[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4846-H4851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROHIBITING ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM RECEIVING RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 849) to prohibit an alien who is not 
lawfully present in the United States from receiving assistance under 
the Uniform

[[Page H4847]]

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 
1970.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                H.R. 849

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

     SECTION 1. DISPLACED PERSON DEFINED.

       Section 101(6)(B) of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 
     Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     4601(6)(B) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; and ''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) an alien that is not lawfully present in the United 
     States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 
read for amendment.


           Committee Amendment in The Nature Of A Substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. DISPLACED PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 104. DISPLACED PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), a 
     displaced person shall not be eligible to receive relocation 
     payments or any other assistance under this Act if the 
     displaced person is an alien not lawfully present in the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Determinations of Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Issuance of regulations.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, and after 
     providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, the 
     head of the lead agency shall issue regulations to carry out 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Contents of regulations.--Regulations issued under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) prescribe the processes, procedures, and information 
     that a displacing agency must use in determining whether a 
     displaced person is an alien not lawfully present in the 
     United States;
       ``(B) prohibit a displacing agency from discriminating 
     against any displaced person;
       ``(C) ensure that each eligibility determination is fair 
     and based on reliable information; and
       ``(D) prescribe standards for a displacing agency to apply 
     in making determinations relating to exceptional and 
     extremely unusual hardship under subsection (c).
       ``(c) Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship.--If a 
     displacing agency determines by clear and convincing evidence 
     that a determination of the ineligibility of a displaced 
     person under subsection (a) would result in exceptional and 
     extremely unusual hardship to an individual who is the 
     displaced person's spouse, parent, or child and who is a 
     citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence, the displacing agency shall provide 
     relocation payments and other assistance to the displaced 
     person under this Act if the displaced person is otherwise 
     eligible for such assistance.
       ``(d) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section may be construed to affect any rights available 
     to a displaced person under any other provision of Federal or 
     State law.''.

     SEC. 2. DUTIES OF LEAD AGENCY.

       Section 213(a) of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 
     Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     4633(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) provide, in consultation with the Attorney General 
     (acting through the Commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service), through training and technical 
     assistance activities, information developed with the 
     Attorney General (acting through the Commissioner) on proper 
     implementation of section 104;
       ``(3) ensure that displacing agencies implement section 104 
     fairly and without discrimination;''.

  Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the bill, H.R. 
849, a bill to amend the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
Property Acquisition Policies Act to prohibit illegal aliens from 
receiving relocation assistance associated with Federal projects and 
grants. The bill was introduced by our esteemed colleague, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Ron Packard, and is cosponsored by 25 
additional Members.
  H.R. 849 plugs a loophole left open in last year's immigration reform 
bill. That bill prohibits illegal aliens from receiving Federal 
benefits. However, because the relocation assistance provided under the 
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act is technically compensation rather 
than a benefit, the Department of Transportation has concluded that it 
cannot legally deny relocation assistance to aliens, even if they are 
present in the United States illegally. As a result, such compensation 
has been paid to illegal aliens in several instances.
  For example, one illegal alien who was relocated according to a 
Federal project was actually given $12,000 in federally funded 
relocation assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, this approach wastes taxpayer money and it makes no 
sense at all. Federal relocation assistance should not be given to 
those who are illegally in our country. H.R. 849 will correct this and 
make the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act consistent with last year's 
immigration reform bill.
  Working together with the ranking Democratic member on our committee, 
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Jim Oberstar, and the principal 
sponsor, the gentleman from California Mr. Ron Packard, we have crafted 
a bipartisan bill to correct this problem.
  As reported by the committee, H.R. 849 contains a general provision 
prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving relocation assistance. It 
also contains four important features which clarify the bill's intent 
and ensures fair and consistent implementation.
  First, the bill will require DOT to issue uniform regulations for the 
implementation of the bill and to require that eligibility 
determinations be made on a nondiscriminatory basis using only reliable 
evidence.
  Second, the bill contains a safety net provision that is consistent 
with existing immigration law. If an illegal alien can provide clear 
and convincing evidence of an exceptional and extremely unusual 
hardship, he or she will remain eligible for relocation assistance.
  Third, the bill makes clear that by prohibiting relocation assistance 
under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, we do not intend to take 
away any other rights to compensation that an illegal alien might have 
under other Federal or State laws.
  Fourth, the bill directs DOT to provide training to other agencies on 
how to implement the provisions of the bill fairly and without 
discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar] and his staff for the cooperative way in which they have 
worked with us to craft this bill. This has been a truly bipartisan 
effort. I also note that the administration has reviewed the proposal 
and does not object to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard] for sponsoring this legislation and bringing an important 
issue to the attention of the House. H.R. 849 is a good bill that plugs 
the loophole in Federal law. I would recommend an ``aye'' vote on the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, that this 
has been a bipartisan effort. There has been splendid cooperation on 
the part of the majority staff with the Democratic staff. We welcome 
that splendid participation that we have always maintained in our 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding time to me.

