[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4457-S4509]
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 consideration of the bill.


                Amendment No. 3780 to Amendment No. 3743

    (Purpose: To provide minimum safeguards in expedited exclusion 
procedure to prevent returning bona fide refugees to their persecutors)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3780 to amendment No. 3743.

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

       Strike sections 131 and 132.

       Strike section 141 and insert the following:

     SEC. 141. SPECIAL EXCLUSION IN EXTRAORDINARY MIGRATION 
                   SITUATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is 
     amended by adding after section 236 (8 U.S.C. 1226) the 
     following new section:


       ``special exclusion in extraordinary migration situations

       ``Sec. 236A. (a) In General.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 235(b) and 
     236, and subject to subsection (c), if the Attorney General 
     determines that the numbers or circumstances of aliens en 
     route to or arriving in the United States, by land, sea, or 
     air, present an extraordinary migration situation, the 
     Attorney General may, without referral to a special inquiry 
     officer, order the exclusion and deportation of any alien who 
     is found to be excludable under section 212(a) (6)(C) or (7).
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `extraordinary 
     migration situation' means the arrival or imminent arrival in 
     the United States or its territorial waters of aliens who by 
     their numbers or circumstances substantially exceed the 
     capacity of the inspection and examination of such aliens.
       ``(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the determination whether 
     there exists an extraordinary migration situation within the 
     meaning of paragraphs (1) and (2) is committed to the sole 
     and exclusive discretion of the Attorney General.
       ``(4) The provisions of this subsection may be invoked 
     under paragraph (1) for a period not to exceed 90 days, 
     unless within such 90-day period or extension thereof, the 
     Attorney General determines, after consultation with the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, that an extraordinary migration situation 
     continues to warrant such procedures remaining in effect for 
     an additional 90-day period.
       ``(5) No alien may be ordered specially excluded under 
     paragraph (1) if--
       ``(A) such alien is eligible to seek asylum under section 
     208; and
       ``(B) the Attorney General determines, in the procedure 
     described in subsection (b), that such alien has a credible 
     fear of persecution on account of race, religion, 
     nationality, membership in a particular social group or 
     political opinion in the country of such person's 
     nationality, or in the case of a person having no 
     nationality, the country in which such person last habitually 
     resided.
       ``(6) A special exclusion order entered in accordance with 
     the provisions of this section is not subject to 
     administrative review other than as provided in this section, 
     except that the Attorney General shall provide by

[[Page S4458]]

     regulation for a prompt administrative review of such an 
     order against an applicant who claims under oath, or as 
     permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of 
     title 28, United States Code, after having been warned of the 
     penalties for falsely making such claim under such 
     conditions, to have been, and appears to have been, lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence.
       ``(7) A special exclusion order entered in accordance with 
     the provisions of this section shall have the same effect as 
     if the alien had been ordered excluded and deported pursuant 
     to section 236.
       ``(8) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     requiring an inquiry before a special inquiry officer in the 
     case of an alien crewman.
       ``(b) Procedure for Using Special Exclusion.--(1) When the 
     Attorney General has determined pursuant to this section that 
     an extraordinary migration situation exists and an alien 
     subject to special exclusion under such section has indicated 
     a desire to apply for asylum or withholding of deportation 
     under section 243(h) or has indicated a fear of persecution 
     upon return, the immigration officer shall refer the matter 
     to an asylum officer.
       ``(2) Such asylum officer shall interview the alien to 
     determine whether the alien has a credible fear of 
     persecution (or of return to persecution) in or from the 
     country of such alien's nationality, or in the case of a 
     person having no nationality, the country in which such alien 
     last habitually resided.
       ``(3) The Attorney General shall provide information 
     concerning the procedures described in this section to any 
     alien who is subject to such provisions. The alien may 
     consult with or be represented by a person or persons of the 
     alien's choosing according to regulations prescribed by the 
     Attorney General. Such consultation and representation shall 
     be at no expense to the Government and shall not unreasonably 
     delay the process.
       ``(4) The application for asylum or withholding of 
     deportation of an alien who has been determined under the 
     procedure described in paragraph (2) to have a credible fear 
     of persecution shall be determined in due course by a special 
     inquiry officer during a hearing on the exclusion of such 
     alien.
       ``(5) If the officer determines that the alien does not 
     have a credible fear of persecution in (or of return to 
     persecution from) the country or countries referred to in 
     paragraph (2), the alien may be specially excluded and 
     deported in accordance with this section.
       ``(6) The Attorney General shall provide by regulation for 
     a single level of administrative appellate review of a 
     special exclusion order entered in accordance with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(7) As used in this section, the term `asylum officer' 
     means an immigration officer who--
       ``(A) has had extensive professional training in country 
     conditions, asylum law, and interview techniques;
       ``(B) has had at least one year of experience adjudicating 
     affirmative asylum applications of aliens who are not in 
     special exclusion proceedings; and
       ``(C) is supervised by an officer who meets the 
     qualifications described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(8) As used in this section, the term `credible fear of 
     persecution' means that, in light of statements and evidence 
     produced by the alien in support of the alien's claim, and of 
     such other facts as are known to the officer about country 
     conditions, a claim by the alien that the alien is eligible 
     for asylum under section 208 would not be manifestly 
     unfounded.
       ``(c) Aliens Fleeing Ongoing Armed Conflict, Torture, 
     Systematic Persecution, and Other Deprivations of Human 
     Rights.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's 
     discretion, proceed in accordance with section 236 with 
     regard to any alien fleeing from a country where--
       ``(1) the government (or a group within the country that 
     the government is unable or unwilling to control) engages 
     in--
       ``(A) torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
     treatment or punishment;
       ``(B) prolonged arbitrary detention without charges or 
     trial;
       ``(C) abduction, forced disappearance or clandestine 
     detention; or
       ``(D) systematic persecution; or
       ``(2) an ongoing armed conflict or other extraordinary 
     conditions would pose a serious threat to the alien's 
     personal safety.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1)(A) Section 235(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225b) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Every alien (other than an alien crewman), and except 
     as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section and 
     in section 273(d), who may not appear to the examining 
     officer at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a 
     doubt entitled to land shall be detained for further inquiry 
     to be conducted by a special inquiry officer. The decision of 
     the examining immigration officer, if favorable to the 
     admission of any alien, shall be subject to challenge by any 
     other immigration officer and such challenge shall operate to 
     take the alien, whose privilege to land is so challenged, 
     before a special inquiry officer.''.
       (B) Section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1227a) is amended--
       (i) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Subject to section 235(b)(1), deportation'' and inserting 
     ``Deportation''; and
       (ii) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``Subject to section (b)(1), if'' and inserting ``If''.
       (2)(A) Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1105a) is amended--
       (i) by striking subsection (e); and
       (ii) by amending the section heading to read as follows: 
     ``judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion''.
       (B) Section 235(d) (8 U.S.C. 1225d) is repealed.
       (C) The item relating to section 106 in the table of 
     contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to 
     read as follows:

``106. Judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion.''.

       (3) Section 241(d) (8 U.S.C. 1251d) is repealed.
       In section 142, strike the new section 106(f) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105f).
       Strike section 193.
       On page 178, line 8, strike ``and subject to subsection 
     (b),''.
       Strike section 198(b).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
myself, the distinguished Presiding Officer, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], and the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry].
  I offer this amendment to the provisions in the bill that I believe 
gut our asylum law. This is not just my opinion but is the opinion of 
at editorial boards from newspapers that normally do not agree with 
each other.
  Let me first refer to the editorial in The Washington Times 
yesterday. It says:

       In their rush to pass an anti-terrorism bill, lawmakers 
     perhaps unwillingly and unnecessarily restricted the present 
     rights of persons seeking asylum in this country to escape 
     political or religious persecution in their own countries. 
     Such persons used to get a hearing before an immigration 
     judge. Now they can be sent home without a hearing or 
     judicial review. Lawmakers should restore procedural 
     protections for asylum-seekers.

  Then the Washington Post, in another editorial today, speaks of the 
antiterrorism law being revisited and says, again, that this amendment 
should be supported.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record those two 
editorials.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 30, 1996]

                  Immigrants And Other Ordinary People

       The story goes that Texas Sen. Phil Gramm was attending a 
     National Republican Senatorial Committee meeting with 
     political supporters a few years ago when a woman rose and 
     asked an awkward question. ``Sen. Gramm,'' she said, ``why do 
     all the people here talk funny?'' As it happened, about 80 
     percent of those supporters were first-generation Americans--
     immigrants--and Mr. Gramm says you could hear the collective 
     gulp from the room about 100 miles away. His answer? ``Ma'am, 
     'cause this is America.''
       He elaborated on that answer in memorable remarks to the 
     Senate last week. ``If we ever get to the point where we do 
     not have a few citizens who talk funny, if we ever get to the 
     point where we do not have a new infusion of energy and a new 
     spark to the American dream, then the American dream is going 
     to start to die. It is not going to fade, and it is not going 
     to die on my watch in the U.S. Senate.''
       No doubt in part because of his emotional speech, the 
     Senate last week defeated legislation that would have 
     effectively limited immigration. But the chamber is not done 
     with this issue. If you want to see just how far some 
     lawmakers would go to restrict people who, as Mr. Gramm puts 
     it, talk funny, then consider some of the immigration 
     legislation up for a vote as early as this week.
       Perhaps the most controversial issue involves so-called 
     demonstration projects intended to test the use of 
     verification systems for workers in this country. The idea is 
     that if the government could just figure out how to keep 
     illegal immigrants from working then fewer would come here in 
     the first place. Presto, no more illegal immigration.
       This editorial page has said from the beginning of this 
     debate that it sees nothing wrong with a person's coming here 
     to work. As the quotable Mr. Gramm put the matter the other 
     day, ``We have room in America for people who come with their 
     sleeves rolled up, ready to go to work. But we do not have 
     room for people who come with their hand out.'' Exactly 
     right.
       Laying the groundwork for a national identification system, 
     as the demonstration projects do, sets a terrible precedent. 
     What has this country come to that it would require aspiring 
     workers to get permission from the government before they can 
     roll up their sleeves and get to work? Work is not an 
     entitlement to be disbursed by the politically powerful for 
     the benefit of the politically favored. Nor is it something 
     to be trusted to some distant federal worker.
       Even if one assumes the government can manage a national ID 
     system, how is it going to match the ID with the worker? With 
     fingerprints? With blood and tissue samples?

[[Page S4459]]

     That's the sort of treatment ordinarily reserved for 
     criminals, not mere workers.
       There's one other thing to keep in mind when senators take 
     up immigration reform. In their rush to pass an anti-
     terrorism bill, lawmakers perhaps unwittingly and 
     unnecessarily restricted the present rights of persons 
     seeking asylum in this country to escape political or 
     religious persecution in their own countries. Such persons 
     used to get a hearing before an immigration judge. Now they 
     can be sent home without a hearing or judicial review. 
     Lawmakers should restore procedural protections for asylum-
     seekers.
       There's room here for workers. There's room here for people 
     who genuinely need asylum. ``America is not a great and 
     powerful country because the most brilliant and talented 
     people in the world came to live here,'' said Mr. Gramm. 
     ``America is a great and powerful country because it was here 
     that ordinary people like you and me have had more 
     opportunity and more freedom than any other people who have 
     ever lived on the face of the Earth. And with that 
     opportunity and with that freedom, ordinary people like us 
     have been able to do extraordinary things.''
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 1, 1996]

                      The Terrorism Law Revisited

       Think back about 10 days to the celebratory pictures of the 
     president signing the terrorism bill. That measure, deeply 
     flawed by provisions restricting habeas corpus, allowing the 
     use of secret evidence at deportation proceedings and 
     providing for summary exclusion of asylum-seekers, was hailed 
     as a vital bulwark protecting Americans against international 
     terrorists. In the rush to pass that legislation by April 19, 
     the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, scant 
     attention was paid to Sen. Patrick Leahy, who pointed out 
     some of these flaws. But this week, when the Vermont Democrat 
     seeks to use the pending immigration bill to repeal one of 
     them, the administration is on his side.
       Every year, thousands of individuals arrive in this country 
     seeking asylum from persecution. Until recently, this process 
     was subject to a lot of abuse. Claimants were admitted, given 
     a work permit and released with the understanding that they 
     would show up some time in the distant future (there were 
     terrible backlogs then) for a hearing. Most of them simply 
     disappeared into the general population and were never heard 
     from again. But the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     (INS) instituted reforms early in 1994--streamlining 
     procedures, withholding work permits and keeping many 
     claimants in custody until their hearings--which have reduced 
     the problem substantially. The system now in place works 
     well, and both the Justice Department and the INS say there 
     is no need for change.
       But in the rush ``to combat terrorism'' Congress passed, 
     and the president signed, new restrictions that create a 
     presumption that anyone seeking asylum who enters with false 
     documents, or has traveled through other countries to get 
     here, does not have a valid claim. In these cases, the 
     claimant would have to make his case to an immigration 
     officer on site, without any guarantee that he can be 
     represented by a lawyer or even have an interpreter. If he 
     does not persuade this official, he can be returned to his 
     own country summarily without further hearing before an 
     immigration judge or review by the Board of Immigration 
     Appeals.
       It is fair to suspect anyone who enters the country with a 
     false passport, or who has left a place of safety in Western 
     Europe, for example, to ask for asylum here. But suspicions 
     need to be proved. It should surprise no one that persecuted 
     people might not be able to apply for passports in their own 
     countries, or might have to use a false name to get out. And 
     a two-hour layover in Germany or France on a long flight to 
     freedom shouldn't disqualify an applicant for asylum. Sen. 
     Leahy's effort, which has the backing of the people charged 
     with enforcing the immigration laws, should be supported.

  Mr. LEAHY. Now, we should be clear what the provisions of the bill do 
and what they and our amendment do not concern. These are not 
provisions that cover alien terrorists. It is safe to say that there is 
not a single Member of this body who wants to allow alien terrorists 
into our midst. That is not a partisan issue; every single Member of 
this body is against terrorists. We can accept that as a point of fact.
  There are a number of other provisions in the antiterrorism law that 
the President signed last week that cover the exclusion of those 
affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations. They forbid the grant 
of asylum to alien terrorists.
  We are not seeking to defend alien smuggling or false documentation 
used for that purpose. That is already a crime. Senators DeWine, 
Hatfield, Kerry, and I totally agree on that.
  But we know that there are some circumstances and there are some 
oppressive regimes in the world from which escape may well entail the 
use of false papers. We want to make sure that we do not create 
barriers to true refugees and those deserving asylum, and prevent them 
from making an application for asylum.
  Let me give an example, using first a hypothetical and then go to 
some real examples. You are in a country with an oppressive regime. You 
are in a country where you are being persecuted for your religious 
beliefs or your political beliefs. In fact, you may even face death for 
your religious beliefs or your belief in democracy. You know that the 
arm of that government is out to get you. These are not cases of just 
paranoia; they may already have gone and killed members of your family 
for similar beliefs. You look at the one great beacon of freedom: the 
United States of America. You figure, ``How do I get there?''
  Now, you are facing the possibility of a death penalty for your 
religious beliefs. Do you think you could walk down to the government 
that is out to kill you for those religious beliefs and say, ``Could I 
please have a passport? Here is my name and address. And, by the way, I 
want to book passage, I want a visa and I want to go directly to the 
United States.''
  We all know what would happen in a case like that. The realty of the 
situation is that people in those circumstances are probably going to 
get a forged or a false passport. They are not going to go on a flight 
that will go directly to the United States because that is something 
the government may be watching. They are going to go to another 
country--maybe a neighboring country, maybe two or three countries--and 
then make it to the United States.
  Under the immigration law that is before us, once they got here, 
because they used false passports and went through other countries, 
they are probably going to be summarily sent back. Summarily being sent 
back is in an equal amount of time to the summary execution or 
imprisonment that they face when they arrive back in their home 
country.
  Now, let us be realistic. The Justice Department does not want these 
provisions and has not requested them. They were not recommended by the 
Jordan Commission. The Department has told us that they want a type of 
standby authority in case of immigration emergency, similar to what I 
have proposed in this amendment.
  Think of some of the history of this country. Fidel Castro's daughter 
came to this country and was granted asylum, for appropriate reasons, 
and, of course, with great political fanfare. But Fidel Castro's 
daughter did not fly directly to the United States with a passport 
bearing her name. She took a false passport, she went to Spain, and 
then came here. Under this new law, we would likely have said, ``Sorry, 
you are out.''
  The most recent and famous example of why we must not adopt the 
summary exclusion provisions of this bill is, of course, the case of 
Fauziya Kasinga and her flight from Togo to avoid female genital 
mutilation. We first talked about that case here in the Senate a couple 
of weeks ago.
  There have been two extremely positive developments since then. 
First, the INS filed a brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals, 
arguing--I believe for the first time--that the fear of female genital 
mutilation should present a sufficient cause to seek asylum in the 
United States.
  I do not think there should have been any question about this. If 
there is any doubt, we should amend this bill or law without hesitation 
to ensure that flight from such practices are covered by our asylum 
policies, as the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] has already suggested.
  Second, last Thursday, April 25, after more than a year in detention 
under conditions that subjected her to unnecessary hardship, Ms. 
Kasinga was finally released by INS to await determination by the Board 
on her asylum application.
  Her case was first reported on the front page of the April 15 New 
York Times by Celia Dugger. Both she and her newspaper deserve a great 
deal of credit for bringing this to our attention.
  Ms. Kasinga has sought for 2 years to find sanctuary in this country, 
only to be detained, tear-gassed, beaten, isolated and abused.
  Well, now we all realize how bad this is. It is something that should 
outrage men and women alike. I believe it does

[[Page S4460]]

outrage men and women in this country.
  Unfortunately, one thing has not changed yet, that is the provision I 
am seeking to amend in this bill. The provisions in the bill would 
still summarily exclude Ms. Kasinga, and others like her, from ever 
making an asylum claim. She traveled through Germany on a false British 
passport in order to escape mutilation in Togo. Under the bill before 
us, she would be subjected to summary exclusion at the border without 
judicial review.
  In fact, does anybody in this body believe that an immigration 
officer at her point of entry would, as a matter of first impression, 
have agreed with her claim that fear of female genital mutilation was a 
proper ground to seek asylum?
  We should, instead, restore protections in our laws to protect her 
ability to get a fair opportunity to be heard.
  On April 19, Anthony Lewis wrote a column for the New York Times that 
captured the essence of this issue. In his column, he notes, ``The 
asylum provisions effectively impose the absurd presumption that anyone 
who flees a country without proper papers is not a genuine refugee.'' 
As Mr. Lewis puts it, ``Political asylum is one saving grace in a world 
of too much political brutality. Why should Americans want to undermine 
the asylum concept?'' Indeed.
  This is what has always distinguished the United States in our 200 
years of constitutional history--200 years as a Nation protecting 
democracy and individual freedoms and rights more than any other 
country in existence. No wonder people seek asylum in the United 
States. No wonder people facing religious persecution, or political 
persecution, or physical persecution, look to the United States, 
knowing that we are the symbol of freedom. But that symbol would be 
tarnished if we were to close our doors.
  Mr. President, in Mr. Lewis' column, he wrote: ``The Senate will in 
fact have another chance to consider the issue when it takes up the 
immigration bill.''
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Lewis' column be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 19, 1996]

                           Slamming the Door

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Boston.--The case of 19-year-old Fauzlya Kasinga, who says 
     she fled her native Togo to avoid the rite of female genital 
     mutilation, has aroused much sympathy. She arrived at Newark 
     Airport in 1994, told officials she was using someone else's 
     passport, sought asylum, was turned down and has been held in 
     prison ever since. The Board of Immigration Appeals will hear 
     her appeal on May 2.
       But in future we are not likely to know about desperate 
     people like Ms. Kasinga. If their pleas for asylum are turned 
     down by a low-level U.S. immigration officer, they will not 
     be allowed to appeal--and review by the courts will be 
     barred. They will be sent back at once to the land where they 
     face persecution.
       This extraordinary change in our law is part of the 
     counter-terrorism bill awaiting President Clinton's 
     signature. It is not directed at terrorists. It applies to 
     anyone seeking asylum who arrives here with false documents 
     or none--the situation of many people fleeing persecution.
       The issue raised in Fauzlya Kasinga's case, female genital 
     mutilation, is an important one: Does that cruel practice 
     come within the grounds for asylum? But the new summary 
     process of exclusion will affect many more people seeking 
     asylum for traditional reasons: the man fleeing a Nigerian 
     Government that executed his political colleagues, for 
     example, or the Vietnamese who escaped from a re-education 
     camp.
       The asylum provisions effectively impose the absurd 
     presumption that anyone who flees a country without proper 
     papers is not a genuine refugee. By that test Fidel Castro's 
     daughter was not a true refugee because she fled Cuba with a 
     false passport. Nor were Jews who fled the Nazis without 
     papers.
       Political refugees are not the only losers. The bill 
     trashes the American tradition of courts as the arbiters of 
     law and guarantors of freedom. I have seen a good deal of 
     nastiness in the work of Congress over the years, but I do 
     not remember such detailed and gratuitous cruelty.
       The bill gives virtually final authority to immigration 
     officers at 300 ports of entry to this country. Each is 
     directed to interview people seeking asylum and exclude them 
     if he finds that they do not have ``a credible fear of 
     persection.'' That phrase is unknown to international law.
       The officer's summary decision is subject only to 
     ``Immediate review by a supervisory office at the port.'' The 
     bill prohibits further administrative review, and it says, 
     ``no court shall have jurisdiction'' to review summary 
     denials of asylum or to hear any challenge to the new 
     process. (Our present system for handling asylum applications 
     works efficiently, so there is no administrative need for 
     change.)
       Stripping away the protection of the courts may be the most 
     alarming feature of the legislation. It is reminiscent of the 
     period after the Civil War, when a Congress bent on punishing 
     the South took away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to 
     consider cases that radical Republicans thought the Court 
     would decide against their desires.
       Political asylum is one saving grace in a world of too much 
     political brutality. Why should Americans want to undermine 
     the asylum concept? And why should a bill supposedly aimed at 
     terrorists be used as a vehicle to keep the victims of 
     official terrorism from finding refuge?
       Why should senators as decent as Orrin Hatch, chairman of 
     the Judiciary Committee, stand still for such harshness? The 
     asylum restrictions originated in the House and were kept in 
     the bill by conferees, so the Senate was presented with a 
     fait accompli. A motion by Senator Patrick Leahy to send the 
     terrorism bill back to conference on that issue failed, 61 to 
     38.
       President Clinton has been so eager for an anti-terrorism 
     bill that he is not likely to veto this one, over the asylum 
     sections any more than over the gutting of habeas corpus. But 
     he could call on Congress to reconsider the attack on 
     political asylum.
       The Senate will in fact have another chance to consider the 
     issue when it takes up the immigration bill, which has in it 
     a similar provision for summary exclusion of asylum-seekers. 
     On reflection, Senator Hatch and other's should see the 
     threat to victims of persecution and to our tradition of law.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an editorial by the New York Times, 
entitled, ``Not So Harsh on Refugees.'' I ask unanimous consent that it 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1996]

                        Not So Harsh on Refugees

       The ordeal of a young woman from Togo who came to America 
     to avoid the practice of female genital mutilation should 
     give members of Congress pause before they approve any 
     further limitations on the rights of refugees seeking 
     sanctuary in the United States. As detailed last week by 
     Celia Dugger of The Times, Fauziya Kasinga was detained for 
     months before she obtained a hearing, and she was strip-
     searched and held with convicted criminals. Shamefully, the 
     anti-terrorism bill just passed by Congress and immigration 
     bills still pending could subject many more refugees to 
     similar treatment.
       Ms. Kasinga's case involves female genital mutilation, a 
     common practice in some two dozen African nations that 
     involves cutting off portions of a young woman's genitals, 
     often without anesthesia.
       Ms. Kasinga fled Togo in 1994 to avoid mutilation after 
     losing her status as a member of a privileged family. Her 
     determination to avoid the practice could have subjected her 
     to harsh treatment had she stayed, or if she is forced to 
     return home. She may have a reasonable claim for asylum on 
     the basis of membership in a social group vulnerable to 
     persecution in her homeland.
       But when Ms. Kasinga landed at Newark Airport in December 
     1994, seeking asylum with a phony passport, she was 
     immediately detained. Under the law, people who have credible 
     claims for asylum and family members already living in the 
     United States can be released, pending a hearing. Ms. Kasinga 
     has a cousin in the Washington area, but she was kept in 
     custody anyway. After being held for months at a New Jersey 
     detention center, Ms. Kasinga was transferred to a 
     Pennsylvania prison and housed with convicted criminals.
       Ms. Kasinga fared no better in court, where an immigration 
     judge denied her claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals will 
     hear her case in May.
       If some members of Congress had their way, Ms. Kasinga 
     would have been returned to Togo long ago. Under an 
     immigration bill passed by the House, but now held up in the 
     Senate, anyone attempting to enter the country without proper 
     documents would only be entitled to a one-hour interview with 
     an asylum officer. Denial of an asylum claim would be subject 
     to review by a supervisor, but not by any other 
     administrative or judicial body. These provisions, similar to 
     ones in the anti-terrorism bill, would deny a fair hearing to 
     many asylum seekers.
       The House immigration bill also calls for detention of any 
     asylum seeker who is awaiting a hearing, even when a credible 
     claim has been presented. That could subject more would-be 
     refugees to the harsh treatment suffered by Ms. Kasinga.
       Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont plans to offer an 
     amendment that would not only override the harsh exclusion 
     provisions in the immigration bill but also supersede the 
     same provisions in the anti-terrorism bill. Congress should 
     follow his lead.
  Mr. LEAHY. It is hard to think of a time when you find the New York 
Times, the Washington Post, and the Washington Times all agreeing on an

[[Page S4461]]

issue. But this is, as I said before, not an issue of political 
ideology, it is an issue of simple justice. It is an issue that reflect 
what is best in this country, what is the best in us as Americans.
  In fact, it would be hard to think of a better example of how 
unworkable this provision is--the one in the bill that we seek to 
correct--than a woman who joined me at a press conference yesterday. 
Two years ago, she fled Peru. She had been horribly treated and 
threatened by rebel guerrillas there. She came to this country without 
proper documents. She was able to convince an immigration judge after 
an opportunity for a fair hearing that she would suffer persecution if 
she returned home.
  Yesterday, I asked her to tell about her experience. Less than two 
sentences into her story, as the memories of what she had put up with 2 
years ago played back, she broke down crying. Her case has been very 
well-documented. She was able to establish a basis for asylum. But now, 
2 years later, the memories are so strong that, emotionally, she was 
unable to talk with us about it.
  Can you imagine if the provisions in this bill had been the law and 
she got to the border, and an INS officer said, ``Quick, tell me why 
you should stay here. What is going on? Why should you stay here?'' 
This woman, who was unable to talk about it 2 years later after having 
been granted asylum, what would she have done, how would she have 
established her case? The answer would have been, ``Well, obviously, 
you are not establishing the necessary criteria. You did not come here 
with a proper passport, so you are going back. Come back when you get a 
proper passport.'' What would she have gone back to?
  Fortunately, instead of being sent back summarily to the hands of her 
abusers, she had a chance to be heard before a judge.
  Mr. President, I am sure there are others who wish to speak. I will 
have more to say about this.
  Mr. President, I withhold my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no one I enjoy and regard more 
highly than my friend from Vermont. He and I have, fortunately, been on 
the same side of more issues than ever on opposite sides. I find him a 
fast and true friend whom I enjoy very, very much. When he speaks, he 
speaks with genuine clarity and authenticity about something in which 
he deeply believes.
  Let me be so very clear here. We are, as the Senator from Vermont 
said, not talking about an antiterrorism bill. There was an amendment 
on the antiterrorism bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38 
which is, in many cases, quite similar to this measure. It had to do 
with exclusion and summary proceedings. We are not speaking of that. 
What we are talking about is the bill itself, and Senator Leahy is 
intending to strike--we are not talking about female genital 
mutilation, we are not talking about terrorism; we are talking about 
the immigration laws of the United States. The bill as it stands before 
you has section 131, which is a new ground for exclusion of aliens, for 
aliens using documents fraudulently. That would be stricken by the 
Senator's amendment. There is a section 132 which is a limitation on 
withholding of deportation relief for aliens excludable for using 
documents fraudulently. There is a provision for summary exclusion. 
That would substitute a similar procedure for only situations which 
would be described as an extraordinary migration situation and not for 
other circumstances of the bill.
  So, I speak against the amendment for these reasons. The committee's 
bill provision, which is in the version we are addressing now on the 
new ground of exclusion relating to document fraud, on summary 
exclusion, and on asylum applications, three things there--new ground, 
summary exclusion, and asylum application by those who have attempted 
to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents--will greatly reduce the 
ability of aliens to unlawfully enter this country and then remain here 
for years through use, or misuse, of various administrative and 
judicial proceedings and appeals. It is almost what we would refer to 
as an overuse of due process.
  These people in the past--this is what we are trying to correct--
often receive more due process than a U.S. citizen receives. For 
example, the provisions relating to asylum and withholding of 
deportation will help the United States deal promptly and fairly with a 
very common scenario. Here is the scenario. For every example that 
touches our hearts--and this floor is filled with stories that touch 
our hearts; we will hear many of them today--for each one I get to tell 
another one. Here is a story that will not touch your heart.

  A young person with no obligation to family, or anything else, who 
has decided to take off from his country to seek the promised land, and 
that is us--here is the common scenario used by those who would abuse 
the compassion of the American people. This is why the American people 
suffer compassion fatique. This is what gives rise to proposition 
187's. This is what gives rise to the continual polls saying 70 to 80 
percent of these people should be excluded and so on--not excluded, but 
indeed that we should do something with both illegal and legal 
immigration.
  The scenario is this: The young person with no family, no spouse over 
there in the country they are leaving, no children, no parents perhaps, 
maybe an orphan, whatever--they board the plane with documents. Then 
they give them back to the smuggler on the plane who is with them, or 
else flush them down the toilet of the aircraft. Some have eaten them. 
Then they come to the United States, and at the U.S. port of entry they 
claim asylum.
  Many of us saw this so dramatically in the ``60 Minutes'' 
presentation. We are going to talk about dramatic things, where the 
alien without the document said the magic words. The magic words in any 
language, or their own, is, ``I want asylum. I want to claim asylum,'' 
just as the smuggler instructed him or her to say. You need to know 
only one word when you are there, ``asylum.'' The program of ``60 
Minutes'' ended with the alien going forward out of the door of JFK, 
suitcase in hand with a rolling cart to disappear into America probably 
never to be heard from again because he is certainly going to tear up 
any notice to appear at some future time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. If I could finish my remarks, I would--I yield for a 
question. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. One question: Is it not under the new procedures, when 
they ask for asylum, would they not be held in detention until a 
preliminary determination has been made about false documents?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, much of this is being relieved by the 
simple procedure of detention facilities. When those detention 
facilities are available--and we have provided significantly more money 
for detention facilities--we find that these things are going to be 
glimmering in more cases. But I wanted to cite it indeed.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that the bill provides very 
clearly an opportunity for every single person, every single person 
without documents, or with fraudulent documents--please hear this--
fraudulent documents or proper documents allow every person to seek 
asylum. A specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case. 
This is the key. I want my friend from Vermont to share with me in the 
debate as we do this, which he will in fairness. A specially trained 
asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the alien is found to 
have a ``credible fear of persecution,'' he or she will be provided a 
full--full--asylum hearing. However, if he or she does not have such a 
credible claim, he or she will be subject to the summary exclusion 
procedures as will all persons who enter without documents or with 
fraudulent documents.

  There is discussion about persons not being permitted to apply for 
asylum if they do not travel directly from the country in which they 
allegedly have a fear of persecution. This is always a difficult 
situation because we find people who will leave the country where they 
are being persecuted legitimately, or, if they are just simply using an 
inappropriate way to get here, they will go to one, or two, or three 
other countries all of which might be democracies, all of which would 
be free countries, all of which would be giving the precious refuge of 
a refugee or an aslyee. The only difference between a refugee and an 
aslyee is a refugee is

[[Page S4462]]

over in the home country and an aslyee is here. They are absolutely the 
same. But the term is used ``aslyee'' when they are here, and 
``refugee'' when they are there.
  So the United States cannot be expected to provide asylum. I am not 
talking about asylum. I am talking about people who are fleeing 
persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, 
religion, national origin, or membership in a social or political 
organization. That is an aslyee. That is a refugee. That is the 
definition under the law of the United States of America and the United 
Nations. We will always provide asylum.
  There are some great asylee-receiving countries in the world. Two of 
them have completely revised their asylum laws because of the absolute 
gimmickry that is taking place. One is my native land, my original 
native land, Holland, the most open country in the world, a country 
that gave solace and comfort to fleeing Jews 500 years ago and to those 
fleeing Nazi Germany. They have now changed their asylum laws the same 
as we are doing in order to avoid gimmickry. The other country is 
Germany. After the war, the horror of the war, and the imprint of the 
Nazis upon the German people, who were appalled--I believe this because 
I lived among them for 2 years--appalled at the Nazi regime, real 
Germans are appalled by that.
  They realized that, because of what they had done during the war, 
they made the broadest, most extensive asylum laws in the world because 
they had to; people were watching them after the war. And being the 
most generous country, they have had now to simply shut down the 
process because of gimmickry.
  So it is important to know that those who come from a safe country 
where they could have obtained asylum--normally someone who is fleeing, 
I mean fleeing in terror of their lives, with the dogs and the soldiers 
and the arms coming at them--they stop where it is safe to do so, not 
select or choose leaving one or more safe countries in order to enter 
the United States or another country for which he or she has a personal 
preference. And the ultimate personal preference is always the United 
States of America.
  Mr. President, I do want to point out, however, that the Attorney 
General will have the discretion to waive, under my proposal, under 
extraordinary circumstances this requirement of direct travel to the 
United States.
  I wish to conclude by saying a few words about the summary exclusion 
procedure in general. The present system is vulnerable to mass 
migration and other extraordinary situations and to persons who exploit 
the numerous levels of administrative and judicial review to stay in 
this country for years even though they have surreptitiously entered or 
sought to enter this country or have presented themselves for 
inspection with fraudulent documents or no documents and such 
individuals have no grounds for being in the United States of America 
except the possibility of asylum.
  The bill's summary exclusion procedures provide a method for the 
Attorney General to significantly reduce this problem while still 
giving aliens a reasonable opportunity to seek asylum or withholding of 
deportation because of a fear of persecution for race, religion or one 
of the statutory or treaty grounds. And subject to the credible fear 
asylum procedure I have already described, an immigration officer can 
order an alien who has entered without documents or with fraudulent 
documents to be removed from the United States without bringing the 
alien before the immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. 
Only limited judicial review would be available. It would be limited to 
a habeas corpus proceeding devoted to no more than three issues:
  First, Whether the individual is an alien or if he or she claims to 
be a U.S. citizen;
  Second, Whether the individual was in fact specially excluded;
  Third, Whether the individual has proven that he or she is a lawful 
permanent resident.

  The court could order no relief other than the full exclusion 
hearings.
  Finally, let me conclude, at least for this moment, and I hope we 
will continue toward a result here. We are talking here of immigration, 
and certainly there has been a reference to female genital mutilation. 
That is a very serious issue. I certainly concur totally as to the 
horror of that, and who could not? Certainly any compassionate person 
could not.
  My colleague from Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, noted that Canada had 
made female genital mutilation a ground of asylum 3 years ago and had 
only two persons apply since that time. My information from the 
Canadian Embassy is a bit different, and I hope my colleagues will hear 
this. All of us admit that this is a hideous, barbaric thing. I 
understand, first, that this mutilation is not by itself grounds for a 
grant of asylum. This is our Canadian neighbors. But it is merely one 
of several factors to be considered in determining whether the 
applicant qualifies under the definition of a refugee.
  Second--I think we must hear this--I understand that as victims of 
mutilation have come to Canada, they have brought their relatives along 
with them, or the relatives at least followed later. In any case, the 
result now has been that the practice of female genital mutilation has 
become a growing legal and criminal problem in Canada. It has now been 
imported into Canada, and one or more Provinces plan to make it a 
criminal offense. Police currently have to prosecute it under the 
assault statute, I say to my friend from Vermont, who has been a 
prosecutor, as I have, on the lower levels.
  In other words, we have a situation where Canada has found that the 
victims end up being joined by the perpetrators. That fact suggests as 
well that we may be dealing here with a cultural practice--and that is 
exactly what we are dealing with, ladies and gentlemen, a cultural 
practice--and perhaps not a practice of official government-sanctioned 
persecution. This is going to be a real debate in the coming times 
because we in this body talk continually about respect of other 
cultures--cultures of the native American in my State, cultures of 
other ethnic groups, cultures of Hispanic-Americans, cultures of 
African-Americans.
  The best practice is not to create some per se ground of asylum but 
do just as we do in all asylum and refugee determinations, and that is 
consider each one of them on a case-by-case basis. That is what we must 
do.
  So, again, we get into these situations by our remarkable strength 
and our remarkable weakness, which is our compassion, and then we get 
the blend of emotion, fear, guilt, and racism and blend that in, and we 
do erratic things in immigration reform, or we would not be doing what 
we are doing in these last days. The reason this is so difficult, you 
will be on one side or the other and you say: ``How can we do this? Why 
can't we do this? How can this be? How did I vote this way? How can I 
get out of this thicket? ''

  The reason is, you are going to stay right in it because this is 
about America. It is about America, and America is a very complex 
place, thank God. We still have one thing that binds us, or several--a 
common flag, a common language, and a public culture. When we break it 
all down into individual cultures, Balkanize these great States that 
were fought so hard for in this Chamber to unite and to unite in the 
great melting pot, we do a disservice.
  We are about to pass what many in this body will describe as a tough 
illegal immigration bill, and it will be, and it will pass, whatever 
form it is. Win or lose your amendments, forget it. It is an 
accomplishment that we will proudly reflect to our constituents. But 
remember this: We take in more asylees than all the rest of the 
countries on Earth, total. We take in more refugees than all the rest 
of the countries on Earth, total. We take in more immigrants than all 
the rest of the countries on Earth, total, period.
  Finally--you have all heard that a thousand times--and it is very 
important to someone listening, wherever these words fall, this bill 
explicitly provides that this special exclusion procedure does not 
apply if the alien has a credible fear of persecution on one of the 
required grounds--race, religion, membership in national organization, 
and so on. Therefore, nearly the entire argument of the Senator from 
Vermont, my friend, vests on the inadequacy of the procedure provided 
in the bill to determine whether an alien has a credible fear of 
persecution--that is

[[Page S4463]]

the intent of the Senator from Vermont, saying it is inadequate.
  Let me read the standard that would be used by the specially trained 
asylum officers to determine whether an applicant for asylum has a 
credible fear of persecution and therefore should receive a full--
full--asylum hearing and not be subject to the special exclusion. I 
cite the language in section 193 on page 173 of the bill, lines 6 
through 14, saying:

       As used in this section, the term ``credible fear of 
     persecution'' means that (A) there is a substantial 
     likelihood--

  ``Substantial likelihood'' that is,

     that the statements made by the alien in support of the 
     alien's claim are true, and (B) there is a significant 
     possibility in light of such statements and of country 
     conditions--

  Which will be determined by the State Department,

     that the alien could establish eligibility as a refugee 
     within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A).

