[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4116-S4150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1664) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to increase control over immigration to the United
States, and so forth and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Simpson amendment No. 3669, to prohibit foreign students on
F-1 visas from obtaining free public elementary or secondary
education.
Simpson amendment No. 3670, to establish a pilot program to
collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign
students.
Simpson amendment No. 3671, to create new ground of
exclusion and of deportation for falsely claiming U.S.
citizenship.
Simpson amendment No. 3722 (to amendment No. 3669), in the
nature of a substitute.
Simpson amendment No. 3723 (to amendment No. 3670), in the
nature of a substitute.
Simpson amendment No. 3724 (to amendment No. 3671), in the
nature of a substitute.
Simpson motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the
Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith.
Simpson amendment No. 3725 (to instructions of motion to
recommit), to prohibit foreign students on F-1 visas from
obtaining free public elementary or secondary education.
Coverdell (for Dole/Coverdell) amendment No. 3737 (to
Amendment No. 3725), to establish grounds for deportation for
offenses of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against
children, and crimes of sexual violence without regard to the
length of sentence imposed.
Amendment No. 3739 to Amendment No. 3725
(Purpose: To provide for temporary numerical limits on family-sponsored
immigrant visas, a temporary priority-based system of allocating
family-sponsored immigrant visas, and a temporary per-country limit--to
apply for the 5 fiscal years after enactment of S. 1664)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk to amendment numbered 3725 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an
amendment numbered 3739 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:
At the end of the amendment add the following:
SEC. . TEMPORARY WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF FAMILY-SPONSORED
IMMIGRATION, ALLOCATION OF FAMILY-SPONSORED
IMMIGRANT VISAS, AND PER-COUNTRY LIMIT
(A) Temporary Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored
Immigration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
following provisions shall temporarily supersede the
specified subsections of section 201 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act during the first fiscal year beginning after
the enactment of this Act, and during the four subsequent
fiscal years:
(1) Section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
shall be temporarily superseded by the following provision:
``Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations.--
Aliens described in this subsection, who are not subject to
the worldwide levels or numerical limitations of subsection
(a), are as follows:
``(1) Special immigrants described in subparagraph (A) or
(B) of section 101(a)(27).
``(2) Aliens who are admitted under section 207 or whose
status is adjusted under section 209.
``(3) Aliens born to an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence during a temporary visit abroad.''
[[Page S4117]]
(2) Section 201(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
shall be temporarily superseded by the following provision:
``Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--The
worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this
subsection for a fiscal year is equal to 480,000.''
(b) Temporary Allocation of Family-Sponsored Immigrant
Visas.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
following provision shall temporarily supersede section
203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act during the
first fiscal year beginning after the enactment of this Act,
and during the four subsequent fiscal years:
``Priorities for Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--Aliens
subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(c)
for family-sponsored immigrants shall be allotted visas as
follows:
``(1) Immediate relatives of citizens.--Qualified
immigrants who are the immediate relatives of citizens of the
United States shall be allocated visas in a number not to
exceed the worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants
specified in section 201(c).
``(2) Spouses and children of permanent resident aliens.--
Qualified immigrants who are the spouses or children of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence shall be
allocated visas in a number not to exceed the worldwide level
of family-sponsored immigrants specified in section 201(c)
minus the visas required for the class specified in paragraph
(1).
``(3) Unmarried sons and unmarried daughters of citizens.--
Qualified immigrants who are the unmarried sons or daughters
(but are not the children) of citizens of the United States
shall be allocated visas in a number not to exceed the
worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants specified
in section 201(c) minus the visas required for the classes
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(4) Married sons and married daughters of citizens.--
Qualified immigrants who are the married sons or married
daughters of citizens of the United States shall be allocated
visas in a number not to exceed the worldwide level of
family-sponsored immigrants specified in section 201(c) minus
the visas not required for the classes specified in
paragraphs (1) through (3).
``(5) Unmarried sons and unmarried daughters of permanent
resident aliens.--Qualified immigrants who are the unmarried
sons or unmarried daughters (but are not the children) of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, shall be
allocated visas in a number not to exceed the worldwide level
of family-sponsored immigrants specified in section 201(c)
minus the visas required for the classes specified in
paragraphs (1) through (4).
``(6) Brothers and sisters of citizens.--Qualified
immigrants who are the brothers or sisters of citizens of the
United States, if such citizens are at least 21 years of age,
shall be allocated visas in a number not to exceed the
worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants specified in
section 201(c) minus the visas not required for the classes
specified in paragraphs (1) through (5).''
(c) Definition of Immediate Relatives.--For purposes of
subsection (b)(1), the term ``immediate relatives'' means the
children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United
States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens
shall be at least 21 years of age. In the case of an alien
who was the spouse of a citizen of the United States for at
least 2 years at the time of the citizen's death and was not
legally separated from the citizen at the time of citizen's
death, the alien (and each child of the alien) shall be
considered, for purposes of this subsection, to remain an
immediate relative after the date of citizen's death but only
if the spouse files a petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii)
within 2 years after such date and only until the date the
spouse remarries.
(d) Temporary Per-Country Limit.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the following provision shall temporarily
supersede paragraphs (2) through of section 202(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act during the first fiscal year
beginning after the enactment of this Act, and during the
four subsequent fiscal years:
``Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-
based immigrants.--(A) The total number of immigrant visas
made available in any fiscal year to natives of any single
foreign state or dependent area under section 203(a), except
aliens described in section 203(a)(1), and under section
203(b) may not exceed the difference (if any) between--
``(i) 20,000 in the case of any foreign state (or 5,000 in
the case of a dependent area) not contiguous to the United
States, or 40,000 in the case of any foreign state contiguous
to the United States; and
``(ii) the amount specified in subparagraph (B).
``(B) The amount specified in this subparagraph is the
amount by which the total of the number of aliens described
in section 203(a)(1) admitted in the prior year who are
natives of such state or dependent area exceeded 20,000 in
the case of any foreign state (or 5,000 in the case of a
dependent area) not contiguous to the United States, or
40,000 in the case of any foreign state contiguous to the
United States.''
(e) Temporary Rule for Countries at Ceiling.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following
provision shall temporarily supersede, during the first
fiscal year beginning after the enactment of this Act and
during the four subsequent fiscal years, the language of
section 202(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which
appears after ``in a manner so that'':
``visa numbers are made available first under section
203(a)(2), next under section 203(a)(3), next under section
203(a)(4), next under section 203(a)(5), next under section
203(a)(6), next under section 203(b)(1), next under section
203(b)(2), next under section 203(b)(3), next under section
203(b)(4), and next under section 203(b)(5).''
(f) Temporary Treatment of New Applications.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney
General may not, in any fiscal year beginning within five
years of the enactment of this Act, accept any petition
claiming that an alien is entitled to classification under
paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of section 203(a),
as in effect pursuant to subsection (b) of this Act, if the
number of visas provided for the class specified in such
paragraph was less than 10,000 in the prior fiscal year.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is the first of two amendments that
are in order this morning that will make the very modest and very
temporary reduction in legal immigration to the United States. This
first amendment deals with family immigration. The other amendment
concerns employment-based immigration.
Under these amendments, legal immigration to the United States will,
for 5 years, be held at a level of 10 percent below the current total
of regular nonrefugee admissions. This does not have anything to do
with refugees or asylees. Under the amendment I am proposing there will
be immediate family numbers of 480,000--27,000 for diversity visas
under a previous proposal we passed in 1990, with a reduction from the
original 55,000 the House has accepted this figure of 27,000. Mr.
President, 100,000 on employment-based visas. That is a total of
607,000 per year. That is the total of regular nonrefugee admissions
under the amendment. Under current law it is 675,000. So, 607,000 under
the amendment, a reduction of 68,000, a reduction of 10.1 percent.
The first amendment will also, during the 5-year breathing space,
establish what is really a true-priority system for family immigration
categories, giving visas first to the closest family members. I cannot
tell you how many times I have heard in the last months, ``We should
first take care of the family.'' That is exactly what this amendment
does, giving visas first to the closest family members who are the most
likely to live in the same household with a U.S. relative who petitions
for them. Only if there are visas unused by these closest family
members will the visas then go down or fall down to the next lower
level priority family category and so on.
Under this amendment, all 480,000 family visas will be available
first to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. I think everyone
would want that. That is a spouse and minor children, the so-called
nuclear family, plus parents. After this highest category and priority
is established, the remaining visas will be available to the second-
priority category.
Unlike current law, there will be no guaranteed minimum number for
the lower priority category. That is what we established in 1990 with
the so-called pierceable cap, that we had to do a certain amount for
those in those categories.
According to the INS estimates, immediate relatives--and we do think
we can rely on the INS estimates, but after yesterday it makes one
wonder a bit if we can believe them in totality--but they are telling
us that immediate relatives will range from 329,000 to 473,000 in the
next 7 years with an average of about 384,000.
Under my proposal, if immediate relatives are admitted at that level
in a particular year, there will be about 100,000 visa numbers
available for the other family category. We are not shutting them out.
The visas available after admission of immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens will flow down to the second priority--that is the nuclear
family of lawful permanent residents. In other words, going to their
spouses and minor children.
We have 1.1 million people in America who are here under our laws and
totally legal who are unable to bring to this country their spouses and
minor children, while we continue to give visas to adult brothers and
sisters. I hope that people will understand what we do here while we
talk about spouses and family and the categories of family values and
all those things. So they
[[Page S4118]]
will go to lawful permanent residents--in other words, as I say,
spouses and minor children. Any visas that are not needed in that
category will flow down to the third priority, which is then the
unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, then to the fourth
priority, this is married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, then to
the fifth priority, unmarried adult sons and daughters of permanent
residents, and finally to the sixth and last priority, brothers and
sisters of citizens.
Now, you have just heard something which sounds like Egyptian.
Actually, it is English, but much in the INA, the Immigration and
Nationality Act, is not in English. It is a most difficult system to
understand for the layman because it then gets into situations where
people can play upon it and use emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. They
have done it magnificently in this instance--magnificently.
So, here we have a situation where the only ones that really strive
in the present language of preference systems and the confusion in the
INA are actually the immigration lawyers of America. They are very
adept, I can promise you that and they have been very adept here, very,
very adept.
Under my proposal, family admissions will continue to be 480,000 per
year. That is the current level. No reduction. That is over the next 5
years. Remember, after the next 5 years, it spikes right back up. We
are not doing anything 5 years out. Back to business.
So the INS estimates that family admissions under the committee bill
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 are 723,000, 689,000, 643,000,
620,000, 579,000, an average of 651,000, which is a substantial
increase over the current level.
I want to be very clear about these numbers. Immigration will not be
reduced under the committee bill. If anyone in this country or this
Chamber is interested in reducing legal immigration, which 70 percent
of the American people say they favor, it will not be under the
committee bill that is at the desk.
Let us be absolutely clear of another thing. I am not here to
recombine anything. I have not combined or recombined anything. I am
not here to join or link. I am here to do a single amendment, which was
the work product of the Barbara Jordan commission. That is my mission--
to see that the American people deal with an issue that has been dealt
with now for 20 years, which was the Select Commission on Immigration
and Refugee Policy, and the Jordan Commission. And to completely ignore
the work of that remarkable woman is something that I was not going to
see happen. So there will be two amendments by the Senator from
Wyoming--one on legal immigration and a very short one on employer-
based immigration--and that is it.
So whatever has been expressed to the colleagues about this
``sinister'' effort of recombining--I have never understood the meaning
of it, actually. It has always been together. We have dealt with it
together in all the 18 years I have been dealing with it. Sometimes we
would divide it for certain purposes. Sometimes we would not divide it.
But always, it was very clear.
So under the committee bill there is no reduction on legal
immigration. It will increase under the Kennedy-Abraham amendment,
which the committee agreed to by a rollcall vote. Immigration will
increase at a very slightly lesser rate than under current law. I hope
you can hear that. It will increase at a very slightly lesser rate than
under current law. But it will increase substantially. There will be no
reduction for at least the next 10 years.
Now, blend into that what happened with the figures that were given
to us by the INS. We are now confronted with news reports and
information that we have a 41-percent increase. Here is the morning
line--and not at the track, but the Washington AP. ``New projections
anticipating a whopping 41 percent increase in legal immigration to the
United States this year are bound to heat up debate as the Senate
considers its immigration bill.''
I think it will heat up the debate because you are going to have to
go home and tell people that you sat by and watched legal immigration
go up 41 percent. The Immigration and Naturalization Service's
projections of a boom this year follow a 10.4-percent decline in lawful
immigration last year. My good colleague from Texas--and how I admire
Lamar Smith and his ranking member, too--said, ``We have all been
duped. I take this as an intentional misrepresentation to the public,
and, to Congress. It is inexcusable.''
The interesting thing about that is it came about the day we were
debating this bill in the Senate with regard to the committee action.
At that time at the press conference, which in essence was very clear,
it was said simply that you do not need to do anything about legal
immigration because we are doing it already. You can count on us. We
know you are interested in it. The President is interested in it. The
President is interested in the Barbara Jordan commission report. And I
hope you can understand that, too.
This is not a partisan issue. Anyone, at the end of this debate, who
says that somehow this is going to be the destruction of the Republican
Party must find new work somewhere. This is not about the destruction
of the Republican Party. You are going to see votes today that will
make you scratch your head until you have less hair than I have. You
will say, ``I never dreamed that I would be voting on that issue with
that person.'' So join the fun. You will find it to be so.
Here we are trying to do something with illegal immigration. Let me
tell you, we are going to do something with illegal immigration. I
mean, we are really going to do something with illegal immigration. We
will have these two amendments, and we will not be splitting or
blending or pureeing anything--nothing. But we will be dealing with
something that is not the concoction of the Senator from Wyoming but is
the work product of the Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform,
consisting of a remarkable group of Democrats and Republicans.
So there we are with some figures which certainly concern all of us,
who are trying to use honest numbers as we deal with a very complex
issue. I think that does taint the previous debate.
But during the 5-year breathing space created by my amendment, visa
applications will not be accepted for any priority category if fewer
than 10,000 visas were provided for that category in the prior year.
That provision is intended to avoid any further build-up in the
backlog.
There are more than 3.7 million persons on the family waiting list
today, and 1.7 million are in the brother and sister category alone.
Now, those long waiting lists, those backlogs, in some cases, arrive
and result in a wait of over 20 years for a visa. It is believed by
some experts to encourage illegal immigration. Why would it not?
Because a person on the waiting list that is told they are going to
have to wait 12, 14, 16 years is going to come here illegally. They are
not going to wait because somebody has petitioned for them. That person
is here, and they are going to say, ``Why should I wait? I am going to
go and join them because I love them and I want to be with them.'' Does
anybody believe that is not happening? So they live illegally in the
United States while waiting for their name to come up.
In the second amendment--I will address that briefly, and I have a
brief chart, and then we can get on with the debate--the employment-
based visa limit will be reduced to 100,000, which is still well above
the number of visas now being actually used for employment-based
immigration. The employment visas will continue to be allocated under
the preference system in current law.
We will look, also, at the issue of unskilled numbers, which we took
care of in the committee bill, on legal immigration, which is not
before you today, but is at the desk, and which is not to be
incorporated into it by an amendment by me or anyone else. There are a
lot of things in that legal immigration bill. When we are through with
this caper here, whether it goes or does not go, we might deal with
that, since that passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13 to 4. I
would think that might well be addressed by us at some future time,
with appropriate unanimous-consent agreements, or whatever may be, so
there would not be too much chicanery involved.
The committee bill reduced diversity visas from 55,000 to 27,000. My
amendment retains the committee provision of the 27,000 diversity
visas. At the end of 5 years, under these amendments,
[[Page S4119]]
the temporary reduction will end and terminate, and the immigration
numbers and the priority system will automatically return to current
law.
You say, ``Well, what is the purpose of that? You are going to lower
it 10.1 percent for 5 years, and at the end of 5 years, it is going to
go right back where it was--same heavy numbers.'' That is right. That
will give the Congress an opportunity to look at where we are going,
because, obviously, people are not paying attention to where we are
going, and we watch these continual frustrations arise and finally come
to a volcanic ferocity like proposition 187.
If anybody believes that you do not deal with this issue and pretend
that there will not be more of those in every State in the United
States, we are all somewhat remiss.
If the Congress does not pass a bill that includes a reduction in
immigration, then our refusal to address the very real and very
reasonable concerns of our constituents will contribute even more to
the general cynicism about Congress and our detachment to what the
people who elected us think.
Mr. President, this is not merely a problem of how Congress is
perceived, of our reputation, because, if we ignore what the people
think and feel, we are not likely to legislate in ways that have a
favorable real-world, commonsense impact on the people's lives.
It is very interesting. As I look at the material circulated by those
who do not concur with my view, there are, remarkably, only two or
three things outlined in there. The one that is most interesting is
that it will shut out nearly 2 million relatives of U.S. citizens--
relatives of voters. Get the word underlined ``voters.'' Let me tell
you, ladies and gentleman, there are a lot more voters out there who
want to do something with illegal immigration than voters who want to
protect a certain group in society. If you are missing what voters do
here, do not miss that one. I can promise you that is the way that is.
So I do not see any other way to be sure we are reforming immigration
policy in a way that will actually make the American people better off
as they themselves judge to be better off than to try to find out the
extent to which they actually like and embrace what is happening.
As I noted earlier, I proposed a very modest reduction--only 10
percent for the next 5 years. But this would be in sharp contrast to
the substantial increase that would otherwise occur during this period
under either the committee bill or current law.
This first amendment will provide a true preference in the granting
of visas to those family members most likely to live with their
relatives in the United States. That is what people say they want. We
want the nuclear family. We want the numbers to go to the nuclear
family. It will do that. It will assure that that occurs. It will
reduce the availability of visas for relatives who are likely to have
their own separate households. That is the source of so much of the
phenomenon of chain migration.
Let me conclude my remarks by showing you, since we seem to be so
enamored of charts--especially charts which I think have some devious
value that I have noticed in the past months--but since we like charts,
then you are going to be fascinated with this one.
Here is what is happening in our country with regard to legal
immigration. I am not talking about illegal immigration. This is a
hypothetical illustration of chain migration which I have been speaking
about now for about a year. This is what the Jordan Commission was
speaking about for much longer than that--chain migration through the
family preference system for two generations of parents and their
children. Here the process begins when the immigrant arrives. The
immigrant arrives with a spouse and a child. All of them become
citizens after 5 years--father, mother, child. These people are
immediate relatives, and they come without ``number.'' Under my
legislation, there would be a cap at 480,000, which has never been
achieved as yet.
So then this person, the father, has brothers who wish to come, one
of whom is married. They then immigrate as siblings of a citizen. This
person has siblings who are married. She also has a widowed mother.
They petition to come to the United States when she becomes a citizen.
So when a spouse becomes a citizen, he petitions for his siblings who
are married who wish to come.
From this branch we go here to a spouse petitioning for her parents.
Now go back to the man, the husband. His mother immigrates after she
becomes a widow.
Go then to this spouse. Her parents immigrate as immediate relatives
of a U.S. citizen. That is very valid. She has married siblings who
wish to immigrate. They immigrate as adult children of U.S. citizens
after the parents naturalize.
Go on up from that. Their spouses have siblings who wish to come,
some of whom are married.
This is all under the current preference system--two generations.
They ultimately petition to immigrate as siblings of citizens. When
some of these immigrants naturalize, they petition for their parents.
But here is the one you want to watch if you are talking about family
and bloodlines, this kind of thing that has a good ring. Right here, I
am going to circle the people who have no blood relationship with the
original petitioner--none, no blood relationship. They are not uncles,
aunts, nieces, nephews, married brothers, sisters, unmarried. This
person is not is not related by blood. This person is not related by
blood. This person is not related. This person, nor this person is
related by blood to this petitioner. This person is not related by
blood. This one, this one, this one--all of them not related by blood
to the petitioner. These two persons are not related by blood to the
petitioner. We hear this about the immediate family, family, brothers,
sisters, on and on.
This one is not related by blood. This one, nor this one not related
by blood. These two are. This one is. These here --this person is not
related by blood. This one, this one, nor this one. None of these are
related by blood. Not one of these are related by blood. Not one, not a
single one, and down here two are not related by blood. These two are.
You are wondering what is happening? If that is not as graphic as I
can give it to you, I do not know how it can be presented any more
clearly.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. You are going to hear the story about joining the
family, keeping the family together, and all of this. I think it is
important to see what happens with the phenomenon of chain migration.
Yes, I will yield for a question.
Mr. SIMON. How long does it take this to take place?
Mr. SIMPSON. It is clear here--two generations; about 45 years; two
generations. This is it. That is happening now.
But you ought to remember what we did. We did legalization. The
Senator from Illinois was part of that. I always appreciated his
remarkable interest in that. We then ``legalized'' people who were here
illegally living in a subculture of America. That was in 1986. Then
there was a temporary period. Those people have now begun a full range
of petitioning. They are U.S. citizens. They are filing, and they are
filing under the present system. They are big numbers down the road.
But we also have big numbers on the road right now, according to the
INS, where they short-informed us, or short-sheeted us by 100,000 to
150,000 in number this year.
So when I get up--and I have a tendency to rant lightly from time to
time. But when I say what we are trying to do is eliminate the issue of
persons bringing in 30, 40, 50, 60, the all-time record was 83 persons
on a single petition, that is what we are trying to do.
So, if we are going to continue to talk about family and treating
those fairly who are here and those who play by the rules--I understand
that and all of those things--then this is where we are. Even the most
ardent proimmigration advocates cannot with credibility oppose
legislation to control illegal immigration. That will not happen. But
this, at least for me, is a presentation of where we are in this
country, and we will just see where the amendment goes.
If it is gone, it is gone. But I do not intend to come this far in
the immigration debate in the United States and
[[Page S4120]]
not deal with something that the Jordan Commission report felt was very
much a concern. Others have different views. But if you are talking
about reducing immigration, you cannot just talk about illegal
immigration.
The reason I am talking about it here so I will not hear about
combining and pureeing and splitting again is--and you must hear this--
half of the people in the United States who are illegal came here
legally. Over half of the people in the United States who are here
illegally came legally. So how in God's name do you pretend that you
can separate the issue? You cannot separate the issue. They came here
on tourist visas and they came here on student visas or they came here
on any kind of legal visa. They went out of status. They went into the
communities. They went with their relatives, and they are here.
That is the way it works. The length of time--and I will throw it
open--the length of time for chain migration, I say to my friend from
Illinois, does not change the effect. It displaces the entry of spouses
and unmarried minor children. If you continue this ritual--and it is
already at 1.1 million. Remember, 1.1 million permanent resident aliens
cannot bring their spouses and minor children because the numbers are
going here, to someone who is not part of the blood line, not part of
the ``immediate family'', and that is what is happening.
And the mystery--that this is something that is anti-American, we are
doing something to those who play by the rules--is extraordinary.
But there are some players out in the land, not in this Chamber--I
have had the greatest and richest regard for Senator Abraham and
Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold. They are doing yeoman work on the
position they feel very strongly about. But there are some groups in
the United States that are doing yeoman distortion, groups that send
out stuff like this.
Oh, I love this one. You must see this one. This is big Grover
Nordquist. He is really a dazzler. We hope Grover will come into the
Chamber with us on this ghastly exercise. This is the Simpson-Smith bar
code tattoo, compliments of Uncle Grover, who is getting paid 10,000
bucks a month by Mr. Gates of Microsoft to mess up the issue. And he
has done a magnificent job of messing up the issue and should for
10,000 bucks a month. I think he should be very active.
So here is Grover. This is the Lamar Smith-Simpson tattoo. This is on
illegal immigration.
How to do your tattoo.
Clean skin with alcohol pad.
Place tattoo ink side down on skin.
Dab with pad until design shows thru.
Lift paper off while still wet.
Dust design with baby powder for longer wear. Stays for
days.
Remove instantly with alcohol or oil.
That is Uncle Grover's little caper, and for 10,000 bucks a month you
can afford to do a lot of those, which they have. They are in a
deceptively difficult looking packet, I will admit that. I will not go
into that.
Well, now, there we are. The situation on this chart is a
hypothetical situation. It says right here, so that you do not be
deceived: ``Hypothetical illustration * * * chain migration through the
family preference system for two generations.'' No tricks. It is what
can and frequently does occur as a result of our current preference
system. And my proposal will change that temporarily--and horribly--for
5 years so that we can stop the action, stop the carousel, let
everybody get on and get off, and in 5 years decide what we are going
to do. If we do nothing, the spike goes right back into existence.
I will yield the floor at this time.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We start off on our second day, really the third day on
the issue of illegal immigration, and we want to be able to move
through this process. We went through yesterday with a rather peculiar
procedure by which individuals were denied recognition if they were
going to deal with any issue that was not going to be relevant to the
matter at hand.
Generally, we have to invoke cloture to follow that procedure. That
is a time-honored process for this body. And so we circumvented that
time-honored process, and the only matters that we could vote on would
be those that were going to be understood or cleared beforehand not to
include, for example, the minimum wage. So even if you stood on your
feet, prior recognition and the way that the proposals are at the desk
virtually excluded that possibility.
As I mentioned last evening, and I wish to mention to all of those
who will be involved in the course of the day, just as the minority
leader mentioned, that issue is still of currency, perhaps more so
today, after the statements that have been made by Mr. Gingrich and Mr.
Armey that there will not be any vote on the minimum wage in the House
of Representatives this year.
The idea that there has somehow been some willingness to try to work
the process, to try and find some common ground, compromise on this
received its answer yesterday with the clear statement of Mr. Gingrich
and Mr. Armey that there will not be a vote in the House of
Representatives.
That does not surprise us because that has been their position for
some period of time, although as recently as 2 days ago Mr. Armey
thought they might be willing to consider the effective elimination of
the earned-income tax credit that reaches out and provides help and
assistance to children and workers at the lower levels of the economic
ladder, and that some new entitlement that would be administered by the
Internal Revenue Code would be set up by which the taxpayer would
subsidize a number of the industries that hire $4.25-an-hour Americans,
that would be costly to the taxpayers. It would be an entitlement
program, a new entitlement program with new bureaucracy, I think
completely unworkable, as a way of helping and assisting the industries
which are employing the minimum wage worker.
Mr. President, I make this point now and then I will move toward the
issue at hand, that we are still intent upon offering this amendment.
We have an opportunity to offer it. We will during the course of this
day and every day. So we want to just make sure that our friends and
colleagues are aware of that. That is our intention. I am quite
confident that sometime in the very near future we will have the
opportunity to do so.
The bottom line is our Republican friends honor work. They say they
honor work. They want to encourage Americans to work, and yet they
refuse to provide them a living wage so that they can receive a just
compensation to keep them out of poverty. That is the issue. That is
the issue. No matter how you slice it, that is the issue.
That issue is a matter of fundamental justice and fairness in our
society, and the fundamental issue of justice and fairness will not go
away.
