[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3328-S3330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise tonight to make an opening 
statement with regard to the bill, S. 1664, on illegal immigration.
  Let me begin by stating my support for this legislation. It is the 
product of much work in our Judiciary Committee and before that in the 
Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. And, in my 
judgment, although there are parts of the bill that I still hope to see 
us modify during the deliberations this week, it is an extraordinary 
piece of legislation which moves in the right direction, and it is in 
no small measure thanks to the Senator from Wyoming that we have this 
fine piece of legislation before us. His work both in the context of 
this legislation and over the past 17 years on immigration-related 
matters has been exceptional. It is a reflection of a Senator who is 
deeply committed to accomplishing a job that is difficult, and I 
commend him for it.
  Mr. President, those who refuse to play by the rules who come here 
illegally become, as a result, a burden on our society, and it should 
not be tolerated. The illegal immigration is a betrayal of our long 
tradition of welcoming those who play by the rules. If the Federal 
Government did its job of keeping out, tracking down, and expelling 
illegal aliens, we would not have an immigration problem that confronts 
America today.
  By definition, illegal immigrants are lawbreakers, and based on 
statistics, illegal immigrants are coming here at a very high rate. It 
is estimated at about 300,000 per year. Our bill to address illegal 
immigration, S. 1664, deals effectively and aggressively with the real 
problem of illegal immigration--reforms to our border patrols, our visa 
policies, criminal alien policies and rules concerning immigrant use of 
welfare.
  First, with respect to border patrols, this bill begins in the 
obvious place, by fighting the problem of illegal immigration at the 
border. Our illegal immigration reform bill provides for the addition 
of 4,700 Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, a 90 percent 
increase over the current level. It adds 300 new INS investigators for 
the next 3 years to investigate the smuggling and employment of illegal 
aliens, an increase of nearly 100 percent over current levels. These 
increases will help us address the fundamental, the basic problem of 
illegal immigration by providing the manpower necessary to address the 
problem of those who come to this country without proper documentation. 
That is only a start of how this bill attempts to reform the 
immigration laws as they pertain to illegal immigrants.
  Another category of illegal aliens is those who overstay their visas, 
aliens who come here legally but then overstay. This bill addresses 
that problem and forcefully.
  First, it establishes the first substantial penalties for visa 
overstays.
  Second, it bars visa overstayers for even applying for a new visa for 
5 years if they fail to appear for a deportation hearing. It also 
charges 300 INS investigators to seek out these aliens and to enforce 
the bill's rules.
  It is important to keep in mind that contrary to some charges made 
over recent weeks, visa overstayers commonly are not individuals who 
come here on permanent family visas. Rather, the bulk of visa 
overstayers come to this country as tourists or students, then stay 
beyond the expiration of their visas.
  Thus, it is wise and fitting that we should address those who break 
the law, those who overstay the visa, with sharp, stiff penalties 
rather than attempting to address this problem by changing in some ways 
the penalties for those who are playing by the rules either by reducing 
the number of immigrants who may come to this country or dealing with 
those who are in fact not creating the problem.
  A third area which this bill addresses and which I have been very 
active in working on pertains to criminal aliens. By conservative 
estimates, almost half a million felons are living in this country 
illegally. These aliens have been convicted of murder, rape, drug 
trafficking, potentially such crimes as espionage, sabotage, treason 
and/or a number of other serious crimes and are therefore, under the 
current laws of our country, deportable.
  Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, our officials cannot 
deport these criminals because of a breakdown in the deportation 
process. Principally, the problem relates to the interminable amount of 
appeals which deportable aliens who are criminals have at their 
disposal. As a consequence, many of these noncitizen lawbreakers end up 
back on our streets to prey on law-abiding American citizens.
  In the original bill of the Senator from Wyoming, a number of needed 
provisions were contained. That bill originally directed the Attorney 
General to provide regulations permitting special inquiry officers to 
enter final orders of deportation stipulated to by the alien. It 
authorized Federal judges to order deportation as a condition of 
probation. And it made other similar efforts to address the criminal 
alien problem.
  I am glad, however, that the Judiciary Committee saw fit to go even 
further and to add to and strengthen these provisions by adopting four 
amendments on which I worked with a number of other Senators on the 
committee to see adopted. These amendments would create expedited 
procedures for deporting criminal aliens. The provisions would first 
prohibit the Attorney General from releasing such criminal aliens from 
custody; second, end judicial review for orders of deportation entered 
against these criminal aliens while maintaining the right to 
administrative review.