  That is what this bill provides. It is not some swift or harsh 
provision. And this bill does not gut our asylum laws. The bill's 
provisions bring some sense and effectiveness to our asylum laws. These 
are laws that have been effectively gimmicked over the years because 
400,000 backlogged asylum cases can well attest to that.
  As my friend from Vermont says, if a person is fleeing for his life 
because of religious beliefs and must use forged papers and travel 
through several countries to get here under the bill that person will 
be summarily sent back--it is not so. If such a person arrives under 
the provisions of the bill he or she would get a hearing before a 
specially trained asylum officer. And if he or she had a credible fear 
of persecution, and there was a substantial likelihood the facts are 
true, as I have just cited, he or she will be permitted to remain in 
the United States and have a full asylum hearing when he or she is 
prepared and ready, with counsel.
  So, I yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just want to make sure my colleagues 
understand the Senator from Wyoming and I have a longstanding 
friendship and affection and respect for each other, but we do look at 
this somewhat differently.
  To begin with, regarding the vote on the anti-terrorism bill, while 
the issue may appear similar, the procedural situation was much 
different. There my motion would have required a recommitting of the 
whole conference report, a great burden to overcome.
  As a matter of fact, I had a number of Senators come up to me and 
say, ``Why do you not do this on the immigration bill? We will have a 
lot easier time voting for you on the immigration bill.'' Well, God 
bless you all, you will now have a chance to vote with me on the 
immigration bill.
  In addition, that motion did not include the creation of authority 
for the Attorney General to declare a special migration situation of 
immigration emergency. The amendment I offer today includes such 
provisions.
  Further, when we talk about the people coming in with false passports 
fleeing persecution, they do not get a hearing under the bill. They get 
an interview. They get an interview by whoever is there at the border, 
and they can get kicked out right then and there. It is cruel, it is 
fundamentally unfair to a traumatized and fatigued refugee, who would 
be allowed no assistance and no interpreter, to treat them so 
summarily.
  The kind of screening process provided in the bill will mean an 
investment of enormous resources for a special screening that we do not 
need. We would be requiring extra resources to do an ineffectual job.
  In 1995, for example, after our asylum processes were reformed, we 
had only 3,287 asylum seekers who arrived without valid documents. They 
could be handled through the normal process. They do not have to be 
bounced out following some truncated and confusing interview. As we 
have heard, these people have faced such traumatic experiences. They 
are not likely to be prepared to respond when hit with that first, all 
important interview.
  We reformed, in 1994 and 1995, our asylum processes. The Justice 
Department can handle it very well under my amendment.
  Do not confuse illegal immigrants with refugees.
  This bill would establish summary exclusion procedures for refugees 
seeking to claim asylum. It would give low-level immigration officers 
unprecedented authority to deport refugees without allowing them a fair 
opportunity to establish valid claims. These provisions should not even 
be in this bill, if it is intended to focus on the problems of illegal 
immigration. Refugees who seek asylum in the United States are not 
causing problems for America and Americans. They come to us for refuge. 
They come to us for protection. They come to us for what America 
promises in constitutional freedoms and protections. We should not turn 
them back, and turn our back on them or destroy our country's 
reputation for protecting human rights.
  Look at the Washington Times editorial, look at the Washington Post 
editorial, look at the New York Times editorial. They express the 
feelings of so many in this country.
  Think about a person who talked before a press conference here on 
Capitol Hill yesterday, Alan Baban, who was held 16 months in 
detention.
  He is a Kurdish national who had been in prison for over a year in 
Iraq. He was tortured, both because of his Kurdish nationality and his 
political involvement with an organization committed to securing 
political freedom for Kurds. His body has the scars of that ordeal. At 
one point in his captivity he bribed a guard and he escaped. His 
family's possessions were seized by the Iraqis.
  Finally, in November 1994, he and his mother, who had been hiding for 
close to 3 years, used false documents to get out and arrived in the 
United States.
  Most of us know what terrible treatment the Kurds have had at the 
hands of the Iraqis. But somehow the immigration inspector at the 
airport did not believe Alan and did not think that he had established 
a credible claim of persecution. So Alan was placed in detention, in 
prison, in the United States. A year later, without a translator to 
help him, he was denied political asylum.
  After 16 months in detention, when his true story came out, an 
immigration judge finally granted him asylum. Yesterday, he thanked the 
United States for finally listening to him and letting him out.
  This is one of a number of examples of refugees who were initially 
ruled not to have satisfied a credible fear standard but who after a 
hearing were able to prove a claim for asylum.
  I know the Senator from Massachusetts is seeking time.
  Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays 
on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just might ask the distinguished manager, 
am I correct in my understanding, as we offer these various amendments 
they will then be set aside for others so there will be a series of 
votes? Is that correct?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, at least this amendment and the next 
amendment of Senator Abraham and Senator Feingold will come up at a 
time around the hour of 2 o'clock. We will stack votes on these two, or 
others we might have problems on, including, perhaps, that of Senator 
Bradley, who is here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just before that vote will we follow the 
usual thing where each side has a minute or so?
  Mr. SIMPSON. We will put that in the unanimous-consent request, that 
there be 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment because the 
Senator from Vermont has made the presentation and made it exceedingly 
well, which he did in our judiciary markup as well.
  What I want to do is just take a moment of the Senate's time to 
describe the conditions that we were facing a number of years ago, and 
where we are on the issues of asylum today, because I think it reaches 
the core of the Leahy amendment. There is no question that, as he 
outlined, there are people who come here with a well-founded fear of 
persecution. They come here, few of

[[Page S4464]]

them with papers, many of them without any papers, for the obvious 
reasons they are in terror and have been persecuted by the existing 
regime. That is an important group, but I will come back to the numbers 
in just a moment.
  But there is no question that large numbers of people came here 
requesting asylum for one reason: they wanted jobs. As Senator Simpson 
has correctly stated, the process and procedure was that people would 
come in and declare they wanted asylum. The first thing that happened 
was they got a green card, went out and got lost in society. There was 
very, very significant abuse of that whole process. But that has 
changed dramatically in the last year.
  By and large, we ought to be looking at what the current condition 
is, not what the conditions were 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 3 years ago 
when we had all the significant abuses in the asylum system. The 
principal abuses for the asylum system, as in the whole issue of 
illegal immigration, were jobs. People saw this as an opportunity to 
come to the United States, say ``asylum,'' get that green card and then 
go to work. Instead of running across the Rio Grande or trying to come 
on in across another border, that was one of the ways that they came in 
here.
  That whole spigot, in terms of the jobs, has been closed down by the 
INS because they no longer provide the green card so that these people 
can go out to work, and second, they are held in detention.
  We have to ask ourselves whether we are going to be satisfied with a 
counselor, as well trained as they are, making the final judgment about 
a well-founded fear of persecution. I can remember it was not long ago 
when we had a number of Soviet Jews who came through Rome and were 
being evaluated as to whether they were real or refugees coming into 
the United States. There were a series of counselors out there. All had 
been trained, all seeing these various refugees, refuseniks, people who 
had been persecuted in the Soviet Union. At the end of the day, one 
group let in 60 percent and another group let in 20 percent. We had 
hearings on that. So you find diversity.
  What we are talking about are the limited numbers which we are faced 
with now. In 1994, we had 122,000 asylum claims and we completed 
60,000. In 1995, we had 126,000 claims and we completed 53,000. We have 
seen this dramatic change that has taken place with asylum claims--
dramatic, dramatic change. Out of the 53,000, there are approximately 
6,000 that actually receive asylum. Mr. President, 6,000 in this 
country, 6,000 that are actually granted asylum.
  These are individuals who have gone through not just the airplane 
ride across and flushed their ID cards down the toilet or ate their ID 
cards, these are 6,000 people who have a well-founded fear and have 
gone through the process. It seems to me that those individuals whose 
lives have been a struggle, as we define them, to try to develop 
democratic institutions, democratic ideals, democratic values, 
democratic priorities in their countries so that their countries will 
move toward the kind of value system in the broad terms of respect for 
democracy and individual rights and freedoms are real heroes in many, 
many instances. We have recognized that over the long history of this 
country.

  So I think the amendment of the Senator from Vermont makes a great 
deal of sense. I think the opposition, quite frankly, is directed 
toward a condition which no longer exists because of the excellent work 
of the INS in addressing it. Asylum claims declined 57 percent as 
productivity doubled in 1995. That is in this last year. They are 
continuing to make progress.
  We ought to be sensitive to this issue of individuals who have gone 
through the harshness and the brutality of these foreign regimes. We 
cannot pick up the newspaper without being reminded of them. In so many 
instances, these individuals, who really do deserve asylum, deserve to 
be able to receive that in our country, approximately 6,000. I have 
very serious fears that that kind of sensitivity to the real needs of 
individuals who have been struggling for democratic ideals will not be 
as respected as it has been if we adopt the proposed recommendations.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I also rise in support of the Leahy 
amendment. Senator Simpson is correct that for a period, we went 
through this where people just memorized three or four words in the 
English language, ``I seek asylum.''
  When his bill was first introduced, I was inclined to believe some 
additional strengthening language was needed. But I was visited by the 
INS people. I have to say Commissioner Doris Meissner just has made a 
terrific impression on all of us. She really knows her stuff, is very 
conscientious, and is very able.
  This morning's Washington Post has a story, ``Russia Bars Jewish 
Agency,'' and the Russian Ambassador to Israel said he thinks it was 
just a bureaucratic slipup. But then you get to the inside pages and 
read the story that out in the boondocks in Russia there are some anti-
Jewish activities taking place. I hope it is just temporary and 
isolated.
  We do not know what is going to happen. I think that the Leahy 
amendment is one that moves us in the right direction. I think the 
graph that Senator Kennedy has shown us shows fairly dramatic 
improvement in the situation. I hope the Leahy amendment will be 
accepted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Washington Post article to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 1, 1996]

   Russia Bars Jewish Agency--Ban Could Hamper Immigration to Israel

                          (By Barton Gellman)

       Jerusalem, April 30.--The Jewish Agency, a quasi-
     governmental body that has brought 630,000 Jewish immigrants 
     to Israel from the former Soviet Union since 1989, announced 
     tonight that Russian authorities have revoked its 
     accreditation and notified local jurisdictions that the 
     agency no longer is authorized to function in Russia.
       There was no clear indication of Russia's intentions and no 
     explanation from Moscow. But the potential stakes were seen 
     in Israel as high.
       Russian immigration has changed the face of Israel, adding 
     nearly one-fifth to its Jewish population and infusing the 
     state with one of the world's most productive flows of human 
     capital. Before the thaw that accompanied the Soviet Union's 
     final days, the Moscow government's sharp restrictions on 
     emigration--and ill-treatment of Jewish ``refuseniks'' who 
     could not leave--were a major source of friction with the 
     West.
       An estimated 1.4 million Jews remain in the former Soviet 
     Union, 600,000 of them in Russia, and Israel had projected 
     until now that they would continue to make new homes in 
     Israel at last year's rate of 65,000 for several years to 
     come. Officials here have observed no slowdown in Russia's 
     distribution of exit visas, and they do not foresee a return 
     to Russia's old bans on emigration itself, but they said most 
     Russian Jews could not readily leave without the practical 
     and financial assistance of the Jewish Agency.
       Israeli officials said they were uncertain of the origins 
     of the present impasse, and the Russian ambassador here 
     qualified it as a bureaucratic slipup. But Israelis voiced 
     two theories about what is happening.
       One focused on the growing nationalist cast of a Russian 
     election campaign that is threatening to unseat President 
     Boris Yeltsin. The second looked to bilateral tensions and 
     the bitterness of the new foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, 
     at Israeli moves to keep Russia far from its desired role at 
     the center of Middle East diplomacy.
       A third explanation--mere misunderstanding--prevailed at 
     first when the Jewish Agency lost its legal accreditation on 
     April 4, which effectively terminated its right to operate 
     offices, hold meetings and stage other activities in Russia. 
     Agency officials treated it as a slipped formality and 
     discouraged Israeli reporters from writing about the change.
       Other signs--including closure of the agency's Birobidjan 
     and Makhachkale offices in the Russian hinterland, a Justice 
     Ministry notice to local authorities about the loss of 
     accreditation and an increase in vandalism directed at agency 
     properties--began to convince them otherwise as the month 
     wore on.
       Avraham Burg, the agency's chairman, decided to make public 
     his protests after police and local government officials 
     descended on a Jewish Agency gathering today in Pyatigorsk, 
     an important regional emigration center in the northern 
     Caucasus, and ordered the meeting to break up. Three Israeli 
     representatives of the agency were asked to leave town.
       ``If this is just a bureaucratic stupidity, I will be 
     happy,'' Burg said in an interview, ``and if it is something 
     else, we shall be ready in the international arena with the 
     Jewish voice, Jewish pressure.''
       ``We are working in the former Soviet Union under two 
     assumptions,'' he added.

[[Page S4465]]

     ``The first one is that the right of the ancient Jewish 
     people to repatriation is a given, and the second one is that 
     the constitutional, basic, elementary right of family 
     reunification is [Russia's] passport to the free world. 
     Without this you are not a Western modern country.''
       Burg said he had summoned the Russian ambassador to Israel, 
     Alexander Bovin, for what became a sharp meeting last week. 
     Burg said the ambassador assured him that the difficulty was 
     merely technical.
       Neither Bovin nor any other Russian diplomats here, nor 
     officials in Moscow, could be reached for comment tonight.
       Burg and Prime Minister Shimon Peres agreed to take the 
     position that there can be no link between the agency's 
     travails in Russia and any bilateral disputes between the 
     Moscow and Jerusalem governments on the grounds that it 
     affects the human rights of individual Jews and the broader 
     interests of the world Jewish community. Foreign Ministry 
     officials said tonight that they would play no role in 
     protesting the change in Russian policy, and Burg planned to 
     fly to New York Wednesday to confer with American Jewish 
     leaders on possibly bringing pressure to bear in Moscow.
       Alla Levy, chief of the Jewish Agency's efforts in the 
     former Soviet Union and a 1970 immigrant, said today's 
     crackdown in Pyatigorsk was especially sensitive because that 
     city is one of 10 from which Russian Jews fly directly to 
     Israel.
       Several irritants trouble Israeli-Russian relations, and 
     Primakov rebuffed a meeting request last month from Foreign 
     Minister Ehud Barak. A specialist in the Arab world, Primakov 
     is seen as resenting the combined efforts of Israel and the 
     United States to squeeze Moscow out of its place as co-
     sponsor of regional peace talks.
       Israel acknowledges, in addition, that it has been slow to 
     transfer legal rights to Russia from the former Soviet 
     Union's valuable land holdings in Jerusalem. Additional 
     frictions arose at Israel's treatment of Russian visitors at 
     passport control points after police found evidence that 
     Russian organized crime had made inroads here.

  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, thank you very much. I rise today in 
strong support of this amendment. Our amendment would, in our view, 
greatly improve this section of the bill dealing with asylum. Frankly, 
this section does need improvement. It really creates a summary 
exclusion, a summary exclusion that would keep out of America some of 
the worthiest of all asylum seekers.
  Further, it sets a legal standard that is both unprecedented and 
excessive for people who are the most in need, for people who are truly 
fleeing persecution, and it puts what for some people is a life-or-
death decision in the hands of the INS bureaucrats.
  As has been pointed out by my colleagues from Illinois and 
Massachusetts, there really is not the problem today that we may have 
seen 2, 3, 4 years ago. Today, the asylum system works pretty well, and 
we do not need this change, we do not need this summary exclusion. It 
is not worth the price that we are going to pay.
  It is clear that several years ago, the asylum system was, in fact, 
broken. Under the old system, people could get a work authorization 
simply by applying for asylum, and this, obviously, became a magnet, 
even for those who had absolutely no realistic claim for asylum.
  But the INS changed its rules in 1994, and it stopped automatically 
awarding work permits to those filing for asylum. Instead, it began to 
require an adjudication of the asylum claim before it awarded work 
authorization.
  It also began resolving asylum claims within 180 days. The results 
are very, very significant.
  According to the INS, in 1994, before the new rules were put in 
place, 123,000 people claimed asylum.
  In 1995 however, after the new rules were established, only 53,000 
people even applied for asylum. That is a 57-percent decline in those 
people who even apply for asylum, a 57-percent decrease in 1 year.
  Also, the INS reports that it is now completing 84 percent of the new 
cases within 60 days of filing, and 98 percent--virtually all new 
cases--within 180 days of filing. That is why the administration, the 
INS, say that they did not need this provision.
  Second point, Mr. President. The most worthy cases for asylum would 
be excluded if we impose this new summary exclusion procedure. Among 
those excluded would be cases of victims of politically motivated 
torture and rape, the very people who are most likely--most likely--to 
use false documents to flee from the country of their torture. These 
are the people who would be hurt the most, frankly, by this summary 
exclusion.
  Let us talk about these individuals. We have already heard about the 
young woman who was seen in the press the last few days from Togo. But 
let me use two other examples. These are real world cases. These are 
cases where, if the law, as it is currently written in this bill, if 
this change does in fact go into effect, these people never would have 
gotten into this country. They would have been excluded by an INS 
bureaucrat and sent back to their country in that 1-hour determination 
that we have talked about.
  A real example. First, a student in Sudan was beaten and given 
electric shocks by Government torturers for the crime of engaging in a 
peaceful protest against the Government. He escaped to the United 
States without a passport. He was placed in detention because an INS 
bureaucrat concluded he did not have the credible fear of persecution 
standard that we have heard about. However, on judicial review, this 
individual was granted asylum.
  So under the procedure that is contained in the bill, under that 
procedure, the new procedure that we are trying to take out, under the 
new procedure, it never would have gone beyond the INS bureaucrat. This 
student from Sudan would have been sent back to Sudan. There would have 
been no opportunity for this person to have a hearing on the matter 
beyond an initial 1-hour hearing from the bureaucrat where the 
bureaucrat made the decision, ``Send him home.''
  Second example. A man from India--this is a true case--was imprisoned 
and tortured by the Government because of his religious beliefs. His 
family's home was bombed. Fearing for his life, he fled to the United 
States, where INS bureaucrats verbally abused him, and denied him food 
and water until the next day. They said his fear was not credible. This 
case on judicial review was changed. He was granted asylum. Again, 
under the provisions of this bill, without our amendment, this person 
never would have gotten to the judicial review, would have been sent 
back by the determination made by the bureaucrat.

  Mr. President, I think that is too heavy a price to pay. I think it 
is very clear that we do not need to change the law in this area.
  I think America, Mr. President, stands for something better than 
that. We have historically held out the lamp of freedom to the world. 
We are different than other countries. We have held out a lamp that is 
lit by the flames of justice, not by bureaucracy.
  Mr. President, I ask the Members of the Senate, whether watching on 
TV or sitting in the Chamber, think back to stories you have heard--we 
have all heard stories--about people who have fled persecution, and 
whether that was in Nazi Germany, or more recent examples. How often 
did that person who fled persecution have to have a forged document? 
How often did that person go to great pains to obtain a forged document 
to flee the country? How often did that person have to have another 
country of immediate destination before they ended up in the country 
that they wanted to end up in? How many by necessity had to have that 
third country there?
  Each one of us can remember these stories. I remember, as a very 
young boy, listening to a story told by a friend of my father, who fled 
Nazi Germany. Although some of the details have left me over the 40-
some years since I heard this story, I can still remember parts of it, 
and how difficult it was and what great risks he took to get out of 
Nazi Germany, to get out of Nazi Germany with documents that clearly 
were fake. I think we need to keep this in mind, Mr. President, when we 
decide what to do in regard to this amendment.
  My friend from Wyoming talks about compassion fatigue. I understand 
that. I get it. That is why, quite frankly, we have made changes. There 
are major changes in this bill. That is why the INS has made very, very 
significant changes in the last several years to speed up the process, 
to make sure that they weed out these cases that do not have merit. 
That system is working.
  But I would just say that as we look at this amendment, I would ask 
my colleagues to keep this in mind, that in

[[Page S4466]]

an immigration bill, more than in any other bill that we pass on the 
floor, more than any other bill that we debate, we do define who we are 
as a country. I think we should be different.
  I understand the argument that Holland does it one way or Germany 
does it another way. That is fine. I understand the argument. But I 
think, quite frankly, we have to do it our way. We have to do it in a 
way that is consistent with our tradition. One of the great traditions 
of this country is that we have been a beacon of hope, and of light, as 
Ronald Reagan would say. We have been the country where people could 
come to when they were persecuted.
  If you look at our history and our immigration policy, our best 
days--our best days--have been when we reached out and said, ``Yes. We 
are this country that is different.'' The few times in our history when 
we have turned our back on people who are persecuted--and there are 
examples of this; the Nazi Germany situation, the few times we have 
done that--we have lived to regret it. And we have been sorry for it.
  So, yes, I understand compassion fatigue. But we are, in a sense, in 
this bill defining who we are as a people and redefining that. I think 
the amendment that has been offered by my friend from Vermont is 
entirely consistent with that great tradition of this country. Thank 
you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong 
support for the Leahy-DeWine amendment, which preserves critical due 
process rights for refugees arriving in the United States after fleeing 
persecution in their countries of origin. While the United States must 
control its borders and ensure that its hospitality is never abused, it 
must also live up to its finest traditions as a land of freedom and 
refuge for the oppressed.
  Our country is built on the rule of law, and must preserve and 
protect that legacy for all. This amendment would ensure that those 
fleeing oppression have a fair opportunity to present their cases and 
have them studied and reviewed by appropriate officials. Many genuine 
refugees are forced to come to the United States with false documents 
and then apply for asylum. In fact, an argument could be made that the 
more dangerous their situation, the more urgent it is that they come to 
apply for asylum, and the more likely that they will not have access to 
government travel documents from the government which is persecuting 
them. It is just these most needy people who will suffer most directly 
from the summary exclusion measures which this amendment seeks to 
modify.
  With adoption of this amendment, the United States will remain able 
to ensure that those with valid, deserving cases for asylum will 
continue to be able to apply for asylum in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be set aside for a few moments so Senator Bradley can go 
forward with an amendment. I do not think it will take a great deal of 
time. So if Senator Bradley will go forward, and then Senator Hatch 
could speak on this bill, and then I have a few more remarks on the 
pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.


                Amendment No. 3790 To Amendment No. 3743

   (Purpose: To establish an Office for the Enforcement of Employer 
                               Sanctions)

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3790.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3790 to amendment No. 3743.

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

       On page 47 of the amendment, strike line 1 and all that 
     follows through line 21 and insert the following:

     SEC.   . ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER SANCTIONS.

       (a) Establishment of New Office.--There shall be in the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of 
     Justice an Office for the Enforcement of Employer Sanctions 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Office'').
       (b) Functions.--The functions of the Office established 
     under subsection (a) shall be--
       (1) to investigate and prosecute violations of section 
     274A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1324a(a)); and
       (2) to educate employers on the requirements of the law and 
     in other ways as necessary to prevent employment 
     discrimination.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General $100,000,000 to 
     carry out the functions of the Office established under 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment is a second-degree 
amendment to the one proposed by the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming. The amendment will improve the Federal Government's ability to 
deter illegal immigration by enhancing the enforcement of our existing 
laws. In particular, this amendment would create a separate office 
within the INS to ensure that our employer sanction laws are 
effectively and fairly enforced. The fact is that employment is the 
single most important enticement that brings illegal immigrants to our 
shores.
  If we want to address seriously the illegal immigration problem in 
this country, we must address ourselves to the root of that problem, 
which is the jobs.
  In 1986 we started down the right track with the Immigration Reform 
Control Act, better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. In that bill we 
enacted, after considerable debate, employer sanctions which imposed 
civil penalties on employers of illegal aliens and criminal penalties 
for pattern or practice violations.
  We put very tough teeth in the law--up to a $10,000 fine, up to 3 
years in jail. Those provisions are strong and, if enforced adequately, 
would deter the hiring of illegal aliens.

  This bill makes important headway in improving these laws. However, 
one critical element is missing: These laws, those that we passed in 
1986, are not being adequately enforced.
  I have heard many in the Chamber complain that employer sanction laws 
are not working and perhaps should be eliminated. I agree that they are 
not working as well as they could be working, but the problem is not 
with the law. The problem is with the implementation of the law. The 
INS' ineffective implementation of these laws has been noticed time and 
again by independent observers, including the Jordan Commission and the 
Office of the Inspector General.
  For example, the Jordan Commission found that employer sanctions are 
accorded a low priority by the INS. The INS' own data bear that out. 
Between 1989 and 1995, the number of INS investigations of employer 
sanction violations dropped by more than 50 percent.
  Let me repeat that: From 1989 to 1995, the number of investigations 
by the INS of employer sanctions dropped by more than 50 percent. The 
GAO found that the number of agents assigned to the workplace 
enforcement dropped more than half between 1989 and 1994.
  Overall, financial resources allocated to the enforcement of employer 
sanctions also has declined significantly. While the INS is now 
increasing the number of workplace agents and resources directed toward 
the enforcement of employer sanctions, projections indicate that the 
INS will only employ, after these improvements are made, only employ 
about 708 workplace agents in 1996. Mr. President, 708 agents to cover 
a nation with 6.5 million employers--this contrasts sharply with the 
over 5,000 Border Patrol agents that the INS projects in 1996.
  This disparity is notable given that according to the INS' own 
estimates, their own estimates, about half of all illegal immigrants do 
not cross the border illegally but overstay their visas.
  Let me repeat that: Half of all illegal immigrants in this country 
are not sneaking across the border in the middle of the night but they 
are people that come into this country on a visitor's visa and 
overstay. They are people who come in on a visitor's visa,

[[Page S4467]]

then get a job illegally. They are here in the workplace taking jobs 
away from Americans.
  The law says an employer who hires an illegal immigrant who overstays 
on his visitor's visa, for example, is subject to fine and possible 
imprisonment. Yet, nobody is going after these employers. There is not 
enough enforcement.

  Furthermore, the INS is failing to conduct investigations 
effectively. Like the Jordan Commission's report a year earlier, a 
September 1995 inspector general audit found numerous problems with the 
INS conduct of its employer sanctions investigations. The inspector 
general specifically found that ``the INS is sending a signal to the 
business community that it does not take seriously its enforcement 
responsibilities in the area of employer sanctions.'' Those are the 
words of the inspector general that the INS is not seriously pursuing 
employer sanctions.
  The problem is more, however, than numbers and authorizations. This 
bill provides much needed authorization for additional investigators 
available for the INS to use for employer sanctions. That is good. It 
does not go far enough because those investigators are not necessarily 
going to be directed toward employer sanction enforcement.
  Moreover, these investigators are likely to continue to be wasted on 
less important and less effective enforcement efforts. That certainly 
is the case if past practice is any indication.
  New investigators could deal with the part of the INS problems in 
this area, but only if they are used appropriately. As the critique of 
the Jordan Commission, the inspector general, and others have 
indicated, the problem is more than resources; it is more than simply a 
few more agents. Consequently, our solution must provide more than 
resources.
  Mr. President, what is needed is a separate office for the 
enforcement of employer sanctions that will focus its activities on the 
most serious problem, which is employers hiring illegals, not having 
anyone go after them, as well as address the problems of employers 
discriminating on the basis of national origin. It is clear that a 
fundamental change is needed in the INS bureaucracy to make these laws 
work.
  The amendment I am suggesting specifically addresses this problem by 
changing the task force provided by section 120(b) of the bill to an 
office for enforcement of employer sanctions and authorizing it for 
$100 million, the figure contained in the 1986 Immigration Act. The 
office will have two primary functions: to investigate and prosecute 
employer sanction violations, and to educate employers on the 
requirement of the law in order to prevent unlawful employment 
discrimination.
  I think this amendment corrects the weaknesses in the existing 
bureaucracy. It will separate and dedicate necessary resources to the 
enforcement of employer sanctions so that it will be accorded the 
priority that it deserves. Of equal importance, the creation of a 
separate office within the INS will tell employers that the INS is now 
serious about enforcing the employer sanctions provision, that it has 
the budget and the manpower to investigate and follow up leads on the 
worst violations of these laws. As well, it will send a strong message 
to the INS that it needs to improve its enforcement activities.

  I think it is also important to point out that this amendment does 
not add new sanctions or increase the burden on employers. It does not 
add one single form to the mountain of paperwork they must already fill 
out when they hire a new legal worker. It just asks that existing law 
be adequately enforced.
  Finally, and of equal importance, it will require better education of 
employers to prevent discrimination.
  In short, this amendment goes to the source of the illegal 
immigration problem in this country--the job magnet--by improving our 
mechanism for seriously working to eliminate that employment magnet, 
with adequate enforcement directed toward the problem, with no excuses, 
and with results required.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think my old friend, Senator Bradley 
from New Jersey, has put his finger right down on one of the most 
critical issues in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, 
which is the magnet of jobs, employment, which draws illegals to this 
country.
  This amendment would establish an office within the INS, as I 
understand it, specifically staffed and mandated to perform both of the 
functions that are essential to the success of any employer sanction 
provisions.
  That is, the office would both educate employers about the law and 
their responsibilities to prevent unlawful discrimination, and would 
investigate and prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegal 
aliens. I think that we cannot claim to be serious about dealing with 
the problems of illegal immigration unless we are serious about dealing 
with those who knowingly hire illegals. So long as they can get the 
jobs they seek, illegal aliens will continue to regard this country as 
the land of opportunity, and some will refer to it almost as the land 
of slave labor as they come here as illegals and remain in that status. 
That is why it is important that we remove illegal persons from our 
society or else make them legal.
  So we already have a special counsel for the prevention of 
discrimination against aliens. That is already on the books. I did not 
like that when it went in, but it is on the books. Surely, it would be 
appropriate to have an office of employer sanctions to deal with the 
single-most important element. As Barbara Jordan's Commission put it, 
``Shifting priorities and reduced funding have hamstrung some of those 
provisions.''
  As I understand it, this does not create a new Justice Department 
agency to enforce employer sanctions. It creates a new office within 
the INS. But there is a funding level increase. That is correct. 
Originally, that was not so, but it is so now, is that correct?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Yes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. This provision would not disrupt the balance between 
employer sanctions and antidiscrimination. I will have to, if I may, 
set the amendment aside because several wish to speak on that 
amendment. I personally do not have grave reservations about it, but 
others do.


                           Amendment No. 3780

  Mr. SIMPSON. I ask that the amendment be set aside and that we go 
back to the Leahy amendment, and then we go to Senator Abraham to lay 
down his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just come to a little review of 
the amendment of Senator Leahy. The Senator from Vermont spoke of the 
alien who was so traumatized that he or she cannot speak about it at 
entry, and so they would not be in a position to immediately show a 
credible fear and, thereby, attain a full asylum hearing.
  The Senator certainly goes to the hardest case. If the Senator's 
amendment was precisely directed only to that possibility, it would be 
appropriate. But the Senator's amendment goes far beyond that. It would 
simply gut the reforms proposed in the bill to deal with the large 
number of aliens. What we are trying to get at is aliens who enter 
without inspection, or with fraudulent documents, and those who board a 
plane with documents, then dispose of them, and upon entry fraudulently 
claim asylum.
  I think we are still having a bit of distortion, not from the 
Senators from Vermont or Ohio, but when someone says that they will not 
be interviewed by ``the guy at the border,'' that is simply not true. 
This provision will only be administered by specially trained asylum 
officers with translators. There will be translators. There always are 
translators of any language, subject to review by a superior, another 
trained asylum officer. These are not low-level immigration officers. 
This is not correct. These are highly trained individuals.
  I remind our colleagues of one other item that has sprung from the 
debate. Our laws and treaties prevent our Government from returning any 
person to any country where their life or freedom may be in danger. 
That is the law of the United States. It is the law of the United 
Nations. It is the sacred law. It is called nonrefoulment: You cannot 
return a person to a country where their life or freedom may be in 
danger. That is not done. We do not do it, and that is the law of the 
United States. That is the law of the United Nations.

[[Page S4468]]

 No matter if a person can establish credible fear or not, the person 
will not be returned to certain imprisonment and danger. That will not 
change under any provisions of this bill.
  Finally, I hope that we recognize that 70 percent--I hope these 
figures can be heard--of all asylum applicants in fiscal year 1995 came 
from three countries. El Salvador, 72,000, which, at last look, was a 
democracy. They had worked through tremendous civil war to get where it 
is a democracy. We gave their people an extended program called 
``extended voluntary departure'' a few years ago. Guatemala, 22,900; 
and 9,300 from Mexico. So out of a total of 149,500 applicants, they 
are the countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico.

  While there may be problems in those countries, they are not highly 
repressive countries. At least our Government does not find them such. 
There is turmoil in Guatemala, killings in Guatemala. There are 
killings in the United States--an awful lot of them. They are, however, 
known as leading sources of illegal immigration.
  What you are seeing is, when you have a country that is your leading 
source of illegal immigration, they are picking them up, and they have 
been here 2, 3 years, and they say, ``I am seeking asylum'' because 
they know that these procedures are interminable. That is what we are 
trying to get at. We are not after the person from Iraq, or the Kurd, 
or those people. We are after the people gimmicking the system. For 
every one that you can point to with passion and drama, you can point 
to a hundred who are gimmicking the system. This is what the people of 
America are appalled at, that we will not deal with the issue.
  There is a balance to be struck between granting asylum to those who 
are qualified and preventing this country's traditional hospitality 
being taken advantage of in a most extraordinary way. Remember, when 
you have 9,304 cases from Mexico--and a case can be more than one 
person--how many of those asylum claimants from Mexico were granted 
asylum? There were 55--55 out of 9,304. If that is not gimmickry of the 
system, I am missing something. It means that one-seventh of our asylum 
applicants, even under the new provisions, are almost guaranteed to be 
bogus or fraudulent. I hope that our colleagues will hear that as we go 
to the eventual vote on that.
  Of the first four major countries of asylum cases--Guatemala, Mexico, 
China, and India--the final approval rate is 2 percent--2 percent of 
these people that we have heard these poignant, powerful stories about. 
And 98 percent of them are fake or bogus. So if we hear the 1 and 
forget the 100, we are making a mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY. If the distinguished Senator from Wyoming will yield, I 
wonder if we can get some time agreement on the amendment that I 
offered. I know a couple other Senators would like to speak. Is that 
possible?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do not think I am prepared to do that 
until the two people that have indicated they wish to debate come over. 
When I get in touch with them, and I will get back to you, perhaps we 
will get a half hour or an hour. I will work toward that, with the 
approval of Senator Kennedy.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 3752 to Amendment No. 3743

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
     Lieberman, and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3752 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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:

       Strike sections 111-115 and 118.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Nickles be added as a cosponsor for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment I proposed is cosponsored, 
in addition to myself, by Senators Feingold, DeWine, Lott, Mack, 
Lieberman, Inhofe, and Nickles.
  Mr. President, our amendment does basically two things. First, it 
would strike sections 111 through 115 of the bill, which would 
currently begin to implement a national identification system.
  Second, the amendment would strike a related provision, section 118 
of the bill, which would require State driver's licenses and birth 
certificates to conform to new Federal regulations and standards.
  Mr. President, I intend to devote at least my opening statement here 
today to the first Senate provisions that we seek to strike with this 
amendment, those which pertain to the national identification system. 
Senator DeWine, while in addition to commenting on those sections, will 
be speaking in more specific terms about the driver's license and birth 
certificate provisions.
  I recognize that we are not under a time agreement and that it will 
be the option of the Presiding Officer in terms of floor debate. But we 
hope Senator DeWine will have an opportunity following my remarks to be 
recognized soon so that he may comment on that portion of the bill 
which he has particularly been focused on.
  That said, Mr. President, let me just begin by making it clear that 
those of us proposing this amendment consider the hiring of illegal 
aliens to be a wrong thing. We think wrongful hirings, no matter how 
they might be brought about, are not appropriate. We are not bringing 
this amendment to in any way condone, or encourage, or stimulate 
wrongful hirings of people who are not in this country under proper 
documentation.
  The question is, how do we best address that problem, and how do we 
do it in the least intrusive fashion? Already this bill contains a 
variety of provisions which will have, I think, a marked impact on 
addressing the problem. In the bill we already increase substantially 
the number of Border Patrol employees, people patrolling the borders to 
prevent illegal aliens from entering the country.
  Mr. President, in the bill we already addressed a very serious 
problem alluded to by the Senator from New Jersey, people who overstay 
their visas, and constitute some 50 percent of the illegal alien 
population by for the first time imposing sharp, stiff penalties on 
those who violate the visa rules. In addition, as we dealt with on 
numerous occasions yesterday, Mr. President, we have attempted to 
address the issue of access to public assistance for noncitizens, and 
particularly for illegal aliens, as a way of discouraging some who may 
have come to this country, or who might consider doing so for purposes 
of accessing our social service programs.
  In addition, under the bill, we have dramatically, I think, moved to 
try to expedite the deportation of criminal aliens, a very substantial 
part of our current alien community, and by definition, in the case of 
those who have committed serious offenses, individuals who are 
deportable, and thus no longer appropriate to be in the country.
  I believe these steps, combined with other provisions in the 
legislation, move us a long way down the road toward addressing the 
concerns we have about the wrongful hiring of illegal aliens. I think 
we need to understand the provisions that pertain to verification, 
which, at least in this Senator's judgment, are a very obvious example 
of a highly intrusive approach that will not have much of an effect on 
the problems that we confront.
  Frankly, Mr. President, what we confront in this country is less, in 
my judgment, of a case of an innocent employer who has been somehow 
deceived, or baffled by a clever alien. We have largely confronted a 
situation in which some form of complicity takes place between 
employers who are looking for ways to hire less expensive labor, and 
illegal aliens who have no choice in terms of the options available to 
them. So what we find is intent on the part of the employer, and, 
obviously, a willingness on the part of the illegal alien to be an 
employee.
  This identification system is not going to do very much to address 
that problem because no matter what type of identification document is 
used, whether it is a birth certificate, a driver's license, an ID 
card, a Social Security card, or anything else, at least in my 
judgment, it is not going to matter

[[Page S4469]]

if the employer's objective is to hire a lower priced employee who 
happens to be an illegal alien because, whatever the system is, it will 
be circumvented intentionally to accomplish the objective of trimming 
down on overhead.
  As a consequence, to a large extent, the system, no matter how 
effectively it is perfected, is not going to really have much impact on 
the large part of the problem we confront with regard to the hiring of 
illegal aliens. In my judgment, that makes the cost of this program 
greatly disproportionate to any potential benefit it might have in 
terms of reducing the population of illegal aliens who are improperly 
employed.
  I also say in my opening today that we have taken, I think, with the 
amendment, with the provisions of the bill that were sustained 
yesterday in the vote with respect to providing employers with a shield 
against discrimination cases, a further tool that will allow employers 
who are innocent to take the steps necessary to avoid hiring 
unintentionally people who are meant to be hired under the current 
laws.
  That is the backdrop, Mr. President. We have big Government, an 
expansive Government, an intrusive Government solution being brought to 
bear in a circumstance where I do not think it is going to do much 
good. For that reason, I think the verification system is headed in the 
wrong direction.
  This approach is flawed, and it is, in my judgment, overextensive in 
the way it is structured in the bill right now without any definition 
as to the dimensions that such pilot programs are envisioned in the 
bill might encompass, it has the potential to be a very, very large 
program. What is the region? And how advanced are all regions in an 
entire quarter of the country? The bill does not specify how large the 
pilot programs might be.
  So for those reasons we believe that the verification part of this 
legislation is unnecessary and should be struck.
  Let me talk more specifically about why the costs are going to be 
greater than the benefits under the program.
  First, Mr. President, even though this is a potential pilot program, 
it seems to me, it is impossible to effectively run a pilot program of 
this type unless a national database is collected. That national 
database check is going to be a very extensive step in the direction of 
a national identification system.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, it seems to me, given the enormous 
downstroke cost of developing that kind of system, that there will be 
an enormous amount of pressure on us to continue building the system 
into a national system in the very near future. Indeed, that is the 
direction that the sponsors of the legislation in both the House and 
Senate had originally envisioned. But the bottom line in terms of the 
costs of the program really falls on three categories of U.S. citizens 
that we need to focus on today.
  First, it is extremely unfair and costly to honest employers. Any 
kind of system that involves verifying new employees prior to hiring 
them in the fashion that is suggested here will be costly. The employer 
must phone a 1-800 number in Washington, or someplace else to determine 
whether an individual's name is in the database, or the person who is 
the employer must develop some type of, or require some type of, 
computer interface system, whatever it might be. These are additional 
business costs that will fall hard--especially hard--on small 
businesses at a time when I think this Congress at least in its 
rhetoric has been talking about trying to make the burdensome costs on 
small business less cumbersome.
  In addition, there will be a very disproportionately costly burden on 
those types of small businesses that have a high turnover of employees. 
And there are a number of them in virtually every one of our States, 
whether it is the small fast food restaurant, or whether it is the 
seasonal type of small business. The list is endless of those kinds of 
businesses which have huge amounts of turnover in terms of their 
employee ranks. For each of those under a verification system we are 
adding additional costs and additional burdens that must be borne 
regardless of the circumstances.
  But really, Mr. President, this is an unfunded mandate on these small 
businesses, on businesses in general, on employers in general, whoever 
they might be. And, in my judgment, it sets a very bad precedent 
because it would be for the first time the case that we would require 
people to affirmatively seek permission to hire an employee.
  To me, Mr. President, that is a gigantic step in the direction of big 
government that we should not take. I do not think we want to subject 
employers, no matter how, or how many employees they have, to this new-
found responsibility to affirmatively seek permission to hire 
employees.
  Again, though, the people who will pay these costs and suffer these 
burdens are going to be the honest employers.
  Those who are dishonest, those who would hire illegal aliens 
knowingly will not engage in any of these expenses, will not undertake 
any of these steps because, obviously, their intent is to circumvent 
the law, whatever it might be. They are doing it today. They will do it 
whatever the system is that we come up with.
  So what we are talking about in short is a very costly, very 
cumbersome, very burdensome new responsibility on employers in this 
country that will disproportionately fall on the shoulders of those 
employers who are playing by the rules instead of those who are 
breaking them. As I say, Mr. President, it will, for the first time, 
require employers to affirmatively seek permission to hire employees, 
seek that permission from Washington.
  However, it is not just the employers who will suffer through a 
system of verification as set forth in the legislation; it is also the 
workers, the employees, U.S. citizens who will now be subjected to a 
verification system that, in my judgment, cannot be perfected 
accurately enough to avoid massive problems, dislocations and unhappy 
results for countless American citizens.
  As I have said, there is no way such a system can really be effective 
unless there is, first, a national database. Such a national database, 
no matter how accurately constructed, is bound to be riddled with 
errors. Indeed, some of the very small projects the INS has already 
launched have been discovered to have error rates, in terms of names in 
the database, as high as 28 percent.
  Now, I hope that we could do better than 28 percent, but let us just 
consider if the database had an error margin of 1 percent and let us 
also consider that that was a national program. That would be 600,000 
hirings per year that would be basically derailed due to error rates in 
the database.
  The project, of course, is not a national program to begin with, but 
1 percent of any sizable regional project is going to mean that U.S. 
citizens who are entitled to be hired will not be hired and be placed 
in limbo because of this experimental program.
  Again, though, Mr. President, this is not going to be a problem in 
the case of illegal aliens hired by employers who knowingly choose to 
do so because they will not be subjected to this verification process.
  If we were to have this margin of error, if we were to even have a 
small handful of American citizens denied employment under these 
provisions, we would set in motion what I think would be an 
extraordinarily costly process for those employers and employees so 
affected.

