[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4286-S4308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        IMMIGRATION CONTROL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1664, and under a previous order, at the 
hour of 5 p.m., the clerk will report a motion to invoke cloture.
  The clerk will state the bill by title.
  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 
     by increasing border patrol and investigative personnel and 
     detention facilities, improving the system used by employers 
     to verify citizenship or work-authorized alien status, 
     increasing penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, 
     and reforming asylum, exclusion, and deportation law and 
     procedures; to reduce the use of welfare by aliens; and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:

       Dole (for Simpson) amendment No. 3743, of a perfecting 
     nature.
       Dole (for Simpson) amendment No. 3744 (to amendment No. 
     3743), of a perfecting nature.
       Dole motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith.
       Lott amendment No. 3745 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit), to require the report to Congress on detention 
     space to state the amount of detention space available in 
     each of the preceding 10 years.
       Dole modified Amendment No. 3746 (to amendment No. 3745), 
     to authorize the use of volunteers to assist in the 
     administration of naturalization programs, port of entry 
     adjudications, and criminal alien removal.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was wondering if we could ask my friend 
from Arizona if we could divide the time between now and then between 
the two parties. I do not know how many other speakers we are going to 
have, but there may be some at the end. Just as a way of proceeding, 
maybe we can do that. If there is a reservation about it, I will 
continue to inquire of the Senator about some evenness in time. We 
might not approach that as an issue, but, more often than not, just 
before we get to the debate, a number of Senators would like to speak. 
I would like to see if we can reach some kind of way of allocating the 
time fairly and perhaps permitting Senators on both sides to make 
increasingly brief comments as we get closer to the time.
  Mr. KYL. I do not have any objection to that. I know the Senator from 
Nevada wants to speak on unrelated matters now. Perhaps as we get 
further into that, the precise nature in which we can proceed may be 
more apparent to us later than it is now. I have no objection.

[[Page S4287]]

  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I want to speak on immigration 
matters. So it is a related matter.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will visit with the Senator in another 
hour and see where we are.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want this afternoon to talk about two 
amendments that I am hopeful will be allowed to be disposed of by a 
vote in this Chamber at some time during the discussion of this 
immigration bill.
  As we all know, the parliamentary procedure is such that I do not 
think anyone knows at this time what the future of amendments like 
those that I intend to offer by 4 o'clock today will be. But I wanted 
to have the opportunity to talk about one or two matters in light of 
the unknowns that lie ahead.
  Mr. President, first of all, I want to talk about a subject that, 
even though I have spoken about it many times on the Senate floor--I 
have spoken about it in other forums--it is still difficult to speak 
about because it is an issue about, no matter how many times you speak 
about the unfairness, the brutality of the procedure which is something 
that you never get used to.
  In the fall of 1994 I introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
condemning the cruel practice of female genital mutilation, and at that 
time I applauded the Government of Egypt for taking quick action 
against two men who performed this illegal act on a 10-year-old girl. 
This act had been performed hundreds of thousands of times. But on this 
occasion television cameras hidden in nature were watching this brutal 
act by a man with his 10-year-old daughter. Dressed in the finest 
clothes, she had came for a celebration. The little girl was excited, 
and happy because the attention was focused on her. And then, Mr. 
President, she was held down, her legs spread apart, and she was 
brutally mutilated.
  This little girl was screaming, ``Daddy, why did you do this to me?"
  My being the father of a daughter, it brought tears to my eyes.
  This resolution passed on September 27, 1994. At that time I 
committed myself to continue to talk about this issue and informing my 
colleagues, and others that would listen, of the dangers it poses to 
the physical and emotional health of young ladies, and how basically 
immoral it is.
  I felt it was important, and believe it is important, to inform the 
American public of its prevalence in immigrant communities in the 
United States.
  That next month, in October, I came to the floor to introduce 
legislation to make the practice of female genital mutilation against 
the law in the United States. I have tried on numerous occasions to do 
that. I have been unable to succeed.
  The latest failure was when the conferees on the omnibus 
appropriations bill that we just passed--and which was signed into law 
by the President--was stripped from that bill for procedural reasons.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee from the House--when I 
explained to him the procedure--said, ``You will have no objection from 
me.'' Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 
recognizes brutality, and said he would not oppose it. But, of course, 
in the confines of the conference people look for all kinds of excuse 
and reasons to do things. And, no matter the times I spoke to people, 
they said, ``Well, we do not want to pass any criminal law in an 
appropriations bill.''
  I do not think this is something that calls for formalities. I 
thought that we should have passed the law previously. I think it is 
wrong that we have waited so long. And, as we speak, this practice is 
being performed all over the world. And it is being performed in the 
United States.
  I, Mr. President, think it is a shame that organizations like the 
United Nations are mute about this particular procedure. They say 
nothing.
  In October 1994 I came to the floor to introduce legislation. The 
bill also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
identify and compile data on the immigrant communities in this country 
that continue this practice, and to develop recommendations for the 
education of medical school students so that they can treat women that 
have been mutilated by this ritual.
  I am pleased to say that we have been successful in having the 
directives to the Secretary of Health and Human Services accepted in 
the omnibus appropriations bill which passed last week. We have made 
that progress. I think that is important. We know that out of Santa 
Clara County in California recently we heard of seven cases being 
reported there of this brutal act being performed on girls and young 
women.
  I would like to thank those that made it possible to get that part of 
the bill passed.
  But this language is only a small step in acknowledging this practice 
that takes place so often--this torture which has been performed on 100 
million girls and young women in over 30 countries worldwide--over 100 
million human beings.
  Mr. President, again, as I said, I have spoken about this subject on 
a number of occasions. It does not become easier to speak about it in 
repetitive cases. But it is important to inform those who are within 
the sound of my voice what this barbaric procedure is.
  Normally, if anything can be normal that is associated with this 
practice, it is performed on young girls between the ages of 4 and 10 
years of age. But, if they happen to slip by some way, many teenagers 
and women in their twenties have had this performed on them. This 
procedure is often referred to as circumcision, but it has more in 
common with castration. Excision and infibulation are the most common 
practices.
  Infibulation, Mr. President, is practiced in many countries. It 
entails the excision of all female genitalia with a razor, a piece of 
glass, or just a knife. The remaining tissue is stitched together 
leaving only a small opening for urine, and menstrual fluid. This 
practice has no medical justification for being performed on healthy 
young girls, and certainly not on women. And it is usually performed 
with crude, unsterile instruments without anesthesia. These young girls 
are many times tied down, or held down. And I have watched the one that 
I talked about initially where this young little girl was screaming as 
no one can scream. The aftereffects of this act include shock, 
infection, emotional trauma, hemorrhaging, debilitating scarring, 
infertility, and death.
  If there were ever an example of sexism, this is it.
  A young woman from Togo was recently called to our attention because 
this woman, a 20-year-old woman, was going to have this procedure. 
Fauziya Kasinga fled Togo and came to America in order to escape the 
torture of female genital mutilation. She is now seeking asylum based 
on the threat of this procedure being performed on her and she deserves 
it. She fled Togo, left behind people, and her family. She has been in 
the United States prisons for 2 years in order to escape this 
procedure. Women and children should not be forced to face this pain, 
potential death, and emotional scarring.
  An amendment will be offered today to the pending immigration bill 
that would allow female genital mutilation to be the basis of asylum in 
this country, as well as to criminalize the act in the United States. 
We must join other countries in legally banning female genital 
mutilation. As immigrants from Africa and the Middle East travel to 
other nations, this practice travels with them. The United Kingdom, 
Sweden, and Switzerland have passed laws prohibiting this practice. 
France and Canada maintain that their laws will prevent this from 
happening. The United States is faced with the responsibility, I 
believe, of abolishing this specific practice within its borders as 
well as providing safe refuge for those in fear of having this torture 
inflicted upon them.
  Mr. President, I think we should be very clear and precise in what we 
allow for asylum. I think we have been too lax in asylum cases. I do 
not think we have had the personnel to adequately handle these cases. 
People come and claim political asylum, and are lost in the vast bowels 
of this country.
  Having said that, though, I believe there is no case clearer for 
demanding asylum than a woman or a girl saying I am here because if I 
stay in my country, they are going to rip out my genitalia.
  This practice is brutal, systematic, and it is a cultural practice. 
It has been endured by millions of young girls and women and its 
prevalence is just now being revealed to the world.
  Last month, the Pulitzer Prize was given to Stephanie Welsh, a 
Syracuse

[[Page S4288]]

University student who photographed the procedure that was being 
performed on a 16-year-old girl in Kenya. These pictures show the world 
how horrific and real this practice is. Many nations have made efforts 
to deter the practice with legislation. We should do the same.
  Sudan has the longest record of efforts to combat the practice of FGM 
and has legislated against the procedure, but it has been for show 
only: 80 percent of Sudanese women continue to be infibulated, 
according to the 1992 Minority Rights Group report.
  I commend Senator Simpson for his work on immigration generally and 
for supporting me on this very important issue.
  On one other issue before I give the floor back to the managers, it 
was brought to my attention recently that a couple in Henderson, NV, a 
suburb of Las Vegas, had experienced cries for legislation.
  Mr. President, I practiced law and did a lot of domestic relations 
work. I have been an attorney for hundreds of people who have been 
involved in divorce proceedings. I have been involved in many, many 
divorce cases involving child custody. They are heart-wrenching cases, 
where a mother and father fight over the custody of their children. I 
have had experiences where it is difficult to believe that parents 
could do to their children what they do in order to spite their former 
husband and wife, but they do it. I have had cases where custody has 
been awarded where I thought the judge was wrong, but I have witnessed 
how difficult it is for a husband, wife, father and mother to lose 
custody of their children. That is really a heart-wrenching situation.
  But what has been one of the low points of my emotional stability has 
been when a father or mother steals the child and then you have this 
mother or father coming to you, saying: What am I going to do? Will I 
ever get to see my little girl again, or my little boy again?
  It is a difficult divorce case in Nevada, and they run off to 
Tennessee or Maine, and it is very expensive and difficult to get that 
work out. But in the United States, with rare exception, judges from 
one jurisdiction recognize the decrees of another jurisdiction, so if 
we find where that child is in Tennessee we can bring the Nevada 
judgment and the court in Tennessee will recognize that.

  What this amendment is about is when a parent takes a child to 
another country, which happens very often--and that is what happened to 
Barbara Spierer, the mother of Mikey Spierer. What happened is her 
husband, the father of the child, a Croatian, in the dead of the night, 
took this child to Croatia, his place of birth, the father's place of 
birth. It was a war-torn country. It was 1993.
  The mother of this baby wakes up, recognizing that her child is in 
Croatia, a country that is at war. I will not go into all the details, 
but she was finally able, after tremendous expense and exhausting 
emotions, to get her child back.
  I believe we have to look at why that was allowed to take place. Much 
of the debate on immigration legislation involves complex issues and 
arcane areas of the law. The amendment that will be offered this 
afternoon is a commonsense legislative solution to a simple but 
extremely troubling issue. The issue is an attempt by me to resolve 
international parental abductions. The amendment does not attempt to 
right a wrong, but it does attempt to prevent future wrongs from 
occurring. And without this amendment future wrongs will occur.
  I have indicated the nightmare forced upon this family in Henderson, 
NV. Few would disagree that parental consent should be given before a 
passport is issued to a minor child. This problem that Barbara Spierer 
had would not have taken place if our laws did not permit such easy 
procurement of passports for minors, and in short what this amendment 
will require is that both parents will have to sign before you can get 
a visa granted to a child, or if not both parents the parent with the 
custody of the child would have to sign and allow the child to get the 
passport.
  Current law is an invitation to engage in the grossest of misbehavior 
by a scurrilous parent and usually, not for any reason that relates to 
the child, they want to get back at the husband or the wife or the 
mother or the father.
  I wish the situation of Barbara Spierer and her son Mikey were an 
isolated incident, but it is not. In 1994, the last year we have 
records, over 600 cases, over 600 cases of children abducted from the 
United States were reported. Thousands of parents are attempting, as we 
speak, to bring home their children who were taken from this country by 
a disgruntled mother or father.

  While these cases are tracked by the State Department and by children 
advocates, it is believed that many, many of the cases go unreported. 
So if we have 600 reported cases, most experts believe hundreds and 
hundreds more occur every year.
  This usually takes place where a parent has strong ties to a foreign 
country like the Spierer boy whose father was Croatian, but sometimes 
an American-born mother or father will take off for an unfamiliar 
nation or flee United States law.
  I had a case where I represented the father, and he was not going to 
be awarded those children so he just took them to Mexico and just 
basically lived down there. I thought it was so unfair what he had 
done, but it took us a couple years to get him to come back, and, of 
course, by then the children had been from their mother for almost 2 
years. It happens often.
  Why does this happen so easily? Because under present law one parent 
can procure the child's passport without the other knowing. Left-behind 
parents are faced with wading through a maze of foreign laws and 
customs in their efforts to secure their child's return.
  Imagine how difficult it is to find a missing child in the United 
States. Multiply that times 1,000 to find a missing child outside our 
borders. Finding the child is only the start. Once you find the child, 
you have to submit yourself to the foreign country's legal system, and 
most nations do not recognize custody orders of the United States. Even 
when criminal charges have been filed against the abducting parent in 
the United States, many nations will not honor a United States request 
for extradition. Some countries simply discriminate against women. The 
decision to fight for a child's return consumes enormous amounts of 
time and money. Many parents are simply without the financial 
wherewithal to engage in a protected international legal dispute, and 
that ends it.
  For a variety of reasons, the Government is able to do very little to 
assist these parents, and it is becoming more difficult all the time as 
the State Department moneys are being squeezed and squeezed.
  So I hope my amendment, which takes cost-effective steps toward 
preventing future abductions, would be adopted. It provides a series of 
checks prior to the time of the issuance of a minor child's passport. 
Both parents would be required to sign an application. If the child 
were under the age of 16 or if the divorce were already granted, the 
application would have to be signed by the parent of the child having 
primary custody. If such a law had been in place in 1993, Barbara 
Spierer's ex-husband would not have been able to abduct Mikey to 
Croatia. The passport would not have been issued, because a written 
permission had not been given. I believe this legislation is drafted in 
such a manner as to give the State Department the discretion to 
implement a reasonable and flexible rule.
  This amendment is not just about parental rights and preventing these 
tragic international abductions. It is about protecting the rights of 
children. Nobody disagrees that the rights, freedoms and liberties 
provided in our country make it the best country in the world. No child 
should be forced to lose those rights. No American child, regardless of 
age, should be abducted to the middle of a war-torn part of the world 
or any other part of the world. American parents should not be forced 
to endure the living nightmare that Barbara Spierer was forced to go 
through.
  If my amendment prevents only one family from having to endure this 
nightmare, it will be judged a success. I believe we have to pass this 
amendment and the one on the terrible procedures performed on women, 
and do it as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4289]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, while we are waiting for some other Members 
to come to the floor and discuss their proposed amendments, let me talk 
about an amendment which I had planned to offer but which I understand 
may not be considered germane--it is relevant but not germane, and 
therefore, presumably, I would not be able to offer it--but which is 
included in the House-passed bill and therefore will be a subject of 
the conference committee, and, therefore, I hope our Senate colleagues 
will be able to study and, hopefully, concur in it.
  This is an amendment to restrict section 245(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. By way of explanation, prior to 1994, if an 
illegal alien residing in the United States became eligible for an 
immigrant visa through a family relationship or other means, then the 
alien could adjust to lawful, permanent resident status without any 
financial or other penalty.

  In order to obtain the visa, the alien was required to depart from 
the United States, obtain a visa at the foreign consulate, and then, of 
course, return and acquire the legal status here. Section 245(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act was added by section 505 of the fiscal 
year 1995 State appropriations measure. Under this new section, an 
illegal alien who becomes eligible for an immigrant visa may adjust to 
lawful permanent status without departing the United States, but only 
if the individual pays a penalty of five times the normal application 
fee. The penalty fee is approximately $750. Some have referred to this 
as, ``buying your way in.'' Those who are wealthy enough simply pay 
this fee, this five times the normal penalty fee, and thereby are able 
to convert an illegal status to legal status and never have to return 
home to obtain a visa to arrive here legally.
  Under the proposed amendment, which I will not be able to offer but, 
as I said, which is included in the House-passed version of the bill 
and which I hope our Senate conferees will look kindly upon, under this 
amendment, the aliens present in the United States illegally will no 
longer be able to stay here and buy their way into permanent resident 
status. They would have to return to their home country, obtain a legal 
visa, and return just as they did prior to 1995.
  The amendment would take effect on October 1, 1996. There are a 
couple of exceptions that are worth noting, because we do not want to 
penalize anyone who is already here and who would be acting under 
appropriate color of law.
  First, all aliens currently eligible for lawful permanent resident 
status under section 245(i) of the act may, under our proposal, upon 
payment of the full penalty fee, apply for legal status until October 
1, 1996.
  After October 1, 1996, those aliens, and only those aliens in the so-
called ``family fairness'' category, would be eligible to change their 
status under section 245(i). The people protected under that section 
are those under section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990. They are 
exempt from this change.
  Those in the family fairness category would be able to stay in the 
United States and would not be faced with this penalty fee. It includes 
those children and spouses of aliens granted asylum on May 5, 1988. In 
order to be eligible, the spouse or the child must have been present in 
the United States on that date. Those are the people who, in some way, 
were grandfathered in, and, as a result, they would not be required to 
go back and obtain a visa in order to obtain legal status here.

