George Miller: “I rise in opposition to the Roberts amendment, because I think it is a subterfuge. If in fact what they were concerned…”

“I rise in opposition to the Roberts amendment, because I think it is a subterfuge. If in fact what they were concerned about is unfunded mandates, what they would say is unless Federal moneys are provided for this activity, the activity shall not be required. That is not what it does. In fact, what we do is, we say the Federal Government shall fund this, as we do throughout the entire bill. We know that we have the right as the Federal Government to pick and choose where we will spend taxpayers' dollars and where we do not, and that happens in the appropriations process. But, in fact, the school district will be left with this charge in this legislation without the money. That is the history of unfunded mandates. So this amendment does not cure that problem. I think it is a subterfuge to suggest that it does or that it takes somebody off the hook. Because let us read what the California school board's association says about this, a State that the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and I both represent. They say, "It is with great frustration that we find the Federal Government attempting to address illegal immigration by further burdening the schools. Immigration policies and enforcement are strictly under the domain of the Federal Government, and yet schools have direct constitutional mandates to provide the educational services, regardless of whether or not the Federal Government has enforced those policies." That is the law.…”