[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4376-S4388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10 a.m. 
having arrived, morning business is closed.

[[Page S4377]]



      IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1664, the Immigration Control and Financial 
Responsibility Act, which the clerk will report.
  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 and 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.
       Graham amendment No. 3760 (to amendment No. 3743), to 
     condition the repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act on a 
     democratically elected government in Cuba being in power.
       Graham-Specter amendment No. 3803 (to amendment No. 3743), 
     to clarify and enumerate specific public assistance programs 
     with respect to which the deeming provisions apply.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, now may we review the activity. Am I 
correct that we have two amendments at the desk of Senator Bob Graham 
of Florida, to which there has been a degree of debate and time has run 
on that, and that we are near readiness to vote--not at this time? I 
will wait until my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, is here to be sure 
we concur. What is the status of matters?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3803 is pending, offered by the 
Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. SIMPSON. And then, Mr. President, is there another amendment also 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed No. 3760 has been set 
aside.
  Mr. SIMPSON. That being the first amendment sent to the desk 
yesterday evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment was set aside.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair. Let me just say now, we are embarking 
on the issue of illegal immigration. I hope my colleagues will pay very 
clear attention to this debate. This is the critical one. This is where 
we begin to get something done.
  I must admit, and I thank my colleagues for their patience in my 
obstreperous behavior to propose to go forward with one or two items 
that had to do with legal immigration, thinking that I might get the 
attention of my colleagues to do something with regard to chain 
migration and other phenomenon. That certainly was a message clearly 
conveyed that that will have to come at another time.
  So I will not be trying to link anything. I have no sinister plan to 
proceed to reconstruct or deconstruct. But the theme of this debate 
must be very clear to all of our colleagues, and it is very simply 
said: If we are going to have legal immigrants come to our country, 
then those who bring them, who sponsor them will have to agree that 
they will never become a public charge for 5 years, and then when they 
naturalize, of course, that will end. That has come through very clear.
  But every single amendment that you will hear which says that the 
assets of the sponsor should not be deemed to be the assets of the 
immigrant, then remember that leaves only one person, or millions to 
pick up the slack, and those are called taxpayers.
  So every time in this debate when there is an amendment to say, ``Oh, 
my, we can't put that on the immigrant, that that asset should be 
listed as the immigrant's asset,'' every time that will happen, it 
means that the obligation of the sponsor becomes less and the 
obligation of the taxpayer becomes greater. You cannot have it both 
ways. The sponsor is either obligated, and should be, by a tough 
affidavit of support--and there is a tough one in there--or if they 
come off the hook, the taxpayers go back on the hook. That is the 
essence of observing this debate.
  The second part is very attentive to the issues of verification, 
because it does not matter how much you want to do something with 
regard to illegal immigration--and let me tell you, this bill does big 
things to illegal immigration because apparently that is what is 
sought--but you cannot get any of it done unless you have good 
verification procedures, counterfeit-resistant documents, things of 
that nature, which are not intrusive, which are not leading us down the 
slippery slope, which are not the first steps to an Orwellian society, 
which are not equated with tattoos, which are not equated with Adolf 
Hitler. That is not what we are about. But you cannot get there, you 
cannot do what people want to do some with vigor intensified, you 
cannot do that unless you have some kind of more counterfeit-resistant 
documentation, or the call-in system, or something.

  You must have, I think, pilot projects to review to see which ones 
might be the best that we would eventually approve, and we would have 
to have a vote on that at some future year as to which one we would 
approve. That is very important.
  You cannot help the employer by leaving the law to them. The employer 
right now has to look through 29 different documents of identification 
or work authorization. Then, if the employer asks for a document that 
is not on there, that employer is charged, or can be charged, with 
discrimination. We have done something about that. We must continue to 
do that.
  What we are trying to do is eventually even get rid of the I-9 form. 
But when somebody in the debate says that employers are going to be 
burdened, remember, they are already burdened in the sense that they do 
the withholding for us on our Tax Code. That is a pretty big load. They 
do that. God bless them. On the employment situation, all they do is 
have a one-page form called an I-9, and they have had that since 1986. 
We are going to reduce the number of documents that they have to go 
through. We are going to reduce it from 29 to 6. We are hopefully going 
to do something with the proper identifiers which eventually will get 
rid of the form I-9. But the whole purpose of this is to aid employers 
in what they are trying to do with regard to employment of others in 
the work force.
  Of course, any kind of eventual procedure or verification system that 
we use will apply to all of us. It will not be just asked of people who 
pull for them. That would be truly discrimination. It will be asked of 
those of us who are bald Anglos, too. Only twice in the lifetime can 
one be asked to present or to assist in this verification, and that is 
at the time of seeking a job and at the time of seeking public 
support--that is, public assistance or welfare. That is where we are.
  A quick review of the issues of illegal immigration reform: As I say, 
this is a plenty tough package. Everyone should be able to 
appropriately thump their chest when they get back to the old home 
district and say, ``Boy, did we do a number on illegals in this 
country.'' The answer is, yes, but you will not have done a thing if we 
do not have strong, appropriate verification procedures. Nothing will 
be accomplished--simply a glut of the same old stuff showing one more 
time fake ID's like this, fake Social Security like this. You can pick 
them up anywhere in the United States. Within 300 yards of this 
building you can pick up any document you want, if you want to pay for 
it. You get a beautiful passport from a little shop not far from here 
for about 750 bucks. That will fake out most of the folks. That is 
where we are.

  You cannot get this done unless we do something with these types of 
gimmick documents which then drain away the Treasury, which then create 
the anguish with the citizens, which give rise to the proposition 187's 
of the world. If we do not deal with it responsibly, we will have 187's 
in every State in the Union.
  So those are some of the things that I just wanted to review with my 
colleagues.
  To proceed, I will await the appearance of my good colleague, the 
ranking Member from Massachusetts. I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4378]]

  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.


                Amendment No. 3871 to Amendment No. 3743

  (Purpose: To make a technical correction to sec. 204 of the bill to 
    provide that deeming is required only for Federal programs and 
                       federally funded programs)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to 
correct a drafting error in section 204(A) relating to an issue within 
our consideration, so it will, as intended, apply only to Federal and 
federally funded programs.
  I have cleared this with my ranking member, and it is a technical 
amendment returning the language to what it was before the final change 
and to be consistent with the intent of the section and with the 
version that was used during the Judiciary Committee markup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3871 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Section 204(a) is amended to read as follows:
       (a) Deeming Requirement for Federal and Federally Funded 
     Programs.--Subject to subsection (d), for purposes of 
     determining the eligibility of an alien for benefits, and the 
     amount of benefits, under any Federal program of assistance, 
     or any program of assistance funded in whole or in part by 
     the Federal Government, for which eligibility for benefits is 
     based on need, the income and resources described in 
     subsection (b) shall, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, be deemed to be the income and resources of such alien.

  Mr. SIMPSON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 3871) was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I make the eternal lament--if our colleagues could 
come forward with the same vigor in which they produced their 
amendments at the last call, as they draped some 100 or so up front at 
the desk. And, of course, we are limited procedurally. We are limited 
by hours, each of us having an hour. Yielding can take place or 
allocation of that hour.
  We are ready to proceed. I believe that we need not have too much 
further debate. I know Senator Dole would like to speak on the Cuban 
Adjustment Act. I think at the conclusion of that we will close the 
debate, and then we will stack the votes on the two Graham amendments. 
Then I will go forward with my amendment on phasing in, the issue of 
the birth certificate and driver's license, which I think is in form 
now where it does not have budget difficulty with what we have done. Of 
course, the birth certificate is the central breeder document of most 
all fraud within the system. That amendment will come up then after 
that. Then we will go back to an amendment of Senator Kennedy. I 
believe Senator Abraham had a criminal alien measure. Then I will go to 
a verification amendment.
  Once those issues, including deeming and welfare, verification and 
birth certificate discussion, are disposed of--those are central issues 
to the debate--I think that other amendments will fall into appropriate 
alignment with the planets.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. President, at the time the Graham amendment is disposed of--I 
will offer the amendment and I will speak to it at the present time 
because the subject matter is very closely related to what the Graham 
amendment is all about. If his amendment is successful, it will not be 
necessary. But I want to illustrate why I think the Graham amendment 
should be supported by outlining a particular area of need that would 
be included in the Graham amendment but to give, perhaps, greater focus 
to the public policy questions which would be included in my amendment.
  My amendment would remove the sponsor-deeming requirement for legal 
immigrants under the bill for those programs for which illegal 
immigrants are automatically eligible. These programs include emergency 
Medicaid, school lunches, disaster relief, child nutrition, 
immunizations, and communicable disease treatment. Under my amendment, 
illegals and legals would be eligible for these programs on the same 
basis, without a deeming requirement.
  In addition, my amendment exempts a few additional programs from the 
deeming requirements. These programs were all exempted from deeming in 
the managers' amendment in the House immigration bill. Let me underline 
that. What this amendment basically does is put our legislation in 
conformity with what has actually passed the House of Representatives 
on these important programs, and for the reasons I will outline 
briefly. The language of the amendment is identical to the language 
passed by the House. For these programs, it is especially 
unconscionable or impractical to deem the sponsors' income. These 
additional programs include community and migrant health services, 
student aid for higher education, a means-tested program under the 
Elementary-Secondary Education Act, and Head Start.
  This amendment does not exempt any new items. Except for prenatal 
care, every single program in my amendment is exempted in the House 
immigration bill. The House saw the importance of these programs. There 
is no reason why the Senate should not do the same. Legal immigrants 
should not be deemed for programs for which illegals qualify 
automatically. Let me just underline that. Legal immigrants should not 
be deemed for that which illegal immigrants qualify automatically.
  The reason the illegal, primarily children, qualify is because we 
have made the judgment that it is in the public health interest of the 
United States, of its children, that there be immunization programs so 
there will not be an increase in the communicable diseases and other 
examples like that. We have made that judgment, and it is a wise one, 
and I commend the House for doing so because it is extremely important.

