Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could comment briefly on the remarks that have just been made by the majority leader and then the remarks that were made earlier by our colleague from Massachusetts. I think they both have gone to the essence of the two amendments that we will be voting on later today. The first amendment relates to the Cuban Adjustment Act. As Senator Dole has eloquently stated, the conditions in Cuba have not changed in the past 35 years. Therefore, the reason why the Congress in 1966, 30 years ago, adopted the Cuban Adjustment Act continue in place. Those reasons are fundamentally a recognition of the authoritarian regime at our water's edge. The fact that, because of that regime, hundreds of thousands of people have fled tyranny, it was in the interest of the United States to have an expeditious procedure by which those persons who are here legally in the United States, have resided for 1 year, and have asked for a discretionary act of grace by the Attorney General, be given the opportunity to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident. That was a valid public policy when it was adopted in November 1966. It is a valid public policy in April 1996. I cited yesterday and included in yesterday's Congressional Record, Mr. President, an article which appeared in the April 29 Washington Post, citing the regress that has occurred in Cuba in recent months, the heightened level of assault against human rights advocates, including journalists, the inability of human rights organizations to meet, the rollback of some of the gains that were made in terms of market economics, all of this at a time when Fidel Castro is saying that Cuba is committed to a Socialist-Communist state, will be for another 35 years and for 35 times 35 years. That is the mindset of the regime with which we are dealing today, which is the same mindset that led this Congress in its wisdom 30 years ago to provide this expeditious procedure. The amendment before us recognizes that the Cuban Adjustment Act is intended to deal with the special circumstance, a circumstance that we hope will not be long in its future. Therefore, our amendment, the Cuban Adjustment Act, will be repealed, but it will be repealed when there is a democratic government in Cuba, not today when there is a government in Cuba which has launched a new level of repression against its people. The second amendment, Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has appropriately gone to the essence of that. That is an amendment which states that, if we are going to require that there be a deeming of the income of the sponsor to the income of a legal alien in making judgments as to whether that legal alien and his or her family can be eligible for literally an unlimited number of programs at the local, State, and Federal level, that we ought to be clear what we are talking about. The way in which the legislation before us, S. 1664, describes the matter is to say that for any program which is needs based, that will be the requirement, that the income of the sponsor be attributed or deemed to be the income of the legal alien for purposes of their eligibility. I cited last night just a short list of what could have been thousands of examples of programs, from programs intended to immunize children in school, to providing after school safe places, and latchkey avoidance institutions in communities. Is it the real intention of the U.S. Senate to say that none of those programs are going to be available to the children of legal aliens? I think not. Therefore, the thrust of this amendment is to say, let us be specific. Let us list which programs we intend this deeming of income of the sponsor to apply to. I have listed some 16 programs which I believe are appropriate to require that deeming. As I said last evening, if it is the desire of the sponsors to modify that list by addition, deletion, or amendment, I will be happy to consider changes. But the fundamental principle, that we ought to be clear and specific as to what it is we intend to be the programs that will be subject to this deeming, I believe, is basic to our responsibility to our constituents, our citizen constituents, our noncitizen legal alien constituents, and the institutions, public and private, that render services. All of those deserve to know what it is we intend to require to be deemed. I say, Mr. President, this is in our tradition. Currently we stipulate by statute in great detail which programs require deeming. We stipulate, for instance, that the Supplemental Security Income program be deemed. We stipulate that food stamps be deemed. We stipulate that aid to families with dependent children be deemed. Those are three programs which are in the law today specifically requiring deeming. In that tradition, if we are going to add additional programs, we should be just as specific in the future as we have been in the past. So the challenge to us is to be faithful to our majority leader's statement earlier in this Congress in which he said this Congress is going to engage in legislative truth in advertising, we are going to say what we mean, mean what we say, and be clear in our instructions to those who will be affected by our actions. So, Mr. President, those are the two amendments that will be voted on later today which I have offered. First the Cuban Adjustment Act, then the truth-in-advertising and deeming amendment. I conclude, Mr. President, by asking unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman of Connecticut be added as a cosponsor of the Cuban Adjustment Act amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding there will be 5 minutes on each side immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak further, prior to the time immediately preceding the vote on these two amendments, but I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from Wyoming. First, on the Cuban Adjustment Act issue, the precise issue is the one that the Senator from Wyoming has stated, and that is, is the Cuban Adjustment Act an