[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11372-H11379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT RUN AWAY FROM THE PROMISES MADE TO THE AMERICAN 
                                 PEOPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who just took the 
previous hour chose not to engage me in debate. I asked them if they 
would yield to me, and of course they did not have time, because what 
they said simply will not stand muster. So I am now going to spend a 
little bit of time setting the record straight as they leave the hall. 
I would have been happy to engage and debate them, but unfortunately, 
they do not want to debate the issues.
  I would like to say the majority of this hour is going to be given to 
my friends from California, who have a lot to tell my colleagues about, 
and people of this country, regarding immigration reform.
  Immigration reform is absolutely essential. We have so many illegal 
aliens coming into the country, costing this country so much money, and 
we have passed a bill and the President said he would veto it, keep us 
here, shut down the government if it passed and was put on his desk, 
rather than sign it into law. I will let them talk about that in a few 
minutes. What I wanted to do right now is set the record straight on 
some of the things that my colleagues previously just said.
  First of all, we are not running away from the promises that we made 
to the American people. We kept those promises. Seven of the 10 things 
we promised in the Contract With America passed both houses and went to 
the President. Four of them became law. Nine of them passed this body, 
and we acted upon all 106 of them in the first 90 days of this session 
of Congress. So we did not run away from them.
  Let us talk about what we passed. We passed a law which said that 
every law Americans have to live by, we have to live by. Congress is no 
longer a special entity. Before, under the Democrats for 40 years, they 
had special privileges. We changed that. We came up with lobbying 
disclosure, so the American people would know what is going on in this 
body.
  We were the first ever to vote on term limits. For 40 years they 
talked about it, but they would not vote on term limits. We did. We 
downsized Congress itself. We downsized congressional committee staffs. 
We put term limits in for the Speaker of the House and for committee 
chairmen. We put a ban on proxy voting. We opened all committee 
hearings to the public, which was not the case before. We eliminated 
three committees and 20 subcommittees. We cut total congressional 
spending two years in a row, and for the first time in many years, we 
had a comprehensive House audit. That may not be great information for 
a lot

[[Page H11373]]

of Americans, so let us talk about the Contract With America that we 
promised.

  We promised a line item veto. It is the law of the land. There is a 
line item veto. They never did it; we did. We passed a balanced budget 
amendment in this House, and because of Democrats it failed by one vote 
in the other House. Otherwise,we would have a constitutional amendment 
passed and sent to the States that would mandate that we live within 
our budget. They do not want that, because they like to spend a lot of 
money, and they have not changed.
  They talked about welfare reform, but they never did anything about 
it. For 40 years we had a welfare state that grew and grew and grew. 
Remember Lyndon Johnson saying we are going to do away with welfare in 
10 years when he passed the Great Society program? Welfare is about 500 
percent higher than it was when he passed the Great Society. Instead of 
solving the problem, he merely compounded it by putting more and more 
and more people into the system, to the point where every taxpayer in 
this country is burdened up to here paying welfare benefits. We changed 
that. We passed welfare reform. The President has tried to take credit 
for it, but he vetoed that bill twice. The only reason he signed it the 
third time we sent it to him was because the American people demanded 
welfare reform. And he signed it because he saw in the polls that about 
78 percent of the people wanted welfare reform because they could not 
stand that socialistic trend anymore. But that was in the Contract With 
America. We didn't run away from that pass.
  We passed health insurance reform. They did not do it. They wanted 
everybody in this country to be dependent on a national, socialistic 
health care plan. We passed health care reform so people who have 
cancer or some life threatening disease that leaves one job, they could 
not take their insurance with them. Now if they have another job 
opportunity, they can go from one job to another, and there is 
portability with their insurance. They can have that.
  Megan's Law, that dealt with child abusers and nailing them, we 
passed that.
  Let us just run down a few things. They said we do not care about the 
environment. We passed safe drinking water reform update, clean water 
reform, private property rights protection, food safety enhancement, 
national wildlife refuge improvement, coastal zone management, mercury 
battery recycling, conservation and environmental reform in the farm 
bill, and Florida Everglades protection.
  Regarding education, they said we did not care about kids, that we 
cut the school lunch program. We increased the school lunch program. 
What we did was cut out the waste and fraud in Washington, and we 
turned control of the school lunch program back to the States where the 
could handle it more efficiently. But there was more money put in there 
for the school lunches.
  The only thing is we cut out the bureaucracy. But they do not want to 
worry about that, because that is their political base. They say we do 
not care about the kids. We do not care about the bureaucracy. We care 
about the kids, and that is why we sent the money back to the States 
where it could be more efficiently spent.
  We expanded student loans. We increased Pell grants; we increased 
Head Start funding; disabled students education reform to help disabled 
students. We extended tax deductibility of employer-provided 
educational benefits. It does not sound like we are against education 
to me. But they do not like us when we start cutting the big education 
bureaucracy here in Washington. That is what they are concerned bout.
  On women's issues, they say we do not care. The Sexual Assault 
Prevention Act, increased day care funding, child support enforcement, 
covering breast cancer treatments under Medicare. That is one of the 
epidemics, breast cancer. I have that in my own family. We cover that 
now under Medicare. Women's health research, funding for Violence 
against Women Act.
  Adoption promotion. A $5,000 tax credit for people who adopted 
children to get them out of the people who adopted children to get them 
out of the welfare system, out of the foster care system. It costs up 
to $35,000 a year, $15,000 to $35,000 a year to keep a child in foster 
care, depending on the State. For $5,000, a one time tax credit, people 
can adopt a child, pay their legal expenses, and get that child into a 
loving home. Everybody wins. The taxpayer wins, the child wins, and the 
person who wants to adopt a child wins. they do not mention that.

