Speech #1010099303

So let me get back to my original point. What Mr. HEFLEY proposes Is good In its intent. it is not necessary. however. and not original because it already exists in Immigration and Naturalization. the opportunity for the Attorney General to make this possible. So the need for It Is already recognized. the good part of it Is already recognized. As far as the part that is original. attaching It to this bill. It is not good. This bill has a very narrow scope. We are talking about a very particular visa. a J1 visa. In order to have our colleagues understand. I know many here do because we have nearly 300 cosponsors to this legislation for a very narrow mandate. that says this: That those students who came to the United States under a J1 visa would have waived the 2year requirement that they are. under the law. now required to go back to China. A J1 visa is a visa by which the Chinese Government Is supposed to participate in the care. feeding. sustenance. tuition. et cetera. of the students when they are In the United States. This was the intent of the bill. that in return the students would commit to come back for 2 years before whatever else was going on with the rest of their lives. So this is all It Is dealing with. I had a very difficult time finding a germane bill to apply it to. That Is why this very narrow issue stands alone In the bill. It was not germane to any refugee bill which had come before the House and where a Joint of order was called on it when I tried to apply it in that other legislation. So let us not talk about all the good things that exist and whether they are necessary and whether it is appropriate to attach them to any other bill that looks like it has some measure of success. Over 270. 280. nearly 300 Members of this body signed on as cosponsors to protect the Chinese students following the massacre at Tiananmen Square.