[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4401-S4418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me go forward with the debate on the
Kennedy proposals, so that we might press forward toward the dual votes
within the shortest possible period of time. I will simply go to the
root of the matter.
Mr. President, with regard to the Kennedy amendment, the American
people believe strongly in the principle that immigrants to this
country should be self-sufficient. We continue to emphasize this
principle, as I said several times today. It has been part of U.S.
immigration law since the beginning, and the beginning in this instance
is 1882.
There is a continuing controversy on whether immigrants as a whole or
illegal aliens as a whole pay more in taxes than they receive in
welfare, noncash plus cash support. Or whether that is the case with
public education and other Government services, there are experts, if
you will, on both sides who say that they are a tremendous drain, and
others say they are no drain at all. I have been, frankly, disenchanted
by both sides in some respects, especially on the side that says bring
everybody in you possibly can because it enriches our country
regardless of the fact that some may not have any skills, some may not
have any jobs, and without jobs there is poverty, and with poverty the
environment suffers in so many ways. But that is another aspect of the
debate.
I believe that, at least with respect to immigrant households--this
is an important distinction; that means a household consisting of
immigrant parents, plus their U.S. citizen children who are in this
country because of the immigration of their parents--there is a
considerable body of evidence that there is a net cost to taxpayers in
that situation. George J. Borjas testified convincingly on this issue
at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing.
Mr. President, an even more relevant question, however, may be
whether any particular immigrant is a burden rather than immigrants as
a whole. I respectfully remind my colleagues that an immigrant may be
admitted to the United States only if the immigrant provides adequate
assurance to the consular office, the consular officer, and the
immigration inspector that he or she is ``not likely at any time to
become a public charge.''
Similar provisions have been part of our law since the 19th century,
and part of the law of some of the Thirteen Colonies even before
independence. In effect, immigrants make a promise to the American
people that they will not became a financial burden, period.
Mr. President, I believe there is a compelling Federal interest in
enacting new rules on alien welfare eligibility and on the financial
liability of
[[Page S4402]]
the U.S. sponsors of immigrants in order to increase the likelihood
that aliens will be self-sufficient in accordance with the Nation's
longstanding policy, and to reduce any additional incentive for illegal
immigration provided by the availability of welfare and other taxpayer-
funded benefits.
S. 1664 provides that if an alien within 5 years of entry does became
a public charge, which the bill defines as someone receiving an
aggregate of 12 months of welfare, he or she is deportable. It is even
more important in this era that there be such a law since the welfare
state has changed both the pattern of immigration and immigration--both
the pattern of immigration and immigration--that existed earlier in
our history because, before the great network of social systems, if an
immigrant cannot succeed in the United States he or she often returned
``to the old country.'' This happens less often today because of the
welfare safety net. Many back through the chain of history in my family
returned ``to the old country'' because they could not make it here.
That is not happening today because of the support systems within the
United States.
The changes proposed by the bill clarify when the use of welfare will
lead a person to deportability. These changes are likely to lead to
less use of welfare by recent immigrants, or more deportation of
immigrants who do become a burden upon the taxpayer. One of the ways
immigrants are permitted to show that they are not likely to become a
public charge is providing an ``affidavit of support'' by a sponsor,
who is often the U.S. relative petitioning for their entry under an
immigrant classification for family reunification.
You heard that debate when we spoke briefly of numbers and legal
immigration. We talked of that. That is what those classifications, or
preferences, for family reunification are.
Under current law, sponsors agree to provide support only for 3
years. That is current law. Furthermore, the agreement is not legally
enforceable, because it has been ripped to shreds by various court
decisions down through the years.
The bill's sponsor provisions are based on the view that the
sponsor's promise to provide support, if the sponsored immigrant is in
financial need, should be legally enforceable and should be in effect
until the sponsor's alien (a) has worked for a reasonable period in
this country paying taxes and making a positive economic contribution
or (b) becomes a citizen, whichever occurs first.
That is the provision. The bill provides that the maximum period for
the sponsor's liability is 40 ``Social Security quarters''--about 10
years--the period it takes any other citizen to qualify for benefits
under Social Security retirement and certain Medicare programs.
The bill also provides that deeming of the sponsor's income and
assets to the sponsored alien should be required in nearly all welfare
programs--all--and for as long as the sponsor is legally liable for
support, or for 5 years, a period in which an alien can be deported as
a public charge, whichever is longer.
Remember, we are talking about means-tested programs. We are talking
about all programs. Yet, amendments make distinctions, and those things
have been addressed as we debated. But it is simply not unreasonable of
the taxpayers of this country to expect recently arrived immigrants to
depend on their sponsors for at least the first 5 years regardless of
the specific terms in the affidavit of support signed by their
sponsors.
It was only, I say to my colleagues, on the basis of the assurance of
the immigrant and the sponsor that the immigrant would not at any time
become a public charge that the immigrant was even allowed to come to
our country, to come into the United States of America. It should be
made clear to immigrants that the taxpayers of this country expect them
to be able to make it in this country on their own.
I have heard that continually threaded through the debate--that they
come here, they want to make it on their own. We are a great country
for that; the most generous on the Earth. They do that, and they do it
with the help of their sponsors.
Again, remember, if the sponsor is deceased, or bankrupt, or unable
to provide any of the assistance or support, then, of course, the
taxpayers step in in a very generous way to do that.
Mr. President, that concludes my remarks with regard to the
amendments, unless Senator Kennedy or others wish to address the issue
anew.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I hope that at some time in the not-too-distant future
we might be able to address the two amendments, 3820 and 3823, which I
have offered. These amendments are quite different in one respect, but
they are also similar in another respect in terms of reflecting what I
consider to be the higher priorities of the American people,
particularly as focused on children, expectant mothers, and also all
veterans.
Let me describe very briefly, Mr. President, our first amendment that
we will offer. That is what we call the ``deeming party'' amendments.
These amendments ensure that legal immigrants are eligible for the same
programs on the same terms as illegal immigrants. My amendment says
that legal immigrants cannot be subject to the sponsor deeming public
charge provisions in this bill for programs which illegals get
automatically and for other programs such as Head Start and public
health, with a minor exception for prenatal care. This is the same
amendment which was passed in the House of Representatives immigration
bill.
Effectively, Mr. President, this amendment tracks what was accepted
in the House of Representatives. Why did the House of Representatives
accept it? Because they understand, as we understand, that when you put
in effect deeming that cuts down on the utilization of the program.
That is why we have supported and I support the deeming in the SSI.
That is the particular program where there has been the greatest
utilization. You have the AFDC and food stamp programs. But the
principal reason for deeming is to reduce the utilization of that
program, and it is effective.
The House of Representatives has said, look, there are certain public
health programs, for example, that we ought to permit the illegals to
be able to use. Why? Because if they use those particular programs,
this will mean that it is healthier for Americans. They do it not
because they want to benefit the illegal children but because they want
to protect American children.
What do I mean by that? I am talking about immunization programs. I
am talking about emergency health programs--emergency Medicaid, where a
child goes into the school, then ends up having a heavy cough, perhaps
is denied any kind of attention in the school health clinic because he
is illegal, although he should get it, and eventually goes down as an
emergency student, stays in the classroom and goes down to the local
county hospital and is admitted for TB, and in the meantime, while that
child has not had any kind of attention, has exposed all the other
American children to the possibility of tuberculosis.
That is true with regard to immunization programs. That is basically
the type of issue we are trying to look at. It also includes the school
lunch program, saying that if the children are going to be educated, we
do not want to ask the teachers to try and separate out the illegal
children in school lunch programs. That would be very complicated. It
would turn our schoolteachers into really agents of INS. It would have
the teachers going around and reviewing documents for each and every
child to try and identify and then take those children out, separate
them out.
It seems to me that we ought to understand the broader policy issue.
The real problem in dealing with illegal immigration, as the Hesburgh
commission found out 15 years ago and as the Jordan commission has
restated, the jobs are the magnet that brings foreigners into our
country illegally. Jobs is the magnet.
The real problem is, how are we going to deal with that? Senator
Simpson has, to his credit, worked out an orderly kind of process by
which we are going to reduce the number of breeder
[[Page S4403]]
documents and we are going back to the root causes for those breeder
documents, and then we are going to test various kinds of programs in
terms of what can be most effective in verifying that it is Americans
who are getting jobs and not the illegals.
We are going to have votes on those particular measures. But I am
going to stand with the Senator from Wyoming on those measures because
they are a key element if we are serious about dealing with illegal
immigration. Then there are provisions dealing with the border and
Border Patrol and enhanced procedures. All of those, we believe, can be
effective in terms of dealing with the job magnet that draws people
here.
Our problem is not with the children. Our problem is not with the
expectant mothers, the expectant mothers who are going to have children
born here and will be Americans. In the current bill, we have said that
the mother has to be here for 3 years, so we are not encouraging
expectant mothers to come over here and take advantage of the program.
This particular amendment that I have offered says we will make the
Senate bill consistent with what has been passed in the House of
Representatives on those key elements that primarily affect children,
expectant mothers, and are listed and are structured in order to
protect community health and public health issues.
That is basically what we are attempting to do with this. This
amendment is effectively the identical amendment in the House of
Representatives. We want to make sure that we are going to say to legal
immigrants--these are people, 76 percent of whom are relatives of
American families. All have played by the rules. All of them have
waited their turn to get in and be rejoined with their families, all
who have been qualified and may have fallen on some hard and difficult
times, and what we are going to say is in this very limited area which
the Congress has made a decision and determination, we are making these
policy determinations not to benefit the child but to benefit
Americans.
Do we understand that? These proposals have been accepted in the
House of Representatives, and I am urging that they be accepted here
because they protect Americans. They should not follow the same deeming
requirements as in other aspects of the bill. That is effectively what
this proposal does and what it would achieve. I think it is warranted.
I think it is justified. We have debated it in our Judiciary Committee,
and I hope it will be accepted.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the
Kennedy amendment to S. 1664. I support the Kennedy amendment because
it would protect the multitudes of students who are eligible for
Federal student aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act.
Under current law, only legal immigrants are eligible to receive
Federal financial aid to attend college. However, provisions in the
bill that stands before us today would require that for Federal
programs where eligibility is based on financial need, the income and
resources of the sponsor of a legal immigrant would be deemed to be the
income of the immigrant. Simply put, the resources of an immigrant
student would be artificially inflated, therefore, most legal
immigrants would not qualify for Pell grants or student loans.
I have always sought to expand educational opportunities for the
students of this country. To my mind, any person with the desire and
talent should be afforded the opportunity for at least 2 and possible 4
years of education beyond high school. The students that have legally
immigrated to this country should not be excluded from the vast
opportunities that a higher education can provide them.
Half of the college students in this country rely on Federal grants
or loans to help pay for college. Student aid more than pays for itself
over time. A college graduate earns almost twice what a high school
graduate earns--and pays taxes accordingly. Denying a postsecondary
education to economically disadvantaged legal immigrants is profoundly
unfair and economically shortsighted. Legal immigrants pay taxes and
can serve in the military. Legal immigrants also contribute
significantly to the national economy. For these reasons I encourage my
colleagues to join me in support of the Kennedy amendment, therefore,
eliminating the deeming requirements as they apply to Federal student
aid programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur
on or in relation to the Kennedy amendments 3820 and 3823 en bloc at
the hour of 4:50 this evening, to be followed immediately by a vote on
or in relation to the Kennedy amendment 3822.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator make it
4:53, so I can get 3 minutes in here?
Mr. SIMPSON. We have people apparently going to the White House. I
will yield my time to the Senator. Take the 2. I was going to conclude.
