[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4017-S4047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
amendment no. 3726
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will have a brief quorum call to
discuss with the floor manager whether or not they want to have a
series of rollcalls. I hope we will dispose of the amendments in a
timely way. If we can move ahead with voice votes on all of those--
well, 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. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. We will proceed now, but I would make a remark because I
certainly can understand the position of Senator Kennedy and the issue
that is driving him in this debate, but not necessarily on this bill,
and also Senator Dorgan. As I heard Senator Kennedy describing what is
out there, eventually, it reminded me of Edgar Allan Poe in ``The Pit
and the Pendulum,'' as the arc of the blade swung closer and closer to
the object. I just wanted to state that. It was a great iteration that
came over me--the blade swinging back and forth, and eventually it will
hit, and we will have to do what we always do here, which is sometimes
difficult. It is called vote. And that is a time to come.
So with that, I urge the adoption of amendment No. 3726.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we were just trying to follow the
numbers. We had a series of amendments. Could the Senator just restate
that amendment number.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is the pilot program, originally Simpson No. 2.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that.
I urge support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3726) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3727 to Amendment No. 3725
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an
amendment numbered 3727 to amendment No. 3725.
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 the last word in the pending amendment and insert:
``act (8 U.S.C. 110(a)(15)
``SEC. . 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
[[Page S4018]]
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, which was the original
Simpson amendment No. 3, creates a new ground of exclusion and of
deportation for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship.
Mr. President, this amendment would add a new section to the bill.
This is repetitive of remarks when we began the legislation, but this
section would create a new ground of exclusion and of deportation for
falsely representing oneself as a U.S. citizen.
This amendment is a complement to another one I am proposing. The
other amendment would modify the bill section providing for pilot
projects on 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 in which
employers would be required to verify the immigration status of aliens
but not persons claiming to be citizens. Such persons would be required
only to attest to being citizens. That came up in debate in the markup
in the Judiciary Committee, that Americans, U.S. citizens, should not
have to do some of the things that we require of others, and so there
would be an attest provision.
Obviously, the major weakness in any such system as that is the
potential for false claims of citizenship. That is why I am offering
the present amendment, which would create a major new disincentive for
falsely claiming U.S. citizenship. Lawful, permanent resident aliens
who falsely claim citizenship risk deportation and being permanently
barred from entering the United States of America. Since they are
authorized to work, 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
was conducted; yet they would also know that if they falsely claimed to
be citizens and were caught, they could be deported and permanently
barred. Thus, the risk involved in making false claims would be high
for them, too, under such a pilot project if the present amendment were
enacted into law.
Therefore, if this amendment were enacted, and the pilot project
involving citizenship attestation were conducted, a significant number
even of illegal aliens might well be deterred from seeking jobs in the
United States.
That is the purpose of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator has made a very clear
statement on the substance of the legislation. It is, I think, an
important addition to the effort that we are undertaking to try and
control illegal immigration, and I think it is very worthwhile. I hope
the Senate will support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment No.
3727?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3727) was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3728 to Amendment No. 3725
(Purpose: To criminalize voting by aliens for candidates for a Federal
office, and to make unlawful voting a ground for exclusion and
deportation)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an
amendment numbered 3728 to amendment No. 3725.
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 last word in the amendment and insert:
``deportable.
``SEC. . VOTING BY ALIENS.
``(a) Criminal Penalty for Voting by Aliens in Federal
Election.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
the following new section:
`Sec. 611. Voting by aliens
`(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any
election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a
candidate for the office of President, Vice President,
Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the
House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of
Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless--
`(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
`(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose
under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance;
and
`(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted
independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal
offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity
to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to
vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal
offices.'
`(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined
not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or
both.';
``(b) Exclusion of Aliens Who Have Unlawfully Voted.--
Section 212(a) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
`(9) Unlawful voters.--Any alien who has voted in violation
of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision,
statute, ordinance, or regulation is excludable.'; and
``(c) Deportation of Aliens Who Have Unlawfully Voted.--
Section 241(a) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
`(6) Unlawful voters.--Any alien who has voted in violation
of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision,
statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.'.''.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is the amendment to criminalize
voting by aliens in Federal elections and make unlawful voting a ground
for exclusion and deportation. That is what this amendment is. This is
the original Simpson No. 4.
This amendment has three parts. It has been changed from the
discussion that we had in the markup of this particular amendment.
First, the amendment would create a criminal penalty for voting by
aliens in any Federal election.
Please note that this new criminal offense would cover only Federal
elections, unlike the provision that was in the original version of the
bill and that was deleted at the committee markup, because you will
recall there was debate and discussion as to what that would do in a
school board election or county commissioner election, and certainly
those States should have the options to control that. That is the
substance of this amendment.
This new offense would be a misdemeanor. It is not a felony. It would
be a misdemeanor.
An alien who voted in any election, who voted solely or in part
electing a candidate for President, Vice President, Presidential
elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives,
Delegate from the District of Columbia or resident commissioner, would
be punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a $1,000 fine--not a
felony.
The second part of the amendment would create a ground of exclusion
for aliens who have unlawfully voted in any election, Federal, State,
or local, in violation of a Federal, State or local constitutional
provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation.
And, third, the amendment would create a ground of deportation for
such unlawful voting by an alien.
This amendment would help to guarantee that a majority of citizens of
the United States, those who owe their full political allegiance to
this country, retain political control of every political unit and
every political issue.
If aliens are allowed to vote, it becomes quite possible that a
relatively small group of citizens in a particular jurisdiction could
outvote a citizen
[[Page S4019]]
majority, if the group had enough noncitizen allies. I do not feel that
that is acceptable. That is not consistent with the form of government
that the Founding Fathers believed to be a fundamental right of the
American people.
I have not covered State or local elections in the criminal offense
provision, in the provision I just described, because of the
objections of some Members who believe, and sincerely believe--as I
believe my friend from Illinois indeed believes--that a temporary
majority of citizens in a local jurisdiction or a State should be able
to authorize voting by aliens. They believe this, despite the fact that
if aliens are once given the right to vote in a jurisdiction, it might
be difficult or nigh impossible for a majority of citizens in that
jurisdiction to reverse the decision later.
However, my amendment also creates new grounds of exclusion and
deportation for voting, if it is unlawful. It applies to any election.
Therefore, there would be an additional disincentive for aliens to vote
if there is a law prohibiting them from doing so.
During the markup and subsequently, some have raised the issue of
constitutionality of this prohibition. At this time, just may I say a
few words about that issue of constitutionality. A doubt has been
expressed about whether Congress has the authority to prohibit voting
by aliens. I believe that view is unfounded. There are
several constitutional grounds for this authority, including the
plenary power of Congress over immigration matters, which has been
referred to so many times over the years by the U.S. Supreme Court and
also the clause that guarantees what is called a republican form of
government. That standard to be applied is a ``rational relationship to
a legitimate Federal Government purpose.''
So, obviously, enforcing the immigration laws of the United States
and, in particular, the naturalization laws--the requirements and
procedures an alien must follow to become a naturalized U.S. citizen is
a legitimate Federal Government purpose. Indeed, immigration and
naturalization is, along with national defense, the most fundamental of
the Federal Government's responsibilities. That is undoubtedly why the
Supreme Court has made such extraordinary statements over the years,
about just how plenary--``plenary'' meaning complete and absolutely--
how plenary that power is.
Just one example, quote from the case of Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.
versus Stranahan, and then quoted later with approval in Fiallo versus
Bell and Kleindienst versus Mandel:
Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of
Congress more complete than it is over the admission of
aliens.
The encouragement of naturalization has been explicitly recognized by
the Supreme Court as a legitimate purpose of Federal actions favoring
citizens. That was the case of Hampton versus Mow Sun Wong.
So the prohibition of voting by aliens in Federal elections only
would clearly be rationally related to a purpose encouraging
naturalization, which is, as I say, one of the premium subjects in the
legislative power of Congress. So that is the extent of the amendment
and my explanation of the amendment.
Further debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we support this legislation. I want to
make sure this does not displace what we have already agreed to in the
motor-voter legislation, which also deals with fraudulent elections,
and where the penalty is somewhat larger. As I understand, this would
apply in the Federal, as compared to the participation in local or
State, elections. At least I am informed by the Justice Department that
they, too, would feel illegal voting in a Federal election could be
prosecuted under the Federal law. I am glad to accept this measure, or
urge the measure be accepted. We can work this thing through to clarify
it, perhaps, on our way to the conference.
We want to do what the Senator has rightfully pointed out is
necessary to be done, in ways that are not going to minimize other
provisions which might deal with this, also in a substantive way, that
may be even more effective. I will be glad to recommend we accept this
now. We can work through this and get a clearer definition as to how
this interacts with motor voter. I completely agree with the Senator in
terms of the objectives.
I just inquire of the Senator what his feeling would be on this.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the concern my friend from Massachusetts
expresses, and what he has pointed out as something disturbing to him,
certainly is not the intent of this author, especially with regard to
motor voter. There may be some things that would have to be done here,
because I believe in motor voter we had a criminal penalty when we
passed that legislation. So I will just leave it in good faith, as we
have done for 17 years, with the Senator from Massachusetts to work
that out.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
Mr. SIMPSON. And be certain the things that cause him concern are not
anything that I am intending to do in this amendment. We can work that
out.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Mr. President, I think we might as well move ahead.
I think we are absolutely--and the Senate would be--in accord with the
description by the Senator. I urge we accept it. We will review those
measures together to make sure we are consistent with what both the
Senator wants to do and any other potential inconsistencies in current
law.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate that. My amendment is not
intended to supersede the present prohibition on unlawful voting. I
make that assurance once again. I therefore urge the adoption of the
amendment under those conditions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
agreeing to amendment numbered 3728.
The amendment (No. 3728) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3729 to Amendment No. 3725
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes amendment
numbered 3729 to amendment No. 3725.
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:
Strike all after the last word and insert the following:
``deportable
``SEC. . 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
[[Page S4020]]
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.'.''.
This section shall become effective 1 day after the date of
enactment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is in essence Simpson No. 1 which we
discussed the other day when we began our debate on this issue. There
is a minor change, of course, to accomplish one thing so that we can
address it here since it is the original underlying anchor on the
procedural aspects of where we are at this moment.
So the purpose of the amendment--again, it is a bit repetitive from
our discussion when we proceeded with this legislation originally--this
is an issue brought to us by Senator Feinstein. I want to say at this
moment that I have received a tremendous amount of support and
assistance from Senator Feinstein. She, of course, represents a State
that is most powerfully affected by everything that is happening today
and everything that is happening tomorrow with regard to illegal
immigration and legal immigration. So I say that I am deeply
appreciative of her and her staff who have worked with my staff on many
issues.
These children who are involved here are described as parachute kids.
And that is a concern. This amendment is intended to prevent foreign
students coming to the United States to obtain a free taxpayer-financed
education at a public elementary, secondary school. This is a growing
problem of children who come to the United States, stay with friends or
relatives, or even strangers, to whom they pay a fee, and attending
public schools then as residents of the school district.
This amendment prohibits consular officers from issuing visas for
attendance at such public schools or the INS from approving such cases
unless the foreign student can demonstrate that he or she would
reimburse the 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 then at the private school for
the duration of their elementary or secondary study in the United
States. The purpose here is designed to prevent students from obtaining
admission to a private school, which they often do, and then switching
to a taxpayer-funded public school soon after arrival in the United
States.
The amendment would not prevent these 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 hosting foreign exchange students. We do not want to intrude on
that wonderful program, those who would continue to be admitted as
exchange visitors on J visas.
The amendment is, however, designed to deal specifically with the
problem of the parachute kids which has received some attention and
certainly in California and in other locations, those who come here to
receive a U.S. education at taxpayer expense.
That is the conclusion of my remarks with regard to the amendment. I
look forward to further debate.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has been a phenomenon that has
developed in very recent years. It is now becoming more frequently
utilized to the disadvantage of taxpayers in these local communities.
The Senator has made an excellent presentation. It is increasingly a
problem. We ought to address it. This particular proposal does address
it. I hope, for the reasons that have been outlined earlier, that the
amendment will be accepted.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3729 to amendment No. 3725.
The amendment (No. 3729) was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3730 to Amendment No. 3725
(Purpose: To repeal the ban on the search of open-fields by employees
of the INS when they have probable cause to believe an illegal act has
occurred)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes amendment
numbered 3730 to amendment No. 3725.
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:
Strike all after the last word in the amendment and insert:
``enactment
``SEC. . OPEN-FIELD SEARCHES.
``(a) Repeal.--Section 116 of Public Law 99-603 and section
287(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(e)) are repealed.
``(b) Redesignation of Provision.--Subsection (f) of
section 287 of that Act is redesignated as subsection (e) of
that section.''
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is not one that will pass by voice
vote. We will require a rollcall vote on this issue. It is and always
has been contentious. This is the original Simpson amendment No. 8
which is to repeal the current ban on open field searches. Therefore,
any staff watching these proceedings at this moment will have
immediately pressed a button, and the ejection device will propel their
principal here to the floor to proceed with vigorous, vigorous debate
on this issue. But this one, like all, up or down, and then move on.
But here is where we are, ladies and gentlemen. Do not miss the
impact of this. This happened back in the days of putting together the
original legislation and what you want to recall is that no other U.S.
law enforcement agency--none--except the Immigration and Naturalization
Service requires a warrant, a search warrant, to enter and/or search
open agricultural farmland. No other agency of enforcement in the
United States is required to do that. That requirement that the INS
agents obtain a warrant for such a search was placed in the law in 1986
by what I refer to as an unholy alliance between the agricultural
growers and the ACLU. You really will not find the ACLU and the
agricultural growers in the same sack very often.
All other law enforcement agents--that is a DEA agent, a local police
officer, even a local sheriff--can, without a warrant, and if they have
probable cause, search an open field for drugs or for a dead body. INS
officers alone are prohibited by law from entering a field to enforce
immigration laws. Of course, the effect of this requirement is to make
it extremely difficult to enforce our laws against the employment of
illegal agricultural workers. There are tremendous abuses in that
field.
A further effect is to make it safer--that is the word--for employers
to use illegal workers, at a time when the experts tell us that there
are more than 1 million American agricultural workers that could
perform that work. The present ban on open field searches, in other
words, then protects those who hire illegal workers. That helps to deny
those jobs to American workers. As a result, up to 40 percent of the
agricultural workers on the west coast are illegal aliens.
One of our Nation's most noted immigration experts, Prof. Barry Fuchs
of Brandeis University, and the executive director, Rev. Ted Hesburgh,
Select Committee on Immigration Policy and a member of the current
Commission on Immigration Reform, has specifically recommended to us
that a
[[Page S4021]]
high priority be placed on repealing the ban on open field searches.
Professor Fuchs has noted that the ban has taken away an ``important
enforcement tool of the INS.''
I hope we might listen to the words of our friend, Larry Fuchs. He is
our friend. Senator Kennedy has known him longer than I. Larry Fuchs is
a remarkable resource for this country on legal and illegal immigration
reform.
As I have indicated in the past, Senator Kennedy and I were both
original Members of the U.S. Senate on the Select Commission on
Immigration Refugee Policy, chaired so ably by Father Ted Hesburgh, who
was an inspiration to us and who is, to this day, one of the most
remarkable people in this land and a loving friend.
We should heed the words of Professor Fuchs. Proponents of the
requirement--and you will hear that argument coming forth momentarily--
proponents of the requirement for warrants argue that it prevents INS
officers from entering an open field simply because those who are
working there ``look Hispanic.'' That argument ignores the fact that
seeing workers who look Hispanic is not probable cause. That is not
probable cause for a search. You cannot use that argument in that sense
in any way. Entering a field for that purpose, that particular purpose,
would be illegal, even if search warrants were not required. I think
that is a very important distinction. I hope we will hold closely as we
debate this issue.
The American public wants us to enforce our laws against illegal
immigration. The case is even stronger when, by doing so, we would be
making jobs available to hundreds of thousands of U.S. agricultural
workers, and there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. agricultural
workers.
Even though this is not quite ancillary to the debate, I was
fascinated in my work in this field many years ago to find out what
happens when they go to the open field. Some agriculture employers back
then--not now, I do not know what the situation may be now--but they
were often putting some expendable people next to the highway with el
emigres and the green truck came by so that there would be someone to
pick up, and then when all of that took place there was another rank in
the foothills who would come down and be ready to go right back to work
again.
Further, way up in the foothills where we were told there were never
children, never spouses, personal investigation of the select committee
found obvious, obvious hovels of people who were just simply slave
labor for some agricultural pursuits--pampers, diapers, cans of milk
all there in the foothills.
That was, as I say, not truly on target with this, but let me tell
you there is no reason in the world why the INS should be the only
Agency of the Federal Government that cannot do a search with a search
warrant in an open field. And to say, then, the target would simply be
to target people who ``look Hispanic'' so you can add a racist touch to
the argument, it will not sell, because if that was the only reason you
would not get the search warrant. That is not probable cause.
With that initial volley on this contentious issue, I look forward to
the debate.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to speak on this issue. I saw my
friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who had wanted to
address the underlying issue briefly, has been waiting here for some
period of time. If she can be recognized, I will come back to address
this amendment before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, I say to both my friends who are managing this
bill, Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy, who have been so helpful to
me as I work on a couple of amendments that I hope will be accepted,
which I will talk about briefly.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to speak about an issue
that profoundly impacts my State of California. That issue is illegal
immigration. I know that there has been a big debate in the Senate
committee of jurisdiction over whether we should blend in the issues of
legal and illegal immigration.
I want to restate and reaffirm my position that I hope they will be
handled separately. I know that Chairman Simpson, who has worked so
hard, would prefer to combine these two issues. The reason I believe it
is important to have a separate debate is that one group of people,
illegal immigrants, choose to break our laws, and legal immigrants
choose to follow our laws. Those are two distinct and important
differences.
Mr. President, no State in the entire country receives more illegal
immigrants than the State of California. Out of the approximately
300,000 illegal immigrants that come to the United States and stay each
and every year, about 35 percent to 40 percent of them live in
California.
Why do most illegal immigrants come to America? Clearly, it is to
find work. They are hired because we are not fully enforcing the laws
we have on the books, which make it unlawful to hire illegal
immigrants. That is clear. It is against the law.
Now, it seems to me we have to do more to enforce those laws.
I have always said that in order to control the problem of illegal
immigration, we need to do it at the border and at the workplace. To
intercede elsewhere, in my opinion, is not particularly effective.
Clearly, if you enforce the immigration laws at the border, you stop
the problem immediately. If you miss that opportunity, the workplace is
the next best place to go.
The bill before us that deals with the issue of illegal immigration
has many provisions I very strongly support. I strongly support the
provisions in title I of the bill, which strengthens law enforcement's
ability to stop illegal immigration. For instance, the bill will
increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 4,000 for the next 4
fiscal years--a 90-percent increase over current levels, and it is
needed.
I also strongly support the bill's provisions to add up to 900 new
INS investigators over the next 3 fiscal years to enforce the laws
against alien smuggling and the unlawful employment of illegal
immigrants. This increase of 900 new INS investigators is a 100-percent
increase over current law. So, clearly, this bill is moving us in the
right direction in regard to stopping illegal immigration at the border
and the workplace.
I want to take an opportunity to thank and compliment the Clinton
administration for getting serious about enforcement at the Southwest
border. It is long overdue. We have had protestations from detractors
of this administration that they do not do enough. The fact is that
this is the first administration to do anything about illegal
immigration.
Let me repeat that. The Clinton administration is the first
administration to do anything about illegal immigration. Whether it is
to begin to reimburse the States for the costs they have to bear, which
are outrageous--costs for emergency medical care, costs for putting
those criminal aliens into prison--we are finally beginning to see some
reimbursement here. However, it is not enough, and we need to do more.
I compliment the leaders of this bill because there is an
authorization in there for full reimbursement for the costs of
providing emergency medical assistance to illegal immigrants.
We have also seen an increase in the National Guard at the border.
Their presence relieves Border Patrol agents from desk jobs, and their
work on such things as building fences and roads and repairing sensors
and night scopes is very important.
At the time that I recommended bringing more National Guard to the
border, the National Guard at that time was about 145 in San Diego. Now
they number up to 400. So we see that there has been an increase in
National Guard at the border, doing such things as relieving the Border
Patrol of desk jobs and these other engineering jobs that I have
outlined for you.
When I first injected more National Guard presence, people thought I
was going to send them down to the border in uniform with weaponry.
That was never the point. We said it is a resource that ought to be
used, and I think we ought to use them more.
In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service kicked off
Operation Gatekeeper, its initiative along California's border with
Mexico. In the last 2 fiscal years, we have seen an increase of 500
Border Patrol agents in San Diego.
[[Page S4022]]
So we see that this administration is moving forward. But this bill
is very necessary and gives us more resources at the border than we
have had up until now, and, I might add, more technology and equipment
that we need at the border--equipment such as infrared scopes, sensors,
automated fingerprint ID systems. INS will be installing a new radio
network in San Diego to handle encrypted voice communication, and that
is very important.
As I said before, we have to stop illegal immigration at the border,
and if we fail there, at the workplace. I think we have to remember
that that is why illegal immigrants come here--for work.
Now, how badly are our wage and hour laws being violated? We only
have to look at the case of the sweatshop uncovered in El Monte, CA, to
get an idea. In El Monte, alien smugglers brought in 72 foreign workers
from Thailand, where they were subsequently forced into involuntary
servitude at a garment sweatshop. We thought we saw the end of that in
the pre-Depression era. The El Monte case is an extreme example, but it
is not an isolated incident.
Mr. President, most employers in our country abide by our immigration
and our labor laws, but, unfortunately, some choose not to, and they
are undermining our laws and the wages of our workers as well. They are
guilty of the lowest form of greed--human exploitation--and it must be
stopped.
It is well known that employers engaging in wage and hour law
violations are often the same ones who hire illegal workers. I am very
pleased that the bill before us provides for 350 new wage and hour
investigators at the Department of Labor over the next 2 fiscal years
to enforce the existing employer sanctions we already have on the
books. The bill also contains enhanced civil penalties for repeated or
willful violations of our Federal labor laws, which I strongly support.
I am disappointed that the committee voted to delete provisions to
increase the sanctions on employers who violate immigration laws. I am
disappointed about that. But I am glad that there are enhanced
penalties for those who violate Federal labor laws.
Now, I think it is important that we give employers a better tool so
they can identify who is legal and who is not. The bill before us moves
us forward toward worker verification. I have always opposed a national
ID card because I think if someone is walking in the street, they
should never be stopped and asked to show an ID card. But when they go
for a job, right now it is virtually impossible for employers to verify
whether they are legal or not. I think the approach taken in this bill
is a good one, and I hope it will be part of the bill when it leaves
this Chamber.
I also think it is important that the bill authorizes an increase of
300 new investigators at INS to go after the visa overstayers, because
so many of our illegal immigrants are those who overstay their visa. So
that is excellent.