  But, except for those two categories, people would no longer be able 
to buy their way into the United States. The amendment takes effect at 
the end of the fiscal year, in order to give INS and the State 
Department an opportunity to adjust their resources. After September 
30, 1997, this whole section 245(i) would expire.
  Just a word. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the 
Department of State oppose the amendment, primarily on fiscal grounds 
because of their costs inherent in processing the visa applications. We 
are in the process of working out the possibility where a fee would be 
paid which would cover their expenses and alleviate that particular 
concern.
  They also pose the argument that, regardless where an illegal alien 
applies for legal status, either in the United States or a consulate in 
their home country, the waiting period to achieve the visa is the same. 
The point I make, however, is that the illegal alien is already in the 
United States illegally and that is not something we should reward, at 
least for those who are able to pay for it, by simply having them pay a 
special fine.
  I also think what the agencies fail to appreciate is that once an 
illegal alien applies for legal status in the United States, he may be 
considered to be permanently residing in the United States under color 
of law, the so-called PRUCOL status. The PRUCOL standard is frequently 
used as a transitional status for aliens who are becoming permanent 
residents of the United States. If an alien is considered under PRUCOL, 
then that alien is eligible for numerous Federal assistance programs, 
including AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, housing 
assistance and other unrestricted programs. So, in this manner, aliens 
who enter the United States illegally would be rewarded if they are 
allowed to reside in the United States while they are waiting for a 
decision on their application.
  The amendment I have offered but will not reask for a vote on 
eliminates this reward and the accompanying drain on federally funded 
programs by requiring illegal aliens desiring to apply for permanent 
status to return to their home country.
  Just to summarize it, again, if you were here illegally, you would 
need to go back home and get a visa to apply for permanent legal 
status. You would not be able to pay a five-times-the-usual-amount fee 
and thereby buy your way into the country, as they say.
  Again, the House has adopted this. Hopefully, on the conference 
committee we will agree with the House proposal and we can make that 
change in our immigration law.


   Craig-Gorton Amendment Reforming the H-2A Temporary Agricultural 
                            Workers Program

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment at the desk on 
behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton].
  Let me start by publicly thanking my good friend, Al Simpson. The 
senior Senator from Wyoming has been tireless in his efforts to 
maneuver this legislation through the 104th Congress. While, I am very 
appreciative of his efforts in general, I want to address an issue that 
is of utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers.
  That issue is the impact of immigration reform on the supply of 
agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and 
throughout the countryside that these reforms will reduce the 
availability of agricultural workers.
  Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have 
certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total 
agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equates to 
6.7 percent of our labor force that is directly involved in production 
agriculture and food processing.
  Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in 
farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor 
expenses in 1992--one of every $8 of farm production expenses. For the 
labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor 
accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs.
  The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially the fruit, 
vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued 
availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, 
including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete 
directly with producers in other countries for market share in both 
United States and foreign commodity markets.
  Wages of U.S. farm workers will not be forced up by eliminating alien 
labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market 
commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to 
agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level 
that can be sustained by a smaller work force.

[[Page S4290]]

  Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster 
than nonfarm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6-percent 
increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while nonfarm 
workers only saw a 27.1-percent increase.
  Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has 
historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic 
workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the 
production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is 
especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions, and other 
specialty crops.
  The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily 
due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time 
employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic 
work force tends to prefer the long-term positions, leaving the 
seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural 
jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate 
into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown 
that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. 
As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to 
rely upon the assistance of foreign workers.

  The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for 
agricultural employment is the H-2A Program. The H-2A Program is 
intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is 
unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A Program isn't working.
  Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, 
it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without 
risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential 
litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually 
decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995.
  Our amendment will provide some much needed reforms to the H-2A 
Program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following parts of our 
amendment as a reasonable modification of the H-2A Program.
  First, the amendment will reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 
to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 
60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with 
the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all 
referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close 
to the date of need. The advance application period serves little 
purpose except to provide time for litigation.
  Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department 
of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report 
indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria 
and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then 
file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of 
DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence 
concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of 
U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. 
The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of 
giving advice to the Attorney General on labor availability, and return 
decisionmaking to the Attorney General.
  Third, the Department of Labor will be required to provide the 
employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days 
before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic 
workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security 
Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been 
referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies 
certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the 
employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that 
unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed 
change would assure that only workers actually identified as available 
would be the basis for denying foreign workers.
  Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] will provide 
expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify 
the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. 
This will ensure timely admission decisions.

  Fifth, INS will also provide expedited procedures for amending 
petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before 
the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the 
timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work 
has started.
  Sixth, DOL will continue to recruit domestic workers and make 
referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This 
method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete 
his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by 
having to displace existing workers with new workers.
  Seventh, our amendment will enumerate the specific obligations of 
employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The 
proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria 
as not adversely affecting U.S. workers:
  1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position.
  2. The employer will provide approved housing, or a reasonable 
housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is 
beyond normal commuting distance.
  3. The employer continues to provide current transportation 
reimbursement requirements.
  4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters 
of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of 
employment.
  5. The employer will provide workers' compensation or equivalent 
coverage.
  6. Employer must comply with all applicable Federal, State and local 
labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers.

This combination of employment requirements will eliminate the 
discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of 
employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for 
litigation will be reduced since employers--and the courts--would know 
with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment.
  Eighth, our amendment would provide that workers must exhaust 
administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation.
  Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the 
terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of 
Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with 
the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the 
possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and avoid 
actions that would jeopardize the labor supply for American 
agriculture.
  Thank you, Mr. President. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that 
a summary of our amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Summary of the Craig-Gorton Amendment Reforming the H-2A Temporary 
                      Agricultural Workers Program

       The following proposed changes to the H-2A program would 
     improve its timeliness and utility for agricultural employers 
     in addressing agricultural labor shortages, while providing 
     wages and benefits that equal or exceed the median level of 
     compensation in non-H-2A occupations, and reducing the 
     vulnerability of the program to being hamstrung and delayed 
     by litigation.
       1. Reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days 
     before workers are needed.
       Rationale: In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too 
     far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the 
     precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, 
     virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report 
     for work are made close to the date of need. The advance 
     application period serves little purpose except to provide 
     time for litigation.
       2. In lieu of the present certification letter, DOL would 
     issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating 
     that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria 
     (or the specific deficiencies in the order) and the number of 
     U.S. workers referred, per #3 below. The employer would file 
     a petition with INS for admission of aliens (or transfer of 
     aliens already in the United States), including a copy of 
     DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing 
     evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the 
     availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make 
     the admission decision.
       Rationale: The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor 
     Department to that of giving advice to the AG on labor 
     availability,

[[Page S4291]]

     and return the true gatekeeper role to the AG. Presently the 
     certification letter is, de facto, the admission decision.
       3. DOL provides employer with a domestic recruitment report 
     not later than 20 days before the date of need stating either 
     that sufficient domestic workers are not available, or giving 
     the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing 
     and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer 
     and who have agreed to be available at the time and place 
     needed. DOL also provides a means for the employer to contact 
     the referred worker to confirm availability close to the date 
     of need. DOL would be empowered to issue a report that 
     sufficient domestic workers are not available without waiting 
     until 20 days before the date of need for workers if there 
     are already unfilled orders for workers in the same or 
     similar occupations in the same area of intended employment.
       Rationale: DOL now denies certification not only on the 
     basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also 
     on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified 
     numbers of workers may become available. These suppositions 
     almost never prove correct, forcing the employer into costly 
     and time wasting redeterminations on or close to the date of 
     need and delaying the arrival of workers. The proposed change 
     would assure that only workers actually identified as 
     available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. DOL 
     also interprets the existing statutory language as precluding 
     it from issuing each labor certification until 20 days before 
     the date of need, even in situations where ongoing 
     recruitment shows that sufficient workers are not available.
       4. INS to provide expedited processing of employer's 
     petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing 
     consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days.
       Rationale: The assure timely admission decisions.
       5. INS to provide an expedited procedures for amending 
     petitions to increase the number of workers admitted (or 
     transferred) on or after 5 days before the date of need, to 
     replace referred workers whose continued availability can not 
     be confirmed, who fail to report on the date of need, or who 
     abandon employment or are terminated for cause, without first 
     obtaining a redetermination of need from DOL.
       Rationale: To reduce the paperwork and increase the 
     timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after 
     the work has started.
       6. DOL would continue to recruit domestic workers and make 
     referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. 
     Employers would be required to give preference to able, 
     willing and qualified workers who agree to be available at 
     the time and place needed who are referred to the employer 
     until 5 days before the date workers are needed. After that 
     time, employers would be required to give preference to U.S. 
     workers who are immediately available in filling job 
     opportunities that become available, but would not be 
     required to bump alien workers already employed.
       Rationale: A method is needed to allow the employer at a 
     date-certain close to the date of need to complete his 
     hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted 
     by having to displace existing workers with new workers.
       7. Create a ``bounded definition'' of adverse effect by 
     enumerating the specific obligations of employers in 
     occupations in which H-2A aliens are employed. The proposed 
     definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria 
     as not adversely affecting U.S. workers:
       7a. Offer at least the median rate of pay for the 
     occupation in the area of intended employment or, if greater, 
     an Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) of 110 percent of the 
     Federal minimum wage, but not less than or $5.00 per hour.
       7b. Provide approved housing or, if sufficient housing is 
     available in the approximate area of employment, a reasonable 
     housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of 
     residence is beyond normal commuting distance.
       NOTE: Provision should also be made to allow temporary 
     housing that does not meet the full set of Federal standards 
     for a transitional period in areas where sufficient housing 
     that meets standards is not presently available, and for such 
     temporary housing on a permanent basis in occupations in 
     which the term of employment is very short (e.g. cherry 
     harvesting, which lasts about 15-20 days) if sufficient 
     housing that meets the full standards is not available. 
     Federal law should pre-empt state and local laws and codes 
     with respect to the provision of such temporary housing.
       7c. Current transportation reimbursement requirements (i.e. 
     employer reimburses transportation of workers who complete 50 
     percent of the work contract and provides or pays for return 
     transportation for workers who complete the entire work 
     contract).
       7d. A guarantee of employment for at least three-quarters 
     of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of 
     employment.
       7e. Employer-provided Workers' Compensation or equivalent.
       7f. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state 
     and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien 
     workers.
       Rationale: The objective is to eliminate the discretion of 
     DOL to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-
     by-case basis and reduce the scope for litigation of 
     applications. Employers (and the courts) would know with 
     particularity, up front, what the required terms and 
     conditions of employment are. The definition also reduces the 
     cost premium for participating in the program by relating the 
     Adverse Effect Wage Rate to the minimum wage and limiting the 
     applicability of the three-quarters guarantee to the actual 
     period of employment.
       8. Provide that workers must exhaust administrative 
     remedies before engaging their employers in litigation.
       Rationale: To reduce litigation costs.
       9. Provide that if an employer complies with the terms of 
     an approved job order, and DOL or a court later orders a 
     provision to be changed, the employer would be required to 
     comply with the new provision only prospectively.
       Rationale: To reduce the exposure of employers to 
     litigation seeking to overturn DOL's approval of job orders, 
     and to retroactive liability if an approved order is changed.


                           Amendment No. 3789

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that 
seeks to protect legal immigrant children from being denied access to 
foster care. Under the deeming provisions of this bill, children who 
would otherwise be eligible to be placed in foster care, due to abuse 
and neglect for example, could be denied this benefit. The Murray 
amendment protects these children from being forced to remain in an 
abusive situation because they are deemed ineligible to receive AFDC 
benefits, and therefore do not qualify for foster care assistance. This 
applies to any situation which would result in the child being placed 
in a foster care, transitional living program, or adoption assistance 
under current law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have found ourselves on Monday in the 
early afternoon anticipating a vote on cloture at approximately 5 
o'clock. Generally, the motion for cloture is a way to terminate debate 
on a measure that is put before the body which is apparently being 
filibustered. That means a group generally does not want the measure to 
pass and, therefore, is using the rules of the Senate to frustrate, in 
this case, 60 Members of the Senate--more than a majority--so that they 
cannot work their will.
  Under the time-honored process, in terms of the cloture motions, we 
have to have a 60-vote margin that says after a period of time, which 
is 30 hours, and after due notification, that the roll will be called 
and Senators will be make a judgment about whether there should be a 
termination of the debate. Then there is a reasonable period of time 
for amendments which have to be germane, and then there is the final 
outcome of an up-or-down vote on the matter before the Senate.
  That was used in the early history of our country rarely but it has 
become more frequent in recent times. Certainly, there have been some, 
depending on how individuals look at the matter that is before the 
Senate, justifiable reasons for that procedure to be followed.
  Today, we are in rather an extraordinary situation because there is 
no real desire to hold up the measure that is before the U.S. Senate. 
We are going to have a cloture vote at 5 o'clock, and then have a 
certain number of hours to debate. There has to be a germaneness issue 
for each of the amendments, and then there will be a certain amount of 
time to debate those measures. And depending on the outcome of the 
rollcall, they will either be attached to the measure or not attached 
to the measure, and they will have to follow some additional rules of 
the Senate. They will have to be germane.
  The amendment of the Senator from Arizona, for example, that is 
related to the whole issue of immigration, which I find has some merit, 
is not going to be able to be considered on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate because it does not meet the strict requirements of germaneness.
  But now we are back, Mr. President, in a situation where we have to 
ask ourselves, why are we here? Why are we here? I think there are some 
very important measures that ought to be debated and voted on. We will 
hear more about those from the Senator

[[Page S4292]]

from Florida, the Senator from Illinois, myself with regard to the 
fact, in many instances, under this legislation we are treating illegal 
immigrants better than legal immigrants. There will be some other 
amendments with regard to how we are going to treat expectant mothers 
of American citizens and how we are going to treat veterans, because 
you can be a permanent resident alien and serve in the Armed Forces. We 
have 20,000 of them, but under this bill, they will be shortchanged 
because of the hammer-like punitive provisions which have been included 
in the legislation.

  So those we can debate. On those we should enter into a time 
agreement. I am certainly glad to enter into a time agreement so we can 
dispose of this measure. This legislation could have been disposed of 
in 2 days. We are in the fifth day now. We are going to conclude this 
phase of the debate on it at 5 o'clock, in the late afternoon on the 
fifth day. There is probably every probability it will go for 2 more 
days. That will be 7 days on a bill that should have lasted no longer 
than 2 days with relevant, germane amendments considered and those that 
I consider to be germane, perhaps not the Parliamentarian, but measures 
like Senator Kyl's amendment should have been debated and discussed. It 
is worthwhile. We talked about those measures in the Judiciary 
Committee during that period of time. That is virtually foreclosed.
  So we are voting this afternoon on a cloture motion to end debate on 
the immigration issue. Right? Wrong. Wrong. There is no filibuster on 
that. What there is a filibuster on is bringing up the minimum wage. 
That is what the filibuster is on. That is what the issue is. It is not 
about closing debate on illegal immigration, even though the measure 
that will be called up at that particular time and the proposal will be 
let us cut off the debate on the illegal immigration. No one is 
filibustering that.
  What they are filibustering, by using the illegal immigration bill, 
is consideration of increasing the minimum wage for working families in 
this country. That is what the issue is. It is not illegal immigration. 
It is the issue about whether the Senate of the United States is going 
to be given an opportunity to vote on increasing the minimum wage 90 
cents--45 cents a year over a period of the next 2 years--to give 
working families a livable wage so that they can move out of poverty.
  Respect work. We hear a great deal about how important it is we are 
going to honor work. We are attempting to honor work by saying men and 
women in our country who work 40 hours a week 52 weeks out of the year 
ought to be able to have a livable wage. That has not been a partisan 
issue. We have had Republican Presidents who voted for it. George Bush 
voted for an increase in the minimum wage. Richard Nixon voted for an 
increase in the minimum wage. Dwight Eisenhower voted for an increase 
in the minimum wage. President Clinton will vote for it, but we are 
denied an opportunity to even vote on it. We are denied, even when we 
have demonstrated on other occasions that a majority of the Members, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, want it.

