Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4151-S4156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we go on now to continue our work. I
think most of us know the lay of the land and our colleagues listening
would soon know.
I would withdraw my option to offer the next amendment, which is the
pending business, with the understanding that Senator Feinstein be
recognized to offer an amendment regarding levels of immigration. And
you might, I say to my colleagues, expect a motion to table on that
particular amendment within the next 20 or 25 minutes.
I yield.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. And that is with the understanding that the time would be
equally divided. Is that correct?
Mr. SIMPSON. That would be correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time would be equally divided between----
Mr. SIMPSON. The time would be equally divided.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time would we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is not a unanimous-consent request. It
was felt that the parties had resolved this and so it was presented on
that basis. There was to be little debate, as I understood it, and I
was told that there would be a motion to table within 20 or 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding there is no
time agreement.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that is correct. I think we will see it
take place in its ephemeral form, somewhat obscure but nevertheless
quite appropriate, I think.

Amendment No. 3740 to amendment No. 3725

(Purpose: To limit and improve the system for the admission of family-
sponsored immigrants)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 10
minutes on amendment 3740. I should like to take 5 minutes of that time
and then have 5 minutes accorded to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the amendment to the
desk.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I call up the amendment. The amendment is at the
desk. The amendment is No. 3740.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an
amendment numbered 3740.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will explain the amendment this way.
Essentially, the amendment is a compromise between the Simpson
amendment and what is in the bill as a product of the Abraham-Kennedy
amendment.
I believe we need to stop the pierceable cap, and my amendment would
place a hard cap on family totals of 480,000, which is the current law,
without the anticipated increase. It would stop the spillover from the
unused employment visas, the loophole in the current system. And it
would not close out the preference categories.
Under my family amendment, parents and adult children are guaranteed
to receive visas every year, remaining consistent with the goal of
family reunification. The amendment allocates 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, always remaining within the hard cap of 480,000. It
would allow a backlog clearance of spouse and minor children of
permanent residents by allowing 75 percent of any visas left over
within the family total to be allocated for this category's backlog
clearance.

Now, to control chain migration, which Commissioner Doris Meissner
told me is created by the Sibling of Citizens category, it places a
moratorium on that category for 5 years, but if there are any visas
left over with the hard cap of 480,000, the amendment would allow 25
percent of the leftover to be used for the backlog clearance of
siblings, those who have been waiting for many, many years.
The point of this is that if we do not address this issue, the
numbers swell 41 percent over what we were indicated they would be in
committee to nearly a million. This creates the hard total of 480,000.
It permits the sliding scale down the family preference, and it
eliminates what is the chain migration concern that had been raised by
many in committee.
I believe it is a modest amendment to control overall numbers. Coming
from the State with the largest numbers, with the absence of classes
for youngsters, with the cutbacks in welfare money, with the absence of
adequate housing for people, we cannot keep taking 40 percent of the
Nation's total of legal immigrants, of refugees, of asylees, and
therefore I think this is a prudent, modest, fair compromise.
So, again, we would place a hard cap at the current law level,
480,000. We would close a loophole where unused employment visas spill
over into the family immigration numbers, and we would guarantee that
close family members of citizens get visas each year with flexible
limits allowing an increase in the allocation of visas with decreases
in the immediate family categories.
I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is essentially the same amendment
that we just disposed of. Once you maintain the cap that Senator
Feinstein does as well as Senator Simpson, you use up 472,000, which
leaves 7,000 left over. Senator Simpson targeted those to the wives and
children of permanent resident aliens. Senator Feinstein spreads those
out--adult unmarried citizens, adult children of citizens.
Quite frankly, I think we ought to be dealing with this in the legal
immigration, but if you had to ask me I would rather put them in for
the children and married members of permanent resident aliens. We are
talking about 7,000 visas on this--7,000. That is the amount that will
be available under this. So I really fail to see how this is very much
more than sort of Simpson-like.
I reserve the remainder of the time.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the
Senator from California. It is a good-faith effort to try to respond to
the critics of the Simpson amendment, and I think it does a very good
job of doing that.
As Senator Kennedy pointed out just now, however, it does retain the
cap of 480,000, and this is what we are trying to say here today. You
really cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we are not
increasing illegal immigration and then not do anything to achieve that
goal, because under the bill as written, immigration is going to
skyrocket. That is what the INS figures and formally reported by the
San Diego Union paper said: 40 percent next year; 41 percent the year
after that.

