On the recordJuly 18, 1996
I think this question precisely underscores why I have offered this series of strikes. We spent a week- plus on this floor in April and May debating a comprehensive immigration bill. We came to a studied judgment as to how, for whom, for what time period benefits for legal aliens should be constrained. We came to a judgment that said over the next 7 years the restraint should have a dollar figure of $5.6 billion. Tonight we are debating a provision that purports to reduce the benefits of legal aliens by $23 billion, four times more than what we had purported to do just a few weeks ago. Yet there is not the opportunity for careful scrutiny and study. Therefore, fundamental misconceptions as to who this applies to are being presented on this legislation on which our colleagues are going to be asked to vote. I think the prudent thing to do is to adopt the motions to strike that I have offered and let these issues be resolved in the conference committee which is now in place to settle the immigration bill and not attempt to do these things at now 11 o'clock at night on a bill that has received not a scintilla of the kind of analysis insofar as it relates to the impact on legal aliens as did that immigration bill. That is the argument that I make in support of my motions to strike these provisions. This has very serious implications, not only to the individuals involved, but to the communities in which legal aliens elect to live.
Source
govinfo.gov




