[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________