On the recordJuly 23, 1996
first off, this amendment would cost about a quarter of the savings in the bill. It is about a $15 billion additional cost added to this bill. But on substantive ground, this is similar to the vote we took last week on the Graham amendment. What this underlying bill did, what the Democratic substitute did, what the bill that passed here in the Senate last time did was say that sponsors have to live up to their contractual obligations. They signed a document saying they would provide for people that come to this country. People come to this country and sign a document saying they would not become wards of the State. What is happening is that millions of people are coming to this country, bringing moms and dads over. They are coming into this country and going down to the SSI office and qualifying for SSI benefits and you and the taxpayers of this country are picking up and being the retirement home for the rest of the world. That is not what this program should be about. What we do is take care of refugees. If they come, they have a 5-year period where they qualify for all of the benefits. That is more than fair. Sponsors should pay what they say they are going to pay.
Source
govinfo.gov