anachronism? Is it a dinosaur which served a purpose at a time past but is no longer relevant to the future? The fact is, Mr. President, what is an anachronism, what is a dinosaur is the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba, a regime which has held its people in tyranny for 3\1/2\ decades. Until that regime is replaced with a democratic government, the Cuban Adjustment Act continues to play the same positive role as it did when it was adopted in 1966. I am also concerned about the statement that there is no longer a need for the Cuban Adjustment Act. Between 1990 and 1994, prior to the current Cuban migration agreement of 1995, there were an average of 20,000 persons a year who were in the country legally, had resided here for a year, and asked for the discretionary act of the Attorney General to have their status adjusted. Assumedly, there continue to be thousands of people who arrived prior to the migration agreement of 1995 who are awaiting eligibility to ask for that discretionary act. So, yes, there is a need. Second, the proposal which is in S. 1664 would only apply to those persons who arrived under the migration agreement of 1995 in the status of parolees. According to the statistics of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, since that agreement was in effect, approximately half of the Cubans who have arrived in the United States did not arrive as parolees. They came as either refugees or as visa immigrants. Under the reading of S. 1664, those persons who came under the migration agreement of 1995, would not be eligible to adjust their status because they did not come in the specific category of a parolee. So the anachronism is in Havana, not in the laws of the United States. The need continues to exist today as it did 30 years ago. I urge adoption of the amendment which has been cosponsored by Senator Dole, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, Senator Bradley, Senator Helms, Senator Lieberman--a broad, bipartisan consensus that the date for the change of the Cuban Adjustment Act is the date when democracy is restored to Cuba. Second, on the amendment relative to truth in advertising and deeming, the Senator from Wyoming says the issue is the fact that we are not covering, under the amendment which I have offered, a variety of programs for which he thinks deeming should apply. I do not see that as being the issue. The issue is, are we going to pass a vague law which states that the income of the sponsor shall be deemed to be the income of the legal alien for any benefits under any Federal program of assistance or any program of assistance funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government. That is the proposition which is currently before us. I might say, happily, that that represents a restriction, because the original version of S. 1664 applied that same vague language, not just to federally funded programs but to programs by governments at the State and the local level. Now at least we are only dealing with federally funded programs, in whole or in part. But the fundamental principle of our amendment is let us be specific. Let us tell the American people, let us tell the legal aliens and their families who are affected, let us tell those persons who are attempting to provide these services in a reasonable way what it is we intend to be covering. Let us list specifically what those programs are in the future as we have in the past. The current U.S. immigration law lists specifically those programs for which the sponsor's income is deemed to be the income of the sponsored legal alien. I think that was a wise policy in the past, and it is a policy which we should continue into the future. That is the fundamental issue. That is why the major State-based organizations, from the Conference of State Legislators, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties--all of those organizations are supporting this amendment because they say we want to know precisely what it is we are going to be responsible for administering, since it is going to be our responsibility to do so. That is why those organizations are concerned about the massive, unfunded mandate that is about to fall upon them, both for the administrative costs of arriving at these judgments and the cost when services that are no longer going to have a Federal partner will become the obligation of local government. The Senator from Wyoming left the inference that there were two places through which these services for legal aliens could be paid. One was by the Federal Government; second, by the sponsor. I suggest that there is a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and so forth additional party who will be picking up these costs. Those are the thousands of municipalities, the 3,000 counties, and the 50 States of the United States that will be responsible. Let me remind my colleagues that, by Federal law, we require a hospital emergency room to render service to anyone who arrives and requests that service, regardless of their ability to pay. So, what currently the law is, is that if it is a legal alien who is medically indigent, that cost will be a shared cost, with the Federal Government paying a portion and the States paying a portion. With what we are about to do, we are going to make that cost an unreimbursed cost to that hospital. Typically, it will be a public hospital. So it will end up being a charge to the taxpayers of that community or that State in which the legal alien lives. It is for that reason that, in addition to those groups that I listed, the Association of Public Hospitals supports this amendment, the Graham amendment, the truth in advertising, in deeming, amendment. It is also the case this has received support of the major Catholic organizations which, of course, operate substantial health care facilities in many communities in this country. So, it is not correct to say the only two people who are at the table are the sponsor and the Federal Government. The reality is there is a whole array of American interests