00:00:02.740 - 00:00:40.760

repairs to be Thank Mistress, Senator of Florida. Mhm. As president, I will make a series of motions to strike provisions in s 1956 center from Florida. Would you agree to a time agreement at this point it 40 minutes equally divided. I profound names Request that 40 minutes equally divided on the gram amendment without without a second degree amendment in order.

00:00:41.440 - 00:01:11.590

What's your objection? Uh, I would, uh, modify that. It may. It will require more than a single motion in order to strike the sections which I intend to strike. Uh, from title two, chapter C of s 1956. So the statement of motions could be placed in the plural is your objection then?

00:01:11.600 - 00:01:43.860

Yeah. Without objection. So ordered. Mr. President, The purpose of the series of motions, which I will make which I would hope would be considered as a single motion for purposes of our final vote, is to strike from this legislation. Those sections which relate to the eligibility of legal immigrants, legal immigrants to receive various federal needs based benefits.

00:01:45.440 - 00:02:30.820

I do this because to have this language in this welfare bill is both redundant and punitive in terms of those communities which have large numbers of legal immigrants and will have significant cost shifted to them as a result of this legislation. I am joined in this effort by Senator Simon Murray and Feinstein, who also recognized that it would be inappropriate and a duplication to consider matters which have already been resolved by this body as we will all recall.

00:02:31.340 - 00:03:03.660

It was only a few weeks ago may 2nd, to be precise, that the Senate passed the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act. This act, which had as its primary objective controlling illegal immigration into the United States, also contained provisions that restricted the rights of legal aliens to a variety of federal needs based program.

00:03:04.940 - 00:03:28.560

This legislation was the result of extensive hearings and markups in the Judiciary Committee. It was subjected to exhausting floor debate, which lasted well over a week in the Senate, the majority of the time spent on the immigration bill dealt with the public benefits for legal and illegal immigrants.

00:03:29.140 - 00:03:56.060

The availability of supplemental Social Security income, aid for families with Dependent Children, Medicaid and Medicare for immigrants was examined during several floor votes, which resulted in a comprehensive Senate bill and Mr President, I'm going to say, I hope with not excessive arrogance, that this is a subject which I know something about.

00:03:57.040 - 00:04:25.760

I was governor of Florida in 1980 win. Over 125,000 immigrants in various legal categories came to my state in a period of a few weeks. Since that time, it has been estimated that the total unreimbursed costs of that incident to the state of Florida was in excess of $1.5 billion.

00:04:26.240 - 00:05:08.760

Those were cost associated with health care, social services, education, housing, job training, a variety of activities which were necessary in order to facilitate the assimilation of that large population into the population of the state of Florida. The state of Florida has tried for the better part of 15 years to get recognition of those costs which were incurred because of federal immigration decisions, but which ended up being an unreimbursed unfunded mandate on the state of Florida.

00:05:09.440 - 00:05:37.960

This case finally ended up in the United States Supreme Court earlier this year. The decision of the United States Supreme Court. This is not a judicial issue, that if the state of Florida and other States which might be similarly affected, is to be dealt with. It has to be dealt with by a political judgment, not by a judicial remedy.

00:05:39.640 - 00:06:29.260

Mr. President, what distresses me is after having spent weeks shaping a bill which was intended to provide that type of structured legal response by the federal government. When such impositions are placed by federal action on a particular community or state, we now in a bill which is going to be subject to 20 hours of debate here it is after 10 30 at night are about to substantially rewrite, discard the fundamental policy premise of our previous actions and almost quadruple the amount of the unfunded mandate that we're going to impose on affected states.

00:06:30.940 - 00:06:54.080

Mr. President, in addition, two the inappropriateness of us rejecting our previous work. We are making some very significant policy decisions without the kind of attention that we afforded to our earlier actual immigration. What are some of those decisions that we're about to make in the previous bill?

00:06:54.080 - 00:07:47.950

We use the concept of deeming, and I wish the senator from Wyoming were with us this evening because he explained in great detail and on a repetitive basis. What the theory of deeming is it is that if a person sponsored a legal alien to come into this country that that person should assume the financial obligations that will guarantee that they're sponsored, Legal Alien will not become a public charge, and therefore, in terms of evaluating whether that legal Alien qualifies, for instance, for Medicaid, you would add the income of the sponsor to the income of the legal aliens.

00:07:48.440 - 00:08:21.750

And if the combination of those incomes exceeded the eligibility threshold, then the legal alien would no longer qualify for that particular needs based service. That concept of deeming that we worked so carefully on in the immigration bill is largely replaced in this legislation by absolute prohibition against legal aliens being able to access these federal programs, Mr.