I see a number of our colleagues on the floor who wish to address
this issue, but I want to try to put this whole issue into some
perspective. The question that is before the Senate deals with illegal
immigration. That is the matter of greatest concern. These are
individuals who violate the laws, effectively take American jobs, come
here unskilled and, in many instances, take scarce taxpayer dollars to
support their various activities in this country. That is an entirely
different profile from those who are legal immigrants.
We will have an opportunity to debate that issue when we address the
legal immigration. But I can tell you, the studies that have been done
about what happens with legal immigration demonstrate these are hard-
working people, overwhelmingly successful. They are contributors to our
society. We ought to be debating today illegal immigration.
The issues of families go to the core of legal immigration. The basic
concept, in terms of what immigration policy has been about since the
McCarran-Walters Immigration Act is, No. 1, the reunification of
families. The reunification of families--that has been No. 1. It has
only been in recent years that we have talked about the issues of
bringing in special skills.
I still support the special skills that will enhance American
employment. To me, it makes sense. I think, when we have the
opportunity to talk about legal immigration we will find there is a
difference here between the very special skilled and others who are
coming in, but that is the heart of legal immigration.
[[Page S4121]]
It is illegal immigration here, which is burdening many of our
States, eight States that have the 85 percent of the illegal
immigration, taking American jobs. In too many instances, they are
individuals whose lives have been complicated by crime and violence.
That is the major concern. In order to address that issue, we ought to
focus on that issue and just that issue today.
If we are going to get off on the legal immigration, which this
amendment is all about--because what we are talking about are total
numbers, the numbers we are going to be seeing here. We will have a
good opportunity to talk about that during the time we have legal
immigration. Some of the provisions that were on the Simpson amendment
about reducing the numbers of skilled workers and the diversity issues
may have some appeal at some time, but not as a part of this particular
legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject the Simpson proposal.
Senator Simpson talks about who is closer to the Jordan Commission.
The fact of the matter was, when Senator Abraham and I offered the
amendment in the Judiciary Committee, we were closer to the Jordan
numbers than the author of this amendment. We were closer.
One of the important points my friend from Wyoming left out in his
presentation was the fact that the Jordan Commission said we ought to
address the backlog of children and loved ones, members of the family
who have been trying to be reunited with their families--permanent
resident aliens.
She suggested we have some kind of process and procedure to permit
those families to be reunified. But not this proposal--absolutely not
this proposal. This proposal effectively excludes and cuts out all of
those. But this proposal would go even further. It would say, if you
are a permanent resident alien and you have a son, that individual
might not come here to the United States for 5 more years; let alone
the hundreds of thousands of people who have been playing by the rules,
who have signed up, their relatives signed up to be able to take their
turn to come to the United States, to be reunified with their family--
they are off the charts.
Now you have a new group. I am interested about that red pen going
around those individuals. What about, do I care less about my son's
wife than I do about my son? We will have an opportunity to talk. We
are talking about real people, real people who are going to be
affected, and real families. It is not just the ones who are under that
roof. The nuclear family you talk about includes the brothers and the
sisters and the fathers and the children of those families.
With all respect to my colleague, talking about chain migration, it
is a problem, but it is not the problem that has been described here on
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
If you look back at the GAO report on chain migration--and we address
the issue of chain migration in the Abraham amendment. We are committed
to addressing it when we have the legal immigration issues. But one
other important fact that has been missing is that we here in the U.S.
Senate passed one bill in 1986 and another one in 1990, one to deal
with illegal, one to deal with legal. We had two separate commissions,
under Father Hesburgh, one to deal with legal, one to deal with
illegal, and that is the way we have proceeded.
The Jordan Commission had one report for legal and another for
illegal. Interesting. Why? Because she understood, and the commission
understood, that you should keep those issues separate. That is what we
are doing here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Let us debate the issues on illegal and then debate the issues on
legal. Barbara Jordan recommended it. Barbara Jordan suggested it.
Barbara Jordan suggested we deal with the backlog of family members,
but that has not been included in the amendment of the Senator from
Wyoming.
On the issues of chain migration, which we address in our amendment
and which we will continue to address, we have to put this in some
proportion. Senator Simpson solves it, all right, but is hitting a tack
with a sledgehammer. How much of a problem is this?
Here is the GAO: ``64 percent of petitioners who were exempt-
immediate-relative immigrants * * * were native-born United States
citizens. Among the remaining 36 percent of petitioners who were once
immigrants, the average time between their arrival and the arrival of
their exempt-immediate-relatives was about 12 years.'' Twelve years.
The way this was presented is they come in the morning and they bring
everybody else in in the afternoon--12 years.
Let us look at how much of a problem this really is. ``Only about 10
percent of former immigrant petitioners were admitted under the
numerically restricted fifth preference category, brothers and
sisters.'' Ten percent, total numbers, 12 years. We ought to address
it. We did address it in our program. We will address it when we have
the opportunity to deal with the legal immigration.
This amendment, as I mentioned, is basically about families. It is
important that we not lose sight of that particular issue. What this
amendment does to American families is exactly why we should separate
legal and illegal. The key difference between the proposals of Senator
Simpson and what Senator Abraham and I propose in the committee is that
Senator Simpson's amendment does not allow for fluctuation in family
immigration.
We have heard about the changes that have taken place as a result of
the 1986 act, where we provided a period of amnesty in order to clear
up the problems with illegal that we had in this country at that time,
and then we put in the employer sanctions provisions to try to start
with a clean slate.
Now, what we have here in the United States as a result of that
amnesty of 1986, we have some bump because of that one particular
action. That will mean, over the next 5 years, some increase beyond
what we expected and beyond what was testified to by Doris Meissner,
although Doris Meissner did indicate, in September of last year, that
there would be further naturalizations and was unable to detect exactly
at that time what that increase might be. As a matter of fact, Barbara
Jordan did not know what that increase would be. Barbara Jordan had the
same figures that Senator Abraham and I had, and others had, in terms
of this. Those are the same thing.
She had a staff of experts that have complete access to all of these
studies and figures, and she basically had the same kind of figures
that all of us had when we were dealing with this issue in the
Judiciary Committee. Now we have the blip that will come for the period
of the next 5 years, and we will offer the amendments at the time we
get to legal immigration. We do not have that opportunity now. I
thought we were going to do just the illegal immigration, but now we
have the legal immigration issues, in terms of family, that we are
faced with.
So we have been operating in good faith. We are committed to act
responsibly with a reduction that also respects the members and
children of the families, in a very limited program, in terms of the
reunification of brothers and sisters.
Mr. President, I want to point out a few other items. I see others
are on the floor who want to address this issue. The effect of this
program on families will be in 1997 a 33-percent reduction below the
current law; in 1998, 28 percent; 23 percent in 1999; 18 in the year
2000; 12 percent in the year 2001.
It basically will say that adult children of American citizens will
get no numbers for the next 5 years--of American citizens, adult
children will get none.
Let me give you what this has meant in terms of some of those in my
own State. This means someone who immigrates to the United States while
his daughter is still studying abroad, marries an American, becomes a
citizen in 3 years and then wants his daughter with him once she
finishes college abroad, and he cannot bring her here.
That means the Bosnian refugee I met in Boston who left his adult
children behind because of the conflict in Bosnia could not bring them
here once he becomes a citizen. It says to brothers and sisters of
citizens that you will effectively be zeroed out. It says, ``Take a
hike,'' to those Americans who paid money to the Government to get
their brothers and sisters here and have been waiting patiently for
years.
Under the Abraham-Kennedy proposal, we at least try to reduce part of
the current backlog; not all of it, but
[[Page S4122]]
part of it. For some Americans, a brother or sister is all they have.
There is a Cambodian woman in Lowell, MA, who thought her entire family
was wiped out by Pol Pot's terror. She then found out she had a sister
who survived. That is her only family left, and she wants her sister
with her in America, but this amendment says no brothers or sisters for
the next 5 years.
The other evening, we adopted a proposal by Senator Conrad for
doctors to come to medically underserved areas. It was unanimously
accepted here. Last week, we accepted 20 foreign doctors per State to
go into underserved areas. This amendment says they cannot bring their
children and they will not have their adult children here or brothers
or sisters. They just cannot do it, and it ignores the big priority the
Jordan commission gave to reducing the backlog of spouses and children
of permanent residents.
Mr. President, I believe the final point I want to make is we have to
look at what is happening in the House of Representatives. The House
Judiciary Committee bill capped families at 330,000, and the conferees
will be itching to make the cuts in this category. We are going to see
significant reductions on whatever we do over here based upon what is
happening over in the House. The U.S. Senate should not fall into that
kind of a situation.
We are saying that we want your skills and ingenuity, but leave your
brothers and sisters behind. We want your commitment to freedom and
democracy, but not your mother. We want you to help rebuild our inner
cities and cure our diseases, but we do not want your grandchildren to
be at your knee. We want your family values but not your families.
Mr. President, this amendment should not be on this bill. We should
have an opportunity to debate these issues when legal immigration comes
up, and I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I hope by the tenor of this debate
this morning that further amendments are not being closed out. I would
be very upset and very concerned if they are, coming from a State that
handles 40 percent of the immigration load, whether it be illegal or
legal, in the United States and 40 to 50 percent of the refugees and 40
to 50 percent of the asylees in the United States of America. It would
seem to me that the voices of the two Senators from California and
amendments that they might produce in this area are worthy of
consideration by this body. If I judge the tenor of the debate, it will
be to close out other amendments, and I very much hope and wish that
that will not be the case.
In any event, I am going to take this time now to explain what I have
in mind and to explain that I would like to send a compromise amendment
to the desk. This compromise amendment is between the Kennedy proposal
and the Simpson proposal.
The debate has been changed. I appreciate what the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts said, that this debate is not about legal
immigration. But the fact of the matter is that we have received in
committee incorrect numbers on legal immigration, and those numbers are
so dramatically different from the fact of what is actually happening,
we learned from the press, that it does, by its own weight, changes the
debate.
When we hear in committee--and I serve on the Judiciary Committee and
on the Immigration Subcommittee--that legal immigration numbers have
been going down and will continue to go down--and that has been the
testimony--and then yesterday I read press that says, ``Immigration
Numbers to Surge,'' and from one of the most distinguished journalists,
Marcus Stern of the San Diego Union Tribune: ``Border Surprise, Outcry
Greets INS Projection of Soaring Legal Immigration,'' and when the
Department's own numbers indicate that immigration in fiscal year 1995
was 1.1 million and in fiscal year 1996 will be very close to that 1
million mark, what we thought we were dealing with in the vicinity of
500,000 or 600,000 is clearly not the reality.
Now, reports are one thing, numbers are another. Numbers affect
classroom size, they affect housing markets in States that have major
impact from legal immigration. California is on a tier of its own in
this regard.
So I am very hopeful that this body will not make it impossible for
the Senators from California to put forward a compromise proposal. I am
having copies of that proposal at this time placed on the desk of every
Member of this House.
Essentially, what the proposal would do is control increases in total
family numbers and control chain migration. We would allow reasonable
limits in family immigration totals for the next 5 years by placing a
hard cap at the current law total of 480,000, without completely
closing out adult-children-of-citizen categories and providing for the
clearance of backlogs without creating chain migration.
Every Member will shortly have a chart which will show the difference
between the Feinstein proposal with the hard cap of 480,000 and the
Simpson amendment with a hard cap of 480,000 and no backlog reduction.
Also distributed to you will be a chart which will show current law.
We now know that although current law is 480,000, it is going to be
close to 1 million. The Kennedy proposal of 450,000, which is in the
bill, with increases in the immediate family with an anticipated
additional increase of 150,000--the Kennedy proposal numbers will be
close to 1 million. It will be a major increase in legal immigration,
if one is to believe the figures that INS has just put out.
We will also distribute to each Member the new figures of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, INS
projected 1,100,000 family immigration last year; and what they say
will be in fiscal year 1996, is 934,000, similar to the figures under
the Kennedy proposal which is now in the bill.
I voted for the Kennedy proposal in committee. I did so with the
assurance that the numbers were not going to be increased. The first
time I knew that was not the case was when I saw a New York Times
article saying that in fact these numbers swelled legal immigration
totals. And then of course yesterday we saw that the numbers were off
as given to us by INS by 41 percent.
Current law has increased the numbers, due to the naturalization of
2.5 million people whom are legalized under IRCA. The spouse and minor
children of citizens is going to increase for the next 4 years,
increasing an anticipated average of between 300,000 and 370,000 or
more per year for the next 4 years. I would suspect that even these
numbers are going to be higher.
Under current law the spouse and minor children of citizens are
unlimited. The family total of 480,000 is a pierceable cap, which means
the additional increases in this category due to IRCA legalization,
pierces the cap and increases family immigration numbers over the
964,000 in fiscal year 1996.
So that number, even the projected numbers, are going to be low. Also
under current law, another source of increase in family numbers is the
spillover from unused visas in the employment base category. In fiscal
year 1995, 140,000 visas were available and only 85,000 were used. This
means 55,000 spilled over to the family category.
What my compromise amendment does, what the Feinstein amendment would
do, is stop the pierceable cap, place a hard cap on the 480,000 that
are theoretically allowable today. That is the current law, but without
the anticipated increases, because the hard cap would stop that. It
would also stop the spillover from the unused employment visas, the
loophole in the current system that no one talks about.
Fairness, I believe, dictates that we do not close out the preference
categories. Let me tell you why. I think Senator Abraham and others,
Senator Feingold, understands this. Under our present system, if you
close out the family preferences, there is no other way for these
members of families to come to this country--no other way--not in the
diversity quotas, no other way. So if you close them out, you foreclose
their chances of ever coming to this country. And they are on a long
waiting list now. So I think the fair way to do it is to place a hard
cap on the numbers and then allocate numbers within each of the
preference categories.
So I do that. I do not close out the preference categories. I would
have
[[Page S4123]]
parents and adult children guaranteed to receive visas every year,
remaining consistent with the goal of family reunification.
I would allocate visa numbers on a sliding scale basis for parents
and adult children of citizens, allowing for increases in visas when
the numbers fall within the unlimited immediate family category.
However, they must always remain within that 480,000 hard cap.
I would allow the backlog clearance of spouses, minor children of
permanent residents by allowing 75 percent, with any visas left over
within the family total to be allocated to this category's backlog
clearance.
I would also control chain migration, where one person ends up
bringing in 45 or 40 other people, often not blood relatives.
Commissioner Doris Meissner has told me that what permits chain
migration is the siblings of the citizen category. I would place a
moratorium for the next 5 years on this category. However, if there are
any visas left over within the hard cap of 480,000 our family amendment
allows 25 percent of the leftover to be used for backlog clearance of
siblings, those who have been waiting for many years.
The problem with the Simpson amendment is that in its operation it
would provide no visas for adult children of citizens. It would provide
no guarantee of visas for children of citizens. All the numbers left
over from Simpson's hard cap family numbers go to spouses and minor
children of permanent residents, where the 1.1 million backlog remains.
This means no one else who has been waiting to reunite with their
children will be able to do so in the next 5 years.
The Simpson amendment provides no backlog reduction plan. The
amendment is a simple, straight spillover, giving preference to
permanent residents over U.S. citizens' families.
The problem with the Abraham-Kennedy provision, which is currently in
the bill, is that there is no cap on the numbers. With an anticipated
2.5 million IRCA legalized aliens expected to naturalize in the next 5
years, the unlimited family numbers would result in a family
immigration total of 1 million a year.
Recognize, 500,000 of these people are going to go to California a
year. We do not have enough room in our schools. We have elementary
schools with 2,500, 3,000 students in them, in critical areas where
these legal immigrants go. There is no available housing. There is a
shortage of jobs. So why would we do this, if the numbers are swollen
41 percent over what we were told when we considered this bill in
committee?
The Kennedy-Abraham amendment also has a spillover provision from
unused employment-based immigration visas. The current limit is
140,000. The actual use in 1995 was only 85,000, which means in
addition to the increasing numbers in family immigration, there would
be an additional 55,000 visas totaling up to 1 million in family
immigration in 1996.
Third, the Kennedy-Abraham amendment increase chain migration by
guaranteeing 50,000 visas for siblings of citizens in the next 5 years,
which increases to 75,000 per year for the subsequent 5 years. INS
Commissioner Doris Meissner has confirmed that the chain migration
comes from the siblings category. Under Kennedy-Abraham, the bill would
allocate 50,000 to 75,000 for siblings, more numbers in certain years
than current law which allows 65,000 per year.
I believe that the Feinstein amendment is a reasoned balance between
Simpson and the Abraham-Kennedy provision. It places a hard cap on the
current level of 480,000 family total per year. It closes the loophole
where the unused employment-based visas spills over to the family
immigration numbers.
Third, it guarantees that close family members of citizens get visas
each year with flexible limits, allowing increases in allocation of
visas with decreases in the immediate family categories, which INS
anticipates will flatten out in about 5 years.
The Feinstein amendment is about fair allocation of scarce visa
numbers to protect reunification of close family members of citizens,
while controlling the daunting increases in family immigration due to
the increase in naturalization rates for the next 5 years.
Every member, Mr. President, has three pages. The first page would
have current law, Feinstein and Kennedy; the second page, Feinstein and
Simpson in the numbers in each of the categories. I can only plead with
the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee to please give me an
opportunity to send this amendment to the desk so that the Senators, at
least of the largest State in the Union affected the most by
immigration, would have an opportunity to vote on it.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I begin by clarifying a point here. I
believe we are on the Simpson amendment here to the illegal immigration
bill. References made by the Senator from California to the Abraham-
Kennedy amendments being in this bill are not accurate. There is no
provision related to the Abraham-Kennedy amendment in this bill because
this is the illegal immigration bill we are dealing with.
The legal immigration bill, which we also passed in the Judiciary
Committee, is at the desk and can be brought to the floor of the
Senate. I believe and hope it will be brought to the floor of the
Senate for discussions of the matters that pertain to legal
immigration, including debate over how the allocation of visas ought to
be made.
I am going to speak right now about the amendment that is pending,
the effort by the Senator from Wyoming, the Simpson amendment, to
inject legal immigration issues into this illegal immigration bill.
Mr. President, I have only been involved with this issue during my
brief tenure in the Senate. I am very deferential to the Senator from
Wyoming, who has worked on this issue for 17 years. I applaud his
efforts. My efforts, which have been with a slightly different
philosophical approach, are not meant to in any way suggest that what
he has done has not been based upon sound thinking on his part.
However, I say from the outset, he indicated there were a lot of
funny things that came up during immigration, a lot of intriguing
twists and turns. I agree with him completely. The one thing that I
learned more than anything else during our experience in the committee
was the very real need to keep illegal and legal immigration issues
separate rather than joining them together.
I also learned it was imperative that in discussing whether it was
the illegal immigration issues or the legal immigration issues, they be
done in a total and comprehensive way. Indeed, our committee
deliberations on this lasted almost a full month, Mr. President.
That is why I think it is important that we continue the pattern
which was set in that committee of dealing with illegal immigration
issues in one context, the bill before us, and reserving the legal
immigration issues, issues of how many visas are going to be provided,
how those visas will be allocated, and so on, the legal immigration
bill, which is also at the desk. It is wrong to mix these two.
As a very threshold matter in this whole debate about immigration,
Senators should understand the very real differences between the two.
Illegal immigration reform legislation, the legislation before the
Senate right now, aims to crack down on people who break the rules,
people who violate the laws, people who seek to come to this country
without having proper documentation to take advantage of the benefits
of America, people who overstay their visas once they have come here,
in order to take advantage of this country. That is what this bill is
all about. It does an extraordinarily good job of dealing with the
problems surrounding illegal immigration. It is a testament, in no
small measure, of the Senator from Wyoming's long-time efforts that
such a fine bill has been crafted.
But there is a very big difference between dealing with folks who
break the rules and break the laws and seek to come to this country for
exploitative reasons, and dealing with people who want to come to this
country in a positive and constructive way to make a contribution, to
play by the rules, and, frankly, Mr. President, to make a great, great
addition to our American family. It is wrong to mix these.
It would be equally wrong to mix Food and Drug Administration reform
with a crackdown on sentencing for drug dealers. Yes, they both involve
drugs, but one deals on the one hand
[[Page S4124]]
with people breaking the law and using drugs the wrong way, and the
other deals with a reasonable approach to bringing life-saving
medicines and pharmaceuticals into the marketplace. Those should not be
joined together and neither should these. Anybody who watched the
process, whether in our Judiciary Committee here or over on the House
side, I think would understand that these issues have to be kept
separate.
Let me say in a little bit more detail, let us consider what
happened. In the Judiciary Committee, on the committee side, we had a
vote. It was a long-debated vote over whether or not legal and illegal
immigration should be kept together. The conclusion was very clear: a
majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats in the Judiciary
Committee voted to divide the issues and to keep the legal immigration
debate and issues separate from the illegal immigration issues. That, I
believe, is what we should also do on the floor of the Senate.
It was not just at the full committee that that was the approach
taken, Mr. President. It was also how the Immigration Subcommittee
itself addressed these issues. It did not start with one bill on legal
and illegal immigration. It recognized the very delicate and very
complicated nature of each of these separate areas of the law. First it
passed a bill on illegal immigration, and then it passed a bill on
legal immigration. Only then did it seek to combine the two, which the
Judiciary Committee felt was a mistake, and separated the two later on.
On the House side, Mr. President, we had the same thing take place.
On the floor of the House of Representatives, a bill that included
legal and illegal immigration reforms was tested. Overwhelmingly, the
House of Representatives voted to strike those provisions such as the
one or similar to the ones contained in the Simpson amendment which is
before the Senate, provisions which dealt with legal immigration and
dramatic changes to the process by which people who want to play by the
rules come to this country and do so legally.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have kept legal and illegal
immigration separate. In the House of Representatives, they have kept
them separate. The bill, which is sitting in the House side waiting to
go to conference with us, does not have these legal immigration
components that will be discussed today.
For those reasons, Mr. President, as a threshold matter, I think that
the amendment that is being offered should not be accepted. I believe
that it improperly puts together two very different areas of the law
that should be kept and dealt with and considered separately, and I
think we should not move in that direction.
I make a couple of other opening statements. I know there are other
colleagues who want to speak, and I will have quite a bit to say on
this and intend to be here quite a long time to say it. Even if there
was a decision to somehow merge these together, Mr. President, I think
the worst conceivable way to do it is to do it piecemeal as we are now
talking about doing in this amendment.
If we were to consider these together, the notion of taking just one
component--and a very significant one at that--out of the legal
immigration bill and to try to tack it on to the illegal immigration
bill before us, would be the worst conceivable way to address the
issues that pertain to legal immigration in this country and the
orderly process by which people who want to come and play by the rules
are allowed into our system.
It is wrong, I think, as a threshold matter, to mix the two. It is
even wronger to take a piecemeal approach to it as would be suggested
by this amendment.
Mr. President, I say it would be wrong for this body to pursue this
type of amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
I also make another note. The Senator from Wyoming in his comments,
as a threshold matter, suggested because visa overstayers constitute a
large part of the illegal immigrant population in this country and
because they at one time came to this country legally, we should
somehow bring in the entire legal immigration proposal, misses the
point.
With this legislation, once these folks have overstayed their visas,
they are no longer legal immigrants. They are illegal immigrants. We
have dealt with that effectively in the bill.
So, Mr. President, my initial comments today are simply these. As a
threshold, it is wrong to mix the two. As a threshold, it is even
wronger to mix them on a piecemeal basis. If we are going to consider
legal immigration, the appropriate way to do so is to bring the full
bill that was passed by the Judiciary Committee, which sits at the
desk, to the floor of the Senate. I have no qualms about having a
debate over that bill. I have a lot of different changes that I might
like to consider, including some in light of the INS statistics that
are being discussed. But that is the way to do it, not by tacking on
this type of provision to a bill that should focus, in a very directed
way, on illegal immigration and the problems we confront in that
respect in this country today.
Mr. President, I know others are seeking recognition. I have quite a
bit more to say, but I will yield the floor and seek recognition
further.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from California
temporarily. She wishes to introduce an amendment that will be held at
the desk.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside so that I might send a substitute
amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ABRAHAM. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I, with all due respect, differ with my
colleague from Wyoming on this. Were I to vote on the Feinstein
amendment regarding this, I would vote against that, also. I think our
colleague from Michigan is correct that we have to keep legal and
illegal separate.
Now, it is true, as Senator Simpson has said, that the majority of
people who are here illegally came in legally. But we have to add that
this amendment will do nothing on that. These are people who came in on
visitors' visas, or student visas. This amendment does not address
that.
A second thing has to be added that somehow has escaped so far this
morning, and that is, the majority of the people who come in as
immigrants to our society are great assets to our society. Illinois is
one of the States that has major numbers in immigration. But a smaller
percentage of those who come into our country legally are on various
Government programs, such as welfare, than native-born Americans, with
the exception of SSI. That is an exception. And there are some problems
we ought to deal with. There are problems we ought to deal with in
illegal immigration. But not on this particular bill.
Let me also address the question of the numbers. There is some
conflict, apparently, in the numbers that are going around. I think, in
part, it is because the Immigration Service--and I have found them to
be very solid in what they have to say--are projecting what is going to
happen. And there is a bubble because we have this amnesty period. And
so there is going to be a period in which the numbers go up, and then
they will go back down. I do not think it is a thing to fear.
And then, finally, Mr. President, yesterday on this floor, I heard
that we are going to be facing real problems in Social Security. We all
know that to be the case. The numbers who are working are declining
relative to the numbers of retirees, in good part, because of people in
the profession of the occupant of the chair, Mr. President, who have
added to our longevity. One of the things that happens in the fourth
preference, where you bring in brothers and sisters, is that you bring
in people who will work and pay Social Security. It is a great asset to
our country, not a liability.
So I have great respect for our colleague from Wyoming. I think he is
one of the best Members of this body, by any gauge. But I think he is
wrong on
[[Page S4125]]
this amendment. I think we should separate these two insofar as
possible, the illegal and the legal immigration.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the
Simpson amendment. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his leadership
on it.
First of all, I think that this amendment is an unfortunate attempt
to circumvent the will of the majority of this Congress, which has
clearly indicated its strong desire to keep the issue of legal
immigration separate from the issue of illegal immigration.
The other body has already sent a very strong message on a strong,
bipartisan vote not to have any cutbacks, Mr. President, in current
legal immigration levels.
Just a few weeks ago, after a very, very long process, the Senate
Judiciary Committee, again on a very strong, bipartisan vote, voted by
a large margin to keep these two areas of law separate--legal and
illegal immigration.
Groups and organizations from across the political spectrum have
united behind the common goal of keeping legal immigration separate
from the issue of illegal immigration.
This includes a lot of business groups, such as the National
Association of Manufacturers; labor groups, such as the AFL-CIO;
religious groups, such as the American Jewish Committee and the
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and liberal and conservative
groups ranging from Americans for Tax Reform to the National Council of
La Raza.
They are all opposed to this attempt to rejoin the issues of legal
and illegal immigration. That is why, Mr. President, with this immense
amount of support for considering legal immigration reform as a
separate piece of legislation, I am disappointed that the Senator from
Wyoming has chosen to offer this amendment today.
