Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4592-S4610]
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.

Amendment No. 3759

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague, the
Senator from Ohio, is on the floor, I assume, for purposes of offering
his amendment. Before he commences I would like to take a few moments
to comment on some statements that have been made about the amendment
which I offered earlier and which will be the first amendment that will
be voted on at 2:40 this afternoon. This amendment is about unfunded
mandates.
It is about the reality that the legislation before us represents a
staggering transfer of administrative costs and cost shift of programs
from the Federal Government to the States and local communities in
which legal aliens are resident.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, in examining just 10
of the literally scores of programs that will be covered by this act,
has found that the cost to the States in those 10 programs is $744
million per year. The total cost could be into the billions.
The amendment that I have offered is a modest attempt to deal with
that. It basically says, first, that if a Federal agency, State, or
local government can make a determination that the cost savings of
following the procedures of S. 1664 are less than the costs to
administer the program, it would not be necessary to implement the
program. We have done exactly this in a very analogous program called
the SAVE Program, which is an employer verification program in which
there is the capacity to waive out of the SAVE Program if it can be
demonstrated that the benefits do not equal the costs of the program.
Assume, Madam President, that the issue were reversed. Would we
affirmatively vote to say to a State, to a local community, that you
must administer this federally mandated program even if the cost of
administration can be shown to exceed the savings or the benefits of
the program itself? I think not. And so our amendment would create such
an opportunity.
I might just add one final point. We are requiring exactly the same
administrative structure in a community such as Topeka, KS, as we are
in Tampa, FL, although the number of legal aliens in Tampa, FL,
probably substantially exceeds those in Topeka, KS. There should be
some capability to adjust the level of burden to the reality of the
circumstance in that particular community.

Second is the provision that if the Federal Government thinks this is
such a good idea, then the Federal Government ought to pay for it. I
thought that was the fundamental premise behind the unfunded mandate
program that we passed as S. 1, as one of the first acts of the 104th
Congress. I used the phrase ``deadbeat dad'' to describe what the
Federal Government is about to do here. The Federal Government is about
to say: ``We are going to put all of our reliance on the sponsor, but
incidentally, if, in fact, the sponsor does not come through with the
health care financing or the other sources of financing that will be
necessary to maintain this legal alien, we, the Federal Government, are
off the hook. It is now going to be up to the local community to pay
those hospital costs for that legal alien or to pay the cost of
prenatal care for the pregnant legal alien, poor woman.''
I think the phrase ``deadbeat dad'' properly describes what the
Federal Government is trying to do: to shift an obligation to States
and communities. If we think this is such a good idea and if we are
faithful to our constitutional responsibility as the only level of
Government that has jurisdiction over immigration, we ought to pay
those costs, not ask the local government to do so.
Finally, in this amendment we recognize the fact that there are
unusual emergency circumstances. We had one of those in my State in
late August 1992 with Hurricane Andrew. I was there. I saw what
happened as the emergency and disaster preparedness and response teams
attempted to deal with an enormous natural disaster. The very idea of
having to subject people who had seen their homes, their documents,
their jobs, their lives wrecked by this hurricane, to then have to go
through a tedious verification process to determine what their status
was and what the income of a sponsor who may well have just been
subjected to the same thing that they were, puts the public health at
risk. If you cannot vaccinate people against a potential outbreak of
typhoid after a natural disaster until you have gone through the
bureaucratic steps of verification, just pure common sense tells you
there has to be some capability to waive these in an emergency
situation. This amendment provides that opportunity.
I believe this is a prudent amendment. Members of this Congress,
Members of this Senate, who wish to deal effectively with the issue of
illegal immigration should not have that tide of passion and emotion
erase our basic sense of common sense and fairness and rational justice
to preclude a community from making a judgment as to the cost-benefit
analysis of implementing these programs to avoid the Federal Government
assuming its responsibility to pay as well as it imposes new
responsibilities and to be able to respond to unexpected emergency
situations. That is the essence of the amendment which is before us,
Madam President. I urge my colleagues at 2:40 to support it.

Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. May I inquire as to the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 3759 offered
by the Senator from Florida.
Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside for a moment the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3835 to amendment No. 3745

(Purpose: To make persecution for resistance to coercive population
control policies a basis for the granting of asylum)

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I call up my amendment numbered 3835.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself and Mr.
Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 3835 to amendment No.
3745.

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

At the end of the amendment to the instructions to the
motion to recommit, insert the following new section:
The language on page 177, between lines 8 and 9, is deemed
to have the following insertion:

``SEC. 197. PERSECUTION FOR RESISTANCE TO COERCIVE POPULATION
CONTROL METHODS.

``Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: `For purposes of determinations under this Act, a
person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy, or to
undergo such a procedure, or for other resistance to a
coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have
been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person
who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to
undergo such a procedure or subjected to persecution for such
failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a
well founded fear of persecution on account of political
opinion.' ''

[[Page S4593]]

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, as we discuss far-reaching immigration
reform, I think it behooves us to try to make our immigration laws as
just and as fair as absolutely possible. If there are terrible
injustices going on, we should definitely make use of this rare
opportunity--a fundamental reform effort on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, going on now--make use of this opportunity to correct those
injustices.
Madam President, there is a provision in current immigration
practice--not in law but in practice--that must, in my opinion, in the
interests of justice, be changed. There are women in repressive
countries who are forced to undergo coerced abortions and
sterilizations. Until 1994, these women were offered asylum under the
same standard as others fleeing persecutions. However, starting in 1994
and since that date, they have been forced to meet a tougher standard,
as if the procedures they face somehow did not qualify as prima facie
evidence of persecution. That is just wrong. My amendment is very
simple. It would change the policy back to what it was before 1994.
My amendment is not controversial. It is supported by groups on the
right and groups on the left, by pro-choice groups and pro-life groups.
It is supported by the Clinton administration, and it was passed by the
U.S. House of Representatives. However, because the specific issue I am
discussing is not mentioned in the bill we are considering, my
amendment would, of course, be ruled nongermane under standard
postcloture procedures. If no Senator objected to proceeding with this
amendment, a unanimous consent would override the germaneness issue and
allow us to move on the amendment. This amendment, I might add, is
supported by Amnesty International, it is supported by the Center for
Reproductive Law and Policy, it is supported by the U.S. Catholic
Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, by the National Right to
Life Committee--the list goes on and on and on.
But the Senator from Wyoming said on the floor earlier today that he
would object to consideration of this amendment. Certainly this is his
right to do this, and I fully understand that under the rules of the
Senate the point of order of the Senator from Wyoming would be
sustained because the amendment is, in fact, not germane. I will,
therefore, in a moment, withdraw my amendment. But before I do, I would
like to spend just a few minutes discussing a problem that I believe it
would solve if we were allowed to go forward.
Think of a college teacher in China who is forced to have not one,
two, three, but four abortions by her government. Many of her coworkers
were forced to have six or seven abortions. That is a true story. It
was told in compelling testimony at a hearing last year in the House
Committee on International Relations, a hearing on the subject of
``Coercive Population Control in China.'' I have the transcript of that
right here. That is the story, a true story.

That woman, under current procedure, would not be considered as
having a per se reason to fear persecution. Madam President, I am not
alone in believing that this is unjust. All the groups I have
mentioned, from the Catholic Conference to abortion rights advocates,
all of them agree that when a woman is forced by her government to
undergo these procedures, her human rights are being violated. That is
not a tough call. That is a fact.
How hard would it be, in practical terms, for us to recognize this
fact in our national policy? Would it mean, as some have suggested,
that we would face a deluge of millions of people flooding our shores?
No, Madam President, it would not. The number of people granted asylum
under the old policy, which we are asking to go back to, the policy my
amendment would simply restore, that number of people who were granted
asylum was actually very small every year. The number of people we let
in because they were protesting China's coerced population control
policy was averaging between 100 and 150 people every year. Each
applicant of the kind we are discussing would not suddenly move to the
front of the line. She would not get automatic asylum. She would not
ever get special treatment. All she would get is the same chance as all
other asylum seekers, the same judicial process and the same set of
rules--what I would call simple, basic human justice.
Think of a woman who has just had her second child; another example.
She gets a notice from her local commune sterilization committee,
saying she has to report in and get sterilized.
Think of a woman who sees a baby girl, 7 days old, lying abandoned on
the road. None of the bystanders want to rescue the baby. They are
afraid of the government. The woman takes the baby home herself, and
sure enough, then the sterilization police show up and see the new baby
girl. They say this woman has too many children and she has to be
sterilized, even though the new baby girl is not her own child. She has
to escape to a distant and barren place to get away from the
sterilizers.
Even years later--this is a true story--she was brave enough to go
home, and she was sterilized. This is a true story, Madam President,
yet another story that emerged in the hearings held by the House
Committee on International Relations. It is a story of barbaric
persecution in our own day and times; a crime against women and a crime
against our common humanity.

I am not seeking, with this amendment, a special break for these
women. All I ask is they receive the same treatment as anyone else who
comes to America to seek asylum. Here is what my amendment, a
noncontroversial amendment based on the people who support it, this is
what it says--and then I will conclude because I know our time for a
vote is shortly at hand. Let me read it.

For purposes of determinations under this Act, a person who
has been forced to abort a pregnancy, or to undergo
[involuntary sterilization or who has been persecuted for
failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure] or for other
resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be
deemed to have been persecuted on account of political
opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or
she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subjected
to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance,
shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on
account of political opinion.

That is the substance of this amendment. It is supported by the
Clinton administration, it was passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, and it will be an issue in the conference.
Madam President, at this time I do withdraw my amendment. I
appreciate the courtesy of my colleague from Wyoming for the time.
The amendment (No. 3835) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I deeply thank the Senator from Ohio.
With the remaining minute, let me just say I am very pleased it was
withdrawn. I, too, have read the language, and the very troubling part
is the part that says ``resistance to a coercive population control
program'' deems that that person then fits the status of refugee.
We are dealing with China, a country with a population of 1.2 billion
people. We are also dealing in this amendment with India, again with
one of the largest populations in the world. We are dealing with an
amendment that would apply, as of course it should, to all the
countries in the world. When we do this, we should bear in mind that
there are already young Chinese single--unmarried--males who are even
now claiming asylum on the basis that one day they will want to have a
family and more than one child and thus come under this coercive birth
policy.
But if you are going to make a blanket application for refugee
status, it reminds me so much of an American Secretary of State who
visited China several years ago. He raised issues about their policies
and slave labor and coercive birth policies and their immigration
policies, which were very strict.
When he finished, the Premier asked the Secretary, ``How many
millions do you want?''
I can tell you, if this amendment, in any form or this form, were to
come to pass--and I deeply appreciate the withdrawal because it was not
in order--I suggest that there will be millions of people who, under
this language, will qualify.
We should remember that this amendment would also apply to tens of
millions of persons--male and female--in India, who have undergone
population control procedures--vasectomies