  Is it right to impose a system that would in fact mean that U.S. 
citizens or legal permanent residents who are entitled to work would be 
potentially put on hold for weeks to months while the system's database 
is corrected? I think that is wrong. I think it is the wrong direction 
to go. Anybody who has dealt with computer databases knows the 
potential for error in these types of systems. In my judgment, to 
invite that kind of high cost on the employees and employers of this 
country would be a huge mistake.
  So those are the first two issues to consider, the first two. The 
victims are the honest, play-by-the-rules employers and employees or 
potential employees who want to play by the rules. They are going to be 
the victims. They are going to pay a high cost.
  So, too, Mr. President, will the taxpayers pay a high cost for this, 
in effect, unfunded mandate, because just building the database capable 
of handling any kind of sizable regional project will cost hundreds of 
millions of dollars. The question is, is it going to produce the 
results that are being suggested? I would say no.

[[Page S4470]]

  As I have indicated already, those who want to circumvent a system 
will circumvent this system, and they will do so intentionally. 
Meanwhile, the taxpayers will be footing a very substantial bill for a 
system that can be easily avoided by those employers and illegal alien 
employees who wish to do so.
  I intend to speak further on this amendment this morning, but let me 
just summarize my initial comments. I believe we should strike these 
verification procedures. I believe that the cost of imposing these 
programs even on a trial basis is going to be excessive. I feel as if 
it leads us in the direction of big Government, big Government 
expansion and the imposition of costly Federal regulations and burdens, 
especially on small businesses that they do not need at this time.
  I believe that the tough standards we have placed in the bill to deal 
with illegal aliens, combined with some of the other relief that has 
been granted to employers to try to ferret out those who should not be 
employed, are the sorts of safeguards that will have the least 
intrusive effect on those who play by the rules. The costs of this 
verification system, in my judgment, far outweigh any potential 
benefits. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support our effort 
to strike these provisions.
  At this point, as I said, Mr. President, I realize we are not on a 
time agreement to yield time, but I know the Senator from Ohio would 
like to speak to another part of this, so I yield the floor.

  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. I rise today to support this 
amendment.
  The Senator from Michigan has discussed very eloquently the problems 
that we see with the employer verification section of the bill. I am 
going to talk in a moment about a related problem, a problem that we 
see in the part of the bill that will require for the first time, in 
essence, a national birth certificate, a national driver's license.
  Before we discuss these parts of the bill, however, let me start by 
congratulating my colleague from Wyoming. He said something about an 
hour ago on this floor that is absolutely correct. We are going to pass 
an illegal immigration bill, and after we have had our way with the 
amendments, one way or the other, we are going to pass a bill. It is 
going to be a good bill, and it is going to be a real tribute to his 
work over the years and his work on this particular bill.
  Make no mistake about it: This bill has very, very strong provisions, 
strong provisions that are targeted directly at the problem of illegal 
immigration. The bill that the Senator reported from the subcommittee, 
because of his great work and the other members of the subcommittee, is 
a strong bill targeted at illegal immigration, targeted at those who 
break the law. The bill that the committee reported out is a good bill 
as well. There are, however, several provisions in this bill--and this 
amendment deals with these provisions--we believe, frankly, are 
misguided and that are targeted and will have the undue burden not on 
the lawbreakers but we believe will have an undue burden, unfair burden 
on the other law-abiding citizens in this country. Let me discuss these 
at this point.
  My colleague from Michigan has talked about the employer verification 
system. What is now in the bill is a pilot project. I am going to 
discuss this at greater length later on in this debate, but let me 
state at this point my experience in this area comes from a different 
but related field, and that is the area of criminal record systems. I 
started my career as a county prosecutor, and I became involved in the 
problem with the criminal record system. In fact, I discussed this at 
length with the current occupant of the chair.
  I have seen, as other Members have, how difficult it is to bring our 
criminal record system up to date, to make sure that it is accurate. We 
have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in this country to try to 
bring our criminal record system up to snuff so that when a police 
officer or parole officer or the judge setting bond makes a life and 
death decision--that is what it is many times--about whether to turn 
someone out or not turn them out, they have good, reliable 
information. We have improved our system and we are getting it better, 
but we still have a long, long way to go.

  If, when the stakes are so high in the criminal system, and that is a 
finite system--we are dealing with a relatively small number of 
people--if we have such a difficult time getting it right in that 
system, can you imagine how difficult it is going to be for us to 
create an entirely new database, a much, much larger database? How many 
millions are we going to have to spend to do that and what are the 
chances we are going to get it right, and get it right in a short 
period of time? So I support the comments of my colleague from Michigan 
in regard to this national database, in regard to this national 
verification system.
  Let me now turn to another part of this bill, a part that is 
addressed also by this same amendment we are now debating. This section 
has to do with the creation, for the first time, of a federally 
prescribed birth certificate and the creation for the first time of a 
federally prescribed driver's license.
  Under the bill as currently written, on the floor now, all birth 
certificates and all driver's licenses would have to meet Federal 
standards. For the first time in our history, Washington, this 
Congress, would tell States how they produce documents to identify 
their own citizens. Let me read, if I could, directly from the law, or 
the bill as it has been introduced and as it is in front of us today. 
Then in a moment I am going to have a chart, but let me read from the 
bill. My colleagues who are in the Chamber, my colleagues who are in 
their offices watching on TV, I ask them to listen to the words because 
I think, frankly, they are going to be very surprised.

       No Federal agency, including but not limited to the Social 
     Security Administration and the Department of State and no 
     State agency that issues driver's licenses or identification 
     documents may accept for any official purpose a copy of a 
     birth certificate as defined in paragraph 5 unless it is 
     issued by a State or local authorized custodian of records 
     and it conforms to standards prescribed in paragraph B.

  Paragraph B, then, basically is the Federal prescribed standards. The 
bureaucracy will issue those regulations. Again, we are saying no 
Federal agency could issue this, and ``No State agency that issues 
driver's licenses or identification documents may accept for any 
official purpose.'' Those are the key words.
  Let me turn to what I consider to be the first problem connected with 
this language. It is a States rights issue. We hear a lot of discussion 
on this floor about States rights. This seems to be the time and the 
year when we are trying to return power to the local jurisdictions, 
return power to the people. It is ironic that the language of this bill 
as it is currently written goes in just the opposite direction. 
Although we oftentimes talk about the 10th amendment, I cannot think of 
a more clear violation of the 10th amendment than the language that we 
have in front of us today. This is the language that pertains directly 
to the States.

       . . . no State agency that issues driver's licenses or 
     identification documents, may accept for any official purpose 
     a copy of a birth certificate . . . unless it is issued by a 
     State or local government registrar and it conforms to 
     standards . . . promulgated by the Federal agency designated 
     by the President. . . .

  Listen to the language, ``No State agency that issues driver's 
licenses or identification documents, may accept for any official 
purpose. * * * '' We are telling a State in one of the basic functions 
of government, one of their oldest functions, the issuance of birth 
certificates, and other functions we rely on States to do, issuing 
driver's licenses, we are turning to them and saying you cannot accept 
documents except as prescribed by the Federal Government. We are 
telling that agency, we are telling that State, what they can and 
cannot accept. This, I think, is going in the wrong direction.
  I am not a constitutional scholar but I think it has clear problems 
with the 10th amendment if anything has any problems with the 10th 
amendment. You tell the State what they can accept and what they cannot 
accept for their own purposes.
  Let me move, if I could, to another problem that I see with this 
provision. The second problem, I will call it sort of a nonmonetary 
problem, the nonmonetary cost. This bill as currently

[[Page S4471]]

written, going to the national driver's license, going to a national 
birth certificate, is going to cause a tremendous amount of anguish and 
tremendous amount of inconvenience for the American people. It is the 
American people who are abiding by the law who are really going to be 
punished by this. This is, in essence, what the bill says. It says to 
the approximately 260-some million Americans, each presumably who has a 
birth certificate somewhere, that your birth certificate is still 
valid, it is still valid, you just cannot use it for anything, or 
almost anything. If you want to use that birth certificate, you have to 
get a new one. You have to get a new one that conforms to what the 
bureaucracy has said the new birth certificate must conform to.
  Your old birth certificate is no good. You can keep it at home, you 
can keep it stored in your closet or wherever you have it, that is OK, 
it is still valid, but if you want to use it to get a passport or you 
want to use it for any purpose, you cannot do that. You have to go back 
and get a new birth certificate.

  What am I talking about in the real world where we all live and our 
constituents live? Let me give three examples, real world examples of 
inconvenience and problems that this is going to cause. Every year, 
millions of Americans get married and many of them change their names. 
To have a name change legally accepted by Social Security--this is the 
law today--today, to have a name change legally accepted by Social 
Security or by the IRS, today you must show a marriage certificate plus 
birth certificate. That is the law today.
  This amendment will not change that. But here is how it will affect 
it. If this bill becomes law, the birth certificate you currently have 
is no good and you will not be able to use it for this purpose. You are 
going to have to go back to your origin, the place of your birth. You 
are going to have to do as Mary and Joseph did, you are going to have 
to go back to where you came from, where you were born, or at least you 
are going to have to do this by mail, or in some way contact that 
county where you were born, because the birth certificate they gave 
your parents 20 years ago, 25 years ago, you cannot use that anymore, 
because that is what this bill says. They are going to have to issue 
you a new one and you are going to have to go back and get that new 
birth certificate. I think that is going to be a shock to many people 
when they decide they want to get married.
  June is historically the most popular month, we are told, for 
weddings. My wife Fran and I were married in June so I guess we are 
average, with a number of million other Americans. If this bill passes, 
I do not think it is too much to say that June will not only be known 
as the month of weddings, people getting married, it will also be the 
month where people will have to stand in line, because that is really 
what people are going to have to do. It is one more step back to get a 
new birth certificate for them. How many people get married each year? 
I do not know, but each one of these people will be affected.
  Let me give a second example. What happens when you turn 16 years of 
age? You ask any teenager. They will tell you that in most States at 
least they get the opportunity to try to get a driver's license. How 
many of us have had that experience, gone down with their child or, if 
we remember that long ago, ourselves, trying to get a driver's license? 
How many people had to stand in line? I do not think it is unique to my 
experience, or the experience of my friends. You go and stand in line 
and it takes a while. Imagine your constituent or my constituent, our 
family members going down with our child at the age of 16, standing in 
line at the DMV. We get to the head of the line. You have a birth 
certificate. And the clerk looks at you and says, ``Sorry.'' You say, 
``What's wrong? I have this birth certificate.''
  They say, ``No, we are sorry. This is not one of the new federally 
prescribed birth certificates. This was issued 16 years ago. This 
doesn't conform. It doesn't work. The Federal law says we cannot accept 
that birth certificate.''

  You then leave and either go back to the place your child was born or 
write to the place your child was born and you get that birth 
certificate.
  We live in a very mobile society. I always relate things to my own 
experience. In the case of our children, that means we would have to go 
back to Hamilton, OH; we would have to go back, for one of them, to 
Lima, OH; one to Springfield, OH; one to Springfield, VA, a couple to 
Xenia, OH. You would have to go back in each case to where that child 
was born and go back to the health department or whatever the issuing 
agency was of the State to get that birth certificate.
  Once you got the birth certificate, you then have to get in line at 
the DMV. That is how it is going to work in the real world. Let me give 
one more example.
  When people turn 65 in this country, they have an opportunity to 
receive Social Security and they have the opportunity to get Medicare. 
One of the things you have to do, obviously, is prove your age. How 
many people, Mr. President, who turn 65 in 1996, live in the same 
county they lived in when they were born? I suspect not too many.
  How shocked they are going to be when they go in to Social Security 
and they present a birth certificate and Social Security says, ``Sorry. 
Yeah, you waited in line for half an hour; sorry, we can't take this 
birth certificate.''
  ``Why not? I have had this certificate for 65 years.''
  ``No, Congress passed a law 2, 3 years ago. You can't use this birth 
certificate anymore. You have to go get a new one.''
  Imagine the complaints we are going to get in regard to that.
  Getting married, turning 16 and getting a driver's license, wanting 
to go on Social Security--these are just three examples of how this is 
going to work in the real world.
  I think it is important to remember that this is an attempt to deal 
with a problem not created by the people who we are, in essence, 
punishing by this language, not created by the teenager or his or her 
parents who turned 16, not created by the senior citizen who turned 65 
and wants Social Security.
  How many times are we going to have people call us saying, ``I 
certainly hope you didn't vote for that bill, Senator.'' ``I certainly 
hope, Congressman, you didn't vote for that bill.''
  Let me turn to another cost, because this is a costly thing, and we 
will talk just for a moment about the costs incurred in the whole 
reissuing of birth certificates. You can just imagine how many million 
new birth certificates are going to have to be issued. Somebody has to 
pay for that.

  It is true the CBO has said this does not come under the new law we 
passed, because under that law, you have to be up to $50 million of 
unfunded mandates per year before it is labeled an unfunded mandate. 
But that does not mean it is not an unfunded mandate, nor does it mean 
it is not a cost to local or State government. Nor does it mean it is 
not going to be a cost to citizens. Let me go through a little bit on 
the cost.
  If you look at the language in the bill, the idea behind the language 
is very good, and that is to get birth certificates that are tamper-
free. We took the opportunity to contact printers and to talk to them 
to find out, under the language of this bill, what a State would have 
to do.
  Although there is discretion left to the bureaucracy in how this is 
going to be implemented and the States are going to have some option 
about how it is done, the printers we talked to said there is anywhere 
from 10 to 18 to 20 different safety features that one would expect to 
be included in this new birth certificate.
  Let me just read some of the things that they are talking about. I am 
not going to bore everyone with the details. We have two pages worth of 
different types of things:
  Thermochromic ink--colored ink which is sensitive to heat created by 
human touch or frictional abrasion. When activated, the ink will 
disappear or change to another color.
  Abrasion ink--a white transparent ink which is difficult to see, but 
will fluoresce under ultraviolet light exposure.
  Chemical voids--incorporated into the paper must be images that will 
exhibit a hidden multilingual void message that appears when 
alterations are attempted with chemical ink eradicators, bleach or 
hypochlorites.
  A fourth example: Copy ban and void pantograph.

[[Page S4472]]

  A fifth example: Fluorescent ink.
  A sixth example: High-resolution latent images.
  A seventh example: Secure lock.
  And on and on and on. This is not something, as I say, that is brain 
surgery. It is not something that cannot be done. It is something that 
clearly can be done. But let no one think this is not going to cost 
millions and millions of dollars, and someone is going to pay for it.
  The American people are going to pay for it one way or the other. 
They are going to pay for it if the local government eats up the cost 
or absorbs the cost, and that is going to be what we like to refer to 
as an unfunded mandate.

  If they pass it on to the consumer, to the couple who just got 
married, or the 16-year-old who gets his driver's license, or they pass 
it on to the 65-year-old who wants Social Security, that is going to be 
a tax. It will be a hidden tax. The cost is going to be there, and it 
is going to be millions and millions of dollars.
  As my colleague from Michigan pointed out, all these changes, all 
this burden, all this inconvenience, all these violations of the States 
rights is being done, really, to go after the problem of illegal aliens 
and the people, really, who are hiring them.
  We have talked--it is difficult to get accurate statistics on this--
we talked to INS, we talked to the people who are experts in the field, 
and I think it is a common opinion that the majority of illegal aliens 
who are illegally hired are hired by people who know it. They know it.
  This portion of this bill is not going to solve that problem at all. 
So, again, we narrow it down. We are doing an awful lot. We are doing 
all these things to correct only a portion of the problem.
  Let me conclude by simply stating, again, this is a good bill. No one 
should think that there are not tough provisions in this bill. If a 
bill like this had been brought to the Senate floor 2 years ago, 4 
years ago, 8 years ago, it probably would not have had any chance. I 
think I heard my colleague from Wyoming say something very similar to 
that.
  It is a strong bill. It is a very strong bill without this what I 
consider to be a horrible infringement on people's rights. What we 
intend to do, or try to do, with this amendment is to take out these 
sections, these sections that are going to impact 260 million, 270 
million Americans and punish them to try to get at this problem. We do 
not think it is going to work. We think it is going to be very 
intrusive, and we point out also that the bill, without these 
provisions, is, in fact, a very, very strong bill, and it is a bill 
that every Member in this Chamber can go home and be proud of and can 
say, ``We have taken very tough measures to deal with illegal 
immigration.''
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Abraham-Feingold 
amendment. Let me not mince words. This amendment, in my view, is a 
bill killer, it is a bill gutter, it decimates the foundation of 
employer sanctions. It will provide, if it passes, a bill that is 
gutless, toothless, aged, and will not work.
  We must make employer sanctions work. And let me tell you why. The 
reason why is, take my State, California. We have 2 million people in 
California illegally. How do these people survive? They survive one of 
two ways--they either get on benefits through fraudulent documents or 
they work. How do they work? With employer sanctions, an employer is 
not supposed to give them jobs.
  My opponents would have you believe that every employer wants to 
break the law, that every employer is going to hire people simply 
because they know them. I can tell you from the State that has the 
largest number of illegal immigrants in the Nation--40 percent of 
them--that is not the case.
  Employer sanctions can only be effective if there is some method of 
verification. The Simpson-Kennedy language is a pilot to ask the INS to 
see how we can verify information that employers receive. Let me show 
you graphically why it is important that we do so. The birth 
certificate, which Senator Simpson has pointed out correctly, is the 
most counterfeited document in the United States. Let me show you why. 
Let me show you a few forms for birth certificates.
  This is one from the State of Illinois. It is a fraudulent document 
that has not been printed upon.
  This is a second one from the State of Illinois. There are literally 
tens of thousands of different kinds of birth certificates in the 
United States. This is a form from somewhere in Texas.
  So the birth certificate is easy. These papers are duplicated in the 
right color, that of Austin, TX, then they are put out wholesale. They 
are then laminated, as you see here. And no one can tell the 
difference.
  Same thing goes here. This is a forged copy of a record of marriage, 
a marriage certificate.
  This is another from Cook County, IL, a forged copy of a marriage 
certificate.
  This is another one, a forged copy of a marriage certificate.
  This is a forged GED application. I mean, if I am interviewing 
someone and this application is filled out, and they say this is 
testimony to the fact that they have gotten an equivalency degree in 
this country--and, look, there is the official seal and here are my 
grades on it--who am I to say it is not true? I would have no way of 
knowing.
  Here is a forged divorce certificate. If this were handed to me as an 
employer I would have no way of knowing.
  Here is a trade school diploma that is forged. If this were handed to 
me, I would have no way of knowing.
  Here is an achievement test certificate for high school from the 
State of Indiana. If this were handed to me as an employer, when I 
asked the question, ``are you qualified to work in this country?'' how 
would I know? I would not.
  Here is another forged divorce certificate. If this were handed to 
me, I would not know. Why would I not? Because the industry is very 
sophisticated.
  Here are some of the preliminary forgeries, the basic paper from 
which these forgeries are done. How easily it is replicated.
  Here is the back of a green card before it is finished. How easy it 
is replicated.
  Let me show you what the final result is. This is a forged green 
card. The names are blotted out. This is a real green card. Who can 
tell the difference? No one. These are the backs. Who can tell the 
difference? No one.
  This is a forged green card. Who can tell the difference?
  This is forged--and look at them, look at the numbers. These are all 
perfect forgeries, every single one of these. These exist by the 
millions. They are made in less than 20 minutes. And they cost anywhere 
from $25 to $150. Anyone can get them. How is an employer supposed to 
know? You cannot know without some way of verifying the authenticity of 
the document which is submitted to you.
  What the Simpson-Kennedy test pilot does is ask INS to see what can 
be done so that the documents can be verified by an employer. The bill 
narrows the list of documents down to six. So at least some of the 
confusion can be avoided there.
  It is not fair to anybody to have a system that exists in a bogus 
form more frequently than it exists in a real form. How does a birth 
certificate mean anything to anybody for any official purpose if it is 
counterfeited by the tens of millions in this country? How does a green 
card mean anything? How does a divorce certificate mean anything if it 
is counterfeited and you cannot verify it?
  These are the real problems with which this bill attempts to deal. If 
this amendment is successful, you might as well junk employer 
sanctions, you might as well say, ``We're going to permit people to 
continue to submit bogus documents.''
  Remember, somebody here illegally has only two choices--one, they 
earn a living, secondly, they go on public support. Unless they have 
somebody very well to do in this country who can take care of them--and 
I would submit to you that that is a remote possibility--those are the 
only two chances. So the only way they can exist or stay--and right now 
it is very attractive to come to this country illegally because it is 
so easy to obtain these counterfeit documents.

[[Page S4473]]

  That is the reality. That is why we have on the Southwest border 
5,000 people crossing every single day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, because they can go to Alvarado 
Street in Los Angeles, and they can purchase these documents on the 
street within 20 minutes. Our system of verification is nonexistent, 
and they know that. Therefore, if they submit a counterfeit document to 
an employer, the employer has little choice other than to accept it or 
ask for more documents. Then if the employer asks for more documents, 
the employer very often is sued.
  So it is a very, very tenuous, real-life experience out there. This 
bill makes a very modest attempt--where in committee, it became a test 
pilot. The language, which I think it was a Kennedy amendment, was 
already a compromise. Many of us on the committee wanted an absolute 
verification system, put into affect right away. That did not pass in 
committee.
  So the compromise was a pilot. Then the results of the pilot would be 
brought back to Congress. Now we see an attempt to get rid of the 
pilot. If you get rid of a pilot, what is left? What is left is that we 
make ourselves into hypocrites, in my opinion, because we create a 
system that cannot function.
  What we are seeing today is an employer verification method that does 
not function. It does not function because you cannot verify fraudulent 
documents, and because fraudulent documents abound.
  I must say that I think it is very possible to verify. We live in an 
information age. Hundreds of data bases now exist in both public and 
private sectors, data bases for national credit cards, for health 
insurance companies, credit rating bureaus. Technology is, in fact, 
advancing so rapidly that the ability to create these data bases and 
ensure their accuracy is enhanced dramatically every year.
  Why, then, does the Senate of the United States not want the U.S. 
Government to use a computer data base to try to find a better way to 
help employers verify worker eligibility? I really believe that many of 
the issues raised by opponents to this provision--that it is 
bureaucratic, that it is prone to errors, that it is unworkable, that 
it is too intrusive--are simply unfounded.
  In fact, the provision was specifically written, as I understand, to 
alleviate such concerns, by defining clear limits on the use of the 
system, establishing strict penalties for the misuse of information, 
and requiring congressional approval before any national system goes 
into effect. What are the authors of this amendment so afraid of? Any 
national pilot system would come back to this body for approval prior 
to its being put in place.
  The legislation also imposes some limits. It limits the use of 
documents. Documents must be resistant to counterfeiting and tampering. 
The system will not require a national identification card for any 
reason other than the verification of eligibility for employment or 
receipt of public benefits. There is no one card. Those who use, I 
think, as a ruse to defeat this pilot project, I hear out there, 
``Well, Senator Feinstein, you are calling for a national ID. That 
violates all our civil rights.'' To that I have to say, ``There is no 
national ID anywhere in the legislation before this body''. None. It is 
a red herring. It is a guise. It is a dupe. It is a ruse, simply to 
strike a mortal blow at the system.
  I have a very hard time because California is so impacted by illegal 
immigration. For 3 years we have said we must enforce our border, we 
must improve customs, we must be able to really put a lid on the 
numbers because the numbers are so large. I have come to the conclusion 
that within the scope of possible immigration legislation, we are stuck 
with an existing system. That existing system is employer sanctions. 
Therefore, why not try to make them work? The already compromised 
verification system--just a pilot, which allows the INS to work it out, 
and bring it back to this body and let us say yea or nay to it--is 
simply a modest attempt to get some meaning into this legislation.
  Let me say what I honest to God believe is the truth. If we cannot 
effect sound, just and moderate controls, the people of America will 
rise to stop all immigration. I am as sure of that as I am that I am 
standing here now, because where the grievances exist, they exist in 
large number. Where the fraud exists, it exists in large numbers. Where 
it exists, wholesale industries develop around it. It is 
extraordinarily important, in my opinion, that this amendment be 
defeated.
  Let me talk for a moment about discrimination because I just met with 
a group of California legislators who wanted to know how this works. 
One of the big areas they raised was discrimination. As I understand 
the system, it must have safeguards to prevent discrimination in 
employment or public assistance. The way it would do that is through a 
selective use of the system or a refusal of employment opportunities or 
assistance because of a perceived likelihood that additional 
verification will be needed. The legislation contains civil and 
criminal remedies for unlawful disclosure of information. Disclosure of 
information for any reasons not authorized in the bill will be a 
misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $5,000. Unauthorized 
disclosure of information is grounds for civil action. The legislation 
also contains employer safeguards, that employers shall not be guilty 
of employing an unauthorized alien if the employer followed the 
procedures required by the system and the alien was verified by the 
system as eligible for employment.
  In my view, the Simpson-Kennedy test pilot makes sense. I have a very 
hard time understanding why anyone would oppose it because it is the 
only way we can make employer sanctions work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the case for ensuring that birth 
certificates are going to be printed on paper to reduce the possibility 
of counterfeit has been made here. I want to speak to that issue 
because it has been addressed by some saying this is ultimately the 
responsibility of the State, and the Federal Government does not really 
have any role in this area.
  Mr. President, sometime we will have to decide whether States will 
have their own independent immigration policies or whether we will have 
a national immigration policy. It really gets down to that. I have my 
differences with some of the provisions in this bill. One that I think 
the case has been made, and I know it will be made again in just a few 
moments by the Senator from Wyoming, is that if we do not deal in an 
important way with ensuring that we will have birth certificates which 
are going to be, effectively, even printed on paper that cannot be 
duplicated and other safeguards, really, this whole effort ought to be 
understood for what it is.
  That is, basically, a sham. It will be a sham not only with regard to 
immigration, but it will be a sham on all of the programs that we 
talked about yesterday in terms of the public programs because 
individuals will be going out and getting the birth certificates and 
getting citizen documents to prove they are American citizens and then 
drawing down on the public programs.
  We spent hours yesterday saying which programs we are going to 
permit, even for illegals to be able to benefit from, or which ones we 
will be able to permit legals to be eligible for, and we went through 
the whole process of deeming. If you go out there and are able to get 
the birth certificates and falsify those, you will be able to 
demonstrate you are a senior citizen and you will be able to draw down 
on all of those programs. This reaches the heart of the whole question 
of illegal immigrants. It reaches the whole question of protecting 
American workers. It reaches the whole issue of protecting employers. 
It reaches the issue about protecting the American taxpayers.
  Let me give a few examples of what we are looking at across the 
country. Some States have open birth record laws. In these States, 
anyone who can identify a birth record can get a copy of it. The birth 
certificates are treated as public property. In some States--for 
example, in the State of Ohio, you can walk into the registry of vital 
statistics in Ohio, an open record State, and ask for, in this 
instance, Senator DeWine's birth certificate. The registry would have 
to give it to me, no questions asked. I could walk into the registry in 
Wisconsin and get Senator Feingold's birth certificate just as easily. 
Some States even let you have a copy through the mail. Once I have a

[[Page S4474]]

copy of one of their birth certificates, I could take it, for example, 
down to the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles and get an Ohio driver's 
license with Senator DeWine's birth date and address, but my picture 
instead of his. I now have two employer identification documents to 
establish an eligibility to work in the United States and also to be 
able to be eligible for public programs.

  Mr. President, with all that we are doing in terms of tamperproof 
programs, and all that we are doing in terms of setting up additional 
agencies and investigators and protections for American workers, and 
all of the resources that we are providing down at the border, when you 
recognize that half of the people that will be coming in and will be 
illegals came here legally, and they will have an opportunity to take 
advantage of these kinds of gaping holes in our system, then the rest 
of the bill--with all due respect, we can put hundreds of thousands of 
guards down on the border, but if they are able to come in, as half of 
them do, on various visas and be able to run through that process that 
anybody can achieve in a day or day and a half and circumvent all of 
that, then I must say, Mr. President, we are not really being serious 
about this issue.
  We can all say, well, our local--I know the arguments and I have 
heard the arguments. There is a lot of truth in much of what is said in 
the arguments. But we have to, at some time--and I hope it is now--
recognize that we are going to have to at least set certain kinds of 
standards and let the States do whatever they want to do within those 
standards. They have to print it on paper that is as resistantproof to 
tampering as we can scientifically make it. They can set this up, and 
they can do it whatever way they want to do it. But there are minimum 
kinds of standards to try to reach the basic integrity of the birth 
certificates that are going to be necessary. That has been pointed out. 
That is the breeder document. That is where all of this really starts. 
It is easily circumvented. We can build all the other kinds of houses 
of cards on top of trying to do something about illegal aliens, and 
unless we are going to reach down and deal with this basic document, we 
are really not fulfilling, I think, our responsibility to the American 
people with a bill that is really worthy of its name, because we are 
leaving these gaping holes.
  I could go into other things, but I will not take the time because 
others want to speak. I will go through other kinds of illustrations 
that are taking place today. We know what the problem is. You have, as 
Senator DeWine said, the fraudulent documents that are all being 
duplicated fraudulently down at the border when we might be able to do 
something about tamperproof elements. But unless we are going to deal 
with the breeder document, which is the birth certificate, we are 
really not going to be able to get a handle not only on illegal 
immigration, but also on protecting the taxpayers, because people will 
be able to use the birth certificate to demonstrate that they are a 
citizen and then draw down on the various programs. That, I think, 
really makes a sham of a great deal of what is being attempted at this 
time.

  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Abraham-Feingold amendment to strike the worker 
verification proposal from this bill.
  It has been said many times already in the past, and today on the 
floor, that we cannot effectively combat illegal immigration without 
having a national worker verification proposal. It has been said that 
the employer sanction laws implemented in the 1986 act have been 
largely ineffective due to the absence of such a verification system.
  As we all know, Mr. President, there are two major channels of 
illegal immigration. The first is composed of those who cross our 
borders illegally, without visas and without inspection. Roughly 
300,000 such individuals enter and remain in our country unlawfully 
each year.
  This, as we all know and agree, is unquestionably a serious problem 
along our southwestern border. This Congress does have a responsibility 
to provide additional resources to the U.S. Border Patrol and other 
enforcement agencies to prevent such individuals from crossing the 
border in the first place. So I strongly support the provisions in S. 
1664 that provide additional border guards and enforcement personnel.
  Mr. President, the second part of the equation, though, which 
represents up to one-half of the illegal immigration problem, is the 
problem known as visa overstayers. These are people who enter our 
country legally, usually on a tourist or student visa, and then remain 
in the United States unlawfully only after the visa has expired.
  But despite this phenomenon, representing up to 50 percent--50 
percent--of our illegal immigration problem, there was not a single 
provision in the original committee legislation to address this 
problem--not a single word about half of the whole illegal immigration 
problem.
  Instead, the bill supporters proposed a massive, new national worker 
verification system, complete with uniform Federal identification 
documents. So, rather than targeting the individuals who break our laws 
and are here illegally, the premise of that proposal was to ensure that 
the identity of every worker in America--U.S. citizens, legal permanent 
residents, and so on--had to be verified by a Government agency in 
Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, we are going to hear extensive debate about whether or 
not what is in this bill is actually going to work, and I will comment 
on that in a few minutes. But I think we first need to ask the question 
of whether this, in any way, is an appropriate response to the illegal 
immigration problem.
  According to INS figures, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population 
is here illegally. Mr. President, do we really want to require 98 
percent of Americans to have their identities verified by the Federal 
Government every time they apply for a job or public assistance?
  Think about what this means to every employer in this country, Mr. 
President. Every employer would have to live under such a system if it 
was fully implemented. Suppose a dairy farmer in rural Wisconsin, or 
perhaps rural New Hampshire, wants to hire a part-time employee. Should 
that farmer have to get permission from a Washington bureaucrat before 
he hires the worker? How is the verification check to be completed? If 
it ends up being an electronic system, does that mean the farmer is 
going to have to spend $2,000 or $3,000 on a new computer and another 
$1,000 on the required software to be able to interface with a computer 
somewhere in Washington, DC--all so he can hire just one part-time 
employee on his farm in Wisconsin or New Hampshire?
  Mr. President, if fully implemented, this, obviously, is not a 
measured response to the illegal immigration problem. It suggests that 
the way to find a needle in a haystack is to set the haystack on fire.
  It is not as if we are moving to a national verification system as a 
last resort. Just in the past few years has the administration begun to 
take seriously the task of patrolling our Nation's borders. Experiments 
such as Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, and Operation Gatekeeper in 
San Diego, have demonstrated that there is a way to prevent 
undocumented persons from entering the United States.

  Moreover, we have never tried to attack the visa overstayer problem. 
Again, that is the problem that constitutes nearly one-half of the 
illegal problem. No one has ever proposed such targeted reforms--until 
now.
  Our amendment contains provisions that impose tough new penalties on 
persons who overstay their visas by withholding future visas from 
persons who violate the terms of their agreements.
  In addition, anybody who applies for a legal visa must submit certain 
information to the INS that will allow the INS to track such persons 
and determine who is here lawfully and who is here unlawfully.
  These bold reforms should be given an opportunity to work. Let us 
give them a try before we commit ourselves to experimenting with a 
costly and burdensome national verification system.
  Moreover, Mr. President--and, of course, I acknowledge that during 
the committee's work, this was turned into

[[Page S4475]]

more of a pilot program approach. Nonetheless, the so-called pilot 
programs contained in this legislation are riddled with problems. Let 
us be honest. We would not be having these so-called pilot programs if 
the eventual goal was not to have a national verification system up and 
running in the near future. Why would we do them if that was not the 
ultimate objective? Indeed, in addition to the pilot programs, this 
bill, as reported out of the Judiciary Committee, requires the 
President to develop just such a plan for a national system and submit 
it to Congress.
  We also know there are going to be numerous errors in the system. As 
the Senator from Michigan has pointed out, one Federal data base that 
is to be used with this system currently has an error rate of over 20 
percent.
  So we know that millions and millions of Americans will be wrongfully 
denied employment and Government assistance due to bureaucratic errors.
  Now the sponsors of the provision will tell you that the system is 
only supposed to have an error rate of 1 percent. But read the bill. 
The bill clearly states that the system should have an objective of an 
error rate of less than 1 percent. It could have an error rate of 5, 
10, or 20 percent and it would be perfectly OK under this bill.
  But perhaps nothing is as troubling to me about this proposal as the 
fact that it puts us squarely on the road to having some sort of 
national ID card.
  Now I know that the very words ``ID card'' ruffles the feathers of 
the sponsors of this provision. And I know that they have crafted this 
language very carefully so there is not an actual identification 
document created by this language.
  But even many of the congressional supporters of a national 
verification system have pointed out that this proposal will not work 
without some sort of national identification document. Why? Because any 
job applicant can hand an employer a legitimate ID card that has, for 
example, been stolen or doctored.
  The employer will run the card through the system and it will check 
out. But the card does not belong to the individual, so that individual 
has just fraudulently obtained a job or received welfare assistance.
  That is exactly what is likely to happen if this bill becomes law.
  Well, Mr. President, is there any way to prevent this sort of fraud 
from happening? One solution has been suggested. Let me quote Frank 
Ricchiazzi who is the assistant director of the California department 
of motor vehicles.
  In testimony before the Judiciary Committee last May, Mr. Ricchiazzi 
said the following:

       All the databases and communication systems in the world 
     fill not prevent the clever and resourceful individual from 
     assuming multiple identities with quality fraudulent 
     documents. What is needed is the ability to tie the documents 
     back to a unique physiological identifier commonly referred 
     to as biometric technology (retinal scan, fingerprint, hand 
     print, voice print, etc).

  So fingerprinting every person in America is one suggested solution 
to this problem.
  Now this approach may sound a little farfetched, but my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle may be surprised that the original committee 
bill required every birth certificate and driver's license in America 
to be adorned with a fingerprint.
  This is not totally far-fetched. It is what we had to consider in the 
first place in committee.
  And it is my understanding that even with the last-minute changes 
made yesterday to the birth certificate requirements, the bill 
continues to allow Federal agencies to preempt the authority of the 
States by requiring State agencies to follow federally mandated 
regulations with respect to the composition and issuance of their birth 
certificates and drivers license.
  The bill's supporters claim that the fingerprint requirements have 
been removed from the legislation. But again, read the bill. The 
legislation before us allows the administration to determine what sort 
of safety and tamper-proof features every State's driver's licenses 
must have.
  We are going to put something in this Congress to say you cannot use 
it for something else.
  So if the Department of Transportation decides to require the State 
of Wisconsin to begin collecting and processing fingerprints of all 
driver's license applicants, the State of Wisconsin would be forced to 
comply under this legislation with the national fingerprint mandate.
  That is why this provision, even with the recent modifications, 
continues to be opposed by the National Association of Counties and the 
National Conference of State Legislatures.
  The bill's supporters will also say that the legislation clearly 
prohibits any identification documents required for the verification 
system to also be required for other purposes.
  Mr. President, that is not much of a guarantee. In fact, it is no 
guarantee and on the contrary, by establishing such federally mandated 
identification documents we open the door for these documents and the 
verification system to be used in the future for a variety of purposes 
that could be completely different from what we intended, and something 
that none of us would support.
  At first, Mr. President, Members of Congress may propose that people 
present these documents and go through the verification process for 
very legitimate purposes. Maybe they will say, ``Well, we have to use 
these ID's or documents to board an airplane; maybe we will be required 
to use them to adopt a child; maybe it will be required if you want to 
enlist in the Armed Forces.''
  And pretty soon, the verification process and identification 
documents will be required for so many purposes that it just might be a 
good idea to carry the I.D. document around in your wallet.
  Does that sound farfetched Mr. President? It should not, because I 
just described the Social Security card--a card that was originally 
intended for one purpose and is now required for so many purposes that 
most people carry it around in their wallets or pocketbooks. And Social 
Security numbers are used for numerous identification purposes from the 
number on your driver's license to assessing computer networks.
  I know, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming will claim that 
the bill specifically prohibits the verification system from being used 
for other purposes.
  But nothing in this legislation, including the so-called privacy 
protections, can prevent a future Congress from passing a law to 
require these identification documents and the verification system to 
serve different purposes than originally intended.
  That is precisely why Senators should not be misled into believing 
that the pilot projects contained in this legislation are harmless and 
will have no effect on their constituents.
  The pilot programs are not intended to merely provide a testing 
ground. If the pilot programs are just meant to provide us with test 
results, why does the bill specifically require the President to 
develop and submit to Congress a plan for expanding the pilot projects 
into a nationwide worker verification system?
  That is the goal of the verification proposal contained in the 
legislation and Senators should not be misled into believing that these 
are harmless pilot programs that are not going to affect their 
constituents and are going to somehow magically disappear in a few 
years.
  Mr. President, the number and range of groups and organizations 
supporting the Abraham-Feingold amendment is quite astounding. It is a 
coalition of the left, represented by the ACLU, the National Council of 
La Raza and the American Jewish Committee, and the right, represented 
by the NFIB, the National Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, as well as some 30 other national organizations 
representing business, labor, ethnic and religious organizations which 
all support the Abraham-Feingold amendment.
  Why do they do this? Because they know it is critical that we abandon 
this rather heavyhanded, costly approach to combating illegal 
immigration and instead focus on true reform that focuses on the 
individuals who break the law, and not those who abide by them.
  So I very much commend my friends from Michigan and Ohio, and others, 
in their efforts in fighting this intrusive proposal.