Just to review, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted by a 12 to 6
margin to split the two issues. Nonetheless, that vote did not prevent
the committee, nor will it prevent the whole Senate from considering
both issues. Indeed, after the committee had dealt with, at length, the
illegal immigration bill and disposed of it, the committee very shortly
moved on to discuss and consider and vote out a separate bill on legal
immigration.
Mr. President, I am also somewhat troubled by what has been suggested
both privately and publicly, that cutbacks in legal immigration cannot
pass unless they are riding the coattails of strong illegal immigration
reform. I think that is a very troubling notion.
If there are not enough votes in this Congress to pass a bill that
reduces legal immigration, it should not be piggybacked onto a separate
piece of legislation that has far more support.
If a particular proposal cannot pass based on its merit, what other
possible justification could there be for its passage?
We have heard the argument that the issues of legal and illegal
immigration are intertwined because so many immigrants come here on
temporary visas and remain here unlawfully after their visas have
expired. Fair enough. This is known as the visa overstay problem. But
before the Abraham-Feingold visa overstay provision was adopted by the
Judiciary Committee last month, there was not a single word in this
bill about that issue, about the significant number of people who are
here illegally because they overstay their visas.
Let me emphasize that point, Mr. President. It is important for all
Senators to understand that the visa overstay problem represents
roughly one-half of our entire illegal immigration problem. We are not
talking here about people who jump the fence along the Mexican border
in the dead of the night and disappear into the American work force. We
are talking about people who come here on a legal visa, usually a
tourist or a student visa, and then refuse to leave the country when
the visa expires.
That problem alone represents one-half of illegal immigration. The
Senator from Wyoming is suggesting that the only way to combat that
problem is to tie reductions in legal immigration to an illegal
immigration bill.
Mr. President, that theory has already been discredited. The new visa
overstayer penalties, authored by the Senator from Michigan and myself,
are not contained in the legal immigration bill.
They are contained quite appropriately in this bill. They are in the
illegal immigration bill and that is where they belong because the
issue of visa overstay has to do with illegality. But this amendment
offered by the Senator from Wyoming has nothing to do with illegality.
It has to do with questions of levels of legal immigration and who
should come in and when. But what was offered in committee--and what is
a part of this bill--are targeted penalties and reforms against those
legal immigrants who break the rules and, therefore, have conducted
themselves illegally. It does not represent the approach of the Senator
from Wyoming which is to clamp down on all of these immigrants whether
they are playing by the rules or whether they are breaking them.
So the proposition that we need to tie the legal provisions to the
illegal provisions so we can clamp down on the visa overstayer problem
is just plain false. We have clamped down in visa overstayers, who are
illegal aliens, in the illegal immigration bill.
As I indicated yesterday in my opening remarks, there has
unquestionably been some abuse of our legal immigration system.
I will not, of course, deny that. But much like you wouldn't stop
driving your car if you had a little engine trouble, we should not pass
such harsh and unnecessary reductions in lawful immigration simply
because a few have chosen to abuse the system.
Mr. President, let me be clear about my position on this issue; I
will oppose any amendment that prevents a U.S. citizen from bringing a
parent into this country.
I will oppose efforts to eliminate the current-law preference
category that allows a U.S. citizen to reunite with a brother or
sister.
And, I will oppose any proposal that would effectively prohibit a
U.S. citizen from bringing their child into this country, whether a
minor or an adult child.
And that is essentially what the proposal before us, offered by the
Senator from Wyoming, would accomplish. It would redefine what a
nuclear family is.
Supporters of this amendment assert that in terms of allocating legal
visas, we should place the highest priority on spouses and minor
children, both of U.S. citizens and of legal permanent residents.
I agree with this, Mr. President. And we can accomplish that goal and
still permit sufficient levels of legal immigration of other family
relatives. That is why a bipartisan amendment was adopted by the
Judiciary Committee to place a stronger emphasis on the immigration of
spouses and minor children while still providing visas to parents,
adult children, and brothers and sisters.
That is what is currently in the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment
before us would essentially terminate the ability of a U.S. citizen to
bring these other family members into the country.
Parents would no longer be part of the nuclear family. Children, if
they have reached the magic age of 21, would no longer apparently be
children in the sense of being part of the nuclear family for purposes
of the very strong desire of families to be reunited. The goal of
wanting to be reunited with your children I do not think cuts off when
the child reaches the age of 21.
Mr. President, in a sense that raises the question, What happened to
family values? This proposal would turn the family friendly Congress
into what in many cases would be a family fragmenting Congress.
So I think it is clear that we have two very distinct issues at play.
We should not deal with this issue in a manner that suggests that those
who abide by our laws are as much a problem as those who break them. I
think that is an injustice to the millions and millions of immigrants
who over the years have come to this country, and who have played by
the rules and have become productive and contributing members to our
society.
Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Michigan, the Senator
from Ohio, and others in urging my colleagues to join the majority of
the House, to join a majority of the Senate
[[Page S4126]]
Judiciary Committee, to join numerous business, labor, religious, and
ethnic organizations, and to join the overwhelming majority of the
American people who do not want to see such dramatic legal immigration
cutbacks tacked on to a piece of legislation that seeks to punish those
who break our laws.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The first thing that I want to say is that I have the greatest
respect for my colleague from Wyoming, and I know that no one has
worked harder or longer on this issue. As he knows as well as anybody,
it is not an issue that is very beneficial politically for anyone. But
it has been something that the Senator has done out of a sense of duty,
a sense of obligation to perform that function for the U.S. Senate, but
more importantly for the people of this country for many, many years.
He has done a very good job.
I rise, however, to oppose the amendment, and I rise to oppose it for
two reasons.
First, I believe it is a fundamental mistake to mix the issue of
legal immigration and illegal immigration. I will explain in a moment
why I think that is a mistake.
Second, I rise to oppose the amendment because I believe on substance
it is a mistake.
Let me start with the first reason. Let me start with why I believe
it is a mistake to mix two very different issues.
As my colleague from Michigan has pointed out, this is an illegal
immigration bill. That is what is in front of us today. It is important
I think that we keep it that way. It is also important I think that we
do what we said we were going to do, and that is after this bill is
over with bring a legal immigration bill to the floor and battle that
out and talk about that. But I think we need to keep the two separate.
Why? First of all, for historic reasons. These issues have always
been divided by this Congress. Go back to 1986. The Simpson-Mazzoli
bill was an illegal immigration bill. A few years later Congress dealt
with the legal aspects of that, a legal immigration bill. And in fact,
just this year when these bills started off in Senator Simpson's
subcommittee they were separate bills. It was only at the end of the
subcommittee's deliberations that they were combined. The full
Judiciary Committee by a vote of 12 to 6 decided to separate them and
to go back to the way this matter has always, or at least for the last
15 years or so, been dealt with.
So on historical grounds it is very clear this precedent is to keep
them separate. There is absolutely no precedent to combine the two
issues. It is interesting that the House of Representatives basically
made the same decision when they deleted the significant portion, the
portion of the illegal bill that had to do with illegal immigration,
and they made that same decision. The House of Representatives did, and
they did it by a fairly lopsided margin.
The second reason that it is important to keep these issues apart is
I believe that a yes vote on this amendment does in fact merge the two
issues and does in fact make it much more difficult and more unlikely
that we will be able in this session of Congress to deliver to the
President of the United States for his signature an illegal immigration
bill.
If any of my colleagues who are in the Chamber or who are watching
this back in their offices have any doubt about this, reflect on the
debate of the last 2 hours and fast forward to later on today with more
and more and more debate. I think the longer you observe this and how
contentious some of these legal immigration problems are and the
disputes are, it will be clearly understood that by taking a relatively
clean illegal immigration bill and dump the legal issues into it makes
it less likely that we will ever been able to pass a bill and send it
on to the President of the United States.
I think there are clearly votes in this Chamber to pass a good
illegal immigration bill. I am going to have an amendment later on to
change a provision of the illegal bill. My colleague from Michigan is
going to have a separate amendment to change it. We are going to vote
those up or down. We are going to argue those out. But ultimately we
are going to be able to pass the illegal bill.
If we start down this road of amendments that are clearly dealing
with the legal aspect of this, I am not as confident that we are going
to be able to pass a bill. I am not as confident that we are going to
be able to do what my friend from Wyoming wants to do, and I think the
vast majority of the American people want to do; that is, to pass a
good illegal immigration bill and send it to the President of the
United States.
The third reason I believe it is a mistake to combine these issues,
these issues that we have historically not combined, is that once you
begin to do that, it makes good analysis more difficult and we begin to
confuse the two very distinct issues.
We have in this country an illegal immigration problem, and we all
agree on that. I think there is pretty broad consensus about what to do
about it. There are a lot of good provisions in this bill. I do not
believe we have a legal immigration problem. Illegal immigrants are
lawbreakers. They are lawbreakers. And no country can exist unless it
enforces its laws. We absolutely have to do that.
Legal immigrants, on the other hand, are by and large great citizens.
They are people who care about their families. They are people who work
hard. They are people who played by the rules to get here, got here
legally, and add a great deal to our society.
The linkage of the legal and illegal bills, which is what this
amendment really is going to end up doing, brings about a linkage and I
think many times a distortion of the correct analysis. Let me give two
examples, two examples of what failure to keep the distinction between
the illegal issue and the legal issue does.
I have heard many times the statement made that aliens use social
services more than native-born Americans. They are on welfare more;
they use up social services; they are a burden to society.
The reality is that statement may be technically true, depending on
how you state it, but if you talk only about legal immigrants, that
statement is totally wrong. In fact, the facts fly in the face of that
because the facts show that legal immigrants are on welfare less than
native-born citizens. Although I have not seen any studies or empirical
data about this, just from observation--admittedly, it is anecdotal--it
would seem to me that the legal immigrants, citizens now, care very
much about their families and have intact families and work very, very
hard. The fact is that they are on welfare less. The fact is that they
do consume social services less than native-born citizens. That is the
truth. So you can see how the mixing of the rhetoric and the mixing of
the issues causes problems.
The second example of how mixing these issues causes a problem: The
statement is made--and it is a correct statement--that one-half of all
illegal immigrants came here legally. Let me repeat that. One-half of
all illegal immigrants came here legally. That is true. That is a
true statement. But these are not legal immigrants. ``Immigrant" is a
term of art. They are not legal immigrants. They did not come here
expecting or being told that they could become citizens. These are, as
my friend from Wyoming pointed out, students who overstay their visas.
These are people who come here to work who overstay. As my colleague
from Wisconsin correctly pointed out, the Simpson amendment does not
deal with this issue. It does not deal with this problem. And it is a
problem.
The bill does. We took action in the bill and in committee to try to
rectify this problem. Again, you have a difficulty when you confuse the
terminology. Yes, these individuals came here legally, but they were
never legal immigrants. They never came here with the expectation they
would become citizens. They have no right to expect that. So when we
analyze legal immigrants and we talk about the burden they place on
society, we talk about where the problem of illegal immigration comes
from, it is important to keep the distinction correct and to watch our
terminology.
Therefore, I believe for practical reasons, for historic reasons, and
also for
[[Page S4127]]
reasons of good analysis, we should vote no on this amendment. A yes
vote links these two issues. It takes an illegal immigration bill that
we can pass and shoves into it issues that should be kept separate and
dealt with distinctly, and I would say I clearly believe that they
should be dealt with later on on this floor in a separate bill.
Let me turn, if I could, for a moment, Mr. President, to the merits
of this bill, and I am going to return to this later; I see several of
my colleagues who are patiently waiting to talk.
If you look at the merits, I think you have to look at the big
picture. I believe that, unfortunately, the effect of the Simpson
amendment is to go against some of the best traditions of our country.
It really flies in the face of what our immigration policy should be
and has been, at least has been throughout a great portion of our
history. That immigration policy in its best days, most enlightened,
has been based on two principles. One is that the United States should
be a magnet, a magnet for the best and the brightest, yes, but also a
magnet for the gutsiest, the people who have enough guts to get up,
leave their country, get on a boat or get on a plane or somehow get
here, come into this country because they want a better future for
their children and their grandchildren and their great grandchildren.
The second basic tenet of our immigration policy at its best has been
family reunification. We talk in this Congress a lot about family
values. We talk about how important families are. They are important.
Our immigration policy at its best has put a premium on family
reunification. I believe that the net effect of this amendment, however
well-intentioned, is to fly directly in the face of those traditions.
It is antifamily. It is antifamily reunification and goes against the
tradition of trying to attract the best people in this country, people
who are the most ambitious, the people who are willing to take a
chance.
Let me just give a couple of examples, and I will come back to this
later.
The net effect of this amendment is to exclude adult children. Let me
take my own example. We all relate things to our own lives. My wife
Fran and I have had eight children. Let us assume that I just came to
this country. Let us assume that I became a U.S. citizen. The effect of
the amendment would be to say, some of your children, a part of your
nuclear family--part of them are part of your nuclear family--our
younger child, Anna, who is age 4, she could come. Mark, who is 9,
could come. And Alice could come; she is 17. Brian, who just turned 19,
he could come, too. But John, who is 21, he is not part of your nuclear
family. You could not bring him over. He is going to college. You could
not bring him. He could not become a citizen. It would say about my
older children, Patrick and Jill, they could not come. I think that is
a mistake. I think, again, it goes against the best traditions and the
history of this country.
The amendment even goes further, the net effect of it does. It says,
if you have a child and that child happens to be a minor, but if that
child is now married, that child is not going to get in either. Again,
I think that is a mistake. We hear talk about brothers and sisters. It
is easy to say it is really not important that brothers and sisters
come. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has given a
couple of examples of what impact that would have. Maybe you can argue
the brothers and sisters issue either way. Let me make a couple of
comments about it. One of the ways legal immigrants have been able to
succeed when they come here--you see it, you certainly see it in the
Washington, DC, area. You see it in other parts of the country, too.
You see, in small businesses that have been started, you see whole
families in there working, people who are hustling, people who are not
looking to the State or Government for handouts, but rather people in
there trying to make it. They are making it because everybody in the
family is working. Somehow, I do not think that is bad. Somehow, I
think that is really in the best tradition of this country. It is in
our history, each one of us on this floor.
I will make another point in regard to this. Whatever you think about
whether brothers and sisters should be able to come in, this amendment
would close the door to brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens who have
already--these are brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens--who have
already paid their fees, applied for admission and been admitted; who
waited in line, many times for years, who have done the right thing,
who have done everything we told them to do--``Be patient, wait in
line, your turn will come.'' They get right up to the door and with
this amendment we will say, ``No, that is wrong, we have changed the
rules.'' We can do that. We have every right to do that. I just do not
think we should do it. I do not think it is the right thing to do.
Let me at this point yield the floor. I do want to address some of
the issues my friend from Wyoming has brought up, but I see my friend
from Alabama is on the floor. Several other Members are waiting. Mr.
President, in just a moment I am going to yield the floor.
Let me briefly summarize by saying that any Member who thinks these
issues should not be joined, who thinks we should keep the issues
separate and apart and distinct, any Member who is really concerned
about increasing the odds of passing and seeing become law an illegal
immigration bill, should vote ``no'' on this amendment. You should vote
``no'' if you want to keep the issues separate. You should vote ``no''
if you want to increase the odds of finally getting an illegal
immigration bill on the President's desk and signed into law this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Simpson
amendment which, I believe, is a first step in restoring common sense
to our Nation's immigration system.
I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor of the Simpson
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, there has been substantial debate recently
regarding the connection between legal and illegal immigration. Those
who favor increased legal immigration have argued there is no link
between legal and illegal immigration. In their view, these matters are
completely unrelated and should be treated separately, as you just
heard.
I disagree. It is simply impossible, I believe, to control illegal
immigration without first reforming our legal immigration system. One-
half of all illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay
their visa. No amount of effort at the border will stop this. The only
way, I believe, to effectively prevent illegal immigration is to reform
our legal immigration system. Thus, I believe there is a clear link
between legal and illegal immigration. I support Senator Simpson's
proposals to reform the legal immigration system, but I am concerned
that even his efforts to reduce legal immigration do not go far enough.
With all the misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding this
issue, it does not seem possible for this body to pass legislation
which will, in my view, bring the number of legal immigrants into line
with our national interests. The central question, as I see it, is not
whether we should continue legal immigration; we should. The problem is
not that legal immigrants or legal immigration are bad per se--they are
not. We are a Nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made great
contributions to our country, as you have heard on the floor.
Immigration is an integral part of our heritage, and I believe it
should continue. The real issues that Congress must face, however, are
what level of legal immigration is most consistent with our resources
and our needs. Yes, and what criteria should be used to determine those
who will be admitted. I am convinced that our current immigration law
is fundamentally flawed and I want to share with you some charts to
illustrate this point.
First, the law has long been allowing the admission of excessive
numbers of legal immigrants. Let me show you this chart. This chart
here shows that the average number of immigrants in this country
admitted per year has climbed to about 900,000. You can look at the
chart. From the 1930's to the 1990's, it is just in an upward spiral.
Additional legal immigration levels averaged about 300,000 per year
until the 1965 Immigration Act. As this chart
[[Page S4128]]
indicates, this is the bulk of immigrants in our country. Three-fourths
of the immigrants are legal immigrants. This is three times our level
of illegal immigration. There is no other country in the world that has
a regular immigration system which admits so many people. Current law
fails to consider if such a massive influx of foreign citizens is
needed in this country. It also fails to recognize the burden placed on
taxpayers for the immigrants' added costs for public services.
Excessive numbers of legal immigrants put a crippling strain on the
American education system. Non-English speaking immigrants cost
taxpayers 50 percent more in educational cost per child. Schools in
high immigration communities are twice as crowded as those in low
immigration areas, as this next chart indicates.
Immigrants also put a strain on our criminal justice system. Foreign-
born felons make up 25 percent of our Federal prison inmates--25
percent, much higher than their real numbers.
Immigrants are 47 percent more likely to receive welfare than native-
born citizens. In 1990, the American taxpayers spent $16 billion more
in welfare payments to immigrants than the immigrants paid back in
taxes. At a time when we have severe budget shortfalls at all levels of
government, our Federal immigration law continues to allow aliens to
consume the limited public assistance that our citizens need. Moreover,
high levels of immigration cost Americans their jobs at a time when we
have millions of unemployed and underemployed citizens, and millions
more who will be needing jobs as they are weaned off of welfare. It is
those competing for lower skilled jobs who are particularly hurt in
this country. Most new legal immigrants are unskilled or low skilled,
and they clearly take jobs native citizens otherwise would get.
Second, criteria to select who should be admitted does not
incorporate, I believe, our country's best interests. As the next chart
shows, who are the legal immigrants? Employment based is only 15
percent. Immediate relatives, 31 percent; other relatives, 27 percent;
4 percent is relatives of people who were given amnesty under other
legislation. The others are refugees and asylees, 15 percent. The
diversity lottery, 5 percent.
But look at it again: Immediate relatives, 31 percent; other
relatives, 27 percent. Relatives predominate the immigration.
The 1965 Immigration Act provisions allow immigrants to bring in not
only their immediate family, Mr. President, such as their spouse and
minor children, but also their extended family members, such as their
married brothers and sisters who then can bring in their own extended
family. The brother's wife can sponsor her own brothers and sisters,
and so forth. This has resulted in the so-called chain migration we
have been talking about, whereby essentially endless and ever-expanding
chains or webs of distant relatives are admitted based on the original
single immigrant's admission. This can be 50, 60, or more people. I
believe this is wrong, and it must be stopped.
Immigrants should be allowed to bring in their nuclear family--that
is, their spouse and minor children--but not, Mr. President, an
extended chain of distant relatives.
Some opponents of reforming legal immigration who are fighting
desperately to continue the status quo will say that only a radical or
even reactionary people favor major changes in the immigration area.
However, bringing our legal immigration system back under control and
making it more in accord with our national interest is far from
adequate, I submit.
Let me remind my colleagues that the bipartisan U.S. Immigration
Reform Commission, under the leadership of the late former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recommended fundamental reforms in the
current legal immigration system, and the overwhelming majority of the
American people want changes in our legal immigration system. I
certainly would not consider mainstream America radical or reactionary.
The next chart shows that the results of a recently released national
Roper Poll on immigration are dramatic:
More than 83 percent of Americans favor lower immigration levels: 70
percent favor keeping immigration levels below 300,000 per year; 54
percent want immigration cut below 100,000 per year; 20 percent favor
having no immigration at all;
Only 2 percent--only 2 percent, Mr. President--favor keeping
immigration at the current levels.
I believe we should and I believe we must listen to the American
people on this vital issue. If we care what most people think, and we
should, and if we care about what is best for our country, I believe we
will reduce legal immigration substantially by ending chain migration
and giving much greater weight to immigrants' job skills and our own
employment needs.
Mr. President, I support the Simpson amendment, which I am
cosponsoring, to begin reducing legal immigration.
Only Initial Step
I emphasize ``begin'' because the amendment is but a first step
toward the fundamental reform and major reductions in legal immigration
that we need. I would like us to do much more now. Congress should pass
comprehensive legal immigration reform legislation this year instead of
adopting only a modest temporary reduction. Even as an interim step, I
would prefer tougher legislation, like S. 160, a bill that I proposed
earlier. That bill would give us a 5-year timeout for immigrants to
assimilate while cutting yearly legal immigration down to around
325,000, which was roughly our historical average until the 1965
Immigration Act got us off track.
Nevertheless, I am a realist and have served in this body long enough
to know that the needed deeper cuts and broader reforms cannot be
adopted before the next Congress. This is a Presidential election year
and the time available in our crowded legislative schedule is quite
limited. Most attention has been focused until recently on the problems
associated with illegal immigration, and many Members have not yet been
able to study legal immigration in the depth that is needed to make
truly informed and wise decisions. The House has already voted to defer
action on legal immigration reforms. Moreover, the separate legal
immigration bill recently reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is
controversial and fails to provide a proper framework for real reform.
The committee's bill disregards most of the widely acclaimed
recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
made under the able leadership of the late former Congresswoman Barbara
Jordan.
Let me take a moment to comment on the history of the committee's
legal immigration bill, S. 1665, because it is relevant to this
discussion. Originally, Senator Simpson, chairman of the Immigration
Subcommittee, took many of the key recommendations of the Jordan
Commission, which spent 5 years studying every aspect of U.S.
immigration policy, and turned them into S. 1394, the Immigration
Reform Act of 1996. The bill, as Senator Simpson drafted it, set out
many very sensible reforms--reforms proposed by the Commission and
which the American people overwhelmingly support. It would have
instituted a phased reduction in legal immigration, ended extended
family chain migration and placed greater emphasis on selecting
immigrants based on their job skills and education while taking our
labor market needs more into account.
Unfortunately, the legal immigration bill that has been reported to
us is radically different than the original Simpson legislation and the
Jordan Commission's recommendations. The American people want
fundamental immigration reform, and yet the committee's bill gives us
the same old failed policies of the past 30 years, albeit in a
different package. Mr. President, supporters of that bill ought to be
thankful that truth in advertising laws do not apply because what they
are selling to the American people as immigration reform is anything
but. That bill not only fails to make such much needed recommended
systemic reforms, it actually increases legal immigration levels.
Given these circumstances, it is clear that major cuts and
comprehensive legal immigration reform will have to wait until the next
Congress. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to begin the
debate and to begin making at least some reductions in the numbers of
legal immigrants. This amendment's modest temporary reductions in
[[Page S4129]]
legal immigration appear to be about all that might be done this year.
Therefore, I am supporting this amendment.
Reform In 105th Congress
I want to make it clear, however, that in the next Congress I will
fight very hard to ensure the enactment of the fundamental reforms
needed to restore common sense to our immigration system and to best
serve our national interests. I intend to push for legislation
incorporating many of the changes recommended by the Jordan Commission
and other immigration experts.
I believe that while we must allow immigration by immediate nuclear
family members of citizens and legal permanent residents, we must
significantly reduce legal admission levels by eliminating many
preference categories, especially those for extended relatives, as
proposed by the Commission. Most of our legal immigrants are admitted
through the family preference system put in place by the misconceived
1965 Immigration Act. Admission is not on the basis of their job skills
or our labor market needs. Only about 6 percent of our legal immigrants
are admitted based on employment skills.
Chain Migration
The 1965 act's provisions allow immigrants to bring in not only their
immediate family members--such as their spouse and minor children--but
after they become citizens they also may sponsor their extended family
members--such as their married brothers and sisters--who then
subsequently can bring in their own extended family. For example, the
brother's wife can sponsor her own brothers and sisters, and so on.
This has resulted in the so-called ``chain migration'' effect whereby
essentially endless and ever-expanding chains or webs of more distant
relatives are admitted based on the original single immigrant's
admission. This can be 50, 60 or more people. This is wrong, and it
must be stopped. It creates ever-growing backlogs because the more
people we admit, the more become eligible to apply. Immigrants should
be allowed to bring in their nuclear family (e.g., spouse and minor
children), but not an extended chain of more distance relatives. In
addition, we must give greater priority to immigrants' employment
skills and our labor needs when we reform admission criteria.
Proponents of high immigration levels argue that we must retain
extended family admission preferences in order to protect family
values. Well, let us remember, Mr. President, that when an immigrant
comes to this country, leaving behind parents, brothers, sisters,
uncles, aunts, and cousins, it is the immigrant who is breaking up the
extended family. Why does it become our responsibility to have a
mechanism in place to undo what the immigrant himself has done? Why is
it the responsibility of the American taxpayer who picks up the tab for
so many legal immigration costs to have to let the immigrant bring more
than his or her immediate nuclear family here? Where do our obligations
to new immigrants end? Apparently they never do in the minds of
immigrationists who advocate continuing an automatic admission
preference for this ever-expanding mass of extended relatives. Each
time we admit a new immigrant to this country under our present system,
we are creating an entitlement for a whole new set of extended
relatives. For most, this means being added to the admission backlogs.
Chain Migration Increases Backlogs
In that regard I want to observe that proponents of bringing in
backlogged relatives at an even faster rate claim that family chain
migration is largely a myth. I find this an astounding contention. The
very fact that in recent years we have developed a massive, ever
increasing backlog of extended relatives proves the point that chain
migration is a reality. As the committee's report on its legal
immigration bill, S. 1665, notes: ``Backlogs in all family-preference
visa categories combined have more than tripled in the past 15 years,
rising from 1.1 million in 1981 to 3.6 million in 1996.'' Family chain
migration is real, and it's a real problem.
Confusion Between Legal And Illegal Immigrants
Mr. President, even the very modest reductions made in the pending
amendment are viewed as unnecessary by those who favor retaining high
levels of legal immigration. They have been saying that legal and
illegal immigration provisions should not be considered together
because there is confusion between legal and illegal. They say that
Congress might let concerns over illegal immigration taint its view on
how legal immigration should be handled, and that this could lead
unjustly to reductions in legal numbers.
