[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4579-S4587]
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. BRYAN. Mr. President, I understand my distinguished colleague, 
the senior Senator from Florida, wishes to speak shortly, but that he 
needs a little more time. If there is no objection from the floor 
managers, I will make some general comments about the bill at this 
time, if I may.
  Mr. President, I think it is appropriate at this time, as we are, 
hopefully, nearing the conclusion of our debate on this important piece 
of legislation, to make some general observations and comments. First, 
to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Simpson. What has been 
accomplished, in my judgment, could not have been accomplished in 
earlier Congresses. I commend his leadership. Although the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee has not been in 
agreement on all parts of the piece of legislation, I believe that 
Senator Kennedy's role in this has been a constructive part of a 
process which, in my judgment, will make major changes in our 
immigration enforcement efforts.

  Some time last year, I had the pleasure of testifying before the 
Immigration Subcommittee in support of S. 269, Senator Simpson's 
illegal immigration reform bill. I am pleased that the legislation that 
we have been debating these past few days essentially deals with the 
scope and the manner which the bill that I testified on last year 
covered.
  I want to preface my remarks by reemphasizing a point that I made at 
the time, which I think is valid in the context of the debate this 
year. That is, that there are those who are critics of our attempts to 
reform the immigration laws in this country who suggest that our 
efforts are somehow mean-spirited or even ``xenophobic.'' In my view, 
that is not only an unfair characterization; it is an opinion that is 
completely out of touch with the realities of our time.
  The Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Honorable 
Barbara Jordan, responded to this in the 1994 report to the Congress in 
which she and the members of the Commission concluded:

       We disagree with those who would label efforts to control 
     immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is 
     both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to 
     manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.

  Mr. President, first and foremost, it is and it has always been the 
province, and indeed the responsibility, of the Congress to establish 
and to provide the means of enforcing our country's immigration laws 
and to do so in the national interest.

[[Page S4580]]

  Since the Immigration Act of 1882, Congress has recognized the need 
to fashion immigration policy to fit the various public policy 
interests of the time. In the 19th century, our country depended on 
immigrants to build the railroads, to defend our unstable borders, and 
to populate the new frontier.
  At the turn of the century, our immigrant population helped to fuel 
the Industrial Revolution and to promote economic expansion. As a 
consequence, immigrants were allowed nearly unfettered access to our 
shores during that same period of time.
  As the needs of our country changed over the course of the early part 
of the 20th century, so, too, did our immigration policies. Although 
some of these policies were clearly the result of a racial animus, our 
legal immigration system has evolved into one that primarily is based 
on family unification and needed skills.
  In spite of the Congress' best intentions, U.S. immigration laws have 
been violated on a massive scale over recent years. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service estimates that nearly 300,000 undocumented 
aliens enter and remain in the United States permanently each year. 
That figure includes a substantial number in my own State of Nevada, 
estimated to be nearly 20,000.
  The proposition 187 ballot initiative in California last year is an 
example of the frustration felt by many in that State over the failure 
of the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws. The 
consensus that has emerged in this Congress and in the White House 
concerning the need to balance the Federal budget in 7 years has placed 
severe constraints on discretionary spending in the foreseeable future. 
As that discretionary pie continues to shrink, we must constantly 
reprioritize the spending allocations for many worthwhile spending 
programs that in whole or in part the Federal Government has been asked 
to support.
  While rational people may disagree as to the overall societal cost 
associated with illegal immigration, it seems rather fundamental to me 
that limited Federal resources are better spent on those persons who 
have played by the rules and reside in our country legally.
  I want to mention another aspect of unlawful immigration, one that is 
more difficult to quantify, yet clearly carries a price tag for us as a 
society. That is the cost to our environment. In many parts of the 
country, but particularly in the Southwest, the burgeoning population 
has placed tremendous strains on our natural resources. The quality of 
the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land on which we live 
and recreate is directly related to population levels. Our ability to 
maintain a safe and healthy environment is constantly being challenged 
as those growth levels continue to increase. Unlawful immigration 
exacerbates these challenges in areas ranging from solid waste disposal 
to maintenance of our city parks.
  Mr. President, I have cited several of the realities we face as a 
nation in order to put in context the need for the legislation that we 
have debated and, hopefully, we will pass later on today.
  Quite simply, we must do a much better job of curbing the flow of 
illegal immigration, and that means both preventing illegal aliens from 
entering our country and deporting those who remained within our 
borders unlawfully. The legislation that we debate addresses both of 
these problems. It contains strong law enforcement provisions to assist 
in detaining and removing illegal immigrants, and, more importantly, it 
includes strong provisions relating to employer sanctions and 
verification systems.
  I might just parenthetically acknowledge the support of Senator 
Simpson and Senator Kennedy with an amendment which I added which has 
been included in the managers' amendment that deals with juvenile 
offenders who are here illegally and commit crimes that, if committed 
by adult offenders, would be serious felony offenses.
  The fact that this provision has been accepted in the legislation, I 
think, will strengthen the hand of law enforcement and give us an 
additional tool to deal with those violent juvenile offenders who are 
here unlawfully who currently are protected under the provisions of the 
Family Unity Act and who now may be subject to the provisions which 
will enable a stronger effort to be made to return them to the country 
of their own origin when these serious felony offenses are committed.
  The bill incorporates many of the recommendations of the Commission 
on Immigration Reform, as I alluded to earlier. It recognizes, as did 
the Commission, that the primary factor motivating people to enter our 
country illegally is the availability of jobs, jobs that pay more, 
often much more, than that in which an individual could expect to make 
in his or her native country.
  While this legislation reflects the need to enhance our border 
security efforts by nearly doubling the authorized level of Border 
Patrol agents over the next 5 years, it also recognizes the fiscal and 
geographical constraints of patrolling the entire U.S. border.
  Mr. President, the fact that more than half of all of illegal 
immigrants currently in the United States entered our country legally 
and subsequently overstayed their visas evidences the need to do much 
more than just to improve border security to stem the tide of illegal 
immigration.
  The Commission on Immigration Reform found that the ineffectiveness 
of employer sanctions, prevalence of fraudulent documents, and 
continued high numbers of unauthorized workers, combined with confusion 
for employers and reported discrimination against employees have 
challenged the credibility of current work site enforcement efforts.
  This bill recognizes an improved system to verify eligibility to work 
in this country must be developed. It includes provisions to reduce the 
list of documents that may be accepted by employers, and directs the 
President to conduct local or regional pilot projects on improved 
verification systems. The recommended system could not be implemented, 
however, until it was authorized by Congress.
  The bill also contains provisions related to another recommendation 
of the commission, and that is the availability of public benefits to 
legal immigrants. The current law in this area, a version of which has 
been on the books for more than a century, provides that an immigrant 
may be admitted to the United States only if the immigrant provides 
adequate assurance that he or she is not likely at any time to become a 
public charge. The bill provides if an alien within 5 years of entry 
does become a public charge that immigrant may be subject to 
deportation.