                              {time}  2130

  Sexual Crimes Against Children Act; that passed. Domestic violence 
victims insurance protection and interstate stalking punishment and 
prevention for people that stalk women and follow them around the 
country to try to molest them. They do not talk about that.
  They talk about Medicare and say we do not care about senior 
citizens. They do not care about the senior citizens because they are 
not doing anything to protect Medicare. Medicare is going to go 
bankrupt in less than 5 years if nothing is done. They do not mention 
that they are not doing anything about it.
  So what did we do; what did we propose? We proposed not cutting 
Medicare but reducing the growth of Medicare, the growth of Medicare, 
from 13 percent a year down to 7 percent a year. It is still going to 
grow at 7 percent a year. That is not a cut. It is a cut in the growth, 
but it is still going to grow at 7 percent a year. that is 3 or 4 
percent above the rate of inflation.
  We are going to increase the amount of money seniors get per year 
from $4,500 a year to $7,100 a year. Now, how can that be a cut? We are 
increasing the amounts they are going to get from $4,500 to $7,100, and 
they say, well, that is a cut and we do not care about senior citizens.
  What we want to do is put Medicare on a fiscally sound basis, and we 
are going to do it if we stay in the majority. But they have stopped us 
every step of the way.
  Hillary Rodham Clinton; her health care plan increased Medicare at 6 
percent. We are talking about a percent higher than her, but we can 
still make it fiscally sound in 5 years and not have it go under. The 
alternative that they have come up with is nothing. And if we do 
nothing, what will happen in 5 years is it will either go bankrupt or 
everybody in this country will have to pay more in taxes to pay for 
Medicare. We believe our approach is much sounder.
  We give senior citizens four choices, they give them nothing. We give 
them the choice of staying in the Medicare Program, or they can go into 
a medisavings account, where if they do not spend their money they get 
it back at the end of the year in less taxes. What does that do? It 
gives you money back, it puts accountability in the system. You are 
going to ask questions about your coverage, about what your doctor is 
doing, whether or not that procedure is really important. Because if 
you do not spend that money, you get it back.
  So they can go into a medisavings account, stay in the Medicare 
Program, or go into an HMO or a PPO. We give them four choices. They 
want the one choice now. Nothing but the one choice in a system that 
will go bankrupt, and they are doing nothing to address that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, then they said that Senator Dole does not have a good 
economic program. He wants to give a 15 percent tax cut to every 
American. Now, I hope all my friends in America and my colleagues will 
be thinking about this. Americans work long hours just to pay the bills 
and feed their kids, and it is not right that Americans spend 5 months 
a year just paying their taxes. They do that for 5 months.
  Everybody in America works 5 months of the year just to pay their 
taxes. That is why the Republicans and Bob Dole are proposing a 15 
percent across-the-board tax cut, including a $500-tax credit for every 
child in America. That means $1,600 more in your pocket if you are an 
average American family.

  Now, do American families want to put $1,600 into the IRS or do they 
want to keep it for themselves for things they need? They are already 
paying 5 months a year just to pay their taxes.
  So this November, when we get the message out, I believe the American 
people are going to say, hey, the Republicans did accomplish a lot, 
they

[[Page H11374]]

did live up to their promises, they did keep their agreement with the 
Contract With America, and they are going to give me some of my hard-
earned money back instead of putting it into the IRS coffers and to the 
Treasury.
  Now, the Democrats will say that is going to run the deficit up. When 
we cut taxes in the early 1980's, we were bringing in $500 billion a 
year in tax revenues. The tax cut stimulated economic growth and we 
created 21 million new jobs, that is 21 million new taxpayers. That 
brought the revenues from $500 billion a year to $1.3 trillion a year. 
It almost tripled the tax revenues because of the tax cut.
  When we put disposable income in businessmen's pockets and Americans' 
pockets and families' pockets, they are not going to put it under the 
mattress. They are going to spend it or they are going to invest it. 
And if they buy more refrigerators, we will have to make more 
refrigerators. If they buy more cars, we will have to make more cars. 
And if we make more cars and refrigerators, then there will have to be 
more people working to put those cars and refrigerators in the 
marketplace. That is called economic expansion.
  That economic expansion in the past has proven that we triple, triple 
the tax revenues when we give American people more money back in their 
pockets. Conversely, when we raise your taxes, as Bill Clinton did, 
after saying he was going to give you a tax cut, he gave us the largest 
tax increase in history. That is money that comes out of your pocket, 
that is money you cannot spend, and so the economy starts to contract. 
That is why we have the slowest rate of growth that we have had in 
years and years and year. It is not going to get any better unless we 
stimulate the economy.
  So let me just say to my colleagues who left, who would not debate 
me, they are full of prune juice. We did live up to our commitments, 
and we are going to do more for the American people by reducing this 
big Government, this bureaucracy and cutting taxes, saving Medicare, 
and providing a growth in Medicare that is tenable, something we can do 
to make sure other seniors are protected and still give them four 
choices.