Well, after talking about immigration with many citizens in Alabama
and elsewhere, I must admit that I have found that there is in fact
considerable public confusion about legals and illegals. Furthermore, I
agree that this is affecting how Congress is dealing with these issues,
but the effect is not what immigrationists think. Ironically, the
confusion is greatly benefiting the special interest immigration
advocates and their congressional allies and undercutting the efforts
of those of us who believe that major cuts in legal immigrant numbers
and other reforms must be made. Concerns and confusion over illegal
immigration actually are keeping Congress from making the large cuts in
legal admission that otherwise clearly would be made this year. Let me
explain why.
What I have found in repeated discussions with citizens from all
types of backgrounds is that they are overwhelmingly concerned about
the high numbers of new immigrants moving to our country. However, most
people are under the mistaken impression that almost all of the recent
immigrants came here illegally. When you explain to them that in fact
that about three-fourths of the immigrants in the last decade are legal
immigrants they are shocked. At first, they can't believe that Congress
has passed laws letting millions of new people come here legally. Then,
I have found that the shock and disbelief of most individuals I talked
to quickly turns to outrage and anger, and they start demanding that
Congress change its policy and slash legal admissions.
Thus, Mr. President, what I have found convinces me that most of our
constituents are really just as upset about legal immigrants as they
are about illegal ones. However, they frequently have only been voicing
their concerns in terms of illegal aliens because they did not realize
that the people they are upset about actually were here legally.
Legal And Illegal Immigration Are Linked
High immigration advocates also have argued that there is no link
between legal and illegal immigration and that amendments relating to
legal immigration are not appropriate to the illegal reform bill we are
now debating. I strongly disagree. Legal and illegal immigration are
closely linked and interrelated.
Legal Provisions Now Included
First, with respect to the linkage of legal and illegal immigration,
Mr. President, let me also remind my colleagues that the so-called
illegal immigration bill that we are debating already contains
important provisions relating to legal immigration like those imposing
financial responsibility on sponsors of legal immigrants. Thus, it
clearly is appropriate to consider the pending amendment to reduce
legal immigration.
Legal Fosters Illegal
Our current legal admissions system makes literally millions of
people eligible to apply, and therefore causes them to have an
expectation of eventual lawful admission. But, the law necessarily
limits annual admission numbers for most categories and massive
backlogs have developed. By allowing far more people to qualify to
apply for admission than can possibly be admitted within a reasonable
time under the law's yearly limits, the present law guarantees
backlogs. It can take 20 years or longer for an immigrant's admission
turn to come up. This then encourages thousands of aliens to come here
illegally. Some come illegally because they know that under current law
they either have no reasonable chance for admission or they will have
to wait many years for admission given the backlogs.
Illegals Can Legalize Without Penalty
It is important to note that our current law does not disqualify
those who come illegally from later begin granted legal admission.
Therefore, illegals often feel they have nothing to lose
[[Page S4130]]
and everything to gain by jumping ahead of the line. In short, our
legal immigration process has the perverse effect of encouraging
illegal immigration. Even though we granted amnesty to legalize over 3
million illegal aliens in 1986, today well over 4 million--and quite
possibly over 5 million--illegal aliens now reside in the United States
Hundreds of thousands of the new illegal immigrants later will be
getting a legal visa when their number eventually comes up through the
extended family preference system. Many of these illegals--ho I remind
you have broken the law, and who everyone in Congress seems to be so
concerned about--thus will become legal immigrants. Magically, it would
seem the bad guys become the good guys and all problems go away. Mr.
President, how can this be? How can anyone honestly say the legal and
illegal issues are not very intertwined and linked together?
Illegal Increases Legal
In another paradoxical result of our current flawed system, illegal
immigration also tends to increase legal immigration. How? Well, look
at the situation under the 1986 amendments. The 3 million illegals who
received amnesty were allowed to become legal, thereby increasing the
number of legal immigrants. And, after becoming legal residents and
citizens, what have these former illegals done? After being transformed
into good guys by legalization, they have played by the rules, as
flawed as the rules are, and petitioned to bring in huge numbers of
additional legal immigrants who are the relatives of these legalized
illegal aliens. This greatly increases the backlogs. The Jordan
Commission found that about 80 percent of the backlogged immediate
family relatives are eligible because of their relationship with a
former illegal alien. And, as the backlogs grow, Congress is asked to
raise admission levels by special backlog reduction programs, which
will then increase the number of legal aliens.
Thus, we have an integral process here where the legal system works
so as to guarantee backlogs which in turn lead to special additional
admission programs and to more illegals who, after a while, may be
legalized and then become eligible to bring in more relatives legally.
Many of the new legal applicants in each cycle are then thrown into the
backlogs so the process can repeat itself. Many of the applicant's
relatives also will come here illegally to live, work and go to school
while waiting to legalize.
Legal Has Similar Impacts
Legal immigration is also linked to illegal immigration because it
has many of the same impacts. Both legal and illegal immigration
involve large numbers of additional people, with legal in fact
accounting for nearly three times more new U.S. residents every year
than illegal immigration. Many of my colleagues have expressed grave
concerns about illegal immigrants taking jobs from Americans, or these
immigrants committing crimes, or costing taxpayers and State and local
governments millions for public education and welfare and other public
assistance. Well, as I will point out later in detail, it is time to
recognize that legal immigrants often cause these same types of adverse
impacts. Congress must stop overlooking or disregarding this patently
obvious fact. Let there be no mistake we will not solve most of our
national immigration problem by just dealing with illegal immigration.
Legal immigration is in many ways an even greater part of the problem.
Florida Example
Often, the adverse impacts of legal immigration actually will be much
greater than illegal because so many more people are involved. For
example, consider the situation in the State of Florida. As my
colleagues know all too well, especially those who are concerned with
unfunded Federal mandates, the Governors of high immigration States
like Florida have been coming to Congress for the last several years
demanding billions of dollars in reimbursements for their States'
immigration-related costs. Governor Lawton Chiles, a former
distinguished Member of this body, presented testimony in 1994 to the
Senate Appropriations Committee asking for such reimbursement. Governor
Chiles' detailed cost analysis showed that in 1993 Florida's State and
local governments had net--not gross--immigration costs of $2.5
billion. About two-thirds of this cost--$1.6 billion--came from legal
immigration. That's right, listen up everyone, legal immigrants were
responsible for two-thirds of Florida's immigration costs. Florida's
public education costs alone from legal immigrants came to about $517
million that year. So, my colleagues, we must face the facts that many
concerns being raised apply with equal or greater force to legal
immigration and that legal and illegal immigration are interrelated.
Neither Immigrant Bashing Nor Glorification
While I do not condone unjustified immigrant bashing, neither do I
subscribe to much of the one-sided emotional immigrant glorification
and mythology that so often permeates the legal immigration debate.
Supporters of high immigration levels often appear to be saying that
legal immigrants are much smarter than citizens and that almost all are
harder working, more law abiding and have stronger family values than
native-born Americans. They imply that we do not support family values
if we do not support allowing every immigrant who comes here to later
bring his or her entire extended family of perhaps 50 or more
relatives. Immigrationists also tend to see only positive benefits from
legal immigration and to disregard or downplay any negatives.
Both Positive And Negative Impacts Must Be Weighed
Well, Mr. President, this Senator believes that Congress has the
responsibility to weigh both the positive and negative aspects of
immigration and to factor in our national needs and citizens' interests
when setting legal admissions levels and procedures. Yes, we should
consider the positive contributions made by immigrants, and the fact
that legal immigrants pay taxes to help defray some of our immigrant-
related costs. However, we also need to consider the impacts on
American families when one or both parents loses job opportunities to
legal immigrants, or when a parent's wages are depressed by cheap
immigrant labor. We need to consider the impacts on American
schoolchildren of having hundreds of millions of dollars diverted from
other educational needs to pay for special English-language instruction
or scholarships for children from recent immigrant families. We need to
consider the impacts on America's senior citizens and our needy native-
born people who are unable to obtain nearly the level of public
assistance they require because billions are going to pay for benefits
for millions of legal immigrants. We need to consider the impact of
legal immigration-related unfunded mandates on State and local
governments and taxpayers, especially in high immigration areas like
Florida and California. And, we need to remember that many immigrants
who do pay taxes are paying relatively little because they are making
very low wages, and thus do not necessarily pay taxes at a level that
will cover nearly all of their costs.
Legal Immigration Should Continue
The central question that Congress must decide is not whether we
should continue legal immigration. Of course we should. The problem is
not that legal immigrants or legal immigration are bad per se. They are
not. We are a Nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made great
contributions to our country. Immigration is an integral part of our
heritage, and it should continue. However, while immigrants bring us
many benefits, but they also bring certain added costs and other
adverse impacts. Furthermore, we do not have unlimited capacity to
accept new immigrants.
What Level And What Criteria
The ultimate question that Congress must face here is what level of
legal immigration is most consistent with our resources and needs, and
what criteria should be used to pick those who are admitted. After
studying this question, I am convinced that our current legal
immigration law is fundamentally flawed. The heart of the problem is
twofold: First, the present law has for years allowed the admission of
excessive numbers of legal immigrants; and second, the selection
criteria are discriminatory and skewed so as to disregard what's in our
country's overall best interests.
Dramatic Legal Increases
The current immigration system, based on the 1965 Immigration Act,
has allowed legal immigration levels to
[[Page S4131]]
skyrocket. Legal immigration has grown dramatically in recent decades
after the 1965 Immigration Act. We have been averaging 970,000 legal
immigrants--that's nearly 1 million people legally every year--during
the last decade! When you add in the 300,000 plus illegal immigrants
who move here every year, this means we are taking well over a million
immigrants a year.
We now have over 23 million foreign-born individuals residing in the
United States, both legally and illegally. This translates to 1 in 11
U.S. residents being foreign-born, the largest percentage since the
Depression. Immigrants cause 50 percent of our Nation's population
growth today and will be responsible for 60 percent of the U.S.
population increase that is expected in the next 55 years if
our immigration laws are not reformed.
Before commenting further on our high levels of immigration, let me
briefly explain why the 1965 act is discriminatory. Most immigration
under the act occurs through the family preference system. In the early
years after the act was passed, a few countries were then the primary
immigrant sending countries. After a few years, immigrants from those
nations were able to petition for admission of more and more relatives.
These relatives from those countries came and in turn sponsored other
relatives from those countries, further expanding the immigrant flow
from these sending countries. As a practical matter, few immigrants can
now be admitted other than on the basis of a family relationship so new
immigrants tend to come from the same countries where their earlier
family members came from.
This means that there is a de facto discrimination both against
admitting immigrants from other countries and against immigrants from
even the favored nations unless they happen to be a relative of other
recent U.S. immigrants. Would-be non-relative immigrants can be much
better educated and higher skilled, but unless they qualify under the
much more limited employment categories, they need not apply because
under the 1965 act's nepotistic system the admission quotas go to
relatives.
Well, Mr. President, I strongly believe that it's long past time for
Congress to recognize the 1965 act's flaws and to readjust the
statutory process so that we have far lower legal admission levels and
fairer admission criteria that are more closely keyed to our national
needs and interests. Some of my colleagues and I will probably disagree
at least on the numbers of immigrants to be allowed, but I would hope
that most will at least agree that an issue of such overriding and
strategic importance to the future of our country merits their careful
and detailed consideration. Our Nation should not be changed so
fundamentally without Congress debating the issue and making a
conscious, informed decision on how immigration should be allowed so as
to best promote and protect our national interests.
Not Like Traditional Immigration Levels
Historically, except for a brief 15-year period around 1900, our
legal immigration levels have been much lower than what we have
experienced after the 1965 act and its subsequent amendments. Many of
my colleagues may be surprised by this fact because immigration
mythology may have led them to believe that high levels of immigration
like we have experienced in recent years are typical or traditional
throughout American history. Well, quite the opposite is true.
During the 50-year period from 1915 through 1964, for example, legal
immigration levels averaged only about 220,000 annually. From 1820 when
our formal immigration records were begun until 1965, it averaged only
about 300,000, including the unusually high years around 1900. From
1946 to 1955, it averaged about 195,000 annually; then from 1956 to
1965, it was averaging roughly 288,000 yearly. With the passage of the
1965 Act, the numbers began to skyrocket: from 1966 to 1975, the yearly
average became 381,000; then from 1976 to 1985 it hit 542,000; and for
the last decade from 1986 through 1995, legal immigration on average
hit about 970,000 yearly.
The post-1965 act constant high legal immigrant influx is radically
different than our historical pattern. Another important aspect of our
legal immigration problem is that there have been no immigration
timeouts or break periods for the last 30 years to give immigrants time
to assimilate and be Americanized.
Even with the ending of legalizations under the 1986 amnesty law, the
legal numbers are still very high. And, this huge wave of immigrants
has helped fuel the application backlogs which now run around 3.6
million. Some apologists for high immigration numbers say that since
legal immigration has averaged somewhat lower for the last couple of
years, we are on a significant new downward trend. Well, we are not.
Recent INS projections call for a large increase in legal immigration
in fiscal year 1996, thanks largely to the current law's provisions
allowing immigration by extended relatives of recent immigrants and the
effects of family chain migration.
Times Have Changed
Mr. President, not only are such extremely high immigration levels
not traditional, but it is important to realize that today times and
circumstances have changed dramatically so that it is far less
appropriate to have either such high immigration or the limited skills
most current immigrants now bring us.
Then
In the good old days of yesteryear, we had a much smaller U.S.
population and many more people were needed for settling the frontier
and working in our factories. In earlier times, our economy also needed
mostly low-skilled workers. We still had plenty of cheap land and
resources. Quite significantly, we had no extensive taxpayer-funded
government safety net of public benefit programs for unsuccessful
immigrants to fall back on. Not surprisingly, 30 to 40 percent of our
immigrants returned to their homelands. Furthermore, our domestic
population's cultural and ethnic heritages were more similar to those
of new immigrants. More Americans then had large families because the
high domestic birthrate was similar to that of new immigrant families.
And, the melting pot concept was generally accepted and fostered
assimilation. In addition, there were periodic lulls in immigrant
admission levels so as to allow for assimilation.
Now
Today, circumstances are quite different. Land and resource
availability are much more limited and expensive. The United States now
is a mature nation with a host of serious domestic difficulties,
economic problems, chronic unemployment, crime, millions of needy, and
so forth. Our population has grown many times over. In fact, the United
States now doesn't need more people--we have no frontier to settle, and
we have plenty of workers. And, our economy has been undergoing
fundamental structural changes. We have been restructuring toward a
high-technology economy that needs higher skilled, more educated
workers to compete in the new global marketplace instead of unskilled
or low-skilled immigrant labor. We now have a costly taxpayer-funded
safety net of government assistance that immigrants can rely on such as
welfare, AFDC, SSI, health care, and other benefit programs. Not
surprisingly, now only 10 to 20 percent return to their home country.
And, multi-culturalism is favored over the ``melting pot" concept by
many immigrant groups, making assimilation often much more difficult
and slower. Instead of following our traditional course of enhancing
our strengths by melding a common American culture out of immigrants'
diversity, multiculturalists now push to retain newcomers' different
cultures.
Mr. President, yes, times and circumstances have changed. How many
Senators would be willing to vote today to start voluntarily admitting
three-quarters of a million, or more, new people--most of whom are
poor, unskilled or low-skilled and don't speak English--every year? I
dare say that most of those who did so would face serious reelection
problems when outraged voters learned of their actions. Perhaps, this
is why the Judiciary Committee's legal immigration bill uses admission
assumptions that are much lower than recent INS projections. Perhaps,
some people hope to escape voters' wrath by claiming that they did not
know what's happening and what's obviously going to happen if we don't
make big cuts and other reforms. Whatever their reasoning, what
[[Page S4132]]
we are experiencing is legislative business as usual, catering to the
high immigration and cheap labor lobbies when it comes to legal
immigration.
Time To Face Legal Immigration Realities
Well, my colleagues, we are paying a high price now for years of
excessive Federal spending and for using smoke and mirrors accounting
to understate our budgetary problems. We are facing an analogous
problem here for having allowed both legal and illegal immigration
levels to be excessive for years, and for failing to acknowledge
difficulties caused by high legal immigration.
We simply must begin facing up to the real numbers and the problems
associated with admitting far too many new people through legal
immigration. About three-fourths of our immigration comes from legal
immigrants. That's three times our level of illegal immigration. Why
are we trying to close the backdoor of illegal immigration and
lamenting about all the impacts illegals are causing, but at the same
time disregarding the fact that the front door is open wider than ever?
Congress must stop giving little or no thought to the obvious
interconnection between legal and illegal immigration and their similar
adverse impacts. In the last Presidential campaign, there was a popular
saying ``It's the economy stupid!'' Well, with respect to the heart of
our immigration problems it can be said ``It's the numbers stupid!''--
we get three times more numbers from legal immigration than illegal.
Legal Immigration's Costs
Our current legal admissions policy fails to take into account
whether such a massive influx of newcomers is needed, or the burdens
placed on taxpayers for the immigrants' added costs for public
education, health care, welfare, criminal justice, infrastructure and
various other services and forms of public assistance. Let me highlight
some of these costs:
Education--For example, excessive numbers of legal immigrants are
putting a crippling strain on America's education system. About one-
third of our immigrants are public school aged. Immigrant children and
the children of recent immigrants are greatly increasing school
enrollments and adding significantly to school costs in many areas.
Schools in many high immigration communities are twice as crowded as
those in low immigration cities.
In 1995, the Miami public school system was getting new foreign
students at a rate of 120 per day, and as I noted earlier, Florida's
costs in 1993 for legal immigrant education came to over half a billion
dollars.
Hundreds of thousands of children from immigrant families speak
little or no English. This causes a tremendous increase in education
costs and diverts limited dollars that are needed elsewhere in our
school systems. English as a Second Language programs are very
expensive. Non-English speaking immigrant children cost taxpayers 50
percent more in education costs per child.
Welfare--Legal immigrants, who make up the largest part of our
foreign-born population, also are costing billions for various forms of
public assistance:
According to the GAO, about 30 percent of all U.S. immigrants are
living in poverty. The GAO has found that legal immigrants received
most of the $1.2 billion in AFDC benefits that went to immigrants.
Immigrants now take 45 percent of all the SSI funds spent on the
elderly according to the GAO. In 1983, only 3.3 percent of legal
resident aliens received SSI, but in 1993 this figure jumped to 11.5
percent; 128,000 in 1983 vs. 738,000 by 1994. This is a 580 percent
increase in just 12 years.
The House Ways and Means Committee indicates that in 1996, around
990,000 resident aliens--who are non-citizens--are receiving SSI and
Medicaid benefits, costing $5.1 billion for SSI and another $9.3
billion for Medicaid, for a total of $14.4 billion. The committee
projects that this cost for legal immigrants will jump to over $67
billion a year by 2004.
As our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has pointed out,
only about 40 percent of our immigrants are covered by health
insurance, and therefore immigrants have to rely heavily on taxpayer
funded public health services.
Recent analysis by Prof. George Borjas of Harvard University of new
Census Bureau data also has confirmed immigrants are using more public
benefits. Borjas points out that immigrant households were less likely
than native-born Americans to receive welfare in 1970. However, his
analysis shows that today immigrant households are almost 50 percent
more likely to receive cash and non-cash public assistance--they are
about 50 percent more likely to receive AFDC; 75 percent more likely to
receive SSI; 64 percent more likely to receive Medicaid; 42 percent
more likely to receive food stamps; and 27 percent more likely to
receive public housing assistance.
Borjas also notes that 22 percent of the California's households are
immigrants, but they get 40 percent of the public benefits; that 9
percent of Texas' households are immigrants, but they get 22 percent of
the public assistance; and that 16 percent of New York's households are
immigrants, but they get 22 percent of the public assistance benefits.
Jobs--At a time when we have millions of unemployed and underemployed
American citizens--and millions more who will be needing jobs as they
are weaned off welfare--our Federal immigration law continues to allow
in a flood of foreigners to depress wages and take jobs that our own
citizens need. While corporate cheap labor interests profit, it is
American workers who suffer, especially those who are competing for
lower skilled jobs. Most new legal immigrants are unskilled or low-
skilled, and they clearly take many jobs native citizens otherwise
would get.
Dr. Frank Morris, a noted African-American professor, pointed out in
House testimony last year that immigration is having disproportionate
adverse impacts on American blacks as follows:
There can be no doubt that our current practice of
permitting more than a million legal and illegal immigrants a
year into the US into our already difficult low skill
labor markets clearly leads to both wage depression and
the de facto displacement of African American workers with
low skills. . .. The American labor market is not exempt
from the laws of supply and demand. If the supply of
labor, especially unskilled labor, increases in markets
where significant numbers of African Americans reside for
any reason, you have either a wage depression or labor
substitution effect upon African Americans, who because we
have less education, work experience and small business
creation rates than other Americans, are
disproportionately negatively impacted in those markets. .
.. America is the only country in the world that has mass
immigration at a time of slow growth, and industrial
restructuring of the economy. African Americans are
disproportionately hurt by this process because almost
half of all immigrants head for cities that also have a
large number of African American residents searching and
fighting for better low rent housing, better low skill
requirement but high paying jobs, and better public school
education for their offspring.
Secretary of Labor Reich in testimony regarding needed immigration
reforms on September 28, 1995 before the Senate's Subcommittee on
Immigration commented on the ``fundamental question of what purpose our
employment- or skill-based immigration policy is meant to serve'' as
follows:
This nation of immigrants always has and always will
welcome new members into the American family, though at a
different pace and in different ways to suit the times. . ..
Employment-based immigration to fill skill shortages, as well
as the temporary admission of selected skilled foreign
workers, is sometimes unavoidable. But I firmly believe that
hiring foreign over domestic workers should be the rare
exception, not the rule. And I believe such exceptions should
be even rarer, and more tightly targeted on gaps in the
domestic labor market than is generally the case under
current policy. . .. If employers must turn to foreign labor,
this is a symptom signaling defects in America's skill-
building system. Our system for giving employers access to
global markets should be structured to remedy such defects,
not acquiesce in them. And it should progressively diminish,
not merely perpetuate, firms' dependence on the skills of
foreign workers.
Crime--Immigrants also put a strain on our criminal justice system--
over 25 percent of the Federal prison inmates are foreign-born. This is
clearly very disproportionate to immigrants' percentage of our general
population, which is about 9 percent. Large numbers of these criminal
aliens were admitted legally. It cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars just to incarcerate them.
After an extensive study, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations reported in April 1995 that:
[[Page S4133]]
Aliens now account for over 25 percent of Federal prison
inmates and represent the fastest growing segment of Federal
prison population. A conservative estimate is that there are
450,000 aliens who have been convicted of a crime and who are
in prison, in jail, on probation or on parole in the United
States. Criminal aliens not only occupy beds in our prisons
and jails, they also occupy the time and resources of law
enforcement and our courts.
Mr. President, I say that we must recognize such negative impacts
from excessive levels of legal immigration, and that we have a moral
obligation to take care of American citizens first. We certainly cannot
do so without making drastic cuts in legal immigration numbers. We also
must change the criteria to give much more emphasis to immigrants'
skills and our changing labor needs.
Responsible, Reasonable Legal Immigration Reforms
Many opponents of reforming legal immigration who are fighting
desperately to continue the status quo say that only radical or even
reactionary people favor major changes in this area. Their contentions
are erroneous. Bringing our legal immigration system back under control
and making it more in accord with our national interests is far from
radical.
Let me remind my colleagues again that the bipartisan U.S.
Immigration Reform Commission, under the leadership of the late former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, has recommended fundamental reforms in
the current legal immigration system. The Commission's recommendations
included substantial reductions in legal admission levels and
abolishing a number of admission categories including brothers and
sisters of citizens and adult children of permanent residents. Surely,
proposing such fundamental changes because they concluded this would be
in our national interest does not mean that distinguished Americans
like Barbara Jordan are radical or reactionary.
Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the American people certainly
are not radical or reactionary, and they clearly want Congress to
dramatically reduce legal immigration numbers. And dramatic is perhaps
the best way of describing the results of a recently released national
Roper Poll on immigration. This Roper Poll found over 83 percent of
Americans favor lower immigration levels. Seventy percent favor keeping
overall immigration below 300,000 per year, and this view is supported
generally across racial, ethnic, and other lines--52 percent of
Hispanics, 73 percent of blacks, 72 percent of Democrats and 70 percent
of Republicans. A majority of the public--54 percent--want immigration
cut below 100,000 per year; and 20 percent favor having no immigration
at all. Even reform opponents were surprised to learn that only 2
percent favor keeping the current levels. It should be noted that the
questions used in this poll specifically advised respondents that
current levels of legal and illegal immigration totaled over 1,000,000
new immigrants per year. The people's answers stated the immigration
levels they favored for all immigration, including both legal and
illegal. While this new Roper Poll is consistent with many earlier
polls, it shows even stronger public sentiment on these issues. Thus,
it is clear that the public wants dramatically lower legal immigration.
Mr. President, we must listen to the American people on this vital
issue. If we care what our constituents think, if we truly want to
represent their views, and if we care about doing what's best for our
country, we will cut legal immigration substantially and we will make
other fundamental changes in the system to end chain migration by
extended family members and to give much greater weight to immigrants'
education and skills and our employment needs. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to begin to make the responsible,
reasonable reforms needed in our legal immigration policies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles showing
the need for immigration reform be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the San Diego Union Tribune, Apr. 24]
Border Surprise
Washington.--Despite contentions by President Clinton's
administration that legal immigration is tapering off under
existing law, the flow is expected to soar by 41 percent this
year over 1995 and remain substantially above last year's
level for the foreseeable future.
This forecast comes from unreleased data compiled by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
The projections, obtained by Capley News News Service,
triggered an outcry yesterday from advocates of tougher
restrictions on legal immigration. They responded to the
disclosures by charging that the INS had intentionally misled
Congress and the public during this year's stormy debate over
whether to cut legal immigration.
The projections show immigration rising from 593,000 last
year to 835,000 this year and 853,000 in 1997. The overall
numbers actually will be about 100,000 higher because the
projections do not include refugees and several other groups
of people admitted legally.
For that reason, the overall number for next year is
expected to be closer to 1 million than to 853,000.
At a key moment in the congressional debate the INS held a
press conference during which it stressed the downward trend
in the immigration levels during the past two years. The
officials failed to disclose the agency's forecast showing
the huge surge beginning this year.
If the law remains substantially unchanged as appears
likely at this point, the average annual level of legal
immigration over the next eight years would be about 29
percent higher than in 1995.
They clearly misled the American people and Congress,
knowing they were telling part of the truth but not the whole
truth,'' said Rep. Lamar Smith R-Texas, chairman of the House
Immigration subcommittee.
``It's inexcusable, and what it really says is, `How can we
believe what they say again when it comes to immigration
figures?' ''
Smith led a failed 16-month drive in the House to cut legal
immigration. It was defeated earlier this month.
A White House spokeswoman said she could not comment on
internal INS projections she had not seen. But she said the
notion that legal immigration would rise sharply was
inconsistent with what INS officials had told her.