at the table. Unfortunately, under the amendment as currently written, they do not know what is being negotiated at the table. They do not know what the agenda is at the table. They do not know what their responsibilities are going to be, beyond the vague standard that they have to deem the income of the sponsor for any program of assistance funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government. So I do not think that is good government. That is not good policy. It is not a respectful relationship with our intergovernmental partners, and it is directly contrary to the spirit of the unfunded mandate bill which this Senate passed as one of the first acts of the 104th Congress. So for that reason, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on each of the two amendments that we will have before us this afternoon: First, the Cuban Adjustment Act amendment and, second, the truth in advertising in deeming for legal aliens amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 3760.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the yeas and nays to be ordered on amendment No. 3760.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to add one other item. Senator Specter had asked to speak on the amendment, the truth in advertising and deeming amendment. I would like to protect his right to do so prior to the vote on that amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on these amendments?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for procedural announcements, first, I indicate that the minority leader, Senator Daschle, has transferred 30 minutes of his time under the cloture rule to myself. Second, I ask unanimous consent that at such time as we take up consideration of the Graham amendments, the first amendment to be voted on be No. 3760 and the second amendment voted on be the amendment relative to deeming, which is No. 3803. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that be the order in which the amendments are considered.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, prior to the vote on each of those amendments, there be 5 minutes allocated to each side for closing arguments.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to listen to this because there have been some myths and misstatements with regard to the Cuban Democracy Act. The Cuban Democracy Act, which has been the law of this land since November 2, 1966, explicitly states that it only applies to aliens who have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. You do not get the benefit of the Cuban Adjustment Act unless you are here under one of those legal status conditions, have been here for a year, request the Attorney General to exercise her discretionary authority, and she elects to do so. That is what the current law is. That is the law which I believe should continue in effect until there is a certification that a democratic government is now in control of Cuba. The law was passed for both humanitarian and pragmatic reasons, to provide a means of expeditious adjustment of status of the thousands of persons who are coming from a Communist regime, not halfway around the world but 90 miles off of our shore. The simple reason that was relevant in 1966 is applicable in 1996, and therefore the law should be retained until democracy returns to Cuba.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would ask unanimous consent for 1 minute on the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, was there not an opportunity for a minute to present the amendment prior to the vote?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the second amendment relates to the issue of deeming, that is, counting the income of the sponsor to that of the alien. Under the current law there are three categories in which this is done: SSI, food stamps, and aid to families with dependent children. What is significant is that under the current law, each instance of deeming is specifically listed. Under the legislation that is before us, there is a vague standard which says, ``Any program which is in whole or in part funded with Federal funds shall be deemed.'' There are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of those types of programs. This amendment speaks to the principle, let us continue the policy of specifically listing all of those programs that we intend to be deemed. We have suggested 16 programs to be deemed. It is open for amendment if others wish to offer additional programs to be deemed. But let us not leave this matter open-ended and as obscure as it is in the legislation that is before us.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3822

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I cite this as the most recent evidence of the fact that we are not dealing with an anachronism. Fidel Castro is an anachronism. But the Cuban Adjustment Act, which was designed to respond to the human rights abuses, to the circumstances that forced thousands of native citizens of Cuba to flee that country, unfortunately, the Cuban Adjustment Act still serves its humanitarian purpose in 1996 as it did when it was adopted by the Congress in 1966. Third, the adoption of the language in 1664 would have the practical effect of turning a substantial amount of the U.S. immigration policy, substantial amount of our responsibilities to make decisions as to what is in the best interests of the United States of America, over to Fidel Castro. Why is that? All Fidel Castro would have to do, if this language in Senate bill 1664 were to be adopted, would be to abrogate the Cuban Adjustment Act, the Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995, and no person would henceforth be eligible to utilize the Cuban Adjustment Act as a means of changing their status and securing the benefits of permanent residence in the United States. We would be telling Fidel Castro, ``If you wish to amend United States immigration law, all you have to do is abrogate the only window which is now available by which a Cuban citizen who has flown the tyranny of your government