  The American people are overwhelmingly for it. They cannot understand 
why the Congress of the United States cannot allocate 30 hours of its 
time. Here we are at 3:15 on a Monday afternoon. We could take 30 
minutes on a side and debate this and vote at 5 o'clock on the minimum 
wage issue. It is not complicated. Everyone understands what this 
provides. It is 45 cents an hour for this year and 45 cents an hour for 
the next year. More important, it is 8 or 9 months of groceries for a 
working family that depends upon it. It is the utilities for 8 months 
for a family that is working at a minimum wage level. It is the 
premiums on a health care program for a family. That is what it is. 
That is what 45 cents an hour is. And it is the tuition for a son or 
daughter who wants to go to a fine State university for 1 year. That is 
what an increase in the minimum wage is.
  Why are we not prepared to call the roll on that issue? Why are we 
not prepared to do it? We are not prepared to do it because we hear 
those on the other side say, ``Well, it's going to mean a loss of a 
number of jobs out there.'' The interesting fact is, of those 
individuals who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, 90 
percent of them are for it. Why? Because they see a 20-percent increase 
in their wages and possibly a 5-percent reduction in the total number 
of hours they might have to work. It is a good deal for them. But our 
Republican friends will not let us have the opportunity to make a 
judgment and a decision on that.
  That is why, Mr. President, many of us are frustrated. We know we are 
caught in the gymnastics of the parliamentary workings of the U.S. 
Senate. We know we are caught in that. We have a difficulty trying to 
explain to people back home, in my State or in other States, even 
though my State has raised the minimum wage now and has seen a 
reduction in unemployment--a reduction in unemployment.
  It is difficult to say to the 7 million recipients of the minimum 
wage who are women, that we are not going to give the opportunity to 
debate that or to make a judgment on that. Of the 7 million who are 
women, 5 million of them are adult women, 2 million of them are the 
heads of households trying to make it on the minimum wage.
  We cannot say to the 100,000 children who would be lifted out of 
poverty with an increase in the minimum wage, ``We cannot schedule it 
in the U.S. Senate. We have just been in a quorum call for 45 minutes, 
but we haven't got time to schedule that question about whether you get 
an increase in the minimum wage. We haven't got time. We haven't got 
time all this afternoon.''
  Of course we have time this afternoon. We have time tonight to do it. 
We have time tomorrow to do it. It would not take very long because we 
understand the issue. It is difficult to tell those 100,000 children 
that would move out of poverty with an increase in the minimum wage or 
the 300,000 families that would move out of poverty, ``We haven't the 
time to schedule this, we haven't the time. We have to spend 7 or 8 
days on the issues of illegal immigration in order to deny you the 
opportunity. We have to go to that extent to ensure you don't get a 
vote. Why? Because a majority of the Members of the U.S. Senate feel 
that you should get an increase.''
  So we take advantage of the Senate rules, their use. I do think it is 
taking advantage of them. You are advancing interests of the companies 
and industries and corporations that refuse to pay the minimum wage. 
That is who you are advancing and helping. People just do not 
understand it. They see the 30-percent increase in the salaries of 
CEO's in this country last year. They see the Senate salary increasing 
by $30,000 over the period of the last 6 years--$30,000--and yet we 
have not had an increase in the minimum wage.
  None of our people in here would deny themselves that kind of 
increase. Maybe we have some Members who are not accepting the full 
increase. We heard a great deal about that previously. Maybe they are 
not. I apologize to them if I am mistaken. But we have not seen much 
evidence of it, of anyone not willing to take those five increases that 
Congress has had. But we are not just going to say to hard-working 
Americans that work is that important. So we are denying it.
  We are denying that to working people. We are denying it to children. 
We are denying it to women. It is a women's issue. It is a children's 
issue. It is a family issue. Yet look at what we have had to go through 
here in the U.S. Senate.
  Let me just take a moment of time to tell you about what we had to go 
through here in the U.S. Senate in order to avoid--avoid--any kind of 
consideration. Effectively, the unique situation where, unless you had 
your amendment cleared, so to speak, by the majority and effectively 
the majority leader, you never had a chance to get recognized around 
here, even during the previous debate. That was an extraordinary 
situation where the U.S. Senate, allegedly--and it is--the most 
important, deliberative body for public policy issues and questions, 
there is no mistake about it, effectively it has been handcuffed, been 
handcuffed from considering measures that these Members felt were 
important to have debate and discussion on and to be disposed of, as we 
have for 200 years on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

[[Page S4293]]

  But what did we find out last week? We found that we went through 
this incredible kind of a trapeze act. As a result of going through 
these parliamentary procedures, we have delayed the illegal immigration 
bill.
  Last week we were dealing with the spectacle of a rarely used motion 
to recommit, but only to recommit to the committee of jurisdiction for 
an instant, a nanosecond, an instant, and then to report back to the 
floor. In other words, it was a sham motion to recommit.
  This was to avoid some Member of the Senate rising and saying, 
``Let's have 30 minutes on the increase in the minimum wage, divide the 
time up between those who are for it and those who are opposed to it, 
and let the Senate go.'' This is the procedure that was used 
effectively by the leadership.
  On top of the motion to recommit, there had to be two separate 
amendments to fill what they call the ``amendment tree'' on one side of 
the bill. Then back on the bill itself, Senator Dole had to maintain 
two amendments, a first-degree amendment and a second-degree amendment. 
Therefore, we were in the absurd position last week where Senator 
Simpson had to offer a Simpson second-degree amendment to the Simpson 
first-degree amendment to the Simpson motion to recommit to the 
underlying illegal immigration bill.
  Look at what they had to go through from a parliamentary point of 
view. So you are not going to get a chance. These are the uses and 
abuses, I would say, of Senate rules to deny what is a clear majority 
position on an issue that has been understood, debated, discussed, and 
which over 80 percent of the American people support.
  We also ended up with a Dole second-degree on illegal immigration, a 
Dole second-degree to the first degree, a Dole first-degree amendment 
to the illegal immigration bill. Then after each of these amendments 
had been adopted, we had to go through a half dozen unnecessary votes 
to adopt amendments to fill each of these slots.
  Senator Dole had to then undo each of the amendments that had been 
adopted. So we were then in the position of Senator Simpson moving to 
table the Simpson second-degree amendment. This is effectively the 
person who offered the amendment trying to table or effectively remove 
his second-degree amendment to the Simpson first-degree amendment to 
the Simpson motion to recommit the underlying bill. After that was 
tabled, Senator Simpson was in the position of offering the Simpson 
motion to table the Simpson first degree to the Simpson motion to 
recommit the underlying illegal immigration bill.
  Then when that charade had been completed, we had to readopt all of 
the underlying first- and second-degree amendments, and then Senator 
Dole had to go back and fill the tree again by adding five new 
amendments.
  Then Senator Dole has to get cloture, which some Democrats will 
support, some will oppose. Then, finally, there may be the chance, 
after the cloture vote, to offer amendments on the immigration bill. 
However, only germane amendments will be allowed after the cloture vote 
when the amendment is adopted sometime tomorrow perhaps.
  Senator Dole will then have to go through this whole process all over 
again on the underlying bill. We will then have a Dole motion to 
recommit, again a sham because it is only a motion to recommit for a 
nanosecond and then report back to the floor. We will have the Dole or 
Simpson first-degree amendment to the motion to the Dole motion to 
recommit. Then we will have the Simpson or Dole second-degree amendment 
to the Simpson or Dole first-degree amendment. This is truly an 
extraordinary parliamentary procedure. Its only purpose is to avoid a 
vote on the minimum wage. The result is to delay the passage of the 
illegal immigration bill.
  This is a matter of great importance to many of those who have spoken 
eloquently and passionately about trying to deal with the problems of 
illegal immigration.
  I have supported the essential aspects of the bill, the enhancements 
of our Border Patrol and putting in place the tamper-free cards that 
have been the subject of so much abuse. I worked with Senator Simpson 
on that issue. I know we will have a chance to revisit that because 
there will be those who will try to strike those provisions later on.
  But all of Senator Dole's parliamentary machinations on this bill, as 
I stated, are for the express purpose of denying Democrats their right 
to offer an amendment to increase the minimum wage.
  So, Mr. President, we will be shut out on this particular vote prior 
to this afternoon. At 5 o'clock, we will be shut out from the 
opportunity of any debate. We are being denied an opportunity to say, 
``All right, we will not offer that measure on this particular 
legislation, but at least give us a time in these next couple of weeks 
where we can get a clear vote up or down on a clean bill on the 
increase in the minimum wage.''
  We are denied that opportunity. There cannot be an agreement on that, 
although 80 percent of the American people are for that. We are left in 
this situation where, when these other measures come up in the U.S. 
Senate, we have to, as we have for the better part of the previous 
year, tried to offer this measure on those measures so at least we have 
the chance of giving the Senate an opportunity to vote up or down and 
get some accountability, get some accountability in here about who is 
going to stand for those working families and who is against them.
  I can understand why you would not want to be for that position 
against working families, even though Senator Dole and Congressman 
Gingrich supported the last increase that we had on the minimum wage.
  I can understand why they do not want to face the music on this, but 
at some time in a democracy and some time in this body, and at some 
place here, this measure cries out for action. We are committed to try 
to get that action. That is why we, under the leadership of Senator 
Daschle, my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, Senator Wellstone, and 
others, have stated that we will be forced into a situation where, at 
each and every legislative opportunity, we are going to offer this 
measure. We do not do it, in a sense, to try and obstruct the current 
legislative process. As we mentioned, we are at day 5 and counting on a 
measure, following Senate procedures. But we do not have all that 
amount of time to deal with the country's business, Mr. President.
  We have important measures. We have the budget coming up. We still 
have important measures in the budget about determining where we are 
going on education. We have important measures on health care, and to 
try and get conferees, to go to conference, to get a decent health care 
bill, which passed 100 to 0. That is important. Senator Kassebaum and 
myself ought to be over there this afternoon trying to work out a good, 
clean measure that can go to the President's desk and be enacted, like 
the one we passed here by 100 to 0--Republicans and Democrats. We 
should get that passed and get it down to the President so he can sign 
it, and do something for 25 million Americans this afternoon.
  Instead, we are over here on an amendment to an amendment to the 
motion to recommit to proceed, denying the opportunity to do that. That 
is not the way to do the Nation's business. We ought to be about health 
care, about increasing the minimum wage. We ought to be out here trying 
to give consideration to what we are going to do about pension reform, 
trying get stability and protection for pension funds for working 
families so they are not going to be plundered by the corporate 
raiders. We had a vote, 94-5, I think, to provide that protection. That 
legislation had not even gotten into the doors over there in 
conference, and it was dropped so quickly, exposing those pension funds 
for working families.
  We ought to deal with those measures and provide additional 
opportunities for education, which is the backbone to everything this 
country is about, and demonstrate our priorities. We ought to be about 
those measures and trying to close down some of the tax loopholes that 
give preferences to moving jobs overseas, and bring good jobs back to 
the United States. Those are the things people are talking about. 
Instead, we had a pause even in the immigration bill to go on to the 
question of term limits. Then, once

[[Page S4294]]

again, they filled up that tree so it was not making anything 
retroactive, moving the procedures of the Senate, jamming the various 
procedural parts of Senate rules, so that we were going to be denied an 
opportunity to address those measures.
  So, Mr. President, it is important that even though we will come back 
at 5 o'clock to address the questions of illegal immigration, let us 
understand what this filibuster is about. It is a filibuster against 
the increase in the minimum wage. That is what the issue is. That is 
what is wrong. That is what the Republican leadership insisted on in 
order to deprive working families that are out there working. Instead 
of respecting their work and giving them a livable wage so they can 
move out of poverty, we are running through these gymnastics here in 
the U.S. Senate, and we are going to continue in the next couple of 
days dealing with legislation that should have been long since 
addressed, finalized, and on its way to conference.
  So that is the point we have to keep repeating. There are those who 
do not like us to keep repeating it. They wish we would not keep 
repeating it. Those are the facts, and that is what the American people 
ought to understand, because those families that are hard pressed out 
there today and hardly able to make ends meet, we are their best hope, 
we are their last hope. We are still being denied the opportunity to 
help them.
  I look forward to the debate on a number of these issues, about 
whether this dislocates workers. We will have a good opportunity to 
review what happened. We spent a few moments of the Senate's time going 
back, historically, where we provided an increase in the minimum wage 
and what happened in terms of the work force.

  One of the best illustrations is in my own State of Massachusetts, 
which saw an increase in the minimum wage in January opposed by our 
Republican Governor up in Massachusetts. Unemployment is still going 
down, and the debate will show that a number of other States out there 
are affected by it. We will have an opportunity to talk about the 
impact on jobs. We will talk about what effect, if any, it has on 
inflation. Hopefully, we will have a chance to work out some process 
for those Americans, because I find that every day that goes by that we 
deny this institution the opportunity to express itself up or down, 
people wonder what we are all about.
  Why are we not addressing the real concerns of working families, 
which is income security, job security, pension security, education for 
their kids, and take an opportunity to do something about the 
incentives that exist in the Internal Revenue Code that drive good 
American jobs out? That is what they want. They want us to do something 
about our borders as well. But to take it up when we could have used 
several days and made progress on all those other issues, certainly we 
should be about those measures.
  Mr. President, I want to go into, for just a moment this afternoon, 
the principal areas that are germane and that I think we will have to 
address. I know Senator Graham identified some of these measures, and I 
think they are very important, and we are going to have an opportunity 
to vote on them. We have not yet had the opportunity. We were not able 
to get these measures that were even germane and where we wanted to get 
a serious vote on these measures previously because of the way that the 
floor action proceeded. Now under the measure, when we get eventually 
toward cloture, we will address them.
  Let me just mention a few of these measures here this afternoon.
  Mr. President, the first of these measures will be on looking at the 
overall legislation, what we are doing about the illegal immigration. 
First, if we are to make headway in the controlling of illegal 
immigration, we need to find new and better ways to help employers 
determine who is authorized to work in the United States and who is 
not. We must shut off the job magnet by denying jobs to illegal 
immigrants.
  As the late Barbara Jordan reminded us, we are a country of laws, and 
for immigration policy to make sense, it is necessary to make 
distinctions between those who obey the law and those who violate it. 
Illegal immigration takes away the jobs and lowers the wages of working 
American families on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
  Make no mistake about it: That is happening today in many of our 
communities, our major cities, in a number of different geographical 
areas around the country today. The illegal immigrants that come in, 
unskilled and untrained, are exploited on the one hand and are used by 
unethical employers in so many different instances. This has the effect 
of driving wages down for real working Americans and also displacing 
the jobs for real Americans who want to work and provide for their 
families.
  These are the working families in America that survive from paycheck 
to paycheck and can least afford to lose their jobs to illegal aliens. 
Senator Simpson and I agree on this issue. We urge our colleagues to 
support provisions in the bill to require pilot programs to improve 
verification of employment eligibility. These are contained in sections 
111, 112 and 113, and require the President to conduct several pilot 
programs over the next 3 years. After that, the President must submit a 
plan to Congress for improving the current system based on the results 
of the pilot programs. This plan cannot go into effect until Congress 
approves it by a separate vote in the future.
  The current confusing system of employment verification is not 
working. It is too easy for people to come in legally as tourists and 
students and stay on and work illegally after their visas expire. It is 
too easy for illegal immigrants who impersonate local or even American 
citizens by using counterfeit documents.
  Far too often employers seek to avoid this confusion by turning away 
job applicants who look or sound foreign. This employment 
discrimination especially hurts American workers of Hispanic and Asian 
origin. But it harms many other Americans in the job market as well. 
Some in the Senate will seek to eliminate the provisions that Senator 
Simpson and I have placed in the bill to authorize the pilot programs 
to find new and better ways of verifying job status. Our ability to 
deal with illegal immigration should not be derailed by misinformed and 
misguided notions that this bill would result in Big Brother abuses, or 
a national ID card. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The pilot programs are the core reforms in this bill. Without them 
this bill will accomplish very little in controlling illegal 
immigration.
  We have to deal with the job magnet. That is the key. Every study--
the Hesburgh studies of over 10 years ago, the Barbara Jordan studies--
every comprehensive review of the problems with illegal immigrants; you 
have to deal with the job magnet. You deal with the job magnet and you 
are going to have a dramatic impact on illegal immigrants coming to 
this country. And, if you do not, then you can put up the fence all the 
way across the southern border and fences around this country. You are 
still not going to be able to adequately deal with this issue.
  I support the increase in the Nation's border patrols contained in 
the bill. I support stepped-up efforts to combat smugglers and modern-
day slave traders who risk the lives of desperate illegal immigrants, 
and who place them in sweatshop conditions. I support increased 
penalties against those who use counterfeit documents to enable illegal 
immigrants to pose as legal workers and take away American jobs by 
fraud. But without the pilot programs our ability to stem the tide of 
illegal immigration would be hamstrung.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service has limited authority to 
conduct pilot programs under current law. Under the few pilots that can 
be conducted there will be no assurances that they would have 
significant impact on business. There would be no privacy protection. 
In fact, there would be no standards at all other than those the 
Immigration Service would impose on itself.
  This debate seems to have forgotten that since 1986 employers are 
required to check the documents of everyone they hire to make sure they 
are eligible to work in the United States. That means everyone--whether 
they are citizens or not. Those who think we do not need change should 
look at the ineffectiveness of the current system.

[[Page S4295]]

 Job applicants can produce any of the 289 different documents to prove 
their identification and eligibility to work in the United States. Most 
of these documents are easily counterfeited, such as Social Security, 
or school records. Even though this bill would reduce the number of 
documents from 29 to 6--6 that are the most secure--there is no 
assurance that this will be sufficient.
  So the choice is clear. We will either keep the current system with 
its flaws and limit deterrence to illegal immigration, or require the 
President to find a new and better way of controlling illegal 
immigration and also avoid discrimination.
  Second, we must retain a safety net for legal immigrant families. 
This bill is supposed to be about illegal immigration. Title I provides 
many needed reforms, employment verification, pilot projects, increased 
money for border patrols, all of which aim to control the flow of 
illegal immigrants into the country. But the welfare provisions in 
title II do just the opposite. They provide illegal immigrants with 
benefits that legal immigrants cannot get.
  Let me repeat that. Under this legislation, title II provides illegal 
immigrants with benefits that legal immigrants cannot get, and they 
erode the safety net for legal immigrant families.
  In the current law, as well as under this bill, illegal immigrants 
are ineligible for public assistance except where it is in the national 
interest to provide the assistance to everyone such as preventable 
communicable diseases. This bill says that illegal immigrants are 
ineligible for all public assistance programs except emergency 
Medicaid, school lunches, disaster relief, immunization, communicable 
disease treatment, and child nutrition. This is the way that it should 
be.