A senior INS official denied any effort on the part of the
agency to mislead Congress, saying agency officials had
testified on Capitol Hill that they expected immigration
levels to rise--not fall--under current law.
Robert Bach, executive associate commissioner for policy
and planning of the INS, briefed reporters hours before a
pivotal March 28 Senate vote and stressed the declines in
immigration during fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The report he
released that day also was circulated widely on Capitol Hill.
Yesterday, Bach said there had been no effort to mislead
reporters.
He said that ``we reported on what was'' in the two
previous years.
``We didn't spin the future,'' Bach said.
He said that ``it was a straightforward report'' on what
happened in 1994 and 1995.
But Smith disagreed.
``They (INS officials) justified their position in
supporting an amendment to take out legal immigration reform
by saying the numbers were coming down anyway,'' he said.
``And they knew the numbers would be jumping up as they were
speaking.''
Restrictionsists including Smith argue that current levels
of legal immigration have placed economic burdens on states
such as California, Texas, Florida, New York and New Jersey
where most immigrants reside. They also say immigrants
increase the competition that low-skill domestic workers face
for low-wage jobs.
Immigration advocates argue that the burdens of legal
immigration are exaggerated and that, overall, it is good for
America. Some of them attribute restrictionist sentiment to
racism and xenophobia.
Clinton had endorsed a controversial 1995 recommendation by
the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform to significantly
cut legal immigration. But his administration has quietly
lobbied against the congressional initiatives, saying they go
too far. And it provided a crucial and possibly fatal blow to
reform efforts in the House by coming out in support of the
amendment that killed legal immigration reform there earlier
this month.
An effort by Sen. Alan K. Simpson, R-Wyo., chairman of the
Senate immigration subcommittee, also was defeated. Instead,
the Judiciary Committee approved an amendment by Sens.
Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Their proposal is the only legal immigration legislative
initiative that remains alive in Congress. No date has been
set for it to be debated on the Senate floor.
The INS predicts that immigration under the Abraham-Kennedy
provision would decline by 4,000 from current law, or less
than .5 percent. That means the 29 percent higher levels
forecast for the next eight years would occur even under the
Abraham-Kennedy plan. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voted
for the amendment after being assured by its authors that it
would entail significant cuts.
Feinstein has said California needs cuts in legal
immigration. But she was unavailable Monday or yesterday to
comment on the INS projections.
Those projections show that legal immigration even under
the scuttled Simpson provisions--the most restrictive of the
proposals--would have been 7.5 percent higher over the next
eight years than last year's level.
The immigration surge is attributed to the rougly 3 million
people legalized under the
[[Page S4134]]
1986 overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. Many have
become citizens and are petitioning for the immediate and
unlimited admission of their spouses, minor children and
parents.
``It's very clear that INS is trying to play down these
(rising immigration) numbers as much as possible,'' said
Rosemary Jenks of the Center for Immigration Studies. ``It's
just amazing what information the INS decides to leave in or
leave out or present or not present. And there's no reason
for it other than to affect the current congressional
immigration debate.''
Immigration advocacy groups, which were allies with the INS
in the effort to defeat the legislative reforms, said they
had been waryed how the INS used its figures.
``We never made a big deal about the declines (in 1994 and
1995); the INS did,'' said Frank Sharry, head of the National
Immigration Forum, which has played a key role in the
campaign to block substantial cuts in legal immigration. ``We
always knew the numbers would spike up.''
But Sharry insisted that the INS projections overstated
both the extent and the duration of the surge. He called the
INS projections ``laughable.''
``This will be a one-time blip that will occur over the
next few years,'' he said. ``We're quibbling over rather
small differences based on questionable projections that are
being (politically) spun by restrictionists to bring about a
major reduction in immigration levels.''
____
[From the New York Times, Mar. 19, 1996]
Too Many Engineers, Too Few Jobs
(By Michael S. Teitelbaum)
Is there such an acute shortage of skilled scientists and
engineers that America's computer industry and research
laboratories must recruit thousands of foreign workers yearly
in order to compete globally?
That's what Sun Microsystems, Intel, Microsoft, the
National Association of Manufacturers and the American
Immigration Lawyers Association would have you believe. They
successfully lobbied Congress to drop immigration reform
proposals that would have held down increases in the number
of highly skilled foreign workers. Statistics, however,
contradict them. There is no shortage of scientists,
engineers or software professionals. If anything, there is a
surplus.
Claims of an impending dearth of scientists and engineers
began a decade ago, when Erich Bloch, then the director of
the National Science Foundation, declared that unless action
was taken, there would be a cumulative shortfall of 675,000
over the next two decades.
Congress responded. The National Science Foundation
received tens of millions of additional dollars for science
and engineering education. And in 1990, Congress nearly
tripled the number--to 140,000 per year--of employment-based
visas for immigrants with certain skills.
Not surprisingly, the number of science and engineering
doctorates reached record levels. From 1983 to 1993, the
annual number of Americans earning such Ph.D.'s increased 13
percent. But the number of slots for graduate students grew
even more dramatically during that time--about 40 percent.
The excess spaces were filled by foreign students, who often
stayed in America to compete in the job market. Meanwhile,
the United States sharply increased the number of foreign-
born scientists and engineers it let in; 39,000 were
admitted in 1985, 82,000 in 1993.
The labor shortage never materialized. But global
competition rose and the cold war ended. High-tech
corporations and defense contractors were forced to downsize;
state budget crises forced large universities to sharply
reduce their hiring of new faculty.
Unemployment among scientists and engineers remains much
lower than for low-skilled workers, as it does for all highly
educated workers. Nonetheless, tens of thousands of highly
skilled professionals have been laid off. For instance, from
1991 through 1994, I.B.M. laid off 86,000 workers; AT&T,
Boeing and Hughes Aircraft laid off a total of 135,000
workers.
It is an employer's market; stagnant or declining salaries
have been the trend. For instance, from 1968 through 1995,
the median annual salary, including benefits, for an engineer
with 10 years of experience declined 13 percent in constant
dollars, to $52,900. Meanwhile, salaries in other professions
like medicine and law greatly increased.
Job prospects for recently minted scientists and engineers
have plummeted. A 1995 study by Stanford University's
Institute for Higher Education Research concluded that ``too
many doctorates are being produced in engineering, math and
some sciences,'' not including biological and computer
sciences. It said: ``Overproduction, estimated to average at
least 25 percent, contradicts predictions of long-term
shortages, given current demand.''
Engineers and software professionals who have lost their
jobs could be easily retrained to the big high-tech
companies. However, there is no incentive to do so, as long
as they can easily hire from U.S.-educated foreign nationals.
As one software professional let go by a computer company
reported, he and his colleagues are ``disposable'' rather
than ``recyclable.''
In short, the situation is out of balance. A record number
of Ph.D.'s, but a weak job market. Claims of a labor
shortage, but stagnant or declining wages. Thousands of laid-
off professionals, but increased foreign recruitment.
Shortage or surplus? Ask any downsized engineer or computer
professional for the answer.
____
[From the National Review, Mar. 11, 1996]
The Welfare Magnet
(By George Borjas)
The evidence has become overwhelming: immigrant
participation in welfare programs is on the rise. In 1970,
immigrant households were slightly less likely than native
households to receive cash benefits like AFDC (Aid to
Families with Dependent Children) or SSI (Supplementary
Security Income). By 1990, immigrant households were more
likely to receive such cash benefits (9.1 per cent v. 7.4 per
cent). Pro-immigration lobbyists are increasingly falling
back on the excuse that this immigrant-native ``welfare gap''
is attributable solely to refugees and/or elderly immigrants;
or that the gap is not numerically large. (Proportionately,
it's ``only'' 23 per cent).
But the Census does not provide any information about the
use of noncash transfers. These are programs like Food
Stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies, and the myriad of other
subsidies that make up the modern welfare state. And noncash
transfers comprise over three quarters of the cost of all
means-tested entitlement programs. In 1991, the value of
these noncash transfers totaled about $140 billion.
Recently available data help provide a more complete
picture. The Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP) samples randomly selected households about their
involvement in virtually all means-tested programs. From
this, the proportion of immigrant households that receive
benefits from any particular program can be calculated.
The results are striking. The ``welfare gap'' between
immigrants and natives is much larger when noncash transfers
are included [see table]. Taking all types of welfare
together, immigrant participation is 20.7 per cent. For
native born households, it's only 14.1 per cent--a gap of 6.6
percentage points (proportionately, 47 per cent).
And the SIPP data also indicate that immigrants spend a
relatively large fraction of their time participating in some
means-tested program. In other words, the ``welfare gap''
does not occur because many immigrant households receive
assistance for a short time, but because a significant
proportion--more than the native-born--receive assistance for
the long haul.
Finally, the SIPP data show that the types of welfare
benefits received by particular immigrant groups influence
the type of welfare benefits received by later immigrants
from the same group. Implication: there appear to be networks
operating within ethnic communities which transmit
information about the availability of particular types of
welfare to new arrivals.
The results are even more striking in detail. Immigrants
are more likely to participate in practically every one of
the major means-tested programs. In the early 1990s, the
typical immigrant family household had a 4.4 per cent
probability of receiving AFDC, v. 2.9 per cent of native-born
families. [Further details in Table 1].
AVERAGE MONTHLY PROBABILITY OF RECEIVING BENEFITS IN EARLY 1990S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrant Native
Type of Benefit Households Households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Programs:
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC)................................... 4.4 2.9
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)........ 6.5 3.7
General assistance........................ 0.8 0.6
Noncash programs:
Medicaid.................................. 15.4 9.4
Food stamps............................... 9.2 6.5
Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC).............. 3.0 2.0
Energy assistance......................... 2.1 2.3
Housing assistance (public housing or low-
rent subsidies).......................... 5.6 4.4
School breakfasts and lunches (free or
reduced price)........................... 12.5 6.2
Summary:
Receive cash benefits, Medicaid, food
stamps, WIC, energy assistance, or
housing assistance....................... 20.7 14.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: George J. Borjas and Lynette, Hilton, ``Immigration and the
Welfare State: Immigrant Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement
Programs,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming, May 1996.
And that overall ``welfare gap'' becomes even wider if
immigrant families are compared to non-Hispanic white native-
born households. Immigrants are almost twice as likely to
receive some type of assistance--20.7 percent v. 10.5
percent.
The SIPP data also allow us to calculate the dollar value
of the benefits disbursed to immigrant households, as
compared to the native-born. In the early 1990s, 8 percent of
households were foreign-born. These immigrant households
accounted for 13.8 percent of the cost of the programs. They
cost almost 75 percent more than their representation in the
population.
The disproportionate disbursement of benefits to immigrant
households is particularly acute in California, a state which
has both a lot of immigrants and very generous welfare
programs. Immigrants make up only 21 percent of the
households in California. But these households consume 39.5
percent of all the benefit dollars distributed in the state.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that the welfare
problem in California is on the verge of becoming an
immigrant problem.
The pattern holds for other states. In Texas, where 89
percent of households are
[[Page S4135]]
immigrant but which has less generous welfare, immigrants
receive 22 percent of benefits distributed. In New York
State, 16 percent of the households are immigrants. They
receive 22.2 percent of benefits.
The SIPP data track households over a 32-month period This
allows us to determine if immigrant welfare participation is
temporary--perhaps the result of dislocation and adjustment--
or long-term and possibly permanent.
The evidence is disturbing. During the early 1990s, nearly
a third (31.3 percent) of immigrant households participated
in welfare programs at some point in the tracking period.
Only just over a fifth (22.7 percent) of native-born
households did so. And 10.3 percent of immigrant households
received benefits through the entire period, v. 7.3 percent
of native-born households.
Because the Bureau of the Census began to collect the SIPP
data in 1984, we can use it to assess if there have been any
noticeable changes in immigrant welfare use. It turns out
there has been a very rapid rise.
During the mid-1980s, the probability that an immigrant
household received some type of assistance was 17.7 percent
v. 14.6 percent for natives, a gap of 3.1 percentage points.
By the early 1990s, recipient immigrant households had risen
to 20.7 percent, v. 14.1 percent for natives. The immigrant-
native ``welfare gap,'' therefore, more than doubled in less
than a decade.
Thus immigrants are not only more likely to have some
exposure to the welfare system; they are also more likely to
be ``permanent'' recipients. And the trend is getting worse.
Unless eligibility requirements are made much more stringent,
much of the welfare use that we see now in the immigrant
population may remain with us for some time. This raises
troubling questions about the impact of this long-term
dependency on the immigrants--and on their U.S.-born
children.
There is huge variation in welfare participation among
immigrant groups. For example, about 4.3 percent of
households originating in Germany, 26.8 percent of households
originating in Mexico, and 40.6 per cent of households
originating in the former Soviet Union are covered by
Medicaid. Similarly, about 17.2 per cent of households
originating in Italy, 36 per cent from Mexico and over 50
per cent in the Dominican Republic received some sort of
welfare benefit.
A more careful look at these national-origin differentials
reveals an interesting pattern: national-origin groups tend
to ``major'' in particular types of benefit. For example,
Mexican immigrants are 50 per cent more likely to receive
energy assistance than Cuban immigrants. But Cubans are more
likely to receive housing benefits than Mexicans.
The SIPP data reveal a very strong positive correlation
between the probability that new arrivals belonging to a
particular immigrant group receive a particular type of
benefit, and the probability that earlier arrivals from the
same group received that type of assistance. This correlation
remains strong even after we control for the household's
demographic background, state of residence, and other
factors. And the effect is not small. A 10 percentage point
increase in the fraction of the existing immigrant stock who
receive benefits from a particular program implies about a 10
per cent increase in the probability that a newly arrived
immigrant will receive those benefits.
This confirms anecdotal evidence. Writing in the New
Democrat--the mouthpiece of the Democratic Leadership
Council--Norman Matloff reports that ``a popular Chinese-
language book sold in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Chinese
bookstores in the United States includes a 36-page guide to
SSI and other welfare benefits'' and that the ``World
Journal, the largest Chinese-language newspaper in the United
States, runs a `Dear Abby'-style column on immigration
matters, with welfare dominating the discussion.''
And the argument that the immigrant-native ``welfare gap''
is caused by refugees and/or elderly immigrants? We can check
its validity by removing from the calculations all immigrant
households that either originate in countries from which
refugees come or that contain any elderly persons.
Result: 17.3 per cent of this narrowly defined immigrant
population receives benefits, v. 13 per cent of native
households that do not contain any elderly persons. Welfare
gap: 4.3 percentage points (proportionately, 33 per cent).
The argument that the immigrant welfare problems is caused by
refugees and the elderly is factually incorrect.
Conservatives typically stress the costs of maintaining the
welfare state. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking
that nothing is gained from the provision of antibiotics to
sick children or from giving food to poor families.
At the same time, however, these welfare programs introduce
a cost which current calculations of the fiscal costs and
benefits of immigration do not acknowledge and which might
well dwarf the current fiscal expenditures. That cost can be
expressed as follows: To what extent does a generous welfare
state reduce the work incentives of current immigrants, and
change the nature of the immigrant flow by influencing
potential immigrants' decisions to come--and to stay?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to oppose the
pending amendment, but at the outset, I want to compliment my
colleague, Senator Simpson, for the outstanding work that he has done
for so many years on this very important subject, and similarly to
compliment my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his work in the
immigration field and for his work in Judiciary in general.
Senator Simpson has been intimately involved in immigration work for
more than a decade, going back to Simpson-Mazzoli. In my tenure in the
Senate, Senator Simpson has taken on some of the toughest jobs which we
have had in this body. I talk about Senator Simpson in particular
because he will be leaving us at the end of this year. It will be an
enormous loss for the Senate and for the country.
The first extensive contacts I had with Senator Simpson were on the
Veterans' Committee where we had a disagreement or two. I would
frequently cite the experience of my father, Harry Specter, who was a
World War I veteran.
When Senator Simpson came to talk to me recently about the
immigration legislation that he has worked on judiciously, two private
visits to talk to me, he noticed a grouping of photographs on the wall
and said when he had been in my office occasionally for lunch he had
never taken the time to look at the pictures.
So I introduced him to my mother's father, Mordecai Shanin, who came
from a small town on the Russian border when my mother was 5 and
settled in St. Joe, MO. And I reintroduced Senator Simpson to my
father, Harry Specter, who was in his uniform, and I recounted that he
emigrated from Ukraine, walking across Europe with barely a ruble in
his pocket.
At that point, Senator Simpson said to me he did not think he and I
would agree too much on the pending immigration legislation.
I come to this issue from a somewhat different vantage point. My
sense is that America is a big, broad, growing country and that we do
have room for immigrants. I grew up in Kansas. I was born in Wichita
and grew up in the small town of Russell, with wide open spaces like
Wyoming. My sense is that it is not in the national interest to reduce
immigration from 675,000 to 607,000. Both categories of immigrants--the
family-based and the employment-based--will make a great contribution
to our country. This is a country of immigrants. When we had the debate
in the committee, Senator Abraham started off with his immigrant
background. Senator Feinstein talked about her immigrant background and
I talked about mine, and everybody on the committee could talk about it
in one way or another because we are a country of immigrants.
I understand the priorities for minor children and spouses, and, of
course, these groups have to be the first priority. But I believe that
when you talk about siblings and adult children, talk about family
values and talk about having room for the families, that the figures
are relatively modest.
When we talk about illegal immigration, there is no doubt about the
need to control our borders and to control illegal immigration. But
when we talk about legal immigration, I think we are talking about
something that is very, very different.
When there is a proposal to reduce employment-based visas by some
28.5 percent, from 140,000 a year to 100,000 for a period of 5 years, I
must say that this is a fundamental mistake.
In Pennsylvania, I have had many of my constituents come to me and
say that there is a real need for these visas; that the immigrants who
come here legally are very highly skilled, are Ph.D.'s, are
technicians, and they will be instrumental in creating more jobs, not
in taking jobs. I have worked on the bill in committee to be sure that
people who come in on these visas do not take existing jobs; that there
has to be a premium payment and there has to be a care and
consideration so they do not displace existing workers, but these
highly skilled people will create more jobs.
I was involved in this issue back in 1989 and 1990 on behalf of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce where I think we increased the number by about
40,000. The situation is so acute in my State, Pennsylvania, that I
have held meetings in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia which were very,
very well attended. At these meetings various companies having
immediate needs for
[[Page S4136]]
highly skilled people came in to comment to me about their opposition
to the reduction in the number of visas.
There is no doubt that there is concern about displacing U.S.
workers, and I think we have to be careful not to do that, to make sure
that does not happen by requiring a premium payment for those who come
in as legal immigrants.
I wanted to make these few brief comments. It is not an easy matter.
When Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy are the managers and go
through this bill and have very protracted hearings and a markup before
the Judiciary Committee, it is a very large job.
So, again, I compliment my colleagues on their work and do express my
view that this legal immigration is something which will build a
stronger America and provide more jobs. The humanitarian aspects have
to be considered as we have the families who ought to have an
opportunity to come into this country. Currently, the waiting period to
enter the country is as long as 10 years for some family members. We
ought not to extend that waiting period. I thank the Chair and yield
the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, throughout the years legal immigration has
helped to make our Nation great. America has attracted and continues to
attract the best and the brightest--each year many highly skilled and
exceptionally talented individuals legally migrate to the United
States. In addition, many hard-working individuals who have come to
this Nation and contributed their skills, ideas, and cultural
perspectives. We must remember that we are and always have been a
nation of immigrants.
Illegal immigration is an entirely different matter and presents a
whole host of problems that need to be addressed. We must pull together
our resources to enforce our borders, streamline deportation of illegal
aliens and increase penalties on those who traffic in illegal
immigration.
In doing all that we should to combat illegal immigration, however,
we must be careful not to unfairly punish those who have entered this
country legally. By dealing with the very separate issues presented by
legal and illegal immigration separately, we can go a long way to
ensuring that our desire to stop illegal immigration does not result in
penalizing those who have abided by the law to enter the country.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has already considered the very issue
of whether legal and illegal immigration legislation should be
addressed separately. They voted by a margin of 2 to 1 to keep the two
separate. We should stay that course and give well-reasoned
consideration to legal immigration apart from the discussion of the
serious national problems presented by illegal immigration.
I understand that some of my colleagues wish to reduce the numbers of
legal immigrants in order to eliminate the backlog of spouses and minor
children waiting to enter this country. But we should address these
issues when the matter before us is legal immigration. Otherwise, legal
immigrants who have long enriched this Nation, may be unfairly impacted
by the negative views which understandably are associated with illegal
immigration.
In addition, we cannot give appropriate consideration to employment-
related provisions of a bill discussing both legal and illegal
immigration. Legal immigration has helped to strengthen America's
economic base, providing our Nation's businesses with highly skilled
individuals to meet critical needs in special fields and disciplines.
American businesses who employ legal immigrants already must comply
with a series of rules and regulations which can be very costly. Also,
as a recent Cato Institute study makes clear, legal immigration does
not increase the rate of native unemployment.
Obviously, illegal immigration poses a different set of employment-
related issues such as what appropriate sanctions should be levied
against employers who hire illegal immigrants and the best and most
efficient way to verify citizenship of potential employees.
Again, I hope that my colleagues will remember that we are a nation
of immigrants and that legal immigration has been a source of great
strength and diversity. We can best and most fairly address any
problems associated with legal immigration by discussing that issue
separately from the far greater problems illegal immigration presents.
Thus, I urge my colleagues to vote to keep illegal and legal
immigration provisions separate.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Simpson amendment.
Mr. President, what the Senator from Wyoming has recommended to this
body is that we try to consider the immigration questions together,
both legal and illegal. There have been some very sincere Members who
have worked in committee to separate the bills. I understand their
interest in considering them separately. But I hope the membership of
the Senate will consider the question of joining these together, for
several reasons. The first is simply that these questions are
integrated. Illegal and legal immigration questions do overlap. It is
logical to consider them all in one bill. It makes the most sense.
The second reason, Mr. President, is, frankly, I think we are much
more likely to get a bill through and passed if we have them together,
as well. That is a judgment on my part. Others may have a different
view. But I think there is, one, a need to move ahead with legislation
in this area, and, two, that need is much better accomplished if we
have those measures together. So it makes sense to have them together,
makes it better to legislate, more cohesive. Second, I think it makes
it much more likely we will pass a bill.
In ascribing motives to lobbyists who have worked to separate the
bills, I want to make it clear that I do not attribute those to the
Members who have risen on this floor to speak. I think they are
sincere. Mr. President, it is my impression that those Members have
made a very enormous, positive contribution to this debate. But it is
also my impression that some of the groups that have lobbied for
separation of the bills have done it because they did not like
provisions of one or either of the particular measures. Many business
groups lobbied very hard against having the bills considered together.
Mr. President, I think the reason for their interest in separating
the bills no longer exists, frankly. There were provisions in the
original bill, as it came to the Senate Judiciary Committee as a full
committee markup, that caused concern. There were provisions of it that
I thought were quite antibusiness. There were provisions, in my view,
that should be stricken from the bill.
But, Mr. President, that original reason, that reason that had caused
the interest groups to try to separate the bills no longer exists.
Literally, the harmful provisions, at least almost all of them in my
view, have been taken out of the bills. The very reason for separating
them has been done away with. It came about because we had in the
Judiciary Committee what I consider the most positive markup I have
ever been involved in in 16 years in the Congress. It was very akin to
the kind of markup that occurs in State legislatures all across this
country.
The difference? The difference is it was bipartisan. The difference
is that people listened to each other. The difference was that the
accommodation was reached. I am sure Members will reflect that is not
always the case in markups. I came out of that Senate Judiciary
Committee markup feeling very positive, not only about our results,
because I think the bill was dramatically improved in that process, but
about the process itself.
I hope, as Members deliberate this question, they will look for a
logical way to legislate, which is to combine these subjects, and they
will look for a reason to get both of these bills passed because, Mr.
President, there is not a Member who comes to this floor who does not
understand and does not share the view that we need to change the laws
in this area, that we are not accomplishing the purposes that both
parties agree on. So it is a logical way to do it and a way to make
sure we get good legislation.
Lastly, Mr. President, I simply add this. It is important that we
move on this subject. As we explored this subject in markup, what we
found is that there were a great many areas that both liberals and
conservatives, Democrats and Republicans agreed on--that
[[Page S4137]]
there are errors and loopholes in our current laws, and there are many
areas where the common purpose of all people in the United States are
not being met. They are not being met because our laws are deficient in
that area.
I simply believe this subject is compelling and the need to act is
compelling. That need, that purpose that I believe almost all Americans
share, can be much better accomplished if we move to join these two
measures rather than keep them separate. I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do thank my friend from Colorado. This
Senate will miss him, and certainly I will miss him. He is a very
special friend and one for whom I have come to have the highest respect
and admiration and affection.
I want to thank Senator Shelby. Such a fine ally. I admire him so, a
very steady, thoughtful, extremely authentic man when he deals with the
issues of the day.
I just say to my friend from Colorado that I think my colleague from
Michigan was a bit shocked when the Senator said we were talking about
joining these issues. My amendment is not about joining the issues. I
want to express that. This is a singular amendment based upon the
majority recommendations from the Jordan commission. We have seen fit
to see that it is an issue that will be discussed, voted on, whichever
way it goes, and then move on. I think once we finish this amendment,
things will move in a swifter fashion.
But just let me say this to kind of summarize some things that have
occurred during the debate. Please understand that I think what my
friend, Senator Feingold, was talking about--parents--there is no
change in my amendment in the definition of ``immediate family,'' none.
Parents, minor children, spouses, no change. That, I think, is
unfortunate; and perhaps it may have been misconstrued. But there is no
change in the definition of ``immediate family'' in what I am doing.
I say, too, that in the debate I have heard the phrase that these
people come here to work. I agree with that totally. There was another
reference to the fact that they are a tremendous burden on the United
States. I have never shared that view. I have never shared the view
that these people who come here are a tremendous burden.
But there are some touching stories here I just have to comment on.
You knew that I would not completely allow that to slip away.
We can all tell the most touching stories that we can possibly
conjecture. My friend from Ohio tells those stories. My friend from
Massachusetts tells those stories. I can tell those stories, for I have
a brother who is just about the most wonderful man you can ever
imagine. I would like to have him here. But the problem is, nobody will
raise the numbers, no one will come to this floor and say, ``I think
legal immigration should be 1,000,002.'' I do not know of anybody who
is going to come here and do that. Unless you do that, then I have to
make a choice, which is not quite as dramatic as Sophie's choice. That
would be a poor illustration. But I have to decide whether I want to
bring my spouse and minor children or my brother or raise the numbers.
That is where we are. So you either deal with the priorities or you
lift the numbers. There is not much place to go.