  It will be better for America next time after this election. It has 
been better now, but it will be a lot better once this election is over 
and we have control.
  I would just say about Bob Dole, he will keep his word. We will get 
the tax cut, and the Americans will have more disposable income and, 
hence, a better standard of living.
  Now, I am going to furnish this over to my colleagues in California. 
But let me just say, as a person who is not from a border State, I am 
concerned about the illegal aliens that are coming into this country. 
We are getting as many as a million or a million plus a year coming 
across our borders.
  Twenty-six percent of the Federal prison populations are illegal 
aliens, and each one of those people costs the taxpayers of this 
country $25- to $35,000 a year. We are spending billions and billions 
and billions of your tax dollars, Americans' tax dollars, just to take 
care of illegal aliens.
  My good friend, the gentleman from California, Elton Gallegly, came 
up with an immigration reform bill that will solve a lot of those 
problems. There was one provision in there which said that, I think 
after July of next year, any new illegal alien coming into the country 
whose child they put into school, will not be able to go into school. 
But up until next year any illegal alien's child who is in a school 
will still be able to get their education through the 12th grade.
  The President said, hey, I cannot swallow that because I want these 
kids to continue to come in as illegal aliens, even after next July, to 
still be able to go to school at taxpayers expense, even though they do 
not pay taxes, to get an education.
  So Elton Gallegly agreed to take that provision out of the bill so we 
could get an immigration reform bill passed that would help protect 
Americans and stop the massive flow of illegal aliens coming into this 
country that is costing billions of dollars. What did Bill Clinton do? 
He said, if they took out that amendment that I just talked about, he 
would not object to the bill. So Elton Gallegly of California took it 
out.
  Mr. Speaker, what did the President say? What did the minority leader 
in the Senate say, Mr. Daschle? What did the Democratic leadership of 
this House say? Before they said, if you take it out, the bill will be 
OK. Now they have backtracked and said, and the President said, if you 
send it to me we are going to veto it, and if you send it to me we may 
shut down the Government.

  I think everybody in this country ought to know that this President 
is prepared to shut down the Government if we pass meaningful 
legislation dealing with illegal aliens coming into this country at 
taxpayers expense.
  I think it is wrong what he said, and I hope my friends from 
California will carry on this message so that everybody, particularly 
the people in California, will know that the Republicans are doing 
their dead level best to stop massive illegal immigration.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague [Mr. Gallegly] from 
California.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman [Mr. Burton] from the great State 
of Indiana for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House, this is my 10th year. In 
those 10 years I have never availed myself the microphone to address 
the House in special orders. This is the first time in 10 years. But I 
say to my colleagues, tonight there is a real need to address the House 
on an issue that I have worked on for several years.
  In fact, a large portion of my tenure in Congress has been devoted to 
addressing the unchecked flow of illegal immigration coming into this 
country, a problem that is facing California probably more severely 
than any other State in the Nation.
  California, by most accounts, is the home of over half of the entire 
illegal population in the entire Nation. We have half a million 
students that are illegally in this country. Not the children of 
illegal immigrants, but those that have illegally entered the country 
themselves, that their own status is illegal in this country is what is 
crowding our classrooms.
  Two-thirds of all the births in Los Angeles County operated 
hospitals, public-funded hospitals that are completely paid for by the 
taxpayers, over two-thirds of every birth in the last 6 or 7 years, the 
mother has no legal right to be in the country.
  As Mr. Burton said, 26 percent of our entire Federal penitentiary 
population is made up of illegal immigrants, not for immigration 
violations but for hard crimes, murder, rape, robbery and mainly, to a 
large degree, drug trafficking, and so on.
  This is an issue that we have to address. We have worked hard and we 
have worked long. I would like to first say thank you to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan way to 
aggressively address this issue. In March of this year this House 
passed a historic immigration reform bill addressing many of the 
problems that we face in this Nation. It passed this House in a 
bipartisan way 333 to 87.
  Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that we address in this House 
that 333 of us collectively can agree on, so I think that there was a 
clear message. It was a good bill. It was a tough bill. It addressed 
the needs for more Border Patrol, providing up to 10,000 new Border 
Patrol agents. It provided for document fraud, one of the things that 
provides access to jobs and welfare benefits.
  On any street in most of the metropolitan cities in this country for 
35 bucks you can buy a card like this, Mr. Speaker, that even most 
Federal officials cannot detect as being counterfeits. We correct that 
in this bill.
  In this bill we make it a crime equal to the crime for manufacturing, 
counterfeiting, or using currency that is counterfeited. The same 
penalties would apply for counterfeiting this Federal document that 
would provide you access illegally to jobs and Federal benefits.
  We stopped access to welfare benefits in this bill to folks that have 
no legal right to be in this country. We have not denied anyone 
emergency medical care. I think as humanitarians we all agree that you 
cannot deny somebody that is critically ill or injured from being 
treated in a humanitarian way. However, we do say once that person is 
treated and nurtured back to health, they should be escorted back to 
their native country. It should be explained

[[Page H11375]]

to them, if they want to come to this country, how they can do it in a 
legal fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a very generous Nation. We allow more people 
every year the right to legally immigrate to this country. I 
wholeheartedly support that. We are a country of immigrants. But there 
is a movement because of the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants, 
those that do not pass health examinations, they violate the laws 
coming here. Because of that, there are a lot of folks that want to 
close the front door to legal immigration because the back door 
to illegal immigration is off the hinges.

  Mr. Speaker, that is just the reverse of everything that this country 
was founded on and what I believe all my colleagues would agree is in 
the best interest of this country.
  Well, we worked the past few months after we passed this omnibus 
historic bill to work with our colleagues in the Senate. They passed a 
similar bill, and I believe their bill passed 97 to 3, if I am not 
mistaken.