  This policy is consistent with the Commission's recommendation and 
with the philosophy we as a Nation admit legal immigrants, with the 
expectation they will reside permanently in the United States as 
productive residents. In addition, the bill provides sponsors should be 
held financially responsible for the immigrants they bring into this 
country. In making the affidavits of support signed by sponsors legally 
enforceable, the bill indemnifies the Federal Government and seeks to 
hold the taxpayers harmless of their current responsibility for 
providing for support.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I recognize the 
contribution immigrants have made to our society. With the exception of 
native Americans, we are all a product of our Nation's immigration 
system. That is why it is so important for us as a nation to establish 
and to enforce our immigration laws so that those who have played by 
the rules and followed the law are rewarded for their efforts. We can 
no longer allow aliens who enter or remain in the United States in 
violation of our immigration laws to effectively take immigration 
opportunities that might otherwise be extended to those potential legal 
immigrants whose presence would be more consistent with the public 
policy determinations made by this Congress about what is in our 
national interests.
  Once again, Mr. President, I commend Senators Simpson and Kennedy for 
their efforts in producing this piece of legislation. I look forward to 
supporting its enactment and its final passage. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

[[Page S4581]]

                Amendment No. 3759 to Amendment No. 3743

   (Purpose: To suspend the requirements imposed on State and local 
               governments if certain conditions prevail)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3759 which has been 
previously filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] for himself and Mr. 
     Simpson, proposes an amendment numbered 3759 to amendment No. 
     3743.

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

       At the appropriate place in the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the amendment, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . UNFUNDED FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 90 days after the beginning of fiscal 
     year 1997, and annually thereafter, the determinatons 
     described in subsection (b) shall be made, if any such 
     determination is affirmative, the requirements imposed on 
     State and local governments under this Act relating to the 
     affirmative determination shall be suspended.
       (b) Determination Described.--A determination described in 
     this subsection means one of the following:
       (1) A determination by the responsible Federal agency or 
     the responsible State or local administering agency regarding 
     whether the costs of administering a requirement imposed on 
     State and local government under this Act exceeds the 
     estimated net savings in benefit expenditures.
       (2) A determination by the responsible Federal agency, or 
     the responsible State or local administering agency, 
     regarding whether Federal funding is insufficient to fully 
     fund the costs imposed by a requirement imposed on State and 
     local governments under this Act.
       (3) A determination by the responsible Federal agency, or 
     the responsible State or local administering agency, 
     regarding whether application of the requirement on a State 
     or local government would significantly delay or deny 
     services to otherwise eligible individuals in a manner that 
     would hinder the protection of life, safety, or public 
     health.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before I commence my remarks on this 
specific amendment I will provide some context. I strongly support the 
efforts that have been made and that are being made in this legislation 
to stem the tide of illegal alien entry and continued presence in the 
United States of America. Clearly, it is a national responsibility 
delegated singularly to the Federal Government under our U.S. 
Constitution to protect our borders and assure that in all areas, 
including immigration, that we live by the rule of law and not by the 
rule of the jungle.
  What concerns me, from the State which has experienced the adverse 
effect of illegal aliens to a greater extent that any other State in 
the Nation has done so, and who feels so passionately about the 
national responsibility to enforce our laws and protect our borders, 
what concerns me is that in this legislation which is labeled, which 
has on its book jacket the phrase ``illegal immigration,'' when you 
open the book, look at the individual chapters, there are significant 
provisions that do not relate to illegal immigration.
  We dealt with one of those provisions earlier this week when we 
eliminated the provision in the original bill that would have 
essentially terminated immediately the Cuban Adjustment Act, an act 
from 1966 to today which only is available to people who are in this 
country with legal status. That is not the only example in a book which 
has in its title ``illegal immigration.'' Its chapters have provisions 
relating to people who are in here, having followed the law, having 
followed the rules, paying taxes, doing all the things that we expect 
of law-abiding residents within the United States. Most particularly, 
Mr. President, those provisions that affect legal aliens come into play 
in the aspect of the eligibility of those legal aliens for a variety of 
programs which have some degree of Federal financial involvement.
  I support, also, the principle that the sponsors of this legislation 
have articulated on repeated occasions that we should look first to the 
person who sponsored the alien into the country as being the 
financially responsible partner, for their needs to avoid the necessity 
of that individual becoming a public charge. That is a desirable and, 
frankly, too-long ignored principle. Our courts have ruled as recently 
as 2 years ago that the current affidavit of sponsorship is not legally 
enforceable. This legislation will hope to breathe the fire of 
enforceability into that affidavit.
  My concern, Mr. President, is not only that we are dealing with legal 
aliens in a bill described as illegal immigration, and carries with it 
all of the momentum and all of the emotion and passion that that title 
brings, but also that we are placing the Federal Government in a 
position of being the deadbeat dad of immigration. And how is that? The 
Federal Government determines how many legal aliens can come into this 
country. The Federal Government determines under what conditions they 
can come and under what conditions they can stay. None of those 
decisions can be influenced by the local community, whether it is 
Dayton, OH, or Dade County, FL. None of those can be influenced by a 
State. They are totally national judgments, and we made several of 
those judgments in the past few days here on the Senate floor.

  We are now saying that we are going to look primarily to the sponsor 
to pay the cost of that sponsored alien. But what happens if that 
sponsor is unable, unwilling, or cannot be found to carry on that 
responsibility? The way the structure of this bill is, you determine 
the financial condition of the sponsor, and since this bill says nobody 
can sponsor an alien unless they are at least 125 percent above the 
poverty level, and since for most of the programs of eligibility you 
have to have less than 125 percent in order to qualify--for instance, 
Medicaid--in most States, unless you are in a special category such as 
a pregnant woman or a child, you have to be substantially less than 100 
percent of poverty in order to qualify. So, by definition, almost every 
one of these legal aliens with a sponsor's income is going to be 
rendered ineligible for needs-based programs in which the Federal 
Government is a participant.
  But what happens when the reality is that the sponsor is unable or 
unwilling to meet the obligations of the sponsored legal alien? The 
most likely area in which that is going to occur is going to be health 
care. Most sponsors will be able to meet their obligations in terms of 
providing food, or shelter, or other basic necessities of life, but 
what happens when that alien is diagnosed as having cancer? What 
happens when that legal alien is seriously injured? That is when that 
sponsor, at 125 percent of the poverty level, is not going to 
realistically be able to meet those needs.
  We have a Federal law that says that any American person--not just a 
citizen--any person can go to a hospital and get emergency treatment 
regardless of their financial condition. That is exactly what is going 
to happen with that legal alien with cancer, or a serious accident, or 
if they become pregnant and they cannot afford the cost of delivery. 
They are going to end up at a hospital with their medical condition and 
unable to pay and the sponsor being unable to pay.
  Now the Federal Government has washed its hands of that 
responsibility. We are the ``deadbeat dad'' of obligations of legal 
aliens. But somebody is going to pay. That somebody is going to be the 
hospital or, more likely, the local community and the State and their 
taxpayers in which that hospital is located.

