[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11514-S11519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT 
                       RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we will soon begin a debate on the 
conference report entitled ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996.'' I am concerned that, when we commence 
that debate, we are not going to be in as advanced a position as we 
should be, for several reasons--two in particular.
  One of those is that, when this legislation was considered in the 
House of Representatives, a provision was attached which would have 
given to individual States the prerogative of denying public education, 
elementary and secondary education, to the children of illegal 
immigrants. That provision became so inflammatory that it tended to 
focus total attention on this legislation on that single provision. 
That provision has now been eliminated. It has been withdrawn. 
Therefore, we are now focusing for the first time on the totality of 
this legislation.
  A second reason why we are not in as advanced a position as we should 
be for legislation which is as significant as this, has to do with the 
process by which this conference committee prepared its report. First, 
it was an elongated process that took many weeks and months to reach 
the conclusion that is now before us. But it was also essentially a 
closed process. Not only were many of the members of the conference 
committee not given the opportunity to participate, at the conclusion 
of the conference they were not even allowed to offer amendments to try 
to modify provisions which were found to be objectionable. So we have a 
product today which has not had the kind of thoughtful dialog and 
debate which we associate with a conference report which is presented 
to the U.S. Senate for final consideration.
  For this reason, I joined those who urge that objectionable 
provisions in

[[Page S11515]]

this act--and I will use the bulk of my time to attempt to outline what 
I consider some of those objectionable provisions--be excised, be 
eliminated, from this conference report, or, failing to do so, then 
that the conference report, regrettably, be rejected.
  I speak to this position based on some principles of fundamental 
fairness to all of those who will be affected by this legislation 
entitled ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996.'' I speak not only for the legal immigrants who will feel the 
full weight of this report, which is supposed to deal not with legal 
immigrants, but, by its title, with illegal immigration; but I also 
speak of the apparent, and not so apparent, adverse effects that this 
will have on the States and local communities in which most of the 
persons affected live.
  This Congress has spent an enormous amount of time discussing 
immigration. I fully support the mandates which were passed to help 
assure that individuals do not enter this country illegally. The U.S. 
Government has a fundamental responsibility to enforce the laws which 
this Congress passes. Unfortunately, we have failed to do so as it 
relates to our immigration laws, and, thus, we have millions of illegal 
aliens within our society.
  I am proud of the fact that this legislation includes steps such as 
strengthening our Border Patrol. These are the hard-working officers 
who are our first line of defense against illegal immigration. I do not 
contest, but, in fact, fully support, better enforcement and funding to 
prevent illegal immigration, including those steps that would 
demagnetize jobs as a reason why illegal aliens come to the United 
States.
  Our Government has brought an unfair and strenuous burden to many 
States in the form of allowing thousands, in some cases millions, of 
illegal immigrants to enter within their borders. Florida has been 
particularly affected because of its unique geographic location, its 
diverse population, its temperate climate.
  Our Government, for several decades, has made Florida the gateway to 
immigrants arriving from South America and the Caribbean basin. A large 
majority of those who seek to be called Americans are Floridians. These 
new arrivals, those who come legally, those who come playing by the 
rules, are, in large part, law-abiding citizens. They work hard, they 
pay taxes, they ask nothing of our Government other than the 
opportunity to eventually be called a citizen of the United States of 
America.
  But on occasion, as may happen to native-born Americans, a 
circumstance arises where assistance is needed. In the past, our State 
and local communities have scraped by doing all that was possible to 
assist these newcomers. The Federal Government was frequently a partner 
of States and communities in providing assistance in unexpected 
emergency conditions.
  Mr. President, we are now faced with the prospect of trying to 
continue our humanitarian efforts without that Federal partner and, 
thus, with even fewer resources available from the National Government 
a greater demand for those resources from the States and local 
communities which are affected.
  In some ways, we have come to the conclusion that eliminating even 
minimal benefits to legal immigrants will somehow solve our illegal 
immigration problem. This is not true. In reality, it only hurts those 
who follow the rules, those who made every effort to enter the United 
States in a lawful, orderly, documented manner, and it hurts our 
communities, it hurts those cities and towns that provide services to 
legal immigrants and now will receive no assistance from the Federal 
Government.
  This, Mr. President, is wrong. We speak so often of the Federal-State 
partnership. The Federal Government, in this case, is no longer a 
partner to our States and communities. This is unfair--and for many 
reasons, of which I will only discuss a few this evening.
  It is within the purview and responsibility of Congress to act to end 
and to avoid further extension of this unfairness. My State of Florida 
brought suit in the Federal courts, brought suit on the basis that our 
State had been asked to shoulder hundreds of millions of dollars of 
responsibilities for legal and illegal immigrants, responsibility which 
should have been a national obligation.
  As the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its 1995 decision, 
Chiles versus the United States:

