California Institute LogoThe California Institute for Federal Policy Research
419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
voice: 202-546-3700   fax: 202-546-2390 [email protected]
California Capitol Hill Bulletin

Volume 6, Bulletin 30 — September 23, 1999

Entire Delegation Signs SCAAP Letter
Senate Banking Committee Reports Export Administration Bill
Californians Back F/A-18E/F Fighter
House Ways & Means May Consider Tax Extensions This Week
PPIC Study Finds Naturalization on the Rise in California, Though State’s Rate Still Lags National Average
Supplementary Table: PPIC Report Data on Immigrants by California County and Naturalization Status

To expand communications between Washington and California, the California Institute provides periodic faxed bulletins regarding current activity on Capitol Hill which directly impacts our state. Bulletins are published weekly during sessions of Congress, and occasionally during other periods. The e-mail edition is made possible in part by in kind donations from Sun Microsystems and QUALCOMM, Inc.

Entire Delegation Signs SCAAP Letter

All 51 members (one vacancy) of the California Congressional Delegation signed the letter to House conferees on the Commerce, State, Justice (CJS) Appropriations bill on funding for the State Criminal Aliens Assistance Program (SCAAP). The letter urges the House level of $585 million, rather than the mere $100 million in the Senate version. SCAAP provides funding to state and local governments to partially reimburse them for the costs of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens. See, Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 29 (9/16/99). A date has not been set for the conference on the CJS Appropriations.

Senate Banking Committee Reports Export Administration Bill

By a vote of 20-0, the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, September 23 reported the Export Administration Act of 1999. The bill would streamline export licensing procedures and establish the legal framework for the Department of Commerce to implement export controls for both national security and foreign policy reasons.

Under the bill, the Department of Commerce would have nine days to review an export application and refer it to other appropriate agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and State. With limited exceptions, if the agency did not provide a recommendation within 25 days to approve or deny the license, it would be deemed consent.

The bill also provides a “mass market” exemption, as well as a foreign availability exemption. If a product meets the criteria for either of these exemptions, it would be removed from the National Security Control List, and a specific license to export would not be required. The criteria for mass market status are that the item is: 1) produced and available for sale in large volumes; 2) widely distributed through marketing channels; 3) conducive to shipping by generally accepted commercial means; and 4) usable for its intended purpose without substantial or specialized service. The foreign availability criteria are that the product is: 1) available from sources outside the U.S.; 2) sold at a comparable price to the controlled item; and 3) available in such quantity that the control would be ineffective.

Of great importance to the agriculture industry and others are the provisions in the bill forbidding the use of foreign policy sanctions on the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical supplies. Additionally, all current foreign policy sanctions on those goods would be terminated on the date of enactment. These exemptions, however, do not apply to Cuba or North Korea. Sen. Chris Dodd (CT) has indicated he will offer an amendment on the Senate floor to include Cuba in the sanctions exemption.

The bill also includes 17 recommendations made by the Cox report on China, including substantial increases in criminal and civil penalties for violating U.S. export laws.

During the markup, the committee accepted an amendment to require the Commerce Department to report to Congress on the effectiveness of tracking the end use of dual-use technology. The report would cover the activities of the Department’s overseas investigators; the types of goods or technologies subject to end-use verifications; and the ability of department investigators to detect the illegal transfer of high-risk dual-use goods and technologies.

Californians Back F/A-18E/F Fighter

In a letter to the leaders of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, a bipartisan group of California Members of Congress wrote this week to express support for the F/A-18E/F fighter. The letter, spearheaded by Reps. Steve Kuykendall (Rancho Palos Verdes) and Loretta Sanchez (Anaheim), expresses appreciation that the Committee provides funding for the planes, and urges that it agree to the Navy’s request for a multi-year procurement of the aircraft.

The letter states that, “While total program costs to date remain below $5 billion, a multi-year procurement contract would save the Navy an additional $500 million. These savings would allow the purchase of an additional 22 additional aircraft,” the letter adds.

In 1998, the Hornet program supported nearly 11,000 jobs in California at 747 companies with $465 million in annual revenue. Nearly half of the F/A-18 E/F program is in California.

House Ways & Means May Consider Tax Extensions This Week

In late developing news, the House Ways and Means Committee may mark up a tax bill on Friday. The bill is expected to carve out the tax extension portions of the $792 billion tax bill that the President vetoed on Thursday, September 23. The extensions expected to be included in the smaller bill include the research and experimentation (R&D) tax credit, and the welfare to work and work opportunity tax credits. Chairman Bill Archer (TX) stated that he plans to move the bill quickly, because the IRS had indicated that it must know the tax changes for calendar year 1999 by at least October 7, in order to print the correct tax forms. The vetoed tax bill included a five year extension for tax credits, which will probably be retained in the smaller bill.