  We have effectively eliminated the deeming program for expectant 
mothers for prenatal care. Why? Because the child will be an American 
citizen when that child is born and we want that child, who will be an 
American citizen, to be as healthy and as well as that child possibly 
can be. So we work with certain States on that. There are a few States 
that provide that kind of program--we are willing to support those 
States--after the mother has actually been in the United States for 3 
years. So, this is not the magnet for that mother. The mother has to 
demonstrate residency, to be here for a 3-year period. It makes sense 
to make sure that child gets an early start. We have that in this 
legislation. But the other programs I have referenced here are closely 
related in merit to those programs.
  Legal immigrants should not be deemed for programs which the illegals 
qualify. For example, legal immigrant children are subject to sponsor 
deeming before they can receive immunization. Illegals are 
automatically eligible for immunization. Both legal and illegal 
children need immunization to go to school. But if parents cannot 
afford immunization, the legal immigrant child cannot go to school, the 
illegal immigrant can. This is just one of the examples of the 
inequities in this bill.
  Community and migrant health services, under the Public Health 
Services Act, go to community clinics and other small community 
programs. These grants are intended to ensure the health of entire 
communities, so legal immigrants should continue to be included in the 
program to keep the health of the whole community from being 
jeopardized.
  Community and migrant health clinics are the first line of defense 
against communicable diseases. These programs get people into the 
primary health care system. There is no way,

[[Page S4379]]

other than expensive private health insurance, for legal immigrants to 
take care of illness from the start, such as coughs, sore throats, skin 
lesions. Without this exception, immigrants will be pushed into 
emergency rooms to get treatment. This clogs our Nation's emergency 
rooms and is more expensive. Under this bill, immigrants would have to 
wait until their illnesses were severe enough to warrant a trip to the 
emergency room. This is bad health care policy.
  This amendment would also exempt from the broad deeming requirements 
Federal student aid programs to legal immigrants to help them to pay 
for college. Student aid is not welfare. Student aid is not welfare. 
Half of the college students in this country rely on Federal grants or 
loans to help pay for their college, and many affluent citizens could 
not finance a college education without Federal assistance. Legal 
resident aliens are no different. Most of them would be unable to 
afford college without some financial help from the Government. A 
college graduate earns twice what a high school graduate earns and 
close to three times what a high school dropout earns--and pays taxes 
accordingly.

  I want to point out, the eligibility has no impact on reducing the 
eligibility of other Americans. That is because the Pell and Stafford 
loans are a type of guarantee, so we are not saying that, by reducing 
the eligibility to take advantage of those programs, we are denying 
other Americans that. That is not the case. That is not the case. That 
is not so. We have some 460,000 children who are in college at the 
present time who are taking advantage of these programs. Many of them 
have extraordinary kinds of records. This would be unwise. The 
repayment programs under the Stafford loans have been demonstrated to 
be as good as, if not better than, any of the returns that come from 
other students as well.
  The Nation as a whole reaps the benefits of a better educated work 
force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that about 20 percent 
of income growth during the last 20 years can be attributed to students 
going further in school. That has been true. In the House of 
Representatives they understood this. So this also exempts Head Start 
from sponsor deeming requirements.
  Everyone knows investments in children pay off. Nowhere is it more 
true than in Head Start. Head Start is the premier social program, a 
long-term experiment that works. Study after study has documented the 
effectiveness of Head Start.
  Legal immigrants should not be subject to more restrictions than 
illegal immigrants. We are punishing the wrong group. These people 
played by the rules, came here legally. Over 76 percent of them are 
relatives, members of families that are here. In instances of citizens 
or permanent resident aliens, they should not have a harsher standard 
than those who are illegal. In addition, there are certain services 
which are vital to the continued health and well-being of this country. 
My amendment ensures that legal immigrants will still have access to 
these programs.
  I want to point out that our whole intention in dealing with illegals 
is to focus on the principal magnet, what the problem is, and that is 
the jobs magnet. That is why we have focused on that with the various 
verification provisions, which I support, which have been included in 
the Simpson program; by dealing with other proposals to ensure greater 
integrity of the birth certificates, an issue which I will support with 
Senator Simpson; the increase of the border guards and Border Patrol--
again, to halt the illegals from coming in here. That is where the 
focus ought to be. We should not say in our assault, in trying to deal 
with that issue, that we are going to be harsh on the children. That 
does not make any sense.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator wished to be yielded 8 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
  Mr. President, a final point I will make is, I know a quick answer 
and easy answer to this is, ``If the deemers do not provide it, the 
taxpayers will.'' That is a simple answer. With regard to this program, 
it is wrong. The reason it is wrong is because in the SSI, the AFDC, 
the other programs, in order to get eligibility, there has to be 
preparedness for financial information in order for eligibility. That 
has been out there, and it exists at the present time. The deeming 
programs in those areas have had an important effect.
  We are going to have to set up a whole new process of deeming, as the 
Senator from Florida has pointed out, because there is no experience in 
these States for dealing with Head Start or community health centers or 
an emergency kind of health assistance or the school lunch programs or 
teachers dealing with the Head Start.
  That is going to be a massive new kind of a program that is going to 
have to be developed in the schools, local communities and in the 
counties. It is not out there. The cost of that is going to be 
considerable and is going to be paid for by the taxpayers. So this is a 
very targeted program.
  For those reasons, I am in strong support of the Graham amendment. I 
hope it will be adopted. If not, we will have an opportunity to address 
this amendment at an appropriate time after the disposition of the 
Graham amendment.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Is this the second Graham amendment or the first Graham 
amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are debating both.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Either one.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the amendment that 
the Senator from Florida offered last night on behalf of himself and 
others.
  First, I listened to the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator 
Simpson. I think he correctly stated we would like to stack those votes 
and have the votes occur after the policy luncheons, because apparently 
there is a problem with planes getting in and out of New York.
  Cloture was filed last night on the bill. We would like to have that 
cloture vote later today. If not, then very early in the morning, 8 
a.m. tomorrow morning. So we can either do it late tonight or early 
tomorrow morning. We could wait until midnight to have it 1 minute 
after midnight. I prefer not to do that. It is our hope we can complete 
action on this bill and move on to other legislation. We have made 
progress. I think we can probably make a little more.


                           amendment no. 3760

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for Senator 
Simpson and his work on immigration. I do not often disagree with him, 
but on one issue I do. Section 197 of this bill repeals the Cuban 
Refugee Adjustment Act. The Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 was 
enacted to facilitate the granting of legal permanent resident status 
to Cubans fleeing their homeland. The Cuban Adjustment Act, at its 
core, is about standing on the side of oppressed people--our 
neighbors--who are fleeing Castro's dictatorship. The United States has 
consistently stood with the Cuban people. That is why I rise in 
opposition to the proposed elimination of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment 
Act before a democratic transition takes place in Cuba.
  First of all, conditions in Cuba have not changed since the 
implementation of the act. In 1996, as in 1966, Castro brutally 
represses dissent and systematically abuses human rights. The United 
States has had a consistent and determined policy of three decades 
supporting the Cuban people's aspirations for freedom and democracy. A 
policy that this Congress reaffirmed when it passed the Dole-Helms-
Burton ``Libertad'' Act of 1996.
  Mr. President, let me state clearly what this act does and does not 
do. It essentially allows Cuban refugees who reach United States shores 
to apply, at the discretion of the Attorney General, for permanent 
residence status without being forced to return to Cuba. It is not a 
mechanism to allow more Cubans to enter the United States. It is not an 
entitlement to permanent residency. It is merely a procedure for those 
already here and seeking legal status. To repeal this act would give 
the Castro regime a propaganda victory, but would not measurably affect 
the number of Cubans reaching America. The Clinton-Castro migration 
pact--negotiated in secret and without congressional consultation--
allows over 100,000 Cuban immigrants to enter the United States over 
the next 5 years. Repealing the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act will not 
decrease this number. Repealing