You may take that, and I will come at my friend with vigor at some
later forum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will try to be more brief than the 3
minutes. I think so much of this makes sense. People who are here
legally should get the same services as those who are here illegally.
What I particularly want to point out is the higher education
provision really would devastate many campuses and the future of many
young people. People who came here legally, whose children are going to
American colleges and universities taking advantage of our programs in
terms of loans and other programs, we ought to be encouraging that
higher education rather than discouraging it. The Kennedy amendments,
it seems to me, move in the right direction.
Finally, to protect pregnant women and children, I think that is kind
of basic. So I strongly support the Kennedy amendments.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have about 30 seconds. Let me just say
we have already exempted school lunch and WIC in the managers'
amendment which we passed yesterday.
This amendment combines several distinct exemptions to the
``deeming'' requirements in the bill. Everyone should understand what
``deeming'' does. Deeming requires sponsors to keep their promises.
Since 1882, our law has stated that no one may immigrate to this
country if they are ``likely at any time to become a public charge.''
Many individuals--about half of those admitted in 1994--were only
permitted to enter after someone else promised to support that
newcomer. The sponsor guarantees that the sponsored immigrant will not
require any public assistance.
Senator Kennedy's amendment provides a number of exceptions to this
``deeming'' rule for:
First, emergency Medicaid; second, foster care; third, Headstart; and
fourth, Pell grants and other federally funded assistance for higher
education.
On the general issue of exemptions from deeming, I would stress that
deeming only prevents a sponsored individual from accessing welfare if
the sponsor has sufficient resources to disqualify the applicant. When
a sponsor is not able to provide assistance, then the Government will
provide it.
I am not certain that there should be any exemptions from deeming.
Why should we permit individuals to access our generous social
services, when they have sponsors who have promised to provide for them
and presumably have the wherewithal to provide the needed assistance?
Furthermore, I have concerns about exempting Headstart and Pell
grants from the deeming requirements. These programs are not open to
every American. Even though we spend more than $3 billion on Headstart,
the program only serves about 30 percent of poor children ages 3-4. I
am not certain that we should continue to permit newcomers access
without regard to the incomes of the sponsors that promised to support
them.
The Government has limited money for Pell grants as well. At a time
that college tuition costs are rising, it does not make sense to
provide scarce resources to sponsored individuals--who
[[Page S4404]]
have sponsors that promised to provide support--when many citizens are
having difficulty affording the high costs of college. We have already
provided exemptions for those students who are in school--they will
have no deeming applied to their financial aid. Are we going to educate
those who come from around the world--promising never to use public
assistance as a condition of coming here--before we provide enough
funds to educate all the people who are here right now and who are
having trouble with college expenses right now? It seems most puzzling.
I thank the Chair.
vote on amendment nos. 3820 and 3823, en bloc
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendments Nos.
3820 and 3823, en bloc. The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson]
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Thompson
So the amendments (Nos. 3820 and 3823), en bloc, were rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3822
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The question is now on agreeing
to amendment 3822.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are quite prepared to go to a vote on
this. We addressed the Senate and had a short debate and discussion
earlier today. Effectively, what this is doing is you have deeming for
all of the Medicaid programs. What we are doing is carving out three
narrow areas: children, expectant mothers, and veterans. There is $2
billion for all of the Medicaid programs. This is $125 million in terms
of cost.
For the same reasons we have outlined here, we think that the
expectant mothers ought to get the treatment because they are going to
have a child that will probably be an American citizen. We think
veterans--you have 24,000 veterans that will be under a means-tested
program. The reality is those veterans, particularly with regard to
prescription drugs, ought to be attended to. Obviously, the emergency
kinds of assistance under Medicaid they should be eligible for.
A very narrow carveout. It costs $125 million over the next 5 years
as compared to $2 billion. That is effectively what the carveout is.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if Senator Kennedy had an opportunity to
address that issue, obviously, I should have the same opportunity. I
think all would concur. So I want to have approximately 1\1/2\ minutes,
whatever that was.
First, let me say the veterans are well taken care of in this
country. That one just will not even float. We spend $40 billion for
veterans. They have their own health care system. This is another hook.
I yield to Senator Santorum.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, I say to the Senator.
I just remind Senators that 87 Members of this Chamber voted for a
welfare reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate that said all legal-
sponsored immigrants receive no deeming. We eliminate deeming. Under
the welfare bill we passed there is no deeming. If you are a legal
immigrant in this country, sponsored, you are not eligible for welfare
benefits until you become a citizen. And 87 Members of the Senate voted
for that.
This is a much weaker version. What this keeps in place is a deeming
provision that says that you are not eligible for benefits unless your
sponsor cannot pay for it. We had no provision like that. There was no
fallback. You just were not eligible, period.
Under the Simpson bill we are considering, at least there is a
fallback that says if your sponsor can no longer help you, then we
will.
So this is a weaker provision under the existing Simpson language
than what 87 Members of the Senate voted for previously. So understand
that you are falling back already, and those who were support this
amendment would be falling back even further from the changes 87
Members voted for.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson]
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Thompson
So the amendment (No. 3822) was rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder, Mr. President, if I might have a brief
intervention here.
Mr. SIMPSON. That will be on the Senator's hour.
Change of Vote
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on vote 94, the Kennedy amendments Nos.
3820 and 3823 en bloc, I voted ``nay,'' and I would ask unanimous
consent that I might be recorded as ``yea.'' That will not affect the
outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
[[Page S4405]]
Criminal Alien Tracking Center
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved an amendment
that Senator Hutchison and I offered to bolster one of the strongest
tools local and State law enforcement agencies have to identify and
deport criminal aliens in our country. The Criminal Alien Tracking
Center--also known as the Law Enforcement Support Center [LESC]--is the
only online national data base available to local law enforcement
agencies to identify criminal illegal aliens. I am proud that this
facility is located in South Burlington, VT.
Our amendment will increase the authorization for the LESC in
recognition of the need to bring additional States online as well as
expand the scope of the work being done at the tracking center.
President Clinton recently signed the Terrorism Prevention Act into
law. The bill identified how important the Tracking Center has become
and proposed that the Center become the repository for an alien
tracking system.
Even before these additional responsibilities, the LESC staff in
Vermont had demonstrated that the Center is a valuable asset and
essential to our national immigration policy. The Center provides
local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies with 24-hour access
to data on criminal aliens. By identifying these aliens, LESC allows
law enforcement agencies to expedite deportation proceedings against
them.
The Center was authorized in the 1994 crime bill. The first year of
operations has been impressive as the 24-hour team identified over
10,000 criminal aliens. After starting up with a link to law
enforcement agencies in one county in Arizona, the LESC expanded its
coverage to the entire State. In 1996, the LESC is expected to be
online with California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Texas, and Washington.
The Tracking Center has become the hub at INS for seamless
coordination between Federal, State, and local authorities. I would
suggest to Commissioner Meissner, that the facility become the national
repository for all INS fingerprint records relating to criminal aliens.
Information from the fingerprints would be most accessible if the
Center stored this information in an AFIS/IDENT data base with a link
to FBI data bases.
As a former State's attorney, I also know that even the best tracking
system does not work unless there is an adequate system to ensure that
criminal files are promptly sent to investigators. That is why it would
also make sense to have the LESC serve as the repository for INS A-
files related to aggravated felons and aliens listed in the NCIC
deported felon file. Locating these files at the Tracking Center will
improve their accessibility to INS agents and U.S. attorney offices
throughout the United States.
Mr. President, Congress must continue the empowerment of local law
enforcement agencies in their efforts to identify criminal illegal
immigrants. I am pleased that the Senate approved our amendment, No.
3788, that will increase the authorization for the Tracking Center--a
resource every State should have in the fight against criminal aliens.
I thank, in particular, the managers of the bill, Senator Simpson and
Senator Kennedy, for including these provisions in the manager's
amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a provision that is
included in the managers' amendment to S. 1664, the immigration reform
bill. I am pleased to introduce this amendment, which will require
verification of citizenship and/or immigration status for those
applying for housing assistance. The applicant will have 30 days to
provide proper documentation, or assistance will not be provided;
applicants who have failed to provide documentation in that time will
be taken off the waiting list. For those who already receive housing
assistance, a verification of immigration status may be required at the
annual recertification. Annual recertification for housing assistance
is already required to determine income levels, and I would urge
housing authorities to make good use of this option. If a housing
authority requests verification, a household will have a 3-month period
to obtain proper documentation or assistance will be terminated. Once
the 3-month appeal is exhausted, a hearing may be granted in the fourth
month. It is important to note that political refugees and asylum
seekers are exempt from my proposal. The amendment I offer today passed
the House immigration reform bill unanimously as part of the managers'
amendment.
In 1980, Congress passed the Housing and Community Development Act,
which included a section prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving
Federal housing assistance. In 1995, 15 years after the bill passed,
HUD issued regulations to implement the 1980 changes. Its regulations,
however, will do little to prohibit illegal aliens from continuing to
receive taxpayer-supported housing.
Under current regulations, illegal aliens can be placed on a waiting
list and then granted housing assistance without having to provide
documentation proving that they are eligible to receive the assistance.
If a household is not eligible to continue receiving assistance
currently it may appeal the decision in 3-month increments for up to 3
years. That is 3 years of taxpayer assistance for someone who may not
be eligible to receive the funds.
In my home State of Arizona, officials of the Maricopa Housing
Authority (which is primarily Phoenix) told me that, by their
estimates, fully 40 percent of the people receiving housing assistance
in Maricopa County are illegal. In Maricopa County, there are 1,334
Section 8 units and 917 public housing units available. The waiting
list for units has 6,556 on it. If 40 percent of the current occupants
are illegal, that means 900 housing units should be made available to
those citizens or legal immigrants waiting their turn.
The problem in Arizona is dramatic; nationwide it is even more
dramatic. In his report entitled ``The Net National Costs of
Immigration,'' Dr. Donald Huddle of Rice University estimates that the
cost of public housing provided to illegal immigrants in 1994 was
roughly $500 million.
Even President Clinton acknowledged that there is a problem. When
proposing guidelines for public housing this year, he said most public
housing residents have jobs and try to be good parents, and, that it is
unfair to let lawbreakers ruin neighborhoods, especially since there
are waiting lists to get into public housing. ``Public housing has
never been a right,'' he said, but rather ``it has always been a
privilege. The only people who deserve to live in public housing are
those who live responsibly there and those who honor the rule of law.''
The public housing authorities, of course, are the entities that will
have to implement any new policy we enact. I contacted the housing
authorities of Tempe, Yuma, Tucson, and Maricopa County. Not one of the
housing authorities disagreed with my proposal. They all said that once
an applicant or resident checks on an affidavit that he/she is a legal
citizen, they are not allowed to pursue the issue. The housing
authorities currently only ask for verification of immigration status
if the applicant checks that he/she is an immigrant.
This amendment will curb the amount of housing assistance--paid for
by taxpayers--going to illegal immigrants. It will return housing
opportunities to the people who are here legally. I thank my colleagues
for supporting this amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, what is the status of things at the
moment? I know that is unfair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have several amendments pending in the
second degree. Which amendment would the Senator want to consider?
Amendments Nos. 3855, 3857, 3858, 3859, 3860, 3861, 3862
Mr. SIMPSON. The amendments have been consolidated en bloc; 3855,
3857, 3858, 3859, 3860, 3861, 3862 all relating to the birth
certificate issue and driver's license portion--has my amendment on
birth certificates and driver's licenses.
[[Page S4406]]
Is that the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending business.