[[Page H4848]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all commend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] for his brilliant efforts to reform the 
immigration mess in the country in a fair and equitable way. I think 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the chairman, discussed the 
foundation case that brought the attention and the microscope to this 
matter: $12,000 in Federal housing assistance went to an undocumented 
alien.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think we are hung up on the term in the 
Congress. We are not talking about immigrants. I do not think there is 
a person in the Congress that is opposed to immigrants. We are all 
products of immigrants. We are talking about illegal immigrants, and we 
are talking about money for illegal immigrants. And we had better get 
on with the discussion, because as a Congress we are cutting education, 
we are cutting welfare, we are cutting food stamps for our own 
citizens; but yet, through many loopholes, we are providing Federal 
benefits and millions and millions of dollars to illegal immigrants.
  This is not going to stop all of that. It certainly does not run 
rampant over anyone's rights, because the constitutional rights were 
protected by a fine agreement, I believe, made with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
that made sure that this bill would provide an exception for extreme 
and unusual hardships, which mirror those that already exist in 
immigration laws we have recently passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to stand here today, and I am very proud to be 
part of the program that brought this to the floor. I believe the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has done a great job and a 
great service. I hope Congress will pass it overwhelmingly.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have brought this bill to the House floor in response 
to a loophole, as has been explained, in the current immigration and 
welfare reform bills that we passed last year. We thought we had 
covered all of the areas that would prevent illegal aliens, those who 
are here in this country illegally, from receiving taxpayer-funded 
benefits; but we apparently missed this one area where $12,000 in my 
district was paid to an illegal alien that was being displaced from a 
housing project when the housing project was being converted into an 
AIDS Housing Program, another government program. HUD determined that 
the relocation requirements require them to pay benefits or relocation 
costs and assistance to this illegal family.
  Mr. Speaker, at the same time there were legal families, legal 
residents, citizens of the United States, that were in the same project 
that received $400 for relocation assistance. A quirk in the law 
required that $12,000 be paid to the illegal mother and only $400 to 
the American citizens that were displaced from the very same housing 
project. This is something that I think all Americans, and certainly, 
to my knowledge, all Members of Congress feel that this ought to be 
corrected.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply to correct that loophole. Mine was 
not the only case. We have researched it and found that there are many, 
many other cases where housing assistance, relocation assistance, has 
been given, and in some cases the money was given to the illegal alien 
so they could go down to Mexico and buy their own home in Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, that is simply unconscionable to the American citizens, 
where their tax dollars would be used to go to someone that broke the 
law to come into this country, and then they would receive enough 
assistance to go down and buy a home in Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I think 
there is no Member of Congress that would not wish to have this 
corrected.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful parts of this Correction Day 
procedure, and I should like to just speak briefly to the merits of 
having this opportunity to bring a noncontroversial bill that is 
designed to correct a loophole or a deficiency in existing law, that 
needs to be done without going through the long and drawn-out procedure 
of hearings and committee and subcommittee activity, and ultimately, 
the debate and so forth, this allows it to be fast-tracked. I very much 
appreciate the corrections process that allows this.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the work of the chairman of the 
committee that has jurisdiction over this issue, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the 
ranking member and former chairman of the committee, and all members of 
the committee that worked on this. I deeply appreciate their 
willingness to accept it and to bring it to the floor of the House, and 
the staff that also worked on it. I believe it does correct a very 
important deficiency. I hope all Members of Congress will vote for it.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], our colleague and chairman of the Corrections 
Advisory Group.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise under the 
Corrections Calendar. The Corrections Advisory Group is responsible for 
identifying and eliminating outdated or unnecessary laws, rules, and 
regulations. With over 67,000 pages of regulations alone, we have a lot 
of work to do.
  The bill before us today is the third bill to be considered under the 
Corrections Calendar. It is the third bill to correct an outdated or 
unnecessary law. Today it will be the third bill passed by the House 
under this unique process. By working with my colleagues, and as a 
result of the efforts of the gentleman from California, Mr. Ron 
Packard, we were able to identify the problem and to quickly find a 
solution. It is the bipartisan nature of the Corrections Advisory Group 
that makes this targeted action possible.
  When the Congress enacted immigration reform last year, it spoke 
clearly: No Federal benefits would be paid to those who are illegally 
present in the United States. Unfortunately, an anomaly in the housing 
law allowed relocation benefits to be paid to an illegal alien to the 
tune of $12,000. My colleague, the gentleman from California, as I 
mentioned, brought this loophole to the Congress' attention, and 
through the bipartisan Corrections Day process we are able to correct 
this glaring error.
  The bill clarifies that, if an individual is here illegally, that 
status must be taken into account when paying Federal benefits under 
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy 
Act. While the name may sound complicated, the goal of the bill is 
clear: Those individuals who enter the country illegally should not 
receive relocation benefits.
  As chairman of the Corrections Day Advisory Group, it was a pleasure 
to recommend this bill for action. I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for quickly 
reporting this bill to the House. I would also like to commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] for his diligence in seeing 
this bill through. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for 
sponsoring this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Freehold Borough, one of the towns in my district and 
the hometown of Bruce Springsteen, has experienced firsthand the 
frustrations of a bloated Washington bureaucracy that seems intent on 
wasting their hard-earned tax dollars. As part of a plan that took 
place in 1994 to renew an area by the borough and HUD, the borough 
discovered that some of the families they helped relocate while 
improvements were being made turned out to be people that were living 
in this country illegally. As a result, the taxpayers of Freehold 
Borough ended up paying over $60,000 of their hard-earned income and 
property tax dollars to people who had broken the law.
  Just last week we celebrated cost-of-government day, the day in which 
the average American worker could finally

