[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3276-S3309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). Under the previous order, the 
clerk will report calendar No. 361, S. 1664.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1664) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to increase control over immigration to the United States 
     by increasing border patrol and investigative personnel and 
     detention facilities, improving the system used by employers 
     to verify citizenship

[[Page S3277]]

     or work-authorized alien status, increasing penalties for 
     alien smuggling and document fraud, and reforming asylum, 
     exclusion, and deportation law and procedures; to reduce the 
     use of welfare by aliens; and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The acting majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no amendment 
relative to the minimum wage be in order to the immigration bill during 
today's session of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his superb work in this area. I 
have not always agreed with my good friend from Utah with regard to 
immigration issues, legal and illegal. And I say, too, to his fine 
staff after some early misunderstandings, they have certainly been 
excellent to work with. I appreciate that. To Senator Strom Thurmond 
who was chairman when I started this rather unique work, always 
helpful, always supportive, always there; to my old friend companion 
and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who served as 
chairman of the committee when I came here in 1979, who then served as 
the ranking member, then as chairman, then as ranking member, and it 
certainly is much more fun having him as ranking member than as 
chairman! I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and have the 
greatest regard personally for him. We have worked together on these 
issues doggedly and persistently for 17 years.

  It is a case of, in some ways, new players on an old field of battle. 
During my 17\1/2\ years in the Senate, I have literally spent weeks on 
the floor of this historic Chamber debating immigration reform 
legislation. Whether it was legislation to provide legalization for 
long-term illegals or to prohibit the knowing employment of 
undocumented workers, legislation I sponsored and which this body 
debated in the mid-eighties, or whether it was legislation Senator 
Kennedy and I sponsored to increase immigration by nearly 40 percent in 
1990, it has always been a terribly difficult issue for all the Members 
of this body. We know that no matter how we vote on immigration issues, 
we are going to assuredly upset and create anguish among segments of 
our constituencies.
  But immigration policy is a critically important national issue, and 
Congress must deal with it. It is not for the States to deal with.
  Immigration accounts for 40 percent, or more, of our population 
growth, which pleases some and distresses others.
  Immigrants come here and work hard and they work cheap, which pleases 
some and distresses others.
  Immigrants bring cultural diversity, which pleases some and 
distresses others.
  And that is the nature of the immigration policy debate. Powerful, 
powerful forces tear at the country.
  There are some members of our society who believe immigration is an 
unalloyed good. They consider it maybe something like good luck; you 
simply cannot have too much.
  Other segments of the population believe that immigration should be 
severely restricted, if not eliminated altogether. They see America 
changing in ways that they particularly--to them--do not wish to see.
  I deeply believe that immigration is good, it is good for America, 
but I firmly believe that this is not an eternally inevitable result. 
It depends upon those of us in the Congress and in the other branches 
of Government to make it work. Immigration policy must be designed and 
administered to promote the national interest or it may not have that 
effect.

  So Congress created the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in the 
1990 act. The Commission was chaired by that remarkable woman, Barbara 
Jordan, a powerfully articulate and splendid woman of such great good 
common sense and civility and intelligence.
  That Commission is composed of a truly impressive group of 
immigration experts. Lawrence Fuchs, who was the executive director of 
the Select Commission on Immigration when I started in this field, 
along with Senator Kennedy, Senator Mathias, Senator DeConcini on that 
select commission. The other names are people who are deeply respected 
in the United States: Michael Teitelbaum, Richard Estrada, Robert 
Charles Hill, Nelson Merced, Harold Ezell, Warren Leiden, and Bruce 
Morrison, a former Congressman.
  That Commission had labored for more than 4 years, holding a very 
large number of hearings and consultations around the United States of 
America, and issuing two reports--two reports--one on controlling 
illegal immigration and one on reforming legal immigration.

  I have heard some people in the debate and in the country say, 
``Where did all of these disturbing ideas come from? Where did this 
issue come from, this discussion about the preference system and this 
one about chain migration?'' and about a verification system, as if it 
were all some scheme that was presented by some of the fringe elements 
of American society. Each and every one of the proposals in each and 
every one of the bills presented has come from or out of the Select 
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy or the Jordan Commission.
  They are not disturbing, they are not sinister; they are real. They 
come from a group of people that I have just described who I think you 
could surely say are very mainstream Americans. They are from both 
sides of the issue.
  The Commission labored and found that--and I quote--``a properly 
regulated system of legal immigration is in the national interest of 
the United States.'' The Commission also noted, however, that there are 
negative impacts. It proposed a reduction--a reduction--in the total 
level of immigration. That is who is suggesting the reduction.
  The Jordan Commission strongly recommended that the family 
immigration visas go to those who are of the highest priority in order 
to promote a strong and intact ``nuclear family.'' A ``nuclear 
family''--would that we could have a better description than ``nuclear 
family''--but it is the one we think of as the tight-knit family; the 
spouse and minor children. Surely we want to be certain that we unite 
those people, but that we also have measures adopted to ensure that 
family reunification does not create financial burdens on the taxpayers 
of this country.
  I thoroughly support those findings and recommendations. I have tried 
to follow them very carefully and very honestly in the legislation that 
I have sponsored.
  Regarding the issue of control of illegal immigration, the Commission 
reported--and I quote:

       The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a 
     simple yardstick; people who should get in, do get in--people 
     who should not get in, are kept out--and people who are 
     judged deportable are required to leave.

  That seems pretty sensible, pretty darn clear, actually. Pretty 
Jordan-like, I think.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to report that the committee bill will 
measure up very well by that standard, by that yardstick. S. 1664 will 
provide additional enforcement personnel and detention facilities. It 
will authorize a series of pilot projects on systems to verify 
eligibility to be employed and to receive public assistance. It will 
also make improvements in both birth certificates and drivers licenses 
in order to reduce fraud.

  The bill will provide additional incentives, additional investigative 
authority, and heavier penalties for document fraud and alien 
smuggling. It will streamline exclusion and deportation procedures. It 
will establish special procedures to expedite the removal of criminal 
aliens. There are additional enforcement-related provisions. It is a 
good illegal immigration control bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  The committee has also reported a legal immigration reform bill 
which, I regret to say, does not carry out the major recommendations of 
the Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by Barbara Jordan and does 
very little to address the problems and weaknesses in our present legal 
immigration policy. There might have been some great expectations of 
that at one time.

[[Page S3278]]

  I am reminded of a story of my good friend Senator Howell Heflin, who 
is certainly wont to tell a story or two from time to time, especially 
the ``No-tie'' Hawkins variety stories and others that I am sure we 
have all heard from time to time and that we never tire of. At least I 
do not. So one has to give credit when you have heard and retell a good 
story, but you only do that once. The second time you just do not say 
anything. And the third time you claim it for yourself.
  So the story is that this attractive elderly couple, both of whose 
spouses had passed away, were on a long airline flight together, very 
long. They were sitting there enjoying visiting with each other. They 
were in their late seventies. They talked about their children and 
grandchildren and their interests and things that excited and spurred 
them both on to a full life. And they had dinner, and they visited some 
more. And after a highly convivial evening and long flight, they 
landed. The lady reached over and patted the gentleman on the knee and 
said, ``You know, it has been wonderful. You remind me of my third 
husband.'' And he said, ``How many have you had?'' She replied sweetly, 
``Two.'' You can think about that one when you get home. But that is 
called great expectations.
  That is what was there with regard to legal immigration reform, at 
least in accordance with what Barbara Jordan and her commission had 
reported to us.
  Yet what we have here is something that will not solve our problems 
with regard to legal immigration. These are the most vexing and the 
most troubling results. These deficiencies are the ones that give rise 
to proposition 187, ladies and gentlemen. These are the omissions that 
will see proposition 187's come to life in every single State in the 
Union unless we ``do something'' at the Federal level. We are doing 
very little in the area of legal immigration and badly need changes 
there.

  Then you want to observe the various proposals passed either 
incrementally or on immigration reform measures which allow States to 
deny or impose charges for elementary and secondary public education 
for illegal alien students. These will also be part of a very vexatious 
debate. Do we continue to give support to the illegal community and 
deny it to the American citizen community? That will be a good test. If 
you want to be sure that we provide various things to mothers who are 
here illegally, then where is the money coming from that offsets that? 
Who is paying for that? If you want to relieve in a compassionate way a 
sponsor from having to pay for the person they bring over here and we 
sometimes say we cannot do that--heavens no, for the fellow cannot 
afford that.
  But, you see, ladies and gentlemen, you have to remember that you 
cannot bring an immigrant legally to the United States unless the 
sponsor agrees, and also the immigrant, that they will not become ``a 
public charge.'' That has been on our books since 1882--1882.
  This bill, these bills, tighten that singular requirement in an 
excellent way. We do say now that the affidavit of support has teeth 
and, indeed it does. That is a very excellent step. What we find in at 
least half a dozen or more States of our Union --and yet we just cannot 
say that is for six States alone to deal with; or that we do not need 
to do a national bill; no, that would be a true flight from reality. In 
half a dozen or more States, current high levels of immigration are 
perceived as causing, rightly or wrongly, some very serious social and 
governmental problems.
  Do they take more out than they put in? Do they leave more in than 
they take out? Well, it depends on what side you are on. Do they pull 
their share? Do they really take the jobs Americans do not want, or 
with millions lesser employed in the United States, and having done a 
welfare reform bill, will there not be many people looking for work--
all questions that will never go away, ever.

  We are informed that in the California public school system subjects 
are taught in 100 different foreign languages. California must 
construct a new school building every day to keep up with immigrant 
student enrollment. It is not only illegal immigration, which is about 
300,000 entries a year, but also our historically high level of legal 
immigration, about 1 million a year in the current years, that have 
given credence and impetus to the widespread view that immigration is 
out of control--perhaps even more tragically, beyond our control.
  I do sincerely believe that if Congress fails to act to address these 
very real and reasonable concerns of the American people, there is a 
very strong possibility--and we have all been warned about this by the 
select commission, and by the Jordan Commission--we will lose our 
traditionally generous immigration policy. The American people will 
demand a halt to all immigration. They will not stand still for the 
Congress-knows-best approach, as some would have us take this route on 
this burning issue.
  For these and other reasons, I will, at an appropriate time, offer an 
amendment to provide a modest, temporary reduction in legal 
immigration. It matters not one whit to me what the vote is on that, 
but we will vote on that issue. It will attempt to reduce immigration 
to a level approximately 10 percent below current level and hold it at 
that level for 5 years--a breathing space, if you will. For the first 
time in more than 50 years, there will be no increase in legal 
immigration over a 5-year period. At the end of the 5 years, the 
numbers and the priority system will return to exactly what they are 
under the present law--no change, back to business as usual.
  During this 5-year breathing space, the visas will go first to the 
closest of family members of citizens of the United States of America. 
They will go first to citizens. Then they will go to the closest family 
members of permanent resident aliens, and then to other immigrants. Any 
that remain will fall down logically to the lowest priority of family 
immigrants. We can expect many amendments and several days of debate 
and much disagreement, but despite the emotion, fear, guilt, and racism 
that is involved in the immigration issue, we have always--
historically, at least--had a good, clean, honest, civil debate on 
immigration in this body. I trust it will be no different this week.
  Republicans will disagree among themselves, I can assure you. 
Democrats will disagree among themselves, I assure you. I will have 
serious disagreements with my friend Ted Kennedy, and my friend, 
Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, who is a fine addition to this 
body and adds greatly to the debate of this issue. This is not and 
never should be and never has been a partisan issue. Anyone taking it 
to that level is making a serious mistake. You will find that in the 
rollcall votes. There is no partisanship involved in immigration 
reform.

  I want to commend the new members of the Judiciary Committee and the 
subcommittee of both parties, Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Abraham, DeWine, 
Feingold, and Thompson. They bring a special vigor, intelligence, 
energy, and passion to the game. I like that.
  Just a couple of things, and then we will go forward and proceed with 
our work. I want everyone to be aware of the usual fare that will be 
presented as the menu is spread before the Senate in this debate. 
First, the Statue of Liberty--that will always be a rather thorough, 
impressive, rich debate, but we are not talking about the Statue of 
Liberty, because the words of Emma Lazarus, do not say on the base, 
``Send us everybody you have, legally or illegally.'' That is not what 
it says. We hear that. I hope the American people can hear that one and 
remember that we are seeing in this country groups of people who are in 
enclaves where they never learn or speak any other language. They are 
in New York, they are in San Francisco, they are in Los Angeles. We 
read about those things daily. That will not be improved by doing 
nothing.
  Then we will hear--this is always a rich tapestry in itself--that we 
are all children and grandchildren of immigrants. We will all hear 
that. I can tell my story and everybody in this Chamber can tell 
theirs. We are not talking about that. We are not talking about 
populating a country and settling the West. We are talking about people 
in the United States who are brooding about illegals in their midst and 
show it in every poll, and then show it at the polls.
  We had a man running for the Presidency of the United States who, 
perhaps if he were in the race, would pick

[[Page S3279]]

up 17 to 20 percent of the vote based on a lashing out about 
immigration or a move toward xenophobia, just as has happened in 
Germany, with a person receiving 17 to 20 percent of the vote, or in 
France, with another man with such views garnering 17 percent to 20 
percent of the vote. Those things are out there. There is no question 
about them being out there.
  My grandfather came here from Holland. His parents died at the age of 
6. He was orphaned. He was a ragamuffin in the streets of Chicago with 
a tin cup, as far as I can find. Every one of us can tell that kind of 
story. Then he went to work as a clerk for the railroad, and he went 
west. Horace Greeley was right, ``Go West, young man.'' He did. He not 
only ended up working on the railroad, he ended up running and owning a 
coal mine in a little town named Kooi, WY--named after him. He was, in 
every sense, an American success. He died a very happy man after giving 
birth to my mother, and assuring the wonderful heritage I have. We can 
all tell those stories, and we can go on to the Irish relatives, the 
German relatives. All of us can tell these stories--the stories of 
persecution, the stories of horror, the stories of pogroms. Those are 
real. Those are stories of inspiration of which we can take--I think we 
shall call ``judicial notice.''

  One other thing we should take judicial notice of, we are the most 
generous country on Earth. I have heard the phrase, ``why, why would we 
turn inward? What are we doing?'' What is American about that? Mr. 
President, we take more refugees in than all the rest of the world 
combined. We take in more immigrants than all of the rest of the world 
combined--combined. All immigrants, refugees, the whole spectrum.
  Then we will see on the menu, passionate words about some national ID 
card, which has never escaped the menu, as far as I have ever known in 
my 17 years here. Some have played that card with a better look at a 
poker hand than any I can remember. I remember particularly a 
Congressman from California who was certainly vigorous in his pursuit 
of his feelings and the depth of his internalization of that. We have 
never talked about a national ID card in the entire time I have been 
working on this issue. I have put it in every single bill, that there 
would not be a national ID card, under no circumstances. Yet, I still 
hear it bandied about.
  In fact, one group of worthies has even spread a curious little 
packet about which describes the Smith-Simpson bar code tattoo, which 
is certainly a grisly looking thing. But that chap must, I think, keep 
his day job, for he has wasted a lot of energy to try to put that kind 
of tilt on what we are trying to do.
  We all know why employer sanctions did not work in the 1986 bill. 
Employer sanctions did not work because so many engaged into a cottage 
industry of making phony documents. We have employer sanctions but we 
did not want to put the burden on the employer. So we said, whatever 
document you are shown, the employer, cannot be responsible for the 
validity of it. So they just took them. I always love to explain my own 
here because it costs 100 bucks. We picked it up on the streets of Los 
Angeles. Alan Kooi Simpson, Turlock, CA, a very distinguished person of 
less than hirsute appearance reflected here on the card. And here is my 
phony Social Security card. I do not know what other poor soul shares 
the same number with me--maybe none. But that is why nothing worked. 
That is why, in this bill, something will work.
  I think we will keep those provisions--I hope so--because we are not 
talking about national tattoos. We are not talking about Nazi Germany. 
We are not talking about an error-filled national data base. We are not 
talking about a mess of an administration in some other agency of the 
Government. We are talking about ``doing something'' about illegal 
immigration. And the oddest thing to me is that the people who seem to 
really want to do something to illegal, undocumented people--other than 
thumb screws or the rack--as I often hear them speak, have failed to 
realize that the one thing you can do that does work and is humane is a 
more secure counterfeit-resistant card, or verification, or something 
like a telephone verification, where you slide it through some kind of 
electronic device, some type of computer link, or similar process. All 
of that can be studied under this bill in the form of pilot programs.
  I will try to make an amendment that those pilot programs not simply 
be authorized, but that six or seven of them be required to be looked 
at, and then ``of course'' a vote before they would ever go into 
effect. We cannot get there without this. You cannot do something with 
illegal immigration and moan and whine and shriek about it day and 
night and not do something appropriate with some kind of counterfeit-
resistant, tamper-resistant card, and also doing something with 
imposters who use the card and those who are gaming the system. That, I 
hope, will become a very clear fact of this debate.
  And then I hope we do not hear too much about the ``slippery slope,'' 
because I have not seen any editorials about the fact that when you go 
to drop your bags at the airport, somebody asks you for a picture ID. 
It is not even an agent of anybody, I would guess, except the airline. 
But I have not seen any editorials that that is the first step, the 
first slide down the slippery slope toward a national ID. So it is with 
the American public--at least in airline travel. I do not know what it 
is on the bus lines, but I have a hunch that not many people here ride 
the bus lines. Maybe they do, but I wonder if they ask that there. If 
they do or if they do not, is that the first step? Is that the slippery 
slope toward a national ID? I think people choose to hear only what 
they will with regard to that.

  Finally, we will hear about placing the burden on the employers. Why 
the argument, ``Are we doing this to the employers of America? How can 
we do this and make them the watchdogs of America and make them do the 
work of a failed Federal Government?'' Fascinating. Without employers, 
we would have no ability to administer the Internal Revenue resources, 
because the employer gathers up the withholding tax. I have not seen 
any editorials on that as to the burden on employers.
  And now it is curious to me that I also saw an editorial the other 
day that said that what will happen if the bill is passed is that the 
American employers will find out they will have to ask somebody whether 
they are authorized to work. I tell you, that editorial writer has to 
have drilling rock instead of brain, because that one is on the books 
already. Since the 1986 bill, you have had to present to the employer 
the fact that you had an I-9, which is a one-page form authorizing you 
to work in the United States of America. It has been on the books now 
for 9 years. Did anybody miss that? I think not.
  So you are going to find that that is exactly what employers already 
have been doing. We are trying to say--and I hope we can get this in; 
we will see--that if we go to a pilot program and the Attorney General 
finds that it is accurate and it works, and it is reliable, you will 
then not need to do the I-9. Skip it right there. Throw it out. But 
employers are the core of anything we can do with regard to 
immigration. We are trying to lessen the burden on employers.
  The occupant of the chair cited to me a case of an employer in Alaska 
several years ago who asked the person in front of him for additional 
documents and therefore was charged with discrimination. We have 
corrected that completely. Not only that, we do not let them ask for 29 
different documents. We have it down to six. And we say there has to be 
an intent to discriminate before you get nailed for it simply by asking 
someone for an additional document. And remember--I hope you can hear 
this in the clatter of the debate--that whatever we do in the way of 
the identifier, or more secure system, or whatever it is, will be used 
only twice in the course of human life--when you get a job, or when you 
go on some kind of public assistance, period. Whatever we have will not 
be carried on the person, will not be used for law enforcement, will 
not be any part of any other nefarious Big Brother scheme. That gets 
lost in the process along with so much that gets lost in the process. 
What we are trying to do is relieve the burden on employers. We think 
we can do that.

  Then we do something with birth certificates. I hope we can retain 
that. I

[[Page S3280]]

think we have a good amendment which will offset the cost of that so we 
do not make that an unfunded mandate, because the birth certificate is 
the breeder document of the first order. You get the birth certificate 
and, with that, you go on to get the driver's license, Social Security 
card. You can check the obituary columns and find out the death and go 
get the birth certificate. These things must be corrected.
  Legal immigration reform is certainly not the most popular cause that 
I have been involved in in my 17\1/2\ years, yet I have often been 
involved in such causes. What we are trying to do there is simply stop 
the phenomenon of chain migration. Chain migration is rather simple as 
you define it. There is a preference system. Remember that if you are a 
U.S. citizen, you can bring in your spouse and minor children, and they 
are not any part of a quota system. Yet they are computed in the entire 
scope of how many come to the United States. And then you can bring in 
adult, unmarried children. And also adult, married children. And then 
we have minor children and spouses of permanent resident aliens. Then 
we have brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.

  What we are saying is let us take in the spouses and minor children 
first, and not let somebody bring in on a single-person petition 30, 
40, 50, 60, or 70 relatives--all from one U.S. citizen. That is called 
``chain migration.''
  I commend the Jordan Commission report to those of you who wish to 
read about that phenomenon, and see whether you would ``join in'' in 
doing something about that.
  As I say, it is not a partisan issue. None of these tough ones will 
be partisan issues. I am sure the Democrats will caucus, and the 
Republicans will caucus, and we will pound each other around, and at 
the end of it we will realize that it is the Nation's business, and 
that it is always very difficult.
  But one thing I want to make very clear. I note that since I will be 
exiting the Chamber at the end of this year, some will speak of this as 
``Simpson's swan song.'' This bird has never looked like a swan--
neither me nor the legislation. It is about a corollary of legislative 
activity that my friend from Massachusetts has learned well through the 
years. Any time you look obsessed about a piece of legislation, you are 
history. I can tell you that. Yet we have come further in these two 
bills than we have in 10 years. There are people on my side in this one 
who, if I had said those things 10 years ago, or 5, they would have run 
me out of town on a rail.
  So we have some good things there. But I can assure you of this: Win, 
lose, or draw, up or down, I did not come here simply to have my name 
attached to immigration legislation. That is about the biggest 
political loser in the history of man. It never helped me get a single 
vote in three races for the U.S. Senate. In fact, people said, ``What 
are you doing? What are you up to? Forget it. It does not affect us.''
  But it does fall upon those of us from the smaller States and 
districts, from areas such as Senator McCarran of Nevada, and 
Representative Walters of the 16th District of Pennsylvania, or Senator 
Simpson, and Mazzoli of Kentucky. The Kennedys of this body cannot 
handle this issue; the Feinsteins of this body cannot handle this 
issue; the Wilsons--when he was here--cannot handle this issue because 
their constituents will not allow them to do it. Yet this is one issue, 
one burning issue, that will not go away.
  So be assured that your angular, western representative will not be 
chagrined in any sense with whatever this eventually looks like. But we 
are surely going to have a good debate. We are going to throw it all in 
there, get it mashed around. And if I come up with a vote of 92 to 8 on 
the losing side, that is fine with me. But we are going to have a vote, 
and we are going to have a debate. We are going to talk about things 
that the American public is talking about. And that is, ``What are you 
going to do about illegal immigration so that our social systems are 
not overwhelmed?'' And answer their question, ``You told us the first 
duty of a sovereign nation was to control its borders, and you did not 
do it. Why? You told us that you would do things in the national 
interest, and you did not do it. Why?'' And also watch what they do for 
themselves. People from States that do not have any real tough 
immigration problems at all are thinking about proposition 187 type 
laws. And that is disturbing.

  So I hope that we pay careful attention, have a good, rich debate, 
and not think of swans but maybe of turkeys, or of eagles, because 
there is a little of each of them in all of this. There are some 
soaring like-eagle parts in this. And there are some things that do not 
match any kind of other bird activity.
  But this is one that will not go away. It seems to me it is best that 
we address it while we are all here and in a knowledgeable, civil way, 
and I look forward to the debate. I look forward particularly to 
working with newer members of the committee, the subcommittee, and with 
my friend, Ted Kennedy.
  I think it was either Henry James or William James who said, ``To do 
a thing be at it.'' And we are at it. It is an election year. But 
anyone who wants to use this one for pure partisan political advantage 
is making a most serious mistake, it is much bigger than that.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that legislative 
fellows Tom Perez, Bill Fleming, and Liz Schultz be granted floor 
privileges during the debate on the immigration bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Ratigan 
be granted floor privileges during the pendency of S. 1664.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield for a moment to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 3667

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that a balanced budget 
 constitutional amendment should protect the Social Security system by 
 excluding the receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds 
                            from the budget)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I understand the Senator 
from Massachusetts wishes to give an opening statement. I appreciate 
his indulgence. My son is having a birthday party in about 20 minutes. 
I promised I was going to be there, and I intend to keep that promise.
  I wish to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and want to do that. 
But before I do that, if the Senator from Massachusetts would indulge 
me for about 3 minutes, let me say that the Senator from Wyoming has 
done extraordinary work in the Congress over these years. The Senator 
from Wyoming mentioned Simpson and Mazzoli. He is talking about 
himself, Alan Simpson, and Romano Mazzoli, with whom I worked in the 
House of Representatives. They have left their mark on immigration and 
will again with this legislation. Much of what the Senator from Wyoming 
has done with respect to illegal immigration is going to be very, very 
important, and I commend him for his work.
  We will have, of course, difficult amendments. But we will work 
through those. And I hope at the end of the day we will pass some 
legislation that moves in this direction that will be good for this 
country.
  Now that I have said nice things about the Senator from Wyoming, he 
will probably now be upset with me for offering a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment. But let me tell him that I will certainly agree to a time 
limit that is very short. I expect tomorrow we will have a vote on 
this.
  The only reason I am constrained to offer this on behalf of myself, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, Senator 
Conrad, and Senator Feingold is because this will be the only 
opportunity to do so prior to the majority leader bringing up a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  The majority leader has announced that he intends to take up his 
motion to reconsider the vote by which the balanced budget amendment 
was defeated. Some have said he will do it this week; if not this week, 
perhaps next week. Under the rules, there will

[[Page S3281]]

be no debate on the balanced budget amendment this time around.
  So in order to have the Senate go on record on this issue prior to 
that, it was required that I offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. My 
amendment is very simple. I will send it to the desk. It simply 
indicates:
       It is the sense of the Senate that because Section 13301 of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act prohibits the use of the Social 
     Security trust fund surplus to offset the budget deficit, any 
     proposal for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
     should contain a provision creating a firewall between the 
     receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and 
     the rest of the federal budget, and that the constitutional 
     amendment should explicitly forbid using the Social Security 
     trust funds to balance the federal budget.
  Because of the circumstances, there would have been no intervening 
opportunity to discuss this. I will offer this amendment, ask that it 
be sent to the desk, and that it be immediately considered by the 
Senate.
  Before the clerk reads it, let me say that I do not intend to hold up 
the immigration bill, and I intend to agree to any reasonable short 
time agreement. Understand that this does not relate to the underlying 
bill, but also understand that this will be the only opportunity prior 
to a vote that Senator Dole has already announced to the Senate and the 
country that he intends to require of us. It will be the only 
opportunity prior to that time for us to register on this question.
  Mr. President, I ask for the immediate consideration of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Ford, Mr. Conrad, 
     and Mr. Feingold proposes an amendment numbered 3667.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON A BALANCED BUDGET 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that because Section 13301 of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act prohibits the use of the Social 
     Security trust fund surplus to offset the budget deficit, any 
     proposal for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
     should contain a provision creating a firewall between the 
     receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and 
     the rest of the federal budget, and that the constitutional 
     amendment should explicitly forbid using the Social Security 
     trust funds to balance the federal budget.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we begin to consider reforms in our 
Nation's immigration laws, our thoughts also are with our Immigration 
Commissioner, Doris Meissner, and her children, Chris and Andy, as they 
cope with the loss of a husband and father. Chuck Meissner was serving 
ably as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and he was on Secretary 
Brown's plane when it crashed in Croatia just 10 days ago. I know that 
the thoughts and prayers of all of us in the Senate go out to the 
Meissner family during this very difficult time.
  At the outset of this debate on immigration reform, I commend the 
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, for his able 
leadership on this landmark legislation, as well as for his able 
leadership over many years on the many difficult issues involved in 
immigration.
  Senator Simpson has always approached these issues thoughtfully and 
fairly and with an open mind. He is steadfast in his commitment to what 
he believes is best for America. And I know that all Senators of both 
parties join in expressing admiration and appreciation for his efforts.
  As we consider immigration reform today, we must be mindful of the 
important role of immigration in our history and our traditions. 
Immigrants bring to this country a strong love of freedom, respect for 
democracy, commitment to family and community, fresh energy and ideas, 
and a strong desire to become a contributing part of this Nation.
  As President Kennedy wrote in 1958 in his book, ``A Nation of 
Immigrants'':

       There is no part of our nation that has not been touched by 
     our immigrant background. Everywhere immigrants have enriched 
     and strengthened the fabric of American life

  Those ideals are widely shared and bipartisan. As President Reagan 
said in his final speech before leaving the White House:

       We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw 
     our people--our strength--from every country and every corner 
     of the world. . . .
       Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of 
     opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting 
     with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, 
     always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality 
     is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the 
     door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon 
     be lost.