I have long supported cracking down on those who manufacture and use
fraudulent documents. The last time I had a chance, on the crime bill,
I offered an amendment that increased the penalties on those who
manufacture forged documents. But I think we need to do more, and this
bill does go further to increase civil and criminal penalties for
crimes involving document fraud.
I want to take just a moment to talk about a problem we are seeing in
California now more and more, where smugglers are driving vehicles
crashed through a checkpoint and lead local law enforcement on high-
speed chases. We all know what happened nationally when we saw one case
where there was apparent overreaction from the police and use of
excessive force--that is what it appears to be.
But the fact of the matter is, we have to stop that kind of
recklessness, driving on a 60-, 70-mile chase where you endanger the
lives of the police following you and you endanger the lives of those
people you are smuggling. Following that case when force was used, we
had seven illegal immigrants killed, who fell over a cliff when the
smuggling attempt led to disaster.
So, I was very surprised to see that there are no Federal penalties
for such reckless behavior. What I am offering, and what Senator
Simpson and Senator Kennedy are working with me on, is a Federal
penalty for those who crash through a Federal checkpoint and, in fact,
do not stop.
We want to make sure there is a Federal penalty of 5 years in prison
for those who do that, and perhaps--we are working with Senator Simpson
on this--an even tougher penalty where those people could be deported.
Because anyone who would lead law enforcement on a high-speed chase not
only endangering the police officers themselves but also the cargo they
are carrying--by that I mean human cargo--and all the drivers on the
road, they deserve to be thrown in jail or deported.
I also want to briefly touch on an amendment that I am cosponsoring
with Senator Feinstein which deals with the triple fence authorized in
the bill. I will not go into all of the details in the interest of
time. But we feel that the Border Patrol could do better if we did not
dictate exactly that a $12 million fence should be built, or inhibit
their ability to design fencing in the way they want and to use some of
the money for other needed infrastructure improvements. Moreover, we
certainly do not want to force law enforcement to build a triple fence
if they feel it would endanger their lives. And that is what they have
told us.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to speak about an issue
that profoundly impacts the State of California. That issue is illegal
immigration.
And before I go any further, I want to reaffirm my position that
legal and illegal immigration must be treated separately. I know that
Chairman Simpson, who has worked very hard on the issue of immigration,
would prefer to link these two issues together.
However, I believe having a separate debate on the two issues will
better ensure that Congress recognizes the critical difference between
those illegal immigrants who choose to break our laws, and those legal
immigrants who choose to follow them.
Mr. President, no State in the entire country receives more illegal
immigrants than California. Out of the approximately 300,000 illegal
immigrants that come to the United States and stay every year, about 35
to 40 percent of them live in California.
Why do they come here? Most of them come to find work. And they are
hired because we are not enforcing the laws we have on the books which
make it unlawful to hire illegal immigrants. That must change.
I have always said that in order to control the problem of illegal
immigration, we need to do it at the border and the workplace. To
intercede elsewhere, in my opinion, is not effective.
The bill before us today is S. 1664, the Immigration Control and
Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. The bill contains many provisions
which are praiseworthy. I strongly support the provisions in title I of
the bill which strengthen law enforcement's abilities to stop illegal
immigration. For instance, the bill would increase the number of Border
Patrol agents by 4,000 for the next 4 fiscal years--a 90-percent
increase over current levels.
I also strongly support the bill's provisions to add up to 900 new
INS investigators to enforce the laws against alien smuggling and the
unlawful employment of illegal immigrants. This is an increase of about
100 percent over current law.
I want to take this opportunity to compliment the Clinton
administration for getting serious about enforcement at the Southwest
border. It is about time and long overdue, for despite protestations
from detractors of this administration in California--this is the first
administration to do anything about illegal immigration.
And we have seen an increase in the National Guard at the border.
Their presence relieves Border Patrol agents from desk jobs, and their
work on such things as building fences and roads, and repairing sensors
and night scopes. At the time I recommended bringing more National
Guard at the border, they numbered 145 at the San Diego border. Now
they number as high as 400.
In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] kicked off
Operation Gatekeeper--its initiative along California's border with
Mexico. In the last 2 fiscal years, we have seen an increase of 1,150
border patrol agents nationally--more than 500 of
[[Page S4023]]
whom have been deployed in San Diego.
Counting the 800 new Border Patrol agents for this fiscal year, the
Border Patrol force will have been increased by 40 percent since the
Clinton administration took over. California now has over 1,500 Border
Patrol agents patrolling our border and enforcing our immigration laws.
But as we all know, Mr. President, any smart strategy to regain
control of our borders will take heightened technology which is being
used in Operation Gatekeeper. Infrared scopes, low-light-level
television systems, and ground sensors are all being used to enhance
our effectiveness at the border. San Diego has been the recipient of
new infrared scopes, sensors, and a new automated fingerprint
identification system. INS will be installing a new radio network in
San Diego to handle encrypted voice communication.
And we cannot forget why most illegal immigrants come here in the
first place: work. How badly are our wage and hour laws being violated?
We only have to look at the case of the sweatshop uncovered in El
Monte, CA, to get an idea. In El Monte, alien smugglers brought in 72
foreign workers from Thailand where they were subsequently forced into
involuntary servitude at a garment sweatshop. The El Monte case is an
extreme example. But it is not an isolated incident.
Mr. President, most employers in our country abide by our immigration
and labor laws. However, those who choose not to, not only undermine
our laws, but the wages of American workers as well. They are guilty of
the lowest form of greed--human exploitation. It must be stopped.
It is well-known that employers engaging in wage and hour law
violations are often the same ones who hire illegal workers. I am
pleased that the bill before us provides for 350 new wage and hour
investigators at the Department of Labor over the next 2 fiscal years
to enforce the existing employer sanctions we already have on the
books.
Furthermore, the bill contains enhanced civil penalties for repeated
or willful violations of our Federal labor laws, which I strongly
support. However, I am deeply disappointed that the committee voted to
delete provisions to increase the sanctions on employers who violate
immigration laws.
Of course it is imperative for employers to better ascertain who is
authorized to work, and who is not. The bill before us moves us toward
improved verification for work and public benefits through the creation
of several regional or local demonstration projects.
After the pilots have been tested, the administration will be
required to return to Congress to make a recommendation on a permanent
system. Implementation of a recommended system will require
congressional action. The approach contained in the bill will allow
Congress to review which methods of verification are the most effective
before enacting a larger scale system.
I support the privacy protections contained in the bill to provide
balance as we move toward a national verification system. I am further
pleased that the bill explicitly prohibits a national ID card which I
oppose.
It is important to have a foolproof method to ensure a potential
employee is legal--I believe it would be dangerous to put in place a
system where someone walking down the street could be stopped and asked
for their papers. That situation would infringe on our lives.
A key fact of illegal immigration which often is overlooked is that
approximately half of the illegal aliens currently in our country
entered legally and overstayed their visas. This bill authorizes an
increase of 300 new investigators at INS to go after these visa
overstayers. I support this.
Mr. President, I strongly support the provisions in the bill to
increase penalties on alien smugglers and those committing document
fraud. I have long supported cracking down on those who manufacture and
use fraudulent documents. When I toured the California-Mexico border
with Attorney General Reno and Senator Feinstein, we met with INS
agents who told us it was key to beef up penalties for document
forgery. Thousands of illegal immigrants each year use these documents
to enter the United States illegally or continue to stay and work here
illegally.
In the 1994 crime bill, I proposed an amendment to double the
criminal penalties for forgers and distributors of fraudulent
documents. These heightened penalties passed and are now law.
The provisions contained in S. 1664 go even further to increase
criminal and civil penalties for crimes involving document fraud. We
must send a message to these wrongdoers that we will not tolerate those
who flout our immigration and criminal laws. These tougher penalties
should serve as an effective deterrent to such actions.
For instance, for fraudulent use of government-issued documents, the
bill increases the maximum fine from $250,000 to $500,000, and the
maximum criminal sentence from 5 years to 15 years.
I would like to take a minute to specifically discuss alien
smuggling. Recent incidents involving alien smugglers have received
considerable press attention. The beating of two illegal immigrants
after a 80-mile chase ending in El Monte put a face on the human cargo
being brought into our country by alien smugglers.
Recently in California, 7 people were killed and 19 injured when a
pickup carrying immigrants being smuggled into the country skidded,
flipped over, and plunged off a rural road west of Temecula while being
followed by Border Patrol agents. We must stop such occurrences.
S. 1664 stiffens criminal penalties for alien smuggling. The bill
also contains provisions to expand the Federal Government's ability to
pursue alien smugglers through expansion of the RICO [Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] statute and wiretap authority.
I plan to offer an amendment to provide a new, tough Federal penalty
on those who flee border checkpoints, creating dangerous high-speed
chases. My amendment would provide a Federal penalty of imprisonment of
up to 5 years. I am working with Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy
and hope this amendment will be accepted.
Alien smugglers do deserve to be punished. They take advantage of
people in desperate situations--often threatening their safety and
potentially those of hundreds who could be exposed to them. We must
make every effort to ensure that such tragedies do not continue to
occur.
One concern I have with the bill relates to the authorization of a
14-mile triple fence for the 14 miles eastward of the Pacific Ocean in
San Diego. Let me be clear about one thing: I support fencing and
reinforcement of physical barriers along the border. But when the
Border Patrol itself says these provisions would endanger the physical
safety of their personnel, I think we should defer to their expertise.
Along with the INS, the Border Patrol points to the tactical and
logistical problems of a contiguous triple fence. They also raise
concerns about alien smugglers taking advantage of the triple fence
configuration to ambush Border Patrol agents.
That is why I am cosponsoring an amendment with Senator Feinstein to
put the $12 million authorized for the triple fence toward needed
border infrastructure improvements--including construction of all-
weather roads, low-light television systems, lighting, sensors, and
multiple fencing where it makes sense to do so.
Title II of the bill addresses immigrant--legal and illegal--use of
public benefits. Illegal immigrants are largely ineligible for public
welfare benefits. Where they are eligible, I support full Federal
reimbursement for any resulting costs to States and localities.
The bill sets out the general prohibition barring illegal immigrants
from receiving public benefits but exempts a limited number of
services. In fiscal year 1994, the General Accounting Office estimated
that the cost of providing elementary and secondary education,
emergency Medicaid, and incarceration of alien felons was $2.35 billion
for my State of California.
Immigration is a Federal responsibility. However, until this
administration, California had not received any reimbursement for its
costs resulting from illegal immigration. Today, California is
receiving reimbursement for its costs of incarcerating criminal aliens
under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. And while the crime
bill authorized $1.7 billion to reimburse these costs, California has
yet to receive full repayment.
[[Page S4024]]
I want to commend the chairman for including an authorization to
fully reimburse States and localities for emergency medical services
provided to illegal immigrants. Right now, the Federal Government pays
half of this cost and the remainder is borne by the State. In
California, this amounted to a cost for California of $395 million in
fiscal year 1994. I strongly support reimbursement for these costs.
With respect to benefits for legal immigrants, I support
strengthening the responsibility of sponsors. That is why I agree we
must make affidavits of support signed by sponsors legally enforceable.
Individuals who want to sponsor a family member must not shirk their
responsibilities to the immigrant once they arrive.
By making the affidavits legally enforceable, the agency providing
assistance to a needy legal immigrant has the ability to be repaid for
their costs. This approach makes sense.
As a final note, Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss the
importance of naturalization. Naturalization--the process by which a
legal immigrant is granted the full rights and responsibilities of
citizenship--represents the final step in a journey toward the American
dream, a journey played by the rules.
The latest surge in naturalization applications submitted is nowhere
more evident than in California. In fiscal year 1995, over 380,000
eligible legal immigrants applied to naturalize in California. This is
a 500 percent increase over the totals for fiscal year 1991.
I am pleased that we now have a leader at INS who is doing something
about it. Under Commissioner Doris Meissner, INS has been actively
attempting to meet the latest surge in naturalization through its
initiative, Citizenship USA. I commend Commissioner Meissner for the
agency's efforts to put the ``N'' back in INS.
However, an immigrant who has already waited for at least 5 years to
become eligible to naturalize can wait for an additional 12 to 16
months in cities like San Francisco and San Jose, CA, for their
application to be processed because of enormous increases in demand.
We owe it to those who patiently follow the rules to do better.
Mr. President, I plan to offer an amendment to create demonstration
projects around the country that set up citizen swearing-in ceremonies
around July 4. The amendment which passed the House, authored by
Congressman Sam Farr, would authorize INS to use the fees it already
collects to fund the minimal additional costs of holding these symbolic
ceremonies for 500 people.
Under the amendment, 10 demonstration projects would be authorized
each year for 5 years. The demonstration projects would enable INS to
reach out to local communities to encourage their involvement in the
celebration of citizenship. The swearing-in ceremonies would be a
communitywide celebration reminding citizens why we are proud to be
Americans.
Mr. President, I am committed to those who want to follow the rules
and become full participants in American society. Earlier this month, I
introduced S. 1677, the Citizenship Promotion Act.
My bill would establish a Citizenship Promotion Agency [CPA] within
INS to assist eligible immigrants with naturalization. The CPA would be
able to work with government agencies as well as nonprofit
organizations to assist in its naturalization outreach obligations.
My bill would also create a nine-member National Advisory Board on
Citizenship to advise on naturalization objectives. And finally, my
legislation would establish a naturalization examinations fee account
within the U.S. Treasury to ensure that naturalization fees are spent
on naturalization--not redirected elsewhere. Such naturalization
activities could include English language instruction for immigrants
trying to become citizens.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for many of the
provisions in the illegal immigration bill. I look forward to working
with both Chairman Simpson and Senator Kennedy in making further
improvements to this legislation. Thank you.
I will close by saying this. I said at the outset that there is a
real difference between illegal immigration and legal immigration. My
own mother became a naturalized citizen in 1937. When she died in 1991,
she left me a very special little pouch that had two things in it: Her
wedding band and her certificate of naturalization. I think Americans
understand how much naturalized citizens cherish this homeland.
Therefore, I am working with Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy to
get an amendment adopted which would recognize the beauty of those
naturalization ceremonies. And I pick up on an amendment that passed
overwhelmingly in the House that would give some modest sums of money
to conduct those naturalization ceremonies. We want to put the ``N''
back into the INS--``naturalization.'' It is a beautiful ceremony, and
those are some of our finest citizens.
I could give you the list of some of those naturalized citizens. But
I think you all know how many of our wonderful leaders in this country
in entertainment, in politics, and in all fields are naturalized
citizens.
So I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me so
generously of his time. I feel this is such an important issue to my
State. I wanted to have this opportunity to compliment my friends who
have led on this bill, for what they have done, and I hope to be able
to support it.
Again, I thank you very much, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see a number of our colleagues who have
been very interested in this issue that would like to speak to it. I
will respond at an appropriate time after they speak to the current
amendment--to the Simpson amendment.
But I want to just point out to the Members about where we are. The
parliamentary situation effectively excludes the opportunity for
recognition of the minority, the Democratic manager of this
legislation. Under the right of recognition it always goes to the
majority as the time-honored tradition, and we understand that and
respect that. But given the parliamentary situation we are effectively
denied on our side any Member offering an amendment. I mean, with
respect to the processing of amendments, we are at the point now where
we are processing nongermane amendments because eventually at some time
we will move toward cloture. By beginning to understand what the
situation is we will dispose of various amendments that apparently are
agreeable to the floor managers prior to the time that a cloture
petition is put down which will exclude any chance of other Members to
come back in here and offer any amendments. That is an extraordinary
process and procedure.
We have to ask ourselves about how long we really want to put up with
that. I have been trying as a matter of comity in working with the
Senator from Wyoming to move through this in a way which permits us to
try to deal with some of the basic substantive issues. But we, as the
time moves on, are caught in this particular situation. We are
effectively dealing, and only dealing, with the amendments represented
by the majority, and we are precluded under this whole process of
offering any amendments.
This is not a personal comment on my good friend, the Senator from
Wyoming, because he is responding to the wishes of the majority leader
in this case. And the matters that he is raising here are matters that
have been raised in the Judiciary Committee, matters which he had
indicated to us that during the course of the debate he was going to
raise, and matters which are of very fundamental importance in terms of
the substance of the issue.
But we are still in a situation where we are being told we can only--
the Senate of the United States on an important piece of legislation
like this can only--deal with those amendments that are put forward by
the manager of the bill because under the right of recognition he gets
it. If there are other Members that want to have amendments considered
they would go to him. If he thinks that he may support them, I imagine
he will put them forward. And, if he does not, he will not.
So we are in a situation where we have effectively a very small gate.
My good friend and colleague--again I say with deference to him--
because he has always, as I have stated on every occasion, been
entirely up front and entirely fair in dealing with all the members of
the committee, Republicans and
[[Page S4025]]
Democrats alike. But he is caught in this position was well.
So it does seem to me that our colleagues ought to understand that
effectively we have a clearance system here that unless an amendment is
cleared through the acting majority leader we are being closed out. And
I think the American people and our Senators ought to know that this is
not a freewheeling debate where we are going to have the opportunity
for the Members who want to represent their States and their interests
to be able to get recognized to be able to pursue that.
This is an extremely important amendment, and I hope we can deal with
this amendment in a timely way. But at some time we are going to have
to ask ourselves whether we are going to just go ahead and consider all
of the nongermane amendments that come through our colleague over here
and none of the nongermane amendments to be considered by other
Members. Then we get into cloture, and they have taken care of those
nongermane amendments. We will be just back on the germane amendments.
It is a rather unusual way to proceed.
I just raise that now because there are those, myself included, who
want to try to get at least some opportunity for recognition so that we
would have a chance to offer at least a minimum wage amendment on this
with a very short time agreement. We are effectively being closed out
from that possibility. We understand that. But the other Members of the
Senate ought to understand that as well. Hopefully the majority and
minority leaders can bring their good common sense and judgment to help
us find a way through this particular dilemma.
I will yield the floor because others want to speak. I will come back
and speak to the substance of this measure. I want to again point out
that the substance of this issue is enormously important. It is
absolutely relevant. We ought to address it. It is extremely
significant. But some time in the not-too-distant future I think we
ought to have some kind of a decision about how we want to proceed.
This issue of illegal immigration is extremely important. We have
supported the expansion of the border guards. We have supported the
measures that Senator Simpson and I cosponsored--measures to try to
create a more effective process for being able to identify the
legitimate Americans versus illegals in the job market, which is
extraordinarily important. There are other provisions as well in the
illegal immigration bill which are very, very important and some which
there is some difference on.
But we are in an unusual situation, and it is something that I know
Members have to be concerned with as well.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I can understand the frustration of the
Senator from Massachusetts. He expressed that frustration in a very
clear way. Let us then review the bidding so that we do all hear what
we are doing.
We are dealing with illegal immigration. That has been the pending
business before this body for over a week. The pending business of the
Senate is the measure with regard to illegal immigration, which when we
finish the amending process will probably pass by a rather significant
vote. So if we are talking about important legislation, then surely we
should be talking about this.
So what occurred here today is nothing mysterious, nothing sinister,
nothing harsh. It is called legislating, and it is called using the
rules of procedure, and it is done beautifully by the Democrats when
they are in the majority and by the Republicans when they are in the
majority.
So if we are talking about what is germane, what could be more
nongermane than Social Security and an attempt to say that Social
Security somehow is not to be dealt with when we do a balanced budget,
when Social Security is $360 billion of the national budget.
That is what we are talking about, nothing mysterious, nothing
sinister. What are we talking about that is germane about minimum wage?
But there might be something very interesting and germane with minimum
wage because the same people who are seeking an increase in the minimum
wage are at the same time restricting efforts--some--restricting
efforts to reduce the number of low-skilled immigrants who are entering
under the family preference system.
I hope that we are able to divine that extraordinary difference. It
is these low-skilled newcomers who flood the labor market which results
then in stagnant wages. That is what happens. So this is one of the
most curious parts of the entire debate to me.
I am not attributing that to Senator Kennedy. I am attributing it to
some who continue to resist the fact that we are trying to say that
low-skilled persons are no longer required to come here under our
immigration laws. We need people with skills. We need people with
ability. We need people who are here to pull their share. We need
people to come here whose sponsors say, ``When you come here, I will
assure that you do not become a public charge.'' That is what we are up
to here. No mystery, nothing sinister.
You asked how we could be precluded from dealing with things that are
very important to Senator Kennedy or to Senator Dorgan. The same would
be my argument. I am being precluded from dealing with illegal
immigration reform. And I think that we want to keep all those
interesting balances before the body. That is a very important thing.
I wish to insert in the Record a very interesting column that was in
the Washington Post in the Outlook section last Sunday about this
extraordinary argument about the minimum wage and the extraordinary,
remarkable flight from common sense of those who will not allow us to
reduce the number of those people presently entering under the
preference system.
We have a situation now with regard to naturalization, with regard to
a movement toward naturalization created by the legalization of the
1986 bill, created by people who are stunned and alarmed by proposition
187 and think, boy, if they are going to treat people who are permanent
resident aliens like that, I want to get naturalized. There is another
movement toward that, and so you are going to have more numbers coming
to the United States than you ever did before, even if we did the
minimum under the ``legal immigration bill.''
And remember, there is a legal immigration bill at the desk which
passed the committee by a vote of 13 to 4. That is legal immigration.
There is also the illegal immigration bill, which passed the committee
by a vote of 13 to 4, and that is what we are considering at the
present time.
Let me assure you that if you are talking about germane and
nongermane, there should be not much question, at least in the eyes of
the general American public, of a certain thing which is total reality,
which is sometimes difficult to attain here, that the reason we talk
about them together--whether you split them or puree them is not the
issue--split, whole or pureed, you do not escape the fact that over one
half of the people who come here legally become the illegal aliens
which are the subject of this bill.
Please hear that, I hope, and know that we are talking about people
who come here, half of them who come here legally become illegal. They
then go out of status with a tourist visa. They go out of status with a
student visa. They then become part of the illegal community.
So those are some things, and we are not here to disrupt things but
we are here to deal with the bill as we do health care, we do line-item
veto, we do this and we do that, and try and proceed. If the entire
exercise should end in an hour, I can assure you that it will come back
at some future time, but I thank my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for at least processing four or five amendments. That is what we
should be doing. There are two choices here: Be about our business on
an illegal immigration bill or the leader will be required to pull up
something else and the issue will simply never go away, either of the
issues or all of the issues.
So I just wanted to express that with I hope some clarity, that we
are moving on an illegal immigration bill with a significant amendment
here at the present time.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Wyoming
allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. SIMPSON. Indeed, I say to my friend from Kentucky, Mr. President.
Mr. FORD. The Senator from Wyoming understands better than most
[[Page S4026]]
why the minimum wage amendment is being placed here. That is about the
only place we can get a chance to do it. He understands that well. And
also the sense of the Senate on the balanced budget amendment, not
using Social Security. He understands that question well. Could it not
be worked out and taken off the bill? If a time agreement to vote on
this bill--on those two questions be agreed to in 30 seconds, they
would both be off the bill, would they not?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it will be up to our leader to determine
the course of business. The Senator from Kentucky and I both filled the
role as assistant leader of our parties, and I think we both realize
that we were somewhat muted on final decisions.