  So the issue is not should the sponsor be responsible. Yes, the 
sponsor should be responsible, and we are helping to make that more 
likely. But the question is, what happens when the sponsor, for a 
variety of reasons, is not there when the bill comes due? The fact is, 
what is going to happen is that there will be a new unfunded mandate 
imposed upon the communities in which the legal alien lives.
  We also have some unfunded mandates, Mr. President, that you spoke to 
eloquently yesterday relative to new responsibilities on businesses. We 
are not willing to pick up all of the cost that it is going to take to 
implement many of these programs, including the verification programs. 
So we have said, in addition to asking local governments and States to 
have to pick up additional costs, we are going to shift some of these 
costs off to the private sector and let them pay for it. I do not think 
this is a fair allocation of what is

[[Page S4582]]

a constitutional Federal responsibility for our immigration laws.
  So, Mr. President, as I begin my comments on this specific amendment, 
I want to make it clear: I think we ought to have the strongest laws 
and commitment to enforce those laws against illegal immigration that 
are available to us. I think that it is appropriate to ask sponsors to 
be primarily responsible for legal aliens. I do not think we ought to 
be doing it in this bill. As a matter of policy, it is a desirable 
objective, but I do not think that we ought to be setting up a 
circumstance in which the Federal Government essentially shirks its 
financial obligation and adds that obligation to the communities in 
which legal aliens are living and to the business sector which is now 
going to carry new responsibilities for verification.
  Mr. President, the first priority of the Senate during this 104th 
Congress was S. 1, the very first bill filed at the desk, S. 1, and the 
title of that was the unfunded mandate reform bill of 1995. It was also 
included as a top priority in the House of Representatives, and it 
passed both bodies in the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. At the 
time we considered that legislation, the majority leader of the Senate 
said, and I quote:

       Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative 
     truth-in-advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a 
     piece of legislation, they need to know how it would impact 
     the States and localities they represent. If Members of 
     Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to 
     make the tough choices needed to pay for them.

  I strongly concur in the statement of our majority leader.
  What does that statement now have to say about the legislation that 
is before us this morning? The Congressional Budget Office, in the 
limited time available to it to review the legislation's broad, 
sweeping impact on State and local governments, has determined that 
this bill, S. 1664, does in fact violate the $50 million threshold for 
tripping into effect the unfunded mandate procedure. That $50 million 
is found just in two areas: the requirements governing increased 
expenses for birth certificates, and driver's licenses. Although the 
bill would impact literally hundreds of programs run by State and local 
governments, just these two--birth certificates and driver's licenses--
would have an unfunded mandate on State and local governments in excess 
of $50 million.
  With respect to all of the encompassing requirements imposed under 
this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office states:

       Given the scope and complexity of the affected programs, 
     however, the Congressional Budget Office has not been able to 
     estimate either the likelihood or magnitude of such costs at 
     this time. These costs could be significant, depending on how 
     strictly the deeming requirements are enforced by the Federal 
     Government.

  Let me repeat. ``These costs could be significant.''
  Mr. President, S. 1664 fails the majority leader's truth-in-
advertising test. We are prepared to vote on a bill that we truly have 
not the foggiest idea what its impact will be on State and local 
governments. We certainly are extremely concerned and strongly 
supportive of raising the issue of unfunded mandates.
  As a result, I have offered the amendment which is currently before 
the Senate that would waive the imposed and mandated bureaucratic 
requirements if the Federal, State, or local administering agency makes 
one of these three determinations: a determination that the cost of 
imposing the requirement exceeds the benefit; second, that Federal 
funding is not sufficient to cover the cost of the imposed requirement; 
or, third, that the application of the requirement would delay or deny 
services to the otherwise eligible legal immigrant in a manner that 
threatens life, safety, or public health.
  Mr. President, I have a letter dated April 24 from the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, 
and the National League of Cities. This letter strongly supports the 
pending amendment. In it, these three organizations write:

       This assures that new deeming mandates are cost effective 
     and not unfunded mandates. This is a critical test of your 
     commitment to preventing cost shifts to, and unfunded 
     administrative burdens on, State and local governments.

  The U.S. Conference of Mayors also supports this amendment. In short, 
this bill, once again, creates a large unfunded mandate on State and 
local governments. Once again, I repeat the quote from the 
Congressional Budget Office:

       Given the scope and complexity of the affected programs, 
     CBO was not able to estimate either the likelihood or the 
     magnitude of such costs at this time. These costs could be 
     significant.

  Mr. President, the only study as to what these costs may be comes 
from the National Conference of State Legislatures. These are our 
colleagues, fellow legislators in State capitals across the land. Many 
of us had the privilege, at a previous time, to have served in a State 
legislature. We know the difficult choices that they must make in terms 
of balancing limited resources at the State level, because they do not 
have the option, as we do, to deficit finance their programs. So they 
are very concerned about unfunded mandates that distort priorities.
  The CBO had a limited time, as did the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, to do its study. But the NCSL developed a report on 10 
affected programs. This study, incidentally, did not include Medicaid 
and did not include 40 other Federal means-tested programs which will 
be covered by this legislation. But what did it find in the 10 programs 
that were studied? After contacting more than 10 States of varying 
sizes, the study concludes that:

       Regardless of the size of the immigrant population, all 
     States and localities will have to implement these unfunded 
     mandates.