Although the Senate is also expected to consider the extensions quickly, the bill may run into more obstacles in that body, because non-germane amendments will be in order.

California industries that must rely heavily on cutting edge research strongly support a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit.

PPIC Study Finds Naturalization on the Rise in California, Though State’s Rate Still Lags National Average

The Public Policy Institute of California issued a new report this week entitled, Taking the Oath: An Analysis of Naturalization in California and the United States. The report finds that after declining for many decades, the rate of naturalization rose sharply in the mid-1990s, with the most dramatic increases found in California.

According to the report, the naturalization rate for all legal immigrants in the U.S. declined from 63 percent in 1965 to 38 percent in 1993. Beginning in the mid-90s, however, the study finds that naturalization rates began to increase, especially among three population groups: all immigrants in California; Latino immigrants; and better educated immigrants.

In California, naturalization rates rose eight percent from March 1996 to March 1997, with a total growth rate in the number of naturalized citizens in California of 24 percent, or 500,000 people in one year. Belinda Reyes, author of the report, along with Hans Johnson, Laura Mameesh, and Elisa Barbour, credits most of this increase to INS efforts to eliminate its applications backlog, the increase in immigrants eligible for naturalization because of the 1986 amnesty program, and the desire of immigrants to protect their rights to government benefits and to participate in the political process.

California’s naturalization rate is among the lowest in the nation, however. At 43 percent, California ranks 49th among states (only Texas is lower, at 42 percent) in the proportion of adult immigrants in the U.S. longer than 5 years who became naturalized. The U.S. average rate was 53 percent, and the highest rate among states was Montana, at 76 percent.

A county-by-county naturalization table is reproduced below.

The full report can be obtained through PPIC’s website at: .

Supplementary Table: PPIC Report Data on Immigrants by California County and Naturalization Status
  Noncitizen Immigrants Naturalized Immigrants % of Immigrants
% of Immigrants
in Population
Alameda 140,529 89,846 39 18
Alpine 9 9 50 2
Amador 526 593 53 4
Butte 7,050 3,796 35 6
Calaveras 307 623 67 3
Colusa 2,926 437 13 21
Contra Costa  58,883 48,177 45 13
Del Norte  1,000 493 33 6
El Dorado  4,502 3,260 42 6
Fresno 90,523 28,586 24 18
Glenn 2,551 678 21 13
Humboldt 2,262 2,354 51 4
Imperial 23,676 7,892 25 29
Inyo 531 325 38 5
Kern 45,637 20,504 31 12
Kings 9,744 4,586 32 14
Lake 1,428 1,267 47 5
Lassen 877 358 29 4
Los Angeles  2,113,398 781,668 27 33
Madera 9,864 3,288 25 15
Marin 17,379 13,110 43 13
Mariposa 115 256 69 3
Mendocino 3,662 1,804 33 7
Merced 27,225 8,132 23 20
Modoc 184 151 45 3
Mono 682 278 29 10
Monterey 52,900 23,766 31 22
Napa 8,687 4,278 33 12
Nevada 1,086 1,699 61 4
Orange 402,576 172,532 30 24
Placer 4,333 4,163 49 5
Plumas 202 317 61 3
Riverside 119,890 53,864 31 15
Sacramento 62,327 41,551 40 10
San Benito  4,763 1,504 24 17
San Bernardino  127,089 59,807 32 13
San Diego  274,438 154,372 36 17
San Francisco  142,700 103,334 42 34
San Joaquin  55,828 22,803 29 16
San Luis Obispo  9,403 6,809 42 7
San Mateo  95,565 69,202 42 25
Santa Barbara  43,811 18,776 30 17
Santa Clara  225,681 121,520 35 23
Santa Cruz  23,149 9,003 28 14
Shasta 2,262 1,927 46 3
Sierra 44 41 48 3
Siskiyou 760 892 54 4
Solano 22,557 21,673 49 13
Sonoma 21,252 14,168 40 9
Stanislaus 38,576 14,268 27 14
Sutter 6,620 2,449 27 14
Tehama 1,828 984 35 6
Trinity 84 196 70 2
Tulare 41,743 13,182 24 18
Tuolumne 1,073 878 45 4
Ventura 77,523 36,481 32 17
Yolo 14,230 6,099 30 14
Yuba 3,971 1,395 26 9
Total 4,452,421 2,006,404 31 22
SOURCE: Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). DATA SOURCE: 1990 census. [NOTE: Counts include immigrants in the United States less than five years and immigrants younger than 18 years of age.]

California Institute LogoClick here to return to the California Institute home page.  Or click here to e-mail.