       The overall statutory scheme established for immigration 
     demonstrates that Congress intended whether the Attorney 
     General is adequately guarding the borders of the United 
     States to be ``committed to agency discretion by law'' and, 
     thus, unreviewable. Florida must seek relief in Congress. 
     We conclude that whether the level of illegal immigration 
     is an ``invasion'' of Florida and whether this level 
     violates the guarantee of a republican form of government 
     presents nonjusticiable political questions.

  Essentially, what the court was saying is, do not come to us for 
justice. You must seek justice in the political arm of the Federal 
Government, the Congress of the United States.
  I state tonight, Mr. President, that the legislation which is before 
us is not just and does not treat our communities and our States 
fairly.
  What are some of the bill of complaints against this legislation, 
that it is unfair to the States and communities of America? Let me list 
a few of those complaints.
  This legislation extends a concept which has been in our immigration 
law and which was used extensively in the immigration changes made as 
part of the welfare reform bill passed earlier in this session of 
Congress, referred to as ``deeming.''
  What is deeming? Deeming, essentially, is a concept that states that 
the income of the individual who sponsored a legal immigrant into the 
United States is deemed--d-e-e-m-e-d--deemed to be the income of the 
person who was sponsored. This concept of deeming is now applied to 
persons who came into the United States in the past, when the concept 
behind the law of sponsorship was different, where the sponsor's 
affidavit of sponsorship was not legally enforceable.
  The rules have changed on these law-abiding citizens in the middle of 
the game. The sponsor who put his name behind a legal immigrant coming 
to the United States under the rules that existed up to 5 years ago is 
now being told retroactively, ``You have just taken on very significant 
new financial responsibilities.''
  Under the welfare bill, these new deeming restrictions only apply to 
newly arrived immigrants. Under this conference report, deeming is 
applied retroactively to legal immigrants who came to the United States 
within the last 5 years. As a result, sponsored legal immigrants who 
came into the United States under the old rules stand to lose access to 
dozens of programs, including prenatal care, nonemergency Medicaid, 
Head Start and job training.
  These provisions will require a further cost shift to the States who 
will now have to shoulder the burden of these Federal programs which 
will no longer be available.
  Another item in that bill of particulars of unfairness is Medicaid. 
Even though the welfare bill contains no immigrant restrictions on the 
use of emergency Medicaid, the conference report provides that if a 
legally sponsored immigrant has an emergency and uses Medicaid, the 
sponsor becomes liable for the entire cost of care, without limitation.
  What does this mean, Mr. President? This means that if a sponsor has 
brought in a legal immigrant and that legal immigrant is hit by a truck 
or contracts cancer or any of the other items that might result in a 
serious emergency circumstance, the sponsor would be legally 
responsible for all of those medical costs. Realistically, most 
sponsors would not be able to pay, and, therefore, what will happen? 
This will just become another uncompensated burden on the hospital or 
health care provider.
  While I support the idea that sponsors should be required to provide 
housing, food, or even cash assistance to immigrants who have become 
unable to provide for themselves, even the most responsible sponsor may 
not always be able to finance health care, care for illness or serious 
disease or injury.
  Mr. President, as I said, we are going to apply, retroactively, 
standards to those persons who have sponsored legal aliens, such as 
their parents or a child, into the United States and now, 
retroactively, are going to have to take on additional responsibilities 
which were unknown to them at the time that they entered into that 
sponsorship relationship.