[[Page S4476]]

  I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the organizations 
supporting the Abraham-Feingold amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Organizations Supporting Abraham-Feingold

       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Restaurant Association.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       American Bar Association.
       Americans For Tax Reform.
       United States Catholic Conference.
       Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       National Retail Federation.
       American Jewish Committee.
       Associated Builders and Contractors.
       Associated General Contractors.
       National Asian-Pacific American Legal Consortium.
       Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       International Mass Retail Association.
       Cato Institute.
       Service Employees International Union.
       Asian-Pacific American Labor Alliance.
       National Association of Beverage Retailers.
       UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
     Employees).
       National Association of Convenience Stores.
       League of United Latin-American Citizens.
       Food Marketing Institute.
       Hispanic National Bar Association.
       Food Distributors International.
       The College and University Personnel Association.
       American Hotel and Motel Association.
       International Association of Amusement Parks and 
     Attractions.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Let me differ with my friend from Wisconsin who is one of the finest 
Members of this body. It was a great day for the Senate when Russ 
Feingold was elected to serve here.
  When he says this amendment increases penalties for those who come in 
legally and overstay, this amendment does nothing of the sort. This 
amendment does one thing and one thing only, and that is to weaken 
enforcement of illegal immigration.
  What the bill does--not this amendment--on those who overstay 
legally, anyone who overstays more than 60 days cannot apply for coming 
back in again legally for 3 or 5 years. We hire more investigators. You 
have to apply for a visa to the original consular office where you made 
the original application.
  Three things I do not think anyone can question. No. 1 is the thing 
that Senator Simpson has stressed over and over again, and that is the 
attraction for illegal immigration is the magnet of a job. I do not 
think anyone seriously questions that. No. 2 is that we have massive 
fraud that assists people who are here illegally. I do not think anyone 
questions that. No. 3 is the GAO report shows that we have a serious 
problem with discrimination particularly against Hispanics and Asian-
Americans or people who speak with an accent, maybe a Polish accent or 
whatever the accent might be because there is a reluctance on the part 
of employers to hire them.
  Unless we have some method of a voluntary identification, that 
discrimination is going to continue. So, in line with the 
recommendations of the Jordan Commission, pilot programs have been 
suggested. No pilot program can be followed through by a Clinton 
administration or a Dole administration or anyone else without 
congressional action. So there is that safeguard here.
  I think this is essential. If this amendment is adopted, frankly, you 
just defang the whole bill. It is a toothless venture. You are trying 
to eat steak without teeth. I hope to never try that. I hope the 
Presiding Officer never has to try that. You have to have teeth in this 
if we are going to do anything about illegal immigration.
  There are provisions in this bill that I do not like. I was defeated 
last night on an amendment, and I am probably going to be defeated 
today on a couple of amendments that I think make a great deal of 
sense. I think in some ways the bill is too harsh. But it is essential 
that we take a look at this.
  Let me just add--and I know you should not make appeals on the basis 
of personalities--this whole issue of immigration is one of these 
cyclical things. Right now there is a lot of interest, but for a while 
there was very little interest. There were just three of us who served 
on that subcommittee, the smallest subcommittee in the Senate, because 
there was not that much interest--Alan Simpson, Ted Kennedy, and Paul 
Simon. I was the very junior member both in terms of service and in 
terms of knowledge.

  I say to my colleagues who may be listening or their staffs who may 
be listening, whenever Alan Simpson and Ted Kennedy say this is a bad 
amendment in the field of immigration, I think you ought to listen 
very, very carefully. They know this area. Complicated as it is, they 
know this area well. We have a problem with illegal immigration, and 
you cannot deal with this problem unless you deal with the magnet that 
employers have, the area of fraud, and I also think the area of 
discrimination. There is no way of solving this without having some 
pilot programs.
  We could launch something without having a pilot program. I think 
that would be unwise. It seems to me this is a prudent approach that 
really makes sense, and with all due respect to my friend from 
Michigan, I think this amendment should be defeated.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I think we have had an interesting debate. We probably 
will have a little bit more. There is no time agreement here. But there 
are some serious distortions presented to us, and that is always vexing 
because obviously persons are listening to those distortions and taking 
them to heart.
  I have been in this business for 17 years, and that is not to say it 
has been a joyful experience, but it was much more a pleasure when 
Senator Paul Simon joined this ragged subcommittee consisting of 
Senator Ted Kennedy and myself because no one else would take on the 
issue. So for several years it was just a little three-member 
subcommittee--Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Simon--because 
others would come up to us in the course of the entire year of work 
saying, ``When you get busy on doing something about illegal 
immigration, you let me know and I will help you.''
  Unfortunately, nobody does help because there are so many cross-
currents. I have never seen more--I am not talking about the Senate. I 
am talking about outside the Senate. I have seen groups hop into the 
sack with other groups they would not even talk to 10 years ago. I have 
seen some of the most egregious pandering and prostituting of ideals 
outside this beltway that I have ever seen, people who are cynical, 
cynical in the extreme with what they are doing on this issue, some 
of the think tanks cynical to the extreme. I am not, please hear me, 
talking about a single person in this arena. I have the deepest respect 
for Senator Spencer Abraham. I helped campaign for him in Michigan and 
would do it again in an instant. I have high regard for Senator Michael 
DeWine. I helped campaign for him in Ohio, and I would do it instantly. 
Senator Feingold I have come to know, a spirited legislator of the old 
school--doing your homework. So that is not the issue.

  But you are missing everything we are trying to do. Somebody is 
missing the entire thing, and Senator Simon has expressed it 
beautifully: You cannot do the things that are in this bill unless you 
have at least an attempt to find out what verification systems we will 
use in the United States.
  The present stature of the bill simply says that we will have 
verification projects or processes of these following options. If I had 
my way, I would make them requirements, and I would say it is required 
that these following pilot projects take place in the next years. That 
is what we should be doing. Then none of them go into effect, or not 
one of them goes into effect, until we have another vote.
  That is what is in this bill. There is nothing in here that has to do 
with national ID or all the sinister activity that you can ever 
discuss--Americans on the slippery slope, a tragedy of employers having 
to seek permission to hire people. They already do. It is almost as if 
one were speaking into a vacuum.

[[Page S4477]]

  I know what it is. It comes from the fact when you are in it this 
long, you understand the nuances. That is not a cocky statement, I can 
assure you. But, boy, I tell you, when I first started the business, I 
would say, ``You can't do that.'' Then 2 years later I said, ``You have 
to do that.''
  That is where this one is. When I am up at Harvard teaching, I shall 
think of you all, and I will reflect. In a year or two--and I hope you 
are all here for many years--you are going to say, ``I didn't know 
that's what we did,'' because if this amendment passes, you will have 
taken away everything from this bill. The rest of it, as Senator Paul 
Simon says, is like eating steak without teeth. You cannot do it with 
what you have put in this bill. If you think you have solved the 
problems of illegal immigration by the Border Patrol--put 20,000 of 
them down there--if you think you are going to solve it by this or that 
and all the things that are in this bill, forget it, because over half 
the people come here legally. You will not even touch them unless, ah, 
with the new Border Patrol we will give them the power to now go up and 
ask visa overstayers if they are visa overstayers. How is that one for 
discrimination in America? You are going to go up to people who look 
foreign under this provision, when we have nothing else that gives us 
any power or authority to do anything, and find out whether people are 
visa overstayers. I assume they will most likely be people who look 
foreign. So, remember, that one will take place.

  It is a curious thing that the people and the institutions who want 
to do the most to hammer illegal, undocumented persons will give us the 
least hammer. I do not understand that and I would like to have that 
explained to me in the course of the debate. How you can come to 
subcommittee and full committee and the floor and add layer upon layer 
of things which have to do with tightening the screws on illegal, 
undocumented people--and that is what you have done, and that may 
assuage all guilt, it may take care of all pain--but, then to take 
every bit, every tiny crumb left of how to do something about illegal 
undocumented persons in the United States, and that is to allow some 
kind, some kind of more counterfeit-resistant, more verifiable, 
identifiable--whether it is through the phone system with a slide-
through or some kind of revised Social Security card or something--and 
then to go home and tell our people that, here in the United States of 
America, we finally did something about illegal immigration? And a year 
from now or 2 years from now you find out you could not get it done 
because you did not take the final step, which was minuscule, and that 
was to do something about the breeder document that Senator Feinstein 
described so powerfully--you did not do anything with that document, 
did not do a thing with it.
  You did not do a thing with the most stupefying thing that happens in 
America, where you look at the obituary list, and if you are between 20 
and 40 years old you really look at that. You find out who died and 
then you go get their birth certificate--and between the years of 20 
and 30 and 40, that is when most of this happens--and then off they go 
with the new birth certificate and into the stream they go, into the 
stream they go with a Social Security card, and into the stream with a 
driver's license, and into the stream of the public support system.
  We are talking about the cost of a system to set that up? The cost to 
America, by what is happening to the welfare systems, the cost of what 
is happening to America with the hemorrhaging of California and 
Illinois and Florida, hemorrhaging--absolutely hemorrhaging, and we are 
not going to do anything about it? We are going to talk about the cost 
of a system? If this system costs $10 billion, it would be worth it, 
because we are losing $20, $30, $40 billion, with people who gimmick 
the housing programs, gimmick the welfare program, gimmick the 
employers. That is where we are. It is absolutely startling to me that 
those who want to do the most will allow us to do the least.
  Let me just address a couple of old canards that just have to be 
addressed. In this league you are supposed to be as patient as you can. 
But I am always reminded of that great phrase in Rudyard Kipling's 
``If.'' Read it. You want to read ``If.'' Read it every 5 years of your 
life because it will change.

     If you can keep your head when all about you
     Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
     If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
     But make allowance for their doubting too;
     If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
     Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
     Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
     And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

                           *   *   *   *   *

     If you can fill the unforgiving minute
     With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
     Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
     And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son.

  But there is one part in it that is marvelous. It says:

     If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
     Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

  And that is what I have seen outside, in this beltway, ``twisted by 
knaves to make a trap for fools.'' I am not referring to a single 
person in this Chamber. I am referring to people who I know out there. 
I know the groups. I know them well. I have seen them in action.
  So, let us look at the stuff that has floated through here with 
regard to the national ID card. In an April 11 ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter you were all told that:

       Americans should not have to receive permission from the 
     Federal Government to work and support their families, nor 
     should U.S. employers need permission from the Federal 
     Government to hire their fellow citizens. But ill-conceived 
     measures in the illegal immigration bill to be taken up on 
     the Senate floor during the week of April 15 will do just 
     that.

  And we have heard similar claims here on the floor today. I do not 
know whether this outrageous statement reflects willful distortion or 
something more bizarre, because, first, it is already unlawful under 
section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a) 
for any person or entity to knowingly employ illegal aliens, or to hire 
without complying with the requirements of an ``employment verification 
system.'' That is the law. And that is described in that section.
  Most important, neither current law nor the proposals in S. 1664 
require citizens or lawful permanent residents to obtain any form of 
permission from the Federal Government to work: None. Nor is there any 
requirement that U.S. employers obtain ``permission'' to employ such 
persons. In the present context, the word permission connotes a form of 
consent that can be withheld, at least partly on the basis of 
discretion.

  In fact, there is not, under current law, and there would not be 
under any pilot project authorized under the bill or any system 
actually implemented in accordance with the provisions of this bill, 
after the required implementing legislation, that would give any legal 
authority to withhold verification except on the basis that an 
individual is not a citizen, lawful, permanent resident, or alien 
authorized to work.
  Indeed, the bill includes as an explicit prohibition, a requirement 
that verification may not be withheld except on that basis. That was to 
protect the employer. We did not do that for any other reason but to 
protect the employer.
  In that same letter you were informed that the verification 
provisions of the bill are ``more than merely a pilot program. It is a 
new system that can cover the entire United States and last for up to 7 
years at the discretion of the President.''
  In fact--fact, section 112 of the bill authorized the President to 
conduct ``several local or regional demonstration projects.'' Are you 
going to let California just sink? Are you going to let California just 
sink and float off into the ocean? That is what you are doing if you do 
not allow them at least to do something; a pilot program. What about 
Texas? Are you just going to let it sink? What about Illinois? What 
about Florida? You cannot get there.

[[Page S4478]]

  So we provided several local or regional demonstration projects. That 
this does not authorize at all what the authors of this letter assert, 
it will be made ever clearer as we finish up our work on this bill.
  I had an amendment. We will see what happens with that. The word 
``regional'' will be defined as an area more than an entire State, or 
various configurations. That would make it clear that the system 
covering nearly the United States of America, the entire Nation, would 
not be authorized. No one ever intended that. But the letter also 
asserts that the bill ``does not replace the I-9 form but is added on 
top of the existing system.''
  The bill does not say that. The bill provides that if the Attorney 
General determines that a pilot project satisfies accuracy and other 
criteria, then requirements of the pilot project will take the place of 
the requirements of current law, including the I-9 form.
  Furthermore, those are things that seem to escape us. We are trying 
to assure that employers will not have to comply with the requirements 
of both current law and pilot projects, pilot projects where their 
participation is mandatory. In addition, this same letter states, 
``Error rates are a serious problem.'' The letter refers to an estimate 
by the Social Security Administration that in 20 percent of the cases 
handled, it will not be able to identify an individual's employment 
eligibility ``on the first attempt.''
  Hear that, ``the first attempt.'' I am not familiar with the details 
of the estimate, but there are three responses that come to mind 
immediately.
  First, in the INS' pilot project, if verification is not obtained 
electronically and the very first time, an additional, nearly 
instantaneous, electronic attempt is made--instantaneous--using 
alternative databases or names. In the vast majority of cases, 
verification of persons actually authorized to work is obtained in a 
very few seconds.
  Obviously, the whole point is to not verify certain individuals. 
Illegal aliens will not be verified. A handful of cases then require a 
visit to an INS office. To our knowledge, every one of those cases was 
resolved without significant delay, and remember that this is a pilot 
project and not a fully developed system.
  Second, if there is something wrong with the data base of the Social 
Security Administration, it should be fixed, but we will not have to 
worry about that because we do not deal with that issue either. We 
cannot do anything with the Social Security card, to make it as secure 
as the new $100 bill. We cannot seem to do that, and it will not bother 
us because we are already told that Social Security will be broke in 
the year 2029 and will begin to go broke in the year 2012. But we do 
not deal with that one at all. That one will be one for all of you to 
deal with.

  Third, the whole point of the pilot project is to develop a workable 
system, I say to my colleagues. We are not trying to do a number on our 
fellow Americans. We do not have a workable system right now, and you 
helped correct some of that yesterday, and I appreciate that. Well 
done. You protected the employer from a heavy fine or penalty just by 
asking for another document. That was good work; I think good work.
  We do not have a workable system. We do not know all the problems on 
the surface as these projects are conducted, but if the development 
process is not begun, if something as milk soup in consistency as the 
present part of the bill, which is the Kennedy-Simpson verification 
process, which is all optional, if we cannot even start that, we will 
never have a workable system, at least in the years to come.
  The letter also states that, ``Employers who break the rules will 
continue breaking the rules while legitimate business owners must 
confront new levels of bureaucracy.''
  Most employers try to comply with the current law. They work hard to 
do that. They work hard not to hire illegal aliens. However, the 
current verification system, with which they are required to comply, is 
not reliable because of fraudulent documents.
  I am going to show it one more time. There is no such thing in our 
line of work as repetition. There it is. Anybody can get one and when 
you get one, you can begin to do things that to the Cato Institute 
would be repugnant, because when you get one of these, you can go down 
and get welfare. You can get welfare, you can access other programs, 
you can do this and you can even vote in some jurisdictions with that 
kind of a card.
  What are you going to do about that? Well, we have something in there 
about that, about forgery and about this and about that. We handle 
that. You will not handle it until you go to a pilot program to figure 
out what you are going to do with this kind of gimmickry, and then 
every time I read a report or paper from some of these opinion-filled 
brilliants off campus here, I am always stunned by the fact that they 
say what are we going to do, what are we going to do about people who 
abuse the welfare system, what are we going to do about people who come 
here pregnant and have a child in the United States of America and then 
give birth to a U.S. citizen? What are we going to do about people who 
denied a mother or father the opportunity to receive a welfare benefit 
because the county and the State had expended it all? It is all gone, 
millions are gone down the rat hole because of fake documents.

  So what you have here without reliable documents is you have hundreds 
of thousands of illegal aliens employed by such employer. Employers can 
be punished if they fail to employ someone because they suspect a 
person is illegal if such person has documents that ``reasonably appear 
on their face to be genuine.'' At least we protected the employer a bit 
yesterday. Right now employers can be fined by simply asking for 
another form of document.
  Now the letter asserts, finally, ``The system will lead to a national 
ID card. A number of congressional advocates of this system have 
admitted that the system will not work without a biometrically encoded 
identification card.'' I am quoting. ``Establishing this far-reaching 
program sets us on a dangerous path toward identity papers and other 
objectionable elements incompatible with a free society.''
  I also saw an article during the days of this issue coming before the 
American public where it was even suggested that we were looking into 
the examination of bodily fluids. There is a debate and there is a 
thing of give and take and there is a thing such as honesty, but bodily 
fluids was never anything ever mentioned by any ``congressional 
advocate'' that I have ever met.
  This is an especially blatant--blatant--example of the misleading 
nature of so many of the statements in these letters.
  First, the assertion that there is a national ID card, but then the 
statement about congressional advocates does not refer to a national ID 
card, and I am one of those trained ``congressional advocates'' who has 
opposed national ID cards for all of the 17 years I have been involved 
in this issue, period.
  I put it in every bill. Anybody who can read and write has found it 
in there and ignored it. I am tired of that one. You do not have to 
take all the guff in this place, and that is not a personal reference. 
I have heard that one, too. I am talking about lying.
  I have put in every bill I ever did that this would not be a national 
ID card, and that it would be used only at the time of new hire, and it 
would be only presented at that time or at the time of receiving 
welfare benefits, that it would not be carried on the person, that it 
would not be used for law enforcement. That is in every single bill I 
have ever done, period.

  The card that I believe is probably necessary is the one already used 
for ID purposes by most Americans, and especially in California, the 
State that takes all the lumps while we give all the advice. That is 
the driver's license or some kind of a State-issued identification 
card. But, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think this is? This is a 
State-issued identification card. That is what this is. That is why I 
favor the bill's required improvements in these State documents.
  The reference to ``biometrically encoded'' is pure demagogery. 
``Biometric'' merely refers to information relating to physical 
characteristics that are unique to an individual making it easier to 
determine if a card is being used by an impostor. That is what 
``biometric'' is. Look it up. A photograph is a common example. A 
fingerprint is another.

[[Page S4479]]

  Use of the ominous term ``encoding,'' I guess, just appears as a 
totally gratuitous crack or shot. Is a photograph on a card encoded on 
that card? I guess it is, if you want to be stern about it. You will 
have to ask the authors what they mean, if they mean anything at all, 
by the use of that term, except inflammatory language.
  With respect to the ``dangerous path'' statement, it is an indication 
of something I have noticed about many of the opponents of any improved 
verification system. I have found, in the 17 years of my work in this 
area, and especially with the Congressman from California, who is 
tougher than anybody ever in this Chamber--he is no longer a Member, 
but I had the highest respect for him; he was tough--but he displayed a 
fundamental distrust of the Government to do what it would do, 
fundamental distrust of our people, fundamental distrust of our 
political system. That has to be the root of this, a fundamental 
distrust of what we are doing. For, as I said many years ago, ``There's 
no slippery slope toward some loss of liberty, only a long descending 
stairway. Each step downward has to be allowed by the American people 
and their leaders.'' That will never happen.
  The claim is also made that the system ``imposes costly new burdens 
on States and localities.'' CBO estimates the cost of all of the birth 
certificate and driver's license improvements required by section 118 
of the bill, as modified by the floor amendment which was adopted 
without objection yesterday--how curious, a floor amendment of mine to 
get all of the snarls and the bumps out of an amendment that had 
objection in the committee, and I then made these specific corrections 
to satisfy most of my colleagues, and it passed here by a voice vote 
without objection. That will be stricken by this amendment.

  This motion to strike will take the work product that was done, with 
all of us in here and their staffs, and junk it, gone, history. You can 
do that. You may do that. If that happens, life will go on, the Sun 
will rise in the east, and it will be a joyous day on the morrow.
  But let us be real. What I did with the phase-in of the driver's 
license requirements is going to cost now $10 to $20 million, spread 
over 6 years. I have seen estimates of the losses to the American 
people because of the use of fraudulent ID's. That is in the billions 
and billions and billions of dollars, ladies and gentlemen. That is 
what is happening. Not to mention voter fraud, terrorism, and other 
crimes that often involve document fraud.
  One other one we have to put to bed, at least pull the covers up, and 
then go on anywhere you wish to go with this. I have to respond to a 
wild charge that has been made before. You try not to respond to all 
this stuff, but finally you just kind of get a belly full of it. The 
heated rhetoric which has been flying about the Chamber--threatening 
and stern--is totally untrue. That was about the pilot program in Santa 
Ana, CA.
  My colleagues have heard the bill will create a massive, time-
consuming, error-prone, error-riddled bureaucracy. They have heard 
accusations that we are racing, with no brakes, toward a national ID 
card that will be ``riddled with mistakes'' and will be ``dangerous to 
our own workers.''
  Mr. President, I would like to extinguish this fiery, heated rhetoric 
with the cold splash of hard fact. Once my colleagues hear the truth, 
maybe they will be better able to sort out some of the rest of it, and 
the American people will finally hear the truth. I believe we will no 
longer have to deal with some of the old canards which are in vogue and 
have been in vogue for weeks here, because currently under the 
authority of the 1986 immigration bill, the INS is conducting a pilot 
project on an employment verification system. I hope no one here will 
try to stop it, but you never know. It is working. You might want to go 
scotch it before it goes too far. It is just like the pilot projects 
authorized by this bill.
  Let me tell you what has happened so that you can hear it. Over 230 
employers in Santa Ana, CA--230 employers--have volunteered to 
participate in this INS project, volunteered.
  After the hiring of a new worker, the employer fills out an I-9 form 
and checks the worker's documents. Everybody is doing that in the 
United States, so if you hear any more argument about what we are 
putting on the employers to find out if the people in front of them are 
authorized to work in the United States of America, are citizens, do 
not think that I put it in this bill. It has been in the law for nearly 
10 years.

  So this is just like every other employer in the United States. It is 
a requirement of current law. It is a total distortion of fact and 
reality to say that we are going to ask something more of an employer 
to either get ``permission to hire,'' or to ``clear it'' when he had 
not had to clear it before.
  Ladies and gentlemen, they have been doing it for 10 years, every 
single day while we go about our work here. The I-9 is asked for, and 
people do it every single day. Some were offended when it first began. 
``Why should I do that?'' I have a provision, if you are a U.S. 
citizen, you need do nothing more than a test that you are a U.S. 
citizen. That would take care of that. But we will not get the 
opportunity, likely, to get to that.
  So let us at least start with what is there. We have a requirement in 
current law which requires the employer to ask the potential employee 
in front of him for documents. He is asked to ask for 29 different ones 
under the previous legislation, the present law--worker authorization 
ID--and then to make a tragic mistake, with no intent to discriminate, 
and ask for another one, and get a fine or the clink. So we corrected 
that. I hope we will keep that.
  But remember now, in this pilot program, if the new hire is not a 
U.S. citizen, the employer then begins the verification process. Using 
a computer the employer transmits the alien registration number or the 
``A'' number on an employee's green card to the INS. This happens after 
the employee has been hired. Please remember that. It happens after the 
employee has been hired. The majority of the time the employer's 
request is answered in 90 seconds. All of the inquiries are answered 
within 48 hours by the INS.
  Here is where this fake figure comes in. For 17 percent of the newly 
hired workers--or maybe it is 20; I have heard both, about 1,100 
workers; this was newly hired, about 1,100 workers--the INS was unable 
to confirm that they were legally authorized to work, ladies and 
gentlemen. So all of those individuals then were given 30 days to set 
up an appointment with a specific INS officer in a special office set 
up to correct possible mistakes in the INS data base.
  Guess how many--I hope my colleagues will hear this--guess how many 
of these 1,100 individuals actually came to the INS? Mr. President, 
22--22--of them came to the INS. Of these 22 people, only 17 were 
actually authorized to work in the United States. Their troubles were 
resolved within the day--within the day. The other five people who 
showed up were not authorized to work in the United States. I guess you 
have to assume that the other 1,000 people or so who never showed up to 
the INS were not authorized to work, either.

  What about the 17-percent error rate, or 20 percent, that some 
opponents have spoken about? Is it the number of illegal aliens who 
were denied jobs by the INS pilot program? Is that it? Look at the 
statistics, the real statistics. The current INS pilot project is more 
than 99 percent accurate. In the few cases where mistakes were made, 
they were fixed promptly. In no case did any legal permanent resident 
of the United States lose a job due to this system--not one, nor any 
U.S. citizen.
  Let me repeat myself because this is one of the most important facts 
my colleagues should remember: No one has ever lost a job due to faulty 
data in the INS pilot program. The system is used only after a new 
employee had been hired.
  No one will ever be denied a job under this system. The horror 
stories which opponents have bandied about are completely and utterly 
without basis and fact. They are fears and illusions summoned up from 
the vapors to scare the wits out of the American people.
  My colleagues should also know that the employers who participate in 
this verification pilot program think it is great stuff. They do not 
consider it a burden. They believe it to be a great help. I share with 
my colleagues' comments of those who use the system and try to look 
askance at the blather of

[[Page S4480]]

the business lobbyists. When I make these remarks, I am not speaking of 
people in this Chamber, but those groups I know so well. I know them 
well. So they look askance at this blather of the business lobbies 
whose sole job is to vigorously oppose all legislation which impacts 
business.
  Here is what these employers say about the INS pilot program. ``I 
love this system,'' says Virginia Valadez, the human resources officer 
for GT Bicycles. ``Now I don't have to be responsible for whether or 
not these people are legal. I don't have to be the watchdog.''
  Comments of the California Restaurant Association: ``Some means of 
verifying Government documents is vital to the integrity of the 
employment system. We desperately need a reliable, convenient means for 
employers to verify the authenticity of the documents that the 
Government itself requires. I can assure you the restaurant industry 
will participate eagerly.'' It will be the first time in my memory--the 
restaurant groups, when I started this business, were the most 
resistant, and they feel this would be extremely helpful.

  Says their publication, describing the fledgling pilot verification 
program, ``Bring offers of ready volunteer to our offices.'' The 
testimony of Robert Davis, the president of St. John Knits Co., before 
the select committee of the California Assembly, after describing the 
widespread availability of this stuff and the great difficulty that 
puts on the law-abiding employer says, ``To a business that wants to 
comply and build a stable labor force, this is a major concern. 
Economic loss from hiring, training and loss of output from the removal 
of a forged document worker can be severe.'' He said, now he can 
``invest with confidence in the training of the individual, and plan 
for a long-term permanent work force.'' He believes in it. He has seen 
it work. ``As a businessman * * * it is exciting and reassuring'' and 
has had dramatic success.
  There they are. The current program only tests individual or 
noncitizens in order to get a job. The illegal alien only has to claim 
to be a U.S. citizen, present a driver's license, Social Security card, 
and those are the things we will find out. How do they avoid the 
verification process? What do they do? Find out.
  Others say we should try and call in--there has been a toll-free 
number called 1-800-BIG-BROTHER. They must have forgotten the one 
called 1-800-END-FRAUD. That is an 800 number, too, that you want to 
pipe into that next time you are grappling with 1-800-END-FRAUD or BIG-
BROTHER and find out whether it will be cost effective, find out what 
we will do, see what is up in this country, do the testing we need to 
do, trust a Congress 6 years in the future having to cast another vote 
to do it right. If you do not get started, you will never get it 
started.
  Obviously, I hope my colleagues will oppose the Abraham amendment and 
will acknowledge that some of the apocalyptic cries that come from out 
there, from the beltway, are truly without foundation and reality or 
fact. Remember, this is a pilot project that you are seeking to strike, 
with all the inevitable problems that a pilot project to a new system 
will involve, but if we do not even try to work out the bugs through 
pilot projects, we will never have a workable system. That will be, 
then, truly a hazing of the American public. They thought we got the 
job done, but we failed--and failed totally--in that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I similarly acknowledge the efforts of 
Senator Simpson both with respect to the broad subject of immigration 
policy over the last 17 years and, more specifically, his hard work on 
the bill before the Senate on illegal immigration.
  The positions which I have advocated on a number of the issues that 
are part of this bill, in some cases, have been this opposition to his 
position, and, in some cases, they have been on the same side. They 
have always been advocated with great respect for his efforts here.
  I must say I sympathize with his feelings about some of the rhetoric 
which those outside of this Chamber have launched during the past 
couple of months as we have dealt with this issue before both the 
committee and here on the floor. I, too, have been the target of many 
rather unusual, strange, and exaggerated charges, as well as 
complaints. In my State of Michigan, in fact, groups who oppose some of 
the views I have on this issue have even launched paid media campaigns 
critiquing my activities here in the U.S. Senate on these issues. I am 
both an admirer of Senator Simpson's efforts and a sympathizer with the 
role he finds himself thrust into when he chose to become involved in 
highly important issues that touch a large number of Americans.
  I comment now and finish on the comments I made earlier with respect 
to the implications of this verification system on the American people. 
We have been told as a starting point that the bill, without this pilot 
program, would be gutless, it would be toothless and, in various other 
ways, be a bill unworthy of us here. I cannot help, when we talk about 
exaggerated rhetoric, be a little shocked and surprised at those 
allegations, because I consider the bill as it currently stands, even 
if it did not have these pilot programs, an extraordinary piece of 
legislation that will combat many of the problems this country has with 
illegal immigration, and combat them squarely, head on, effectively, 
whether it is increasing the border patrols, whether it is cracking 
down on and ensuring the deportation of alien criminals, whether it is 
in partially penalizing the visa overstayers who make up such a large 
percentage of the illegal alien population, or whether it is sharply 
reducing the availability of public assistance programs to illegal 
aliens. All of these, I think, combined, will play a very effective 
role in dramatically reducing the illegal immigration problems we 
confront.
  Equally, I think, we will see that the provisions in the legislation 
which protect employers, particularly small employers, from charges of 
discrimination, in cases where no intent to discriminate exists, are 
going to, likewise, allow us to address the problem of individuals who 
are legal aliens securing employment in this country and do so, I 
think, with great effectiveness.
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Does that make this pilot program that we are talking 
about, this identification verification program, the linchpin in this 
legislation? Is the absence of that going to make this toothless, Mr. 
President? I do not think so. Quite the contrary. I think, if anything, 
it will burden the bill and burden American citizens--taxpayers, 
employers, and employees--with an excessive amount of redtape, 
bureaucracy, and big Government intrusion that is not going to 
handsomely pay off in terms of the benefits it produces.
  Let me just talk about some of those costs once again. First of all, 
this approach is the kind of big Government bureaucracy approach that I 
think most of us in this Congress have been arguing we find too 
dominant already in the American economy. Do we really want to have 
another bureaucracy, another effort here to try to create hoops for 
businesses to jump through as they make employment decisions, or for 
U.S. citizens, who are entitled to be employed, to jump through in 
order to secure employment?
  Clearly, it is going to be a costly venture and a costly one both in 
terms of bureaucratic redtape as well as in taxpayer dollars. I was 
glad to hear the term ``$10 billion'' used as a possibility of the cost 
involved here. I do not know what the total costs are going to be. No 
one, in fact, on the floor knows that. But it is certainly conceivable 
that it will be great. Just as far as we are aware to this point, the 
assembling of this database is going to be in the hundreds of millions 
of dollars. The Social Security Administration has said that a national 
program would be $3 to $6 billion, and then it would have to be 
sustained.
  Mr. President, that is thousands of dollars per illegal immigrant in 
the country just to build this system, if that is what we would end up 
doing. I do not think that is exactly the kind of cost-benefit approach 
we want to take. Let us not just talk about the burdened taxpayers; let 
us talk about the burden to business, and particularly to small 
business.
  We can debate the terminology, we can talk about whether it is 
seeking

[[Page S4481]]

permission or some other way to describe what would be called for under 
this type of an approach. But it certainly would be an additional step 
in the process, and it certainly would require, in some way, 
communicating with someone in a bureaucracy run by the Federal 
Government somewhere in America to determine whether or not 
verification indeed has occurred.
  We have never, in my judgment, Mr. President, ever placed that level 
of burden on employers in this country. It is a costly burden, 
potentially a very costly burden, for small businesses, and 
particularly for those small businesses that have a large turnover of 
employees.

  In addition, it is a burden on the employees themselves. Again, we 
have one pilot program in Santa Ana, CA, carefully monitored by the 
INS, who are presumably pulling out all the stops to try to minimize 
delays on a database. So there are 22 cases out of 1,000--1, 2, 3 
percent. Extrapolate that to the entire country or a large region, as 
is contemplated by the pilot program, and we are talking about 
thousands of American citizens who will be, in one way or another, 
denied initial hiring because the verification system database is not 
able to run at 100 percent.
  While it may be the case that when a program is highly localized in a 
single city, with INS monitoring, the 22 people can get relatively 
quickly into the correct category, I do not think such a quick 
turnaround will be possible if the program is indeed larger, whether it 
is larger in terms of a full State or a region that goes beyond one 
State, or certainly if it was a national program.
  We have had other similar kinds of things happen, Mr. President. 
Whenever databases are involved, there could be interminable delays. 
The Social Security Administration encounters this quite often, and it 
takes days to months to correct errors. I do not think that is the way 
to deal with the illegal immigration problem in America--by creating 
problems for people who are citizens who are entitled to work, rather 
than cracking down on those who are not entitled to work.
  Let us not overlook the acquisition costs of the documents that will 
be required in order to effectuate this type of system if it goes 
beyond a very small project. The acquisition costs were so, I think, 
accurately and movingly laid out by the Senator from Ohio earlier. 
Imagine what we will encounter from our constituents if they determine 
or learn that we have moved us in a direction where new birth 
certificates are required, whether it is for passports, weddings, or 
anything else. Imagine what we will encounter if when young people go 
to get their driver's license, now living in a wholly different State 
or part of the country, find out that our law here today, in attempting 
to crack down on illegal immigration, has thwarted that effort, forcing 
them to incur additional costs in order to get their first license.
  These are significant costs--costs not borne by the people who are 
breaking the rules, but by the people who are playing by the rules.
  I do not believe, Mr. President, that we should attempt to solve the 
illegal immigration problem by bringing huge burdens on people who are 
playing it straight. I am sympathetic to the problems raised with 
respect to people who live in States such as California. I understand 
that they have different circumstances than we might have in my State, 
or yours. But to basically impose upon the entire country ultimately 
or, in the short-term, full States or regions the kinds of burdens that 
are contemplated by this type of verification system, it just seems to 
me, Mr. President, that is not a cost-benefit analysis that works out 
favorably for the American people.
  Now, Mr. President, the real issue that we should focus on, in 
addition to costs, are benefits, because that is the calculus. I think 
it is important for everyone who is considering how they feel about 
this issue to think about the degree to which such a program as is 
being contemplated here can possibly work. Will the forgery stop, Mr. 
President? Will it really mean that there is not the capability of 
circumventing the new system that might be developed? Do we really 
believe that a system can be made perfect? Do we really think that on 
Alvarado Street in Los Angeles, or in any other city where there might 
be this type of forgery, in a couple of years, if not sooner, somebody 
not will come up with a system that breaks the code, that somehow 
penetrates the new security that is developed as part of these pilot 
programs? I am very skeptical, Mr. President.
  But, also, let us not lose sight of the fact that, even separate from 
the ability to develop a foolproof system, we have the problem that 
many, if not an overwhelming percentage, of the employer problems we 
have are intentional. So let us ask ourselves this: If there is an 
employer who knowingly or intentionally intends to hire someone who is 
an illegal alien, are they even going to participate in the 
verification system? I do not think so. I do not think so, Mr. 
President.
  So while the people who play by the rules are incurring the 
additional costs of setting up the kinds of systems that will be 
required to interface with the database in Washington, the ones who 
would shun the rules today will shun the rules tomorrow. As a 
consequence, the issue of whether or not there is a job magnet will not 
be very effectively addressed by this type of an approach, because as 
long as there are people willing to work around the rules, there will 
be an audience of people who will think they can come to the country 
illegally and get jobs with those who basically eschew the 
responsibilities as employers of following the rules today.
  So there we bring ourselves to the final balance. On the one hand, 
massive costs, taxpayer costs, putting this kind of program together. 
Whether it is a national database, regional database, State database, 
it is going to be costly--costs for the small businesses, in 
particular, but for the employers of America, who have to develop 
whatever system it is to comply with and interface with the database; 
and then costs in terms of actually doing such compliance; costs to the 
employees themselves, who will be required to go through the additional 
step, and especially to those who, because of a database mistake, do 
not initially get hired and have to go through the additional 
bureaucratic red tape to get back into the system; costs to all who 
will need either birth certificates and driver's licenses and find out 
that because of what we have done, they now have to get a new one. 
Those are the costs on one side.
  On the other side, as I say, the benefits, in my judgment, are 
substantially less than that which has been suggested earlier, because 
I think it will ultimately still be possible to find a way around the 
system. For those who want to find a way around the system on the 
employer side, a verification system will only make a very minimal 
impact. For that reason, I think we do not need this step in the 
direction of more big Government. I think we should strike the 
verification system and the driver's license and birth certificate 
provisions of the legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I again rise in support of the amendment.
  I would like to return, if I could, to the issue of the birth 
certificate because I think it is so revolutionary what we would do if 
we actually passed this bill as it is written and if we turn this 
amendment down. As I pointed out earlier, we are saying to 270 million 
Americans that your birth certificates are still valid. You just cannot 
use them for anything. If you really want to use them in the 
traditional way in which we use birth certificates today, you have to 
go back to the county where you were born or contact that county. You 
have to get a new birth certificate under the prescription of the 
Federal Government. For the first time, we have a federally prescribed 
birth certificate. We have a federally prescribed driver's license. In 
essence, they are not even ``grandfathered in,'' to use the term we use 
many times. You will have to get a new one if you want to use it.
  A 16-year-old who just wants to get his or her driver's license, we 
are going to say, ``No, you cannot use that birth certificate that your 
parents have held onto for 16 years. You have to get a new one.'' We 
are going to say the same thing to someone who wants to get married. 
You have to go back to contact that county where you were

[[Page S4482]]

born 20, 30, or 40 years ago to get that birth certificate. You have to 
be reissued a new form. We will have to say to someone 65 years of age 
who wants to get Social Security, or Medicare, ``Sorry.'' You come into 
the Social Security Administration and you think you are going to get 
your check next month. You sign up, doing what you are supposed to be 
doing. We will say to them, ``No, you have to go back and get a new 
birth certificate,'' a birth certificate that was issued initially 65 
years before that. I think that is an undue burden. I think it is a 
terrible burden.
  I would like to talk now for a moment about another aspect of this, 
and that is those who argue in favor of requiring this national birth 
certificate--nationally prescribed birth certificate. To those who 
argue that it is worth it, we are going to help solve the illegal 
immigration problem--and I know they are well intentioned when they say 
this--and it is worth it to require the people we represent to do all 
of this, I would argue, walk through this with me and see if at the end 
you still think that a birth certificate--this new tamperproof birth 
certificate--is really going to solve very many problems, because it is 
based upon the premise that the person who gets this new tamperproof 
birth certificate is in fact the person they purport to be. That, I 
think, is a leap in logic which may not necessarily be true.

  My colleague from Wyoming has consistently--and I respectfully say 
that he has been at this for 17 or 18 years. He refers to the birth 
certificate as the ``breeder document.'' This is the real problem: We 
have to get at the birth certificate. The difficulty with that is that 
under the laws of many States and the way it operates in many States, 
that breeder document may be a second-generation document or a third-
generation document.
  Let me take my home State of Ohio. Ohio is what might be referred to 
as an open State. It is not the only State that follows this procedure. 
There are many other States that follow this as well. All you need to 
do in Ohio to get a birth certificate is to stop in at the county 
health department office. You put down your $7, and you get a copy of 
your birth certificate. Not only can you get a copy of your birth 
certificate, Mr. President, but you can get a copy of anybody's birth 
certificate. It is a public document. It is a public record. So I can 
go into Ohio and get a birth certificate for anybody if they were born 
in that county.
  What is the protection here? You can issue the finest document in the 
world, with all the bells and whistles on it in the world; you can 
spend all of the money you want to make it tamperproof, but if the 
person who walks in and gets that document is not that person, what 
good have you done? So in States like Ohio that have this open system, 
open record system, what good does it do? There is absolutely no good 
at all.
  There are other States that probably are more restrictive, but I 
would say even in those States that are more restrictive, unless we are 
willing to impose burdens on American citizens that no one in this 
Chamber will impose, unless we are willing to say to the 65-year-old 
who wants to get Social Security who now lives in South Carolina and 
was born in Ohio that you have to personally go back to Cleveland, OH, 
or Cincinnati where you were born to get your birth certificate, unless 
we are willing to say that, how in the world do you protect the 
integrity of that birth certificate? How in the world do you do it by 
mail?
  Let us take it a step further. Let us assume the State even has some 
very restrictive ways in which they will issue a birth certificate. 
What is the use of being able to demonstrate who you are, whether it is 
a driver's license, if you have a driver's license such as Senator 
Simpson has over there--I heard him tell the story of how cheap it was 
to get that driver's license. It is a great story. It illustrates a lot 
of the problems that we have. Then you go to get the breeder document, 
and you can go circular. Even if you have a restrictive State, not like 
Ohio and other States where you can get anybody's birth certificate, 
what in the world good does it do to have all these bells and whistles 
on these birth certificates?

