair and open debate. I think that is what 
this House is for.
  Those that use this as a political satire to demonize the Speaker of 
the House, and according to the gentleman from California, George 
Miller, the leadership meets once a week to take

[[Page H11103]]

out and find ethics violations for the Speaker, and according to George 
Miller, and I quote, ``He is the general, it is in our best interests 
to take him out,'' that is wrong.
  But those that speak to the issue, I laud them, and I respect their 
opinion. But I disagree with it.
  I would say those from the liberal left that would not support the 
welfare, would not support the balanced budget, and then told stories 
to try and scare the American people, I think that is wrong.
  What I would say to my liberal left friends is that my mom once told 
me, ``If you lie enough, you are going to go to Hades, and I will be 
very happy and justified when you pass away to send you a fan.''
  And this issue is costing not only taxpayers, it is costing children. 
I will speak to California, children in California. It is not $6,000 a 
year, it is $4,850 per student times 250,000 students in K through 12. 
That is $2 billion a year, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant]. Think in 5 years what we could do in the State of California 
with fiberoptics, computers, and paying teachers and the rest of it.
  We have 18,000 illegal felons. When one talks about we are building 
more prisons than we are schools, that is one of the reasons I think, 
yes, the border is a good place to start. But economically, criminally, 
and against our poor and Medicare, we are destroying American citizens, 
and that is why we are supporting this, not mean-spirited.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Let me make a proposition to the Members of the Congress. Let us take 
American taxpayer dollars and send it to Mexico or to any other country 
and educate their children. Those that have chosen to stay in their 
country and to abide by our border laws, they probably have a better 
right to our taxpayer dollars to educate their children than those that 
break our laws to bring their children here and get an education at 
taxpayer expense.
  Now, I think it would be a ridiculous idea to send our tax dollars to 
Mexico or to any other country to educate their children. But it is 
more plausible and more just and more reasonable than to invite them to 
come illegally into our country and educate the children.
  Now, you think about that.