Mr. FORD. I understand that. But we do know that if the leaders would
make a decision and give us the time for a stand-alone vote on it,
these two items would not be on the immigration bill. And as we have
seen both sides do in the past, you take an opportunity when it is
presented to you. All I wish to know is if the Senator would agree that
if the leaders would give us an opportunity to vote on minimum wage and
the opportunity to vote on a sense of the Senate as it relates to the
balanced budget, not using Social Security, that they would not be on
this bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think that all of us know when we reach
these sticking points in this body--and that is often--people then
huddle and decide what to do. The leaders trust and admire each other
and they will work together and move the legislation of the Senate. And
that is the way it will always work.
On the other issue of minimum wage, I understand there are serious
discussions going on about minimum wage, training wage, and getting the
minimum wage to the people who do require it most and not to someone
from a fine family that decided to go work in McDonald's for the summer
and pretend that that is the issue of minimum wage when someone is a
privileged young person who is simply in the work force.
There are real things here. For every horror story on one side, we
have the horror story on the other side. That is the only way I have
been able to exist in this body for 18 years.
So, for every one that is presented to us, then there is something on
the other side about people who lose their jobs, employers who are on
the edge and say, ``Minimum wage? I cannot do it.''
You can make fun of those people and say they should, I guess, be
subsidized by the Government or something to pay the minimum wage. But
the issue is, they say ``I will go broke. So, therefore, I will not do
that. Or, if that is the law, I cannot do it and I'm out.'' That is an
argument just as valid as the one about children and spouses and the
working man, and all of those things are what the American people know
and see that is what we do. And that is what we do.
So, I am going to leave the issue for resolvement to that. And know
that, at this point, this procedure of filling the tree and moving
forward is not a patented process by the Republican majority; it is a
patented process by the Democratic majority when they are in power. It
is a tool to move legislation.
We have two choices here. Pull up something else or move forward. How
can anyone argue--regardless of the passion of what you want to present
to the body--how can you argue about not moving forward with a very
important bill, and that is what we are attempting to do. It really is
not as strange as it would appear.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I agree that the points the Senator from
Wyoming made are valid points which ought to be part of a debate on the
minimum wage. But effectively we are being precluded from the
opportunity for action and for resolution. That is all we are asking
for, whether 13 million families are entitled to 30 minutes of the
Senate's time so we can make a decision on the issue of the minimum
wage and also the proposal of Senator Dorgan. That is really what we
are asking. It is not a great deal, but in order to preclude the Senate
from taking that action we are finding out that we are using the
unusual--and it is unusual--process by which the only amendments we are
going to debate are going to be the amendments of the Senator from
Wyoming or amendments that come through the process of the Senator from
Wyoming.
So this is not progress in the sense it is giving Members of the
Senate an opportunity to be able to raise issues that are important.
They are effectively precluded from that because they are denied the
right of recognition.
So we have to press, again, and indicate at the first opportunity we
are going to offer it. Eventually the opportunity is going to come,
because eventually--and people ought to understand it--when the time
comes, and the final amendment is either agreed to or rejected, that
prior to the time there is going to be disposition or a vote on this,
it is going to be open, and others will be able to offer their
amendments. So it might take a little while to be able to do that. We
understand that. But that will eventually be the reality on that.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if I might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I enjoy, obviously, the Senator from
Massachusetts because he does his work with a--down there, always--a
crinkle in his eye and a twinkle. I know that one. I have seen it many
times. This is, really--this is theater. It is Shakespeare--minor,
minor, I can assure you. It is street Shakespeare. I do it, too. I will
be Lear, raging into the wind, and Senator Kennedy will be Puck.
Let me tell you, the minimum wage, when the Democrats had the control
of this body and the House of Representatives and the Presidency, never
appeared in this Chamber under any scenario from the wings--not once.
Not once did President Clinton ever suggest we deal with the minimum
wage. And since it became something that appeared in the focus groups,
or the Knight tracking polls, it has been mentioned 47 times by the
President.
So it is theater. But, really, if you stay in this game long enough--
and I have been legislating for 30 years and obviously love it, but I
am ready to do something else--if you play with the wheel with the
fanny kicker on it, it will come around and get you. Hear this from my
friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, as we dealt with the health care reform
bill. The Congressional Record, April 18, 1996, page S3513, quote of my
friend, Senator Kennedy:
Members of the Senate who are serious about insurance
reform should vote against all controversial amendments--
including medical savings accounts. Senator Kassebaum and I
have agreed that we will vigorously oppose all such
amendments--even those that we might support under other
circumstances.
Now, with the approval of the body, I ask unanimous consent that we
insert the phrase ``illegal immigration reform'' and then just adopt
that, because that is exactly what I am saying.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Simpson may say that this is
theater, but it has dramatic results, by our action or inaction, for
the 13 million families that would be affected about whether we are
going to address the increase in the minimum wage, No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator, by mentioning the health care debate,
understands--or should understand or may understand after this--that
the increase in the minimum wage was deferred at that time because the
impact and the effect on the hourly worker was considered to be a 40-
cent to 50-cent increase as a result of a health care system. Those of
us who had responsibility in that asked the workers do they want us to
fight for an increase in the minimum wage, or do they want us to try
and fight for health care, and overwhelmingly they said health care. We
know it is 40 to 50 cents an hour. That was the battle. That was the
battle then.
So the idea that we did not bring it up then--we did not bring it up
then because we were fighting for the expansion of health care for the
protection of workers, and we were denied that opportunity to have it
because of Republican opposition.
[[Page S4027]]
I keep reading about who is responsible and who is not responsible
about it. It was basically a Republican decision not to permit a vote
on the U.S. Senate floor on health care, in order to show that we could
not deal with that issue, and the Congress was ineffective in dealing
with it. We understand that. We are not trying to rewrite history at
this particular time, and we should not attempt to do it here today.
That was the bottom line.
The value of health care, if we had gotten it, would have been that
40 to 50 cents an hour. So, once the Republicans effectively defeated
it we moved on in, in terms of the introduction of the minimum wage as
one of the first orders of business, if you look on our side. It was
one of the first six pieces of legislation, and we have been asking for
a vote on it for over 1 year and still are denied it, even though the
Republicans support it and even though Republican Presidents
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush actually voted in support of that measure.
So, I welcome the opportunity to have a substantive judgment and
decision on that matter, which, eventually, when we go through these
various amendments, we will have the chance to do, because we are not
going to be closed out. We can go on and use these Senate rules in a
way to put our good friend and colleague as the gatekeeper for the
amendments, and he can use the rules in that particular way. But you
are not going to get away from acting on the minimum wage at some
particular time.
Finally, I do not think I really have to justify the decision that
was made with regard to health care. That was a judgment that was made
by Senator Kassebaum as well as myself.
So, if the Senator wants to have that kind of dispute as a way of
getting legislation effectively through, it is a procedure which is
used at other times, generally when the floor manager and the minority
agree. We differed on this legislation, for some very important
substantive reasons.
So, I think the circumstances are very much different. All we are
looking for is 30 minutes on the minimum wage. Then we can get about
concluding this very important legislation and be able to vote on it.
We had, as the Senator from Wyoming knows, excellent markups with
overwhelming participation, Republicans and Democrats, in the Judiciary
Committee.
It was a great tribute to the Senator from Wyoming, for the
involvement of the Members and the expression of differing views, that
this legislation was reported out of committee. I am sure the Senate is
going to make a judgment on this measure as well. But the idea that
taking 30 minutes or an hour out of this kind of debate while we are
processing amendments is unreasonable is incorrect--I would be glad to
cut back our time.
I do not think I have used very much time in agreeing with the
amendments of the Senator from Wyoming on these measures. Surely, we
can cut out 1 hour of this day or tomorrow or whenever to debate the
minimum wage when we have had important Republican support. The issue
will not go away. I appreciate and understand the Senator's position on
it.
Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to.
Mr. SIMON. When Senator Simpson mentions the health care bill and
your statement and Senator Kassebaum's statement that they would resist
any amendments, is it not true that any Member could offer an
amendment, and, in fact, Senator Domenici offered an amendment with
Senator Kerry here in this body? Any single Member could have offered a
minimum wage amendment at that point. The procedure we are following
here is dramatically different. Is that not correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is entirely correct. We did not attempt to
gag the membership, which effectively this process does. The only way
you get consideration is to have the Senator from Wyoming, with the
position of the majority leader, recognized. That has been a time-
honored tradition which I respect and support. If not, then it goes to
the minority leader. Under the Senate rules, Senator Daschle could come
out here and offer that amendment. Then Senator Dole would have to come
out here and proceed in order to block that amendment.
We could go through that kind of a routine and put the Senate in
stalemate. I mean, we are all dealing with this and understand the
nature of these rules. I suppose sometime that will come to pass. But
what we are trying to do is get an orderly procedure to be able to go
forward.
Just finally, I say to my friend and colleague, maybe these
discussions about how we could try to find common ground in the minimum
wage are going on, but I do not know where they are going on. I do not
think those of us who have been most involved--myself, Senator Kerry,
Senator Wellstone, other Members, and, to the best of my knowledge,
Senator Daschle--are aware of these negotiations.
What we are aware of is the preposterous position that the majority
leader of the House of Representatives put forward yesterday as a
position of the Republicans in the House, which effectively would say
we are going to repeal the EITC, and therefore save $15 billion. That
would be funds that would go to the people who are working on the
lowest rung of the ladder, the economic ladder, and then we will set up
an entirely new entitlement with the Internal Revenue Code to subsidize
these workers who are working in restaurants and as teachers aides and
as other health aides, working in Head Start programs, cleaning out
buildings, that they would still get the $4.25 but get another subsidy
from the Federal Government--a new entitlement.
Of course, that subsidy will be paid for by taxes that are coming
from other workers. That is a new entitlement, a new bureaucracy, a new
subsidy for companies. If that is the proposal, why do we not just get
about the business of debating it and disposing of it. Maybe there are
those who want to do it. But as the Senator from Illinois points out,
let us at least permit a vote on this measure. Let us at least permit
the Senate to speak. Let us get a short time period and have a debate
on it.
That is what we are prepared to do. We are not trying to say, well,
we are not prepared to go through, even though we are being denied an
opportunity to vote on the minimum wage, which has received Republican
and Democratic support. We are not at this point saying, well, we are
not going to play ball with you on immigration. We could certainly have
done that. We believe that is an important measure. But up to this time
that has not been done. Eventually we will, under the Senate rules,
have an opportunity to have these offerings of amendments on the
minimum wage on other measures.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think we could go on--and we may--but I
think, as we get back to the substance of minimum wage--and apparently
the Senator does that--and I think I misspoke earlier about
Shakespeare. I think Senator Kennedy is King Lear and I am puck,
because certainly he launched one end of the tempest there, and here I
am. But we will resolve this.
We will move forward perhaps, or we will not. If suddenly the
procedure fails at this time, we will come back to it tomorrow or the
next day, whatever it may be. But since we want to talk about the
substance of minimum wage, I think it is important then just quickly,
if I may, to talk about it in connection with immigration, because the
other day in debate the Senator from Massachusetts talked about
janitors.
Do you know what happened to janitors in the last 15 years? Janitors
in Los Angeles in public buildings were making $12 an hour or $14. You
know what they make now? $6. You know why? Because we in this body have
allowed a glut of immigration to come to the United States and
especially to that city, and the union janitors no longer are in a job
at $12. The nonunion foreign immigrants came and knocked off the union
wage.
Now we have the situation--if we are wanting to talk about the plight
of janitors--there is a study by the General Accounting Office noting
that janitors in downtown Los Angeles office buildings had won
excellent wages and working conditions through their unions since World
War II. By 1983, the prevailing wage reached $12 an hour--this is a GAO
report. The ability to deliver credible threats to strike if wage
increases were not forthcoming played a very important role in that
success.
[[Page S4028]]
I know where Senator Kennedy is on that one. But Congress, those of
us in Congress, overriding the recommendations of a Federal commission
on which Senator Kennedy and I served, continued a legal immigration
program that poured hundreds of thousands of foreign workers into the
country annually during the 1980's--hundreds of thousands. Thus,
Washington, thus us, inadvertently provided the opportunity for
aggressive, nonunion businesses to take the jobs or deflate the wages
of union workers, union workers in the Los Angeles area, taking over
the office building contracts. Most of the native born workers were
then driven from their jobs. Real wages for the foreign born and
remaining native born have fallen further toward and even down to the
minimum wage. There is a tie here somewhere, and we will get to it. We
will discuss it. Now I have opened Pandora's box once again, but
realizing the hazard of that. But there is where we are. We go ping
pong all day long. It is theater, any way you cut it.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Florida has been very accommodative. I
will just take one moment.
The Senator's comments are old news, old news to certainly this
Senator and, I think, to most Senators. That is why in the legal
immigration we have effectively cut out the unskilled workers. That was
initially either a proposal of mine or Senator Simpson on which we both
had agreement. So that particular feature is excluded.
The reason we are continuing to see the depression in terms of those
wages is because of illegal, not the legal, because we have effectively
terminated that.
I will welcome the opportunity for debate about how this legislation
and the legal immigration is going to protect American workers. I say
in fairness that the Senator from Wyoming had included in initial
proposals some additional provisions for the protections of American
workers which I supported. I think we could have expanded on it.
Now, with regard to the legislation actually reported out of the
committee, we have moved back from those kinds of protections. I think
it is enormously important that we have those kind of protections. We
will have a chance to talk about that as well.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue of illegal immigration is an
extremely serious one for America. Few places are as affected by that
issue as my State of Florida. My State represents approximately 6
percent of the population in the United States. It is estimated that 10
percent to 15 percent of the illegal aliens who are in the United
States are in the State of Florida. Within the last 4 years there were
periods in which over 4,000 persons from Haiti alone entered into small
boats in order to get to the United States, primarily through Florida,
and would have added further to that population of illegal aliens.
Mr. President, my concern, therefore, is not that this Congress
should deal with this subject. It is important, critical that we do.
Rather, I believe there are at least two areas of this bill through
which a serious fault line runs. This is not Shakespearian theater.
This is structural engineering. The first of those fault lines, and the
two are related, is that while this bill has as its label, illegal
immigration, S. 1664 says in its heading, in its title, ``To Amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to Increase Control Over Immigration to
the United States by Increasing Border Patrol,'' et cetera. The focus
of this bill is illegal immigration.
The first fault line, however, is that within this bill on illegal
immigration there are major provisions which affect legal aliens,
either totally affect legal aliens or substantially affect legal
aliens. To pick one specific example which I hope will be dealt with
before we complete action on this legislation, this bill that purports
to deal with illegal immigration would change the conditions under
which persons who are in this country with a legal status are allowed
to adjust that legal status.
Since the early 1980's, the United States has recognized the special
circumstances of Cubans coming to the United States and have had
special provisions in which persons who were here legally of Cuban
nationality can adjust their status. This bill, which purports to deal
with illegal aliens would substantially restrict that right. This is
only available to persons who are here legally. I cite that as just one
example.
Other examples of the mixture of illegal and legal go to the fact
that by changing the eligibility standards for legal aliens,
substantial additional costs are going to be imposed upon the
communities and States in which these aliens live. So the second
faultline in this legislation are significant unfunded mandates which
are being imposed upon States and local communities.
It is ironic, Mr. President, that the very first bill introduced in
this Congress, S. 1, was a bill which had as its title the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Let me read from the statement of the
purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The purpose of
this act, which is now Public Law 104-4, the fourth bill that became
law as a result of actions of the 104th Congress, the purposes of the
act are:
To strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and State, local, and tribal governments; 2, to
end the imposition in the absence of full consideration by
Congress of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal
governments without adequate Federal funding in a manner that
may displace other essential State, local, and tribal
governmental priorities . . . 6, to establish a point of
order vote on the consideration in the Senate and the House
of Representatives of legislation containing significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates without providing adequate
funding to comply with such mandates.
Those were some of the purposes that led this Congress to adopt as
its fourth legislative action of the 104th Congress the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
When the Senate was debating this proposal, Mr. President, the
majority leader, Senator Dole, stated,
Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative
truth in advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a
piece of legislation, they need to know how it would impact
the States and localities they represent. If Members of
Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to
make the tough choices needed to pay for it.
That statement by our majority leader was an important part of this
Senate's determination to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
So what are we about today, Mr. President? We are about legislation
which would impose massive unfunded mandates on States and local
communities in America. The Congressional Budget Office has, in a very
limited time, reviewed this legislation's very broad sweeping impact on
State and local governments. They have determined that this bill does,
in fact, meet the $50 million threshold for unfunded mandates
procedures due to the bill's requirements governing just two items:
Birth certificates and drivers' licenses. Thus, although the bill would
impact literally hundreds of programs run by State and local
governments, just these two relatively minor programs reach the
threshold of $50 million, which under the legislation constitutes
unfunded mandates.
With respect to the all-encompassing deeming requirements imposed on
hundreds of Federal, State, and local programs in this legislation, the
Congressional Budget Office says,
Given the scope and complexity of the affected programs,
however, the Congressional Budget Office has not been able to
estimate either the likelihood or magnitude of such cost at
this time. These costs could be significant, depending on how
strictly the deeming requirements are enforced by the Federal
Government.
On another issue, the Congressional Budget Office has stated under
the terms of means tested State and local tested 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 cost
of these programs. While several provisions of the bill could
mitigate these costs, CBO states 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 pressure on their financial
assistance programs.
Mr. President, this bill fails to meet the majority leader's truth-
in-advertising test. It is not strictly an illegal immigration bill,
and it does have serious
[[Page S4029]]
financial implications for States and local communities. We are
preparing to vote on a bill that we truly have not the foggiest idea
what the impact will be on our constituents. They certainly are
extremely concerned and strongly supportive of resolving this issue of
unfunded mandates.
I have a letter dated April 16 from the National Conference of State
Legislatures. This letter is also joined by the National Association of
Counties and the National League of Cities. This letter urges all
Senators to support a point of order against S. 1664, the illegal
immigration bill, based on the violation of the unfunded mandates bill.
This so states--the President of the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the President of the National Association of Counties,
and the President of the National League of Cities--``This constitutes
a critical test of your commitment to preventing cost shifts to an
unfunded administrative burden on State and local governments.'' This
is what the leaders of State and local governments have described as
the seriousness of the issue of unfunded mandates raised by this bill.
During the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill, Gov. Tommy
Thompson of Wisconsin and Gov. Bob Miller of Nevada wrote in a letter,
dated March 6, on behalf of the National Governors' Association,
expressing concern about ``administrative provisions contained in the
bill,'' which, if enacted, ``could result in an unfunded mandate being
passed on to State and local governments.''
This concern of Governors Thompson and Miller has, of course, now
been confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. Moreover, the
National Association of Public Hospitals wrote to all Senators on April
12, noting, ``This bill will lead to an increase in the number of
uninsured patients and exacerbate an already tremendous burden of
uncompensated care on public hospitals.''
This gets to another point that I offered in the unfunded mandates
bill, which seemingly has gone unnoticed by the Congressional Budget
Office, despite a vote of 93 to 6. That was a provision, which is now
part of the Public Law 104-4, which states that any Federal reductions
in ``reimbursements to State, local, and tribal governments for the
costs associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens,
including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care,
education, or criminal justice,'' constitute part of the potential new
obligations imposed upon States and are subject to the point of order
as unfunded mandates.
In numerous ways, S. 1664 does exactly that. It eliminates Federal
reimbursement to the States, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, by about $7 billion. I repeat, it eliminates Federal
reimbursement to the States by about $7 billion over the period 1996 to
2002, a substantial portion of which is in health care costs associated
with immigrants.
In short, this bill, once again, creates an enormous unfunded mandate
on State and local governments. Once again, I repeat the quote from the
Congressional Budget Office: ``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 provisions
are enforced by the Federal Government.''
Mr. President, while the CBO has been unable to do a comprehensive
report, the National Conference of State Legislatures has undertaken
that task. Our colleagues in the State capitals across the Nation,
legislators, as are we, who administer these programs we are talking
about today, have assessed what the impact will be on States. Although
they were, like the Congressional Budget Office, limited in the time
available to complete this analysis, the National Conference of State
Legislatures developed a very conservative cost estimate for just 10 of
the affected programs.
This study did not include Medicaid and 40 other Federal means-tested
programs. What did the National Conference of State Legislatures find?
First, after contacting more than 10 States, States of varying size,
they concluded that ``regardless of the size of the immigrant
population, all States and localities will have to implement these
unfunded mandates.''
In other words, the bill impacts a city in Iowa or Delaware just as
it might in Los Angeles, CA, or Miami, FL. The bill requires all
Federal, State, and local means-tested programs to have a new
citizenship verification bureaucracy imposed upon them.
All programs, regardless of whether the new bureaucracy costs exceed
benefits, regardless of whether it imposes a very large unfunded
mandate on State and local programs, all programs are impacted by this
bill. What are the estimated costs, even for just the 10 programs which
have been studied? According to the NCSL study, ``The cost of these new
requirements for 10 selected programs would result in a $744 million
unfunded mandate.'' Repeating, ``The cost of new requirements for 10
selected programs would result in a $744 million unfunded mandate.''
The National Conference of State Legislatures adds, ``Of course, if
the 40 other programs, including Medicaid, adoption assistance, and the
WIC programs, are included, the unfunded administrative burdens on
States and localities would substantially increase.''
Mr. President, the NCSL study indicates that unfunded mandates for
just 10 programs will be $744 million. Once the other multitude of
programs are analyzed, the costs imposed on State and local government
could far exceed a billion dollars. It could very well amount to
several billion dollars.
However, Mr. President, there are no provisions in the pending
legislation to reimburse State and local governments for the
administrative costs and the cost shifts which will be imposed upon
them by this bill.
As the majority leader said on January 4, 1995, when we were passing
the unfunded mandates bill:
We do not have all the answers in Washington, DC. Why
should we tell Idaho, or the State of Kansas, or the State of
South Dakota, or any other State, that we are going to pass
this Federal law and we are going to require that you do
certain things, but we are not going to send you any money?
So you raise taxes in the local communities or in your State.
You tax the people, and when they complain about it, say,
``Well, we cannot help it because the Federal Government
passed this mandate.'' So we are going to continue our drive
to return power to our States and our people through the
104th Congress.
Those were the words of Senator Dole on January 4, 1995. Mr.
President, we have now come to a point of decision as to our
credibility. When we passed this legislation, as the fourth bill of the
104th Congress, one of the items in the Contract With America, one of
the items upon which State and local governments are now making
important decisions, which they have believed the legitimacy of our
representations that we are no longer going to be casually and in an
unstudied way, imposing major costs upon them. Are we now going to be
prepared to meet the test?
We have a bill which says that it only relates to illegal aliens;
yet, an analysis indicates that it clearly has major impacts on legal
aliens.