00:08:21.750 - 00:08:51.200

President, Much of the legislation that we considered earlier and passed on the second of May was based on a recommendation of the United States Immigration Commission, which was established by Act of Congress in 1990 which issued a series of reports, uh, in the mid 19 nineties, This report issued in 1994 entitled U.

00:08:51.200 - 00:09:18.660

S. Immigration Policy Restoring Credibility while it spoke well of the concept of deeming as a means of assigning responsibility for legal aliens, went on to say. However, circumstances may arise after an immigrant's entry that create a pressing need for public health. Unexpected illnesses, injuries sustained due to serious accident, loss of employment, death in the family.

00:09:19.040 - 00:09:42.360

Under such circumstances, legal immigrants should be eligible for public benefits if they meet other eligibility criteria. We are not prepared to remove the safety net from under individuals who we hope will become full members of our policy. That is precisely what this legislation does removes the social media.

00:09:43.840 - 00:10:23.360

This, also, Mr President, will make a very significant difference in the dollar. Amount of unfunded cost shifted to the state under the bill that we passed as immigration reform. The cost over seven years was $5.6 billion. This bill will impose an unfunded mandate of $23 billion over the next seven years on states, Mr President, in deference to the limited time that we have in the lateness of the hour, I will not unduly burdened the Senate with the reports which I have.

00:10:23.370 - 00:10:45.650

But I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record statements from organizations such as the American Public Hospital Association, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, which outlines what the costs are going to be just in the one sector of health care.

00:10:45.660 - 00:11:35.560

UH institutions, which are going to be a principal target of these unfunded mandates without objection, abandoned the record. Mr President, Two other aspects of the policy shift in this legislation. The immigration bill contained the shift in eligibility the construction of eligibility based on deeming for legal aliens in order to generate funds that would then be used to finance the programs that were authorized in the illegal immigration sections of that bill to better protect our border.

00:11:36.340 - 00:12:17.860

What we're about to do here is to take all the money that is in the immigration bill that's intended to be used for border enforcement and diverted for the purposes of this welfare reform bill. So all of the promises that we made, for instance, to the people along the Southwest border that we're going to have more Border patrol agents, fencing and other steps to enforce our borders against illegal immigration are going to be ashes because we just by this action taken all the money that we have provided to finance those enhancements to our borders.

00:12:18.240 - 00:12:42.850

It is in part for that reason that I suspect that Senator Feinstein, who has been such a leader in the efforts to protect our border, is a co sponsor of this amendment. And finally, I would suggest, Mr President, that this is a very clear backdoor way to accomplish the same objective that this Senate on several occasions rejected when we were debating the immigration bill.

00:12:42.860 - 00:13:08.880

And that is a sharp reduction on the rights of legal immigration into this country, which we know is primarily the right to reunify families. And why is this a backdoor constraint on legal immigration and particularly family reunification? The reason is because we are making it so financially onerous for sponsors.

00:13:08.940 - 00:13:39.650

We are raising the specter of their own impoverishment as a result of bringing a loved one of child, a spouse, a parent into this country that we are going to effectively through coercion, accomplish the same thing that this Senate, by direct action, refused to do, which was to make it more difficult for legal aliens to reunite with their family.

00:13:40.540 - 00:14:24.760

So Mr president. This amendment, this series of motions to strike, will eliminate those sections of the legislation that relate to the eligibility of legal aliens, too, a variety of federal benefit. I underscore that this is not to say that we are not going to restrain those benefits, but we would do so through the immigration bill that we have passed a bill that had the considered judgment of this Senate, as opposed to doing it through a welfare reform bill where this matter is getting virtually no consideration.

00:14:25.240 - 00:14:49.750

We are going to do it through the concept of deeming rather than the concept of a total prohibition. We're going to do it at a reasonable level of $5.6 billion which I personally think is in itself excessive, but but pales in comparison to the $23 billion a reduction that is contained in this welfare bill.

00:14:50.640 - 00:15:22.650

So, Mr President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask consent that I have I ask consent at the time that I have used thus far, uh, be counted against my time on the amendment. Without objection, the clerk will report the senator from Florida, Mr Graham proposes an amendment number 49 21 beginning on page 5.

00:15:22.650 - 00:15:54.420

62. Strike line five through the end of line 23 on page 5. 63. Beginning on page 5 67. Strike line 14 through the end of that. With that objection, Mr President, I reserve the balance of my time. Yeah, as President, senator of Pennsylvania. Mr President, And I think this is an area where they're just a different disagreement in philosophy.

00:15:54.420 - 00:16:18.460

I respect the senator from Florida, and I probably isn't a member in this chamber who knows more about difficulty in dealing with with a large number of legal immigrants in this country than the former governor of Florida. Um, but I think there is just a philosophical difference here or a difference on what we believe is fair and equitable.