[[Page S11516]]

  Also, I will discuss some of the changes which have been made in 
Medicaid, the program that provides health care to indigent Americans, 
which today is available to legal--legal--aliens. I underscore that 
difference between those persons who are here because they follow the 
rules and those persons who are in the country because they broke the 
rules. We are talking now exclusively about people who are here 
legally.
  One of the changes that has been made in the Medicaid Program states 
that a sponsor, including those who are being swept up in this 
retroactive provision, will now have to be financially responsible for 
the emergency medical services provided under Medicaid to those persons 
who they have sponsored into this country. If their mother that they 
sponsored contracts cancer, or a child is hit by a car and suffers a 
serious injury, those kinds of costs now will become the responsibility 
of the sponsor. Even more egregious, if the sponsor is unable to meet 
those expenses, it then becomes an obligation of the provider to accept 
those costs as unreimbursed medical expenses. In most cases, they are 
going to end up being the unreimbursed medical expenses of an emergency 
room in a public hospital.
  One final part of this is that if the sponsor can't pay, and if the 
person who they sponsored can't pay, then that sponsored individual 
will be barred from becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States 
until the bill is paid, which means that this child, who may have 
suffered this injury in youth, is going to be permanently precluded 
from becoming a U.S. citizen, unless they are able to achieve a 
financial status to pay off this emergency medical bill.
  A third problem with this legislation, Mr. President, relates to the 
treatment of communicable diseases. This conference report, I find, 
unbelievably, provides that under no circumstances will the Federal 
Government provide funding for the treatment of HIV and AIDS-infected 
patients who are legal immigrants. This, I thought initially, this must 
have been a misprint. But when you read the conference report on page 
239, it states explicitly,

       The exception for treatment of communicable diseases is 
     very narrow. The managers intend that it only apply where 
     absolutely necessary to prevent the spread of such diseases. 
     The managers do not intend that the exception for testing and 
     treatment for communicable diseases should include treatment 
     for the HIV virus or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

  I represent a State where we have many persons who come from areas of 
the world--many within this hemisphere--which have a high incidence of 
HIV and AIDS. What this bill says is if a person is in this country as 
assailees, refugees, parolees, or whatever status, is found to have HIV 
or AIDS, the Federal public health service cannot use its resources to 
treat those persons. Mr. President, I find this to be unbelievable. Are 
we just going to ignore this deadly disease and hope that, for 
humanitarian reasons, or public health concerns, the State or local 
agency will again shoulder this national obligation for persons who are 
in this country under national immigration laws?

  The Medicaid provisions, the deeming provisions, and sponsor 
affidavits are currently nothing more than a means of shifting costs to 
States, local government agencies, and our Nation's hospital system. 
Simply, if people are sick and cannot afford to pay for coverage of a 
disabling condition, somebody will absorb those costs. The question is 
whether the Federal Government will help to pay a portion of that cost, 
or whether such cost will be shifted entirely to States, local 
governments, and health care providers.
  This bill does not protect the health care providers, even though it 
is the Federal Government's health care policy which requires the 
health care provider to render such medical assistance.
  The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires that 
all persons who come to a Medicare-participating hospital for emergency 
care be given a screening examination to determine if they are 
experiencing a medical emergency, and if they are found to be 
experiencing such a medical emergency, that they receive stabilizing 
treatment before being discharged or moved to another facility.
  Federal law requires all hospitals that have emergency rooms, that 
receive Medicare participation, must provide those services, without 
regard to the ability of the person who has presented themselves for 
such care to pay. And now we are saying that the Federal Government is 
going to be a ``deadbeat dad'' by sticking those health care providers 
with the full cost, without a Federal sharing and participation.
  Mr. President, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities, 
has written on April 25 of this year, in anticipation of just exactly 
what is before us now, with the following statement:

       Without Medicaid eligibility, many legal immigrants will 
     have no access to health care. Legal immigrants will be 
     forced to turn to State indigent health care programs, public 
     hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance, or avoid 
     treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public 
     health and increase the cost of providing health care to 
     everyone.