to secure the benefits that have been available for 30 years to tens of thousands people to adjust their status.'' I do not think this Congress wants to accede to Fidel Castro the ability to influence our policy. Mr. President, I do not think the Cuban Adjustment Act needs to be a permanent part of American law. Frankly, I wish it had never been necessary. I wish once it was determined necessary and enacted, it would have been in a position to have been repealed as quickly as possible because its existence is testimony to Fidel Castro's continued existence and tyrannical rule over the citizens of the island of Cuba. So, Mr. President, what I propose, joined by a number of our colleagues, including Senators Dole, Mack, Abraham, Bradley, and Helms, is an alternative approach. Our amendment would say that the Cuban Adjustment Act shall be repealed, but it shall be repealed only upon a determination by the President under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996--what is frequently referred to as the Helms- Burton legislation--only when a determination has been made by the President pursuant to the standards in that legislation that in fact a democratically elected government is now in power in Cuba. Once there is a democratic government in Cuba, then the need for the Cuban Adjustment Act will have been fulfilled, and there would be a celebration of repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act. So, Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been filed as No. 3760 with the provision that I have just stated. Mr. President, I urge this Senate not to precipitously adopt the language that is in 1664, not to close the opportunity for thousands of Cubans, Cubans who arrived prior to the Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995, and those Cubans who arrived under it in a status other than parolees. Let us not inadvertently send a signal to Fidel Castro that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we have found some reason to believe there has been a transformation, a reformation, from the tyranny of 35 years into a government in which we are prepared to give some respect and dignity. The fact is no such transformation has occurred, and we do not wish to give such evidence that there has been. We certainly do not wish to turn over to Fidel Castro the ability to affect our immigration laws. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment which is at the desk, and look forward to its consideration at the earliest opportunity tomorrow. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Apr. 29, 1996] Cuba Slows Changes, Reemphasizes Ideology--Tighter U.S. Embargo Draws Vow From Castro ``To Resist Another 35 Years'' (By Douglas Farah) Havana.--Facing a freeze in Cuban-U.S. relations and slipping state control of the economy, Cuba's ruling Communist Party has slowed moves toward free-market economics, raised pressure on dissidents and reemphasized its orthodox Marxist rhetoric. Around the country, old propaganda signs are being refreshed, new billboards denouncing the U.S. economic embargo are going up, and buildings housing the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution are being repaired. Reaffirming the Marxist, socialist nature of the Cuban revolution is again the focal point of speeches. While changes permitting some private enterprise and foreign investment will not be rolled back, according to senior government officials and diplomats, the pace of future moves toward a market economy--especially those related to increasing self-employment--are likely to slow down or be put on hold. President Fidel Castro, in a ceremony on April 16 marking 35th anniversary of his declaration of the revolution as socialist, said that Cuba has resisted pressure to change and that ``we're prepared to resist another 35 years, and 35 times 35 years.'' In part, the call to return to ideological purity reflects increased concern that a growing sector of the economy in moving out from under state control, according to diplomats and Cubans analysts. Another factor often cited is increased government optimism that this year's crucial sugar harvest is on target to reach 4.5 million tons, up from last year's disastrous 3.3 million tons, the lowest in 40 years. If the harvest reaches that goal, the government will be able to pay off the $300 million in commercial loans it took out last year, at 18 percent interest, to rebuild the industry, which is vital to returning the economy to sustained growth. Official figures show the economy shrank by 36 percent from 1989 to 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, which heavily subsidized Cuba. Since 1993, Cuba has legalized use of dollars, authorized limited self-employment, allowed farmers to sell surplus produce on the open market and offered cash incentives to workers in key sectors of the economy to produce more. The result has been not only an upturn in the economy, but also the creation of a class with access to goods and services not available to those who work for the state at fixed wages in Cuban pesos, usually about $16 a month. ``We need time to assimilate and consolidate the steps we have already taken, especially in self-employment,'' Alfredo Gonzalez, senior adviser in the Ministry of Economics and Planning, said in an interview. ``The moves have had contradictory effects. When some people start to get rich, it has a social impact. University professors and social workers, who earn only in pesos, are starting to ask, `When will it be my turn?' '' Some of the party faithful are not waiting. A professor of Marxism at the University of Havana can be found most nights harmonizing with a musical trio that strolls through a plush dollar restaurant, singing romantic ballads for tips. He said he made more in two nights there than at his academic job in a month. University students, long praised as the vanguard of the revolution, are trying desperately to get into business administration and computer classes. According to academic sources, only seven students signed up