  We will spend a ton of money. We will violate States' rights because 
we are going to tell the States what they can accept and what they 
cannot accept for official State business, all in the name of trying to 
solve this problem. I would submit it is not going to solve it at all. 
In fact, again, it is not too much of a leap of the imagination to 
think it may create more problems. Why? Because now you are going to 
have this routine of millions of people every year having to go back 
through when they turn 16 and want their driver's license and want 
their Medicare card, or when they want to get married; millions of 
people have to go back to the origin county of their birth to get a 
birth certificate. These will be issued en mass.
  It seems to me that you do not have to be too smart if you are a 
person who wants to violate the system. If you are a person who wants 
to game the system, as the Senator from Wyoming said very eloquently, 
there are people who are doing it, and it is a problem. But now you do 
not have to be too bright to be able to figure out how to start working 
that system and how to get out of some of these counties, particularly 
in States that are open for birth certificates, this breeder document. 
Only now it is going to be a breeder document that is going to be 
superior. You are going to be in the situation where you, as an 
imposter, are going to have a better document than the person who is 
actually that person.
  Mike DeWine can go in; I could figure out how to game the system. I 
could get someone's birth certificate if I was close in age to that 
person. It might be able to pass. It might be able to work. I have a 
great birth certificate. If I took it to the Chair and he was the 
employer, he would say, ``That's it, a new birth certificate, it has to 
be right.'' And if the next day the real person came in and they had 
their old birth certificate, the old, moldy birth certificate that had 
been in their closet or in their attic, or had been in the desk for a 
number years, you would say, ``Well, that is not as good. I have to 
take the other one.''
  So I think when you work this out--it all sounds great in theory--it 
just will not work. If you look at how the government really works at 
the county level, if you look at how health departments issue these 
certificates that really work, if you take into consideration the fact 
that an open State can get anybody's birth certificate, this just does 
not make any sense.

  Let me turn to another point. I think my friend from Wyoming has been 
too modest. This is a good bill. He has made it a good bill. He has had 
17 years of experience at looking at things that we need to do. There 
is a consistent list of things that we have done. I say ``we''--``he'' 
has done. This is the legal immigration bill passed by the 
subcommittee, a portion of it. These are the things each one of us 
think relates to a specific problem of dealing with illegal aliens.
  I reduced it to a chart form because I do not want anyone in this 
Chamber to think that if this amendment is accepted--which I certainly 
hope it will be--that there is nothing left in the bill to deal with 
illegal aliens. This is a tough bill. The Senator has done a great job. 
He has taken his years of experience in the subcommittee, along with 
members of the subcommittee, and he did a great job.
  Look at what the subcommittee did:
  Increased Border Patrol, INS investigators, wiretaps for alien, 
smuggling, and document fraud;
  RICO for alien smuggling and document fraud;
  Increased asset forfeiture for alien smuggling and document fraud;
  5. Doubled fines for document fraud;
  Next, faster deportation of illegal aliens;
  And finally, faster deportation of immigrants convicted of crimes.
  That was the bill coming out of the subcommittee. It is a bill that I 
think I have heard my friend say would have been hard to get through on 
the Senate floor even as recently as a couple of years ago. But it is 
tough and it is good.
  Then the bill went to the full committee, and the full committee even 
upped the ante. The full committee added additional things. This is 
what the full committee did.
  ``Bill Made Tougher in Committee.''
  Increased penalties for visa overstayers.
  Let me stop with that for a minute because that is a problem. My 
friend

[[Page S4483]]

from Wyoming has identified this as a problem. These are people who 
overstay. They are people who come here legally--they are not legal 
immigrants, but they are people who come here legally. They are 
students. For any number of reasons they are here, but then they stay. 
That is a problem. This provision put in by the full committee deals 
with that--increased penalties for visa overstayers.
  Next: More investigators for visa overstayers;
  Next: Eliminate additional judicial review of deportations;
  No bail for criminal aliens;
  Three-tier fence along the border;
  Next: Expand detention facilities by 9,000 beds;
  And finally: Increase Border Patrol by 1,000 agents.
  All of those provisions are in this bill. So it is a bill that is a 
strong bill, and no one, no one should be ashamed of voting for this 
bill. No one should feel they cannot go home and be able to say, ``We 
passed a very, very tough bill.''
  Let me turn, as I said I would earlier, to the issue of a national 
verification system.
  I understand that this is a pilot project. Again, I only bring to the 
floor my own experience. Each one of us brings our own experience. I 
think that is the great thing about the Congress and the Senate. We do 
have varied backgrounds. My background has been, at least in part, in 
law enforcement as a county prosecuting attorney.
  One of the things that shocked me 20 years ago is when I found what 
kind of state our criminal records were in. What am I talking about 
when I am talking about criminal records? I am talking about basically 
the same type of thing here, only I am talking about a finite group of 
individuals, criminals.
  It is important for the police officer who comes up behind a car to 
be able to determine who is in that car, if that person has a record, 
to be able to determine if that person is wanted, or at least if that 
car is a stolen car. When someone is apprehended, then it is important 
to be able to determine whether that person is wanted, whether they 
have had a criminal record in the past. The same way for a judge who 
looks down at arraignment. He is on his 52d person, or she is on her 
52d person, the judge is, and is trying to determine what the bond is. 
It is important, when they glance at that record, the record be 
complete; that they know 3 years ago this person committed a rape, or 
they know that 4 years ago this person fled the jurisdiction. All of 
that is important, and police officers deal with this every day and 
have to rely on this information to make life and death decisions.
  I was shocked a number of years ago to find that this system is not 
entirely accurate. That is a kind way of putting it. When I became 
Lieutenant Governor in Ohio, we had as one of our goals to try to 
upgrade the criminal records system so police officers would know who 
they were dealing with. We found that only 5 percent of the criminal 
records in the State of Ohio were totally accurate--only 5 percent. 
That is not unusual. That is not unusual.
  In all the discussion about the Brady bill, we got into the whole 
issue of the accuracy of criminal records. We found that there are 
very, very few States that could put in an instant check system because 
of the high inaccuracy level.
  Now, after having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to 
upgrade a criminal record system that we depend on to make life and 
death decisions, how in the world do we expect to, overnight, re-create 
a national data base system for employment, a system that, by 
definition, is going to have to be a lot bigger?
  Now, people could say: ``Well, you are talking about a pilot project, 
Senator. Isn't that what you are talking about?''
  ``Yes.''
  Yes, we are talking about a pilot project, but I have been thinking 
about this, and I cannot come up with any way you can have a pilot 
project that really works and is really accurate and really protects 
employees or potential employees unless you have a national system. We 
cannot build walls around States. We cannot build walls around 
communities. People go back and forth. You have to create a national 
system, even if you are only using it in four or five pilot projects, 
and so we will have to build a national system. We will have to build a 
national system that is not going to be error prone. Anyone who has had 
any experience with the criminal system in this country, who really has 
looked at it, I think is going to be hard pressed to be able to make a 
good argument that this new system we are going to create is not going 
to cause serious, serious problems as well as be extremely expensive.

  I know there are some of my colleagues who want to talk some more on 
this bill, but I just believe this amendment makes eminent sense. It is 
a good bill without it. It is a great bill. It does a lot. The Senator 
from Wyoming is to be commended for the work he has done. But unless we 
take out these provisions, unless this amendment passes, I think we are 
all going to be very sorry, and I think we are going to have a lot of 
explaining to do to our constituents when that 16-year-old wants to get 
his or her driver's license and they find out, no, that birth 
certificate is not any good; the 65-year-old finds out, no, my birth 
certificate is not any good anymore; I have to go back and get a new 
one, or when someone wants to get married and they find out their birth 
certificate is not any good either. I think that is a very serious 
problem.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from Wyoming standing. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I wish to review the 
situation. We have a Leahy amendment, on which, I believe, if anyone 
wishes to address that, we are ready to close that debate. There is no 
time agreement here, but I think that is ready to be closed. I think 
Senator Hatch has a statement and maybe will enter that in the Record. 
Senator Bradley has an amendment, and there were several who said they 
wished to speak on that. I have not had any further word from anyone on 
that. There is no time agreement on it. Then the Abraham amendment, 
which now goes to Senator Kyl for his time. I have really nothing much 
further on any of those three.
  So, again, if we are going to go on, maybe we could lock in a time 
agreement to be sure that we let our colleagues know there will at 
least be three votes on these three amendments.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I shall be quite brief. If the ranking 
majority and minority members wish to discuss a time agreement, that 
would be fine, or perhaps while I am speaking they could do it, but I 
will not speak more than 15 minutes for sure.

  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The discussion 
that my colleague from Ohio has just engaged in primarily relating to 
the issue of the birth certificate, I will leave to Senator Simpson. I 
should rather respond to arguments primarily made earlier by the 
Senator from Michigan and, to some extent, the Senator from Ohio 
relating to the problem of verification of employment status.
  I wish to go back in time to set this issue in proper context. In 
1990, 6 years ago, the Congress increased the limit on legal 
immigration to the country by 37 percent because we thought the laws 
that imposed serious sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants would have 
the effect of reducing that illegal immigrant population; that making 
it harder to employ illegal immigrants would in effect remove that 
magnet--employment--that was drawing many people across the border, 
particularly from Mexico.
  Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way because the system just 
has not worked very well. Unfortunately, between 300,000 and 400,000 
illegal immigrants are now entering the United States every year, many 
of them people seeking these job opportunities. In fact, in my own 
State, the INS estimates that about 10 percent of the State's work 
force is made up of illegal immigrants.
  I hope Members of the Senate believe that it should not be acceptable 
to have so many illegal immigrants taking jobs here in the United 
States. The question, then, is what we do about it. We have a system 
that is not working, and we need to do something about it.

[[Page S4484]]

  That is what the bill attempts to deal with. We started out with a 
bill that dealt with it in a much more effective way. But in order to 
compromise and get more support over the weeks and months, many changes 
were made, to the point, now, that it is really a very modest approach. 
This is a very modest change we are seeking, to try to find out how to 
strengthen this verification process so not so many illegal immigrants 
are working in the United States. This is clearly the focus of the 
effort, to reduce the effect of the magnet of employment.
  It has been illegal to hire illegal aliens for 10 years now. So I 
think the first thing you have to do is ask what is not working and 
what can we do about it? The Jordan commission, which has been referred 
to many times in this debate, studied this problem as much as any, and 
it came up with several recommendations. What the Jordan commission and 
many other immigration experts have concluded is that the best way to 
reduce the number of illegal aliens working in our country today is to 
implement some kind of an easy-to-use, reliable employment verification 
system. In fact, the Jordan commission reported that current employer 
sanction laws cannot be effective without a system for verifying the 
work eligibility of employees.
  So, if the current system is not effective in weeding out those 
individuals who are here illegally and, as the Jordan commission and 
others have said, we have to find a way to develop a workable system, 
what is the next step? You do some research. You try to do some pilot 
projects, some experiments, some demonstration projects, as they are 
sometimes called, to find out what will work the best. That is what the 
committee did. It adopted a verification provision which authorizes a 
series of pilot projects. We are not changing the law. We are not 
imposing a system. We are certainly not imposing a national system. We 
are simply authorizing the Attorney General to experiment with some 
pilot projects over a short period of time, 4 years, to determine what 
will work, what is the most effective way for employers to verify that 
the person they have hired is legally authorized to work. That is very 
straightforward.
  These projects are intended to assist both the employer and, frankly, 
the person seeking employment. Because, if an individual seeks 
employment and, frankly, looks like me, there probably are not going to 
be too many questions asked. But, in my own State of Arizona, we have a 
very large Hispanic population. There are a lot of people who seek 
employment in which the employer is basically in a dilemma, in a catch-
22 situation. If he asks too many questions of that individual, perhaps 
because he or she looks Hispanic, speaks with a Spanish accent, that 
employer can be charged with discrimination. But if the employer does 
not ask enough questions to verify the legal status of the employee, he 
can be charged with violating our immigration laws for hiring somebody 
who is not legally authorized to work here.

  As Senator Simpson and others have said, the system we have tried to 
devise to verify the working status, or legal status, of the individual 
for work purposes is not working because it relies on a series of 
documents, all of which are easy to forge. Therefore, you end up with a 
situation where it is virtually impossible for the employer to really 
know whether the individual is entitled to work or not.
  The employer fills out what is called an I-9 form to verify the 
eligibility of each person hired. But, as I said, that system is open 
to great fraud and abuse. So one of the purposes of the verification 
system is, obviously, to make the law work. Another purpose is to make 
it easier for the employer to verify the legal status of the 
individual. Another purpose is to protect the individual seeking 
employment.
  I want to make it very clear that the bill specifically prohibits the 
establishment of any national ID card. What many of us believe, 
ideally, is there is no card at all. Let us take the Social Security 
number. You are frequently asked to give your Social Security number, 
but you do not necessarily have to have a card with you that identifies 
you as an individual for other purposes. On those few occasions in your 
life, hopefully few for most of us, where you are applying for a job, 
you give the Social Security number. Perhaps one of the pilot projects 
is a 1-800 number that the employer can dial up and punch in the 
numbers of the Social Security number and get information back that the 
individual who he has just hired is, in fact, legal.
  In any event, we are not talking about a national ID card here, and 
the debate should not be confused with that prospect. Moreover, the 
employee verification would only be used after an individual was hired, 
so you do not run into problems of discrimination here. Perhaps most 
important--and I really view this as a deficiency in the bill, not 
something to brag about, but it certainly answers one of the objections 
of my opponents--is that these pilot projects would not in and of 
themselves establish any new verification system for the country. The 
Congress would have to actually act, would have to pass a law 
implementing a verification system before it ever took effect. So there 
would be plenty of opportunity for those who oppose this, once a pilot 
project had established some good ideas here, to pick those ideas apart 
if they do not like them. Basically what they are arguing against is 
something that has not even been created yet. They are saying we cannot 
imagine a system that would work well and therefore we should not even 
try to find one.

  As one of my colleagues said, it is impossible to have a foolproof 
system. That is the last argument, except for the ad hominem argument, 
that is made in a debate when you do not have a good answer. It makes 
perfection the enemy of the good. There is only one perfect thing in 
this universe and that is He Who made the universe. None of us is 
perfect. None of our laws is perfect. No system we can devise is 
perfect. Nothing is foolproof. Nothing is even tamperproof for people 
who are not fools but are very clever individuals.
  But we can try to do something to enforce a law that, 10 years ago, 
everyone thought was still a good law and none of the opponents of this 
verification system is trying to repeal. They are, in effect, willing 
to allow a law on the books they know cannot be enforced. Nothing 
detracts more from a society than keeping laws on the books that 
everyone knows are not being enforced. It breeds an attitude against 
the law, and, after all, the law is the underpinning of the country. We 
are a nation of laws.
  If we willingly, knowingly, allow a lot of laws to be on the books 
that everybody ignores because we know they do not work, it makes them 
unimportant, in effect. It make the purpose behind them unimportant. I 
submit we are not seriously doing our job if we simply argue against 
trying to improve a law with nothing to substitute to make it better. 
There are no concrete, positive suggestions here, no constructive 
criticism. It is all negative criticism. You cannot make a perfect, 
foolproof system, they say.
  Nobody is saying we can. But we can sure make it a lot better than it 
is. We cannot make a foolproof system along the border either, but that 
does not keep us from trying. Almost everyone here is going to support 
training 1,000 new agents to put on the border and in our cities every 
year for the next 7 years; to build fences, to build lights, to do all 
the other things to try to keep the border more secure than it is. It 
will never be totally secure, but we do not give up. We try to seek new 
ways of protecting that border. In fact, we have some pilot projects in 
this bill to experiment with different kinds of fencing and different 
kinds of lighting and roads, to see what works the best to secure the 
border.
  Why can we not have some pilot projects to experiment, to see what 
are the best ways of verifying the legal status of people for 
employment purposes--and welfare benefits, I might add? It is a false 
argument, to make perfection the enemy of the good.
  All this bill does is allow us to try some new things to see if they 
will work. Now what is wrong with that, Mr. President?
  I also heard an argument that it is going to cost the employers. 
Absolutely false. First of all, we made it very clear that the pilot 
projects cannot cost the employers anything and, secondly, one of the 
reasons we are trying to develop a new verification system is to 
decrease the cost of compliance. It is not easy to comply with the

[[Page S4485]]

filling out of these I-9 forms. I know, I talked to a lot of employers 
who do it. It is a hassle. It will be much easier and less costly for 
them if we can implement a truly effective verification system.
  In the end, Mr. President, as I said, the verification system that is 
contemplated in this legislation is really a very minimal effort. It is 
a pilot project only. There is no assurance, as the original bill 
provided, that a nationwide system will ever be implemented. Such a 
system would only arise if we concluded that there are some really good 
ideas that come out of this pilot project, presumably with a majority 
of the House and Senate agreeing to implement that verification system 
with legislation.
  As I said, this can really only be called a beginning, but it is an 
important first step, and I think that the verification provisions of 
this bill, minimal as they are, should not be eliminated as the 
opponents suggest, but rather should be retained.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to strike 
these important provisions from the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have had a good debate and 
discussion on this amendment. Let me just summarize very briefly the 
reasons that I believe that the existing provisions are so important if 
we are serious about dealing with the problems of illegal immigration.
  First of all, there have been comments by those who are supporting 
striking these various provisions that utilize an old technique that we 
know of around here and many of us have seen many times, and that is, 
misstate what is in the bill and then differ with it. Misstate what is 
in the bill and then differ with it.
  That is true with those who have suggested that we are moving toward 
a national identity card. It is also true of those who say we do not 
want a new kind of national system that is going to be governing in the 
rural areas or urban areas of this country; that it somehow is going to 
be national.
  Mr. President, at the present time, we know, as it says in the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, to hire for employment in the United 
States an individual, complying with the requirements of the subsection 
(B), and subsection (B) is spelled out in such a way as to require 
everyone in the United States of America, whether they are in Maine, 
Wisconsin, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas or California, to fill out 
this particular form, the I-9 form. That is a national requirement in 
existence at the present time.
  Do we understand that that is already in existence? And behind that, 
with the other requirements in terms of the identification of the 
individual, you have a list of acceptable documents.
  The purpose and the thrust of this particular amendment in the first 
instance, on the question of the birth certificate, is to make sure 
that documents that are going to have to be required and be supplied 
are going to be accurate.
  Why is that important? It is important, first of all, if we are 
serious about doing something about illegal immigration. If we are not 
going to do that, then the magnet attraction of jobs in the United 
States is going to continue to invite people from all over the world to 
come to the United States.
  We can build fences and fences and fences and hire border guards and 
border guards and border guards, but we have seen what happened in 
Vietnam when we had those various fences out and mine fields and every 
kind of lighting facility. People still were able to bore through to 
where they wanted to go if they had a sufficient interest in doing so.

  No. 1, we have a national program at the present time.
  No. 2, everyone who wants to work and every employer in this country 
is required to fill this out.
  The thrust of the Simpson proposal is to get at the question of 
ensuring that the documents that are going to be provided to that 
employer are going to be legitimate and that we are going to make 
substantial improvements with the problems of fraud in the making of 
those documents, as well illustrated by the Senator from California. 
That is what this is all about.
  One of the provisions says that we are going to have to try and make 
sure that we are going to have birth certificates put on tamperproof 
paper. We hear how the world is coming down because we are going to 
have that requirement.
  Let us look at what the legislation says on birth certificates:
  The standards described in this paragraph are set forth in the 
regulations on page 38, and it says on line 13:

       (i) certification by the agency issuing the birth 
     certificate--

  Whatever agency in the State issues the birth certificate.
  Use of safety paper, tamper-free paper, that is true. We have said 
that they have to move toward tamper-free paper.

       The seal of the issuing agency--

  Whatever that agency is in any State.

     and other features designed to limit tampering--

  Left up, again, to the State.

     counterfeiting, and use by impostors.

  There it is, I say to my friends. Those are the provisions that we 
are asking in order to stop illegal immigration into this country. How 
can we say that these are unreasonable? How can we say that these are 
not necessary? How can we say if we are serious about illegal 
immigration that just insisting that there is going to be tamperproof 
paper out there, the seal of the issuing agency, whatever that might 
be, and other features designed to limit tampering and counterfeiting. 
We let the States do whatever else they want to do, but we are trying 
to get a handle on this.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of questions about how this is 
going to be costly. It is approximately $10 an issuance of a birth 
certificate in the State of Georgia. We can give other illustrations of 
that as well.
  So it is important as we go to this issue about the birth 
certificates to really understand it. As has been pointed out time in 
and time out during this debate, the birth certificate is that breeder 
document. If you get that birth certificate from any State that has 
open files on it--we have 13 States that have open files on it--as I 
mentioned earlier, and you can go on in there and get a copy of 
anyone's birth certificate and get your own picture put with that birth 
certificate, and you can have a driver's license, if you pass the 
driver's requirement, and that is one of the eligibility cards for 
employment.
  So, Mr. President, if we are serious about trying to deal with this 
underlying issue, this proposal that Senator Simpson has is absolutely 
essential, necessary and reasonable to try and deal with this issue.
  On the second question about the various pilot programs to figure out 
a better way to help employers verify who can work, because the current 
approach is not working, our provision simply requires the Attorney 
General to conduct some pilot programs.
  I wish we would spend a moment, and I will just take a moment, 
referring our colleagues to those provisions on page 13 of the 
legislation which outlines what will be necessary in terms of these 
various pilot projects. We pointed out they are not being put into 
effect. They will be completed and then a report will be made to the 
Congress, and the Congress will be able to take whatever steps that it 
will.
  It says:

       (2) The plan described . . . shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of a bill or joint resolution . . .

  The objectives it must meet: the purpose is to reduce illegal 
immigration, to increase employer compliance, to protect individuals 
from unlawful discrimination, to minimize the burden on businesses.
  Those are the objectives. They sound pretty good to me. That is 
basically what we are considering on that.
  Within that, Mr. President, as I have seen as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, they believe that they may very well be able to 
issue or develop programs to increase the certification and accuracy 
that are industry based, perhaps regionally based, but industry or 
employer based. You have about 80 percent in seven States, 80 percent 
of the illegals in seven States.

  There are some very interesting pilot programs that are in the 
process at the present time. We have not the time to

[[Page S4486]]

go through them, although I think anyone on the Judiciary Committee who 
took the time to get the briefing from the Justice Department has to be 
impressed about what they think the possibilities are of really 
strengthening the whole process to be able to root out illegal 
immigrants from the employment process in this country.
  There are very important privacy protections, Mr. President, and the 
list goes on. We have drafted to deal with that. The amendment has been 
drafted to try to take into consideration every possible limitation and 
sensitivity.
  But, Mr. President, we are going to have to ultimately make a 
judgment. If you are serious about controlling illegal immigration, 
serious about that, recognizing that half the illegals get here legally 
and then jimmy the system with these documents that are fraudulent, 
picked up easily, and get jobs and displace American workers. If you 
are interested in halting illegal immigration, you are going to have to 
do more than border guards. You are going to have to get at the breeder 
documents and get it in an effective system.
  If you are interested in protecting the Federal taxpayer, from 
illegal aliens getting fraudulent documents so that they can qualify 
for public assistance programs, you better be interested in doing 
something about these fraudulent documents or otherwise we are just 
giving lip service to trying to protect the taxpayer.
  If you recognize the importance of trying to do something about the 
illegals, again, displacing jobs, we feel that it is important that we 
at least try to develop three pilot programs to see what 
recommendations can be made to try to deal with this problem. These are 
recommendations that are made by the Jordan commission and by others 
who have studied it. We ought to be prepared to examine those at the 
time they are recommended, to evaluate them, to find out if they are 
going to make a difference. I believe they can make important 
recommendations and suggestions.
  Mr. President, this is a hard and difficult issue. It is a 
complicated one. For people just to say that we can solve our problems 
with illegal immigration by bumper-sticker solutions, that with that we 
are going to halt illegal immigration, that all we have to do is put up 
fences and more border guards, that we are going to halt that just by 
adding more penalties--I have been around here. We have added more 
penalties on the problems of guns since I have been around here than 
you can possibly imagine. You think it is stopping gun crimes in this 
country? Absolutely not.
  You can just keep on adding these penalties, but unless you are going 
to get to the root causes of any of these problems, we are not going to 
have a piece of legislation that is worthy of its name in dealing with 
a complex, difficult problem.
  Let me just say, finally, unless we are going to do that, we are 
going to do what we have heard stated out here on the floor, the 
American people are going to get frustrated by the failure to act; and 
then we are going to have recriminations that are going to come down in 
a cruel kind of world and divide families and loved ones, and there 
will be a backlash against legitimate people being reunited and trying 
to make a difference and contribute to this country.
  This, I think, is one of the most important pieces of this whole 
legislation. I hope the Abraham-Feingold amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. This has been a good debate. It appears to be winding 
down. Let me just add a couple responses to the comments of the 
Senators from Wyoming and Massachusetts.
  One of the words that has been kicked around here is the word 
``permission.'' Does this employer identification system, if it is 
fully implemented, require permission from the Federal Government for 
an employer to hire somebody? It has been sort of muddying the issue.
  I suppose you could call the current system, asking for 
``permission.'' It is kind of a loose use of the word, because what is 
required now with the I-9 is the obtaining of a certain kind of 
identification card. But what it does not include--and this is the 
phrase I used when I spoke; I did not just say ``permission,'' I said, 
``having to ask permission from Washington, DC.'' That is what this 
system that could arise from this proposal may create.
  What happens now is the employer does not have to get on the phone or 
through a computer to find out something from a national databank. That 
is a big difference. Ask anybody who tries to run a small business or a 
farm how they are going to like the idea that, in addition to 
everything else they have to do now to try to keep their business 
going, every time they want to hire somebody under one of these 
alternatives, they would have to either call Washington or they would 
have to communicate with Washington through some other system, such as 
a computer system.
  Who is going to pay for all those systems? Who is going to make up 
for the lost time of the employer who has these additional burdens? It 
is very important to distinguish here between what is current law and 
what this bill could do if this amendment is not adopted--getting 
permission from Washington, DC. I think that is a fair statement of 
what this adds to this bill.
  How can this possibly square with the rhetoric and legislation 
proposed in the 104th Congress? Whatever happened to the notion that we 
should not do more unfunded mandates from Washington, especially on 
small businesses? Whatever happened to the notion of regulatory reform, 
which almost every Senator at least paid lip service to? This seems to 
be one of the biggest potential unfunded mandates that has ever been 
proposed on this floor.
  I am confident that almost no employer in the State of Wisconsin 
would feel comfortable with the notion that suddenly, in addition to 
everything else they have to do, they have to call up Washington under 
this. If there is any ambiguity involved about the possibility that 
this might occur, I refer to page 26 of the bill, and subsection (E), 
where it explicitly states that one of the things that could be done in 
these pilot projects is to create the following:

       A system that requires employers to verify the validity of 
     employee social security account numbers through a telephone 
     call, and to verify employee identity through a United States 
     passport, a State driver's license or 
     identification document, or a document issued by the 
     Service for purposes of this clause.

  So it is explicit in the bill. It is not just some objectives, 
general objectives, as the Senator from Massachusetts was reading 
earlier.
  You go 13 pages later, there are the explicit approaches that are 
permitted. One of those approaches is to put in place a pilot program 
that presumably would lead to a national program requiring every 
employer to essentially call Washington after they have hired someone. 
I think this is very troubling and certainly something that should be 
removed from the bill.
  Another comment that I found interesting was the comment of the 
Senator from Wyoming. He said that if this system costs $10 billion, it 
would be worth it. I think that is debatable, perhaps. But we have no 
assurance that even after we have gone through this process, either 
allowed every employer to do this or mandated every employer to do 
this, after we spend $10 billion, we have no assurance at all that this 
system will work.
  There will still be fraud. There will still be fraudulent documents. 
No one has been able to assure us this is foolproof. We may have 
created this giant mandate and spent $10 billion, have this huge system 
in place, and it may not work. So it is not just a question of spending 
the money. There is no guarantee it would, in fact, work.
  So the question here in the end is, What the adoption of this 
amendment will do to this whole bill? Some say it will destroy the 
bill. Others think, as I do, as Senator Abraham does, that it will make 
it a measured response. Instead of using a meat ax to deal with the 
problem of illegal immigration, we will focus on the tough items that 
are in the bill that the Senator from Ohio identified.
  There are strong measures in this bill. Frankly, I think a couple of 
them might go a little too far. This is not a weak-kneed piece of 
legislation if we get rid of this extreme mandate that

[[Page S4487]]

could potentially arise from these pilot programs.
  So, Mr. President, for those who support a strong immigration bill, I 
reject the notion that getting rid of this potential employer 
verification system would make it a weak bill. I think that is wrong. I 
think everyone should remember the balance here between keeping the 
strong provisions that are in the bill versus making the bill so 
difficult for so many Americans and so many businesses that it would be 
resented rather than welcomed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me propose a unanimous-consent 
request, which will get us to vote on the pending amendments, if I may, 
and answer any questions, or you may reserve the right to object. I 
will certainly do that. Here is the consent agreement I would propose.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to 
amendment No. 3790 at the hour of 4 o'clock today to be followed by a 
vote on or in relation to amendment No. 3780, to be followed by a vote 
on or in relation to amendment No. 3752; further, that there be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each of 
those votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Let me say, too, that there are two other amendments. 
There was an amendment of Senator Feinstein from last night with regard 
to fencing, which Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein are working toward 
resolving and may have something on that. We are not ready for a vote 
there. Of course, that is not part of this.
  Then there is an amendment of Senator Simon with regard to deeming, 
with regard to the issue of disabled persons. We have not included that 
here, but that will be coming up as soon as we conclude this.
  Senator Reid has an amendment with regard to criminal penalties on 
female genital mutilation.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not intend to speak much longer. I 
just wanted to give a brief summary of a few points, both in response 
to some of the arguments that have been made by the last few speakers 
and also just to kind of put in perspective exactly what this all comes 
down to.
  First of all, a statement made earlier that this pilot program 
approach or the broader approach would not have any cost to employers 
is simply not the case for a variety of reasons, but the National 
Retail Federation has suggested that even the pilot program as 
conceptualized would probably work out to something in the vicinity of 
$7 per verification. That might not mean a lot to a business that does 
not have much turnover, but to those that have lots of employees coming 
and going it is a pretty big impact.
  In addition, it has been suggested that somehow because the 1986 
legislation has not gone as far as people had hoped for, it is a 
mistake to resist this approach that is being proposed with the pilot 
program. I think that is actually counter-intuitive, Mr. President. The 
fact is, every few years people come along with a new, better 
mousetrap, it would seem, or they would claim, for addressing the 
problems of illegal aliens securing employment.
  Ten years ago we burdened the American economy and our businesses and 
employers with a lot of redtape--I-9 forms and other things--and they 
have not worked. Those who bring this amendment today are saying, 
``Let's not add yet another level, another tier, another round of 
redtape to those people who are trying to play by the rules and create 
opportunities for people in this country.''

  Third, Mr. President, it has been suggested that somehow this is 
really something good for employers, it is good for people who might be 
discriminated against because of their ethnicity or their race. This is 
a case, though, where frankly the people who are the alleged 
beneficiaries are saying, ``Thanks, but no thanks.'' That is why this 
amendment that we are bringing, both the verification amendment as well 
as the amendment that Senator DeWine has separately offered with 
respect to birth certificates and driver's licenses, are being 
supported by the National Federation of Independent Business, and they 
are key votes for that organization, by the chamber of commerce, by the 
National Association of Manufacturers, by the National Retail 
Federation, and yes, the National Restaurant Association. We have heard 
earlier somehow that restaurants were supporting this. The national 
association opposes it.
  The businesses who will have to implement this, whether in pilot 
program form or otherwise, say, ``Thank you, but no thanks.'' So, too, 
do groups historically fighting discrimination, such as the ACLU and 
others. The fact is, the beneficiaries are not really going to benefit, 
Mr. President, if this is looked at closely.
  Meanwhile, I draw attention to the issue of the pilot project. We are 
being asked to support this on a theory it is not really a national 
system but a pilot project. The way the legislation is drafted allows 
that type of pilot program to encompass regions with no definition as 
for their size. In addition, because of the nature of verification, it 
almost certainly will require the creation of the type of national data 
base that will be both costly, onerous, and burdensome. To say that a 
pilot program is just a small step is not accurate, Mr. President. It 
is a very big step.
  That brings me to the final point I want to make today--the cost 
versus the benefits. The costs will be great to employers who have to 
verify new employees, whatever the size of the program. The cost will 
be great to the employees themselves who are playing by the rules--U.S. 
citizens and those who legally can seek employment--because those 
people in some cases will be denied employment because of data base 
malfunctions. The cost to taxpayers of setting up the type of data base 
involved will be considerable, and the cost to average American 
citizens who, because of this type of program, find they need new birth 
certificates or new driver's licenses, will be considerable as well. A 
lot of costs, Mr. President.

  The benefits, on the other side, are not very clear to me. First of 
all, as I have said in previous comments, those employers who intend to 
fire illegal aliens at lower-paying jobs or below the wage level they 
otherwise would have to pay will get around any kind of verification 
system because they will not participate. To the idea that we will 
create a foolproof system, a card that defies any type of tampering or 
counterfeiting, to me, is a remote possibility.
  There will be plenty of costs and very few, in my view, benefits. 
Rather than going down the route we went in 1986, it is our argument 
that we understand, very simply, the losers here are the taxpayers, the 
employers, the employees, the people playing by the rules. Those are 
the folks we should be helping, Mr. President.
  The balance of this legislation does exactly that, by cracking down 
on the people who are violating this. I do not think we should take a 
step other than in that direction. For those reasons, Mr. President, I 
strongly urge passage of this amendment, support for the striking of 
both the verification procedures as well as the procedure of the 
driver's license and the birth certificate procedure.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think this has been a very impressive 
and important debate. I commend Senator Abraham. I can see why the 
people of his State placed him here. He will have a great career here. 
I wish him well. He is very able, formidable, and fair. We try to 
express to each other what is occurring on the floor, even though it 
may be arcane and somewhat bizarre from time to time, but I always try 
to do that. To Senator DeWine and his participation, and Senator 
Feingold, a very thorough debate.
  Now, the reason we set that unanimous-consent agreement is that there 
are at least several who have told me, ``I do want to get over and 
speak on the amendment of Senator Leahy and Senator Bradley.'' I do not 
believe any further persons intend to debate on the issue of the 
Abraham amendment, but the reason we set the vote for 4 o'clock is to 
allow those who wish to debate the issues of Senator Leahy's amendment 
and Senator Bradley to come forward. If they do not, they are 
foreclosed as of 4 o'clock. I hope they realize that, that there will 
be no further opportunity to address those two amendments, or three 
amendments

[[Page S4488]]

--the Abraham amendment, too--after the hour of 4 o'clock. Then we will 
go to the order of the amendments as Senator Bradley, Senator Leahy, 
Senator Abraham, with the usual 2 minutes of debate.
  Mr. President, let me inform the Chair that the majority leader has 
designated Senator Hatch as the manager of the bill for the present 
time and that the majority leader has yielded 1 hour to me, in my 
capacity as an individual Senator, for the purposes of being able to 
complete debate on the bill, because I only have 27 minutes left. That 
is the purpose of that. I promise I shall not expend any more on the 
other issue. Maybe on the birth certificate--I could do a few minutes 
on that.
  Well, I think I will since no one has come forward.
  Let me indicate that I will speak a very few minutes on the issue of 
the birth certificate, but if these Senators who are going to come 
forward immediately will notify me--I will yield to them--that will 
expedite our efforts.
  Let me just briefly remark about the birth certificate, because I 
think it is very important that we understand that that is the 
fundamental ID-related document. I think it would be just as disturbing 
to the Senator from Ohio as it is to me. We do not have any way to 
match up birth and death records in the United States. That seems 
bizarre, but we do not. Maybe some States have tried to do that. One of 
the questions that arose in the debate was, well, what will this do? 
One thing it will do, which we do not do now, is that if it is known 
that the person is deceased, the word ``deceased'' will be placed upon 
that birth certificate, wherever that birth certificate is. Now, that 
is one of the advantages of the word ``deceased'' being stamped on a 
birth certificate. You would think, surely, they must be doing that in 
the United States of America. But they are not doing that in the United 
States of America.
  That is just one part of the proposal. Again, please recognize that 
the motion to strike is directed toward the revised or amended form as 
it left the Senate Judiciary Committee, as I say, trying to work with 
all concerns, realizing that we cannot indeed satisfy all aspects; but 
a good-faith attempt was done with regard to that.
  Of course, the ID-related document that is the most fundamental. It 
proves U.S. citizenship, the most valuable benefit the country can 
provide. As we all have indicated, it is the common breeder document 
used to obtain other documents, including a driver's license and a 
Social Security number and card. That is the power of the birth 
certificate.
  With the birth certificate, plus the driver's license, and a Social 
Security card, a person can obtain just about any other ID-related 
document and would be verified as authorized to work and receive public 
assistance by nearly any verification system it is possible to 
conceive, including any system likely to be implemented in the 
foreseeable future.
  Yet, the weird part of it is that this birth certificate--and it is a 
sacred document, the type of document that is pressed into the Bible; 
it is the book that goes into the safe deposit box--is the most easily 
counterfeited of all ID-related documents, partly because copies are 
issued by 50 States, some with laws like Ohio, some with laws like 
Wyoming--50 States and over 7,000 local registrars in a myriad of forms 
and political subdivisions and, as Senator Leahy indicated 
in committee, I think townships.

  So how can anyone looking at a particular certificate know whether it 
even resembles a bona fide certificate? Furthermore, birth certificates 
can readily be obtained in genuine form by requesting a copy of a 
deceased person's certificate. And birth and death records are only 
beginning--this is the very beginnings--to be matched. That is puzzling 
to me in every sense. In most States, it is only for recent deaths. So 
we have a situation where people want to build a new identity. They try 
to get the certificate of a person who was born in the year they were, 
or near their own birth year, or died as an infant, perhaps, so that 
the deceased person would not have obtained a Social Security card or 
otherwise established an identity.
  It is acknowledged by a great majority of experts that a secure 
verification system cannot be achieved without improvements in the 
birth certificate, and in the procedures followed to issue it. Without 
a secure, effective verification system, the current law prohibiting 
the knowing employment of illegal aliens cannot be enforced. I 
emphasize current law because some of my colleagues argue as if this 
bill would put this provision into law, and that is not so. It need 
not.
  This is the law now. We are not putting this into the law. There is a 
system in the law. The issue simply is, do we here in Congress intend 
to take reasonable steps so that this part of current law can be 
effectively enforced? That is the problem. Do we want to do that?
  Mr. President, without effective employer sanctions, illegal 
immigration, including not only unlawful border crossing, but visa 
overstays, will not be brought under control. It is just that simple. 
Thus, fraud resistant birth certificates and procedures to issue them 
are a crucial part of any effort to make that effective. In addition to 
immigration and welfare advantages, a more secure birth certificate 
will help us to reduce many more harms associated with fraudulent use 
of ID's, ranging from financial crimes--we will see ever more of 
those--and then those through the Internet--and we will see more of 
those--and through electronic and computer-based systems, to voting 
fraud, to terrorism. Accordingly, S. 1664 proposes significant reforms 
in birth certificates themselves, and in the procedures followed to 
issue them, and improvements of a similar nature for driver's licenses, 
which I think are critically important.
  The final provision on birth certificates was drafted with assistance 
from the Association for Public Health Statistics and Information. I 
want to share that with my colleagues. The National Association of 
State Registrars and Vital Statistics Offices--that was drafted with 
their assistance--these officials made very valuable suggestions to us, 
and they expressed their approval of the final language, which is here 
to be stricken. Additional improvements were made in the amendment I 
offered yesterday, which was accepted, and which will be stricken if 
this amendment is passed.