[[Page S4380]]

the act will only send the wrong signal to Castro's dictatorship.
  That is why I, along with Senators Graham, Mack, and Abraham, have 
offered an amendment that states that the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act 
would only be repealed when conditions stipulated under the Libertad 
Act have been met, specifically, that a democratic government is in 
place in Cuba.
  A repeal of the act at this time is not in the national interest of 
the United States. Recent events have demonstrated once again that the 
Castro regime remains a threat to security in the Caribbean, America's 
front yard. Let us once again stand together in sending a strong 
message to Fidel Castro and to the Cuban people that we stand for 
democratic change in Cuba.
  It seems to me with this one provision in this bill--I know the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming has worked very hard and has done an 
outstanding job. I respectfully disagree with him on this one aspect. I 
hope the amendment offered by my colleagues from Florida, Senator Mack 
and Senator Graham, myself, and others will be adopted.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Can we have a 
cloture vote if we are under cloture at the present time? Is it 
appropriate to have another cloture vote during the period we are 
acting under the decision of the Senate yesterday afternoon and the 30 
hours have not run?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate would have to dispose of the 
current cloture item before the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How many hours remain on the cloture item?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains approximately 27 hours.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And does the Chair know how many amendments are out 
there that have been submitted at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed there has been 
approximately 130 amendments filed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I, for one, am very hopeful now that we will have a 
chance to dispose of these amendments. Everyone on this side voted for 
cloture last evening. We have not had a chance to offer amendments. 
Senator Graham stayed last evening and spoke to the Senate on both of 
these measures, which are timely. Other Members have indicated they 
wish to offer amendments. We want to at least give assurances to 
Members that it is not in order to order a cloture motion until we have 
the final resolution on the current matter, as I understand.
  Parliamentary inquiry. At the time there is final cloture and the 
acceptance of these amendments on the underlying amendment to the bill, 
at that time the bill is open to further amendment, is it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to indicate, we will offer the minimum wage 
amendment at that particular time, since that is the next open 
opportunity to offer the minimum wage. We want to make it very clear--I 
know that is the position of Senator Daschle--that once we conclude 
this at a time when we are going to work through the process of cloture 
and Members will have an opportunity to offer their amendments, at that 
time, the bill itself will be open for amendment, and it is our 
intention to offer the minimum wage amendment at that particular time, 
because it will be appropriate to offer it at that particular time.
  I hope we are not going to have to go through another kind of 
parliamentary procedure where we are going to be blocked from offering 
the minimum wage at all and then another cloture motion filed, so that 
we are taking up the better part of a week on a matter that could have, 
quite frankly, been resolved in a couple of days.
  I thought it at least important to understand what the parliamentary 
situation is. There is no effort to try and delay the consideration of 
this legislation. Everyone on our side voted for it. This is the first 
opportunity we have had to offer amendments on it. These amendments are 
all germane, and the floor manager himself indicated he wanted a chance 
to offer some amendments as well.
  I think it is important to understand that when we conclude this, 
that there will at least be an effort made by our leader, Senator 
Daschle, myself, Senator Kerry and Senator Wellstone, to offer the 
minimum wage. The leader is in his rights to try and foreclose us from 
that by working out this other parliamentary procedure where we will be 
denied the opportunity to vote that for a period of time. I hope that 
will not be the case. Nonetheless, I just wanted to review where we 
were from a parliamentary point of view.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we understand the parliamentary situation. 
It is my hope we can work out some agreement and complete action on 
this bill. We have been on it a number of days. I think it is a very 
important piece of legislation. We would like it to pass. I think it 
has strong bipartisan support, as indicated by the cloture vote last 
evening.
  I think it should be limited to germane amendments. We made a 
proposal on minimum wage to the leader on the other side. It has been 
temporarily rejected. Perhaps it will be revisited.
  We understand the daily comments about this issue, but we are trying 
to complete action on the immigration bill. If it is determined that is 
not possible because of an effort to offer nongermane amendments, then 
we will move on to something else.

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just point out at this time that the 
amount of Republican amendments that have been offered on this, as I 
understand it with a quick review, far exceed the numbers that have 
been offered by the Democrats. So maybe that admonition ought to be 
targeted in terms of Republicans because they have submitted many more 
amendments than have been submitted by our Democratic colleagues. I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for procedural announcements, first, I 
indicate that the minority leader, Senator Daschle, has transferred 30 
minutes of his time under the cloture rule to myself.
  Second, I ask unanimous consent that at such time as we take up 
consideration of the Graham amendments, the first amendment to be voted 
on be No. 3760 and the second amendment voted on be the amendment 
relative to deeming, which is No. 3803. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that that be the order in which the amendments are considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? Hearing none, without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
these amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could comment briefly on the remarks 
that have just been made by the majority leader and then the remarks 
that were made earlier by our colleague from Massachusetts. I think 
they both have gone to the essence of the two amendments that we will 
be voting on later today.
  The first amendment relates to the Cuban Adjustment Act. As Senator 
Dole has eloquently stated, the conditions in Cuba have not changed in 
the past 35 years. Therefore, the reason why the Congress in 1966, 30 
years ago, adopted the Cuban Adjustment Act continue in place.
  Those reasons are fundamentally a recognition of the authoritarian 
regime at our water's edge. The fact that, because of that regime, 
hundreds of thousands of people have fled tyranny, it was in the 
interest of the United States to have an expeditious procedure by which 
those persons who are here legally in the United States, have resided 
for 1 year, and have asked for a discretionary act of grace by the 
Attorney General, be given the opportunity to adjust their status to 
that of a permanent resident. That was a valid public policy when it 
was adopted in November 1966. It is a valid public policy in April 
1996.
  I cited yesterday and included in yesterday's Congressional Record, 
Mr.

[[Page S4381]]

President, an article which appeared in the April 29 Washington Post, 
citing the regress that has occurred in Cuba in recent months, the 
heightened level of assault against human rights advocates, including 
journalists, the inability of human rights organizations to meet, the 
rollback of some of the gains that were made in terms of market 
economics, all of this at a time when Fidel Castro is saying that Cuba 
is committed to a Socialist-Communist state, will be for another 35 
years and for 35 times 35 years.
  That is the mindset of the regime with which we are dealing today, 
which is the same mindset that led this Congress in its wisdom 30 years 
ago to provide this expeditious procedure. The amendment before us 
recognizes that the Cuban Adjustment Act is intended to deal with the 
special circumstance, a circumstance that we hope will not be long in 
its future. Therefore, our amendment, the Cuban Adjustment Act, will be 
repealed, but it will be repealed when there is a democratic government 
in Cuba, not today when there is a government in Cuba which has 
launched a new level of repression against its people.
  The second amendment, Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has 
appropriately gone to the essence of that. That is an amendment which 
states that, if we are going to require that there be a deeming of the 
income of the sponsor to the income of a legal alien in making 
judgments as to whether that legal alien and his or her family can be 
eligible for literally an unlimited number of programs at the local, 
State, and Federal level, that we ought to be clear what we are talking 
about.
  The way in which the legislation before us, S. 1664, describes the 
matter is to say that for any program which is needs based, that will 
be the requirement, that the income of the sponsor be attributed or 
deemed to be the income of the legal alien for purposes of their 
eligibility. I cited last night just a short list of what could have 
been thousands of examples of programs, from programs intended to 
immunize children in school, to providing after school safe places, and 
latchkey avoidance institutions in communities.