  For the Medicaid caseworker as well as all other State and Federal 
programs he or she must now learn immigration law as well and the 
Medicaid system.
  As a study by the National Conference of State Legislatures notes, 
this conference report would require an extensive citizenship 
verification made for all applicants to the Medicaid Program.
  In addition to the costs to determine eligibility, States will also 
have infrastructure, training and ongoing implementation cost 
associated with the staff time needed to make a complicated deeming 
calculation. The result will be a tremendous, costly and bureaucratic 
unfunded mandate on State Medicaid Programs.
  Mr. President, another item in the bill of particulars of unfairness 
of this immigration bill relates to parolees and their inability to 
work. I would put this in the specific context of an agreement which 
the United States had entered into with Cuba.
  Under that agreement which was intended to avoid another repetition 
of the mass rafting explosion which we have experienced on several 
occasions since Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, the United States 
now allows 15,000 Cuban immigrants per year to enter the United States. 
Approximately 10,000 of those who have arrived per year under this 
agreement have been under the category of parolees.
  Under this bill, as parolees they will be prohibited from working in 
most jobs 1 year after they arrive here. How can that be? It can be 
because the conference report provides that after 1 year of entry into 
the United States, a person who is legally in this country, classified 
as a parolee for humanitarian reasons, would be ineligible to obtain or 
maintain the following:
  They could not receive any State or Federal grants; any State or 
Federal loan; any State or Federal professional license; and, believe 
this, Mr. President: They could not receive a State driver's license or 
a commercial license.
  Where are these legal immigrant parolees going to work without a 
driver's license, without a work permit, without a commercial license? 
Who will assume the burden of caring for these legal immigrant parolees 
who are in our country? Of course, the cost of their care will shift to 
the local community, even though it was through Federal Government 
action--and in the case of the United States-Cuban agreement, Federal 
Government foreign policy considerations, which brings them to this 
country in the first place, and then tells them that they cannot drive 
and that they cannot hold a job.
  The conference report that is before us is a huge cost shift to State 
and local governments that will impose an administrative burden and 
huge unfunded mandate on State governments to verify eligibility for 
applicants.
  Mr. President, one of the first priorities of this 104th Congress was 
S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It was a top priority of 
the House of Representatives. It passed both bodies in the first 100 
days of this session.
  The purpose section of the Unfunded Mandate Act stated that the:
       Purposes of this act are to strengthen the partnership 
     between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal 
     governments to end the imposition in the absence of full 
     consideration by Congress of Federal mandates on State, 
     local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal 
     funding.


[[Page S11517]]


  Mr. President, this conference report breaks every premise and breaks 
every basis of the unfunded mandate law because this conference report 
on immigration requires all Federal, State, and local means-tested 
programs, as well as programs such as State driver's licenses, State 
licensing departments, for State occupational licenses as well as any 
grant or funding to first determine whether the individual applying is 
an eligible immigrant.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures just yesterday, 
September 26, 1996, indicated that the mandates of this conference 
report will:

     impose new unfunded mandates on State and local governments 
     regarding deeming requirements for determining immigrant 
     eligibility for all Federal means-tested programs. These 
     provisions create new unfunded Federal mandates, defying the 
     intent of the S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
       This bill requires States to deem many immigrants currently 
     residing in the United States who do not have enforceable 
     affidavits of support. These requirements will place an 
     excessive administrative burden on States by shifting massive 
     costs to State budgets. As we have consistently stated on 
     numerous issues, if the Federal Government expects States to 
     administer Federal programs related to Federal 
     responsibilities, full Federal funding must be provided.

  What are some examples of this massive shift? Let me use the example 
of my own home State of Florida.
  For professional and driver's licenses, the State of Florida 
estimates that it will cost approximately $31 million to verify and 
recertify 13.7 million driver and professional licenses. This figure 
does not include State administration and initiation costs, nor does 
the figure include the amount it will cost to verify new applications 
for these licenses. This is just the cost to verify those that are 
already outstanding.
  Occupational licenses: To determine eligibility for occupational 
licenses based on immigration status, it is estimated that $16 million 
annually will be passed on to the small businesses of my State of 
Florida.
  AIDS patients: Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami alone cares for 
between 1,500 and 2,000 noncitizen AIDS patients annually. The 
estimated cost to treat noncitizen AIDS patients for this one hospital 
will be at least $4 million a year.
  Mr. President, in summary, this conference report violates basic 
concepts of fairness and adds new and, in many cases, retroactive 
restrictions on legal immigrants. It imposes cost shifts to local and 
State governmental agencies in order to comply with its unfunded 
mandates. It violates the legislation which we passed and which we have 
taken great pride in: The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  If this is not an unfunded mandate, what could be an unfunded 
mandate?
  As currently drafted, the conference report would have the following 
negative consequences: It shifts costs to States, local governments, 
and hospitals; it imposes an administrative unfunded mandate on State 
Medicaid programs; and it is not cost effective.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
immediately after my remarks a series of documents, including letters 
from the National Association of Counties, from the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, editorials which have appeared criticizing 
sections of this immigration conference report, and a letter from the 
Governor of Florida outlining the impact that this will have on our 
State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for the reasons stated, I urge that this 
Senate, before it takes up at this late hour important legislation 
which will have the kind of far-reaching effect that this immigration 
bill will have, that we consider carefully the impact that this is 
going to have on the States and communities that we represent.
  I urge that we either delete those provisions from this conference 
report or that the conference report be rejected.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of 
his time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield back the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