  Across the years, both Republicans and Democrats have been true to 
these ideals.
  Three decades ago, I stood on this floor to manage one of my first 
bills, which became the Immigration Act of 1965. I believed strongly 
then, as I do now, that one of the greatest sources of our success as a 
country is that we are a nation of immigrants. And I remain as 
convinced today as I was then that immigration under our laws is as 
beneficial and as needed in America today as it was in 1965 or at any 
other time in our history.
  In 1965, it was clearly time for change in our immigration laws. We 
eliminated the vestiges of the racist and discriminatory national 
origins quota system that had denied immigration opportunities to so 
many for so long based on where they came from.
  In the years since then, we have acted several times to strengthen 
and reform the immigration laws to deal with changing times, changing 
problems, and changing circumstances.
  Congress also passed important reforms in 1986 and 1990. In 1986, the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 set us on the course of 
removing the job magnet for illegal immigration. That landmark law, 
sponsored by Senator Simpson, made it illegal for the first time for 
employers to hire illegal immigrants. The reforms that we will consider 
today build upon that historic change in our immigration laws. And it 
legalized the status of over 2.7 million undocumented immigrants who 
had set down roots in America.
  The Immigration Act of 1990--which Senator Simpson and I sponsored 
together--was the most sweeping reform of our immigration laws in 66 
years. It overhauled our laws regarding legal immigration, the bases 
for excluding and deporting aliens, and naturalization.


               the current problem of illegal immigration

  Today, the paramount problem we face is to deal with the continuing 
crisis of illegal immigration. As Barbara Jordan reminded us, ``We are 
a country of laws. For our immigration policy to make sense, it is 
necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and 
those who violate it.'' And that's what we must do today.
  The Immigration Service estimates that the permanent illegal 
immigrant population in the United States is now about 4 million, and 
that the number increases by 300,000 each year. That number is a net 
figure. The INS estimates that over 2 million illegal immigrants cross 
our borders each year. About half of them enter legally as tourists or 
students, but then stay on illegally, long after their visas have 
expired.
  About 1.7 million of the 2 million illegals remain only briefly in 
this country to work or visit friends and relatives. But 300,000 stay 
on as part of the remnant illegal alien population.
  The illegal immigrants are easily exploited. They tolerate low pay 
and poor working conditions to avoid being reported to the INS. Their 
presence depresses the pay and working conditions of many other 
Americans in the work force. They compete head-to-head in the job 
market with Americans just entering the work force and with working 
American families struggling to make ends meet.
  Part of the answer to this problem is the increased support in this 
bill for

[[Page S3282]]

border patrols in order to prevent the entry of illegal aliens.
  But jobs are far and away the biggest magnet attracting illegal 
aliens to the United States, and we cannot turn off that magnet at the 
border. We must do more to deny jobs to those who are in the country 
unlawfully. The most realistic way to turn off the magnet is contained 
in the provisions that Senator Simpson and I sponsored which require 
the President to develop new and better ways of identifying those who 
are eligible to work in the United States.
  After 3 years of pilot tests, the President is required to present a 
plan to Congress for a new approach that will deny jobs to illegal 
immigrants, will be easy for employers to use, will not cause increased 
employment discrimination, and will protect the privacy of American 
citizens.
  Our provisions state clearly that this system will not involve a 
national ID card. And our provision provides added insurance by 
requiring that any plan the President develops must be approved by 
Congress before it can go into effect.


                          refugees and asylum

  A further goal for immigration reform is to provide safe haven for 
refugees fleeing persecution. We should not place arbitrary caps on the 
number of refugees we decide to bring to the United States for 
resettlement. The Immigration Subcommittee chose instead to let this 
number to continue to be set annually, under the terms of the Refugee 
Act of 1980, and in cooperation with other governments. I was pleased 
to join with Senator Grassley in addressing this issue in the 
subcommittee.
  We should also oppose arbitrary limits on how long those fleeing 
persecution can wait before applying for asylum after they enter the 
United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has already 
made dramatic progress in addressing the abuses that have plagued our 
asylum system in recent years. In the past year alone, the number of 
asylum applications has dropped by 57 percent.
  Mr. President, this chart indicates what progress has been made in 
the very recent years. Going back to 1994: asylum claims, 120,000; the 
completed cases, 60,000.
  This year, in 1995, INS received 53,000 new asylum claims and 
completed 126,000 cases. This is as a result of a variety of different, 
very constructive actions that have been taken by the INS.
  The blue line represents those completed cases. The red lines 
represent the new claims. So, clearly we see the asylum claims decline 
by 57 percent as productivity doubles in 1995. Clearly we are making 
important progress in this area. It has been as a result of a great 
deal of time consuming, exacting, hard work that has been initiated by 
the INS. Enormous progress has been made.
  We will hear this issue debated. It seems to me we are on the right 
track already with the INS reforms, and the kinds of suggestions that 
have been included in the current legislation should give many of us 
pause.
  I commend, in particular, Senator DeWine, who made a strong case that 
a 30-day asylum application deadline, originally proposed in the 
legislation, would exclude those who face the gravest persecution. They 
are the ones who take many months to organize their affairs, contact an 
attorney, and gain the confidence to approach the INS with their 
painful and tragic stories. I believe the 1-year deadline adopted by 
the committee is a reasonable way to accommodate such humanitarian 
cases.
  The bottom line is that the cases where there appears to be the 
greatest validity of the persecution claims--the ones involving 
individuals whose lives would be endangered by a forced return to their 
particular countries--are often the most reluctant to come forward. 
They are individuals who have been, in the most instances, severely 
persecuted. They have been brutalized by their own governments. They 
have an inherent reluctance to come forward and to review their own 
stories before authority figures. Many of them are so traumatized by 
the kinds of persecution and torture that they have undergone, they are 
psychologically unprepared to be able to do it. It takes a great deal 
of time for them to develop any kind of confidence in any kind of legal 
or judicial system, after what they have been through, and to muster 
the courage to come forward.
  That conclusion has been reached by a number of those who have been 
studying this particular problem. The initial proposal of requiring 
that there be action taken within 30 days of the person's arrival in 
the United States failed to understand what the real problem is--and 
fails to understand the remarkable progress that INS has made in this 
particular area.
  I remain concerned that the so-called expedited exclusion procedures 
in the legislation will cause us to turn away true refugees. Under this 
procedure, when a refugee arrives at a U.S. airport with false 
documents and requests asylum, that person can be turned away 
immediately if the INS officer believes the person does not have a 
credible claim. There is no hearing, no access to counsel, not even a 
requirement for an interpreter.
  If it were not for the courageous efforts of Raoul Wallenberg in 
providing false documents to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during World War 
II, many thousands of persecuted refugees would have had no means of 
escape. This provision runs the risk of turning away all those whom the 
Raoul Wallenbergs of the future seek to assist.
  All we have to do is review the recent history in El Salvador and 
Nicaragua, and be reminded of some of the egregious kinds of 
circumstances have been revealed here in the last week or 10 days by 
members of the religious community, to understand what the real 
conditions were. To think that an individual who might be able to get 
out of that oppressive atmosphere with some false documents, with a 
very legitimate fear of persecution, and come to the airports of this 
country and be turned away summarily and sent right back on the next 
plane, is something that I think deserves reevaluation during the 
course of this debate.


                           PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

  In addition, the immigration reforms in this bill will reduce access 
to public assistance by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants should 
have access to assistance only in limited situations, where the public 
health or similar overriding public interest clearly requires it. For 
example, they should have emergency medical care, immunization, 
treatment for infectious diseases. These benefit all, because they 
relate to the public health and are in the public interest. Where the 
public interest is not served, we should not provide the public 
assistance to illegal immigrants.

  A main issue, however, is how to deal with public assistance for 
illegal immigrant children in public schools. In an extraordinarily 
unwise and inhumane action, Republicans in the House, at the urging of 
Speaker Gingrich, voted to give States the option to expel such 
children from their schools. We all know why illegal immigrants come 
here. As I have said, the magnet is jobs. It is ludicrous to argue that 
anyone would uproot their family, pay exorbitant sums to a smuggler to 
cross the border and risk their lives in the effort, all so their 
children can attend public schools in the United States.
  A study by the Committee on Illegal Aliens during the Ford 
administration concluded that ``the availability of work and the lack 
of sanctions for hiring illegal aliens is the single most important 
incentive for migration.'' That has been the conclusion of the Ford 
administration, the Jordan Commission, the Hesburgh Select Commission 
on Immigration and Refugee Policy--all have found that the magnet is 
jobs. That is what we ought to focus on. That is where we ought to give 
our attention.
  As I indicated, this finding was confirmed by the Hesburgh Commission 
in 1981, and again more recently by the Jordan Commission, which found 
that ``employment opportunity is commonly viewed as the principal 
magnet which draws illegal aliens to the United States.''
  We are making steady progress in finding new and better ways of 
denying jobs to illegal immigrants. It is a serious mistake, and 
hypocritical, for Republicans in Congress to oppose or weaken this 
bill's requirement on employers, who are at the heart of the problem, 
and then punish innocent children, who are not the problem, by 
expelling them from school. So, I urge the Senate to reject the 
Speaker's attempt to make Uncle Sam the bully in the schoolyard.

[[Page S3283]]

  That kind of policy is not only cold and cruel, it is also 
shortsighted and counterproductive. It may cost money for those 
children to attend school. But, if they do not, society will end up 
paying for it in other ways. Police will have major new crime problems 
on their hands from children out of school and on the streets and into 
gangs. Teachers will have to start checking the papers of all pupils, 
whether they are citizens or not. Before starting school each year, 
children across America would be required to bring documents to school 
to prove they are American citizens or legal immigrants.
  All across America, teachers will have to learn to distinguish 
between the new green card and the old invalid ones. They must know 
what refugee documents, passports and valid Social Security cards look 
like.
  School administrators and police have already spoken strongly against 
this proposal. They are the ones who must deal with the crime and other 
social problems that will inevitably develop.
  What we are basically doing is requiring our schoolteachers, in many 
different school districts, to turn into police officers and truant 
officers. Teachers are there to teach children. They have enough 
challenges to face every day without adding this burden to them. Now, 
to put the burden on every one of these schoolteachers to become truant 
officers, and effectively policemen, is unacceptable public policy.
  The case has been made by the law enforcement officials, who say you 
are either going to pay one way or the other. You are going to pay for 
the students who are going to the schools or you are going to pay for 
it in terms of crime and a host of other social problems if they do not 
go to school.
  You can imagine, too, Mr. President, a mother who comes over to this 
country with a child who is a toddler. She brings the child here, then 
has a baby here in the United States who is an American citizen. That 
American citizen child goes to the school and his older brother or 
sister, who is an illegal immigrant, does not. That child is out on the 
street. That is a wonderful situation, which we are going to absolutely 
face in this kind of proposal.
  The parents would not leave America just because their children 
cannot go to school. The parents have no choice. They came here because 
they could not find work at home and they will not go away as long as 
they can get away with working here illegally and I urge the Senate to 
reject any such cruel and mindless attempt to punish the children for 
the sins of the parents.


          CONSIDERING ILLEGAL AND LEGAL IMMIGRATION SEPARATELY

  In general, this bill does not address the issues of legal 
immigration. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 6 to consider 
those issues separately and the House of Representatives voted 238-to-
183 to do the same. I expect we will have a vote on legal immigration 
matters later in the debate. I plan to oppose such a move. We must not 
allow our rightful concerns about illegal immigration to create an 
unwarranted backlash against legal immigrants who enter under our laws, 
play by the rules, raise their families, pay their taxes, and 
contribute to our communities. Combining these issues in a single bill 
creates precisely that unacceptable possibility. Addressing these 
matters separately does not mean deferring legal immigration reforms 
indefinitely. Reforms are required in legal immigration. It is my hope 
that we can address them soon, but separately.


                    Safety Net for Legal Immigrants

  In fact, this bill does contain certain provisions relating to legal 
immigration, and I voted against the entire bill in the committee 
because of these provisions. They go too far in denying a safety net to 
legal immigrants. These legal immigrants enter under our laws, play by 
the rules, pay taxes, contribute to our communities and also serve in 
the armed services. They deserve a safety net when they fall on hard 
times.
  The record is very complete, Mr. President, that those who are the 
legal immigrants do not have a greater dependency in terms of these 
supportive programs than Americans, with the exception of the SSI 
Program for the elderly. But in these other areas, I can give as many 
studies that demonstrate that legal immigrants make greater 
contributions--in terms of paying taxes, by participating in the 
community, by payroll taxes, by sales taxes, by all of the other 
factors--than they absorb from the system. If we need to, we will have 
an opportunity to examine the various studies when we come to the 
particular amendments. But I do believe the legal immigrants deserve a 
safety net when they fall on hard times, and I support the provisions 
in this bill to make sponsors more accountable for the immigrants that 
they sponsor.
  Senator Simpson is right not to ban legal immigrants from any 
program. Instead, the bill's deeming provisions count the immigrant 
sponsor's income as part of the immigrant's own income in determining 
whether the immigrant meets the eligibility guidelines for public 
assistance. For the first time, however, the deeming provision would be 
broadened by the bill to apply to every means-tested program.
  Under the current law, deeming applies only to SSI, AFDC, and food 
stamps. But under this bill deeming would apply to scores of other 
programs including school lunches, homeless shelters, community 
clinics, and even one of the most important means of protecting the 
public health, the Medicaid Program. Under this bill, illegal 
immigrants get emergency Medicaid, immunization, treatment of 
communicable diseases, disaster assistance, and certain other types of 
aid--no questions asked. But legal immigrants who come here under our 
laws and play by the rules can get this assistance only after they go 
through the complicated deeming process. That gives illegal aliens a 
benefit that legal immigrants cannot receive. It is unfair, and I 
intend to offer an amendment to correct this injustice.
  I am also concerned with the denial of Medicaid to legal immigrants 
unless they overcome the deeming hurdle. As a practical matter, deeming 
means that virtually no legal immigrant will get Medicaid assistance. 
Experience has shown that deeming is very effective in denying access 
to public assistance programs. I am particularly concerned that this 
will hurt children and expectant mothers.
  I also believe legal immigrants who have served in our Armed Forces 
should also have a Medicaid safety net for their families in hard 
times.
  Legal immigrants can join the Armed Forces. We have over 20,000 legal 
immigrants in the Armed Forces today. That young person, who might not 
have been able to get into college, comes back from Bosnia and wants to 
go to college and then makes an application and goes to that college 
and gets a Pell grant for 1 year--for 1 year. And then that young 
person graduates. He might have been a 19- or 20-year-old kid that for 
1 year took the Pell grant. And as a result of that single action, for 
the rest of his life, he is subject to deportation--immediate 
deportation. This could occur even after he had served honorably in the 
Armed Forces.
  There may be a lot of heat about doing something about illegal 
immigration, Mr. President, but that is one of the most extraordinary 
positions for this country to take. We have a Volunteer Army, certainly 
now, but when we did not have a Volunteer Army, we had the draft. Legal 
immigrants are subject to the draft. Some had gone to Vietnam. A number 
of them were actually killed. Now we are saying if, at any time in the 
future, they have any particular need, in order to get a benefit, they 
are going to have the deeming process for the purposes of that 
particular program.

  That is going to be true with regard to the Stafford loans as well. 
These are programs that are repaid. These are not considered to be 
welfare programs. They are education programs. We will come back to 
that issue later in the discussion. These are matters that need 
attention and focus and amendments.


                           Family Immigration

  Our immigration laws must continue to honor the reunification of 
families. I agree it is necessary and appropriate to reduce the number 
of legal immigrants coming to the United States each year. Obviously, 
the door is only partly open now and can fairly be closed a little more 
without violating the Nation's basic ideals of our immigrant heritage 
and history.

[[Page S3284]]

  But in achieving such reductions, we must keep certain fundamental 
principles in mind. We must continue to reunite families. We must 
remain committed especially to the reunification of immediate family 
members. Spouses and minor children and parents should be together.
  I also believe our citizens should have the ability to bring their 
adult brothers and sisters to America. We should act to reduce the 
troubling backlogs that have kept husbands, wives and children 
separated for many years.
  The Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment, which Senator Abraham 
and I proposed, to reduce overall legal immigration, to establish new 
priorities for family-based immigration. Our proposal would make visas 
available to more distant family members only if the more immediate 
family categories do not need them. For example, brothers and sisters 
would not get visas as long as there are backlogs of spouses and 
children.
  In this way, we address the concern raised by many about chain 
migration, the ability of a citizen to bring in a brother, who in turn 
brings in his wife and children. Once his wife is a citizen, she can 
then bring in her parents and other family members, and there is an 
endless chain of immigration. We ought to address that issue.
  We believe the amendment that was accepted by the Judiciary Committee 
recognizes the important recommendations by the Jordan Commission that 
said give focus and attention to the immediate families. We have done 
that. We have defined that in a way that we think also includes 
clearing up of the backlog before there can be any consideration of 
reunification by the brothers and sisters.
  The Kennedy-Abraham proposal solves the problem of family categories 
that create these chains. These are categories that Senator Simpson 
proposed for total elimination. Our proposal says that these categories 
remain, but they get visas only if the closer family categories do not 
need them. And our proposal reduces the level of legal immigration 
below current law.
  After the committee's adoption of the Kennedy-Abraham amendment, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service released higher projections of 
the number of family immigrants expected to enter this country over the 
next few years. Even under these new projections, our amendment reduces 
the total immigration below current law. However, we will modify our 
proposal to provide added insurance that it does fall below the current 
law.
  Mr. President, some in this debate will praise the contributions of 
immigrants with one breath and then propose to slash family immigration 
in the next breath.
  They say, ``We want your skills and ingenuity, but leave your 
brothers and sisters behind. We want your commitment to freedom and 
democracy, but not your mother. We want you to help us rebuild our 
inner cities and cure diseases, but we do not want your grandchildren. 
We want your family values, but not your families.'' I urge the Senate 
to reject this hypocrisy and treat immigrant families fairly.


                         Diversity Immigration

  Mr. President, reforms in legal immigration also must retain the 
diversity program established in the Immigration Act of 1990. This 
small but important program provides visas to countries that have low 
immigration to the United States and are shortchanged by our 
immigration laws. A number of countries made good use of this program 
in the past 6 years. These countries otherwise would have little or no 
immigration to the United States, such as Poland, South Africa, and 
Ireland. The Judiciary Committee agreed to retain the program, but 
reduced the number of visas available each year from 55,000 to 27,000.


                      Protecting American Workers

  Increasingly, Mr. President, in recent years we have come to realize 
that our immigration laws do not adequately protect working families in 
America. Reforms are urgently needed here. I intend to offer them at 
the appropriate time. In spite of the net creation of more than 8 
million new jobs in the economy over the past 3 years, and in spite of 
continued low unemployment and inflation, and in spite of steady 
economic growth--job dislocations and stagnant family income are 
leaving millions of American working families anxious and unsettled 
about their future.
  Since 1973, real family income has fallen 60 percent for all 
Americans. More than 9 million workers permanently lost their jobs from 
1991 to 1993. Even as new jobs are created, other jobs have been 
steadily disappearing at the rate of about 3 million a year since 1992.
  In the defense sector alone, more than 2 million jobs have been lost 
since the end of the cold war. About 70 percent of laid-off workers 
find another job, but only a third end up in equally paying or better 
jobs. What we are witnessing is a wholesale slide toward the bottom for 
the American worker. According to Fortune Magazine, the percentage of 
workers who said their job security was good or very good declined from 
75 percent in the early 1980's, to 51 percent in the early 1990's. In a 
1994 survey of more than 350,000 American workers, the International 
Survey Research Corp. found that 44 percent of American workers fear 
they may be fired or laid off. In 1990, the figure was only 20 percent.
  For the first time ever there are more unemployed white-collar 
workers than blue-collar workers in America. Yet most of the foreign 
workers who come in today under our immigration laws are for white-
collar jobs. With corporate downsizing and outsourcing, a quarter of 
the American work force is dependent on temporary jobs for a living. 
Yet under the immigration laws, we admit hundreds of thousands of 
foreign workers for so-called temporary jobs which are defined in the 
immigration laws as jobs that can last up to 6 years.
  As working families in America try to put food on the table, 
employers are bringing in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers into 
good, middle-class jobs. Yet in most cases they are not even required 
to offer the jobs to Americans first. We understand that they are 
bringing in the foreign workers from overseas without even the 
requirement to offer those jobs to Americans first.
  As American workers become increasingly concerned about job security 
and putting their children through college, it is perfectly legal under 
the immigration laws for employers to lay off qualified American 
workers and replace them with foreign workers and offer them a lower 
wage.
  A new study released last Friday by the Labor Department's inspector 
general proves that the current means of protecting American workers 
under the immigration law simply do not work. Charles Masten, the 
inspector general, reported to Labor Secretary Reich:

       The programs do not protect U.S. workers' jobs or wages 
     from foreign labor. Moreover, we found [that the] Department 
     of Labor's role under the current program design amounts to 
     little more than a paper shuffle for the program and a rubber 
     stamping of applications. We believe program changes must be 
     made to ensure that U.S. workers' jobs are protected and that 
     their wage levels are not eroded by foreign labor.

  The report of the inspector general is astounding. He found that 98.7 
percent of workers whom employers are supposedly bringing into the 
United States are in fact already here. So when employers go through 
the charade of trying to recruit Americans first, the foreign worker is 
already here 98 percent of the time. And 74 percent of those foreign 
workers were already on the employers' payroll at the time the employer 
was supposedly required to recruit for American workers first. Do we 
understand that? So 74 percent of the foreign workers were already on 
the employers' payroll at the time the employer was supposedly required 
to recruit for American workers first.
  Among workers that employers sponsor as immigrants, 10 percent never 
worked for the sponsoring employer. Once they got their green card, 
they immediately went to work for someone else. Of those who did 
actually work for the sponsoring employer, fully one-third left the job 
within 1 year. In effectively 60 percent of the cases, employers do not 
even bother to fill the job again once the immigrant leaves. In most 
cases in which the employer does refill the job, an American is hired 
75 percent of the time.
  These figures prove that the jobs are offered as a sham to get a 
particular immigrant a green card once they go through this hocus-
pocus. That is a sham. They already have the worker in

[[Page S3285]]

place. As I will point out later, only 5 Americans out of 28,000 that 
have applied for these jobs, if they were basically offered them, have 
ever gotten the job. So they are filled with foreign workers. There is 
a reasonable chance that they have fired American workers previously.
  Then once those workers are working and have gone through this 
process, they leave. They leave the employment, and then the employer 
goes out and gets somebody else. It is basically a sham. It places 
American workers at an enormous disadvantage. The inspector general 
says that over the period of his audit, the employment service referred 
28,000 U.S. workers for interviews for 10,000 jobs that employers 
wanted to give to immigrants, and only five U.S. workers got the jobs. 
That is outrageous. These figures apply to the category of ``permanent 
immigrant workers.''
  But the inspector general also found rampant abuse of American 
workers in the temporary worker program. There are two programs, Mr. 
President. There is the permanent program, where we have the 
authorization of up to 140,000 of what will be called the best and the 
brightest. I am going to come back to that. A more modest figure was 
approved here in 1990, but came out of the conference at the 140,000.
  Some of those entering--for example, the Nobel laureate types--really 
are the best and the brightest. They can come into the United States 
without any requirement by the employer to recruit U.S. workers first. 
That is defined currently into law. I support that program.
  All other permanent employment-based immigrants have go through the 
labor certification process--a procedure of reaching out to American 
workers.
  That whole process is a sham. That whole process is a sham. That is 
what the IG report has pointed out--that 97 percent of the workers are 
already in their jobs and that they have been working there already for 
some period of time. Out of 28,000 applications, only 5 Americans got 
the job. And once the foreign workers get their permanent status, they 
can then leave because they effectively have their work permit, their 
green card. They can go for some other job. It is a revolving door. It 
is a sham in terms of protecting American workers.
  The second program is for what is called the temporary workers. Up to 
65,000 come in each year, though the number varies from year to year. 
For those individuals to enter--all we need is an employer to say that 
this individual has either the equivalent of a college education or 2 
years of work experience. They do not have to go out or even go through 
the process to try to get American workers. Once they are in there, 
they can be in there for 6 years. That is a temporary job. What happens 
is they come in on a temporary worker visa, they stay for the 6 years 
allowed, they want to be here permanently, so they ask their employer, 
``Look, I've been 6 years in my job. Will you go for one of the 
permanent ones for me?'' The employer says, ``OK. I know you have 
worked for us. I will make that application.'' Once they get it, they 
get the green card and go out the door.
  That is effectively what is happening. It is a sham protection, 
something which is absolutely wrong and has to be redressed.
  Now, Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the time of the 
Senate to really get into where we are on these issues of the permanent 
work force and the temporary work force. This chart shows the permanent 
work force, the provision that said we need to open up the work force 
to let these best and the brightest come on into the United States of 
America. I remember that debate very clearly here. I believe it was the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who offered it at that time 
as part of the Immigration Act of 1990.
  The Department of Labor did surveys of which industry employees could 
help energize the American economy at that time. Those would be 
individuals who, when placed in a particular industry, could multiply 
jobs because they were the best minds, and had special training and 
ability, and could add that special kind of insight, expertise, 
knowledge, and creativity to expand employment. It was perceived at 
that time, according to the National Science Foundation, that we were 
going to have critical shortages of scientists during that period of 
time. That is why Congress adopted the 140,000 number.
  Now, looking at who has been included under the ``Best and the 
Brightest'' under this chart. As this chart reveals, very few are 
actually the best and brightest--the Nobel Laureate-type or some unique 
type of academician or expert. These are let in without labor 
screening.
  The rest are let in here through the sham process of requiring 
employers to recruit U.S. workers first.
  We took the time to go and see who these are. It is very interesting 
who they are: 12.9 percent are cooks; 10 percent are engineers on this 
chart; professors, 7.3 percent; also includes accountants and auditors, 
auto repair, tailors, jewelers. The area of ``computer-related'' is 
17.8 percent; 31 percent are all less than 1 percent of those coming in 
here.
  Mr. President, we have seen, as most recently the National Science 
Foundation has pointed out, the figures of 6 or 8 years ago, having 
shortages in various skills, they now find did not come about. Today, 
we have 60,000 qualified unemployed American engineers. Yet about 6,000 
foreign engineers came in as immigrants. We have 60,000 Americans who 
are qualified for that position. They are never given the opportunity 
to really try for that position.
  What is wrong with American workers? What is wrong with those? 
Nonetheless, we have heard the power of many of the business interests 
who said, ``Do not tamper with that particular provision. Do not tamper 
with it because it will effectively stop our economy.''
  Mr. President, we ought to look and see that today under the more 
recent studies that have been done all indicate that with the exception 
of that very small group of the best and brightest--that amounts to 
about 20,000, which includes their families--we really do not need the 
sham recruitment requirement that is in current law. We certainly ought 
to establish a way to make sure that we will ask and find out if there 
are Americans ready, willing, and able to do this job before we bring 
in the foreign workers.
  Now, Mr. President, looking at the other provision, where we talk 
about the temporary workers--the alleged temporary worker provision; 
65,000 can come in each year under the immigration law. This chart 
gives an idea, in the black, which are the temporary workers, of the 
salaries they make. Look at the salaries they are making. If you take 
the two columns together, which is about 85 or 90 percent of all of the 
workers that come on in here as the temporaries, they are making less 
than $50,000.
  Where are all the geniuses? Where are the Albert Einsteins that keep 
coming in here? Where are all of these people, when close to 90 percent 
of them are making less than $50,000? It is only the small numbers that 
come in up at this level that are the ablest and most gifted, the ones 
that really provide the impetus in terms of the American economy. They 
ought to be able to come on in to this country and provide their 
skills.