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just briefly and in 1 minute tell you what we
have done. In this amendment, we provide that the new counterfeit and
tamper-resistant driver's license in the bill, whatever they are,
whatever State, will be phased in over 6 years, and the new standards
will apply only to new, renewed or replacement licenses--not something
issued 10 or 20 years before.
After this change, the bill will no longer be an unfunded mandate.
CBO has an estimate after total State and local cost of driver's
license and birth certificate improvements, finding it to be $10 to $20
million spread over 6 years. New minimum standards on birth
certificates go into effect only after the Congress has had 2 years to
review them, and cannot require all States to use a single form.
I talked to the manager of the bill and will now urge the adoption of
the en bloc amendment by voice vote.
Mr. President, the amendment would phase in the bill's requirements
for improved driver's licenses and State-issued I.D. documents over 6
years, beginning October 1, 2000--the year suggested by the National
Governors' Association.
Under my amendment, the improved format would be required only for
new or renewed licenses or State-issued I.D. documents, with the
exception of licenses or documents issued in one State where the
validity period for licenses is twice as long--12 years--as that in the
State with the next longest period. This one State would have 6 years
to implement the improvements.
Furthermore, the bill's provision that only the improved licenses and
documents could be accepted for evidentiary purposes by government
agencies in this country would--under the amendment I am now
proposing--not be effective until 6 years after the effective date of
this section, October 1, 2000. By this time 49 of the 50 States will
have the new licenses and I.D. documents without any requirement for
early replacement. In one State, some individuals wanting their license
to be accepted by governments for evidentiary purposes would have to
renew earlier than would be required without enactment of the bill, but
would still have more time--6 years--than every other State except one,
which would also have 6 years.
Thus, the amendment would mean that 6 years after the general
effective date for this subsection of the bill--October 1, 2000--the
improved licenses would have completely replaced the old ones and would
be required for evidentiary purposes in all government offices.
Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues that fraud-resistant
I.D. documents will not only make possible an effective system for
verifying citizenship or work-authorized immigration status--and thus
greatly reduced illegal immigration. The improved documents will also
make possible an effective system for verifying immigration status for
purposes of welfare and other government benefits--resulting in major
saving to the taxpayers. Additional benefits to law-abiding Americans
would come from reduced use of fraudulent I.D. in the commission of
various kinds of financial crimes, voting fraud, even terrorism.
My amendment is a response to the Congressional Budget Office's
estimate of the cost of the bill's current requirement that
improvements in driver's licenses and I.D. documents be implemented
October 1, 1997.
If the amendment is adopted, the additional cost of replacing all
licenses and I.D. documents by 1998, including those that would
otherwise be valid for an additional number of years would be
eliminated. Instead of costing $80 to $200 million initially, plus $2
million per year thereafter, CBO estimates that the total cost of all
the birth certificate and driver's license improvements would be $10 to
$20 million, incurred over 6 years.
CBO has written a letter confirming that fact.
Mr. President, with respect to birth certificates, the bill now
requires that, as of October 1, 1997, no Federal agency--and no State
agency that issues driver's licenses or I.D. documents--may accept for
any official purpose a copy of a birth certificate unless (a) it is
issued by a State or local government, rather than a hospital or other
nongovernment entity, and (b) it conforms to Federal standards after
consultation with State vital records officials. The standards will
affect only the form of copies, not the original records kept in the
State agencies.
The new standards will provide for improvements that would make the
copies more resistant to counterfeiting, tampering, and fraudulent
copying. One important example: the use of ``safety paper,'' which is
difficult to satisfactorily photocopy or alter.
There is no requirement in the bill that all States issue birth
certificate copies in the same form. But in response to concerns that
some have expressed, the amendment I am now proposing explicitly
requires that the implementing regs not mandate that all States use a
single form for birth certificate copies, and requires that the regs
accommodate differences between the States in how birth records are
kept and how certified copies are produced from such birth records.
The bill provides that the regulations are to be developed after
consultation with State vital records officials. Therefore, the
differences between the States in how birth records are kept and how
copies are produced will be fully known and accommodated by the agency
developing the regulations.
Mr. President, my amendment also requires a report to Congress on the
proposed regulations within 12 months of enactment. In addition, the
amendment provides that the regulations will not go into effect until 2
years after the report. This will give Congress plenty of time to
consider the report and take action, if necessary, to prevent
implementation of the regulations.
The amendment also provides for a number of other changes suggested
by HHS in a written comment sent in March, during the Judiciary
Committee markup process:
First, the implementing regs will not necessarily be issued by HHS,
but by an agency designated by the President--and the agency developing
the regs must consult not only with State vital records offices, but
with other Federal agencies designated by the President.
Second, in the description of the standards to be established in the
regs, the reference to ``use by imposters'' will be deleted and
replaced by the phrase ``photocopying, or otherwise duplicating, for
fraudulent purposes.'' This change makes clear that there is no longer
any requirement in the bill for a fingerprint or other ``biometric
information.''
Third, funding is authorized for the required HHS report on ways to
reduce fraudulent use of the birth certificates.
Fourth, the definition of ``birth certificate'' is modified to cover
not only persons born in the United States, but also persons born
abroad who are U.S. citizens at birth--because of citizenship of their
parents--and whose birth is registered in the United States.
Fifth and finally, the effective date for the provisions relating to
the new grant program for matching birth and death records and the
requirement that the fact of death--if known--be noted on birth
certificate copies of deceased persons will be 2 years after enactment
rather than October 1, 1997.
These modifications represent most of the changes suggested by HHS.
Mr. President, back to the subject of driver's licenses: There is a
technical correction that needs to be made to the grandfathering
provision in the driver's license section of the bill. This
grandfathering provision is one that my colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy,
and I agreed to at the Judiciary Committee markup.
The agreement was that States would be exempted from the bill's
requirement that State driver's licenses and I.D. documents contain a
Social Security number, if--at the time of the bill's enactment--the
State requires that applicants submit a Social Security number with
their application and that a State agency verify the number with the
Social Security Administration--but does not require that the number
actually appear on the license or document.
This agreement is not reflected in S. 1664 in its present form. The
amendment I am proposing will correct that.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, these amendments are acceptable on our
side. We support them.
[[Page S4407]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments en bloc (Nos. 3855, 3857, 3858, 3859, 3860, 3861, and
3862) were agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, just to review the matter at this time,
the clock is running on the 30 hours. There are many amendments filed
and few people to come to present them. That is usual procedure. We do
not want to inconvenience people.
There are several amendments. Senator Kennedy, I believe, does the
desk reflect that there are two amendments of Senator Kennedy that are
pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SIMPSON. Two total?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SIMPSON. Then there are two of Senator Simon, one of Senator
Shelby. Are those at the desk or have they been presented?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are several Simon amendments at the
desk.
Mr. SIMPSON. We can proceed with the Simon amendments, discuss those,
debate those, and see if we can process those this evening.
I would like to get a time agreement if at all possible. We are
trying to give our colleagues some indication as to the requirements of
their preparation here.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3829
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the course of the morning earlier
today we offered amendments with regard to labor enforcement and also
on the issues of discrimination. We had a brief interchange on that. We
have been ready to move toward a decision on this measure. I know that
the Senator from Wyoming has reservations about it, but let me just
mention briefly again what the substance of this amendment is all
about.
As I noted in my earlier remarks, this amendment provides the
Department of Labor authority to do in the permanent workers immigrant
program what it can already do on the temporary worker visa program. We
effectively have two programs. On the temporary workers, even though it
is called temporaries, it is up to 6 years, and there were about 65,000
last year. Under the permanent program it is 140,000, of which about
85,000 to 90,000 of those places are used. Within those 85,000, about
10,000 or 15,000 are individuals that are defined in the regulations of
what we call the best and the brightest. Those are professors at
universities that have a distinguished career. They are business
managers that move from country to country in many of the international
fields--top researchers and top scientists at the top of their fields--
and regulations have been established for those individuals to be able
to come in.
But the other segment of those--probably 30,000 to 40,000, it varies
from year to year--there is a process and a procedure to ensure that
there will be an invitation for American workers, if they are
qualified, to fill those jobs before the farm workers are brought into
this country.
What we have seen in recent times is that process is basically a
subterfuge. There were over 10,000 applicants last year, workers that
were qualified for those jobs. Only five of them were able to get the
jobs. The issue has been outlined in detail both in the press and in
the IG report.
So, clearly, what is happening is American workers' interests are not
being attended to. As we are looking at general enforcement areas and
mechanisms--and we did review the other general enforcement mechanisms
in the bill which are related to enforcement procedures that apply to
illegal aliens but also have a reference to legal aliens--what this
amendment does is not very revolutionary. It makes provisions for the
enforcement of existing laws. What use is a law if it cannot be
enforced?
The Department of Labor inspector general's report, widely reported
and commented upon, provides all of the additional information
necessary, that our laws are not being followed and the American worker
is the victim. Businesses have said that the enforcement of existing
laws should be the focus of our efforts.
That is what we want to do. We are providing the Department of Labor
sufficient numbers of investigative personnel. Out of the numbers that
have been included in this bill, we are designating a number of those
that will be used for this purpose. It does not make sense to hire
additional people and then tie one hand behind their backs. If we are
serious about enforcing the law to benefit American and foreign
workers, the amendment I am proposing is a good place to start.
So, Mr. President, effectively that is what this amendment does. All
it does is enforce existing law. All we are doing is allocating
personnel to do for the permanent workers what we do for the temporary
workers: to make sure that the provisions of the law are going to be
respected. They are not today. It is not just my stating that they are
not and reviewing the facts that they are not. I rely on the IG's
report of the Department of Labor that spells this out in chapter and
verse. It has been made public within the period of the last 3 weeks. I
will not take the time of the Senate, unless there are Members that
want to, and review their various findings, but the bottom conclusion
is that this law is not being adhered to because it is not being
enforced.
This measure is a very modest program, but it is an important
program. The bottom line is that it will have an impact in giving
greater assurance to qualified American workers that when these
vacancies become available and the American workers are qualified for
those vacancies, they will be considered, and considered favorably, for
those particular employment opportunities. That is not the case now.
What we have seen from the IG's report is that in many instances these
workers are brought in, they are paid less than they are guaranteed, or
provided, and they do not qualify for the other kinds of benefits. The
wages go down. Other workers are brought in in a similar way.
So the bottom line is that there is a whole series of professional,
skilled workers that are working for perhaps two-thirds or a half of
what the American counterpart is earning, and the American counterpart
is working in an American plant. So Americans are disadvantaged in two
ways: No. 1, they are denied the opportunity to get the job in the
first place; and, second, their brother workers who are working in a
similar plant and earning a fair income, are further disadvantaged by
the fact that these wages go down, and the companies are at a
competitive advantage in one sense and disadvantaged in the other as a
result of this program.
The program is on the books. It is not being enforced. The IG, as I
said, has outlined in detail the kinds of circumstances which I have
outlined, and we are allocating a certain number of those authorized
personnel to be available to enforce the law.
Mr. President, we have not increased any of the penalties for
violations. They will be consistent across the board between those that
violate the law under the temporaries as well as those that violate the
law under the permanent. There are questions about that. We can work
that out and refer to the sentencing commission so there is uniformity
on similar bills that might apply in other agencies.
This is an important program to help protect American workers that
are qualified, so that they are not effectively being discriminated
against in terms of their job applications as a result of the desire to
bring in foreign workers and then to pay them less.
