Speech #990275057

Mr. Chairman. it is said that the "third times a charm." Well. it appears as if the House will adhere to this saying when we agree today to H.R. 3810. the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. I rise in support of this bill for several reasons. First and foremost. my constituents are demanding action by Congress to control the influx of illegal aliens. Although H.R. 3810 is not without flaw. it does represent the best hope for immigration reform now. by this Congress. And action now is what the citizens in the 41st District of California want. Second. the bill before us is more restrictive in its treatment of foreign workers than was the original House proposal which was voted down earlier by this House on a procedural vote. The requirement for 90 working days over a 3year period is more in line with the basic legalization provisions in title II of H.R. 3810. While not enthusiastic about any twotier legalization system. I will support this provision as necessary for enactment of major immigration legislation. H.R. 3810 imposes employer sanctions on those who knowingly hire undocumented aliens and provides additional resources for enforcement agencies. The primary reason for the influx of aliens is the prospect for gainful employment. Until and unless employers are threatened with civil and criminal penalties. there is little hope that the United States will be able to stem the flow of illegals pouring JSE 30009 into the United States. Moreover. unless our Federal agentsthe INS and Border Patrolare given the resources nec(.ssary to control the border and efficiently process legalization petitions. the lure of successful illegal entry will drive aliens across our border. H.R. 3810 acts responsibly in these two important areas. Having outlined my support for immigration reform and this bill in particular. I would like to discuss one issue which will riot be addressed during todays debate. It inv)lves an amendment I intended to offer. and would have been able to offer. had the rule coverning todays debate been similar to the two rules previously considered by the House. Unfortunately. in an understandable attempt t0 expedite enactment of immigration reforri legislation. my amendmentand some otherswere denied a hearing on the floor. My amendment would ha\ e provided Federal reimbursement to local ties for costs of emergency hospital services furnished to illegal aliens for fiscal years 1.E8788. Counties and cities throighout the Nation. particularly in our border communities. face a dilemma. As providersoflastresort. county run hospitals are forced to treat patients who have emergencies regardl..ss of their ability to pay for services rendered. This is the case for legal residents of this country as well as illegal aliens. In the latter case. local jurisdictions are being forced to bear emergency health care costs resulting from a Federal failure to control its borders. The ojvious consequences are that localities must divert funds reserved for a host of other needed services to pay for emergency health ca:e for undocumented aliens. This is not a new issue. It has. however. grown more acute a. the number of illegal aliens has skyrocketed the past couple years. In San Diego alone. the county has borne $16.5 million over 5 years for providing emergency treatment to illegal aliens. Is it fair to ask taxpayers in this community to shoulder this cost because the Federal Government is unable to control he national border? I dont believe so and am sure that a majority of my colleagues would agree.