                              {time}  2145

  And then we started merging the two bills. We went to conference, and 
there were some issues that were maybe not quite to the agreement or to 
the satisfaction of our colleagues in the other body, and we worked in 
a bipartisan way to try to get to that point to where we could merge 
these bills and move this vitally important legislation ahead.
  In this omnibus bill that the House passed out was one provision that 
only in the last month or so met with great objection from our 
President. I might add that, putting modesty aside for a second, with 
the help of my colleagues I have 28 provisions in this bill, so the 
Gallegly amendment that we talk about is not the only thing that I have 
an interest in this bill, but it has been the target as one of the 
Gallegly amendments, the one that has received the greatest amount of 
attention.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the Gallegly amendment does, because 
there has been much misinformation about the so-called Gallegly 
amendment over the months. The so-called Gallegly amendment does not 
deny anyone access to education, does not say you should deny anyone 
access to education and so on.
  What the Gallegly amendment does merely, and it passed out of this 
House in the omnibus bill 333 to 87 in March, in an unmodified version, 
said merely that in the future, after enactment of this bill, the 
Federal Government could no longer force States to provide a free 
public education to those that have no legal right to be in this 
country. It does not say to the States they cannot. It does not say 
they should not. It only says that we at the Federal Level are no 
longer going to force them to do this, particularly since the States 
bear 95 percent of the cost of education to start with.
  This is a cost to the State of California of $2 billion a year, $2 
billion a year, $2 billion that could hire 53,000 teachers, $2 billion 
that could put a computer on the desk of every elementary school 
student in the State of California.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It does grandfather those children already in 
school.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Let me just say to the gentleman, I am talking about 
the original version that passed the House in the bill, that said the 
States no longer would be forced to. It did not say they should not, 
did not say they cannot.
  Well, the President said, ``I do not like that.'' And there were some 
Members on the Senate side that said, ``I am a little uncomfortable.'' 
There was a lot of misinformation that said we are kicking kids out of 
school. All we were doing was changing the venue for the debate to 
where the bills were being paid.
  So we sat down and, not to my pleasure but in the sense of comity and 
with the attempt to reach a compromise that could bring this bill to 
fruition, I agree with my Senate friends to modify this bill that would 
grandfather every one that is currently in school in K through 6 and 7 
through 12, so no one can say we are removing anyone from school, and 
they agreed. Now we have an agreement; let us move to the House and we 
will pass this very important piece of legislation.
  The President says, ``I will veto any bill that has any modification 
that would not force the States to provide a free public education not 
only to those that are illegally in this country today but anyone that 
illegally enters the country in the future.'' Not the children of 
immigrants or legal immigrants but those that illegally enter the 
country themselves.
  Well, I thought that was too bad that the President is advocating an 
entitlement in perpetuity to the States that cost billions and billions 
of dollars to the States, not the Federal Government, but even at that 
point I said, wait a minute now, this bill is too important. This bill 
is too important to the country. So I suggested that we remove the 
Gallegly portion from the bill and allow it to be a freestanding bill. 
We did that with the President's assurance that ``You take the Gallegly 
provision out and I will sign the bill quickly.''

  Senator Daschle said, ``You take the Gallegly provision out,'' it is 
on the front page of almost every paper in the country, ``it will sail 
through the Senate and the President will sign it.'' Leon Panetta, the 
chief of staff said, ``You take the Gallegly provision out and the 
President will sign this faster than a heartbeat.''
  Well, my colleagues, here we are tonight, we are ready to go, and now 
with the Gallegly provision out, this passed the House yesterday in a 
historic vote of 305 to 123, with the support of Democrats and 
Republicans. Tonight the President has said, ``I want to reopen 
negotiations,'' and I am sad to announce to my colleagues that the 
President says if we do not reopen negotiations, my words, I have kind 
of changed my mind. I guess we would say he is flexible. He says, ``If 
we do not reopen negotiations, I threaten to shut down the 
Government,'' not the Congress shut down Government but the President. 
Our President has put support, welfare and benefits to illegals ahead 
of keeping Government open, and my colleagues, that is wrong.
  I have taken more time than I had, than I wanted to, but I thought 
this message had to be made to my colleagues. I have other colleagues 
here from California and I would like to yield to them. If I have a 
little more time I would like to say a little more.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
laying out the background on this. I think most people in this Chamber, 
Republicans and Democrats, know that when I bring a bill from my 
subcommittee to the floor, it is a bipartisan bill. It comes in here 
usually with the full support of both sides. I have conducted myself 
that way to bring people together across the aisle and build 
coalitions, to get something accomplished, and we have had a very 
productive record this year.
  So when I heard that an emissary of the President of the United 
States had come up here, talked to some of our leaders and said the 
President will shut down the Government over this issue, I was 
outraged. I am not going to raise my voice on this, but I am just going 
to say what Mr. Gallegly has laid out is the history of this situation.
  One of the things you learn, if you have not learned it before in 
life, is when you are in a legislative body and you give your word to a 
colleague, you better keep it or you are done for. Apparently that type 
of thing does not exist between the legislative and the executive 
branches. In good faith, people of both parties have been negotiating. 
The original Gallegly amendment was changed substantially. Members of 
both parties supported that and supported the immigration bill, as my 
colleague [Mr. Gallegly], noted, 333 to 87.
  Illegal immigration is one of the great problems of our society. 
California probably gained five congressional seats in the 1990 census 
as a result of illegal immigration. Under the Constitution it is 
``persons'' who are counted.
  My colleagues from the east increasingly realize this. For years they 
said, ``So what, that is Florida problem, that is a Texas problem, that 
is a California problem.'' Colleagues, it is a national problem. Every 
citizen knows it when their taxes go to pay the education, health, and 
welfare costs because of the influx of illegals in California and, in 
particular Los Angeles County.

[[Page H11376]]

  The gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] gave the figures in just 
one area, education where we have an unbelieable burden that amounts to 
over two billion dollars. In our health system we also have 
unbelievable burdens which probably amount to one billion dollars. In 
our States and local prison systems we have thousands of illegals who 
are in custody for serious crimes.
  But the worst example of administration policy in this area lately 
occurred when my Subcommitee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology held a hearing near the border, we had a variety of 
witnesses come and testify on one issue: how we have become so 
lackadaisical about the border in this administration. After 
administration officials said a lot about what they will do to help us 
on the illegal immigration problem, testifying under oath one Boarder 
Patrol officer noted that they are instructed by their supervisors not 
to stop illegals coming across the border unless they are specifically 
told to do so even when they see 100 illegals. Border Patrol officers 
have also been told that if they are writing in a report that 150 
illegals had been seen last night, they are to knock off the last 
digit. In other words, 15, not 150, were seen.