  We want to make sure that, if the children are going to be here, they 
are going to at least get immunization so that they can effectively 
protect other children that might be exposed when these children have 
social contact with each other. That makes a good deal of sense. That 
is in the public health interest. I think we ought to be doing it with 
children, and I support the fact we will be doing it with these 
children in any event. But you have to get down to the hard line of 
dollars and cents of it, which is so often the final criteria here, 
what makes sense from a dollars and cents point of view. But this bill 
makes it much harder for legal immigrants to participate in these same 
programs. The same ones that illegal immigrants qualify for 
automatically, no questions asked, and this result is preposterous.
  Legal immigrants play by the rules and come in under the law. They 
work, raise their families, pay taxes, and serve in the Armed Forces. 
They are here legally. Legal immigrants do not seek to cross the 
border, or overstay their visas. They come here the right way. They 
waited in line until a visa in the United States was available. And, by 
and large, they are here as the result of reunifying families--
families.
  Legal immigrants should not have to jump through a series of hoops 
which do not apply to illegal immigrants. This bill discriminates 
against those who play by the rules. Under the current law, legal 
immigrants have restricted access to the need-based programs--the AFDC, 
Social Security, SSI, and food stamps.
  Their sponsor's income is deemed under these programs. Deeming means 
that the welfare offices consider both the sponsor's and the 
immigrant's income in determining whether the immigrant meets the 
income guidelines for the particular assistance for which the immigrant 
may apply. For example, if an immigrant sponsor earns $30,000 per year 
and the immigrant earns $10,000 per year, the immigrant is deemed to 
make $40,000 per year which pushes the immigrant above the income 
guidelines to qualify for particular assistance programs.
  For legal immigrants, the deeming provisions in this bill affect not 
only the AFDC, SSI, and food stamps, but every other need-based 
program--everything from lead paint screening for immigrant children to 
migrant health centers, veterans' pensions, and nutrition programs for 
the elderly. The effect of these provisions is to bar legal immigrants 
from receiving virtually any means-tested Government assistance. This 
bar lasts at least 5 years. The practical effect of these deeming rules 
is almost the same as banning the benefit.
  We have seen what happens in deeming. The deeming effectively causes 
crashing reductions in all of these programs for those that might have 
otherwise been eligible.
  For future immigrants, deeming applies for the last 40 quarters of 
work. For immigrants who are already here, deeming applies until they 
have been here for 5 years. This means that every program must now set 
up a bureaucracy to carry out immigration checks on every citizen and 
noncitizen to see who is entitled to assistance. They have to find out 
if there is a sponsor.
  Listen to this. I know that Senator Graham will speak eloquently 
about this. But this means effectively that every city and town--
whether in Texas, in Florida, or in Massachusetts--is going to have to 
find out who the sponsor is. If someone comes into a local hospital and 
needs emergency assistance, and they say that this person is legal, 
they are going to have to find out who that sponsor is and be able to 
get the resources from that sponsor. You and I know what is going to 
happen. Those hospitals are going to be left holding the bag. They are 
going to be the major inner city hospitals. They are going to be the 
Public Health Service clinics. They are going to be the health delivery 
systems that deliver the health services to the neediest and the poor 
in this country. And to expect that they are going to set up a whole 
system to find out who is deemed and who is not deemed, and then to 
expect that they are going to be able to collect the funds from those 
families on it is absolutely beyond thinking.

  Not only are the local communities and the local hospitals going to 
do it, but the counties are going to have to do it and the States are 
going to have to do it. That is going to cost hundreds of millions of 
dollars. It will not be participated in by the Federal government. We 
are not sharing in that responsibility. We are not matching that 40 or 
50 or 60 percent as we do for welfare problems. Oh, no. That is going 
to be the States and the local communities. They are the ones that are 
going to have to set up that process to be able to judge about deeming; 
not the Federal Government. The local communities and the schools are 
going to have to do it. The hospitals are going to have to do it. The 
counties and the States are going to have to do it. They will have to 
find out if there is a sponsor. They will have to get copies of the tax 
returns. They will have to determine the sponsors' income, and this is 
an immense burden.
  For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures, which 
strongly opposes the welfare provisions, estimates that the States will 
have to hire at least 24,000 new staff just to implement four of the 
vast number of programs that this bill would cover--24,000. Those four 
programs are school lunch, child and adult care, social service block 
grants under SSI, and vocational rehabilitation.
  Simply hiring the additional staff needed to run these programs will 
result in unfunded mandates to the States of $722 million. This is not 
the only cost for the poor programs. Imagine the cost of States hiring 
staff to run all of the means-tested programs.
  We were asked earlier during the whole debate about where the 
Congressional Budget Office was. They said, ``We do not have the 
figures on it.'' You have them now. You have the figures now. Just in 
these four programs you are going to find it is going to be costly--
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.
  This bill also upsets the basic values of our social service system 
after years of community assistance. Outreach clinics, day care 
centers, schools, and other institutions will now become the menacing 
presence because they will be seen as a branch of the INS to determine 
who is here illegally. This is going to have a chilling effect on those 
immigrants again that are legally here. They are going to be members of 
families. They are not going to want to go out and risk getting 
involved in terms of the INS and put their principal sponsors at any 
kind of disadvantage.
  We are talking primarily about the public--in this instance public 
health kinds of issues that have a common interest with all of us in 
making sure

[[Page S4296]]

that their health care needs are going to be satisfactorily addressed.
  Mr. President, there are many misconceptions about immigrants' use of 
public assistance. Here are just a few facts.
  The Urban Institute says that legal immigrants contribute $25 to $30 
billion more in taxes each year than they receive in services. That is 
almost $2,500 per immigrant, and this figure is confirmed by almost 
every other study. The majority of legal immigrants--over 93 percent--
do not use welfare as it is conventionally defined; that is, AFDC, SSI, 
and food stamps. The poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare 
than poor native Americans. Only 16 percent of immigrants use welfare 
compared to 25 percent of native born Americans. Working age legal 
immigrants use welfare at about the same rate as citizens--about 5 
percent. The only immigrant populations where welfare use is higher 
than by citizens is by elderly immigrants and refugees on SSI. We all 
understand why indigent refugees need help, so the only real issue is 
elderly immigrants on SSI. We ought to address those issues.

  We have seen deeming go into effect and that has a positive impact. 
That ought to be the focus, that ought be the area where we are looking 
at various alternatives that are going to be responsive to protecting 
the interests of the taxpayers and are humanitarian, to make sure that 
people who are parents are going to be treated decently in our society.
  Instead of addressing the specific problem of elderly immigrants, 
this bill broadly restricts the eligibility of all legal immigrants for 
any governmental help.
  When it comes to public assistance, the consequences of this bill are 
threefold. First, it provides an inadequate safety net for legal 
immigrants. We ask legal immigrants to work and pay taxes just like 
American citizens. Immigrants must also serve in the military if they 
are called. We have more than 20,000 of them in the Armed Forces today, 
a number of them in Bosnia. In fact, we expect legal immigrants to put 
their lives on the line for the safety of our country, but the safety 
net we provide for them and their families in return is all but gone 
under this bill. We expect immigrants to make the ultimate sacrifice on 
the battlefield but under this bill America will not be there for them 
if they need medical care, school lunches for their children, or even 
their veterans' pensions.
  Second, this bill passes the buck to the State and the local 
governments.
  Mr. President, I have gone through that in some detail.
  Third, this bill will be an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare 
for Federal, State, local and private service providers. They will be 
burdened with determining which immigrants have sponsors, what the 
sponsor's income is, what the immigrant's income is, and who is 
entitled to benefits. These providers will have to do this for every 
needs-based program from school lunches to Medicaid. That makes no 
sense.
  Let me give you an example or two. On school lunches, teachers and 
school officials have their hands full as they work for the education 
of children but under this bill, when school starts next September, 
every school in America must document--listen to this--every school in 
America must document whether their pupils are American citizens or 
immigrants. Teachers must figure out whether the immigrant has a 
sponsor. The income of the sponsor must be determined before legal 
immigrant children can get school lunches, but illegal immigrant 
children do not have sponsors so they get the school lunches on the 
same basis as American citizen children.
  Under medical care, suppose an immigrant child has a chronic medical 
condition. The parents are legal and working but have been unable to 
get insurance. Their sponsor's income is just high enough that it 
disqualifies the child for Medicaid under the bill so the child goes 
without care until her condition becomes an emergency. She runs up an 
expensive medical bill under the emergency Medicaid for a condition 
that could have been treated at a low cost earlier, and this result 
does not make any sense.
  Child care. Like many American families, some immigrant families 
struggle to make ends meet. They rely on child care in order to stay on 
their jobs. These children receiving child care are American citizens. 
But by deeming child care programs as this bill does, it removes 
American citizen children from child care programs and jeopardizes the 
employment of their immigrant parents. That is true with regard to Head 
Start as well.
  Finally, the United States must continue to provide the safe haven 
for refugees fleeing persecution, yet so-called expedited exclusion 
procedures in the legislation will cause us to turn away many true 
refugees. Under this procedure, persons arriving in the United States 
with false documents but who request political asylum would be turned 
away at our airports with little consideration of their claims, no 
access to counsel, and no right to an interpreter. It is often 
impossible for them to obtain valid passports or travel documents 
before they flee their home-lands. Many times, even trying to get a 
passport from their governments, the very governments that are 
persecuting them, could bring them further harm. They have no choice 
but to obtain false documents to escape.

  This reality has long been recognized under international law. In 
fact, the U.N. Refugee Convention, to which the United States is a 
party, says governments should not penalize refugees fleeing 
persecution who present fraudulent documents or have no documents. If 
it were not for the courageous efforts of Raoul Wallenberg providing 
false documents to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during World War II, many 
thousands of fleeing refugees would have had no means of escape.
  Mr. President, we spent time on this issue. We reviewed those 
organizations, church-based, human rights-based organizations. Most of 
them pointed out the trauma that is affecting individuals who have been 
persecuted, the distrust they have for governments even coming to the 
United States, their estimate that it takes anywhere from 19 to 22 
months generally to get those individuals who have been persecuted, who 
have been tortured, who have been subject to the greatest kinds of 
abuses to be willing to try and follow a process of moving toward 
asylum here in this country.
  The idea that this is going to be able to be decided at an airport 
makes no sense, particularly with the extraordinary progress that has 
been made on the issue of asylum over the period of the last 18 
months--just an extraordinary reduction in the total number of cases 
and the percentage of cases because of the new initiatives that have 
been provided by the Justice Department and Doris Meissner.
  Finally, there are provisions in here that can work toward 
discrimination against Americans whose skin is of different color and 
who speak with different accents and languages. We have seen too often 
in the past in the great immigration debates where we have enshrined 
discrimination. We had the national origins quota system that 
discriminated against persons being born in various regions of the 
country, the Asian-Pacific triangle provisions that said only 125 
individuals from the Asian-Pacific region would come to the United 
States prior to the 1965 act. We eliminated some of those provisions. 
But we have always seen that if it is possible to discriminate and use 
these laws to discriminate against American citizens as well as others, 
that has been the case.
  I am hopeful we can work some of those provisions out during the 
final hours of consideration.
  In conclusion, I commend my colleague, Senator Simpson, for his 
continuing leadership on this issue. He has approached this difficult 
issue with extraordinary diligence and patience. As I have mentioned, 
during the markup, even though we have areas of strong difference, he 
has been willing to consider the views of each member of the committee, 
the differing viewpoints that have been advanced in committee. He has 
given ample time for the committee to work its will. We had good debate 
and discussions during the markup, and in the great tradition of the 
Senate legislative process. We have areas, as I mentioned, of 
difference but every Member of this body knows, as I certainly do, as 
the ranking minority member, that he has addressed this with a 
seriousness and a knowledge and a belief that the positions that he has 
proposed represent his best judgment at the time.

[[Page S4297]]

  The comments I made in the earlier part of my statement about our 
parliamentary situation have nothing to do with his willingness to get 
a strong bill through and his desire to engage in full debate and 
discussion on these issues and I believe any other issue that Members 
of the Senate would want to address as well.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1715 
and S. 1716 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an 
amendment that Senator Kyl and I will introduce on the bill that is 
pending before us.
  I appreciate the argument of the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts earlier on the minimum wage, and, in fact, I look forward 
to debating the minimum wage with the Senator from Massachusetts, 
because I have great concerns about the impact that this could have on 
our small business people of this country. But this is not the time to 
bring up the minimum wage issue.
  We have been trying for years to make a better law on illegal 
immigration. This is of great concern to my State and all of the States 
that are absorbing so many illegal immigrants in our country, because 
our laws do not do enough to stop illegal immigration. The States that 
have the illegal immigrant problems are absorbing so much of the costs 
of these illegal immigrants that it is time for the Federal Government 
to step up to the line and take its responsibility for closing our 
borders to illegal immigrants. That is separate from the legal 
immigrants who have done so much to build our country, and I am very 
pleased we separated those two in the bill before us today, so that 
today we are talking about the problem of illegal immigration.
  The way we treat illegal immigrants reminds me of the distracted 
mother who says, ``I said maybe, and that's final,'' because when 
someone does violate our illegal immigration laws, in fact, there is 
hardly any penalty. They can be deported on Monday, and on Tuesday 
apply for legal status. That is hardly a clear message from America 
about our illegal immigrant laws and status.
  So, what we are trying to do with our amendment is to say very 
clearly, if you violate the laws of America, if you come into our 
country without taking the proper legal steps, or if you are in our 
country legally and overstay a visa by as much as a year, you will be 
barred from legal entry into our country for 10 years.
  We have had laws that have penalized employers on the books for 
several years now. If we are going to say to employers we will penalize 
you if you hire an illegal immigrant, I think we should also try 
something else. We should make it a penalty for the person who is 
violating the law and coming into our country as well. Let us try a new 
approach. Let us make there be a penalty if you break this country's 
laws. If you are a citizen of our country and you break the laws, there 
is a penalty. If you are not a citizen of our country and you break our 
laws, there should be a penalty.
  A 10-year ban on legal entry into our country is a penalty. It says 
to the illegal immigrant: Our laws are serious. We care about the legal 
status of aliens in our country. If they are legal, we welcome them. If 
they are illegal, they are breaking our laws. They may be taking jobs 
from our own people.
  We need to control our borders. We must have control of our borders. 
That way, of course, we can make sure that we are using the assets of 
our taxpayers to help the people who are legal in our country.
  This addresses a serious problem for border States. In 1994, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service returned 1.1 million illegal 
aliens from the United States--1.1 million illegal aliens from the 
United States. Of those, 350,000 were from Texas. In California, in San 
Diego alone, 490,000 illegals were returned.
  Many of those illegal aliens are caught within 45 days more than 
once. In fact, in San Diego, one in five apprehended in a 45-day period 
had been apprehended once before.
  Mr. President, that just shows you that there is not a penalty that 
people recognize for coming into our country illegally. So now we want 
to change the accountability to the person who is breaking our laws. If 
a person comes into our country and consciously violates our laws, 
there must be a penalty for that.
  The amendment that Senator Kyl and I are offering will say there is 
an accountability. If you decide that you are going to break the laws 
of this country, there will be a penalty and you will have to 
acknowledge that. Mr. President, this is only fair. If we do not do 
something to say that the borders of our country are inviolate, we are 
going to continue to have problems, especially on the border States 
where we have infrastructure costs that are sapping our taxpayers of 
their strength.
  This is a Federal issue, and the Federal Government must step up to 
the line. The amendment that we have before us today will add one more 
option for us to have to make sure that people know it is a serious 
violation of our laws to come into our country illegally. If we are 
going to penalize employers, we should penalize the person who is 
perpetrating the crime.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we can clear up the signal that we are 
sending. We welcome legal immigrants into our country; they have made a 
huge contribution to our country. But we do not welcome illegal 
immigrants into our country, and we must stop it. That is what this 
bill will do.
  I want to commend Senator Simpson for the work he has done through 
the years on this issue and Senator Kennedy, working with him, and 
Senator Kyl, one of our new Members who is from a border State who 
uniquely understands, as I do, what this costs the taxpayers of a 
border State.
  They are providing great leadership on this issue. We have a chance 
to do something that puts teeth into the laws of this country. I do not 
want us to get sidetracked on issues that are not relevant to the issue 
of illegal immigration. It is too important to the economy of our 
country and the taxpayers of our country and to the law-abiding 
citizens of our country.