                              {time}  1700

  We will not send our money to foreign countries to educate their 
children, but I think a parent of a child that stays in their own 
country has a better right to our dollars then those who break our laws 
and bring them to this country.
  Now, the argument has been how can we turn them out on the streets 
without being able to get a job? We can take an illegal child all the 
way from kindergarten through high school and graduate from high school 
and they cannot legally get a job in this country, so we should not use 
the argument that they need a job.
  I have an end to the idea that this bill is antieducation. That is 
the most spurious of all arguments. I have 33 grandchildren, my wife 
and I, and every dollar that we spend on illegal alien children is a 
dollar that my grandchildren do not have for their education.
  I do not need to tell my colleagues that in California, at least, 
maybe not in other States but in our State, we do not have enough 
dollars for education. Our children are being shortchanged. I do not 
want my 33 grandchildren, all in school virtually, to be shortchanged 
because we are spending our tax dollars to educate illegal children.
  I strongly urge a vote for Gallegly.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4134. This 
legislation allows each State to decide whether it should provide a 
public education to illegal immigrant children. Just because the 
Federal Government has failed in its duty to secure our borders, States 
should not be required to spend limited State resources on education 
benefits for illegal immigrants.
  For example, in my home State of California, taxpayers shoulder a $2 
billion burden to provide an education to nearly 400,000 illegal 
immigrants. Further, California's children struggle to learn in 
overcrowded classrooms with a limited number of teachers and few 
resources.
  In short, H.R. 4134 restores a fundamental State right to establish 
its own education policy and removes one of the most costly unfunded 
mandates of the Federal Government.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4134.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
leadership on this issue, and I am urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on a modified Gallegly.
  First, it ends the unfunded Federal mandate that forces States to 
provide free public education to illegal aliens not yet in our schools; 
it protects children already in schools as of July 1, 1997, and does 
not kick anyone out of school; and it guards against creating a new 
education entitlement for those not yet even in this country.
  Now, folks, today, we have 35 to 40 children in every public 
education classroom. We are, indeed, overcrowded. In the Palm Beach 
County School System there are 37 languages spoken. In Palm Beach 
County, FL, teachers are required to complete some 300 hours of 
training to be prepared for English As A Second Language, to be able to 
assist students with other languages, taking time away from their 
families to learn to adapt to others who do not speak the English 
language.
  A moment ago a colleague suggested that we do not talk about the 
benefits illegal aliens provide to this State and Nation, we do not 
talk about the taxes that they pay. Well, then, is it fair to say that 
we respect and appreciate drug dealers because they certainly pay taxes 
themselves, as well?
  The gentleman from California, Congressman Bono, and I were talking a 
moment ago, and this is the only topic in this Congress where the word 
``illegal'' is actually protected. We talk about illegal drugs and we 
give 5-minute speeches on the terror of drugs in our Nation. We talk 
about rape and murder, illegal, crimes, and we talk about the toughest, 
most serious punishments we will level out in this Congress. Yet we 
talk about people illegally coming to this country, and we are supposed 
to be silent. We are supposed to be quiet.
  Now, some of our colleagues are defending Governors, like Governor 
Chiles in Florida, who is suing the tobacco companies to recover health 
care costs because of the tobacco deteriorating one's health and 
costing the States moneys. Well, I would suggest to Governor Chiles 
that he sue the Federal Government to recover moneys for education 
benefits paid to illegals. In Florida we are spending $800 million to 
$3 billion annually for illegal immigration.
  Now, clearly, this Congress stepped up to the challenge when Mexico 
needed to help in its currency to the tune of $20 billion. But how are 
States like Florida, Texas, and California going to meet their payroll 
obligations, their fiduciary obligations to their taxpayers, if we do 
not start discussing this in an honest and fair manner?
  People who come here illegally should not be rewarded. No, none of us 
suggests we want our children out on the street, but we have to send a 
message sooner or later that the United States of America is not going 
to accept everybody in illegally.
  There are hundreds of thousands of people who are seeking to come to 
this country legally, that have applied to their Embassy to gain the 
privilege of being an American and to come to this country and 
participate. So we should not let others who illegally come in to this 
country to jump in front of that line, jump in front of those honest 
citizens who want to find opportunity in American society. Do not deny 
those people that are waiting in line to come to this country by 
suggesting that people who are illegally here should have all rights 
and privileges.
  I have to think, ladies and gentlemen, of those 35 and 40 kids in 
those classrooms in Palm Beach County that are not getting a good 
education because of the overcrowded conditions.

[[Page H11104]]