Second, we find that a significant part of that impact on legal
aliens is to impose significant new unfunded mandates--financial
responsibilities--on States and local communities. I do not think that
is what we want to do. We have a choice. Clearly, a point of order is
now available against this bill. We could end further discussion. I am
reticent to raise that point of order because I believe it is important
that we pass an illegal immigration bill that will in fact strengthen
our ability to protect the borders of America and to assure that our
lawful means by which persons can come to the United States are
available and are not dismissed, as they have been so frequently in the
recent past, by persons who come here illegally.
I also am reluctant to raise this point of order at this time because
we still have an opportunity to correct this legislation and to remove
those provisions which are imposing these mammoth unfunded mandates on
States and local communities.
We are in a strange parliamentary process, but I hope that even
through this byzantine process we will be able to consider those
amendments that will be faithful to our commitments not to impose new
unfunded mandates in the manner in which we are doing in this
legislation upon our citizens at the State and local level.
[[Page S4030]]
So, Mr. President, my purpose in these remarks is to raise these two
important structural defects in the bill--a mixture of impacts on legal
aliens, and a bill that is labeled ``illegal immigration'' and the
imposition of major unfunded mandates on States and local communities.
It is my hope that by raising these issues, it will contribute to
reforming this bill in a way that brings a good engineer into the
foundation of this legislation, pour some concrete, and strengthen the
integrity of this legislation. If that is done, then the unfunded
mandate point of order would no longer be available.
If that is not done, I want to assure my colleagues that the point of
order will be raised because I am committed that we not only strengthen
our resolve against illegal immigration but that we also demonstrate
our credibility to not impose mammoth unfunded mandates on our State
and local governments.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter and other material from the
National Conference of State Legislatures be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Conference of State Legislatures, National
Association of Counties, National League of Cities,
April 16, 1996.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL), the National Association of Counties
(NACo) and the National League of Cities (NLC), we are
writing to alert you that according to both the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) and our own analysis S. 1664, The
Immigration and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, is in
violation of P.L. 104-4, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Certain portions of S. 1664 would place unfunded federal
mandates on states and localities through new national
requirements for driver's licenses and birth certificates and
by extending legal immigrant benefit restrictions to all
federal means-tested programs. CBO estimates that the
driver's license and the birth certificate mandates alone
could cost states and localities in excess of $200 million.
This clearly exceeds the $50 million threshold needed for a
point of order against S. 1664 in accordance with P.L. 104-4.
In addition, a study by the National Conference of State
Legislatures has found that the deeming requirements of S.
1664 would impose even greater unfunded federal costs on
state and local governments. (CBO was unable to conduct an
analysis of the deeming requirements, but stated that ``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 P.L. 104-4.'') The NCSL study of just ten affected
programs, not including Medicaid and 40 other programs,
reveals that the costs to state and local government of these
new requirements is $744 million.
As you know, ``deeming'' is attributing a sponsor's income
to the immigrant when determining program eligibility. S.
1664 would extend deeming from three programs (AFDC, SSI and
Food Stamps) to 50 federal means-tested programs including
foster care, adoption assistance, school lunch and WIC.
Regardless of the size of the immigrant population, all
states and localities will have to implement these unfunded
mandates. By mandating that state and local governments deem
for all these programs, the legislation requires states and
localities to extend a complicated administrative procedure
to more than 50 federal programs. These mandates will require
states to verify citizenship status, immigration status,
sponsorship status, and length of time in the U.S. in each
eligibility determination for the deemed federal programs.
They will also require state and local governments to
implement and maintain costly data information systems.
Therefore, we urge you to support a point of order against
S. 1664 based on the violation of P.L. 104-4. This is a
critical test of your commitment to preventing cost-shifts to
and unfunded administrative burdens on state and local
government.
NCSL, NACo and NLC will support subsequent amendments to
reduce the scope of the deeming provisions and the onerous
administrative requirements. We oppose the provision to
extend the deeming requirements to all non-cash, federal
means-tested programs. These mandates also garner almost
no federal savings and should be eliminated as part of the
Congressional commitment to eliminating cost shifts to
state and local budgets and taxpayers. We urge you to
support amendments to limit deeming to the federal
programs that deliver income support and food assistance
and to ensure that states and localities will not have to
implement deeming for any program where administrative
costs would exceed any estimated net savings or benefit
expenditures.
Without this amendment, states and localities will have to
deem applicants for everything funded by federal means-tested
programs from foster care to children's soccer leagues to
mobile meals to after-school tutoring programs. The
administrative burden would severely restrict the number of
services that could be provided and be a bureaucratic
nightmare, especially for states and localities with fewer
immigrants.
We also strongly support amendments to exempt vulnerable
populations such as legal immigrants who become disabled
after arrival, children under 18, pre-natal and post-partum
women, and veterans and their families from the deeming
restrictions. These groups are among the most vulnerable
members of our communities. NCSL, NACo and NLC are also
concerned about immigrants who enter the U.S. legally and
comply with U.S. immigration laws in good faith. Legal
immigrants who play by the rules should not be barred from
the SSI program if they become disabled after arrival. No one
can predict when they might suffer a disability; these
immigrants must be included in the SSI program.
We are especially concerned about the impact of extending
the deeming requirements to the Medicaid program. Without
this program eligibility, many legal immigrants will not have
access to health care. Legal immigrants will be forced to
turn to state indigent health care programs, public
hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance or avoid
treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public
health and increase the cost of providing health care to
everyone. Furthermore, without Medicaid reimbursement, public
hospitals and clinics and states and localities would incur
increased unreimbursed costs for treating legal immigrants.
Exempting emergency Medicaid services from sponsor deeming is
especially justified because emergency medical care must be
provided by all hospitals with emergency rooms without regard
to the patient's ability to pay or immigration status.
Finally, we are also concerned about the provisions
mandating national standards for state and local documents
such as birth certificates and driver's licenses. We support
maintaining state and local choice in the design of these
documents. These are very sensitive public policy issues. S.
1664 would preempt a number of state laws including those
that specifically prevent using social security numbers as
identification on driver's licenses and other identification
cards. These mandates may violate the Supreme Court decision
in New York v. United States that prohibits making states the
administrative arm of the federal government. Furthermore,
these provisions also place costly unfunded mandates on state
and local governments that prevent such use of social
security numbers or do not use tamper-proof paper for birth
certificates.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and urge
you to support these amendments to minimize the cost shift
and unfunded mandates to states and localities.
Sincerely,
James J. Lack,
New York Senate,
President, NCSL.
Douglas R. Bovin,
Commissioner, Delta County, MI, President, NACo.
Gregory S. Lashutka,
Mayor, Columbus, Ohio, President, NLC.
____
Memorandum
To: Interested Parties.
From: Sheri Steisel, National Conference of State
Legislatures. Jon Dunlap, National Conference of State
Legislatures. Marilina Sanz, National Association of
Counties.
Date: April 15, 1996.
Re: Unfunded Mandate Violations of More Than $900 Million In
S.1664/S.269.
As you may be aware, on Friday (4/12/96) the Congressional
Budget Office released its score of S.269 (now S.1664), the
Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996.
In this score, CBO states that a number of provisions in
S.1664 would place unfunded federal mandates on states and
localities. CBO estimates that the driver's license and birth
certificate provisions alone could cost states and localities
in excess of $200 million. This alone is a violation of the
provisions of S.1, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 and is
certainly more than the $50 million threshold needed for a
point of order against S.1664 on the Senate floor.
As for S.1664's new deeming requirements for all federal
means-tested programs, CBO states that given the scope and
complexity of the affected programs, they were unable to
estimate these costs at this time. CBO found that ``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.'' As you know, S.1664 would
extend deeming from the 3 current programs (AFDC, SSI, and
Food Stamps) to more than 50 federal means-tested programs,
most of which provide social services at the local level.
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has
developed cost estimates for 10 affected programs (not
including one of the largest, Medicaid, and 40 other federal
means-tested programs). We have consulted with more than 10
states of varying size. However, regardless of the size of
the immigrant population, all states and localities will have
to implement these unfunded mandates. The NCSL study found
that the cost of these new requirements for 10 selected
programs would result in a $744 million unfunded mandate. Of
course, if the 40 other
[[Page S4031]]
programs, including Medicaid, Adoption Assistance, and WIC,
are included the unfunded administrative burden on states and
localities would substantially increase.
In the Senate debate, NCSL and NACo will strongly support a
point of order against S.1664 and subsequent amendments to
reduce the scope of the deeming requirements and the
administrative burden the requirements place on states and
localities.
____
National Conference of State Legislatures
Unfunded Mandates in Immigration Bill: Cost Estimate of S.269/S.1664
Deeming Mandate
Enclosed are the following: (1) the list of programs that
we believe meet the unfunded mandate criteria contained in
S.1 Unfunded Mandates Act and CBO's interpretation of the
law; (2) an estimate of the infrastructure, training and
implementation costs that states and localities would incur
in order to implement deeming for these 10 programs; and (3)
the list of over 40 additional federal means-tested programs
that do not meet the criteria in S.1 but the states and
localities would also have to implement deeming for. We
estimate that the total cost of the deeming unfunded mandate
in S. 1664 for the 10 programs that meet S.1 criteria is
$743.66 million. These costs rise substantially when all
other federal means-tested programs, such as Medicaid,
Adoption Assistance, WIC, and others, are included (see
attachment part III).
Assumptions about deeming
In order to comply with the deeming mandates in S.269 (``to
implement deeming for all federal means-tested programs'') we
believe that states and localities will have to adhere to a
process similar to the following.
A citizenship verification must be made for all applicants
of all federal means-tested programs. This means that each
applicant must have an interview with a caseworker who will
verify citizenship status and check valid documentation
(e.g., birth certificate, passport, etc.). We do not believe
that a written attestation of citizenship will be sufficient
because any applicant for assistance could claim citizenship
status, even illegal immigrants. Federal means-tested
programs that do not have an intake process and an
eligibility determination system in place will have to create
them to provide a credible verification of citizenship
status. We believe that creating these systems and hiring
staff to administer them will be very costly (see #1 below).
After establishing who the noncitizens are, the caseworker
must use the System of Alien Verification of Eligibility
(SAVE) secondary verification process to determine which
noncitizens have sponsors. As with the citizenship
verification, we believe that requiring a written attestation
of sponsorship status is not credible because of the enormous
loophole in creates. At this time the SAVE secondary
verification process is the only credible way to verify
sponsorship status. With extensive training, caseworkers may
be able to identify as many as \1/3\ of all noncitizen
applicants who would not have sponsors without accessing SAVE
through secondary verification. Therefore, we estimate that
\2/3\ of all noncitizen applicants will need to be checked
for sponsorship through the SAVE secondary verification
process.
States and localities report that it currently takes INS an
average of 3.5 weeks to respond through secondary
verification on sponsorship requests for the three programs
that deem. We would expect this time lag to increase as more
programs deem (whether it be the 10 that meet S.1 criteria or
the 50-odd possible means-tested programs) and SAVE's
secondary verification process is overwhelmed. This may
conflict with federal application processing requirements
leading to difficulties with audits and quality control
sanctions, especially in programs like AFDC, Medicaid, Foster
Care and IV-D Child Support.
After INS informs the caseworkers about sponsorship,
caseworkers must calculate deemed income. State and local
administrative staff will have to be trained to verify
citizenship, identify immigration documents, use the SAVE
secondary verification process, calculate deemed income and
understand deeming exceptions to make this process workable
and credible. In addition to infrastructure and training
costs, states and localities will also experience on-going
implementation costs associated with the staff time needed to
access SAVE and make the complicated deeming calculation.
For more information please contact Jon Dunlap, or Sheri
Steisel, in NCSL's Washington, DC office.
I. Selected Federal Means-Tested Programs Affected by Deeming Unfunded
Mandate in S. 269:
No Intake Process and No Current Deeming Requirement:
School Lunch, School Breakfast, Child and Adult Care Food
Program, Vocational Rehabilitation, Title XX Social Services
Block Grant.
No Current Deeming Requirement: Foster Care, IV-A Child
Care, IV-D Child Support, Medicare--QMB.
Deeming: Food Stamps, AFDC.
II. Cost Estimate
We have separated the costs into three parts: (1) capital/
infrastructure; (2) staff training; and (3) on-going/
implementation.
1. Capital and Infrastructure Costs: A citizenship
verification must be made for all applicants of all federal
means-tested programs. This means that each applicant must
have an interview with a caseworker who will verify
citizenship status and check valid documentation (e.g., birth
certificate, passport, etc.). Federal means-tested programs
that do not have an intake process and an eligibility
determination system in place will have to create them to
provide a credible verification of citizenship status.
A. What federal means-tested programs do not have an intake
process?
1. Examples: School Lunch/Breakfast, Child and Adult Care
Food, Title XX, Voc. Rehab.
B. What is the cost for creating an intake process?
1. Number of programs needing intake process = 4.
2. Number of new staff/program needed to admin. new intake
processes:
a. School Lunch-Breakfast = 1 staff/school district 14,881
school districts = 14,881 staff (American School Food Service
Association).
b. Adult and Child Care Food = 1 staff/county x 3,042
counties = 3,042 staff.
c. Title XX SSBG = 1 staff/county 3,042 counties = 3,042
staff.
d. Vocational Rehabilitation = 1 staff/county 3,042
counties = 3,042 staff.
3. Total number of new staff to create new intake processes
= 24,007 staff.
4. Average annual salary of new staff = $30,000/staff/year
(National Eligibility Workers Association and National
Association of Social Workers).
5. Total cost of new staff = 24,007 new staff $30,000 avg.
staff salary = $720.21 million.
6. Creating or updating eligibility manual (including
pictures of acceptable documentation) and reprogramming
computers = $2 million (this could be higher, we are checking
with state welfare agencies)
Subtotals: New Staff = $720.21 million, Other Costs = $2.0
million, Federal Administration Contribution = $0 (None of
these programs would be federal admin. funds).
Total: $722.21 - $0 (Fed Share) = $722.21 million.
2. Staff Training for Immigration Verification, SAVE and
Deeming Administration: After establishing who the
noncitizens are, the caseworker must use the System of Alien
Verification of Eligibility (SAVE) secondary verification
process to determine which noncitizens have sponsors. With
extensive training, caseworkers may be able to identify as
many as \1/3\ of all noncitizen applicants who would not have
sponsors without accessing SAVE through secondary
verification. Therefore, we estimate that \2/3\ of all
noncitizen applicants must be checked for sponsorship through
the SAVE secondary verification process. When INS informs the
caseworkers about sponsorship, caseworkers must calculate
deemed income. State and local administrative staff will have
to be trained to verify citizenship, identify immigration
documents, use the SAVE secondary verification process,
calculate deemed income and understand deeming exceptions.
A. Staff time costs: 1 day training at $15.00/hour8
hours=$120.00/day/person.
B. Trainer's costs: $1200/training session (Center for the
Development of Human Services--NY).
C. Number of people needing training:
1. school lunch-breakfast=14,881 staff.
2. child and adult care food=3,042 staff.
3. Title XX=3,042 staff.
4. Vocational Rehabilitation=3,042 staff.
5. IV-E Foster Care=3,042 staff.
6. Medicare QMB=3,042 staff.
7. IV-A Child Care=3,042 staff.
8. IV-D Child Support=3,042 staff.
Total=36,175 staff.
D. Number of people trained per session=35 (Ctr. for Dev.
of Human Services--NY).
F. Total number of training sessions: 36,175 staff/35=1,033
sessions.
G. Total cost/session=$1,200 trainer+($120/person35
attendees=$4,200 staff time/session)=$5,400.
Subtotal: Total cost of start-up training=$5,400 (cost/
session)1033 (number of sessions)=$5.58 million Total Federal
Administration Contribution=$1.8 million (30% Federal
reimbursement after accounting for average of 50% federal
administrative reimbursement for most programs but no federal
assistance for the large nutrition programs such as school
lunch/breakfast and child and adult care food admin. cost).
Total: $5.58 million-$1.8 million (Fed Share)=$3.78
million.
3. On-Going Implementation Costs: After consulting with a
range of state and local officials, including LA County,
Colorado, New York, Rhode Island, Iowa, West Virginia,
Virginia, Minnesota, and Texas, we believe that the on-going
implementation of deeming will be cost prohibitive. According
to the 1994 Census, 15 million noncitizens reside in the U.S.
After consulting with the INS and the urban Institute, we
estimate the approximately 10%, or 1.5 million, will apply
for a federal means-tested program each year. This percentage
would be even higher if we used research from George Borjas,
a well-known immigration demographer, who estimates immigrant
public assistance use at closer to 20%. Many noncitizens will
apply for multiple programs or apply for a single program
multiple times. We are unsure about how to account for the
number of noncitizens who might file multiple applications.
Because no comprehensive information system exists to record
and unify data on all federal means-tested programs, each
application will require a separate verification and inquiry
of the SAVE secondary verification system. After consulting
with Los Angeles County, we multiply the number of
[[Page S4032]]
applicants by a factor of 1.5 to account for additional
procedures resulting from multiple applications. After
consulting with the INS, we estimate that if caseworkers
receive extensive training in reading immigration documents,
they will be able to vet up to \1/3\ of all noncitizen
applications. The remaining applications will have to be
referred to the SAVE secondary verification process. We
estimate that 50% of all secondary SAVE inquiries will
require a deeming procedure (Congressional Research Service).
We divide the total number of SAVE inquiries in half to bet
the total number of deeming procedures per year.
A. Total number of noncitizens applying for selected
federal means-tested programs per year = # SAVE 2nd
verifications inquiries to be scored by CBO: 15 million non-
citizens in U.S. (census 1994)--10% (1.5 million) apply for
one of the selected federal means-tested programs--we use a
1.5 multiplier for selected federal means-tested programs
(1.5 million 1.5 multiplier = 2.25 million applications)--
One-third of applications can be vetted through immigration
document checking (2.25 mil - 742,500 = 1.49 million) = 1.49
million SAVE inquiries per year for the selected federal
means-tested programs.
B. Total number of deeming procedures/year = 1.49 million
2nd SAVE inquiries .5 for noncitizens without sponsors =
742,500 deeming procedures/year for selected programs.
C. Average cost per inquiry of SAVE 2nd verification (staff
time, costs for accessing save):
1. 30 min. of staff time per 2nd verification inquiry at
$15.00/hour = $7.50/inquiry of staff time (HHS Office of
Inspector General).
2. Other costs for accessing SAVE might include phone,
copying, mailing, etc. = $1 million.
D. Average additional cost of administering deeming
procedures (reinterview, calculation, exemptions).
1. 1.5 hours staff time/deeming procedure at $15.00/hour =
$22.50/deeming procedure (National Eligibility Workers
Association survey).
E. On-going training costs:
1. Avg. annual turnover of caseworker staff = 10% (National
Association of Social Workers).
2. Number of new staff/year = 36,175 staff 10% turnover =
3,617 new staff/year.
3. Number of new training sessions/year = 3,617 new staff/
35 per session = 103 sessions/year.
4. Total cost of on-gong training/year = 103 sessions
$4,500/session = 556,200/year.
Subtotals: SAVE inquiry costs = $7.50/per inquiry 1.49
inquiries = $11.18 million. Other ongoing admin. costs = $1.0
million. Deeming staff costs = $22.50/per deeming procedure
742,500 procedures = $16.71 million. On-going training cost =
$556,200.
Federal Administrative contribution: $8.84 million (30%
Federal reimbursement after accounting for average of 50%
federal administrative reimbursement for most programs but no
federal assistance for the large nutrition programs such as
school lunch/breakfast and child and adult care food admin.
costs).
Net Total: $29.45 million (On-going cost) - $8.84 million
(Fed Share) = $17.67 million.
Estimated total net Capital/Infrastructure cost: $722.21
million.
Estimated total net training cost: $3.78 million.
Estimated total net on-going implementation cost: $17.67
million.
Estimated total net cost: $722.21 million + $3.78 million +
$17.67 million = $743.66 million.
iv. other federal means-tested programs
Medical Benefits: Medicaid, Maternal and Child Health
Services Block Grant, Migrant Health Centers, Community
Health Services, Title XX Family Planning Services.
Cash Benefits: SSI-Supplement, Adoption Assistance,
Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children. Child
Care Development Block Grant.
Food Benefits: WIC, Summer Food Service Program for
Children, Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Special Milk.
Housing Benefits: Section 8 Housing Assistance, Public
Housing, Rural Housing Loans, HOME, Rural Rental Housing
Loans, Section 236 Interest Reduction, Farm Labor Housing
Loans and Grants, Section 101 Rent Supplements.
Education Benefits: Title I Grants for Educationally
Deprived Children, Pell Grants, Head Start, Stafford Loans,
Even Start, College Work Study, Supplement Education OPP.
Grants, Perkins Loans, State Student Incentive Grants.
Services: Community Service Block Grant, IV-B Child
Welfare, Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
Jobs and Training: Adult Training Program, Summer Youth
Employment, Youth Training Program, Foster Grandparents,
Senior Companions, Senior Community Service Empl.
Energy Assistance: LIHEAP, Weatherization Assistance.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first compliment my colleague and
friend from Florida for his very fine statement, particularly in regard
to his recitation of the unfunded mandates that are in this bill. I
have several of the same concerns that he does.
We have an employer verification system here that is going to cost
money. It is going to cost money for employers. It is going to cost
money for States and local communities.
I have other serious concerns about this employer verification system
as well.
My colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, will be offering later
in this debate an amendment dealing with that employer verification
problem that is in the bill. My friend from Florida has also pointed
out another, I think, very important problem, a huge unfunded mandate;
that is, the birth certificate changes that are required in this bill.
I think it is going to come as a shock, when we get into this debate,
to my colleagues and to the American people to find that under the
terms of this bill the birth certificates that every American has are
still going to be valid after the bill passes. They just will not be
able to use them much for anything. You are going to have to go back to
the place where the birth took place and get a new birth certificate if
you want to get a passport or if you want to use it for other official
business. It is just going to be absolutely a total nightmare.
Now is not the time to get into this in detail, but I will be
offering an amendment at the appropriate time to strike that provision
because it would be very, very ironic that a U.S. Congress that has put
itself on the block and said finally we are going to heed what local
elected officials are telling us, finally we are going to listen,
finally we passed this unfunded mandate bill saying we are not going to
do this anymore, or at least, if we do, we are going to recognize that
we are doing it and admit that we are doing it--it would be the height
of irony if this Congress which said that would pass such a huge
unfunded mandate that my colleague from Florida has pointed out is
absolutely huge.
Imagine telling everybody in this country that your birth certificate
is still valid technically but you just cannot use it for much of
anything. Imagine the cost to the counties, or whatever local
jurisdiction you have in your home State that issues birth
certificates, when people start flocking back and going home to get
these new birth certificates issued to qualify. The only way they
qualify is if some Federal bureaucrat in Washington, DC, says, ``Well,
yes, that is OK. That type of format is OK. The paper is OK. The format
is OK. The information is OK. Yes, you can use that type of birth
certificate.'' A huge unfunded mandate that is absolutely crazy.