  Is it the real intention of the U.S. Senate to say that none of those 
programs are going to be available to the children of legal aliens? I 
think not. Therefore, the thrust of this amendment is to say, let us be 
specific. Let us list which programs we intend this deeming of income 
of the sponsor to apply to.
  I have listed some 16 programs which I believe are appropriate to 
require that deeming. As I said last evening, if it is the desire of 
the sponsors to modify that list by addition, deletion, or amendment, I 
will be happy to consider changes. But the fundamental principle, that 
we ought to be clear and specific as to what it is we intend to be the 
programs that will be subject to this deeming, I believe, is basic to 
our responsibility to our constituents, our citizen constituents, our 
noncitizen legal alien constituents, and the institutions, public and 
private, that render services. All of those deserve to know what it is 
we intend to require to be deemed.
  I say, Mr. President, this is in our tradition. Currently we 
stipulate by statute in great detail which programs require deeming. We 
stipulate, for instance, that the Supplemental Security Income program 
be deemed. We stipulate that food stamps be deemed. We stipulate that 
aid to families with dependent children be deemed. Those are three 
programs which are in the law today specifically requiring deeming. In 
that tradition, if we are going to add additional programs, we should 
be just as specific in the future as we have been in the past.
  So the challenge to us is to be faithful to our majority leader's 
statement earlier in this Congress in which he said this Congress is 
going to engage in legislative truth in advertising, we are going to 
say what we mean, mean what we say, and be clear in our instructions to 
those who will be affected by our actions.
  So, Mr. President, those are the two amendments that will be voted on 
later today which I have offered. First the Cuban Adjustment Act, then 
the truth-in-advertising and deeming amendment.
  I conclude, Mr. President, by asking unanimous consent that Senator 
Lieberman of Connecticut be added as a cosponsor of the Cuban 
Adjustment Act amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I think we are nearly ready to perhaps close the debate 
and stack the votes on these two issues. I see no one further coming to 
speak on the issue. I will advise my colleagues--yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding there will be 5 
minutes on each side immediately prior to the vote.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that would be perfectly appropriate to 
me.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, prior to the 
vote on each of those amendments, there be 5 minutes allocated to each 
side for closing arguments.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not object to it, I think that I generally want to see if we can vote 
after the disposition. I think that is a more orderly way. The leader 
has asked that we stack these. I would like to just see if we could see 
what understanding there is between Senator Dole and Senator Daschle.
  We ought to have at least the minute or two that we always do have. 
But I would like to inquire if there is no objection from the leaders 
on this before going along. So if we could inquire of the leadership if 
they are satisfied with that time, or make another suggestion, I would 
like to conform to that.
  So would the Senator withhold that?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to add one other item. Senator Specter had 
asked to speak on the amendment, the truth in advertising and deeming 
amendment. I would like to protect his right to do so prior to the vote 
on that amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will inquire of the majority and 
minority leaders, when we do our stacking, as to what procedure they 
want to follow in terms of the time. We will make it clear the 
Senator's request, and we will let him know prior to the time of asking 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we will accommodate the Senator from 
Florida, but I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that 
certainly that will be up to the majority leader and the minority 
leader as to that procedure. We will go forward on that basis.
  Last night, I rather hurriedly commented on Senator Graham's 
amendment. Let me be a little bit more precise at this time. I am 
speaking now of the Graham amendment to limit deeming to SSI, food 
stamps, AFDC, and housing assistance.
  I do oppose the Graham amendment. This amendment would reopen a 
substantial loophole in our national--and traditional--immigration 
policy. Again, let me emphasize that before any prospective immigrant 
is approved to come to the United States, that newcomer must 
demonstrate that he or she is ``not likely to become a public charge.'' 
That means that the newcomer will never, never, never use welfare--any 
welfare at all. That is what the law says, and that has been part of 
our immigration law since 1882.
  Well, despite this stated policy, more than 20 percent of all 
immigrant households receive public assistance. There is a disconnect 
here between our Nation's stated policy, which is that no newcomer 
shall use welfare, period, and shall not become a public charge, and 
the reality in the United States, where one-fifth of our newcomers use 
welfare.
  My colleagues could easily wonder, and are wondering, ``How can this 
happen?'' That is the question of the day. Many individuals show that 
they will not become a public charge by having a sponsor who is willing 
to provide support if the alien should need assistance of any kind. 
Under current law, however, this sponsor's promise is only counted when 
the alien applies for SSI, food stamps, and AFDC. No other welfare 
programs in the United States look toward the sponsor's promise of 
support. I hope that can be heard in the debate.
  The bill now before the Senate--this is in the bill that is before 
you, this is

[[Page S4382]]

in the bill that came from the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13 to 
4--requires that all means-tested welfare programs consider the 
sponsor's income when determining whether or not a sponsored individual 
is eligible for assistance. That is as simple as it can be. The U.S. 
Government expects the sponsors to keep their promises in all cases. 
That is what it is.
  We should be clear about what deeming does. Deeming is, perhaps, a 
bit confusing. It is a simple word that something is deemed to be. In 
this case, the sponsor's income is deemed to be that of the immigrant 
for the purposes of computing these things. Deeming--this is very 
important. The bill will not deny welfare to an individual just because 
he or she is a new arrival. That is not what this bill does. I have 
heard a little bit of that in the debate. I would not favor anything 
like that, or any approach like that.
  Instead, the bill requires that the sponsor's income be counted when 
determining whether the newcomer is eligible for public assistance. If 
the sponsor is dead, if the sponsor is bankrupt or otherwise 
financially unable to provide support, then this bill provides that the 
Federal Government will provide the needed assistance. That is what 
this bill before you today says.
  My colleagues need to know what the Graham amendment does. It is 
sweeping. This amendment would limit deeming to only supplemental 
security income, SSI; aid to families with dependent children, AFDC; 
food stamps; and the public housing programs. That is it. That is all. 
This is almost unchanged from current law. It is the current law we are 
trying to change in this bill--and we do, and we did in Judiciary 
Committee. I hope we will continue it here because it already requires 
deeming for SSI and food stamps and AFDC.

  Senator Graham's amendment would exempt Medicaid, would exempt job 
training, would exempt legal services, would exempt a tremendously wide 
range of other noncash welfare programs from the sponsor-alien deeming 
provisions in this bill.
  This amendment effectively undermines this entire section of the 
bill--the entire section--because here is what would happen. Under the 
Graham amendment, newcomers would have access to these various 
programs, and it would not be regarded as part of the sponsor's 
obligation. Newcomers, I think most of us would agree, who are brought 
here on a promise of their sponsors that they will not become a public 
charge, should not expect access to our Nation's generous welfare 
programs--cash or noncash--unless the sponsor, the individual who 
promised to care for the new arrival, is unable to provide assistance. 
If the sponsor is unable to do that for the various reasons that I just 
noted, then there is no obligation. The Government does pick up the 
tab. But if that sponsor is still able to do so, that sponsor will do 
so because if that sponsor does not do so, there is only one who will 
do so, and that is the taxpayers of the United States. There is no 
other person out there to do it.
  So that is where we are. Our Government spends more on these noncash 
programs than all of the cash assistance programs put together. To 
exempt them would relieve the sponsors of most of their promise of 
support. I see no reason to exempt any sponsor from their promise of 
support, unless they are deceased, bankrupt, or cannot do it. If that 
is the case, then a very generous Government will do it, that is, the 
taxpayers.
  I must stress that immigrant use of these noncash welfare programs is 
truly significant. For Medicaid alone, CBO estimates that the United 
States will pay $2 billion over the next 7 years to provide assistance 
to sponsored aliens, people who were coming only on one singular 
basis--that they would not become a public charge. This amendment would 
perpetuate the current levels of high welfare dependency among 
newcomers, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  I have never been part of the ritual to deny benefits to permanent 
resident aliens. I think there is some consideration there to be given 
in these cases. I do not say that illegal immigrants should not have 
emergency assistance. They should. And the debate will take place today 
where we will say, ``Well, why is it we do these things for illegal 
immigrants and we do not do it for legal immigrants?'' The issue is 
very basic. The illegal immigrant does not have someone sponsoring them 
to the United States who has agreed to pay their bills, and see to it 
that they do not became a public charge, period. That is the way that 
works.
  So it is a very difficult issue because it has to do with compassion, 
caring, and all of the things that certainly all of us are steeped in. 
But in this situation it is very simple. The sponsor has agreed to do 
it, and to say that their income is deemed to be that of the immigrant. 
And that is the purpose of what the bill is, and this amendment would 
effectively in every sense undermine this aspect of the bill.
  So I did want to express my thoughts on the debate indeed.
  Then, finally, the Cuban Adjustment Act, as I said last night, is a 
relic of the freedom flights of the 1960's and the freedom flotillas of 
the late 1970's. At those times of crisis Cubans were brought to the 
United States by the tens and hundreds of thousands. Most were given 
this parole status which is a very indefinite status and requires an 
adjustment in order to receive permanent immigrant status in the United 
States. Since we welcomed those Cubans and intended that they remain 
here, the Cuban Adjustment Act--a very generous act--provided that 
after 1 year in the United States all Cubans could claim a green card. 
That is the most precious document that enabled you to work. They would 
claim a green card and become permanent residents here.
  Since 1980 we have thoroughly tried to discourage illegal entry of 
Cubans. There is no longer any need for the Cuban Adjustment Act. The 
provision in the bill which repeals the Cuban Adjustment Act exempts 
those who came and will come under the current agreement between the 
Castro government and the Clinton administration, and one which Senator 
Dole so ably described having been done without any kind of 
participation by the Congress. Those 20,000 Cubans per year, who were 
chosen by lottery and otherwise to come here under that agreement, will 
be able to have their status adjusted under the committee bill 
provisions. There is no change there at all. However, other than that 
one exception, there is no need for the Cuban Adjustment Act and it 
should be repealed.
  No other group--I hope my colleagues can understand--nor nationality 
in the world, even among some of our most brutal adversaries, is able 
to get a green card merely by coming to the United States legally, or 
illegally, and remaining here for 1 year. That is what this is. 
Millions of persons who have a legal right to immigrate to join family 
here are waiting in the backlog sometimes for 15 or 20 years. And it 
would seem to me it would make no sense to allow a Cuban to come here 
on a raft, stay offshore and tell somebody from the INS who checks the 
box and says, ``We saw you come,'' and 1 year later walk up and get a 
green card. That is exactly what is happening under current law. You 
come here, or to fly in on a tourist visa, to go to see your cousin, or 
sister, in Orlando, and then simply stay for 1 year and go down and get 
a green card, having violated our laws to do so, and then are rewarded 
with a precious green card which takes a number away from somebody else 
who has been waiting for 10 or 15 years. The Cuban Adjustment Act 
should be repealed.
  It has been repealed on this floor three separate times, ladies and 
gentleman. The Cuban Adjustment Act was repealed in 1982. It was 
repealed in 1986. And it was repealed again I believe in 1990. That 
date may be imprecise. Each time it had gone to the House and then 
repeal had been removed.
  So that is the Cuban Adjustment Act. It is certainly one of the most 
arcane and surely one of the most remarkable vestiges of a time long 
past; a remnant.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. I certainly will.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the immigrants come from Cuba under the existing 
exchange agreement, are they denied the other kinds of benefits that 
are available to others that come here as immigrants, or are they 
treated the same?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, all of those who come under the new 
proposal with the 20,000 per year for the 4 years,