[[Page S4594]]

and tubal ligations. That program began in the 1950's. Many of those
millions of persons bear the marks and scars of those procedures. I
would expect that it would be very difficult for INS to prove that
those procedures were not coerced. So this amendment would appear to
make eligible for asylum in this country millions of persons--both male
and female--in China, India and many other countries.
I understand the necessity to make foreign policy statements, but I
think that they should not be made on an immigration measure.
Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield for 20 seconds? Let me, if I can,
briefly respond to that. We did not have this flood of the old policy
and the old law, and the fact is, even with this amendment, we will
still have to prove the facts. Then once you have established the
facts, those facts, those compelling facts, we would then deem that
meets the law.
So it is still a factual question that would have to be proved. The
burden would still be there to prove. I am sure we will have another
opportunity to talk about this in the future. I thank my colleague.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I sincerely thank the Senator from
Ohio. It makes our work much less difficult.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for raising this
issue. I think it is important to note that at the present time, a
number of individuals who have applied for asylum on the basis of this
kind of action have already been granted asylum and had deportation
delayed. But I think it is something that we ought to get into in much
greater degree.
I welcome the fact that this issue has been brought up, and we will
work with the Senator from Ohio to try and find out how all of us can
find an adequate solution to what is a barbaric practice.
I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3759

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3759, the amendment offered by Senator Graham
of Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 70, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

YEAS--30

Akaka
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--70

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3759) was rejected.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3840

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 3840 offered by
the Senators from Rhode Island and Florida.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I hope everybody will listen to this
because we think it is important. Illegal immigrants now are entitled
to a series of limited benefits, such as emergency Medicaid, prenatal
Medicaid services, nutrition programs, and public assistance for
immunizations. Illegal aliens are entitled to this. This is not the big
broad scope of things. This is limited. What we are saying is legal
immigrants should be entitled to the same thing. It is a little odd to
say that the illegals can get these. Why do we give them to those
individuals, the illegals? It is for the benefit of public health
overall. It seems to me that the legal immigrants should likewise be
entitled to immunization, prenatal, and postpartum Medicaid services.
That is what it is all about. It is a limited group. It is not going to
break the budget, but certainly the legals under equity should be
entitled to what the illegals are entitled to.
Thank you.
Mr. SIMPSON. Give me your attention just for a moment, please. This
amendment is about welfare reform for legal immigrants--the same issue
you have already voted on seven separate times now. The reason that
legal immigrants are in the situation they are in is because the person
who brought them here promised to pay for their support. All we are
saying is that sponsors should pay for these benefits if they have the
means to do so. That is what deeming is. No legal immigrant will
receive any fewer benefits than an illegal immigrant, but the legal
immigrant's sponsor will have to pay for the benefits before the
American taxpayers do. Should the financial burden be on the
immigrant's sponsor or on the U.S. taxpayers? Take your pick.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the amendment
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island. On this question, the yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 60, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

YEAS--40

Abraham
Akaka
Boxer
Bradley
Bumpers
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Feingold
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--60

Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 3840) was rejected.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. If I could have my colleagues' attention, I would like to
make an announcement that I think is important to everyone.
I ask unanimous consent that the agreement relative to the 3:45 p.m.
suspension of votes be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Let me say for the information of all Senators it is my
understanding that a rollcall will not be necessary on the underlying
Dole-Simpson

[[Page S4595]]

amendment. Therefore, Senators can expect two additional votes that
will start within a minute, and it will be a 10-minute vote, and then
we will start the other vote. The first will be on cloture on the bill.
The second vote, if cloture is invoked, will be on final passage of the
immigration bill.
I also ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on
amendment No. 3743.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on those two votes and that the
votes be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. A number of our colleagues on both sides are headed for the
White House after the second vote. There will be a bus at the bottom of
the stairs to take them down there. I do not know how they will come
back.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Gallery)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sergeant at arms will restore order.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that disturbance is certainly in spirit
with the last 10 days.
I did not realize I had such support up there in that quarter, and I
must say I am very pleased. Somebody once said, ``You're on a roll.'' I
said, ``I have been rolled for 6 months on this issue.''

Amendments Nos. 3873 and 3874, as Modified

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me say this. I have two amendments
filed by Senator Snowe, Nos. 3873 and 3874, as modified.
Mr. President, these two noncontroversial amendments relate to
problems that have developed in recent years with the movement of
persons along Maine's border with the Canadian province of New
Brunswick. The amendments address issues that are critically important
to the economic health and livelihood of many small communities in
northern Maine. These communities have suffered severe economic harm
from the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's provincial sales
tax and other actions taken by Canadian officials to inappropriately
impede crossborder movement.
I am not aware of any objections to the amendments, and I understand
that they have been cleared on the other side.
I ask that the amendments be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3873, and 3874) as modified, were agreed to, as
follows:

amendment no. 3873

(Purpose: To require a study and review of allegations of harassment by
Canadian Customs agents for the purpose of deterring cross-border
commercial activity along the United States-New Brunswick border)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . REPORT ON ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY CANADIAN
CUSTOMS AGENTS.