  I will just summarize the birth certificate provisions of the bill. I 
am using my time, but I will yield to my friend from Ohio. I emphasize 
to those who are waiting to come to the floor on the Bradley amendment 
or the Leahy amendment that their opportunity will close at 4 o'clock 
on that procedure.
  If my friend from Ohio has any comment at this time, I will save some 
of my time.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I 
agree with him that we have had a very spirited debate and, I think, a 
very good debate--a debate that has covered, I think, most of the 
issues that we are going to cover here today.
  Let me just state, on a couple of related subjects, the following. We 
have, again, confirmed, I say to the Members of the Senate, this 
afternoon that this amendment is supported by the National Conference 
of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and by the 
National League of Cities. All three organizations support this 
amendment. Again, they emphasize they support it on the basis of cost--
cost to them as local units of government--and they also support it on 
the basis of the whole question of preemption. Once again, that is the 
Federal Government coming in and, frankly, telling them exactly what to 
do.
  Let me just make a couple of additional comments in regard to the 
issue my colleague from Wyoming was talking a moment ago about, which 
is birth certificates. To me, it is almost shocking when we think of 
the implications of what this bill, as currently written, would do. I 
have given the example here on the floor that when you turn 65, you are 
hopefully going to get Social Security and Medicare; at 16, in most 
States, a driver's license, or try to get your driver's license; or you 
will get married. For any of those purposes, you will have to get a 
birth certificate, and your old birth certificate is no longer going to 
be any good for that purpose.
  Let your imagination run. You can think of all the other reasons why 
during your lifetime you might need a birth certificate. Everybody can 
just about figure 270 million Americans are

[[Page S4489]]

at some point in time going to need their birth certificates.
  I suppose if you are over 65 and already on Social Security, and you 
are not traveling, I suppose some folks never are going to have to use 
this new birth certificate and are never going to have to do what tens 
of millions of Americans are now going to have to do under the 
provisions of this bill, which is to go and get new birth certificates.
  Again, what we are saying in this bill and with this amendment, what 
we are saying to 270 million Americans is, ``Yes, your birth 
certificate is still valid, but you really just cannot use it much for 
anything. You will have to get a new one.'' That, to me, is onerous, 
whether you travel overseas--how many of us have had occasion as 
Members of the Senate or the House to get the frantic call from someone 
who says, ``I am supposed to be going overseas and I had this passport. 
I cannot find it. I found out today it is expired. I am leaving in 5 
days, or 4 days.'' What if you had to add to all of the problems they 
have to go through now, with the red tape, one more thing--you have to 
go back and get a new birth certificate because that birth certificate 
which you have had all of these years will not work anymore. That might 
be acceptable. At least, it would not be for me. I do not think it 
would be.
  If we could make the case that the reissuance of a new birth 
certificate on this tamperproof paper, with all of the bells and 
whistles prescribed by the Federal bureaucrats, if that would deal with 
the problem--but maybe I am missing something in this discussion. I 
believe my colleague from Wyoming when he says it is the breeder 
document. I trust him on it. He has had enough experience on this. He 
has talked about this problem. But it still is going to be a problem, 
and, in fact, it may be even worse of a problem, more of a problem.
  There are States--and Ohio is one, but Ohio is not the only one--
where you can get anybody's birth certificate. Let me repeat that: You 
can get anybody's birth certificate. You walk into the county, and if 
someone was born there, you can get their birth certificate. You put 
down $7; you can get 5, 20, or as many birth certificates as you want 
as long as you know the name of the people. You can get them. They are 
public records.
  What we are now saying is, instead of the old birth certificate copy, 
these are going to be new ones. Obviously, they are more expensive--
tamperproof, bells and whistles--with all of the things the printers 
told us when we tried to find out what the cost would be, and they will 
have them. So what? What is the protection? What is the protection if I 
have walked in and Mike DeWine, at the age of 49, went in and got 
somebody else's who is 49 and might look the same? I now have a birth 
certificate. I do not see what has been accomplished. I do not see what 
we have done in regard to this, even in States where it is more 
difficult.
  Again, instead of the breeder document, instead of the father 
document or the mother document, this may be the son, or the 
granddaughter. This may be two generations away. It may be an illegal 
license, as my colleague still has displayed in the Senate here, maybe 
an illegal license that is the breeder document. I do not know.
  Again, this is not going to solve the problem. My friend talks about 
now the provision is in the bill that States should, if they know it, 
stamp on this birth certificate if the person is deceased. We can 
imagine how accurate that is going to be, or what percentage of these 
birth certificates is going to ever be stamped with the deceased on 
them. It may be a great idea. But, again, it is going to be a very, 
very small percentage where the local clerk of the county is going to 
know that someone is deceased. In some cases, they will, but in a great 
majority of the cases, they will not. We live in a very mobile society, 
Mr. President. This, I do not think, is going to help a great deal.
  If you really want to make these tamperproof, what you are going to 
do is require people to go in and, face to face, get their new birth 
certificate. I do not think we are going to do that. I do not think we 
are going to say to a retiree who lives in North Carolina or who lives 
in Florida or lives in California, ``You have to go back to Cincinnati, 
OH, you have to drive back and get a new birth certificate.'' I do not 
think anyone is going to make them do that. I do not think it is a 
serious idea. But yet, if you are going to make it tamperproof, you at 
least have to do that, not allowing it to be by U.S. mail and getting 
anybody's birth certificate. I think it is very onerous, but I think it 
is not going to be effective. It is going to be no good at all.
  In thinking about this, we ought to learn from our past mistakes. We 
ought to learn from what this Congress has done in the past that we 
have regretted. I have cast votes that I have regretted. I have cast 
votes where I looked around and said later on that I was wrong. This is 
not the first time we have tried in this Congress within recent memory 
to deal with a specific targeted problem by putting an onerous burden 
on everybody. We have a finite problem. It is important. But the way we 
deal with it, the way we would deal with it, without this amendment, is 
to put the burden on absolutely everyone, to say to 270 million 
Americans that ``your birth certificate no longer is any good. You will 
have to go get a new one.'' If you ever want to use it, you will have 
to say to every employer in this country that if you, in fact, want to 
hire someone, you will have to call a 1-800 number. You will have to 
seek permission from the Federal Government. I know there has been 
comment on the floor about that not being the right terminology. That 
is what it is. You will have to check the person out and to do it by 
how the Federal bureaucracy tells you how to do it. As an employee, you 
are going to be in the situation of arguing with a computer.

  Again, I have had some experience in dealing with the criminal 
records system. Anybody who has dealt with any kind of big data base 
knows the problems. Someone gets turned down for a job or someone is 
told after they have been hired that we have a problem. You need to get 
this problem straightened out with the INS. You need to get this 
problem straightened out with the computer data base. How many of us in 
this world today enjoy dealing with computers, particularly in regard 
to one of the most important things in our lives, how to make our 
livelihood?
  So this is not the first time Congress has spread a burden among 
every single American to deal with a few people. If history tells us 
anything, it tells us that people in this country ultimately will not 
put up with this.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. Remember contemporaneous 
recordkeeping for people who used their car in business? Remember when 
we passed that? We did it because some people cheated on their taxes 
when calculating the business use of their car. Because of that fact, 
because some people cheated, Congress made all of the people who used 
their car in business to keep very detailed daily records. I was in the 
House when that happened. I was in the House when we started getting 
calls. I was in the House when I would go out and have office hours and 
be flooded by people who said, ``What is this? I do not keep records 
every single day just because a few people cheat.'' What did we do, Mr. 
President? We did what we always do: We repealed it. It was a mistake.
  Remember section 89 because some businesses discriminated in setting 
up the benefit plans for their employees? Congress made all businesses 
comply with detailed recordkeeping to prove they were not 
discriminating. We did that. The public did not stand for that either. 
And, again, it was repealed. It happens every single time that we 
spread the burden among everyone for a very specific problem. In fact, 
I do not think Congress has ever had a provision as burdensome or 
really as broad as this particular provision. This provision applies to 
everyone who wants to use a birth certificate or a driver's license--to 
everyone.

  I submit, Mr. President, that we do this at our own peril. The public 
ultimately is not going to stand for it. I think it is a very, very 
serious mistake.
  Therefore, again, I urge my colleagues to pass the Abraham-Feingold 
amendment. It is an amendment that is supported by a broad group of 
Senators, certainly across the political spectrum.
  At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4490]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3865, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modified version of my 
amendment, No. 3865.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3865), as modified, 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) 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.''.

       (c) 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, the modification I send to the desk is a 
modification of the amendment regarding female genital mutilation. The 
modified version of this amendment strikes the language requiring the 
threat of female genital mutilation be made consideration for an asylum 
claim.
  I repeat, at this time I believe in the asylum aspect of it, but I 
understand the problems associated with this; that we would need to 
make a better case to the committee and to this body. Therefore, I will 
not go into the reasons why I think it should be made a basis for 
asylum. The fact of the matter is, we are not going to do it in this 
legislation. We will look down the road to work with the committee to 
see if we can come up with a basis for doing that.
  I offer this modified version of my amendment today so we can 
criminalize this torture in the United States, as a number of other 
countries have already done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada. This is not some issue 
that he has come to in recent times, simply because of media attention. 
He has been involved in this, and I have observed him with great 
admiration. It is a serious issue. It is an issue of criminal activity. 
It is an issue of assault. It is an issue of culture. And there is much 
to it.
  As the Canadian experience has indicated, the problem, sometimes, 
with bringing in an asylee is that soon thereafter, when other family 
members join, they have not only brought the victim but they bring the 
perpetrator. We will be glad to have some hearings on that. We will 
discuss that.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada. He has always been very helpful. 
This is very helpful, that we do not go into the deep issue of asylum, 
but that we make it a crime because at that point we will solve a great 
deal of it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will just say in closing--and I would want 
spread on the record--that I have spoken personally with the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee in the House, Henry Hyde. He acknowledges 
the brutality of this and has indicated on the bill that was signed by 
the President last Saturday, the omnibus appropriation bill, there was 
this provision that was taken out in conference.
  That is not because of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 
House that was taken out. He supports this issue. I hope my friend, as 
I know he will during the conference on this matter, will hang tough 
for this issue.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3865), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 3810

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think we may be able to dispose of one of 
my amendments just before the 4 o'clock vote. I will simply speak 
briefly on this.
  This is an amendment that says, ``To exempt from the deeming rules, 
immigrants who are disabled after entering the United States.''
  That is the current law. It simply goes back to the current law. It 
sets a safety net there. So that no one thinks all of a sudden people 
are going to claim that they are disabled, the amendment says, the 
requirements of subsection (A) shall not apply with respect to any 
alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
residence and who since the date of such lawful admission has become 
blind or disabled, as those terms are defined in the Social Security 
Act.
  Social Security disability is not an easy thing to achieve, as my 
colleagues here know. I will add, the amendment is endorsed by State 
and local governments. I think it makes sense, and I hope it can be 
adopted.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we do have a Member ready to debate 
briefly the Leahy or Bradley amendment. May we come back to that, 
please?
  I yield to Senator Hatch, whose time is limited. We certainly thank 
the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3780

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with regard to the Leahy-Simon amendment, 
let me say that this amendment is an improvement of the amendment that 
Senator Leahy offered in the Judiciary Committee, because it will 
permit for special summary exclusion procedures in extraordinary 
migration situations. The amendment will remove summary exclusion 
procedures where they could be problematic.

  In particular, the amendment removes the summary exclusion procedures 
for asylum applicants. Those would require that INS officers at

[[Page S4491]]

points of entry make threshold determinations of how an alien traveled 
to the United States and whether someone claiming asylum has a credible 
fear of persecution. This would present a burden to our INS officers at 
borders, who would now have to become experts in asylum law and would 
have to perform additional bureaucratic functions.
  I am also concerned about the harsh consequences that could result to 
asylum applicants who do have a valid claim but who may not speak 
English, may not have the necessary proof of their claim with them, and 
that sort of thing.
  I also note that the INS has had success with reducing frivolous 
asylum claims. This provision seems unnecessary at this time and could 
create burdens on INS border agents, who should be focussing on other 
matters.
  This amendment also deletes provisions of the bill providing that an 
alien using fraudulent documents for entry is excludable and ineligible 
for withholding of deportation. Many asylum applicants fleeing 
persecution may have to destroy their documents for various reasons and 
may have to present fraudulent documents. The bill does provide for an 
exception for those who have a valid asylum claim. Accordingly, I do 
not think those provisions of the bill are as problematic. but I think 
that on the whole the provisions of the amendment are meritorious and I 
support the amendment.
  I realize that the terrorism bill that came out of conference 
included summary exclusion provisions for asylum applicants. That 
provision was primarily driven by some House Members and, although I 
did not think it belonged in the terrorism bill, I knew that we would 
deal with this here on the immigration bill. Accordingly, I do not 
think it is inconsistent for those who supported the terrorism bill to 
support the Leahy asylum amendment.
  Mr. President, I am going to support the Leahy asylum amendment 
because I think it is the right thing to do. I do like the changes he 
made. Even though I voted against the amendment in committee, I think 
the changes make the amendment a good amendment.


                           amendment no. 3790

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the Bradley 
amendment for a few minutes as well, and I appreciate my colleagues 
giving me this opportunity.
  This Congress is supposed to be about reducing the Federal 
bureaucracy. I must confess that I am perplexed about where the idea 
for a new Federal bureaucracy is coming from. The administration 
opposes this provision for a new Office of Enforcement of Employer 
Sanctions. It argues that this new Office would be duplicative of 
ongoing programs within the INS and the Office of Special Counsel. In 
fact, the Attorney General's office suggests that a new office would 
not only be a waste of money, but make the program even less effective.
  The employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and 
Control Act of 1986 [IRCA] have not successfully controlled illegal 
immigration. That is not simply my opinion, it is a fact.
  Illegal aliens continue to pour into this country. A cottage industry 
in counterfeit and fraudulent documents has flourished, and an 
increasingly lucrative black market in smuggling aliens into this 
country has thrived.
  Employer sanctions do not work. If they did, we would not be debating 
a verification system. If sanctions worked, we would not have the level 
of concern we presently have about the very issue of illegal 
immigration. We would not have seen so much television footage of 
persons illegally crossing our borders by running against traffic on 
highways in order to defeat vehicular pursuit. We would not have seen a 
ship ground off of the New Jersey shore a few years ago loaded with 
aliens to be smuggled into our country. We would not be reading about 
illegal aliens loaded onto boxcars which are then sealed south of our 
border on their way north.

  At the same time, sanctions have had serious adverse consequences. 
Though unintended, they are still very real. Some employers have 
engaged in illegal discrimination against Americans who look or sound 
foreign in order to avoid potential lawsuits, fines, and jail sentences 
under IRCA's sanctions provisions. Further, the paperwork and related 
burdens on American businesses--as small as entities with just one 
employee--impose costs onto the American consumer.
  In my view, employer sanctions simply are not worth the price of 
increased employment discrimination and increased burdens on small 
business.
  Let us speak for a few moments about the anticivil rights nature of 
employer sanctions. The easiest way for an employer to avoid sanctions 
is to refuse to hire those who look or sound different. To be sure, the 
law penalizes such discrimination. But the law does not always catch up 
with all the discrimination that occurs. So to place an incentive into 
the law for discrimination is, I respectfully submit, truly 
unfortunate.
  The Comptroller General's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 
March 30, 1990, highlighting key issues in GAO's report to Congress on 
IRCA and the question of discrimination was quite simple and 
straightforward: He stated that the GAO had found widespread 
discrimination as a result of IRCA.

  The GAO said:

       The results of our survey of a random sample of the 
     Nation's employers shows that an estimated 891,000 employers, 
     19 percent of the 4.6 million in the population surveyed 
     reported beginning discriminatory practices because of the 
     law.

  The American people have a right to know these facts, and I think 
Members of the Senate have a right to know these facts.
  Notably, in 1994 the AFL-CIO Executive Council called for ``a 
thorough reexamination of * * * employer sanctions * * * and their 
effects on workers, as well as the exploration of changes and viable 
alternatives that will best meet our criteria of fairness and justice 
for all workers.''


     EMPLOYER SANCTIONS PLACE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON BUSINESS, 
                      PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESS

  Even those who have long disagreed with my position on sanctions 
have, in effect, acknowledged that the current system does not work. 
The failure is due, in part, to the number of work eligibility 
documents and the widespread use of fraudulent documents.
  This bill seeks to address those deficiencies in some way, but 
potential improvement efforts have not yet been implemented, let alone 
evaluated. To assume, therefore, that the employer sanctions program 
will now be more workable is simply wrong.
  There is little evidence to support the assumption that employer 
sanctions have done anything more than increase discrimination and 
place tremendous burdens on small business. While jobs may be a magnet 
for illegal immigration, there is no evidence that the existence of 
sanctions has in any way deterred illegal immigrants from attempting to 
enter this country. These sanctions have been in effect for 10 years. 
The problem of illegal immigration, as we all know, has gotten worse 
during that period.

  The employer sanctions regime, in effect, converts our Nation's 
employers into guardians of our borders--that is the job for the Border 
Patrol and the INS.
  I support many of the provisions in this bill, and I compliment my 
distinguished colleague from Wyoming for the hard work he has done in 
putting this together. I support including strengthening our Border 
Patrol and curbing alien smuggling.
  Our 10 years of experience with employer sanctions, however, offers 
more than sufficient evidence that they do more harm than good.
  Our employers have enough to do competing in the global marketplace 
while complying with hundreds of other Federal rules and regulations.
  The appropriate response to a bankrupt policy with a 10-year history 
of all costs and no benefits should not be to throw more money at it. 
And most certainly, the appropriate response is not to create a new 
Federal bureaucracy to manage it.
  Mr. President, I really believe that we should defeat this amendment, 
and I ask my colleagues to consider doing that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Bradley amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

[[Page S4492]]

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I hope people will support this 
amendment. What is the problem with illegal immigration? Why are 
illegal immigrants coming to this country? Because they get jobs. 
Employers hire them.
  In 1986 we said, if an employer hires an illegal immigrant, taking 
that job away from an American, that person can be fined, ultimately 
can be put in jail for up to 3 years. Employer sanctions were the right 
policy in 1986. The problem is, they were not enforced.
  The number of inspections, the number of inspectors between 1989 and 
1995, dropped 50 percent. Employer sanctions should be enforced. If so, 
we would have fewer illegal immigrants coming into this country. This 
amendment simply creates a special enforcement office in the 
Immigration Service, allocates such funds to do the job, and says to 
the Immigration Service, ``Enforce employer sanctions. Stop illegal 
immigration.''
  I am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do agree with the Senator's amendment. 
Senator Hatch and I respectfully differ on this. There are two things 
wrong with employer sanctions--lack of enforcement and fraudulent 
documents. This will solve one.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 
30 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I use these few seconds to say I strongly agree with the Senator's 
opposition to this amendment. As we learned in committee, this is a 
duplication to add to this agency. Where is the $100 million going to 
come from that this amendment provides for this agency? The Clinton 
administration has been clear that they do not need it, that this would 
probably make their lives more difficult in terms of fighting the 
problem.
  On a bipartisan basis in committee we were able to defeat this 
notion. I hope we will not go backward on it on the floor. I thank the 
Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Clinton administration, as my 
distinguished colleague just said, opposes the creation of an office 
for the enforcement of employer sanctions. The Congress should be about 
cutting the Federal bureaucracy, not adding to it. This bill throws 
another $100 million of employer sanctions enforcement on top of the 
$43 million spent in the current year on worksite enforcement.
  Sanctions have not worked. They are a burden on business, especially 
small business. They cause discrimination against those who look and 
sound foreign. The Judiciary Committee struck the office from the bill. 
Frankly, I urge the rejection of the Bradley amendment for those 
reasons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3790, offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Bradley.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 3790, offered by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Bradley]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simpson

                                NAYS--74

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pell
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3790) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 3780

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Under the previous order, there 
will now be two minutes of debate on the Leahy amendment.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. You each 
have on your desk editorials from the Washington Times, the Washington 
Post, and the New York Times. They all agree and are in support of this 
amendment.
  Do not confuse asylum with illegal immigration. This speaks of 
America's vital role in offering asylum. Senators Hatch, Kerry, DeWine, 
Hatfield, and I have united on this because what we are saying is, if 
somebody comes to this country trying to escape religious oppression, 
political oppression, or whatever, the mere fact that they have come 
here under a false passport--usually the only way they can get out of 
the country these escape--we should not have a low-level person be able 
to turn them back automatically for that.
  Let them have a full asylum hearing. It does not do anything for 
illegal immigrants. But it makes sure that the U.S. promise of a fair 
hearing for those who are escaping religious or political persecution 
can get it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would seriously impair the 
bill's provisions to expedite the exclusion of aliens who attempt to 
enter the United States surreptitiously, or through the use of 
fraudulent documents. You saw the ``60 Minute'' segment some time ago.
  This is the scenario. The alien uses documents to board an airliner, 
then disposes of the documents, and claims asylum. And that cannot be. 
The amendment is not required to protect the deserving asylum 
applicants. We have a credible fear exception. If they have credible 
fear, they get a full hearing without any question. They simply show 
that to a specially trained asylum officer, and not to just somebody 
who is at a lower level. It is a significantly lesser fear standard 
than we use for any other provision.
  That is what we use with Hatians.
  I yield two seconds to Senator D'Amato.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if we pass this amendment what you are 
saying is let people come in with illegal documents with just plain 
political persecution, and set them lose. They just continue. You are 
just going to compound this problem. You do not have to the facilities 
to hold them in, nor the facilities to have hearings. You will be 
gutting this bill. It absolutely flies in the face of what we are 
attempting to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Vermont. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy

[[Page S4493]]


     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3780) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3752

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 3752, 
offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham].
  There will order in the Senate.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, after the 2 minutes of explanation on this, 
I will make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is appropriate you recognize the 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will not make the motion now, but 
immediately after the 2 minutes of explanation on this amendment, I 
will make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Are you asking for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. SIMON. I have not made the motion to table because we have not 
had the final 2 minutes.
  I move to table, Mr. President, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not be appropriate at this time. It 
will be necessary to wait until the time for debate has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can we have order, now? This is an 
extremely important 2 minutes we are having here on this debate. I 
think it is probably as important as any issue on the legislation. 
Members ought to have an opportunity to be heard.
  If we could still insist on order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. There will now 
be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would say this is an amendment brought 
by Senators DeWine, Feingold, Inhofe, Mack, Lott, Lieberman, Nickles, 
and myself. It represents an effort to strike from the bill a 
verification system that is a Government intrusive system to try to 
verify employment. In our view it will not succeed, but it will be very 
costly, costly to employers, costly to employees who will be denied 
jobs because it is impossible to perfect such a system, costly to the 
taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and costly 
for reasons that the Senator from Ohio will now address in terms of the 
need for people to obtain new birth certificates in order to comply 
with this legislation.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this bill says to 270 million Americans 
that your birth certificate is still valid, but if you ever want to use 
it, you have to go back to the origin, the place you were born, and get 
a new federally prescribed birth certificate that this Congress is 
going to tell all 50 States they have to reissue.
  If you get a driver's license at age 16, when you turn 65 and you 
want Social Security or Medicare, or you get married, or you want a 
passport, you are going to need your birth certificate, and that birth 
certificate that you have had all these years no longer is going to be 
valid for that purpose.
  It is very costly. It is a hidden tax, and it is going to be a major, 
major mistake. It will be something I think, if we vote for it, will 
come back and we will be very, very sorry.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is the critical test of the 
legislation. Without effective employer sanctions, the United States 
will not achieve control over illegal immigration. Without an effective 
verification system, there cannot be effective employer sanctions. 
Without more fraud-resistant birth certificates and driver's licenses--
this is my California variety, you can get them for 75 bucks--there 
will never be an effective verification system.
  This amendment strips the verification process that was in the bill 
and strips any ability to deal with the worst fraud-ridden breeder 
document, which is the birth certificate. I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Simpson is absolutely right. This 
is the most important vote we are going to have on immigration. It is a 
question of whether we are going to continue with document abuse or 
not. That is the basic difficulty in terms of trying to protect 
American jobs, as well as trying to limit the magnet of immigration, 
which is jobs. If we deal with that, we are going to stop the magnet of 
immigration of people coming here illegally.
  This is the heart and soul of that program. Otherwise, we are going 
to continue to get these false documents produced day in and day out. 
This is the only way to do it. It is a narrow, modest program. If we do 
not do it now, the rest of the bill, I think, is unworkable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 3752, offered by the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Abraham].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens

                                NAYS--46

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3752) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me commend you on a very forceful and 
fair procedure during these many months. It has been a rare privilege 
for me to come to know you better and to know you as a legislator. You 
are fair, formidable, efficient, and effective. That is not just 
because of the win and lose issue. I would have said that under either 
circumstance and meant it. And

[[Page S4494]]

Senator DeWine, dogged and determined. I would not want to be 
practicing law or doing much more of this with worthy adversaries such 
as Senator Spencer Abraham and Michael DeWine and my friend Russ 
Feingold from Wisconsin. I commend them all.
  Someone came up to me said, ``Oh, you really are on a roll,'' and I 
said, ``I have been rolled for 6 months.'' The roll is not always in 
the eye of the beholder. Win a few, lose a few, and you move on in good 
camaraderie, good spirit. You are setting that tone as you occupy the 
chair after a very vigorous debate. You have learned the essence of the 
Senate: Do your work, give it your best shot, take a shot in the neck 
and a belt in the head, swallow hard and move on, shake hands with the 
adversary, and go off, have a great big pop or something else.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have 30 seconds, I want to thank all those 
that participated in that debate and discussion. I think the Members 
found there were appealing arguments on all sides. I think as we find 
out on these immigration issues sometimes, when you prevail you are not 
always right. It has been a constant learning experience because it 
involves human beings' behavior and trying to predict how people will 
react to different suggestions and recommendations.
  I join Senator Simpson and thank all those who are on different sides 
and those that were on our side for the courtesy and attention they 
gave to the debate and discussion.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me just comment, I have frequently said 
on the floor we are too partisan, excessively partisan. It is true. But 
this is a case where we discussed the issues, where on one side you had 
the Simpson-Kennedy leadership, on the other side you had Senator 
Abraham and Senator Feingold. That is the way it should be on most 
issues. Very few issues, really, involve party political philosophy. 
Whether you won or lost on this issue, this is the way legislating 
ought to take place.


                           Amendment No. 3810

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is my 
amendment No. 3810, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, what this does--and this is not a 
complicated one--this simply says that we are going to go back to the 
current law that if someone is disabled under the definition of the 
Social Security Act, if you are blind or disabled, then the deeming 
provision does not apply.
  The pending bill requires that 100 percent of an immigrant sponsor's 
income be deemed to the immigrants. Say your sponsor has a $30,000-a-
year income; it is totally unrealistic, among other things, to assume 
that sponsor can provide $30,000 worth of support for the immigrant.
  I hope we would keep the current law. I think it is simply sensible 
and compassionate as well as practical that we not move in this 
direction. I know my colleague from Wyoming has a slightly different 
perspective on this. My amendment is supported by the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the Natural League of Cities and the 
National Association of Counties.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague and friend for 
this amendment. I think it is important to note that disabled persons 
are covered by this amendment only if they become disabled after the 
immigrants arrive. It is unfair to make the sponsors foot the bill for 
unforeseen tragedies such as this. No one can predict when disability 
will strike. It is a very small target, but it will make a very 
important difference to a number of individuals who are experiencing 
this type of tragedy. I hope we might be able to see this amendment 
through and accept it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, what seems to be so appropriate in 
immigration matters often has a deeper tenor when we are talking about 
the blind and the disabled. We all want to respond.
  Let me say this: We only make the sponsor pay what the sponsor is 
able to pay. We are back to the same issue. This is a very singular 
issue, as were the amendments we voted on last night. The issue is, 
when you come to the United States of America as a sponsor, you are 
saying that the immigrant you are bringing here will not become a 
public charge. That is the law.
  If you become disabled or blind and you go to seek assistance, the 
law provides that if your sponsor has a lot of money, you are going to 
get the money from the sponsor first. That is what we are going to do. 
It does not matter what your level of disability; that is the law, or 
will be the law under this bill. It will be clarified, it will be 
strengthened, and that is what this is about. We are not saying that we 
are going to break the sponsor because the person is disabled. If the 
sponsor has tremendous assets, and you have a disabled or blind person, 
that sponsor is supposed to keep their promise. Why should he or she 
not? That was the promise made. Maybe they were not disabled at the 
time. I understand that. But they become disabled and here they are. 
Should the taxpayers of America pick that up when the sponsor is 
financially able to do it?

  But there is a little more to this here. The number of ``disabled 
immigrants'' receiving SSI has increased 825 percent over the last 15 
years. That is an extraordinary figure. The number of disabled 
immigrants receiving SSI has increased 825 percent over the last 15 
years. American taxpayers pay over $1 billion every year in SSI 
payments to disabled immigrants. The purpose of the requirement that 
immigrants obtain the sponsor agreement is precisely to provide a 
reasonable assurance to the American taxpayer that, if they need 
financial assistance, it will come first from the sponsor and not from 
the taxpayers.
  It would actually be more reasonable to provide an exception, I 
think, here, if the sponsor became disabled and it was impossible for 
that sponsor to provide the support. Of course, please hear this: If 
the sponsor has no income, there is no income to deem, and no exception 
is needed. You do not need to have an exception if the sponsor went 
broke or if the sponsor cannot afford to do this. Then there we are. 
The sponsor's income is not deemed, and then the taxpayers pick up the 
program, pick up the individual. That is where we are.
  I urge all of us to remember, as we do these amendments, that they 
all have a tremendous emotional pull. We have seen the emotional pulls 
for 11 or 12 days on this floor. But in each of these amendments 
related to deeming--whether it is blindness, whether it is disability, 
whether it is veterans, whether it is kids, whether it is senior 
citizens, whatever, plucks genuinely at your heartstrings--the issue is 
that none of those people should become the burden of the taxpayers if 
they had a sponsor that remains totally able, because of their assets, 
to sustain them. That is it. That is where we are. That was the 
contract made. That is what they agreed to do, and that is the public 
charge that we have always embraced since the year 1882, and which we 
are now trying to strengthen, and believe that we certainly will.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute in rebuttal. The 
figures that my friend from Wyoming cites are people, many of whom came 
here disabled, and so they have ended up on SSI. This applies to people 
who have become disabled after they have come here. I hope that the 
amendment will be accepted.

  I ask the Senator from Wyoming this. I have another amendment that I 
am ready with. The understanding is that we will stack the votes, is 
that correct?
  Mr. SIMPSON. No, Mr. President, that is not my understanding. The 
leader is here. Mr. President, we will work toward some type of 
agreement if we can either lock things in, and maybe get time 
agreements. There are not many amendments, actually, left. There are 
some place-holder amendments. But I cannot say that we will be stacking 
votes.
  Certainly, if you wish to present an amendment and go back-to-back on 
that, we will certainly do that and maybe have 15 minutes on the first 
vote and 10 for the second. I think we can get a unanimous consent to 
do that, with the approval of the leader, at an appropriate time, 
according to the leader.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if this is acceptable to the Senator from 
Wyoming, I will ask that we set aside the amendment I just offered so 
that I may consider a second amendment that I have.
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is perfectly appropriate with me, Mr. President.

[[Page S4495]]

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my 
first amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3813 to Amendment No. 3743

      (Purpose: To prevent retroactive deeming of sponsor income)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3813 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. SIMON. 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:
       Strike page 199, line 4, and all that follows through page 
     202, line 5, and insert the following: ``to provide support 
     for such alien.
       ``(d) Exceptions.--
       (1) Indigence.--
       (A) In general.--If a determination described in 
     subparagraph (B) is made, the amount of income and resources 
     of the sponsor or the sponsor's spouse which shall be 
     attributed to the sponsored alien shall not exceed the amount 
     actually provided for a period--
       (I) beginning on the date of such determination and ending 
     12 months after such date, or
       (ii) if the address of the sponsor is unknown to the 
     sponsored alien, beginning on the date of such detemination 
     and ending on the date that is 12 months after the address of 
     the sponsor becomes known to the sponsored alien or to the 
     agency (which shall inform such alien of the address within 7 
     days).
       (B) Determination described.--A determination described in 
     this subparagraph is a determination by an agency that a 
     sponsored alien would, in the absence of the assistance 
     provided by the agency, be unable to obtain food and shelter, 
     taking into account the alien's own income, plus any cash, 
     food, housing, or other assistance provided by other 
     individuals, including the sponsor.
       (2) Education assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply with respect to sponsored aliens who have received, 
     or have been approved to receive, student assistance under 
     the title IV, V, IX, or X of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     in an academic year which ends or begins in the calendar year 
     in which this Act is enacted.
       (B) Duration.--The exception described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply only for the period normally required to complete 
     the course of study for which the sponsored alien receives 
     assistance described in that subparagraph.
       (3) Certain services and assistance.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to any service or assistance 
     described in section 201(a)(1)(A)(vii).
       (e) Deeming Authority to State and Local Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, but subject to exceptions equivalent to the exceptions 
     described in subsection (d), the State or local government 
     may, for purposes of determining the eligibility of an alien 
     for benefits, and the amount of benefits,under any state or 
     local program of assistance for which eligibility is based on 
     need, or any need-based program of assistance administered by 
     a State or local government (other than a program of 
     assistance provided or funded, in whole or in part, by the 
     Federal Government), require that the income and resources 
     described in subsection (b) be deemed to be the income and 
     resources of such alien.
       (c) Length of deeming period.--Subject to exceptions 
     quivalent to the exceptions described in subsection (d), a 
     State of local government may impose the requirement 
     described in paragraph (1) for the period for which the 
     sponsor has agreed, in such affidavit or agreement, to 
     provide support for such alien.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is cosponsored by 
Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Feinstein of California, and Senator 
Murray of Washington.
  This amendment simply makes the deeming provisions prospective. Every 
once in a while--not often in this body--we retroactively change the 
law. And three out of four times, we do harm when we do it. This simply 
says to sponsors that this is going to apply prospectively.
  Let me give you a very practical example. Let us say that, right now, 
because under the present law the only Federal programs that are 
subject to deeming are AFDC, food stamps, and SSI. Without my 
amendment, I say to my colleagues here from Michigan, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Wyoming, if a student is at a community college and getting 
student assistance of one kind or another, without this amendment, the 
sponsor who signed up for 3 years is responsible for 5 years, not just 
for the three welfare programs, but for any Federal assistance.
  I just think that is wrong. We ought to say it is prospectively. And 
I support Senator Simpson in this. Let us make it 5 years, but we 
should not say we are going back to sponsors who signed up for 3 years, 
and say, ``Even though you signed up for 3 years, we are making it 5. 
And you thought you were only going to be responsible for three 
programs--AFDC, food stamps, and SSI--but you are going to be 
responsible for every kind of Federal program.''
  Let me just add, the higher education community strongly favors my 
amendment.
  I think we ought to move in this direction. I think it is fair. I 
think, again, three out of four times when this body tries to do 
something retroactively, we make a mistake. If we go ahead with this 
retroactively, we are going to make a mistake.
  I see my colleague, Senator Graham, on the floor. I believe he wants 
to speak on this, too.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, here we are again dealing with the issue 
of deeming. When I said that my colleagues were persistent, I did not 
mean to leave out Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. In my experience of 
25 years knowing this likeable man, I know his persistence is indeed 
one of his principal attributes.
  He is back again with another deeming type of amendment. They are all 
very compassionately offered. They are carefully thought through. But, 
again, it is an issue we dealt with last night.
  It is true, and he is right; he has found this provision that 
individuals already in this country will not be the beneficiaries of 
the new legally enforceable sponsor agreements. They are going to be 
very strict. We have done a good job on that. The ones that will be 
required is after enactment.
  It is also true that some of them who have been here less than 5 
years will nevertheless be subject to at least a portion of the minimum 
5-year deeming period. Thus, there could be a case where such an 
individual would be unable to obtain public assistance because under 
deeming they neither received the promised assistance from their 
sponsor nor were able to sue them for support.
  But, again, let me remind my colleagues that no immigrants are 
admitted to the United States if they cannot provide adequate assurance 
to the consular officer, or to the immigration inspector, that they are 
not likely become a public charge, making that promise to the American 
people that they will not became a burden on the taxpayers. If they do 
use a substantial amount of welfare within the first 5 years, they are 
subject to deportation under certain circumstances. That is not a swift 
procedure. It is a thoughtful procedure.
  I remind my colleagues again that major welfare programs already 
require deeming--AFDC, food stamps for 3 years, SSI for 5, even though 
sponsored agreements are not now legally enforceable. Furthermore, the 
President's own 1994 welfare bill proposed a 5-year deeming for those 
programs. This would have applied to those who had only received the 
sponsor agreement to provide support for 3 years, an agreement that is 
not legally enforceable.
  So I just do not believe it is unreasonable for the taxpayers of this 
country to require recently arrived immigrants to depend on their 
sponsors for the first 5 years under all circumstances if the sponsor 
has the assets. If the sponsor does not have the assets, we will pick 
them up. We have never failed to do that.
  It is only on that basis of assurance that they even came here 
because they could not have come here if they were to be a public 
charge.
  Regardless of the compassionate aspects of it, that is what we ought 
to do.
  Thank you.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak on this 
subject, but we have now had about a half dozen amendments on this 
deeming issue. It seems to me that the Senate has spoken on this issue. 
Far be it from me to say that our colleagues are infringing

[[Page S4496]]

on our patience, but it seems to me this is a very clear issue. The 
American people have very strong opinions about it. We have voted on 
it. I do not see what we gain by going over and over and over again 
plowing this same ground, or in this case dragging this dead cat which 
smells rank back across the table.
  Here is the issue. When people come to America, they get the greatest 
worldly gift you can get. They have an opportunity to become Americans. 
I am very proud of the fact that I stood up on the floor of the Senate 
and fought an effort that was trying to slam the door on people who 
come to this country legally. I believe in immigration. I do not want 
to tear down the Statue of Liberty. I believe new Americans bring new 
vision and new energy, and America would not be America without 
immigrants. But when people come to America, they come with sponsors, 
and these sponsors guarantee to the American taxpayer that the 
immigrant is not going to become a ward of the State.
  If you want to know how lousy the current program is, in the last 10 
years when we have had millions of immigrants come to America legally, 
how many people do you think have been deported because they have 
become wards of the State? In 10 years with millions of legal 
immigrants, we have had, I understand, 13 people that have been 
deported. Obviously, the current system is not working.
  What the bill of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming says is 
simply this: When you sign that pledge that you are going to take care 
of these people until they can take care of themselves, we expect you 
to live up to your promise. We expect you to use your energy and your 
assets to see that the person you have sponsored does not become a 
burden on the taxpayers.
  So what the bill does, in essence, is count the sponsor's income and 
the sponsor's assets as yours for the purpose of your applying for 
welfare.
  It seems to me that we do not have anything to apologize about in 
giving people the greatest worldly gift you can get, and that is 
becoming an American. I do not think we ought to have any deviations, 
period, from this whole deeming issue. If you come to America, you have 
a sponsor. They say they are going to take care of you. If things go 
wrong, we ought to go back on their assets.
  But this idea that there ought to be some magic things that we are 
going to exempt--and we have seen all of these real tear-jerkers about, 
you know, in this particular case, or that particular case--this is a 
principle where I do not think there ought to be any particular cases.
  If people want to come to America, let them come to America, but let 
them come with their sleeves rolled up ready to go to work. Do not let 
them come with their hand out. If you want to live off the fruits of 
somebody else's labor, go somewhere else; do not come to America. But 
if you want to come here and build your dream and build the American 
dream and work and struggle and succeed as the grandparents of most of 
the Members, the parents of most of the Members of this body did, 
welcome. We have too few people who want to come and work and build 
their dream.
  But I think we pretty well settled this whole deeming issue. I think 
we ought to get on with it. This is now a good bill. We have spoken. I 
think we are at the point where people are ready to vote. I think after 
a half dozen votes on this issue that, ``Well, you are exempt from 
deeming if you are going to church to say a prayer and you trip and you 
break your back''--I mean, I think we have established the principle. I 
do not think we have to go on plowing this ground over and over again.
  The American people want people to come to work. They do not want 
people to come to go on welfare. We have a provision in the welfare 
bill that is even stronger than the deeming provision in this bill. 
Maybe we could have a vote that says under any circumstances except 
divine intervention that we stay with the provisions. We could vote on 
it and be through with it.
  Mr. SIMON. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SIMON. My friend talks about the contract you sign. What I want 
to do is say the United States, which signs the contract with the 
sponsor, will live up to its side of the contract. That contract right 
now is for 3 years for every sponsor. I am for moving to 5 years but 
doing it prospectively. This bill says to the people who signed the 
contract that Uncle Sam has changed his mind. He is going to make you 
responsible for 5 years when you sign for 3 years.
  Does the Senator from Texas think that is fair?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond by saying that I believe that when we are 
talking about people coming to America, that is a great deal. I do not 
think we have to second-guess it by saying that we are going to try to 
see that after so many years you can get welfare. I personally believe 
that until a person becomes a citizen, they ought not to be eligible 
for welfare. I am for a stronger provision than the Senate has adopted. 
I do not think immigrants should be eligible for welfare until they 
become citizens and, therefore, under the Constitution must be treated 
like everybody else, because under the Constitution there can be no 
differentiation between how they are treated as a natural-born American 
or nationalized. There is only one difference, and that is you cannot 
become President.
  But here is the point. I think that ought to be the provision. That 
is not even what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
something much less, and that is the deeming provision. The point I am 
making is this:
  The point I am making is this. We have voted on this thing a half a 
dozen times. I wish we could come up with every story or manipulation 
or hardship that we could get, put it all into one and vote on it and 
settle it. That is all I wish to do.
  Mr. SIMON. First of all, the Senator does not understand the 
amendment, obviously.
  Mr. GRAMM. No, I understand the amendment perfectly.
  Mr. SIMON. The Senator then did not respond to my question. The 
question is whether Uncle Sam is going to live up to his contract. We 
say to the sponsors you are a sponsor for 3 years. Now we come back 
with this legislation and say, sorry, we are changing the contract. You 
thought you signed up for 3 years. We are going to make it 5 years.
  I think that is wrong.
  Mr. GRAMM. Would the Senator, if he wants to change the provision, 
change it to say that immigrants are not eligible for welfare or public 
assistance until they become citizens?
  Mr. SIMON. We already have a provision in here for 5 years. That is 
not the issue. The issue is, are we going to go back, on this 
amendment, retroactively and say to sponsors, sorry, Uncle Sam is not 
going to live up to his word; we are changing your contract from 3 
years to 5 years.
  I think I know the Senator from Texas well enough--and, incidentally, 
he has had a lot more amendments on this floor than the Senator from 
Illinois over the years.
  Mr. GRAMM. I do not think so today.
  Mr. SIMON. Not today.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object to amendments I am not participating in today.
  Mr. SIMON. I am not complaining about the Senator from Texas offering 
too many amendments. But the question on this amendment--
  Mr. GRAMM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President. Let me just make a 
point on the deeming issue. The only point I wanted to make is this. We 
have had a half a dozen votes on it. The outcome has been the same each 
time, and each time we have had a new amendment we have had some new 
sob story where we picked out a little blue-eyed girl 3 years old or 
younger or something.
  I am just saying I would like to settle the issue. I think the Senate 
has decided on the deeming issue, and I think the decision that we have 
made is you ought not to be able to come to America as an immigrant to 
go on welfare. We are having to go about that in different ways through 
different bills. My point is I do not know what the seventh or eighth 
or ninth amendment is going to do. I hope we will defeat these 
amendments decisively and get on with passing a bill that the American 
public wants.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to say to Senator Gramm, first, I 
am

[[Page S4497]]

totally, fully aware of the Senator's commitment to legal immigration, 
and I have personally told the Senator that I saw his speech in the 
Chamber which had some personal aspects of the Senator's views because 
of his family, because of his wife and her family.
  I have told the Senator of mine. Both of mine came over as little 
kids to Albuquerque from Italy. I was very lucky. I always say the only 
good thing about the farm programs of Italy at the turn of the century 
was they were so awful that kids like my folks could not make a living 
and so they sent them to America.
  That is true. In my dad's family were six kids, and they had enough 
acreage, why, for 50 years before that they could all make a living. 
But as bureaucracies grow, they had a farm policy, and they could not 
make a nickel. So thank God for bad farm policy in Italy. That is why I 
am here.
  From our earliest days, we did not intend that aliens be public 
charges. This is not today. This is America when we accepted millions 
that made America great. We had a philosophy that the public money 
would not be used for aliens.
  Now, that is not a mean, harsh policy. It is a reality. And I am 
telling you what has happened. If it was a reality of the philosophy of 
America in the early days, what has happened to it today is that nobody 
paid attention to the programs that they were applying for, so that 
Medicaid has, it is estimated, up to $3 billion--it could be that 
high--being paid to people who are aliens. That is $3 billion of public 
charge when we probably never really intended it, for all of these did 
not come in after deeming periods. Everybody knew the deeming periods 
and all that were irrelevant.
  Why did they know that? The Senator just stated it. Nothing happened 
to them if they violated them. I had them on the witness stand. I asked 
INS, ``Could you enforce these?'' ``No, we cannot enforce them.'' I 
said, ``Do you think there are only 13?'' There are 1.2 million aliens 
on one program--1.2 million people. I said, ``Could you enforce it? 
Could there be 500 of them that are illegal?'' I said, ``I think 
probably there are 600,000 that should not be on there.'' I think that 
might be so.
  So I do not think this is an issue of changing the contract. In fact, 
this is a whole new concept about deeming the resources of a sponsor 
liable for an alien before the citizens of America under taxes pay for 
it. And it is pretty patent to me that to say everything stays just 
like it is for the past is just not fair to the American people.