[[Page S4152]]

If we are willing to accept those large numbers, then we should be up
front about that. But everyone who has supported the bill out of
committee and opposed the Simpson amendment has inferred that we are
really not going to increase numbers at all. The fact is, we would
increase them.
Under both the Simpson and Feinstein amendment, we would have a cap.
So that problem, the problem of, in effect, runaway numbers, is solved
by this cap of 480,000. But at the same time, Senator Feinstein is
attempting to respond to the criticism that opponents of the Simpson
amendment made, which is that all of the preference could be used up by
the first category, theoretically, and you would never guarantee that
some of the second, third and fourth preferences could be satisfied.
So what Senator Feinstein has done is to say there will be certain
slots left open for, for example, the grown children of citizens or
siblings and, therefore, to the extent the 480,000 cap was not reached
by the first preference, that the other preferences would each have a
number--and it is not 7,000, the numbers would range between 35,000,
75,000, depending upon how many are available.
Just in conclusion, it seems to me this is a good-faith effort to
deal with legitimate concerns that were raised, but, yes, it is also
true that there is an absolute cap of 480,000, because the purpose here
is twofold: to allow several different categories, each to have a
number of slots to be made legal under our system, but at the same time
draw an overall limit so that annually no more than 480,000 would be
permitted to come in under this particular family category.
So I think the Feinstein amendment is a good compromise, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond, if I might,
to the argument raised by the Senator from Massachusetts. Using an
Immigration and Naturalization Service document entitled ``Immigration
and Backlog Reductions Under Current Law,'' and adding the three
categories--spouses and children's space, spouses and children's
change, an increase due to legalization through IRCA, here are the
totals that we come up with: In fiscal year 1995, 206,000; in fiscal
year 1996, 270,000; in fiscal year 1997, 370,000; in fiscal year 1998,
349,000. The highest year would be 1997, which leaves 110,000 even in
1997 to filter down through the categories.