I think when my colleagues look at this issue and we get into the
debate about the cost of this, people are going to really be shocked.
Let me turn, if I could, Mr. President, to what I understand is the
pending business; that is, the Simpson amendment that deals with open
field searches.
Let me just bring my colleagues up to date, or kind of capsulize
exactly where we are on this issue. This issue was looked at by the
Judiciary Committee. In fact, by a vote of 12 to 5, Senator Simpson's
position was rejected. The position that he has taken and the position
that this amendment would take would be to reverse--let me say that
again--reverse a very delicate compromise that was reached in 1986 in
the Simpson-Mazzoli bill in regard to open field searches.
Let me go back and review very quickly some of the history behind
this. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a search warrant was
not required for open field searches but in its opinion invited
Congress to look at the issue and to take action in this regard.
In 1986, some 2 years later, when we looked at this whole issue of
illegal immigration, Congress did speak, and it was an integral part of
that compromise. A very delicate compromise was worked out when I was
in the House of Representatives. Senator Simpson was the leader here in
the Senate. That compromise provided that, for an open field search, a
search warrant would, in fact, be required. So, if we accept the
Simpson amendment, it really is a rejection of a compromise that was
made in 1986.
The bill, Mr. President, as it currently stands on the Senate floor
with the vote by the Judiciary Committee--a 12 to 5 vote to reject the
Simpson position on open field searches--the current bill is the status
quo. The current
[[Page S4033]]
bill is where the law is today. I want to emphasize that.
Let me talk a little bit about the merits of this issue. The current
law is that the INS has to get permission to conduct a search in an
open field involving agricultural workers. That is the same situation
that exists today if the INS wants to go into a restaurant or wants to
go into some other building and conduct a search. If they want to
conduct a search, under current law, they can get permission, which
oftentimes is granted; but if they cannot get permission, then current
law treats all employers and all employees equally in this regard. The
INS has to go in and get a search warrant, if they do not get
permission. That is true whether they are dealing with a building or
whether they are dealing with work that is taking place on a farm or a
ranch.
To change this, as the Simpson amendment would do--first of all,
there is no compelling reason to do it. In fact, there is no reason to
do it at all.
In fact, there is no reason to do it at all, if you ask the INS. They
are the ones enforcing it. They are the ones who have the duty imposed
by Congress to get the search warrant.
What the INS says is we do not need to change the law. They are not
here asking for the change. We do not need the change in the law is
what the INS says. They are the ones who in a sense we have been
restricting.
Second, a change in the law, which adoption of the Simpson amendment
would be, puts a burden on farmers, and, yes, on ranchers. I do not
have to remind anyone in this body who has a farmer or a rancher in
their State--and that includes every State I guess--how time sensitive
the harvest of any crop is.
I experienced this in my home county. My family ran a seed business
for many years. And when it came time to harvest the wheat, they
harvested the wheat. You had a fine window in there to get it done. If
you did not do it at the time to do it, you might lose the crop. It
might rain; you might have problems. The same is true for any
perishable crop--tremendous disruption of going in and conducting these
searches without a search warrant. That is one of the compelling
reasons that this was such an important part of the compromise that was
reached in 1986 in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
In addition to the burden that this amendment would place on
employers, equally important, and maybe even more important, is the
burden it is going to place on employees.
Open fields. Let us think of the real world. Let us think of the real
world. INS would drive by and look at this open field. Where are they
going to go? It is not unreasonable to think that there is certainly a
distinct possibility, however well intentioned people who work at INS
are, that they are going to go where they see people look a little
different than the vast majority of Americans, or at least the vast
majority of people in most parts of the country, that they are going to
go where maybe someone's skin is a little browner. They are going to go
where they have some suspicions.
I think that is wrong. I think they should be held to the same
standard they have been held to for the last decade under the Simpson-
Mazzoli compromise, and that is they have to get a search warrant. It
is not too burdensome.
Again, I think it is important that all employers be treated equally
and all employees be treated equally. The situation has to be dealt
with in the same sense, and that is true of the status quo, and that
will be changed if the Simpson amendment today is adopted.
What was the background of this? What led to people looking at this
and saying, ``Hey, there is a problem.'' It is my understanding that
before the 1986 act was passed, 15 percent of the illegal immigration
problem in the work force was in agriculture and yet 75 percent of all
searches, all the raids occurred in agriculture. That is no
coincidence. They went where it was easier. They went where they could
see into the open fields. I would submit they sometimes may have gone
where somebody's skin was brown or somebody looked a little different,
looking at that as a good prospect. I think it is wrong to change that
law.
We are going to hear the argument in the Chamber that the only law
enforcement agency that is required to have a search warrant in an open
field situation is the INS. Yes, that is technically true. To state
that is to state the obvious, but it is also looking at it from a very
simplistic point of view. Those of us who have been involved in law
enforcement know that searches by law enforcement agencies that are
looking at what we consider to be crimes historically--rape, murder,
theft--they are not just going and looking at fields and walking into
those fields because they see who is working there. That just is not
the way it works. There is a normal progression of the research that
has to be done, the evidence that has to be presented, even if the
plain view doctrine to go onto a field does in fact apply, which I
think it does. That is frankly the argument that proponents might make,
comparing apples and oranges--just a totally different situation.
Senator Hatch received a letter on March 13, and this letter is
signed by a number of groups in this country that oppose the Simpson
position. Let me read the names of these groups and then let me take a
brief excerpt from the letter itself.
Groups that oppose this amendment include the American Farm Bureau
Federation, Agricultural Affiliates, American Association of
Nurserymen, American Sheep Industry Association, California Farm Bureau
Federation, Florida Strawberry Growers Association, Florida Fruit and
Vegetable Association, Illinois Specialty Growers Association, Michigan
Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives, Northern Christmas Trees and Nursery, Northwest
Horticultural Council, Society of American Florists, Sun-Maid Growers
of California, Texas Produce Association, United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association, Ventura County Agricultural Association,
Virginia State Horticultural Society, Wasco County Fruit Produce
League, Washington Growers Clearinghouse, Western Growers Association,
Wisconsin Christmas Tree Producers' Association, and Wisconsin Nursery
Association.
Let me point out that this letter, dated March 13, obviously did not
have to do with this specific amendment. What it did have to do with is
the same identical subject. Let me quote from this letter. This letter
was signed by the groups that I just read. This is paragraph 2.
S. 269 also proposes to repeal the open agricultural field
search warrant requirement enacted as part of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986. This provision requires
Immigration and Naturalization Service to obtain the
permission of the property owner prior to entering the
property searching for illegal aliens, or to obtain a search
warrant. This is the same procedure required of INS searching
for illegal aliens in any other workplace, such as factories,
restaurants, and retail establishments enclosed by buildings
or other structures. This provision of current law affords
growers the same protections from warrantless searches and
unreasonable disruption of business activity enjoyed by any
other businesses with walls and doors.
The fourth paragraph reads in part as follows, again the same letter
signed by the same groups:
Prior to enactment of the open agricultural field search
warrant requirement, INS was accused in several instances of
unlawful detention of America's citizens and legal permanent
resident aliens, damage to crops and property, violations of
property rights, and injuries to agricultural workers fleeing
INS searches. We believe the requirement that INS obtain
either property owner permission or a search warrant prior to
conducting a search for illegal aliens has fostered
cooperation between INS and growers, and has reduced property
damage, crop losses and farmworker injuries.
Again I would point out in light of this statement that I just read,
that is INS' position in the sense that they are not asking for a
change in the law.
Let me also cite, if I could, Mr. President, a letter from the
American Farm Bureau Federation--actually not a letter but a statement
that was put out. I have no date on this but it was within the last
month. Let me just read a portion of this:
Farm Bureau has been very active in lobbying Capitol Hill
to seek retention of the open-field search warrant provision
enacted as part of the 1986 Immigration Reform bill. The
provision of S. 269 repealing the open-field search warrant
requirement has received no examination in public hearings,
despite the fact that it reverses policy adopted by clear
majorities of both Houses of Congress during the 1986 reform
debate.
[[Page S4034]]
Continuing the quote now:
Congress enacted the so-called open-field search warrant
requirement as a part of the 1986 immigration reform bill in
response to concerns among the agriculture community that
farmers were treated differently by Immigration and
Naturalization Service as a result of the nature of their
business; that it is conducted outdoors rather than indoors
and it thus had been more vulnerable to abusive searches.
That is a partial quote from the letter.
Let me also point out what the INS can do today, again under the
current status of the law, again under the 1986 compromise, the
Simpson-Mazzoli compromise.
They can go in property in hot pursuit. They can do that today. We do
not need to change the law today to do that. They can do that hot
pursuit. Further, they do not need a search warrant if the land is
located within 25 miles of the border. So, again, two of the problems,
or what you might think would be serious problems, have been dealt with
and were dealt with in 1986.
Finally, of course, to again restate the obvious, if permission is
granted, consent is given, they can go on right now.
So let me state I think this is an important issue. The Simpson
amendment changes the status quo. I see my friend is on the floor and
may at this point or later want to respond. But I think the status quo
is correct. The Judiciary Committee voted by a 12-to-5 vote to keep the
status quo. The INS does not see a reason to change the law, and
therefore I ask my colleagues to vote against the Simpson amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], is
recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
legislation before us. Before I do, let me just say a word or two about
the comments about the minimum wage. I am pleased that that issue is
being discussed at this time. I am pleased to see the reemergence of
some bipartisan support for an increase in the minimum wage. I think
the time is now. Whether it be on this piece of legislation with a
limited time agreement or some other piece of legislation in the near
future, I think it is something we ought to take up now rather than
wait until later. It is at least of as great importance as the matter
before us today.
But I do rise in opposition to this bill. I fear this legislation not
only embraces the wrong approach to curbing illegal immigration, but I
think it contradicts past efforts to reform the Federal regulatory
framework and to prevent the Congress from passing unfunded Federal
mandates that will needlessly burden employers and local governments
alike.
In 1994, we witnessed a very emotional and pointed debate in
California over a ballot issue that we have all come to know and
describe as proposition 187. That debate, which evolved into a
rhetorical backlash against both legal and illegal immigrants, clearly
demonstrated that the issue of immigration has the very strong
potential to further divide and alienate those in our communities who
are now faced, even more than at any time in the past, with the daily
anxieties of economic insecurity and social instability.
During the extensive consideration of this legislation in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I did oppose certain efforts to curtail legal
immigration, whether it was an effort to prevent families from
reuniting with loved ones or an effort to place additional hurdles
before persons who are fleeing persecution in their home countries and
have a legitimate right to ask for asylum. As I indicated then, my
strong support for preserving ample levels of legal immigration does
not compromise in any way my feeling, and the feeling I think of every
Member of this body, that we do need to take bold and aggressive steps
to curtail illegal immigration.
I do believe there are reforms that are responsible and reasonable,
and that we should make every effort to pursue on this bill. For
example, the bill authorizes the hiring of over 4,500 new Border Patrol
agents over the course of the next 5 years. This massive increase in
personnel will nearly double the existing number of Border Patrol
agents under the jurisdiction of the INS.
I was also, therefore, pleased that an amendment I offered in
committee was adopted by the committee, which provides that these many
new personnel will be hired and adequately trained, pursuant to
appropriate standards of law enforcement.
I am also strongly supportive of provisions in S. 269, offered by
Senator Kennedy, to enhance the penalties for virtually all forms of
alien smuggling and document fraud, as well as related offenses.
Additionally, these provisions provide stiff penalties for those
individuals who operate sweatshops which force people, many in this
country illegally, to work in often inhumane conditions for minimal
compensation. Like these new enforcement personnel and alien smuggling
penalties, it is critical that any measure we consider to curtail
illegal immigration be targeted against those who are actually breaking
our laws.
Nothing stands in more stark contrast to this sort of targeted
approach than what I believe to be the single most troubling component
of this legislation and that is the creation of a new, costly and
massive worker verification demonstration project which is intended by
the proponents, I believe, to lead to a nationwide verification system
within a few years.
The worker verification proposal contained in this legislation, and
the worker verification concept itself, is not a targeted approach to
confronting the problem of illegal immigration. Instead, it is an
approach which seeks to deputize thousands of business owners and
farmers and other entrepreneurs, and virtually turn our Nation's
workplaces into some kind of internal border patrol, mini-INS's, if you
will. These employers are then charged with the responsibility of
navigating a complex new electronic verification system in an effort to
root illegal immigrants out from a massive American work force.
I find it shortsighted and untenable to suggest that we cannot combat
illegal immigration without requiring every person in America to have
his or her identity checked by a Federal data base each time each
person in this country applies for a job or for Government assistance.
Despite good-faith efforts by the proponents of this provision to try
to build in adequate privacy protections, the fact remains that every
time an American applies for a job he or she will be stepping into a
civil liberties minefield, if this system develops as I am concerned
the authors intend.
Who in our society will be required to have their identities
verified? Potentially everyone. It could be the 40-year-old father of
four, applying for an executive position with a Fortune 500 company. It
could be a 20-year-old college student applying for student aid. If I
am reading this bill correctly, even a 12-year-old paper boy could have
to have his identity verified by a Washington official before he could
be hired to deliver newspapers. That, I am afraid, is the practical
effect of a national worker verification system. It is light-years away
from a targeted approach. And it is based on the proposition that it is
perfectly appropriate to have ID checks potentially required from 98
percent of our population, that which consists of U.S. citizens and
legal immigrants, in order to root out the 2 percent of our population
that is here illegally.
During judiciary hearing consideration of this bill, the junior
Senator from Michigan and I offered a bipartisan amendment to strike
the worker verification concept from this legislation and replace it
with stronger enforcement and penalties for those who break the law by
overstaying their legal visas. Although the committee accepted these
new provisions relating to visa overstayers, our amendment to strike
worker verification proposals lost on a tie 9 to 9 vote.
The original nationwide system was later replaced by the so-called
demonstration projects. But make no mistake, Mr. President, the
fundamental flaws contained in the original proposal remain. Only now
we will go through a somewhat longer process before it is actually
imposed nationwide on all Americans.
Senator Abraham and I will offer an amendment later on during this
debate to strike those demonstration projects and programs and will
speak more on this at another time. But it is strangely ironic, Mr.
President, that some of the same Senators who stood here on the Senate
floor a year ago and cried
[[Page S4035]]
out for meaningful regulatory reform legislation now are some of the
strongest advocates for a massive national worker verification system
and that somehow that is an appropriate solution for our illegal
immigration problems.
Another provision of this legislation that is troubling to me relates
to birth certificates and driver's licenses. The bill currently
requires all Government agencies to begin issuing uniform Federal birth
certificates based on standards developed here in Washington, DC.
Moreover, no Government agency may accept for official purposes a birth
certificate or driver's license that does not meet the Federal
guidelines established in this and presumably future legislation.
Originally, this provision required agencies to collect fingerprints
or other biometric data. The Department of Justice referred to these
fingerprinted birth certificates as ``de facto national identification
documents.''
Thankfully, we were able to delete the fingerprinting requirement in
the Judiciary Committee, but I think it demonstrates the steps that
some are willing to take in this area. I do not believe for 1 minute
that we have seen the last of this fingerprinting idea. Even without
the fingerprints, I think this provision is still distressing. For
example, the bill language requires every State department of motor
vehicles to begin issuing driver's licenses with safety features as
prescribed by a Federal regulatory agency. This language also states
that anyone applying for a driver's license must present certain
information as designated by the National Department of Transportation
to establish their identity.
So, if the Department of Transportation elects to promulgate a
regulation next year requiring every State department of motor vehicles
to begin collecting fingerprints, it would be legal under this
legislation. So we see the fingerprints very easily coming back in,
despite our efforts in the committee, through another route. Moreover,
this section seems to ignore one of the 104th Congress' few bipartisan
successes so far, the enactment of legislation to stop the Federal
Government from passing unfunded mandates on to local and State
government agencies.
I think the Chair and I both know that one of the most consistent
themes you hear in our home States is that they did not want new
unfunded mandates.
I recently received a letter from the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation outlining their very justifiable concerns with these
birth certificate and driver's license provisions. They are concerned,
of course, with the cost that they will incur as a result of this new
Federal mandate. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has
estimated these provisions could cost my State alone up to $3 million
to comply with requirements relating to a specific Federal format for
these documents and antifraud security features, not to mention Federal
verification of all birth certificates and driver's licenses.
This letter states that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
``views this bill as yet another unfunded Federal mandate. The costs
associated with it are substantial.''
The letter also points out that this State agency has had its
operating budget reduced by 6 percent by the Wisconsin State
legislature and Governor and would have no means, Mr. President, no way
by which to pick up these additional costs that this new Federal
mandate would impose.
Mr. President, that is why I and the Senator from Ohio, Senator
DeWine, and others view this provision as completely contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the unfunded mandates legislation passed by
this body just over a year ago and signed into law by President
Clinton.
There is not a word in this bill, Mr. President, about how the local
and State agencies are to pay for this costly new procedure of issuing
uniform Federal birth certificates and driver's licenses, even though
it is plainly obvious that such a process is going to be an enormous
financial burden on such entities.
Mr. President, let me also take this opportunity to express my
concerns about provisions in the legal immigration bill that are likely
to surface in the near future. Although the Judiciary Committee, on a
strong vote, split the two bills, split the legal and illegal
immigration bills, there may well be another attempt to put these
provisions back in this bill. I hope not, because these are very
different issues.
In committee, Mr. President, I was a cosponsor of the Kennedy-Abraham
amendment to restore adequate levels of family immigration because I
consider it to be essential to allow U.S. citizens to reunite with
their children, their parents, and other loved ones who may be residing
in other countries.
There may be some abuse of our current family immigration system, but
that does not mean we should completely prohibit a U.S. citizen from
reuniting with their 22-year-old daughter, their 66-year-old parent, or
their 15-year-old brother. Those were in fact the so-called reforms
that were included in the original Simpson legislation and later
expunged from the bill during committee markup.
Considering the House voted decisively to remove all cutbacks of
legal immigration from their bill, it is my hope that we have seen the
last of efforts to further restrict family immigration.
Mr. President, I also have serious concerns with the provisions in
the legal immigration bill relating to persons seeking asylum in this
country.
Originally the bill required anyone seeking asylum to do so within 30
days of entering the United States or their claims would be invalid. I
joined the junior Senator from Ohio and others in fighting this 30-day
time limit because it was harsh, it was arbitrary, and would have
likely had disastrous consequences for thousands of persons who have,
in most cases, fled their homelands to escape persecution, torture or
worse for expressing thoughts and opinions counter to those held by
those governments in other lands.
We have had, no doubt, serious problems and abuses with our past
asylum process. Previously, a large number of nonmeritorious claims
were filed in an effort to obtain certain benefits that asylum
claimants are entitled to, such as automatic work authorization. This
practice did result in a mammoth backlog of pending applications that
have prevented or delayed some very legitimate claims from being
processed in a timely fashion.
Unfortunately, though, Mr. President, lost in all the hyperbole about
this problem is the fact that the Clinton administration has made
tremendous progress in clamping down on asylum fraud and abuse. As a
result of these new administration reforms, in the past year alone, new
asylum claims have been cut in half, and INS has more than doubled
their productivity in terms of processing pending claims.
Mr. President, these promising reforms by the Clinton administration
are in their infancy, and we should not mandate such a harsh and
arbitrary deadline that is likely to not only be disastrous for
legitimate asylum seekers, but also completely unnecessary. During
committee markup, an amendment was adopted that extended the 30-day
deadline to 1 year and also provided an exception to this time limit if
the applicant had good cause to wait for more than 1 year. I found this
acceptable because it provided legitimate asylum seekers a waiver if
they had justifiable reasons for waiting beyond the 1-year period.
Unfortunately, the committee report language is more restrictive with
respect to this waiver process than I had anticipated and hoped.
Mr. President, America has a proud history of representing a safe
haven for those who believe in democracy and who have been tormented
for embracing particular political and religious viewpoints. We should
continue to do so. I intend to work with the Senator from Ohio, Senator
DeWine, and others in restoring and guaranteeing a fair and suitable
waiver process.
Mr. President, as we debate this issue over the next few days, we
must be mindful of the inherent dangers that this immigration issue
encompasses. We find ourselves today in the heart of an election year.
History has shown that it is not uncommon for politicians, not only
here, but in many countries, to use the issue of immigration to further
divide people, in this country to divide Americans along racial,
ethnic, and cultural lines.
[[Page S4036]]
Playing to the fears of the American people on this issue may only
provide further ammunition to those who seek to exploit those fears and
coax the American people into believing that immigrants come to the
United States only to commit crimes, to collect welfare benefits, and
to steal jobs away from working Americans. That is an injustice, not
only to the immigrants who currently reside in the United States, but
an injustice as well to the historical legacy of immigrants who came
here with purpose and promise and, as we must acknowledge, built this
great Nation.
Let me say this at this point. I do not doubt for a minute the
intentions of the Senator from Wyoming in this regard. In many ways he
has been a very important source of not only expertise but moderation
and thoughtfulness on this issue. I believe he has made a good-faith
effort to reform a system that is clearly in need of some repair. I do
regret that I have some fundamental disagreements with respect to how
we should address those flaws in the current immigration system.
I look forward to working with other Senators in attempts to improve
this legislation and passing reforms that truly differentiate between
those who play by the rules and those who choose to break them.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to join, first of all, in the
comments that Senator Feingold made about Senator Simpson.
Our title here is ``United States,'' not Senator from Wyoming,
Senator from Colorado, Senator from Illinois, Senator from California
or Wisconsin. Alan Simpson has served the people of Wyoming well. But
he has also been a U.S. Senator who has looked at the broad scope of
things and has been a real legislator and has contributed immensely.
I will differ with him on this particular amendment. Let me add, I
will differ with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, with whom
I rarely differ, on this matter of pilot verification that he was just
talking about.
Senator Simpson has reminded us over and over again on the floor that
we have to stop the magnet that is the economic pull to people to come
into this country illegally. So we passed, a few years ago, employer
sanctions. It was a matter of controversy. I ended up being a minority
on this side, joining the Senator from Wyoming and voting for that.
Employer sanctions have not worked as well as we had hoped. I think
the key is verification. Unless we are willing to try a pilot
verification program, and here is where I differ with my friend from
Wisconsin, I do not think you will have any meaningful way of stopping
a steady flow of people who come up here for economic reasons. To say
we are going to just have a slight tap on the wrist to employers and
tell people who are desperate, ``We are going to be tougher on you if
you come up here and try to work,'' they will still come up here and
try to work.
I point out one other reason on the verification, and that is the GAO
report that says there is discrimination. If you appear to be Hispanic
or Polish or Asian, and particularly if you speak with a bit of an
accent, it is inevitable, unless we have some system of verification,
that there is going to be discrimination. I think it is important, and
I think we will have a close vote on this, but I think it is important
that we have a pilot verification program.