The gentleman from California, [Mr. Gallegly] has worked tremendously 
hard on the Task Force on Immigration Reform, and in particular on this 
issue, because he knows well enough that California, Florida, Texas, 
New York, and other States have long endured the cost to their 
taxpayers to provide benefits for illegals.
  It is time simply to stop. Not stop with the people who are here 
today, but stop July 1, 1997, for those who would arrive and expect 
something for free from this Nation.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds only to 
observe that I think it is all our responsibilities to take the next 
step and say what would be the actual result of doing what the 
gentleman is advocating.
  Nobody wants illegal immigrants to be in this country, but the simple 
fact is not one single credible source believes that if we keep these 
kids out of school that their parents are going to leave or that they 
will not come here because, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra] said, they are not getting a decent education where they came 
from anyway.
  If that is the case, what do we expect to do with all these kids on 
the street, first; and, second, what do we think will happen to all 
these kids on the street?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First of all, there were several Members that got up that were in the 
State legislature, the same as I was, who decried the lack of money or 
education in California. Let me tell my colleagues something. The lack 
of money in education for California is the fault of the State 
legislature. The State constitution states the highest priority of any 
revenues collected should be for education, and yet the State has never 
acted that way and there are schools that are in desperate need of 
monies that the State has never provided for. So this is a lousy 
argument, that the illegal children that are being educated are 
depriving monies to the children of the citizens that should be 
educated.
  I take umbrage with the statement the chairman made about Mayor 
Gallegly being the best mayor to come out of California, because I 
always thought I was.
  Having said that, let me go back to the law itself. There is no 
Federal law that says that States must educate children of illegals. It 
was a court decision that acted because there was no policy statement 
by the Congress.
  So now the Congress is making a policy statement that will only allow 
it to go back to the court, because the court acted under Article XIV, 
which really says that no State shall make or enforce any law which 
shall abridge the privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United 
States, nor shall deprive any person of life, liberty or pursuit of 
happiness without due process--and now get this, this is the important 
part--nor deny any person within its jurisdiction, it does not say 
legal or illegal, any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protections of the law.
  I suggest that should this bill pass and become law, if the President 
would sign it, which I doubt that he will, it will still come back. The 
first time a State decides to act on our prerogative, our policy, it 
will still come back to the court and the court will still, under the 
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, will say we have to 
educate children.
  But what really is surprising to me is people and Members that get up 
in the well of the House and talk about the funds that we do not spend 
abroad. We spend too many funds abroad and not enough here in the 
United States, and maybe we should start thinking about that.
  The fact is that what we are really talking about is the dignity of 
our country. We have talked and people have gotten on the floor here 
and talked about the suffering children all over the world and the 
starving children. And we have such sympathy for them, but yet if there 
are children here in the United States, we have no sympathy.
  I admire the strength, the aggressiveness, the tenacity, the 
determination of those Republicans on that side that would get tough on 
immigration, get tough on the perpetrators of the illegalities we talk 
about with regard to the adults that are coming across, not the 
children.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and California 
colleague, Mr. Gallegly, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one I think fundamental issue in this 
whole debate, and that is that we are talking about legislation which 
is prospective; that is to say, the Gallegly amendment would only apply 
to children who are not yet illegal immigrant children, who are not yet 
in our public schools.
  So all these objections that we are hearing basically have the effect 
of overriding the concerns and the feelings of taxpayers who are 
opposed to magnetizing our borders. Basically, our Democratic friends 
and the President and his administration are saying we must educate any 
illegal immigrant, even those who have yet to enter the country.
  Now, that makes no sense. It makes no sense whatsoever for one 
Federal law to reward illegal immigrants from violating another Federal 
law, and that is what we are talking about in this debate, especially 
when it heaps tremendous burdens upon State taxpayers and deprives 
legal residents of needed services.
  So I want to conclude with a letter that our governor, Pete Wilson, 
sent to the Speaker of the House, who I believe is going to conclude 
the debate here momentarily, back in March when we first debated the 
Gallegly amendment. And it is as applicable now as it was then.
  He said in his letter, the governor, should a State want to commit 
its educational resources in this area, it would be free to do so under 
the Gallegly amendment because the decision is left to the States. On 
the other hand, California would be freed from this mandate, as 
dictated by the overwhelming passage of Proposition 187, and allowed 
instead to target limited State resources to meet the educational needs 
of our legal residents.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] brought up, I thought, a fair 
question earlier. And the response, really, is the basic premise of the 
Gallegly amendment, which is to leave education decisions where they 
rightfully belong, at the State level. And that is very much in keeping 
with the long-standing American decision of decentralized decision-
making in public education.
  Yet unless we pass this legislation today, the burdens of this 
particular mandate will remain, and thousands of needy California 
schoolchildren will be shortchanged. I urge the House to pass the 
Gallegly legislation.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Texas friend for 
allowing me 1 minute to speak against this bill.
  One of the reasons I voted for the immigration bill ultimately was 
because this amendment was removed from it. This is an amendment, Mr. 
Speaker, that sets the pattern that we have seen in the Congress for 
the last 2 years: If we are going to cut the budget, let us cut 
education; if we are going to punish somebody, let us punish children, 
and that is what this amendment will do.
  People do not come to this country to put their kids in public 
school. The children do not come here because of their own volition. 
They come here because somebody brings them. And to punish a 10-year-
old in Texas or a 10-year-old in California who is not here of their 
own volition and say they cannot go to public school, it is wrong and 
this is bad public policy. It is bad public policy on the State level 
as well as the Federal level.
  I am always proud to be a Texan, but I am particularly proud to be a 
Texan because our Governor of Texas, who is a Republican, by the way, 
Governor Bush, has said he would not allow the children to be removed 
from Texas schools. And I admire him for that and thank him for his 
commitment to education. That is why this bill is so bad, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H11105]]

