[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

     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--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

     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
     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.

                          ____________________