  In other words, this bill impacts Sioux City, IA, and Billings, MT, 
just as it does Los Angeles, CA, or Miami, FL. This bill requires all 
Federal, State, and local means-tested programs to have a new 
citizenship verification bureaucracy imposed upon them--even those 
areas which have very few aliens. As a result, what are the estimated 
costs being imposed on State and local governments, even for just the 
10 programs that the NCSL has studied? According to the study, ``The 
cost of these requirements for 10 selected programs would result in a 
$744-million unfunded mandate.'' A $744-million unfunded mandate.
  Mr. President, let me repeat that the NCSL study indicates that the 
unfunded mandate cost of 10 programs will be $744 million. Once the 
other multitude of programs are analyzed, the cost on State and local 
governments could far exceed a billion dollars. It could be several 
billion dollars. Nobody has the foggiest idea.
  However, there are no provisions in the pending legislation to 
reimburse State and local governments for the administrative costs and 
the cost shifts that will be imposed upon them. As the majority leader 
said, again, in debating the unfunded mandate bill:

       We do not have all the answers in Washington, DC. Why 
     should we tell Idaho, or the State of Kansas, or the State of 
     South Dakota, or any State, that we are going to pass this 
     Federal law, and we are going to require that you do certain 
     things, but we are not going to send you any money? So you 
     raise taxes in the local communities or in the State. You tax 
     the people, and when they complain about it, say, ``Well, we 
     cannot help it because the Federal Government passed this 
     mandate.'' So we are going to continue our drive to return 
     power to our States and our people through the 104th 
     Congress.

  Those words were a ringing declaration of purpose in January 1995, 
which I think we should now recall in May 1996. All programs in all 
places, regardless of whether the new bureaucratic costs exceed the 
benefit, regardless of whether it imposes a very large unfunded mandate 
on State and local government, are impacted by this bill.
  Some examples: Foster grandparents in Bismarck, ND, or a van to check 
the blood pressure of poor, pregnant mothers in Topeka, KS, using 
alternative child care health funding. These are examples of programs 
that have Federal funding that would now be subject to the verification 
requirements of this legislation. The local jurisdictions with few if 
any aliens would have to verify immigration status and sponsorship 
information, regardless of that fact.
  My amendment would allow the State or local administrative agency, or 
the Federal agency, to certify and waive out of the bill's requirement 
in such a case where the cost of implementation clearly exceeds the 
savings that are contemplated. This amendment recognizes that one-size-
fits-all policies do not work and are not cost

[[Page S4583]]

effective--a recognition of a basic tenet of this country's federalism.
  This amendment would also recognize that this may be virtually no 
savings--something that the Congressional Budget Office has verified in 
its scoring of the bill's savings in certain programs. For example, the 
maternal child health block grant funding is often used to augment 
services provided by the public health department for preventive health 
care services aimed at pregnant women. However, since the maternal 
child care program is capped--that is, there is a maximum expenditure--
there would be no Federal savings by imposing any additional 
administrative requirements. Again, CBO estimates no cost savings by 
imposing deeming in the maternal child care program. But administrative 
costs would certainly increase substantially for public health units 
across America.

  In such a case, despite the fact that the Federal funding to the 
public health department would account for as little as 1 percent of 
total funding, all of this new bureaucracy would be imposed. The added 
cost of administering deeming, for example, in such a program could 
exceed all of the Federal funding that goes into the program. This is 
neither prudent nor something which I believe our colleagues would 
think is sufficient government.
  Moreover, this amendment is entirely consistent with statutory 
language, which provided that the implementation of the system of alien 
verification--the SAVE Program--was administered. Under the SAVE 
Program, States could be waived from the program upon a determination 
that implementing SAVE would cost more money than the savings that 
would flow from such implementation. So we already have, in the 
immigration law itself, an example of recognizing a cost-benefit 
relationship, and that cost-benefit relationship will differ from one 
community to another.
  In addition, the amendment would allow the appropriate Federal, 
State, or local agency to suspend the application of the bill's 
administrative requirements upon the determination that the application 
requirement would significantly delay or deny services to otherwise 
eligible individuals in a manner that would hinder the protection of 
life, safety, or public health.
  For example, the determination could be made that the alien sponsor's 
deeming requirement should not be applied on a temporary basis with 
respect to short-term disaster relief, because it could delay essential 
aid to citizens and aliens alike who are disaster victims. In the case 
of a major natural disaster, which could occur with little or no prior 
warning, a person's home can be destroyed in short notice. One's lost 
possessions could include proof of immigration, citizenship status, or 
financial information.
  Without this amendment, emergency food or housing vouchers could not 
be provided to a disaster victim until the alien's citizenship status 
and sponsorship information has been verified, which can take weeks. It 
would also relieve an undue administrative burden on disaster relief 
agencies that would presently have to verify immigration status and 
sponsorship information during the course of dealing with the disaster 
in its aftermath. The ultimate victims of such administrative burdens 
would be the disaster victims themselves, who would have to wait longer 
to receive services.
  Mr. President, we passed the unfunded mandate bill as our first 
priority. The National Conference of State Legislatures, the National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the United 
States Conference of Mayors have said, ``This is a critical test of our 
commitment to the unfunded mandate law we passed.''
  To be against this amendment would be to argue that we should impose 
costs that exceed the benefit, to impose unfunded mandates on State and 
local governments and to deny or delay services even if they threaten 
life, safety, and public health. I cannot believe that anyone in this 
Chamber believes that those would be wise or prudent courses of public 
policy.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is like a symphony. We are returning 
once again to the central theme: This is about deeming, and it is about 
the sponsor paying what the sponsor promised to pay.
  I hear every one of those remarkable and compassionate examples that 
the Senator from Florida portrays. I know him well. He believes deeply 
in this. He is a caring person, and he obviously is receiving a great 
deal of information from his State and from those who administer health 
care in his State. I understand that. I understand it all.
  However, I understand something even more clearly, and that is this. 
We are talking about legal immigrants, and a legal immigrant cannot 
come to this country, cannot get in until the sponsor has promised and 
given an affidavit of support that the person coming in will not become 
a public charge and that whatever assets the sponsor has or income that 
the sponsor has are deemed to be the assets of the legal immigrant.
  Too bad we have come to the word ``deem.'' The word ``deem'' seems to 
confuse people, but I think with the votes we have had the last few 
days, or 2 or 3 days on this same issue, they are not confused.
  Deeming means that if your sponsor has money, his money is considered 
your money when you go down to get relief from the taxpayers. I do not 
know how that seems to escape the debate. When you walk up to get money 
from the Federal Treasury, from the rest of us, why should the rest of 
us cough up the money when the sponsor has not done it yet, or has not 
run out of money himself or herself?
  That is the issue. There is no other issue.
  Now, what if the sponsor is in trouble? What if the sponsor cannot 
cut the mustard? What if the sponsor says: I did agree to bring this 
person to the United States and I did agree that they would not become 
a public charge, and I did agree to sign an affidavit of sponsorship, 
and I promised to do that, but I cannot do it. I have had a bankruptcy. 
I have lost my job. I cannot do it.
  And what happens then? That is it. The sponsor is off the hook, and 
the taxpayers pick up the load. Nobody is saying that these people 
wander around in the streets; that they do not make it; that they are 
not going to make it. All we are saying is whatever the program, if the 
sponsor has the assets and the income stream and can afford to pay, 
that sponsor will pay before the taxpayers of the United States pay 
anything, regardless of what it may be, with the exception of what was 
in the managers' amendment, which was in the committee amendment, which 
was about soup kitchens--that is in there. We do provide that--and 
there were several other items, and Senator Kennedy will recall what 
those are.
  If this is one that I guess our colleagues do not understand, then I 
think we have failed in the debate, and people may vote it certainly 
either way. But I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It is 
one more amendment on deeming. The amendment would allow State welfare 
agencies to avoid the requirement to deem if the State agency itself--
now listen to that--it is the State agency itself determining that, 
one, the administrative costs would exceed the net savings or, two, 
that Federal funds are insufficient to fund the administrative costs, 
or, three, that deeming would ``significantly delay or deny services in 
a manner that would hinder the protection of life, safety, or public 
health.''
  The enactment of the bill itself would create a congressional 
requirement for deeming, for Federal and all federally funded programs, 
and that requirement is based on the basic belief that after immigrants 
are admitted to the United States they should be self-sufficient. It is 
based on the belief that when immigrants need assistance, such 
assistance should be provided, first, by the immigrant's sponsor who 
made the initial promise, and if they have not made the initial 
promise, these people would not have been admitted to the United 
States. That was the sponsor's promise. That was a condition of the 
immigrant's admission to our country, a very generous country. And I do 
not feel it should be up to a State welfare agency or even a Federal 
welfare agency to decide that such deeming should not be required.

