Speech #1010042883

If the President recommends a change in the 480.000 level of greater than 5 percent. it goes into effect. only if Congress approves it. That may be very difficult to do. In my view. this is a mechanism which provides for the periodic review of immigration levels. But. as I mentioned earlier. it guarantees nothing. If immediate family relative immigration climbs to the point where the offset reduces the number of family connection preference visas below 216.000. which will almost certainly occur under this bill. nothing in this bill requires the restoration of the 216.000 figure. In short. this bill creates the clear and present danger that it will automatically operate to reduce the visas available to family connection preference immigrants below the numbers available today. Now. why should that be of concern? I believe that family connection preference immigration is good for our country. Family reunification under these categories. I believe. is desirable. because it reflects traditional American family values. Immigrants in these categories have done much for America and made it a better place. Of course. America has done much for them. The operation of our free system of government and free enterprise has helped them. as these immigrants have. at the same time. used our system to add to the strength of our Nation. I believe that the HatchDeConcini amendment is consistent with the intention of the sponsors of S. 358. The committee report. on page 7. discusses the national level for immigration created by the bill. The report says: Some concern has been expressed that the establishment of a national level may have the unintended consequence of severely restricting immigration under the family preferences. I stress that the report calls a severe restriction of family preference immigration "unintended." Moreover. the committee report goes on to say: In establishing the national level. it is clearly not the committees intent that it be used as a device for arbitrarily restricting immigration. The national level mechanism merely ensures that increases and adjustments are by deliberate actions and not by unchecked growth that characterizes current law. Fine. Let us then take care of the risk of the unintended consequence that family preference immigration may drop below the level permitted under current law. Let us make sure that there is no restriction on family preference immigration as a result of the clear potential for growth in the uncapped immediate family relative category. Let me explain the HatchDeConcini amendment. Here is how the HatchDeConcini amendment seeks to prevent S. 358 in causing a reduction in family preference immigration at below the level of current law. What we have here is. the amendment leaves the tipper limit of the worldwide family preference immigration. the cap. at 480.000 as provided for in S. The amendment leaves in place S. 358s offset of immediate family relatives against the 480.000 figure. So we start with 480.000. minus the number of immediate family relatives. plus the number. if any. of unused independent immigrant visas. The amendment then provides. however. that the number of visas available to family preference immigration shall not drop below 216.000 in any fiscal yearthe number available under current law. Here is how section 201(c)(1) would read. in effect. as amended by the HatchDeConcini amendment: The worldwide level of family connection immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to(A)(i) 480.000. minus (ii) the number [of immediate family relatives]. plus (iii) the number (if any) [of unused independent immigrant visas]. or (B) 216.000. whichever is greater. This change makes sure that S. 358 does not automatically operate to cause a reduction of family preference visas below a floor representing the number of such visas available today. The amendment also subjects this 216.000 visa floor to the mechanism in S. 358 which allows the President. every 3 years. to recommend increases or decreases in the levels of immigration established in the bill. I described this mechanism earlier. Thus. the amendment keeps the 216.000 visa floor and makes sure S. 358 itself does not operate to reduce that number. Plus. the amendment allows Congress. in conjunction with a Presidential recommendation. to consider whether it wants to change the floor in the future. Let us reaffirm that we will at least preserve current levels unless we. in Congress. affirmatively decide to reduce them. Let us not run the risk that we may inadvertently cause a reduction of current family preference immigration below the current level. I do not believe the sponsors of this bill want to cause such a reduction. If that is indeed the case. then I would think that this amendment could be accepted by them. I should note that I am against the idea of an offset altogether. I do not think we should pit immediate family relative immigrants against familyconnection preference immigrants. The HatchDeConcinl amendment. which preserves the offset with a floor. is a very reasonable. middle ground. Let me respond. Mr. President. to those of my colleagues who may believe that our concerns about a rise in immediate family immigration dropping family preference immigration below 216.000 are exaggerated. If our concerns are exaggerated. then the amendment should be acceptable because it is harmless. it will not have to go into effect. On the other hand. if our concerns are justified and the immediate family relative offset would operate to drop family preference immigration below 216.000. we should make sure that we avoid such a result unless we affirmatively choose to reduce that number in the future. If Senators wish to make sure we preserve the 216.000 visas available each year to family preference immigrants. then they should support the HatchDeConcini amendment. I feel it is important that we take this modest step. It works no change in the basic fabric of the bill. It underlines Congress view that the family reunification policy has been good for the country and that we continue to feel that way. Even those who believe. as I do. that an independent. new seed category and more skillsbased immigration is desirable. also acknowledge that family preference immigration is healthy for the country. Ben J. Wattenberg. senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. one of the brightest people here In Washington. wrote in the June 15. 1989. Washington Times that there should be more immigration based on skills. But he also said. "The criterion of family preference is important and beneficial." Now. Mr. President. I know the sponsors of S. 358 agree with that. They have provided for a new. independent category of immigrant not tied to family relatives in the United States. And they have provided for an initial. modest increase in family preference immigration. All that the HatchDeConcini amendment does is make sure S. 358 does not operate inadvertently in the future to drop family preference immigration below levels in current law. In that regard. I compliment my distinguished friend from Arizona. Without him. we would not have this amendment nor the force of this amendment on the floor today. I thank him for the work that he has done in this area along with the work he has done with regard to immigration policies generally. With that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.