Speech #1010042892

I strongly support the amendment being offered by Senators HATCH and DECONCINI to S. 358. and I urge my colleagues to support it also. As Its principal sponsors have very forcefully. eloquently and persuasively argued. this amendment is both necessary and highly reasonable. This amendment is necessary because. without it. the legislation we are considering today could drastically reduce familybased immigration. the best kind of immigration there is. S. 358 represents a departure from the traditional priority which has been placed on family reunification efforts under our immigration laws. It wouldfor the first timeplace a cap on the number of visas which would be issued for family reunification efforts. Under that cap. the number of visas issued for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizenswhich are not limitedwould be subtracted from the number of visas available for other family reunification efforts. The General Accounting Office has determined that this cap and its mechanism which offsets visas for immediate relatives against other family preference visas. contained in S. 358 as originally introduced. could mean that family preference Immigration could drop to zero by 199899. As I said earlier this morning. Madam President. I oppose the cap. In my view. this legislation should not impose a new cap on family sponsored immigration in any way. shape or manner. The needed reforms to our system of admitting immigrants to this country can be accomplished without the cap. I was an original cosponsor of Senator SIMONS legal immigration reform bill. S. 448. which did not contain a cap. That bill proposed many of the same reforms which are contained in the KennedySimpson bill. but it did not propose to accomplish those reforms at the expense of familysponsored immigration. The legal immigration reform bill which is currently being considered in the House. H.R. 672 authored by Congressman BERMAN. does not impose a cap on familysponsored immigration yet it. too. proposes many of the same reforms which we are considering today in this measure. It is my sincere hope. Madam President. that the final legislation which is enacted into law will not impose a cap on family sponsored immigration. Nevertheless. Madam President. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which mitigates. to some degree. the harsh impact of the cap. While this amendment will retain the cap and the offset mechanism which allows the number of visas issued for the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to be subtracted from the number of visas available for other familyconnected immigrants. it assures that the visas available for familyconnected immigrants will not fall below the number available under current law. and that is 216.000. And that Is 216.000. Given the concerns which have been raised by GAOs projection that the cap and its offset mechanism could drastically reduce familysponsored immigration. this amendment merely assures that familysponsored immigration will not fall below current levels. If this legislation must contain a cap on familysponsored immigration and if immediate relative visas must be offset. unfortunately. against other family visas under that cap. then in order to adhere to the traditional priority which has been given to family reunification under our immigration laws. we must take the necessary precaution to insure that familysponsored immigrants do not have fewer visas available to them in the future than they have today. The opponents of this amendment have argued that this change in the legislation is unnecessary because procedures are provided to review and adjust the level of immigration every 3 years. They argue that any future negative impact on familysponsored Immigration caused by the cap and its offset mechanism can be addressed by the independent commission created by this legislation to review and recommend changes in the national level of Immigration. And the Congress may act expeditiously to address those changes under special parliamentary procedures established by this legislation. That is their argument. Well. Madam President. I agree with Senators HATCH and DECONCINI that this is no guarantee at all that current levels of familysponsored immigration will be maintained. The better approach is to adopt this amendment now and thus make sure that this legislation will not curtail future familysponsored immigration below current levels. Finally. Madam President. I am aware that this legislation we are considering today increases the number of visas available for familyconnected immigrants. I support these increases. and I urge my colleagues to support these increases. The sponsors of this legislation argue because of these increases. this legislation in no way diminishes our traditional priority on family reunification. I cannot agree. I simply cannot agree with this so long as this legislation also contains a cap. an offset mechanism which could drastically reduce the future availability of visas for familyconnected immigrants. For all these reasons. I fully support this amendment.