  Let us face the real basic fact. You have some agencies in some 
States and,

[[Page S4584]]

boy, they have a tremendous drain--I am sure Florida is one--created by 
a legal and illegal immigrant population, created by parolees, created 
by Cubans and Haitians. I understand that. I do understand that. And 
that is why we provide and always have provided in this work for extra 
money, extra money always for Florida, California--I remember that in 
the original bills. I remember that. But let us face the facts. Those 
agencies, for the best of motives, are far more interested in spending 
money than in saving it.
  Mr. President, if the Congress decides that deeming is not 
appropriate for particular programs or particular classes of 
immigrants, I think then and only then the deeming should not be 
required, but it should not be done by State fiat.
  Let me just say a few words about the issue of administrative costs. 
The Senator from Florida mentions the administrative costs to the 
States of the deeming requirements. I remind my colleagues the deeming 
requirements only apply to programs that under current law are means 
tested.
  The effect of deeming is that when an immigrant applies, as I say, 
for assistance, he or she must report to the provider not only his or 
her income and assets but also that of the sponsor. That just adds 
another line or two to the application form. So to be told that this is 
a terrible administrative burden, here is how I foresee it. You fill 
out the form, and it says on there your assets and your income. You 
fill it out, and you add two new lines: Do you have a sponsor in the 
United States of America? If the answer is yes, you say, what are the 
assets of your sponsor in dollars? And you enter it. And the second 
line: What is the income of the sponsor? And you enter that.
  That does not seem to me to be a great administrative burden. But, 
how deeming is enforced, and I hear that argument, how agencies 
determine whether applicants are telling the truth, of course is 
another matter, as we all know.
  I assume various agencies will have different enforcement policies, 
as they do today. Some may require verification of income levels from 
every applicant. Some may adopt an audit-type approach similar to that 
of the IRS. I do not understand why the bill would lead to any change 
in that situation. Enforcement policy would be determined by the agency 
involved. It appears likely to be similar to current practices. If an 
applicant's own income must be verified, and I assure my colleague that 
is always the case, then the income of the applicant's sponsor also is 
likely to be verified also. That is the extra administrative burden, 
and the purpose of it is to find out what they have, and if they have 
it you make them pay it before the rest of us pick up the tab for 
people who promised to pay for them when they came here or they could 
not have come here unless they made the promise.
  I do not know--and I respect greatly my friend from Florida, and 
certainly consistency and persistency are his forte--but I just think 
the American public has a lot of difficulty wondering why the general 
taxpayers have to pick up the tab for anything on someone who came here 
on the sole promise that their sponsor would take care of everything 
and that they would not become a ``public charge.'' Now, under the 
present bill, if they become a public charge for 12 months out of the 
5-year period they can be subject to deportation, with certain clearly 
expressed exclusions.
  I regret being in a position where one would have to be portrayed as, 
``Why are you doing this?'' We are doing it only because I think 
Americans understand something about taking care of others. Our budget 
this year is $1,506,000,000,000 so we must be taking care of someone in 
the United States of America; $1,506,000,000,000. Food stamps, cash, 
noncash, I vote for those things and will continue to do so. But I do 
not know why I should do it if someone agreed to pay it before I had to 
pay it. I guess I have enough regard for my own promises, that if I 
promise to bring people to the United States and pay for them and they 
went down to get some kind of means-tested assistance or welfare, I 
would be embarrassed that I could not cough up the money to do it 
because they are probably relatives of mine and I promised they would 
not become a burden on the taxpayers. I would keep that promise. I have 
done that with relatives of mine. I do not know why that should be the 
responsibility of others. And that is where we are and that is what 
deeming is and there is a reason for it.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Florida is 
really putting his finger on a different issue, and it is a very real 
issue for anyone who considers, in this instance, large public 
hospitals. I think all of us understand the real crisis public 
hospitals have in serving the needy in all of our great communities and 
cities.
  As I understand the point of the Senator from Florida, if someone is 
a legal immigrant and has a sponsor and arrives at the Boston City 
Hospital, that person is going to be treated right away. As the Senator 
pointed out, we are required to treat him, but it is the hospital 
policy, in any event, to treat that individual. So they get treated 
right away. Their emergency is attended to. Now the hospital goes about 
saying, ``How are we going to recover the payments for it?'' It goes to 
the individual. That person happens to be needy, happens to be poor, 
and happens to be a legal immigrant.
  The point, No. 1, Mr. President, is that the foreign-born immigrants 
in the United States represent 6 percent of the population and only 8 
percent of the utilization in the Medicaid Program. We do not find the 
abuses in the Medicaid Program. We do in the SSI, which has been 
addressed in this with effective measures over the period of the next 
10 years. But this program we are talking about is not more heavily 
used by legal immigrants than it is by American citizens. We have to 
understand that.

