[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.

                          ____________________