The question on this immediate amendment is, is it worthwhile to give
up some basic liberties in order to have this amendment, and are we
going to accomplish that much? I think we will not accomplish very,
very much at all in terms of discouraging the employment of illegal
workers here. I think it is one more step in taking away basic civil
liberties.
The reason this passed originally, we had a lot of problems with
people who would be driving down the highway, and all of a sudden they
look at a field and it looks like there are a bunch of ``foreign-
looking workers there.'' They stop, go out, and make a raid.
We have a tradition in our country with the fourth amendment you have
to go into court in order to have a search. We ought to abide by that.
Now, the argument is made, well, you can have that search. You can go
into court. How many farmers are going to go into court? It just is not
going to happen. It makes it very costly.
Second, whenever you give people in any field arbitrary power,
whether it is law enforcement or anything else, there is an invitation
to corruption. I think we have to recognize that. This can be a
shakedown kind of thing.
My staff has given me two examples of the kind of abuses that take
place when you do not go in to court. As far as I know, and the Senator
from Wyoming can correct me, as far as I know, there have been no
denials for any Immigration Service requests to have a search of the
field by the courts. Maybe they have existed--I do not know. In Pasco,
WA, INS agents entered a field for 29 straight days searching for
undocumented workers. On some occasions the agents drove their trucks
across the bean fields, causing substantial damage to the bean crop.
The latter part of that is not that significant, but if you want to go
29 straight days to search somebody's field, you ought to go into court
29 straight days to get a court OK for doing that.
In Othello, WA, INS agents entered a farm four times in 1 month
looking for undocumented workers. Their last three trips were without a
warrant, and they found no undocumented workers. They arrested two
workers who were Japanese, but it turned out they were exchange
students who had a lawful right to be in this country.
Finally, Mr. President, I have been here, now, 22 years in the House
and the Senate. We always find some excuse for giving up basic civil
liberties. I think we ought to be very, very careful on this. If there
is an overwhelming reason to have an infringement on the fourth
amendment that is kind of gray, maybe we should consider it. It ought
to be an overwhelming reason. This is not an overwhelming reason to
violate that basic constitutional protection.
My hope is the amendment will be defeated. My vote, with all due
respect to my friend from Wyoming, will be in opposition to his
amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I
join with those in thanking the distinguished chairman of the
Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from
Wyoming, for what is extraordinarily thankless on a subject that
perhaps has more controversy than almost any other I have seen since I
have been in the U.S. Senate.
I will give my views on the bill that is now before us, the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. I come, obviously, along with
my colleague, Senator Boxer, from the State most heavily impacted by
illegal immigration in the Nation. The presentation of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to the Judiciary Committee showed that
California is on a tier all by itself. The estimates on numbers vary,
but they go anywhere from 1.6 million to 2 million, 3 million, and even
4 million people in our State illegally, depending upon whom one
chooses to believe. Most authorities agree that the right number is in
the vicinity of 2 million people in California illegally right now.
One concern is overriding--that illegal immigration is a serious
problem. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the Federal
Government, not the States, to prevent it. Californians went to the
ballot and overwhelmingly approved the most stringent of propositions,
proposition 187.
One part of proposition 187 provided that if a youngster is in this
country illegally, he or she could not go to a public school. A teacher
would have to act as an INS agent and ferret out that youngster and
remove him or her from school. Even more strongly, the people said that
if the parents are here illegally, that youngster would still be denied
the right to a basic elementary school education.
The people of California overwhelmingly approved it. I believe one of
the reasons they did was out of frustration, because the Federal
Government has not responded to what is an increasing and growing
problem.
The bill before us today tackles illegal immigration at the border,
mainly by adding strength to our Border Patrol and border facilities.
In the past 3 years, the administration and the Congress, both Houses
and both parties, have come together, recognizing the
[[Page S4037]]
need and beginning to improve border infrastructure, such as lights and
infrared-seeing devices, and manpower. And the Border Patrol has, for 3
years in a row, had additions of about 700 agents a year.
This legislation would add an additional 700 Border Patrol agents in
the current fiscal year, and 1,000 more for the next 4 years, bringing
the total number of agents to 4,700 by the year 1999. That is more than
double the entire force that was in place when I came to the U.S.
Senate 3 years ago. It would establish a 2-year pilot program for
interior repatriation. The reason for that is, people come across, they
are picked up, they are held for an hour, they are sent back right
across the border to Tijuana. Three hours later, they try again, the
same thing happens, and they try again and again. The pilot project
would try to determine whether people who are repatriated into the
interior of the country are less inclined or less able to cross that
border again illegally than those not repatriated to the interior of
the country.
The bill would add 300 full-time INS investigators for the next 3
fiscal years to enforce laws against alien smuggling, something that,
today in America, is a $3 billion industry.
As a matter of fact, last week, the Justice Department made 23
arrests in California, which showed that organized gangs from New York
to California were all participating in the alien smuggling of illegals
from China to the United States in boats, transferring them to fishing
boats, landing them, providing drop houses, and moving them back to New
York.
The bill would add alien smuggling and document fraud offenses to the
list of predicate acts under our Nation's racketeering laws, something
many Federal prosecutors have told me is extremely important.
The bill would increase the maximum penalty for involuntary servitude
to discourage cases like the one we saw recently, where scores of
illegal workers from Thailand were smuggled into our country, then put
in an apartment building with a fence around it and forced to work in
subhuman conditions against their will in southern California.
This bill would strengthen staffing and infrastructure at the border,
and it would provide for facilities for incarcerating illegal aliens.
It would require all land border crossings to be fully staffed to
facilitate legal crossing.
I can tell you that in San Diego, CA, at the border crossing gates,
there are hours of waiting. There are 24 crossing gates at this one
station. Only one-half of them are manned. Consequently, people engaged
in legal, normal commerce sit at that gate and wait, sometimes for many
hours, backed up in traffic.
This bill would increase space at Federal detention facilities to at
least 9,000 beds. That is a 66-percent increase in detention capacity
for the incarceration of criminal aliens. I can tell you, Mr.
President, out of 120,000 inmates in the California Department of
Corrections, between 15,000 and 20,000 of them are illegal immigrants,
serving felony time in California. The cost to the State is literally
hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The bill would create a demonstration project in Anaheim, CA, to use
INS personnel to identify illegal immigrants in prison, so that they
can be more rapidly deported.
Historically, the way Congress has handled illegal immigration is
through what are called employer sanctions. I think the intent--
although I was not here, and the Senator from Wyoming knows far better
than I--was that the reason most illegals--and I say ``most''--come
here illegally is because of the lure of jobs. That is the magnet.
Therefore, if you remove this magnet and prevent people from working
illegally, you will deter illegal immigration.
In order to work, though, employer sanctions need an accurate method
of verifying whether an applicant for a job is legally entitled to
work. Up to this point, relying primarily on employer sanctions, the
basis on which all illegal immigration is handled in the United States,
has been a colossal failure. The reason for the failure is that
employers have no reliable way to determine if a prospective employee
is legally entitled to work.
Let me explain why. Presently, if an employer is interviewing someone
for a job, he or she might say, ``Can you show me that you are legally
entitled to work?'' They can present to the employer 29 different
documents, under present law. Under present law, no prospective
employer can say, ``May I see your green card?'' That is a violation of
law. So they must take one, two, three or four of the 29 different
methods of identification offered.
If somebody came in to me and I said, ``Do you have an identification
to show that you are a resident of California?'' They would say, ``Oh,
yes,'' and hold up this card. I would see that it is a California
identification card, and its address is Interlock, CA, and it has a
State seal on it. It is encased in plastic, and it looks very legal to
me. Wrong. This very card is a forgery. Or they might hand me a Social
Security card, and I would look at it and see all the traditional
signs. The paper looks right, the color looks right. There is a number
on it and a signature, just like on my own Social Security card. Could
I trust it? No. This is a forgery.
The fact of the matter is that on the streets of Los Angeles, CA, you
can buy both of these cards for under $50, and you can get them in 20
minutes, and they can have your photograph printed on them. You can
purchase documents there anywhere from----
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I object to this procedure. This is
totally out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator has a right to--
Mr. SIMPSON. It is a crude exercise, a truly crude exercise.
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. SIMPSON. What is the status of the present situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A cloture motion has been sent to the desk.
The clerk will report.
Mr. SIMPSON. What is the correct procedure? Is that motion
appropriate in the midst of a singular address, at the time of an
opening statement with regard to a piece of legislation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Allow the Chair to consult with the
Parliamentarian.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
The clerk will report.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I had the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from California has the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dorgan
amendment No. 3667 regarding Social Security:
Byron L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, Daniel P. Moynihan, Barbara
A. Mikulski, Tom Daschle, J.J. Exon, Joe Biden, Paul
Simon, Joe Lieberman, John F. Kerry, Paul Sarbanes,
Fritz Hollings, D.K. Inouye, Wendell Ford, Claiborne
Pell, John Glenn, Russell D. Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, before I was interrupted, the point I was trying to
make is that no matter how well intended an employer is, it is
extraordinarily difficult to tell the difference between real documents
and counterfeit documents, and that is what enables illegal immigrants
to obtain welfare. They are ineligible for cash welfare programs under
Federal law now. However, if they have false documents, they can obtain
the very things that they are prohibited from obtaining--whether it is
Social Security, whether it is SSI, or whether it is AFDC.
An entire industry of counterfeit documents has grown up in
California. The most frequently counterfeited document is a birth
certificate. You can pay anything from $25 for a Social Security card
to $1,000 or more for a passport, as well as personal identification
documents.
These documents are so authentic-looking that employers cannot tell
the difference. In fact, it is estimated that tens of thousands of
illegal immigrants today receive welfare benefits in California by
using counterfeit documents.
[[Page S4038]]
This bill makes a major effort to reduce this problem. It reduces the
number of acceptable employment verification documents from the current
29 to 6 so that employers are better able to determine which documents
are valid. Employers will only have to review 6, not 29.
Also, the bill doubles the maximum penalties against employers who
knowingly hire illegal aliens, increasing them from $2,000 to $4,000
for a first offense with graduated penalties for subsequent offenses.
Therefore, the bill adds substantial teeth to the employer-sanction
laws. It establishes a pilot program to test the verification system
under so that employers can readily and accurately determine an
applicant's eligibility to work.
The system could also be used to determine an applicant's eligibility
for public benefits, therefore, avoiding welfare fraud. It also attacks
the serious problem of document fraud by setting Federal standards for
making key identification documents, birth certificates, and drivers'
licenses tamperproof and counterfeit resistant. The result is that the
most counterfeited document, a birth certificate, would be
counterfeitproof, as would drivers' licenses.
The bill before us would increase the criminal penalties for document
fraud, including raising the maximum fine for fraudulent use of the
Government's seal to $500,000, and increasing the fine for lying on
immigration documents to $250,000 and 5 years in prison. The bill also
denies the earned-income tax credit to persons here illegally.
You might say, is this a strong, tough bill? I would have to say,
yes. It is a strong, tough bill. Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
and the immigration commission which she chaired said this eloquently.
``We are a Nation of laws.'' We are also a Nation that has the most
liberal immigration quotas in the world today. No country absorbs more
foreign-born people than does the United States of America in the
course of a year.
So there is more opportunity for an individual to come to the United
States than virtually any other place on Earth. Therefore, because we
are a Nation of laws and because we have a liberal immigration system,
it is not unjust, unfair, or unwise to require that we follow our laws
and make sure that we enforce the prohibition against illegal entry
into our country.
The largest source of illegal immigration, next to visa overstays,
comes from people who slip across our borders. That is what this bill
addresses. The bill also addresses visa overstays. As many as 700,000
people a year overstay their visas. This bill would require that
immigrants who overstay their visas either be deported or be denied
future visas. So there is some visa enforcement in this legislation.
The need for the legislation has been and will be explained at length
over the course of this debate. From the point of view of my State, the
problem of illegal immigration is severe. Forty-five percent of the
Nation's illegal immigrants now reside in California. That is between
1.6 million and 2.3 million, as I mentioned earlier. Fifteen percent of
illegal aliens are in our State prisons. Forty-five percent, or
150,000, of all pending asylum applications come from people in
California, and 35 percent, or 40,000, of the 113,000 refugees entering
the U.S. claimed residency in California in 1993.
Our county governments are being forced to absorb more and more of
the costs of medical care, social services, and incarceration for
illegal immigrants, and those costs are going up--not down. In the
1996-1997 fiscal year, California will spend $454 million in
incarceration costs for criminal aliens.
So it is fair to say that the State most affected by this bill is the
State of California. This U.S. Senator strongly supports this
legislation. The need is very clear.
Mr. President, at a later time, I would like to complete this
statement, and also at the appropriate time to present a series of
amendments that deal with certain unresolved issues.
I have some major concerns about the triple fence in the bill, about
the fact that cases brought under the bill be tried in Federal court
rather than in State court, and that the deportation documents be
written in Spanish as well as in English. I hope I can offer these
amendments at a later time.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their patience
in the procedure intervening there. Without question, I see why you are
all gathered at the desk for some reason. Yes. Is there something
sinister going on?
Nevertheless, we have a cloture petition which was quite
surreptitiously slid to the desk, which was remarkable to watch. I have
never seen that in 18 years of my presence here. I have found in my
time here that those who remain obsessed about certain aspects of
legislation almost always find that that obsessive behavior is often
visited subsequently on the perpetrator.
That is not my idea. That is just the way that works. It is always a
more genial approach. I visited with Senator Dorgan this morning, told
him exactly what the lay of the land was and why. I did not receive
that same courtesy.
Enough of that. We can debate that at any time in the future. It
seems to me the present status of the issue is with regard to this
amendment on the current ban on open-field searches. That is the
amendment at hand. I would just add one dimension to that, and then I
think we are ready to go to a rollcall vote on that, unless there is
further debate. I ask any of those who wish to further debate this
issue to present themselves.
Senator Simon asked a valid question, and I cannot tell you how much
I have enjoyed working with that gentleman through the years. We met
when we were State legislators in 1971. We kept close ties and worked
together here in a very steady, bipartisan fashion.
He asked a question. He wondered if there were denials when INS
agents sought warrants to search open fields and inquired if I knew of
any.
I do not know of any denials either, but I do know this, that the
requiring of agents to prepare an affidavit, find a judge, and get a
search warrant has resulted in a great reduction in immigration
enforcement in agriculture. That I do know. In fact, it has practically
eliminated employer sanctions enforcement in agriculture. Of course,
that was the purpose of it. As I say, it was a rather unholy alliance
at the time, still perhaps defined as that, when you have the ACLU
joining with the agricultural growers, who I found to be absolutely
insatitable with regard to everything I ever proposed. It is estimated
now that 40 percent or more of the field workers in west coast
agriculture are illegal.
Some of my colleagues in the debate have pointed out that although
probable cause requires more than mere appearance, immigration officers
will search on that basis anyway. I would say, in response to that
argument, if immigration officers would be willing to ignore the legal
requirements for warrantless searches, why do my colleagues believe
that these officers follow the current requirements for a warrant? I
believe that we should assume that immigration officers, like other law
enforcement officers, generally follow the law. Of course, there are
exceptions. We should try to minimize the number of such exceptions by
vigorous oversight of INS and disciplinary action against the INS
officers who do violate the law.
Mr. President, I remind my colleagues the reason the present ban was
added to the law in 1986 was that there was no constitutional right at
all of the type that my friend from Illinois, Senator Simon, had
described. That is why only--only--INS officers are required to have a
warrant to enter and to search open agricultural fields even when they
have probable cause to believe that unlawful activity is taking place,
which is the present constitutional standard and the one applied to law
enforcement officials in every other Federal or State agency.
Why--and this is the purpose of my amendment--should only the INS
officers need a warrant? Of all Federal law enforcement personnel, why
should the INS alone and their officers need a warrant even when they
have probable cause, and only for agricultural fields? It makes no
sense.
[[Page S4039]]
That is a phrase that has been used in the debate from time to time,
that something may make no sense, and in this event I think this is a
classic case of that. Why should every single other law enforcement
agency of the Federal Government have this power to do warrantless
searches except the INS? The reason: to take care of growers who use
blatantly so many illegal agricultural workers and say they are
dependent upon them, and if they did not have them, they would go
broke.
I have heard that argument now for 17 years. In the course of
responding to some of the arguments in the opening statements or
comments, let me assure my colleagues that all of this effort here is
not the creation of Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Every single thing
that has been presented to the body has not been possibly more
considered, more debated, more crafted--I do not know what it could
be--than this issue because we have had it through the years with the
Select Commission on Immigration Refugee Policy.
That is where the ideas came from. That was the Commission in 1980.
Some say, where do these things come from? Where does this evil spirit
come from?
There is no evil spirit. Everything I have been trying to do with
regard to legal immigration is a direct result of the work of the
Barbara Jordan Commission. I hope that that will be heard. I notice
that sometimes detractors of the legislation will say, ``How could it
possibly be that we are turning our back?''
``How can it possibly be that we are so treating these people who
play by the rules?''
``How can it possibly be that we could turn our back on the Statue of
Liberty?''
Ladies and gentlemen, we are not doing that. Does anyone here believe
that former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan would be involved in such an
effort? That is absurd and bizarre.
When someone says, ``Well, do you realize this is going to apply to
everyone?'' the answer is, yes, it will apply to everyone. When we do
this final procedure, whether it is this year or in 6 years or in 10
years, and when we have a more secure and verifiable document and when
we have a more secure system, whether it is the call system or whether
it is documentation or whatever it may be, of course, it will apply to
everyone. If it did not, then it would be truly discriminatory.
If it is some document, are we going to ask it only of people who
look foreign? Of course not. It is for people who look foreign and bald
Anglo-Saxons like me, too. That is how it works. It happens only twice
in a lifetime. You use it when you are seeking funds from a State or
Federal Government on welfare or public assistance; you present or go
through this verification procedure. That is one. The other one is
simply at the time of seeking employment. That is two. That is it.
There is no third strike and you are out. That is it.
We hear of the great burden placed on American citizens. Ladies and
gentlemen, why do you think proposition 187 came about? It came about
because of the great burden on the people of California who are tired
of that burden. The greatest burden on the people of the United States
is people who are gimmicking and using our systems. That is a lot
greater gimmick, a lot greater burden than somebody asking when they go
to work--and remember you already do that when you go to work. There is
a form called the I-9. It is one page. I hear the argument, what will
employers think when they have to go through this exercise? I tell you
what they will probably think: ``Thank Heaven somebody came to change
the law so we wouldn't have to go through 29 documents. Thank Heaven
somebody changed the law so that if I ask a person for a different or
additional document, I am not charged with discrimination. Thank Heaven
they are going to start working out something where I do not need the
I-9.'' That is in this bill. That is what we have. All of these so-
called reforms that are sometimes rather negatively portrayed, all came
from either the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy,
chaired by Ted Hesburgh, or the Commission on Immigration Reform
chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. They were not ripped
from the air to vex American employers, nor were they ripped from the
air to turn our back on our heritage of legal immigration. That is not
where they came from. They have a fine-founded, deep-rooted source in
the realistic work of two very splendid commissions. I hope that will
be recalled in the course of the activities.
I call the question on the amendment with regard to open field
searches.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Chair recognizes the
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this issue, although a fresh one for
Congress, is an issue that has been out there and around for a number
of years. It was debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1983 and
1986. I will make some brief comments. I know there have been some
excellent comments made by Senator Simon, Senator DeWine, and others,
but I will just very briefly mention my concerns about what this
proposal would do and what it would not do.
It is important to point out exactly what the statutory prohibition
against open field searches is about. It does not prevent law
enforcement authorities from engaging in searches if they observe
criminal conduct such as drug activity taking place. So, if they
observe criminal conduct, they can move towards the presence in the
field in pursuit of the illegal activity which has been observed.
All this does is it simply prevents INS officials from walking onto a
field without a warrant and demanding that workers produce immigration
documents. If the INS conducts a search, for example, in the front
office, they need a warrant. If they conduct a search in the barn, they
need a search warrant. In 1986, provisions simply stated if they do it
in the fields, they have to get a warrant as well.
The prohibition against warrantless open-field searches ensures that
foreign-looking agricultural workers are not subjected to harassment or
unfair treatment simply because of the color of their skin. We know
now, by and large, those who are working out in the fields are American
citizens, ever since we freed ourselves from the bracero program. There
are a number of illegals out there as well. It is difficult to estimate
the percentage, to be sure. But, by most observations, the great
majority of the individuals who are working out in those fields are
American citizens. So we are talking about protecting American
citizens.
If, as we said, the search is going to be in the front office or out
in the barn, there has to be a warrant. Why? Because we are concerned
about the rights and liberties of American citizens. The American
citizens working out in the field, if there are observations about
activities, there is every legitimate reason and authority to pursue
those. But, nonetheless, what we have to do is look at what the
conditions were prior to 1986. We see the abuses that were rampant in
many parts of the country by the INS, just for the very reasons we are
outlining our opposition to the amendment which has been identified
today.
This is not just an issue of protection for the individuals. It is
also an issue of safety. I will not take the time to read into the
Record about what has happened when there is a sudden INS raid in some
of these agricultural areas in the fields, about trucks moving across
the open fields, sometimes in the evening time, and the great distress
and the panic that anyone would feel when they are confronted with
significant numbers of police authority chasing them through the fields
in search of various identity cards.
That happened. That was more the case than not during that period of
time. Then, in 1986, we insisted on getting a warrant in order to try
to address that issue. I find there has been very little, other than
general observations, that would justify going back to the law prior to
1986.
The prohibition against the warrant- less open-field searches ensures
that foreign-looking agricultural workers are not subjected to
harassment or unfair treatment simply because of the color of their
skin. Those who support the repeal of the statutory ban contend that
the fourth amendment provides sufficient protection against the
unreasonable searches of agricultural workers. This is simply not the
case. Nor is the fact that INS officers, without this provision, would
be able to enter open fields with impunity and be able to ask
[[Page S4040]]
anyone for identification. The fourth amendment was around prior to
1986, and this is when all these abuses occurred.
The reason for this warrant has been well documented in the abuses
that took place prior to 1986. If anyone goes back and reads the record
during that period, there is page after page about what was happening
out in the fields and the real issues of safety for many American
citizens who were working in the fields at that time as a result of
these kinds of raids.
Since then, we have had the warrant. I do not believe the case has
really been made in the course of the hearings that that has really
impeded the effectiveness in trying to deal with the fundamental issues
of jobs in the workplace. We are working on that issue. We have
provided very important, I think, additional steps, both in trying to
reach documents in terms of the antifraud provisions that have been
built into this legislation, including the pilot programs that will be
initiated to find out what is effective, and in protecting American
workers from displacement or as a result of foreign workers. The
prohibition against the warrantless open-field searches is working
well. It is a necessary safeguard against the abuses of individual
rights. We should retain it.
I have a more extensive comment upon that measure, which I will
perhaps get into later on, or include it as part of the Record.