  I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought I would use a few moments to 
outline one of the amendments that I intend to offer once we, again, 
get to the substance of the illegal immigration bill. I will outline 
it, not knowing whether we will have a chance to offer it later this 
evening or tomorrow.
  This amendment will be relevant to the Medicaid deeming to title II 
of the bill. My amendment exempts children, mothers, and veterans from 
the Medicaid restrictions in the bill as long as they are legal 
immigrants.
  I am deeply concerned that for the first time in the history of the 
program, we will begin sponsor deeming for Medicaid for legal 
immigrants. I recognize that this is a high-cost program, some $2 
billion, for helping legal immigrants over the next 7 years, but the 
public's health is at stake, not just the immigrants' health.
  The restrictions on Medicaid place our communities at risk. It will 
be a serious problem for Americans and immigrants who live in high-
immigrant areas. If the sponsor's income is deemed and the sponsor is 
held liable for the cost of Medicaid, legal immigrants will be turned 
away from the program or avoided altogether. These legal immigrants are 
not going to go away and can get sick like everyone else, and many will 
need help. But restricting Medicaid means conditions will go untreated 
and diseases will spread.
  If the Federal Government drops the ball on Medicaid, our communities 
and States and local governments will have

[[Page S4298]]

no choice but to provide this medical care and pick up the cost.
  In addition to veterans, my amendment exempts children and prenatal 
and post partum services from the Medicaid deeming requirements for 
legal immigrants. The bottom line is, we are talking about children, 
legal immigrant children who will likely become future citizens.
  The early years of a person's life are the most vulnerable years for 
health. All of us are familiar with the various Carnegie studies that 
have been out in the last 3 years which reinforce that, if there was 
ever any question about it.
  If children develop complications early in life, complications which 
could have been prevented with access to health care, society will pay 
the costs of a lifetime of treatment when that child becomes a citizen. 
Children are not abusing Medicaid. When immigrant children get sick, 
they infect American citizen children.
  The bill we are discussing today effectively ensures that children in 
school would not be able to get school-based care under the early and 
periodic screening, detection, and treatment program. This program 
provides basic school-based health care.
  Under this bill, every time a legal immigrant goes to the school 
nurse, the nurse will have to determine if the child is eligible for 
Medicaid. This bill turns school nurses into welfare officers. The end 
result is that millions of children will not receive needed treatment 
in early detection of diseases.
  Consider the following example: A legal immigrant child goes to her 
school nurse complaining of a bad cough. The nurse cannot treat the 
child until it has been determined that she is eligible for Medicaid. 
Meanwhile, the child's illness grows worse and the parents take her to 
a local emergency room, where it is discovered that the little girl has 
tuberculosis. That child has now exposed all of her classmates, 
American citizen classmates, to TB, all because the school nurse was 
not authorized to treat the child until her Medicaid eligibility was 
determined.
  Or consider a mother who keeps her child out of a school-based 
program because she knows her child will not qualify for the program. 
This child develops an ear infection, and his teacher notices a change 
in his hearing ability. Normally, the teacher would send the little boy 
to the school nurse, but she cannot in this case because he is 
ineligible for Medicaid. The untreated infection causes the child to go 
deaf for the rest of his life.
  In addition to the basic school-based health care programs, it also 
provides for the early detection of childhood diseases or problems such 
as hearing difficulties, even lice checks.
  Prenatal and post partum services to legal immigrants must also be 
exempt from the Medicaid deeming requirements. Legal immigrant mothers 
who deliver in the United States are giving birth to children who are 
American citizens. These children deserve the same healthy start in 
life as any other American citizen.
  In addition to providing prenatal care, it has been proven to prevent 
poor birth outcomes. Problem births, low-birth-weight babies, and other 
problems associated with the lack of prenatal care can increase the 
cost of delivery up to 70 times the normal cost. According to a Baylor 
University Hospital report in 1994, the cost for the delivery of babies 
where there has been prenatal care averages $1,000; those without 
prenatal care over $2,000. That is double the cost.
  In California, the common cost of caring for a premature baby in a 
neonatal unit is $75,000 to $100,000. The lack of prenatal care can 
result in developmental disabilities, chronic problems for American 
citizen children. Many children in such circumstances end up costing 
the taxpayer $40,000 to $100,000 annually to cover medical and special 
education needs.
  Many things can go wrong during pregnancy and in the delivery room. 
Many more things will go wrong if the mother has not had adequate 
prenatal care. Without prenatal care, we will allow more American 
citizen children to come into this world with complications that could 
have been prevented.
  This is not an expensive amendment. According to CBO, the cost of 
care for children and the prenatal care services is less than the cost 
for elderly persons, whose Medicaid eligibility would continue to be 
restricted under this amendment. Furthermore, the cost of providing a 
healthy childhood to both unborn American citizens and legal immigrant 
children is far less than the cost to society of treating health 
complications at delivery and throughout the lives of these children.
  Finally, many legal immigrants serve in the Armed Forces. Many have 
fought and even evidenced their willingness to sacrifice their lives 
for the Nation. How would we reward this sacrifice under this bill? By 
making it harder for them and their families to receive benefits. We 
should hold these people as heroes. Instead, we will not ensure their 
families receive basic medical services upon their return to the States 
from duty. Most veterans benefits are means tested.
  If the sponsor-deeming provisions in the bill are applied to the 
veterans benefits, some veterans will find themselves ineligible for VA 
benefits because their sponsor makes too much money, and they are too 
poor to purchase health insurance. My amendment allows these veterans 
to receive the health care they need under Medicaid.
  Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, we should, in this 
particular proposal, support the care for expectant mothers because it 
is the right thing to do. We ought to be supporting the care for the 
children because it is the right thing to do. These children did not 
cause the problem with illegal immigration. It may be their father and 
their mother, their parents. Why did their parents come here? To get 
jobs. We ought to be able to deal with that aspect of the problem 
without taking it out on the children.
  It seems to me it is that simple. I mean, why are we taking it out on 
the children? Why are we being bullies to children when we know what 
the real facts are? We have to deal with the issues of jobs and the 
magnet of jobs, deal with those issues.
  This measure that is before us has programs to try to do that by 
enhancing the Border Patrol and by the other pilot programs and the 
other aspects which Senator Simpson outlined in terms of tamper-proof 
work cards. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. President, when we come 
on down on legal--legal--American children and put all kinds of blocks 
in their way in order to be able to obtain essential kinds of services 
that will protect their health and their fellow children's health, who 
are American citizens, it just makes no sense at all. It is hardhearted 
and cruel.
  Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will offer that amendment. I 
hope the Senate will support it.
  Mr. President, I will just take a few moments now, as we are coming 
down to 4:20, where we are reminded once again that the real filibuster 
is not on the issue of the illegal immigration bill--we are on day 5 
and counting on that issue. There are many of us who would like to move 
toward being able to offer amendments. I have outlined one. Senator 
Graham, others, Senator Feingold, and Senator Abraham have other 
amendments.
  We will have an opportunity to do that in the very near future. But 
we are on day 5, with perhaps 2 more days on this bill, when actually 
the real reason that we are spending 5 to 7 days on it is so we will 
avoid the consideration of the increase in the minimum wage.
  It is as plain as that. I outlined earlier during the course of the 
day the various gymnastics that we have gone through to try to get a 
vote on the minimum wage or at least to get a time certain to consider 
the minimum wage.
  Mr. President, I will just take a few moments of the Senate's time 
now to mention and include in the Record some of the religious leaders' 
support for the minimum wage reflecting the broad religious community 
that recognizes this as a moral issue, out of respect for individuals 
and their willingness to work, and also for their necessity to provide 
for children and the essential aspects of life. They believe this is a 
moral issue, to make sure that working families are going to have 
sufficient resources to be able to provide for themselves with a sense 
of dignity as children of God.
  So, Mr. President, we have discussed some of the economic issues 
earlier and also some of the other reasons for increasing the minimum 
wage. I find it so difficult to explain to people in my

[[Page S4299]]

State and around this country why we should not raise it for families 
that are working, playing by the rules, trying to provide for their 
families and escape poverty.
  I find it, particularly when we have a majority of the Members of the 
Senate that support that measure, difficult to comprehend why we 
continue to go through these gymnastics here on the floor of the Senate 
to pretend that there is a filibuster on illegal immigration, when the 
real filibuster is on the minimum wage. That is what the real 
filibuster is. If we were able to get a vote on that, I do not know why 
there would not be an early disposal of the underlying measure. That 
was true last week. But nonetheless, Mr. President, let me just speak 
briefly to this issue.
  Assuring that hard-pressed minimum wage workers get the 90-cent 
increase they deserve is not a mere tussle for political advantage or 
an abstract debate over economics. The right to earn a living wage and 
support a family lies at the heart of this Nation's commitment to 
building and maintaining a moral society.
  At its core, the struggle for a higher minimum wage is a battle over 
morality--a struggle over family values.
  There are some who would have us believe that there are two types of 
families in America--the responsible and the ripoff artists. One kind 
of family works hard and plays by the rules. The other kind runs wild 
and lives off the dole. But the facts are quite different. Almost all 
families work. Single mothers with small children are working. Fathers 
are working, often at two jobs or even three jobs. Most poor families 
work. Most immigrant families work. Most families on food stamps work. 
And millions of Americans working today at the minimum wage--a minimum 
wage that has reached its lowest buying power in 40 years--are working 
and living in poverty.
  These Americans are our neighbors and friends. They sit at the 
kitchen table at night, figuring out how to pay this month's bills. 
They pray their kids do not get sick, because the doctor bills are 
getting more expensive each year. They are not on welfare, although 
some come perilously close. Some may even have depended on it for a 
time in a crisis, but now they wake up early in the morning, bundle 
their children off to day care or a relative, and spend their days 
tending for our parents in nursing homes, caring for our children in 
day care centers, sweeping floors and cleaning carpets in our offices, 
and making clothes that they often cannot afford themselves.
  These families are doing what we have asked them to do. They are 
working. They are contributing to our society. They are not asking for 
a handout. They are asking for what any decent society should provide: 
A living wage that will adequately support a family.
  A moral society cannot ask its citizens to work 40 hours a week and 
still relegate them to live in poverty. A moral society cannot ask its 
citizens to work 40 hours a week and then leave them to watch their 
children go hungry. A moral society cannot ask its citizens to work 40 
hours a week and then deny them the ability to support a family without 
relying on the charity of others. Surely, that is not family values.
  To those who claim to support family values but oppose this 90-cent 
increase in the minimum wage, I urge you to listen to a sampling of 
letters I have received from the religious leaders of our Nation who 
have spoken out in support of a higher minimum wage.
  This letter comes from the Most Reverend William Skylstad, the Bishop 
of Spokane, chair of the domestic policy committee of the U.S. Catholic 
Conference:

       Dear Senator: The United States Catholic Conference, the 
     public policy agency of the Catholic bishops, supports the 
     efforts to raise the minimum wage. I urge you to support 
     legislation that helps restore the minimum wage to a living 
     wage that respects the dignity of workers and recognizes the 
     economic realities facing low-income families.
       Work has a special place in Catholic social thought it is 
     more than just a job, it is a reflection of human dignity and 
     way to contribute to the common good. Most importantly, it is 
     the ordinary way people meet their material needs and 
     community obligations. In Catholic teaching, the principle of 
     a just wage--a living wage--is integral to our understanding 
     of human work. Wages must be adequate for workers to provide 
     for themselves and their families in dignity. Our bishops' 
     Conference has supported the minimum wage since its 
     inception.
       Recently, the bishops pointed out in their statement, 
     ``Putting Children and Families First,'' that ``decent jobs 
     at decent wages--what used to be called a `family wage'--are 
     the most important economic assets for families.'' As 
     pastors, the bishops see the tragic human and social 
     consequences on individuals, their families, and society when 
     workers cannot support dignified lives by their own labor. 
     The minimum wage needs to be raised to help restore its 
     purchasing power, not just for the goods and services one can 
     buy but for the self-esteem and self-worth it affords.
       People of goodwill can and will differ over specific 
     economic arguments. The U.S. Catholic Conference believes, 
     however, that the technical economic debate should not 
     overshadow the pressing human concern and moral question of 
     whether or not our society will move toward a minimum wage 
     that reflects principles of human dignity and economic 
     justice. We renew our support for an increase in the minimum 
     wage.

  Another letter comes from Kay Dowhower of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America:

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Church 
     in America, I urge you to support legislation that raises the 
     minimum wage.
       The church is committed to adequate income and believes 
     that vast disparities of income and wealth are both divisive 
     of the human community and demeaning to its members. 
     Unfortunately, the United States has the largest wage gap of 
     any industrialized country. The fact that the minimum wage 
     has dropped to its lowest level in 40 years only exacerbates 
     the problem.
       This church also believes that making it possible for 
     people to move from welfare to work is important. Work is 
     important because employment is a means by which people 
     become contributing participants in society. However, moving 
     welfare recipients into employment is hindered in a labor 
     market increasingly dominated by low-wage, part-time or 
     temporary jobs that cannot support a family. A single mother 
     with two children who works full time at $4.25 per hour will 
     find that her family remains nearly 30 percent below the 
     federal poverty level.
       We urge an immediate supportive vote on an increase in the 
     minimum wage.

  This is a letter from Dr. Thom White Wolf Fassett of the Methodist 
Church:

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the General Board of Church and 
     Society, the social justice advocacy agency of the Methodist 
     Church, I strongly urge you to support S.413. This 
     legislation . . . will aide the minimum wage to $5.15 over 
     two years. By increasing the minimum wage, Congress will send 
     a message to the American people that it is addressing the 
     growing wage gap between the rich and the poor as well as the 
     increasing economic anxiety.
       The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 
     represents the social justice position of our approximately 9 
     million [member] denomination. Our policy clearly states, ``. 
     . . we have the obligation of work with others to develop the 
     moral foundation for public policies which will provide every 
     family with minimum income needed to participate as 
     responsible and productive members of society.'' Raising the 
     minimum wage would help those at the bottom of our society 
     meet their family needs.
       It has been nearly seven years since the federal minimum 
     wage has increased. The buying power of the minimum wage will 
     soon reach it lowest level since 1955, when the minimum wage 
     was 75 cents an hour. Nearly 60 percent of the workers who 
     would benefit from an increase are women. Nearly two-thirds 
     are adults struggling to support families, as opposed to the 
     stereotype of a teenager flipping hamburgers.
       Again, I urge you to vote for the passage of S. 413. It 
     tells people working at the minimum wage that their work is 
     important and appropriately rewarded.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing to 
the attention of the Senate the thousands of pieces of correspondence 
that have been coming into our offices over the last several weeks as a 
result of the leadership by the able Senator from Massachusetts. It is 
clear that this has resonated. The letters that the Senator from 
Massachusetts is reading are indicative, I think, of the correspondence 
that comes in on the e-mail, that comes in on fax machines, that comes 
in through the regular mail routes.
  I think that the Senator does a real service to the Senate in sharing 
those with us. I know he has a number of others, and I do not want to 
preclude him from finishing what has been a very informative and 
helpful session, but I do believe, and I ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts whether he shares the view, as this issue becomes better 
understood and as it becomes clear to the American people just what 
this is all

[[Page S4300]]

about, there appears to be a momentum that has been brought to this 
debate that I did not witness before, given the increase in the number 
of letters and pieces of correspondence we have received.
  Has it been the experience of the Senator from Massachusetts that the 
number of letters that have come in on this in recent days has actually 
increased?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Very much so, Senator, not only in the volume but also 
in the support that is out there from virtually the unanimous Judeo-
Christian community. As the Senator knows, the principal debate that we 
have around here on the increase in the minimum wage is what its 
impacts will be on the economy and what will be the impact in terms of 
jobs and job losses.
  As the Senator is a strong supporter of the increase, he knows we 
have addressed those and will welcome the opportunity to address them 
in the debate. I find so moving the fact that here are the 
representatives of the great Judeo-Christian ethic--really, of most of 
the great religious groups in our country that are talking about this 
as a moral issue.
  I think none of us, perhaps, want to be out here putting forward that 
we have the moral position on a particular issue, and we can all 
understand that all of us have differing views about it. We respect 
each other's differing views. What I found very, very powerful is the 
underlying, continuing, strong, strong, overwhelming support, 
overwhelming support of the religious groups across the spectrum, what 
might be considered some of the most conservative of the various 
religious groups--others, as well--that are uniformly, universally and 
strenuously urging, on the basis of the dignity of the individual, the 
dignity of the family, the dignity of work, the dignity of service in 
the human condition, that this is a moral issue of importance and 
virtually every one of the various churches, through their own means 
and mechanisms, have virtually gone on record in terms of the support 
for this measure.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments. I ask the Senator a question 
myself. As we move now 20 minutes away from the cloture vote, would he 
not agree with me that the Senate is not in a filibuster about illegal 
immigration, but basically we are in a filibuster on the minimum wage. 
I tried to point out that we are in day No. 5 now on the questions of 
illegal immigration. Most of us have supported the increase in the 
Border Patrol, although there has been some difference on the various 
pilot programs being developed to try and deal with the issues of jobs 
and the job-pull issue and amending the various numbers of cards to 
make them tamperproof and other factors.
  Would the Senator not agree with me, as he is the Democratic leader, 
I do not detect that there is a desire of any Member on our side to 
have a filibuster. We are prepared to address those issues in a timely 
way and move forward. That we are here this evening on a procedural 
vote to close down the debate is really about the unwillingness of the 
majority to permit a simple vote on the increase in the minimum wage, 
an issue which more than half of the Senate has indicated they wanted 
to address and that they did support.
  Does the Senator, as a leader and as someone who knows the Senate 
well, find it a rather extraordinary circumstance where most Americans 
say, ``They are voting on a filibuster on illegal immigration; why are 
they doing that when that really has nothing to do with it at all''?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased to be able to respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, that was really the reason I wanted to come out, to 
address that very point. Obviously, there are some of our Republican 
friends who would like to make this current debate out to be a choice 
between having a vote on minimum wage or having a debate on minimum 
wage and having an opportunity to vote on immigration. That is a false 
choice, as the Senator knows.
  There is absolutely no desire on the part of our Democratic 
colleagues to hold up the vote on the very legitimate question of how 
we address more effectively illegal immigration in this country. That 
is the purpose of the bill. I have heard the Senator from Massachusetts 
say on several occasions we could complete work on that bill in a day 
and a half. There was not any need to extend out this debate. There was 
not any need to fill parliamentary trees in an elaborate fashion to 
deny the opportunity to raise these questions.
  We were prepared to vote on minimum wage with a half hour of debate. 
We could have done it last week. That was not done. So it is a false 
choice.
  The false choice is that we are being told it is either one or the 
other. Well, they can delay a vote on minimum wage, but they cannot 
deny it. Sooner or later, this Senate will have the opportunity, as we 
know we must, to vote on this moral issue of minimum wage, to vote on 
this very important, critical opportunity to provide people with a 
working wage, a realization that it is those economic pressures that 
drive families apart and give them the kind of extraordinarily 
difficult challenges that they have to face on a daily basis, because 
they do not have the economic wherewithal to pay their bills on rent, 
groceries, heat, and all of the things that every one of us face.
  So this is a moral issue. The Senator is absolutely right to point 
this out so ably and eloquently as he has. So it is not a choice we are 
willing to accept. It is a false choice. We will vote on immigration. 
We will vote for cloture this afternoon on the amendment. We will 
ensure that we get to the key issues relating to how we resolve the 
differences we have with regard to illegal immigration. We will vote on 
that, and, ultimately, we will have our vote on one of the most 
important moral and family issues of the day--minimum wage.
  So I only answer the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts that we 
recognize the importance of this bill. We recognize the importance of 
getting on with a debate about the amendments pending, and we will do 
that. And one day we will have our vote on minimum wage as well. If it 
is not today, it will be tomorrow, this week, or next week. But we will 
have our vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader for that reassurance, because it has 
been under his leadership that this issue has come forward, and his 
strength and resolution has to be a reassurance to working families. We 
will be in the situation now, Mr. President, as the leader knows, where 
we will have cloture and we will have the time to dispose of amendments 
that will be related. We have some important ones. Then what happens is 
we will have a vote on cloture sometime in the next day or day and a 
half. And then that does not even end the bill. Then the bill will be 
open to further amendment. So we will have an opportunity to offer the 
minimum wage. But I will bet that the majority leader, or the 
spokesman, would try effectively to fill up the tree again, and then 
they will put cloture on that, and we will have to deal with that 
particular issue.
  All that time--would the Senator not agree with me--we could have 
disposed of this issue and moved forward with it, and still we are 
being effectively denied. Does the Senator not agree with me, as the 
minority leader, he at least would do the best he could to find time 
that would not interfere with other kinds of scheduled legislative 
matters, so that we could have a fair debate in representing our side, 
to ensure that there would be a fair, but limited, debate on this, so 
that at least we could move this issue, which has been supported by a 
majority of Republicans and Democrats alike, through the Senate and 
move that process forward so there could be focus and attention on the 
House? I note that the House failed to realize that, but not by all 
that number of votes, in recent time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the Senator that, yes, indeed, we would be 
prepared to enter into any short time agreement. We would not have to 
have amendments. We have had the opportunity to debate this issue, to 
talk about it. In 1990, when this issue came to the Senate floor, the 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for an 
increase in the minimum wage, overwhelmingly. It was, ironically, the 
same amount of money we are talking about now.
  Now, unfortunately, we have lost more purchasing power than at any 
time in the last 40 years. We are forced, again, to face the issue. How 
do we address it if we cannot put it on a calendar in a way that will 
accommodate a bill in normal parliamentary circumstances? We have no 
recourse but