  I realize we are in an election year, but to have supervisors pervert 
the reports of civil servants who have been faithful to their duty is 
shameful. Those in the United States Border Patrol have a tough job. It 
is an almost impossible job. They have been underpaid and understaffed. 
Congress has been providing the resources for the last 3 years.
  So the border is still a sieve. The people in San Diego feel pretty 
good because Operation Gatekeeper has moved the problems east into the 
mountains, into the canyons, into the ranches of eastern San Diego 
County. The United States Attorney has not been bringing charges on the 
illegals who are bringing drugs across the border.
  I first became interested in this problem in the mid-1970's when I 
was vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In those 
days, the illegals crossed the border looking for jobs. But our own 
youth were having their jobs taken out from under them--especially in 
Watts. African-American youth were being bumped out of their positions 
in filling stations, restaurants, and hotels. Illegals were replacing 
them. So we soon had substantial teenage youth unemployment and gangs.
  Now what we see at the border are people no longer coming here simply 
for a job. They are now bringing drugs across the border. The 
responsible officer of the United States in the area is the United 
States Attorney based in San Diego. He is also the Attorney General's 
special representative for the southwest, covering Texas to the Pacific 
Ocean. He is President Clinton's personal appointment. He ought to be 
enforcing the Federal anti-drug laws when violations come to his 
attention. We know from other people who have spoken in this House that 
drug violations by illegals have not been a high priority. The anti-
drug effort at the national level does not seem to have any priority in 
this administration unless an election is around the corner.
  Thus, we have a situation right in the field in San Diego that 
parallels what has happened here in Washington in terms of national 
decisions. They do not take illegal immigration seriously. The effects 
of that Clinton administration decision is tragic. The effects on the 
employment opportunities for our youth are catastrophic.
  So what we need is a strong illegal immigration bill. We do not need 
more people on welfare, be they legal or illegal. If they have been 
sponsored to come into this country, the sponsor should be paying the 
welfare bills in the early years. That is the duty of the sponsor.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. We have some other 
colleagues here and I know we would like to hear from them.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. I thank the gentleman from Indiana. I 
certainly want to join in the comments of my colleague from California. 
We are here tonight addressing the House of Representatives on an issue 
that could not be of greater importance to every one in this country. 
That is whether or not we can come to agreement on a funding bill for 
the whole Federal Government. After that is accomplished, obviously we 
will have an election. We will see if we have a new President. But for 
the meantime we are trying to work in a bipartisan cooperation to fund 
the Federal Government's operations.
  The leadership of this Congress, the other body and the House, have 
both said under no circumstances will we tolerate a repeat of what 
happened last year. We will not shut down the Federal Government and, 
as a consequence, the leadership in the other body and in this House of 
Representatives have been asked by the President of the United States 
and acceded to his request to add billions of dollars, specifically 
$6.5 billion to our spending bills that was not approved by the House, 
was not approved by the Senate, complete add on, complete derogation of 
our interest in fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget and so 
on. But in order to get the President to sign our spending bill, we 
added all the billions and billions that he said he had to have in 
addition to what Congress wanted, every single penny. An agreement 
today was reached on that.
  And after agreement was reached on that, what happened? The President 
of the United States through his legislative counsel told the 
leadership of this Congress, ``We are not going to sign the big piece 
of spending that you added billions to at our request, even though it 
contains all the money we have asked for, unless in addition,'' and 
this is the first time they have spoken these words or made this demand 
or placed this ultimatum, ``unless in addition you reopen the illegal 
immigration bill and make a whole lot of changes.''
  Specifically they said, ``You have to drop title V of the bill.'' 
They did not say they did not like paragraph 6 or line 1 or 2. They 
wanted title V, the whole title, out of the bill. They want it dropped. 
Let us ask ourselves, what does title 5 do?
  This bill has been already been negotiated by the House and the 
Senate. The conference is over. We voted it out of here with a huge 
historic bipartisan majority. The President knew that. The President 
had his opportunity while the conference was on, and said he wanted the 
Gallegly amendment out, and it was dropped. Now after the vote, after 
we are finished, the President says take title 5 out of the bill.

  Title 5 prohibits illegal aliens from receiving public assistance. It 
is the guts of the bill. The President of the United States is saying, 
``I am going to shut down the Federal Government, even though you have 
given me all the spending, billions more than you passed in the House 
and Senate than I asked for, I am going to shut down the Federal 
Government unless I get my way, and we can start giving public 
assistance to illegal aliens because that is what I want to do.''
  There is no way to describe this other than Bill Clinton's war on 
California because California, as my colleague Mr. Gallegly pointed 
out, is home to over half of all the illegal aliens in America.

                              {time}  2200

  Title V does not just make sure that public assistance does not go to 
illegal aliens, it does more, and this also the president wants dropped 
from the bill. It prohibits illegal aliens from receiving Social 
Security benefits.
  Now one of the things that we know illegal aliens do not do because 
they live somewhere else, whether it be in Europe, or Asia, or 
Australia, or Canada, or wherever they are coming from, we know one 
thing for certain: they are not paying into our Social Security system. 
But Mr. Clinton wants to delete the portion of this very very sound 
illegal immigration bill that prohibits illegal aliens from getting 
Social Security benefits.
  What else does title V do? What else does he want dropped from the 
bill after it was passed by a historic bipartisan margin in this House 
of 305 to 123? The President wants to drop the provision that says 
that--now listen carefully to this because it is a shocker, that the 
President would be in favor of this kind of public benefit to illegal 
aliens, people who have broken the law here in this country. He wants 
to drop the part of the bill that says that when

[[Page H11377]]

somebody comes from Thailand, when somebody comes from Russia, when 
somebody comes from, you name it, it is a big world, into your State, 
they will not get in-State tuition benefits at your State college.
  Now if I move from California to Indiana, I am not going to get in-
State benefits because I am from California, but illegal aliens, unless 
we pass this bill, are going to get in-State tuition. Title V says 
illegal aliens are not eligible for in-State tuition at public 
colleges, universities, technical and vocational schools.
  Well, my friends, the President wants this dropped from the bill. In 
other words, he wants them to get it.
  What else does title V do? It imposes stiff penalties on people who 
forge immigration documents.
  My colleague, Mr. Gallegly, held up his fake ID card, which is so 
easy to get in America. We need tough penalties. That is why Democrats 
and Republicans got together and passed this historic legislation, the 
House and Senate agreed on it, the White House commented, said they 
were agreeable. And now, after we passed the bill here in the House and 
it has been agreed to in the House and the Senate, the President says 
drop that provision. He wants to drop all of title V and take it out.