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Let me 
point out to my colleagues, legal residents of this Nation cost the 
American taxpayers $4.5 billion. Who pays this? Most of the education, 
public education funds are raised almost exclusively through the 
taxation of State residents. The State has to tax individual families, 
individual people to pay for this, $4.5 billion. Therefore, it is 
fitting that the State decide this issue, not the Federal Government. 
So the gentleman's bill is simply saying let the States decide instead 
of forcing an unfunded mandate from the Federal Government.
  It is also a case where it is only right. There are disincentives, if 
we pass this bill, for people to come and put their children into 
schools illegally. I urge my colleagues to think of it in those terms. 
Would Members want to be taxed to pay for the education of illegal 
immigrants? Why not let each State decide? If New York City or New York 
wants to decide one way, they can decide. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about 
education here today. I would remind Members of what the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett] observed a moment ago, that it is coming from the 
side of the aisle that proposed a 15 percent cut in Federal aid to 
education. So I wonder, really, if this is not election year rhetoric 
as opposed to substantive concern. I see some heads shaking. I will 
give them the benefit of the doubt.
  We cannot leave this floor without explaining to the American people 
why it is that a Republican Governor of Texas, two Republican Senators 
from Texas, and a State very large, very much impacted, disagree with 
this approach; why the Republican sheriff of LA County, certainly he 
knows the meaning of this, disagrees with this approach; what we are 
going to do with all of these kids that are going to be left on the 
streets; what is going to happen to these little kids wandering the 
streets; why the majority Members think anybody is going to pick up and 
go home because their bill passes, when all of the studies indicate 
that they are wrong about that. We have got to be able to answer these 
questions.
  All of these hot speeches we have heard out here today, they are just 
fine for getting reelected. They are not fine for governing the 
country. Everybody would like to make a speech that will draw the 
applause. But I will not yield. We must pass legislation that can 
govern this country. I do not want the illegal immigrants here either. 
Everybody agrees with that. But I do not want gangs. I do not want kids 
wandering the streets. I do not want kids kidnapped off the streets who 
are left defenseless on the streets.
  I simply would say, we do not want the pandemonium that will be 
caused by this policy which looks good on the face of it but will not 
work, as every expert has testified. Members, please vote against the 
Gallegly bill.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Chambliss). The gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, this is, I think, actually a very simple 
issue. First of all, I commend the gentleman from California for 
listening carefully to the country and revising this. Members need to 
understand, any student enrolled in this school year is grandfathered 
until they graduate from high school. So there is not a question about 
kicking anybody out.
  There are two core questions here: The first is, prospectively for 
the future, should we be saying across the planet, come to America 
illegally and you are guaranteed the taxpayers will provide the social 
services at the expense of legal immigration and at the expense of 
children of Americans? That is what is happening.
  What is happening today in California is that 51,000 teachers are 
being used up by an unfunded Federal mandate. We are taking teachers, 
classrooms and computers away from legal immigrants in California and 
away from the children of Americans and we are transferring it to 
people from families that are here illegally.
  We lock in everybody to make sure that nobody has any question. The 
child in school during this school year is grandfathered until they 
graduate from high school. But we say for the future to the world, do 
not come to America illegally and expect that you are going to have the 
taxpayers of America, the legal immigrants and those who are American 
citizens, pay for social services other than emergency Federal care. 
This Congress began in 1995 by saying we would not pass unfunded 
mandates. That is what this is. This is a $4.5 billion a year unfunded 
mandate on the children of America who have to share resources because 
the Federal Government has failed to do its job of stopping illegal 
immigration.
  Let me make a second point to my friends from Texas who have been 
speaking. Nothing in this bill requires the State of Texas to do 
anything. If the State of Texas wants to pay to educate illegal 
immigrants, that is the right of the State of Texas. But how can any 
Member walk on this floor, deny the citizens of California the right to 
implement proposition 187, without expecting California to come right 
back here and ask for $3 billion from the Federal Government annually 
to pay California for the cost of a Federal failure?
  Any Member who votes no on this bill should be prepared to go back 
home and tell their taxpayers that they are prepared to send California 
$3 billion a year to pay for what the Federal Government has failed to 
do. I think it is just wrong to say to the taxpayers and the citizens 
of California and to the legal immigrants who go to California, we are 
going to at the Federal level require you to ignore your own 
proposition 187, we are going to require you to ignore the vote of 60 
percent of your citizens and we are going to make you pay out of the 
money that ought to go to your children, while we in Washington both 
fail to protect the border and fail to provide the money.
  This is an important bill, it is a good bill. It is a fair bill. It 
grandfathers the children who are in school this year but it sends the 
signal to the world, do not come to America and think that taxpayers of 
America are going to take care of you if you are here illegally. We 
want legal migration. We do not want illegal migration. This bill is a 
vote on that core premise.
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4134, 
the bill to deny public education to illegal immigrant children.
  Earlier today, I voted for the immigration reform bill, H.R. 2202, 
because it makes many important improvements to our immigration system 
by stepping up efforts to enforce current immigration laws, taking 
stronger steps to promote greater self-reliance among immigrants, and 
holding sponsors financially responsible for persons that they sponsor 
to migrate to the United States.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 2202 included an amendment I 
offered that encourages the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
focus more resources on detecting, apprehending, and deporting illegal 
aliens that are involved in criminal activity, such as drug 
trafficking. This provision will help ensure that the INS commits 
enough resources to communities such as mine to combat drug trafficking 
by illegal aliens.
  However, while I support immigration reform, I strongly oppose 
denying education to immigrant children. Educating the children in our 
communities is, in my view, as important as protecting them from 
physical harm. We would not stand by and allow someone to physically 
abuse a child who was in our country illegally. Neither should we stand 
by while these children pass their formative years in increasing 
ignorance. We should not penalize innocent children for the illegal 
actions of their parents, and for the failure of the U.S. Government to 
control our borders.
  I recognize that many States are carrying a significant financial 
burden to educate these children. That is why I believe we must focus 
more efforts and resources on enforcing our borders to stop illegal 
immigrants from coming to this country in the first place, and improve 
enforcement of immigration laws to ensure that people who initially 
come to this country

