[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.

                          ____________________