[[Page S4383]]

or the 5, are exempt from this provision. They would continue to come 
under that agreement between the President and the Cuban Government. 
They are not part of this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. President, I support the Senator's opposition, or I support the 
provisions in the legislation that would repeal it, and oppose the 
amendment of the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. President, to move this process forward we have invited other 
Members of the Senate to come forward and address the Graham 
amendments, and we certainly welcome whatever participation they would 
want to make.
  I would like to--and I will--introduce other amendments that are 
related in one form or another to the Graham amendments because I think 
we will find that there will be a disposition in favor of it. I hope 
that the Graham amendments will be accepted. And, if they are accepted, 
at least one of mine then will not. I would ask that we not vote on 
that because effectively it would be incorporated in the Graham 
amendments.
  There are other provisions that are related to the general idea of 
programs that would be available to needy people that I would want to 
have addressed by the Senate.
  So, Mr. President, I will offer--and I have talked to the floor 
manager on this issue, and on the amendment that I had addressed the 
Senate earlier on, and that was to eliminate the deeming on those legal 
for those particular programs that have been included in the House of 
Representatives as to be no deeming eligibility for. I ask that the 
current amendments be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. These amendments have the way to address that rather 
fundamental principle which I addressed earlier which requires that 
there be two amendments.
  I would ask they be incorporated en bloc. This has been cleared with 
the floor manager. Then when the vote comes, if it does come on those 
amendments, that the one vote would incorporate both those amendments.
  Effectively, Mr. President, these two amendments amend different 
parts of the bill but they are essentially, as I described earlier, and 
that is to make the programs consistent here in the Senate bill with 
what happened in the House bill where over there they said that there 
would be no deeming for the essential kinds of programs that primarily 
benefit children. The reason for that is because it is in the public 
interest for our own children that would be adversely impacted, if the 
legal children did not have immunizations and other kinds of emergency 
kinds of services, treatments, and screening programs. I addressed that 
earlier. I will speak to the Senate subsequently. But I ask that that 
follow the Graham amendment. If the Graham amendment is accepted, then 
I would ask to vitiate the yeas and nays on it.
  Mr. President, it would be my intention to offer an amendment on the 
Medicaid deeming to title II of the bill. I will send that to the desk 
in just a moment.
  Let me explain what this amendment would do. I am deeply concerned 
that for the first time in the history of the program we will begin to 
sponsor deeming for Medicaid for legal immigrants. I recognize that 
this is a high-cost program of $2 billion for helping legal immigrants 
over the next 7 years. But public health is at stake--not just the 
immigrants' health. The restriction on Medicaid places 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 to Medicaid, legal immigrants 
will be turned away from the program, or avoided altogether. These 
legal immigrants are not going to go away. They get sick like everyone 
else, and many will need help. But restricting Medicaid means 
conditions will be untreated and diseases will spread.
  If the Federal Government drops the ball on the Medicaid, our 
communities and States and local governments will have no choice but to 
pick up Medicare and pick up the cost.
  In addition to veterans, my amendment exempts children and prenatal 
and postpartum 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. If the 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 this 
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 means children in school will 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, that nurse will have to determine if the child is eligible for 
Medicaid. The bill turns school nurses into welfare officers. The end 
result is that millions of children will not receive needed treatment 
and 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 
girl until it is determined that she is eligible for Medicaid. 
Meanwhile, the child's illness grows worse. The parents take her to a 
local emergency room where it is discovered 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 the school-based care 
program because she knows her child will not qualify for the program. 
This child develops an ear infection, and the teacher notices a change 
in his hearing ability. Normally, the teacher would send the little boy 
to the school nurse but cannot in this case because he is not eligible 
for Medicaid. The untreated infection causes the child to go deaf for 
the rest of his life.
  In addition, the school-based health care program also provides for 
the early detection of childhood diseases or problems such as hearing 
difficulties, scoliosis--and even lice checks.
  Prenatal and postpartum services 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, providing prenatal care has been proven to prevent poor 
birth outcomes. Problem births, low birthweight babies and other 
problems associated with the lack of prenatal care can increase the 
cost of a delivery up to 70 times the normal costs.

  In California, the common cost of caring for a premature baby in a 
neonatal unit is $75,000 to $100,000.
  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 it, we allow more American citizen children to 
come into the world with complications that could have been prevented.
  This is not an expensive amendment. According to CBO, the cost of 
care for children and prenatal services is less than the cost for 
elderly persons.
  What we are talking about, Mr. President, is $125 million, the cost 
of this amendment--$125 million to deal with the cost to exempt 
children under 18, services to mothers, expecting mothers, and 
veterans, from Medicaid deeming--$125 million out of $2 billion. So it 
is a very reduced program. It is, again, for the children, again, for 
the mothers, and, again, for veterans who have served or who may still 
be legal immigrants and have served in the Armed Forces and need some 
means-tested program.
  The most outstanding one is prescription drugs. That is really the 
number one program, where they be costed out, and these veterans would 
have difficulty in program terms for that kind of attention.
  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 in treating health complications

[[Page S4384]]

at delivery and throughout the lives of the children.
  Finally, many legal immigrants serve in our Armed Forces. We 
mentioned that briefly at other times in the debates. Most veterans 
benefits are means tested. If the sponsor deeming provisions in the 
bill are applied to veterans benefits, some veterans will find 
themselves ineligible for VA benefits because the sponsor makes too 
much money or they are too poor to purchase health insurance.
  My amendment allows those veterans to receive the health care they 
need under Medicaid.
  This bill will make many immigrant veterans ineligible for health 
care assistance under their VA benefits. Currently veterans who are 
unable to defray the costs of medical care can qualify for means-tested 
benefits. There are several mandatory VA programs which are means 
tested. These programs provide vets with free inpatient hospital care 
and nursing home care. In addition, these programs help veterans pay 
for inhome care and out patient care. If these VA programs are deemed, 
Medicaid coverage may be the only safety net an immigrant veteran can 
receive.

  Are we going to deny the 25,000 immigrants who are in the Armed 
Forces today--there are 25,000 of them who are in the Armed Forces 
today--who are sacrificing? And no one, I do not believe, was asking 
them when they joined whether they were being deemed or not being 
deemed. They were brought into the Armed Forces and served in the 
military. There are 25,000 of them who have served. All we are talking 
about are those particular ones who are going to have to have some 
special needs as I mentioned primarily in the area of prescription 
drugs. They have been serving this country and serving it well, many 2 
or 3 or 4 years and even more.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment effectively says that we will not 
have deeming when we are talking about children, mothers and veterans--
children, mothers and veterans. We have carved that out of the Medicaid 
provision. You will not have deeming, one, for the public health 
purposes. I would like to do it because I think the most powerful 
argument is that the children are not the problem. Again, it is the 
problem of the magnet of jobs in this country and we should not be 
harsh on these children in particular.
  I know there are those who say, well, the taxpayer has to do it. I am 
saying that it is a $2 billion tab. We are carving $125 million out of 
that and saying, both because the children are not the problem and for 
those who are looking for bottom lines, it is cheaper to have healthier 
children. These are children that are going to be American citizens. It 
is worthwhile that they are going to have an early start and we are 
going to be sensitive to those who have served under the colors of the 
country, the veterans who fall on particularly hard times to be able to 
benefit from the program.
  Mr. President, will the clerk report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment will be--
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is my intention that we temporarily set aside the 
Graham amendments, that the two amendments incorporated in the earlier 
presentation that said we are in this bill going to treat those limited 
emergency programs the way that the House of Representatives did and 
saying we are not going to have a dual standard for the illegals and 
legals--we are going to treat the legals the same as the illegals--to 
achieve that there had to be two amendments offered to amend two 
different parts of the bill, but it is a rather straightforward 
provision. Rather than require a vote on each provision, I had talked 
to the floor manager and we had hoped that we would vote on those two 
en bloc.

