[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3348-S3349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1664, which the clerk will report.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The bill 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 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.


[[Page S3349]]


  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dorgan amendment No. 3667, 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.
       Simpson amendment No. 3669, to prohibit foreign students on 
     F-1 visas from obtaining free public elementary or secondary 
     education.
       Simpson amendment No. 3670, to establish a pilot program to 
     collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign 
     students.
       Simpson amendment No. 3671, to create new ground of 
     exclusion and of deportation for falsely claiming U.S. 
     citizenship.
       Simpson amendment No. 3672 (to amendment No. 3667), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota will state his 
inquiry, and then it is the Chair's intention to recognize the Senator 
from----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the parliamentary inquiry is this. When I 
offered an objection to the unanimous-consent request, the unanimous-
consent request was then not agreed to. At that moment I said, ``Mr. 
President,'' and the Chair recognized the Senator from North Dakota.
  I do not quite understand that the right of recognition on the floor 
of the Senate has changed because I read the rule book about the right 
of recognition. After I was recognized, the Senator from Wyoming then 
asked a series of questions of the Chair, from whom he got a 
sympathetic answer, which does not comport with the rules of Senate.
  I would like to understand the circumstances which existed when the 
Chair recognized me after I objected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator knows that the stating of a 
parliamentary inquiry does not gain the floor. The Senator from Wyoming 
has the floor. The floor was placed under the regular order, which the 
Senator from North Dakota had called for. Under the previous order, the 
Senate resumed consideration of S. 1664, which is the pending business. 
The Chair asked the clerk to report. The Senator from Wyoming has the 
floor.

  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry. This Senator begs to differ with 
the President. The circumstances of the Senate were this: The Senator 
from Wyoming propounded a unanimous-consent request. The Chair asked if 
there was an objection. The Senator from North Dakota objected. At that 
point, the Senator from North Dakota addressed the President, ``Mr. 
President.'' The President of the Senate recognized the Senator from 
North Dakota. At that point I was recognized and had the floor of the 
Senate.
  I do not understand the ruling or the interpretation of the Chair 
that leads to a different result. I would very much like to try to 
understand that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is correct to 
this extent: The pending business is S. 1664. The chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, has the right to be 
recognized under that pending business. The Chair has recognized the 
Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I just ask my friend from North 
Dakota? I think the Chair could easily have determined that in 
recognizing the Senator from North Dakota, it was for the point of 
parliamentary inquiry. That was all that the Senator from North Dakota 
was seeking. If he was recognized, which he was, then certainly it was 
on the point of a parliamentary inquiry. I think that is perhaps the 
confusion.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The right of----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, the President, will state again to 
the Senator from North Dakota that no one has the right to the floor 
when the President is asking the clerk to read the bill, which is the 
regular order. At that point in time, the Senator from Wyoming has the 
right to be recognized, and the Chair has recognized him.
  So the Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Did the Senator 
from Wyoming seek the floor when I made the objection to the unanimous-
consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, after the unanimous-consent request was 
made and I objected, for what purpose did the Presiding Officer 
recognize the Senator from North Dakota? The transcript will show that 
the President recognized the Senator from North Dakota at that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer recognized the Senator 
from North Dakota for the purpose of inquiring what the nature of the 
parliamentary inquiry was and recognized the Senator from Wyoming and 
the manager of the bill, which is the pending business. It 
automatically became the pending business.
  Mr. DORGAN. Further parliamentary inquiry. I think a mistake has been 
made here. I think I could easily understand what the mistake is if we 
had the transcript read back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I hope that all of us understand what the 
situation is--I do anyway--and that is that the Senator from North 
Dakota feels very strongly about an issue which he proposed yesterday 
that had to do with a balanced budget amendment and Social Security and 
offsets and that type of thing, a rather consistent theme by the 
Senator from North Dakota that he talked about. There is also a 
proposal--I am not leadership. I am not representing leadership. What 
we are trying to do is go forward with an immigration bill. There will 
be many extraneous amendments on this bill, I feel quite certain. All I 
am trying to do is to get to the hour of 2:15, after which time the 
Senator from North Dakota may do anything that he desires to do with 
regard to the issue.

  At this time I yield the floor for purposes of an opening statement 
by Senator Bryan of Nevada.
  Mr. DORGAN. I object, Mr. President.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. SIMPSON. There is not anything to object to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Wyoming propound a----
  Mr. SIMPSON. No; I did not propose a unanimous-consent request. I 
simply yielded the floor to the Senator from Nevada.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Parliamentary inquiry. That is not the way the Senate 
operates.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The rules of the Senate require one can only yield for 
purposes of a question. That has been the rule for 200 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.

                          ____________________