  Mr. President, when we get down to it, we find that the great numbers 
are basically white-collar kinds of jobs--$50,000--that is a good 
salary. And they are effectively displacing the Americans from these 
solid, good, middle-class jobs.
  Mr. President, let us look now at who is coming in under the 
temporary worker program. These are individuals where all the employer 
has to say is that the individual coming over has completed college or 
had 2 years of experience, and the employers provide what are called 
``attestations'' that they will pay them a reasonable wage. These are 
the temporaries. Half of them are physical therapists. Mr. President, 
50 percent of them are physical therapists. It was true that we had a 
shortage of physical therapists at one time. But our labor market is 
recovering now.
  Mr. President, 23 percent are computer-related. The rest fall into a 
wide variety of different categories.
  Mr. President, when we have 50 percent in this program who are 
physical therapists when so many community colleges and other fine 
schools and State universities are producing them today, individuals 
who want and deserve to be able to have a crack at the

[[Page S3286]]

job, and we are bringing that kind of percentage in here, it does not 
make sense. It does not make sense, Mr. President. We are effectively 
denying good, decent jobs to Americans that want to work, can work, 
have the skills to be able to work, so that others--foreigners--can 
come in.
  What happens, Mr. President, is that those who come in under this 
program that I just mentioned here, the H-1 Program, are exploited. 
Why? Because they cannot leave the job that they are on. If they leave, 
they are illegal. So once they sign up, they are stuck with that 
employer for the whole 6 years, with no guarantee that they will have 
to receive any level of wages. Once you bring that person in, you can 
lower their wage--absolutely lower their wage--and get away with it. 
You can deny them any benefits at all.
  What we will hear from the other side is that there can be an 
investigation of their conditions on being exploited. The only thing 
you have to do is get a complaint from someone. Well, who in the world 
is ever going to complain when they know once they complain they can be 
thrown out of the country? Under the Republican proposal, the 
Department of Labor cannot interfere even if they have reason to 
believe there is exploitation on this, unless they receive a complaint. 
Anything else has been prohibited under the Republican proposal.
  Mr. President, this is a matter, I believe, of importance and 
consequence to working families. These are important jobs where 
Americans are available. In each of these categories, except at the 
very top level of immigration, there are more than enough Americans who 
are available for those jobs, and who want those jobs. Those are good 
jobs. Still, we find that they are unable to compete. I think that is 
wrong.
  No piece of legislation ought to go through here that has that kind 
of depressing effect on wages, because, as I mentioned before, once 
someone enters under the H-1B program, they can drive the wages right 
down. They can replace American workers. Once employers get the foreign 
worker in, they can drive the wages down, which they more often do than 
not. We have had testimony in our Subcommittee that supports that. We 
had the testimony of a small businessman down in southern Texas that 
supplied workers for a number of companies in Texas who came up and 
asked him to replace his American workers with foreign workers in order 
to drive his costs down. It is absolutely wrong. We will have a chance 
on this legislation to work it through.
  I see others that want to speak on the measure. Let me move toward a 
final item. Mr. President, with regard to the employment programs, as I 
mentioned before, both the IG from the Labor Department and the 
testimony is really quite complete. This is an area that ought to be 
addressed because of its impact in terms of American workers and the 
fact that it really, when we look behind the curtain of these programs, 
you find out there are good jobs that Americans are qualified for and 
that they deserve.
  There are two, and only two, legitimate bases for employment-based 
immigration.
  First, it can bring the world's best and brightest into our country 
to create jobs and improve our competitive position. We should welcome 
legitimate scientists, legitimate business leaders, legitimate artists 
and performers without hesitation. They enhance our economy, create 
jobs for U.S. workers, enrich our cultural life, and strengthen our 
society.
  Second, employment-based immigration can meet skills shortages that 
arise in a growing economy, particularly an economy like ours that 
relies heavily on scientific and technological innovation for its 
growth and success. In certain circumstances, an employer's demand for 
skills cannot be met with sufficient speed or in adequate quantity by 
U.S. workers. In these circumstances, foreign workers can fill the 
skills gap, while the domestic labor market and the education and job 
training system adjust to the rising demand for workers with new or 
different skills.
  Clearly, there are legitimate purposes for employment-based 
immigration. But we must also recognize that allowing employers to 
bring in foreign workers has an adverse effect on U.S. workers. 
Remaining globally competitive should never mean driving down the wages 
of U.S. workers and increasing their growing sense of insecurity in the 
workplace.
  Instead, in reforming the employment-based immigration programs, we 
must assure that U.S. workers have a fair opportunity to get and keep 
good jobs and raise their family incomes. Four changes in the current 
system are needed to give U.S. workers this assurance of fairness and 
opportunity.
  First, we must protect U.S. workers who already have good jobs from 
being laid off and replaced with foreign workers. With all the talk of 
job insecurity, corporate and defense downsizing, and stagnant family 
income, working families have a right to know that the immigration laws 
are not being abused to take away their jobs.
  Second, we must give U.S. workers who have the skills and are 
willing, available, and qualified for these jobs a fair opportunity to 
be recruited for those jobs. Maintaining a strong and growing economy 
requires that U.S. workers obtain the training they need to merit 
global competition, and that they have a fair opportunity to use their 
skills in high-wage, high-skill jobs. We cannot expect working families 
to improve their economic status if we post ``Road Closed'' signs on 
the road to higher standards of living.
  Third, when a job can be filled by a U.S. worker with a reasonable 
amount of training within a reasonable period of time, we must assure 
that the U.S. worker has a fair opportunity to obtain that training and 
get that job.
  Fourth, and more generally, we must give U.S. workers a better chance 
at getting high-wage, high-skill jobs, without shutting off the safety 
valve of access to foreign labor markets that some employers may need 
to meet demands that U.S. workers cannot supply in sufficient quantity 
or with sufficient speed.


                 The Permanent Immigrant Worker Program

  There are two ways for employers to obtain foreign workers for jobs 
in the United States. The workers can be admitted permanently and 
become lawful permanent residents through the permanent immigrant 
worker program. Or, they can be admitted temporarily through one of 
several temporary, or nonimmigrant, worker programs.
  Under current law, 140,000 foreign workers can be admitted into the 
United States each year through the Permanent Immigrant Worker program. 
These workers can run the gamut in skills from the most advanced Nobel 
Prize scientist to unskilled housekeepers and busboys.
  One of the most significant changes we made in our system of legal 
immigration in 1990--the last time we attempted to reform employment-
based immigration--was to increase by nearly threefold the numerical 
ceiling on employment-based immigrants. The number rose from 54,000 to 
140,000 each year, and the changes also favored higher skilled 
immigrants. We did so because of dire warnings of serious high-skill 
labor shortages that we were all concerned would harm our economic 
growth, global competitiveness, and our potential to create high-skill, 
high-wage jobs for U.S. workers.
  But these labor shortages never developed. In fact, actual use of the 
employment-based immigrant program for skilled workers has never come 
close to reaching the new ceiling level, and it has declined in the 
last 2 years. The closest we came to the ceiling was in 1993 when 
nearly 27,000 visas were used for Chinese students under the now-
expired Chinese Student Protection Act. Another 10,000 visas were used 
for unskilled workers.
  Use of the employment-based immigrant program for skilled workers and 
unskilled workers over the last 5 years has been well below the 
ceiling. In 1993, we admitted a total of 110,130. In 1994, we admitted 
92,604, a 16-percent reduction from the previous year. In 1995, we 
admitted 73,239, a 21 percent reduction from the previous year. In sum, 
the numbers are well below the cap, and they have also been declining 
in each of the past several years.

  At a time when we are seeking moderate reductions in legal 
immigration and reducing the visas available for reunifying families, 
we should also be reducing the employment-based immigration--especially 
when the positions are not being used and the trend-line is down. It is 
not fair that the whole

[[Page S3287]]

weight of the reductions in the number of legal immigrants should be 
borne by families and diversity immigrants.
  Reducing the ceiling on employment-based immigration is not the same 
as cutting employment-based immigration. In fact, the reform I intend 
to propose--adjusting the cap on employment-based immigration from 
140,000 to 100,000--would allow actual employment-based immigration to 
grow by one-third in future years--from 75,000 in 1995 to 100,000. 
Under current law and the pending bill, the program would nearly double 
in size.
  It is clear that we went too far in 1990 when we increased the 
ceiling on employment-based immigration to 140,000. The three-fold 
increase was not needed and has not been approached by actual use. We 
should pare it back to the more reasonable number of 100,000, as 
recommended by the Jordan Commission and the Clinton administration. 
That line still allows reasonable growth in this category, and it also 
protects our national interest in economic growth, global 
competitiveness, and domestic job creation.
  But immigration is about a great deal more than numbers. It is 
fundamentally about people. When we consider employment-based 
immigration, we must have a clear understanding of the kind of people 
we are admitting to our country and what skills and abilities they are 
bringing in with them.
  Under current law, we divide permanent immigrant workers into two 
categories: immigrants who are subject to labor certification and 
immigrants who can be admitted without labor certification.
  Labor certification is supposed to serve as a requirement that 
employers first recruit U.S. workers for a job, before seeking 
immigrant workers. Some workers are so exceptional that we should admit 
them regardless of the state of the domestic labor market. But 
employers should be permitted to obtain other foreign workers only if 
no U.S. workers with similar skills are willing, available, and 
qualified for the jobs into which the immigrant workers will be placed.
  Those who are not subject to labor certification fit into the best 
and brightest category. In 1995, the category included 1,200 aliens of 
extraordinary ability, including recipients of major honors, great 
commercial success, or leadership positions in their field; more than 
1,600 outstanding professors and researchers; almost 4,000 
multinational executives and managers; and almost 3,000 special 
immigrants, who are primarily outstanding clerics.
  The best and brightest are the job creators, men and women whose 
contributions to our country will undoubtedly be dramatic and 
substantial. We should welcome them without hesitation. Current law 
permits it, and should remain unchanged.
  The workers subject to labor certification, on the other hand, are 
rarely the best and brightest. They are skilled workers, workers with 
advanced degrees or baccalaureate degrees. Under current law, up to 
10,000 of them can be unskilled workers.
  There is no reason for employers in this country to bring in 
unskilled immigrant workers. There is an abundance, even an 
overabundance, of unskilled U.S. workers looking for work. The 
Judiciary Committee supported my amendment almost unanimously to delete 
the unskilled category from the permanent immigrant worker program. 
Plainly, unskilled immigrants do not fit into either of the two 
categories of workers who should be welcomed into our country--the best 
and brightest and workers needed to fill skills shortages.
  Apart from unskilled workers, the immigrants subject to labor 
certification are professionals with advanced degrees, professionals 
with baccalaureate degrees, and skilled workers. They may be needed to 
satisfy skill shortages. But employers may also put these workers in 
competition with thousands of U.S. workers for jobs that could be 
filled from the domestic work force.
  Employers use these permanent immigrant workers to fill many 
positions--cooks, computer programmers, engineers of all types, 
teachers, retail and wholesale managers, accountants and auditors, 
biologists, auto repair mechanics, university professors, and tailors.
  One useful measure of the skill level of these workers is their 
salaries. Employers tell the Labor Department how much they plan to pay 
the skilled immigrants they are seeking. Eighty percent of the jobs for 
foreign workers subject to labor certification pay $50,000 a year or 
less. Fewer than 3 percent of these jobs pay $80,000 or more.
  A small number of employers use this employment-based immigration 
program to seek out the best and brightest, but it is clearly the 
exception, not the rule. A large number of working families in 
Massachusetts and across the United States would be gratified to have 
an opportunity to earn $50,000 a year working in computer programming. 
It is vitally important that we make certain that employers use this 
immigration program only to fill jobs for which qualified U.S. workers 
are not available.

  We must have a labor certification process which actually results in 
employers successfully recruiting U.S. workers for these skilled jobs. 
At present, the Department of Labor certifies an employer's application 
for an immigrant worker based on a complex, labor-intensive, and 
expensive preadmission screening system. The current system does not 
and cannot assure that the conditions required for certification are 
actually achieved when the immigrant worker is employed. The Commission 
on Immigration Reform estimated that labor certification costs 
employers $10,000 per immigrant for administrative, paperwork, and 
legal costs.
  To bring in these skilled immigrants, an employer must demonstrate 
that it was unsuccessful in finding a qualified U.S. worker to do the 
job, and that the job will pay at least the locally prevailing wage. 
Any employer who uses this employment-based immigration system will 
tell you that it takes a long time and an excessive amount of 
documentation.
  The basic problem with this labor certification system is not that it 
is expensive and time consuming, but that it does not assure that able, 
available, willing, and qualified U.S. workers get the jobs. In fact, 
there is very little genuine recruitment.
  Consider the case of Tony Rosaci and the members of his local union. 
Tony is the secretary-treasurer of Iron Workers Local Union No. 455 in 
New York City. The members of this local union helped build New York. 
They were the backbone of the effort to rehabilitate the Statue of 
Liberty. But when well-qualified members of the local union responded 
to more than 65 help wanted ads placed in New York newspapers by 
employers seeking permanent immigrant workers, they were rejected each 
time in favor of foreign workers. There were 65 referrals of qualified 
U.S. workers, and 65 rejections.
  The story of Tony Rosaci's union members is not the exception. The 
Labor Department inspector general found that in all of the cases where 
employers complete the labor certification process, their recruitment 
efforts do not result in a U.S. worker getting the job in 99.98 percent 
of the cases--99.98 percent. That means a U.S. worker gets hired only 1 
in 5,000 times. The system isn't working. It is badly broken.
  U.S. workers do not have a fair opportunity to get these jobs 
because, in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is already a 
foreign temporary worker in the job who is trying to adjust to 
permanent status. The image that we all have of foreign workers waiting 
in their home countries until they are admitted to the United States 
under the employment-based immigration system is a fallacy.
  In 1994, 42 percent of labor certified workers who gained permanent 
admission came directly from the temporary worker program. Some unknown 
additional number are either working illegally for their employer, or 
simply leave the country for a short period of time to expedite their 
application for permanent admission to the United States.
  The Labor Department estimates that as many as 90 percent or more of 
the foreign workers admitted permanently to the United States have 
worked for the same employer who is helping the worker adjust to 
permanent status. Simply put, U.S. workers cannot get these jobs, 
because foreign temporary workers or illegally employed foreign workers 
are already in these jobs.

[[Page S3288]]

  Employers use the labor certification system to make it look as 
though they are engaging in genuine recruitment. In reality, they 
intend all along to keep the foreign workers who are already working 
for them. Employers frequently create position descriptions for which 
only the incumbent worker can qualify. As a result, referrals of well-
qualified U.S. workers in response to advertisements for these jobs--
the humiliating experience shared by the members of Tony Rosaci's local 
union and thousands of other U.S. workers--waste everyone's time and 
add insult to injury for U.S. workers.
  This system is a sham. It must be changed to give U.S. workers the 
fair opportunity they deserve to get these high-wage, high-skill jobs, 
and assure the public that the employment-based immigration system 
serves its stated purpose.
  U.S. workers deserve a fair and genuine opportunity to get and keep 
high-wage, high-skill jobs before they are filled by the foreign 
temporary workers who will later become permanent immigrant workers. 
The best opportunity for U.S. workers to get these good jobs is at the 
front end of employment-based immigration--before foreign temporary 
workers fill the vacancy.
  To achieve this goal, we must reform the temporary worker program--
the principal path through which foreign skilled workers are admitted 
to the United States. We must add a requirement that employers recruit 
U.S. workers, before the jobs can be filled with foreign temporary 
workers.
  But we must also change the permanent program. Instead of requiring 
the Department of Labor to conduct meaningless labor certification for 
every employer, the Department's Employment Service should instead 
target its enforcement to the employers most likely to present a 
problem. In this way, employers who play by the rules or who are not in 
a problem industry would not be subjected to labor certification. 
Employers who seek to adjust a worker's status from temporary to 
permanent, and who demonstrate that they engaged in a bona fide but 
unsuccessful recruitment effort before filling the job with a foreign 
temporary worker, would not be required to go through labor 
certification.

  These reforms, combined with effective enforcement by the Labor 
Department, should help give U.S. workers a fairer chance at these 
jobs, and free employers from participation in a sham labor 
certification process.


               Understanding the Temporary Worker Program

  In order to fully understand the permanent immigrant program, it is 
necessary to understand the principal nonimmigrant employment-based 
program, called the H-1B Program. This program permits U.S. employers 
to bring into the United States skilled workers with college or higher 
degrees. The program is capped at 65,000 new visas each year, but 
employers can keep such workers in the United States for up to 6 years. 
Thus, there can be almost 400,000 H-1B workers in the United States at 
one time.
  The program was originally conceived as a means to meet employers' 
temporary needs for unique, highly skilled professionals. But many 
employers use the program to bring into the United States relatively 
large numbers of foreign temporary workers with little or no formal 
training beyond a 4-year college degree. The typical foreign temporary 
worker is not a one-of-a-kind professor or a Ph.D. engineer as some 
news stories suggest and the business lobby would have us believe.
  For fiscal year 1994, employers' applications for health care 
therapists--primarily physical therapists and occupational therapists--
accounted for one-half--49.9 percent--of all H-1B jobs. Computer-
related occupations accounted for almost one-quarter--23.9 percent--of 
these jobs. As with the permanent program, wage data from H-1B 
applications indicate that almost two-thirds--65 percent--of H-1B jobs 
pay $40,000 or less, and almost 3 out of 4--75 percent--jobs pay 
$50,000 or less.
  Under current law, there is no obligation for employers to try to 
recruit qualified U.S. workers for these jobs. The only thing the 
employer must do is submit a one-page form. Employers must give the 
title of the job, the salary they intend to pay, and attest to four 
facts: First, they will pay the higher of the actual wage paid to 
similarly employed workers or the prevailing wage; second, they are not 
the subject of a strike or lockout; third, they have posted the 
requisite notice for their U.S. workers; and fourth, the working 
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers will not be adversely 
affected.
  This form is the only requirement. No other documentation is required 
of the employer. Current law gives the Labor Department 7 days to 
review these one-page forms, and prohibits the Department from 
rejecting the forms unless they are incomplete or have obvious 
inaccuracies. In simple terms, the H-1B Program is an open door for 
65,000 skilled foreign workers to enter the United States each year.
  This is one reason why Americans are so cynical about our immigration 
laws. This system is intended to help U.S. employers remain competitive 
in the face of technological change and competitive global markets. 
Instead, the system permits employers to bring in foreign temporary 
workers regardless of whether qualified U.S. workers are available, or 
even if U.S. workers are currently holding the jobs into which the 
foreign temporary workers are going to be placed. We must reform the H-
1B Program.


           S. 1665 ``Reforms'' Take Us in the Wrong Direction

  Unfortunately, the reforms currently contained in the legal 
immigration bill are inadequate if our goal is to assure U.S. workers a 
fair opportunity to get and keep high-wage, high-skill jobs.
  Over my objections and those of many other Democratic Members, the 
Judiciary Committee stripped out many sensible reforms to the 
employment-based programs. The Judiciary Committee then made changes 
for foreign temporary professional workers. The changes were touted by 
their sponsors as providing layoff protection to American workers, and 
as giving the Department of Labor latitude in investigating companies 
that rely on temporary foreign workers.
  The current bill does neither of these things. In fact, anyone who 
looks carefully at the current bill will conclude that it does just the 
opposite.
  S. 1665 embraces the agenda of corporate America at the expense of 
American workers. The changes in the H-1B Program would have the 
overall effect of further weakening protections for U.S. workers from 
unfair competition with foreign workers, even though the protections in 
the existing program are already demonstrably inadequate. Current law 
does not require U.S. employers to recruit in the domestic labor market 
first, nor does it prohibit employers from hiring foreign workers to 
replace laid off U.S. workers in the same job.
  To the contrary, S. 1665 provides no protection from employers who 
fire U.S. workers and hire foreign workers. In fact, S. 1665 is an 
endorsement of laying off U.S. workers in favor of foreign workers. We 
must strengthen current law to stop this from happening--not weaken 
current law and invite it to happen more.
  The failure to protect U.S. workers from layoffs is not the only area 
in which this bill fails to protect U.S. workers. If S. 1665 becomes 
law existing worker protections would not apply to the large majority 
of employers who use the H-1B program;
  Employers would be subject to lower wage payment requirements for 
foreign workers; and,
  The Labor Department's enforcement ability to protect U.S. workers 
and foreign workers would be sharply curtailed.
  In sum, the bill goes in exactly the wrong direction by making an 
already troublesome H-1B program even worse.
  Instead, we need genuine reform of the H-1B program to protect U.S. 
workers and give them a fair opportunity to get and keep high-wage, 
high-skill jobs.
  First, as with the program for permanent immigrants, we should make 
it illegal to lay off qualified American workers and replace them with 
temporary foreign workers.
  Recent case histories have gained wide public attention because they 
are shocking to all of us. Syntel, Inc., is a Michigan company with 
more than 80 percent foreign temporary workers, primarily computer 
analysts from India. In its business operations, Syntel contracts to 
provide computer personnel and services to other companies. In New 
Jersey, Syntel contracted

[[Page S3289]]

with American International Group, a large insurance company, to 
provide computer services. Linda Kilcrease worked for AIG.
  One day, without notice, AIG fired Linda along with 200 of her co-
workers and replaced them with foreign temporary workers from Syntel. 
Adding insult to injury, Linda and her coworkers were forced to train 
their replacements during their final weeks on the job.
  David Hoff was a database administrator in Arizona with Allied 
Signal, a defense contractor. David was asked to train two foreign 
workers to do his job. When he realized the company was about to 
replace him, he left the job and refused to train his foreign 
replacements.
  Julie Cairns-Rubin worked for Sealand Services, a major shipping and 
trucking company, writing and maintaining computer software systems for 
the company's finances. She worked during the day and took night 
classes for advanced computer skills. Her training, hard work, and 
dedication were supposed to give her greater job security. Instead, 
Sealand fired Julie and replaced her with a foreign worker. Now Julie 
is unemployed.
  Julie Cairns-Rubin, David Huff, and Linda Kilcrease should be 
rewarded for their skills and working hard for their employers. They 
are supposed to live the American dream. But the H-1B program under 
current law turns the American dream into the American nightmare, and 
S. 1665 makes this nightmare even worse.
  John Martin owns a high-technology firm in Houston. He has been under 
pressure from clients to lay off his U.S. workers and bring in cheaper 
foreign workers at lower wages in order to cut costs. He refused, and 
has lost contracts to cheaper, H-1B firms as a result. John is an 
employer trying to play by the rules. But he can't compete with firms 
bringing in cheaper foreign labor.
  Our law permits and encourages this behavior. Public outrage at such 
widely publicized layoffs are tarnishing our entire immigration system 
and adding to the growing sense of insecurity felt by U.S. workers. 
There is no legitimate justification for laying off U.S. workers and 
replacing them with foreign workers, and our immigration laws should 
prohibit it.
  A second needed reform is to require employers to recruit for U.S. 
workers first, before being allowed to apply for a temporary foreign 
worker. Current law does not contain this simple, common sense 
principle--and it should.
  Most employers who use the H-1B program say they are continuously 
recruiting in the domestic labor market, and would prefer hiring U.S. 
workers. So this change should not impose any hardship or additional 
burden on these employers.
  This reform is simple and straight-forward. Employers applying for a 
foreign worker under the H-1B program would have to check one 
additional box on their application form attesting that they have taken 
and are taking steps to recruit and retain U.S. workers--which 
employers assure us they are already doing.
  The employer would attest that it had recruited in the domestic labor 
market using industry-wide standard recruitment procedures. Government 
would not mandate this standard.
  If high-technology industries recruit quickly to win business, then 
that's the industry-wide standard that should be recognized under the 
immigration laws. This step will not delay firms which need workers 
quickly. But it will make sure that American workers get first crack at 
these good jobs.
  The employer would also confirm that its recruitment offered the 
locally prevailing wage or the wage it actually pays similar workers, 
whichever is higher. Employers hiring foreign workers are already 
required, under current law, to pay these workers the higher of the 
actual or locally prevailing wage, so this reform imposes no new wage 
obligation. The reform would merely establish that the employer 
recruited U.S. workers by offering the same wages and other 
compensation that it would be obligated to pay to its foreign workers. 
That's only fair to U.S. workers.
  This reform does not establish any new prevailing wage system. Under 
current law, employers must ascertain and promise to pay at least the 
locally prevailing wage. Employers can go to their State employment 
security agency to get the prevailing wage. Or, under current law, 
employers can rely on an ``independent authoritative source'' or 
another ``legitimate source'' for prevailing wage data. They are not 
required to come to the government to get this information under 
current law, and nothing I intend to propose would change that.
  The employer would also attest that its domestic recruitment was 
unsuccessful. In other words, the employer need only state that it 
could not find a qualified U.S. worker for the job. Employers already 
tell us they face the problem of being unable to find available U.S. 
workers. It is this failure in the domestic labor market that the H-1B 
Program is supposed to address.
  There are certain circumstances in which we would all agree that an 
employer should not be required to seek a U.S. worker. Existing law 
exempts from labor certification--and thereby from any recruitment 
requirement--foreign workers of extraordinary ability, outstanding 
professors and researchers, certain multinational executives and 
managers, and renowned clerics. These are truly the best and the 
brightest. They are Nobel-level scientists, the tenure-track 
professors, and top researchers. They should be admitted to the United 
States because they are unique and because there is no dispute that 
they will improve our society and increase our competitiveness. If we 
can get them, we should admit them.
  If H-1B workers qualify under the permanent worker program as 
individuals with ``extraordinary ability'' or an ``outstanding 
professor or researcher,'' the employer could also hire them and bring 
them into the United States as H-1B workers, without having to engage 
in domestic recruitment. This is a reasonable accommodation of the 
concerns expressed by the business community, without jeopardizing U.S. 
workers.
  In every other case, however, we are short-changing U.S. workers and 
our own national interests if we don't expect employers to recruit in 
the U.S. for jobs for which they are seeking foreign workers.
  The third and final change I propose to the H-1B Program is to reduce 
the term of the visa from 6 years to 3 years. This is supposed to be a 
temporary visa, but most Americans would call it a permanent job. In 
fact, Americans from 25 to 34 years of age change jobs every 3\1/2\ 
years. Those age 35 to 44 change every 6 years.
  Importing needed skills should usually be a short-term response to 
urgent needs, while adjusting to quickly changing circumstances.
  Reducing the terms from 6 years to 3 years will also reduce the 
maximum number of foreign temporary workers in the country at any one 
time from about 400,000 to about 200,000. The 3-year period will also 
assure that these temporary workers are, indeed, temporary.
  This change is important not only for U.S. workers who already have 
the skills for good jobs, but also for those who would like to acquire 
the necessary skills. The labor market will correct imbalances in the 
demand and supply of needed skills if it receives the proper signals. 
Allowing foreign temporary workers to stay in the United States for 6 
years sends the wrong signal. The only valid, long-term response to 
skills shortages is training U.S. workers. A 3-year stay will promote 
skills training and job opportunities for qualified U.S. workers, and 
help overcome the wage stagnation affecting so many working families.