[[Page H11106]]

legally do not overstay their visa. For too many years, the Federal 
Government has failed to enforce our immigration laws, and we are 
paying the price for that inaction. Consequently, I believe that the 
Federal Government should fully reimburse the States for the costs 
incurred for educating illegal alien children.
  I appreciate the efforts made by the gentleman from California to 
address the negative consequences of illegal immigration. However, I 
strongly oppose efforts to banish any children from the classroom, 
regardless of whether they are in this country legally. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 4134. However, should Congress pass 
this bill and the President sign it into law, I urge my State of Utah 
in the strongest terms to continue to provide a free quality education 
to all of our State's children.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I saluted the bipartisan 
leadership of my California colleague, Elton Gallegly, and joined a 
majority of my colleagues in voting for tough measures to combat 
illegal immigration. We voted to increase control of our borders by 
doubling the size of the Border Patrol, to remove employment 
opportunities for undocumented workers, and to strengthen 
anticounterfeiting laws so employers can conduct fair and even-handed 
checks of legal status.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us now, to allow the States to deny 
public education to the children of illegal immigrants, is bad public 
policy. As the Torrance Daily Breeze editorializes:

       . . . the Gallegly amendment is plainly abhorrent. To begin 
     with, it would do absolutely nothing to counter illegal 
     immigration. Far worse, it would create by deliberate design 
     a growing underclass of illiterate young people denied the 
     opportunity to learn English, much less acquire the basic 
     education required to get a job one day and support 
     themselves.