Mr. President, it is now 2:30, 20 minutes of 3. We have been on this
legislation since 10:30 this morning. We have taken a number of the
amendments, half a dozen amendments that might have been found to be
not germane if we moved toward cloture. I know there are others as
well, and those are important, extremely important, measures. I think
the Senate should address them at some time on the basis of their
merits. But we are in the situation now where we have a cloture motion
that has been entered on the Dorgan amendment that will ripen, based
upon the Senate schedule, probably an hour after we go into business on
Friday or at a time when the majority leader effectively chooses, based
upon his ability to move toward this measure.
We are faced, again, with the situation that if we move toward a
cloture motion--for example, say, we were able to move it on the
underlying amendment--that would have to be done prior to a cloture
motion on the bill. Because if we put a cloture motion on the bill, all
that we have done today would effectively be discarded. So we would
need to have a cloture motion on the underlying amendments in order to
have them acceptable, so that we would have them irrelevant. Then you
would need a cloture motion, and if that was not taken, or if we did
get it, there would still be 30 hours on that proposal and then you
would get a cloture motion on the underlying legislation on which there
would be some 30 hours.
So we have ourselves now wrapped into a situation in which, I must
say, in terms of the overall progress on this legislation, even though
we have spent the full day on it, is difficult really to perceive what
is being accomplished. Even if we continue to go on to additional
amendments that would be offered, we would, by necessity, have to
address the Dorgan amendment first. Or there is the possibility of
possible disposition of the Dorgan amendment prior to the time that we
would move toward other action.
That is really a question and issue up to the majority leader. But I
am reminded now as we come to a quarter of 3 in the afternoon, that we
are going to be voting cloture on the Dorgan amendment. Even if they
get cloture, we would still have some period of time before we would be
able to move to these other issues. If we get cloture on the underlying
amendment, which has been amended today, there still would be a period
of time for Senators to comment on that before we ever got a cloture
motion on the bill itself, and all because we have not had the ability
to get a limited period of time to vote on the minimum wage,
effectively, and Senator Dorgan's as well. We will have spent all of
this time, whichever amount of time that we have that is now going to
be required for Senate action--and I am prepared on these matters to
vote. I would like to speak and address the Senate briefly. But I
think, as we see during the course of the day, we have not trespassed
on the Senate's time.
Basically, on the earlier amendments, we were making brief comments
in support of them. These are measures which we have debated and
discussed during the course of our own deliberations. As a matter of
fact, this amendment, I think, was rejected in the Judiciary Committee
when it was addressed by the members of the committee. So these are not
really new issues for many of us on the Judiciary Committee, very
important measures for all of the members. But many of us have--all of
us, I think, on the committee have--taken positions on it.
So, we are quite prepared to justify those positions, raise some of
our concerns, and move forward. But because we are denying at least a
1-hour consideration--we could cut that even further on this
legislation--or giving us a time definite on a clear bill on the
minimum wage with time allocated, we have effectively spun the wheels
of the Senate during the course of the day. We will be coming back to
revisit these measures, as well as the underlying measure, as well as
the Dorgan amendment because of the cloture motion, in the next several
days.
So it gets back to the question whether we are going to do this
nicely or not do it nicely. We are quite ready to try to work out a
time definite for a vote on the minimum wage and to do it with a short
timeframe. I know the Senator from North Dakota is prepared to do that,
to move ahead in terms of all the different amendments on this
legislation and consider those. I certainly would support that way of
proceeding.
But, effectively, all of our interests and all of our rights are
being shaved because of the unwillingness of the majority leader, in
this case, to give us a chance to vote on this measure. Here we are at
a quarter of 3, having thought we were really making progress, and
finding ourselves tied up on an issue which is of enormous importance
and in which the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from California
and other Members have spent a long time and understand how important
it is as an issue for this country.
So we are caught in this particular dilemma. We are caught in the
dilemma where we want to see action or resolution on the illegal
immigration, but we also feel that we ought to be able to have a short
time period set aside to speak to the issues which are of fundamental
economic importance to 13 million American families. We think their
interests are important, too. We think their interests should at least
demand a half hour or an hour of the Senate's time this afternoon. We
think their interests should be addressed in a reasonable way or an
agreement made that, if not upon this bill, that we will be at least
afforded an opportunity to do it as a clean bill so as not to interfere
with the ordinary deliberations of the Senate.
We have had brief discussions and comments earlier today about why we
did not bring this up before. We have explained about those major
issues that we were addressing in the last Congress, the comprehensive
health program that would have made about a 40- or 50-cents-an-hour
additional benefit to workers. The workers themselves and working
families have said they would prefer that measure to just the increase
in the minimum wage. After we had disposed of that, unfortunately, the
workers themselves were left further behind, and now it gives an
additional sense of urgency for the increase in the minimum wage.
A number of us over a year ago began the process of raising this
issue in sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, as amendments, or wherever we
possibly could. Each and every time, even though a large number of the
Members of the Senate supported the Senate addressing this issue--and
on the last vote that we had, we had Republican and Democrat Senators
alike; a majority, including unanimity among the Democrats and a very
strong group of Republicans who indicated that they supported it.
Raising the minimum wage is the majority will of the Senate.
We are just asking for the Senate to be able to make a statement,
make a judgment. We may be successful; we may not be. But I do believe
that we are entitled to a determination of what the will of the Senate
is on that particular issue. So, we are caught in this
[[Page S4041]]
situation where we effectively are being denied that. But we are still
asked to go ahead and consider some of the measures on the immigration
bill.
On the one hand, they are saying, look, why are we not just going
ahead on the immigration bill and trying to move ahead? And on the
other hand, we are asking, at least--we are quite prepared to move
ahead on immigration, but at some time, somewhere, somehow, we ought to
be permitted to get a time where we can address this question of the
minimum wage.
None of us were denied the opportunity to make some progress this
morning on some of these measures. But at some time we have to ask
ourselves, when and who is going to speak for those Americans and
American families that are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder
and speak for them to make sure that their economic interests are
attended to? We continue every single day--every single day--to read
more about corporate profits and corporate salaries. We read about the
increasing accumulation of wealth in the top 1 percent, 5 percent. We
have come to understand the continued loss of those working families
that are on the bottom rung of these matters.
We have seen in the last 20 years a 25-percent increase in
productivity and about a 25-percent reduction in terms of purchasing
power for workers earning the minimum wage, which is completely
incongruous.
What is most troublesome of all, Mr. President, is when we have had
this issue that has been before us and where we have had statements,
``Well, we're trying to work out a process to be able to address it,''
we have the majority leader in the House of Representatives coming up
today--and it is printed in newspapers all over this country--who says,
``Well, we've got a new way of addressing the economic problems of the
needy in our society. What we are going to do is abolish the earned-
income tax credit,'' which President Reagan had indicated was the best
program to address the problems of poverty in this country--strong
support by a Republican President.
We have the statements that were made by Mr. Armey that we are going
to phase that down and collect $15 billion in the next 5 years, 5 to 7
years--$15 billion. We know where that is going to be collected from
with the elimination of the earned-income tax credit. That is going to
come from these same working families that are eligible for the
increase in the minimum wage. Then what we will do is we will still
keep the minimum wage where it is, but we will develop a massive new
subsidy entitlement program that will be run by the Internal Revenue
Service that will provide the difference between the $4.25 and the $7
or $8 an hour depending upon how many children the particular worker
had, which would be basically a subsidy to these industries--a taxpayer
subsidy to the industries. It would cost the taxpayers a great deal
more because they would have to provide for the funding and the
resources to be able to pay that subsidy, and at the same time instead
of letting these families rise out of poverty, which effectively would
reduce their ability to draw upon the various safety net programs,
because their incomes would move up to be too high. If we raise the
minimum wage, on the other hand, they would go out of those safety net
programs and thereby be less of a drag on the American taxpayers
because they would then no longer be eligible for these programs. So we
would save tax revenues there.
That is an important part of this whole proposal. By providing the
increase in the minimum wage, we would be cutting some in those safety
net programs by moving people above the eligibility thresholds. They
would be making more than they had been, so they would not be eligible
for support systems. That saves funds and resources that would have to
be paid in by American taxpayers.
But, no, our Republican friends say, no, we will leave it at $4.25.
We will draw down some $15 billion from these same families. We will
put in place a new entitlement program run by the Internal Revenue
Service. When I heard that I was so surprised that the leaders of the
Republican House who have been spending all of their time castigating
the IRS, now believe they can run a complicated program that will pay
so much an hour to someone that has one child, so much an hour to
someone that has two children, if they are married, so much, so much if
they are separated, and follow this monthly, evidently, across the
landscape wherever these needy people are going to be--imagine the
bureaucracy that will be needed, imagine what the costs will be for
that bureaucracy, and what it would mean for these people.
Mr. President, this is a wonderful, wonderful program because as Mr.
Armey pointed out, they would save $15 billion out of the earned-income
tax credit. The value of the increase in the minimum wage is $3.7
billion in one year. For those people that say that this is an
inflationary kind of impact, $3.7 billion in 1 year when the total GDP
is about $7 trillion, and our budget, $1.65 or $1.7 trillion we are
talking about--of course it is not inflationary. We are talking about
$3.7 billion that will be added to the value of good work, for working
families in this country.
There is another reason that I believe it was urgent to bring this
measure up on the floor today. We do not see, really, any interest by
the leadership, the opposition leadership, in trying to work out, at
least, some important and responsible alternative.
I am basically opposed to trying to compromise this measure any
longer, because quite frankly, when my initial proposal was advanced,
it was for three 50-cent increases with an inflator to correspond to
the increased cost of living.
What did we do in terms of compromising that effort to try and bring
people together on it? We said, ``All right, we will drop the third
year even though by that time it will be justified merely to maintain
the cost of living. We will put that aside, and beyond that we will put
aside the cost of living inflator as well. We will put those two
aside.'' Mr. President, that was a painful decision in terms of trying
to protect the purchasing power of working families.
Now we are being asked to say, ``All right. Just wait around a little
while. Sometime when we get ready to do it, we are going to do
something. You will get a vote on something that will deal with wages,
something that will deal with some other matters that you might not
like.'' That is generally the way it is put. ``You might not like the
combination of things we put together but you will get your vote.''
We reject that out of hand. Working families ought to reject it
because that is failing to provide the kind of respect for those
families that they deserve. You are toying with the lives of those
families that are at such high risk today. So many of those,
Mr. President, are women that are out there, working, and working hard,
and the impact of the increase in the minimum wage is very, very
important in terms of their children.
This is basically a women's issue and basically a children's issue.
There will be 7 million females that will be affected; 5 million of
those are adult women. Four million of those women are 25 years of age
or older. Of the 12 to 13 million that will be affected, 4 million will
be women 25 years of age or older. We find when we study this measure,
when we look at those that are heads of households and those that are
being affected or impacted by this, we find that, once again, it is the
great majority of women that are the ones that are affected.
Mr. President, 60 percent of all the women who are working to earn
the minimum wage are married and 23 percent are single heads of
household. That represents 2 million women who are the heads of
household with children. It is almost unbelievable that any person in
this country who is a head of a household, single, woman, dependent on
the minimum wage at $4.25 an hour is going to be able to make it for
herself and for her children. And this is at a time when we have seen
our own earnings here in the Senate increase three times since the last
increase in the minimum wage. We see where corporate income has gone up
23 percent in this last year alone.
Mr. President, in all of the reports that we have seen, even as of
this morning from the Council of Economic Advisers, all of them
describe how well this economy is basically doing, how sound it is
today. We did not have nearly the strength in the American economy in
1989 that we have at the present time. At that time we had
[[Page S4042]]
President Bush supporting this measure and a majority of the
Republicans, including Senator Dole, Congressman Gingrich, supporting
the increase of the minimum wage. What has changed? We have the real
purchasing power now for those workers being as low as it was in 1989,
when the economy was not as strong and when we still took action on the
minimum wage. Why not now?
One of the arguments, of course, is that we will lose jobs. This is
very interesting, Mr. President, because sometime in the future we will
talk about the various studies, 12 in all, that show just the opposite.
I will not take the time this afternoon to get into them, but if you
look at the various studies that have been done with regard to the
minimum wage, you cannot make that case about losing the jobs. You can
take a more important relevant factor, and that is what is happening in
the States recently.
My State of Massachusetts, over the objection and over the veto of
our Republican Governor, increased the minimum wage by 50 cents. What
has happened since the increase took effect in January of this year?
What has happened is unemployment has gone down in Massachusetts, and
unemployment in our neighboring State of New Hampshire, which did not
raise it, has gone up.
I hope we will have a chance to debate those issues about loss of
jobs. It is always interesting to hear those who are opposed to an
increase in the minimum wage saying, ``I am concerned about those young
minorities and all those Americans that are needy. We want to protect
them.'' All you have to do is look at the studies that are out there,
about what they want--94 percent of them want an increase. They are
prepared to see an increase in the minimum wage because they do not
believe, as I do not believe, that it will threaten their job.
Imagine you had over 120 million Americans working.
If you took 100 people that were making the minimum wage today and
said it will be a 1-percent loss of jobs, but you can have a 25-percent
increase in your pay, what do you think their reaction is going to be?
``We want to get that increase, and we will take our chances.'' We
believe that job loss is a myth, as has been demonstrated in study
after study. Job growth is happening in my own State of Massachusetts,
and in other States, and nationally we will be able to see an expansion
of the job market, which has been true in many cases.
So, Mr. President, we find that the case is compelling. We have the
various studies about the minimum wage, about what has happened
historically on this minimum wage, going back to the year 1949, on the
issues of job growth or job loss. We went, in 1949, from 40 cents to 75
cents. The national economy improved from 5.9 unemployment to 5.3
percent. In 1955, it went from 75 cents to $1. In 1961, from $1 to
$1.15. Unemployment decreased from 6.7 to 5.5 percent. It went from
$1.25 to $1.40 in 1967. In 1974, it went from $1.60 to $2. Despite a
recession, retail employment increased from 1978 to 1981. Employment
increased by 8.3 million jobs and 1.4 million retail jobs. From 1990 to
1991, a recession that was underway quickly leveled off.
Mr. President, I do not believe that those statements and studies
that proclaim the dangers of job loss can really be justified. They
certainly cannot in terms of the history of the increase in the minimum
wage. Mr. President, all you have to do is look at this chart here,
which demonstrates the increase in the total number of jobs, up to
about 118 million jobs from 108 million in 1991.
Since we had the increase in 1991, we have seen the steady increase
in the total employment numbers. And look at what has happened in the
most recent times, in my own State of Massachusetts, and look at what
happened the last time we increased the minimum wage.
Mr. President, this chart is another indication about what has been
happening. This is from 1979 to 1993. ``Growing apart. Real family
income.'' This is what happened in terms of America's working families.
From 1959 to 1970, each of these groups, the bottom 20, second 20, and
mid 20, all across the top all moved up together. From 1980 to 1993, we
have seen a growing apart in America. Those on the bottom rungs have
been falling further and further behind.
Mr. President, you can see on this chart here about what has been
happening to the purchasing power of the minimum wage. In constant
dollars, you go as high as $6.45 in 1966, and $5.95 in 1976. It went up
a small amount in 1990-91 as the increase in the minimum wage took
effect--some 90 cents, and since that time, it has been dropping. It
would, today, be right down there at the lowest level in 40 years. That
is measuring the real purchasing power.
At the same time, Mr. President, here we have the difference between
what has been happening to the Dow Jones Industrial Average, somewhat
below 2,000 here, and up over above 5,000 now. This is between 1979 and
1995. This is good. This is an indication of economic strength and
growth. We are glad these are the circumstances. But, on the other
hand, look at what has been happening, in purchasing power, to the
minimum wage. As the Dow Jones has been going up in that very steep
rise, we see the real minimum wage going lower and lower.
Mr. President, this chart here shows what is happening to the real
pay of workers, and in terms of the CEOs' pay. ``Green Tree is a Money
Tree.'' ``$65.6 Million Package Angers Compensation Critics.'' These
are newspaper articles. We find these extraordinary increases.
Mr. President, compare CEO pay with what happens in a minimum wage
family. Three weeks of earnings. This chart indicates the $510 a
minimum wage family would have earned compared with the tens of
thousands of dollars a CEO of a major company would have earned and the
dramatic disparity that has taken place.
Here are the final two charts, Mr. President. Wage earners from $4.25
to $5.14. Who are these individuals? What you see here is 31 percent
are 16 to 19 years old. Over 20 years of age, almost 70 percent.
Mr. President, if you take the total value of earnings of the 90-cent
increase in the minimum wage, 76 percent of that money will go to a
family that is below the average income for the Nation. That is, 76
percent will accrue to families in the lower half of incomes.
That is an important figure. I do not believe it is as dramatic as
the 2 million American women that are single heads of households with
children, trying to make a go of it, but it is dramatic.
This chart shows 60 percent are women and for men, some 40 percent.
Again, it is an issue for women, an issue for children, and it is an
issue of fundamental economic justice. This Senate is familiar with
this issue. It is uncomplicated. We have debated it and discussed it.
It is time that the majority leader gives us a time to vote on a clean
bill with time limits.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will inquire of my friend from
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. How much time do you require?
Mr. KERRY. I ask my friend for maybe 10 minutes. I do not think I
will use it all.
Mr. SIMPSON. I am trying to get a unanimous-consent request to a time
certain for the vote on this amendment. So if I might get Senator
Kennedy's attention. I am trying to obtain a unanimous-consent
agreement that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending amendment
at the hour of 3:40, or at a time when the group returns from the White
House with regard to the activities in the signing of the antiterrorist
bill. Would that be appropriate at 3:40 so our Members might be
apprised of this?
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, I will consult with the leadership
to find out what the disposition is. At that time, I will report
immediately to the Senator. They will not be returning until 3:30 or
3:45, Republicans and Democrats alike. So we are in a situation where
we are not in a position to make the judgment at this time. As soon as
the leaders return, we will consult with them to find out what their
disposition would be in terms of this issue.
Mr. SIMPSON. The pending business is the amendment. Let me respond
briefly to the remarks of Senator Kennedy. I am fully aware--I think
all of us are aware--of what this is. It is, again, an attempt to drive
the issue of minimum wage into the work of the
[[Page S4043]]
U.S. Senate. There is nothing else to this. I referred to it earlier in
the day as somewhat like theater, with myself in the role of Puck and
Senator Kennedy in the role of King Lear. It is about class warfare.
It is about the rich versus the poor. It is about poor women and poor
children. Ladies and gentleman, if we cannot grasp the issue of what we
are talking about--we are talking about an issue which on one side the
economists tell us that, if it passes, employers will quit hiring
anybody.
I love the debate about human rights. It is a touching thing. But the
best human right is a job. You do not get a job if the employer is not
hiring people.
It is always stunning to me that some--I do not attribute to a person
in any sense--but some who have this strange feeling that they love
employees and hate employers. Employers employ employees.
I heard one part of the debate several days ago that the taxpayers
are not going to pay this--that the employers are going to pay it.
Well, who are employers? Employers are taxpayers.
It is the most remarkable flight of phantasmagoria, whether it is
spun--whatever way you spin it--or whether we do it nicely, or whether
we have to do it harshly, or whether we just watch a continual
obsessive activity with two amendments that everybody knows are good
stuff. It is pretty molten right now--dealing, mix them while they are
hot. And they are molten, and everybody is watching. But that is really
not the way it is.
What we ought to do is just get right with it because if we do not
America will stop, and we will be dealing with illegal immigration in a
separate matter.
I am not obsessed with illegal immigration. Let me say that. If you
want to bury the dead right now on that, that is fine with me. I do not
think the issue will go away. But I want the Record to be very clear
where the sponsor of the legislation is. And the sponsor of this
legislation is saying you can do anything you want with this. I have
plenty of work to do. I am missing a hearing today on veterans that I
was to chair as chairman of that committee.
I am stunned at the essence of the debate and the class warfare
aspects about it.
So I just want to throw into the mix so we all chomp around on it. It
is like bear meat. The more you chew it, the bigger it gets.
I know this is shocking. We should not really ever do this. But the
Congressional Budget Office reports. Guess who pays the taxes in
America? Who pays the most taxes? The rich. I know that is a shocking
thing. I wish I had not said it.
So let us just put it in. The top 1 percent of all tax, the top 1
percent of the people in America, pay 15.8 percent of all taxes. The
top 5 percent of all the rich in America pay 31 percent of all taxes.
The top 10 percent of all the ugly rich in America pay 42.7 percent of
the taxes. And the top 20 percent pay 59.2 percent of the taxes that
fuel the Government of the United States. And most of them are called
``employers.'' I guess the rest of them are called ``rich.''
But I have always had a philosophy that we should not talk about the
rich versus the poor. We should not talk about hitting them a little
more. What we should do is confiscate every cent of those on the
Forbe's list and the Fortune 500--take it all, every stock certificate,
every Treasury bill, every yacht, every ranch--and guess what? It would
be about $349 billion, and would run the country for 83 days.
It is absolutely bizarre to hear exercises of that nature with regard
to the rich versus the poor while the real issue is how do you get a
job and how do you keep a job? If we are talking about the women, the
children, and all the rest of it in theater, then let us let the
American people know. No wonder they look at both sides and all of us
in these types of debates and say, ``I mean, I cannot believe it.''
Does anybody here think that those--some of us--over here care less
about children, or less about women, or less about men, or the poor?
Bizarre, absurd, and offensive, best described as absolutely offensive
that somehow those of us on the other side of an issue are simply
uncaring, and do not have any compassion. That is balderdash of the
first order.
And I guess, as someone said, ``minimum wages'' mean minimum jobs. As
one person said, they say there are 8 million new jobs. I know. I have
three of them.
So that is where we are. But where we really are is dealing with
illegal immigration and that is going to be difficult enough.
I just have been advised of a remarkable thing which I will put in
the Record--a news release that the INS has given us phony figures on
legal immigration. Instead of 800,000, it would be closer to 1 million,
and here they were--their minions were giving us a press conference the
day we are debating this bill on March 28 so that everybody could read
up and see how we are diddling America. We do not need to do anything
up here because the report released that day said ``widely
circulated.'' Oh, indeed it was. They said, ``Well, we reported what it
was. We just did not spin the future.''
So they have left us now with a situation under any scenario where
legal immigration is going to go up a million a year, and that they
have lied to us and given us phony figures that there are at least
100,000 to 150,000 persons a year off.
So now we are going to have that debate. Somewhere along the line we
are going to have an honest debate about honest numbers. I think the
people of America will demand that. I would like to know how anyone is
going to get around addressing that issue with this kind of Jim
Crackry, and it is extraordinary. It is hard to imagine.
I cannot imagine my friend, Doris Meissner, being part of that. I am
sure she will have an opportunity to explain her position because there
will certainly be hearings that will be joined in a bipartisan way on
that particular bizarre and false information which was to prevent us
from doing anything in the law to lower legal immigration because they,
bless them, were doing it themselves, and they lied. That is another
one in this line of work that goes with our particular conduct.
So now I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation
to the pending amendment 3730 at the hour of 3:30, and, further, that
time be divided as follows: Senator Kerry, 10 minutes; and Senator
DeWine, 5 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, those times go beyond 3:30.