  And Mr. Hilleary says, ``If you don't drop title V, you're going to 
be in indefinitely, all next week. Try and get your bill up in the 
Senate, and try and get it out, because our Democrats are going to 
filibuster it,'' and so on.
  Well, colleagues, the President may want to shut down the Government 
to get his way in gutting the illegal immigration bill, and I hasten to 
add, I know that we all are aware of this, that the Gallegly provision 
is not what we are talking about. That was dropped before we voted on 
it. The President asked to have it out; it is out. We all agreed this 
was a fine bill and we wanted to get it passed. Now the President is 
saying he wants to carve it up still more.
  Obviously, the President is not interested in California's major 
social problem of illegal immigration. Obviously, this President does 
not act in good faith. He has broken his word. Today, when asked by the 
press, ``Will you sign the immigration bill?'' he said, ``I can't talk 
about that because we're going to negotiate it.''
  Some of us here in Congress said, ``How do you negotiate a bill that 
has already been negotiated, that is already through conference?'' In 
fact, the conference report has already been voted on. There is only 
one way.
  He is not talking about vetoing the bill. He is negotiating it by 
blackmailing us with a Government shutdown. He will not sign the 
Government funding bill, which includes the billions more that he asked 
for, unless we drop title V. That, as my colleague from California just 
stated, is the only thing you cannot do in a legislative process. When 
you give your word, you keep it.
  Now Bill Clinton has broken his word on many things, but usually it 
takes a little longer. Usually he promises as a candidate he is going 
to give you a middle class tax cut and then breaks his word a few years 
later with the largest tax increase in American history. Usually he 
says he is going to end welfare as we know it and then goes through a 
whole Congress with a Democrat majority, majority of his party, and 
does not even bring up a bill before you figure out what is going on, 
and it takes a Republican Congress to give you welfare reform.
  Mr. HORN. Takes credit.
  Mr. COX of California. For which he then takes credit. But he hardly 
ever breaks his word this fast.
  I mean this is so fast, it is blinding. Days ago, he sent a letter up 
here and said all you need to do is take the Gallegly amendment out, 
and that is great. And we have got a copy of that letter. But of course 
the President now, today, has broken his word, and the consequences 
could not be more grave. We are talking about shutting down the----
  Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield, I would just like to make 
one point about the Gallegly bill that was dropped because I think it 
is an important point.
  The White House referred to this so-called Gallegly bill as nutty. 
Yesterday, after we removed it from the bill, we surprised the 
administration by bringing the bill to the floor as a freestanding bill 
and let the democratic process take place on the floor of this House, 
full and open debate.
  With the President whipping all of his Democrat Members, and with all 
of the abuse and lies that have come through the media in the past 5 
months about the Gallegly bill, after the debate, we had a vote. It 
passed overwhelmingly, a bill the President called nutty, that he was 
holding the immigration bill hostage with. It passed by a margin of 254 
of 175 on this floor, with 41 Democrats supporting the bill he referred 
to as nutty before. His excuse today was the excuse he was going to use 
to try to kill the immigration bill.
  The facts remains, the objective here is to kill meaningful 
immigration and tell the people of California, ``You be damned.''
  I would only make one last comment. I wish that the polls in 
California were much closer, at 4 or 5 percent, not just because it is 
obvious to all my friends that I do support Bob Dole, but not for that 
reason; for the reason, if it was four or five points behind, we would 
have a President that was on Air Force One headed for California as we 
speak tonight, headed for the San Diego border, telephoning the Senate 
to get this bill out so he could sign it on the border, with the troops 
there standing off any illegal aliens coming into California. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Does the gentleman [Mr. Cox] need additional 
time?
  Mr. COX of California. I just want to underscore what my colleague 
has said. The President obviously does not feel California is paying 
when it comes to illegal immigration. He is the cause of it. By gutting 
the immigration bill or attempting to do so after it has already gone 
through House-Senate negotiations, after it has passed by a bipartisan 
record majority here in the House of Representatives, after the 
Gallegly amendment was dropped at his request, to now say he wants to 
carve the bill up and take out Proposition 187, the guts of it; that 
is, prohibition on welfare for illegal aliens, prohibition on social 
security for illegal aliens, a prohibition on SSI benefits, on food 
stamps, on AFDC for illegal aliens, a prohibition on free housing, 
taxpayer supported for illegal aliens, a prohibition on cash assistance 
for illegal aliens, a prohibition on subsidies including contracts and 
grants and loans and licenses for illegal aliens; that is what he wants 
to take out of the bill. He wants illegal aliens to get all of these 
things.