(a) Study and Review.--
(1) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Commissioner of the United States Customs Service shall
initiate a study of allegations of harassment by Canadian
Customs agents for the purpose of deterring cross-border
commercial activity along the United States-New Brunswick
border. Such study shall include a review of the possible
connection between any incidents of harassment with the
discriminatory imposition of the New Brunswick Provincial
Sales Tax (PST) tax on goods purchased in the United States
by New Brunswick residents, and with any other activities
taken by the Canadian provincial and federal governments to
deter cross-border commercial activities.
(2) In conducting the study in subparagraph (1), the
Commissioner shall consult the representatives of the State
of Maine, local governments, local businesses, and any other
knowledgeable persons that the Commissioner deems important
to the completion of the study.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after enactment of
this Act, the Commissioner of the United States Customs
Service shall submit to Congress a report of the study and
review detailed in subsection (a). The report shall also
include recommendations for steps that the U.S. government
can take to help end harassment by Canadian Customs agents
found to have occurred.
____

amendment no. 3874

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the discriminatory
application of the Provincial Sales Tax levied by the Canadian Province
of New Brunswick on Canadian citizens of that province who purchase
goods in the United States runs counter to the principle of free trade,
raises questions about the possible violation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement, and damages good relations between the United
States and Canada)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. --. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION
OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK PROVINCIAL SALES TAX.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) in July 1993, Canadian Customs officers began
collecting an 11% New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax (PST)
tax on goods purchased in the United States by New Brunswick
residents, an action that has caused severe economic harm to
U.S. businesses located in proximity to the border with New
Brunswick;
(2) this impediment to cross-border trade compounds the
damage already done from the Canadian government's imposition
of a 7% tax on all good bought by Canadians in the United
States;
(3) collection of the New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax on
goods purchased outside of New Brunswick is collected only
along the U.S.-Canadian border--not long New Brunswick's
borders with other Canadian provinces--thus being
administered by Canadian authorities in a manner uniquely
discriminatory to Canadians shopping in the United States;
(4) in February 1994, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
publicly stated an intention to seek redress from the
discriminatory application of the PST under the dispute
resolution process in Chapter 20 of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the United States Government has
still not made such a claim under NAFTA procedures; and
(5) initially, the USTR argued that filing a PST claim was
delayed only because the dispute mechanism under NAFTA had
not yet been finalized, but more than a year after such
mechanism has been put in place, the PST claim has still not
been put forward by the USTR.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Provincial Sales Tax levied by the Canadian
Province of New Brunswick on Canadian citizens of that
province who purchase goods in the United States raises
questions about the possible violation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement in its discriminatory application to
cross-border trade with the United States and damages good
relations between the United States and Canada; and
(2) the United States Trade Representative should move
forward without further delay in seeking redress under the
dispute resolution process in Chapter 20 of the North
American Free Trade Agreement for the discriminatory
application of the New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax on
U.S.-Canada cross-border trade.

Amendment No. 3951 to Amendment No. 3743

Mr. SIMPSON. I have a unanimous consent request that the following
amendments be accepted. There is a package of managers' amendments at
the desk, cleared on both sides, that will be noncontroversial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], proposes an
amendment numbered 3951.

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

SEC. . ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF ORDERS.

Section 274A(e)(7) is amended by striking the phrase ``,
within 30 days,''.
Section 274C(d)(4) is amended by striking the phrase ``,
within 30 days,''.

SEC. . SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

Section 1173(d)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320B-7(d)(4)(B)) is amended by striking subsection (i) and
inserting the following new subsection:
``(i) the State shall transmit to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service either photostatic or other similar
copies of such documents, or information from such documents,
as specified by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
for official verification,''.

SEC. . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1980.

Section 214(d)(4)(B) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 1436a(d)(4)(B)) is amended
by striking subsection (i) and inserting the following new
subsection: ``(i) the Secretary shall transmit to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service either photostatic or
other

[[Page S4596]]

similar copies of such documents, or information from such
documents, as specified by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, for official verification,''.

SEC. . HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

Section 484(g)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1091(g)(4)(B)) is amended by striking subsection (i)
and inserting the following new subsection:
``(i) the institution shall transmit to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service either photostatic or other similar
copies of such documents, or information from such documents,
as specified by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
for official verification,''.

SEC. . JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF EXCLUSION AND
DEPORTATION.

Page 87, at the end of line 9, insert at the end the
following:

``Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including
interpretation and application of constitutional and
statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or
proceeding brought to exclude or deport an alien from the
United States under Title II of this Act shall be available
only in the judicial review of a final order of exclusion or
deportation under this section. If a petition filed under
this section raises a constitutional issue that the court of
appeals finds presents a genuine issue of material fact that
cannot be resolved on the basis of the administrative record,
the court shall transfer the proceeding to the district court
of the United States for the judicial district in which the
petitioner resides or is detained for a new hearing on the
constitutional claim as if the proceedings were originally
initiated in district court. The procedure in these cases in
the district court is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.''