last semester to study Marxism, once one of the most popular courses. The opening salvo in the ideological rollback was fired by Raul Castro, brother of the president and head of the armed forces, in a March 23 speech to a meeting of the party's 212- member Central Committee. It was only the fifth full meeting of the committee since Fidel Castro took over in 1959, and the first since 1992. Raul Castro called for renewed ideological vigor, especially in the watch committees. He sharply criticized some parts of the economic changes already implemented, including foreign influences spread through the growing tourism industry, and the relative wealth of some people who are now legally allowed to form their own small businesses. ``Fundamentally, it is understood that ideology is at the root of everything.'' Raul Castro said. The meeting was held a month after Cuban-U.S. relations took their sharpest plunge in three decades, when Cuban air force shot down two small airplanes belonging to the Miami- based exile group Brothers to the Rescue. In response, President Clinton signed into law the Helms-Burton Act, which seeks to strengthen the 34-year-old U.S. economic embargo against Cuba. Using the threat of covert U.S. operations, the Cuban government stepped up attacks on dissident groups, independent journalist and even reformist academic groups that were largely financed by the Communist-Party. Academic sources said that committees are reviewing the work of academic centers, their finances and their foreign contacts. The tone was set by Raul Castro, who accused the United States of financing ``the proliferation and growth of small groups of traitors within the country.'' Ricardo Alarcon, president of the National Assembly, defended the crackdown on Communist Party-financed think tanks, which won international attention by pushing for faster, deeper economic change. ``The party has the right to question and analyze whether a center that depends on it for material and human resources is doing what it is supposed to do, and if not, to correct things,'' he said. Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), representing the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, accused Havana last week of carrying out ``the most repressive wave we have seen in the recent history of Cuba.'' On Tuesday, the commission passed a resolution condemning Cuba for not allowing freedom of assembly and expression. Caught in the middle are the dissidents themselves. Vladimiro Roca, a dissident whose father, Blas Roca, was a founder of the Cuban Communist Party, said he is awaiting a crackdown. ``Our meetings are being blocked, we can no longer get foreign newspapers, it is getting ever more hard,'' Roca said in an interview at his home. ``The shoot-down and the Helms-Burton act have made life more difficult.'' But just how tough mobilizing people has become was tacitly acknowledged by Raul Castro when he said people's ``number one daily concern is food.'' Still, he called for revitalizing the watch committees, powerful political structures set up in each block of every city and town to monitor ideology and instill revolutionary fervor. Instead of going to meetings, people spend much of their time trying to put food on the table or seeking scarce transportation to work or markets. The committees gradually have lost influence, especially around Havana, and in some areas hold almost no meetings. Officials and businesses people who travel here regularly said two reform programs already approved are still on track. One is to revive a commercial banking system abandoned in the 1960s, and the other is to break down large state companies into smaller, more efficient units. Gonzalez and Alarcon said one of the pending changes most cherished by reformers and long rumored to be imminent-- allowing the creation of small and mid-size companies under private overship--is being studied, but there are no plans to go ahead with it soon.

Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, under the rules under which we are currently operating, the amendment 3760 has been filed. Would the appropriate motion be to call up the amendment at this time?

Mr. GRAHAM. So, Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3803.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the cordiality of our colleague from Wyoming. I would move on to the second amendment, which is really one of what I anticipate will be a cluster of amendments. Again, it goes to an issue raised in the previous amendment, which is that while we are dealing with the bill S. 1664 that has as its title: ``To Increase Control Over Immigration in the United States by Increasing Border Patrol and Investigative Personnel,'' et cetera, a bill designed to restrain illegal immigration, in fact there are provisions which apply substantially or totally to persons who are in the country legally. Many of those provisions also go to a second major concern for the structure of this legislation, and that is the degree to which it represents a significant unfunded mandate, a transfer of financial obligations from the Federal Government to State and local communities. Mr. President, for many years, as you well know, I have been seriously concerned with the fact that while the Federal Government has the total responsibility for determining what our immigration policy will be and has the total responsibility for enforcing that immigration policy, where the policy is either misguided or where the policy is breached, it is the local communities and the States in which the aliens reside that most of the impact is felt. That impact is particularly felt in the area of the delivery of critical public services, from health care to education to financial assistance in time of need. It has been my feeling that fundamentally the Federal Government ought to be responsible for all dimensions of the immigration issue. It sets the rules. It enforces the rules. It should be responsible when the rules are not adequately enforced and there are impacts, especially financial impacts