  In short, once the criminal alien had exhausted all appeals available 
under the criminal laws, the criminal alien

[[Page S3329]]

would still have the full deportation administrative provisions to 
protect him, that is, a deportation hearing and the ability to appeal 
any order of deportation to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but that 
would end the process as opposed to triggering a return to the court 
system. That will be positive because it will mean the actual 
deportation of more criminal aliens and the freeing up of the court 
system from many of these frivolous lawsuits.
  In addition, the criminal alien deportation procedures require the 
Attorney General to deport criminal aliens within 30 days of the 
conclusion of the alien's prison sentence.
  What I believe this will lead to is the initiation of the deportation 
proceedings well in advance of the end of the sentence so that upon 
release the criminal aliens will be leaving the country.
  Finally, our legislation permits State criminal courts to enter 
conclusive findings of fact during sentencing that an alien has been 
convicted of a deportable offense. In addition, the State courts, upon 
making those findings of fact, will be required to report them to the 
Attorney General so that criminal aliens who are convicted of 
deportable offenses in State courts would be known by the authorities, 
that is, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, in such a 
fashion as to allow for the deportation proceedings to begin.
  These reforms would not affect any of the aliens' due process 
protections on the underlying criminal offense. Aliens would still be 
entitled to the lengthy appellate and habeas corpus review, just like 
U.S. citizens. But abuses of the appeals process would stop there and 
not continue on through the deportation provisions themselves.
  Mr. President, this makes sense. The fact is, if there are, as is 
currently estimated, a minimum of one-half million noncitizens who are 
people who have committed serious crimes in this country, to me it 
makes sense that the laws which allow those people to be deported ought 
to be enforced so those slots can be taken by law-abiding citizens who 
want to come to this country and make a positive contribution rather 
than come to the country and commit serious criminal violations. These 
provisions collectively will allow us to dramatically increase the 
number of criminal aliens who are deported. Most recent estimates 
suggest that current amount is nowhere higher than 4 to 6 percent of 
the criminal aliens who are deportable in this country. That means that 
somewhere over 90 percent of the criminal aliens who could be deported 
are not, primarily because of a lack of a process to make expeditious 
deportation feasible.
  Our bill would change that. It would mean that criminal aliens would 
be leaving the country and, therefore, there would be more slots in 
this country for immigrants who want to make a contribution.
  Another area which this bill addresses effectively, I think, are 
restrictions on welfare benefits available to noncitizens. The problem 
of immigrant welfare use is often overstated. According to the Urban 
Institute, nonrefugee, working-age immigrants are no more likely to use 
welfare than are native-born Americans. But I continue to believe we 
should concentrate on requiring that all immigrants be responsible for 
themselves, rather than become dependent on Government programs. To 
encourage responsibility, we first should concentrate on preventing 
illegal aliens, who undermine our laws by even being here, from 
receiving welfare benefits. In addition, we should prevent immigrants 
from collecting welfare payments until they have worked here and 
contributed taxes to our welfare system or until they become citizens.
  Third, we should hold sponsors of legal immigrants financially liable 
for up to 10 years for welfare payments those they sponsor improperly 
receive. As you know, the sponsorship agreements that people sign in 
order to bring someone to this country are very, very infrequently 
upheld; very infrequently enforced. I think the legislation we have now 
will provide us with the tools to enforce such sponsorship agreements. 
It will attribute the sponsor's income to the immigrant sponsor for 5 
years should the immigrant seek welfare payments. That will, on the one 
hand, dramatically reduce those eligible and, in addition, allow us to 
collect from the person who makes the original commitment of 
sponsorship.
  Collectively, these provisions address, and address effectively, the 
illegal immigration problems which we currently confront. They do so 
without punishing law-abiding people and companies. However, there are 
certain parts of the legislation before us which I think go too far and 
place the focus, not on those who are breaking the rules, but rather 
too much on those who are playing by the rules.
  First, in this respect, and most important, are the provisions in the 
legislation that pertain to what I believe will ultimately become a 
national ID system. The original bill included a national employee 
verification system. This mandatory system would have required all 
employers to verify with the Federal Government the work eligibility of 
every prospective employee. Because this system would be expensive and 
intrusive, riddled with mistakes and dangerous to our workers' ability 
to find work, the committee saw fit to strike that permanent system, 
which would have to have been in place within 8 years.
  I brought a provision before the committee to simply strike all of 
this verification process. It failed on a 9-to-9 vote. What we are left 
with now is a provision for a pilot program. While it is a smaller 
program than that originally envisioned in the legislation, I continue 
to see problems with this provision because, although the bill does not 
overtly establish a national verification system that is mandatory, it 
heads us in that direction. And there are no brakes provided in the 
bill to keep it from that destination.

