[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4577-S4579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with Senator Simpson in urging our
colleagues to come over and consider these amendments. We have been
going on through the evening the last two nights, and we are always
asked at the end of the day if we cannot conclude it so that we can
accommodate Members' schedules. Here we are at 10 o'clock, ready to do
business.
There are a limited number of amendments out there. The particular
Senators know the amendments have been listed. We are prepared to move
ahead and dispose of these amendments. It is better for us to have the
debate at the present time. So we ask, just out of consideration for
the other Members of the Senate, that those Members come over so we can
dispose of those amendments and we can accommodate our other friends
and colleagues here. We will go into a quorum call, but we hope those
Senators will come to the floor and address those amendments. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am going to proceed with a discussion
of an amendment which I believe I will send to the desk because Senator
Graham and Senator Chafee apparently will not be here until
approximately 11 o'clock. So we will proceed with the amendment. I will
send it to the desk in a moment and proceed with the debate on the
amendment.
The amendment would modify section 112 of the bill relating to pilot
projects on systems to verify work authorization and eligibility to
apply for public assistance.
It has three parts. The first part would require that at a minimum
three particular pilot projects--remember, these are pilot projects.
Remember, whatever one is selected has to have a second vote in this
Chamber years down the line. This is not tomorrow. This is not next
year. The purpose of the amendment is to require these to be pilot
projects rather than the present language which makes it somewhat
optional.
The three parts are: The first part would require that at a minimum
three particular pilot projects be conducted; one providing for
telephone verification of Social Security numbers; one providing for
use--pilot projects again--for use of a counterfeit-resistant driver's
license with a Social Security number on it, but only in a State that
already issues such a license. We are not imposing this as a national
standard. But if the State of Wyoming has a driver's license with a
Social Security number on it, which they do, that State will have the
pilot on a counterfeit-resistant driver's license.
Then the final one involves the confirmation of the immigration
status of aliens, but with regard to citizens only, an attestation only
for citizens, which people have said in the debate--I think it is a
good debate--``Why should a U.S. citizen have to go through these
procedures?'' The answer is, we will have a pilot project to find out.
But I certainly hope that we could do that and require eventually,
through the pilot project, only an attestation by persons who are
claiming to be citizens.
Under the present bill, current bill in its present form--after the
amendment yesterday, this is in the bill--there are seven different
types of pilot projects that are specifically authorized, but none is
required. Senator Kennedy and I have concluded that it is especially
important that the three projects I have specified are conducted, at
least these three. The other four, making up the seven, that is fine,
too. I think we need to study every possible aspect of this.
The first type of pilot project providing for the telephone
verification of the Social Security numbers of all new employees was a
recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by
former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and is and was the most frequently
discussed option as it was in the House of Representatives.
The second type providing for use of a counterfeit-resistant driver's
license with a Social Security number on it in a State that already
issues such a license--please hear that--would have the major advantage
that employers would be required only to check a single document, one
that is already in existence. There would be no new documents, no new
database, no new procedure such as a telephone call verification.
The third type involving confirmation of the immigration status of
aliens but only an attestation by persons claiming to be citizens. That
would also have a major advantage, in our mind. Employers would not
have to verify employees. They would have nothing to do in that
situation. Of course, in that situation, the obvious weakness in such a
system is the potential for false claims of citizenship. That is why I
did offer a separate amendment which was accepted, I think, in the
manager's amendments, creating a new disincentive for falsely claiming
U.S. citizenship, which will be a new ground of exclusion and of
deportation. I think that will be very effective in reducing that
obvious weakness. Because of the potential advantages of these three
approaches to verification, I believe that the Attorney General should
be required to conduct pilot projects on those.
Mr. President, the second part of the present amendment provides that
if the Attorney General--and this is very important for employers--
again, if the Attorney General determines that a pilot project
adequately satisfies accuracy and other criteria such as those relating
to privacy, precious privacy, discrimination and unauthorized use, two
results can follow. First, the project's requirements will supersede
any verification requirements under current law for participating
employers. In addition, the Attorney General will be authorized to make
the participation mandatory for some or all employers in the pilot
project's area of coverage for the remaining period of its operation.
Here is what the intent of this portion of the amendment is. It is
that no employer be subject to requirements of doing both the current
law and the pilot project in which participation is mandatory. Of
course, an employer can voluntarily participate in any project without
any preliminary determination by the Attorney General, or anyone, that
the criteria are adequately met. If there is no such determination, the
requirements of both the project and the current law will be required,
trying to assure there is not a double burdening upon the employer.
The third and final part of this amendment defines words ``regional
project.'' That was thoroughly discussed in committee and I believe
referred to here yesterday and the day before. This amendment defines a
``regional project'' as a project conducted in an area which includes
more than a single locality but which is smaller than an entire State.
This definition is included because section 112 of the bill directs the
President, acting through the Attorney General, to conduct several
local or regional pilot projects.
The reason the amendment is so crafted is that some persons have
expressed concern that the reference to ``regional projects'' could be
interpreted to mean projects involving several States. Then this could
create something close to a de facto nationwide system, especially if
there were a number of multistate projects. Thus, the reason for the
amendment. Yet, such a system would not have been the subject of a
Presidential recommendation or report and subsequent enactment of the
legislation as would be required in the bill before a pilot project can
be implemented nationwide.
Let me say that again. Before any project, whether regional--and this
defines regional--whether national, and this will take years to do,
before the recommended pilot project--the ``preferred alternative,'' I
suppose, would be the phrase--in some future year would be presented to
the Congress, and then
[[Page S4578]]
a second vote would take place with regard to which of the pilot
projects would eventually come into the statutes of the United States.
That is the essence of the amendment. I look forward to the
discussion of it.