When Senator DeWine talks about this gutsy guy, this gutsy, hard-
working guy--and that I will remember for a long time because I know
that story now--that gutsy, hard-working guy cannot come here, ladies
and gentlemen, because 78 percent of the visas have been used by family
connection. This gutsy, hard-working guy, the people we all think about
when we talk about immigration, these people who come and enrich our
Nation, as memorialized on the Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus, are
not going to get here, ladies and gentlemen, because 78 percent of the
visas are used by family connection, period. That is where we are. You
take more or give more. I have the view, which is consistent, that we
ought to give the precious numbers to the closest family member. That
is the purpose of my amendment.
Senator Kennedy talks about the adult child who will have to wait,
and it is a poignant story--or the only sister of the Cambodian who
will not be able to come for 5 years. I ask my colleagues if you really
prefer to admit brothers and sisters or adult children while husbands
and wives and minor children are standing in line, who want to join
their family here, who can be described as ``little kids,'' ``little
mothers, little fathers.'' That is what this is. What kind of a policy
is that?
I tell you what kind of a policy it is, it is our present policy. The
present policy of the United States is that there is a backlog on
spouses and minor children of permanent resident aliens, which is 1.1
million. There is a backlog of brothers and sisters in that fifth
preference, of 1.7 million people. No one is going to wait that long, I
can assure you. No one is going to wait that long. They will come here.
Who would not?
There are two choices: Raise the numbers, or give true priorities.
There is no other choice. None. Americans will not put up with the
first one, which is to raise the numbers. You can see what they say.
They do not want new numbers. The Roper Polls, the Gallup Polls down
through the years, ever since I have been in this issue, ask the people
of America, do they want to limit illegal immigration. The response is
``Yes,'' 70 to 75 percent. And the second question, do you want to
limit legal immigration, and the answer is ``Yes,'' 70 percent
consistently throughout my entire time in the U.S. Senate.
You cannot do both. You cannot lower numbers and keep the current
naturalization system, so you have to raise the numbers or else go to a
true priority. There is nothing about persons, human beings, and all
the rest of that. That is one we can all tell. It is about if you
really care, if you really, really care about what we are all saying
here, then raise the numbers. If you want to do that, we should have
that debate--raise the numbers. If you do not raise the numbers, you
are going to continue to see a 40-year-old brother of a U.S. citizen
taking away the number of a spouse, a little spouse or a minor child, a
tiny child--we can all do that. That is why we do not get much done and
probably will not get much done here. At least we will have a vote.
That is what this is about.
What about my spouse and minor children that I love? Why not both of
them? Why cannot my spouse, minor children and my brother come? It is
because they will not raise the figures. Raise the figures and then
they can all come. Make your choice. I can tell you, in grappling with
this issue and all the issues of emotion, fear, guilt, and racism--I
keep using it again and again and again--and Emma Lazarus, I know all
about Emma Lazarus. I read up on that remarkable woman years ago. Of
course, the Statue of Liberty does not say, ``Send us everybody you
have, legally or illegally.'' That is not what it says.
The most extraordinary part of it all is that the people who want to
do everything with illegal immigrants and do something to ``punish
them'' and do something to limit them and do something here, here and
there, are the very people who will also not allow us to do anything
with a proper verification system that will enable us to get the job
done. We will have a debate on that one and see where that goes. That
is an amendment of mine on verification.
You cannot do anything in the illegal immigration bill unless you do
something with the gimmick documents of the United States. When we try
to do that one, here comes wizards like the Cato Institute talking
about tattoos and people who have found an enclave there, to reign down
and give us no answers, not a single answer about what you do with
illegal immigration, if you do not do something with the documents,
verification or the gimmick Social Security and the gimmick driver's
licenses and all the rest. What a bunch. What a bunch.
I am still waiting for the editorial from one of their wizards over
there to pour out for me what happened to the slippery slope here. When
I go to the airport and get asked by the baggage clerk for a picture
ID, I did not really think about that being the slippery slope, but I
guess it must be the slickest slope we can ever imagine if this other
stuff is the slippery slope. This is bizarre. Get asked by a baggage
clerk for a picture ID will not do something to keep illegal,
undocumented people
[[Page S4138]]
out of the United States and keep them from working in the United
States so the American citizens can have the job and do the work. It is
a curious operation, but things I needed to say. That is why this
amendment is here. We will just see where it goes. Let her rip.
Somebody can come and look at what the debate was and say, ``How did
it ever reach that point? Hundreds of thousands of people playing by
the rules will have to wait?'' Under the current system which would be
perpetuated by the present committee language, 1.1 million spouses and
children of permanent residents, must wait for up to 5 years. While the
closest families members are waiting for years, now we admit under our
current system 65,000 siblings of citizens and their families every
single year.
Finally, Barbara Jordan did know about the figures that have been
presented in this debate. The INS statistics, their division of
statistics sent one of their experts to the commission to help with
their deliberations, to help the commission, and they certainly did
know about these figures. The magnitude is alarming, but they knew.
So the important link between legal and illegal immigration, many of
those we are often told are waiting patiently in the backlog and some
in fact are not waiting patiently in the backlog. In fact, they are not
waiting at all. Why should they? They have entered this country legally
or illegally. Legally they are residing here. When their place on the
backlog is reached they apparently feel a sense of entitlement there
because their visa has been approved. They say, ``Gosh, I have been
approved to come to the United States of America, but I cannot come for
10 or 15 years because some brother is taking up the slot. Some 30-,
40-year-old brother down the road has taken my slot and I want to be
with my spouse and minor children or some closer relative, an unmarried
son, a daughter, a married son or daughter.'' But no, because we have
this huge line of preferences and we meet them all and we are required
to meet them all with a total of 226,000 people. We are required to do
that.
They certainly feel they have a technical ability to come here. How
many are in that group? Let me tell you how many are in that group--1
million people in that group. Let me tell you who are these people
waiting to come in who are currently in the United States who are not
playing by the rules. Here are people who are, I hope my colleagues
will hear, who are not playing by the rules. We have in the family
first preference, the estimated percent of people, waiting list
applicants, who are currently in the United States, should not be in
the United States, but are in the United States because they have been
approved, but they have not been approved for entry. But they are here.
Mr. President, 25 percent are in the family first category. Sixty-five
percent of spouses and children in the family second category are not
playing by the rules. They are here. Where do you think they would be?
They have been approved. They are on the list, and they have not been
finally adjudged, and they are here, and 65 percent are not playing by
the rules. Adult sons and daughters, 25 percent are not playing by the
rules. Third preference, 8 percent. Family, 5 percent--all not playing
by the rules. I will enter into the Record that estimate of the waiting
list and family sponsored preferences as of February 1996.
I ask unanimous consent that that be printed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ESTIMATED IV--WAITING LIST IN THE FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES AS OF
FEBRUARY 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
February January Increase
Category 1996 1995 from 1995
totals totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family first........................ 80,000 69,540 +10,460
===================================
Family second:
Spouses/children.................. 1,140,000 1,138,544 +1,456
Adult sons/daughters.............. 550,000 494,064 +55,936
-----------------------------------
Pref. total................... 1,690,000 1,632,608 +57,392
Family third........................ 285,000 260,414 +24,586
Family fourth....................... 1,700,000 1,592,424 +107,576
-----------------------------------
Family total.................... 3,755,000 3,554,986 +200,014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated percent of waiting list applicants who are currently in the
United States
Family first.........................................................25
Family second:
Spouses/children...................................................65
Adult sons/daughters...............................................25
Family third..........................................................8
Family fourth.........................................................5
Mr. SIMPSON. Perhaps the debate is drawing to a close. It has been a
good debate. I very much have enjoyed it. I enjoy my colleagues. I have
worked with them and am learning to know them. It will be a great
influence on the debate in years to come. That is very important. The
purpose of this amendment is simply to try to stabilize what is
presently totally out of control, unless you raise the numbers.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I was
not as surprised as he was at the remarks of the Senator from Colorado
about this effort to bring legal immigration into the illegal
immigration bill. As I said in my earlier comments, and as I think the
remarks of the Senator from Colorado also reflect, this is a very
substantial joining together of two very, very, in my judgment,
different issues that ought to be dealt with independently of each
other, as we were able to do so in the Judiciary Committee, and as the
House did in their consideration of immigration already this year.
The fact of the matter is that these issues that pertain to the
number of legal immigrants who can come into this country are very
complicated, significant, and weighty issues. Mr. President, I say to
you that anybody who has been watching the discussions today, who has
been following this debate, I hope they recognize already what we
recognized on the Judiciary Committee, that these are not simple
amendments. These are not amendments that should be considered in the
flash of the day here. These are, in fact, deserving of being
independently considered in a much broader context that looks at the
whole range of matters that pertain to legal immigration at the same
time.
To take the illegal immigration bill--an outstanding piece of
legislation, in most respects already--and suddenly inject into it
considerations of legal immigration on the basis of one amendment at
the very end of this process is not the way the full Senate should take
this up today. In my judgment, Mr. President, anybody watching this
debate would recognize that the Senate deserves to have a full and
complete consideration of legal immigration, rather than to attach one
highly controversial and very complicated element of it on the illegal
immigration bill.
That said, Mr. President, let me move on to address some of the
substantive components of the Simpson amendment, which is at the desk
right now. I think it is important for our colleagues to understand
exactly what would happen if this amendment were to pass. First of all,
Mr. President, I think the priorities in this amendment are out of
line. Under this amendment, the practical effect of priorities that
have been set is that virtually no visas will be available for people
who fall into categories such as the adult children or the married
children of U.S. citizens.
Given the backlog of spouses and children of permanent residents,
given the anticipated numbers by the INS, the normal categories of an
unlimited immigration of the spouses and children of legal citizens, it
is clear that, for the 5-year period the legislation contemplates,
there will not be any visas available, in my judgment, for anyone who
is the child, married child, or adult child, of a U.S. citizen.
What that means, Mr. President, and what our colleagues have to
understand is that if the Simpson amendment were to pass, we would
establish the following priority. The children of noncitizens would
have a greater priority in terms of gaining access to this country than
the children of U.S. citizens. Let me repeat that. The children of
noncitizens would be given a higher priority than the children of
citizens. In fact, virtually no adult children or married children of
citizens would, under this amendment, have a chance to come here during
this 5-year period.
Let me reflect further on the point I am making, because it turns
out, as Senator Simpson indicated, and as we have discussed here
already today, that
[[Page S4139]]
a substantial portion of those people who are in this category of
permanent residents, were themselves amnestied here in 1986 by the
legislation that this Congress passed and which was signed into law.
Prior to that, they entered the country illegally. They were illegal
aliens. And so if we place, as a priority, the children of these
permanent residents on the basis that the Simpson amendment does, above
the adult children and married children of U.S. citizens, we would not
only be placing priority on the children of permanent residents,
noncitizens over the children of citizens, we would be placing as a
higher priority the children of illegal aliens over the children of
U.S. citizens.
Now, several Members have tried to differentiate between adult
children of U.S. citizens and minor children, between married children
of U.S. citizens and minor children, between married or adult children
of U.S. citizens and minor children of noncitizens; but I have a hard
time believing that any Member of the U.S. Senate or Congress wants to
exclude virtually every adult or married child of U.S. citizens and,
instead, propose such a substantial priority on the children of
noncitizens, indeed, so many of whom were at one point illegal aliens.
It just seems to me that these are not the priorities we, as a body,
ought to follow. In addition to that, as was alluded to also by Senator
Simpson, there are a huge number of children and siblings of U.S.
citizens who are on this backlog list, people who have been waiting
for, in some cases, as many as 10 years to come here. The Simpson
amendment would virtually wipe out anybody on that list from having
access over these 5 years that the amendment would seek to apply.
These people have been waiting already a long time. They have paid
the dollars that are involved in securing applications and a variety of
other things that are part of this process. Now they will be told that,
basically, for at least 5 years, the door is going to be shut. I think
that is a huge mistake. These are the people that all of our offices
hear from all the time. These are the people whose fathers and mothers
contact us and ask us, ``What can be done? How can we get our children
here?''
Well, many times we have had to say ``no.'' Now we are going to, with
a vote today, say ``no'' for an additional 5 full years, Mr. President.
I think that is a terrible delay to continue.
But let me talk, also, Mr. President, about some of the other
comments that have been made with respect to exactly who is affected by
this legislation. We have heard a lot today about the concept known as
chain migration. It is always said in a very kind of threatening way
and a worrisome-sounding way--chain migration. That is something we,
apparently, do not like. But let us just talk a little bit about these
folks who were on the charts we saw earlier today--the sons and
daughters of U.S. citizens, who we seek to keep the door open to. Are
these really people we want to keep out, Mr. President? Are these
really people we want to put at a lower priority? Are these really
people who, as some described, are taking from our system? It is
exactly those people who Senator DeWine referenced when he talked about
the gutsy guys who have come here. Who are those people who have come
here over the years to make a contribution? That is exactly these
people.
The notion of chain migration has been dramatically exaggerated here
today. As the General Accounting Office study indicates, the average
time between a person's arrival and their effort to sponsor somebody is
12 years. The chart, which attempts to depict huge influxes of people
coming as a result of one person's immigration--in fact, that covers
half a century. That, I believe, is exaggerated at that point as well.
The fact is that, under the law that we are considering, the illegal
immigration bill, countless provisions have been placed in that
legislation to prevent this--sponsorship agreements that can be
enforced, so that before people come over here, there has to be a
sponsorship agreement by the person sponsoring, and that agreement can
now be enforced under this legislation.
That is not going to encourage immigration; it is going to advertise
courage. It is a dramatically exaggerated contention. To the extent it
exists, the illegal immigration bill will discourage it. To the extent
that anybody is trying to exploit the system, this bill discourages it.
This bill contains sponsorship provisions, deeming provisions,
provisions which limit access to the Government services by illegal
aliens and by noncitizens that are going to discourage any advantage
taken of the system, which will leave instead the kind of country that
so many people sought over its history, the kind of nation where people
came here to play by the rules and make a contribution, and, indeed,
they have.
An earlier speaker talked about immigration places a huge strain on
the process. The type of immigration we are talking about, the ability
of U.S. citizens to bring their children to this country, which this
amendment would dramatically reduce, is not a strain on this system. To
the extent any strain might exist, we have already addressed it in this
illegal immigration bill by cutting off access to the kinds of services
that may have been exploited.
So, although I have several other things that I will bring back to
the floor so other speakers get their chance, let me just conclude by
restating two fundamental points.
First, the Simpson amendment is an attempt, no matter how it is
characterized, to bring very weighty, very complicated legal
immigration issues and inject them into the illegal immigration bill.
Those issues should be considered separate and very comprehensively in
the bill that is before the Senate that is already at the desk on legal
immigration. To bring them in now, especially to bring them in
piecemeal, is a mistake.
The practical effect of the Simpson amendment, were it to be enacted
here today, would be to place a higher priority on access to coming to
this country on the children of noncitizens versus the children of
citizens. It would place a higher priority on the children of illegal
aliens versus the children of citizens. If we are to address, and
effectively address, issues of legal immigration, then at least we
should address them in a way that puts the priority the way it ought to
be. Citizens of this country and their children should have a higher
priority than noncitizens and certainly than those who are illegal
aliens.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I will continue my discussion of
this amendment after others have spoken.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me again strongly associate myself
with the comments of the Senator from Michigan. Although it is
suggested that somehow this amendment does not violate the distinction
between the illegal and the legal immigration issue, I do not know how
else you can say it. It is indisputable that this amendment is not only
about people who may at one time be illegal immigrants. But they are
legal immigrants. It is not about people engaged in any kind of
activity that is illegal.
I made this point in my earlier remarks. Senator Abraham and I did
offer an amendment that was approved in committee for those situations
where someone has come here legally and then overstays their visa. We
increased the penalties for that. That is appropriately in an illegal
immigration bill. But this amendment has nothing to do with that issue
at all. It has to do with which family members and which relationships
and in what order people should be able to come to this country in a
strictly legal context.
So I am troubled by the attempt here to, on the one hand, suggest
that, of course, we should separate these two issues and then come
right here at the beginning of this bill and offer an amendment that
clearly goes over the line, that clearly goes into legal immigration,
and to somehow suggest it is just one little amendment. It is not one
little amendment. It is a big deal that is going to affect thousands
and thousands of families, of people who are acting completely legally,
and they are going to be forced into a bill that is all about the
public anger and concern having to do with illegal immigration. I think
that paints the issue.
That is why I think an overwhelming majority of people in this body,
if they are given a simple opportunity to vote,
[[Page S4140]]
whether they wanted to consider illegal and legal immigration
separately would vote to separate the issue.
Mr. President, what I am going to suggest, since the amendment came
up in this order, is that this is going to be the key vote on whether
or not you really think the issues of legal and illegal immigration
should be separated. I talked to a number of Senators about this issue.
They think it is very clear. There is no question in their minds that
the illegal and legal issues should be separate. Make no mistake. This
is the amendment that will decide whether that is really their
position.
Those who vote for the Simpson amendment cannot possibly argue that
they have kept the faith of keeping the legal and illegal issues
separate. It is impossible. It is too big of an issue. In fact, I would
even argue that it is worse than just straightforwardly saying, ``We
are going to merge legal and illegal immigration.'' It is just
piecemeal. It takes one very significant aspect of legal immigration,
family immigration, and somehow decides it in the context of an illegal
immigration bill while leaving other important issues having to do with
legal immigration to this side, presumably to be dealt with when we
bring up the legal immigration bill.
This is the worst of all worlds because it does not allow people to
look at the legal immigration issue in its context. It just separates
one thing, puts it in the illegal bill, and in my view it is a
disingenuous attempt to have the cake and eat it, too--that you respect
the split, but, nonetheless, we are going to resolve the very basic
issue at this time.
Whatever the merits of the issue, I think the Senators from Michigan,
Ohio, and others have done a wonderful job of explaining the problems
with the extreme limitations that this amendment brings forward.
Whatever your view on the merits, I hope Senators will realize that
this is the vote about whether you want to keep the issues of illegal
and legal immigration separate. There may be other related amendments
later. There may be a sense of the Senate. But if you go ahead and pass
this amendment, you have already broken the line between the two
issues, and you cannot put it back together.
Mr. President, I hope all Members realize the importance of this, not
just from the point of view of the merits, which are terribly
important, but also from the integrity of this whole process, which the
vast majority of the House and the vast majority of this body believe
it would receive by separating and keeping separate the issues of legal
and illegal immigration.
Mr. President, I suggest that it is very, very important that we
reject this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like at this point to try to
respond to my friend and colleague from Wyoming and to some of the
comments that he has made. I think we are engaging in a good debate
here. This has gone on for a few hours. It is probably going to go on
for a few more hours. But I think these are very, very important
issues.
I believe that the Simpson amendment is in fact antifamily, anti-
family reunification, and goes against the best traditions of this
country.
Let me explain why I say this because this can get very, very
confusing, and you have to really spend some time. It has taken me some
time to get into it. I certainly do not today pretend to be any kind of
expert. But let me explain what I understand the facts to be.
The Simpson amendment would have the effect of pushing aside adult
children of U.S. citizens. It would have the effect of pushing aside
the minor children of U.S. citizens who happen to be married. It would
say to a U.S. citizen--let me again emphasize ``a U.S. citizen''--you
cannot bring in your adult child. We are not going to consider that
person part of your nuclear family anymore. That is going to be your
extended family, those of us who have children over a wide range of
ages. Try to tell that to your older children, my son Patrick, or Jill,
or John, that they are no longer part of our family; you cannot come
in.
It says to a U.S. citizen, if your minor child has made the decision
to get married, well, you cannot even bring your minor child in. It
says that to the U.S. citizen. It pushes these children aside in favor
of--let us be very careful how we state this--the spouses and minor
children of illegal aliens, people who were illegal aliens, who came
here illegally and who were ultimately granted amnesty in the Simpson-
Mazzoli bill.
That is the choice. That is what it is doing. But when you get into
it further, what you also find out is that the vast majority of these
people, which this amendment purports to help, with children, with
spouses, people who were illegal aliens, who came in here then because
of the amnesty provision of Simpson-Mazzoli, were legalized, we say
that is OK--their children.
The facts are the vast majority of their children and their spouses
are already here. They are already in the country. They are not leaving
one way or the other, no matter what this bill does. That is the
reality. No one can come to this floor and say this is going to impact
it one way or the other. So we are pushing aside family members of U.S.
citizens purportedly for the reason to help other people, the vast
majority of whom are already here anyway. That is antifamily. It is
wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong. We should not do it.
How did this all come about? Let us look at the facts. Let me cite
the Jordan commission because my colleague from Wyoming very correctly
cites the Jordan commission for many things. Let me cite the Jordan
commission. It is stated, stated by proponents of the Simpson
amendment--it was talked about in our committee--that there are 1.2
million spouses and children of permanent resident aliens who are
waiting to come in. That is the people the Simpson amendment purports
to help. Let me repeat it--1.2 million spouses and children of
permanent resident aliens who are waiting to come in. End of quote.
Here is what the Jordan Commission says about this group of people. The
Jordan commission said that at least, at least 850,000 of these people,
at least 850,000 of them are already here. They are already in the
country.
Who are they? Again, they are the children, they are the spouses of
people who this Congress in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill in 1986 granted
amnesty to.
So I think it is very important that we keep this in mind.
Now, no one can come to this floor and say these people are going to
be kicked out. That is not happening. It is not going to happen. In
fact, the husbands, the mothers, people who are granted amnesty, once
they were granted amnesty, were on the road to citizenship if they
wanted it. Now, many of them for any number of reasons that I cannot
fathom have decided not to become citizens, but no one is talking about
kicking them out. INS is not deporting them, nor is INS deporting their
children, nor is INS deporting their spouses. And there is no one who
can come to this floor and say anybody is talking about doing that. So
I think it is very, very important to emphasize who these people are.
And again I would cite the Jordan Commission. Mr. President, the
850,000 of this group of people the Simpson amendment purports to
help--it purports to help family members--get help only on paper
because they are here already. The fact is that when a legalized person
becomes a U.S. citizen after 5 years, the spouses and children are
legalized immediately. They can do that. All that person has to do is
become a citizen. And even if that person does not elect to become a
citizen, no one is going to kick those kids out and no one is going to
kick the parents out. So I think, while what is said about the Simpson
amendment makes sense and is technically correct, we have to look
behind that and look at who these people really are and what the real
facts are.
Let me turn, if I could, to another issue but it is related. It is
related to Simpson-Mazzoli that passed in 1986, and it is related to
the overall rhetoric about the extent, number of legal immigrants who
are coming into this country. The statement is made that we are at an
all-time high. That is simply not true. It is not even close to being
true. It is not accurate.
We are at the rate of approximately, talking about legal immigrants,
of 2 per thousand of our population. We have been at roughly this rate
for 30 years. We have been at higher, we have been at lower during our
history. Just to take one example, though, if you go
[[Page S4141]]
back to the turn of the century we were at about 10 per thousand. We
are at roughly 2 per thousand now.
What about my colleagues who may say, well, we just heard the
argument made that we have new statistics out from INS that show the
numbers are up. Yes. What it shows is that we got what we expected.
When we decided to grant amnesty in 1986, we knew there was going to be
a spike, and we knew there was not only going to be a spike but there
was going to be additional spiking as a result of that because of the
children that could be legalized, could become U.S. citizens of those
people who are granted amnesty.
That was expected. So I think you have to put this again in its
historical perspective, and we have to understand that this should be a
shock to no one. It was totally expected. It is an increase that we
have seen as a direct result of the amnesty that was granted in 1986
and it is basically just as the amnesty was a one-time shot, the
results of that amnesty are also a one-time occurrence.
Let me talk, if I could, about another argument that my friend from
Wyoming made. He had a very interesting chart. I walked over to take a
look at it. It was something that I heard him talk very eloquently
about a great deal and that is the chain migration problem.
Just a couple comments. As my friend from Michigan said a moment ago,
that chart may be accurate, it may be accurate for a family. I can come
up with a hypothetical. It might be accurate--might be. But if it was
accurate, assuming it was accurate, assuming that is a real case, it
takes about a half a century for that all to take place. So I think we
need to put that in perspective.
My colleague from Wyoming agreed with me; we should favor the gutsy
people, gutsy people who picked up and came here. What is to say those
people on that chart are not gutsy? What is to say they are not people
who contributed to society? What is to say they are not people who work
with their family, maybe work in a business to make things happen? That
chart is almost the history of this country, almost a reflection of our
own, not just the history of this country but a reflection of many of
our own families, if we go back a generation or two or three.
I wish to return to another issue because this issue keeps coming up.
I just want to return to it because it shows I think how many times the
mixing in our bills and in our mind of the issue of legal immigration
and illegal immigration leads not only to what I think would be bad
legislation but I think bad thinking and confusing thinking and
confusing rhetoric. Let me give one example. It has been stated time
and time again one-half of the people who come here--let me get the
precise language. I wrote it down. One-half of the people who are
illegally here came here legally. One-half of the people who are
illegally here came here legally. Yes, that is true. But these are not
the people we are talking about when we talk about legal immigrants.
These people were never immigrants, immigrants meaning someone who is
here on the path to becoming a citizen.
Rather, these are people who came here--yes, legally--but who came
here with absolutely no expectation that they would ever become a U.S.
citizen. These are people who came here to work on visas. These are
people who came here as students. Frankly, they overstayed; they
overstayed their welcome, they overstayed the law, and they are a
problem. This bill begins to address the problem, the bill as currently
written. The Simpson amendment does not do anything about this problem.
In all due respect to my friend from Wyoming, I think the only thing
this rhetoric does is confuse the issue because people then make the
jump and say you have to combine the two issues. They are separate and
distinct. Legal immigrants is a term of art. People who are here--that
is not the problem. There are some people, a lot of them, who overstay
the law. They came here legally but they were never legal immigrants. I
think it is important to keep those two things in mind.
The statement is also made that aliens use social services more than
native-born Americans. Again, every statistic, every study that I have
seen, as well as anecdotal evidence that I think most of us have seen
in our home States, would indicate that you have to look beyond that
statement. That statement may be technically true, but if you break out
legal immigrants, people who came here legally, people who have become
citizens, people who got in line the way they were supposed to get in
line, people who are now naturalized citizens or who are legal resident
aliens, in line to become citizens--if you look at that group, and that
is the group that the Simpson amendment is going to affect, what you
find is statistically they are on welfare less than native-born
Americans; less. Again, I think it shows the problem when we try to mix
the arguments and when we try to combine legal and illegal.
This vote is a vote not just on the merits of the Simpson amendment.
It is also a vote on whether or not this Senate is going to take an
illegal immigration bill that I do not think is perfect--in fact, I
have a couple of amendments. One amendment I am going to offer; another
amendment from Senator Abraham I am going to support. We are going to
fight about those and vote on them. But it takes an illegal immigration
bill that I think is a very good bill, a bill that addresses the
legitimate concerns that honest Americans have that their laws be
enforced, that we play by the rules and that people who come here
illegally are dealt with--it it takes that concern and superimposes on
it--this is what the Simpson amendment does--a whole other issue, an
issue that this Senate should debate, should talk about. But on a
different day. It confuses the two issues, puts them together, and I
think that is a mistake.