  We are not going to take the time of the Senate to demonstrate how 
legal immigrants pay in billions of dollars more than they ever benefit 
from in terms of taxes, which they are glad and willing to do.
  We are talking about that individual who has fallen on hard times and 
has some kind of unforeseen accident. All right, that person goes in 
and they are attended to. Then the hospital has to set up some process 
and procedure--which is going to cost them something, which is not 
going to be reimbursed by this bill--to go on out and find out who that 
sponsor is. That sponsor may be in a different part of the country. He 
or she may be glad to participate and pay for those medical bills.
  But, on the other hand, that sponsor may have died, may be bankrupt, 
may be in another part of the country and refuses to respond. Our 
concerns are what is going to happen to that city hospital? What is 
going to happen to that city hospital when that city hospital does not 
get paid by the individual, does not get paid by the sponsor, and has 
to go to court? Who is paying the court fees to try to get the money?
  I am sure the Senator from Wyoming would assume the responsibility 
that they have assigned. But suppose that individual is in some 
financial difficulty. That would have been very easy, in my part of the 
country, during the 1980's, when we were having a serious, serious 
recession. That person comes in and the hospital cannot recover. So, 
what do they do? They serve primarily the poorest of the poor, the 
uninsured. Even though there is not overutilization of the Medicaid 
Program, there are many hospitals like the public hospitals, like a 
good hospital that serves--particularly city hospital, in Cambridge, 
that serves about half our foreign born--that would have very 
substantial additional costs.
  Over the 6-year period, the Boston City Hospital estimates that the 
additional costs will be $26 to $28 million. We cannot say that to an 
absolute certainty. But looking over their lists, and at a quick 
review, they estimate that is the additional cost to the Boston City 
Hospital. And there is not going to be any additional help and 
assistance for Boston City Hospital.
  Senators can say we do not want the taxpayers to pay. They are going 
to end up paying in that local community, the taxpayers are going to 
end up paying. All we are saying is, unless we are going to provide at 
least some recognition of this problem, if that is going to be the 
case, then do not jam it

[[Page S4585]]

to the health institutions that are providing for the neediest people 
in our society. That is, effectively, an unfunded mandate, as far as I 
can see. It might not fall within the particular scope of the 
legislation that was passed. I understand that. And perhaps technically 
it does not. But the idea that we around here some months ago were 
saying that at least the Federal Government is not going to do 
something to States and local communities, or in this instance the city 
of Boston and the Boston City Hospital--``We are not going to give you 
something that you cannot afford to pay for''--is not so, with regard 
to this particular provision.
  You can ask any administrator at any public hospital in this country. 
They have an interest in trying to, No. 1, provide health services. 
But, also, to be able to provide them, they are going to have at least 
some kind of financial assurance they are going to be able to do it.
  They are going to end up either trying to pass the costs on to others 
who have insurance, and most of them in the inner cities--many of the 
clinics in rural areas just are not going to do it. We are going to see 
a deterioration in the quality of health care. People ought to 
understand it. That is what is going to happen. We can say it is not 
going to happen, that that hospital in Boston is just going to pick up 
that piece of paper and say, ``Oh, it is John Doe, he has $25,000 in a 
safety deposit box and he just cannot wait to pay that hospital.'' That 
is unreal.
  We are talking about the real world in many of these urban areas, 
whether it is in Florida or the hospitals in Los Angeles or Boston City 
Hospital, Chicago, San Francisco--any of them. They are in crisis, in 
any event. Given the additional kinds of responsibilities that they 
have had to treat people who have preexisting conditions, or who are 
the subject of violence and battering, which has grown and exploded, or 
substance abuse in those communities, or HIV infections--all of these 
problems fall on the inner-city hospitals. That is the reality of it.
  To think these overtaxed medical professionals are going to be able 
to run through this gamut to find that person who is deeming and bring 
court cases and recover those funds, good for them when they can do it. 
But the purpose of this is to recognize you are still going to insist 
these hospitals are going to end up holding the bag, and that is 
unfair.
  As I understand the amendment, it says if that is the case, after 
they made every effort to try and recover and that is the case, that 
this is going to be at least suspended until we address that particular 
issue. It seems to me that happens to be fair.
  Finally, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, if this looks like a 
duck and this quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This is a requirement 
on State and local communities and local institutions to take actions 
for which we are not providing the resources. There is not a nickel in 
here to either try to help the State of Massachusetts or Suffolk County 
or the public hospitals in Boston to help relieve them when we are 
tightening the belt.
  I think the point is well taken on this issue. I think we should 
recognize that and support the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, just a query. What is the plan here? Is it 
to stack votes? What is the arrangement going to be?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have not visited with our majority 
leader, but the plan is to conclude the debate on the pending 
amendments. So I am ready to set aside the pending amendment and go 
immediately to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island, if that 
is appropriate.
  I believe there is one other amendment to be offered by Senator 
DeWine. There is a Senator Chafee amendment. There is the Graham 
amendment. The Simpson-Kennedy amendment is pending. We would like to 
complete the debate.
  So, if the Senator from Rhode Island would like to offer his 
amendment at this time--we can set aside and continue debate later on 
the Graham amendment with no time agreement. We will try to get a time 
agreement on these various measures. If the Senator wishes to enter 
into a time agreement, I would enjoy that opportunity.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am willing to enter a time agreement of 
20 minutes equally divided, with the understanding that if I do need a 
couple more minutes, the Senator will be good enough to let me have 
that. I will sure appreciate it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Rhode Island offer an amendment with a time agreement of 20 
minutes equally divided, and if the Senator should require more time, I 
will yield sufficient time from what little time I have left. What is 
the status with regard to my time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will answer the question of the 
Senator from Wyoming. He has 34 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Under the system of the stacking, will there be the usual 
system of when we do vote, we will have a minute to each side to 
explain?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, when we eventually enter that unanimous-
consent request, indeed there will be the usual provision and assurance 
that there will be 2 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has already been ordered. The Senator has 
asked unanimous consent for 20 minutes equally divided. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Graham's amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 3840