[[Page S4301]]

to offer it as amendments. That is what we will do. We will keep doing 
it, whether it is on immigration or any one of a number of other bills.
  Certainly, we would be prepared to enter into any time agreement that 
will accommodate the schedule of our Republican colleagues, as well as 
the legislation pending.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for those assurances. We have all 
heard them expressed at different forums, but stating it here on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate so all Americans and our colleagues can 
understand it is about as clear and fair a position on what he is 
prepared to do as it can be. The assurance that we are going to keep 
coming back to this issue is, I think, very reassuring for working 
families.
  I just ask, finally, of the Senator--and I will make some brief 
comments, because I see my friend and colleague on the floor here. It 
has been interesting to me--I know the Senator has been following this 
issue--that we have not had, since 2 o'clock or so, or even before that 
during the morning--one Senator that has come out to the floor and 
said, ``No, we should not vote for cloture.'' There has not been one 
that said, ``No, do not go ahead on that.'' The silence is deafening on 
this matter.
  We are back into this sort of sham process and procedure, which 
effectively denies working families the kind of increase that they 
need. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  I just mentioned to the Senator that I will include in the Record an 
excellent statement from Jane Motz at the American Friends Service 
Committee, a letter from Timothy McElwee, and a letter from Michael 
Newmark.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator: We are writing to urge you to vote in support 
     of raising the minimum wage. . . . This is crucial to the 
     livelihood of millions of people who, through changes in 
     global economic processes over which they have no control, 
     are finding it increasingly difficult to support their 
     families.
       The American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker 
     organization committed to social justice, peace, and 
     humanitarian service. Our experience has shown us the 
     incredible hardships and suffering caused by poverty, as well 
     as the disproportionate numbers of women, people of color, 
     and children living in poverty. The decline in the real value 
     of the minimum wage is a major factor in the ever-widening 
     gap between the rich and poor in this country. The value of 
     the current minimum wage is at its lowest in 40 years, and 
     the United States now has the largest gap in wage levels of 
     any industrialized country.
       Raising the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour is a much-needed 
     step toward addressing these inequities. It would provide 
     relief for 4 million families trying to survive on the 
     current minimum wage, as well as for 8 million more who work 
     now for less than $5.15 per hour. . . . Such an increase can 
     only help those who are struggling to feed their families. It 
     is all the more crucial in light of current budget cuts that 
     will reduce access to social services in times of need.
       We urge you, therefore, to adopt an increase in the minimum 
     wage to $5.15.
                                                        Jane Motz,
     American Friends Service Committee.
                                                                    ____

       Dear Senator: The Church of the Brethren is very concerned 
     about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this 
     country, the largest wage gap of any industrialized country. 
     Sixty-nine percent of minimum wage workers are adults, not 
     teenagers, and women comprise sixty percent of minimum wage 
     workers. At a time when Congress seeks to limit the time 
     during which a person may receive welfare, it is 
     counterproductive and dangerous to force people into jobs 
     that pay $4.25 an hour. A single mother of two children who 
     earns this wage finds that her family is trapped nearly 
     thirty percent below the federal poverty level. The minimum 
     wage must be raised to ensure that families can support 
     themselves with adequate food, shelter, clothing, and health 
     care.
       The Church of the Brethren 1988 General Board Resolution 
     states that we must ``work for public policies at the 
     federal, state, and local levels that would provide wages 
     that enable persons to live in dignity and in freedom from 
     want.''
       Please vote in favor of raising the minimum wage and 
     support those who work hard to sustain their families.
                                               Timothy A. McElwee,
     Church of the Brethren.
                                                                    ____

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Jewish Community 
     Relations Advisory Council, we urge you to support upcoming 
     legislation to increase the minimum wage. The NJCRAC is the 
     national coordinating and advisory body for the 13 national 
     and 117 community agencies comprising the field of Jewish 
     community relations. . . . Consistent with long-standing 
     NJCRAC policies regarding poverty and welfare reform, we have 
     supported legislative proposals which enable individuals to 
     move from dependency to economic self-sufficiency, including 
     an increase in the minimum wage.
       Erosion in wages, especially for low-paying jobs, is a 
     major factor underlying persistent poverty and a steadily 
     widening income gap. Adjusted for inflation, the value of the 
     minimum wage has fallen nearly 50 cents since 1991, and is 
     now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. As a result, the 
     income of a worker in a full-time, year-round minimum wage 
     job is not sufficient, at the present time, to sustain a 
     family of three above the Federal poverty level.
       For these reasons, the NJCRAC urges you to support 
     legislative action to increase the minimum wage.

                                       Michael Newmark, Chair,

                                         National Jewish Community
                                       Relations Advisory Council.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that has been the ongoing and enduring 
theme of each one of these measures, which are typical, and it is 
expressed so well in those simple words that all of the great religions 
have stated clearly--that they believe this increase in the minimum 
wage is a moral issue. The basic reason for it is that we must ``work 
for public policies at the Federal, State, and local levels that would 
provide wages that enable persons to live in dignity and in freedom 
from want.''
  That says it all, Mr. President.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or two 
because I have heard the arguments about minimum wage for 20 years now. 
As a matter of fact, when I was chairman of the Labor Committee, or 
ranking member to the distinguished former chairman, Senator Kennedy, 
we got into a lot of battles over minimum wage.
  I come at it maybe from a different perspective. I understand that 
Senator Kennedy believes he is fighting hard for poor people. I commend 
him for the efforts he has made through the years to do that. I have a 
lot of respect for some of the things he has done. On the other hand, I 
feel that many things he has argued for have been detrimental to poor 
people.
  I was raised in an environment where I knew what it was really like 
to be hungry, to not have quite enough food. We did not have indoor 
facilities in our home when I was raised in the early years. Gradually, 
my dad was able to, by fighting and scratching, get us indoor 
facilities. But I can remember that, as a high school kid, I had to 
work my way through high school. I did not have a chance. If I could 
not have earned money going to high school, I do not know that I could 
have finished. I had to work my way through college and law school. In 
college, I was a janitor. I earned 65 cents an hour. I was so grateful 
for that job, I cannot begin to tell you. I was grateful in high school 
to work in a gas station where I worked very hard. I was captain of the 
basketball team. I would go to basketball practice, and afterward I 
would go work in the gas station so that I could buy some of the shoes 
and clothes that I had to have to be able to just go to school. But I 
never had the clothes most of the kids in that school district had.
  As a matter of fact, we lived in the poor end of the borough. There 
was a very wealthy end of the borough. So I really saw the contrast 
between those who were wealthy and those who were poor.
  I have to tell you. Speaking for those who maybe do not have the 
skills and do not have the opportunities that others had, every time 
the minimum wage goes up those people are left in the cold. And there 
are hundreds of thousands of them that are left in the cold because 
people just simply will not pay the higher minimum wage. They will do 
without the people, or they will quit their businesses. That happens 
all over America. You cannot ignore it.
  It would be far better for us to find other mechanisms than a phony 
mechanism that raises the floor so that those in the union movement can 
make higher demands at the top. This has been a fiction for years. If 
the minimum wage goes up 10 percent or 15 percent, then the unions come 
in and say, ``We deserve 10 or 15 percent.'' We wonder why we have 
these intermittent but very sustaining cycles of inflation.
  It would be far better to do other things for the poor and for those 
who

[[Page S4302]]

are at that lower end of the ladder. As we all know, not many total 
supporters of their households are on minimum wage. For a lot of these 
kids that take these minimum-wage jobs, it is only a matter of time 
until with the incentives and with their own desires to get ahead that 
they can move on, having acquired some skills for jobs that pay more 
than the minimum wage. That is what really has happened.
  I do not want to continue this debate because I know that the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is very sincere, and I commend 
him for that. But all the sincerity in the world does not make it 
necessarily right.
  I would like to put it in the Record, but at this particular point 
let me just make a few comments from the Wall Street Journal editorial 
today.
  It said:
       It is true that it's now possible to get a few economists, 
     including a couple of Nobel laureates such as Robert Solow, 
     to stand up in public and advocate a higher minimum wage. 
     This is supposed to reflect a study or two that fetched up no 
     job losses from higher minimums; our own suspicion is that it 
     has much more to do with the intellectual bankruptcy of the 
     Democratic Party such economists largely support. As the 
     symposium on this page last week demonstrated, the general 
     consensus of the profession remains firm.
       James Buchanan, the 1986 laureate for his work on public 
     choice, said it best: ``The inverse relationship between 
     quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in 
     economic science.'' To assert that raising the minimum wage 
     would actually increase employment, he continued, ``becomes 
     equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific 
     content in economics.'' Merton Miller, a 1990 laureate for 
     work on capital markets, asks of the notion that a minimum 
     wage boost is costless, ``Is all this too good to be true? 
     Damn right. But it sure plays well in the opinion polls. I 
     tremble for my profession.''

  The fact of the matter is that the article goes on to point out that:

       The minimum wage, however, points all of the incentives in 
     the wrong direction. Yes, some Republicans have themselves 
     defected for their own personal reasons, and it's conceivable 
     that if the GPO resists, the increase will pass. But so what? 
     It is more important that the Republicans start to assert 
     principles, as they did when they dominated the Congress and 
     the national discussion. That is, they need to get the ball 
     and go back on the offensive.
       What the public above all wants is for politicians to stand 
     for something, to give voters a clear choice. Our own view is 
     that voters are pretty smart, and can understand the doleful 
     effect of minimum wages if someone starts to explain it to 
     them. If Republicans do this, we predict, they will come back 
     next year with plenty of votes not only to roll back any 
     increase but end the minimum wage charade once and for all.

  Those are harsh words, but I think they are true and accurate.
  Frankly, I think we have to get back to the real bill at hand, and 
that is the illegal immigration bill and get over these side political 
shows and do what really ought to be done on immigration. And then let 
us face this problem on the minimum wage up and down with full-fledged 
debate. And, if that is what it takes, I think we should make the 
points that I think I personally can make as somebody who did not have 
much of a chance when I was younger, who had to work at the minimum 
wage, and who worked for peanuts to be able to go through but gradually 
was able to work out of it because of the chance I had to have a job to 
begin with.
  Frankly, that is what we ought to be more concerned about--the chance 
to have jobs to begin with, because once these kids start working and 
learn the value of working and the importance of working and the 
benefits from working, it is not long until they do not earn whatever 
the minimum wage is. They make far beyond that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Wall Street 
Journal article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 29, 1996]

                        Repeal the Minimum Wage

       The past two years confirm Bill Bennett's observation that 
     politics is a ball control game; if you're not on offensive 
     you're on defense. The House Republicans dominated Washington 
     until they'd passed most of their Contract, but the Clinton 
     Administration managed to grab the ball, and now dominates 
     the game even with a crackpot idea like the minimum wage.
       The Republicans many be learning. With their decision to 
     block a House vote of the minimum wage increase, they have 
     already staunched the talk of a GOP rout. They should now 
     throw down the gauntlet to House Democrats and the few 
     Republican turncoats: We are not going to schedule a vote now 
     or ever. Two years ago, we won a big battle with the Inhofe 
     resolution, revitalizing the discharge petition, in which 
     Members can force release of legislation the leadership has 
     stalled. If you democrats are serious about wanting vote, get 
     up your discharge petition.
       We Republicans are going to fight you every inch of the way 
     because we believe the minimum wage hurts poor people, 
     killing jobs on the first rung of the career ladder for the 
     most vulnerable members of society. Since we believe this we 
     are not going to compromise; no matter what other goodies may 
     be attached, we will never vote for an increase. Especially, 
     we will not buy the argument that since this increase is a 
     modest one, it won't destroy many jobs. Indeed, when we take 
     firmer control of the Congress next year, we are going to 
     vote for a big change, repealing the minimum wage kit, kat 
     and caboodle.
       It is true that it's now possible to get a few economists, 
     including a couple of Nobel laureates such as Robert Solow, 
     to stand up in public and advocate a higher minimum wage. 
     This is supposed to reflect a study or two that fetched up no 
     job losses from higher minimums; our own suspicion is that it 
     has much more to do with the intellectual bankruptcy of the 
     Democratic Party such economists largely support. As the 
     symposium on this page last week demonstrated, the general 
     consensus of the profession remains firm.
       James Buchanan, the 1986 laureate for his work on public 
     choice, said it best: ``The inverse relationship between 
     quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in 
     economic science.'' To assert that raising the minimum wage 
     would actually increase employment, he continued, ``becomes 
     equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific 
     content in economics.'' Merton Miller, a 1990 laureate for 
     work on capital markets, asks of the notion that a minimum 
     wage boost is costless, ``Is all this too good to be true? 
     Damn right. But it sure plays well in the opinion polls. I 
     tremble for my profession.''
       With intellectual firepower such as that on their side, why 
     are Republicans so cowed by the minimum wage debate? Too much 
     attention to the polls and the Beltway press corps, neither 
     of them good barometers of the real mood of the country or 
     especially eventual election returns, in which campaigns and 
     debates typically change the first-blush poll numbers. And 
     most especially, decades-long moral intimidation by Democrats 
     waving bloody shirts about ``the poor.'' The minimum wage 
     hurts the poor, and the more so the higher it's raised.
       Now, that is not to say there aren't problems to be dealt 
     with. Republicans are right to think about ways to put more 
     money in the pockets of beginning workers, particularly by 
     taxing them less heavily. Under the incentives now in place, 
     employers are shifting more beginning workers to 
     ``independent contractor'' status, where these workers bear 
     both sides of the payroll tax. Then they are trying to help 
     their lowest paid with daycare and other in-kind benefits not 
     subject to the payroll tax. For older workers, Republicans 
     should be repealing earnings limitations on Social Security 
     recipients. It is indeed important to look to incentives for 
     work, efficiency and production.
       The minimum wage, however, points all of the incentives in 
     the wrong direction. Yes, some Republicans have themselves 
     defected for their own personal reasons, and it's conceivable 
     that if the GOP resists, the increase will pass. But so what? 
     It is more important that the Republicans start to assert 
     principles, as they did when they dominated the Congress and 
     the national discussion. That is, they need to get the ball 
     and go back on the offensive.
       What the public above all wants is for politicians to stand 
     for something, to give voters a clear choice. Our own view is 
     that voters are pretty smart, and can understand the doleful 
     effect of minimum wages if someone starts to explain it to 
     them. If Republicans do this, we predict, they will come back 
     next year with plenty of votes not only to roll back any 
     increase but end the minimum wage charade once and for all.