[[Page H4849]]

celebrate their independence from Government taxes and regulations. The 
citizens of Freehold Borough and of America worked 183 days to pay for 
the services of government. Once again, we discover another area where 
the Government has wasted their hard-earned money.
  The fact that Freehold Borough property taxpayers had to pick up most 
of the bill for this Federal policy is simply wrong. Freehold Borough 
tried to get assistance and clarification from HUD before issuing 
payment, but the answer from HUD was clear: All dislocated people, 
regardless of immigrant status, were to be paid relocation assistance. 
This has happened in other parts of the country as well.
  Additional questions raised by Freehold as to how this income would 
be reported and how the borough would document this expense was 
referred to the IRS: more bureaucracy, more red tape, no help, and more 
waste of the taxpayers' money.
  As the grandson of legal immigrants, I understand the importance of 
diversity and supporting legal immigration. However, I cannot support 
measures that encourage illegal immigration. What does a potential 
illegal immigrant think when he or she hears of stories like this? We 
should not reward people who break the law. Support this legislation.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying premise of H.R. 849 is not controversial. 
Persons illegally in the United States should not receive assistance 
under the Uniform Relocation Act. However, as with so many of the 
issues that we face, the devil is in the details and there certainly 
were a number of details that needed closer examination.
  When we began several weeks ago to examine this legislation, several 
concerns arose for me on the details of how to ensure fair application 
of such a ban when there are dozens of agencies, Federal and non-
Federal, that provide assistance under this Uniform Relocation Act.
  We raised those questions with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] and with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, our colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], former member of our Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and together we worked out those 
concerns.
  In the substitute before us, the committee has crafted language that 
will ensure that this ban will be administered fairly and without 
discrimination against applicants for uniform relocation assistance. 
The legislation establishes that persons illegally in this country will 
not be eligible for Uniform Relocation Act assistance. Then it goes on 
to include important provisions that will ensure evenhanded 
implementation.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the committee and 
particularly the gentleman from Minnesota made significant improvements 
on the bill, I thought, that left a safety net so that no one would be 
stripped of any legal opportunities and benefits that would be 
available to them. I really appreciate the improvements that came on 
the bill as a result of the committee's action.
  I might also mention that I have a letter from the Department of HUD 
as well as from OMB that has done an interagency review of the bill and 
they have indicated that the administration has no objections to the 
bill as it is now submitted. I again want to thank the gentleman for 
making improvements on the original bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Further to that point, we do have a letter from the administration, 
from the Office of Management and Budget, indicating no objection to 
the legislation but also indicating that when the legislation is 
considered in the Senate, they would ask for a full year to coordinate 
and issue implementing regulations for the bill.
  First, this legislation requires the Department of Transportation to 
issue regulations after notice and after opportunity for public comment 
to specify how the displacing agencies will go about determining who is 
and who is not eligible for assistance because of their immigration 
status. The regulations must provide that all applicants for assistance 
will furnish information about their immigration status, not just those 
who speak with foreign accents or those who have a different skin 
color. All agencies, Federal, State, or local that use Federal funds 
for a real estate acquisition that displaces people must comply with 
these regulations. And these uniform rules will apply whether the 
displacement is caused by a new highway or a new senior citizen center, 
to be evenhanded.
  Secondly, the bill makes it clear that the ban is intended to be 
limited to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. The prohibition 
on assistance does not affect a person's right under the Constitution 
to due process or Federal or State law for just compensation for taking 
of property.
  Third, the bill provides for a limited administrative decision in 
cases of extreme hardship.
  I insisted that the bill include this provision to ensure that 
agencies will have some latitude to respond to complicated cases where 
refusing assistance might be devastating to families which include U.S. 
citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
  We cannot predict every possible situation that may deserve that kind 
of discretion, but we can be certain that this narrow flexibility will 
someday enable Government agencies and State agencies to provide 
critically needed assistance to U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. 
residents.
  I would also note there is a high standard for qualifying for this 
waiver and that the burden of proof is shifted, the burden of proof 
will rest on the applicants.
  This provision is not meant to create an impossible standard, a bar 
so high that it would preclude assistance to even the most deserving 
families which include U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. The 
Department of Transportation must ensure that it will carefully guide 
agencies in the judicial use of this provision.
  Fourth, the bill further requires the Department of Transportation to 
develop training and technical assistance activities that will help 
promote implementation of the ban. Education, in other words, a very 
important component, I believe, of this legislation. And that will 
ensure that the many agencies covered under the Uniform Relocation Act 
will understand the complexities of determining eligibility based on 
immigration status.
  We have to remember that the issue of illegal immigration stirs very 
deep passions across this country. And it is a problem that has given 
rise to appalling examples of avoidance of the laws, as the gentleman 
has pointed out, but also appalling examples of blatant discrimination. 
We cannot allow a sensible policy to become a new tool for 
discrimination against those who may differ from us. If that were the 
case, as my colleague from Ohio said a little earlier, we are a nation 
of immigrants, in particular, in the district that I represent, they 
come from all parts of the world; we would certainly not want to 
discriminate against people because of where they originated or how 
they speak English with a different accent.
  The very diversity that has made this country strong should not be a 
pretext for treating people unfairly.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri as well as Mr. 
Packard for their cooperation in addressing those concerns that I have 
had on constitutional grounds, on personal grounds, and for bringing 
this piece of legislation together. I have no objection to adoption of 
the bill now before us and urge its enactment.
  However, on a personal basis, I have to once again express, as I have 
repeatedly in this Chamber, my opposition to this Correction Day 
calendar procedure. I believe it short-circuits the regular legislative 
process. It abbreviates, it compresses the deliberative nature of the 
legislative process. And my deepest concern is that in time, without 
care and attention, it can become a vehicle for special interest 
favoritism. Bills proposed for this corrections calendar, at least 
those that have come through our Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, could well

[[Page H4850]]