  We are talking about it is unfair to some certain patrons. We are 
still saying--this bill is very generous because what it says is, if a 
sponsor does not have the money, they are back on public charge.
  Did the Senator know that?
  That is different than we were thinking of. That is a generous act on 
the part of the chairman, saying, well, OK, if the ward does not have 
any money, then it does not do much good to deem them; they cannot pay 
for it.
  That is pretty generous. That is a whole new act of generosity on the 
part of America, if that becomes law.
  Now, I would say it is fair because if you do not want that new act 
of generosity, then maybe we will go back to the old one. But you can 
count on it: Up to the deeming period, we will not pay for you whether 
your sponsor runs out of money or not because that was the law, albeit 
never enforced.
  So I think there are things on both sides of that scale of fairness, 
and, frankly, from my standpoint, I have been through so many efforts 
to cut back programs that Americans get angry at us about that are 
programs for Americans that I thought we had to come here as 
budgeteers--the Senator worked at it with me, I say to the senior 
Senator from Texas. We are over here saying, look, we cannot afford 
education money, we cannot afford this. Why, here we have $3 billion 
maybe, $1 to $3 billion in Medicaid going to aliens. And I am not sure 
the public even knows that. Where should we save first? It seems to me 
we should save by passing this bill. That is what I think.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator and Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  Let me review where we are and where the leader would like us to be. 
We have the Simon amendment and two Graham amendments, Senator Graham 
of Florida, and Senator Feinstein will modify her amendment. Senator 
Kyl and she have resolved any difficulty there. We will take that.
  We would like to proceed with debate and try to have votes stacked 
around 7 or 7:30, if we could proceed with gusto, and I will try to do 
that, too. It is very difficult. But that would be the pattern, if 
there is further debate. And I concur with Senator Gramm. It is about 
deeming, and we have addressed that last night and we will address it 
again today.
  Just remember one thing. We did not like this before. A few years 
ago, we voted to extend deeming from 3 to 5 years for SSI, and we did 
that to achieve savings for an extension of unemployment benefits. We 
did not ask the sponsors. We just extended the deeming period, and we 
have done that in the past.
  I think those would be my final remarks on that. I wonder if we 
might--unless there is some further discussion of that amendment, if we 
might set that aside and go to Senator Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I see.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we had a lot of rhetoric, expressions of 
what we might have fantasized reality was, what we thought it might be; 
words like ``we expect you to live up to your promise.'' All of those 
are patriotic, soaring statements, which have little to do with the 
reality of the amendment that the Senator from Illinois has offered.
  What is the reality today, of the requirement of sponsors to their 
legal alien sponsoree, who is in the United States? As the Senator from 
Illinois has pointed out, we Members of Congress have looked at all the 
programs that we might wish to require deeming to apply to, that is to 
require the sponsor's income to be added to the alien's income in 
determining the alien's eligibility for programs. What have we decided? 
We have decided we will require deeming for SSI, supplemental Social 
Security income, which primarily affects older aliens; we will require 
deeming for food stamps; and we will require deeming for aid to 
families with dependent children.
  We could have passed deeming for Medicaid, we could have passed 
deeming for college Pell grants and guaranteed Federal loans, we could 
have passed deeming for weatherization and heating for low-income 
people, we could have passed deeming for any one of the hundreds of 
programs the Federal Government has that requires some form of means 
testing in order to be eligible. But we decided thus far not to do so, 
but to limit it to those three programs. As the Senator from Illinois 
has pointed out, in two of those three programs the deeming period is 3 
years, not the 5 years that is being suggested here today.
  But I think even more powerful is the fact that this Congress has 
known for a long, long time that the courts have held the current 
application, the affidavit signed by the sponsor, to be legally 
unenforceable. Let me read a paragraph from a letter from the office of 
the Commissioner of INS on the issue of what is the enforceability of 
these affidavits that sponsors sign. To quote from the letter:

       In at least three States, however, courts have held that an 
     affidavit of support does not impose on the person who signs 
     it a legally enforceable obligation to reimburse public 
     agencies and provide public assistance to an alien.

  The letter then cites a case, San Diego County versus Viarea, from 
the California court, a 1969 opinion; the Attorney General versus 
Binder, an opinion from the State of our Presiding Officer, from 1959; 
California Department of Mental Hygiene versus Reynault, a case from 
1958; another case from New York dated 1959.
  The letter goes on to state,

       The Michigan Supreme Court has also held that Michigan 
     public assistance agencies may not consider the income of a 
     person who executed an affidavit of support to be an alien's 
     income in determining the alien's eligibility for State 
     public assistance programs.


[[Page S4498]]


  That is a 1987 Michigan case, despite the fact that this income 
deeming is permitted in determining eligibility for food stamps.
  Finally, the Missouri Court of Appeals has held that an affidavit of 
support does not create an express or implied contract for the payment 
of child support on behalf of a child adopted by a former spouse. That 
is a 1992 opinion.
  Mr. President, I cite these cases, not with the spirit of support but 
of the cold reality that this is the state of the law. So a person who 
has sponsored an alien to come into the United States today has had the 
legal expectation of the unenforceability of that affidavit and this 
Congress has, at least since 1958, been aware that courts were ruling 
thus and has not, until the action of the Senator from Wyoming, taken 
steps to make these affidavits enforceable.
  So the consequence of applying this new standard retroactively is 
going to be to substantially change the expectation of both the legal 
alien and the legal alien's sponsor, because now we are about to say 
that an affidavit which the courts have consistently ruled to be 
unenforceable, we are going to breathe life into that affidavit and we 
are going to expand that affidavit to cover an indeterminate number of 
programs for which there is some Federal financial involvement.

  Mr. President, I do not disagree with the thrust of the idea that we 
ought to be making these affidavits financially responsible, that we 
ought to make them documents which have some legal enforceability. I am 
concerned about the reach that we are about to apply to the number of 
programs, but that is for another debate. But I think it is patently 
unfair to now say we are going to retroactively go back and make 
affidavits that have been unenforceable, enforceable, and expand them 
to an indeterminate number of programs.
  The argument for doing so, for reaching back retroactively, is that, 
``We have two people who can pay. We have one person who can pay who is 
the sponsor. We have the other person who can pay who is the Federal 
taxpayer. It is better to force the sponsor to pay even if we do it in 
derogation of the understandings when the sponsor signed the affidavit, 
than it is to continue to ask the Federal taxpayer to pay.'' I suggest 
that is a false analysis of what is really going to happen. What is 
really going to happen is not that the sponsor is going to pay 
retroactively, because I do not think we can legally breathe life into 
a currently unenforceable affidavit. And I do not think the Federal 
taxpayer is the party that is at final risk.
  I suggest what is really going to happen is what the National 
Conference of State Legislators has said. What really is going to 
happen is what the National Association of Counties has said. What is 
really going to happen is what the National League of Cities has said. 
What is really going to happen is what the National Association of 
Public Hospitals and Health Systems has said. What is really going to 
happen is what Catholic Charities USA has said. And that is that there 
is going to be a massive transfer of responsibility to the communities 
and States, and they will be asked to pick up these costs.
  The most dramatic example of that is going to be in the area of 
health care. In the field of health care, we have the anomaly that, by 
Federal law, public hospitals are required to treat anybody with an 
emergency condition. By laws that we passed, they are prohibited from 
asking a person seeking emergency assistance, what is your income? What 
is your financial capability? So we are going to be encouraging people 
to get sick enough to come in and use the emergency rooms at the local 
hospital and then, with no one to pay and with the Federal Government 
no longer picking up part of the cost through Medicaid, they will 
become a massive burden on those hospitals and on the communities which 
support those hospitals.
  The further irony of this is, this is going to be occurring in 
communities which are already paying a substantial burden because of 
the Federal Government's failure to enforce its immigration laws and to 
have provided adequately for the impact of these large populations. I 
know it well in my own State, which is one of the States that is 
particularly at risk under this proposal. Dade County, FL, Miami, has 
had one of the fastest if not the fastest growing urban school systems 
in America in the last 10 years, primarily because of the massive 
numbers of nonnative students who have entered that school system. It 
has stretched the system to the breaking point.
  Now we are about to say in this bill that the Federal Government will 
provide less support to the education system of that and other stressed 
counties, and that the Federal Government will restrict the funding for 
individuals who would otherwise be eligible for these programs, 
retroactively, so that those costs will now become an additional burden 
of those already overburdened communities.
  I think, Mr. President, in the fundamental spirit of fairness to all 
concerned, and specifically to those communities that have already paid 
a heavy price, that it is only fair and proper that we make this change 
of rules be prospective. Let us apply it to those people who come from 
the enactment of this bill forward, who come with the understanding 
that they are signing an affidavit, if they are a sponsor, that will be 
legally enforceable; that they will know if they are coming as a legal 
alien what they are going to be able to expect once they arrive here.
  I think it is patently unfair to change the rule for thousands of 
people who are already here and then to have us, essentially, transfer 
this financial responsibility to the communities in which they happen 
to have chosen to live.
  So, Mr. President, I urge in the strongest terms the support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois, because without his amendment, 
I think this legislation carries with it the fatal flaw of fundamental 
unfairness.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think we have perhaps completed the 
debate on that amendment and we might set that aside and proceed to--my 
friend from Massachusetts is not here.
  Is there a second Graham amendment? Does the Senator from Florida 
have any idea as to the time involved in the presentation of this 
amendment? May I inquire, Mr. President, of the Senator from Florida if 
he has any idea where we are, because so many people are involved--
apparently there is an Olympics banquet, many awards banquets. Many 
people have asked for a window. I am perfectly willing to stand right 
here until midnight and finish this bill. I would do that. If we can 
get an idea of time, that would be very helpful.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in response to the question of the Senator 
from Wyoming, the time to present this amendment, which is amendment 
No. 3764, will be approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is temporarily set aside. The Senator from 
Florida is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3764 to Amendment No. 3743

 (Purpose: To limit the deeming provisions for purposes of determining 
   eligibility of legal aliens for Medicaid, and for other purposes)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3764.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3764 to amendment No. 3743.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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:

       On page 201, strike lines 1 through 4 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) Certain services and assistance.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to--
       (A) any services or assistance described in subsection 
     201(a)(1)(A)(vii); and
       (B) in the case of an eligible alien (as described in 
     section 201(f)(1))--
       (i) any care or services provided to an alien for an 
     emergency medical condition, as defined in section 1903(v)(3) 
     of the Social Security Act; and

[[Page S4499]]

       (ii) any public health assistance for immunizations and 
     immunizable diseases, and for the testing and treatment of 
     communicable diseases.
       (4) Medical Services for Legal Immigrants.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for purposes of determining the eligibility for medical 
     assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act (other 
     than services for which an exception is provided under 
     paragraph (3)(B))--
       (i) the requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     an alien lawfully admitted to the United States before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (ii) for an alien who has entered the United States on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the income and 
     resources described in subsection (b) shall be deemed to be 
     the income of the alien for a period of two years beginning 
     on the day such alien was first lawfully in the United 
     States.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the underlying bill, S. 1664, for the 
first time would deny to legal immigrants--legal immigrants--access to 
Medicaid through newly federally imposed or mandated deeming 
requirements. This prohibition, as the discussion of the amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois has indicated, will apply both prospectively, 
to persons who arrive after this bill is enacted, and retroactively, to 
legal aliens who are already in the country.
  My amendment changes the deeming period for Medicaid to 2 years. It 
eliminates the retrospective nature of this provision, and it would 
apply these provisions to future immigrants and provide for an 
exemption for emergency care and public health.
  So to restate what the amendment does, the amendment changes the 
deeming period for Medicaid to 2 years. Second, it eliminates the 
retroactive nature of the legislation in the same way that the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois would do to all of the deemed 
programs. It would apply these provisions prospectively to future legal 
aliens, and it would provide an exemption for emergency care and for 
public health.
  This amendment is supported by the National Conference of State 
Legislators. It is supported by the National Association of Counties. 
It is supported by the National League of Cities. It is supported by 
the United States Conference of Mayors. It is supported by the National 
Association of Public Hospitals. It is supported by the American Public 
Health Association. It is supported by the National Association of 
Community Health Centers. It is supported by Interfaith, by the 
Catholic Charities USA and the U.S. Catholic Conference. It is 
supported by the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran 
Immigration and Refugee Services and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of 
America.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment today which I consider to be a 
substantial improvement of this bill. It is a substantial improvement 
by recognizing the fact that health services are different from other 
benefits that a legal alien might seek.
  While I strongly support the idea that sponsors should be required to 
provide housing, transportation, food, cash assistance to legal aliens 
who they have sponsored, legal aliens and the sponsor would be unable 
to provide for themselves, for whatever reason, reasonable access to 
the health care which unpredictable illness and debilitating disease or 
injury might impose.
  Unlike cash assistance, housing or food, health care must be provided 
by a qualified professional, tailored to the specific diagnostic and 
treatment needs. Ultimately, no amount of hard work and personal 
responsibility can protect an immigrant or anyone else from illness or 
injury.
  My proposal would be to deem Medicaid for 2 years. That is, for the 
first 2 years that the legal alien is in the United States, the income 
of the sponsor will be deemed to be that of the alien.
  This is a reasonable compromise with what I hope will have bipartisan 
support. It would not exempt Medicaid from deeming altogether. Instead, 
it would create a 2-year deeming period for the Medicaid Program alone.
  As a result, this amendment eliminates the magnet, the draw or 
incentive to come to the United States in order to receive medical 
care, especially since an immigrant cannot plan to get sick 2 years in 
advance.
  However, it does recognize that in the long run, health care is 
different from other benefits. This amendment also recognizes and 
attempts to alleviate the tremendous other burdens, cost shifts, 
unfunded mandates and public health problems which potentially could be 
caused by S. 1664.
  What are some of these potential problems?
  First, cost shifting. The Medicaid provisions in S. 1664 are 
currently nothing more than a cost shift to States, local governmental 
units and our Nation's hospital system. Simply put, if people are sick 
and cannot afford to pay for coverage for some of the most disabling 
conditions, someone will absorb the cost.
  The question is whether the Federal Government will pay a portion of 
that cost, or will such costs be shifted entirely to those States and 
local governments and hospitals where legal aliens will seek those 
services?
  As the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National 
Association of Counties and National League of Cities wrote in an April 
24, 1996, letter:

       Without Medicaid eligibility, many legal immigrants will 
     have no access to health care. Legal immigrants will be 
     forced to turn to state indigent health care programs, public 
     hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance or avoid 
     treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public 
     health and increase the cost of providing health care to 
     everyone. Furthermore, without Medicaid reimbursement, public 
     hospitals and clinics in States and localities would incur 
     increased unreimbursed costs for treating legal immigrants.

  The National Association of Public Hospitals, in their April 12, 
1996, letter added:

       The [National Association of Public Hospitals] opposes a 
     deeming requirement for Medicaid. It will lead to an increase 
     in the number of uninsured patients and exacerbate an already 
     tremendous burden of uncompensated care on public hospitals. 
     * * *

  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the effect of this 
bill's current provision will be to reduce Federal reimbursement for 
such Medicaid costs by $2.7 billion. This is nothing more than a 
massive cost shifting to the States and local governments in which 
these legal aliens reside.
  The bill's deeming provisions, in addition to being nothing more than 
a huge cost-shift to State and local governments, will also impose an 
administrative burden and a huge unfunded mandate on State Medicaid 
programs. In light of a series of calls throughout the year by the 
Nation's Governors, the administration and this Congress have been 
asked to provide States with greater flexibility to more efficiently 
administer their Medicaid programs. This provision is incredibly ironic 
and in sharp contrast to everything that we have been discussing in 
Medicaid policy over the last 2 years.
  For a Medicaid case worker, who already has to learn the complex 
requirements of the Medicaid program, he or she now must also learn 
immigration law. As a study by the National Conference of State 
Legislatures notes, this would require an extensive citizenship 
verification made for all applicants to the Medicaid Program.
  According to the Conference of State Legislatures:

       These [deeming] mandates will require States to verify 
     citizenship status, immigration status, sponsoring status, 
     and length of time in the U.S. in each eligibility 
     determination for a deemed Federal program. They will also 
     require State and local governments to implement and maintain 
     costly data information systems.

  In addition to all these costs, States will have infrastructure 
training and ongoing implementation costs associated with the staff 
time needed to make these complicated deeming calculations. The result 
will be a tremendously costly and bureaucratic unfunded mandate on 
State Medicaid programs.
  This bill also threatens our Nation's public health. Residents of 
communities where legal aliens live would face an increased health risk 
from communicable diseases under this provision of the bill because 
immigrants would be ineligible for Medicaid and other public health 
programs designated to provide early treatment to prevent communicable 
disease outbreaks.
  Such policies have historically and consistently had horrendous 
results. For example, in 1977, Orange County, TX, instituted a policy 
that required people to prove legal status or be reported to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service when requesting service at any 
county health facility.
  As noted by El Paso County Judge Pat O'Rourke, in a letter dated 
September 24, 1986:

[[Page S4500]]

       . . . within eighteen months, the county experienced a 57 
     percent increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis, a 47 percent 
     increase in salmonella, a 14 percent increase in infectious 
     hepatitis, a 53 percent increase in rubella and a 153 percent 
     increase in syphilis.

  The judge cites a 1978 report by the Task Force on Public General 
Hospitals of the American Public Health Association in saying:

       Hence, what was a simple condition requiring a relatively 
     small expense became a large matter adversely affecting all 
     taxpayers.

  In an analysis of the potential health impacts of S. 1664, the bill 
before us this evening, conducted by Dr. Richard Brown, the president 
of the American Public Health Association and director of the 
University of California at Los Angeles Center for Health Policy 
Research, Dr. Brown states:

       In a study of tuberculosis patients in Los Angeles, more 
     than 80 percent learned of their disease when they sought 
     treatment for a symptom or other health condition, not 
     because they sought a TB screening. Yet [S. 1664] would make 
     it more difficult for immigrants to seek diagnosis and 
     treatment because their access to health care would be 
     sharply reduced, permitting this debilitating and often 
     deadly disease to spread throughout the community. When an 
     infected person becomes seriously ill with tuberculosis, the 
     costs of treating these true emergencies will be borne by 
     everyone, especially taxpayers.

  Dr. Brown concludes:

       Tuberculosis and other communicable diseases do not respect 
     distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, legal 
     residents and people who are not here lawfully. The key to 
     controlling an outbreak of tuberculosis, hepatitis, sexually 
     transmitted diseases, or other communicable diseases is early 
     identification of the source of the infection and immediate 
     intervention to treat all infected persons. Because these 
     bills will discourage immigrants from seeking treatment, they 
     will endanger the health of everyone in the community.

  In the interest of our Nation's public health, why, Mr. President, 
why would we wish to take such an unnecessary risk?
  In addition, the Medicaid deeming provisions, by creating a obstacle 
to preventive health services, will result in certain cases of 
immigrants resorting to emergency room care. Health care costs will 
thus be more expensive.
  This would further strain the already overburdened and underfunded 
emergency and trauma care facilities across the country, particularly 
in our Nation's urban centers. Without reimbursements, such hospitals 
will be forced to consider shutting their emergency room doors for all 
residents of the county, affecting all residents, immigrants or 
otherwise.
  For example, Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami estimates that its 
uncompensated care costs for fiscal year 1995 for undocumented 
immigrants was $45.8 million. To repeat, for 1995, in that one public 
hospital, Jackson Memorial in Miami, the cost in uncompensated care for 
undocumented aliens was $45.8 million. An additional $60 million in 
uncompensated care costs was attributed by Jackson Memorial Hospital to 
legal aliens in the community. However, they currently do receive some 
reimbursement for care to legal aliens through private health care 
plans and Medicaid. Without the Medicaid payments, total uncompensated 
costs will grow and require the local community to either raise its 
taxes or consider reducing hospital services.
  In addition, by reducing access of pregnant immigrant women to 
prenatal care and nutrition support programs, the health of the U.S.-
citizen infants will be threatened. The National Academy of Sciences' 
Institute of Medicine estimates that for every $1 spent on prenatal 
care, there is a $3 savings in future medical care for low birthweight 
babies. Denying prenatal and well-baby care to an immigrant only 
threatens the life of her U.S.-citizen child. Mr. President, that makes 
absolutely no sense. In fact, it is neither cost effective nor in the 
interest of public health.
  Another concern raised by Catholic Charities USA is the potential for 
increased abortions as a result of S. 1664.
  To quote from the Catholic Charities U.S.A.,

       The most immediate threat of the Medicaid deeming provision 
     is the pressure on poor pregnant women to end their 
     pregnancies inexpensively through abortion rather than to 
     carry them to term. A legal immigrant who becomes pregnant 
     and does not have the means to obtain health care will be 
     able to finance a $250 abortion at a local clinic much more 
     easily than either she or her sponsor can pay for prenatal 
     care or put down a $1,000 deposit at a hospital for labor and 
     delivery.

  In summary, as currently drafted, S. 1664 would have the following 
negative consequences: It shifts costs to States, local governments, 
and hospitals. It imposes an administrative unfunded mandate on State 
medicaid programs. It threatens the Nation's or the public's health. It 
is not cost effective and it may lead to an increase in abortions.
  My amendment would help address these problems. Therefore, it is 
supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Public Hospitals, the 
American Public Health Association, the National Association of 
Community Health Centers, InterHealth, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and 
the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, 
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, and Evangelical Lutheran 
Church of America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
immediately after my remarks statements by several of these 
organizations in support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I close by saying that I regret we have 
had to consider so many amendments that related specifically to the 
provisions in this bill that will apply retroactively and prospectively 
the income of a sponsor to the income of a legal alien--I emphasize 
legal alien--for purposes determining eligibility for means-tested 
programs.
  Mr. President, if you represent the concerns of the millions of 
Americans who are represented by these organizations, if you understand 
the pragmatic reality of what we are about to do both to individuals 
and to the communities in which they live, and to the taxpayers in the 
communities and States in which you live, you would understand why 
there have been so many amendments offered on this subject.
  I believe that the amendment which I have offered is a reasoned 
middle ground. By setting a 2-year deeming provision it would give us 
assurance that no one would come to this country with a specific 
condition--whether that be pregnancy or a known medical infirmity--in 
order to receive U.S. taxpayer-financed medical service. Very few 
people are prophetic enough to know what their condition is going to be 
24 months from now. By providing that this will be prospective, all 
persons who come into this country from this point forward, from the 
enactment of this bill forward, will know under what conditions they 
will be entering this country.
  By exempting those programs that affect the public health and relate 
to emergency care, we will be recognizing the fact that those steps are 
not just for the benefit of the individual but they are for the benefit 
of the broad public with its interest in continuing to have access to 
emergency facilities and to be saved from having unintended access to 
communicable diseases.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a constructive amendment which deals 
with serious issues within this legislation. I urge its adoption.

                               Exhibit 1

         National Conference of State Legislatures, National 
           Association of Counties, National League of Cities
                                                   April 24, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The National Conference of State Legislatures 
     (NCSL), the National Association of Counties, (NCAo), and the 
     National League of Cities (NLC) are very concerned about 
     unfunded mandates in S. 1664, the Immigration Control and 
     Financial Responsibility Act of 1996 that would be an 
     administrative burden on all states and localities. We urge 
     you to support a number of amendments that will be offered on 
     the Senate floor to mitigate the impact of these mandates on, 
     and cost shifts to, states and localities.
       S. 1664 would extend ``deeming'' from three programs (AFDC, 
     SSI and Food Stamps) to all federal means-tested programs, 
     including foster care, adoption assistance, school lunch, WIC 
     and approximately fifty others. As you know, ``deeming'' is 
     attributing a sponsor's income to the immigrant when 
     determining program eligibility. It is unclear what ``all 
     federal means-tested programs'' means. Various definitions of 
     the phrase

[[Page S4501]]

     ``federal means-tested programs'' would include a range of 
     between 50-80 programs. Furthermore, regardless of the size 
     of their immigrant populations, this mandate will require all 
     states to verify citizenships status, immigration status, 
     sponsorship status, sponsor's income and length of time in 
     the U.S. in each eligibility determination for ``all federal 
     means-tested programs.'' NCSL estimates that implementing 
     deeming restrictions for just ten of these programs will cost 
     states approximately $744 million. Extending deeming mandates 
     to over 50 programs garners little federal savings and should 
     be eliminated as part of the Congressional commitment to 
     eliminating cost shifts to state and local budgets and 
     taxpayers.
       Therefore, we urge you to support Senator Bob Graham's 
     effort to raise a point of order against S. 1664 based on its 
     violation of P.L. 104-4, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. 
     This is a critical test of your commitment to preventing 
     cost-shifts to, and unfunded administrative burdens on, 
     states and localities. We also urge you to support subsequent 
     amendments that will reduce the scope of the deeming 
     provisions and limit the administrative burden on states and 
     localities. These include:
       Senator Graham's amendment giving deeming mandate exemption 
     to: 1) programs where deeming costs more to implement than it 
     saves in state or local spending; or 2) programs that the 
     federal government does not pay for the administrative cost 
     of implementing deeming. This ensures that new deeming 
     mandates are cost effective and are not unfunded mandates.
       Senator Graham's amendment substituting a clear and 
     concrete list of programs to be deemed for the vague language 
     in S. 1664 requiring deeming for ``all federal means-tested 
     programs.'' This amendment ensures that Congress, and not the 
     courts, will decide which programs are deemed.
       Senator Kennedy's amendment conforming Senate deeming 
     exemptions to those accepted by the House in H.R. 2202.
       In addition, we urge you to support other amendments that 
     would temper the unfunded mandates in S. 1664 and relieve the 
     administrative burden on states and localities. We are 
     especially concerned about the impact of extending the 
     deeming requirements to the Medicaid program. Without 
     Medicaid eligibility, many legal immigrants will not have 
     access to health care. Legal immigrants will be forced to 
     turn to state indigent health care programs, public 
     hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance or avoid 
     treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the 
     public health and increase the cost of providing health 
     care to everyone. Furthermore, without Medicaid 
     reimbursement, public hospitals and clinics and states and 
     localities would incur increased unreimbursed costs for 
     treating legal immigrants. We support the following 
     compromise amendment to preserve some Medicaid eligibility 
     for legal sponsored immigrants.
       Senator Graham's amendment to limit Medicaid deeming to two 
     years.
       We strongly support amendments to exempt the most 
     vulnerable legal immigrant populations from deeming 
     requirements. We urge you to support the following amendments 
     that will preserve a minimal amount of federal program 
     eligibility for the neediest legal immigrants and protect 
     states and localities from bearing the cost of these 
     services.
       Senator Kennedy's amendment exempting children and pre-
     natal and post-partum care from Medicaid deeming 
     restrictions.
       Senator Simon's amendment exempting immigrants disabled 
     after arrival from deeming restrictions.
       Senator Leahy's amendment exempting immigrant children from 
     nutrition program deeming.
       Finally, we firmly believe that deeming restrictions are 
     incompatible with our responsibility to protect abused and 
     neglected children. Courts will decide to remove children 
     from unsafe homes regardless of their sponsorship status and 
     state and local officials must protect them. Deeming for 
     foster care and adoption services will shift massive 
     administrative costs to states and localities and force them 
     to fund 100% of thee benefits. We urge you to support the 
     following amendments to protect states and localities from 
     this cost shift.
       Senator Murray's amendment exempting immigrant children 
     from foster care and adoption deeming restrictions.
       Senator Wellstone's amendment exempting battered spouses 
     and children from deeming restrictions.
       We appreciate your consideration of our concerns and urge 
     you to protect states and localities from the unfunded 
     mandates in S. 1664.
           Sincerely,
     James J. Lack,
       New York Senate,
       President, NCSL.
     Douglas R. Bovin,
       Commissioner, Delta County, MI,
       President, NACo.
     Gregory S. Lashutka,
       Mayor, Columbus, OH,
       President, NLC.
                                                                    ____


    Catholic Charities USA Supports The Elimination Of The Medicaid 
    ``Deeming'' Requirement Included In The Immigration Reform Bill

       S. 269 currently requires that the income and resources of 
     a legal immigrant's sponsor and the sponsor's spouse be 
     ``deemed'' to the income of the legal immigrant when 
     determining the immigrant's eligibility for all means-tested 
     federal public assistance programs, including Medicaid. The 
     deeming period would be a minimum of 10 years (or until 
     citizenship).
       Catholic Charities USA supports the elimination of the 
     Medicaid deeming requirement for two main reasons. First, 
     requiring deeming for the Medicaid program ignores the 
     dichotomy between medical services and other need-based 
     assistance that Congress has followed since the inception of 
     Medicaid. For over 30 years, Congress has treated Medicaid 
     benefits for legal immigrants in a fundamentally different 
     fashion than other federal benefits programs. Historically, 
     Congress has never required deeming for Medicaid, recognizing 
     that no level of hard work and personal responsibility can 
     protect someone from illness and injury, and that payments 
     for medical care are significantly higher and more 
     unpredictable than payments for other necessities. In 
     addition, although an immigrant's sponsor or other charitable 
     individual may be able to share food and shelter--and even 
     income to a certain extent--a person cannot share his or her 
     medical care. Unlike housing or food, health care must be 
     provided by a qualified professional and must be tailored to 
     a person's specific health needs. In this sense, Medicaid is 
     substantively different than other needs-based assistance. S. 
     269 would end Congress' long-standing recognition of the 
     special nature of Medicaid.
       Second, the Medicaid deeming requirement will lead to an 
     increase in the number of uninsured patients and exacerbate 
     an already tremendous burden of uncompensated care on public 
     hospitals and other providers who treat large numbers of low-
     income patients. Although the bill would require the sponsor 
     to agree, in a legally enforceable affidavit of support, to 
     financially support the immigrant, many sponsors may 
     nevertheless be unable to finance the health care costs of 
     the immigrants, many sponsors may nevertheless be unable to 
     finance the health care costs of the immigrants they sponsor.
       Finally, it should be noted that in order to qualify for 
     Medicaid coverage an individual must not only be very poor 
     but in addition must qualify under one of the vulnerable 
     categories that include pregnant women, children, the 
     elderly, and people with disabilities. Therefore, because of 
     the strict eligibility requirements for the Medicaid program, 
     legal immigrants who do qualify for coverage are very limited 
     in number and extremely vulnerable.
       For these reasons, Catholic Charities USA supports the 
     elimination of the deeming requirement for Medicaid. Should 
     the elimination of deeming for Medicaid prove unworkable in 
     the current political context, we would support an amendment 
     to limit Medicaid deeming to the shortest time period 
     possible.
                                                                    ____


  Medicaid ``Deeming'' for Legal Immigrants Should Be Limited to Two 
                                 Years

       The Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act 
     (S. 1664), which is scheduled for Senate floor action on 
     April 15, proposes harsh new restrictions on immigrants who 
     are in this country legally. The bill denies Medicaid for a 
     minimum of ten years, or until citizenship, for immigrants 
     who have come to this country, worked hard, paid taxes, and 
     in every respect ``played by the rules.'' The bill does this 
     through a mechanism called ``deeming.''
       How Deeming Works: To be eligible for Medicaid, an 
     individual must have sufficiently low income to qualify. 
     Deeming is a process where by a person's income is ``deemed'' 
     to include not only is or her own income, but also income 
     from other sources. S. 1664 requires a legal immigrant's 
     income to be deemed to include the income of the immigrant's 
     sponsor and the sponsor's spouse. In addition, the 
     immigrant's income is ``deemed'' to include the value of the 
     sponsor's resources, such as the sponsor's car and home. 
     Although a legal immigrant could well qualify for benefits 
     based on his or her own resources, many immigrants will 
     effectively be denied Medicaid because of their sponsor's 
     income and resources.
       Catholic Charities USA opposes Medicaid deeming for the 
     following reasons:
       The Risk of Increased Abortions: To most immediate threat 
     of the Medicaid deeming provision is the pressure on poor 
     pregnant women to end their pregnancies inexpensively through 
     abortion rather than carry them to term. A legal immigrant 
     who becomes pregnant and does not have the means to obtain 
     health care will be able to finance a $250 abortion at a 
     local clinic much more easily than either she or her sponsor 
     can pay for prenatal care or put down a $1000 deposit at a 
     hospital for labor and delivery.
       Medical Needs are Unpredictable and Impossible to 
     ``Share:'' If an immigrant cannot provide for him or herself 
     S. 1664 requires that a sponsor provide housing, 
     transportation, food, or even cash assistance in some 
     circumstances. Although Catholic Charities USA opposes these 
     extensions of current law, we acknowledge a distinction 
     between these forms of assistance and the specific area of 
     medical care. Unlike housing or food, health care must be 
     provided by a qualified professional and tailored to a 
     persons's specific diagnostic and treatments needs. Although 
     a citizen may have enough income and resources to qualify as 
     a sponsor, the sometimes expensive and often unpredictable 
     nature of medical care may limit the sponsor's

[[Page S4502]]

     ability to finance a sudden and drastic emergency.
       Early Diagnosis and Treatment is Less Expensive Than 
     Emergency Care: Basic preventative and diagnostic services 
     treat conditions inexpensively before they become aggravated. 
     If such services are denied, relatively unthreatening 
     illnesses may turn into emergencies to be treated with much 
     more expansive and expensive means. For example, $3 is saved 
     on average for every $1 spent in prenatal care. Moreover, if 
     a legal immigrant is denied prenatal services, her child may 
     be born with serious conditions that will last an entire 
     lifetime. These children, born to legal immigrants, are 
     citizens who will be eligible for Medicaid.
       The Cost of Denying Care is an Unfunded Mandate to be Borne 
     By Local Hospitals and Communities: Public hospitals in local 
     communities are required to treat anyone with emergency 
     conditions. If legal immigrants are denied medical services 
     and forced to let their illnesses deteriorate, local 
     hospitals eventually will be required to treat them as 
     emergencies. Since public hospitals are funded by local 
     taxpayers, this policy represents an enormous cost-shift from 
     the federal government onto state and local entities. 
     Although designed to reduce federal expense, the deeming 
     provision would essentially create an entirely new population 
     of uninsured individuals, force immigrants to wait until 
     their conditions become more expensive, and then mandate that 
     local hospitals serve them and pay for this service--all 
     effects that will have real-world financial repercussions for 
     citizens.
       Denying Medical Services to Immigrants Endangers Entire 
     Communities: Due to the increased cost to local hospitals, 
     services will degenerate--not only for legal immigrants--but 
     for every person in the community who relies on that hospital 
     for care. If a portion of a hospital's budget is diverted to 
     cover the increased expense of handling emergency conditions, 
     less money will be available to finance services for 
     everyone. Perhaps more importantly, if immigrants are not 
     immunized or treated for communicable diseases, entire 
     communities will be at risk.
       Immigrants Currently Finance Benefits for Citizens: Legal 
     immigrants are subject to the same tax laws as citizens. 
     However, as a group, legal immigrants pay more proportionally 
     in taxes than citizens. They also use fewer benefits than 
     citizens. Although some claim immigrants drain resources, 
     legal immigrants actually finance public assistance benefits 
     for citizens. Because of these factors, basic fairness 
     counsels against denying legal immigrants the same safety net 
     security as citizens. Immigrants should be able to rely on 
     support times of need in the same manner as other taxpayers, 
     especially since they have demonstrated that they require 
     such services less often.
       Catholic Charities USA favors a reduced deeming period of 
     two years for Medicaid. A two-year deeming period would 
     substantially remove what some view as a ``draw'' for 
     immigrants entering the country solely to obtain medical 
     services, especially since an immigrant could hardly plan an 
     illness two years in advance. In addition, this compromise 
     would preserve the distinction between medical services and 
     other forms of assistance, recognizing that no amount of hard 
     work and personal responsibility can protect someone from 
     illness and injury. Although opponents may oppose such an 
     amendment because it won't reduce federal spending as much, 
     the effect of a longer period would be an exponential 
     increase in the cost to state and local entities. The bill 
     itself, by setting the deeming period at two years, 
     recognizes that a sponsor's liability should not continue 
     indefinitely. Catholic Charities USA believes a reduced, two 
     year deeming period for Medicaid is a viable compromise that 
     recognizes all of these concerns.
                                                                    ____


              The Health Effects of S. 1664 and H.R. 2202

                      (By E. Richard Brown, Ph.D)

       S. 1664 and H.R. 2202 threaten the health of immigrants and 
     of the larger community. They threaten the health of 
     immigrants and the larger community by making it more 
     difficult to control the spread of serious communicable 
     diseases and making it more likely that such diseases would 
     spread through the community, threaten the health of U.S.-
     citizen infants by reducing the access of pregnant immigrant 
     women to prenatal care and nutrition support programs; and 
     threaten the health of immigrants by reducing management of 
     chronic illnesses and early intervention to prevent health 
     problems from developing into more serious ones, resulting in 
     more disability and higher medical costs both among 
     immigrants and their U.S.-citizen children.


                  provisions of s. 1664 and h.r. 2202

       Public health care services and publicly funded community-
     based services are essential to control the progression and 
     spread of disease among low-income persons and communities. 
     These services are essential because a high proportion of 
     low-income immigrants do not receive health insurance through 
     employment, despite their high rates of labor force 
     participation. Because of their low incomes, they cannot 
     afford to purchase health insurance in the private 
     marketplace. Although uninsured immigrants pay a considerably 
     higher proportion of their incomes out-of-pocket for medical 
     services than do persons with insurance, they often cannot 
     afford an adequate level of medical care without the 
     assistance of public programs and publicly subsidized health 
     services.
       S. 1664 and H.R. 2202 would impose such onerous financial 
     requirements on legal immigrants that they effectively 
     exclude millions of legally resident children and adult 
     immigrants from receiving any health services or nutrition 
     supplements. These bills also prohibit undocumented 
     immigrants from receiving all but emergency medical care from 
     any public agency or from community-based health services, 
     such as migrant health centers and community health centers. 
     These bills will reduce access to cost-effective primary care 
     and prevention and force immigrants to use expensive 
     emergency and hospital services--at increased cost to 
     taxpayers and poorer health outcomes for immigrants and the 
     larger community.