For those of my colleagues who are concerned, and I think virtually
everybody in this Senate is, about passing an illegal immigration bill
and getting it signed and having it become law, the best way to do this
is to defeat the Simpson amendment.
Do not take us down the path of getting in the swamp, getting in the
muck of all the other issues we are going to be into if, in fact, the
Simpson amendment passes. Legal and illegal, they simply, I believe,
have to be kept separate.
I am going to have a few more comments later on. I do see several of
my colleagues who are on the floor waiting to speak. I will, at this
time, yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Simpson amendment.
First of all, let us understand something very clearly. The discussion
about separating the bills, the legal and illegal bills, boils down to
one simple political fact. Those who do not want any changes in the
laws relating to legal immigration in this country, who do not want to
change the numbers, who want to continue to see the number of legal
immigrants in this country continue to rise, as the charts that were
shown earlier indicate--those people who do not want to see any
constraints on legal immigration also do not want to see the issues of
legal and illegal immigration combined into one bill because they
understand that there is a very strong political desire to deal with
the problem of illegal immigration. This body will not refrain from
dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. Therefore, if we are
talking about the same subjects in the same bill--there is going to be
a bill and there could be a change in the law relative to legal
immigration--so they do not want to see that. They would rather see the
legislation regarding illegal immigration pass and then do nothing with
respect to legal immigration.
The Jordan Commission made some very substantial recommendations
about both legal and illegal immigration. Specifically, it determined
that our law should be changed to put some caps on the numbers of
people legally immigrating to the United States. The basis for the
recommendation was what has occurred in the last 10 years, both with
respect to illegal immigration and the increases in legal immigration.
Ten years ago or so when the law was changed, the assumption was that
we would stop illegal immigration. How naive, I guess, everyone was. We
thought by making it illegal to hire those who were here illegally, we
would remove the magnet and people would stop coming here illegally. We
would
[[Page S4142]]
not employ them. Therefore we would not have as many illegal entrants.
And, therefore, we could afford to raise the number of legal entrants.
So the Senate and the House in their wisdom, before the occupant of
the chair and I came to the Congress, decided that what they would do,
since we were going to have so many fewer illegal immigrants, was to
simply raise by almost a quarter of a million the number of people who
could come here legally.
Of course not only have we had more legal entrants every year, but
illegal immigration has also risen. It is the combination of both of
these numbers increasing that has resulted in the substantial
majorities of people surveyed, regardless of which survey you look at,
who say we need to do something about the problem, both problems. We
need to get a handle on controlling our borders. We need to make it
harder for illegal immigrants to be employed and receive welfare
benefits. And we also need to reduce somewhat the number of people
coming into the country legally.
You can argue about where the numbers should be. My own view is that
at least it ought to be taken about to the level that it was 10 years
ago. It is still about a quarter of a million people a year. The Jordan
Commission actually recommended fewer than that. The Simpson amendment
actually recommends more than the Jordan commission did, but it
recommends it as a true cap. It says this is a real number; 480,000
will be it. Period. That is, each year, how many people can come in
legally.
The bill, as it came out of the Judiciary Committee and as it is here
on the floor, however, does not really limit the numbers. It provides a
cap but it is called a pierceable cap, meaning you can actually have
more numbers than that. And, because of a phenomenon which I will
discuss in a moment, the net result is that there really is no cap at
all. So let us speak very plain English here. Nobody is trying to cut
off legal immigration. Nobody is trying to cut it in half. Nobody is
trying to cut it even by 25 percent. But what we are saying is that
there should be some limit on it, as opposed to the bill, which will
enable it to escalate substantially.
Those who favor basically open, legal immigration, will say, ``Oh,
no, the bill actually has a cap in it.'' That is true. But, as I will
point out in a minute, the cap does not mean anything. It can be
pierced and it will be pierced because of the large number of people
who are awaiting their turn to become legal citizens, just precisely as
Senator Alan Simpson pointed out during his remarks about an hour ago.
Let me return to a point that I made just a second ago and actually
cite some numbers. A recent ABC poll showed that 73 percent of the
people in the country want reduced immigration. A recent Roper poll
showed that only 2 percent of the respondents supported the current
levels of immigration; only 4 percent of blacks and Hispanics supported
the current level. There is overwhelming view in our country that
immigration numbers should be somewhat reduced.
If I look at the actual survey numbers, as was pointed out before,
most of our citizens would reduce those numbers far below what any of
us are talking about doing here today.
We ought to be responding to what our constituents are asking, but as
happens so much here inside the beltway, with various lobby groups
putting pressures on Members, we are not even going to come close to
what the majority of the people in this country are asking. We are not
going to reduce the number of legal immigrants in the country to
100,000 per year, as a majority of Americans would like to see. We are
not going to call a time out on any legal immigration. We are not going
to reduce it to 200,000 or 300,000 or 400,000.
The most that we are going to do is to get it about at the level that
it was 10 years ago, somewhere in the neighborhood of 480,000. So all
of the great speeches about how we are shutting off immigration and we
are keeping people from coming to this country obscures the fact that
we would be allowing about one-half million legal immigrants into the
country every year. Of course, this bill applies only to 5 years, and
then we go back to the levels that exist today. The Simpson amendment
is just a temporary 5-year breathing space to establish a true priority
system for family immigration.
As Senator Simpson pointed out, one of two things has to happen here.
Either we have to change the priorities so that instead of spouses and
minor children, the two groups that we want to grant the top priority
to--that is existing law; I think that is what all of us would agree
to--we are either going to have to change that priority so that
brothers and sisters or others could come in ahead of them or, if we
are going to do what the proponents of more immigrants want, we are
going to have to increase the total numbers, because the current
priority system will result in far more people coming in than the
current numbers allow. That is why this pierceable cap--it is only a
cap in name, because the fact is the proponents of more immigration
understand that if you leave the priority system as it is, inevitably
there will be far more legal immigrants than there are today.
The goal with the Simpson amendment is reunification of the nuclear
family to ensure that the spouses can come in, that they have a top
priority and that the minor children have a top priority.
One of my colleagues made this argument, ``Well, Senator Simpson is
actually giving a greater priority to the children of permanent
residents than to the children of citizens.'' That is not true, Mr.
President. Minor children of citizens are the first priority. Minor
children of permanent residents are the second priority. It is true
that minor children of permanent residents have a priority above adult
children of either citizens or permanent residents.
I ask my colleagues who made the argument, would they change that
priority? Would you put a higher priority on the adult children of
citizens than on the minor children of permanent residents? Because,
remember, permanent residents are legal, too. They have a right to live
in this country as long as they live, and if we are talking about
keeping nuclear families together, we have to be very straightforward
about this, and I do not think there is anyone here who would not agree
that the current priority, which is for spouses and minor children,
should be the top priority.
So let us not hear discussion about how we are putting the children
of permanent residents above the children of citizens. We are putting
the minor children of permanent residents above the adult children of
those who become citizens.
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. KYL. Yes, just for a moment.
Mr. DeWINE. Does the Senator agree with the Jordan Commission when
they said that of those individuals that you just referenced, there are
at least 850,000 of them who are not waiting to come in but who are
already, in fact, here?
Mr. KYL. As has been noted earlier, that statistic could well be
accurate, and about 65 percent of those people who are here are here
illegally, if Senator Simpson's statistics are correct, which would
suggest to me that we should not be granting a priority to people who,
though they are here, got here illegally. I will be happy to yield for
another question.
Mr. DeWINE. If you will yield for an additional comment or additional
question.
Mr. KYL. Sure.
Mr. DeWINE. If the figures of the Jordan Commission are true, that
850,000 spouses and children are here, would you agree that no one is
seriously talking about kicking them out of the country? So, in other
words, when we talk about it is important to reunify these families,
that may be true on paper but in reality they are already reunified.
They were never apart because they are here together.
Mr. KYL. My colleague makes a point. I think he proves too much by
his argument, though. Nobody is going to kick them out. That is the
whole point. So all the bleeding heart stories about how these people
are not going to be reunified is, frankly, beside the point. They are
here. Many of them are here illegally, but they are here. What they
will have to wait for is simply their opportunity in line to have their
status recognized as legal. So in point of fact, they are not being
hurt one iota.
[[Page S4143]]
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. Let me finish making this point. Because what we are talking
about with the backlog requires two points of clarification.
One, that backlog will be cleared up; those people will get their
legal status eventually and, in the meantime, as my colleague points
out, they are here already, they are already unified, they are not
suffering apart from each other.
Second, it is important to note that the Simpson amendment
grandfathers all of those people who came, I believe it is before May
1988--the exact date Senator Simpson can clarify--so that we are really
not talking about in any real numbers creating a hardship for those
adult children who would want to be reunified under the third priority.
Mr. President, I really would like to get on.
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield for just one more?
Mr. KYL. I will yield one more time.
Mr. DeWINE. Then I will sit down and get my own time. I appreciate my
friend's generosity with his time.
I wonder if he could just respond to this. Is it not true that the
individuals he just described who are already unified, who are
together, are the people that Senator Simpson says his amendment is
intended to benefit and who, I argue, because of that amendment, are
people who really do not need to be unified anyway; they are already
unified. They, with his amendment, would be pushing out adult children,
yes--adult children--of U.S. citizens who could not come in and minor
children of U.S. citizens who happen to be married?
I want to clarify for the membership who we are really talking about.
These are people--850,000 of them--who are already here. My colleague
says no one is talking about kicking them out. They are already in the
country. So to me it is a little misleading, or maybe it does not tell
the whole story, to use the term we are ``reunifying'' these people--
and that is the purported sense of the Simpson amendment--when, in
fact, they are already physically unified. They may not be on paper
unified but they are here and living together. That is who he intends
to benefit.
I appreciate the Senator's generosity.
Mr. KYL. It is a point well made, but I believe the point relates to
all the categories. As Senator Simpson related before, in all four
categories of priorities, there are people here illegally who are
simply waiting for their turn to become officially recognized as legal.
The largest number is in the first category, and then it goes down in
number to the point in the bottom category it is the fewest.
So in each of these categories there are people who are here
illegally who will have to wait a while before their status can be made
legal and who, as my colleague from Ohio rightly points out, are not
going to be kicked out.
It is important for us, however, therefore, to focus on this question
of priority. Senator Simpson and I and others simply believe that the
first priority should be the priority of the Jordan Commission and of
the existing law that minor children and spouses are the first to
receive their legal status. In some cases, it will be legal status for
the first time reunifying the family because the rest of the family is
not in the country. In other cases, they are already here, and it is
simply legalizing the status quo.
The next priority and the priority after that would then come into
play. In each case, there are some people who are already here
illegally who would become legal, and there are others who were abroad
and would be allowed to come to the country, reunify with the family,
and eventually become legal. It is all a matter of priorities, Mr.
President.
As Senator Simpson noted, one of two things is true: Either we change
the priorities--and, again, I do not really think anybody is really
suggesting that--or we have to recognize that there are so many people
who are eligible that the numbers are going to increase dramatically. I
think there is an interesting story.
By the way, may I just go back and point out when I talked about
pierceable, I meant to describe what we mean by that. The Simpson
amendment provides for 480,000 admissions per year. The question is
whether or not that number is pierceable or not. The Simpson amendment
is a true number. What you see is what you get. What the Jordan
Commission recommended was a far lower number, 400,000, but theirs was
pierceable, as is the current bill. ``Pierceable'' means that, because
admission of nuclear family members of citizens is unlimited, the
admission limit can be pierced. That is the top category, the citizen
category. It is actually two categories, because the citizen's both
minor children and spouses and then also other relatives of citizens.
Because the number of relatives of citizens is unlimited, when we say
there is a cap of 480,000 or 400,000 or whatever it may be, that is not
really true. It is that number plus however many additional relatives
of citizens are allowed to come in.
The Simpson number is a true number: 480,000, period. Over time, that
will accommodate all of the categories that they want to come in. Some
will simply have to wait longer than others. We say the ones that
should have to wait longer are the more distant relatives, not the
spouses and the minor children.
What are the official estimates of how many numbers we are talking
about? According to the official INS estimates, immediate relatives
will range from 329,000 to 473,000. Mr. President, let me read those
numbers again for the benefit of my colleagues. Remember, the Simpson
amendment calls for 480,000 family members--additional employment and
diversity numbers--but 480,000 family members. INS' official estimates
are there will be from 329,000 to 473,000 immediate relatives over the
next 7 years, with an average of about 384,000 for immediate relatives.
So the number of 480,000 is plenty to accommodate these immediate
relatives. There would be about 100,000 additional slots for family-
based categories other than the immediate relatives, the people who my
colleagues from Ohio and Michigan have primarily addressed, 100,000 a
year.
It does not provide additional slots for the legalization backlog
reduction. It is assumed those individuals will be absorbed in the
immediate relatives category of U.S. citizens, many of whom, as my
colleague noted, are now eligible for naturalization. As I noted, at
the end of 5 years this limitation of 480,000 ends anyway. So under the
official INS statistics, there is plenty of room for all of the people
who have been talked about here to become legal in the United States of
America.
The facts, however, are somewhat different than the official story.
Here is where we find out the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would
say. It appears that there are some informal INS estimates that differ
from the formal estimates. In fact, according to the San Diego Union-
Tribune article that has been mentioned here, there will be a
significant increase, a 41-percent increase in legal immigration that
the INS now says will enter the United States over the next 2 years.
They have undercalculated or miscalculated too low for the next 2
years, and the fact of the matter is, we are going to see about a 41-
percent increase in the next 2 years.
The article provides details about unreleased data from the INS
showing that immigration will rise 41 percent this year and next year
over 1995 levels. This is the result of an approximate 300,000
administrative backlog of relatives of individuals who have not
realized applying for alien status. Therefore, the fact is, under the
bill as currently written, we are not going to see a slight decrease.
As the proponents like to say, we are going to see a huge increase.
As Senator Simpson noted, you cannot have it both ways: Either you
change the priority, which nobody wants to do, or recognize there have
to be a whole lot more numbers. The truth is, as the INS-reported
numbers in the San Diego paper show, that will be substantially
increased over 1995: 41 percent in both years.
As I said, the Simpson amendment is important because it provides a
true temporary limit. In 1990--in 1990--the level of immigration was
increased substantially, by 37 percent. There was an increase because
it was thought that the new employer sanctions would reduce illegal
immigration, as I mentioned before. That has not occurred. We know that
there are approximately 4 million illegal immigrants in the country and
about 300,000 to 400,000 new
[[Page S4144]]
illegal immigrants entering the country each year. So that number has
to be added to the numbers that we are talking about for legal
immigrants.
Mr. President, the United States has always been--and, as long as I
have anything to say about it, is going to be--a land of opportunity
both for U.S. citizens and certainly for all of those who come here
legally. But as much as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a
nation of laws. We cannot afford, as a nation, to continue to incur the
unrestrained costs of both legal and illegal immigration in jobs,
welfare, education and health care. Senator Simpson is trying to get a
handle on this by limiting immigration very slightly over a very
limited period of time, 5 years, as the American people have demanded.
Unless we reform our legal and illegal immigration laws, I believe we
will undermine the United States as a land of opportunity for all, both
foreign and native born. Everybody has a story to tell how they got
here.
My grandparents emigrated here from Holland. My grandmother hardly
spoke English. I am very proud of my Dutch ancestry and the traditions
that we have maintained, but I think that my grandparents, who
assimilated into our society and became Americans, would be rather
shocked and somewhat disappointed at the way that the system has grown
over recent years. My guess is that they would be supporting attempts
of people like Senator Simpson to try to bring the right kind of
balance and to try to provide opportunity for all of those who are here
already and who we will invite legally to come here in the future.
That is why I support the Simpson amendment. I think it is a very
reasonable amendment. It is even more liberal, if you want to use that
term, than the Jordan Commission recommendation. I know that we all
regret that the chairman of the Jordan Commission, Barbara Jordan,
herself is not here, cannot be here, because of her untimely death, to
defend the rationale for the Jordan Commission report, which, as I
said, is even more conservative in this regard than the Simpson
amendment. But I think we ignore that report at our peril, and we
ignore the sensible arguments that Senator Simpson has made here at our
peril. As I said, that is why I support and hope that others will
support the Simpson amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have made some
comments with regard to the underlying legislation, with regard to the
amendment that is before the Senate, and also in reference to the
Jordan Commission. I will make a brief, brief comment about those
comments and also come back to the underlying reason why I am opposed
to the Simpson amendment.
Mr. President, we can talk about numbers, and I will get back to
where we are in terms of numbers, but for the purpose of understanding
in family terms--in family terms--what this amendment is really all
about: If you are an American citizen today, you can bring your wife
in, you can bring minor children in, you can bring parents in without
any limitation at all. That is the same with the Simpson proposal and
the underlying amendment. That will not change under this particular
proposal.
Under the current law, if you are an American citizen, you can bring
your adult children and your brothers and sisters in. There are numbers
for those. Today the demand on that does not overrun the numbers which
are available. We are talking about 23,000 adult children that come in
and some 65,000 brothers and sisters. All of those get in now
currently. Under the Simpson amendment, there would not be the
guarantee that those would get in. I think it is highly unlikely they
would be admitted.
Today, if you are an American citizen, you can bring in the adult
children and the brothers and sisters of American citizens. Beyond
that, we also have for the permanent resident aliens, slots for minor
children and spouses. There are numbers for them, but they get in now.
They are able to rejoin. We are talking about the minor children and
the wives of the permanent resident aliens that are coming in here
today. They are all at risk. There are some 85,000 of those. They get
in today.
Now, what does the Simpson proposal basically do? It provides for a
limitation on the overall numbers. Then there is what is called the
spillover. There are 7,000 slots for that spillover. Mr. President,
7,000 slots for the spouses and minor children of permanent resident
aliens. It was 85,000 last year. Those wives and those children were
able to get in here. Under the Simpson proposal, there will only be
7,000 available.
Then the Simpson proposal says if the wives and small children all
get in here, we will spin what else is left over to take care of the
adult children and brothers and sisters. That is just pie-in-the-sky if
you look at what the numbers are and what the demands are.
Effectively, what the Simpson amendment does, by his own description:
We will say, OK, we will permit citizens to bring their spouses and
minor children and parents in here but virtually no one else, at least
in the first year, because the other groups now, the adult children,
which are 23,000 that are coming in here, and the brothers and sisters,
which are 65,000 that are coming in here, and the children and wives of
the permanent resident aliens that are coming in here, Simpson will say
all of those together will get 7,000 visas.
Effectively we are closing the door on those members of the family.
That is the principal reason I oppose it. No. 1, it is dealing with
legal immigration and not illegal. If we are interested in legal, we
have a variety of different additional issues. This is the heart of the
legal immigration, the numbers of families. It is the heart of the
whole program. Always has been. It is the heart of it. That is what he
is changing.
We say that the reason we have this slight blip in the flow line of
the increase is because of a set of circumstances that were put in
motion by Senator Simpson, myself, and others who voted for that 1986
act and the amnesty. It has taken 12 years or so for those individuals
to get naturalized that were under the amnesty and now are joining
members of the family. After a couple of years, it begins to go down.
As a matter of fact, for example, the total immigration for 1995 in
the family preference was 236,000; in the year 2001, it will be
226,000. These are the latest figures. We have the blip now on personal
family members. We are committed, even with that, when we get to legal
immigration, to lower those numbers in a way that is going to be fair
in terms of the different groups that are coming in here. We are not
reducing the numbers on the real professionals that are coming in here.
Senator Simpson reduces it to 100,000. The fact is they are not using
100,000. Do we understand that? We are not using the 100,000 that is
incorporated in the Simpson amendment. There is no cutback there. No
cutback there, my friends. Mr. President, 32 percent in families--no
cutbacks in the permanent numbers.
Where are some of those permanent? We are talking about cooks, auto
mechanics. They will be able to come in here. But the reunifications of
brothers and sisters--no, they are not.
Mr. President, I do think that what we ought to do is say, Look, on
this issue, we had tried. Senator Abraham and myself had offered an
amendment in the Judiciary Committee to reduce the overall numbers by
10 percent on that. We have found out in recent times that the numbers
have bubbled up. Doris Meissner testified in September of last year
that the numbers were increasing. Barbara Jordan had highly
professional staffers, and they had access to the same information.
They did not identify this kind of a bubble. Senator Abraham
indicated--and I join with him--when we get to legal immigration, we
will see a fair reduction across the board in terms of these visas, 32-
percent reduction for brothers and sisters and the wives and small
children of permanent residents. Now, that is not fair.
Finally, Mr. President, I think the argument that has been made by my
colleagues and friends about not addressing this issue at this time but
addressing it at the time we were going to deal with the legal
immigration is the preferable way of proceeding.
I listened to the presentation of my friend and colleague from
Alabama,
[[Page S4145]]
Senator Shelby, and I watched those charts go up and come down. The
fact about the presentation was that we had the mixture of legal and
illegal. He points out that 25 percent are in jail. The problem is
about 85 or 90 percent of those are illegals that are in jail. When he
says on the chart, looking at this foreign born, ``They are in jail,
they are using the system,'' those are illegals. Most are involved in
drug selling in the United States. They ought to be in jail. They ought
to be in jail. They are violating our laws. They are the ones who are
in jail.
The fact of the matter is, as others have pointed out during the
course of this debate, when you are talking about illegal, you are
talking about people who are breaking the rules, talking about
unskilled individuals who are displacing American workers, you are
talking about a heavier incidence in drawing down whatever kind of
public assistance programs are out there. That is the fact. That is why
we want to address it.
When you are talking about legals, you are talking about individuals
who, by every study, contribute more than they ever take out in terms
of the tax systems, who do not overutilize any more than any native
American the public programs for health and assistance--with the one
exception of the SSI where they have greater use, primarily because of
the parents who have come here for children after a period of time are
older and therefore need those services. We have addressed that with
our deeming provisions. We will have an opportunity to go through the
progress that has been made in saving the taxpayer fund.
We are asking, why are we getting into all of those issues suddenly?
We will take some time, when we address the legal immigration issue, to
go over what has happened in terms of the deeming provisions for senior
citizens. That makes a great deal of sense.
Finally, I heard a great deal about the Jordan Commission. The fact
of the matter, on the Jordan Commission numbers it is recognized it
would be 400,000 that would come here with families. They had another
150,000 in backlog which would be added on to that. They did not even
include refugees, which they cited would be 50,000. You add all of
those up and you are talking about 400,000 for family, 100,000 in
employment, 150,000 in backlog, and 50,000 in refugees. That comes to
between 700,000 to 750,000. All of these figures are virtually in the
ballpark.
The point my friend from Arizona left out is that one of the central
provisions of the Jordan Commission was to do something about the
backlogs of spouses and children. It is out there now. With this
amendment, you are going to make it even worse. You are going to say to
any spouse or child of any American citizen, ``You are not coming in
here for 5 years, and you will be lucky if you get in after that
because of the way this is structured.'' No backlog reduction, ignoring
one of the basic facts.
Mr. President, I think the family issue is the most important. We can
work out our numbers in ways that it is going to be fair and balanced
along the way. We are seeing the tightening of the screw, a 32-percent
reduction with the Simpson proposal, if this measure is adopted, for
immediate members of the family. Nothing in terms of the employment.
They were down to 83,000 last year. Senator Simpson allows for 100,000.
Those numbers can continue to grow. I think that is absolutely wrong.
Even if we were dealing on the merits of it, I do not know why we
should tighten the belt on families quicker than on those that are
coming in and displacing American workers, and, in many instances, they
are, as I mentioned, auto mechanics and cooks and other jobs. I think
families are more important than those, if you have to choose between
them.
Mr. President, we have had a good discussion. Many have spoken about
this. I hope the Simpson measure will not be accepted.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from North Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, while we are debating the Simpson
amendment on legal immigration, let me stress the need to address the
problem of illegal immigration as part of Senate bill 1664. I support
S. 1664. Madam President, stopping illegal immigration is one of the
most difficult problems facing the United States.
A recent study concluded that, since 1970, illegal immigrants have
cost the American people over $19 billion in both direct and indirect
public assistance.
None of us doubt that illegal immigration is soaring in the country.
Some estimate that the number of illegal aliens in the United States is
over 4 million people. Moreover, the number of illegal immigrants
coming into the United States is growing by over some 300,000 a year.
During the recent recess, I visited many counties in North Carolina.
It was very interesting that each county I went into, the county
commissioners and the health officials all said, ``We have a particular
problem in this country that does not apply to other counties. We are
being inundated with illegal immigrants.'' Well, it became almost a
joke because each county was of the assumption that they were the only
one that had the problem. The truth of it is, the problem is not only
statewide, but it is nationwide. We need to stop it.
Illegal immigrants are not supposed to be able to get public
benefits; yet, over time, this has been changed. The Supreme Court
ruled that children of illegal immigrants are entitled to a public
education. Illegal immigrants are entitled to Medicaid benefits under
emergency circumstances--which are most circumstances. Further, illegal
aliens may receive AFDC payments and food stamps for their children.
This is simply another burden on the working, taxpaying people of this
country. In defiance of all common sense, it seems that only in America
can someone who is here illegally be entitled to the full benefits that
the Federal Government has to provide.
We are stripping the money out of the paychecks of the working
people, to support 4-million-plus illegal immigrants. Is it any wonder
that they are pouring into the country at an enormous rate of something
like 30,000 a month?
What does this say about the breakdown in the welfare system--that it
can provide benefits for illegal aliens? We simply should not be doing
it. That was not the design of the welfare system. We are bankrupting
it and corrupting it by continuing to sponsor and support illegal
aliens in this country.
Madam President, we have people coming into the United States
illegally for higher-paying jobs, free schools, food stamps, and
Government-sponsored health care. By flooding the United States, the
illegal immigrant population is taxing fewer and fewer public
resources. We simply cannot afford the continuing rise in illegal
immigration.
Madam President, this bill is not perfect, but at the very least it
will attempt to control the flow of illegal immigrants coming into this
country by providing additional enforcement and personnel and by
streamlining the deportation procedures, so that they can be removed.
Further, this bill will stop the practice of people entering the
country legally--and then going onto our welfare rolls. Anyone who goes
on welfare within 5 years after arriving here can be deported. This is
not as much as we ought to be doing, but it is a start.
Madam President, we need to pass this bill to stem the flow of
illegal immigrants. We cannot let this become another issue that the
Democrats in the Senate stop. It is too important to stop. For that
reason, I hope the Senate can act on this legislation.
I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I think we may be nearly ready to
properly proceed to a rollcall vote on this issue. And then I think
that will remove greater delay, as we move into the other items that
are in the amendments that we are presently aware of.
I hope that people with amendments will submit those, giving us an
opportunity on both sides of the aisle to see what amendments there may
be yet forthcoming, because at some point in time--maybe today--we can
close the list of amendments so that at least we would have some
perspective. I have given up one or two of my amendments--one that
Senator Feingold and
[[Page S4146]]
I debated in committee. I have withdrawn that. I hope that that
marvelous, generous act will stimulate others to do such a magnanimous
thing as to take one of their ``babies,'' one of their very wonderful
things, and lay it to rest, perhaps.
