[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.
____________________