on individual communities. Thus, I am concerned with this legislation, which instead of moving in the direction I think represents fair and balanced policy, goes in the opposite direction and is now going to have the Federal Government withdrawing from its level of financial responsibility for legal as well as illegal aliens, and will be, by its default, imposing that responsibility on the communities and States in which the aliens live. Compounding that is the uncertainty of just which of these programs that are intended to provide some assistance to the alien will be affected by this shift of responsibility. As currently written, S. 1664 would require that the income of the sponsor, that is the person who is sponsoring the legal alien to come into the United States, would require that the sponsor's income be deemed to be the income of the alien for ``any program of assistance provided or funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government, by any State or local government entity for which eligibility for benefits is based on need.'' That is the standard by which there will be this transfer of responsibility, assumedly, from the Federal Government to the sponsor of the legal alien. But in reality, if that sponsor is not able to meet his obligations, it is going to be a transfer to the local community, private philanthropy, or government services, when the legal alien becomes old, unemployed, injured, or otherwise in need of services that he or she is unable to pay for. The amendment which I am offering, which has been filed as No. 3803, and in which I am joined by Senator Specter, says if we are going to do this, if we are going to require this deeming, that at least we ought to know precisely what it is we are talking about because no one can say, reading the language that I just quoted from the legislation, what programs, Federal, State or local, would be impacted by these very broad and sweeping words. What are some of the programs? I would like to ask the sponsors and supporters of the bill whether or not the following programs are intended to be impacted by S. 1664. Minnesota has a program called ``MinnesotaCare,'' would that be affected? Rhode Island's ``Rite Care,'' would that be affected? Hawaii has a program called ``Healthy Start,'' would that be affected? My own State of Florida has a program called ``Healthy Kids,'' would that be affected? Texas's ``Crippled Children's'' program, Chapter I programs in the public schools, Maryland's ``Minds Across Maryland,'' Florida's ``Children's Emergency Services,'' Texas's ``Indigent Health Care,'' local government public defenders, immunization programs in public health clinics, services in our Nation's public hospitals, State and local public health services, programs to take children out of abusive environments, gang prevention programs, children's lunches and nutrition programs, special education programs--which of these are intended to be covered? Whatever you think about the underlying policy, there can certainly be no virtue in ambiguity. At least the people at the State and community level, citizens and those charged with the responsibility for providing services alike, we owe to them the obligation of clarity of what it is we intend, in terms of those programs that will be affected by the sweeping language, ``any program of assistance provided or funded in whole or in part, for which eligibility for benefits is based on need'', shall require deeming. For example, Virginia uses Community Development Block Grant money to fund community centers and extension services that provide lunch programs, after-school tutoring, English classes, and recreational sports programs to residents of the community. Will Virginia have to deem participants in everything from children's soccer leagues to mobile meals to English classes? Do we intend that? If we do, let us say so. Program providers, State and local governments and others, including the public, need to know the answers to these questions and more. They deserve nothing less. Moreover, Members of Congress should know the impact of the legislation before we are asked to decide as to whether it is appropriate public policy, policy to be enacted into laws of the United States of America. The majority leader said on the Senate floor during the debate of the unfunded mandates legislation on January 4 of 1995: Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative truth in advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a piece of legislation they need to know how it would impact the States and localities they represent. If Members of Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to make the tough choices needed to pay for it. The underlying bill, S. 1664, fails to meet these tests as established by the majority leader. Members of Congress have no idea what programs will be impacted by this legislation. Are 60 programs impacted? Are 88 programs? Are 417 programs? Are 3,812 programs? We have no idea and we will not, until regulations are implemented or the courts have decided what the meaning is of the phrase, programs by which ``eligibility for benefits is based on need.'' Why should we turn over such a decision to regulators and the courts? We should decide. We should partake in a little ``legislative truth-in-advertisin'' ourselves. Moreover, Members of Congress have not made the tough choices needed to pay for it. In fact, the National Conference of State Legislators has prepared a study to determine the imposed impact these deeming requirements will have, that is the requirement that the sponsor be financially responsible for the sponsored alien who is applying for a needs-based program. The National Conference of State Legislators has prepared a study on just 10 of those programs which they believe will probably be impacted. The programs that the NCSL studied were school lunch, school breakfast, child and adult care food programs, vocational rehabilitation, title 20 social service block grants, foster care, title IV-A child care, title IV-D child