[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4011-S4012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Wyoming, if he has 
a moment, would have an opportunity to hear what I have to say. The 
business of the Senate as I understand from the majority leader's 
announcement is to come back to the bill on illegal immigration which 
is to be managed by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson.
  Let me just in a couple of minutes of morning business say that I 
will likely vote for the illegal immigration bill. There are a couple 
of issues in it that I think will be the subject of some controversy. 
But I think the piece of legislation that has been constructed is 
worthy, and it is a reasonably good piece of legislation. It addresses 
a subject that needs addressing, and that should be addressed. I have 
no problem with this bill at all.
  I believe we find ourselves in the following circumstances. Consent 
was given when the piece of legislation was introduced. Following the 
introduction of the Dorgan amendment, consent was given to the Simpson 
amendments. I think they were offered, and those amendments are 
pending. There is an underlying amendment that I offered that has been 
second-degreed by Senator Kempthorne from Idaho. That is apparently 
where we find ourselves.
  I wanted to explain again briefly what compelled me to offer an 
amendment on this piece of legislation. And, if we can reach an 
understanding with the majority leader, I have no intention to keep the 
amendment on this legislation. But here are the circumstances.
  The majority leader has the right to bring a reconsideration vote on 
the constitutional amendment to balance the budget at any time without 
debate

[[Page S4012]]

and without amendment. He understands that. We understand that. He has 
indicated to me now that he does not intend to do that in the coming 
days. It will probably be in a couple of weeks. But he had previously 
announced that he would, at some point in April, perhaps mid-April, the 
end of April, force a reconsideration vote on the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.

  The result was because we were going to have no opportunity to debate 
or to offer an amendment, and because some of us feel very strongly we 
will vote for a constitutional amendment provided it takes the Social 
Security trust funds and sets them outside of the other Government 
revenues and protects those trust funds. If it does that, we would vote 
for an amendment. We had done that before. There are a number of us on 
this side who have done that before. We offered it as an amendment. We 
voted for it. But we will have no opportunity to do a similar thing at 
this time, and my point was we would like the Senate to express itself 
on that issue.
  The only way I could conceive of doing that was to offer a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution was to say 
that when a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is brought 
back to the floor of the Senate, it ought to include a provision that 
removes the Social Security trust funds from the other operating 
revenues of the Federal Government. We, incidentally, did that 
previously in an amendment that I believe got 40 votes. If it does, I 
would vote for it and I think there are probably a half dozen or dozen 
other Members who would similarly vote for it and we would have 70 or 
75 votes for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  Because of circumstances and because of the parliamentary situation, 
I offered that as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It was then second-
degreed. The Senator from Wyoming became fairly upset about that, and I 
understand why. He is managing a bill dealing with immigration. He 
said, ``What does this have to do with immigration?''
  Plenty of people have offered amendments that are not germane in the 
Senate. We do not have a germaneness rule. They have offered them 
because they felt the circumstances required them to offer them.
  The Senator from Massachusetts indicated that he intends to offer an 
amendment on the minimum wage, increasing the minimum wage on this 
piece of legislation. My expectation would be, if there were an 
agreement reached by which the Senate would be able to agree to a vote 
on the minimum wage at some point, that amendment would go away as 
well. I do not intend to press my amendment if I can reach an agreement 
with the majority leader to give us an opportunity to offer, either a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget that protects the Social 
Security trust funds, or some other device that allows us to register 
on that issue before we are forced to vote on reconsideration.

  I want to make just another point on the Social Security issue 
because I think it is so important. We are not talking about just 
politics, as some would suggest. Some say there is no money in the 
Social Security trust fund. That is going to be a big surprise to some 
kid who tries to ask his father what he has in his savings account, and 
his father says you have Government savings bonds, but there is really 
no money there. That is what is in the Social Security trust fund, 
savings bonds, Government securities. Of course there is money there.
  The problem is continuing to do as we have done for recent years, and 
that is, instead of save the surplus that we every year now accumulate 
in the Social Security system, $71 billion this year, if we instead use 
it as an offset against other Government revenues we guarantee there 
will be no money available in the Social Security trust funds when the 
baby boomers retire. It is about a $700 billion issue in 10 years, and 
we ought to address it. It is not unimportant. It is not politics. It 
might be a nuisance for some for us to require that it be addressed at 
some point or another, but those of us who want it addressed are not 
going to go away.
  I guess I would say at this point that the two issues that have been 
raised--the one I have raised by the sense-of-the-Senate resolution I 
think can be resolved if the majority leader, who was, from our last 
conversation yesterday, going to be visiting with the Parliamentarian 
to see if we could find a way to provide a method for a vote on the 
approach I have suggested and we have previously offered on the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. If that happens, I do 
not intend to be continuing to press the sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
that I had previously offered.
  I wanted to speak in morning business only to describe what the 
circumstances are on this piece of legislation. I am not here to make 
life more difficult for the Senator from Wyoming. I have great respect 
for him. I think the legislation he has brought to the floor has a 
great deal to commend it.
  Even if we do not resolve this issue on the Social Security trust 
funds, I would not intend to ask for more than 10, 15, 20 minutes 
debate. I am not interested in holding up the bill. Under any 
conditions, I am not interested in holding up this bill.
  I would agree to the shortest possible debate time, if we are not 
able to resolve the issue in another way. But my hope would be in the 
next hour or so we might be able to resolve that issue in another way. 
We would still, then, be asking, it seems to me, based on the 
discussions of Senator Kennedy, for some kind of commitment to allow 
the Senate to proceed to deal with the issue of the minimum wage.

  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________