     Giving the Labor Department the Enforcement Authority it Needs

  I have discussed a long list of reforms that are needed in the 
permanent worker program and the H-1B Temporary Worker Program. These 
reforms can help assure that employment-based immigration is fair to 
U.S. workers. It is vital that we enact these reforms. But they will be 
nothing more than empty words in the United States Code if the Labor 
Department does not have the enforcement authority to assure widespread 
compliance.
  We must end the current mismatch of enforcement authority. The 
Department of Labor has the power to respond to complaints, initiate 
investigations, and conduct audits under the temporary worker program, 
although S. 1665 would unwisely curb these powers. However, under the 
permanent program, the authority of the Department

[[Page S3290]]

ends once the immigrant arrives on our shores. After the worker is 
here, there is little the Department can do to ensure that employers 
pay the prevailing wage and meet other terms and conditions of 
employment.
  We must give the Department essentially the same post-admission 
enforcement powers for permanent foreign workers that it already has 
for temporary workers. Often, the temporary workers become permanent 
workers. The Department of Labor ought to have the same power to assure 
compliance after the workers convert to permanent resident status as 
before.
  Such enforcement powers are important as a safeguard for workers' 
rights. They also ensure that the recruitment mechanism functions 
properly. To ensure that these requirements are met, the Labor 
Department must have the ability to seek out and identify employers 
that violate the law, assure that U.S. and foreign workers are 
protected or made whole, and impose penalties that will deter future 
violations and promote compliance.
  Finally, we should also require payment of additional fees to cover 
the Labor Department's costs of administering the certification 
requirements and enforcement activities. Taxpayers should not have to 
foot the bill for the cost of providing employers with foreign workers.
  Immigration has served America well for over two centuries. Its 
current troubles can be cured. If we fail to act responsibly the calls 
for Buchananism and Fortress America will only grow louder and more 
irresponsible. To protect our immigrant heritage, we must stop illegal 
immigration. We must end the abuses of American workers under our 
current immigration laws, and enact the many other reforms needed to 
strengthen this vital aspect of our history and our future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this particular time.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Congressional Budget 
Office addressed to me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 
dated April 15, 1996, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1996.
     Hon. Alan K. Simpson,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Committee on the 
         Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, CBO has 
     reviewed a possible amendment to S. 1664, the Immigration 
     Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, which was 
     reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 
     10, 1996. The amendment would alter the effective date of 
     provisions in section 118 that would require states to make 
     certain changes in how they issue driver's licenses and 
     identification documents. The amendment would thereby allow 
     states to implement those provisions while adhering to their 
     current renewal schedules.
       The amendment contains no intergovernmental mandates as 
     defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no direct costs 
     on state, local, or tribal governments. In fact, by delaying 
     the effective date of the provisions in section 118, the 
     amendment would substantially reduce the costs of the 
     mandates in the bill. If the amendment were adopted, CBO 
     estimates that the total costs of all intergovernmental 
     mandates in S. 1664 would no longer exceed the $50 million 
     threshold established by Public Law 104-4.
       In our April 12, 1996, cost estimate for S. 1664 (which we 
     identified at the time as S. 269), CBO estimated that section 
     118, as reported, would cost states between $80 million and 
     $200 million in fiscal year 1998 and less than $2 million a 
     year in subsequent years. These costs would result primarily 
     from an influx of individuals seeking early renewals of their 
     driver's licenses or identification cards. By allowing states 
     to implement the new requirements over an extended period of 
     time, the amendment would likely eliminate this influx and 
     significantly reduce costs. If the amendment were adopted, 
     CBO estimates the direct costs to states from the driver's 
     license and identification document provisions would total 
     between $10 million and $20 million and would be incurred 
     over six years. These costs would be for implementing new 
     data collection procedures and identification card formats.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document 
from the Congressional Budget Office setting forth the estimated 
budgetary effects of the pending legislation be printed at this point 
in the Record, and I further note that the reference in this letter to 
S. 269, as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 
10, 1996, means that these estimates apply to the legislation pending 
before the Senate as S. 1664.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed federal, intergovernmental, and private 
     sector cost estimates for S. 269, the Immigration Control and 
     Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. Because enactment of 
     the bill would affect direct spending and receipts, pay-as-
     you-go procedures would apply.
       The bill would impose both intergovernmental and private 
     sector mandates, as defined in Public Law 104-4. The cost of 
     the mandates would exceed both the $50 million threshold for 
     intergovernmental mandates and the $100 million threshold for 
     private sector mandates specified in that law.
       CBO's estimate does not include the potential cost of 
     establishing a program to reimburse state and local 
     governments for the full cost of providing emergency medical 
     care to illegal aliens. As noted in the enclosed estimate, 
     the drafting of this provision leaves many uncertainties 
     about how the program would work and therefore precludes a 
     firm estimate. The potential costs could, however, be 
     significant.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James L. Blum
                                  (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
       Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 269.
       2. Bill title: Immigration Control and Financial 
     Responsibility Act of 1996.
       3. Bill status: As reported by the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary on April 10, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 269 would make many changes and 
     additions to Federal laws relating to immigration. Provisions 
     having a potentially significant budgetary impact are 
     highlighted below.
       Title I would:
       Direct the Attorney General to increase the number of 
     Immigration and Naturalization (INS) border patrol agents by 
     700 in fiscal year 1996 and by 1,000 in each of the fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2000; in addition, the number of full-time 
     support positions for border patrol agents would be increased 
     by 300 in each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000;
       Authorize appropriations of such sums as may be necessary 
     to increase the number of INS investigator positions by 600 
     in fiscal year 1996 and by 300 in each of the fiscal years 
     1997 and 1998, and provide for the necessary support 
     positions;
       Direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to increase the number of land border inspectors in 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to assure full staffing during the 
     peak border-crossing hours;
       Authorize the Department of Labor (DOL) to increase the 
     number of investigators by 350--plus necessary support 
     staff--in fiscal years 1996 and 1997;
       Direct the Attorney General to increase the detention 
     facilities of the INS to at least 9,000 beds by the end of 
     fiscal year 1997;
       Authorize a one-time appropriation of $12 million for 
     improvements in barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border;
       Authorize the Attorney General to hire for fiscal years 
     1996 and 1997 such additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys as may 
     be necessary for the prosecution of actions brought under 
     certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
       Authorize appropriations of such sums as may be necessary 
     to expand the INS fingerprint-based identification system 
     (IDENT) nationwide;
       Authorize a one-time appropriation of $10 million for the 
     INS to cover the costs to deport aliens under certain 
     provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
       Authorize such sums as may be necessary to the Attorney 
     General to conduct pilot programs related to increasing the 
     efficiency of deportation and exclusion proceedings;
       Establish several pilot projects and various studies 
     related to immigration issues, including improving the 
     verification system for aliens seeking employment or public 
     assistance;
       Provide for an increase in pay for immigration judges;
       Establish new and increased penalties and criminal 
     forfeiture provisions for a number of crimes related to 
     immigration; and
       Permit the Attorney General to reemploy up to 100 federal 
     retirees for as long as two years to help reduce a backlog of 
     asylum applications.
       Title II would:
       Curtail the eligibility of non-legal aliens, including 
     those permanently residing under

[[Page S3291]]

     color of law (PRUCOL), in the narrow instances where they are 
     now eligible for federal benefits;
       Extend the period during which a sponsor's income is 
     presumed or deemed to be available to the alien and require 
     deeming in all federal means-tested programs, not just the 
     ones that currently practice it;
       Deny the earned income tax credit to individuals not 
     authorized to be employed in the United States; and
       Change federal coverage of emergency medical services for 
     illegal aliens.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
     appropriation of the entire amounts authorized, enacting S. 
     269 would increase discretionary spending over fiscal years 
     1996 through 2002 by a total of about $3.2 billion. Several 
     provisions of S. 269, mainly those in Title II affecting 
     benefit programs, would result in changes to mandatory 
     spending and federal revenues. CBO estimates that the changes 
     in mandatory spending would reduce outlays by about $7 
     billion over the 1996-2002 period, and that revenues would 
     increase by about $80 million over the same period. These 
     figures do not include the potential costs of establishing a 
     program to reimburse state and local governments for the full 
     cost of providing emergency medical care to illegal aliens; 
     these costs could amount to as much as $1.5 billion to $3 
     billion a year.
       The estimated budgetary effects of the legislation are 
     summarized in Table 1. Table 2 shows projected outlays for 
     the affected direct spending programs under current law, the 
     changes that would stem from the bill, and the projected 
     outlays for each program if the bill were enacted. The 
     projections reflect CBO's March 1996 baseline.

                                                     TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 269                                                    
                                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
Authorizations:                                                                                                                                         
    Estimated authorization level............................            0          709          472          580          596          615          633
    Estimated outlays........................................            0          286          467          663          580          600          621
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                             MANDATORY SPENDING AND RECEIPTS                                                            
                                                                                                                                                        
Direct spending:                                                                                                                                        
    Estimated budget authority...............................            0         -450         -927       -1,237       -1,427       -1,409       -1,549
    Estimated outlays........................................            0         -450         -927       -1,237       -1,427       -1,409       -1,549
    Estimated Revenues.......................................            0           14           13           12           13           13           13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Estimates do not include potential costs of establishing a program to reimburse state and local governments for the full cost of providing       
  emergency medical care to illegal aliens. These costs could amount to as much as $1.5 billion to $3 billion a year.                                   

       The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 550, 
     600, 750, and 950.

                                                                TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF S. 269 ON DIRECT SPENDING PROGRAMS                                                               
                                                                            [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]                                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1995            1996            1997            1998            1999            2000            2001            2002     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              PROJECTED SPENDING UNDER CURRENT LAW                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Supplemental Security Income....................................          24,510          24,017          27,904          30,210          32,576          37,995          34,515          40,348
Food Stamps \1\.................................................          25,554          26,220          28,094          29,702          31,092          32,476          33,847          35,283
Family Support Payments \2\.....................................          18,086          18,371          18,800          19,302          19,930          20,552          21,240          21,932
Child Nutrition.................................................           7,465           8,011           8,483           9,033           9,597          10,165          10,751          11,352
Medicaid........................................................          89,070          95,737         104,781         115,438         126,366         138,154         151,512         166,444
Earned Income Tax Credit (outlay portion).......................          15,244          18,440          20,191          20,894          21,691          22,586          23,412          24,157
Receipts of Employer Contributions..............................         -27,961         -27,025         -27,426         -27,978         -28,258         -29,089         -29,949         -31,025
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         151,968         163,771         180,827         196,601         212,994         232,839         245,328         268,491
                                                                 ===============================================================================================================================
                                                                                        PROPOSED CHANGES                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Supplemental Security Income....................................  ..............               0            -100            -340            -500            -570            -500            -560
Food Stamps \1\.................................................  ..............               0             -10             -30             -40             -45             -45             -70
Family Support Payments \2\.....................................  ..............               0             -10             -15             -15             -20             -20             -25
Child Nutrition.................................................  ..............               0               0               0              -5             -20             -20             -25
Medicaid \3\....................................................  ..............               0            -115            -330            -460            -550            -600            -640
Earned Income Tax Credit (outlay portion).......................  ..............               0            -216            -214            -218            -222            -224            -229
Receipts of Employer Contributions..............................  ..............               0               1               2               1               0               0               0
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................  ..............               0            -450            -927          -1,237          -1,427          -1,409          -1,549
                                                                 ===============================================================================================================================
                                                                                 PROJECTED SPENDING UNDER S. 269                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Supplemental Security Income....................................          24,510          24,017          27,804          29,870          32,076          37,425          34,015          39,788
Food Stamps \1\.................................................          25,554          26,220          28,084          29,672          31,052          32,431          33,802          35,213
Family Support Payments \2\.....................................          18,086          18,371          18,790          19,287          19,915          20,532          21,220          21,907
Child Nutrition.................................................           7,465           8,011           8,483           9,033           9,592          10,145          10,731          11,327
Medicaid \3\....................................................          89,070          95,737         104,666         115,108         125,906         137,604         150,912         165,804
Earned Income Tax Credit (outlay portion).......................          15,244          18,440          19,975          20,680          21,473          22,364          23,188          23,928
Receipts of Employer Contributions..............................         -27,961         -27,025         -27,425         -27,976         -28,257         -29,089         -29,949         -31,025
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         151,968         163,771         180,377         195,674         211,757         231,412         243,919         266,942
                                                                 ===============================================================================================================================
Changes to Revenues.............................................  ..............               0              14              13              12              13              13              13
Net Deficit effect..............................................  ..............               0            -464            -940          -1,249          -1,440          -1,442          -1,562
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Food Stamps includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico. Spending under current law includes the provisions of the recently-enacted farm bill.                                            
\2\ Family Support Payments includes spending on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), AFDC-related child care, administrative costs for child support enforcement, net federal       
  savings from child support collections, and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS).                                                                                   
\3\ Estimates do not include potential costs of establishing a program to reimburse state and local governments for the full cost of providing emergency medical care to illegal aliens. These  
  costs could amount to as much as $1.5 billion to $3 billion a year.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Notes.--Assumes enactment date of August 1, 1996. Estimates will change with later effective date. Details may not add to totals because of rounding.                                           

       6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that S. 269 will be enacted by August 1, 1996.


                   spending subject to appropriations

       The following estimates assume that all specific amounts 
     authorized by the bill would be appropriated for each fiscal 
     year. For programs in the bill for which authorizations are 
     not specified, or for programs whose specific authorizations 
     do not provide sufficient funding, CBO estimated the cost 
     based on information from the agencies involved. Estimated 
     outlays, beginning in 1997, are based on historical rates for 
     these or similar activities. (We assumed that none of the 
     bill's programs would affect outlays in 1996.)
       The provisions in this bill that affect discretionary 
     spending would increase costs to the federal government by 
     the amounts shown in Table 3, assuming appropriation of the 
     necessary funds. In many cases, the bill authorizes funding 
     for programs already authorized in the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the 1994 crime bill) or 
     already funded by fiscal year 1996 appropriations action. For 
     example, the additional border patrol agents and support 
     personnel in title I already were authorized in the 1994 
     crime bill through fiscal year 1998. For such provisions, the 
     amounts shown in Table 3 reflect only the cost above funding 
     authorized in current law.
       In the most recent continuing resolution enacted for fiscal 
     year 1996, appropriations for the Department of Justice total 
     about $14 billion, of which about $1.7 billion is for the 
     INS.

[[Page S3292]]



           TABLE 3.--SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION          
                [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated authorization                                                 
 levels:                                                                
  Additional Border Patrol                                              
   agents.....................  .....  .....     97     97    100    103
  Additional investigators....     97    152    159    165    171    178
  Additional inspectors.......     24     32     34     35     37     39
  Additional DOL employees....     27     29     30     31     33     34
  Detention facilities........    418    187    187    194    198    204
  Barrier improvements........     20  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....
  Additional U.S. Attorneys...     23     46     48     49     51     52
  IDENT expansion.............     87     22     22     22     22     22
  Deportation costs...........     10  .....  .....  .....  .....  .....
  Pilot programs..............      2      3      2      2      2  .....
  Pay raise for immigration                                             
   judges.....................      1      1      1      1      1      1
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total...................    709    472    580    596    615    633
Estimated Outlays.............    286    467    663    580    600    621
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      revenues and direct spending

       S. 269 would have a variety of effects on direct spending 
     and receipts. The most significant effects would stem from 
     new restrictions on payment of federal benefits to aliens, in 
     Title II of the bill. That title would curtail the 
     eligibility of non-legal aliens, including those permanently 
     residing under color of law (PRUCOL), in the narrow instances 
     where they are now eligible for federal benefits. It would 
     require that all federal means-tested programs weigh 
     sponsors' income (a practice known as deeming) for a minimum 
     of 5 years after entry when gauging an immigrant's 
     eligibility for benefits, and would require an even longer 
     deeming period--lasting 10 years or more after arrival--for 
     future entrants. It would make sponsors' affidavits of 
     support legally enforceable. These provisions would save 
     money in federal benefit programs. Partly offsetting those 
     savings, the bill proposes one major change that could add to 
     federal costs--a provision that is apparently intended to 
     require the federal government to pay the full cost of 
     emergency Medicaid services for illegal aliens. However, 
     ambiguities in the drafting of that provision prevent CBO 
     from estimating its effect. Although the provisions affecting 
     benefit programs dominate the direct spending implications of 
     S. 269, other provisions scattered throughout Titles I and 
     II would have small effects on collections of fines and 
     penalties and on the receipts of federal retirement funds.
       Fines. The imposition of new and enhanced civil and 
     criminal fines in S. 269 could cause governmental receipts to 
     increase, but CBO estimates that any such increase would be 
     less than $500,000 annually. Civil fines would be deposited 
     into the general fund of the Treasury. Criminal fines would 
     be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and would be spent in 
     the following year. Thus, direct spending from the fund would 
     match the increase in revenues with a one-year lag.
       Forfeiture. New forfeiture provisions in S. 269 could lead 
     to more assets seized and forfeited to the United States, but 
     CBO estimates that any such increase would be less than 
     $500,000 annually in value. Proceeds from the sale of any 
     such assets would be deposited as revenues into the Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund of the Department of Justice and spent out of 
     that fund in the same year. Thus, direct spending from the 
     Assets Forfeiture Fund would match any increase in revenues.
       Supplemental Security Income. The SSI program pays benefits 
     to low-income people with few assets who are aged 65 or older 
     or disabled. According to tabulations by the Congressional 
     Research Service (CRS), the SSI program for the aged is the 
     major benefit program with the sharpest contrast in 
     participation between noncitizens and citizens. CRS reported 
     that nearly one-quarter of aliens over the age of 65 receive 
     SSI, versus about 4 percent of citizens. The Social Security 
     Administration states that about 700,000 legal aliens collect 
     SSI (although some unknown fraction of those ``aliens'' are 
     really naturalized citizens, whose change in status is not 
     reflected in program records). About three-quarters of alien 
     SSI recipients are immigrants legally admitted for permanent 
     residence, who must serve out a waiting period during which 
     their sponsor's income is ``deemed'' to them before they can 
     go on the program. That waiting period was lengthened to 5 
     years in 1994 but is slated to return to 3 years in October 
     1996. The other one-quarter of alien recipients of SSI are 
     refugees, asyelees, and PRUCOLs.
       S. 269 would prevent the deeming period from returning to 3 
     years in October 1996. Instead, the deeming period would 
     remain at 5 years (for aliens who entered the country before 
     enactment) and would be lengthened to 10 years or more for 
     aliens who enter after the date of enactment. Specifically, 
     for a future entrant, deeming in all federal means-tested 
     programs would last until the alien had worked for 40 
     quarters in Social Security-covered employment--a condition 
     that elderly immigrants, in particular, would be unlikely 
     ever to meet. By requiring that all income of the sponsor 
     and spouse be deemed ``notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law,'' S. 269 would also nullify the exemption in 
     current law that waives deeming when the Social Security 
     Administration (SSA) determines that the alien applicant 
     became disabled after he or she entered the United States.
       Data from SSA records show very clearly that many aged 
     aliens apply for SSI as soon as their deeming period is over, 
     though such a pattern is much less apparent among younger 
     aliens seeking benefits on the basis of disability. CBO 
     estimates that lengthening the deeming period from 3 years to 
     5 years (or longer), and striking the exemption from deeming 
     for aliens who became disabled after arrival, would save 
     about $0.1 billion in 1996, and $0.3 billion to $0.4 billion 
     a year in 1997 through 2002. Nearly two-thirds of the savings 
     would come from the aged, and the rest from the disabled.
       S. 269 would also eliminate eligibility for SSI benefits of 
     aliens permanently residing under color of law (PRUCOLs). 
     That label covers such disparate groups as parolees, aliens 
     who are granted a stay of deportation, and others with 
     various legal statuses. PRUCOLs currently make up about 5 
     percent of aliens on the SSI rolls. CBO assumes that some 
     would successfully seek to have their classification changed 
     to another category (such as refugee or asylee) that would 
     protect their SSI benefits. The remainder, though, would be 
     barred from the program, generating savings of about $0.5 
     billion over 7 years.
       Food Stamps. The estimated savings in the Food Stamp 
     program--$0.2 billion over 7 years--are considerably smaller 
     than those in SSI but likewise stem from the deeming 
     provisions of S. 269. The Food Stamp program imposes a 3-year 
     deeming period. Therefore, lengthening the deeming period (to 
     5 years for aliens already here and longer for future 
     entrants) would save money in food stamps. S. 269 contains a 
     narrow exemption from deeming for aliens judged to be at 
     immediate risk of homelessness or hunger. Because the Food 
     Stamp program already denies benefits to most PRUCOLs, no 
     savings are estimated from that source.
       Family Support. The provisions that would generate savings 
     in SSI and food stamps would also lead to small savings in 
     the AFDC program. The AFDC program already deems income from 
     sponsors to aliens for 3 years after the alien's arrival. S. 
     269 would lengthen that period to at least 5 years (longer 
     for future entrants). The $0.1 billion in total savings over 
     the 1997-2002 period would stem overwhelmingly from the 
     lengthening of the deeming period. Savings from ending the 
     eligibility of PRUCOLs are estimated to be just a few 
     million dollars a year.
       Child Nutrition. S. 269 would require that the child 
     nutrition program begin to deem sponsors' income to alien 
     schoolchildren when weighing their eligibility for free or 
     reduced-price lunches. Child nutrition does not employ 
     deeming now. It does, however, take parents' income into 
     account when determining eligibility. CBO therefore assumed 
     that savings in child nutrition would stem mainly from the 
     minority of cases in which a relative other than a parent 
     (say, a grandparent or an aunt) sponsored the child's entry 
     into the United States. CBO assumed that it would take at 
     least two years to craft regulations and implement deeming in 
     school systems nationwide, therefore precluding savings until 
     1999. Savings of about $20 million a year would result once 
     the deeming provision took full effect.
       S. 269 explicitly preserves eligibility for the child 
     nutrition program for illegal alien schoolchildren. CBO 
     assumed, however, that the stepped-up screening that would be 
     required to enforce deeming for legally admitted children 
     would lead some illegal alien children to stop participating 
     in the program, because their parents would fear detection.
       Medicaid. S. 269 would erect several barriers to Medicaid 
     eligibility for recent immigrants and future entrants into 
     this country. In most cases, AFDC or SSI eligibility carries 
     Medicaid eligibility along with it. By restricting aliens' 
     access to those two cash programs, S. 269 would thereby 
     generate Medicaid savings. Medicaid now has no deeming 
     requirement at all; that is, program administrators do not 
     consider a sponsor's income when they gauge the alien's 
     eligibility for benefits. Therefore, it is possible for a 
     sponsored alien to qualify for Medicaid even before he or she 
     has satisfied the SSI waiting period. S. 269 would change 
     that by requiring that every means-tested program weigh the 
     income of a sponsor for at least 5 years after entry. Under 
     current law, PRUCOLs are specifically eligible for Medicaid; 
     S. 269 would make them ineligible.
       To estimate the savings in Medicaid, CBO first estimated 
     the number of aliens who would be barred from the SSI and 
     AFDC programs by other provisions of S. 269, CBO then added 
     another group--dubbed ``noncash beneficiaries'' in Medicaid 
     parlance because they participate in neither of the two cash 
     programs. The noncash participants who would be affected by 
     S. 269 essentially fall into two groups. One is the group of 
     elderly (and, less importantly, disabled) aliens with 
     financial sponsors who, under current law, seek Medicaid even 
     before they satisfy the 3-year wait for SSI; the second is 
     poor children and pregnant women who could, under current 
     law, qualify for Medicaid even if they do not get AFDC. 
     CBO multiplied the estimated number of aliens affected 
     times an average Medicaid cost appropriate for their 
     group. That average cost is significantly higher for an 
     aged or disabled person than for a younger mother or 
     child. In selecting an average cost, CBO took into account 
     the fact that relatively few aged or disabled aliens 
     receive expensive long-term care in Medicaid-covered 
     institutions, but that on the other hand, few are eligible 
     for Medicare. The resulting estimate of Medicaid savings 
     was then trimmed by 25 percent to reflect the fact that--
     if the aliens in question were barred from regular 
     Medicaid--the federal government would likely end up 
     paying more in reimbursements for emergency care and for 
     uncompensated care. The resulting savings in Medicaid 
     would

[[Page S3293]]

     climb from $0.1 billion in 1997 to about $0.6 billion a 
     year in 2000 through 2002, totaling $2.7 billion over the 
     1996--2002 period.
       One of the few benefits for which illegal aliens now 
     qualify is emergency Medicaid, under section 1903(v) of the 
     Social Security Act. Section 212 of S. 269 is apparently 
     intended to make the federal government responsible for the 
     entire cost of emergency medical care for illegal aliens, 
     instead of splitting the cost with states as under the 
     current matching requirements of Medicaid. However, the 
     drafting of the provision leaves several legal and practical 
     issues dangling. S. 269 would not repeal the current 
     provision in section 1903(v). It would apparently establish a 
     separate program to pay for emergency medical care. Although 
     it stipulates that funding must be set in advance in 
     appropriation acts, it also provides that states and 
     localities would therefore have an open-ended right to 
     reimbursement, notwithstanding the ceiling implied in an 
     appropriation act.
       S. 269 orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (HHS), in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop 
     rules for reimbursement. Emergency patients often show up 
     with no insurance and little other identification; therefore, 
     if HHS drafted stringent rules for verification, it is 
     possible that very few providers could collect the 
     reimbursement. On the other hand, if HHS required only 
     minimal identification, providers would have an incentive to 
     classify as many patients as possible in this category 
     because that would maximize their federal reimbursement. S. 
     269 does not state whether reimbursement would be subject to 
     the usual limits on allowable charges in Medicaid, or whether 
     providers could bill the federal government for their full 
     cost. Nor is it clear whether the program would use the same 
     definition of emergency care as in Medicaid law.
       Although the budgetary effects of Section 212 cannot be 
     estimated, some idea of its potential costs can be gained by 
     looking at analogous proposals for the Medicaid program. CBO 
     estimates that modifying Medicaid to reimburse states and 
     localities for the full cost of emergency care for illegal 
     aliens would cost approximately $1.5 billion to $3 billion 
     per year. That estimate assumes that Medicaid would continue 
     to use its current definition of emergency care and its 
     current schedule of charges. It also assumes that states 
     would seek to classify more aliens and more services in this 
     category, in order to collect the greatest reimbursement.
       Similarly, section 201 of the bill is meant to qualify 
     certain mothers who are illegal aliens for pre- and post-
     partum care under the Medicaid program. In general, poor 
     women who are citizens or legal immigrants can now get such 
     care through Medicaid, but illegal aliens cannot. Although 
     the bill would authorize $120 million a year for such care, 
     the new benefit would in fact be open-ended because of the 
     entitlement nature of the Medicaid program. CBO does not have 
     enough information to estimate the provision's cost, which 
     would depend critically on the type of documentation demanded 
     by the Secretary of HHS to prove that the mothers met the 
     requirement of 3 years of continuous residence.
       Earned Income Tax Credit. S. 269 would deny eligibility for 
     the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to workers who are not 
     authorized to be employed in the United States. In practice, 
     that provision would work by requiring valid Social Security 
     numbers to be filed for the primary and secondary taxpayers 
     on returns that claim the EITC. A similar provision was 
     contained in President Clinton's 1996 budget proposal and in 
     last fall's reconciliation bill. The Joint Committee on 
     Taxation estimates that the provision would reduce the 
     deficit by approximately $0.2 billion a year.
       Other programs. Entitlement or direct spending programs 
     other than those already listed are estimated to incur 
     negligible costs or savings over the 1997-2002 period as a 
     consequence of S. 269. The foster care program does not 
     appear on any list of exemptions in S. 269; but since the 
     program does not employ deeming now, and since it is unclear 
     how deeming could be made to work in that program (for 
     example, whether it would apply to foster care children or 
     parents), CBO estimates no savings. CBO estimates that the 
     bill would not lead to any significant savings in the student 
     loan program. The Title XX social services program, and 
     entitlement program for the states, is funded at a fixed 
     dollar amount set by the Congress; the eligibility or 
     ineligibility of aliens for services would not have any 
     direct effect on those dollar amounts.
       S. 269 would have a small effect on the net outlays of 
     Federal retirement programs. Section 196 of the bill would 
     permit certain civilian and military retirees to collect 
     their full pensions in addition to their salary if they are 
     reemployed by the Department of Justice to help tackle a 
     backlog of asylum applications. CBO estimates that about 100 
     annuitants would be affected, and that net outlays would 
     increase by $1 million to $2 million a year in 1997 through 
     1999.
       CBO judges that S. 269 would not lead to any savings in 
     Social Security, unemployment insurance, or other federal 
     benefits that are based on earning. S. 269 would deny 
     benefits if the alien was not legally authorized to work in 
     the United States. Since 1972, however, the law has ordered 
     the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security 
     numbers (SSNs) only to citizens and to aliens legally 
     authorized to work here. A narrow exception is ``nonwork'' 
     SSNs, granted for purposes such as enabling aliens to file 
     income taxes. Since all work performed by aliens who received 
     SSNs after 1972 is presumed to be legal, and since verifying 
     the work authorization of people who received SSNs before 
     1972 is an insuperable task, CBO estimates no savings in 
     these earnings-related benefits.
       7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. Because several 
     sections of this bill would affect receipts and direct 
     spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. These effects 
     are summarized in the following table.