  In this provision, the INS would be permitted to initiate large local 
or regional demonstration projects anywhere in the Nation. The language 
of the bill is vague here, but it leaves discretion to bureaucrats to 
decide whether the system will be mandatory or voluntary for employers. 
Also unclear is the size of the regional project that might be 
initiated, or regional projects that might be initiated. For example, 
such regions could encompass multiple States at one time.
  It is also unclear what happens during a demonstration project when 
U.S. citizens cannot prove that they are eligible to work. It is 
likewise unclear about whether or not individual Americans will have to 
consult the Government when they seek to hire someone even to do such 
things as mow their own lawn. One thing is clear. The bill sets in 
place the infrastructure necessary for a mandatory national system and 
establishes the principle that companies should gain Government 
approval before hiring any employee.
  I think this is headed in the wrong direction. People who want to 
break the rules will find ways to break the rules or get around the 
rules. That is happening today. But, if we move in the direction of a 
national employee verification system, whether it is the original 
mandatory nationwide program the legislation included or a pilot 
program which starts in place the infrastructure that leads to a 
national program, I think we are headed in the wrong direction. We will 
be penalizing those who play by the rules, both employers and employees 
of employers. Especially for those in small business, it will be a 
substantial increase in business overhead. For employees, native-born 
U.S. citizens, it could mean huge hardship if the database of such a 
system is in any way inaccurate.
  Just to put that in perspective, a mere 1 percent error margin in the 
database could, on an annual basis, affect 600,000 employment decisions 
in this country. To put that in perspective, that means twice the 
number of total illegal aliens that come into this country each year. I 
do not believe that is the way we should proceed, and, therefore, 
during consideration of this bill, I will be offering an amendment with 
Senators Feingold and DeWine to strike provisions for this overly 
intrusive infringement that is signified by the pilot program.
  This amendment, striking the verification provision, is supported by 
a significant number of groups concerned with the rights of workers and 
employers from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and 
the National Retail Association to the U.S. Catholic Conference to the 
Small Business Survival Committee. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on

[[Page S3330]]

specifics, but the debate we should be having here is, How do we reduce 
illegal immigration?
  I believe the proper place to start is by focusing on those who are 
lawbreakers, whether they are employees or employers, whether they are 
those who come over the border without documents or those who overstay 
their visas or if they are a criminal alien. I think it is important 
for us to take a very simple philosophical approach to deal with these 
problems.
  For those who are yearning to be free, who are willing to play by the 
rules and wait their turn, for them we should throw open the door to 
the land of liberty, which has been available as long as this country 
has existed. On the other hand, for those who flout our laws, they 
should find that Lady Liberty has turned her back on them, that she 
will not rise up to aid those who trample on the law on which liberty 
is built.
  Though Lady Liberty yearns to aid the righteous, those willing to 
work hard and to build a better life for themselves and their families, 
she does not allow people to come to this country simply to take 
advantage of the laws and of the citizens here.
  Those who prize both law and liberty, those who would be Americans 
are those we should protect with any legislation that we should address 
in this context.
  Mr. President, as virtually every Member of the Senate, I have a 
heritage that began in another part of the world. In my case, it was my 
grandparents who came here approximately a century ago. They did not 
come to this country in search of welfare payments. They did not come 
to this country for any ulterior motives. They came here because they 
wanted to live in a country that was free. They wanted their children 
and their grandchildren to know what it was like to be born in a nation 
that was free, and they made a positive contribution, both in what they 
did and in bringing up strong families who have made their own 
contributions.
  Last fall, I had the opportunity for the first time to go to Ellis 
Island in New York where my grandparents made their first visit to 
these shores. I was struck as I went there and as I looked through the 
history of Ellis Island of what it meant and what it still means. I 
believe as we address immigration issues, we should never lose sight of 
what Ellis Island and the various other points of disembarkation have 
meant to those who truly wanted to come to this country to enjoy all 
that America offers--the American dream.
  Legal immigration is the American way. It strengthens us 
economically, culturally, and spiritually, because by letting in those 
who come here playing by the rules and seeking to build a better life 
for their families, we welcome true Americans and live up to our own 
ideals. Indeed, an overwhelming percentage of people in our country 
have made it clear that they think we should address illegal 
immigration problems long before we consider changes in the legal 
immigration laws of this country, and indeed, Mr. President, as I will 
say at a later point in these debates, it is clear to me that these are 
very separate issues and, as a threshold matter, we have done the right 
thing in the Judiciary Committee, as the House did the right thing, in 
separating legal and illegal immigration.
  Cutting legal immigration precipitously could backfire and cause more 
people to come here illegally. So for those reasons, I strongly support 
the illegal immigration bill that is before us and believe it should be 
considered on its own merits as a freestanding piece of legislation. 
Indeed, that is the position that two-thirds of the members of the 
Judiciary Committee took when we began this debate a few weeks ago.
  I am convinced that we must concentrate on the real problem facing 
our country from immigration--lawbreakers--and we should not allow any 
fear of immigrants to distract us from the task of keeping the illegal 
immigrants out of the country.
  Mr. President, after we conclude that and once S. 1664 has been 
disposed of, then it would be appropriate to consider changes that we 
might wish to make in the laws pertaining to legal immigration. But it 
is my sincere hope and certainly will be my effort here on the floor to 
maintain the separation that we achieved in the Judiciary Committee and 
that was achieved in the House of Representatives.
  I think that we will make a major step forward if we pass S. 1664, 
hopefully with certain modifications. I think we would make a big 
mistake if we backtrack and begin to try and confuse and merge issues 
that I do not believe are appropriately linked together.
  I look forward in the days ahead to working hard on the floor, as we 
did in the Judiciary Committee, to make sure our country moves 
aggressively and forcefully to address the problems of illegal 
immigration.
  I strongly commend Senator Simpson and all the members of the 
subcommittee who worked hard to bring us to this point.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________