                                         NACo National Association


                                                  of Counties,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to urge you to exclude 
     from the conference agreement on immigration (H.R. 2202) 
     provisions that mandate new federal requirements for 
     certificates and drivers licenses, and adds new deeming 
     requirements to determine immigrant eligibility for federal 
     means tested programs. The National Association of Counties 
     (NACo) considers these provisions to be unfunded mandates as 
     a well as a preemption of local authority. While NACo shares 
     the goal of solving the problems posed by illegal 
     immigration, we urge you to oppose the bill if these 
     provisions are not deleted from the conference report.
       Although the birth certificate and drivers' license 
     provisions have improved somewhat by extending the 
     implementation date and making a general reference to federal 
     grant funds, these changes are minimal. Extending the 
     implementation date may avoid the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act threshold of $50 million a year, but it masks the fact 
     that county and state governments will still have to bear the 
     brunt of these expenses. Additionally, these are documents 
     that fall clearly under the jurisdiction of state and local 
     governments. Mandating federal standards on these documents 
     preempts state and local authority and is a hardship on 
     citizens and noncitizens alike.
       The deeming requirements in the conference agreement go 
     beyond the stringent requirements in the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (P.L. 104-193). This law already made the affidavits of 
     support enforceable and extended deeming to federal means 
     tested programs for immigrants with new affidavits of 
     support. The conference agreement, however, would also 
     applying deeming to current legal residents who do not have 
     enforceable affidavits of support. By making this retroactive 
     change, the bill places additional administrative burdens on 
     counties and shifts more costs from the federal programs to 
     county general assistance programs.
       NACo appreciates your consideration of these issues. We 
     urge you again to removed these provisions from the 
     conference agreement, or vote against the legislation if they 
     continue to be included.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the National Conference 
     of State Legislatures, we again urge you to exclude from the 
     conference agreement on immigration legislation, H.R. 2202, 
     provisions that (1) federalize the current state and local 
     driver's license and birth certificate issuance process and 
     establish federal document content standards for both, and 
     (2) impose new unfunded mandates on state and local 
     governments regarding deeming requirements for determining 
     immigrant eligibility for all federal ``means-tested'' 
     programs. These provisions create new unfunded federal 
     mandates, defying the intent of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act. They unnecessarily preempt traditional state 
     auhtority. The provisions also create a ``one size fits all'' 
     administrative process, contradicting the entire spirit of 
     devolution. Furthermore, NCSL believes that these provisions 
     will create an identification nightmare for citizens and 
     legal immigrants. We share with you the goal of managing and 
     resolving issues regarding illegal immigration. However, 
     should these provisions remain in the conference report, NCSL 
     urges you to to oppose the bill.
       We have noted in previous communications that 
     federalization of the driver's license and birth certificate 
     processes is unnecessary, inappropriate and a misguided 
     intrusion into a traditional state and local government 
     responsibility. The conference agreement does improve on 
     language from S. 1660, allowing states to be exempted from 
     using Social Security Numbers on driver's licenses if they 
     satisfy certain federal requirements, moving the 
     implementation date to the year 2000, and alluding to some 
     federal grant funds that may be available to help states pay 
     for the new mandates. However, these are minimal changes at 
     best. We see no compelling public policy reason for the 
     federal government to strip states of their authority 
     regarding driver's licenses and birth certificates nor to 
     endorse an identification mechanism fraught with potential 
     for fraud and abuse. The bill still places enormous unfunded 
     federal mandates on state and local governments.
       The deeming requirements in the immigration reform 
     legislation go well beyond those in the recently enacted 
     welfare reform legislation. The welfare reform law already 
     makes new affidavits of support legally enforceable and 
     extends deeming requirements to all federal means-tested 
     programs for sponsored immigrants with the new affidavits. 
     This bill requires states to deem many immigrants currently 
     residing in the U.S. who do not have enforceable affidavits 
     of support. These requirements will place an excessive 
     administrative burden on states and shift massive costs to 
     state budgets. As we have consistently stated on numerous 
     issues, if the federal government expects states to 
     administer federal programs related to federal 
     responsibilities, full federal funding must be provided.
       We appreciate your consideration of our positions. We urge 
     you again to exclude the