 (Purpose: To provide that the emergency benefits available to illegal 
immigrants also are made available to legal immigrants as exceptions to 
                       the deeming requirements)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment. Some will 
say we have been over this ground before. I do not think that is quite 
accurate in that this is far narrower--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Rhode Island calling up 
his amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Amendment No. 3840, and I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Mack be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself and 
     Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 3840.
       On page 201, line 4, strike ``(vii)''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as I say, this is an amendment that is far 
narrower than any other amendment that has been brought up in 
connection with this matter that we have been discussing.
  I hope that the floor managers of this legislation will accept this 
amendment. What it does is it says in those areas where illegal 
aliens--illegal--who have come in unauthorized into the country are 
entitled to certain benefits in four categories--emergency Medicaid, 
prenatal and postpartum Medicaid services, short-term emergency 
disaster relief, and public health assistance for immunizations, all of 
these are emergency health matters--all of these are granted to illegal 
aliens, and I am saying they ought to be granted to legal aliens.
  If we let those who have come into the country illegally have these 
services, then certainly they ought to be available for legal aliens 
who properly came in under all the right procedures.
  There will be considerable discussion, I suspect, about deeming, 
about saying, ``Well, their sponsors ought to pay for these things.''
  First of all, in a straight matter of equity, if you are illegal, you 
get them for free or you are able to qualify under whatever the 
qualifications are under these programs, and it seems to me if you are 
legal, you should be entitled to the same thing.
  You do have situations where a legal immigrant is reluctant to go to 
his or her sponsor for support in certain matters. We have determined 
by the fact we are granting these privileges to illegal aliens, we are 
doing it not because we have great big good hearts, but because we 
think it is good for the country. We think it is good that illegal

[[Page S4586]]

aliens get immunization shots, and certainly if that is true, for the 
benefit of the Nation, for the benefit of the public health, then the 
same ought to apply to legal aliens.
  So there it is, Mr. President. It is strictly an equity matter, if 
you will. It is strictly a public health matter, likewise. We think it 
is worthwhile for illegal aliens to get proper prenatal care, and if we 
think that is true for illegal aliens, certainly it ought to be true 
for legal aliens.
  This is not a budget buster. This is not going to drive the national 
debt through the sky. These are very narrow, very limited matters, far 
more limited than any of those that have been brought up in past 
amendments.
  This is not replaying an old record. This is a very, very defined 
group of benefits, and I hope that the floor managers will accept it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Chair recognizes 
the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no one more sincere in his 
beliefs than my friend from Rhode Island. He is a man of great 
integrity and courage, and I admire his strength as he does his work. 
He is good at it.
  This is another one of those amendments--this is my view of it, which 
I get to express--this is exactly what this is, another form of this 
amendment, of what we have done before in six previous votes and will 
do again.
  We are considering an amendment which would have the effect of 
shifting cost from the persons who sponsor immigrants, usually their 
relatives. We are shifting that to the American taxpayers.
  This argument of how could we possibly do this for illegal aliens and 
not do it for legal aliens who are paying and doing their share is a 
great argument. The reason we allow illegal aliens to receive certain 
benefits, if the alien is needy, is because most Americans are like 
Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island or Senator Al Simpson of 
Wyoming. The issue is, they should have that basic support system if 
they are needy.

  I have voted for that consistently. There were some in the House of 
Representatives who did not want to consistently stay with that support 
level. I have never been of that category. Most Americans, almost all 
Americans, would agree that that is a wonderful thing to do for illegal 
aliens who are here and who are needy.
  The immigrants, the legal immigrants, can also receive all of those 
benefits, too, if they are needy. I hope you hear this. I think I will 
never make it through any more of it. If a legal immigrant is needy, 
they will get everything in the left-hand column. I hope you hear that.
  But if they have a legal sponsor who said that he or she was bringing 
these people here only on the condition that they would not become a 
public charge, then when that legal immigrant goes in to get a means-
tested program, cash or noncash, they say, ``Are you needy?'' and he 
says, ``I am.'' They say, ``Do you have a sponsor?'' ``I do.'' ``Does 
your sponsor have any money?'' ``Yes.'' ``How much? List it.'' If that 
sponsor has funds, that sponsor will pay the bill and not the rest of 
us.
  It is then a confusion, I guess, for people. It is deemed that the 
sponsor's income and assets are the assets and income of the legal 
immigrant. So when they go to get those benefits, they are not going to 
get them if the sponsor has money. If the sponsor does not have money--
and I want this very clearly heard, because the Senator from 
Massachusetts is saying, what will happen, what will happen if the 
sponsor does not have the money, cannot meet the obligation?
  Ladies and gentlemen, it is very clear what will happen if the 
sponsor cannot cut the mustard and something has happened to the 
sponsor, the sponsor is sick or ill or bankrupt or whatever, then the 
sponsor is off the hook. That is listed in this bill; a determination 
that, if the sponsor cannot meet the obligation that they assumed in 
the promise, once that determination is made, then the U.S. taxpayers 
will pick that up.
  That is the purpose of our effort. The issue is just as simple as it 
always was: Sponsor or taxpayer; take your choice.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. There are two points I would like to make.
  First, Mr. President, why in the world do we provide these benefits 
for illegal aliens if we do not think they are important for the 
national health and benefit of the Nation? I mean, we have decided as a 
nation that it is important that any woman have proper prenatal care 
because we want that baby that is born to be healthy, healthy when 
born, healthy throughout its life.
  So we do not argue, we do not say, ``You're here illegally. Go back 
to where you came from.'' We say, ``You're here illegally, and we're 
going to see that you get proper prenatal care. We're going to see you 
are immunized.'' That is one of the provisions we have made here.
  So, if it is that important that we are going to pay for that person, 
then it seems to me likewise for the person who is here legally--
without going through a lot of song and dance about the sponsorship or 
deeming or tracing that person down, making sure that sponsor pays for 
it--get it over with, give them the immunization.
  I say, Mr. President, that this is not something new I am bringing up 
here. In two of these categories, as you note on this sheet here, that 
the managers of the legislation in committee or on the floor, or 
someplace, have agreed to, is the fact that the legal alien should 
indeed get two of these benefits.
  What are they? Nutrition programs. We say the illegal alien is 
entitled to the nutrition programs. And we say the legal alien is 
likewise entitled. You do not have to go to your sponsor or get 
involved with this deeming business. You just get it. 
Nutrition programs. If a nutrition program is important, it seems to me 
an immunization program is just as important.