In any event, I think that we are nearly ready to proceed to a final
vote on that. I think anything else I would say would be repetitive,
other than to say that the choices are clear. To do all the things we
want to do, which play upon your heartstrings, you have to raise the
numbers. If you do not raise the numbers, then you have to make
priorities. If you are making priorities, it was my silly idea that you
ought to have the priorities as minor children and spouses, and not
adult brothers and sisters. That is where my numbers would come from.
No mystery. That is where they would come from. They would go to
spouses and minor children and come from adult brothers and sisters,
who, in my mind, are removed from the immediate family category. That
comes with wife, children, mother, father. All of us surely will
remember that that is from whence we all sprang.
We can proceed, hopefully. I yield the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I have a couple of more issues that I
want to inject at this point relative to this amendment.
I know there is at least one, or maybe two, of our colleagues who
have come by this morning and indicated they wanted to speak. So I urge
them, if they are in their office, or if their staff is watching, at
this point to please proceed here if they are still interested. I do
not have any intent to prolong the debate much further. But I want to
make sure that some people who we had promised to find a time for will
come here for that opportunity.
I would like to comment again on a couple of points I have been
making today but also on some other issues that have been raised by
previous speakers. One is the issue of polls and polling data.
I think certainly it is a responsibility of elected officials to be
observant of public opinion and constituent views. But I think it is
also important to understand that polling and the use of polls is
oftentimes quite contradictory and quite confusing. We all know that
the polls have said for years that Americans overwhelmingly want a
balanced budget. But then, as we have learned, if they are told it
means something specific that affects them, they all of a sudden have a
little different opinion.
In that vein, I say that some of the polling related to immigration
can be both, on the one hand, telling and, on the other hand,
contradictory. Yes, it is true, overwhelmingly people want to deal with
the immigration problems. The polling I have seen suggests, though,
that the first priority they have is to deal with illegal immigration.
That is why the first bill before us is a bill on illegal immigration.
I also suggest that those who say they want to see the number of
people who are permitted to come to the country legally reduced, those
who say that would have different opinions if they understood the
ramifications that might affect them or their communities. I have not
seen polls go to that kind of extent. But I suspect if people
understood that the children of U.S. citizens would have a lower
priority than the children of noncitizens, they would surely not favor
that form of legal immigration changes.
I also would like to comment just as a postscript to the comments of
the Senator from North Carolina. He is deadly accurate in his comments
about the impact this bill has on the welfare access that noncitizens
will have. Indeed one of the foremost objectives of this bill on
illegal immigration has been the objective of trying to address the
issuance of public assistance to noncitizens. One of the reasons we
think this is a major problem with regard to immigration has been that
people have--some people at least--tried to come here illegally to gain
access to benefits. This bill attempts to address it. I think it
forcefully will.
The point I would like to touch on now very specifically is the broad
question of numbers because the comments of the Senator from Arizona a
few moments ago in the dialog between him and the Senator from Ohio--I
do not know how many Members were watching--I thought that was perhaps
as telling as any other discussion we have had here today on the
question of exactly what really is going to happen if this amendment
passes.
As has been pointed out, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
has noted that there will be a spike, an increase, in the number of
people who become able to become legal immigrants in the next couple of
years under the so-called family preference categories of spouses and
children of U.S. citizens. That is an unlimited category. That is going
to go up. But what the Senator from Ohio, I think, has said and which I
think is important, is that all Senators considering this amendment
should understand that increase does not mean new people coming into
the United States. What it reflects overwhelmingly is a group of people
who, because of the 1986 act which gave amnesty to those in the country
illegally and a subsequent action by the Congress in 1990 which gave
quasi-legal status to the spouses of minor children of those who gained
amnesty, these people are largely overwhelmingly already in the United
States. Consequently, the increase that has been alluded to is not an
increase in people coming to the country; it is a shifting of people
already in the country from one category to another, from a quasi-legal
status category to a legal status category. It does not mean a lot more
people coming as immigrants to the United States.
That said and acknowledged--I might add, by everybody who has spoken
here today--let us think about the ramifications of the Simpson
amendment before us. What that amendment will do is basically preclude
others who are not already here from coming in huge numbers and in what
I consider to be appropriate priorities, as I said in my last
statement. In other words, people who are noncitizens will be able to
bring their children to this country and people who are citizens will
not be able to bring their children if their children are either
married or adults. That will be the ramification, because the use of
these 480,000 visas that are part of this amendment will be exhausted
by the first categories of the relatives; that is, spouses and minor
children of U.S. citizens and permanent resident noncitizens.
In short, we will be placing priorities, in my judgment, in the wrong
bay. We will be giving the children of citizens a lower priority than
the children of noncitizens. We will be giving the children of citizens
a lower priority than the children of people who came here as illegal
immigrants. We will be giving children of U.S. citizens a lower
priority simply because of making a paper transaction in the status of
folks who are already in the country. That, in my judgment, is not the
way we should be dealing with legal immigration issues.
I also point out that the impact of this is really quite profound. We
are talking about, I think, turning away from in many ways, really, the
historic basis on which this country was built. Legal immigrants, the
children of U.S. citizens, have been great contributors to this
country. They have come here and made contributions. Literally hundreds
of this Nation's Medal of Honor winners were legal immigrants. Hundreds
of people who make contributions in the sciences, high-tech industries,
and so on, and built our great cities are the children of legal
immigrants. This amendment will basically shut the door on them--those
children of legal immigrants who are not minors.
Much has been made of this distinction between minors and so-called
adult or married children, that somehow they are no longer part of the
nuclear family. Maybe that is true for some families in this world, but
it is certainly not the case in my mind. It is not the case for the
Senator from Ohio, as he pointed out. I do not think it should be the
policy of the U.S. Government to distinguish in that fashion. I think
that would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
So, Madam President, I stress that the priorities in the Simpson
amendment in terms of who has access to immigration are wrong. Even if
you think there should be changes in legal immigration, these are not
the priorities that we should establish.
Let me now move on to the point that I made a little earlier in a
little different way. The complexities of
[[Page S4147]]
these issues, the sorting out of what ought to be the priorities, the
sorting out of what ought to be the method by which people gain legal
access to the country ought not be dealt with in this type of vacuum,
ought not to be dealt with as an amendment to the illegal immigration
bill.
This Senate should focus--and I would be perfectly happy to have the
comments made by an earlier speaker--I would be happy to have the legal
immigration at the desk be brought up for full consideration and
passed. But let us deal with these issues in their totality, not a
small part of them. I think that approach is the wrong way to go.
That is why we, from the beginning of this discussion in the
Judiciary Committee, urged that these issues be divided. It is how the
House did it. It is how the Judiciary here did it, both in the full
committee and in the subcommittee, and that is how the full Senate
ought to do it as well.
Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact that countless
organizations and groups who represent the most directly affected in
all of this strongly believe in maintaining the separation.
It is interesting to note the many organizations that share this
opinion: The American Electronics Association, American Council on
International Personnel, the American Business Software Alliance, the
Electronic Industries Association, the National Association of
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology
Association of America.
They believe we should not try to merge these issues of legal
immigration into the bill before us, the bill on illegal immigration.
Their opinion is the same whether the amendment is one pertaining to
business immigration or an amendment, as the current one is, that
pertains to family immigration.
They believe we should continue the distinction we have made here all
the other times we have considered immigration questions, and separate
these legal immigration issues that are very weighty and very
complicated from issues of illegal immigration, which are equally
complicated and weighty. And that I strongly urge, Madam President, be
the approach we take today.
I am perfectly willing to have Senator Simpson's proposals and the
proposals to be offered later by Senator Feinstein, from California, on
legal immigration debated fully here the way that we did in committee
along with the rest of the issues that are all around legal
immigration.
That is the way we should proceed. I do not fear that debate, and I
suspect a bill such as was the case in the Judiciary Committee can be
passed, but the sequence ought to be illegal immigration is the top
priority. We have a good bill. Let us pass it and conference it with
the House bill that is already out there on this topic, and then let us
bring legal immigration from the desk to the floor and have at that
issue as well.
I know the Senator from Wyoming would like to speak, and there is one
other Senator on the way here, so I am going to yield the floor at this
time.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I believe Senator Gramm is coming to indicate his
support against the amendment so we certainly will withhold. I just
want to say to my friend from Michigan, I think what happens in issues
like this is you establish a degree of trust. You may have your own
views, but we do not lay snares on each other. That is a very important
part of legislating--to establish trust, and then you get in there and
belt it around and then you move on. That is what I do and have always
done in 30 years of this work. I have been in some that are much, much
more intense than this particular one.
However, I do have to comment on the one thing that keeps coming back
like a theme.
Oh, then I wanted to say that there is one group the Senator left off
of that list, the American immigration lawyers. You would not want to
leave them off the list. They have messed up more legislation in this
area than any living group, and they will continue to do it forever.
This is their bread and butter. The bread and butter of the American
immigration lawyers is confusion. And when you try to do something, you
use families, children, mothers, sons and daughters, and violins. That
is the way they work, but they never give us many other options, nor do
the opponents ever give us many options.
What priorities would you, I say to the opponents, like to take away
if you do not raise the numbers? If you do not raise the numbers, what
priorities of the preference system would you reduce? You cannot have
it both ways. It cannot be. That is really one of the big issues.
Then the argument is we need to separate legal and illegal
immigration because legal immigration reform is so important that it
deserves our full and separate consideration on the Senate floor. That
is the theme of all of those who are opposed to this amendment.
It is curious, very curious, that many, in the House at least, who
support no benefits at all for permanent resident aliens, none, are
talking about that as if it were separate and apart. I do not see how
that can be. You are talking about permanent resident aliens. That
means you are talking about illegal immigration and legal immigration.
You cannot separate them.
It is a purpose of the original measure--and I compliment those who
created this remarkable--not the Senator from Michigan. Some of the
think tanks, whoever, some of the Government reps. Give them the
credit. When you see it work, give them the credit. I compliment them
on that issue because here we are--and this is the curious part. They
say out there, down the street, wherever they are, in support of the
argument, that the House voted to divide the legal and illegal issues.
That is very true. The House voted to split their bill, and I assume
the same arguments were made about the importance of legal immigration
and the need to deal with that separately.
What actually occurred in the House is quite instructive. Legal
immigration in the House is dead--dead. That is exactly what the
message was in the House--dead. It will never get the careful and
separate consideration that this body wishes to give to the issue--
period. That is exactly what many of those who complain about combining
the issues want--death. They want to kill legal immigration in all of
its reforms, in every form of reform as suggested by the Commission on
Immigration Reform. They want to kill legal immigration reform in any
form, in any incubation, in any rebirth, in any form in the Senate just
as it has happened in the House. They do not want a reduction of
numbers. They do not want reform of the priorities. They want death,
and that has worked very well in the House.
In the Senate, I appreciate the remarks of those in opposition
because they are telling me they want a separate and careful
consideration. I think that is great. I am going to wait for that. I am
waiting for the separation. I will wait after this bill is finished to
hear the separate and careful consideration of legal immigration. It is
very pleasing to me to know that we will have that debate, I take it. I
am overjoyed. Perhaps we can work out a time agreement. Perhaps we can
work up the amendments. I would certainly drop away from some of the
things. But to know that these things should be separated and to know
with a heartening of my bosom that we will have that separate and
careful consideration of legal immigration, that will be a very
appropriate response at some future time. I think that all of us then
will be looking forward to that because we know that in the House it
was simply the death knell, and to hear it is not here is quite
heartening.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to reiterate the sincerity of my comments
with respect to having the legal immigration bill considered
separately. I was under the impression--during the April recess, in
fact, I was approached, I know, by the majority leader and asked if
that was an acceptable approach. I know that the people who are here
today arguing that these issues be maintained separately, approved and
signed off and said they were fully supportive of having that bill come
to the floor.
[[Page S4148]]
It was my understanding that the Senator from Wyoming had opposed
that, and so I am a little bit uncertain right now exactly what did
happen a couple of weeks ago. But I would just reiterate, from my point
of view, our sincerity, and I guess my understanding was that a
proposal to bring the legal bill to the floor had been rejected by the
chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee.
Maybe I got the wrong story, but it is my understanding that offer
was already extended and rejected. That is why, instead, we are here
today trying to merge these issues, notwithstanding the fact that the
House sought to split them, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate
Judiciary Committee sought to split them. But I will reserve further
comments for the moment. I see other speakers here.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I guess I remain somewhat skeptical--not of the Senator.
Of course there is no House conference, but we will hold the debate. I
think that is good. It will be good for America. I yield to the Senator
from Texas--I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment. There is something in American folklore that induces us to
believe that America has become a great and powerful country because
brilliant and talented people came to live here. There is something in
the folklore of each of our families that leads us to believe that we
are unique. We all have these stories in the history of our families,
of how our grandfathers came here as poor immigrants who did not speak
the language.
I love to tell the story of my wife's family. My wife's grandfather
came to America as an indentured laborer, where he signed a contract to
come to America with a sugar plantation where he agreed to work a
number of years to pay off that contract. And, when he had worked off
that contract, he looked in a picture book and picked out the picture
of a young girl and said, ``That's the one I want.'' And he tore that
picture out of the book and sent for her to come to America to be his
wife.
His son became the first Asian American ever to be an officer of a
sugar company in the history of Hawaii. And his granddaughter--my
wife--became Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
which, among other commodities and commodity futures, regulates the
market for cane sugar in the United States of America.
I could have told much the same story about Spence Abraham, and about
his grandfather coming to this country, and about my own grandfather,
who came from Germany. But the point is, each of us in our own family
has a folklore that basically tells a story, and the story is partly
true but it is not totally true.
Folklore holds that America became a great country because of us;
that America is a great and powerful country because these brilliant
people from Lebanon and from Korea and from Germany and from everywhere
in the world came to live here and their innate genius made America the
richest, freest and happiest country in the world.
And because we believe that, we believe that America became great
because we were unique and this miracle only worked for us, but it is
not going to work for other people; that is, if people come here and
they look different than we do or they sound different than we do or if
their customs are different than ours or if their native clothing is
different than ours, somehow they are different where we were unique
and made America great by our coming, they are ``different'' and it
will not work on them. That is a myth, and this amendment is based
fundamentally on a belief in that myth.
America is not a great and powerful country because the most
brilliant and talented people in the world came to live here. America
is a great and powerful country because it was here that ordinary
people like you and me have had more opportunity and more freedom than
any other people who have ever lived on the face of the Earth. And,
with that opportunity and with that freedom, ordinary people like us
have been able to do extraordinary things.
While it is somehow not so reassuring about ourselves to say it, it
is very reassuring about our country to know it. Most of us would be
peasants in almost any other country in the world. We are extraordinary
only because our country is extraordinary.
Now, with the best of intentions, this amendment says that we have
immigrants coming to America and by getting here and getting a foothold
and getting a job and building a life, that they are reaching out as
each of us would do if we came from somewhere else, and they are trying
to bring their mama and their daddy and their sisters and brothers and
their cousins and their aunts to America. So what?
Let me just take that one point and develop it for a moment, if I
may. Of all immigrant groups in America, to the best of my ability to
ascertain, the identifiable group that uses things like the fifth
preference in the immigration laws, the people who are the most focused
on their extended family, the people, as immigrants to America, who
have reached out the most to try to bring their families to America,
are people who are from the Indian subcontinent.
Probably more than any other immigrants, at least if one looks at the
use of things like the fifth preference--and I am not an expert in this
area, but a fifth preference is a preference where you are trying to
bring somebody in who is not, by the conventional definition, that
close kin--this is a group that has used this provision of law that
this amendment tries to reduce.
Let us look at a subsample of this group--Indian Americans. No. 1, of
all identifiable ethnic groups in America, Indian Americans have the
highest per capita income. Some people might find that shocking. The
average Indian American in this country makes more money than does the
average Episcopalian--which, if you break down by religious groups, is
the highest income group in America. The average Indian American makes
substantially more money than the average American who traces his or
her lineage back to Great Britain. Madam President, 50 percent of all
motels in America are owned by Indian Americans. In fact, 80 percent of
them have the same family name. If you go to a hotel and you see an
Indian American working there, and the chances are you are going to,
and you want to guess at his name or her name, say, ``Mr. or Mrs.
Patel,'' and you are going to be right 80 percent of the time. Now,
this is not the same family, but it is a very common name.
The point being, why in the world are we trying to keep out of
America an ethnic group that has the highest per capita income and the
highest average education level in the country? It struck me as I was
walking over here for this debate, I was talking to my youngest
legislative assistant, named Rohit Kumar, Indian American, honor
graduate from Duke University, that his family story is a perfect
example of why we ought to crush this amendment. Let me just tell his
family story.
His father and mother came to this country in 1972. They did not come
on any kind of family preference. They were original immigrants. They
both became medical doctors.
They then started the process of bringing their family to America.
They brought their brother. He became a doctor. In fact, he is an
oncologist in northern California. He brought his wife, who became an
interior designer. They brought their nephew, who is a computer
engineer. And they brought their father.
My point is, and I am a conservative as many of you know, but if we
add up the combined Federal income tax that was paid 10 days ago by the
people who came to America as a result of this first Kumar who came in
1972, this little family probably paid, at a minimum, $500,000 in
taxes. Our problem in America is we do not have enough Kumars, working
hard and succeeding. We need more.
Why do we want to stop this process? We want to stop it because
somehow we believe that people are changing America instead of America
changing people. We could have had this debate in the early 1900's. In
fact, my guess is if we went back somewhere, we would find we did have
the debate, because in
[[Page S4149]]
the years between 1901 and 1910, we had, on average, 10.4 immigrants
come to America each year for every 1,000 Americans. From 1911 to 1920,
we had 5.7 immigrants per year per 1,000 Americans; from 1921 to 1930,
we had 3.5. Today, even though the number of immigrants in 1995 was
just 2.8 per 1,000 Americans, some would have us believe we are just
being flooded, we are being overrun by these people who become doctors
and engineers and pay all these taxes, and I could mention win Nobel
Prizes.
I could read the list of foreign-born Americans who have won the
Nobel Prize, except the list is too long. I could read down the list of
people who have become historic names in the scientific history of our
country, names that we now think about and the world thinks about as
American names, including Ronald Coase, who won the Nobel Prize in 1991
in economics, and Franco Modigliani, who won the Nobel Prize for
economics in 1985. As a graduate student, I had no idea that they were
foreign born.
The point is, the list goes on and on, full of people who have come
here, who have caught fire, who have unleashed creative genius that has
made America the greatest country in the world, and they may have
brought their mothers. Great. May it never end. Could America be
America without immigrants?
I know there are people who say, ``Well, they're taking our jobs.'' I
want to make just one point about that. Go out in Washington today, go
to a shoe store where they are repairing shoes, go to a laundry, go
into a restaurant, in the kitchen of a restaurant, go any place in
America where people are getting their hands dirty, and do you know
what they are going to discover? They talk funny.
People who work for a living in America often talk with distinct
foreign accents. Do you know why? Because we have a welfare system that
rewards our own citizens for not working. A lady in Washington, DC,
with one child on welfare, if she qualifies for the four big programs,
earns what $21,000 of income would be required to buy. I do not think
it is fair to say because people come to America and they are willing
to work, when some Americans are not, that they are taking jobs away. I
think that is our problem; that is not their problem. I know how to fix
that. The way to fix it is to reform welfare and, at least on my side
of the aisle, there is unanimity we ought to do that.
Let me also say that there is a provision in the bill--and I am a
strong supporter of the underlying bill--that changes law, a change
that is needed, and I congratulate our distinguished colleague, Senator
Simpson, for his leadership in this. He and I worked on this together
on the welfare bill. It is part of this bill, and it is vitally
important.
We change the law to say that you cannot come to America as an
immigrant and go on welfare. We have room in America for people who
come with their sleeves rolled up, ready to go to work. But we do not
have room for people who come with their hand out.
Let us remember that when people come to America legally and go to
work, and with their energy and with the sweat of their brow they build
their life, they build the future of our country.
A final point that I want to address is this whole question about the
changing nature of immigration. There is something in each of us that
leads us to believe that we are the unique Americans, that somehow we
made the country what it is, that somehow it was because American
immigration in the early days was basically drawn first from northern
Europe and then from southern Europe that it made us somehow unique.
I think it was the system that made America, and we might have had
this debate in the year of 1900 when the immigration patterns of the
country had shifted to southern Europe and eastern Europe. I am sure at
the turn of the century there were those in corporate boardrooms who
were wondering what was going to happen in America with the changing
makeup of the country when they, as people from British stock who had
come to the country on the Mayflower or in some historic voyage, had to
share their America with Americans who had come from Germany or from
Italy or with Americans who had come from all over the world who were
of the Jewish faith. I do not doubt somebody in 1900, and maybe a lot
of people, worried about it.
But look what happened. Did those of us who came from other places
prove less worthy of being Americans than the colonists? Did we find
ourselves less worthy successors of the original revolution? I do not
think so.
I believe we have room for people who want to come and work because
America could not be America without immigrants. The story that is
uniquely American is the story of people coming to America to build
their dream and to build the American dream. I have absolutely no fear
that by people coming to America legally and to work--no one should
come to America to go on welfare--that America's future is going to be
diminished by that process. I believe their new vision, their new
energy will transform our country, as it has always transformed it, and
we will all be richer for it.
The bill before us tries to stop illegal immigration. We have an
obligation to control the borders of our country.
I am proud of the fact that in my year as chairman of Commerce,
State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, we began the process to
double the size of the Border Patrol and we enhanced the strength of
that action in this bill. We deny people who come to America illegally
welfare benefits, and we deny those benefits to people who come here
legally. We do not want people coming to America to go on welfare.
But I do not believe we have a problem today in America with people
who have come to this country and succeeded and who want to bring their
brother or their cousin or their mother here. When you look at the
people who are doing that, you find that they are the ones who are
enriching our country.
A final point, and I will yield the floor. It has struck me as I have
come to know ethnic Americans that many ethnic groups fight an unending
and losing battle to try to preserve their identity in America. It is a
losing battle because what happens is that young people who grow up in
this country become Americans. There is no way that can ever be
changed. Any differences that concern us very quickly vanish in this
country with great opportunity, where people are judged on their
individual merit.
What we are talking about today is trying to stop illegal
immigration, which is what we should do, but we should not back away
from our commitment to letting people come to America to build their
dream and ours. We should not close the door on people who want to
bring their relatives to America as long as their relatives come to
work, as long as they continue to achieve the amazing success that
immigrants have achieved in America.
There are a lot of things we ought to worry about before we go to bed
every night. We ought to worry about the deficit. We ought to worry
about the tax burden. We ought to worry about the regulatory burden. We
ought to even worry about the weather. But as long as we preserve a
system which lets ordinary people achieve extraordinary things, we do
not have to worry that our country is somehow going to be diminished
when an immigrant has gotten here, succeeded, and put down roots and
then wants to bring a sister or mother to America. If that is all you
have to worry about, you do not have a problem in the world. Let me
assure you, I do not worry about it. I do not want to tear down the
Statue of Liberty. There is room in America for people who want to
work.
I remember, as a closing thought, 3 years ago I was chairman of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, and we had a big event where
we invited our supporters from all over the country. I do not know
whether it just happened to be the letter I sent out that time or what,
but for some remarkable reason, about 80 percent of the people who came
to this particular event were first-generation Americans. As a result,
they all talked funny.
So we were about a day into the meeting and this sweet little lady
from Florida stood up in the midst of this meeting and with all
sincerity said to me, ``Senator Gramm, why do all the people here talk
funny?'' Boy, there was a collective gulp that you could have heard 100
miles away. So I thought for a minute, and in one of the better answers
that I have given in my
[[Page S4150]]
political life I said, ``Ma'am, 'cause this is America.''
If we ever get to the point where we do not have a few citizens who
talk funny, if we ever get to the point where we do not have a new
infusion of energy and a new spark to the American dream, then the
American dream is going to start to fade and it is going the start to
die. It is not going to fade and it is not going to die on my watch in
the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. GRAMM. I am glad to.
Mr. DeWINE. I just want to compliment my colleague from Texas for one
of the most eloquent statements I have heard since I have been in the
U.S. Senate, a little over a year. His story of his family, but frankly
most particularly his story of Wendy Gramm's family, his lovely wife,
is America's story. I have heard him, because he and I have been out
campaigning before together, I have heard him tell that story I think
eight or nine times. Each time I hear it, I am still touched by it
because it is truly America's story.
I will also compliment him on his comments about chain migration.
When you look at the chart of chain migration, that is America's story,
too. Those are people who are trying to bring their families here. You
see it--and, again, it is anecdotal--but you see it when you go into
restaurants in Ohio or you go into dry cleaning stores or you go into
any kind of establishments in Ohio, Washington, or Texas.
You see people in there who, you just assume they are all family. You
do not know whether they are brothers or cousins or who. They are all
working. They are working. That is what is the American dream. That is
what has made this country great. I just want to compliment him on
really, after kind of a long, difficult debate, coming over to the
floor and really cutting through some of our rhetoric and just getting
right down to it. I compliment him for that.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I think we have had a good debate. I listened
attentively to the remarks of my friend from Texas. I heard him speak
of a woman who is remarkable, Wendy Gramm. I can only tell him that
people have told me many times in the past years that anyone who knows
Senator Phil Gramm and Senator Al Simpson and knows Wendy Gramm and Ann
Simpson, knows that the two of us severely overmarried--severely. In
fact, a lot of people do not vote for us; they vote for them. But that
is just an experience that I share.
As we close the debate, I hope we can keep this in perspective. We
will continue to have the most open door of any country in the world,
regardless of what we do here. The numbers in my amendment are higher
than they have been for most of the last 50 years. We will continue to
have the most generous immigration policy in the world. We take more
immigrants than all the rest of the world combined. We take more
refugees than all the rest of the countries in the world combined. That
is our heritage. We have never turned back.
An interesting country, started by land gentries, highly educated
people, sophisticates who came here for one reason--to have religious
freedom. The only country on Earth founded in a belief in God. That is
corny nowadays, but that is what we have in America. And it will always
be so. People who came here were not exactly ragamuffins. They read
Locke and Montesquieu and Shakespeare and the classics. Interesting
country. No other country will ever have a jump-start like that in the
history of the world, period. So it is unique, it is extraordinary.
Amendment No. 3737
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me have a call for the regular order. I alert my
friend, Senator Kennedy, that I call for the regular order with respect
to the Coverdell amendment of last night. That was 3737. It was laid
down. There was debate. It was held back, the Coverdell amendment.
Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The amendment is now before
the Senate.
(The text of amendment No. 3737 was printed in the Record of April
24, 1996.)
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I know of no other speakers on that
amendment. I believe the managers are prepared to accept that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3737) was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 3739
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to amendment
No. 3739.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second. There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment N0. 3739. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 80, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]
YEAS--20
Baucus
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Cohen
Exon
Faircloth
Grassley
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kyl
Lott
Reid
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Thomas
NAYS--80
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3739) was rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________