[[Page S11518]]

     aforementioned provisions from any conference report or 
     oppose the report should they be included.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William T. Pound,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                   The Governor of


                                         the State of Florida,

                                               September 23, 1996.
     Hon. Bill McCollum,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: I'm pleased to hear that you and Clay Shaw are 
     conferees on the comprehensive immigration bill (H.R. 2202) 
     as immigration policy certainly continues to be of major 
     importance to Floridians.
       We've previously discussed my opposition to provisions 
     which deny critical assistance to legal tax paying residents 
     of this country who have come here through the legal process 
     and have been law abiding members of our society. As you're 
     well aware, I have been particularly concerned about these 
     provisions and their impact on our Cuban community and am 
     still hopeful that Cuban/Haitian entrants will continue to be 
     given access to all programs as they were under Fascell/
     Stone. The fiscal impact of the new restrictions on our State 
     and local governments is still being assessed but will 
     obviously be an additional burden.
       However, I want to comment on what I see as major conflicts 
     and discrepancies in this conference version language. It 
     appears that the language of H.R. 2202 prohibiting any public 
     benefit to certain legal immigrants is even more restrictive 
     than the new welfare law which as a significant impact on 
     Florida and other states with large immigrant populations.
       It has been over month since the President signed the 
     welfare bill into law. In those weeks, Florida has moved 
     aggressively forward in preparing its state plan and has 
     submitted it to HHS in order to begin implementation by 
     October 1. We have made every effort to provide for a 
     reasonable transition to allow affected families to explore 
     their options and make other arrangements for future needs. 
     Further sweeping restrictions for legal immigrants will 
     require more alterations in administrative processes and will 
     certainly complicate and frustrate an orderly implementation 
     of the law and create disruption in medical care, children's 
     services and other programs in our State.
       I certainly understand and appreciate some of the 
     enforcement provisions of the bill which are directed at 
     controlling immigration. As you know, Florida has recently 
     entered into a unique partnership with the federal government 
     to combat illegal immigration--the Florida Immigration 
     Initiative--and continues to strive to assist where the State 
     has a role in controlling our borders.
       It is my hope that you and the other conferees will focus 
     on these enforcement tools and delete the provisions 
     restricting assistance to legal immigrants in light of the 
     welfare reform restrictions which are already being 
     interpreted and acted upon in many instances.
       I appreciate your continued attention to our concerns in 
     Florida. Please call on me if I can be of any assistance to 
     your efforts.
       With best regards, I am
           Sincerely,
     Lawton Chiles.
                                                                    ____


                       Stop the Immigration Bill

                         (By The Miami-Herald)

       Republicans in Congress eliminated one of the more onerous 
     provisions of the immigration bill yesterday. Resisting 
     pressure from presidential hopeful Bob Dole, they struck out 
     language that would have kept the children of illegal 
     immigrants out of public schools.
       It was a wise and humane move, but not nearly wise nor 
     humane enough: The deletion simply turned a terrible, mean-
     spirited bill into a very bad one.
       It is every country's duty to control its borders and to 
     insist on orderly immigration, but this bill oversteps duty. 
     Its most xeonophobic provisions subvert cherished American 
     traditions, including the offer of asylum to the persecuted 
     and the guarantee of equal rights to all.
       The bill would summarily--without meaningful access to 
     counsel--exclude asylum seekers who arrive in the United 
     States undocumented. This is heartless. It also violates our 
     international obligations, established by treaty, regarding 
     refugees.
       Men and women fleeing oppression are often forced to seize 
     the moment. They don't have the leisure to gather visas and 
     passports. They arrive fearful and scared; often they are 
     unable to speak English well enough to make their plight 
     understood. The United States takes in a tiny share of the 
     men and women who ask for asylum across the world. Last year, 
     it amounted to less than 1 percent of asylum seekers. We can 
     afford to help them, and we should be glad to do it.
       The reunification of families divided by legal immigration 
     would also be encumbered by the bill, which requires 
     sponsors--to have incomes significantly higher than present 
     law demands.
       In addition, the bill goes well beyond the recently enacted 
     welfare reform legislation in limiting the access that legal 
     immigrants have to government programs. For example:
       Legal immigrants would be deported if they receive certain 
     types of government assistance--child care and housing among 
     them--for more than 12 months during their first seven years 
     in the United States.
       After a year in the United States, people who have been 
     paroled and who are not yet legal residents--would become 
     ineligible for means-tested assistance, as well as for 
     grants, professional or commercial licenses, even driver's 
     licenses.
       These provisions make the immigration bill unacceptable. It 
     deserves a veto. President Clinton should not try to wash his 
     hands of responsibility, as he did with the most Draconian 
     elements of last summer's welfare reform. That bill was not 
     perfect, he essentially said then, but it was the best we 
     could.
       The immigration reform is certainly not the best we can do, 
     and we should not settle for it.
                                                                    ____


