Speech #1050092536

Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct conferees on CommerceJusticeState appropriations for fiscal year 1998. This motion to instruct would throw another roadblock before the conferees. by insisting on House language that allows section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to sunset. A significant proportion of people who use 245(i) never intended to break the law. Rather. they were tripped up by the Immigration and Nationality Act. which is arguably second only to the Tax Code in its sheer complexity. My colleagues who have criticized the Internal Revenue Service for strictly enforcing arcane tax laws will agree that honest mistakes happen. Likewise. these 245(i) applicants are not running from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not fighting the paperwork requirements or griping about the $1.000 penalty. All they want is to retain the opportunity they now have in the law to set things right and get on with their lives. Let us be clear: To be eligible to adjust status under section 245(i). these intending immigrants must meet all other immigration requirements: they must not have a criminal record. they must not be terrorists. they cannot belong to the Communist Party. they may not have an illness that presents a public health hazard. and they cannot be at risk of becoming a public charge. They still go through the criminal background and health checks that any other visa applicant doesthey simply do it here in the United States. For this same reason. section 245(i) will not stop deportations. In the first place. it is extremely rare for persons who find themselves in deportation proceedings to have a visa approved. ready and waiting for them. so they could not even apply to adjust status under 245(i). This fiscal year. INS removals skyrocketed to nearly 100.000. despite the fact that 245(i) was in effect. Clearly 245(i) has not interfered with deportations in the slightest. Foes of 245(i) call it a unique. special concession under immigration law. This is untrue. Every day we allow people to cross our borders on fiancee visas. so they can marry U.S. citizens. Yet. we allow these fiancees to complete their immigrant processing here in the United States. Furthermore. keeping section 245(i) makes fiscal sense. At least 80 percent of the penalties paid-$74 million this year alonepay for detaining criminal aliens whom the INS seeks to deport. The INS budget receives $100 million per year from 245(i) penalties. but unfortunately this motion to instruct does not say where we should cut to make up the loss of funding. Meanwhile. the State Department would have to shoulder a greatly increased burden of visa processing. Since fiscal year 1994 when 245(i) was instituted. appropriators have been able to significantly cut spending on U.S. consular staff abroad. because 30 percent of their immigrant visa traffic was using 245(i) to be processed stateside by INS. This appropriations bill does not restore this lost funding for overseas consular staff. so the Department of State will leave visa applicants subject to ever longer delays in processing and will create a bureaucratic nightmare for thousands of U.S. families and businesses. The Senate voted overwhelmingly99 to 0to adopt its version of the Commerce. Justice.