  Nearly every major law enforcement organization opposes this bill. 
They know its enactment will worsen our crime rate. Chief Tim Grimmond 
of the El Segundo Police told me that kicking kids out of school 
``doesn't mean the families will pack up and leave * * * it will leave 
us with kids who have nothing to do except get into trouble.''
  Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration violates one of our fundamental 
values: that all of us have to live and work by the same set of rules. 
We should punish those who break our laws--the parents. As Chief Gary 
Johansen of the Palos Verdes Estates Police Department told me, the 
bill's focus on schoolchildren is ``simply a bad idea.''
  I urge its defeat.

                [From the Daily Breeze, Sept. 20, 1996]

                   Immigration Bill in U.S. Interest


                     encouraging signs from Capitol

       There are encouraging signs on Capitol Hill that Republican 
     leaders finally are coming to their senses on immigration 
     reform by scuttling the repugnant Gallegly amendment.
       The sooner, the better.
       Authored by Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, the 
     provision is the biggest roadblock to passage of a sweeping 
     immigration bill that is critically important to California. 
     The amendment would allow states to kick an estimated 700,000 
     illegal-immigrant children out of public classrooms, leaving 
     them idle on street corners and in other crime-prone 
     situations.
       As public policy, the Gallegly amendment is plainly 
     abhorrent. To begin with, it would do absolutely nothing to 
     counter illegal immigration. Far worse, it would create by 
     deliberate design a growing underclass of illiterate young 
     people denied the opportunity to learn English, much less 
     acquire the basic education required to get a job one day and 
     support themselves.
       The disastrous social implications of the House-passed 
     amendment are clear to a majority of senators, including a 
     dozen Republicans, who have announced their opposition to it. 
     Consequently, the immigration bill will not get out of 
     Congress unless the school provision is stripped from it.
       Some GOP lawmakers would rather let the bill die than give 
     President Clinton an opportunity to sign a measure that is 
     popular in vote-rich California. But Senate Republican leader 
     Trent Lott suggested Wednesday it would not be ``in the best 
     interest of the country'' to kill the measure over the 
     Gallegy amendment. He's right.
       Republicans who control a House-Senate conference committee 
     on the bill should jettison the education provision and get 
     the measure to the president's desk before they adjourn for 
     the election. Among other badly needed reforms, the 
     legislation would double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol, 
     stiffen penalties for document fraud and alien smuggling, and 
     make it easier for employers to verify that prospective 
     workers are legal.
       Also Wednesday, there were rumblings on Capitol Hill that 
     Clinton might veto the bill even if the Gallegly amendment is 
     removed. Several liberal Democrats are raising objections to 
     other elements of the bill and urging a veto.
       Vetoing this landmark legislation would be not only bad 
     public policy but also politically stupid for the White 
     House. California needs this sweeping reform measure--
     providing the punitive Gallegly amendment is discarded.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4134. Congressman 
Gallegly has raised a very important issue that Congress has too long 
ignored: who is responsible for educating children who illegally reside 
in our country? But, the bill still raises some issues that, if never 
addressed, could be counterproductive. I will discuss those in a 
moment.
  The real issue at hand is that illegal immigration imposes a giant 
unfunded mandate on States and local school districts. Failure to stem 
illegal immigration is a failure of the Federal Government. But the 
consequences of failure are paid by State and local governments. 
Teachers and administrators in Tucson's public schools have told me 