                [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays......................          0       -450       -927
Change in receipts.....................          0         14        13 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Estimates do not include potential costs of establishing a       
  program to reimburse state and local governments for the full cost of 
  providing emergency medical care to illegal aliens. These costs could 
  amount to as much as $1.5 billion to $3 billion a year.               

       8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
     governments: See the enclosed intergovernmental mandates 
     statement.
       9. Estimated impact on the private sector: See the enclosed 
     private sector mandates statement.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: On March 4, 1996, CBO provided 
     an estimate of H.R. 2202, an immigration reform bill reported 
     by the House Committee on the Judiciary. (The bill was 
     subsequently passed by the House, with amendments.) That bill 
     had many provisions in common with S. 269. However, the 
     deeming restrictions proposed in H.R. 2202 applied 
     exclusively to future entrants; aliens who entered before the 
     enactment date would not have been affected. Therefore, S. 
     269--which would apply deeming to aliens who entered in the 
     last 5 years as well as to future entrants--would result in 
     larger savings in many benefit programs. Also, projected 
     discretionary spending under S. 269 would be less than under 
     H.R. 2202.
       In 1995, CBO prepared many estimates of welfare reform 
     proposals that would have curtailed the eligibility of legal 
     aliens for public assistance. Examples include the budget 
     reconciliation bill (H.R. 2491) and the welfare reform bill 
     (H.R. 4), both of which were vetoed.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Mark Grabowicz, Wayne Boyington, 
     Sheila Dacey, Dorothy Rosenbaum, Robin Rudowitz, Kathy 
     Ruffing, and Stephanie Weiner.
       12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

    Congressional Budget Office Estimate of Costs of Private Sector 
                                Mandates

       1. Bill number: S. 269.
       2. Bill title: Immigration Control and Financial 
     Responsibility Act of 1996.
       3. Bill status: As reported, by the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary on April 10, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 269 would make changes and additions to 
     federal laws relating to immigration.
       5. Private sector mandates contained in the bill: Several 
     provisions of the bill would impose new requirements on the 
     private sector. In general, the private sector mandates in S. 
     269 lie in three areas: (1) provisions that affect the 
     transportation industry, (2) provisions that affect aliens 
     within the borders of the United States, and (3) provisions 
     that affect individuals who sponsor aliens and execute 
     affidavits of support. The estimated impacts of these 
     mandates do not include any costs imposed on individuals not 
     within the borders of the United States.
       6. Estimated direct cost to the private sector: CBO 
     estimates that the direct costs of private sector mandates 
     identified in S. 269 would be less than $100 million annually 
     through 1999, but would rise to over $100 million in 2000 and 
     $300 million in 2001. In 2002 and thereafter, the direct 
     costs would exceed $600 million annually. The large majority 
     of those costs would be imposed on sponsors of aliens who 
     execute affidavits of support, such costs are now borne by 
     the federal government and state and local governments for 
     the provision of benefits under public assistance programs. 
     Assuming enactment of S. 260 this summer, CBO expects that 
     the mandates in the bill would be effective beginning in 
     fiscal year 1997.
     Basis of estimate
       Title I, subtitle A--Law enforcement
       Section 151 would impose new mandates on the transportation 
     industry--in particular, those carriers arriving in the U.S. 
     from overseas. Agents that transport stowaways to the U.S., 
     even unknowingly, would be responsible for detaining them and 
     for the costs associated with their removal. This mandate is 
     not expected to impose large costs on the transportation 
     industry. Over the last two years a total of only about 2000 
     stowaways have been detained.
       Section 154 would require aliens who seek to become 
     permanent residents to show documented proof that they have 
     been immunized against a list of diseases classified as 
     ``vaccine-preventable'' by the Advisory Committee on 
     Immunization Practices. That requirement would impose costs 
     on aliens who were not immunized previously or were unable to 
     document that they had been immunized. Some of the costs 
     might be paid for by state and local governments through 
     public clinics. The total cost of the mandate to

[[Page S3294]]

     aliens residing in the United States would be expected to be 
     less than $40 million a year.
       Section 155 would impose two new requirements on aliens in 
     the U.S. who seek to adjust their status to permanent 
     resident for the purpose of working as nonphysician health 
     care workers. First, those aliens would be required to 
     present a certificate from the Commission on Graduates of 
     Foreign Nursing Schools (or an equivalent body) that verifies 
     that the alien's education, training, license, and experience 
     meet standards comparable to those required for domestically 
     trained health care workers employed in the same occupation. 
     Second, those aliens would be required to attain a certain 
     score on a standardized test of oral and written English 
     language proficiency.
       The aggregate direct costs of complying with the new 
     requirements imposed on nonphysician health care workers 
     would depend on several factors: the number of aliens that 
     attempt to adjust their status to permanent resident for the 
     purpose of becoming a nonphysician health care worker; the 
     costs of obtaining proof of certification and of taking an 
     English language test; and the cost of conforming to the 
     higher standard for those not initially qualified who would 
     attempt to do so. At this point CBO does not have 
     quantitative information on these factors but we do not 
     believe that the aggregate direct costs of these mandates 
     would be substantial. Nevertheless, for certain individuals 
     the cost of meeting these requirements would be large.
       Title II--Financial responsibility
       Title II would impose new requirements on citizens and 
     permanent residents who execute affidavits of support for 
     legal immigrants. At present, immigrants who are expected 
     to become public charges must obtain a financial sponsor 
     who signs an affidavit of support. A portion of the 
     sponsor's income is then ``deemed'' to the immigrant for 
     use in the means-test for several federal welfare 
     programs. Affidavits of support, however, are not legally 
     binding documents. S. 269 would make affidavits of support 
     legally binding, expand the responsibilities of financial 
     sponsors, and place an enforceable duty on sponsors to 
     reimburse the federal government or states for benefits 
     provided in certain circumstances.
       Supporting aliens to prevent them from becoming public 
     charges would impose considerable costs on sponsors, who are 
     included in the private sector under the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act of 1995. CBO estimates that sponsors of immigrants 
     would face over $20 million in additional costs in 1997. 
     Costs would grow quickly, however. Over the period from 1998 
     to 2001, assuming that affidavits of support would be 
     enforced, the costs to sponsors of immigrants would exceed 
     $100 million annually and would total about $500 million 
     during the first five years that the mandate would be 
     effective.
       Other provisions
       Several other provisions in S. 269 would impose new 
     mandates on citizens and aliens but would result in little or 
     no monetary cost. For example, Title II contains a new 
     mandate that would require sponsors to notify the federal and 
     state governments of any change of address. CBO estimates 
     that the direct cost of these provisions would be minimal.
       Section 116 of Title I would change the acceptable 
     employment-verification documents and authorize the Attorney 
     General to require individuals to provide their Social 
     Security number on employment forms attesting that the 
     individual is not an unauthorized alien. CBO estimates that 
     the direct costs of complying with that requirement would 
     also be minimal.
       Section 181 of Title I would add categories of aliens who 
     would not be permitted to adjust from non-immigrant to 
     immigrant status. Any alien not in a lawful immigrant status 
     would not be allowed to become an employment-based immigrant. 
     Also, aliens who were employed while an unauthorized alien, 
     or who had otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant 
     visa, would not be allowed to become an immigrant. Although 
     these provisions would have significant impacts on certain 
     members of the private sector, there would be no direct costs 
     as defined by P.L. 104-4.
       7. Previous CBO estimate: On March 13, 1996, CBO prepared a 
     private sector mandate statement on H.R. 2202, the 
     Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, which was 
     ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
     October 24, 1995.
       8. Estimate prepared by: Daniel Mont and Matt Eyles.
       9. Estimate approved by: Joseph R. Antos, Assistant 
     Director for Health and Human Resources.

    Congressional Budget Office Estimated Cost of Intergovernmental 
                                Mandates

       1. Bill Number: S. 269.
       2. Bill title: Immigration Control and Financial 
     Responsibility Act of 1996.
       3. Bill Status: As reported by the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary on April 10, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: S. 269 would make many changes and 
     additions to federal laws relating to immigration. The bill 
     would also require changes to the administration of state and 
     local transportation, public health, and public assistance 
     programs. Demonstration projects for verifying immigration 
     status and for determining benefit eligibility would be 
     conducted in a number of states, pursuant to agreements 
     between those states and the Attorney General. Section 118 
     would require state and local governments to adhere to 
     certain standards in the production of birth certificates, 
     driver's licenses, and identification documents. Sections 201 
     and 203 would limit the eligibility of many aliens for public 
     assistance and other benefits. In addition, Title II would 
     authorize state and local governments to implement measures 
     to minimize or recoup costs associated with providing certain 
     benefits to legal and non-legal aliens.
       5. Intergovernmental mandates contained in bill:
       State and local governments that issue birth certificates 
     would be required to use safety paper that is tamper- and 
     counterfeit-resistant, comply with new regulations 
     established by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     (HHS), and prominently note on a copy of a birth certificate 
     if the person is known to be deceased.
       State agencies issuing driver's licenses or identification 
     documents would be required either to print Social Security 
     numbers on these items or collect and verify the number 
     before issuance. They would also be required to comply with 
     new regulations to be established by the Department of 
     Transportation (DOT).
       State employment security agencies would be required to 
     verify employment eligibility and complete attestations to 
     that effect prior to referring an individual to prospective 
     employers.
       State and local agencies administering public assistance 
     and regulatory programs would be required to:
       Deny eligibility in most state and local means-tested 
     benefit programs to non-legal aliens, including those 
     ``permanently residing under color of law'' (PRUCOL). 
     (PRUCOLS are aliens whose status is usually transitional or 
     involves an indefinite stay of deportation);
       Weigh sponsors' income (a practice known as deeming) for 5 
     years or longer after entry when gauging a legal alien's 
     eligibility for benefits in some large federal means-tested 
     entitlement programs;
       Request reimbursement from sponsors via certified mail and 
     in compliance with Social Security Administration regulations 
     if notified that a sponsored alien has received benefits from 
     a means-tested program;
       Notify, either individually or publicly, all ineligible 
     aliens who are receiving benefits or assistance that their 
     eligibility is to be terminated; and
       Deny non-legal aliens and PRUCOLs the right to receive 
     grants, enter into contracts or loan agreements, or receive 
     or renew professional or commercial licenses.
       State and local governments would be prohibited from 
     imposing any restrictions on the exchange of information 
     between governmental entities or officials and the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regarding the 
     immigration status of individuals.
       6. Estimated direct cost of mandates on State, local, and 
     tribal governments:
       (a) Is the $50 Million Threshold Exceeded? Yes.
       (b) Total Direct Costs of Mandates: CBO estimates that 
     these mandates would impose direct cost on state, local, and 
     tribal governments totaling between $80 million and $200 
     million in fiscal year 1998. In the four subsequent years, 
     mandate costs would total less than $2 million annually. 
     State, local, and tribal governments could face additional 
     costs associated with the deeming requirements in each of the 
     5 years following enactment of the bill; however, CBO cannot 
     quantify such costs at this time.
       S. 269 also includes a number of provisions that, while not 
     mandates, would result in significant net savings to state, 
     local, and tribal governments. CBO estimates these savings 
     could total several billion dollars over the next five years.
       (c) Estimate of Necessary Budget Authority: Not applicable.
       7. Basis of estimate: Of the mandates listed above, the 
     requirements governing birth certificates and driver's 
     licenses would impose the most significant direct costs. The 
     bill would require issuers of birth certificates to use a 
     certain quality safety paper when providing copies to 
     individuals if those copies are to be acceptable for use at 
     any federal office or state agency that issues driver 
     licenses or identification documents. While many state 
     issuers are adequate quality safety paper, many local clerk 
     and registrar offices do not. The bill also requires states 
     either to collect Social Security numbers from driver's 
     license applicants or to print the number on the driver's 
     license card. While a significant number of states currently 
     use Social Security numbers as the driver's license number, 
     the most populous states neither print the number on the card 
     nor collect if for reference purposes.
       For the purposes of preparing this estimate, CBO contacted 
     state and local governments, public interest groups 
     representing these governments, and a number of officials 
     from professional associations. Because of the variation in 
     the way state and local governments issue birth certificates, 
     we contacted clerks and registrars in eleven states in an 
     effort to assess the impact of the birth certificate 
     provisions. To estimate the cost of the driver's license 
     requirements, we contacted over twenty state government 
     transportation officials. Most state and local governments 
     charge fees for issuing driver's licenses and copies of birth 
     certificates. Those governments may choose to use revenues 
     from these fees to pay for the expenses associated with the 
     mandates. Under Public Law

[[Page S3295]]

     104-4, however, these revenues are considered a means of 
     financing and as such cannot be counted against the 
     mandate costs of S.269.
     Mandates with significant costs
       Birth Certificates. Based on information from state 
     registrars of vital statistics, CBO estimates that 60 percent 
     of the approximately 18 million certified copies of birth 
     certificates issued each year in the United States are 
     printed on plain bond paper or low quality safety paper. CBO 
     assumed that state and local issuing agencies needing to 
     upgrade the quality of the paper would spend, on average, 
     about $0.10 per certificate. In addition, CBO expects the 
     bill would induce some individuals holding copies of birth 
     certificates that do not conform to the required standards to 
     request new birth certificates when they would not have 
     otherwise done so. CBO estimated that issuing agencies across 
     the country would experience a 20 percent increase in 
     requests for copies of birth certificates for at least five 
     years. On this basis, CBO estimates that the birth 
     certificate provisions in the bill would impose direct 
     printing and personnel costs on state and local governments 
     totaling at least $2 million per year in each of the five 
     years following the effective date of the provision. In 
     addition, some state and local governments would have to 
     replace or modify equipment in order to respond to the new 
     requirements. CBO estimates these one-time costs would not 
     exceed $5 million.
       Driver's Licenses. Less than half of the states include 
     Social Security numbers on all driver's licenses or perform 
     some type of verification with the Social Security 
     Administration. In fact, the states with the highest 
     populations tend to be the states that do not have these 
     requirements, and some state laws prohibit the collection of 
     Social Security numbers for identification and driver's 
     license purposes. CBO estimates that of the 185 million 
     driver's licenses and identification cards in circulation, 
     less than 40 percent would be in compliance with the 
     requirements of S. 269. Any driver's license or 
     identification card that does not comply with those 
     requirements would be invalid for any evidentiary purpose.
       Given the common use of these documents as legal 
     identifiers, CBO assumed that at least half of those 
     individuals who currently have driver's licenses or 
     identification cards that do not meet the requirements of S. 
     269 would seek early renewals. CBO assumed that states would 
     face additional printing costs of between $0.75 and $1.20 per 
     document, increased administrative costs resulting from the 
     influx of renewals, and, for some states, one time system 
     conversion costs. We estimate that direct costs, assuming a 
     limited number of additional renewal requests, would total 
     $80 million in the first year. If more people sought early 
     renewals, total costs could easily approach $200 million in 
     the first year.
       The driver's license provisions in the bill would be 
     effective immediately upon enactment. Because of the 
     significant processing and administrative changes that states 
     would face under these requirements, CBO has assumed that 
     states would establish procedures for compliance in the year 
     following enactment. Consequently, the additional 
     expenditures resulting from reissuing licenses and 
     identification cards would occur in 1998.
       Provision of Public Assistance to Aliens. It is possible 
     that the administrative costs associated with applying 
     deeming requirements to some federal means-tested entitlement 
     programs would be considered mandate costs as defined in 
     Public Law 104-4. In entitlement programs larger than $500 
     million per year, an increase in the stringency of federal 
     conditions is considered a mandate only if states or 
     localities lack the authority to modify their programs to 
     accommodate the new requirements and still provide required 
     services. In some programs--such as Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps--some states may 
     lack such authority and any new requirements would thus 
     constitute a mandate. Given the scope and complexity of the 
     affected programs, however, CBO has not been able to estimate 
     either the likelihood or magnitude of such costs at this 
     time. These costs could be significant, depending on how 
     strictly the deeming requirements are enforced by the federal 
     government. Any additional costs, however, would be offset at 
     least partially by reduced caseloads in some programs.
     Mandates with no significant costs
       Many of the mandates in S. 269 would not result in 
     measurable budgetary impacts on state, local, or tribal 
     governments. In some cases--eligibility restrictions based on 
     non-legal status and death notations on birth certificates--
     the bill's requirements simply restate current law or 
     practice for many of the jurisdictions with large populations 
     and would thus result in little costs or savings. In others--
     sponsor reimbursement requests and preemption of laws 
     restricting the flow of information to and from the INS--the 
     provisions would result in minor administrative costs for 
     some state and local governments, but even in aggregate, CBO 
     estimates these amounts would be insignificant.
       The provision requiring agencies to notify certain aliens 
     that their eligibility for benefits has been terminated would 
     impose direct costs on state and local governments. CBO 
     estimates such costs would be offset by savings from caseload 
     reduction resulting from the notifications. Another 
     provision--state job service verification of employment 
     eligibility--may result in significant administrative costs; 
     however, those costs are funded through federal 
     appropriations.
       8. Appropriation or other Federal financial assistance 
     provided in bill to cover mandate costs: None.
       9. Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments: 
     S. 269 contains many additional provisions that, while not 
     mandates or changes to existing mandates, could have 
     significant impacts on the budgets of state and local 
     governments. On balance, CBO expects that the provisions 
     discussed in this section would result in an overall net 
     savings to state and local governments.
     Means-tested Federal programs
       S. 269 would result in significant savings to state and 
     local governments by reducing the number of legal aliens 
     receiving means-tested benefits through federal programs, 
     including Medicaid, AFDC, and Supplemental Security Income 
     (SSI). These federal programs are administered by state or 
     local governments and have matching requirements for 
     participation. Thus, reductions in caseloads would reduce 
     state and local, as well as federal, outlays in these 
     programs. CBO estimates that the savings to state and local 
     governments would exceed $2 billion over the next five years. 
     These are significant and real savings, but in general, the 
     state and local impacts of these federal programs are not 
     defined as mandates under Public Law 104-4.
       S. 269 would reduce caseloads in means-tested federal 
     programs primarily by placing stricter eligibility 
     requirements on both recent and future legal entrants. The 
     bill would lengthen the time sponsored aliens must wait 
     before they can go on AFDC or SSI, and, most notably, apply 
     such a waiting period to the Medicaid program. S. 269 would 
     also deny many means-tested benefits to PRUCOLs. Illegal 
     aliens are currently ineligible for most federal assistance 
     programs and would remain so under the proposed law.
     Means-tested State and local programs
       It is likely that some aliens displaced from federal 
     assistance programs would turn to assistance programs funded 
     by state and local governments, thereby increasing the costs 
     of these programs. While several provisions in the bill could 
     mitigate these costs--strengthening affidavits of support by 
     sponsors, allowing the recovery of costs from sponsors, and 
     authorizing agencies to deem in state and local means-tested 
     programs--CBO expects that such tools would be used only in 
     limited circumstances in the near future. At some point, 
     state and, particularly, local governments become the 
     providers of last resort, and as such, we anticipate that 
     they would face added financial pressures on their public 
     assistance programs that would at least partially offset the 
     savings they realize from the federal programs. Because 
     these state and local programs are voluntary activities of 
     those governments, increases in the costs of these 
     programs are not mandate costs.
     Medicaid
       Emergency Medical Services. Section 212 of S. 269 is 
     apparently intended to offer state and local governments full 
     reimbursement for the costs of providing emergency medical 
     services to non-legal aliens and PRUCOLs on the condition 
     that they follow verification procedures to be established by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General and state and local 
     officials. Existing law requires that state and local 
     governments provide these services and, under current 
     matching requirements, pay approximately half of the costs. 
     Ambiguities in the drafting of the provision prevent CBO from 
     estimating its effect.
       While no reliable totals are available of the amounts 
     currently spent to provide the services, areas with large 
     alien populations claim that this requirement results in a 
     substantial drain on their budgets. For example, California, 
     with almost half the country's illegal alien population, 
     estimates it spends over $350 million each year on these 
     federally mandated services. Although CBO cannot estimate the 
     effects of Section 212 on state and local governments, some 
     idea of its potential effects can be gained by looking at 
     analogous proposals for the Medicaid program. CBO estimates 
     that modifying Medicaid to reimburse states and localities 
     for the full cost of emergency care for illegal aliens would 
     increase federal Medicaid payments to states by $1.5 billion 
     to $3 billion per year.
       Pre- and Post--Partum Care. The bill would allow certain 
     mothers who are non-legal aliens to qualify for pre- and 
     post-partum care under the Medicaid program. CBO does not 
     have enough information to estimate the potential budget 
     impacts to state and local governments of this provision. 
     Such impacts would depend critically on the type of 
     documentation demanded by the Secretary of HHS to prove that 
     the mothers met the requirement of 3 years of continuous 
     residence in the United States.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: On March 13, 1996, CBO prepared 
     an intergovernmental mandates statement on H.R. 2202, an 
     immigration reform bill reported by the House Committee on 
     the Judiciary. (The bill was subsequently passed by the 
     House, with amendments.) That bill had many provisions in 
     common with S. 269. H.R. 2202 did not, however, include any 
     of the requirements relating to driver's licenses, 
     identification documents, or birth certificates that appear 
     in S. 269. In addition, the deeming restrictions in H.R. 2202 
     applied exclusively to future entrants; aliens who entered 
     before the enactment date would not have been affected. 
     Therefore, S. 269--which would apply deeming to aliens who 
     entered in the last five

[[Page S3296]]

     years as well as to future entrants--would produce larger net 
     savings in many benefit programs.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Leo Lex and Karen McVey.
       12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first state that I want to 
congratulate my colleague from Wyoming, as well as my colleague from 
Massachusetts, for not just the work they have done on this bill, but, 
frankly, for the work they have done over the years on this very tough, 
very contentious, very difficult, but very important issue of 
immigration.
  I have heard my colleague from Wyoming say on several occasions, as 
we have debated this bill in committee, that this is not really a bill 
or an issue that anyone gets a lot out of politically, and certainly 
not someone from the State of Wyoming. I certainly concur in that and 
understand that. I want to congratulate him for really doing the tough 
work of the U.S. Senate--work that began in the 1980's with the 
previous bill and continues on today. It is work that is many times not 
rewarded politically, certainly not appreciated many times, and is many 
times very controversial. I congratulate him for that.
  This has been a contentious bill. We have had contentious debate in 
committee. The Senator from Wyoming and I have agreed on some issues 
and disagreed on other issues. I imagine that agreement and 
disagreement is probably going to continue on the floor today, 
tomorrow, and maybe for the rest of the week. Let me state that I do 
appreciate very much his tremendous work, as well as the work of 
Senator Kennedy and, frankly, the work of all of the members of the 
subcommittee, some of whom have been involved in this task now for well 
over a decade.
  Mr. President, we are here on the floor today to discuss a 
fundamental issue, a fundamental issue affecting the future of our 
country. Unlike most bills that come before Congress, this immigration 
bill really gets to the question of our national identity. Unlike most 
bills, this bill really speaks to who we are as a people, who we are as 
a nation. Quite frankly, also unlike most bills we deal with, the 
impact of this bill is going to be felt in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 
20 years, and 30 years, because when you make a determination of who 
comes into this country and who does not come into this country, the 
consequences are profound, they are everlasting, and we have seen that, 
frankly, throughout the long history of our country.
  Mr. President, in the darkest days of the cold war, back when 
Brezhnev was still ruling what was then known as the Soviet Union, 
Ronald Reagan gave a historic address to the British Parliament. It was 
in that famous speech in June 1982 that President Reagan predicted, 
``The march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on 
the ash heap of history.'' Many of us remember how controversial that 
statement was at the time. Some in this country considered it 
unnecessarily provocative, and thought that it would inflame our 
enemies for really no good purpose. Mr. President, it may have been 
provocative, but it was absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, 
prophetic. It was true. In that speech, Ronald Reagan was trying to 
unify the West. He wanted to unify the forces of freedom for what he 
knew, as others did not, would be the climactic days of the struggle 
against communism.

  In the last resort, what President Reagan appealed to in that speech 
was really our sense of identity, who we were, who we are. This is what 
he said:

       Let us ask ourselves: What kind of a people do we think we 
     are? And let us answer: Free people, worthy of freedom and 
     determined not only to remain so, but to help others gain 
     their freedom, as well.

  Ronald Reagan expressed, better than any political leader of my 
lifetime, a sense of what America really is--``the city on a hill, the 
land, the country of the future.'' When Ronald Reagan was a boy growing 
up in Illinois, he could still find Civil War veterans to talk to. In 
our time, over a century after the death of Abraham Lincoln, Ronald 
Reagan reminded us that America was still the last best hope of Earth. 
We must never, never forget this, Mr. President.
  To turn our backs on this legacy--this legacy of hope, optimism, 
openness to the future--would be more than a mistake in policy. It 
would, I believe, Mr. President, truly be a diminution of who we are as 
a people. That is what I believe this immigration debate is all about. 
It is the same question Ronald Reagan asked to the British Parliament: 
``What kind of people do we think we are?''
  Mr. President, America's immigration policy defines who we are. It 
defines who gets into this country and who does not get in. In the 
process, it says a lot about our national values. Mr. President, we 
have been working on this bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee for a 
number of weeks. I believe we made some progress in revising the bill 
to reflect what I believe are the basic American values. First, the 
committee split the portions of the bill dealing with illegal 
immigration. An amendment was offered by Senator Abraham, myself, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold, and others, to split the bill. The 
committee did, in fact, split the bill. It divided the bill into those 
sections dealing with the treatment of persons who are in the United 
States illegally from those provisions that cover legal immigration. I 
support this split because I believe that the problem of illegal 
immigration is substantially different from the issues raised by our 
legal immigration policy. And, therefore, these two issues, in my 
opinion, should be treated separately. They are distinct. I intend 
later on to say more about this important issue.

