[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4455-S4456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1664, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1664) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to increase control over immigration to the United States 
     by increasing border patrol and investigative personnel and 
     detention facilities, improving the system used by employers 
     to verify citizenship or work-authorized alien status, 
     increasing penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, 
     and reforming asylum, exclusion, and deportation law and 
     procedures; to reduce the use of welfare by aliens; and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole (for Simpson) amendment No. 3743, of a perfecting 
     nature.
       Simpson amendment No. 3853 (to amendment No. 3743), 
     relating to pilot projects on systems to verify eligibility 
     for employment in the United States and to verify immigration 
     status for purposes of eligibility for public assistance or 
     certain other government benefits.
       Simpson amendment No. 3854 (to amendment No. 3743), to 
     define ``regional project'' to mean a project conducted in an 
     area which includes more than a single locality but which is 
     smaller than an entire State.
       Simon amendment No. 3810 (to amendment No. 3743), to exempt 
     from deeming requirements immigrants who are disabled after 
     entering the United States.
       Feinstein/Boxer amendment No. 3777 (to amendment No. 3743, 
     to provide funds for the construction and expansion of 
     physical barriers and improvements to roads in the border 
     area near San Diego, California.
       Reid amendment No. 3865 (to amendment No. 3743), to 
     authorize asylum or refugee status, or the withholding of 
     deportation, for individuals who have been threatened with an 
     act of female genital mutilation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the 
ranking member, Senator Kennedy. I think we are in a position, now, to 
perhaps conclude this measure, at least on the so-called Simpson 
amendment, today.
  We had some 156 amendments proposed a day ago. We are down to about 
30 today. Some are known in the trade as place holders--pot holders or 
whatever might be appropriate, some of them. Nevertheless we will 
proceed today. The debate will take its most important turn, and that 
is the issue of verification; that is the issue of the birth 
certificate and the driver's license, changes that were made yesterday 
and adopted unanimously by voice vote in this Chamber. We will deal 
with that issue.
  But one thing has to be clearly said because I am absolutely startled 
at some of the misinformation that one hears in the well from the 
proponents and opponents of various aspects of immigration reform. It 
was said yesterday, by a colleague unnamed because I have the greatest 
respect for this person, that tomorrow to be prepared to be sure that 
we do not put any burden on employers by making employers ask an 
employee for documents.
  That has been on the books since 1986. I could not believe my ears. 
Someone else was listening to it with great attention. I hope we at 
least are beyond that point. Today the American employer has to ask 
their employee, the person seeking a job, new hire, for documentation. 
There are 29 documents to establish either worker authorization or 
identification. And then, also, an I-9 form which has been required 
since that date, too. In other words, yes, you do have to furnish a 
document to an employer, a one-page form indicating that you are a 
citizen of the United States of America or authorized to work. That has 
been on the books, now, for nearly 10 years. If we cannot get any 
further in the debate than that, then someone is seriously distorting a 
national issue. Not only that, but someone is feeding them enough to 
see that it remains distorted.
  So when we are going to hear the argument the employer should not be 
the watchdog of the world, what this bill does is take the heat off of 
the employer. Instead of digging around through 29 documents they are 
going to have to look at 6. If the pilot program works, and we find it 
is doing well, and is authentic and accurate, then the I-9 form is not 
going to be required. That is part of this.
  Then yesterday you took the real burden off of the employer, and I 
think it was a very apt move. We said, now, that if the employers are 
in good faith

[[Page S4456]]

in asking for documents and so on, and have no intention to 
discriminate, that they are not going to be heavily fined, or receive 
other penalties. That was a great advantage to the employer.

  So I hope the staffs, if there are any watching this procedure, do 
not simply load the cannon for their principal, as we are called by our 
staff--and other things we are called by our staff--principals, that 
they load the cannon not to come over here and tell us what is going to 
happen to employers having to ask for identity, having to prove the 
person in front of them is a citizen or authorized to work, unless you 
want to get rid of employer sanctions and get rid of the I-9. Those 
things have been on the books for almost 10 years.
  With that, I hope that is a starting point we take judicial notice 
thereof.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend and colleague has stated 
absolutely accurately what the current state of the law is. For those 
who have questions about it, all they have to do is look at the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274, that spells out the 
requirements of employment in the United States. I will not take the 
time to go through that at this particular moment, but for those who 
doubt or question any of the points the Senator has made, it is spelled 
out very clearly in section 274(a).
  That is why we have the I-9 list, which is the list, A, B, and C. 
This is the part of the problem which we hope will be remedied with the 
Simpson proposal, and that is there will be just the six cards. You 
have list A, you can show one of these items, because under the law you 
have to have identity and employment eligibility. You can have one of 
the 10 items on A. Or you can have an item listed on B and an item 
listed on C, in order to conform with the current law. As has been 
pointed out both in the hearings as well as in the consideration and 
the presentation of this legislation, and the consideration of the 
Judiciary Committee, the result is that there is so much mischief that 
is created with the reproduction and counterfeit of these particular 
cards that they have become almost meaningless as a standard by which 
an employer is able to make a judgment as to the legitimacy of the 
applicant in order to ensure that Americans are going to get the jobs. 
Also it makes complex the problems of discrimination, which we talked 
about yesterday.
  It is to address this issue that other provisions in the Simpson 
proposal--the six cards have been developed as have other procedures 
which have been outlined. But if there is any question in the minds of 
any of our colleagues, there is the requirement at the present time, 
specified in law, to show various documents as a condition of 
employment. That exists, as the Senator said, today. And any 
representation that we are somehow, or this bill somehow is altering 
that or changing that or doing anything else but improving that process 
in the system is really a distortion of what is in the bill and a 
distortion of what is intended by the proposal before the Senate. So I 
will welcome the opportunity to join with my colleague on this issue.

  It has been mentioned, as we are awaiting our friend and colleague 
from Vermont, who is going to present an amendment, that what we have 
now is really the first important and significant effort to try to deal 
with these breeder documents, moving through the birth certificate, 
hopefully on tamper-proof paper. Hopefully that will begin a long 
process of helping and assisting develop a system that will move us as 
much as we possibly can toward a counterfeit-free system, not only in 
terms of the cards but also in terms of the information that is going 
to be put on those cards.
  We hear many of our colleagues talk about: Let us just get the cards 
out there. But unless you are going to be serious about looking at the 
backup, you are not really going to be serious about developing a 
system. That is what this legislation does. It goes back to the roots, 
to try to develop the authoritative and definitive birth certificate 
and to ensure the paper and other possible opportunities for 
counterfeiting will be effectively eliminated, or reduced dramatically. 
Then the development of these tamperproof cards; then the other 
provisions which are included in here, and that is the pilot programs 
to try to find out how we can move toward greater truth in verification 
that the person who is presenting it is really the person it has been 
issued to, and other matters. But that is really the heart of this 
program.
  Frankly, if we cut away at any of those, then I think we seriously 
undermine an important opportunity to make meaningful progress on the 
whole issue of limiting the illegal immigration flow. As we all know, 
the magnet is jobs. As long as that magnet is out there, there is going 
to be a very substantial flow, in spite of what I think are the beefed-
up efforts of the border patrol and other steps which have been taken.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin has asked for time in morning business. I will yield for that 
purpose.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________