It is contradictory. If you have 5 minutes and 10 minutes, it goes
beyond 3:30. Therefore, if the order is set for 3:30, to fill the time
we do not vote at 3:30. The unanimous consent request asked for a total
of 15 minutes and it is now almost 20 after. I am trying to reconcile.
Mr. SIMPSON. I amend my request to the time of 3:40.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you.
Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I must tell
the chairman that I am opposed to this amendment. I need the time to
express that opposition, and I would ask for 5 minutes to do so.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that is perfectly appropriate. We have
been holding the amendment open and asking for those who wished to
debate it, and Senator DeWine has been good and vigorous in that. I
appreciate having the participation.
I would expand the unanimous-consent request to 3:45 for an extra 5
minutes for the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman for accommodating
me. I have been chairing the Veterans' Committee in his behalf. I thank
him very much.
Mr. SIMPSON. Now wait. That deserves a little added comment, Mr.
President. He indeed can have any time he wants.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the manager.
Mr. SIMPSON. I was required to chair a hearing and could not do that,
and my friend from Idaho graciously agreed to do that with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I deeply appreciate that. Here I am
urging him to come forth and he was doing my work. My abject apologies.
I appreciate what he did do for me today in every respect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the
Senator from Wyoming? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for up to 10 minutes.
[[Page S4044]]
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. President, let me respond, if I may, to a couple of comments made
by the Senator from Wyoming. I am pleased to support the efforts of my
senior colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and I thank him
for his persistent efforts to try to push this on the agenda. I regret
that the reaction of my colleague from Wyoming is to suggest that
raising the minimum wage is somehow not an appropriate effort in the
Senate; that it is intruding on business of the Senate.
Raising the minimum wage is the business of the Senate. It is the
business of the Senate particularly when you consider the fact that all
four of the amendments approved for debate are amendments of the
Republican Party. In effect, what is happening here is that the
legitimate process of the Senate under the rules by which amendments
are permitted, are part of the business of the Senate, the minimum wage
is being closed out by parliamentary tactics of the Republican Party
that does not want a vote on it.
I would suggest respectfully to my friend that this is not an issue
of class warfare. There are countless rich people in America who
support raising the minimum wage. There are countless people at the
middle, at the upper, and at the very top level of our economy, all of
whom believe that it is fair to raise the minimum wage.
I ask unanimous consent that an article which appeared in the Wall
Street Journal, which one might have thought would not have articulated
such an opinion, on April 19, last week, be printed in the Record. It
is an article which says, ``Minimal Impact From Minimum Wage. Increase
Won't Have Much Effect on Economy.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 19, 1996]
Minimal Impact From Minimum Wage
increase won't have much effect on economy
(By Jackie Calmes)
Washington.--Here's an economic prediction should Congress,
as suddenly seems likely, raise the minimum wage: The costs
will be smaller than opponents suggest, just as the benefits
will fall short of supporters' claims.
While nearly all economists agree a minimum-wage increase
can theoretically cost jobs and spike inflation if some
employers cut payrolls or raise prices in response, they add
hastily that actual effects depend on the specific proposal
at hand. And President Clinton's relatively modest call for a
90-cent increase over two years, to $5.15 an hour, would have
little negative impact, most agree. The same would be true if
a liberal Republican proposal for a $1 increase became law.
But even if such increases wouldn't hurt the economy, they
likewise would do little to help average workers even though
Democrats have made the issue a fundamental part of their
response to the problem of continued wage stagnation. Labor
economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution, a
proponent of the minimum-wage increase, says flatly, ``It's
not going to help the middle-class worker.''
Whenever an increase is the issue, some conservative
economists and lawmakers always are tempted to refight the
original Depression-era battle over whether there should be
such a law in the first place. ``I find it hard to support an
increase in the minimum wage at all,'' says economist Marvin
Kosters at the American Enterprise Institute.
But on the narrower question of the increase now proposed,
a broad range of economists generally come together. That is
illustrated by the endorsement from 101 of them, including
several Nobel laureates, of the president's initiative. They
concluded the overall impact on workers and the economy would
be positive.
Likewise, Chairman Joseph Stiglitz of Mr. Clinton's Council
of Economic Advisers cites the modest level of the proposed
increase and the declining value of the current $4.25-an-hour
rate, now at a 40-year low in buying power. He says this
explains why his current support for an increase doesn't
contradict the negative things that, as a university
professor, he once wrote about the minimum wage in an
economics textbook.
Yesterday, at a meeting with House Democrats, Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin said a moderate increase would have
``no statistical effect on the economy.'' He called the
proposal ``without question . . . the right thing to do four
our economy.''
Still, there are costs; the question is how much.
Lawrence Lindsey, a governor at the Federal Reserve Board,
says internal staff studies suggest a 90-cent increase would
reduce employment by about 400,000 jobs over the long term.
And that could have implications for inflation, he said.
Assuming roughly half of those who lose jobs join the ranks
of the structurally unemployed, the ``natural rate'' of
unemployment--that is, the rate below which inflation begins
to accelerate--would rise somewhat. And Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan recently told a House subcommittee, ``I think the
evidence is persuasive'' that a boost in the wage floor
increases unemployment.
John Taylor, an economics professor at Stanford University
who was a member of President George Bush's Council of
Economic Advisers, says of a minimum-wage increase, ``I'm
pretty much of the view, having looked at it and written
about it, that it costs jobs of low-skilled and minority
workers.'' Of the specific proposals on the table, he says,
``This is not as bad as raising it to $6, but it's still
going to cost jobs.''
And just last month, House Majority Leader Dick Armey of
Texas dismissed the idea that Congress would vote to increase
the minimum wage, snapping, ``I'm not interested in
increasing the number of nonworking poor.''
But Mr. Burtless argues, ``When the minimum wage is as low
in relationship to average wages as $4.25 is now to average
wages in the United States, then even a rise of $1 an hour is
not going to dis-employ that many people.'' Moreover, he says
the effect on inflation would be small because, he has
calculated, the pay of minimum-wage employees equals less
than 1% of all compensation paid to U.S. workers.
At Harvard University, economics professor Lawrence Katz
says ``there are no ways of improving the conditions of poor
or low-wage working people that don't have some costs or some
distortions.'' But he says the current low minimum wage
argues for ``a modest increase,'' adding that ``the evidence
suggests that the gains to low-income working people outweigh
the employment costs.''
Meanwhile, the current debate has heightened attention to a
recent study of Princeton professors Alan Krueger and David
Card, who found no drop in employment among New Jersey's
fast-food restaurants after the state raised its minimum wage
in 1992 by 80 cents, to $5.05 an hour. (New Jersey is one of
10 states that have set minimum-wage levels above the federal
standard.) Critics have challenged their methodology but, Mr.
Krueger says, ``most academic studies find very little or no
job loss. Indeed, about two dozen impartial academic studies
have found insignificant evidence of job loss.''
So who benefits? Last year just over 5% of workers were
paid the minimum wage. Economists generally agree those
making just above the minimum wage, up to $6 an hour, could
see a bump in pay as an indirect consequence of a minimum-
wage increase. The liberal Economic Policy Institute
estimates that 11.7% of the work force, of about 12.2 million
people, make between $4.25 and $5.15.
* * * * *
Mr. KERRY. In fact, 101 economists have all signed a letter, three of
them Nobel laureates, suggesting this would have absolutely minimal
impact just as it has since 1938.
It is not as if we are suddenly coming to the floor and debating some
new concept in America. This was passed in 1938, and it has been passed
again and again and again, that we have increased the minimum wage. On
some occasions we have increased the minimum wage when it has been
worth more than it is today. It is now worth 27 percent of what it was
in 1979. If we let it go to the end of this year, it will be at a
record 40-year low.
Leaving aside rhetoric about rich and poor, let us consider the
rhetoric of work, the rhetoric of getting off welfare, the rhetoric of
the values of our society. If you are going to value work, you have to
pay people a fair wage for the day's work. What we are effectively
saying, if we are going to ask people to vote below the level of
poverty, is that we do not believe that a day's work in the United
States is what it has been worth since 1938 or at those periods where
we have raised the minimum wage to reflect what we thought it ought to
be with respect to that day's work.
Someone in my office was walking down to Union Station for lunch
today and on the way back bumped into a panhandler and had a
conversation with the panhandler, and asked him, ``How much do you
manage to collect out here during lunch hour?'' He said, ``I usually
make about six bucks out here during lunch hour.''
So what the Republican Party is suggesting is that people ought to go
to work for a wage that is worth less than a panhandler can make in 1
hour during lunch hour near the Nation's Capitol.
Is that a value of work? It seems to me, Mr. President, that if we
are going to tell people you ought to get off of welfare and you ought
to go to work, we ought to reflect the reality of who is working for
what in this country. The fact is that, of those people on the
[[Page S4045]]
minimum wage, 62 percent of the people on the minimum wage now live in
a household in which someone else is also working. The vast majority,
46 percent, of those people in the work force in America are women; 60-
plus percent of those working for the minimum wage are women. They are
not teenagers; they are people out there struggling to try to work to
break out of poverty.
The fact is that you can work at the minimum wage in the United
States today for the full 40-hour week without health care, without a
pension benefit, without any of the kinds of benefits that most workers
get, and you are working at three-quarters the rate of poverty. The
maximum salary you take home is $8,500 a year. Our Republican friends
seem to suggest it is OK for people to work for $8,500 a year and it is
OK for them simultaneously to suggest taking away $32 billion of the
earned-income tax credit over a 7-year period.
So they want to have it both ways. They want to suggest that they can
give a $245 billion tax break, most of which--these are not our words;
this is the result of their construction--most of which goes to people
who already have money. It is just a fact. If you are earning $300,000
a year, in the Republican tax break, you get about $12,000 a year. But
if you are working at $30,000 a year or less and you are getting the
earned-income tax credit, your taxes go up.
That is not class warfare. That is just a fundamental question of
fairness. Is it fair to give somebody who earns $300,000 a year $12,000
more and take away money from somebody earning $30,000 a year? The
theory of that is that if you do make a lot of money and you work
harder, you ought to make a lot more, but if you do not make a lot of
money and you work harder, you ought to earn less. It is the most
incredible equation I have ever heard of in my life.
We are going to raise the minimum wage sometime around here. We are
going to do it. We are going to do it because this issue is not going
away. It is just like in the past. In 1989, we finally raised the
minimum wage. Eighty-six Senators joined together to raise the minimum
wage. All we are trying to do is get it back to that level when 86 of
us were able to agree that it was the right thing to do. We will raise
the minimum wage, but it will be after an extraordinary amount of
expended political capital and energy and, frankly, wasted time.
Ultimately, we are going to come to some kind of agreement around here
because that is ultimately what I think most people will agree is fair.
The last time we raised the minimum wage--it is very interesting--
Senator Dole, the majority leader, said and I quote:
This is not an issue where we ought to be standing and
holding up anybody's getting 30 to 40 cents an hour pay
increase at the same time that we are talking about capital
gains.
I never thought the Republican Party should stand for
squeezing every last nickel from the minimum wage.
But here we are in 1996; it is worth less, and yet we are not just
squeezing every nickel from it; we are squeezing every penny out of it
at the very same time Republicans are talking about a tax break for a
whole lot of people who make a lot more money than people on the
minimum wage.
Mr. President, I do not think we ought to be talking about rich
versus poor. We ought to be talking about basic economics and what is
good for the Nation. Every decade we have debated this you hear the
same arguments. People come back and say: ``Oh, you can't do this
because we are going to lose jobs.'' But in fact we do not lose jobs.
America keeps growing. America gets stronger. America is creating more
jobs.
The fact is that studies have shown, for instance, in New Jersey,
when New Jersey raised the minimum wage, measured against Pennsylvania,
the argument was, ``Oh, don't do this because Pennsylvania will have an
unfair advantage, and all the jobs are going to go across the border to
Pennsylvania.''
Well, lo and behold, Messrs. Card and Krueger did a study, Princeton
University did a study, Rutgers University did a study, and it showed
that jobs increased. We have had testimony from chief executive
officers of businesses who not only pay the minimum wage but they also
give full health care to their workers, and they find that their
business grows, they prosper, and they are able to actually hold on to
people because they treat them decently.
So I think this is an issue, the time of which has come, because the
minimum wage is simply worth less than it was worth a few years ago. If
we do not raise the minimum wage, we will have reached the
unconscionable fact in this country that it is at the lowest it has
been in 40 years at the very time that people are making the most
political hay out of the rhetoric of going to work, getting off
welfare, and living out American values. American values also require
fairness. I hope we are going to have that fairness in this debate
somewhere in the next days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for up to
5 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor in opposition to the
amendment that we will soon be voting on, that the chairman of the
committee has brought to the floor. I say that because I believe that
America, out of fairness and justness, wants to stay with current law.
Current law, now known as the McClure amendment, treats agricultural
growers the same as all other businesses and business owners. I think
it is important that we maintain the balance of fair play and property
rights as recognized by current law.
The Simpson amendment in effect says if a farmer could put walls
around or a roof over his or her fields, then the INS could not conduct
an open-field warrantless search. But since this farmer cannot do that
in a 10-acre, 50-acre, 100-acre, 500-acre field, since he cannot build
a roof over his or her field, that workplace does not enjoy the same
private property rights as all other workplaces. The McClure amendment,
now current law, is applying the same INS search warrant procedures to
all employers.
In this instance, I would argue the Senate ought to maintain the kind
of fairness of the current law. If you want to search for illegal
aliens, then you get the employer's permission, or if you have probable
cause, then you get a search warrant. That is called fairness and
equity in this society. I think that is what we have to strive for.
The McClure amendment applies only to unjustified searches and only
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It does not apply to any
other law enforcement agency such as DEA or State or local law
enforcement officers. I think that is important to specify. INS agents
in hot pursuit of illegal aliens or others who are violating the law
could still enter the field. In other words, we have not created a wall
here; we have created a protection of property rights.
The McClure amendment was originally passed because of evidence that
the INS was abusing open-field searches. In my State of Idaho, prior to
this law being in place, we had numerous occasions when, without
notification, INS agents, with drawn guns, were running through
orchards in the State of Idaho. That, to me, is a formula for disaster.
Innocent people could accidentally become hurt as a result of this. And
it did nothing, absolutely nothing, to enforce the laws as they
currently were at that time.
The McClure amendment was originally passed for a lot of these
reasons. The unlawful detaining of American citizens I have already
mentioned. If current law protects property rights, then apparently
there was a violation of property rights. I believe the Simpson
amendment--not intending to do so--could see us fall backwards into
that circumstance that I think would be very dangerous to do. It could
result in the injuring of agricultural workers, causing damage to crops
and property that is already well documented, that has occurred in the
past.
Here is what is interesting. The Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 5 to
reject a similar Simpson amendment and retain basically current law.
They were right to do so. I cannot understand for the life of me, if
that was the vote of the committee, that we are back here on the floor
with this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent a letter from the National Council of
Agricultural Employers and also a letter from Dean R. Kleckner,
president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S4046]]
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Council of Agricultural Employers,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1996.
Dear Senator: The Senate will begin voting on amendments to
the Simpson Immigration Reform bills tomorrow. Two of those
amendments are detrimental to agricultural employers:
1. Simpson Amendment to repeal the agricultural search
warrant provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986.
2. Kennedy Amendment to strike the intent standard for
document abuse discrimination.
The search warrant provision under current law requires the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to obtain
permission from the property owner prior to entering the
property to search for illegal aliens, or to obtain a search
warrant. This provision affords growers the same protection
from warrantless searches and unreasonable disruption of
business activity enjoyed by any other business. By a vote of
12 to 5 in the Judiciary Committee mark-up, Senator DeWine
successfully struck from the immigration reform bill earlier
language to repeal the search warrant provision. Please
uphold this decision and vote against Senator Simpson's
amendment.
Also during Judiciary Committee mark-up, an intent standard
for document abuse discrimination was added to the
legislation. Under current law, employers are held strictly
liable for document abuse discrimination if they ask a job
applicant to provide a specific employment authorization
document or request more documents than are required under
the law. Even though applicants are not denied a job and
alternative documents are accepted by the employer, the
Office of Special Counsel at the Department of Justice has
taken the position that the mere requesting (as opposed to
requiring) of particular documents is an automatic violation
of the law. This position is held regardless of the
employer's intent and whether or not anyone was denied
employment. Senator Kennedy's amendment would delete the
intent standard from the reform legislation and replace it
with language that essentially restates current law. Please
vote against the Kennedy amendment.
Thank you for your consideration on these issues.
Sincerely,
Sharon M. Hughes,
Executive Vice President.
____
A Farm Bureau Speedline,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1996.
Dear Senator: The American Farm Bureau has two concerns
with regard to the illegal immigration reform bill under
consideration by the Senate today. First, Sen. Alan Simpson
(R-WY) will offer an amendment to his illegal immigration
reform bill, S. 1664, to repeal the current-law requirement
that INS agents obtain either a property owner's permission
or a search warrant prior to entering agricultural fields in
search of illegal aliens.
This requirement was enacted as part of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986. The amendment to accomplish
this, offered by then-Sen. James McClure (R-ID), attracted
bi-partisan support. An amendment to strike a similar
proposal originally included in the predecessor bill to S.
1664 was stricken by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a
bipartisan 12-5 vote, approving a motion offered by Sen. Mike
DeWine (R-OH).
The Administration has indicated neutrality on this issue,
and has further indicated that the Department of Justice will
not change its enforcement practices even if the open-field
search warrant requirement is repealed.
Second, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) will offer an amendment
to strike the intent standard provision of S. 1664. This
provision of S. 1664 would create a new intent standard for
discrimination allegations based on employer requests for
more or different employment eligibility documents to prove
work authorization. Farm Bureau supports this provision, and
we oppose Sen. Kennedy's amendment to strike it.
The American Farm Bureau Federation urges you to oppose the
Simpson and Kennedy amendments.
Dean R. Kleckner,
President,
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, when this vote occurs
in a few moments, to abide by current law and private property rights
and the protection of the security of individuals. Consider the risks
that could result as a result of us voting for the Simpson amendment
and returning to law what this Congress rejected by substantial margin
several years ago and has retained as the right position to hold when
it comes to open-field searches and agriculture employers.
I yield the remainder of any time that I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for up to
5 minutes.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to speak again in opposition to the
Simpson amendment. I commend my colleague from Idaho for his very
eloquent statement.
I urge my colleagues to retain current law, to retain the compromise
that was made in 1986, and to vote the same way as the Judiciary
Committee did, by an overwhelming vote of 12 to 5.
This bill does represent, as it is written today, the status quo. I
think it would be a mistake to change that. It is interesting to note
that the INS says there is no reason to change current law.
What is the history of this? Go back to 1984. You had a Supreme Court
decision that said, in fact, you did not need a search warrant to go
into an open field. But the court, in essence, invited Congress to
speak on the issue.
Two years later, with the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, Congress did speak on
the issue and said that an open field, when used for agriculture
employment, should have the same basic protection, that the employees
and employers should have the same basic protection that they had if
that business had been conducted within a building, if we had been in a
restaurant or another form of business. So, what the status quo does is
keep a level playing field and keep both types of businesses being
dealt with by the INS the same way.
We look at this many times from the point of view of the employer and
say it would be unfair to ranchers, unfair to farmers, because of the
time-sensitive nature of agriculture, to allow these searches without a
search warrant. That is true. I think we also have to look at it from
the point of view of the employee, because the reality is that before
the law was passed, even though agriculture represented only 15 percent
of the problem of illegal workers in the work force, 75 percent of the
raids occurred in agriculture. I do not think you have to stretch your
imagination too far to understand one reason why. It is easier. It is
easier.
The other reason is, however good, however well intentioned the
employees of the INS are and the agents are, when they look into a
field and see brown faces, they think that may be a place we need to
go. That is a problem. It is a problem that we do not need to return
to.
My friend has just pointed out we need to talk about what the current
status of the law is and what it is not. It says you have to have a
search warrant. But many cases are resolved, obviously, by consent. If
you have consent, the INS can go onto the property. Current law also
provides that if INS is in hot pursuit, they can go onto the open
field. Finally, current law also says if you are within 25 miles of the
border, this provision does not apply; INS can go onto the property.
So I urge my colleagues--we are just a few minutes away from the
scheduled vote--I urge them to support the position of the Judiciary
Committee, a 12 to 5 vote. Support current law. Support the employees
and employers. Keep in mind the position of the INS who sees no reason
for any change in law.
I would also ask my colleagues to keep in mind the position of the
American Farm Bureau. I also talked about this issue. I already read
the names on the other letter that I talked about, a letter dated March
13, 1996, to all the members of the Judiciary Committee--American Farm
Bureau, Agricultural Affiliates, American Association of Nurserymen. It
goes on and on and on with basically a page of names. Their position is
to keep the current State of the law and to oppose the Simpson
amendment. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it has been a good debate. I think I know
where it is going with the vote, that all the votes are not there for
my particular activity. But let us be very clear. I say to Senator
DeWine and Senator Craig--let me tell you, the law before 1986 was that
the INS could go do a warrantless search, ladies and gentlemen. Before
we changed the law, with this linkage of the ACLU and the agricultural
workers and the growers, the law of the United States was just like
this for everybody else.
The FBI could go into a field in plain view for a body or drugs, and
with a warrantless search go forward. The INS could do that, the FBI
could do that, the DEA. In 1986 we changed it. So the requirement that
we have now is the special law. That is what is fascinating in this
debate, I must say. I just think
[[Page S4047]]
I have been here too long. This was on the books.
There is not a single other law enforcement agency in the United
States, when they come upon an open field and in plain view see
something that gives them probable cause to believe there is a
violation of the law--they go and do it. The only agency of the Federal
Government that cannot is the INS. That is where we are. At least let
us be realistic about what we have done. We retain it. That is the way
it is. Move on to the next item of business.
But let us be totally candid. And let us not have anybody with their
own opinion; let us all have our own facts. That was the law before
1986.
But I just want to add--since we were talking, I think, about the
minimum wage for a moment--here is the one you want to keep in mind
with the minimum wage and all you have heard all day long. This is from
the New York Times of April 19, 1996. It is called ``Minimum Wage: A
Portrait.'' Here is the portrait as compiled by the New York Times.
There are three little items of interest.
Number of times in 1993 and 1994, when Democrats controlled
Congress, that President Clinton mentioned in public his
advocacy of a minimum wage increase: 0.
Next little item:
Number of times the President has done so in 1995 and
1996--through March 11--when Republicans have controlled
Congress: 47.
Since March 11 there have probably been 47 more. Then finally:
Number of Congressional hearings Democrats held on the
minimum wage in 1993 and 1994: 0.
Pure theater.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 3730 offered by the Senator from Wyoming. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 79, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]
YEAS--20
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Glenn
Grassley
Gregg
Hollings
Johnston
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Murkowski
Nunn
Reid
Rockefeller
Simpson
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--79
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Heflin
The amendment (No. 3730) was rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________