00:16:18.470 - 00:17:01.620

Uh, in this country, what we're talking about here are a particular class of legal immigrants. We're not talking about refugees, people who come to this country, um, seeking refuge from persecution in their homeland. All refugees are excluded from the provisions of this bill. In other words, there fully entitled to the array of social welfare benefits provided by the federal government asylum, for example, the two Cuban baseball players they're probably not going to need any social welfare benefits given their talent level.

00:17:01.630 - 00:17:21.200

But if they were not so talented and we're here in this country claiming political asylum, uh, they would be continued to be eligible for a variety of of, uh, of welfare benefits. We are, in a sense, my understanding is unique in that respect around the world.

00:17:21.210 - 00:17:50.470

There are, to my knowledge, not any countries that do provide welfare benefits, uh, to, uh, legal immigrants in their, uh, non citizens in their country. And so, in a sense, we are keeping very much with the tradition of our country with the Statue of Liberty when we suggest that those who are under persecution at home that those who are in need of of this country as a beacon of freedom are in fact provided for by this country.

00:17:50.470 - 00:18:07.360

So I think that is something that we should all agree on be proud of and obviously continue. And we do that in this bill. What we don't continue in this bill and I think wisely so don't continue is to continue to provide benefits to what are called sponsored immigrants.

00:18:08.140 - 00:18:38.060

Sponsored immigrants are immigrants that come to this country and almost almost all, uh, come to this country through a family unification provisions, which is to unify a family, whether it's a spouse or a child or a mother or father or sister or brother. They come to this country to unify a family, and when they do so, the citizen of this country who is the sponsor signs a document.

00:18:38.740 - 00:19:10.270

And the document says that I will take responsibility, financial responsibility for this person who I want to bring to this country for a period of five years and that all of my assets are deemed available and in the possession, so to speak, constructive possession of of the person coming into this country for purposes of evaluating whether that person is eligible for welfare or other government benefit, uh, the problem and and that's that is current law.

00:19:10.270 - 00:19:38.080

And but the problem with this whole uh, agreement is it's not legally enforcing, and they are not enforced. In fact, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. The Welfare department has no idea what what the immigration services statuses and in fact, these benefits are handed out without really much knowledge of, uh, of the immigration status of the individual involved.

00:19:38.090 - 00:20:10.230

What we've seen in the center from New York and the center from New Mexico discussed this earlier today is that what we're also seeing is is a is a trend. I'd say it's even more than a trend. It's a it's an avalanche. And the avalanches, Uh, elderly family, reunification, elderly, being the bringing over of mom or dad to this country, and mom or dad of being 60 or 70 or 80 years of age come to this country.

00:20:10.440 - 00:20:33.550

You know, doting son signs the sponsor agreement. And lo and behold, Mom who's disabled ends up on S s, I or elderly because you qualify over 65 ends up on S s. I and the federal government and the taxpayers of this country become the retirement village supporters of the entire world.

00:20:33.560 - 00:20:59.290

And I don't think that's what the intent of these provisions were. Four I think we have. We have seen a real pattern of abuse here of of a document that's not legally enforceable, which is the sponsorship agreement and a tremendous number of people coming over here and using the S S I system as, in fact, the retirement system for, uh, many people all across the world.

00:20:59.300 - 00:21:18.230

And so what we have we have said is that we don't want to continue to have this incentive and I as a member of the Ways and Means Committee over in the other body, we heard testimony on numerous occasions about how it was well known and in fact went throughout, uh, many refugee camps in Southeast Asia.

00:21:18.240 - 00:21:37.260

That was one of the, uh, items of testimony, but other places about how this was this great system that America had that you could get over here and you could be array yourself and all these wonderful benefits. Well, uh, you know, I think people should come to this country because they want the benefits of our society, not the benefits of our welfare system.

00:21:37.740 - 00:21:53.660

And I think that's where we really have drawn the line here. So I think we have held up our responsibility to this to the the fabric of our society, which is to invite those who are in need to come here. And we will, in fact help you get started.

00:21:54.040 - 00:22:16.150

Um But I think we've drawn the line and saying that you want to bring a member of your family over, and you sign a document saying that you will take financial responsibility for them, live up to the doctor, provide and in fact, if you want your you know after five years under current law, you're eligible for citizenship.

00:22:16.160 - 00:22:31.740

If you apply for says, you know, you do what's necessary to, uh, prepare yourself for citizenships and comply and apply and and, uh, and pass all your tests. You know you can to be eligible for the wide variety of welfare programs that we have in this country.