Mr. President, that effectively is what the amendment is about. I
will be glad to either respond to questions or to move forward with the
amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the concern here of some of us is the
conducting of an investigation on the initiative of the Secretary of
Labor or on the basis of a complaint. I wonder if I might inquire of my
friend from Massachusetts, if we were to strike the word ``or
otherwise''--on line 6, where it says the Secretary of Labor to conduct
an investigation pursuant to a complaint ``or otherwise''--I wonder, if
we were to
[[Page S4408]]
remove that, my objection would be less. Then you would still have to
have reasonable cause to believe the employer has made a
misrepresentation of a material fact on a labor certification.
I share the Senator's view and the view of the Secretary of Labor
that certainly there have been abuses, and there have been, but I think
that alone rather lends an uncomfortable aspect to it as to what
``otherwise'' would mean there.
Mr. KENNEDY. May I respond briefly?
I welcome the opportunity to try to find other words that might be
acceptable, ``or otherwise.'' What we are attempting to address, if we
strike ``or otherwise,'' the only way that there would be any kind of
triggering of this measure would be on the action of a complaint by the
individuals affected. Quite frankly, that is not going to happen
because the minute that happens, this person is on his way--he or she--
is on his way out of the country.
What we are trying to do is to permit at least a degree of
flexibility as we have in the ``temporary'' where there is reason to
believe. I would be glad if it is ``or otherwise.'' I was looking if it
is based on receipt of information where there is reasonable cause to
believe.
This is what I am concerned about. If we just strike ``otherwise,''
we would be limiting it just to the complaint, who would be the workers
themselves, and there would be such pressure on that worker,
effectively that individual would not bring forth the complaint because
the person would be thereby probably subject to the loss of their
privilege in this country.
It is generally the understanding that there are no protections for
that individual, and therefore it would be unrealistic to think that
would be the case.
I would be glad to try to address what the Senator mentions as being
sort of a fishing expedition, to try to find words that might define it
in a way that would not only be relevant to the particular complainant
but also on the basis of well-founded information. It is best in this
sort of circumstance, perhaps, on this measure to suggest a short--
well, I will not suggest a quorum but perhaps we might set this one
aside and see if we cannot come up with some words.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think that is an excellent suggestion.
Then we could go to the amendments of Senator Simon, because I think we
can resolve this. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act it says,
``Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person or organization,
including the bargaining representatives.'' I have no problem with
that. Maybe we can do that. Then, if Senator Simon would proceed with
his two amendments, we will have those available for voting later.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Wyoming--
and I am sorry; I was off the floor for a short time--are we moving
toward any kind of time agreement to stack the votes tomorrow morning
or something like that?
Mr. SIMPSON. I would share with my friend, Mr. President, that
apparently we are going to go forward. There is a window--we should
have tried to express that--a window between now and 8 o'clock, but
after 8 o'clock the leader would prefer to proceed with rollcall votes
on whatever amendments are pending, and the more we can have pending
the more we will get on with our work. I hope people will come here to
do the work.
Amendment No. 3809
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I should like to call up 3809. It has
already been offered but it was set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. SIMON. What this does is to change the basis for deportation from
the Senate language to the House language. The Senate language,
frankly, is so wide open in terms of deporting people. For example,
someone who is a legal immigrant, who receives higher education
assistance, or, Mr. President, someone in the State of Minnesota who
would not be aware of it and got job training assistance under this
amendment, unless it is changed, that person could be deported for
getting job training assistance--someone who is here legally, going to
become a citizen. I just do not think that makes sense. If they have a
child who gets Head Start, that can be a basis.
So what we ought to do is do as the House did. Frankly, that is still
pretty sweeping. AFDC, SSI--and the SSI program is the one that is
abused. I think all of us who have been working in this area know this
is the area of great abuse. Overall, those who come into our country
who are not yet citizens use our welfare programs less than native-born
Americans percentagewise. But limited to AFDC, SSI, food stamps,
Medicaid, housing, and State cash assistance. This is the language on
the House side.
I think it makes just an awful lot more sense. If someone, for
example, gets low-income energy assistance in the State of Minnesota,
that would be a basis for deportation the way the bill reads right now.
I do not think you want that. I do not think most Members of the Senate
want that.
So that is what my amendment does. I think it makes the legislation a
little more sensible, and I hope that my colleague, who is, I see,
scribbling very vigorously over there, is scribbling the word ``OK''
and that he would consider accepting this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I was not scribbling the word ``OK'' on
this document, this tattered amendment here.
I oppose the amendment. I feel this amendment will create a very
large loophole in our Nation's traditional policy that newcomers must
be self-supporting. Under the bill, of course, an immigrant is
deportable as a public charge if he or she uses more than 12 months of
public assistance within 5 years after entry.
All of the means-tested programs, means-tested welfare programs--SSI,
public housing, Pell grants--count toward this 12-month total for
deportation. An exception is provided only for those programs that are
also available to illegal aliens --emergency medical services, disaster
relief, school lunch, WIC, and immunization.
Under the House bill, only certain programs make the immigrant
subject to public charge deportation, and those programs are SSI, AFDC,
Medicaid, food stamps, State cash assistance, and public housing.
The Senator's amendment would limit the public charge programs to the
same welfare programs as the House bill but all others would not be
included--and that would be Pell grants, Head Start, legal services,
noncash--in determining whether an alien should become a public charge.
I remain quite unconvinced why any newcomer should be able to freely
access the majority of Federal noncash welfare programs within the
first 5 years after entry, given that all aliens must promise not to
become a public charge at any time after entry. It seems most
inappropriate to exclude most noncash welfare from counting against the
newcomer.
I oppose it. Our Nation's laws since the earliest days have required
new immigrants to support themselves. The first time was in 1645.
Massachusetts refused to admit prospective immigrants who had no means
of support other than public assistance. That was in 1645 in the State
of our Democratic leader of this legislation.
In 1882, we prohibited the admission of any person unable to take
care of himself or herself. We know those things. I keep repeating
them. Likely to become a public charge, section 212 of the immigration
law always saying that those who become dependent on public assistance
may be deported. So not only would the immigrant not only promise to be
self-sufficient before receipt of an immigrant visa, but he or she
should remain self-sufficient for any appropriate period after arrival.
We set that period.
Where all this came about is in a 1948 decision by an administrative
judge within the Justice Department. Various administrative judges made
it virtually impossible to deport newcomers who became a public charge.
Under the current interpretation of the law, the Government has to
show, one, the alien received the benefits; two, the agency requested
reimbursement from the alien; and, three, the alien failed or refused
to repay the agency.
The decision has rendered this section of the law virtually
unenforced and unenforceable, and, as Senator Domenici said, we have
deported 13 people
[[Page S4409]]
in the past, I think, year as being a public charge. This is despite
the fact that research shows more than 20 percent of immigrant
households are on welfare--households, not individuals. So the
committee bill restored the public charge deportation. The bill already
includes provisions to respond to concerns of some on the other side of
the aisle. We have not destroyed the safety net. A generous safety net
is provided for immigrants who must use more than 12 months of public
assistance within the first 5 years of entry before becoming deportable
as a public charge.
This new provision for public charge deportation is entirely
prospective. It is not applicable to anyone who has already emigrated
to the United States. Only those who come in the future will be
affected.
And the Simon amendment permits future immigrants to receive any
amount of assistance from Federal, State and local governments, as long
as the newcomer avoids six major welfare programs. Newcomers would be
able to access almost all noncash welfare programs for the entire time
they are in the United States, without ever being deportable as a
public charge. That is contrary to the stated national policy that no
one may immigrate if he or she is likely to use any needs-based public
assistance.
I know my friend from Illinois so well, after 25 years, nearly, of
friendship. And know in each occasion that he speaks it is in the
finest of intent and compassion and caring. This is one of those. But a
deal is a deal. If you come here as a sponsored immigrant and somebody
says we are not going to let this person become a public charge, that
is it. You make a person do what I know the Senator from Illinois would
like to do: If you have the bucks, you keep your promise. And the
promise is they not become a public charge. And, if the sponsor cannot
meet the debts and goes broke, cannot cut it anymore, then we pick up
the slack as taxpayers. But why on Earth would we take up the slack on
any kind of issue when they said: This person, I promise by affidavit
of support, will not become a public charge? I would resist the
amendment.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming is correct. It was
not ``OK,'' he was scribbling there.
We do not do anything about the deeming requirements here. What we
are simply saying--and I would add the administration supports this
amendment--what we are simply saying is that there are going to be
programs that people may be taking advantage of, that are available,
with no knowledge it could be a basis of deportation. Let me give an
example. In rural Illinois--my guess is in rural Minnesota, rural
Massachusetts and Wyoming too--there are transportation programs
available for the elderly and the disabled. Under this amendment, if
someone takes advantage of those programs for 1 year, that is a basis
for deportation. That is crazy. You know, if you have a child in Head
Start you can be deported. Maybe a spouse abuses someone and they go to
legal aid. If they get legal aid they can be kicked out of the country,
for getting legal aid.
I just think we have to be reasonable. I think the House language
takes care of the big program. I know my friend from Wyoming agrees on
this, the big program of abuse overwhelmingly is SSI. In addition to
SSI, it has AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and State cash
assistance.
I think this amendment makes sense. 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. KENNEDY. May I inquire of the Senator, ask a question?
Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we had some debate and discussion about
education earlier in our amendments. Is the Senator saying if you have
a legal immigrant and that legal immigrant is going to take advantage
of a Pell or a Stafford loan, and that person goes to the sponsor and
they find out that they are still eligible for that loan, so they are
playing by the rules--they waited their turn, 76 percent of those are
members of American families, so they have been deemed and they go in--
and then they take that Stafford loan, for example, for a year, that
that subjects that person to deportation?
Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct.
These people are preparing themselves to be productive citizens and all
of a sudden, because they are preparing themselves, they can be
deported. If they are under a JTPA program they can be deported.
Mr. KENNEDY. This is even after we have had a good deal of
discussion, I think for the benefit of most Members here--they felt:
OK, they should be deemed, in terms of the sponsors. And even if they
play this by the rules, they waited their turn to get in here, they are
rejoining their families, they get accepted into the universities and
college in the Senator's State, they run through the process of
checking their sponsors to deem their income to theirs and they are
still qualified for a Stafford loan, they take that loan to improve
themselves and they take that for 1 year, then it is your understanding
that under the Simpson proposal that that individual is subject to
deportation?
Mr. SIMON. That is correct. And it just makes no sense whatsoever.
The sponsors may very well have had a medically devastating problem
that just wiped them out. So the person who is here legally is eligible
for these programs and we ought to be assisting them.
Here, let me just remind everyone again, legal immigrants take
advantage of these programs, with the exception of SSI, less, as a
percentage of the people, than native-born Americans. So I would hope
we would use some common sense here and accept this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I feel like somehow I have spoken on
this, I think, probably 10 times today, and I am using up my precious
time. Let us, if we can all understand this--maybe I do not understand,
which would not be the first time, but I think I do.
We are not talking about the poor and the wretched and the ragged
here, and people being taken advantage of. We are talking about people
who are here under the auspices of a sponsor, a sponsor who signed up
and said: I promise that this person will not become a public charge.
That is who we are talking about.
If a person is as ragged as I have heard in the last 15 minutes,
cannot do this, cannot do that, stumbling around--those people are
taken care of under the present law. We are talking about a person who
is here under the good faith and auspices of a sponsoring person. We
are not talking about anything that is not means tested. Anything that
is not means tested somebody is going to get. We are talking about,
when you line up for whatever it is--Stafford or Pell, whatever it is,
that is means tested and you line up and say, ``Here I am. I need this
program.'' And they are going to ask you, ``You are an immigrant and
you have a sponsor. What assets does your sponsor have?'' And then they
are going to say, ``Those assets are deemed to be your assets for the
purpose of receiving this means-tested grant.'' And all we are saying
is the sponsor is going to be responsible before the taxpayer is
responsible. There is no mystery to this. This is not some strange
thing where we are pulling the rug out from under people.