                     Temporary Agricultural Workers

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have filed, and have been prepared to 
offer, an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Gorton.
  Mr. President, there is an old joke about the tombstone engraved with 
the words, ``I told you I was sick.''
  There are many of us in this body who do not want to come down to the 
floor of the Senate in October and say: We told you so. We told you the 
H-2A temporary agricultural worker program was broken. And now there 
are crops rotting in the fields and supermarket bins are empty or 
produce prices are going through the roof.
  There is no satisfaction in being able to say ``I told you so,'' when 
we have an opportunity to fix a problem before it becomes a crisis.
  This is the first Congress in my memory that has made some real 
attempts to do just that--practice preventive legislating--most notably 
in our attempts to enact the first balanced budget in a generation.

[[Page S4303]]

  We have an opportunity to prevent a crisis this year by reforming the 
H-2A temporary agricultural worker program in our immigration law.
  The H-2A program was created because agriculture has a need, in many 
cases, for workers on a seasonal basis. This creates a unique 
combination of opportunities and problems for employer and employee.
  Most growers are able to employ employees who are citizens or 
otherwise in this country legally.
  And many growers earnestly believe they are doing exactly that. But, 
when a job applicant shows up with apparently valid documents showing 
the applicant is a citizen or is here legally, the employer has no 
choice but to accept those documents. This usually means he or she has 
no choice but to hire that applicant, for at least two reasons: First, 
to avoid costly and lengthy litigation or prosecution over an alleged 
civil rights violation. And, second, because there is no other 
qualified applicant for that job.
  This Senate should and will, under the leadership of the chairman, 
Mr. Simpson, pass legislation that tightens up our borders and stems 
the tide of illegal immigration.
  When that happens, many innocent employers are going to be surprised 
when their labor pool contracts or disappears.
  When that happens, as early at this fall, American agriculture--that 
sector of the economy that puts the food on all our tables--will face a 
crisis.
  Therefore, we are offering today a compromise amendment that would 
help prevent that crisis.
  I note that our amendment is a compromise. The House considered and 
rejected a broader, new program. Our amendment merely reforms the 
current H-2A program. It would--
  Streamline and simplify administrative procedures; expedite 
processing; and provide basic worker protections that both ensure that 
temporary immigrant workers do not displace American workers and 
protect those workers from exploitation.
  I want to emphasize: The original H-2A program was needed, and these 
reforms are needed, because there simply are not enough American 
workers who are available to take these seasonal, temporary jobs. We 
propose to allow the legal employment of a legal, temporary immigrant, 
only when there is not an American worker available for that job.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate and recognize the concerns of the Senator 
from Idaho [Mr. Craig] and our other colleagues in this area.
  I commend my colleagues for coming here with a concrete, compromise 
proposal and respectfully suggest the most appropriate next step would 
be to fully consider this proposal in the Immigration Subcommittee.
  The H-2A program was intended to fulfill all the purposes my friend 
mentions and I do want to work with my colleagues to make certain this 
program is workable and meets the needs it is intended to meet.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for his willingness to look into and 
address this problem. I look forward to working on this issue with the 
chairman and our other colleagues in the coming weeks and months.
  Senators Wyden, Kyl, Leahy, and others, including this Senator, also 
have filed an amendment, which I understand will be included in the 
managers' amendment. That amendment:
  Expresses the sense of the Congress that--
  The potential impact revising our immigration laws will have on the 
availability of an adequate agricultural work force should be assessed; 
and any needs in this area should be met through a workable H-2A 
program; and provides for the GAO to promptly conduct a study and 
report back to Congress.
  I commend that amendment to my colleagues' attention and strongly 
urge adoption. If that amendment is adopted, then I do not intend to 
pursue the Craig-Gorton amendment at this time, and will continue to 
work further with the chairman and the committee on this issue.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand this has been cleared on both 
sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion and amendments 
thereto on amendment No. 3744 be temporarily set aside for the 
consideration of a manager's amendment that I understand has been 
cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3866 to Amendment No. 3743

          (Purpose: To make manager's amendments to the bill)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Simpson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3866 to amendment numbered 
     3743.

  Mr. HATCH. 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.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Simpson and 
Senator Kennedy for working with me and my cosponsors to craft a 
bipartisan amendment to commission a GAO study on the effectiveness of 
the H-2A Guest Worker Program.
  It seems to me that the H-2A Program works for no one. From what I 
have heard from growers and from farmworker advocates on this program: 
First, it does not effectively match up American workers with employers 
who need labor; second, it is administratively unwieldy for growers, 
potentially leaving them at the date of harvest without sufficient 
labor; and third, there are cases where the labor protections under the 
program have been poorly enforced and some growers have driven out 
domestic laborers in favor of foreign labor through unfair employment 
practices.
  It seems to me that this program can use a good, hard look on a 
number of fronts, and this is why I am proposing a GAO report so that 
an outside agency can take a balanced look at the effectiveness of this 
program.
  I am concerned about this issue because agriculture is one of 
Oregon's largest industries. It generates more than $5 billion in 
direct economic output and another $3 to 5 billion in related 
industries.
  According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, roughly 53,000 
jobs in Oregon are tied to the agricultural industry. Let me clarify: 
these are not seasonal or temporary jobs, these are good, permanent, 
American jobs. If we add on seasonal workers, we are talking about 
76,000 to 98,000 jobs in Oregon.
  When we are talking about this many jobs in my State of Oregon, I 
don't want to be flip or careless about any changes to any statute that 
might adversely affect these jobs or this industry. At the same time, I 
certainly don't want to see the creation of a new Bracero Program.
  In my mind I set some simple goals for looking at the H-2A Program: 
First, we have to make sure that the U.S. agriculture industry is 
internationally competitive, and second, we have to make sure that 
American farmworkers are not displaced by foreign workers and that they 
have access to good jobs, where they can earn a fair day's wage for a 
fair day's work.
  With these goals in mind, I think that we can design a reasonable 
system to meet labor shortages, if and when they occur.
  It is an understatement to say that the issue of the H-2A Program for 
bringing in temporary guest workers is polarized. Labor unions and 
advocates for farmworkers feel that the H-2A Program is barely a notch 
above the old, abusive Bracero Program. Growers feel that far from 
giving them access to cheap labor, the H-2A Program is extraordinarily 
costly and almost totally unusable and that the Department of Labor is 
openly hostile to their interests.
  Given the passions surrounding this issue, I think that it's 
important that we begin any process of redesigning this program by 
bringing in an independent, outside agency to take a look at H-2A to 
try to sift out what is actually happening, and what can be done to 
make this program an effective safety valve, if indeed, after 
immigration reform legislation passes, there ends up being a shortage 
of American workers who are able and willing to take temporary, 
agricultural jobs.

[[Page S4304]]

  I and my cosponsors, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson, 
have agreed that it is important for the GAO to look at four issues:
  First, that able and willing American workers are efficiently matched 
up with employers seeking labor.
  I have heard criticism of the H-2A Program from both the growers and 
from farmworker advocates. According to the testimony by John R. 
Hancock, a former Department of Labor employee, before the House 
Committee on Agriculture December 14, 1995,
       Only about 10-15 percent of the job openings available with 
     H-2A employers have been referred by the Employment Service 
     in recent years, and the number of such workers who stay on 
     the job to complete the total contract period has been 
     minimal.

  Similarly, a briefing book sent to me from the Farmworker's Justice 
Fund cited the Commission on Agricultural Workers' finding that ``the 
supply of workers is not yet coordinated well enough with the demand 
for workers.''
  So, it seems that we all can agree that we seriously need to evaluate 
how we match up workers with employers who are experiencing labor 
shortages.
  Second, if and when there is a shortage of American workers willing 
to do the necessary temporary, agricultural labor, there will be a 
straightforward program to address this shortage with temporary foreign 
workers.
  I have been assured that across the country there are hundreds of 
thousands of migrant farmworkers, ready, willing and able to work. If 
there is no such shortage, then clearly there is no need for growers to 
use the H-2A Program.
  However, growers in Oregon and across the country are afraid that if 
this legislation is effective in cracking down on false documents and 
cracking down on people who come across the border, then they will see 
their work force decline sharply.
  Now as far as I can tell, no one can say for certain how many illegal 
immigrants there are in this country and how many are part of the 
migrant labor work force. But I know from visiting with folks in 
Oregon, that there is nothing that makes a farmer lose more sleep at 
night than worrying about his or her fruit, or berries, or vegetables, 
rotting in the field because there is no one there to pick it.
  I know that many say that a farmer could get as much labor as he 
wanted if the wage was high enough. I want to make clear that I 
strongly support making sure that seasonal, agricultural workers get a 
good, living wage. I strongly support ensuring that they have good 
housing, and workers compensation, and safe working conditions.
  But I do think we have to be realistic that if we want to keep a 
competitive agricultural industry, these temporary, seasonal jobs are 
never going to make a person a millionaire; these jobs are always going 
to involve tough, physical labor, and they most likely aren't going to 
be filled by out-of-work engineers.
  So it seems to make sense to me that because we want our agricultural 
industry to be the most competitive in the world, that if and when 
there is a labor shortage of people who are willing and able to do 
temporary, seasonal work, there should be an effective way for the 
farmer to get help to harvest the crop.
  I don't want to have to scramble while the food rots in the field to 
fix the H-2A Program. Let's straighten it out now. Hopefully, we'll 
never have to use it--but if we do, let's have something that is 
usable.
  Third, if and when a farmer uses the H-2A Program, the program should 
not directly or indirectly be misused to displace U.S. agricultural 
workers, or to make U.S. workers worse off.
  There are a lot of stories about misuse of the H-2A Program --I find 
these appalling. I do not think that the H-2A Program should be used as 
a conduit for cheap foreign labor, as a substitute for already 
available American workers.
  It seems to me that everyone admits that there are some abusive 
employers. There are employers who have manipulated the piece rates to 
pay people lower wages. There are employers who, once they get into the 
H-2A Program, never again look for American labor. I think that this 
program needs careful scrutiny to ensure that workers are treated 
fairly--that they get a fair wage for a fair day's work, that they have 
places to live and reasonable benefits, and that we don't bring in 
foreign workers to the detriment of American workers here.
  Many of the problems I hear about with the H-2A Program from 
farmworker advocates seem to stem from a lack of enforcement in the 
program. Perhaps this is something that we also need to look at--what 
mechanism can make sure that this program is enforceable.
  Fourth, finally, I believe that it is important that we do not 
undermine the intent of this bill to ensure that we stop the flood of 
illegal immigrants coming across the border. We would ask GAO to look 
at the extent to which this program might cause an increase in illegal 
immigrants in this country.
  I know that a number of concerns have been expressed about overstays 
among temporary workers. Obviously, our primary concern with this 
entire legislation is that we get some control over the illegal 
immigrants coming into this country, and it is important that we don't 
close the door in one place, only to open a backdoor elsewhere.
  I know that the tensions over the guest worker issue run deep. I hope 
that with this GAO report we can start to take an objective, balanced 
look at what this guest worker program will mean both for farm workers 
and for employers, and how it can operate so it is fair to both.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Ron Wyden for offering an 
amendment to require the General Accounting Office [GAO] to review and 
report on the effectiveness of the H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker Program 
after passage of immigration reform legislation.
  I have heard from many agriculture and labor groups about the 
importance of H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker Program. In my home State of 
Vermont, for example, apple growers depend on this program for some of 
their labor needs during the peak harvest season. Many of these farmers 
have concerns with the current operation and responsiveness of the H-2A 
program. Both farmers and laborers are concerned that passage of 
legislation to reform the Nation's immigration laws may further hamper 
the effectiveness of the H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker Program. I believe 
this amendment goes a long way in addressing their concerns.
  I am proud to cosponsor this amendment because I believe it will 
result in the collection of public, nonpartisan information on the 
effectiveness of this essential program. It directs the GAO to review 
the existing H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker Program to ensure that the 
program provides a workable safety valve in the event of future 
shortages of domestic workers. And it requires the GAO to issue a 
timely report to the public on its findings. I am hopeful that the GAO 
study will provide a foundation for improving the program for the sake 
of agricultural employers and workers.
  I also believe that this amendment crafts a careful balance between 
the needs of agricultural growers and the protection of domestic and 
foreign farm workers. The amendment calls on the GAO to review the H-2A 
Program to determine if it provides an adequate supply of qualified 
U.S. workers, timely approval for the applications for temporary 
foreign workers, protection against the displacement or diminishing of 
the terms and conditions of the employment of U.S. agricultural 
workers.
  I am hopeful that this GAO report will help the H-2A admissions 
process meet the needs of agricultural employers while protecting the 
jobs, wages, and working conditions of domestic workers and the rights 
and dignity of those admitted to work on a temporary and seasonal 
basis.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Wyden amendment.


                             ins amendment

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, much of the debate on this floor is 
focused on how to strengthen our immigration laws. But whatever we pass 
will not mean much if we do not make sure that our States have the 
tools and support they need to enforce those laws in the first place.
  My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Byrd and Senator 
Daschle that would require the Attorney General to provide at least 10 
full-time active duty agents of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service in each

[[Page S4305]]

State. These can be either new agents or existing agents shifted from 
other States.
  In America today, immigration is not simply a California issue or a 
New York issue or a Texas or Florida issue. I can tell you that it is a 
real issue--and a real challenge--in my own State.
  But today there are three States--including Iowa--that have no 
permanent INS presence to combat illegal immigration or to assist legal 
immigrants. In fact, in Iowa every other Federal law enforcement agency 
is represented except the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  This is a commonsense amendment. Ten agents is a modest level 
compared to agents in other States. According to INS current staffing 
levels, Missouri has 92 agents, Minnesota has 281 agents and the State 
of Washington has 440. And Iowa, West Virginia, and South Dakota have 
zero. This just does not make any sense.
  Clearly every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic needs. 
My amendment would ensure that need is met. It would affect 10 States 
and only require 61 agents which is less than 0.3 percent of the 
current 19,780 INS agents nationwide.
  Let me speak briefly about the situation in my own State. Currently, 
Iowa shares an INS office located in Omaha, NE. In its February report, 
the Omaha INS office reported that they apprehend a total of 704 
illegal aliens last year for the two State area. This number is up by 
52 percent from 1994.
  The irony here is that in 1995, the INS office in Omaha was operating 
at a 33 percent reduction in manpower from 1994 staff levels. Yet the 
number of illegal aliens apprehended increased by 52 percent that year.
  This same report states that there are about 550 criminal aliens 
being detained or serving sentences in Iowa and Nebraska city-county 
jails. Many of these aliens were arrested for controlled substance 
violations and drug trafficking crimes.
  A little law enforcement relief is on its way to Iowa. The Justice 
Department announced that it will establish an INS office in Cedar 
Rapids with four law enforcement agents. That is a good step. And it is 
four more agents then we had before. But we need additional INS 
enforcement to assist Iowa's law enforcement in the central and western 
parts of our State.
  In fact, the Omaha district office assesed in their initial report to 
the Justice Department that at least 8 INS enforcement agents are 
needed simply to handle the issue of illegal immigration in Iowa.
  Mr. President, in the immigration reform legislation before the 
Senate this week, the Attorney General will be mandated to increase the 
number of Border Patrol agents by 1,000 every year for the next 4 
years. Yet for Iowa, the Justice Department can only spare 4 law 
enforcement agents and no agents to perform examinations or inspections 
functions.
  By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice 
Department will save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only travel time 
but also jail time per alien, since a permanent INS presence would 
substantially speedup deportation proceedings.
  There is also a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to speed 
up document processing. The Omaha INS office reported that based on its 
first quarter totals for this year the examinations process for legal 
immigrants applying for citizenship or adjusting their status went up 
45 percent from last year. Even though, once again, the manpower for 
the Omaha INS office is down by one-third.
  I have recommended that permanent INS office in Des Moines be located 
in free office space that would be provided by the Des Moines 
International Airport. Placing the office in the Des Moines 
International Airport would benefit Iowa in three ways. First, it would 
cut costs and save taxpayers money. Second, it would generate economic 
benefits for Iowa because the airport could then process international 
arrivals and advance Iowa's goal of becoming increasingly more 
competitive in the global market. Third, the office would be able to 
process legal immigrants living in Iowa.
  I urge my collegues to join in support of my amendment. It is common 
sense, it is modest, and it sends a clear message to our States that we 
are committee to enforcing our immigration laws and giving them the 
tools they need to do it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I fully support Senator Harkin's 
amendment to require the INS to have full-time staff in every State. 
Currently, South Dakota is one of only 3 States that do not have a 
permanent INS presence. Although South Dakota does not have the 
problems with immigration faced by States like California, there has 
been a dramatic growth in immigration, both legal and illegal, into the 
State and particularly into Sioux Falls. As immigration increases, it 
has become necessary to step up enforcement of the immigration laws 
nationwide, including in South Dakota.
  In addition, citizens and legal residents who need help from the INS 
need to have an office in South Dakota to serve them. Now, they must 
journey to either Minnesota or Colorado. That is a huge burden on the 
residents of South Dakota.
  Senator Harkin is to be commended for addressing these problems and 
ensuring that South Dakota will have help from the INS to prevent 
illegal immigration and to facilitate the needs of legal residents and 
citizens.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my amendment is the same amendment that 
was added last week by unanimous consent to S. 1028, the health 
insurance reform bill. Although I am hopeful the House of 
Representatives will agree to retain the amendment during its 
conference with the Senate, that is not a certainty. The program this 
amendment extends is very important to my State and several others with 
large rural populations. But time is running out and this extension 
must be signed into law into the next few months. So I am offering the 
amendment today to S. 1664.
  This amendment would extend what has become known by some as the 
Conrad State 20 Program. In 1994, I added a provision to the visa 
extension bill that allows state health departments or their 
equivalents to participate in the process of obtaining J-1 visa 
waivers. This process allows a foreign medical graduate [FMG  who has 
secured employment in the United States to waive the J-1 visa program's 
2-year residency requirement.
  As a condition of the J-1 visa, FMGs must return to their home 
countries for at least 2 years after their visas expire before being 
eligible to return. However, if the home countries do not object, FMGs 
can follow a waiver process that allows them to remain and work here in 
a designated health professional shortage area or medically underserved 
area. Before my legislation became law, that process exclusively 
involved finding an ``interested Federal agency'' to recommend to the 
United States Information Agency [USIA] that waiving the 2-year 
requirement was in the public interest. The law now allows each State 
health department or its equivalent to make this recommendation to the 
USIA for up to 20 waivers per year.
  This law was necessary for several reasons. Despite an abundance of 
physicians in some areas of the country, other areas, especially rural 
and inner city areas, have had an exceedingly hard time recruiting 
American doctors. Many health facilities have had no other choice but 
turn to FMGs to fill their primary care needs. Unfortunately, obtaining 
J-1 visa waiver for qualified FMGs through the Federal program is a 
long and bureaucratic process that not only requires the participation 
of the interested Federal agency but also requires approval from both 
the USIA and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Finding a Federal agency to cooperate is difficult enough, 
considering that the Department of Health and Human Services does not 
participate. States who are not members of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, which is eligible to approve its own waivers, have had to 
enlist any agency that is willing to take on these additional duties. 
These agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture or the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, often have little or no expertise in 
health care issues. Once an agency does agree to participate, the word 
spreads quickly and soon that agency can be flooded with thousands of 
waiver applications from across the country.
  Because States can clearly determine their own health needs far 
better than

[[Page S4306]]

an agency in Washington, DC, my legislation now allows States to go 
directly to the USIA to request a waiver. It also is relieving some of 
the burden that participating Federal agencies have incurred in 
processing waiver applications.