SEC. . LAND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. Sec. 1103) is amended by redesignating subsections
``(b)'', ``(c)'', and ``(d)'' as subsections ``(c)'',
``(d)'', and ``(e)'' accordingly, and inserting the following
new subsection ``(b)'':
``(b)--(1) The Attorney General may contract for or buy any
interest in land, including temporary use rights, adjacent to
or in the vicinity of an international land border when the
Attorney General deems the land essential to control and
guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against
any violation of this Act.
``(2) The Attorney General may contract for or buy any
interest in land identified pursuant to subsection (a) as
soon as the lawful owner of that interest fixes a price for
it and the Attorney General considers that price to be
reasonable.
``(3) When the Attorney General and the lawful owner of an
interest identified pursuant to subsection (a) are unable to
agree upon a reasonable price, the Attorney General may
commence condemnation proceedings pursuant to 40 U.S.C.
section 257.
``(4) The Attorney General may accept for the United States
a gift of any interest in land identified pursuant to
subsection (a).''

SEC. . SERVICES TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF INS OFFICERS KILLED IN
THE LINE OF DUTY.

Sec. 294. [8 U.S.C. 1364]--Transporation of the Remains of
Immigration Officers and Border Patrol Agents Killed in the
Line Duty.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Attorney General may expend appropriated funds to pay for:
(1) the transportation of the remains of any Immigration
Officer or Border Patrol Agent killed in the line of duty to
a place of burial located in the United States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the territories and
possessions of the United States;
(2) the transportation of the decedent's spouse and minor
children to and from the same site at rates no greater than
those established for official government travel; and
(3) any other memorial service sanctioned by the Department
of Justice.
(b) The Department of Justice may prepay the costs of any
transportation authorized by this section.

SEC. . POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
COMMISSIONER.

Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. Sec. 1103) is amended in subsection (a) by adding the
following after the last sentence of that subsection:
``the Attorney General, in support of persons in
administrative detention in non-Federal institutions, is
authorized to make payments from funds appropriated for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
immigration, naturalization, and alien registration for
necessary clothing, medical care, necessary guard hire, and
the housing, care, and security of persons detained by the
Service pursuant to Federal law under intergovernmental
service agreements with State or local units of government.
The Attorney General, in support of persons in administrative
detention in non-Federal institutions, is further authorized
to enter into cooperative agreements with any State,
territory, or political subdivision thereof, for the
necessary construction, physical renovation, acquisition of
equipment, supplies or materials required to establish
acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services
in any State or local jurisdiction which agrees to provide
guaranteed bed space for persons detained by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.''
Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. Sec. 1103) is amended in subsection (b) by adding the
following:
``The Commissioner may enter into cooperative agreements
with State and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose
of assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of
the United States.''

SEC. . PRECLEARANCE AUTHORITY.

Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. Sec. 1103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``After consultation with the Secretary of State, the
Attorney General may authorize officers of a foreign country
to be stationed at preclearance facilities in the United
States for the purpose of ensuring that persons traveling
from or through the United States to that foreign country
comply with that country's immigration and related laws.
Those officers may exercise such authority and perform such
duties as United States immigration officers are authorized
to exercise and perform in that foreign country under
reciprocal agreement, and they shall enjoy such reasonable
privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of
their duties as the government of their country extends to
United States immigration officers.''
On page 173, line 16, insert ``(a)'' before the word
``Section''.
On page 174, at the end of line 4, insert the following:
``(b) As used in this section, ``good cause'' may include,
but is not limited to, circumstances that changed after the
applicant entered the U.S. and that are relevant to the
applicant's eligibility for asylum; physical or mental
disability; threats of retribution against the applicant's
relatives abroad; attempts to file affirmatively that were
unsuccessful because of technical defects; efforts to seek
asylum that were delayed by the temporary unavailability of
professional assistance; the illness or death of the
applicant's legal representative; or other extenuating
circumstances as determined by the Attorney General.''
Page 106, line 15, strike ``(A), (B), or (D)'' and insert
``(B) or (D)''.
At the appropriate place in the matter proposed to be
inserted by the amendment, insert the following:

SEC. . CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION FOR CERTAIN ALIEN BATTERED
SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--With respect to information provided
pursuant to Section 150(b)(c) of this Act and except as
provided in subsection (b), in no case may the Attorney
General, or any other official or employee of the Department
of Justice (including any bureau or agency of such
department)--
(1) make an adverse determination of admissibility or
deportability of an alien under the Immigration and
Nationality Act using only information furnished solely by--
(A) a spouse or parent who has battered the alien or the
alien's children or subjected the alien or the alien's
children to extreme cruelty, or
(B) a member of the alien's spouse's or parent's family who
has battered the alien or the alien's child or subjected the
alien or alien's child to extreme cruelty,

unless the alien has been convicted of a crime or crimes
listed in section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(2) make any publication whereby information furnished by
any particular individual can be identified;
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and
employees of the Department, bureau or agency, who needs to
examine such information for legitimate Department, bureau,
or agency purposes, to examine any publication of any
individual who files for relief as a person who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.
(b) Exceptions.--(1) The Attorney General may provide for
the furnishing of information furnished under this section in
the same manner and circumstances as census information may
be disclosed by the Secretary of Commerce under section 8 of
title 13, United States Code.
(2) The Attorney General may provide for the furnishing of
information furnished under this section to law enforcement
officials to be used solely for legitimate law enforcement
purposes.