have come up under the suspension calendar, subjected to a much higher 
test of a two-thirds vote. In this case this particular bill could well 
have come up on the union calendar for a much broader deliberative text 
test, subject to amendment, open to broader debate and consideration on 
the House floor and broader test of suitability.
  While I think our committee has been very judicious in the way it has 
handled correction calendar legislation, I personally am, just on a 
procedural basis, very much opposed to this process. While I am not 
going to be obstructionist about it, I must once again express my 
reservations and my opposition to the practice. But, again, let me 
express my appreciation to Mr. Shuster and Mr. Petri and to the staff 
on both sides for their deliberate consideration in giving this bill 
every full measure of consideration that it would have had, had we 
brought it up under other procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to acknowledge 
the hard work and contribution of a number of people that took this 
concept and worked out a lot of the kinks, if not every single kink; 
there may be one or two more that we will be working out with the 
Senate before it goes to the President for his signature. Paul 
Rosenzweig of our committee, the able assistant to Mr. Packard, and 
Chris Peace and Cordia Strom of the Committee on the Judiciary all made 
outstanding contributions to getting this legislation in proper form.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 849, which 
would prohibit illegal aliens from receiving relocation assistance from 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. This legislation 
continues Congress' commitment to stop providing taxpayer supported 
benefits to illegal aliens.
  Like many of my constituents, I was shocked to read on February 12, 
1997, the San Diego Union-Tribune headline ``Immigrant Status No Bar to 
Housing Aid, Undocumented Tenant To Get $12,000 in Relocation Funds.'' 
The article, written by Lola Sherman, highlights how an illegal alien 
living in Oceanside, CA, was provided $12,000 by HUD for relocation 
assistance. I have attached the article for the Record. This illegal 
alien was living in a public housing complex which was purchased by 
Community Housing of North County, a private, nonprofit organization 
that is planning to remodel the complex to provide housing to people 
with AIDS. The illegal alien and the other members of the public 
housing complex were to be relocated to other housing by HUD under the 
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. Of the other 21 residents of this 
complex, all legal residents, 10 received no assistance for relocation. 
The other 11 either moved into subsidized housing or received between 
$1,000 and $2,500 in relocation assistance.
  However, because the illegal alien was not eligible to move into 
subsidized housing, and because the alien had no legal taxable income, 
HUD was required to provide the illegal alien the maximum possible 
Federal subsidy under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act for 
relocation assistance. In this case, the illegal alien was provided 
$12,000, far more than the other citizens and legal residents were 
provided for living in the same situation.
  Immediately, I joined Mr. Packard in supporting this important 
legislation, which would deny assistance under the Uniform Relocation 
Assistance Act to illegal aliens. This commonsense legislation 
continues Congress' commitment to stopping taxpayer benefits to illegal 
aliens. Last year, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act and the Immigration in the National Interest Act to 
stop generous taxpayer benefits from being paid to illegal aliens. By 
passing this legislation today, we will remove one more magnet which 
draws illegal aliens to our country and ensure that our limited 
taxpayers' dollars are focused to our citizens who need help most.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this 
commonsense legislation. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 849.

           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 12, 1997]

     Woman Gets $12,000 in Housing Aid Despite Undocumented Status

                           (By Lola Sherman)