                          Immigration Politics

       In an effort to salvage the illegal immigration reform 
     bill, congressional Republicans finally backed off their plan 
     to penalize the school children of illegal immigrants--and 
     bucked Bob Dole, their presidential candidate, in the 
     process. Unfortunately, the bill they struggled to save is 
     still a severely flawed piece of work.
       Though the proposal to allow states to deny public 
     education to illegal immigrants was a cornerstone of the 
     House-passed version, it faced a Senate filibuster and a 
     presidential veto. Anxious to save both face and the 
     remainder of the bill, Republicans agreed to uncouple the 
     education proposal from the rest of the bill and vote 
     separately on each.
       Dole belatedly endorsed the move in a letter to conferees. 
     But earlier this month, he tried to strong-arm his former 
     colleagues into retaining the controversial amendment in an 
     attempt to torpedo the immigration reform bill--one he had 
     supported when he was in the Senate--to keep Clinton from 
     scoring political points. That's not just hard-ball. That's 
     irresponsible. Congressional Republicans deserve some credit 
     for defying Dole, even if they acted out of political self-
     interest. The Republicans want to take an immigration bill, 
     even a watered-down one, back home to their constituents 
     before election time.
       Though improved, the bill has other problems which still 
     merit that presidential veto. The conference report gives 
     virtually unchecked authority to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to turn away immigrants, with false 
     papers or none, who seek asylum from genocide, political 
     death squads or other forms of persecution. Though the 
     conferees softened this summary exclusion procedure by 
     inserting a meager administrative review, that is still not 
     sufficient. Also included are restrictions on benefits to 
     legal immigrants more onerous than those contained in the new 
     welfare bill. These defects overshadow the bill's 
     constructive provisions, such as a doubling of the number of 
     Border Patrol officers.
       The Clinton administration has voiced tepid concern and has 
     so far withheld its promise of support. But undoubtedly eager 
     to claim victory himself, Clinton cannot be counted on to 
     veto the bill even with these glaring problems. On illegal 
     immigration reform, like welfare, he might not be that far 
     behind Dole on the pander meter.
                                                                    ____


                           Immigrant Bashing

       Congress is waging its usual election-year war on 
     immigrants. Although we suspect, in this case, the real 
     target of the new immigration ``reform'' bill making its way 
     through Congress is Bill Clinton.
       Yes, Republicans have stripped from the bill--in the face 
     of a Clinton veto threat--a provision that would allow states 
     to throw the children of illegal immigrants out of school, 
     presumably to run wild and ignorant in the streets.
       But the measure that remains is still far too punitive in 
     its treatment of both legal and illegal immigrants, too 
     lenient on U.S. employers who hire illegals and too willing 
     to grant the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     chilling new authority.
       This week, legal immigrants around the nation were being 
     told that they are no longer eligible for food stamps, thanks 
     to the recently enacted welfare reform bill. The anti-
     immigrant measure would continue that trend of denying legal 
     immigrants public assistance when they are in trouble. These 
     are people who have permission to be here, who hold down jobs 
     when they can get them and who pay taxes and otherwise 
     support the economy.
       One particularly mean-spirited provision, for instance, 
     would even deny legal immigrants Medicaid assistance for the 
     treatment of AIDS or HIV-related illnesses. Let them suffer, 
     chortle the bashers in Congress.
       And what about unscrupulous employers who hire illegal 
     immigrants for slave wages, thus encouraging still more 
     undocumented aliens to flock to this country? Congress 
     couldn't be bothered to crack down too hard on such 
     practices. Tougher penalties for such practices were deleted 
     from the bill.
       One of the most ominous provisions of the bill would grant 
     an unprecedented degree of autonomy to the INS. Under the 
     measure, no court, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, would 
     be authorized to grant injunctions against that police agency 
     when it acts in a legally questionable manner. That's an 
     immunity not afforded the IRS, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement 
     Agency or any other federal police force. Giving it to the 
     INS would constitute a frightening precedent.