They say why do we do this with legal and not illegal? Illegal
immigrants receive the benefits that I have discussed: WIC, emergency
medical assistance, immunization. And why? Because they are here and we
want to take care of them so they do not become sick and so on. We know
that.
Then the argument is why do legal persons not get the same benefits
that the illegal get? The reason is simple beyond belief. It is because
a sponsor, who had enough assets and resources to take care of them,
promised to do so. And should. And there is no reason on God's Earth,
why the taxpayer should have to pick it up, unless the sponsor cannot
cut the mustard anymore, has died, is bankrupt. And we have in the
bill: Under those conditions the taxpayers will pick up the slack.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Wyoming: You
can be eligible for Stafford loans up to $60,000 if you have three kids
in school.
Now, you mean to tell me that if that person, say that individual who
is the
[[Page S4410]]
legal immigrant, has $10,000 or $15,000 and the sponsor has $30,000,
you are still eligible under the Stafford loan program for a Stafford
loan and to repay it.
The way I read this, it talks about ``for purposes of subparagraph,
the term `public charge' includes any alien who receives benefits under
any program described in paragraph D for an aggregate period of more
than 12 months.''
Then it describes the program. In line 18 it says, ``* * * any other
program of assistance funded in whole or in part by the Federal
Government.''
Stafford loans are. That individual may have a higher rate of
repayment, be able to get a smaller loan but still would get some kind
of public help and assistance, because education loans are not
considered to be welfare. The idea is individuals will pay that back.
So they can conform with the provisions of the assets of both of them
and still, as the Senator points out, receive that and under this be
subject to the deportation, the way I read it. I think the Senator from
Illinois has a balanced program here, and I hope that it will be
accepted.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not want to postpone this much longer.
Let us just say Christopher Reeve was a sponsor, and he went through
this devastating accident. Let us say the people he sponsored live in
Oklahoma in a rural community and they take advantage of transportation
for the elderly and the disabled. Under this proposal, without my
amendment, they can be deported.
I do not think that is what the American people want. I do not think
that is what the U.S. Senate wants. I really do not believe even my
good friend, Alan Simpson, wants that, upon greater reflection. I hope
we will conform the language to the way it is in the House and say on
the six programs--AFDC, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and State
cash assistance--if they take advantage of these programs for a year,
then they can be deported. That is even harsher, frankly, than I would
like, because I think there will be some circumstances that are
unusual.
To just say sweepingly for any kind of Federal program you can be
deported, like the Stafford Loan Program, I think is a real mistake. I
hope the Senate will accept my amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am going to leave it at that. I am
using precious time, but I will just say that all these things do not
take place, all these horrible things, little old ladies, veterans,
people. Nothing here takes place if there is a sponsor who stepped up
to the plate and said, ``I'm going to take care of this person, I vow
that, I promise that.''
So anything means tested we are simply saying the assets of the
sponsor become the assets of the immigrant. If you wish to allow
newcomers to come here spending more than 20 percent of their time on
public assistance during the first 5 years after entry, that seems
quite strange to me when people are hurting in the United States. That
is where we are.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can we just review where we are? We have
all received a lot of questions about the order. It was my
understanding that we had the labor enforcement amendment and the
intentional discrimination amendment. I think we are very close to
working out language of the labor enforcement provisions. I hope that
we will be able to do that.
We have the intentional discrimination amendment, which I hope we can
in a very brief exchange dispose of, in terms of the time factor. So we
might be able to do that.
The Simon amendment on public charge, do we feel we are finished with
that debate? That is another item. I do not know what the other Simon
amendment is, whether that is going to be brought up. Or is that in
line?
Mr. SIMON. Whatever. We can bring it up tonight. It should be debated
very briefly.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if we could perhaps deal with the intent
standard language, which we had discussed earlier, I maybe have another
5 minutes or so on that. And then Senator Feinstein.
Mr. KENNEDY. Then we can do Senator Feinstein's amendment and see if
it is possible--I do not know what the length of it is--maybe it is
possible to add that on as well. Maybe it will not be.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Very short.
Mr. KENNEDY. That will be what we will try, so Members will have an
idea of what we are going to do, if that is agreeable. I will just talk
very briefly.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, can we say then, at least for the
purposes of those of us here debating, that we close, informally close,
the debate with regard to the Simon amendment, and maybe in a few
minutes close debate with regard to the intent standard and maybe
perhaps be in a position to have four or five votes which should
satisfy all concerned?
Mr. KENNEDY. That would be fine.
Mr. SIMPSON. Would that not be a joy?
Mr. KENNEDY. Would that not be, and then we look forward to tomorrow.
Mr. President, I will just take a brief time with regard to the
amendment on discrimination and, hopefully, we will be able to get it
worked out.
Let me just ask then, before we do that, on the labor provisions, on
line 6, if we strike ``or otherwise'' and put in there ``based on
receipt of credible material information,'' does that respond to the
principal concerns? I thought that might have been worked out with your
staff.
Mr. SIMPSON. I am not aware of that, Mr. President, but I will
certainly inquire.
Amendment No. 3816
Mr. KENNEDY. Let me then, Mr. President, just address the issues that
I addressed earlier in the course of the debate, and I will do it
briefly.
The dilemma is how are we going to assure adequate protection to
employers who employ either foreign sounding, foreign looking
individuals and ensure that they are not going to be subject to the
economic sanctions and, on the other hand, how are we going to try and
establish a procedure which will not lend whatever procedure is
established to be utilized in ways that will open up discrimination
against those individuals which, of course, in so many instances would
be Americans.
I reviewed very quickly some of the more egregious situations where
those citizens who came from Puerto Rico were asked to put out a green
card. Since they are American citizens, they do not have green cards
and were subject to forms of discrimination.
In any event, there may be differences as to the extent of
discrimination that exists out there. There are many who believe it is
a serious problem. There are others who do not believe so. But I do
think we have an opportunity to address both the elements of
discrimination which exist in varying degrees out there and also to
provide a mechanism by which the employer is adequately protected and
establishes a good-faith defense by accepting any one of the six cards
that have been identified in this legislation that are credible.
That is effectively what we are attempting to do, Mr. President, to
say that if employers have suspicions about an applicant, they already
have a host of remedies. If the documents look phony, the employer can
refuse to accept them and can refuse to hire the person.
If the employee has authorization documents that expire, the employer
can ask for reverification of eligibility when the documents expire.
Indeed, my amendment contains a provision that requires the employers
to reverify eligibility.
If the documents look genuine, but the employer still has concerns,
the employer can share these concerns with the applicant. For example,
the employer can let the applicant know that it intends to verify the
applicant's eligibility and will fire the person if it turns out the
person is illegal. However, the employer cannot demand that the
applicant produce additional or specific documents once the applicant
has produced an authentic-looking document.
That is the fundamental issue. Otherwise, if we were to allow the
employer to demand anything he wanted, it would end up with situations
as I mentioned where employers demand green cards from Puerto Ricans.
Under our current law these Puerto Rican victims have a remedy. Under
section 117 they are out of luck. If we let employers determine what
documents they will accept, which is effectively what section
[[Page S4411]]
117 does, everyone knows what will happen. Employers will develop
suspicions about all foreign-looking and foreign-sounding people, and
the discrimination that is already documented will worsen.
Keep in mind who these victims are. They are often hard-working
American citizens. They are legal immigrants who are trying to become
self-sufficient but are being left out because they look foreign or
speak with an accent.
Mr. President, I believe that this proposal is a modest program. I
think it meets the central challenges of assuring that the idea that
jobs will be preserved for Americans or legal immigrants is real. It
will reduce, I think in a very important way, the possibilities and
reality of discrimination in the workplace.
Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will adopt the amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I interject here with a unanimous-
consent request that we lock in the two amendments? I think this may
have been circulated. I will wait so that we might do that.
Mr. President, let me go forward briefly and conclude my remarks
about the amendment. I spoke on that this morning. I want to readopt
the language that I spoke this morning and would be appropriate here,
and conclude with this.
Let me stress for my colleagues that this section of the bill does
not permit employers to refuse documents because of an unreasonable
concern about their validity. Administrative law judges have already
found such a practice constitutes intentional discrimination. The bill
is not intended to overrule any of those cases of intentional
discrimination.
Employers should be able to ask an employee for additional documents
only when they have reason to suspect that the new employee is an
illegal alien. We are not interested in burdening employers. In fact,
this bill is an extraordinary assistance to employers. No longer 29
documents to look at, but 6.
Employers around the country have been supportive of this measure.
But I must also state that some of the numerous examples which are
given in support of the amendment simply do not apply, especially the
one about the Puerto Rican woman. Let us go to that.
One example cited by opponents of the provision in the committee bill
is that a New York watch wholesaler refused to hire a Puerto Rican
woman because she did not have a green card. The administrative law
judge ruled that that action constituted a knowing and intentional
discrimination. Think of that. Simply because the person refused to
hire a Puerto Rican woman because she did not have a green card, that
was knowing and intentional discrimination.
Most importantly, the employer in that case was punished under
section 274B(a)(1) of the Immigration Nationality Act, a provision
which is unchanged by my bill, not changed, not section 274B(a)(6),
which the committee bill amends. In fact, this case was decided before
the Congress enacted the section 274B(a)(6) in late 1990 and decided
that merely asking for different documents constituted discrimination--
merely asking.
This section of the committee bill provides protection only for
employers who do not intend to discriminate. That is what the Senator
is trying to reach. An employer who has constructive knowledge that an
alien is unauthorized to work is permitted to ask for other documents.
That is all we are saying. The employer knows something is wrong with
those documents. He knows that, or he or she knows that, an alien is
unauthorized to work, and they are permitted under this legislation to
ask for other documents.
There is one other incorrect argument on behalf of this amendment.
According to the propaganda sheet I have from certain in the Clinton
administration, the lawyers of the Clinton administration, the bill
would permit a Texas nursing home to fire an African American because
he could not produce his birth certificate. That is wrong. That is
false. The decision in that case held that when employers refused to
accept certain documents because of an unreasonable concern about their
validity, as opposed to a specific, justified concern, that action
constitutes intentional discrimination.
We are talking about the employer. The signals are up. The employer
knows something is not right. We are saying, he asks for another
document. That is not discrimination. If they are in there to
discriminate, the signals are not up. They are doing their hideous
racism. That is not what we are talking about.
I believe we have to provide some protection from heavy penalties for
employers who are attempting in good faith to follow the law. This
amendment provides no relief, and in fact is no more than a detailed
description of current law, the current law which squeezes the American
businessman between the rock of employer sanctions and the hard place
of intentional discrimination for even deigning to question an
employee's documents.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. The employers should
be able to ask employees, when they have knowledge that a new hire is
not legally authorized to work, for additional documentation and
inquire of that without the huge fines which the administration insists
on levying against employers who have never ever before--ever before--
intentionally discriminated at all.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take just a very few moments.
Mr. President, I will include in the Record the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, their support for our amendment. Let me just mention a
paragraph in here.
Some employer groups, including the National Federation of
Independent Businesses and the nation's agricultural
employers, argue that [my amendment] the Kennedy amendment
would put employers ``between a rock and a hard place'' when
it comes to verifying documents that the employer ``knows
constructively'' are not valid. The Kennedy amendment
addresses this concern by allowing employers to check the
validity of such documents when they have a question about
them. An intent standard goes much too far in response to the
concerns of some employers. In fact, it immunizes employers
against all but the most egregious discrimination claims.