       Oceanside.--An Oceanside woman is being paid $12,000 in 
     federal housing money to move from an apartment complex here 
     even though she isn't a legal resident of the United States.
       The woman, Olivia Solorio, is one of a dozen individuals or 
     families that were relocated after their former apartments on 
     South Tremont Street were bought by Community Housing of 
     North County, a private, nonprofit organization that soon 
     will begin remodeling the complex to house AIDS patients.
       Most of the other tenants of the apartments, all legal 
     residents of the country, moved either to rent-subsidized 
     apartments or received much smaller relocation payments. 
     Solorio's payment of $12,000 was largely the result of her 
     undocumented status and her lack of income, officials 
     acknowledge.
       City and federal officials, as well as documented residents 
     ousted from the complex, say the large payment to Solorio 
     doesn't seem fair.
       ``It's the law,'' said Nancy Lahey, relocation specialist 
     in the Los Angeles regional office of the U.S. Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development. ``I think it will take an act 
     of Congress to change it.''
       Solorio and the other tenants were moved from the 22-unit 
     complex over the last several months. Work is to begin Feb. 
     24 on a $480,000 remodeling project so the complex can house 
     low-income tenants with AIDS.
       Oceanside has funneled $310,750 of its federal housing 
     funds into the remodeling, said Richard Goodman, city housing 
     director. The entire project will cost about $1.7 million, 
     mostly from federal tax credits offered to investors. Of 
     that, $1.1 million is in so-called ``hard costs'' such as 
     land acquisition and renovation. The rest is for relocation 
     expenses, a reserve for future rental assistance for the new 
     tenants and a developer fee to North County Housing, formerly 
     called Esperanza.
       About 10 tenants moved from the apartments without any 
     assistance. To save money on relocation expenses for the 
     remaining 12, Goodman said, officials were able to relocate 
     most of them to Section 8 housing, which provides federal 
     rent subsidies. They received no relocation payments.
       But Solorio does not qualify for Section 8 housing since 
     she is not a legal resident. She will, however, get $12,000 
     under the Uniform Relocation Act, which does not consider 
     immigration status.
       ``It has always rubbed me the wrong way, but there is 
     nothing I can do about it,'' Goodman said.
       HUD's Lahey said, ``It's kind of crazy.'' Undocumented 
     immigrants are eligible for one kind of public aid and not 
     another, she said, adding that she wasn't happy about giving 
     taxpayer dollars to an undocumented resident, but was not 
     able to do anything about it.
       Explaining the formula used to figure the payment, Lahey 
     said if, for example, people displaced by a federally 
     financed project had an income of $600 a month, they would be 
     expected to pay just under a third of that, or about $180, 
     for rent. If the rent in the new apartment was $400, they 
     would be entitled to the difference--$220--for a period of 42 
     months.
       Solorio, 49, from Jalisco, Mexico, had lived in the South 
     Tremont apartments since July 1994. It was unclear whether 
     she would be subject to deportation. City housing records 
     describe her status only as ``undocumented.''
       In an interview, Solorio said, ``My documentation is in 
     process.'' She denied seeking any large amount of money and 
     expressed surprise at the sum due her.
       She said she does not work outside the home but takes care 
     of two small children. She did not disclose her income, but 
     said she pays $465 a month, plus utilities, in her new 