                            Legal immigrants

       Legal immigrants would become deportable if they 
     participate in Medicaid, virtually any state health insurance 
     or health care program that is means-tested, or any local 
     means-tested services for more than 12 months during their 
     first five years (seven years in the House bill) in the 
     United States. This provision would strongly deter most legal 
     immigrants from enrolling in Medicaid or otherwise obtaining 
     health services on a sliding fee-scale from a local health 
     department or any community health center, migrant health 
     center, or other community-based health service which 
     receives any federal, state or local government funds. 
     Receiving any combination of such benefits for a total of 
     more than 12 months would make the immigrant ineligible 
     for citizenship.
       Furthermore, to determine eligibility for such services or 
     programs, the sponsor's income (and the income of the 
     sponsor's spouse) would be ``deemed'' available to the 
     immigrant. The bills would require that the sponsor's income 
     be combined with the immigrant's income until the immigrant 
     had worked for 40 quarters (at least 10 years) in which he/
     she earned enough to pay taxes or until he/she became a 
     citizen. This provision would make most sponsored legal 
     immigrants ineligible for such benefits, even if they 
     maintain a separate household with substantial combined 
     expenses or do not have access to their sponsor's income.
       These provisions make more stringent the conditions under 
     which legal immigrants may receive these public benefits, 
     lengthening the time during which they are potentially 
     deportable for receiving benefits, reducing the conditions 
     under which they may legitimately receive them, and extending 
     the ``deeming'' process to more programs and for a longer 
     period of time.

                        Undocumented immigrants

       Undocumented immigrant women would be barred from receiving 
     prenatal and postpartum care under Medicaid. States may 
     provide prenatal and postpartum care to undocumented 
     immigrant women who have continuously resided in the United 
     States for at least three years (the House bill excludes 
     pregnancy care altogether). The bills would allow 
     undocumented immigrants to receive immunizations and be 
     tested and treated for serious communicable diseases. Because 
     these provisions apply to any services provided or funded by 
     federal, state or local government, they prohibit most 
     community-based health services, such as migrant health 
     centers and community health centers, from providing primary 
     or preventive care to undocumented immigrants.
       Undocumented immigrants currently are not eligible for any 
     means-tested health programs except emergency medical 
     services, including childbirth services (funded by Medicaid), 
     immunizations, and nutrition programs for pregnant women and 
     children. These bills extend this prohibition to prenatal and 
     postpartum care, and they extend to nearly all publicly 
     funded programs and services the prohibitions on providing 
     non-emergency care that formerly were restricted to Medicaid.


                           Effects on health

       These bills would maek it more difficult for low-income 
     immigrants, whether they are here legally or not, to obtain 
     preventive or porimary health care. By denying access to 
     cost-effective health services that can prevent or limit 
     illness, this legislation would increase the use of emergency 
     rooms and hospitals at greater cost to taxpayers and cause 
     more disability among immigrants.

                    Prenatal care and birth outcomes

       The provisions in these bills will result in an increased 
     number of low birthweight and higher death rates among U.S.-
     citizen infants. The expanded ``deeming'' provisions would 
     prevent many legal immigrant women who are pregnant and needy 
     from qualifying for Medicaid, and the expanded threats of 
     deportation would discourage other needy legal immigrant 
     women from applying for Medicaid. The bills also would 
     prohibit pregnancy-related health services to most 
     undocumented immigrant women.
       Denying inexpensive prenatal care to many pregnant women 
     will increase the health risks to the women and their U.S.-
     citizen infants, all at great cost to federal and state 
     taxpayers. The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of 
     Medicine estimates that every $1 spent on prenatal care saves 
     $3 that otherwise would be spent on medical care for low 
     birthweight infants. A recent study by the California 
     Department of Health Services found that Medi-Cal hospital

[[Page S4503]]

     costs for low birthweight babies averaged $32,800, thirteen 
     times higher than those of non-low birthweight babies 
     ($2,560). With no prenatal care, the expected hospital 
     medical costs for a baby born to a Mexican-American woman 
     with no prenatal care are 60% higher than if she had gotten 
     adequate prenatal care, or $1,360 higher per birth. The 
     American-born infants of immigrant mothers automatically 
     would be U.S. citizens, entitling them to medical care paid 
     for by Medicaid. These added medical costs may well exceed 
     any savings due to reduced Medicaid eligibility among 
     immigrant pregnant women.

                     Management of chronic illness

       These bills would prohibit undocumented and many legal 
     immigrants from using local health department clinics or 
     community-based clinics, such as migrant or community health 
     centers, for other than emergency care or diagnosis and 
     treatment for a communicable disease. High blood pressure, 
     diabetes, asthma, and many other chronic illnesses can be 
     managed effectively by regular medical care, which includes 
     monitoring of the condition, teaching the patient appropriate 
     self-management, and provision of necessary medication. When 
     diabetes goes untreated, it results in diabetic foot ulcers, 
     blindness, and many other complications. Uncontrolled high 
     blood pressure causes heart attacks, strokes, and kidney 
     failure, all of which lead to expensive emergency hospital 
     admissions. In the absence of regular care, people with these 
     controllable diseases will present repeatedly to hospitals in 
     severe distress, resulting in emergency and intensive care 
     for a much higher cost than periodic visits and maintenance 
     medication. Primary care and prevention are cost-effective 
     alternatives to use of emergency rooms, specialty clinics, 
     and hospitalization--and they preserve and improve the 
     person's functional status. As with pre- and postnatal care, 
     the costs of increased use of emergency and hospital services 
     are likely to offset any savings due to reduced use of 
     primary and preventive care.

                         Communicable diseases

       These bills would make it more difficult for undocumented 
     immigrants or legal immigrants to obtain care for 
     communicable diseases. Although they explicitly permit 
     undocumented immigrants to be diagnosed and treated for 
     communicable diseases, public health services throughout the 
     country are being restructured to eliminate dedicated clinics 
     for tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, and other 
     cummunicable diseases. Instead diagnosis, treatment, and 
     management of these health problems are being integrated into 
     primary care, which would be denied to undocumented 
     immigrants and most legal immigrants alike who cannot afford 
     to pay the full cost of these services. Without access to 
     primary care, immigrants would have few options to receive 
     medical attention for persistent illnesses. Coughs that do 
     not go away, fevers that do not subside, and rashes and 
     lesions that do not heal may be due to communicable diseases 
     such as tuberculosis, hepatitis, meningitis, or a sexually 
     transmitted disease.
       Tuberculosis is prevalent among legal, as well as 
     undocumented, immigrants from Asia and Latin America. It is 
     easily spread if those who are infected are not diagnosed and 
     treated. In a recent study of tuberculosis patients in Los 
     Angeles, more than 80% learned of their disease when they 
     sought treatment for a symptom or other health condition, not 
     because they sought tuberculosis screening. Yet these bills 
     would make it more difficult for immigrants to seek diagnosis 
     and treatment because their access to health care would be 
     sharply reduced, permitting this debilitating and often 
     deadly disease to spread throughout the community. When an 
     infected person becomes seriously ill with tuberculosis, the 
     costs of treating these true emergencies will be borne by 
     everyone, especially taxpayers. The California Department of 
     Health Services estimates that it costs $150 to provide 
     preventive therapy to a tuberculosis-infected patient, but it 
     costs 100 times as much for a tuberculosis patient who must 
     be hospitalized--and more than 600 times as much if the 
     patient has developed a drug-resistant variety of 
     tuberculosis.
       Tuberculosis and other communicable diseases do not respect 
     distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, legal 
     residents and people who are not here lawfully. The key to 
     controlling an outbreak of tuberculosis, hepatitis, sexually 
     transmitted diseases, or other communicable diseases is early 
     identification of the source of infection and immediate 
     intervention to treat all infected persons. Because these 
     bills will discourage immigrants from seeking treatment, they 
     will endanger the health of everyone in the community.


                          administrative costs

       S. 1664 and H.R. 2202 would impose substantial 
     administrative burdens on health care services to check 
     clients' immigration status and obtain information necessary 
     to ``deeming.'' These administrative costs include 
     interviewing clients and obtaining the information from them, 
     verifying the accuracy of information, training of staff, and 
     record keeping and processing. The administrative burden 
     includes obtaining information about the client's immigration 
     status, date on which the person entered the country, whether 
     the immigrant has a sponsor, whether the immigrant has worked 
     for 40 quarters during which they earned enough to have a tax 
     liability, and the income and resources of the immigrant, the 
     sponsor, and the sponsor's spouse. These administrative costs 
     must be borne by the program or service provider, except for 
     anti-fraud investigators in hospitals.


                                summary

       1664 and H.R. 2202 will:
       Reduce access of legal immigrants and undocumented 
     immigrants to primary care and preventive health services and 
     increase immigrants' use of emergency and hospital services;
       Result in poorer health outcomes for immigrants and their 
     U.S.-citizen infants;
       Increase the larger community's risk of contracting 
     communicable diseases;
       Increase expenditures on emergency and hospital services, 
     offsetting savings due to reduced use of preventive and 
     primary care; and
       Increase administrative costs for publicly funded health 
     care providers.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may we set aside this amendment and go 
directly to the amendment of Senator Feinstein so she might modify a 
previous amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending amendment No. 3764 is set aside.


                    Amendment No. 3777, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. President, I 
send a modification to amendment 3777 to the desk.
  The amendment (No. 3777), as modified, 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 of $12 
     million for the construction, expansion, improvement or 
     deployment of triple-fencing in addition to that currently 
     under construction, where such triple-fencing is determined 
     by the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) to be safe 
     and effective, and in addition, bollard style concrete 
     columns, 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. The INS, while constructing 
     the additional fencing, shall incorporate the necessary 
     safety features into the design of the fence system to insure 
     the well-being of Border Patrol agents deployed within or in 
     near proximity to these additional barriers.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, earlier I sent an amendment to the 
desk on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself which relates to the triple 
fencing of the Southwest border, particularly in the vicinity of San 
Diego and Mexico. This is an amendment to that amendment which has been 
worked out with Senator Kyl and which I believe, hopefully will be 
acceptable to both sides. Senator Kyl and I have discussed this. We 
have also discussed it with Doris Meissner, the INS Commissioner. We 
have worked out language to which INS now agrees.
  Essentially, the language would authorize the appropriation of $12 
million for the construction, expansion, improvement, and deployment of 
triple fencing. In addition, that currently under construction where 
such triple fencing is determined by the INS to be safe and effective, 
and in addition, bollard-style concrete columns, 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, CA, for the purpose of detecting and 
deterring unlawful entry across the border.
  I believe this amendment in full is acceptable to both sides. 
Commissioner Meissner has also agreed to send a letter to 
Representative Hunter which would State that the INS is in the process 
of testing triple fencing, will continue that testing, and is prepared 
to add to it where it has proven to be effective and safe.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from 
California for the fine work that she has done here in conjunction with 
the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. Both of you committed to the 
same objective, both of you from States heavily affected, both of you 
more aware of these things than any of us in this Chamber.
  I insist in these remarks of all these past months that if there are 
people

[[Page S4504]]

that understand illegal immigration any better than the people of 
Texas, California, Florida, and Illinois--although not on the border of 
our country but yet one of the large States with a large number of 
formally undocumented persons; that I think has been corrected; but a 
large and sometimes vexing population. I think you have resolved that 
to the betterment of all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3777), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe now that the status of matters 
is that we have two Simon amendments that we will deal with.
  Mr. SIMON. We have dealt with them.


                           Amendment No. 3764

  Mr. SIMPSON. We have not quite finished dealing with them. I had a 
comment or two to make.
  Mr. President, with regard to Senator Graham's remarks and his 
amendment, I hope--and I will not be long--we have heard in that 
amendment the revisitation of an old theme. The issue is very simple. 
As we hear the continual discussion about taxpayers and what is going 
to happen to taxpayers--taxpayers this, taxpayers that--I have a 
thought for you. I will tell you who should pay for the legal 
immigrant: the sponsor who promised to pay for the legal immigrant.
  This is not mystery land. This is extraordinary. How can we keep 
coming back to the same theme when the issue is so basic?
  If you are a legal immigrant to the United States, this is such a 
basic theme that I do not know why it needs to be repeated again and 
again and again. But I hope it will be dealt with in the same fashion 
again and again and again, because it is this: When the legal immigrant 
comes to the United States, the consular officer, the people involved 
in the decision, and the sponsor agrees that that person will not 
become a public charge. That was the law in 1882. We have made a 
mockery of that law through administrative law judge decisions and 
court decisions through the years, where it is not just the ``steak and 
the tooth,'' as my friend from Illinois referred to, there is no steak 
and no teeth in it.
  And so, one of the most expensive welfare programs for the United 
States taxpayers is Medicaid. Everybody knows it. The figures are huge. 
Senator Domenici knows it. He covered it the other day. They are huge, 
and we all know that. We know the burden on the States.
  So all we are saying is the sponsor, the person who made the move to 
bring in the legal immigrant, is going to be responsible, and all of 
that person's assets are going to be deemed for the assets of the legal 
immigrant. So it does not matter what type of extraordinary situation 
you want to describe to us all, and all of them will be genuinely and 
authentically touching, they will move us, maybe to tears. I am not 
being sarcastic. Those things are real. They will be veterans, they 
will be children, they will be disabled, they will be sick, and all we 
are saying is that the sponsor will pay first, which is exactly what 
they promised to do. And so, if the sponsor, having been hit too hard, 
is pressed to bankruptcy, is pressed to destruction, is pressed 
wherever one would be pressed, then we step in, the U.S.A., the old 
taxpayers step into the game --but not until the sponsor has suffered 
to a degree where they cannot pony up the bucks that they promised to 
pay.

  If the sponsor has the financial resources to pay for the medical 
care needed by an immigrant, why on God's earth should the U.S. 
taxpayers pay for it? That is the real question. That is one that is 
easy to debate.
  Does any Senator in this Chamber believe that the taxpayers of this 
country would agree to admit to our country an immigrant if they 
believed that the immigrant would impose major medical costs on the 
taxpayers, and that the immigrant sponsor would not be providing the 
support that they promised to pay? Now, that is where we are. That is 
where we have been. We can argue on into the night and get the same 
result, I think, that we got last night and will get tomorrow--the 
issue being, regardless of the tragic nature of this situation, 
whatever it is, the sponsor pays.
  Then if you are saying, ``But if the sponsor cannot pay,'' we have 
already taken care of that. If the sponsor cannot pay--goes bankrupt, 
dies, or whatever--the Government of the United States of America, the 
taxpayers, will pick up the slack; but not until the sponsor has had 
the slack drawn out of them--not to the point so they cannot live or 
become public charges themselves, but that is what this is about.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to slightly, again, correct the 
Record. I know the Senator from Wyoming feels passionately about his 
position. His position just happens to be at variance with the facts.
  I will cite and read this and ask if the Senator would disagree that 
these are the words in the United States Code 42, section 1382(j). This 
happens to be one of the three areas in which this Congress, at its 
election, has decided to specifically require that the income of the 
sponsor be added to that of the income of the legal alien for the 
purposes of determining eligibility for benefits. This happens to be 
the program of Supplemental Security Income. Here is what the law says:

       For the purposes of determining eligibility for and the 
     amount of benefits under this subchapter for an individual 
     who is an alien, the income and resources of any person who, 
     as a sponsor of such individual's entry into the United 
     States, executed an affidavit of support, or similar 
     agreement, with respect to such individual, and the income 
     and resources of the sponsor spouse shall be deemed to be the 
     income and resources of the individual for a period of 3 
     years after the individual's entry into the United States.

  That is quite clear. That is what the obligation of the sponsor was. 
There is similar clarity of language to be found under the provisions 
relating to Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps. So 
if a person wanted to know, what is my legal obligation when I sign a 
sponsorship affidavit, they could go to the law books of the United 
States and read, with clarity, what those programs happen to be.
  My friend from Wyoming, the reality is that this Congress, until 
tonight, has not chosen to place Medicaid as one of those programs for 
which such deeming is required. By failing to do so, and by doing so 
for these three distinct programs, I think a very clear implication has 
been created that we did not intend, that there be deeming of the 
sponsor's income for the purposes of eligibility for Medicaid.
  I believe that the kinds of arguments that are made by responsible 
organizations, such as the Association of Public Hospitals, is why this 
Congress, up until tonight, has not deemed it appropriate to deem the 
income of the sponsor to the legal alien for the purposes of Medicaid.
  If that argument was so persuasive in the past, why have we not added 
Medicaid to the list of responsibilities in the past?
  Mr. President, I believe--the rhetoric aside--that the facts are that 
there is clarity as to what the sponsor's obligation is today. No. 2, 
that we are about to change that responsibility and make those changes 
retroactive, applying to literally hundreds of thousands of people. 
And, in the case of Medicaid, in my judgment, we are about to adopt 
legislation that would have a range of negative effects, from 
increasing the threat to the public health of communicable diseases, to 
endangering the already fragile financial status of some of our most 
important American hospitals, to increasing the likelihood that a poor, 
pregnant woman would choose abortion rather than deliver a full-term 
child.
  And so, Mr. President, I believe that both the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Illinois and, immodestly, the amendment I have 
presented to the Senate represent the kind of public policy that is 
consistent with the reality of our history of the treatment of legal 
aliens--again, I underscore legal aliens--and should be continued by 
the adoption of the amendments that will be before the Senate shortly.

  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?


                   Modification to Amendment No. 3866

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request 
cleared with the minority.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make two minor technical 
corrections to two provisions of amendment No. 3866 to the bill, S. 
1664.

[[Page S4505]]

  The first correction corrects a printing error, by which a provision 
belonging in one section of the amendment No. 3866 was inadvertently 
placed in a different section.
  The second correction is a minor change in the wording.
  These two corrections have been cleared on both sides, and I ask 
unanimous consent that they be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification follows:

       (1) Subsection (c) of section 201 of S. 1664, (relating to 
     social security benefits), as amended by amendment no. 3866, 
     is further amended to read as follows:
       (c) Social Security Benefits.--(1) Section 202 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:

                   ``Limitation on Payments to Aliens

       ``(y)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     except as provided in paragraph (2), no monthly benefit under 
     this title shall be payable to any alien in the United States 
     for any month during which such alien is not lawfully present 
     in the United States as determined by the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any case where 
     entitlement to such benefit is based on an application filed 
     before the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
       (2) Nothing in this subsection (c) shall affect any 
     obligation or liability of any individual or employer under 
     title 21 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code.
       (3) No more than 18 months following enactment of this Act, 
     the Comptroller General is directed to conduct and complete a 
     study of whether, and to what extent, individuals who are not 
     authorized to work in the United States are qualifying for 
     Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits 
     based on their earnings record.
       (2) In section 214(b)(2) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1980, as added by section 222 of S. 1664 
     (relating to prorating of financial assistance), as added by 
     amendment no. 3866--
       (A) strike ``eligibility of one or more'' and insert 
     ``ineligibility of one or more''; and
       (B) strike ``has not been affirmatively'' and insert ``has 
     been affirmatively''.
       (3) In the last sentence of section 214(d)(1)(A) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, as added by 
     section 224 of S. 1664 (relating to verification of 
     immigration status and eligibility for financial assistance), 
     as added by amendment no. 3866, insert after ``Housing and 
     Urban Development'' the following: ``or the agency 
     administering assistance covered by this section''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think we can go forward. We now, so 
that our colleagues will be aware, are in a position to vote on three 
amendments. We will likely do that in a short period of time.
  The Feinstein amendment has been resolved.
  There is a Simon amendment on disability deeming, a Simon amendment 
on retroactivity deeming, and the Graham amendment that we have just 
been debating with regard to 2-year deeming.
  We have many of our colleagues who apparently are involved with the 
Olympic activities tonight passing on the torch, and some other 
activity.
  There is a Gramm amendment on the Border Patrol and a Hutchison 
amendment on Border Patrol. Those will be accepted. There is a Robb 
amendment which will be accepted.
  I inquire of the Senator from Florida if he has any further 
amendments. At one time there was a list. I wonder if there is any 
further amendment other than the pending amendment from the Senator 
from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I have one other amendment that relates to the 
impact on State and local communities of unfunded mandates. I 
understand that there may be a desire to withhold further votes after 
the three that are currently stacked. If that is the case, I would be 
pleased to offer my next amendment tomorrow morning.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank our remarkable staff. And 
Elizabeth certainly is one of the most remarkable. I think we can get a 
vote here in the next few minutes on three amendments which are 15 
minutes in original time and 10 on the second two with a lock-in of 
tomorrow to take care of the rest of the amendments on this bill. We 
may proceed a bit tonight with the debate. That will be resolved 
shortly.
  But the Senator from Florida has one rather sweeping amendment on 
which we will need further debate, will we not; more than 15 minutes 
perhaps?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I anticipate it will require more than 15 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I see. I would probably have that much on the other 
side.
  Then I have one with Senator Kennedy and share with my colleagues 
that I do have a place holder amendment. It is my intention, unless 
anyone responds to this, not at this time but tomorrow--you will recall 
that Senator Moynihan placed an amendment at the time of the welfare 
bill with regard to the Social Security system having a study, that 
they should begin to do something in that agency to determine how to 
make that card more tamper resistant. It was cosponsored by Senator 
Dole. It passed unanimously here. That would be an amendment that I 
have the ability to enter unless it is exceedingly contentious. I 
intend to do so because it certainly is one that is not strange to us, 
and the date of its original passage was--so that the staff may be 
aware of the measure, that was in the Congressional Record of September 
8, 1995, page S12915, directing the Commissioner to develop--this is 
not something that is immediate--to be done in a year, and a study and 
a report will come back. There is nothing sinister with regard to it, 
but it is important to consider that.

  We have an amendment of Senator Robb, and apparently an objection to 
that amendment from that side of the aisle. I hope that might be 
resolved.
  Let me go forward and accept the Gramm amendment, the Hutchison 
amendment, and if you have those, I will send them to the desk.


                Amendment No. 3948 to Amendment No. 3743

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding the critical 
  role of interior Border Patrol stations in the agency's enforcement 
                                mission)

  On behalf of Senators Gramm and Hutchison, I send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], for Mr. Gramm, for 
     himself, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3948 to amendment No. 3743.

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

       At the end, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FINDINGS RELATED TO THE ROLE OF INTERIOR BORDER 
                   PATROL STATIONS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Immigration and Naturalization Service has drafted 
     a preliminary plan for the removal of 200 Border Patrol 
     agents from interior stations and the transfer of these 
     agents to the Southwest border.
       (2) The INS has stated that it intends to carry out this 
     transfer without disrupting service and support to the 
     communities in which interior stations are located.
       (3) Briefings conducted by INS personnel in communities 
     with interior Border Patrol stations have revealed that 
     Border Patrol agents at interior stations, particularly those 
     located in Southwest border States, perform valuable law 
     enforcement functions that cannot be performed by other INS 
     personnel.
       (4) The transfer of 200 Border Patrol agents from interior 
     stations to the Southwest border, which would not increase 
     the total number of law enforcement personnel at INS, would 
     cost the federal government approximately $12,000,000.
       (5) The cost to the federal government of hiring new 
     criminal investigators and other personnel for interior 
     stations is likely to be greater than the cost of retaining 
     Border Patrol agents at interior stations.
       (6) The first recommendation of the report by the National 
     Task Force on Immigration was to increase the number of 
     Border Patrol agents at the interior stations.
       (7) Therefore, it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (A) the U.S. Border Patrol plays a key role in apprehending 
     and deporting undocumented aliens throughout the United 
     States;
       (B) interior Border Patrol stations play a unique and 
     critical role in the agency's enforcement mission and serve 
     as an invaluable second line of defense in controlling 
     illegal immigration and its penetration to the interior of 
     our country;
       (C) a permanent redeployment of Border Patrol agents from 
     interior stations is not the most cost-effective way to meet 
     enforcement needs along the Southwest border, and should only 
     be done where new Border Patrol agents cannot practicably be 
     assigned to meet enforcement needs along the Southwest 
     border; and
       (D) the INS should hire, train and assign new staff based 
     on a strong Border Patrol presence both on the Southwest 
     border and in interior stations that support border 
     enforcement.

  Mr. SIMPSON. This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the 
aisle.

[[Page S4506]]

 It has to do with the Border Patrol, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. May I make an inquiry? Is this the amendment that says, 
in effect, that if Border Patrol personnel are relocated from the 
interior assignment to the assignment in a border position, that there 
has to be some coordination with the law enforcement agencies in the 
communities from which the personnel are being relocated?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that would be the Hutchison amendment, 
not this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That will be next, the Hutchison amendment?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. The one that is before the body is the sense of the 
Congress regarding the critical role of the interior Border Patrol 
saying that it plays a key role in apprehending and deporting 
undocumented aliens and plays a critical role in the agency's 
enforcement mission and serves as a valuable second line of defense. 
Redeployment of Border Patrol agents at interior stations would not be 
cost-effective, and it is unnecessary in view of plans to nearly double 
the Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, and INS should hire, 
train, and assign new staff based on a strong Border Patrol presence, 
both on the Southwest border and interior stations that support border 
enforcement.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am not going to object to either of 
these amendments, but I would like to raise the concern that currently 
there is a great deal of apprehension by interior law enforcement, that 
is, law enforcement that is not directly on the Nation's border, at the 
level of support being provided by INS and the Border Patrol.
  I might state that I recently met with a group of law enforcement 
leaders from the central part of my State who stated that the common 
practice was that for the first 6 to 9 months of the year, if they had 
an illegal alien in detention, the Border Patrol or appropriate other 
INS officials would come and take custody of that individual. During 
the last 3 to 6 months of the fiscal year depending on the status of 
the budget of the INS, nobody would show up, and therefore the law 
enforcement officials were in the position of either making a judgment 
to release the individual or to continue them in detention at their 
expense and oftentimes on a questionable legal basis for continued 
detention.
  I raise this phenomenon to say I hope that as the INS and the Border 
Patrol look at the redeployment of resources that this legislation is 
going to call for it is more than just a coordination with local law 
enforcement but, rather, that there is an affirmative effort made to 
assure that the capability to assume responsibility for and detain 
illegal aliens wherever they are determined in the United States is a 
high priority of the agencies.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, perhaps we could go ahead--since there 
was no objection to that amendment, I certainly withhold the other one 
because it does address what the Senator from Florida is saying. So I 
urge adoption of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3948) was agreed to.


                   nutrition programs and immigration

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate agreed to include an 
amendment which I submitted to the immigration bill. This amendment 
addresses the serious problem of adding to the administrative load of 
the already overburdened nutrition programs.
  I met a couple of weeks ago with the Vermont School Food Service 
Association and they expressed tremendous concern over the additional 
workload this bill would add to their schools. Marlene Senecal, Connie 
Bellevance, and Sue Steinhurst of the American School Food Service 
Association urged me to take action as did Jo Busha, the State director 
of child nutrition programs.
  For the school lunch and breakfast programs the ASFSA estimated that 
14,881 new staff would have to be hired nationwide to handle the 
additional paperwork of verifying citizenship status for each child and 
working with the INS.
  If the average salary of new staff is $25,000 to $30,000 a year we 
are talking about a huge burden for schools--at least $370 million per 
year.
  The magnitude of this unfunded mandate imposed on schools could drive 
thousands of schools off the school lunch and breakfast program.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures are also concerned that 
the bill, as written, places a huge unfunded mandate on local schools, 
local governments, and State agencies.
  This bill also inflicts complex sponsor deeming procedures regarding 
legal immigrants in most Federal programs, including child nutrition 
programs, and WIC.
  ``Deeming'', the practice of counting a sponsor's income as that of 
an immigrant's when calculating eligibility for Federal programs, would 
add unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on local and State administrators, 
schools, child care providers, and WIC clinics.
  Those already burdened will be forced to spend more time filling out 
forms and less time providing for the poor and disadvantaged.
  States like Vermont, with very few immigrants, will still be affected 
by the additional administrative burden.
  Also, denying these benefits to pregnant immigrant women will lead to 
increased costs for taxpayers. It is estimated that for every dollar 
WIC spends on pregnant women $3 is saved in future Medicaid costs. We 
will end up paying far more through Medicaid to take care of children 
with low birth rates.
  Regardless of the citizenship status of these mothers, their children 
will be U.S. citizens and eligible for means tested programs.
  And, ironically, States with large native American populations who 
benefit from the food distribution program on Indian reservations would 
have been forced to verify the citizenship of their native American 
citizens.
  The American School Food Service Association, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, and others, are very concerned about the 
additional mandates and administrative duties that would have been 
imposed upon schools and States by the ``deeming'' requirements and the 
immigrant determination process as they affect child nutrition 
programs.
  Most soup kitchen and food bank programs are run by volunteers. 
Requiring volunteers to do alien status checks and income verification 
with sponsoring families would be nearly impossible, but hiring staff 
for this purpose would use donated funds in ways not intended by those 
making the donations.
  School lunch and breakfast programs are run by local schools who 
struggle with increasing administrative and overhead costs. Requiring 
them to closely monitor immigrant status and sponsor incomes would have 
burdened them greatly according to the American School Food Service 
Association. Fifty million children attend school each school day in 
the United States.
  Similar arguments can be raised for other child nutrition programs 
such as the WIC Program.
  My amendment also corrected what I believe are some drafting errors 
in the bill and makes additional improvements.
  First, on page 180, ineligible aliens are disqualified from receiving 
public assistance except for certain programs such as those under the 
National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, and other 
assistance such as soup kitchens if they are not means tested.
  This language omits several programs such as the commodity 
supplemental food program which is an alternative to WIC in many areas 
of the country.
  There is no reason I can think of for pregnant women getting WIC 
benefits to be treated differently from pregnant women getting the same 
benefits under the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which was the 
precursor to WIC, and is still operated in about 30 areas around the 
Nation.
  Also, the soup kitchen program, the food bank program and the 
emergency food assistance program could be considered to be means 
tested so they would not be exempt either.

[[Page S4507]]

  These programs provide emergency food assistance to families and I 
doubt if anyone intended to treat them differently from the nutrition 
programs already exempted.


                     harkin-byrd-daschle amendment

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined with my 
colleagues, Senators Harkin and Daschle, in sponsoring an amendment to 
this bill which requires the Attorney General to ensure that every 
State has at least 10 full-time active duty agents from the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. Currently, West Virginia is one of only 
three States that does not have a permanent INS presence. Our amendment 
rectifies that problem.
  As the debate on this bill has shown, the Senate is determined to 
strengthen our current laws with respect to immigration, particularly 
illegal immigration. But whatever we pass, whatever new laws we fashion 
to combat the serious problem of illegal immigration, they will mean 
little if we are not also willing to provide the tools and support to 
enforce those laws.
  Mr. President, In America today, illegal immigration is not simply a 
California problem, or a Texas problem, or a New York problem. On the 
contrary, it is a national problem that impacts on every one of the 50 
States. Obviously, my State of West Virginia does not suffer the 
consequences associated with illegal immigration to the same degree as 
do other States. But I believe that if we are to have a coherent 
national policy, a policy based on stopping the hiring of illegal 
aliens and swiftly deporting those who are here illegally, then every 
State must be brought into our enforcement efforts. And that means 
providing every State, not just some States, with the law enforcement 
tools they need.
  Clearly, every State needs a minimum INS presence to meet basic 
needs. By providing each State with its own INS office, the Justice 
Department will, I believe, save taxpayer dollars by reducing not only 
travel time for those agents who must now come from other areas, but 
also jail time per illegal alien, since a permanent INS presence would 
substantially speed up deportation proceedings.
  Moreover, there is a growing need to assist legal immigrants and to 
speed up document processing. How are employers--who will be mandated 
under this bill to aggressively work to deter the hiring of illegal 
aliens--going to receive the administrative help they need without the 
assistance of local INS personnel?
  Mr. President, this amendment makes sense, good common sense. It is a 
modest proposal that I believe will send a clear message that we are 
serious in our commitment to enforcing our immigration laws. 
Consequently, I am pleased to have sponsored the amendment, and equally 
pleased that the Senate has included it in the current bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. And now I have a unanimous-consent request to propose.
  I ask unanimous consent that votes occur on or in relation to the 
following amendments at 7:15 p.m., with 2 minutes equally divided for 
debate between each vote: Simon amendment No. 3810, Simon amendment No. 
3813, Graham amendment No. 3764.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Now, with that having been accomplished, we will I think 
be able to accommodate you, all of our colleagues, by finding out 
tonight and wrapping up everything so that we will finish this measure 
tomorrow. That will be I think attainable from what I see at the table, 
and I think my colleague from Massachusetts will agree. And we will 
then proceed at 7:15.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 60 minutes of Senator 
Daschle's time be allotted for Senator Graham and 60 minutes of Senator 
Dole's time be allotted to myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I may ask the Senator from Wyoming, as I understand 
it, that would leave the Graham, Chafee and Simpson amendments 
remaining for consideration on tomorrow. Is that the Senator's 
understanding? That would be at least my understanding. If we are 
missing something, some Member out there has a measure that we have not 
mentioned, we hope at the time of the vote they will mention it. We are 
not urging other Senators to add more to the list. But that is at least 
my understanding. I will be glad to hear from others if that is not 
correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I might have more than one amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we can all have more than one amendment. 
I hope the Senator from Florida will assist us in buttoning this down. 
If there is another amendment or two other amendments, let us button it 
down and get it to rest. We do have a Robb amendment, I say to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, which has an objection on that side of the 
aisle.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand the Robb amendment has been withdrawn.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Withdrawn?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Withdrawn.
  Mr. SIMPSON. There is a Hutchison amendment which has been questioned 
by the Senator from Florida. There is a Simpson-Kennedy amendment with 
regard to verification. And then there is a place holder amendment 
which I intend to present, the Moynihan-Dole amendment, which passed 
unanimously in September, to allow the Social Security Administration 
to begin, nothing more, a study to determine how in the future we are 
to make that system more tamper resistant. It is not anything that goes 
into place. It is a report. And those who were involved at the time 
will recall.
  That is what I have. That is the extent of it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Since we have another moment then, is it the intention, 
after we dispose of this, to at least make a request that only those 
amendments which have been outlined now be in order for tomorrow? And 
that it would at least be our attempt during the evening time to try 
and get some time understandings with those----
  Mr. SIMPSON. That is being done at the present time, all of that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The leader will be out here, I am sure, shortly, but we 
would start then early and try and move this through in the course of 
the day.
  Mr. SIMPSON. This matter will be concluded. The staffs on both sides 
of the aisle are working to present that to us in a few moments, to 
tighten and button down a complete agreement on time agreements and 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The leader will outline the plan for the rest of the 
evening. Is it the Senator's understanding that those three amendments 
will be the final voting amendments for the evening?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I think that would be the case. The leader is not here, 
but I think conjecture would have it be so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will wait on that issue until the leader makes a 
final definitive decision. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my colleagues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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, let me ask unanimous consent, in the 
voting to take place at 7:15, that the first vote at 7:15 be 15 minutes 
and the subsequent votes 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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.


                         Vote On Amendment 3810

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 3810. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Kassebaum] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced, yeas 30, nays 69, as follows:

[[Page S4508]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Akaka
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The amendment (No. 3810) was rejected.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3813

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate now is Simon 
amendment No. 3813. There are 2 minutes to be divided equally between 
the sides.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is a relatively simple amendment. If 
anything, this area is simple. If you are a sponsor of someone coming 
in, you sign up for 3 years. The Simpson bill says we go to 5 years. I 
am for that prospectively. I do not believe it is right for Uncle Sam 
to rewrite the contract and say, ``You signed up for 3 years, now you 
are responsible for 5 years.'' That is what happens without my 
amendment.
  I favor the 5 years prospectively, but I think if Uncle Sam signs a 
deal, Uncle Sam should be responsible. He should not change a contract. 
That is true for a used car dealer. It certainly ought to be true for 
Uncle Sam.
  Mr. SIMPSON. It is true that individuals already in the country will 
not be the beneficiaries of new legally enforceable sponsor agreements 
that will be required after enactment. It is also true that some of 
those, those who have been here less than 5 years, will nevertheless be 
subject to at least a portion of the minimum 5-year deeming period.
  I remind my colleagues, however, that no immigrant is admitted to the 
United States if the immigrant does not provide adequate assurance to 
the consular officer and commissioner and the immigration inspector 
that he or she is not likely to become a public charge. In effect, that 
is a promise to the American people that they will not become a burden 
to the taxpayers, under any circumstance.
  Mr. SIMON. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The question occurs on agreeing 
to amendment No. 3813. 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 Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 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. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  So the amendment (No. 3813) was rejected.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3764

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Under the previous order, the 
question occurs on amendment No. 3764 offered by the Senator from 
Florida, Senator Graham.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment, which will next be voted 
on, would do three things: One, it will say that the application of 
deeming to Medicaid will be only for a period of 2 years. Second, it 
will exempt emergency care and public health services. Third, it will 
apply prospectively.
  Mr. President, this amendment is supported by groups, which range 
from the Catholic Conference to the League of Cities. They support it 
for a set of common reasons. They understand that the public health 
will be at risk if we deny Medicaid to this population of legal aliens, 
and that there will be a massive cost shift to the communities in which 
hospitals, which are obligated to provide medical services that will 
now no longer be reimbursed in part by Medicaid, are located. Catholic 
Charities is concerned about an increase in abortion, as poor pregnant 
women would find it economically necessary to seek an abortion rather 
than pay the cost of a delivery.
  For all of those reasons, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment, like so many others 
before, would reduce the sponsor's responsibility for their immigrant 
relatives they bring to the United States on the basis that they will 
not become a public charge. This amendment would nearly eliminate 
deeming for Medicaid, the most costly and expensive of all of the 
welfare programs. Medicaid deeming would be limited to 2 years.
  The sponsors who promised to provide the needed assistance should pay 
the health care assistance, as long as they have the assets to do so. 
Otherwise, the taxpayers pick up the tab.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Ford
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun

[[Page S4509]]


     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wyden

                                NAYS--77

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The amendment (No. 3764) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
resumes S. 1664 on Thursday, May 2, the following amendments be the 
only amendments remaining in order: Senator Graham of Florida, Senator 
Graham of Florida, Senator Chafee, Senator Simpson, and Senator DeWine.
  I further ask that following the debate on the above-listed 
amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on in relation to those 
amendments, with the votes occurring in the order in which they were 
debated, and there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate between each 
vote.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the amendments or 
points of order, the Senate proceed for 30 minutes of debate only to be 
equally divided between Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy, and 
following that time the Senate proceed to vote on Simpson Amendment No. 
3743, as amended, to be followed by a cloture vote on the bill; and if 
cloture is invoked, the Senate proceed immediately to advance S. 1644 
to third reading and proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 2022; 
that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1644 be 
inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage 
occur, all without further action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Byrd evidently notified the leadership that he 
wanted to be able to address the Senate before the final vote on the 
bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also ask that Senator Byrd have whatever 
time he wishes under his control prior to the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
intention to offer a point of order prior to the vote on the Dole-
Simpson amendment. Is that provided for?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes. In fact, I said, ``or points of order.''
  Mr. GRAHAM. All right.
  Mr. DOLE. There could be more than one, so we did not designate any 
names.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I might also indicate to my colleagues and perhaps the 
managers that between 10 and 12 they could sort of stack the votes, 
whatever works out. We could have a series of votes at noon. Otherwise, 
whatever the managers desire.

                          ____________________