[[Page S11519]]

       The bill isn't all bad. It authorizes a much-needed 
     increase in the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. It would 
     establish new, more efficient procedures for verifying the 
     status of legal immigrants. It would provide tougher 
     penalties for document fraud and for those who smuggle aliens 
     into the country.
       But there are so many harsh, immigrant-bashing provisions 
     in the bill that, on balance, it deserves a veto. This is an 
     issue that cries out for resolution after the election--when 
     lawmakers are less inclined to use the immigration issue as a 
     political football.
       If President Clinton vetoes the measure, Republicans are 
     sure to paint him as ``soft'' on illegal immigrants. Indeed, 
     Bob Dole is already hitting on that very theme because of the 
     president's unwillingness to purge the classrooms of the 
     children of illegal aliens.
       But as a matter of principle, Clinton should stand up to 
     the Republicans this time and refuse to participate in their 
     immigrant-bashing.
       This is another case where politics makes for bad public 
     policy.
                                                                    ____


                      A Dangerous Immigration Bill

                      (New York Times, Editorial)

       As the White House and members of Congress make final 
     decisions this week about a severely flawed immigration bill, 
     they seem more concerned with protecting their political 
     interests than the national interest. The bill should be 
     killed.
       Debate over the bill has concentrated on whether it should 
     contain a punitive amendment that would close school doors to 
     illegal-immigrant children. But even without that provision, 
     it is filled with measures that would harm American workers 
     and legal immigrants, and deny basic legal protections to all 
     kinds of immigrants. At the same time, the bill contains no 
     serious steps to prevent illegal immigrants from taking 
     American jobs.
       Its most dangerous provisions would block Federal courts 
     from reviewing many Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     actions. This would remove the only meaningful check on the 
     I.N.S., an agency with a history of abuse. Under the bill, 
     every court short of the Supreme Court would be effectively 
     stripped of the power to issue injunctions against the I.N.S. 
     when its decisions may violate the law or the Constitution.
       Injunctions have proven the only way to correct system-wide 
     illegalities. A court injunction, for instance, forced the 
     I.N.S. to drop its discriminatory policy of denying Haitian 
     refugees the chance to seek political asylum.
       On an individual level, legal immigrants convicted of minor 
     crimes would be deported with no judicial review. If they 
     apply for naturalization, they would be deported with no 
     judicial review. If they apply for naturalization, they would 
     be deported for such crimes committed in the past. The I.N.S. 
     would gain the power to pick up people it believes are 
     illegal aliens anywhere, and deport them without a court 
     review if they have been here for less than two years.
       The bill would also diminish America's tradition of 
     providing asylum to the persecuted. Illegal immigrants 
     entering the country, who may not speak English or be 
     familiar with American law, would be summarily deported if 
     they do not immediately request asylum or express fear of 
     persecution. Those who do would have to prove that their fear 
     was credible--a tougher standard than is internationally 
     accepted--to an I.N.S. official on the spot, with no right to 
     an interpreter or attorney.
       Scam artists with concocted stories would be more likely to 
     pass the test than the genuinely persecuted, who are often 
     afraid of authority and so traumatized they cannot recount 
     their experiences. Applicants would have a week to appeal to 
     a Justice Department administrative judge but no access to 
     real courts before deportation.
       The bill would also go further than the recently adopted 
     welfare law in attacking legal immigrants. Under the 
     immigration bill they could be deported for using almost any 
     form of public assistance for a year, including English 
     classes. It would make family reunification more difficult by 
     requiring high incomes for sponsors of new immigrants. The 
     bill would also require workers who claim job discrimination 
     to prove that an employer intended to discriminate, which is 
     nearly impossible.
       A bill that grants so many unrestricted powers to the 
     Government should alarm Republicans as well as Democrats. 
     This is not an immigration bill but an immigrant-bashing 
     bill. It deserves a quick demise.

  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________