00:22:31.750 - 00:22:46.770

But I don't I mean, we we talk in terms of people coming here for welfare. I mean, the fact is, the vast majority of people don't come here for welfare. They come here because America is the land of opportunity, and unfortunately what we've seen is because of the abuse in this area.

00:22:47.340 - 00:23:01.340

It has caused a lot of some of the anti immigrant feelings that are seen in many areas of the country and by many people in this country, and I think what we have a responsibility to do those of us who joined. I joined with Senator Wine and Senator Abraham on this side of the island.

00:23:01.340 - 00:23:14.060

I know Senator Graham and others on the other side of the aisle of of not restricting the caps on immigration. I am pro immigration. I am the son of an immigrant. So I mean, I'm not one of these people says Okay, I'm in close the door.

00:23:14.640 - 00:23:48.790

I mean, I believe that immigration is important to the future of this country. But I believe if we have programs that are abused, if we have programs that in fact call into question the immigration policy in this country that cast a broad shadow over immigration in general we have a responsibility to the taxpayers number one, but also to the sentiment of immigrants of immigration, this country number two to clean up the mess, to put a better face on immigration, to show that we've got our act together and providing immigration to those who are truly the need, but not to those who are abusing the system.

00:23:48.800 - 00:24:04.620

If we clean that up, I think we improve the image of immigration, less pressure on removing those on lowering those caps and doing other things that I think could be harmful with respect to the area of immigration. And and I think this saved the taxpayers a whole bundle of money in the process.

00:24:04.750 - 00:24:32.750

I think those are all very positive things that happened. That's one of the reasons that this provision that's in this bill is included in the Democrat substitute has been included. Another. I think all of the House bills that have been considered so it is it is, I think, has very strong bipartisan support, and I would encourage Well, I think the the senator from Florida is well intentioned and and certainly is, uh, I think, sensitive to the needs of the many thousands of immigrants that are in the state of Florida.

00:24:32.760 - 00:25:21.020

I think we have taken a judicious, uh, swipe at this issue, and I have have cut, I think, appropriately, and I would hope that they would support the the underlying build and be in opposition to the center from Florida, Florida. I'd be happy. Did the senator from Pennsylvania State that these provisions that not are are bars to eligibility only apply to those persons who come into the country with a sponsor who has assumed the financial obligation is that the statement that is that I am not have not combed over the Finance Committee bill.

00:25:21.020 - 00:25:57.060

But that has been my understanding all well, with the senator, Please turn to Section 24 to which is one of the sections that my motion would strike. Can you tell me what page that's on that? Well, it's on I on my copy at Stage 2 34 but it's a different page in 1950 24 before it states.

00:25:57.640 - 00:26:33.020

That notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in paragraph to an alien who is a qualified alien as defined in section 24 31 is not eligible for any specified federal programs as defined in Paragraph three. So thus, we then have to go to Section 20 4 31 to determine what the definition is of a ah qualified aliens and sub paragraph B of that section says.

00:26:33.020 - 00:27:02.050

For purposes of this chapter, the term qualified alien means an alien who at the time the alien applies for receives or attempts to receive a federal public benefit is and, among other things, number three, a refugee who has been admitted to the United States under section 27 an alien who was paroled into the United States under section to 12 D five an aside lead who was granted asylum under section two Oh, eight.

00:27:02.060 - 00:27:42.360

None of those people have a sponsor. I mean, have I If I have Miss Red the language of this, uh, section I would appreciate being corrected, but that is a very fundamental issue as to who is intended to be covered. What I think this provision says is that they're eligible for a five year exemption under the law, and then they have to become citizens.

00:27:42.360 - 00:28:00.980

And after that. But you said that the only people this replied to were those that had a sponsor who could assume the responsibility. And I understood you to say specifically, for instance, that it did not apply to refugees who were admitted because they are fleeing uh, legitimate prostitution.

00:28:00.980 - 00:28:19.180

And you're and you're absolutely right, Senator. And and And this was different than I understood the provisions and the differences. That and you're correct that the that aliens, refugees, etcetera are eligible for five years until they become eligible for citizenship. And then we expect them to become citizens or they will not be eligible in the future.

00:28:19.190 - 00:28:45.270

And, Mr President, I think this question precisely underscores why have offered these series of strikes? We spent a week plus on this floor in April and May debating a comprehensive immigration bill, and we came to a studied judgment as to how, for whom, for what time period benefits for legal aliens should be constrained.

00:28:46.040 - 00:29:14.060

We came to a judgement that said, Over the next seven years, the constraint should have a dollar figure of $5.6 billion. Now, tonight we're debating a provision that purports to reduce the benefits of legal aliens by $23 billion four times more than what we had purported to do just a few weeks ago.