SEC. . DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPE OF COUNTERFEIT-RESISTANT
SOCIAL SECURITY CARD REQUIRED.

(a) Development.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security
(hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Commissioner'') shall in accordance with the provisions of
this section develop a prototype of a counterfeit-resistant
social security card. Such prototype card shall--
(A) be made of a durable, tamper-resistant material such as
plastic or polyester,
(B) employ technologies that provide security features,
such as magnetic stripes, holograms, and integrated circuits,
and
(C) be developed so as to provide individuals with reliable
proof of citizenship or legal resident alien status.
(2) Assistance by attorney general.--The Attorney General
of the United States shall provide such information and
assistance as the Commissioner deems necessary to achieve the
purposes of this section.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner shall conduct a study and
issue a report to Congress which examines different methods
of improving the social security card application process.
(2) Elements of study.--The study shall include an
evaluation of the cost and work load implications of issuing
a counterfeit-resistant social security card for all
individuals over a 3, 5, and 10 year period. The study

[[Page S4597]]

shall also evaluate the feasibility and cost implications of
imposing a user fee for replacement cards and cards issued to
individuals who apply for such a card prior to the scheduled
3, 5, and 10 year phase-in options.
(3) Distribution of report.--Copies of the report described
in this subsection along with a facsimile of the prototype
card as described in subsection (a) shall be submitted to the
Committees on Ways and Means and Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Finance and Judiciary
of the Senate within 1 year of the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated and are appropriated from the Federal Old-
Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
Page 15, lines 12 through 14, strike: ``(other than a
document used under section 274A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act)''.

Development of Counterfeit-Proof Social Security Card

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Simpson and Senator
Kennedy for accepting this amendment providing for a prototype
counterfeit-proof Social Security card.
It was 18 years ago that I first proposed we produce a tamper-
resistant Social Security card to reduce fraud and enhance public
confidence in our Social Security system. The amendment accepted today
is very simple. It would require the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration to develop a prototype of a counterfeit-proof
Social Security card. The prototype card would be designed with the
security features necessary to be used reliably to confirm U.S.
citizenship or legal resident alien status.
The amendment would also require the Commissioner to study and report
to Congress on ways to improve the Social Security card application
process so as to reduce fraud. An evaluation of cost and workload
implications of issuing a counterfeit-resistant Social Security card is
also required.
Let me point out that Congress adopted this provision last year as
part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 4),
the welfare legislation vetoed by the President. Senator Dole
cosponsored the amendment, and it passed the Senate by a voice vote.
The Senate also included it in its version of the budget reconciliation
bill, but the provision was dropped in the conference committee.
When the Social Security amendments were before us in 1983, we
approved a provision to require the production of a new tamper-
resistant Social Security card. The law, section 345 of Public Law 98-
21, stated:

The Social Security card shall be made of banknote paper,
and (to the maximum extent practicable) shall be a card which
cannot be counterfeited.

What a disappointment when late in 1983 the Social Security
Administration began to issue the new card, and it became clear that
the agency simply had not understood what Congress intended. The new
card looks much like the old, much like the first ones produced by
Social Security in 1936. It has the same design framing the name and
nearly the same colors. It feels the same. An expert examining a card
with a magnifying glass can certainly detect whether or not one of the
new ones is genuine, but therein lies the problem. We should have a
new, durable card that can hold vital information and can be
authenticated easily.
A new Social Security card--one very difficult to counterfeit and
easily verified as genuine--could be manufactured at a low cost. The
major expense, if we were to approve new cards, would be the cost of
the interview process, and that is why the amendment requires a study
to include the cost and workload implications of a new card.
A Social Security card could be designed along the lines of today's
high technology credit cards. The card could be highly tamper-
resistant, and its authenticity could be readily discerned by the
untrained eye. The card must be seen as a special document; one which
would be visually and tactilely more difficult to counterfeit than the
current paper card.
The magnetic strip would contain the Social Security number, encoded
with an algorithm known only to the Social Security Administration. A
so-called watermark strip could be placed over it, making it nearly
impossible to counterfeit without technology that currently costs $10
million. The decoding algorithm could be integrated with the Social
Security Administration computers.
The new cards will not eliminate all fraudulent use of Social
Security cards. But it will close down the shopfront operations that
flood America with false Social Security cards.
That is what the Congress intended in the 1983 legislation.
Let us try again. We have seen that it can be done. It is what the
Clinton Administration intended last year when they introduced the
Health Security card. As many of you remember, it had a magnetic strip
to hold whatever information may be necessary.
I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this amendment, and I again
thank the managers of the bill for their support.
Mr. SIMPSON. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is in order.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3951) was agreed to.