that as many as 40 percent of pupils in certain schools are illegal 
immigrants. California estimates the annual cost of educating illegal 
immigrants in that State alone at $1.8 billion. I'm sure State 
legislatures and school boards impacted by illegal immigration could 
find better uses for their taxpayers' hard earned dollars than spending 
money to educate kids here illegally.
  Now this bill will not throw any kids out of school immediately, and 
some States may choose never to avail themselves of its provisions. 
Rather, this bill allows States to decide for themselves whether to 
provide free public education benefits to illegal immigrants who are 
not already enrolled in public schools. Further, it allows illegal 
immigrants already in the school system to receive a free public 
education through the highest grade in their current school level--
although only if they remain within the same school district.
  To the bill's credit, it does not force the States to adopt a 
particular course. States could choose to continue to educate illegal 
immigrants for free, charge them nonresident tuition--but not deny them 
an education.
  However, we must work to ensure that some of the unanswered questions 
in H.R. 4134 are resolved. For example, will school districts be 
required to notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service about 
students and their families who are illegally in the United States--
effectively making school districts into immigration police? What are 
the legal consequences if they do? Or if they don't? Will there be a 
uniform way that citizenship is determined for elementary students in 
each State? How about secondary students where it may not be common to 
give proof of birth to enroll? How will schools deal with fraudulent 
documentation and will they be held liable for admitting students with 
false identification? Will there be a different standard for special 
needs children? I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues 
and with our Nation's State and local officials to resolve these issues 
that cannot be ignored.
  I would add that ideally, the immigration and national interest bill 
which the House just passed and which I hope President Clinton will 
sign, should render H.R. 4134 unnecessary. It takes some big steps to 
address the problem of illegal immigration by keeping illegal 
immigrants and their families out of the United States--not by 
surrendering the battle at our borders and moving enforcement to the 
classrooms of America.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4134, a bill that would merely allow the States to decide, rather than 
the Federal Government, whether to provide a free public education, 
deny public education, or charge tuition to illegal aliens. This does 
not apply to illegal aliens currently enrolled, or those who enroll 
prior to July 1, 1997.
  I support this legislation despite my personal reservations regarding 
the wisdom of denying public education to illegal immigrants. Some 
argue that this is not the best approach to combating illegal 
immigration, and that denying education to illegal immigrant children 
will in the long run have the unintended consequence of perpetuating 
the influx of an illegal immigrant underclass within our society. I 
have been assured by New York Governor George Pataki that New York will 
continue to choose to provide a free public education to illegal 
immigrant children.
  But what is really at issue here is who should decide whether a State 
educates illegal aliens within its State borders, the States, or the 
Federal Government. The public education of illegal immigrants is a 
tremendous unfunded mandate on the States. Public education has 
traditionally been within the purview of the States. States should have 
the power to decide what is best for their State educational systems, 
rather than have the Federal Government determine this for them.
  In an area where the existence of the 10th amendment to our 
Constitution is being rediscovered, it is about time we trust our State 
legislatures and Governors and allow them to do their jobs. State 
capitals are closer than Washington, DC, to the problems that exist 
within their respective States, and I would suggest that they are in a 
better position to find the solutions.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 4134.