  And then the second amendment that I have sent to the desk deals with 
carving out the areas of Medicaid, for mothers, children, and the 
veterans. I believe that amendment has been sent to the desk. I would 
ask that my first amendment be temporarily set aside so that we would 
have that amendment before the Senate.


                     Amendments Nos. 3820 and 3823

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Graham amendment 
will be set aside and the two en bloc amendments by Senator Kennedy 
will be considered.
  The clerk will report those amendments.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes en 
     bloc amendments numbered 3820 and 3823 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3820

(Purpose: To provide exceptions to the sponsor deeming requirements for 
 legal immigrants for programs for which illegal aliens are eligible, 
                        and for other purposes)

       Beginning on page 200, line 12, strike all that follows 
     through page 201, line 4, and insert the following:
       (2) Certain federal programs.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
       (A) Medical assistance provided for emergency medical 
     services under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
       (B) The provision of short-term, non-cash, in kind 
     emergency relief.
       (C) Benefits under the National School Lunch Act.
       (D) Assistance under the Child Nutrition Act of 1996.
       (E) Public health assistance for immunizations with respect 
     to immunizable diseases and for testing and treatment of 
     communicable diseases.
       (F) The provision of services directly related to assisting 
     the victims of domestic violence of child abuse.
       (G) Benefits under programs of student assistance under 
     titles IV, V, IX, and X of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     and titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service 
     Act.
       (H) Benefits under means-tested programs under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (I) Benefits under the Head Start Act.
       (J) Prenatal and postpartum services under title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 3823

 (Purpose: To provide exception to the definition of public charge for 
 legal immigrants when public health is at stake, for school lunches, 
         for child nutrition programs, and for other purposes)

       On page 190, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(E) Exception to definition of public charge.--
     Notwithstanding any program described in subparagraph (D), 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `public charge' 
     shall not include any alien who receives any benefits, 
     services, or assistance under a program described in section 
     204(d).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, those amendments are 
set aside.


                Amendment No. 3822 to Amendment No. 3743

 (Purpose: To exempt children, veterans, and pregnant mothers from the 
        sponsor deeming requirements under the medicaid program)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the third Kennedy 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3822 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 201 after line 4, insert the following:
       (3) Certain services and assistance.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to--
       (A) any service or assistance described in section 
     201(a)(1)(A)(vii);
       (B) prenatal and postpartum services provided under a State 
     plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act;
       (C) services provided under a State plan under such title 
     of such Act to individuals who are less than 18 years of age; 
     or
       (D) services provided under a State plan under such title 
     of such Act to an alien who is a veteran, as defined in 
     section 101 of title 38, United States Code.


                           Amendment No. 3760

  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the yeas and 
nays to be ordered on amendment No. 3760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 3760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak further, prior 
to

[[Page S4385]]

the time immediately preceding the vote on these two amendments, but I 
would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  First, on the Cuban Adjustment Act issue, the precise issue is the 
one that the Senator from Wyoming has stated, and that is, is the Cuban 
Adjustment Act an anachronism? Is it a dinosaur which served a purpose 
at a time past but is no longer relevant to the future?
  The fact is, Mr. President, what is an anachronism, what is a 
dinosaur is the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba, a regime which has held 
its people in tyranny for 3\1/2\ decades. Until that regime is replaced 
with a democratic government, the Cuban Adjustment Act continues to 
play the same positive role as it did when it was adopted in 1966.
  I am also concerned about the statement that there is no longer a 
need for the Cuban Adjustment Act. Between 1990 and 1994, prior to the 
current Cuban migration agreement of 1995, there were an average of 
20,000 persons a year who were in the country legally, had resided here 
for a year, and asked for the discretionary act of the Attorney General 
to have their status adjusted. Assumedly, there continue to be 
thousands of people who arrived prior to the migration agreement of 
1995 who are awaiting eligibility to ask for that discretionary act. 
So, yes, there is a need.
  Second, the proposal which is in S. 1664 would only apply to those 
persons who arrived under the migration agreement of 1995 in the status 
of parolees. According to the statistics of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, since that agreement was in effect, 
approximately half of the Cubans who have arrived in the United States 
did not arrive as parolees. They came as either refugees or as visa 
immigrants. Under the reading of S. 1664, those persons who came under 
the migration agreement of 1995, would not be eligible to adjust their 
status because they did not come in the specific category of a parolee.

  So the anachronism is in Havana, not in the laws of the United 
States. The need continues to exist today as it did 30 years ago. I 
urge adoption of the amendment which has been cosponsored by Senator 
Dole, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, Senator Bradley, Senator Helms, 
Senator Lieberman--a broad, bipartisan consensus that the date for the 
change of the Cuban Adjustment Act is the date when democracy is 
restored to Cuba.
  Second, on the amendment relative to truth in advertising and 
deeming, the Senator from Wyoming says the issue is the fact that we 
are not covering, under the amendment which I have offered, a variety 
of programs for which he thinks deeming should apply. I do not see that 
as being the issue.
  The issue is, are we going to pass a vague law which states that the 
income of the sponsor shall be deemed to be the income of the legal 
alien for any benefits under any Federal program of assistance or any 
program of assistance funded in whole or in part by the Federal 
Government.
  That is the proposition which is currently before us. I might say, 
happily, that that represents a restriction, because the original 
version of S. 1664 applied that same vague language, not just to 
federally funded programs but to programs by governments at the State 
and the local level. Now at least we are only dealing with federally 
funded programs, in whole or in part.
  But the fundamental principle of our amendment is let us be specific. 
Let us tell the American people, let us tell the legal aliens and their 
families who are affected, let us tell those persons who are attempting 
to provide these services in a reasonable way what it is we intend to 
be covering. Let us list specifically what those programs are in the 
future as we have in the past. The current U.S. immigration law lists 
specifically those programs for which the sponsor's income is deemed to 
be the income of the sponsored legal alien. I think that was a wise 
policy in the past, and it is a policy which we should continue into 
the future. That is the fundamental issue.
  That is why the major State-based organizations, from the Conference 
of State Legislators, the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of Counties--all of those organizations are supporting this 
amendment because they say we want to know precisely what it is we are 
going to be responsible for administering, since it is going to be our 
responsibility to do so. That is why those organizations are concerned 
about the massive, unfunded mandate that is about to fall upon them, 
both for the administrative costs of arriving at these judgments and 
the cost when services that are no longer going to have a Federal 
partner will become the obligation of local government.

  The Senator from Wyoming left the inference that there were two 
places through which these services for legal aliens could be paid. One 
was by the Federal Government; second, by the sponsor. I suggest that 
there is a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and so forth additional party 
who will be picking up these costs. Those are the thousands of 
municipalities, the 3,000 counties, and the 50 States of the United 
States that will be responsible.
  Let me remind my colleagues that, by Federal law, we require a 
hospital emergency room to render service to anyone who arrives and 
requests that service, regardless of their ability to pay. So, what 
currently the law is, is that if it is a legal alien who is medically 
indigent, that cost will be a shared cost, with the Federal Government 
paying a portion and the States paying a portion. With what we are 
about to do, we are going to make that cost an unreimbursed cost to 
that hospital. Typically, it will be a public hospital. So it will end 
up being a charge to the taxpayers of that community or that State in 
which the legal alien lives. It is for that reason that, in addition to 
those groups that I listed, the Association of Public Hospitals 
supports this amendment, the Graham amendment, the truth in 
advertising, in deeming, amendment. It is also the case this has 
received support of the major Catholic organizations which, of course, 
operate substantial health care facilities in many communities in this 
country.
  So, it is not correct to say the only two people who are at the table 
are the sponsor and the Federal Government. The reality is there is a 
whole array of American interests at the table. Unfortunately, under 
the amendment as currently written, they do not know what is being 
negotiated at the table. They do not know what the agenda is at the 
table. They do not know what their responsibilities are going to be, 
beyond the vague standard that they have to deem the income of the 
sponsor for any program of assistance funded in whole or in part by the 
Federal Government.
  So I do not think that is good government. That is not good policy. 
It is not a respectful relationship with our intergovernmental 
partners, and it is directly contrary to the spirit of the unfunded 
mandate bill which this Senate passed as one of the first acts of the 
104th Congress.
  So for that reason, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes 
on each of the two amendments that we will have before us this 
afternoon: First, the Cuban Adjustment Act amendment and, second, the 
truth in advertising in deeming for legal aliens amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe my friend the Senator from 
Alabama would like to speak on his own hour. I certainly yield for 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1664, the 
Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act, which was 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee, after a rather long and 
arduous process, by a vote of 13 to 4.
  I especially commend my long-time friend and colleague, Senator Alan 
Simpson, who is chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration 
who has guided this legislative effort which is aimed at reducing 
illegal immigration in this country. He has the patience of Job, and I 
will miss his good company when we end our Senate careers, which began 
together 18 years ago. Also, I commend Senator Kennedy who has worked 
diligently on this bill, as he does on so many legislative proposals.
  I do not believe that there is much question that we need to reduce 
the high level of illegal immigration in this country, which has been 
an enormous drain on the country's welfare system, its public education 
system, as well as other Government resources.