There is no need to gut the civil rights protections under
IRCA in order to address a concern which can be resolved
through more reasonable means.
The Leadership Conference strongly urges you to support the
Kennedy amendment to strike the intent standard. . . .
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter dated April
29, 1996, from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights,
Washington, DC, April 29, 1996.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, we are writing to urge you to support an
amendment to the immigration bill, S. 1664 that would
preserve the civil rights protections of the nation's
immigration laws.
Congress added civil rights protections to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) because of concerns
that requiring employers to verify the employment eligibility
of their workers would lead to discrimination against persons
who were perceived as ``foreigners.'' Indeed, the law did
result in widespread discrimination, as documented by a U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) study in 1990 along with more
than a dozen separate studies conducted nationwide. S. 1664
adds an ``intent standard'' to these civil rights provisions,
which would make it impossible for most Americans suffering
discrimination under the law to pursue a discrimination
claim. Senator Kennedy will be offering an amendment to
strike this intent standard and replace it with language
addressing the legitimate concerns raised by employers. The
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights strongly urges you to
support this amendment and preserve the nation's tradition of
equal justice under the law.
The GAO report and other studies indicate that most of the
widespread discrimination resulting from IRCA stems from
employer confusion. For example, some employers insist on
seeing green cards from any person who appears ``foreign'',
despite the fact that many such individuals are native-born
U.S. citizens. When such an employer insists on seeing a
green card, these Americans lose jobs. This was the case when
Rosita Martinez, a Puerto Rican American, took her employer
to court after he insisted that the law obliged him to see
her green card before hiring her. Had the intent standard
been the law at the time, Ms. Martinez would have lost that
job without any remedy under the law.
Some employer groups, including the National Federation of
Independent Business and the nation's agricultural employers,
argue that the Kennedy amendment would put employers
``between a rock and a hard place'' when it comes to
verifying documents that the employer ``knows
constructively''
[[Page S4412]]
are not valid. The Kennedy amendment addresses this concern
by allowing employers to check the validity of such documents
when they have a question about them. An intent standard goes
much too far in response to the concerns of some employers.
In fact, it immunizes employers against all but the most
egregious discrimination claims. There is no need to gut the
civil rights protections under IRCA in order to address a
concern which can be resolved through more reasonable means.
The Leadership Conference strongly urges you to support the
Kennedy amendment to strike the intent standard and replace
it with language which addresses employers' concerns without
wiping out civil rights protections for Americans.
Sincerely,
Richard Womack,
Acting Executive Director.
Dorothy I. Height,
Chairperson.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just wind this up with the story
of Representative Gutierrez. This was on April 18.
A Capitol Police security aide refused to accept the
congressional identification of Representative Luis V.
Gutierrez as he tried to enter the Capitol and told him and
his daughter to ``go back to the country you came from,'' the
representative said yesterday.
Gutierrez . . . said that he was walking into the main
visitor's entrance to the Capitol on March 29 with his 16-
year-old daughter and 17-year-old niece when he was
approached by the security aide.
The aide [I will leave that out; it is printed in the
story] has been suspended with pay pending an internal
investigation, said Sgt. Dan Nichols, Capitol Police
spokesman.
The Congressman said that he and the girls were carrying
Puerto Rican flags during a Puerto Rican appreciation day
ceremony and were putting them through an X-ray scanner when
Hollingsworth began ``screaming'' at him for allowing the
flags to slightly unfurl, he said.
``She said she didn't want to see the flags, and I told her
I would take care of them,'' Gutierrez said. ``Then she said,
`Who do you think you are?' When I told her I was Congressman
Gutierrez, she said, `I don't think so.' ''
Gutierrez said that when he presented his congressional
identification card, Hollingsworth ``said that my
identification must have been a fake. Then she said, `Why
don't you all go back to the country where you came from.'
She was rabidly angry.''
Gutierrez said the confrontation went on for about a minute
until a Capitol Police sergeant noticed what was happening
and, recognizing the Congressman, and ushered Hollingsworth
away.
``From the very first time she was talking to me, she was
yelling,'' Gutierrez said. ``She thought we were foreigners
from another country, and she was very resentful of that.
Twice she told us to go back to our country.''
That has happened to a Congressman of the United States in the last
few weeks here in the Nation's Capitol. What kind of chance is a worker
going to have, out in the boondocks, American worker, trying to get
through, when you run against that kind of an attitude?
Mr. President, this is a real problem. It is happening here in the
Nation's Capitol, and it is happening around the country.
The provisions which are included in the current law need to be
changed. We have outlined a fair, reasonable way of protecting the
applicant, the worker, and also the employer. It is a better way to go
than the current law. I hope the amendment is accepted.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me lock in this unanimous-consent
request so our colleagues will know better about the disposition of
their evening activities.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to
amendment No. 3816 offered by Senator Kennedy at the hour of 8 p.m.
this evening and immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to
a vote on or in relation to the following amendments in the following
order, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote
after the first vote: amendment No. 3809, amendment No. 3829--it may be
resolved, but I would like to lock those in.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Finally, Mr. President, that is a powerful, poignant
story of discrimination and a disgusting activity, but that is not what
we are talking about. We are talking about an employer who has in front
of him someone that he has an idea, and he has seen the documents, he
knows something is wrong. He has been doing this for years, ever since
1986, and the signal goes up, and he says, ``I want to ask you for
another document,'' and suddenly he has violated the law and is subject
to tremendous fines. That is not right.
That is the purpose of the bill. It is not about such an egregious
and foul procedure as we have just heard described.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to pay my respects to the Senator
from California today. She was here early like other of our colleagues,
at her post early today on the Judiciary Committee, and came over here
just at the lunch hour and has been inquiring, I think every half hour,
about when she can be recognized. We wanted to try to move the business
forward. I want to commend her for her perseverance and look forward to
her amendment.
Amendment No. 3777 to Amendment No. 3743
(Purpose: To provide for the construction of physical barriers,
deployment of technology, and improvements to roads in the border area
near San Diego, CA)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 3777.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 10, strike line 18 and all that follows
through line 13 on page 11 and insert the following:
SEC. 108. CONSTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL BARRIERS, DEPLOYMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADS IN THE
BORDER AREA NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.
There are authorized to be appropriated funds not to exceed
$12,000,000 for the construction, expansion, improvement, or
deployment of physical barriers (including multiple fencing
and bollard style concrete columns as appropriate), all-
weather roads, low light television systems, lighting,
sensors, and other technologies along the international land
border between the United States and Mexico south of San
Diego, California for the purpose of detecting and deterring
unlawful entry across the border. Amounts appropriated under
this section are authorized to remain available until
expended.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment concerns the proposal
to build a triple-fence barrier on the Southwest border. Specifically,
the amendment I am offering would strike section 108 and replace it
with a provision allowing $12 million for the construction and
expansion of physical barriers along the border with Mexico, which, in
addition to fencing, includes all-weather roads, low-light television
systems, lighting sensors, and other technology.
I think we all know that the border represents the front line of
deterrence for illegal entry into the country and that the current
situation is inadequate. There is a 14-mile stretch of border that
separates San Diego and Mexico, and it is patched with some single
fencing that is in constant need of repair, has areas with no barriers
at all, and roads that wash out and become impassable at the first sign
of rain.
The House-passed bill mandates the construction of three parallel
fences along the existing 14 miles of reinforced steel fence on the
United States-Mexico border in San Diego County. I voted for the
triple-fence amendment in the Judiciary Committee because I believed we
needed to remedy that situation. After the vote, though, I had a chance
to meet with representatives from the Border Patrol and the INS.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the National Border Patrol signed by its president, stating:
A three-tier fence would also create a crime zone within
the boundaries of the United States where illegal immigrants
would be easy prey for robbers, rapists, and
[[Page S4413]]
other criminals. The accomplices of these criminals could
easily prevent law enforcement officers from responding to
these crimes by blocking access roads with nails, broken
glass, other debris, [et cetera]. . . .
The Border Patrol Council strongly recommends this bill be
amended by replacing the requirement with a safer and more
effective alternative.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of
Government Employees,
Campo, CA, April 15, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The National Border Patrol Council,
representing nearly 5,000 Border Patrol employees, is deeply
concerned by the provision in S. 1664 (formerly S. 269, the
``Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995'') that
would require the construction of fourteen miles of three-
tier fencing in San Diego, California. Such fencing would
needlessly endanger the lives of Border Patrol Agents by
trapping them between layers of fences and leaving them with
no expeditious means of escape from the gunfire, barrages of
rocks and other physical assaults that routinely occur along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
A three-tier fence would also create a crime zone within
the boundaries of the United States where illegal immigrants
would be easy prey for robbers, rapists, and other criminals.
The accomplices of these criminals could easily prevent law
enforcement officers from responding to these crimes by
blocking access roads with nails, broken glass, other debris,
barrages of rocks and/or gunfire.
Rather than facilitating the accomplishment of the Border
Patrol's mission, a three-tier fence would decrease the
effectiveness of its operations, and would make an already
dangerous job even more so.
The National Border Patrol Council strongly recommends that
S. 1664 be amended by replacing the requirement to construct
a three-tier fence with a safer and more effective
alternative. Those who deal with the problem of illegal
immigration on a daily basis should be allowed to decide
which technologies, including physical barriers, all-weather
roads, low-light television systems, lighting, sensors, and
other means, are more appropriate and effective for a given
area.
Your support of this amendment would be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely,
T.J. Bonner,
President.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record a letter dated April 16 from the Department of
Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, to the majority leader on this
subject.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1996.
Hon. Robert Dole,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dole: I write to express the Administration's
strong opposition to the proposed requirement for triple-tier
fencing contained in S. 269, the ``Immigration in the
National Interest Act of 1995.'' This provision requires the
construction of second and third fences, in addition to the
existing 10-foot steel fence, along the 14 miles of U.S.-
Mexico border in the San Diego Border Patrol Sector. The bill
also requires roads to be built between the fences. Instead,
we support an amendment, to be offered by Senators Feinstein
and Boxer, to replace the requirement for triple fencing
along portions of the Southwest border with an authorization
of funds for the construction and improvement of physical
barriers, lighting, sensors, and other technologies to detect
and deter unlawful entry.
The requirement now in the bill, if enacted, would endanger
the physical safety of Border Patrol agents. U.S. Border
Patrol agent Joe Dassaro, Public Information Coordinator for
Local 1613, U.S. Border Patrol Council, recently stated,
``There is no support from U.S. Border Patrol agents in the
field for the three tiered fence. We see it as a dangerous
situation. If an agent goes between the three fences and gets
into trouble, there is a longer response time for another
Border Patrol agent to come to his/her aid . . .'' From a
tactical perspective, agents travelling along roads
surrounded by fencing present an easy target for alien
smugglers and others ready to thwart our enforcement efforts.
Our experience has shown that when agents travel in a single,
predictable line, they and their vehicles are susceptible to
attack with rocks and other objects.
Response time to an emergency situation in areas adjacent
to fenced in areas will be greatly and unnecessarily
increased if this provision is enacted. Agents that patrol
between the sections of the fence will not have the ability
to quickly and directly get out of the areas at critical
times. With triple fencing, smugglers can easily block a
Border Patrol vehicle with debris and limit agent mobility to
the fixed path bounded by the fence. In addition, the rocky
terrain and deep canyons in this region of California make a
continuous road impossible to build and use. The challenges
presented by this terrain are better met through the other
tactics currently deployed in the San Diego Sector.