I ask that the chart entitled ``Immigration and Backlog Reductions
Under Current Law''--these are assumptions, so I recognize that
depending on the assumptions that one uses, you can get different
figures. These are the ones that, again, are a little different from
what Senator Kennedy is working on because they project this very large
total at the bottom of 1 million in 1995, of 984,000 in 1996, of
600,000 in 1997. Those are the total numbers.
So I think if these come in to be the case, even in the most
difficult year, there is 110,000 that would filter down through the
remaining categories.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have a moment to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. These various charts have been provided by the INS to
me, as well as the other chart on which we have the numbers. I will put
those that were provided by the INS in, and I refer the Senator, if she
has these same charts--we do not have to take the time of the Senate.
We will be glad to have a quorum or let others speak.
But it points out in 1997, there is 472,781. That is the immediate
relative estimate, 472,000. If you have 472,000 and you have a cap at
480,000, it means you have 7,151 left over. The idea of representing to
this body that we are going to spill some of those over into these
categories is a stretch, I just say.
Those numbers, in fairness to the Senator, build over a period of
time. There are still 40,000 in 1998; 86,000 in 1999. So those numbers
still go up, but they still do not justify the kind of spilldown in the
coverage that the Senator has explained.
It says 7,151 here, which was provided by the INS and 7,151. I will
be glad to go into a quorum call to make sure we are not talking about
different charts, but these were the ones provided by the INS. Whatever
time--it is Senator Abraham's time and Senator Feingold's time.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would appreciate being apprised of the
circumstances with respect to time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit or time designated. It
was an approximate time.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I was not sure whether that had actually been formulated
in a unanimous-consent agreement. If not, let me make a couple of quick
points.
I do not think we want to extend the debate unnecessarily here,
because the issues on this amendment are virtually identical to the
issues that were on the floor in the context of Senator Simpson's
amendment.
The fact is that this is almost the same amendment as Senator
Simpson's amendment. As we heard, modest efforts are being made to
apply some of these visas to, as I understand it, some of the other
categories besides the children and spouses of permanent residents, but
it is going to work out, as Senator Kennedy has said, to a very, very
few, just because those categories will consume such a high percentage
of the visas that are going to be available under this very substantial
amendment.
Second, the priorities, as I see them, that were established in the
previous amendment are in this amendment as well. Once again, we see an
overwhelming percentage of the immigration that will be legal under
this amendment going not to the children of citizens of the United
States, adult children or married children, but rather to the children
of noncitizens, many of whom are, in fact, individuals who were once
illegal aliens. It seems to me those priorities are not the appropriate
ones that we should establish.
But I have to say, Mr. President, already just in the discussion that
has happened in the first few minutes of this amendment, it is quite
clear--we just received this amendment late this afternoon--the
projections that are being made are hypothetical projections. There is
confusion with respect to this amendment.
It is unclear to me, after studying it for the last hour or so,
exactly what its effects will be. At least we had a little bit of time
to look at the effects of the previous amendment. But from what I can
tell, it would definitely cut overall family preference immigration by
roughly 60 percent. It would cap and slash the immigration of parents
of U.S. citizens. It would cut the immigration of adult children of
U.S. citizens by over 60 percent. It would eliminate all immigration of
siblings, basically. These are dramatic changes in the legal
immigration laws of this country.
As I said with some frequency during the debate on the last
amendment, Mr. President, they should be dealt with separately from the
debate on illegal immigration. These are two very distinct issues with
a very powerful and important impact on citizens of this country and
their families.
We should deal in this bill with illegal immigration. We should
maintain the split which was put together in the Judiciary Committee
that divided these two. We should follow the lead of the House keeping
legal immigration separate from illegal immigration.
Even if we were to consider legal immigration, I once again argue it
should not be done in this type of piecemeal fashion, such weighty,
complicated amendments brought in this fashion. It is impossible to
even determine the potential impact of this amendment.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to once again
follow the lead of the last amendment, keep these issues separate, keep
legal immigration separate from illegal immigration, pursue ahead
today, and let us get a good illegal immigration bill through the
Senate. I think it will address many of these problems. Then let us
take the legal immigration bill that is at the desk, and then let us
deal with that in a deliberative fashion here on the floor of the
Senate. I think that is the way we should go.
This amendment is hardly different from the last one. It has the same
priorities, has the same dramatic changes. I strongly oppose it.

[[Page S4153]]

Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for those Members in the Chamber or those
Members watching back in their offices, this is really the same vote
that we just had. It is not substantially changed. The issues are
essentially the same. I am not going to take the time of my colleagues
to wade through this again. We had about 6 or 7 hours already today on
very, very similar issues. It is essentially the same vote.
This bill still, I say with all due respect, is antifamily, is
antifamily reunification. It flies in the face of the best traditions
of our country as far as immigration policy is concerned. It mixes,
unfortunately, the legal immigration issue and the illegal immigration
issue. This is the illegal immigration bill. We should continue the
tradition, and we should continue what the Judiciary Committee did, and
that is to not mix the two.
This is the sheet that has been passed out. When you go through it,
what you really find is that it is very, very similar to the previous
amendment, very, very similar to the previous issue. It is true that
some of these slots have been sprinkled down into some of the family
groups, but effectively--effectively--it is very, very little.
The essence then is that it is pretty much the same vote that we had a
few minutes ago. I urge my colleagues again to reject the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with the comments of
the Senators from Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. We just had an
overwhelming vote, that I think in large part reflected the will of
this body, that the legal and illegal immigration issues have to be
kept separate. I am sure there were a variety of concerns, as well,
about the specifics of the previous amendment. But the overwhelming
sentiment, I think, is that these issues have to be kept separate.
As indicated in the comments during that debate, that last vote was
the vote on whether or not we should take up the legal immigration
issues in this bill or not. The vote was very overwhelming.
The Senator from Massachusetts suggests that this amendment might be
referred to as Simpson-like. I differ. I argue that it is more like
perhaps ``Simpson, the sequel,'' because in both amendments you have
this absolute cap. The consequence of that, I think, is very real for
families that want to be reunited. In fact, there is an element of the
Feinstein amendment that is even harsher.
As I understand, the amendment provides for a 5-year moratorium on
siblings being able to come into the country and be reunited in this
way. At least the Simpson amendment provided for a category, although,
practically speaking, it was pretty clear we would never get to that.
I think anyone who thinks that this is somehow a major compromise or
splitting the difference between current law and the Simpson
amendment--I think that would be inaccurate. But the most important
point is that because of this amendment, if we go this route, there
will be families who are conducting themselves legally, who today could
legally obtain a visa and will not obtain a visa. Those families will
not be reunited. That is what will happen because of this amendment.
In the end, Mr. President, obviously, this is a legitimate debate. It
is the kind of thing we should do out here, but we should do it at the
right time. There is a legal immigration bill where this subject could
be brought up and dealt with at the appropriate time to review this
amendment.
So in light of the last vote, in light of the fact that this will
have a real harsh consequence on many families conducting themselves
legally, in light of the fact that this body clearly has indicated a
desire to keep these issues separate, I urge that the amendment be
rejected. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we are ready to vote on this side.
We thoroughly debated this issue. In fact, we debated it all day. This,
in reality, is the same amendment we voted on before. It simply does
the same thing in a different way. This amendment, in our opinion, is
wrongheaded and wronghearted. It needs to be defeated. I hope we can
maintain the 80 votes we had before. I hope everyone who voted against
the previous amendment will vote exactly the same way they did for
exactly the same reason. I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the
Senator from California and 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 is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment No. 3740. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

YEAS--74

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Bradley
Bumpers
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Feingold
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--26

Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Cohen
Dole
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Grassley
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kyl
Nunn
Reid
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Thomas
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3740) was agreed
to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a
personal privilege.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator.

Change of Vote

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I seek unanimous consent to change my
vote on rollcall No. 82 from yesterday, April 24, 1996. At the time of
the vote, I did not realize it was a tabling motion. Had I realized
that, I would have voted ``no'', not to table it. This vote change, if
I get unanimous consent, in no way would change the outcome of the
vote.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the permanent Record be
changed to reflect that I support the Dorgan amendment No. 3667 and
that I oppose the motion to table the Dorgan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the U.S. Senate continues to debate the
illegal immigration reform legislation, I would like to make a brief
statement on an issue of importance to the State of Hawaii and our
Nation. Tourism is

[[Page S4154]]