00:29:14.640 - 00:30:05.860

Uh, and yet there is not the opportunity for the kind of careful scrutiny and study and therefore fundamental Ms concepts as to whom this supplies are being presented as the legislation upon which our colleague is going to be asked to vote. I think the prudent thing to do is to adopt the motions to strike that I have offered and let these issues be resolved in the conference Committee, which is now in place to settle the immigration bill and not attempt to do these things at now 11 o'clock at night on a bill that has received not a scintilla of the kind of analysis in so far as it relates to the impact on legal aliens, as did that immigration bill.

00:30:06.340 - 00:30:30.240

That's the argument that I make in support of my emotions to cut, uh, the motions to strike these provisions. And this has very serious implications not only to the individuals involved but to the communities in which legal aliens, uh, he liked to live as an example.

00:30:30.480 - 00:30:57.470

A study by the Los Angeles county of what this will mean in terms of health care in that community estimates that they have 93,000 legal immigrants who would lose their S S. I benefits, making them automatically eligible for county funded general assistance. That would cost Los Angeles County $236 million a year additional cost.

00:30:57.470 - 00:31:25.240

I don't think we ought to be imposing an unfunded mandate of $236 million on the citizens of Los Angeles County in the cavalier manner that I suggest we're about to do We have a process. A conference committee focused on immigration with senators who and members of the House who are selected because of their knowledge and background on that subject matter, several of whom have served on these important commissions on immigration.

00:31:25.400 - 00:31:59.780

That's the forum in which these issues ought to be resolved, not in this welfare bill. So, Mr President, I, uh, because I just want to, uh it is awfully late here, and I, a colleague from Pennsylvania's, gets saddled with the responsibility in the way of providing analysis here for I don't know how many pages in this bill and it's not easy, But I think our colleague from Florida, despite the late hour and the fact that there's only a handful of us here, is a classic example of offering some insight that we probably weren't aware of.

00:31:59.780 - 00:32:21.210

And I would hope that that those who understand this bill would look carefully at the suggestions our colleague is made because, as I understood it, this is the kind of thing which none of us intended to be. The case we're talking about a category of of people who come here legally, who fall in unique circumstances that all of us have agreed should not be denied benefits.

00:32:21.210 - 00:32:37.950

There's no debate about that. I think we resolve that debate and would urge that those who staff and otherwise might look at this so that tomorrow, when we come in here and ask to vote on Syria out of every five minutes on matters as we gather here in the well, it will not be the benefit that those of us have been sitting here today.

00:32:37.950 - 00:32:56.170

Have had the senator from Florida very careful analysis of this, and so my hope would be. And I say this to our friend from Pennsylvania and Delaware. We're here to have some staff this evening. Look at this. So that tomorrow, when our colleagues do gather here that we might have an opportunity to pass judgment on this.

00:32:56.170 - 00:33:13.140

And if it is, as our colleague from Florida has suggested, that we might adopt that amendment by voice vote, go to conference and then try and resolve some of these matters, they may take an opposite point of view. But I'd urge some thought given to that, because most of our colleagues have you had any sense at all are fast asleep by this hour.

00:33:13.150 - 00:33:26.630

As I see the presiding officer as a surgeon, you may make recommendations for all of us here, not providing for our own health and safety very well this evening. But we all know what it's like when it comes to vote. We come in and there are these papers at the desk and vote.

00:33:26.630 - 00:33:43.850

I vote no, and we don't have a chance to really benefit from the from the exchange that has occurred here. So I would urge that our staff take a good look at this. And if the senator from Florida is correct, then I would urge, in the spirit of bipartisanship that we try and set that matter aside for conference.

00:33:43.850 - 00:34:03.690

And so it's not too not too unwittingly adopt some provisions that I think none of us would agree with. I thank my colleague. Yeah. Present senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Connecticut, I'm not too sure there's anything unwitting going on here.

00:34:03.690 - 00:34:31.620

This was a provision that was in the Senate bill when it passed here 87 to 12. It was a conference report. It was in the original bill was introduced, came out of the Finance Committee. This provision has really been unchanged for quite some time, uh, and and has been, as I said, not only included in the Republican bill, but the senator from Connecticut himself stood up on the floor when Senator from New Mexico and the senator from New York and said, What are you guys talking about?

00:34:31.630 - 00:34:51.450

Vision on legal immigrants? It's in our bill, so you shouldn't be shouldn't be talking about that. So I mean, I think there's been very broad support of this issue. It is. It saves a significant amount of money. It's $18 billion and obviously the senator from Florida does not have any offset there to put us within our reconciliation targets.