[[Page H11107]]

This bill would allow States to deny public education to children whose 
only crime is that their parents came to this country illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that this terrible provision was left 
out of the conference report on H.R. 2202, in fact there are several. 
Barring children from public schools will pose a serious burden on the 
community and create safety hazards. Many of these children will be 
left with nothing to do during the school hours, posing a danger to 
themselves and others. It will be more difficult for parents to keep 
their children safe and out of mischief. Are we suggesting that 
organized gang activity is better than organized public education?
  This bill will create added burdens for schools. Teachers and 
educators are nearly unanimous in opposition to changing their mission 
from education to border enforcement. The Federal Government should not 
force its responsibility to enforce immigration laws onto our already 
overburdened schools.
  In addition, excluding children from public schools will be costly in 
the long run. Keeping children out of our schools will not magically 
transport them elsewhere. This bill threatens to create a class of 
persons within our communities who have grown up in this country 
permanently hobbled by lack of formal education. Moreover, denial of 
elementary education is likely to scar a child's ability to perform the 
most basic public responsibilities and to contribute fully to society 
at large. It is for this reason that, in the United States, education 
is compulsory, and it is a crime for a parent or guardian to keep his 
or her children out of school. For the same reason, elementary 
education has been officially recognized as a fundamental human right, 
explicitly affirmed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, of which the United States is a signatory.
  Finally, the most logical reason of all to vote against this bill is 
that it will not impact illegal immigration. Kicking little children 
out of school is not one of them. This measure does nothing to cure 
illegal immigration. If some States have a greater need for assistance 
than others, then the Federal Government can provide monetary 
assistance. Don't stand at the schoolhouse door to stop children from 
being educated.
  I urge all my colleagues to avoid making scapegoats of innocent 
children under the guise of immigration reform--vote against H.R. 4134.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 
4134 on behalf of a generation of children who will be left to twist in 
the wind because they have been denied an elementary education.
  I agree that measures should be taken to discourage and prevent 
undocumented individuals from entering our country. I will not support, 
however, any meanspirited, punitive attempts to secure our borders that 
will devastate numbers of children because of the sins of their 
parents.
  Are we as a body going to reduce ourselves to mistreating little 
children because we are angry that their parents have not complied with 
our laws? The obvious recourse would be to punish their parents or 
proactively prevent them from immigrating here unlawfully. What good 
will it do to ban their children from attending public school? In the 
long run, it is the children of American citizens that will also be 
punished, because they will be forced to deal with the tragedy of a 
population of uneducated immigrants.
  It sickens me to think of the discrimination that will inevitably 
result as parents will be forced to prove that there children are 
indeed legal. Unfortunately, those children who look foreign will be 
forced to prove that they are, in fact, Americans. Be assured that the 
children whose ancestors are Irish, or British or Dutch or French won't 
be asked to prove their legality--they can easily pass as American.
  Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was implemented, we have made 
enormous strides in our quest for an egalitarian society. This bill 
will only take us back to a dark period in our Nation--one in which 
those who looked different from the majority were treated as second-
class citizens.
  What good will it do us to leave a generation of children--most of 
whom were born here and are American citizens--uneducated, unskilled, 
and downright hopeless? In an era when we are intent on reducing crime, 
cutting Government spending and helping American families strive for a 
better living standard, relegating thousands of children to a lifetime 
of virtual poverty as a consequence of their lack of education is 
morally reprehensible, politically irresponsible and fiscally 
imprudent.
  Need I remind my colleagues of the numbers of organizations, 
including every major law enforcement organization in the United States 
are opposed to this measure. They recognize that putting thousands of 
kids on the streets will not decrease illegal immigration but only 
promote crime, gangs and drugs and place enormous strains on the cities 
and countries that will be forced to deal with these problems.
  I ask my colleagues, Will you feed, clothe, house and offer work to 
this generation of uneducated adults? Certainly my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have not fully ingested the ramifications of 
this potentially devastating legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against H.R. 4134.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
granting States the option to deny public education to undocumented 
alien children. This provision is strongly opposed by the Fraternal 
Order of Police and the vast majority of law enforcement organizations 
because it will kick children out onto the streets, where they are 
likely to become victims of--or parties to--crime.
  As a matter of fact this bill represents yet another in a long series 
of Republican proposals which are weak on crime--from trying to repeal 
the assault weapons ban, to trying to repeal 100,000 cops on the beat, 
failing to ban cop-killer bullets, opposing extending the Brady bill to 
apply to domestic violence, and failing to get tough on terrorists by 
placing taggants in explosive materials or giving law enforcement the 
investigative tools they need.
  The Republicans have a miserable record on crime, and this bill would 
only make it worse by making our street more dangerous.
  It's an insult to this body that we are voting on this measure. If 
the House approves it, it will likely die in the Senate. Even if it 
doesn't, it faces certain Presidential veto.
  The only reason we are considering the bill is pure politics. 
Republicans are trying to inject this divisive issue into the 
Presidential election. Well in the closing days of this Congress we 
have far better things to do than spend our time on partisan political 
issues which are going nowhere.
  No matter how the Republicans try to repackage it, the bill will have 
the same dangerous consequences as the original proposal. This bill 
remains a mean-spirited attempt to punish children for the actions of 
their parents. Any money the States save from denying education 
benefits will be spent on the increased costs of crime.
  In addition to being bad policy, the bill is unconstitutional. When 
Texas and California adopted similar provisions they were held to be 
unconstitutional denials of equal protection. If we enact the same 
policy at the Federal level it's still going to be unconstitutional.
  This bill is tough on innocent children, and is just as bad as the 
provision we dropped from the conference which was opposed by Democrats 
and Republicans alike. I urge the Members to vote no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ``ayes'' appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254, 
nays 175, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 433]

                               YEAS--254

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden

[[Page H11108]]


     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Gibbons
     Heineman
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1743

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________