  Mr. President, in considering the illegal immigration bill, I voted 
for tough penalties for those who violate our immigration laws, and I 
voted to expedite the deportation of those violators. I am also proud 
to say that I sponsored an amendment to block the imposition of 
unreasonable time limits on persons seeking asylum from repressive and 
often life-threatening foreign regimes. Our amendment sought to restore 
the status quo.
  Today, immigration authorities cannot enter farm property without a 
search warrant. The bill before the committee would have changed that 
and would have allowed them to enter property--to enter a farm--without 
that search warrant. I sponsored an amendment to make sure they did not 
get that evasive new power.
  Further, Mr. President, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators 
Abraham and Feingold that would have removed from the bill a provision 
that establishes a national employment verification system and a 
national standards for birth certificates and driver's licenses. I 
believe that these provisions are unduly intrusive. And, quite frankly, 
I believe they are unworkable. I further believe they would cost 
taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars. Again, Mr. 
President, I intend to say a great deal more about this later on.
  Let me turn to the legal immigration bill. On the legal immigration 
bill, with Senators Abraham and Kennedy, I cosponsored an amendment to 
allow legal immigrants to bring their families to join them here in the 
United States. The bill, as originally written, tried to change the law 
allowing U.S. citizens to bring their families to America. The bill 
would have permitted, as written, U.S. citizens to bring in only their 
spouses, minor children, and in rare cases their parents. Under that 
provision, as the bill was written before the amendment--I bring this 
up because I am sure this issue is going to come back again--a U.S. 
citizen under that provision of the bill as written would have been 
permitted to bring some children in but not others. I believe that is 
bad national policy. It undermines the family structure. And, frankly, 
in the history of civilization there has never been a stronger support 
structure than the family.
  I also supported amendments that would continue to allow universities 
and businesses to bring in the best and the brightest to enrich our 
country. I intend to return to that issue as well later.
  Mr. President, in all of our deliberations in the Judiciary 
Committee, I have stressed one key fact about America--the fact that 
throughout our national history, throughout our history, the effect of 
immigration on this country has been positive. Immigration has helped 
form the basis for our prosperity and our national strength. It has

[[Page S3297]]

made our country and the world a better place.

  I tried to approach these difficult issues keeping in mind that a 
fair, controlled but open immigration policy is in our national 
interest. I believe we have made the first significant steps in this 
bill in the committee, in the amendment process, toward that goal.
  Mr. President, even though we managed to improve the bill in a number 
of ways, I still have some problems with the present bill. In the name 
of protecting our borders, this bill would impose serious burdens on 
law-abiding American citizens, and it would move America away from its 
extremely valuable centuries-old tradition of openness to new people 
and new ideas.
  Let me now go through the bill and lay out some of the particular 
concerns I have about the bill as it is currently before us today.
  First, let me start with the very contentious issue of verification--
the verification of employment. To begin with, the bill would create a 
massive time-consuming and error-prone bureaucracy. As originally 
written, the bill called for a process under which every employer would 
have to contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Social 
Security Administration to verify the citizenship of every prospective 
employee. My colleague from Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot, called this 
1-800-BIG-BROTHER. I think he is right. We did succeed in taking that 
provision out of the bill, or at least taking part of it out of the 
bill. But the long-term plan remains the same. In fact, the bill now 
contains a provision calling for numerous entitlement programs to do 
the very same thing.
  I have had some experience in dealing with this kind of extremely 
large computerized database. My experience is from my time as 
Lieutenant Governor in Ohio when we were dealing with the criminal 
record system database. I contend that what I have learned from trying 
to improve, correct, and refine the criminal database is very 
applicable and very relevant to this whole discussion about our attempt 
to create a database for employees and employers.
  When I was Lieutenant Governor, I was responsible for improving 
Ohio's criminal database so that the police could have ready access to 
a suspect's full criminal record history. When I started on this 
project, I was shocked to discover that in the State of Ohio--these 
figures are true in most States--only about 5 percent of the files, 5 
percent of the computer information you got in a printout when you 
talked about a suspect, it put a suspect's name in and only about 5 
percent of the information was accurate in regard to important facts--5 
percent.
  In criminal records, we are dealing with a database that we all know 
is important, that the people know is important, that we take a great 
deal of care in maintaining, and that is limited to the relatively 
small number of citizens who are actually criminals. In fact, when we 
deal with the criminal record system, we know that literally life and 
death decisions are being made based on the accuracy of that criminal 
record system, and we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to 
bring it up to date, to make it more accurate, and yet we still know 
that it is highly error prone. We still know the accuracy level is 
very, very low.
  Mr. President, I shudder to think what the inaccuracy rate will be in 
a database big enough to include every single citizen and noncitizen 
residing in this country. I shudder to think of what the accuracy or 
the inaccuracy level will be when we are dealing with a database where 
life and death decisions are not actually being made but, rather, where 
employment decisions are being made. The database will be unreliable. 
It would be time consuming, and it would be expensive.
  In fact, the only way to make a database more reliable is frankly to 
make it more intrusive, and that clearly is what will happen. Once the 
pilot projects are running and we determine how inaccurate that 
information is, once the complaints start coming in from prospective 
employees and from employers who are dialing the 1-800 number, or 
putting the information in and we find out how inaccurate that is, 
there will be pressure to change it. And the pressure will be to make 
it, frankly, more intrusive--more information, more accurate. I believe 
that it would clearly lay the groundwork for a national system within 3 
years.
  Let me turn, if I can, Mr. President, to my second concern about this 
bill. That concerns the national standards for birth certificates and 
drivers' licenses. Yes, you have heard me correctly. In this Congress 
where we have talked about returning power to the States, returning 
authority to the States, this bill calls for national, federally 
imposed and federally enforced standards for birth certificates and 
drivers' licenses. Here is what the bill says as written, as it is on 
the floor today.

       Section 118. Improvements in Identification-Related 
     Documents.

  (a) Birth certificates.

       1. Limitation on Acceptance. (A) No Federal agency, 
     including but not limited to the Social Security 
     Administration and the Department of State--

  Listen to this:

       and no State agency that issues driver's licenses or 
     identification documents, may accept for any official purpose 
     a copy of a birth certificate, as defined in subparagraph 
     (5), unless it is issued by a State or local government 
     registrar and it conforms to standards described in 
     subparagraph (B).

  Continuing the quote:

       (B) The standards described in this subparagraph are those 
     set forth in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, after consultation with the 
     Association of Public Health Statistics and Information 
     Systems, and shall include but not be limited to.
       (i) certification by the agency issuing the birth 
     certificate, and.
       (ii) use of safety paper, the seal of the issuing agency, 
     and other features designed to limit tampering, 
     counterfeiting, and use by impostors.

  Mr. President, I am going to talk about this later, but I think it is 
important to pause for a moment and look at what this section does 
because it does in fact tell each State in the country, each local 
jurisdiction what it has to do in regard to issuing birth certificates. 
It in essence says for the 270 million people in this country the birth 
certificate you have is valid; you just cannot use it for anything. It 
is valid, it is OK, but if you want to take a trip and you want to get 
a passport, you have to go back to wherever you were born and have them 
issue a new birth certificate that complies with these national 
standards.
  Think about it. Think about what impact this is going to have on the 
local communities, the cost it is going to have. Think about the 
inconvenience this is going to bring up for every American who uses a 
birth certificate to do practically anything--getting a driver's 
license, for example. And look at the language again. Not just no 
Federal agency may accept for any official purpose a copy of a birth 
certificate unless it fits this requirement but then the language goes 
on further and says no State agency.
  So here we have the Federal Government saying to 50 States, no State 
agency shall be allowed to accept a birth certificate unless it fits 
the standards as prescribed by a bureaucrat in Washington, DC. Tenth 
amendment? Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. There are clear 
constitutional law problems in regard to this. Senator Thompson, who is 
on the committee, raised these issues in the committee and it is clear 
that this section has some very major constitutional law problems.
  Here is in essence what this means. The Federal Government will tell 
every citizen that his or her birth certificate is no longer good 
enough for any of the major purposes for which it is used--not good 
enough for traveling, not good enough for getting married, not good 
enough for going to school, not good enough for getting a driver's 
license. How about constituent problems? We are all going to have to 
hire more caseworkers back in our home States when this goes into 
effect just to answer the phone and listen to people complain about 
this. How many people every year turn 16 and get their driver's 
license? How many people every year want to travel overseas, want to 
get a passport? Try telling them that birth certificate you got stuck 
in the drawer back home you used 5 years ago for something else, ``Yes, 
it is still OK, you cannot use it, you have to go get a new one.'' 
Absolutely unbelievable.
  (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DeWINE. This bill would require every local county to redo its 
entire

[[Page S3298]]

birth certificate system in a new federally mandated format. The 
Federal Government will be telling Greene County, OH, everything to do 
with the certificate right down to what kind of paper to use. And the 
bill goes even further. Not only does it deal with birth certificates, 
it also deals with driver's licenses, and here is what the bill says. 
Let me quote.

       Each State's driver's license and identification document 
     shall be in a form consistent with requirements set forth in 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation.

  It continues.

       Neither the Social Security Administration nor the passport 
     office or any other Federal agency or any State or local 
     government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a 
     State driver's license or identification document in a form 
     other than the form described in paragraph (3).

  That means every State will have to issue federally mandated driver's 
licenses. It is my opinion this whole section of the bill, section 118, 
should be deleted.
  Now, I understand what my friend from Wyoming is trying to accomplish 
here. And it is a laudable goal. I understand what other proponents are 
trying to accomplish. Most States would have no problem I think with an 
attempt to improve their driver's license. In fact, in my home State of 
Ohio we have come up in the last several years with a process that was 
put in place when I was Lieutenant Governor, with a brand new driver's 
license system, so when your license comes up for its normal renewal 
you have what we believe at least is a tamperproof driver's license. I 
understand, and I think most States want to move in that direction, 
most States are in fact moving in that direction, but to mandate this 
from Washington with the tremendous costs, and not just the costs but 
the unbelievable disruption and inconvenience I think is just a serious 
mistake. There is some great irony that this Congress, which has very 
legitimately and correctly been so concerned about turning power back 
to the States, should in this case be saying not only are we not 
turning power back to the States, we are taking power; we are taking a 
basic ministerial function of government, issuing a birth certificate, 
a basic function of State government and county government, local 
government, and saying, ``We are going to tell you how to do it, and if 
you don't do it our way, you can't use that document even for State 
purposes.'' To me that is just wrong. It is taking us in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. President, this Congress has revived this great tradition, 
American tradition of State and local and individual freedom as 
enshrined in the 10th amendment.
  To impose this huge new burden on individuals and on local 
communities will surely violate that principle. In fact, if we can 
think back that far, 15, 16 months ago, one of the first bills passed 
by this Congress was legislation to try to limit unfunded mandates. If 
this provision is not an unfunded mandate, I do not know what is. It is 
going to cost the States a lot of money to comply. And it is going to 
cost taxpayers, both through what it has cost the States, but also 
through what it is going to cost them in getting new birth 
certificates, new drivers' licenses.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, these mandates would 
impose direct costs on States, direct costs on States and local 
communities of between $80 million to $200 million. Those of us who 
used to work at State and local government know that $80 to $200 
million is an awful lot of money. It is real money.
  Finally, leaving decisions regarding what features these documents 
should contain to Federal bureaucrats--and that is what this bill does, 
not to Congress but to Federal bureaucrats--I believe is unwise and 
potentially dangerous. Under the current language of this bill, as we 
consider it today, the Department of Health and Human Services and the 
Department of Transportation could develop standards even more 
intrusive and even more costly than those spelled out in the original 
legislation, because, really, the way the bill is written today, they 
have more freedom, more flexibility--the bureaucrats do.
  I do not believe the setting of standards like these should be left 
to the Federal bureaucracy with nothing more than a requirement that 
they consult with outside groups. The bill does not provide for any 
congressional review of the standards, nor does it impose any limit on 
what HHS and DOT can mandate. The provision is ill-conceived and 
contrary to any reasonable concern for our liberties. I will urge it be 
deleted.
  Let me turn now to another area of concern. That has to do with the 
issue of asylum. The bill, as written, says something to people who 
want to apply for asylum in America, and says it, really, for the first 
time in our history. I want to emphasize this. For the first time in 
our history, this is what we will be saying to people who apply for 
asylum: You must now apply for asylum within a set period of time.
  That may sound reasonable. First of all, it is contrary to what we 
have done previously in the long history of this country. And, I think, 
on closer examination, as we go through this, it will become clear why 
this seemingly innocent provision will inevitably lead to some very, 
very great hardships for some of the most abused people in the world. 
It says that an asylum seeker must apply within 1 year of arriving in 
this country or else get a special exception from some bureaucrat for 
``good cause.'' You get an exception for good cause. What constitutes 
good cause for an exception is, again, up to the Federal bureaucracy to 
define.
  I think this is a terrible solution. It is a solution for a problem 
that does not exist. I will talk about this in a moment. But, if we had 
been on the floor a few years ago, no one could say there was not a 
problem with the processing of asylums, with the number of applications 
for asylum, because there was. But, frankly, changes have been made in 
the system, changes which have corrected the problem. There is not a 
massive influx of asylum seekers into America and there is already a 
reasonable judicial process to determine which applicants are worthy of 
admission. Only about 20 percent of asylum seekers get in, one of five 
gets in anyway, through this normal, regular process. The system, 
frankly, is not broken, and trying to fix it could and would, in my 
opinion, do serious harm to people who are trying to escape oppression, 
torture, and even death in their native lands.
  If you talk, as I have, to people in the asylum community, people who 
deal with these issues and who deal with these people every day, they 
will tell you that some of the most heart-wrenching cases involve 
people who are so emotionally scarred by torture that it takes them 
more than a year to come forward and seek asylum. Under the original 
bill, aliens seeking asylum would have been required to file for such 
asylum within 30 days of arriving in the United States. Along with 
Senators Kennedy, Feingold, Abraham and others, I worked to defeat this 
provision during our work in the committee. We were able to do that and 
to change it and to extend it to 1 year. This 1-year provision still 
causes problems. Let me talk about that.

  First, since the Immigration and Naturalization Service imposed new 
asylum application regulations in late 1994, the flagrant abuses of the 
asylum process have been substantially reduced already.
  Second, it turns out that it is the people most deserving of asylum 
status, those under threat of retaliation, those suffering physical or 
mental disability, especially when abused resulting from torture, who 
would most be hurt by the imposition of any filing deadline.
  The committee did make the change. It made the change to strike the 
30-day provision by a vote of 16 to 1. But I believe we do need to go 
further and we need to restore the bill and the law to the status quo. 
The committee passed an amendment by the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Brown]. Senator Brown's language is currently in the 
bill, and I believe, as I said, it is far better than the original 30-
day limit. But I do remain convinced the arguments that were so simple 
and compelling against the 30-day time limit are equally compelling 
against the provision as it stands now. Let me talk about that.
  First, because the asylum system works, and works pretty well--I do 
not think there is any dispute about that--we simply do not need a time 
limit for

[[Page S3299]]

asylum seekers. As I stated, we acknowledged several years ago the 
asylum system was in fact broken and there were serious problems. Under 
the old system, people could get a work authorization simply by 
applying for asylum. That is what they did, and that was the hole.
  This opportunity became a magnet, even for those who had absolutely 
no realistic claim for asylum. But the INS changed this. When the INS 
changed its rules in late 1994, it stopped automatically awarding work 
permits for those filing for asylum, and it got rid of a great deal of 
the problem. The INS then began to require an adjudication of the 
asylum claim before it awarded work authorizations. It also, at the 
same time, began resolving asylum claims within 180 days.
  The results are significant. According to the INS, in 1994, before 
the new rules were put in place, 123,000 people claimed asylum. In 
1995, after the new rules were established, only 53,000 people even 
applied for asylum. Instantly you went from 123,000 who applied one 
year, the next year down to 53,000; that is a 57 percent decline in 
just 1 year.
  Also, the INS reports it is now completing 84 percent of the new 
cases within 60 days of filing and 98 percent, virtually all new cases, 
within 180 days of filing. Maybe that is why the administration, the 
INS, opposed any time limit on filing. The new system works. It is not 
broken. It does not need to be fixed.
  The new system works, and the new deadlines would--and here I quote 
the INS Commissioner. Here is what she says. The new proposal would 
``divert resources from adjudicating the merits of asylum applications 
to adjudication of the timeliness of filing.'' So what the INS is 
saying is that we fixed this problem, it is working, do not give us 
another mandate. Do not shift us over here, so we have to have separate 
adjudications about the timeliness and then go over and adjudicate the 
merits. Let us proceed the way we are doing today. It is working.
  Point No. 2, why we really should not have this time limit. This, to 
me, is the most compelling, because the facts are the most worthy cases 
for asylum would be excluded if we impose a deadline.
  Among those excluded would be cases of victims of politically 
motivated torture and rape, the very people who need more time to 
apply, the very people who deadlines would hurt the most. These are the 
people who have suffered a great trauma that prevents them from coming 
forward. These are the people who fear that coming forward for asylum 
would threaten their families and friends in their home countries. 
These are the two types of people, Mr. President, for whom time is 
important.
  Time can cure the personal trauma and culture shock that prevents 
them from seeking asylum. Time can allow conditions to change back 
home. A time limit--any time limit--will place these people at risk.
  Let us talk now about some real people.
  One man, whose name is Gabriel, had a father who was chairman of a 
social democratic party in Nigeria. His father was arrested many times. 
His half-brother was executed for opposing the military regime. Gabriel 
participated in a student demonstration. He was arrested and imprisoned 
back home for 8 months. He was tortured by guards who carved the 
initials of the ruling general into his stomach and then sprayed pepper 
on the wounds. They whipped him, and they forced him to drink his own 
urine.
  Gabriel fled to the United States and, understandably, he was 
terrified that if he applied for asylum, he would be sent back to 
Nigeria where he could be murdered. He only applied for asylum after he 
was arrested by the INS, 5 years after coming to America.
  Let me give another example--and the list goes on. Another man was a 
member of his country's government in exile, elected in a democratic 
election that was later annulled. When the military took over his 
country, many of the members of the government were tortured and 
imprisoned. This particular man fled his country and came to the United 
States where he sought the United Nations' help in restoring democracy 
at home. He sought residence in other countries, and he was concerned 
that application for asylum in this country would be used for 
propaganda purposes by the military at his home country.
  Fifteen months after arriving in the United States, he did seek 
asylum. Although he was highly educated, although he was proficient in 
the English language, it took this man over 2 months to file that 
application. He was finally granted asylum in the United States, but to 
this day, he has asked that his name, that his home country and the 
fact that he sought asylum be held in the strictest confidence. He is 
still fearful.
  A third example. Another man was a political dissident against the 
regime in Zaire. He published an article about the slaughter of 
students who had demonstrated against the regime, and that was one of 
the political offenses that ultimately landed this man in jail. In 
prison, the guards beat him, the guards raped him. When he came to the 
United States, he was simply unable to talk about his story. His 
Christian beliefs did not permit him to use the words necessary to 
describe the terrible tortures he had undergone. It was only after many 
meetings with legal representatives that he was finally able to tell 
his story. He finally applied for asylum over a year after entering the 
United States.
  Those are just three examples, Mr. President. There really is 
practically no end to these examples, practically no end to worthy 
cases that would be foreclosed should we decide to apply deadlines. I 
know proponents of a time limit will argue that the bill does contain 
an escape clause, and it does on paper, the good-cause provision. But I 
think it is significant to point out that under this good-cause 
provision, the burden is on the applicant to show good cause. And the 
question of what constitutes good cause is really another problem with 
the bill.
  In the report language, it says good cause ``could include''--note 
that, Mr. President, not ``must'' or ``should'' but ``could'' include--
``circumstances that changed after the applicant entered the United 
States''--I am quoting now--``or physical or mental disability, or 
threats of retribution against the applicant's relatives or other 
extenuating circumstances.''
  The report, as written, would allow the issuance of Federal 
regulations that might exclude the very type of applicants that the 
committee specifically intended to include. I believe that we should 
reject the time limit outright. We are not really talking about mere 
legalisms here. I think what is at stake is a fundamental reassertion 
of a truly basic, bedrock value of America: the opportunity to apply 
for asylum, the opportunity to use this country as a refuge.
  I think it is important to note, as I did a moment ago, that there is 
not a problem. The INS has already taken care of this problem. What 
this bill does is create a problem--not for us, but what it will do is 
create a problem for people who are among the most abused, who have 
suffered the most and who seek freedom in this country.
  I am reminded in this context of another story that President Reagan 
used to tell. He said, ``Some years ago, two friends of mine were 
talking with a Cuban refugee who had escaped from Castro. In the midst 
of the tale of horrible experiences, one friend turned to the other and 
said, `We don't know how lucky we are.' One Cuban stopped and said, 
`How lucky you are? How lucky you are? I have someplace to escape to.' 
''
  At this point, as he told the story, President Reagan looked out at 
America and drew his conclusion, and this is what he said: ``Let's keep 
it that way.''
  Mr. President, let us keep it that way. Let us keep the light on over 
the door of America for some people who very desperately need that 
light, who need that hope.
  Let me turn to another issue, and that is amendments that we may see 
on the floor concerning family. I want to turn now to some other 
provisions in the original bill that we managed to alter and change in 
committee but that may come up on the floor as amendments.
  One of the most important of these issues had to do with the meaning 
of family. The original bill fundamentally changed the definition of a 
nuclear family. The original bill said to U.S. citizens that they could 
continue to bring their children to America but

[[Page S3300]]

only--this is to U.S. citizens now, said to U.S. citizens--they could 
continue to bring their children to America but only if the children 
are under 21, and they could only bring their parents to America if the 
parents are over 65 and the majority of their children live in America.
  The original bill even went so far as to say that if a child was a 
minor but that child was married, that child could not come to this 
country either. You could not bring that minor child to the country if 
he or she decided to get married.
  Mr. President, in a time when everyone agrees that the fundamental 
problem in America is a family breakdown--I do not think anyone on the 
floor disagrees with that--I think it is senseless to change the law to 
help break up families.
  In the committee I kind of related this to my own life and my own 
experience and pretended for a moment with my family situation, if I 
was a new citizen in this country, if I had come from another country 
and was a naturalized citizen. Frankly, Mr. President, in my situation 
I have trouble saying that my 4-year-old daughter Anna--or Anna who is 
going to in 2 days become 4 years old--is a central part of my nuclear 
family, but my 28-year-old son Patrick is not; he is now part of my 
extended family; my 27-year-old daughter, Jill, she is not part of my 
nuclear family anymore, she is part of my extended family. That is what 
the bill had originally said.
  Finally, the bill also originally said--I cannot understand this 
either--that Mike DeWine, as an only child I could bring my parents 
into the country if they are over 65, but my wife Frances DeWine could 
not bring her parents into the country because she is one of six. She, 
as one of six, she could not bring her parents into the country--only 
if a majority of her siblings actually lived in the United States and 
were citizens in the United States. Again, it does not make any sense. 
I think we are going to end up revisiting this issue. I think it is 
going to come back up.
  Mr. President, at a time when Congress has acted to rein in public 
assistance programs, I do not believe we should deprive people the most 
basic support structure there is, their immediate family. It just does 
not make sense. Mr. President, we took these family limitation 
provisions out of the bill in committee. I hope that we will be able to 
sustain this on the floor and we will not change this.
  Let me turn finally to one more issue, that has to do with the 
linkage of this bill. I believe it was a mistake in the original bill 
to combine the issues of legal and illegal immigration. For my 
colleagues watching on TV or on the floor who are not on the committee, 
we separated this in committee. What you have before you are two 
separate, distinct bills. I think it should stay that way because the 
issue of illegal immigration is decidedly distinct from the issue of 
legal immigration.
  I think that the biggest mistake of the original bill was to combine 
the issues of legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are 
lawbreakers. That is the fact. Frankly, Mr. President, no society can 
exist that allows disrespect for the law.
  On the other hand, legal immigrants are people who follow the law. 
They are an ambitious and gutsy group. They are people who have defined 
themselves by the fact they have been willing to come here, play by the 
rules, build a future, and take chances. To lump them in, Mr. 
President, legal immigrants, with people who violate the law is wrong. 
We simply should not do it. Historically Congress has treated legal 
immigration and illegal immigration separately. Father Hesburgh in his 
1981 report indicated that Congress should control illegal immigration, 
while leaving the door open to legal immigration.
  Congress has in fact done this over the years and kept the issue 
separate. In 1986 Congress dealt with illegal immigration. In 1990 
Congress dealt with legal immigration. In fact, Mr. President, the very 
immigration bill that is before us today started its legislative career 
as a piece of legislation separate from the bill covering legal 
immigration. It was only late in the subcommittee markup that the bills 
became joined.
  These issues, Mr. President, have been treated separately for many 
years. They have been treated separately for one simple reason--they 
present different issues. They are different. To treat them together is 
to invite repetition of numerous totally false stereotypes. The 
combining of the bills leads, I think, to the merging of the thought 
process into a great deal of confusion.
  Let me give an example. Say, for example, that aliens are more likely 
than native-born Americans to be on welfare and food stamps or 
Medicaid. But the fact is, Mr. President, this generalization is not 
true about legal immigrants. The statement I just made is wrong in 
regard to legal immigrants. If you separate out the legal immigrants, 
you find when you are talking about legal immigrants that they are no 
more likely than native-born Americans to be applicants of social 
welfare services. In fact, legal immigrants who become naturalized 
citizens are less likely--let me repeat--less likely to go on public 
assistance than native-born Americans. That is what the facts are.

  Now, a recent study, Mr. President, points to the same fact. It found 
that foreign-born individuals were 10 to 20 percent more likely than 
native-born Americans to need social services. That is an alarming 
statistic, if you just stop there. But if you go further, and if you 
exclude refugees from the total, the foreign-born individuals are 
considerably less likely to do so than native-born citizens. Again, the 
point I made a moment ago.
  Let us turn, Mr. President, to another dangerous stereotype 
frequently asserted. That is, that one-half of our illegal immigration 
problem stems from people who first came here legally. Let me repeat 
it. Let me repeat this. The statement is made that one-half of our 
illegal immigration problem stems from people who first came here 
legally. Well, that is true.
  That is a true statement. But it is only true as far as it goes. In 
fact, Mr. President, it is a very misleading statement. What the people 
who say this are talking about is not legal immigrants who stay here 
and somehow become illegal; they are talking instead about students and 
tourists who had the right to visit America legally. They never were 
legal immigrants in the classic sense. They had the legal right to be 
here, but they were not legal immigrants. These are students, tourists 
who come here legally, and then who stay and do not leave when they are 
supposed to leave. That is a huge problem in this country. But it is 
not a problem of legal immigrants.
  These people who are creating this problem were never legal 
immigrants. By definition, Mr. President, legal immigrants are people 
who are allowed to stay. Legal immigrants by definition are here 
legally. They are not the problem.
  Mr. President, this is also an important source of confusion on the 
question of whether immigration is rising rapidly. Some people claim, 
for example, that legal immigration is skyrocketing. They base their 
contention on INS numbers that include as legal immigrants illegal 
immigrants who are made legal by the 1986 Immigration Reform and 
Control Act.
  Mr. President, if you take the total number of legal immigrants and 
subtract those that were illegal before the 1986 act, you find that 
legal immigration has been holding at fairly constant levels. That is 
what the facts are.
  Let me just give an example, Mr. President. In the 1990's, we have 
had about 2.8 immigrants for every 1,000 Americans. Is that a lot? 
Well, we could judge for ourselves. The first two decades of the 
century, to make a comparison, the rates were 10.4 per 1,000 and 5.7 
per 1,000.
  Mr. President, I do not think knowing what we know now, that it would 
have been wise to say in 1910 that there were too many immigrants 
coming into America. It was precisely that generation of immigrants at 
the turn of the century that coincided with America's transition from 
the periphery of world events to the status of a global superpower.
  Mr. President, let me stop. I have almost concluded, but let me stop 
at this point to yield to my friend, Senator Simpson from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciated very much my friend, the 
Senator from Ohio, yielding. I certainly would yield additional time. 
But

[[Page S3301]]

we have a time constraint with the ranking member and would like to, at 
the direction of the majority leader, present some amendments for 
disposition tomorrow. So, with that explanation, let me proceed.


                           Amendment No. 3669

(Purpose: To prohibit foreign students on F-1 visas from obtaining free 
               public elementary or secondary education)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I submit to the desk Simpson amendment 
No. 1 and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming, [Mr. Simpson], proposes amendment 
     numbered 3669.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (1) After sec. 213 of the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 214. USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY NONIMMIGRANT FOREIGN 
                   STUDENTS.