00:34:51.450 - 00:35:15.120

So this would put us well beyond our well under our reconciliation. Target number one number two. The senator from Florida talks about the potential for an unfunded mandate. Uh, we have a a CBO estimate here that there that there is no unfunded mandate here, including the provision in this bill that the bill does not provide an unfunded mandate.

00:35:15.130 - 00:35:32.560

So we have no unfunded mandate with this. This provision included in the bill. Number one number two, we lose $18 billion of a 50 some odd billion dollar savings in this bill with this provision Number three, it has been adopted on many occasions, included in both parties bills.

00:35:33.040 - 00:35:48.750

And we had a vote on it the last time we were here and it was voted down. So I think this suggests that something someone's being Hoodwinked here or that there is some substantial question as to whether this is a legitimate way to reform the system.

00:35:49.240 - 00:36:07.820

I don't think is borne out by the by the history of these provisions. I think these provisions have been tested. These provisions have had broad bipartisan support, and I'm hopeful tomorrow that that broad bipartisan support will continue. Mr. President, don't dwell on this point. I don't believe our colleagues in Florida have been on the floor.

00:36:07.820 - 00:36:32.550

Earlier today, when our colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, had a chart that they raised, it talked about, uh, legal aliens coming in. The parents of citizens who under the demon who yields who yields time now to the Senate, I would consent that I'll be able to proceed for 23 minutes is your objection.

00:36:33.330 - 00:37:03.730

And that fact situation was, as I understood it, that those were the parents of citizens who would come in legally and under the deeming process their Children assumed, as my colleague from Pennsylvania properly described, the financial responsibility of those parents coming in and that is the exchange was that both the Democratic proposal and the underlying bill prohibit uh, that kind of situation from persisting.

00:37:03.730 - 00:37:20.560

And I think we all agree on that. What our colleague from Florida's raised this evening. Yes, the center from Take It that with the senator from Florida's amendment, that would not be an agreement that, in fact, he would strike those provisions that would that would eliminate that, that that that that situation could continue.

00:37:20.570 - 00:37:42.040

I understand Senator from Florida understand that that part of it I think we want to keep but what I understood. To be honest, this went beyond that which I'm not as knowledgeable as our colleagues in Florida that in addition to that you have refugees, asylum ease and others who would not fall into that necessarily that category where they didn't have a sponsor and got here, and that's what he's trying to carve out.

00:37:42.050 - 00:38:11.650

That's why I suggested staff getting together tonight to see if there was some way we can know if I've missed. Maybe I misunderstood that again. Mr. President, Florida, My Florida. To be clear, my argument is that this is a redundant and inappropriate piece of legislation to be considering the issue of the eligibility of legal aliens for federal benefits.

00:38:12.420 - 00:38:43.750

That's exactly what we did in the immigration bill. We spent days on the floor and weeks in in the appropriate committee, considering the nuances of that legislation, including its impact on the communities which would now have to carry the cost that previously had been a partnership between the states, the communities and the federal government.

00:38:44.220 - 00:39:09.430

I'm suggesting that what we ought to do is let that process come to fruition. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate has passed an immigration bill. They're in conference. They've been in conference since mid may. Uh, let's let that forum decide what should be the benefits that the federal government will provide for legal aliens.

00:39:09.440 - 00:39:31.040

Let's not do it in this welfare bill, and I think the very fact that we are proposing to reduce those benefits by $23 billion. When, Just a few weeks ago we thought the appropriate level of reduction was 5.6 billion Ought to raise in our minds whether we really know what we're doing here.

00:39:32.110 - 00:40:03.780

The statement that this is not an unfunded mandate, how in the world is not going to be an unfunded mandate when the federal government denies coverage, uh to, uh, large groups of people, uh, and imposes that cost for the sick, the elderly, those who require a special other assistance is going to end up being a responsibility of states and local governments.

00:40:03.780 - 00:40:25.530

If I could just use one example, the United States government has entered into an agreement with the Cuban government, which sets up a process by which 20,000 Cubans each year will come into the United States, most of them going to come into the United States under the category of parolees.

00:40:27.010 - 00:41:01.030

Currently, the federal government, which is the government that that signed this agreement, is responsible for the financial cost of that group of of new arrivals. If they, for instance, become eligible for health care because their indigent, Uh, and they are in need of health care. This is going to say that for the first year that group of people will not be eligible for any federal assistance.

00:41:01.510 - 00:41:18.750

Who's going to pick up those costs? 80% plus of those people end up in Dade County, Florida, I can tell you, is going to pick up the cost. It's going to be Jackson Memorial Hospital, and the other health care providers in the community are going to be paying for the cost.

00:41:18.890 - 00:41:47.650

And it will become, in the classic definition of an unfunded mandate, an unfunded mandate to render services to a group of people who the federal government has determined shall enter the community without any federal financial participation in paying those costs. We dealt with that issue specifically in the immigration bill, and we did not reach that, I think quite unjust result.