We support physical barriers along the border when and
where they are appropriate and have erected 23 miles of
fences along the California Border as an important part of
our strategic plans. In order to build the fence that is now
in place, it was necessary to construct an access road along
the border. Rather than specifying barriers, we recommend
funding to construct ``all-weather roads'', since the
existing roads become impassable after relatively little
rainfall. The current situation prohibits the Border Patrol
from actually reaching the border and interrupts repair and
maintenance on the fence. Rain also precludes the Border
Patrol from working close to the border in a high visibility,
deterrent posture. Agents must pull back and work from
hardpacked or paved streets during these periods. With an
all-weather road system, Border Patrol agents would have
access to the fence even during the extended rainy season.
We fully recognize the usefulness and need for border
fencing and have been at the forefront of fencing innovations
for many years. Single fencing is a valid deterrent in many
areas and we will continue to use this tool at various
locations to meet the needs of the San Diego Sector Border
Patrol. In some carefully selected areas, multiple fencing
may be appropriate. Other deterrence technologies, such as
enhanced communications systems, lighting, low light
television systems and fixed infrared/daylight cameras also
will compliment the existing and planned fencing. In our
view, the actual deployment of personnel, physical barriers,
technology and operational judgments are decisions best left
to the Border Patrol with responsibility for the day-to-day
operation at the ground level.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further
assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised
that there is no objection to the submission of this letter
from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Both these letters, Mr. President, make a strong case
and, to me, a convincing case that the current $12 million proposal to
construct a triple-fence barrier along the entire 14-mile stretch is
not feasible, and would not accomplish the intended goals, and could
pose safety risks for Border Patrol agents.
The INS argues that some border areas are not suitable for multiple
fences and are not sealed off by a single barrier because of the steep
terrain. They made the case that it would be difficult if not
impossible to erect a triple fence in these areas at below a cost of
$110 million--far above the $12 million in this proposal.
This, to me, is overly expensive and a waste of taxpayer money. The
INS and Border Patrol argue that a triple fence running for 14\1/2\
miles would be dangerous and ineffective.
Now, what this amendment does is present a sensible, cost-effective
substitute for the triple fence concept. It has the strong support of
the INS, the Border Patrol, and the National Border Patrol Council.
Essentially, what the amendment would do is authorize $12 million for
construction of a vitally needed all-weather road system along the
border. It would allow for the low-light television system, more ground
sensors and infrared night-vision equipment. It would also provide some
flexibility with respect to the border fence itself.
I am told that of the 14 mile area, the INS has located eight
locations which it has said could be suitable for three-tier barriers
that range in length from half a mile to 3 miles in length. That totals
about 9\1/2\ miles. Once again, their top priority would be
construction of an all-weather road system in this area.
What this amendment does, bottom line, is say, ``INS, use your best
judgment.'' There is $12 million authorized. Have flexibility. Be able
to create your all-weather roads, the necessary infrastructure, and use
the triple fencing where it is safe and makes sense to do so.
I think that is the appropriate way, really, to handle this
situation.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page S4414]]
Amendment No. 3776 to Amendment No. 3743
(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the language of
deportation notice)
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 3776 to
amendment No. 3743.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 99, strike line 10 and all that follows
through line 13.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment essentially corrects
what I believe is a mistake in the bill. Present law allows for the use
of both English and Spanish in deportation orders. The bill, as it came
out of committee, struck that section. Therefore, only English could be
used in deportation orders.
Frankly, it does not make sense to give somebody a deportation order
that they cannot read. And the dominant majority of illegal immigrants
in the State of California speak Spanish only. Therefore, it would make
sense that a deportation order be in Spanish and in English.
My amendment would simply strike the English-only requirement. I am
joined by Senator Simon in this amendment that would restore the
language to its prior situation.
If I might, I neglected to mention something, and I would like to
remedy that, Mr. President. Senator Boxer is a cosponsor on the
alternative language on the triple fence.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I can call up an amendment that is now at the
desk. I am not going to debate it for more than a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3865 to Amendment No. 3743
(Purpose: To authorize asylum or refugee status, or the withholding of
deportation, for individuals who have been threatened with an act of
female genital mutilation)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Ms.
Moseley-Braun and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered
3865 to amendment No. 3743.
Mr. REID. 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:
At the appropriate place in the matter proposed to be
inserted by the amendment, insert the following:
SEC. . FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
(A) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the practice of female genital mutilation is carried
out by members of certain cultural and religious groups
within the United States;
(2) the practice of female genital mutilation often results
in the occurrence of physical and psychological health
effects that harm the women involved;
(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights
secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and
constitutional;
(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of
female genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any
single State or local jurisdiction to control;
(5) the practice of female genital mutilation can be
prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights
guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution or
under any other law; and
(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of
article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause of
the Constitution to enact such legislation.
(b) Basis of Asylum.--(1) Section 101(a)(42) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(42)) is amended--
(A) by inserting after ``political opinion'' the first
place it appears: ``or because the person has been threatened
with an act of female genital mutilation'';
(B) by inserting after ``political opinion'' the second
place it appears the following: ``, or who has been
threatened with an act of female genital mutilation'';
(C) by inserting after ``political opinion'' the third
place it appears the following: ``or who ordered, threatened,
or participated in the performance of female genital
mutilation''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
term `female genital mutilation' means an action described in
section 116(a) of title 18, United States Code.''.
(2) Section 243(h)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(1)) is amended by
inserting after ``political opinion'' the following: ``or
would be threatened with an act of female genital
mutilation''.
(c) Criminal Conduct.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Sec. 116. Female genital mutilation
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever
knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or
any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of
another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
``(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this
section if the operation is--
``(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is
performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place
of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
``(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given
birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with
that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is
performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in
training to become such a practitioner or midwife.
``(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be
taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to
be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other
person that the operation is required as a matter of custom
or ritual.
``(d) Whoever knowingly denies to any person medical care
or services or otherwise discriminates against any person in
the provision of medical care or services, because--
``(1) that person has undergone female circumcision,
excision, or infibulation; or
``(2) that person has requested that female circumcision,
excision, or infibulation be performed on any person;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.''.
``(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``116. Female genital mutilation.''
``(d) Effective Date.--Subsection (c) shall take effect on
the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have asked for a vote on amendment No.
3865, the one that has been debated at length in this body on other
occasions--in fact, yesterday, during a time that I obtained the floor,
I talked about this amendment at some length. This is making female
genital mutilation illegal in the United States and a basis for asylum.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as
a cosponsor and that the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon,
be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, over 100 million women and girls have been
mutilated by this procedure in the world. Six-thousand each day are
mutilated--7 days a week, 365 days a year. Most girls, of course, are
too young or do not have the means to flee.
Mr. President, 3 years ago, Canada made female genital mutilation a
basis for asylum. Since that time, two women have been granted asylum
for that reason. So for us to think this is going to open the
floodgates for people seeking asylum on that basis, it will not happen.
Remember, most of the people upon whom this procedure is performed are
little girls.
So we do not have to fear a wave of immigrants coming and claiming
this as a basis for their coming here. But the United States must take
a stand and speak out against this horrid practice. We must make it
illegal and recognize it as basis for asylum.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. SIMPSON. What is the status?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend this, and I should have said this
earlier, before I answered the Senator's question. I appreciate the
work on this immigration bill. I appreciate the work the Senator has
done on helping me with
[[Page S4415]]
other amendments and a managers' amendment. I have worked with the
Senator on this issue and on a number of different pieces of
legislation.
I asked for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have spent not so many years with
people telling me how helpful they can be, and that is the most
gratifying thing that I can hardly speak on it through the years. ``I
want to help you, Senator Simpson.'' But this amendment is not helpful.
This is a very controversial amendment.
I share the Senator's views about this brutal procedure. It is a
cultural matter. You get into serious issues that are unresolvable. If
we are to give the yeas and nays, is the Senator indicating he wishes
that to be discussed or debated tonight? According to many I have
spoken to, that will take a great deal of debate.
Mr. REID. Any time the Senator wishes. I have no desire as to when
the matter is discussed.
Mr. SIMPSON. I then request of my friend, if he wishes to help the
cause, not request the yeas and nays, and we will work tomorrow on a
time appropriate to deal with that issue.
Mr. REID. That is fine. I withdraw the request for the yeas and nays.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator. Certainly, it will not be
foreclosed. It is a critical issue. It is also one of those issues that
opens some extraordinary avenues of approach in the United States.
Mr. REID. I know the Senator wants to move this bill along. But I did
state that Canada made this procedure a basis for asylum 3 years ago,
and they have had two people granted asylum in 3 years.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is a very helpful part of the central debate. My
friend knows I can trust him and he can trust me.
Let me speak quickly on Senator Feinstein's amendment with regard to
the fence. I think that that flexibility may be appropriate. I have
carried a good deal of water on this. I do not see others here to speak
on it. That flexibility may well be appropriate. But with regard to the
requirement of deportation notices in Spanish and English--and that is
also the amendment of the Senator from California--I would oppose that
amendment and let me share just briefly why.
To require that all deportation notices be in Spanish as well as
English, when many deportees do not speak Spanish, but rather one of a
score of other languages--Spanish is not the language of all people we
deport. We deport people from all over the world. Many Spanish speakers
do understand English. Many deportees do not speak Spanish and, as I
say, it is a puzzle and it is also wasteful. I also believe it is
important. It creates the impression that Spanish is equal to English
in this country.
Spanish is not equal to English in this country as the common
language that is the United States of America. We are going to vote on
that soon. I did not vote to make English the official language of the
United States when it came up years ago. I will do so now because I
think there have been some adjustments, some understandings that will
be helpful. But this creates the impression that Spanish is, as I say,
equal to English in this country. We should not mandate that our
Government conduct its business in any language other than English.
It is in the INS' interest to guarantee that the subject of a
deportation order understands its contents. I agree with that, having
been a lawyer for 18 years. Therefore--please hear this --the INS does,
and should, provide translations, or translators whenever necessary,
and not just into Spanish, but into whatever language is most
appropriate.
My colleagues should know section 164(a) does not impair the due
process rights of any alien in a deportation proceeding--none. So, as I
say, I am puzzled at that, unless we are going to ignore scores of
other languages and that is apparently what we would do in this
instance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from California still
on the floor. As I understand it, current law is English and Spanish,
but there is also the current practice of also printing that in other
languages that are related to the language of the individual that would
be subject to the deportation. That is my understanding of what
currently exists.
That seems to be the way that it makes most sense. I do not know
whether we are trying to make a problem here. I support the Senator. It
is my understanding they print it in other languages as necessary. I do
not know whether we are making a problem here that does not exist. That
happens to be sort of the current situation. I intend to support the
Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, just to respond very briefly to the
Senator from Massachusetts, the present act refers to this: Each order
to show cause, or other notice in this subsection, shall be printed in
English and Spanish and shall specify that the alien may be represented
by an attorney in deportation proceedings, et cetera.
All we are putting back in is the reference to English and Spanish.
The real fact is that, if on the California border someone is going to
get a deportation notice, it really should be in Spanish if one expects
them to read it and understand it.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield. As I understand it, the
effect of the amendment is to restore current law.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. So supporting the Senator's amendment would effectively
restore the current law, which has been well explained by the Senator
from California. That permits the English, Spanish, and also the
language of the individual that is going to be affected. It seems to me
that restoration of the current law is desirable.