  I think we in California understand this much. If you pass a law and 
you expect it to be obeyed, then there needs to be a penalty. The 
penalty in the case of breaking our immigration laws is deportation. 
That is, we are supposed to send you home.
  But the Clinton administration, which, we want to remind ourselves, 
controls the Justice Department and the INS, is not deporting illegal 
aliens. They are funding ways to give them taxpayer-supported benefits 
in reward for breaking our laws. And never has it been more clear than 
in this instance today when the President said: I am willing to shut 
down the Government. Even though you have given me a spending bill that 
includes billions of dollars more that I asked for in House and Senate 
levels, I have one more request, and that is that you take out the ban 
on welfare benefits for illegal aliens, that you take out the ban on 
social security benefits for illegal aliens, that you take out the ban 
on SSI benefits, food stamps, housing, cash assistance, and so on for 
illegal aliens, because I care so much about giving taxpayer-supported 
benefits to people who have broken our immigration laws that I am 
willing to sacrifice the good of the whole Nation.
  I think that sends a very terrible message to this Congress, to the 
Democrats and Republicans who worked so hard on this bill, and to the 
American people, and particularly the Californians, Texans, Arizonans, 
people in New Mexico, all the border States, who are so hard hit by the 
illegal immigration problem, and I would certainly thank my colleague 
from Indiana for bringing this to the attention of the full House of 
Representatives.

  Mr. BURTON on Indiana. I thank all my colleagues from California. 
Every taxpayer in America ought to be concerned about this.
  And with that, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Bilbray from California.

[[Page H11378]]

  Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana, and I think we 
need to say that this is not just a California issue.
  If, frankly, by this action, the President is indicating that we have 
enough money for social security, there is more than enough money for 
college, college tuition and college benefits for everyone, including 
those who are illegally here, that the concept that benefits and 
welfare programs and social programs are so overflowing with resources 
that it does not matter if we give to those who are illegally here.
  Now, I do not think anyone in this room believes that we have a 
surplus of resources for all these programs. In fact, I think there are 
a lot of us here that think there is not enough for those who deserve 
to get it. The question is, do we have an administration that says I am 
willing to expect Americans who have played by the rules to do without 
so that those who have broken the law get their part because I want 
them to get it?
  And I do not think anyone is going to look at the fact of the mixed 
message, as a woman who is illegally in this country said to me, ``Mr. 
Bilbray, you wouldn't be giving us all these benefits if you didn't 
want us here.'' What a mixed message.
  But we are talking about certain things. Let me say this to San 
Diego. I live on the border. I can see the bull ring by the sea from my 
front yard. This is very real and very personal. If you do not care 
about the tax dollars, if you do not care about social security, if you 
do not care about our kids and the law-abiding children here getting 
college benefits, think about the hospitals in San Diego County.
  This bill, with title 5, this section that the President is talking 
about cutting out, is the part that reimburses for emergency health 
care that the Federal Government mandates that my hospitals provide the 
people who are illegally in the country.
  This is how absurd it is. Somebody jumps the fence at the border and 
breaks their ankle. The immigration people call the local ambulance 
service that serves the working class community. And this is not rich 
neighborhoods; these are working class neighborhoods; they need these 
services. But those services are being used to transport somebody to 
the hospital in a working class hospital, not a wealthy neighborhood 
hospital, and that that hospital then provides the service for free 
because we mandate they get it for free, and then when immigration 
officers are called to come pick up these individuals, Immigration does 
not come pick them up, because then they would have to pay the bill. 
The Federal Government would have to pay for the expense of somebody 
who got injured jumping a Federal fence because they are illegally in 
this country.
  And so the Federal Government is a deadbeat dad that walks away from 
it, and who ends up doing without because of it? Well, it is not the 
rich white people in the wealthiest neighborhoods, it is the poor and 
the needy, the people in this House and people in the White House say 
they care about. But this President would deny the fact that this 
Federal Government would finally start reimbursing those poor hospitals 
that are being impacted so severely.

  One case, one case that is reported to be where an immigration truck 
had hit a person, could not be proven, was over a million dollars that 
came out of the hospital that serves the poor of San Diego County. And 
let me tell you right now I will send you the report that hospital is 
on the brink of bankruptcy because it is constantly being required to 
carry a burden.
  And there are a lot of burdens, but one of them that is absolutely 
unforgivable is the Federal Government playing the deadbeat dad and 
dumping this on the people.
  Now let me say the reimbursement for the ambulance service is in 
this, that is we start dropping off patients at a hospital, our Federal 
agents, our Federal Government, should start footing the bill. Now that 
may not seem like so much, but let me just say this to you. In 1988 and 
1989, in California, the taxpayers of California paid $21 million 
providing emergency medical care. In 1996 to 1997, the costs reached 
$376 million. That is a 13-fold increase in just 8 years.
  Now some people say, well, that is just money. Well, let me tell you 
what that money would buy. In California, if we were not having to 
provide this service, we could provide substance abuse treatment for an 
additional 19,000 pregnant women, 19,000, to avoid positive talks to 
try to prevent positive toxic children. We can provide perinatal care 
for 40,000 women and their babies, 40,000, and we could provide early 
mental health counseling for 18,000 young children.
  So when someone says you just are insensitive, I provided these 
services as a county supervisor for over 8 years. I have seen who has 
been hurt by this issue, and it is the poor and the needy that 
everybody says they care about and have walked away from this.
  I ask that the President reverse his position, do not hold us hostage 
by trying to strip us of title V. This is what the people of California 
say clearly, and this is what the people across this country say. Let 
us not deny the people that need these services who are here legally 
and have played by the rules. Let us not take away from the bright 
people that are playing by the rules and give it to somebody who has 
broken the rules. And let us not, for God's sake, be the biggest 
deadbeat dad in America and walk away from our responsibility to 
reimburse these poor working class communities for the unfair burden 
that they have been required to bear for so long.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that very eloquent 
and accurate statement.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am just so angry tonight that I am 
almost beside myself, so it is hard to contain my anger. When the 
people of California find out the betrayal that has happened to them, 
they too, I believe, will be so angry that it will overflow and be at 
least reflected in the upcoming election.
  The President tonight had better start worrying about the State of 
California, because they are not going to elect a man that has betrayed 
them and lied to them so blatantly as what the President of the United 
States has been doing on this issue of immigration.
  I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Gallegly]. It has been a long, hard battle for the gentleman from 
California on this issue. When I first came here in 1989 he pulled me 
aside to talk to me about this issue. He has been struggling all these 
years. Until we had a Republican majority in this House, we were unable 
to get any type of meaningful immigration reform through this body. He 
has struggled so hard.
  Mr. Speaker, we fought and we have worked for the last 2 years under 
a Republican majority to come up with a good bill, to come up with 
something that the Democrats would not block, because it would be so 
reasonable to the people of this country. Now we have the President of 
the United States threatening to close down the Federal Government if 
we pass a meaningful immigration bill, the same President of the United 
States who went to California and proclaimed, promised the people of 
the State of California, that he would do everything he could to 
confront this challenge to our well-being.
  Mr. BILBRAY. San Diego, 1993, channel 8.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. He was not only in San Diego but he was in Los 
Angeles and he was throughout our State telling people, I am going to 
work with Congress and we are going to try to protect you from this 
flood of illegal aliens that is draining all the money from our health 
care.
  The health care system in California is breaking down. The education 
system is breaking down. We have illegal immigrants coming to our 
country and immediately going on SSI, draining billions of 
dollars which should be going to our own senior citizens. Instead, it 
is being drained away. Believe me, a few years from now, if this 
President has his way, we will find the Social Security system is in a 
crisis, and he will be like, oh my gosh, it is in a crisis, and he will 
not relate it back to this decision today.