support, and Medicaid qualified Medicare beneficiaries. The administrative costs alone of deeming these programs, of determining who is and who is not eligible, would exceed $700 million, according to the National Conference of State Legislators study. As a result, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities have endorsed the amendment which is before the Senate this evening, to substitute a clear and concrete list of programs to be deemed. As they write, ``This amendment assures that Congress and not the courts will decide which programs are deemed.'' Let me repeat. This amendment assures that Congress, and not the courts, will decide which programs are deemed. If the Senate chooses to impose new administrative requirements on State and local governments, we should do so, as the majority leader said, and ``be willing to make the tough choices needed to pay for it.'' For these reasons, we take a different approach by eliminating the vague language which is in S. 1664 and replacing that vague language with a list of 16 specific programs that would be required to be implemented under the new deeming provisions. These programs are: Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, section 8 low-income housing assistance, low rent public housing, section 236 interest reduction payments, homeowner assisted payments under the National Housing Act, HUD low-income rent supplements, rural housing loans, rural rental housing loans, rural rental assistance, rural housing repair loans and grants, farm labor housing loans and grants, rural housing preservation grants, rural self-help technical assistance grants, and site loans. Those would be the 16 programs that would be subjected to deeming. Mr. President, I do not submit that these 16 programs came from a mountain and were inscribed on tablets. These are 16 programs which we and responsible organizations have identified as what they think would be appropriate to apply the deeming standard. If someone wishes to subtract or add to or modify this list, that would be the subject of a reasonable debate. But we would be in a position to be telling States and local communities and their citizens exactly what we mean. We would be deciding to which programs we would apply this requirement that the income of the sponsor be added to the income of the alien in determining eligibility. We would not be leaving that judgment up to bureaucrats through regulation or to the courts through laborious litigation. I will be happy to work with the sponsors of this bill to work out an agreement with the State and local units impacted by deeming so what programs should be included will be understood and, hopefully, will be the result of a consensus judgment. However, I firmly agree with the majority leader that we should at least have a little ``legislative truth-in-advertising.'' In addition to the strong support of the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities, this amendment is also supported by the National Association of Public Hospitals, the American Association of Community Colleges, Catholic Charities, United States Catholic Conference, and the Council of Jewish Federation among others. Mr. President, this is the first of what I anticipate will be a series of amendments that relate to the issue of the eligibility of legal aliens to receive a variety of benefits and the circumstances under which the Federal Government should restrict its, as well as other governments's ability to provide those need-based services for legal immigrants. This is not a matter which should pass quietly and without considered judgment, particularly in a bill which advertises itself as dealing with illegal aliens. We are here talking, Mr. President, about the financial rights of access to public programs of people who are in the country legally, who have played by the rules that we have established, who are paying taxes, who are subject to virtually all the requirements that apply to citizens, except the right to vote and the right to serve on juries. Yet, we are about to say in a retroactive way, including to those persons already in the country today under the standards that were applicable when they entered, that they are going to have their rights severely restricted and without clarity as to what those restricted rights will be. I think that is bad policy. I think it violates the principles of the unfunded mandate legislation, the first legislation to be passed by this Congress. I think it undercuts the essential thrust of the legislation that is intended to be dealing with the impact of illegal immigrants. Amendment No. 3803 to Amendment No. 3743 (Purpose: To clarify and enumerate specific public assistance programs with respect to which the deeming provisions apply)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to assure my good friend from Wyoming that reducing his level of guilt, or, frankly, any other emotion that he might feel, is not the purpose of this, but it is rather to discuss the current relevance, the relevance in the spring of 1996, of legislation that this Congress passed 30 years ago. It was on November 2, 1966, that Public Law 89-732, the Cuban Adjustment Act, became the law of the land. Mr. President, I want to read, briefly, from that law that was passed almost 30 years ago, because an understanding of what this law does-- and, frankly, what it does not do--is crucial to understanding the proposal which I will submit to the Senate. I will read portions of the Cuban Adjustment Act. It states: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Immigration and Nationality law, the status of any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba, and who has been inspected and admitted, or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959, and has been physically present in the United States for at least 1 year, may be adjusted by the Attorney General in his-- Now her-- discretion, and under such regulations as he or she may prescribe to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Mr. President, that is the