Amendments Nos. 3853 and 3843, en bloc
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I now send to the desk the amendment I
have described. By previous unanimous consent, amendments 3753 and 3754
were combined to be considered as a single amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments en bloc are before the Senate.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have no further comments with regard to
the amendment, but I emphasize to our colleagues that we are going to
proceed and try to accommodate each and every one of the Members who
are involved in the amending process. We are certainly not going to cut
off debate, but let all be aware we are going to finish this bill today
in the morning hour or the darkening color of evening.
I must relate to the occupant of the chair that the Senator from
Massachusetts handed me a tattered document from some calendar of some
kind that says, ``What State is home to more pronghorn antelope than
people?'' I believe the occupant of the chair and I know the answer. It
is our native State of Wyoming.
But we also have a story we tell of the old cowboy out fixing his
fence and doing a nice job. A tourist lady came by--I think
Massachusetts plates--and she said, ``I understand you have more cows
than people out there. Why is that?'' He looked at her with steady
gaze, hooked his thumb in his belt, and he said, ``We prefer 'em.''
Mr. KENNEDY. On that note, Mr. President, let me just say a very
brief word about the modification of the verification proposal.
The development of studies that would help and guide policy has been
controversial over some period of time. The Senate now is on record in
support of those pilot programs. I strongly support them. We will have
maximum flexibility to see at the time when the report comes back to
the Congress, what has been recommended or suggested along the
guidelines that have been included in the bill and which I referenced
yesterday.
This amendment effectively ensures mandates that those programs are
actually going to go ahead. It was always our assumption they would go
ahead. I believe this Justice Department is well on the road toward
assuring they would go ahead. A number of us have been briefed on what
progress has been made, and has been impressive in terms of the design
of these programs. I think they offer some very, very important,
hopeful indications that many of the abuses we have seen currently
would be addressed with either these types of programs or those that
are closely related to those programs.
Effectively, what this amendment does, as the Senator has pointed
out, it defines the term ``region'' as an area within a State. This
proposal limits the verification to local and regional pilots only.
There was some question about what the region might be. We know about
80 percent of illegals are in seven States. Some are bunched into
regions of the country. We wanted to make it very clear that we were
not talking about regions of the country, but we are talking about an
area within a State. That is an improvement, and I think it is a
worthwhile statement to ensure that the purposes of this pilot program
will be defined as an area within a State.
Second, it mandates the INS to conduct the three types of programs
which are listed in the bill. These three had been selected after the
consideration of a number of other suggestions. And, as I mentioned
earlier, I think they are worthy of pursuing. We are making sure that
they will be pursued. There is one pilot project where employers have
to verify an employee's Social Security number over the phone; one
which tests the effectiveness of the State identification card, and
that includes a readable Social Security number; and one where
employers have to verify employment eligibility, only for employees who
are noncitizens. These three mandates of the INS cannot require
employers to participate in a pilot program, unless the Attorney
General certifies it is anticipated to meet the privacy and accuracy
standards of the bill.
We have outlined in very careful detail the privacy provisions, and
we are strongly committed to ensuring that privacy will be realized and
achieved. We will work closely with the INS to make sure that that
happens.
As has been pointed out in the course of the debate, we wanted to
insist on accuracy. If you have just programs that are maybe 80
percent, or 85, or even 90 percent accurate, you are still 10, or 15,
or 20 percent inaccurate, and you are still talking about tens of
thousands of people who would be unfairly treated. And so that aspect
of the pilot program--to insist on the accuracy standards which have
been outlined--is 99 percent in this bill and is enormously important.
So I think questions had been raised after we had determined that the
pilot program would be instituted in the Judiciary Committee, and from
the Judiciary Committee to the floor, and even during the course of the
debate, we have been asked to clarify these particular measures, and
the Simpson amendment does that. These modifications make good sense.
This amendment ensures that pilot projects can be no larger than an
area within a State. It means that a pilot that covers an entire State
would be too large. The amendment requires the INS to conduct the three
projects, and these projects are listed as optional pilots in the bill.
The amendment simply requires the INS to test these three projects. If
any of these work, it will mark a major improvement in denying jobs to
illegal immigrants.
Once again, this is where the focus ought to be on the issue of the
job magnet, the fact that jobs are what bring people here to the United
States illegally. As we know, those individuals who are the illegals
basically are low-skill or no-skill workers, and they are the ones
which add the least, obviously, to the economy and still are involved
in displacing other Americans and driving wages down.
So if we are able to address the issues of the job magnet--and this
legislation attempts to do that in a variety of ways, which have been
spelled out earlier in the course of the debate, both from trying to
address the issues of the fraud documents and trying to strengthen the
Border Patrol, trying to develop these other kinds of proposals to
limit the--and make it less likely that illegals will enter the job
market, I think we are on the road to trying to take meaningful steps
to deal with the problems of illegal immigrants coming to this country
and still ensure the protections for American workers that may speak
with a foreign language or may have a different appearance.
I do not know of any opposition to this amendment. Members have known
about it for some period of time. Perhaps we will be willing to set
this aside. We are personally contacting Members who have indicated an
interest to find out whether they either want to address it or require
a rollcall vote. It seems to me that we will pursue that. But we,
again, hope that our other colleagues who have other amendments will
come forward. I am sure when they do, we will set this aside. At some
time later, I suppose, we will ask, when we stack the votes, that this
be one that we stack.
If Members have differing views on this issue, we are here now to
debate it. After a reasonable period of time, we will assume that those
Members, unless they notify us, are willing to let us move forward and
accept this amendment. We intend to do that in a reasonable period of
time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might take 3
minutes for the introduction of a bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1714
are located in today's Record under
[[Page S4579]]
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, 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. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will be brief, I say to my
colleagues. I will stay under 5 minutes.
____________________