Amendment No. 3829, As Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had introduced earlier amendment 3829
that is pending and has been temporarily set aside. I would like to--it
is not the minimum wage--I had actually put that out of my mind for
now.
Mr. SIMPSON. It will come back.
Mr. KENNEDY. It will come back.
Mr. President, on 3829, the amendment which was to try to strengthen
the protections for certain workers, I send to the desk a modification
to the amendment and ask, I believe since the yeas and nays have been
ordered, unanimous consent that it be in order to amend the amendment
and to amend it as designated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection to modifying the amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3829), as modified, is as follows:
On page 8, line 17, before the period insert the following:
``except that not more than 150 of the number of
investigators authorized in this subparagraph shall be
designated for the purpose of carrying out the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor to conduct
investigations, pursuant to a complaint or based on receipt
of credible material information, where there is reasonable
cause to believe that an employer has made a
misrepresentation of a material fact on a labor certification
application under section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act or has failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of such an application''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it now, with those
changes which had been suggested by my friend and colleague, hopefully,
it will be acceptable to the Senate. When we reach the hour of 8
o'clock and we begin the consideration, I will ask for a voice vote on
this amendment. I will also ask unanimous consent that a colloquy
between the Senator from Wyoming and myself be put in place.
I thank the Senator for his assistance in working this through. I
think it is a very constructive suggestion, and we welcome his
recommendations. Hopefully, it will be accepted in the Senate.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe there is one other possible
objection on my side of the aisle with regard to that. I will have that
information in a few moments. With regard to the colloquy, it is
perfectly appropriate for me. It resolves the issue.
I say to my friend from California--if I might have the attention of
my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, if I could just have a
moment with my friend from California, I commend her for her
extraordinary work in this field. But what we are trying to avoid here
by what we did in the bill is that the law does not give an option to
put it in Spanish or English. The present law says that it ``shall be''
in English and Spanish. ``Each order to show cause, or other notice
under this subsection, shall be in English and Spanish,'' which seems
absurd when you are
[[Page S4416]]
presenting it to Chinese or someone else. That is why we dropped it.
It was not so we could be sinister. It is absolutely bizarre that
someone from any other country on Earth, non-Spanish-speaking country,
is presented with this order in English and Spanish which is a waste of
resources of the INS. Our provision would simply allow the translators
and interpreters to be there, and they would. They are there. You can
require that in any language of the dozens or hundreds of the world.
That is what that was. It was a requirement. There was no option to it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My concern is that if this is removed from the bill,
deportation notices, particularly in California, will go out in English
only, and the great bulk of them go to Spanish. So we are taking out
the requirement that it be--just as the Senator said, and as I believe
I read--in English and Spanish, but we are replacing that with silence.
My concern is that the silence will be interpreted and in English
only. Therefore, we will have people who will not be able to read their
notice.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I respectfully say that the INS has
translators in each of these situations. There is a clear understanding
because a deportation notice is a serious issue, and the current law
requires--demands--and says ``shall'' even if the alien does not speak
Spanish. If the alien does speak Spanish, there is someone there from
the INS, and it does not matter what language. That person is then
provided with the translation and the translators to be certain that
they heard what was said.
If you remember the Medvid issue, the Soviet ship jumper, we not only
had a person there speaking Russian; we had a person there speaking
Ukraine.
That is what we do in this situation. All we are saying is it seems
rather puzzling to know that, though we are going to have deportees
from the wide world over, we still then have presented something that
is printed in English and Spanish regardless of who they are.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if a
rollcall vote on amendment 3829 is required, it occur following the
series of votes that have already been ordered to begin at 8 o'clock.
That is already part of the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will now occur on----
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that we have 2 more minutes so
that the floor manager can list the order of the various amendments for
the information of the Members of the Senate.
Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I will agree if the Senator will agree to have 10-minute
votes after the first one in the series that the unanimous-consent
request would follow.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that is more than fine with me. That
would be a decision I would leave to the majority, but it is more than
fine with me.
Mr. SIMPSON. Let me say, Mr. President, to my friend from North
Carolina, it is perfectly appropriate with me that every succeeding
vote will be 10 minutes in duration. But I have a bit of a problem with
regard to the amendment, the first amendment of Senator Feinstein. One
of our Members who would like to speak on that issue has been a great
supporter of the amendment as it left the Judiciary Committee, and so I
would ask that that simply not be part of the vote, and it is not. We
were going to possibly accept that, but there will be further debate on
that at least from one Member on our side.
So we will have four amendments to vote on so that our colleagues
will know the lay of the land. The first amendment is a Kennedy
amendment to determine work eligibility of prospective employees. The
second is a Simon amendment to adjust the definition of ``public
charge.'' The third is to allocate a number of investigators with
regard to complaints.
Now, that one we may get taken care of with a colloquy.
And then the fourth one, and I would ask unanimous consent that a
vote occur with respect to the Feinstein amendment No. 3776 last in the
sequence under the same terms as previously entered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would ask the Senator from Wyoming
to withhold the unanimous-consent request until we act on the
unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Massachusetts.
Does the Senator from North Carolina object?
Mr. HELMS. I will object unless it is made clear in the unanimous-
consent request that the first vote be 15 minutes and the succeeding
three be 10 minutes each.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would certainly add that.
Mr. HELMS. Very well. In that case, I have no objection, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we move fast. Let me just say that if
someone on the other side of the aisle were late for the first 15-
minute vote, it might be a problem. It is not to me. But let the record
show that there is also 2 minutes equally divided on each of these
amendments, so that our colleagues will be aware of that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on
3816?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they have been ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 3816
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3816. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]
YEAS--32
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Bradley
Breaux
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NAYS--67
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cohen
So the amendment (No. 3816) was rejected.
Amendment No. 3809
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On amendment No. 3809, there will now be 2
minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. SIMPSON. May we have order, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, so that our colleagues will know the
procedure and the schedule, we have three amendments with a 10-minute
time agreement. One of those may be resolved within a few minutes. So
the maximum will be three, unless the leader has something further. The
minimum will be two.
Mr. President, now we are on the Simon amendment No. 3809 with 1
minute on each side. I yield to my friend, Senator Simon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. This is an amendment, my colleagues, that conforms the
Senate bill to the House bill for the basis
[[Page S4417]]
of deportation. Under the language that is now in the bill, without
this amendment, any kind of Federal assistance may be a basis for
deportation if you receive it for 1 year.
For example, a student who would get a student loan, where the
sponsor either had to have gone bankrupt or did not have the income,
together with the income of the family that came in, that would be a
basis for deportation. If in rural Kentucky or Illinois someone got
rural transportation for elderly and the disabled, that would be a
basis for deportation. That just does not make sense. We keep the AFDC,
SSI, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, and State cash assistance. If you
get any of those for 1 year, you can be deported, but not any general
Federal program.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, one of the improvements made by the bill
is in the definition of ``public charge'' and ``affidavits of
support.'' The bill defines ``public charge'' with reference to
taxpayer-funded assistance for which eligibility is based on need.
Mr. President, I believe that this definition is quite consistent
with the general policy requiring self-sufficiency of immigrants.
Programs should not be limited to cash programs. The noncash programs
are also a serious burden on the taxpayers. If the immigrant uses such
taxpayer-funded assistance, he or she is a public charge. How else
should the term ``public charge'' be defined than someone who has
received needs-based taxpayer-funded assistance? That person has not
been self-sufficient, as the American people had a right to expect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 3809. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announced that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS--36
Akaka
Bingaman
Bradley
Breaux
Chafee
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--63
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Cohen
The amendment (No. 3809) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there will not be a necessity for two
more rollcall votes. Only one will be required.
amendment no 3829
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under the
revised language the Department of Labor cannot initiate a compliance
review, random or otherwise, on its own initiative.
If the Department of Labor receives credible, material information
giving it reasonable cause to believe that an employer has made a
misrepresentation of a material fact on a labor certification
application under section 212(a)(5) of the INA, or had failed to comply
with the terms and conditions of such an application, then the
Department of Labor may investigate that complaint, but only that
complaint.
The credible, material information may come from any source outside
the Department of Labor.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. SIMPSON. I urge the amendment be adopted.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope we could have a voice vote on this
amendment. We have adjusted the amendment to respond to some of the
concerns.
Mr. SIMPSON. On behalf of our majority leader, I announce this will
be the last vote this evening.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all this amendment does is provide equal
treatment for the temporary workers and the permanent workers in terms
of the enforcement procedures. There has been a recent IG report
outlining the difficulties and complexity. We have modified the
amendment, and I would hope that it would be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's amendment is
agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 3829) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3776
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 3776
offered by the Senator Feinstein. The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and there will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the present law states that
deportation notices will be sent out in Spanish and English. The bill
coming out of committee deletes this. So deportation notices would be
sent out in English, essentially. There is no requirement in the law.
What we would do in this amendment is strike what is recommended and
go back to present law, so that deportation notices are required to be
sent out in Spanish and English. The reason is because the great
majority of illegal immigrants penetrating across the Southwest border
speak Spanish, and the overwhelming bulk of them do not speak English.
Therefore, when they receive a deportation notice, they should be able
to read it. So we would retain the language of present law.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, to require that all deportation notices
be in Spanish, as well as in English, when many deportees do not speak
Spanish but rather one of other scores of languages, and many Spanish
speakers do understand English, I think makes little sense.
I think you have to remember that it is in the INS's interest to
guarantee that the subject of a deportation order understands what it
is. Therefore, today, all the INS does is provide translations, or
translators, whenever necessary in any language, not just Spanish, but
into whatever language is most appropriate. That is the essence. So
that we remove the word ``shall.'' It is difficult to have someone
delivered a deportation notice in English or Spanish when they are
Chinese. There is no requirement for it. They will be taken care of by
the INS through all types of deportation procedures, including
translators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3776 offered by Senator Feinstein.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Abraham
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
[[Page S4418]]
Domenici
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Thompson
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--57
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Dole
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Cohen
So the amendment (No. 3776) was rejected.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues, especially
Senator Kennedy, my fellow floor manager on that side of the aisle, for
the extraordinary support and assistance today in moving the issue
along.
Now I am going to propound a unanimous consent-request. I have shared
this with my fellow manager so that we might move tomorrow to what I
think will be a conclusion hopefully of this legislation, or at least a
portion of it, a large portion of it.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only
remaining amendments in order prior to the vote on the Simpson
amendment, as amended, provided that all provisions of rule XXII remain
in order notwithstanding this agreement. And I hereby state the
amendments: Abraham, Abraham, DeWine, Bradley, Graham, Graham, Graham,
Graham--four Graham amendments--Leahy, Bryan, Harkin, three Simpson
amendments, Chafee, Hutchison, DeWine again, Graham, Gramm of Texas,
Senator Simon two, Senator Wellstone two, Senator Kennedy two, Reid,
Robb, Feinstein No. 3777, Simpson No. 3853, and Simpson No. 3854.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would ask approval of that agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank Senator Simpson and our other colleagues for
their attention and for their cooperation during the day. We had
several interruptions which were unavoidable. We had an opportunity to
debate several matters.
It does look like a sizable group remain. As of yesterday, there were
156 amendments, so we have disposed probably of 6 or 8 and we are down
to 28. So we are moving at least in the right direction. From my own
knowledge from some of our colleagues, they have indicated a number of
these are place holders.
We will have some very important measures to take up for debate
tomorrow, and we will look forward to that and to a continuing effort
to reach accommodation on the areas where we can and to let the Senate
speak to the areas we cannot.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Wyoming and all
of our staffs. We will look forward to addressing these issues on
tomorrow.
I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________