  He promised us he would help us solve this problem. Tonight he is 
telling us that he will shut down the government unless we agree to 
give welfare payments to illegal immigrants

[[Page H11379]]

into our State. He will shut down the Government unless we agree to let 
people who have never paid into the system receive Social Security 
benefits, that he is going to shut down the government unless illegal 
aliens get the same tuition as local residents.
  Whose side is he on? What he is doing tonight is adding injury to 
insult. The insult is that he lied to us in the first place. The injury 
is that we have a wonderful immigration bill, something that will come 
to grips with this terrible problem that is threatening the well-being 
of our citizens, and he is threatening to close down the Government 
unless we trash that bill. The people of California had better 
understand what is going on here.
  We have a Democratic process. This is still a democracy. The news 
media has not been doing their job in getting the word out, but tonight 
this act is so blatant I do not even believe that the news media 
ignoring it is going to be able to cover up this wrongdoing that the 
President is involved with.
  As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit upset, people can see that, 
but my people are hurting, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Bilbray] said. In San Diego, in Orange County, in Los Angeles County, 
all throughout California, people are sending their kids to school and 
their kids are not getting an education, because we have $2 billion a 
year that we have to spend on kids who just came from a foreign 
country. They might be good kids, but we have to care about our own 
kids.
  Mr. Speaker, here we have a chance to come to grips with that, and 
the President is threatening to close down the Government unless we 
back down. It is just absolutely a terrible thing. Elton Gallegly who 
has worked all of these years to accomplish this, you probably feel 
worse than I do, Elton. It is just beyond me.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
his fire tonight. I think he should be angry more.

  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, in my district is a city named after the 
grandmother of Jesus Christ, Santa Ana, St. Ann. In this city, which 
once won the all-American city award, and it is an all-American city, 
we have people living in garages, illegal aliens, and as my colleague, 
the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher said, good people 
fleeing a socialist government. It has had one corrupt government 
following another for all of my life in poor, politically ridden 
Mexico. But they live 14, 15, in one case the police officers of Santa 
Ana told me 18 people to a garage, the garage; who knows how many in 
the house.
  They have a crack house three blocks from the civic center, which is 
the civic center for Dana Rohrabacher's district, Chris Cox's district. 
That is where they are going to complete next year the Ronald Reagan 
Courthouse, a civic center for six Congressmen here, Ed Royce, Ron 
Packard, part of Jay Kim's, Dana's, mine, and Chris Cox's district.
  Three blocks on Third Street from that district is a crack house that 
when I was doing a ridealong in a police car, I asked this black belt 
police officer to stop. I said, if we put that in a movie, if an art 
director finished that as a movie set and said, there is your crack 
house, a good director would reject it as ridiculous looking, too 
colorful; graffiti from the grass level to the eaves of the roof. It 
would be absurd. Yet, we have these crack houses, very close to 
neighborhoods where you see little children and perambulators around.
  What we are asking, what the citizens, the Hispanic heritage citizens 
who are legal, the second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth generation 
Hispanic Americans in California are asking for, is fairness. We are 
bankrupting every citizen, including Hispanic American citizens, and we 
must have relief.
  I cannot see the bull ring, of course, in Tijuana, as the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray] can, but you can drive around some nights 
and hear gunfire in Santa Ana. The crime is going up, and get this, 
some illegal aliens form gangs to protect themselves from the Lobos, or 
the American Hispanic gangs, because they do not think the illegals can 
go to the police, so they are preyed upon, murdered and beaten up by 
other gangs. It is mess.
  For the arrogance of this man, who I will do 47\1/2\ minutes on, 
after the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Owens] does his 47\1/2\ 
minutes, we will end at mignight here, the title of my speech will be, 
Follow the Money and Look at the Nose; follow the money, Whitewater, 
and look at the swelling red nose, and I will tell you what causes that 
before we close out at midnight.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just end by saying I 
really and truly feel for my colleagues in California and their 
constituent, and I hope all of their colleagues paid attention to this 
special order tonight, because they are right on the money. It is an 
absolute tragedy what this President is perpetrating on this country 
and particularly the citizens of California.
  We need immigration reform. We should not be using Americans 
taxpayers' dollars to pay all of their bills, to the detriment of all 
of your citizens in California.

                          ____________________