  The Conrad State 20 Program is still very new, and not every State 
has yet elected to use it. But the program is beginning to work exactly 
as I had hoped. At least 21 States have reported using it to obtain 
waivers. More States are expected to participate in the coming months. 
Unfortunately, the Conrad State 20 Program is scheduled to sunset on 
June 1, 1996, unless Congress approves an extension. The amendment I am 
offering would extend the program for 6 more years. This is not a 
permanent extension. The amendment would sunset the program on June 1, 
2002.
  My amendment also puts new restrictions and conditions on FMGs who 
use the Federal program. As a condition of using the Conrad State 20 
Program to acquire a waiver. FMGs must contract to work for their 
original employer for at least 3 years. Otherwise, their waiver will be 
revoked and they will be subject to deportation. My amendment would 
apply the same 3-year contractual obligation for those who obtain a 
waiver through the Federal program.
  We all know that State empowerment has been a major issue of the 
104th Congress. The Conrad State 20 Program is one way of giving States 
more control over their health care needs. States that are using the 
program want to keep it operating for a few more years. They understand 
that this program does not take away jobs from American doctors, but 
instead is one more valuable tool to help serve the health care needs 
of rural and inner city citizens. The Senate passed my original 
legislation with strong bipartisan support. I am hopeful the Senate 
will agree that creating the Conrad State 20 Program was very 
worthwhile, and will agree to accept this modest, 6-year extension.
  Mr. HATCH. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 3866) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the 
bill, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Senator Simpson] and the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Senator Kennedy] for 
accepting a bloc of three amendments that I offered to the immigration 
reform bill and including them in the manager's amendment that was just 
accepted by voice vote.
  I have been deeply concerned about provisions in the bill that could 
have the effect, perhaps unwittingly, of perpetuating violence against 
immigrant women and children. Two years ago, Congress made a commitment 
to fight the epidemic of violence against women--all women--when we 
passed the historic Violence Against Women Act. That commitment should 
not be forgotten as we debate immigration reform. There are provisions 
in this immigration bill before the Senate today that could trap many 
women in abusive relationships.
  Mr. President, it would be unconscionable for our immigration laws to 
facilitate an abuser's control over his victim. It would be 
unconscionable for our immigration laws to abet criminal perpetrators 
of domestic violence. It would be unconscionable for our immigration 
laws to perpetuate violence against women and children.
  Domestic abuse is one of the most serious issues our country faces--
not only for the people who are in danger in their own homes, but for 
all of us--when that danger, that abusive behavior learned at home, 
spills out into our streets and schools. Domestic abuse knows no 
borders. Neither race, gender, geography, nor economic status shields 
someone from domestic violence.
  Every 15 seconds a woman is beaten by a husband or boyfriend.
  Over 4,000 women are killed every year by their abuser.
  Every 6 minutes, a woman is forcibly raped.
  Some 70 percent of men who batter women also batter their children.
  A survey conducted in 1992 found that more than half of the battered 
women surveyed stayed with their batterer because they did not feel 
they could support themselves and their families.
  The Violence Against Women Act was enacted to ensure that women in 
the United States, living under all different kinds of circumstances, 
have every chance to create safe lives for themselves and their 
children.
  For a battered immigrant woman to be eligible for the protections of 
the Violence Against Women Act, she must show that she: First, is the 
spouse of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; 
second, is eligible for immigrant classification based on that 
relationship; third, is residing in the United States; fourth, has 
resided in the United States with the citizen or lawful permanent 
resident spouse; fifth, has been battered by, or subjected to extreme 
cruelty by that spouse; sixth, is a person of good moral character; 
seventh, entered into the marriage in good faith; and eighth, that her 
deportation would cause extreme hardship to her or her child.
  Many undocumented women are undocumented because they have been 
victims of abuse, and in many cases their abusers have interfered with 
or deceived them about the immigration process.
  These women, victims of domestic violence who are eligible for lawful 
permanent residency, but who have not yet attained residency due to the 
actions or inactions of their abusers, should not be penalized as 
undocumented immigrants. Their undocumented status is most often not 
willful, but results from the abusive relationship.
  I want to explain this carefully. Many of these women come into the 
country legally, with the sponsorship of their spouse. Once they are 
here, the abusive partner will use her immigration status as a means of 
coercing her into submission--for example, ``If you don't do whatever I 
say, I will call the INS on you and withdraw my petition.'' Often these 
women will leave the country with their spouse and then the spouse will 
force them to re-enter illegally. The spouse will sometimes not file 
the proper paperwork to petition for status, all the while telling his 
battered wife that he is taking care of the situation, and that her 
fate in the United States rests in his hands.
  For example, Dania's case, originating in New Jersey, was recently 
brought to my attention. Dania is 27 years old. She came to the United 
States from India. Her husband Mihi, a U.S. citizen, told her that he 
would file for her to get permanent residence in the United States. 
Soon after they were married, he did file a petition. The couple 
resided with Mihi's family, who were verbally abusive to Dania and Mihi 
himself battered her with his fists, leaving visible marks on her face 
and body. The police responded to complaints from neighbors about the 
violence on several occasions. Mihi told Dania that if she did not do 
whatever he said, he would withdraw the petition he filed and have her 
deported.
  Dania left her husband once and fled to a shelter. Soon after, he 
convinced her to take a ``reconciliation trip'' with him to India. When 
they got to India, he destroyed all of her documents including her 
passport. She obtained a passport and returned to the United States to 
find that Mihi had withdrawn his petition sponsoring her for legal 
status.
  Mr. President, to treat Dania and these other VAWA eligible women as 
undocumented is to punish them for being victims of a crime. Remember, 
domestic violence is a crime, whether or not the victim has a green 
card.
  Under this bill, these undocumented immigrant women would be 
ineligible for any means tested government assistance programs.
  The first amendment in this bloc, accepted by the managers of the 
bill, would allow women who are eligible to file independently for 
legal residence under the Violence Against Women Act, but have yet to 
do so, and thus are ineligible for assistance, to receive certain 
benefits including AFDC and Medicaid, provided that they file for 
legal, permanent residence within 45 days.

  Let's say a battered immigrant woman flees her abusive household in 
the middle of the night and goes to a domestic violence shelter. Prior 
to

[[Page S4307]]

going to the shelter, she may not have even known that the Violence 
Against Women Act existed, and therefore, she has never self-petitioned 
for residency. The next morning, the first thing she needs to deal with 
is not her immigration status, but with the more pressing needs of 
finding a temporary source of food, diapers and medical care for her 
child.
  This amendment makes her immediately available for some of the public 
benefits that lawful permanent residents are eligible for, and then she 
has 45 days to file her claim for lawful permanent residency. If she 
fails to file the claim or the claim is denied, the benefits would be 
terminated.
  Women fleeing abusive relationships need the transitional assistance 
that is provided by government public benefits programs. This amendment 
would allow these women to be eligible for a narrow set of means-tested 
government assistance programs. This discrete group of programs has 
been selected because they would provide bare bones support: 
supplemental security income; aid to families with dependent children; 
social services block grants; Medicaid; food stamps; and housing 
assistance.
  If women who have been battered do not have access to this 
assistance, they are thrust into the untenable position of acquiescing 
to abuse or facing deportation when they ask for help.
  Mr. President, I want to tell another story, because I think the best 
way to understand about some of these problems--which seem unimaginable 
to so many of us--is to hear about real people who these amendments 
would help. Guadalupe is an undocumented woman living in Oregon, who 
was not a legal resident due to the inaction of her husband and 
sponsor, a battered woman who could have successfully fled her 
hideously abusive marriage if she had been able to get some kind of 
transitional assistance for herself and her children.
  Guadalupe is from Mexico and is married to Jose. They have had two 
children together. Jose applied for, and received, his legal residency. 
Throughout the 11 years of their marriage, he promised on many 
occasions to file for legal residency on behalf of Guadalupe. He never 
did.
  Guadalupe was made to stay in the house and have no contact with 
anyone. The only time she left the house was on weekly shopping trips 
to the grocery store. Soon, even the trips to the store were a thing of 
the past and Guadalupe and her children would go for days with nothing 
to eat.
  Jose would belittle, humiliate, rape, and sodomize Guadalupe in front 
of the children, and he explained to his 3-year-old son that he would 
be expected to do this as well when he got older in order to ``keep his 
mother and sister in line.'' When Guadalupe would attempt to defend 
herself and her children, Jose would pull out his pistol and threaten 
to kill her.
  During one particularly bad incident of abuse, a neighbor became 
aware of what was going on and gave Guadalupe a shelter number. She 
moved to the shelter. Since neither Guadalupe nor her children have INS 
documentation, they were ineligible for public assistance and Guadalupe 
could not work because she doesn't have a green card. They were totally 
economically dependent on Jose.

  She moved back in with him out of economic necessity and the abuse 
continued to escalate. Jose earned $2,000 a month, and yet his children 
suffer from malnutrition since he doesn't give Guadalupe any money to 
buy food. Jose repeatedly threatens to have Guadalupe and the children 
deported.
  If Guadalupe had been eligible to receive some assistance right away, 
it might have been possible for her to start a new, safe, and secure 
life for herself and her children. This amendment would give Guadalupe 
and other women in similar, desperate circumstances, a chance at 
breaking free from abusive relationships and starting a safer life.
  The second amendment accepted by the managers would protect battered 
women, also in the circumstance of needing some assistance, from being 
deported for being a ``public charge,'' that is to say, for temporarily 
relying on public assistance to escape the violence.
  In order to be granted suspension of deportation under the Violence 
Against Women Act, battered women must overcome two tests: First, she 
must prove that she is eligible for suspension of deportation under the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  To do so she must prove:
  That she has been battered or the subject of extreme cruelty in the 
United States by a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse;
  That she has a valid marriage;
  That she is of good moral character; and
  That her deportation would cause extreme hardship.
  Second, once she has proven this, the judge could still exercise 
judicial discretion and deport her regardless of her VAWA eligibility 
because she relied on public benefits in an effort to escape her abuse.
  Under this bill, any legal immigrant who receives any means-tested 
Federal or State assistance for an aggregate of 12 months during her 
first 5 years in the United States is deportable as a public charge. 
For these purposes, means-tested Federal or State assistance programs 
include things like, if she got a Pell grant, in order to further her 
education and make it possible to get a better job to provide for 
herself and her children. A battered woman could also be deported for 
being a ``public charge'' if she enrolled a child in Head Start or any 
similar means-tested program. This standard has the effect of punishing 
people who are availing themselves of programs that are there to help 
make them self-sufficient.
  Realistically, battered women often need to rely on public assistance 
to escape their violent surroundings. My second amendment, like the 
House bill, would allow battered women to be eligible for the same 
discreet set of government assistance programs that require 
means testing, those that I listed in conjunction with my last 
amendment, for 4 years without being considered a public charge. A 4-
year time period was selected because research has shown that half of 
women on public assistance are off of assistance within 4 years. This 
amendment would provide an exception to the provision in the Senate 
bill that would make such a woman deportable.

  Keep in mind that the decision to leave an abusive relationship is 
not an easy one. When a woman leaves she knows that two things will 
happen immediately--she, and if she is a mother, her children, will 
become homeless and they will likey lose all of their economic 
resource. She will immediately enter poverty. For a mother, this would 
be an enormous step to take.
  My amendment is necessary under many different circumstances. For 
example, some shelters, as a safety precaution, condition residence 
upon a battered woman not returning to her place of employment. Many 
battered women do no work outside the home because the abuser does not 
allow it. In other cases the abuser has forbidden the abused woman from 
getting educational or employment skills that would make her self-
sufficient. These are some of the many reasons battered women may rely 
on transitional public assistance as they flee.
  Giving battered women a longer time on assistance before they are 
considered a public charge, and therefore deportable, is another way of 
giving abused women and their children a better chance at improving 
their circumstances.
  The third amendment accepted by the Managers relates to a practice 
known as deeming, whereby the income of an immigrant's sponsor is 
attributed to the immigrant for the purposes of determining the 
immigrant's eligibility for public assistance. For example, an 
immigrant woman is sponsored by her U.S. citizen husband who signs an 
affidavit that he will support her. He earns $30,000 a year. That woman 
is deemed to have access to $30,000 a year, even if he is not 
supporting her in reality.
  Deeming amounts to essentially pretending that an abusive sponsor is 
supporting a victim of domestic abuse and it renders her ineligible for 
the transitional public assistance that she would need to become 
independent, and would imprison her and her children in a violent 
situation. She would be without a means of economic survival and hence 
forced to return to her abuser. Many times, we see affidavits of 
support used as a tool by the abuser to prevent the victim from 
leaving.
  My third amendment, similar to the House bill language, would 
eliminate

[[Page S4308]]

the practice of ``deeming'' for victims of domestic abuse for the first 
4 years, and beyond 4 years if there is an ongoing need for the 
benefits and that need has been caused by the domestic abuse.
  These 4 years give the battered woman an opportunity to become self-
sufficient. Often when a woman leaves an abusive relationship she is 
desperate and scared. She fears for her life because leaving can be the 
most dangerous time for her. She has probably lost all of her self-
esteem and self-confidence because of the battering. The process of 
putting her life and the lives of her children back together can be 
slow.

  As a community, we need to encourage women and children recovering 
from an abusive situation to become a strong, healthy, independent 
family. To set ``one size fits all'' provisions and arbitrary time 
limits for immigrant women is unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. 
It shows no understanding of the trauma that a women go through.
  Just think of Monica Seles, the tennis star who was stabbed while on 
the tennis court. It took her 2 years to return to tennis due to the 
post traumatic stress disorder caused by a single attack. Although this 
was indeed a terrible, terrible trauma, consider the effect of years of 
battering and abuse some women suffer in their own homes, and think 
what it must take to recover from that kind of abuse.
  As we strive to reform our immigration policies in a thoughtful, and 
not punitive manner, we must be careful that proposed reforms don't 
eliminate protections that help women and children, particularly 
vulnerable women and children, escape dangerous, violent homes.
  Mr. President, all of the amendments I have offered today relating to 
domestic violence have been offered for the purposes of keeping the 
landmark legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, the strong 
protection for abused women and their children that it was intended to 
be.
  We have made a lot of progress in the past few years, but there is 
still a large gap in the public awareness and understanding of domestic 
violence. It takes community support and assistance for women and 
children to take the first step to become safe. My fellow Senators and 
I have a perfect opportunity to set an example to the community today.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe now we should go to the regular 
order, and we are prepared to do that.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5 p.m. 
having arrived, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate 
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dole (for 
     Simpson) amendment No. 3743 to the bill S. 1664, the 
     immigration bill:
         Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, Dirk Kempthorne, Strom Thurmond, 
           Dan Coats, James Inhofe, Jesse Helms, Richard Shelby, 
           Trent Lott, Conrad Burns, Connie Mack, Hank Brown, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, Paul Coverdell, Fred Thompson, and 
           Rick Santorum.


                            call of the roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mandatory quorum call has been waived.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 3743 to S. 1664, the Illegal Immigration 
Reform Act, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], the 
Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Inhofe], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], and 
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] 
and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York [Mr. Moynihan] would vote ``aye.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Burns
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Smith
     Thompson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3744 and Motion to Recommit Withdrawn

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I withdraw the pending motion to recommit 
and amendment No. 3744.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to recommit and the amendment (No. 3744) were withdrawn.

                          ____________________