[[Page S4386]]

  The committee report shows that the number of illegal aliens 
apprehended each year since 1990 has been over 1 million. This figure 
alone justifies the steps that need to be taken to reduce illegal 
immigration.
  The provisions in title I of this bill will strengthen law 
enforcement efforts against illegal immigration. The bill provides for 
additional law enforcement personnel and detention facilities, 
authorizes pilot projects to verify eligibility for employment and 
contains provisions to reduce document fraud.
  Title I contains higher penalties for document fraud as well as alien 
smuggling, and it also streamlines exclusion and deportation procedures 
and establishes procedures to expedite the removal of criminal aliens.
  The provisions in title II relating to financial responsibility of 
aliens is very important. I believe that aliens should be able to 
support themselves and, in fact, the U.S. law requires that an 
immigrant may be admitted to the United States upon an adequate showing 
that he or she is not likely to become a public charge. This has been a 
longstanding policy of our Nation, and the legislation before this body 
would strengthen that policy.

  Title II contains certain provisions to reduce aliens being a burden 
on our Nation's welfare system. It contains a provision that an alien 
is subject to deportation if she or he becomes a public charge within 5 
years from entry into the U.S.
  Title II prohibits the receipt of any Federal, State or local 
government assistance by an illegal alien, except in rare 
circumstances, such as emergency medical care, pregnancy service or 
assistance under the National School Lunch or Child Nutrition Act.
  Further, one of the ways an alien can prove he or she will not become 
a public charge is to have a sponsor in the U.S. file an affidavit of 
support which, under current law, requires the sponsor to support an 
alien for 3 years. This legislation increases a sponsor's liability to 
10 years, which is the same time it takes any citizen to qualify for 
Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare. This liability 
against the sponsor is reduced if the alien becomes a citizen before 
the end of the 10-year maximum period.
  These are some of the highlights of this important legislation. A 
number of amendments have been offered to this bill, some of which I 
will support and others that I will oppose. But I will keep my eye on 
the overall objective of the bill, which is to support a national 
policy to reduce illegal immigration and to make it unattractive for 
illegal aliens to come to the United States.
  In these days of declining governmental resources, we must provide 
for our own citizens first and foremost. This legislation, under the 
worthy stewardship of Senator Simpson and augmented by Senator Kennedy, 
is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, through the years of my work in this 
area, no one has been more available to visit with, to commiserate 
with, to talk with than my old friend from Alabama, Senator Howell 
Heflin. He has been a wonderful friend and, more appropriate, he has 
listened attentively to these issues of legal and illegal immigration 
and always, indeed, has been supportive when he could and at least I 
always understood when he could not. No one could have assisted me more 
through the years than the senior Senator from Alabama. I appreciate 
that very much in many ways.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on my own time 
before seeking time to be yielded from generous colleagues?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me speak then on the Kennedy 
amendments. I have spoken on the Cuban Adjustment Act, and I have 
spoken on the Graham amendment. Let me speak briefly on the Kennedy 
amendment, the Kennedy amendment en bloc, the two that have been joined 
and the next one, a singular one, and I address them together because 
they are very similar.
  Let me say that, indeed, I oppose the Kennedy amendment and I go back 
to this singular theme that we must not deviate from: Before a 
prospective immigrant is approved to come to the United States, that 
person must demonstrate that he or she is not likely at any time to 
become a public charge.
  I know that is repetitive. It was the law in 1882. The individuals 
meet this public charge requirement by a sponsor's written agreement, 
an affidavit of support. It is to provide support if the alien ever 
needs support. If the alien needs nothing, the sponsor pays nothing. If 
suddenly the alien says, ``I can't make it, I'm going to have to go on 
welfare, I'm going to have to receive assistance,'' the sponsor steps 
in, not the USA. We are trying to avoid the step in these various 
amendments to say the sponsor is not in this game and the USA is. We 
say that if the sponsor is deceased or bankrupt or ill, or whatever it 
may be, that that person will be taken care of.
  The committee bill requires all welfare programs to include the 
sponsor's income when determining whether a sponsored individual is 
eligible for assistance. In other words, the U.S. Government will 
require the sponsors in this bill to keep their promises.
  CBO has scored this as a significant private-sector mandate. I think 
that is a most appropriate definition because it should be a private-
sector mandate. Sponsors should not expect free medical care from U.S. 
taxpayers for their immigrant relative when they can provide it 
themselves. That is what we are talking about.
  If they cannot provide it themselves, I am right with Senator 
Kennedy, then this Government could do so. But why let the sponsor off 
the hook? I think that is a mistake.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment would exempt Medicaid from any welfare 
restrictions for a substantial number of cases. We again should be very 
clear what deeming does. It does not deny medical treatment to any 
child or to any pregnant woman. The stories that touch our heart are 
not affected. You can get that kind of care. You can get that kind of 
emergency care. It does not deny medical treatment to any child or any 
pregnant woman with all of the poignant stories we can tell. But it 
does require that the sponsor who promised to provide the assistance 
will fulfill their pledge if--if--they are capable of doing so.
  I say that my colleague should know that if a sponsor does not have 
enough money to provide medical assistance, then Medicaid and all other 
welfare programs are available, all of them. If a sponsor dies, then 
Medicaid and all of the public assistance programs are available to the 
newcomer. We are not going to throw sick children into the streets or 
deny xrays or deny care or any of that type of activity. We are only 
asking sponsors to keep their promises and pay the bill, if they have 
the means.
  I chair the Veterans Affairs' Committee. I do know how tough it is to 
discuss the word ``veterans.'' But I am wholly uncertain why the 
veteran exemption is included at all, because all veterans and their 
families are eligible for medical care through our veterans hospitals--
all of them. Needy veterans--needy veterans, poor veterans, incompetent 
veterans, whatever, they are provided free medical care, free medical 
care, through the more than 700 veterans facilities throughout this 
country, under a completely separate program, which is not Medicaid. It 
is a huge program. The veterans of this country receive $40 billion per 
year, which is not Medicaid, not that health care. They have the DOD, 
the Department of Defense, with CHAMPUS and dependents' health care of 
those in the military. That is another $4 billion we do not even count. 
We wonder what is happening.
  It is because we are generous. We should be generous. No one--no 
one--disputes that. But if my colleague wants to provide an exemption 
for these veterans hospitals, I would certainly try to work something 
out. I share that. But let us not, however, exempt sponsors of a large 
number of Medicaid beneficiaries from any responsibility for those they 
have pledged to support under the guise of fair treatment for veterans.
  There are 26 million of us who are veterans. We spend $40 billion. 
The health care portion of that is huge, over half. There are 26 
million of us. We go down in numbers 2 percent per year. You could not 
be more generous

[[Page S4387]]