the No. 1 industry in the State of Hawaii. The State has expressed an
interest in extending the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program to other
Asian countries, particularly the Republic of Korea. The current Visa
Waiver Pilot Program covers only three countries in the Asia-Pacific
region: Japan, New Zealand, and Brunei. New Zealand, Canada, and Guam
all have visa waiver agreements with Korea. Since implementing visa
waiver agreements with Korea, arrivals increased in the first year by
285 percent to New Zealand, 96 percent to Canada, and 147 percent to
Guam. In 1995, the State of Hawaii wecomed over 120,000 visitors from
Korea, and the State is anxious to see future growth in visitors from
this important emerging market.
Travel and tourism also play a major role in reducing the United
States unfavorable balance of trade. There is an increasing demand by
citizens of the Republic of Korea to visit the United States. In fiscal
year 1994, 320,747 nonimmigrant visas were issued to Korean travelers.
In fiscal year 1995, 394,044 nonimmigrants visas were issued to Korean
travelers. Of this amount, 320,120 were tourist visas.
The Republic of Korea is not eligible to participate in the current
Visa Waiver Pilot Program. On March 14, 1996, I, along with Senators
Murkowski, Akaka, and Stevens, introduced S. 1616, legislation that
would establish a 3-year Visa Waiver Pilot Program for Korean nationals
who are traveling in tour groups to the United States. Under the
program, selected travel agencies in Korea would be allowed to issue
temporary travel permits. The applicants would be required to meet the
same prerequisites imposed by the U.S. Embassy.
The pilot legislation also includes additional restrictions to help
deter the possibility of illegal immigration. These are:
The stay in the United States is no more than 15 days.
The visitor poses no threat to the welfare, health, and safety, or
security of the United States.
The visitor possesses a round-trip ticket.
The visitor who is deemed inadmissible or deportable by an
immirgation officer would be returned to Korea by the transportation
carrier.
Tour operators will be required to post a $200,000 performance bond
with the Secretary of State, and will be penalized if a visitor fails
to return on schedule.
Tour operators will be required to provide written certification of
the on-time return of each visitor within the tour group.
The Secretary of State and the Attorney General can terminate the
pilot program should the overstay rate exceed 2 percent.
Accordingly, I urge Senators Simpson and Kennedy to schedule a
hearing on this proposal. I also encourage my colleagues to cosponsor
S. 1616.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, during today's debate on S. 1664, I
wanted to take the opportunity to speak on a bill I have cosponsored,
the Korea visa waiver pilot project legislation, S. 1616. While this
legislation is not being offered as an amendment to S. 1664, the
subject of the bill is relevant to today's debate.
I would urge all Senators to consider cosponsoring this legislation,
and I would hope that the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration of the
Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the problems of visa
issuance for Koreans, and the partial solution offered by S. 1616.
I have worked closely with Senators Inouye, Akaka, and Stevens on
this legislation. This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance
of United States tourist visas to Korean citizens, and their, too
often, subsequent decision not to vacation in the United States,
including Alaska even though there are direct flights available for
tourists from Korea to Alaska. The United States Chamber of Commerce in
Korea has made resolving this issue a top priority on their agenda.
The main problem is that Koreans typically wait 2 to 3 weeks to
obtain visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a result,
these spontaneous travelers decide to go to one of the other 48 nations
that allow them to travel to their country without a visa, including
both Canada and New Zealand.
This bill provides the legal basis for a carefully controlled pilot
program for visa free travel by Koreans to the United States. The
program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the
cumbersome visa system. For example, in 1994, 296,706 nonimmigrant
United States visas were granted to Koreans of which 7,000 came to
Alaska. It is predicted that there would be a 500- to 700-percent
increase in Korean tourism to Alaska with the visa waiver pilot
project. In New Zealand, for example, a 700-percent increase in tourism
from Korea occurred after they dropped the visa requirement.
This pilot program allows visitors in a tour group from South Korea
to travel to the United States without a visa. However, it does not
compromise the security standards of the United States. The program
would allow selected travel agencies in Korea to issue temporary travel
permits based on applicants meeting the same preset standards used by
the United States Embassy in Seoul. The travel permits could only be
used for supervised group tours.
Many restrictions are included in the legislation for the pilot
proposal.
The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate the program
if the overstay rates in the program are 2 percent.
The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days.
The visitors have to have a round-trip ticket, in addition, the
visitors have to arrive by a carrier that agrees to take them back if
they are deemed inadmissible.
We recommend to the Secretary of State to institute a bonding and
licensing requirement that each participating travel agency post a
substantial performance bond and pay a financial penalty if a tourist
fails to return on schedule.
The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be certified
after each tour.
Security checks are done to ensure that the visitor is not a safety
threat to the United States.
This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be
a successful program. Again, I urge my colleagues to support and
cosponsor this legislation.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Vote on Motion to Table the Motion to Recommit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the motion to recommit.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford

[[Page S4155]]

Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed
to.
Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleagues that it will probably be
fairly late. We will have a series of votes here. I will try to reduce
the votes from three to one. That may be objected to. If not, there
will be three votes. That will be followed by the appropriations bill
that is here from the House.
I am not certain how much debate we will have. It is a $160 billion
package. I assume there will be considerable debate. We are probably
looking at 12 o'clock, somewhere in there.
Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for
me to move to table en bloc, which would save time, amendments numbered
3669, 3670, and 3671. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we inquire
from the majority leader whether there is any willingness to set a time
for the minimum wage debate so that we could have an up or down vote
and the leader could have an up or down vote so we could avoid all of
this parliamentary business.
Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleague from Massachusetts--and I
have discussed this briefly with him and with the Democratic leader. I
have asked Senator Lott to discuss it further with the Democratic
leader.
We made a proposal--as I understand, it has been objected to--that we
would take it up not before June 4 but not later than June 28, and
other provisions, but we understood that would not be agreed to. It is
not that we have not tried. We will continue to work with the
Democratic leader and the Senator from Massachusetts.
I would like to pass the immigration bill. It seems to me that
immigration, particularly illegal immigration, is a very, very
important issue in this country. It has broad bipartisan support. The
minimum wage, whatever its merits may be, does not belong on this bill.
We waited 3 years into the Clinton administration for anybody to even
mention minimum wage. At least, the President never mentioned minimum
wage.
Since the action on the Senate floor, the President has mentioned, I
guess this year, minimum wage 50-some times--not once the previous 3
years. So, it is not too difficult to understand the motivation.
Having said that, we are prepared to try to work out some
accommodation with my colleagues on the other side, and we hope that we
can save some time. These are going to be party line votes. There will
be three of them. We could have three votes or we could have one vote,
whatever my colleagues would like to have.
Mr. KENNEDY. Further reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding the proposal that was made was not an up or down vote and
clean vote on the issue of the minimum wage. That was not the proposal
that was made. That is what we are asking for. That is what we are
asking for. I would also say that we have had some 2\1/2\ hours of
quorum calls today. All we are asking for is a short time period for an
up-or-down vote and for the majority leader's proposal on this, and a
reasonable timeframe. If we are not given that kind of an opportunity--
we have gone, for three and a half or 4 days, through various
gymnastics to try to avoid a vote on the minimum wage, and now we are
asked to truncate what has been done in order to avoid the vote on the
minimum wage. So I object.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 3669

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now move to table amendment No. 3669 and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. I will yield for a question. I do not want to frustrate the
Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate is not in order.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I do not want to delay the vote. I know everybody wants
to move on. This issue has two pieces to it. The first is the one the
Senator from Massachusetts described, relating to our determination to
get a vote on the minimum wage. The other is the opportunity we want to
be able to offer amendments. A tree was constructed, parliamentarily,
to deny Democrats the opportunity to offer these amendments. That is
really what this whole arrangement has been all about--denying
Democrats the opportunity to offer amendments. We hope that we can
accommodate a way with which to deal with Democratic amendments, and it
is only through this process that we are going to be able to do that.
So I am sorry that Senators are inconvenienced, but there is no other
way, short of an agreement on amendments, that we are going to be able
to resolve this matter.
Mr. McCAIN. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.

Quorum Call

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators
entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 1]

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall has been completed and a quorum
is present.

amendment no. 3669

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll on the motion to
table.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
Lautenberg] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin

[[Page S4156]]

Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Lautenberg

So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3669) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask it be in order for me to table en
bloc amendments Nos. 3670 and 3671, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. We object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Amendment No. 3670

Mr. DOLE. I now move to table amendment No. 3670 and ask for yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote be limited
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

YEAS--53

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3670) was agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Amendment No. 3671

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 3671 and ask
for the yeas and nays. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 3671

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3671) was agreed
to.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we still have just a couple of items to do
with reference to the pending legislation. But I have had a discussion
with the distinguished Democratic leader. We would like to move now to
the conference report, then following the vote on the conference report
go back and complete action on the pending measure.

____________________