Worker Verification/Identification System

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly an amendment I had
offered to S. 1664, the Immigration and Financial Responsibility Act of
1996 but have subsequently withdrawn in the interest of completing
action on the underlying bill without unnecessary delay at this time.
This amendment was designed to ensure the consideration of innovative
authentication technology as we develop a new verification system for
alien employment and public assistance eligibility.
There is a large and important debate before us. Should we implement
a national verification system in the United States? Well, we already
have one, but it's failing America. It allows illegal immigrants to
skirt the system--to take jobs away from Americans and immigrants who
have played by the rules. Moreover, the current system also allows for
abuse of our pubic assistance programs that were established to provide
a safety net for those who have contributed to our society and deserve
help in a time of need. We need to update the current verification
system--and 53 Senate colleagues agree as evidenced by their votes to
reject the Abraham amendment to strike the verification system from the
bill.
The system in place now requires employers to check two forms of
identification from a list of 29 acceptable documents. We know that
these documents are far from being tamper-resistant and we know that
employers are unfairly held accountable for hiring illegal aliens.
The bill before us sets out the goals and objectives for a new
verification system and also provides for pilot projects to determine
the costs, technology, and effectiveness of a new program. Contrary to
what many believe, the bill's provisions address the concerns that have
been expressed regarding privacy, the potential for discrimination, and
cost. All of these provisions supplement the protections of the U.S.
Constitution and anti-discrimination laws. And regarding cost, the
unfunded federal mandates law and the recently-passed improvements to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act will help insulate businesses and State
and local governments against the imposition of exorbitant costs from a
new verification system.
Looking at the inventive programs that businesses, universities,
hospitals and other institutions are using to monitor human resources,
it seems only appropriate that we consider the feasibility of upgrading
our current system.
My amendment is simple. It would allow for the consideration of
innovative authentication technology such as finger print readers or
smart cards to verify eligibility for employment or other applicable
Federal benefits in a pilot program.
Already, the INS has begun to investigate the feasibility of creating
a new generation of smarter employment authorization cards, border-
crossing cards, and green cards. And the Federal Government is also
examining the uses of electronic benefits transfer. My amendment would
supplement these activities.
Smart cards are credit card-sized devices containing one or more
integrated circuits. They are information

[[Page S4598]]

carriers like ATM cards, that can hold bank account data, school ID
numbers, benefit enrollment status, Social Security numbers and
biometric data, such as photographs. Unlike ATM's, which give you
access to accounts or information, smart cards actually hold the value
of money and information.
I know that some of our colleagues are concerned about the use of
biometric data such as DNA samples, blood types, or retina scans. My
amendment does not anticipate the use of these types of biometric data.
But the use of biometric data has already found its way into our daily
lives. We use credit cards with photographs and driver's licences that
detail our height, weight and gender. If we are to reduce document
fraud, we must incorporate the limited use of biometric data. That is
the only way to securely connect a document to an individual.
Setting aside the merits of my amendment, I understand the hesitance
of many Members to embrace innovative authentication technologies.
While the future is uncertain and change is difficult, we have to look
ahead. We had a full debate on the issue of the so-called national ID
card yesterday. And while I am not now promoting a national ID, nor did
my amendment require the use of biometrics or smart cards, the concerns
raised yesterday are similar. My amendment sought only to ensure the
consideration of these tools in the development of the pilot programs.
While my amendment has been withdrawn, I will continue to work toward
broadening the debate on smart cards and other forms of authentication
technology with our Senate colleagues.
In utilizing the most up-to-date technology in these demonstration
projects, we can ensure that the President will have the most efficient
and the most cost-effective alternatives to scrutinize. If we take
deliberate care to develop a new identification system, then we can all
benefit: American workers can be further protected; Employers can be
relieved of the burden of sanctions; the jobs magnet will be shut off;
and most importantly, we will be able to clearly view the benefits of
immigration and diversity in our society.