00:41:47.840 - 00:42:16.520

This would reverse a decision that we have previously made. So my argument, Mr President, is a simple one. Not that we shouldn't face the issue. Not that we shouldn't try to accomplish some of the objectives that the senator from Pennsylvania strives to do with that. We ought to do it in the proper forum with the proper consideration and with the proper level of respect to the communities that are going to be most affected by the ultimate decisions that we will make here.

00:42:16.800 - 00:42:41.930

I believe striking these provisions out of this bill, which then turns to the more appropriate forum of the immigration Conference Committee as the means by which we will reach ultimate judgment, is the appropriate policy. I hope the Senate will concur when we vote on this issue tomorrow, Mr President Central Connect from Delaware.

00:42:43.700 - 00:43:15.020

I would just like to point out that it is, of course, the Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over these programs, and I would point out that the provisions that are contained in the legislation before us we're also contained in HR four as well as the Budget Balance of Balanced Budget Act of last year.

00:43:17.100 - 00:43:56.920

So this legislation has been acted upon the Congress twice. I would further point out that the matter was considered in committee, and in that committee we have a number of members of the Judiciary Committee and on the Republican side, these provisions were supported, so I don't think it can be said that this is a matter that just came up and that wee hours of this evening, but has been a matter carefully considered in committee as well as on the Senate floor.

00:43:58.000 - 00:44:37.810

I would also point out that much of these provisions, although not entirely in the same form, were included as part of the Democratic substitute. So I think it's important that we bring this into the proper perspective, and I want to point out that much of the savings that would come about do this legislation are through the changes that are being made and welfare programs for non citizens.

00:44:39.490 - 00:45:07.000

These people came into the United States on the basis that they would not become a public charge, and s 1956 requires non citizens to live up to their end of the bargain by requiring them to work or depend on the support of our sponsor and not rely on the American taxpayer.

00:45:07.790 - 00:45:44.220

The president I yield back the floor. This president, I asked the ayes and nays on the motion to strike. Is there a sufficient second very personally senator from Connecticut? The clerk will report every mm, the senator from Connecticut, Mr Dodd for himself and on this proposed amendment number 49 22.

00:45:47.090 - 00:46:19.090

That objection. Apologize, Mr, aren't they, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe and others deals with the child care section of the legislation and let me just very briefly describe the amendment to my colleagues. The reconciliation bill reserves 3% of the childcare funds to improve the quality and availability of childcare.

00:46:20.080 - 00:47:05.350

Using current law projections of Mr Chairman, this proposal would represent a reduction of approximately $400 million over six years for the quality and increased availability of childcare. Um, uh, buildings and accommodations for those Children who will need it. This amendment increases the funds reserved of four quality from 3% to 4% reducing the shortfall in funds to about $200 million over six years, about in half of what the shortfall would be without this amendment, I would point out Mr Chairman at the House has adopted a similar provision 4%.

00:47:05.360 - 00:47:46.290

So we would be conforming, uh, with this legislation, what is already included in the House House language earlier in the day, Mr President, I made a case for the importance of health and safety standards for our child care settings, and pointed out that in recent studies of childcare facilities in this country, only one in seven A daycare centers received a rating of good quality care, with even fewer programs 8% providing good quality care for infants and toddlers 40% in the same study of rooms serving infants and toddlers provided less than minimum quality care in the country.

00:47:47.280 - 00:48:09.200

I don't think I need to make the case here. I think all of us agree with this. We all understand the implications of the legislation. There is unanimity here on the concept of moving adults from welfare to work. We all understand that many of these adults, of course, have Children who are going to require child care of one kind or the other.

00:48:10.070 - 00:48:33.690

As I pointed out earlier in the day. Of the 13 million people of this entire country who received a F D C 8.8 million of the 13 million are under the age of 18, 78% of the 8.8 million are under the age of 12 and 46% of the 8.8 million are under the age of six.

00:48:34.270 - 00:49:00.500

There are 4.1 million adults who collect a F. D. C. So as we take the two million adults of the four million that this bill require, we put to work over the next seven years at least anyway. 78% of that 8.8 million you can argue. Actually, a higher number will require some form of child care, setting a significant amount, obviously an infant of the numbers that we're told him even get larger in the coming years.

00:49:00.870 - 00:49:22.400

So we want to put adequate quality childcare out there for them. Made the case earlier that that for automobiles and pets, we have standards that if you leave your pet someplace, there are standards that have to be met. What we're trying to say here is that when it comes to our nation's Children that we meet minimum standards that there be some quality control, we leave to the States.