essence of the Cuban Adjustment Act. It only relates to people who are lawfully in the United States. It does not apply to people who are here illegally. You first had to have been admitted into the United States, or paroled into the United States, in order to commence the process of 1 year of presence in the United States prior to being eligible to request this discretionary act of the Attorney General. Mr. President, last week, I made some preliminary remarks on this legislation, and I stated that one of my concerns is that, although this bill has as its title that this is the ``illegal" aliens bill, as distinct from a separate ``legal'' alien bill, that in fact the illegal aliens bill has spotted throughout it provisions that relate primarily--or as in this case, exclusively--to legal aliens. So I ask my colleagues to now part the veil of legal and illegal, because we are now talking about people who are in this country legally, and whose status is about to be affected by a change in a bill whose title would lead one to believe that it only relates to those persons who are in the country illegally. What would the provision in the illegal immigration bill, S. 1664, do to those persons who are in the country legally and under current law would have the prerogative of asking the Attorney General to exercise her discretion to adjust their status? This provision, which begins on page 177, would first repeal Public Law 89-732, the Cuban Adjustment Act. Second, it states a savings provision, which states that ``The provisions of such act shall continue to apply on a case-by-case basis with respect to individuals paroled into the United States pursuant to the Cuban migration agreement of 1995.'' Let me make some comments on that provision. The savings provision states that it applies on a case-by-case basis. As I indicated, in current law it is also on a case-by-case basis. Applications must be made on an individual basis for a person who is a native or a citizen of Cuba, who has been inspected, or admitted, or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959, and has been physically present for 1 year. If you meet all those requirements, then you may apply to the discretionary act of the Attorney General to adjust your status. This savings provision, however, would only apply with respect to individuals paroled into the United States. The current Cuban Adjustment Act refers to persons who are inspected and admitted, or paroled. So it would narrow the categories of persons who could come into the United States to those who are paroled. What is the significance of that? As you know, there are a number of means by which a person can come into the United States. For those persons who have come from Cuba, they have primarily come in one of three categories: as parolees, as refugees, or as visa immigrants. This amendment, as written in current law, would restrict it to only one of those three categories--those who are parolees. As an example, in 1995, under the United States-Cuban migration amendment--I might say, Mr. President, that was the agreement entered into in the spring of 1995 as a culmination of the series of events which began almost 9 months earlier with a mass migration of small boats from Cuba to the United States, which, in turn, led to the large number of persons who were detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. Of those who came into the United States in 1995, 7,500 came in with the status of refugees. Of those, 7,500 would be excluded from the applicability of the Cuban Adjustment Act, under this provision, because it would only apply to parolees. Six-thousand came as visa immigrants. Those would be excluded from the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act. There were 14,000 who came as parolees through the migration agreement having applied to the United States-Cuban interest section in Havana. Another 10,000 came as parolees, as one of those persons who were being detained at Guantanamo. So, last year, there would have been 13,500 of those persons who came that would not have been eligible because they came in a status other than as a parolee, and 24,000 would have been eligible because they came as parolees. The next major restriction is that you have to come in pursuant to the Cuban migration agreement of 1995. There are literally tens of thousands of persons who are otherwise eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, who have come in by means other than the Cuban Migration Agreement of 1995. In fact, from 1990 to 1994, an average of almost 20,000 persons a year adjusted their status under the Cuban Adjustment Act. None of them came in under the Cuban Migration Act because the Migration Act did not go into effect until the spring of 1995. Assumingly, although there are no precise records, there are still many thousands of persons who came prior to the spring of 1995, prior to the Cuban Migration Act, who are still eligible because they meet the other standards of having come here legally, having resided here for 1 year, and are now legally eligible to make a request to the Attorney General for a discretionary act of adjusting their status. So one of the consequences of adopting the language which is in 1664 today is to exclude a substantial number of people from the benefits of this legislation, people who are just like persons who for 30 years have utilized this legislation in order to adjust their status. Second, this sends a signal that we believe, as the Senator from Wyoming alluded, that we think the situation in Cuba has changed so dramatically that now legislation passed 30 years ago is a dinosaur, is an anachronism, and no longer serves a legitimate purpose. In fact, Mr. President, you can read as recently as this morning's Washington Post an article that states: Cuba Slows Changes, Reemphasizes Ideology, Tighter U.S. Embargo Draws Vow From Castro ``to Resist Another 35 Years.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Washington Post of April 29 be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.