[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10272-S10274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CENTRAL AMERICAN REFUGEES

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a few 
moments about a very special provision that is now before the Senate, 
which we will vote on next week, and that is the amendment which has 
been proposed by Senator Mack, Senator Graham, and myself, which is 
pending on the D.C. appropriations bill. Without this amendment, 
thousands of Central American refugee families who fled death squads 
and persecution in their native lands and found safe haven in the 
United States would be forced to return to their countries. Republican 
and Democratic administrations alike promised them repeatedly that they 
will get their day in court to make their claims to remain in the 
United States.
  Last year's immigration law, however, turned its back on that 
commitment and treated these families unfairly. This legislation 
reinstates that promise and guarantees these families the day in court 
they deserve--that's all, just the day in court they deserve to be able 
to make their case, which they were promised at the time they came to 
the United States, by Republican and Democratic administrations.

[[Page S10273]]

 That particular guarantee was eliminated in the bill last year. It is 
the attempt by Senator Mack and Senator Graham and myself to maintain 
that commitment to these families.
  Virtually all of these families fled to the United States in the 
1980's from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Many were targeted 
by death squads and faced persecution at the hands of rogue militias. 
They came to America to seek safety and freedom for themselves and 
their children. The Reagan administration, the Bush administration, and 
the Clinton administration assured them that they could apply to remain 
permanently in the United States under our immigration laws. They were 
promised that if they have lived here for at least 7 years and are of 
good moral character, and if a return to Central America would be an 
unusual hardship, they would be allowed to remain. They have to meet 
those particular requirements and if they don't meet those 
requirements, then they are unable to remain in the United States. Last 
year's immigration law violated that commitment.
  President Clinton has promised to find a fair and reasonable solution 
for these families, and the administration will use its authority to 
help as many of them as possible. But Congress must do its part by 
enacting this corrective legislation.
  Earlier in the course of today's debate, our colleague from Texas, 
Senator Gramm, talked at some length about this particular amendment 
and about the situation in which these refugees find themselves. I 
would like to just clarify and respond to some of the comments that 
were made earlier in the day.
  The first comment was this legislation reverses our immigration laws 
enacted just last year. The answer is the law was changed on these 
families retroactively, we took steps, gave guarantees, and then took 
action. These families had very little to do with it, and now the law 
was changed. They played by the rules laid out by President Reagan, 
President Bush, and the Clinton administration. They were promised 
their day in court. But last year's law went back on that promise. All 
we are trying to do is to make sure they are given their day in court.
  Then the comment was made that this should go through the Immigration 
Subcommittee, not on an appropriations bill. Our chairman, Senator 
Abraham, spoke in support of this amendment. He is the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, and I am the ranking member. We are in strong 
support of this particular proposal, as I believe the members of the 
committee are.
  The further point that was made by Senator Gramm was we need to stop 
illegal immigration, that this is an amnesty. Mr. President, it is an 
insult to these hard-working refugees, and their families who have 
suffered so much pain and hardship and who relied in good faith on the 
solemn promise they were given to call them illegal aliens or call what 
we are doing an amnesty. Virtually all of these families are already 
known to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not 
illegal aliens working underground. These are families who applied to 
come to the United States under INS programs, and they are here on a 
variety of temporary immigration categories. They have acted in accord 
with what our Government told them to do.

  Not all these families will qualify to remain here under the terms of 
this amendment. They still must meet certain standards that existed in 
the law before the law was changed and applied retroactively. The 
Immigration Service estimates that less than half of those who qualify 
to apply to remain in this country will be approved. These families are 
law-abiding, tax-paying members of communities in all parts of America. 
In many, many cases, they have children who were born in this country 
and who are U.S. citizens by birth. They deserve to be treated fairly.
  I just want to take a few moments to talk about who these people are. 
Zulema Balladares came to the United States from Nicaragua in 1986. If 
she is deported, she will be leaving her husband and four children who 
are lawful, permanent residents here in the United States. The 
Balladares have strong ties to the United States. They own their home, 
and two of their children serve in the U.S. Army, both served in 
Bosnia. Their children's ages range from 13 to 21 and have all resided 
in Miami for the past 10 years, the majority of the children's lives.
  Justina Jiron entered the United States 12 years ago along with other 
family members. She has two U.S. citizen children. Her youngest, a 
baby, has a need for surgery and ongoing medical treatment as a result 
of a birth defect. Thankfully, she has health insurance to cover the 
expenses. However, unfortunately, if she is deported back to Nicaragua, 
her baby will not be able to obtain the needed medical treatment, 
because it is not available there. Since this lack of surgery and care 
is life threatening to the child, the deportation of Ms. Jiron will 
result in sending a U.S. citizen to death.
  Enrique Sequeira, now 21 years old, came to the United States from 
Nicaragua at the age of 13 in 1988. He has been an outstanding student 
in the United States and has received numerous academic awards. In 
addition to excelling academically, Mr. Sequeira is a member of the 
Junior ROTC and has been involved extensively in community work in 
Miami. He was granted suspension of deportation November 1996, but the 
INS appealed that decision based on the Immigration Reform Law of 1996. 
If the INS appeal is granted, Mr. Sequeira faces disrupting his bright 
future and returning to a country he has not lived in since he was a 
young teenager.
  Leonte Martinez is extensively involved in community service helping 
underprivileged youths of all nationalities in several church-sponsored 
programs. He owns his own home and earns $38,000 a year with medical 
benefits for his entire family. He has been in the United States since 
1986. He is married to a lawful permanent resident, has three children, 
two of them U.S. citizens. His mother-in-law, a lawful permanent 
resident, resides with his family. Mr. Martinez was granted suspension 
of deportation in January 1997. According to the immigration judge, his 
was the best case she had ever heard. Apparently it was not strong 
enough, because INS is appealing in order to be able to deport him.
  Finally, Roberto Bautista came to the United States 10 years ago from 
El Salvador. His wife and two children have been in the United States 
for 12 years. They are a typical upstanding American family. He and his 
wife hold down two jobs, pay their taxes, have no criminal histories, 
have health insurance, and have never been on public assistance. Their 
daughter graduated from the University of Miami and is presently 
employed by a graphic artist for a newspaper. Their son is an honors 
student at Georgia Tech, studying engineering, and was awarded the 
Silver Knight award by the Miami Herald for his outstanding volunteer 
service.
  These individuals are entitled to have administrative process to make 
a judgment as to their ability to remain here in the United States or 
whether deportation would serve as a particular hardship. That is all 
we are attempting to do, under the Mack and Graham amendment. We ought 
to have enough respect for individuals and individual rights and 
liberties to treat fairly these families that were subject to 
extraordinary persecution in their own countries during a time of civil 
war, where many of these individuals were working and supportive of 
U.S. efforts to try to build a better country and democratic 
institutions. Because of the fear of terror, the death squads and 
others that were loose in the land, they came to the United States and 
have played by the rules. They were given certain assurances that, if 
they played by the rules, worked hard and supported their families, 
they would not be summarily dismissed, they would have a judgment that 
would be made to see whether they had participated in this country and 
made an important contribution to the life and well-being of this 
country.

  I have given you a few examples, and there are scores of other 
examples, where people are giving back to the United States something 
for all that has been given to them.
  I think this is a matter that should be favorably considered.
  I am very hopeful that we will have the opportunity to vote on this. 
I believe we have overwhelming bipartisan support. I think I see a 
colleague from Pennsylvania, who is a cosponsor of this measure as 
well.

[[Page S10274]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Certainly.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania, I be recognized to proceed 
in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________