00:49:22.870 - 00:49:42.760

I would say Mr President, here to decide in specificity what those quality standards ought to be. We don't try to mandate here specific requirements except in a broader context. So we're not violating the notion that states, uh, meet those standards. I would point out, by the way, this is This is a language that we adopted.

00:49:42.760 - 00:50:11.490

My colleague from Delaware recall going back in 1990 under the Bush administration when Senator Hatch and I authored the, uh, the Childcare block grant program that was supported by the Bush administration adopted here, and we included that the quality and the health and safety standards. Earlier today, with the support of Senator Coats and Senator Castle Bomb, Senator Snowe, among others, we adopted the health and safety standards in the bill.

00:50:11.510 - 00:50:32.720

This amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I would raise some 3% to 4% an allocation for quality, and I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to support this amendment. I think it approves of the bill. And with that, I don't would not necessarily ask Mr President for a roll call vote because I understand that may be acceptable to the majority.

00:50:32.720 - 00:51:04.390

If that's the case, then I would not ask, obviously, for a roll call, vote right, Better cut that we are willing to agree to his amendment, and consequently, a vote would not be a roll call vote would not be necessary. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate my colleague from Delaware's support for the amendment, and I would yield the floor questions on the amendment all in favor, say, aye, aye.

00:51:04.860 - 00:51:33.080

Opposed a Mr President. Eyes heaven looked later on the table. If it's a I moved to reconsider, there is also an amendment. And I like college in Delaware, maybe with the senator from North Carolina, the center Faircloth Not an amendment he was going to propose and has to do with childcare and the question of whether or not childcare workers could be considered for the work sections of this bill.

00:51:34.450 - 00:51:48.480

And there was some questions whether or not we would clear that, as I understand it all, the health and safety standards and quality would apply there. Uh, and if I, my colleagues in Delaware, would confirm that for me, then we would be more than willing to accept that amendment right now and move another amendment along here.

00:51:48.480 - 00:52:00.710

If that's, uh, acceptable. Yes, I do confirm that. Well, then I would be more than happy to clear that amendment on our side. And if, uh, I don't know if the senator has an amendment would like to offer. If it does, then we could, Yes, remove one more amendment.

00:52:00.710 - 00:52:21.480

And I think Senator Domenici, I'm sure he's sound asleep. Would certainly be grateful in the morning arrives to find out we've cleared one more amendment for him here this evening. Actually, I have three amendments now. Don't get carried away now. You want more? No. No. Now, uh, we we had to earlier agreements.

00:52:21.850 - 00:52:59.380

Are they okay, which I refer. Let me start over. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to per pound to dispose of the object. Three amendments which have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. They include Senator Faircloth amendment to clarify that a welfare recipient may provide childcare services to satisfy the bill works requirement to Senator Coats amendment allowing welfare recipients to establish individual development account.

00:53:00.050 - 00:53:35.880

And third, senator Abraham's amendment modifying the illegitimacy ratio. I would ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer these, uh, three amendments. Ah, that I sent to the desk and block that they be considered agreed to unblock and that the motions to table the motion to reconsider be agreed to unblock and that they impair on the record, as if considered individually, Mr President, reserving the right to object.

00:53:36.250 - 00:54:02.560

I shall not object. The senator from Delaware is correct. These amendments have been cleared on this side, and we are pleased and happy to accept the amendment closer. The clerk will report the amendments by number. The senator from Delaware. Mr. Roth, for under other senators proposes in block amendments 49 23 through 49 25.

00:54:04.140 - 00:54:48.670

The amendments are agreed to. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that a written statement of Senator Ashcroft regarding his immunization amendment be inserted in the record at the appropriate place. With that objection, how do we have I ask unanimous consent to modify Senator Faircloth. Amendment number 4911 The modification relates only to the purpose clause of the amendment.

00:54:49.440 - 00:55:34.250

I send the amendment to the desk. I understand this has been cleared on both sides, Mr. President, is that objection? Your members so modified and there's no object on this side to the amendment. You know what? Uh huh. What is it? Mhm. But yeah, Why? Right?

00:55:35.740 - 00:56:48.650

Okay, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent. There. Now, be a period for the transaction of morning business. Well, senators permitted to speak for up to five minutes. Eat. Mr President, it's an objection. Mr President, Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, On behalf of the Democratic leader, I send to the desk resolution to authorize representation by the Senate legal counsel and ask for its immediate consideration.

00:56:49.530 - 00:57:12.850

The clerk will report Senate resolution to 81 to authorize representation by Senate legal Counsel. Mr. President, I'd ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and a motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Further that a statement by the Democratic leader replaced in the record at the appropriate place, as if Red without objection, Mr President.