       ``(a) Persons Eligible for Student Visas.--Section 
     101(a)(15)(F) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) is amended--
       ``(1) in clause (i) by striking `academic high school, 
     elementary school, or other academic institution or in a 
     language training program' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     `public elementary or public secondary school (if the alien 
     shows to the satisfaction of the consular officer at the time 
     of application for a visa, or of the Attorney General at the 
     time of application for admission or adjustment of status, 
     that (I) the alien will in fact reimburse such public 
     elementary or public secondary school for the full, 
     unsubsidized per-capita cost of providing education at such 
     school to an individual pursuing such a course of study, or 
     (II) the school waives such reimbursement), private 
     elementary or private secondary school, or postsecondary 
     academic institution, or in a language-training program'; 
     and
       ``(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of 
     clause (ii) the following: `: Provided, That nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to prevent a child who is 
     present in the United States in a nonimmigrant status other 
     than that conferred by paragraph (B), (C), (F)(i), or (M)(i), 
     from seeking admission to a public elementary school or 
     public secondary school for which such child may otherwise be 
     qualified.';
       ``(b) Exclusion of Student Visa Abusers.--Section 212(a) (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       `(9) Student visa abusers.--Any alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(F) who is admitted as a student for study at a 
     private elementary school or private secondary school and who 
     does not remain enrolled, throughout the duration of his or 
     her elementary or secondary school education in the United 
     States, at either (A) such a private school, or (B) a public 
     elementary or public secondary school (if (I) the alien is in 
     fact reimbursing such public elementary or public secondary 
     school for the full, unsubsidized per-capita cost of 
     providing education at such school to an individual pursuing 
     such a course of study, or (II) the school waives such 
     reimbursement), is excludable.'; and
       ``(c) Deportation of Student Visa Abusers.--Section 241(a) 
     (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       `(6) Student visa abusers.--Any alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(F) who is admitted as a student for study at a 
     private elementary school or private secondary school and who 
     does not remain enrolled, throughout the duration of his or 
     her elementary or secondary school education in the United 
     States, at either (A) such a private school, or (B) a public 
     elementary or public secondary school (if (I) the alien is in 
     fact reimbursing such public elementary or public secondary 
     school for the full, unsubsidized per-capita cost of 
     providing education at such school to an individual pursuing 
     such a course of study, or (II) the school waives such 
     reimbursement), is deportable.'.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The Dorgan amendment is set aside.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me describe the amendment briefly. It 
is intended to prevent foreign students coming to the United States to 
obtain a free taxpayer-financed education at a public elementary or 
secondary school. This is a growing problem. Children are coming to the 
United States and staying with friends or relatives or even strangers 
to whom they pay a fee and attending public schools as residents of the 
school district.
  The amendment prohibits counselor offices issuing visas for 
attendance at such public schools or the INS approving such cases 
unless the foreign student can demonstrate they will reimburse the 
school, public elementary or secondary school, ``for the full, 
unsubsidized per capita cost'' of providing such education, or unless 
the school waives reimbursement.
  The amendment also provides for the exclusion and deportation of 
students who are admitted to attend private elementary or secondary 
schools but who do not remain enrolled at such private schools for the 
duration of their elementary or secondary study in the United States. 
This provision is designed to prevent students from obtaining admission 
to a private school and then switching to a taxpayer-funded public 
school soon after arrival in the United States.
  It would not prevent those children who are validly in the United 
States as dependents of persons lawfully residing here from applying 
for admission to public schools, nor would it prevent public schools 
from hosting foreign exchange students who would continue to be 
admitted as exchange visitors on ``J'' visas.
  The amendment is designed, however, to deal with the problem of the 
``parachute kids'' which Senator Feinstein dealt with previously--which 
has received rather thorough attention-- those who come here to receive 
a U.S. education at taxpayer expense.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senator has pointed out, this was 
in the initially proposed legislation. It is, I think, a justified and 
wise amendment.
  And I understand that the Senator will also be offering shortly a 
pilot program for ensuring that foreign students here on student visas 
are actually enrolled and attending our schools. It is obviously an 
important opportunity for students to be able to come to the 
universities here in the United States. They should be welcomed. They 
should have an opportunity to be in compliance with the university 
rules.
  This is really, first, a pilot program and, second, an attempt to 
find out what happens to these students when they are here and also 
what happens to them afterward. We do not have that kind of 
information. There are reports that individuals just get the permission 
to come here, maybe take one course, and effectively are ``gaming'' the 
system to circumvent other provisions of the legislation. That clearly 
was never the intention.
  It seems to me this is a worthwhile program. It is targeted. It is 
limited. There is an important need to understand exactly what is 
happening with many of these students. I support the program.
  I just wondered if I could ask the Senator a question. In the 
amendment, it says that students must be making ``normal progress'' 
toward a degree in order to keep the visa. Do you agree with letting 
the universities themselves make a decision about whether the student 
is in good academic standing or make a reasonable attempt to define 
that in a reasonable way?
  Mr. SIMPSON. In connection with that amendment, that is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I hope that we will pass this.
  Mr. President, I understand the amendment is going to be one of the 
amendments that will be offered, and now the one we have before the 
Senate prohibits kids on the student visas from attending public 
schools--our elementary and secondary schools--at the taxpayers' 
expense unless it is part of an exchange program. That is a wise 
amendment.
  As I pointed out, if one games--a student is to attend a private 
school and then circumstances change. They should not undermine the 
basic reason that they were able to get here, and that was to attend 
the private school and pay the normal tuition, and to change to a 
public school at the public's expense. I think that is certainly 
consistent with fairness to taxpayers in that local community. I think 
it makes sense. I intend to support that amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask that amendment be submitted 
tomorrow. I ask for the yeas and nays and that the vote be held at a 
time convenient to the majority and minority leaders.
  I withhold that request, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understood, it is the intention in terms of 
expediting the consideration of the legislation on these three 
amendments--there may be those who are returning to the Senate who may 
want to have an observation about it so as to protect their interests--
that the Senator was going to

[[Page S3302]]

ask unanimous consent that the time for the votes on these measures be 
set by agreement by the majority and minority leaders, that the 
schedule for the particular votes on all three would be set by the 
majority and minority leaders at an appropriate time for the 
leadership. That seemed to be a reasonable request. These are 
amendments that are related to the legislation and which the committee 
had some opportunity to review before. It is just an attempt to move 
this process along that we are trying to devise a path so we could 
begin to consider the legislation.
  We temporarily set aside the Dorgan amendment. That can always be 
called back at any time. What now is being asked is that these three 
amendments would appear, one amendment after another, temporarily 
setting it aside, and it would be the intention of the Senator from 
Wyoming to ask for the yeas and nays on all three and to have the votes 
stacked in the order which the majority and minority leaders care to 
have.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, to expedite the process, let me withhold 
further action on amendment No. 1 and submit amendment No. 2 and 
amendment No. 3, speak on all three of them together, the purpose being 
that the majority leader had requested our assistance in bringing 
appropriate amendments before the body tomorrow, stacking those 
amendments. These are three amendments that are submitted. There may be 
controversy that is not expressed today. If that is so, set a time 
limit tomorrow to do that.
  The purpose is to submit these three amendments, move them forward 
with the yeas and nays, let the majority leader and minority leader 
define in the context and the time limit as to what they wish to do 
with them tomorrow. That is the purpose.


                           Amendment No. 3670

(Purpose: To establish a pilot program to collect information relating 
                   to nonimmigrant foreign students)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3670.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.    . PILOT PROGRAM TO COLLECT INFORMATION RELATING TO 
                   NONIMMIGRANT FOREIGN STUDENTS.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Attorney General and the Secretary 
     of State shall jointly develop and conduct a pilot program to 
     collect electronically from approved colleges and 
     universities in the United States the information described 
     in subsection (c) with respect to aliens who--
       (A) have the status, or are applying for the status, of 
     nonimmigrants under section 101(a)(15)(F), (J), or (M) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), 
     (J), or (M)); and
       (B) are nationals of the countries designated under 
     subsection (b).
       (2) The pilot program shall commence not later than January 
     1, 1998.
       (b) Covered Countries.--The Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of State shall jointly designate countries for 
     purposes of subsection (a)(1)(B). The Attorney General and 
     the Secretary shall initially designate not lees than five 
     countries and may designate additional countries at any time 
     while the pilot program is being conducted.
       (c) Information To Be Collected.
       (1) In general.--The information for collection under 
     subsection (a) consists of--
       (A) the identity and current address in the United States 
     of the alien;
       (B) the nonimmigrant classification of the alien and the 
     date on which a visa under the classification was issued or 
     extended or the date on which a change to such classification 
     was approved by the Attorney General; and
       (C) the academic standing of the alien, including any 
     disciplinary action taken by the college or university 
     against the alien as a result of the alien's being convicted 
     of a crime.
       (2) FERPA.--The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 
     of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 1232g) shall not apply to aliens described 
     in subsection (a) to the extent that the Attorney General and 
     the Secretary of State determine necessary to carry out the 
     pilot program.
       (d) Participation by Colleges and Universities.--(1) The 
     information specified in subsection (c) shall be provided by 
     approved colleges and universities as a condition of--
       (A) the continued approval of the colleges and universities 
     under section 101(a)(15)(F) or (M) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, or
       (B) the issuance of visas to aliens for purposes of 
     studying, or otherwise participating, at such colleges and 
     universities in a program under section 101(a)(15)(J) of such 
     Act.
       (2) If an approved college or university fails to provide 
     the specified information, such approvals and such issuance 
     of visas shall be revoked or denied.
       (e) Funding.--(1) The Attorney General and the Secretary 
     shall use funds collected under section 281(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by this subsection, 
     to pay for the costs of carrying out this section.
       (2) Section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1351) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``SEC. 281.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) In addition to fees that are prescribed under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall impose and 
     collect a fee on all visas issued under the provisions of 
     section 101(a)(15)(F), (J), or (M) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act. With respect to visas issued under the 
     provisions of section 101(a)(15)(J), this subsection shall 
     not apply to those ``J'' visa holders whose presence in the 
     United States is sponsored by the United States government.''
       ``(2) The Attorney General shall impose and collect a fee 
     on all changes of nonimmigrant status under section 248 to 
     such classifications. This subsection shall not apply to 
     those ``J'' visa holders whose presence in the United States 
     is sponsored by the United States government.''
       ``(3) Except as provided in section 205(g)(2) of the 
     Immigration Reform Act of 1996, the amount of the fees 
     imposed and collected under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 
     be the amount which the Attorney General and the Secretary 
     jointly determine is necessary to recover the costs of 
     conducting the information-collection program described in 
     subsection (a), but may not exceed $100.
       ``(4) Funds collected under paragraph (1) shall be 
     available to the Attorney General and the Secretary, without 
     regard to appropriation Acts and without fiscal year 
     limitation, to supplement funds otherwise available to the 
     Department of Justice and the department of State, 
     respectively.''
       (3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 
     become effective April 1, 1997.
       (f) Joint Report.--Not later than five years after the 
     commencement of the pilot program established under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     State shall jointly submit to the Committees on the Judiciary 
     of the United States Senate and House of Representatives on 
     the operations of the pilot program and the feasibility of 
     expanding the program to cover the nationals of all 
     countries.
       (g) Worldwide Applicability of the Program.--(1)(A) Not 
     later than six months after the submission of the report 
     required by subsection (f), the Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General shall jointly commence expansion of the 
     pilot program to cover the nationals of all countries.
       (B) Such expansion shall be completed not later than one 
     year after the date of the submission of the report referred 
     to in subsection (f).
       (2) After the program has been expanded, as provided in 
     paragraph (1), the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     State may, on a periodic basis, jointly revise the amount of 
     the fee imposed and collected under section 281(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act in order to take into account 
     changes in the cost of carrying out the program.
       (h) Definition.--As used in this section, the phrase 
     ``approved colleges and universities'' means colleges and 
     universities approved by the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Education, under 
     subparagraph (F), (J), or (M) of section 101(a)(15) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)).

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is the amendment, amendment No. 1 
and No. 2, that Senator Kennedy addressed, to enable the INS to keep 
track of foreign students studying in the country. The amendment 
provides a source of funding for INS to establish a very basic system 
for keeping track of foreign students. It is a measure supported by the 
FBI Director, who expressed concerns at our ability to track such 
students in a 1994 memorandum regarding possible tariffs. It is not an 
intrusive provision. I answered a question of Senator Kennedy to 
indicate that.
  Colleges and universities are already required to provide this sort 
of information to the INS. The problem in the past has been that the 
INS has not devoted such resources to this activity to create a body of 
reliable information. The amendment's aim is to provide the funding so 
the INS can implement a system to keep track of foreign students 
studying here, and it seems reasonable such funding should come from 
the students themselves and not from the taxpayers.
  A student who is willing to pay $10,000 or $20,000 in this country, 
or $80,000 to $100,000 through the entire

[[Page S3303]]

curriculum, is not likely to be seriously concerned about paying the 
additional fee of $50 or $100 for the issuance of the student visa in 
accordance with this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3671

  (Purpose: To create new ground of exclusion and of deportation for 
                   falsely claiming U.S. citizenship)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3671.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       After section 115 of the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 115A. FALSE CLAIMS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

       ``(a) Exclusion of Aliens Who Have Falsely Claimed U.S. 
     Citizenship.--Section 212(a)(9) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       `(D) Falsely claiming citizenship.--Any alien who falsely 
     represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a 
     citizen of the United States is excludable.'; and
       ``(b) Deportation of Aliens Who Have Falsely Claimed U.S. 
     Citizenship.--Section 241(a) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       `(6) Falsely claiming citizenship.--Any alien who falsely 
     represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a 
     citizen of the United States is deportable.'.''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would add a new section to 
the bill. The section would create a new ground of exclusion of 
deportation for falsely representing oneself as a U.S. citizen.
  This amendment is a complement to another that I will be proposing. 
The other amendment would modify the bill section which applies and 
provides for pilot project systems to verify work authorization and 
eligibility to apply for public assistance. One of the requirements of 
that other amendment is that the Attorney General conduct certain 
specific pilot projects, including one under which employers would be 
required to verify the immigration status of aliens, but not persons 
claiming to be citizens. Such citizens would be required only to attest 
as being citizens. That was discussed in committee. If you are a U.S. 
citizen, why should you have to go through these procedures? Well, 
obviously, I concur with that.
  The major weakness in such a system is the potential for false claims 
of citizenship. That is why I offered the present amendment which will 
create a new major disincentive for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. 
Lawful permanent aliens, or residents who falsely claim citizenship, 
risk deportation and being permanently barred from entering the United 
States. Since they are work-authorized, they would have little reason 
to make a false claim of citizenship.
  Illegal aliens, on the other hand, would know that they could not be 
verified if they admitted to being aliens and the verification process 
were conducted. Yet, they would also know, if they falsely claim to be 
citizens and were caught and apprehended, they would be deported and 
permanently barred. Thus, the risk involved in making the false claims 
would be high for them indeed. If the present amendment were enacted 
into law, that would be the case. If the amendment were enacted and the 
project involving citizen attestation were conducted, a significant 
number even of illegal aliens may well be deterred from seeking jobs in 
the United States. That is the basis of the third and final amendment, 
which I submit this evening.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. It is 
instructive to put it in at this time because I think this might be 
able to add a dimension in being more effective in terms of protecting 
Americans in job situations. I think, first, as the Senator pointed 
out, if the person represents that they are a citizen and they are not 
and they get the job, they are undermining the ability of the American 
to have the job.
  Second, if they do it in terms of the welfare provisions, they are 
basically undermining the American taxpayers and doing it for 
fraudulent reasons. The penalty would be deportation or exclusion, as I 
understand the amendment. So it seems to me to make a good deal of 
sense from any point of view. I hope tomorrow we will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendments 
numbered 3669, 3670, and 3671 be temporarily laid aside in the order in 
which they were offered and that they be made the pending business at 
the request of the majority leader after notification of the Democratic 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I further ask that it be in order for me to ask for the 
yeas and nays on the three amendments, with one showing of seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3667

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Dorgan amendment recur as the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3672 to Amendment No. 3667

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3672 to Amendment No. 3667.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the word ``Sec.'' and insert the 
     following:
       (1) social security is supported by taxes deducted from 
     workers' earnings and matching deductions from their 
     employers that are deposited into independent trust funds;
       (2) over 42,000,000 Americans, including over 3,000,000 
     children and 5,000,000 disabled workers and their families, 
     receive social security benefits;
       (3) social security is the only pension program for 60 
     percent of older Americans;
       (4) almost 60 percent of older beneficiaries depend on 
     social security for at least half of their income and 25 
     percent depend on social security for at least 90 percent of 
     their income;
       (5) 138,000,000 American workers pay taxes into the social 
     security system;
       (6) social security is currently a self-financed program 
     that is not contributing to the Federal budget deficit; in 
     fact, the social security trust funds now have over 
     $400,000,000,000 in reserves and that surplus will increase 
     during fiscal year 1995 alone by an additional 
     $70,000,000,000;
       (7) these current reserves will be necessary to pay monthly 
     benefits for current and future beneficiaries when the annual 
     surpluses turn to deficits after 2018;
       (8) recognizing that social security is currently a self-
     financed program, Congress in 1990 established a ``firewall'' 
     to prevent a raid on the social security trust funds;
       (9) raiding the social security trust funds would further 
     undermine confidence in the system among younger workers;
       (10) the American people overwhelmingly reject arbitrary 
     cuts in social security benefits; and
       (11) social security beneficiaries throughout the nation 
     deserve to be reassured that their benefits will not be 
     subject to cuts and their social security payroll taxes will 
     not be increased as a result of legislation to implement a 
     balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any legislation required to implement a balanced budget 
     amendment to the United States Constitution shall 
     specifically prevent social security benefits from being 
     reduced or social security taxes from being increased to meet 
     the balanced budget requirement.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was reading that it be made the pending 
business at the request of the majority leader after notification of 
the Democratic leader. I am sure that will all be done in good faith. 
But I understand that notification of the Democratic leader includes 
that if a Member of our party would like to speak and address those 
amendments, I assume that would be respected. I make that assumption.

[[Page S3304]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I certainly make that assumption. I 
understand it to be notification and agreement by the Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. As far as the discussion then on that 
measure, I know there are other Members that want to address the Senate 
on other matters. I see the Senator from South Carolina, who wanted to 
speak, as well, on the issue of Senator Dorgan's amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. If I may, I believe Senator DeWine had not concluded his 
remarks when I requested the floor. I appreciate very much his 
willingness to do that so we could get those amendments before the 
body. How much more time does Senator DeWine need?
  Mr. DeWINE. I probably have 6, 7, or 8 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. Then we will yield to Senator 
Hollings for a discussion on the Dorgan amendment and temporarily go 
off of this measure. I thank the Senator from Ohio very much for his 
courtesies in enabling us to go forward with an agenda for tomorrow.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me conclude my general comments about 
this bill today. I think America's greatness has been created, 
generation after generation, by driven self-selected individuals who 
came here as legal immigrants. We can think of names such as Albert 
Einstein, from Ohio, someone like George Olah who came here from 
Budapest in 1957 and taught at Case-Western Reserve, and won the Nobel 
Prize for chemistry in 1994. The original bills as introduced actually 
said to people like Einstein and Olah, ``Get lost, you can come to the 
U.S., but only if you jump through a whole bunch of bureaucratic hoops 
from the State Department and the Labor Department.''
  A lot of these provisions were, in fact, changed in committee. Mr. 
President, I think we really do not need to be making it any harder for 
these talented, energetic people to come and help us build our great 
country. In fact, Mr. President, we became the richest, most powerful 
nation in the history of the world by doing exactly the opposite--by 
encouraging them to come.
  No, Mr. President, America's immigration problem is not the high-
quality researchers and professors wading the Rio Grande in the dead of 
night or scrambling over a fence to avoid the Border Patrol.
  We should and can crack down on illegal immigration. That is a law 
enforcement issue. We should not allow that effort to serve as a Trojan 
horse for other measures--measures that would hurt America's future by 
rejecting the very finest and most noble traditions of America's past.
  To reverse course on immigration, as some might recommend, is to say 
that America from now on will define itself as a country that is 
fearful of change, afraid of competition, and convinced that her best 
days are past. That is not the attitude that made America the greatest 
country the world has ever seen. An America that thinks itself as weak 
and threatened is not the America that I see. It is not the America 
that we Americans believe in. It is not the America that a dirt poor 
Irishman named Dennis DeWine saw--saw in his dream as he left County 
Galway 150 years ago to escape the potato famine in Ireland. We do not 
know a lot about my great-great-grandfather. All we know for sure is 
that he came over to America from Galway. It is pretty clear, though, 
that Dennis DeWine came here with guts and with ambition, but probably 
with very little else. He took a chance on America, and America took a 
chance on him because America back then thought big thoughts about 
itself and what great riches lay in the ambition--in the ambition of 
people who are willing to take risks. That is the kind of America we 
need to be, not a closed America that views itself as a finished 
product but an America that is open to new people, new ideas, and open 
to the future.
  Mr. President, I began this speech by talking about how Ronald Reagan 
expressed better than any other political figure of our era the truest 
sense of what America stands for. I think it would be appropriate for 
me to conclude these remarks about America's immigration policy and 
about America's identity with another great story, one that President 
Reagan recounted more than once in his Presidency. In fact, he found it 
so moving that he even included it in his farewell address 9 days 
before he left the White House. Here is the way Ronald Reagan told the 
story.

       I have been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant, 
     and mean, and the image that comes to mind, like a refrain, 
     is a nautical one--a small story about a big ship and a 
     refugee and a sailor. It was back in the early 1980's at the 
     height of the boat people, and a sailor was hard at work on 
     the Carrier Midway which was then patrolling the South China 
     Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, 
     smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon 
     a leaky little boat, and crammed inside were refugees from 
     Indochina hoping--hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a 
     small launch out to bring them to the ship and to safety. And 
     as the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one 
     of them spied the sailor on deck. He stood up and called out 
     to him. He yelled, ``Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom 
     man''--a small moment with a big meaning, a moment a sailor 
     could not get out of his mind. Neither could I, because that 
     is what it is to be an American.

  Mr. President, as we debate this bill, I think we will need to remind 
ourselves that that still is what it means to be an American. It always 
was, and let us pray that it always will be. Even at the very beginning 
of our history, back when we were a very small country, we were always 
a country with a very big meaning, a country whose future was 
unlimited, a country that believed in people and believed in their 
capacity to make the world a better place. What a legacy, what an 
awesome responsibility, a responsibility for our generation and for 
every generation.
  I, along with some of my other colleagues, will be working to make 
sure that our immigration reform bill remains true to this legacy and 
true to the values that made America a beacon for all humanity.
  Mr. President, I will conclude these remarks at this point, and again 
thank my colleague from Wyoming for his courtesy and for his work not 
only on this bill, but on this issue now for well over a decade.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio. He has 
been very involved, very articulate, and I appreciate the participation 
very much.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman 
of our committee, the Senator from Wyoming.
  I say a word about immigration in that we opened up a school this 
morning for some 525 additional Immigration and Naturalization agents--
the plan and plot as we work in the appropriations side of this 
particular problem. And I serve on the what we call the State, Justice, 
Commerce Subcommittee of Appropriations. For the past 25 years we have 
been trying to keep up with the problem as we have seen it. We work 
with the leadership of the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. And this morning, as I say, we opened 
up that school for some 525 agents at the old Navy yard facility in 
Charleston that we closed a couple of years ago.
  A word should be said about our distinguished Commissioner of 
Immigration and Naturalization, Doris Meissner. She could not be with 
us, of course, because of the loss of her husband in that fatal crash 
going into Dubrovnik last week. Chuck Meissner, the Assistant Secretary 
of Commerce in charge of International Trade, was on that plane, that 
tragic loss. I talked to Commissioner Meissner and said that I know we 
have the scheduled opening of the school, but we ought to call that 
off. She said, ``No, it is really an emergency situation. While I 
cannot be there, I will be represented by Ms. Sale, Chris Sale, the 
Deputy Commissioner, and the other authorities, and we are ready to go, 
and we want to make sure that we have at least these agents trained and 
ready to go to work by August.'' Chris Sale was there, and we opened 
the school in the most adequate fashion.
  The American public and the U.S. Senate should understand that this 
problem is much like trying to drink water out of a fire hydrant. Go 
down to San Ysidro, CA, down there by San Diego where 46 million 
automobiles and 9 million pedestrians were stuck

[[Page S3305]]

and inspected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service last year. 
We are totally understaffed for the problems of the illegal immigrants 
coming into the Nation and making their demands upon State and Federal 
spending.
  So it is not a casual commendation that I give to the leadership of 
the Senator from Wyoming because I worked with him on the Simpson-
Mazzoli bill years back. He has been in the trenches working for years 
trying to bring the National Government ahead and on to the problem, so 
that it would not increase into this emergency, more or less, at this 
particular time.

  Having said that, Mr. President, let me say a word about an 
underlying amendment of Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, myself, and 
others relative to spending Social Security trust funds. I can go into 
detail which I will to make the record here, but let me bring it right 
up to the spending habits of the National Government with respect to 
trust fund amounts. When we passed in 1983 the increase in Social 
Security taxes, we could not have possibly voted that tax increase save 
and excepting to maintain the integrity of the Social Security trust 
fund. In fact, the intent was not only to maintain its integrity but to 
maintain a surplus. We talked openly, and you refer back to the record, 
of the Greenspan commission report, that if these increases in taxes 
were carried out, we would have a surplus that would easily take care 
of the baby boom generation into the year 2050.
  But otherwise has occurred. What we have been doing, in a shameless 
fashion, is spending the Social Security trust moneys on the deficit. 
We have been obscuring the size of the deficit by the use of those 
trust funds. It was $63 billion last year, if I remember correctly. 
Last year the CBO report was a $481 billion surplus. So if you add the 
$63 billion I guess it would be in the terms of a $544 billion surplus, 
over one-half trillion surplus funds in the Social Security trust. But, 
ah, now we have today's, or last week I should say but it is dated 
April 15, Time magazine, and I wish to quote because here is what 
really happens to the so-called trust funds. It is on page 27 of April 
15, 1996, Time magazine, entitled ``Odyssey of a Mad Genius.'' I refer 
to the article on page 27, ``Beltway Robbery.'' This has to do with 
highway trust funds, not Social Security, but the similarity is so 
stark in its reality that it must be brought to the attention of my 
fellow Senators here this afternoon. I quote:

       In a Washington out to cut Federal spending, 12-term 
     Congressman Bud Shuster is an unrepentant pork barrel 
     spender. Now it appears the Chairman of the House 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has converts. 
     More than half his colleagues including a heavy majority of 
     those reform-minded GOP freshmen, are backing a bill that 
     would lift constraints on highway and airport projects. If 
     the trust and budgeting act is passed by the House next week, 
     it would give Shuster's committee great latitude to tap some 
     $33 billion in transportation trust funds. The measure has 
     mobilized a formidable lobbying coalition, uniting organized 
     labor and big and small business, State and local 
     governments, and such an esoteric trade association as the 
     Precast-Prestressed Concrete Institute. Their goal is not 
     only to pass it but also a vetoproof 289 votes. Supporters 
     argue rightly that the money would go where it was intended--
     building roads and upgrading the airports. But the supposedly 
     untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. Using them 
     would increase the deficit or force greater cuts in other 
     programs. Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and 
     Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston are vehemently 
     opposed. Attempts by Newt Gingrich to reconcile them and 
     Shuster have come to naught. Meanwhile, Federal Chairman Alan 
     Greenspan broke with his custom of staying neutral to advise 
     against passage.

  Now, is that not a remarkable report? One line in there, and I quote 
it again:

       But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an 
     accounting figment.