to veterans. This is a hook. This is one of those hooks we use to do a 
debate; mention the word ``veterans'' or ``kids'' or ``seniors.'' That 
is how we got here to a debt of $5 trillion, which is now $5.4 
trillion. If we do all the evil, ugly things that will be done or could 
be done in our discussion, the debt will be $6.4 trillion at the end of 
7 years.
  So my colleagues know that the Federal Government spends more on 
Medicaid than any other welfare program. Use of this program by recent 
immigrants is very significant. For Medicaid alone, CBO estimates that 
the United States will pay $2 billion over the next 7 years to provide 
assistance to sponsored aliens. So I hope we might dispose of that 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Mexico is here and in a time bind. I yield to 
Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, 
is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask, are we on time limits?
  Mr. SIMPSON. The Senator's own time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour under rule XXII.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 7 minutes and hope I do not interrupt 
what all of you have been talking about.
  Mr. President, let me just suggest that if the American people 
understood what we have let happen to immigration in the United States 
with reference to the welfare program, I believe, in spite of their 
genuine interest in immigration and in letting the mix continue in 
America, I believe they would come very close to saying, ``Stop it 
all.'' I am going to tell you why.
  First, Senator Domenici from New Mexico is not against letting people 
from all over the world come to our country under an orderly 
immigration process. How could I be against that? I would not be here 
if we did not have such a policy at the turn of the century. Both of my 
parents--not grandparents--came from the country of Italy.
  In fact, my mother, unknowingly, remained an illegal alien well into 
the Second World War because the lawyers had told my father that she 
was a citizen, and she was not because the law had changed. So I 
understand all of that. I even witnessed her getting arrested by the 
immigration people after she had been here 38 years with a family and 
was a stalwart of the community, because technically a lawyer had told 
my father she was a citizen, and she was not.
  I understand how immigrants add to the energizing of this great 
Nation. I understand how they provide through their gumption and hard 
work, how they provide very positive things for America. I am not here 
talking about changing that or denying that. But I want to just start 
by ticking off a couple of numbers and then telling the Senate what has 
happened that I think this bill fixes. And welfare reform, as 
contemplated, completes the job.
  We tend to think we have a policy that we will not provide welfare to 
legal aliens who come to America because we think they all want to go 
to work, want to take care of themselves, and we have sort of let the 
programs develop without any supervision. So let me give you a couple 
of examples.
  There are 2.5 million immigrants on Medicaid--2.5 million. There are 
1.2 million on food stamps--1.2 million. AFDC, 600,000.
  It seems to me that, if we have a policy that you bring in aliens and 
somebody is responsible for them, then how did we let this happen? 
Then, to top it off, let me give you the case with reference to the SSI 
program and immigrants. SSI is itself a welfare program. It is paid for 
by the general taxpayers of America, not to be confused with a Social 
Security program for disability that is paid for with Social Security 
trust funds and people had to work a certain number of quarters to earn 
it.
  I want to say since our earliest days, colonial days, excluding 
likely public charges has been a feature of our immigration laws.
  Also, once immigrants are here and they become a public charge, that 
immigrant could then be deported. Let me repeat. From our earliest 
days, likely public charges excluded from the welfare system was part 
of the American tradition and law, and once here, if they became a 
public charge, they would be deported.
  Data shows that immigrants, in fact, become public charges, and the 
problem is growing. In testimony before the Budget Committee, George 
Borjas, of Harvard University, presented some startling data showing 
the immigrants' use of welfare benefits, and showing that it is now 
higher than that of the general population. Let me repeat. This 
professor showed that immigrants are using our welfare system benefits 
in higher percentages than that of the general population.

  Let me take one program on and lay it before the Senate and the 
public today--the supplemental security program, SSI. That is the 
fastest growing program in the Federal budget. It is the fastest 
growing program in the Federal budget. This rapid growth, Mr. 
President, is due largely to elderly sponsored immigrants coming onto 
the rolls. That means elderly immigrants are being brought to America 
under a law that says Americans who bring them will be responsible for 
them, and they sign agreements saying that is the case.
  Now, is it not interesting that if that is what we intend, that 
something is going wrong? The American taxpayers, who are asking us to 
take care of Americans in many areas where we do not have money, are 
paying through the nose for immigrants who came here under the pretense 
that they would be taken care of, but now we are taking care of them.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, 25 percent of the 
growth in SSI--that is the supplemental security income participants--
between 1993 and 1996 is due to immigrants. Now, that is an astounding 
number because if you look at the percentage that the immigrants bear 
to that population, the elderly immigrants represent 6 percent of the 
elderly SSI population and, today, 3 percent of the population of older 
Americans are legal immigrants, but 30 percent of the SSI beneficiaries 
are legal immigrants.
  Something has gone awry when a large portion of this population is 
immigrants. That is what this very simple chart shows: 2.9 percent of 
the general population are immigrants and 29 percent of the SSI-aged 
beneficiaries are immigrants--10 times the ratio that their population 
bears to the group that would be entitled to SSI. One might say that is 
such a gigantic mismatch that it seems like it is almost intentionally 
occurring. Somebody is planning it so that Americans pay for immigrants 
who come here with a commitment that somebody else will take care of 
them, but when they get old, the Government takes care of them.
  I believe that there are data--and they are growing--that maybe 
sponsors bringing their relatives to the United States do so intending 
to put them on SSI. This chart shows that the minute the deeming period 
is over, immigrants apply for SSI. In fact, let us look at this one. 
Within 5 years of entry into the United States, over half of those on 
SSI have applied. It almost seems that they come here, and those who 
bring them here plan to put them on the public welfare rolls under SSI 
at the very earliest opportunity.

  For those of us who promote family unification, which is one reason 
they get their elderly parents into America, we are beginning to be 
very suspicious of whether the promoting of this family unification by 
many is to bring parents here so the Government of the United States 
can take care of them as immigrants in the United States. That is 
something that none of us really believe should happen.
  There are over 1 million aliens on food stamps; half a million are on 
AFDC; 2\1/2\ million are on Medicaid; and untold hundreds are on small 
means-tested benefit programs. Clearly, there is a large number of 
aliens receiving public benefits and, therefore, they are now public 
charges.
  I want to suggest that it is amazing. The testimony before our 
committee said that even though the INS, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, is charged with deporting public charges, through the last 10 
years only 13 people were actually deported. Of the millions that came 
in--and hundreds of thousands are obviously public charges in 
dereliction of our Federal law--there was a response of only 13 
deportations.
  So my question is, How does this happen, and will we let it happen 
and continue to grow? My opinion is that this bill goes a long way in 
trying to

[[Page S4388]]

resolve that issue on the side of American taxpayers, who work hard to 
earn their money and then give it to the Government and find that, in 
turn, there is such dramatic abuses of our welfare assistance to those 
in need, perhaps by aliens who seem almost to be brought here in 
contemplation of taking advantage of all of this. It seems that simply 
making the support affidavit legally enforceable is a legislative wish.
  Once again, in testimony in front of the Budget Committee, where we 
were concerned about the skyrocketing costs, there was an analogy drawn 
between a sponsor's affidavit of enforcement and child support 
enforcement. I only raise that because child support enforcement is 
almost one of these things that bear the wrong name because you cannot 
enforce it. You do not have enough bureaucracy or computers to enforce 
it. I think when we are finished, we may find ourselves in the same 
place again because the enforceability of these affidavits is going to 
be such a monster job that I am not sure it is going to work. But at 
least we are on record saying it is to be enforced, and we have set the 
rules in this bill to make this a better opportunity on behalf of our 
taxpayers.
  A panelist asked, How can we expect to make enforcement of affidavits 
work? Then they said the 20 years of experience in the child support 
program would indicate it may not work.
  Does the Immigration Service, or any other entity charged with 
implementing this bill, have the resources to effectively administer 
the deeming requirement and enforce the affidavit? I am not sure. 
Perhaps the sponsors can address that in due course.
  Do we think that there are other steps that should be taken, perhaps 
along the lines of immigrant restrictions that are in the welfare 
bill--a 5-year ban on receipts, all noncitizens ineligible for SSI and 
food stamps?
  Could these steps be an interim solution until we have an effective 
screening mechanism for public charges, enforcement of support orders 
and deeming requirements?
  Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to criticize the bill 
because, in fact, it makes a dramatic change in the direction of seeing 
to it that the public charge is minimized when indeed it should be 
minimal, not played upon, abused in some instances, and even planned 
abuse to see to it that aliens come and when they get old enough, they 
go on the public welfare rolls, even though that was never contemplated 
by our laws--either immigration or welfare.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Simpson for yielding the floor so I 
could use part of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I hope every one of our colleagues have 
heard the remarks of the senior Senator from New Mexico. They were 
powerful, startling, and here is the man whom we entrust with handling 
our budget activities. And who does it with greater skill and dogged 
determination than this man? He is citing what has happened to the 
things that we believe in and that we try to support. I know they have 
been so seriously disrupted and distorted. They could not have been 
made more clear. I thank the Senator. With a few words, and with a 
graph or two, he placed it in better perspective than I possibly could. 
The present situation is simply unsustainable, and it is going to 
become ever more so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  I will add one further comment. I am firmly convinced--and I think 
the Senator from Wyoming is--that if the American people understood 
this problem they would be on his side on this bill. I do not believe 
with the budget constraints--and having to look at the many programs 
affecting American citizens and immigrants who become citizens who are 
working and moving America ahead--that we have this kind of situation 
involved with reference to in the broadest sense our welfare programs. 
That does not mean in every single sense I agree with the Senator's 
approach in this bill. Maybe lunches for school kids may be an 
exception. It is a bit burdensome. But essentially we have to know what 
we are giving these people, and decide what we can afford. I think that 
is to be the prevailing test. And, frankly, we cannot afford a lot. We 
just cannot. We cannot take care of American citizens in this country.
  I thank the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  I have toyed with the issue of doing something with regard to legal 
immigration, and that was a rather less effective exercise. Somebody 
else can deal with that one in the years to come because this is all a 
part of that.


 Amendments to be Considered En Bloc--Nos. 3855 and 3857 through 3862; 
                           and 3853 and 3854

  Mr. SIMPSON. I have two unanimous-consent requests.
  I ask unanimous consent that amendments 3855 and 3857 through 3862 be 
considered en bloc, and I also ask unanimous consent that amendments 
3853 and 3854 be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________