     apartment. In the Tremont apartment, she paid $450 including 
     utilities.
       Her two youngest sons, 13 and 15, live with her. All 10 of 
     her children reside in California, she said, and she has been 
     here for seven years.
       Solorio said she has not gotten any sizable payments as 
     yet. ``I don't know anything about it,'' she added, 
     indicating she has received only a small amount for moving 
     expenses.
       But Del Richardson of Del Richardson and Associates, the 
     Yorba Linda firm in charge of distributing the money under 
     contract to North County Housing, said Solorio has received 
     half the $12,000, while a check for the other half will be 
     sent to her ``sometime this month.''
       Richardson said that Solorio may be unaware of some of the 
     assistance she has received because it went directly to the 
     owner of her new apartment, for rent and the security 
     deposit, and was paid to other vendors for moving costs. But 
     she said Solorio has received direct payments as well.
       Horacio Ortiz and Concepcion Diaz, two other former tenants 
     of the South Tremont Street apartments, were among four 
     tenants besides Solorio who either turned down Section 8 
     housing or were not eligible for it. Because both have higher 
     incomes than Solorio, Ortiz received $1,512 and Diaz $2,142 
     from the same fund that will pay Solorio $12,095, records 
     show.
       Oritz, who lived in the Tremont apartments since 1974, 
     isn't happy about the situation. ``It's not fair--she has 
     less time here and she doesn't have (immigration) papers,'' 
     he said.
       Diaz, a resident in the Tremont units since 1982, agreed. 
     ``She doesn't have papers and she hasn't been here very 
     long,'' she said.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, illegal aliens should not be rewarded with 
taxpayer dollars. When we passed immigration reform legislation last 
year, I thought that this was made crystal clear. Imagine my 
astonishment when I read in the San Diego Union-Tribune that an 
undocumented, unemployed, mother of 10 was handed $12,000 in relocation 
assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD].

[[Page H4851]]

  This woman was living in my district when HUD selected her apartment 
building in Oceanside, CA, to be transformed into a low-income AIDS 
patient housing project. Under provisions of the Uniform Relocation 
Act, HUD was required, like every other Federal agency, to either 
provide alternative housing for displaced residents or grant direct 
funding to residents relocating on their own.
  Mr. Speaker, many of those displaced by the project were moved into 
section 8 housing and received an average of $400 in Federal rent 
subsidies. However, because the Uniform Relocation Act does not 
consider citizenship status when doling out relocation assistance, this 
undocumented woman received $12,000 simply because she was residing in 
this country illegally.
  When the Government goes out of its way to hand out free money to 
illegal aliens, it should be no surprise that our Nation continues to 
suffer from the devastating effects of illegal immigration. We have no 
right to expect our citizens to foot the bill when the Federal 
Government blatantly defies the American taxpayer. I will not let that 
continue. Today, we will consider H.R. 849. I introduced this bill in 
February to close this loophole which enabled an illegal alien to 
receive Federal housing benefits. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
pledge their support for denying Federal benefits to illegal 
immigrants.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodling). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and on the bill.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed to a time not earlier than 5 
p.m. today.

                          ____________________