  This is exactly what Senator Heinz and I were fighting against when 
we had enacted section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act on November 
5, 1990, signed into law by President George Bush, voted by a vote of 
98 to 2 in this Senate. We did not want Social Security trust funds to 
become an ``accounting figment.'' That is what they do when they 
continue to use funds.
  When we try to debate it in the Chamber, it does not matter; we have 
the money there, but it has to be used by the Government somewhere so 
we will just borrow the moneys there and everything else of that kind 
and tell the youth of America do not worry--well, do worry, it is going 
broke--when it is not going broke and when we got the moneys there and 
run around about going broke because in their mind it has become an 
accounting figment.
  Now, let me mention a book by James Fowler. It is called ``Breaking 
The News.''
  This is the problem in Government today. Years back, none other than 
Thomas Jefferson as between a free Government and a free press, he 
would choose the latter, and why? Because he said and reasoned that you 
could have a free Government but would not remain free long unless you 
had a free press to keep us politicians honest.
  What has happened is that the free press no longer keeps the 
politicians honest. They in turn have joined into the dishonesty. Here 
it is. I read again. One sentence:

       But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an 
     accounting figment.

  Thirty-three billion in the highway trust funds. The article quotes 
it. It is not an accounting figment. And instead of keeping the trust 
for highways, who comes out against spending highway moneys for 
highways? The chairman of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, and of all people, the head of the Federal 
Reserve because he is part and parcel of the conspiracy for a so-called 
unified budget.
  Now, let's go to unified. Wall Street and Alan Greenspan love unified 
budgets so long as the Government is not coming in to the bond market 
with its sharp elbows borrowing. Then they can make more money on stock 
sales. Bond sales, their interest rates stay down so borrow from 
yourself.
  Well, that is pretty good for the irresponsible business leadership 
but for the public servant down here in Washington that has to do his 
job, he is going to meet himself coming around the corner and today we 
have met ourselves coming around the corner.

       But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an 
     accounting figment.

  That is the charade and fraud that has been going on. I more or less 
dedicated myself to paying the bill. Earlier today when we were opening 
up this school, I said when we handled this Justice Department budget 
back in 1987, 1988, it was only about $4.2 billion. Now, this year, it 
is $16.7 billion. It has gone up, up and away, and we do not pay for 
it.

  I cited an editorial in my own hometown newspaper about April 15, 
here we were, the day to pay taxes, and up, up and away was the 
national debt to $5 trillion. And they said: You know the reason for 
this was entitlement funds. They said that it was the military 
retirement, the Social Security, the Medicare.
  Wait a minute, Mr. President. Let us go to these so-called 
entitlement funds. As I mentioned a moment ago, Social Security is over 
one-half trillion dollars in the black. Medicare, everybody agrees, is 
in the black. They are talking about going broke in 7 years, but many 
adjustments can be made and should be made and will be made. We will 
keep Medicare solvent. We do not have to cut it to get a tax cut to buy 
the vote for November. I have opposed that.
  Similarly, with the military and civil service retirement fund, it is 
in the black. It is not these entitlements, it is paying for the 
immigration border patrol, the immigration inspectors, all the other 
things; the Justice Department, FBI, for the defense, for all these 
things for 15 years. We have not been paying for general government. 
Oh, this cry over entitlements started in the Appropriations Committee 
when my friend Dick Darman came in there, talking about ``entitlements, 
entitlements, entitlements.'' And you have that same Concord Coalition, 
``entitlements, entitlements, entitlements,'' and my friend Pete 
Peterson up there in New York, ``entitlements, entitlements, 
entitlements.''
  Let us talk about general government. I was a member of the Grace 
Commission against waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have constituted the 
biggest waste, the biggest fraud, the biggest abuse in the last 15 
years by spending $250 billion more each and every year, on an average, 
without paying for it. That is why the debt has

[[Page S3306]]

gone to $5 trillion. That is why the interest cost has gone to over 
$350 billion. We will get a CBO estimate here on Wednesday. Today is 
Monday. But let me tell you what the estimate was earlier in the year. 
I will ask unanimous consent later that this be printed in the Record. 
The estimated 1996 interest cost on the national debt, gross interest 
paid is $350 billion.
  Interest has gone up since then, so it is going to be over $1 billion 
a day. When President Reagan took over, the gross interest cost was 
exactly $74.8 billion. Get into a little arithmetic. Subtract 75, in 
round figures, $75 billion from $350 billion and you get $275 billion. 
Mr. President, 275 billion extra dollars spending for nothing, for 
nothing.
  I remember President Reagan. I will show the talks, if you want me to 
put it in the Record. He was going to balance the budget in 1 year. 
Then he came to town and said, ``Oops, 3 years.'' Then we had the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, 5 years. Now they have proposed 7 years. If 
they get past the November election, the next crowd will say 10 years. 
As long as they can continue the charade, as long as the press fails to 
keep us honest and fails to engage the public in the truth, it 
continues the charade, calling it truth in budgeting.
  Mr. President, the actual cost of domestic discretionary spending at 
this minute is $267 billion. But the increase in spending for interest 
on the debt has been $275 since President Reagan took office. Point: We 
have doubled domestic discretionary spending without getting a double 
Government. We could have two Presidents, two Senates, two Houses of 
Representatives, two Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, 
Interior. Domestic discretionary--we could have two for the money we 
are spending. But we are not getting it.
  Talk about increased spending? ``I am against increased spending.'' 
They are all running around in this Congress saying, ``I am against 
increased spending.'' Well they have increased spending $1 billion 
today, on account of this fraud, this charade. Or, like taxes, for 
April 15 they have sent their minions all around the land, talking 
about tax day, ``Let us have a special bill over in the House.'' It is 
all theater. And we will have that, ``You have to have a two-thirds 
vote in order to increase taxes.'' Increase taxes? You cannot avoid 
death. You cannot avoid taxes. And you cannot avoid interest costs on 
the national debt. Interest is like taxes. You have already increased 
taxes today of $1 billion and you will increase taxes tomorrow, and on 
Saturday, and on Sunday and on Christmas Day, every day this year--not 
on increased program spending, but on interest on the debt. The crowd 
that says they are against increasing taxes is increasing taxes and not 
wanting to do a thing about this central problem.

  I tried and I am going to continue. They are not going to get rid of 
me. I came here with a AAA credit rating for my State. I increased 
taxes to get it. I knew as a young Governor I could not go to those 
industry leaders in New York and ask them to come down and invest in 
Podunk. I had to have a solvent operation. So we did balance the budget 
and we put in a little device, which later, in the Federal Government, 
was called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. It was cuts across the board.
  I went to the distinguished Senator from Texas. I said, ``This device 
that you have that cuts Social Security, it will not get to first 
base.'' I said, ``Speaker O'Neill and Congressman Claude Pepper will 
run us off the Capitol steps. We have not got a chance. Forget it. Let 
us talk sense.'' I helped write Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sensibly, and we 
enacted automatic cuts across the board.
  Then, when, as they say, the rubber hit the road in 1990, we 
abolished the cuts across the board. On October 19, at 12:41 a.m., I 
raised the point of order, and my distinguished colleague from Texas 
voted to abolish the cuts across the board of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings.
  Do you know what they did? They went for spending caps. Well, this 
place has a ceiling, but the spending caps have not. Spending has gone 
up, up and away and that is why poor President Bush lost his 
reelection. There is no kidding around.
  I mean, we were up to $400 billion deficits at that particular time. 
The exact figure, according to the schedule here of the real deficit 
was $403.6 billion. So they said we will try this little Governor from 
Arkansas. He has balanced the budget for 10 years. Give him a try.
  I voted for a balanced budget under Lyndon Johnson. Under Lyndon 
Baines Johnson, the interest costs on the national debt in his last 
year, when we voted that balanced budget, was $16.6 billion. Now it is 
over $350 billion, over $1 billion a day. That is the biggest waste 
consciously caused by us.
  I have been a party to it. Yes, I tried to enact a freeze. Then I 
tried Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Then, even in the Budget Committee I had a 
value-added tax. It was bipartisan. I had the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri join me. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota joined. 
We had eight votes for a value-added tax of 5 percent allocated to 
ridding us of the deficit and debt so we would not have this increased 
spending on automatic pilot.
  But, somehow, somewhere along the line, we have gotten into a 
contract of nothing but procedural nonsense. We have gotten into term 
limits, when the Constitution already says I have to run for every 6 
years. Incidentally, I have been elected to the U.S. Senate six times.
  We have procedural talk about unfunded mandates, line-item vetoes, 
anything except enacting a balanced budget. We are not providing; the 
size of the Federal work force is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. 
We are spending more and getting less. No wonder the body politic is 
disillusioned with their Government in Washington. Somehow, both 
Republican and Democrat, keep on spending more and more while we get 
less and less. And they all give us this same pollster pap of, ``I am 
against taxes and for the family. I am against crime and for jobs.'' 
You know, get the hot button items and try to fool the people. And that 
is why the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has offered this 
amendment, which states:

       It is the sense of the Senate that because section 13301 of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act prohibits the use of the Social 
     Security trust fund surplus to offset the budget deficit, any 
     proposal for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
     should contain a provision creating a firewall between the 
     receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and 
     the rest of the federal budget, and that the constitutional 
     amendment should explicitly forbid using Social Security 
     trust funds to balance the federal budget.

  Mr. President, if acted on that idea, we would have passed the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by at least 5 votes in 
March of last year--March of last year.
  Again, about 6 weeks ago, I tried to bring it up, and they raised a 
technicality that it was not relevant. Five Senators wrote a letter to 
Majority Leader Dole. We went on record in favor of the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution as long as it did not repeal section 
13301. But they want that unified budget. Keep spending the billions 
and billions and billions from the Social Security trust fund and then 
come around at the end of the day when my children and the 
distinguished Presiding Officer's children and grandchildren come for 
their particular retirement, and they are going to say the untapped 
funds are actually an accounting figment.
  Who in the year 2002 is going to raise a trillion dollars in taxes to 
make good on the IOU's in the Social Security draw? Nobody, nobody, and 
they do not have any idea of doing it. But ``I'm against taxes,'' they 
say. Oh, it is a wonderful luxury to run around and fool the American 
people, and who allows it? The American free press. Read ``Breaking the 
News'' by James Fallows, an authoritative writer. He has been up here. 
He has watched the operation. I can tell you, time and time again, it 
has been a very, very difficult fight.
  Let me give credit to the late Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz. 
John Heinz and I worked on taking the Social Security trust fund off 
budget. It was bipartisan. It was called the Heinz-Hollings amendment--
we wanted him to lead it at the time because the Republicans were in 
control--and we called it the Heinz-Hollings-Moynihan amendment.
  Our distinguished Senator Moynihan had been the ranking member on the 
Finance Committee and, admittedly, is still the authority on Social 
Security in this body.

[[Page S3307]]

  But on October 18, 1990, Senator John Heinz said:

       Mr. President, in all the great jambalaya of frauds 
     surrounding the budget, surely the most reprehensible is the 
     systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust 
     fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit.

  Another quote on October 18, 1990 by Senator John Heinz:

       Since 1983, when we may have saved the Social Security 
     goose, we have systematically proceeded to melt down and pawn 
     the golden egg. It does not take a financial wizard to tell 
     us that spending these reserves on today's bills does not 
     bode well for tomorrow's retirees.

  I make these quotes to the body this afternoon for the simple reason 
that it is bipartisan, and I am appealing to the Senators on the other 
side of the aisle, the Republican colleagues, because I know the 
chairman of our Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, does not believe in busting the budget. He got caught off base 
last November when he held up the good housekeeping award and said, 
``Here's a balanced budget certified by the Director of the CBO.''
  Then 2 days later, ``CBO said, as you were, ``we have a deficit of 
$105 billion.'' It was not balanced at all. Let us not go through that 
charade again. We can pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  Senator Dole is put under tremendous pressures with the goofy right 
that he has to respond to in order to get the nomination. But now that 
he has it, he should revert to the old Dole, as he was as chairman of 
the Finance Committee when he joined in the sentiment of George Bush 
who called Reaganomics voodoo, and former Republican majority leader, 
Senator Baker, who said it was a riverboat gamble.

  I know Senator Dole. I have tremendous respect for him, and I know he 
is solid on paying bills. But he has a crowd that runs rampant saying, 
``We don't want to pay the bill.''
  Remember what happened to Fritz Mondale? He was honest enough to come 
out and say we are going to have to have an increase in taxes in order 
to pay the bills, but he did not add ``in order to pay the bills.'' He 
said, ``Yes, it looks like we are going to have to increase taxes.'' He 
had ahead of time said, ``By the way, I'm a Democrat in the image of 
Hubert Humphrey.'' When he said he was a Democrat in the image of my 
friend Senator Humphrey from Minnesota, everybody took it to mean we 
really were going to start some spending.
  I understand the call that has been put out to call the Democrats 
tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend.
  Let me enter something in the Record now for President Clinton. In 
all of these 15 years, the only time the deficit has been decreased is 
under President Clinton. He came to town and cut spending $500 billion. 
He came to town and with a $500 billion deficit reduction plan--equally 
split between spending cuts and taxes. I voted for it in order to try 
and get on top of these interest costs, this waste.
  He came to town and cut $57 billion out of Medicare and had proposed 
another $124 billion. But there was no $250 billion for a tax cut. So 
he was acting responsibly until the Post and you folks just pulled him 
off base, and then he came for a tax cut, too, which nobody can afford.
  That is one grand fraud on the American people. We do not have any 
taxes to cut. We have been cutting the spending. Eliminate the domestic 
discretionary spending. Eliminate welfare, eliminate foreign aid and 
the entire domestic discretionary spending and not cut it, and you 
still have a deficit. That is the serious problem.
  The ox is in the ditch, and we have to sober up in this Government of 
ours and quit talking pollster politics games which the press joins in: 
who is up and who is down and who is silly enough.
  I recommended a value-added tax in the Finance Committee. I want to 
pay for new immigration inspectors. I want to pay for 5,000 new border 
patrol. I want to pay for the extra FBI, the crime bill. I want to pay 
for the commitment in Bosnia. But this crowd comes up here and gets 
away with the worst I have ever seen.
  I hope that we can salve the conscience, if there is one left amongst 
us, where we adopt the amendment of the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota, the sense of the Senate that we not use Social Security 
trust funds to balance the Federal budget.
  That was not the intent when we adopted those taxes, but you can see 
from the way they are treating highway trust funds--I would like to do 
it for the highway trust funds. I would like to do it for airport and 
airway trust funds. Out there in Colorado, we need some new airports, 
but we have not been spending the money on airports, we have been 
spending them instead on masking the size of the deficit, sacrificing 
future investment for present consumption.
  I would like to spend these moneys for their intended purpose. I 
would like to pay the bill so that we will not saddle the next 
generation with our excesses. Where all they can do in Washington and 
is to pay for a little bit of defense, a little bit of domestic 
discretionary, cannot promote technology, cannot promote any 
competitiveness, cannot have any research and health care, and 
everything else that Government is supposed to do.
  I believe in Government. I do not think Government is the problem. I 
think this charade is a problem. I think they know it is a problem. But 
they go along with this silly contract and its procedural nonsense, 
guaranteed every day to put on a show here. ``Here is April 15. Here is 
tax day. Let's remind them about a tax cut that they could have 
gotten.'' So they automatically call it a President Clinton tax cut 
that you did not get, and all those kinds of things, when they could 
not give it to save their souls.
  They do not have taxes to cut. In fact, their solution is Reaganomics 
and growth--please do not come back here with that growth. Senator 
Mathias on the Republican side and I were 2 of 11 votes against 
Reaganomics and that mantra of growth, growth, growth. The only thing 
that has grown is the deficit and spending, spending on automatic pilot 
of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day. And nobody wants to talk about 
it. They want to talk about tax cuts. It's like saying, ``I want to buy 
your vote.''
  Campaign financing. The biggest fraudulent campaign financing occurs 
on the floor of the U.S. Congress, because we mislead the American 
people that their Government is being paid for. We act like all we need 
to do is cut back a little on welfare and on foreign aid eliminate the 
Commerce Department.
  Yes. Since I have the time--I talked the week before last with former 
Secretary Ron Brown. He and I were trying to work votes, in all candor, 
over on the Republican side. We were having a difficult time. We did 
not know whether or not the administration was going to veto the bill, 
should it pass. I take it now that the distinguished President would 
not hesitate in vetoing it because the Commerce Department is not a 
grab bag.
  I have been through over a dozen Secretaries of Commerce, and I am 
laying it on the line. Ron Brown was the one Secretary of Commerce that 
did the work. Maurice Stans up to Mosbacher, all they did was collect 
money.
  But here was a fellow out hustling business rather than funds for the 
campaign, actually doing an outstanding job. When I heard of the recent 
tragedy, I had just with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator 
Cohen. We were in Beijing at the time of the plane crash. They did not 
ask about the President because he has never been to the largest and 
perhaps one of the most important countries in the entire world. In 
fact, the Secretary of State, he has been 34 times to the Mideast but 
only one visit to Beijing. They did not ask about the Secretary of 
State.
  They asked about Ron Brown. He made a wonderful, favorable 
impression. I really believe, Mr. President, that we can really bring 
about more human rights through capitalism and market forces than we 
can through sanctions.
  I have learned the hard way, as we did back in the old days at the 
beginning of the war and the artillery. There was a saying then that no 
matter how well the gun was aimed, if the recoil was going to kill the 
gun crew, you did not fire the gun. The recoil of sanctions has killed 
the gun crew. It is killing off our business.
  Just recently, France picked up a $1.2 billion Airbus contract rather 
than the

[[Page S3308]]

United States of America. Well, we all believe that the Government 
should take a stand. But the way we have taken it is in a general loud-
mouth fashion without any result. We should have targeted sanctions, 
clearly understood in the first instance. Let our businesspeople go and 
prosper and bring about more capitalism over communism. That is how we 
really defeated it in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, with 
capitalism itself.
  What we are doing is taking the largest, most important nation in the 
Pacific--I can see that front cover of another magazine, ``Friend or 
Enemy?'' We are making them an enemy. There is not any question about 
it. They like America. They like our technology. They have 100,000 
Chinese students. They know we stand for freedom and everything else.

  I was on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1966, the Kitty 
Hawk. We could not control 20 million North Vietnamese. I do not know 
how an aircraft carrier running around the Straits of Taiwan is going 
to control 1.2 billion Chinese. We need to sober up.
  Government--the art of the possible, not responding to these pollster 
pap things. ``Are you against Red China?'' or ``Are you against 
communism?'' and all those things. You have to live in the real world. 
You have to get the best results you can. I am absolutely persuaded you 
are going to do it through capitalism and not through running around 
confronting on every turn and letting that other crowd pick up the 
marbles.
  If you could do it unilaterally, fine business. But you cannot. So 
the French go in and the Germans go in or the Japanese, and they pick 
up our marbles and we are left behind.
  If I put myself in control--if I had to control 1.2 billion, the one 
concern I guess I would have to have would be Taiwan. They are moving 
toward democracy. They have, after 48 years, a free election for a 
President for the first time. But having had it, the more they talk 
about democracy and independence, coming to Cornell and asking for 
diplomatic recognition. But we need to be honest, Mr. President, about 
what that means in China. Any strong movement toward democracy right is 
a sensitive subject because if the Taiwan get democracy, then some 
crowd down in Guangzhou, will want democracy and everything else. Give 
me one man one vote today in Beijing and I have chaos.
  But the politician here in the National Government does not stop 
looking, listening, or thinking about it. I do not believe that the 
rulers in Beijing have any idea of continuing so-called Communistic 
government.
  Some call it Market-Leninism rather than Marxist-Leninism. I do not 
know what it is, but I do know, having been there in 1976 and 1986 and 
now in 1996, that they have brought about 180 million into the middle 
class.
  I would daresay, if I were Nick the Greek and had to bet, that I 
would bet that 10 to 20 years from now you are going to find more 
hungry fed in China than you are going to find in democratic India. I 
think that is a mistake in Russia, and that is why the President is 
going to be there the day after tomorrow.
  Why? Because they gave political rights before they gave economic 
rights.
  We in the U.S. Senate ought to stop looking and listening to those 
pollsters who have never served a day in government. They are 
wonderful. I have the best. I trust their polls and predictions, and 
they have been on target, but they still really do not know government. 
They never have thought about doing things in the long term. They are 
only thinking bam, bam towards the next election. I could fault us all. 
We are all looking to November. Nothing will happen in this body this 
year. Why? On account of November. Each day we are trying to find out 
who is on top in the 7 o'clock news.
  Irrespective of who is on top, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record these tables, since President Truman, 1945 to 
1996, of the U.S. budget outlays in billions, the trust funds, the real 
deficit, the gross Federal deficit, and the gross interest.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 U.S.                                           
                                                                budget                         Gross            
                     President and year                        (outlays   Trust     Real      Federal     Gross 
                                                                  in      funds    deficit     debt     interest
                                                              billions)                     (billions)          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:                                                                                                         
  1945......................................................       92.7      5.4  ........      260.1    ( \1\ )
  1946......................................................       55.2      3.9     -10.9      271.0    ( \1\ )
  1947......................................................       34.5      3.4     +13.9      257.1    ( \1\ )
  1948......................................................       29.8      3.0      +5.1      252.0    ( \1\ )
  1949......................................................       38.8      2.4      -0.6      252.6    ( \1\ )
  1950......................................................       42.6     -0.1      -4.3      256.9    ( \1\ )
  1951......................................................       45.5      3.7      +1.6      255.3    ( \1\ )
  1952......................................................       67.7      3.5      -3.8      259.1    ( \1\ )
  1953......................................................       76.1      3.4      -6.9      266.0    ( \1\ )
Eisenhower:                                                                                                     
  1954......................................................       70.9      2.0      -4.8      270.8    ( \1\ )
  1955......................................................       68.4      1.2      -3.6      274.4    ( \1\ )
  1956......................................................       70.6      2.6      +1.7      272.7    ( \1\ )
  1957......................................................       76.6      1.8      +0.4      272.3    ( \1\ )
  1958......................................................       82.4      0.2      -7.4      279.7    ( \1\ )
  1959......................................................       92.1     -1.6      -7.8      287.5    ( \1\ )
  1960......................................................       92.2     -0.5      -3.0      290.5    ( \1\ )
  1961......................................................       97.7      0.9      -2.1      292.6    ( \1\ )
Kennedy:                                                                                                        
  1962......................................................      106.8     -0.3     -10.3      302.9        9.1
  1963......................................................      111.3      1.9      -7.4      310.3        9.9
Johnson:                                                                                                        
  1964......................................................      118.5      2.7      -5.8      316.1       10.7
  1965......................................................      118.2      2.5      -6.2      322.3       11.3
  1966......................................................      134.5      1.5      -6.2      328.5       12.0
  1967......................................................      157.5      7.1     -11.9      340.4       13.4
  1968......................................................      178.1      3.1     -28.3      368.7       14.6
  1969......................................................      183.6     -0.3      +2.9      365.8       16.6
Nixon:                                                                                                          
  1970......................................................      195.6     12.3     -15.1      380.9       19.3
  1971......................................................      210.2      4.3     -27.3      408.2       21.0
  1972......................................................      230.7      4.3     -27.7      435.9       21.8
  1973......................................................      245.7     15.5     -30.4      466.3       24.2
  1974......................................................      269.4     11.5     -17.6      483.9       29.3
Ford:                                                                                                           
  1975......................................................      332.3      4.8     -58.0      541.9       32.7
  1976......................................................      371.8     13.4     -87.1      629.0       37.1
Carter:                                                                                                         
  1977......................................................      409.2     23.7     -77.4      706.4       41.9
  1978......................................................      458.7     11.0     -70.2      776.6       48.7
  1979......................................................      503.5     12.2     -52.9      829.5       59.9
  1980......................................................      590.9      5.8     -79.6      909.1       74.8
Reagan:                                                                                                         
  1981......................................................      678.2      6.7     -85.7      994.8       95.5
  1982......................................................      745.8     14.5    -142.5    1,137.3      117.2
  1983......................................................      808.4     26.6    -234.4    1,371.7      128.7
  1984......................................................      851.8      7.6    -193.0    1,564.7      153.9
  1985......................................................      946.4     40.6    -252.9    1,817.6      178.9
  1986......................................................      990.3     81.8    -303.0    2,120.6      190.3
  1987......................................................    1,003.9     75.7    -225.5    2,346.1      195.3
  1988......................................................    1,064.1    100.0    -255.2    2,601.3      214.1
Bush:                                                                                                           
  1989......................................................    1,143.2    114.2    -266.7    2,868.0      240.9
  1990......................................................    1,252.7    117.2    -338.6    3,206.6      264.7
  1991......................................................    1,323.8    122.7    -391.9    3,598.5      285.5
  1992......................................................    1,380.9    113.2    -403.6    4,002.1      292.3
Clinton:                                                                                                        
  1993......................................................    1,408.2     94.2    -349.3    4,351.4      292.5
  1994......................................................    1,460.6     89.1    -292.3    4,643.7      296.3
  1995......................................................    1,514.4    113.5    -277.3    4,921.0      332.4
  Est. 1996.................................................    1,595.0    105.8    -277.8    5,198.8     350.0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget tables: Senator Hollings.                                                                            
                                                                                                                
 Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1996; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1995 Economic and      
  Budget Outlook.                                                                                               

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record Public Law 13301, status of the Social Security 
trust funds.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Subtitle C--Social Security

     SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and 
     revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals 
     required by this subsection or in any other surplus or 
     deficit totals required by this title.''.

     SEC. 13302. PROTECTION OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS IN THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill or joint resolution, as 
     reported, or any amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if, upon enactment--
       (1)(A) such legislation under consideration would provide 
     for a net increase in OASDI benefits of at least 0.02 percent 
     of the present value of future taxable payroll for the 75-
     year period utilized in the most recent annual report of the 
     Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act, and (B) such legislation under 
     consideration does not provide at least a net increase, for 
     such 75-year period, in OASDI taxes of the amount by which 
     the net increase in such benefits exceeds 0.02 percent of the 
     present value of future taxable payroll for such 75-year 
     period.
       (2)(A) such legislation under consideration would provide 
     for a net increase in OASDI benefits (for the 5-year 
     estimating period for such legislation under consideration), 
     (B) such net increase, * * *.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the 
Hollings-Heinz amendment Social Security trust funds budget deficit 
vote of October 18, 1990, be printed in the Record.

[[Page S3309]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Senate Voting Record--No. 283


                               YEAS (98)

       Democrats (55 or 100 percent): Adams, Akaka, Baucus, 
     Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, 
     Bumpers, Burdick, Byrd, Conrad, Cranston, Daschle, DeConcini, 
     Dixon, Dodd, Exon, Ford, Fowler, Glenn, Gore, Graham, Harkin, 
     Heflin,
       Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, 
     Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Metzenbaum, Mikulski, 
     Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Reid, Riegle, Robb, 
     Rockefeller, Sanford, Sarbanes, Sasser, Shelby, Simon, and 
     Wirth.
       Republicans (43 or 96 percent): Bond, Boschwitz, Burns, 
     Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, 
     Domenici, Durenberger, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, 
     Hatfield, Heinz, Helms, Humphrey,
       Jeffords, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McCain, 
     McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Pressler, 
     Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond, 
     Warner, and Wilson.


                                NAYS (2)

       Republicans (2 or 4 percent): Armstrong and Wallop.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will have other things to be printed in the Record 
tomorrow when we debate this. This is not a casual thing. This is not a 
political thing. I will vote for Senator Dole's Senate Resolution No. 
1, if he will not repeal, just do not repeal the present law.
  At least we have it into law. But the media disregards the law. The 
media quotes a unified budget, but sometimes the media does show some 
sense--instead of unified, saying the money is all in the Federal 
Government, they say, and I finally close in the sentence here on April 
15, 1996, Time magazine, ``But the supposedly untapped funds are 
actually an accounting figment.''
  Tell that to the media. From now on, that is what they call it, an 
accounting figment. We ought to have truth in budgeting. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________