  So, Mr. President, to me this is not any budget buster. This is very 
narrow. This is not your entitlement for all of Medicaid. It is very, 
very limited. I hope, Mr. President, that the managers of the bill will 
accept the amendment. I want to thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will make a statement. But first, I 
inquire from the managers if we are making any progress on this 
legislation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, after serving as this leader's assistant 
for some 10 years, I do know that he does desire to move things along 
rather adroitly. We are ready to do that.
  Let me share with my respected leader where we are. No one has come 
over to debate on the Simpson-Kennedy amendment, so I think we are 
ready to proceed with that. I think we are nearly concluded with regard 
to the Graham amendment--I think maybe another 5 minutes or so. The 
DeWine amendment is an amendment about coerced abortion in China. I 
think it is out of order. Respectfully I say that. A point will lie 
toward that. I do not know if the Senator will be coming to address 
that. I think he will.
  Then we have the Chafee amendment under a time agreement which is 
nearly expired. That is it. So I am sure that that is cheerful news for 
the leader. There is a point of order, too, I share with Senator Dole.
  Mr. DOLE. I think a point of order by Senator Graham. So do the 
managers anticipate when we might be voting on some of these 
amendments? I know we have a conflict this afternoon. I know from 2 to 
3 there is a ceremony honoring the Reverend Billy Graham. Then I think 
at 4:30--unless that is going to change.
  Mr. CHAFEE. At 3:45 we go down.
  Mr. DOLE. At 3:45, a number of our Members need to go to the White 
House. I guess my point is whether we can have all those votes between 
3 and 3:45. There will be an effort to move that White House meeting to 
a later time, because I assume the managers would like to finish this 
bill, too, so we would not have to come back at 6 o'clock after the 
White House meeting and have votes to 7, 8, 9 o'clock. We are just 
trying to be helpful to the managers. I know you have done an 
outstanding job, and it has taken a great deal of time to move action 
on the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the leader.
  I think that would be an appropriate scenario. I hope that might be 
part of

[[Page S4587]]

a unanimous-consent request, with that time set, with a 15-minute first 
rollcall vote, and 10-minute votes thereafter. There will be four votes 
and a point of order, with a 1-minute explanation on each side of the 
three following votes, not the first one. We would be ready, I think, 
to propose that.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me have drafted a consent agreement. I will show it to 
both Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson. Perhaps if we could somehow 
arrange to move the White House meeting 45 minutes, we could do all the 
votes between 3 and 4:30 and then move on to the next item of business.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. DOLE. We are prepared to accept that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time on 
this.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I will just take another 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
to the Chafee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The pending business is the Chafee amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in this rather unique 2 minutes, I want 
to go back to the chart of Senator Chafee, if I may. I have been given 
this stick. I want to tell you in 2 minutes that these people here, 
under the category ``legal immigrant,'' ``no, no, no,'' that these 
people are taken care of. They receive emergency Medicaid, they receive 
prenatal postpartum Medicaid services, they receive short-term 
emergency disaster relief, public health assistance, and the sponsor is 
paying for them--not the taxpayer. These people are not deprived.
  When we say how can they be receiving something that the illegal is 
receiving, they are receiving it, but we are not paying for it because 
the sponsor that agreed to bring them here and pay for them to not 
become a public charge is paying for them. The reason we do this for 
illegal immigrants is because we are a very generous nation. I have 
voted for all of that. I am not generous to somebody who brings someone 
here and says they will pay the whole tab and they do not.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to stress once again that these are 
all emergency or health-oriented measures. Emergency Medicaid, prenatal 
Medicaid services, short-term disaster relief, nutrition programs, 
immunization. We do not want these legal aliens hesitating to apply for 
those because they are reluctant to go to their sponsor, because they 
are a long distance from their sponsor, because their problems might 
involve with just going to their sponsor to start with. We want them 
immunized. We want them to have prenatal care.
  We will not spend a lot of time asking a lot of questions. We have 
decided as a nation, not just out of generosity, but for the rest of us 
who are here, that we want illegal aliens, immigrants, immunized so 
that we will not have a whole series of infectious diseases passed 
around. Certainly we ought to have the same requirement or hope that 
the same thing will apply to the legal aliens.
  Mr. President, that is the argument. On the basis of fairness and the 
basis of public health protection, I hope we support the amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think at this point we will say debate 
on this amendment is concluded and it will be voted on in accordance 
with the unanimous-consent request which will be propounded shortly. I 
thank the Senator from Rhode Island very much.
  Mr. CHAFEE. May I ask the Chair, is now the time to ask for the yeas 
and nays?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Perfectly appropriate. You require one person from the 
other party, if I am not mistaken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is correct.
  Mr. SIMPSON. We do now have a Senator from the other side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3759

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I direct my comments now to the amendment 
of Senator Graham. I conclude in my remarks, I do not believe that the 
Federal Government is going to be a deadbeat dad in this situation. In 
fact, I am reminded of the old road sign, the picture of the very 
dapper-looking Uncle Sam that says, ``He's your uncle, not your dad.''
  We are a very generous nation. Medicaid has been picked to bits by 
the States. Medicare has been picked to bits and will go bankrupt in 
the year--originally we were told 2002; now we are told it will be 
2001; now the other day it will be 2000. We can talk about this all day 
and there will not be enough to do anything unless we deal with the 
entitlements programs. You will not want me to give that pitch again--
deal with Social Security, deal with Medicare, Medicaid, Federal 
retirement. Nothing will get done. We can pick through these piles 
forever.
  Then, of course, remember how this is happening. You are talking 
about legal immigrants. I did not see much activity on this floor to do 
much about legal immigrants. There will be a million of them next year 
and they will all be fitting right here, and nobody, at least the vast 
majority, decided to do nothing with the flow of legal immigrants.
  I hope that those colleagues who have already voted to keep legal 
immigration at its historically highest levels in the history of our 
country at least will know what is happening when we find the resources 
of this country, where they are and where they go, for legal 
immigration. But remember this: If the sponsor is unable to provide the 
support, loses his job, dies, whatever, the Federal Government will 
pay. The Federal Government is here to support those people --and it 
should.

  I encourage my colleagues to read the bill. We provide an exception 
for indigent immigrants whose sponsors cannot be located. We have it in 
there. If you cannot find their address, cannot hunt them down, or if 
they refuse to pay, the Graham amendment--let us be clear what the 
amendment does--allows the States to exempt themselves from the new 
welfare restrictions and forces the U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab.
  I want to be perfectly clear here. CBO says that this bill, as 
modified by the Simpson-Dole amendment, does not have any unfunded 
mandates. There are no unfunded mandates in the Simpson amendment, 
which is the bill. There were unfunded mandates in the original 
legislation which underlies. So when the point of order comes, it will 
look strange to you because it will say that there was an unfunded 
mandate--and there was--but it is corrected when we get to the final 
product. We have already removed the unfunded mandate portion of those 
provisions. I think that should be made quite clear.
  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.

                          ____________________