ins practices concerning student visa holders

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am told by colleges and universities that it is
common for foreign students and scholars temporarily to drop out of
status during the course of their studies. For example, a student might
be told by a professor to drop a particular course, thereby
inadvertently dropping below the 12 credits per term required by INS
regulations to remain a bona fide student. INS currently allows such
students to be reinstated to their previous status. Such reinstatement
might not occur until later in the semester, however, when INS-
designated school officials notice the problem
Does the Senator intend our visa-overstayer provision to alter the
INS's practice in such cases?
Mr. ABRAHAM. No. In the situation you described, where the student
continues to work in good faith toward his degree, the professor's
directive to the student would constitute good cause for the student
falling out of status temporarily.
Mr. FEINGOLD. There are many other situations that might cause a
student to fall out of status. For example, a teaching assistant might
have to devote an unusual amount of time to grading papers, or a
foreign government's tuition payment might be delayed. As I said, I
understand that the current practice of the INS in such circumstances
is to reinstate such students and scholars to a valid status so that
they may continue their studies.
Does the Senator intend that these and similar INS practices should
continue?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. My intention is not to displace current INS
practice with respect to students who continue to work in good faith
toward their degree but who temporarily fall out of status because of
circumstances beyond their reasonable control.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Finally, some concern has been expressed about the
possibility that the 60-day threshold might be reached if the student
accumulates 60 days out of status over the course of several years. Do
you intend our visa-overstayer sanctions apply in such cases?
Mr. ABRAHAM. No, I do not intend the sanctions to apply in cases
where, for reasons like those described in the examples you've cited, a
student has accumulated a total of 60 nonconsecutive days out of status
over the course of his studies. I expect the 60-day period will
normally be continuous for purposes of our visa-overstayer provision.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I had planned to
offer, along with Mr. DeWine, Mr. Roth, and Mr. D'Amato that would have
addressed the enormous problem this country has with deporting aliens
who commit violent and other felonious acts against Americans. Because
the amendment is not germane at this time, I will not be offering it,
but plan to raise this issue again at another time.
Let me start by outlining the problem we have right now with criminal
aliens in this country.
Noncitizens in this country who are convicted of committing a variety
of serious crimes are deportable and should be deported. These are not
suspected criminals: These are convicted felons. And there are about
half a million of them currently residing on U.S. soil. More than
50,000 crimes have been committed by aliens in this country recently
enough to put the perpetrators in State and Federal prisons right now.
The reason these criminal aliens are here, despite their
deportability under U.S. law, is that they are able to manipulate our
immigration laws by requesting endless review of their orders of
deportation. These are convicted criminals obstructing the operation of
law by abusing unduly generous provisions of judicial and
administrative review. As long as a petition for review is pending,
they cannot be deported. Meanwhile, because there is nowhere to put
them, many of them are released into the general population, never to
be seen again. Thus, at present, aliens who are convicted felons are
deported at a rate of about 4 percent a year.
Parenthetically, I would like to note that the study from which most
of these figures are drawn--a Senate report on criminal aliens in the
United States dated April 7, 1995--was conducted under the auspices of
one of the cosponsors to the amendment I am offering today--my
distinguished friend and colleague from Delaware, Mr. William Roth.
The bill presently before the Congress does a great deal to address
many of the obstacles to ensuring that these individuals are in fact
expeditiously deported. As introduced, it included provisions adding a
variety of serious offenses to the crimes that constitute aggravated
felonies; providing that aggravated felons are not permitted to sue the
Government on the grounds that their deportations were not expeditious;
providing for regulations to be issued by the Attorney General
permitting INS officials to enter final orders of deportation
stipulated to by the alien; providing that Federal judges are
authorized to order deportation as a condition of probation; and
requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress once a year on the
number of and status of criminal aliens presently incarcerated.
While these provisions were helpful, they were not enough to prevent
a criminal alien from using the key dilatory tacits presently used by
these individuals to avoid deportation.
Accordingly, during Committee consideration of this bill, I sponsored
a package of four amendments addressing the criminal alien problem. My
amendments were cosponsored in whole or part by four Senators on the
Judiciary Committee and all were accepted by the committee in lopsided
votes. The package of amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee and
now part of the pending bill will do the following: First, prohibit the
Attorney General from releasing convicted criminal aliens from custody;
second, end judicial review for orders of deportation entered against
these criminal aliens--while maintaining their right to administrative
review and the right to review the underlying conviction; third,
require the Attorney General to deport criminal aliens within 30 days
of the conclusion of the alien's prison sentence--with exceptions made
only for national security reasons or on account of the criminal
alien's cooperation with law enforcement officials; and fourth, permit
State criminal courts to enter conclusive findings of fact, during
sentencing, that an alien

[[Page S4599]]

has been convicted of a deportable offense.
These amendments, now part of the bill, will go a long way toward
ending the procedural chicanery by which criminal alien's make a
mockery of our laws.
Still, loopholes remain, especially during the administrative review
process. The amendment I had planned to offer to the illegal
immigration bill would have sought to close these loopholes by doing
the following: First, criminal aliens would be required to raise all
claims for relief from deportation in a single administrative process
including one appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The problem is this: While we have eliminated judicial review for
orders of deportation entered against most criminal aliens, we have not
eliminated their capacity to request repetitive administrative review
of the deportation order. We have shortened the process, but it could
still take, literally, a decade or more to complete the administrative
procedures.
For example, criminal aliens will still be able to: First receive a
hearing on their deportability from the immigration judge and then
appeal that to the Board of Immigration Appeals; second, return to the
immigration judge, this time requesting asylum, and then appeal that to
the Board of Immigration Appeals; third, request 212(c) relief from the
order of deportation and appeal that to the Board of Immigration
Appeals; fourth, since several years will frequently have passed during
the first rounds of administrative review, make a motion to reopen on
the basis of changed circumstances, such as the connections to the
community the criminal alien has formed, and frequently, the children
the criminal alien has had while these other requests for relief were
pending; fifth, continue to make additional motions to reopen.
Criminal aliens should be allowed only one bite at the apple. What
needs to be done is this: Require that criminal aliens submit all
claims for relief from deportation to the immigration judge and to the
Board of Immigration Appeals the first time around. The amendment I am
was going to offer does just that.
Second, judicial review for orders of exclusion entered against these
criminal aliens would end.
This is a delaying tactic, much abused by excludable criminal aliens.
Extensive--even repetitive--judicial review of orders of exclusion may
be tolerable for other excludable aliens. There is no justifiable
reason to tie up the system with such requests by criminals.
Third, the number of immigration judges, members of the Board of
Immigration Appeals, and lawyers handling deportation cases at the INS
would be doubled.
There are not enough judges within the INS to expeditiously dispose
of deportation hearings with or without the streamlining provided by
the other criminal alien provisions in this bill and the Terrorism
Prevention Act. This amendment will double the number of members of the
Board of Immigration Appeals, double the number of immigration judges--
special inquiry officers, and double the number of INS attorneys
handling deportation proceedings.
The criminal alien amendments I offered during the committee mark-up
of the illegal immigration bill require the AG to deport criminal
aliens within 30 days of the later of their release from incarceration,
or issuance of the final order of deportation.
Such a requirement will be of no avail if the INS does not have
enough judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to
dispose of these deportation proceedings. In 1995, the number of board
members of the BIA was increased--to 12 members in all.
Meanwhile, it is conservatively estimated that there are almost half
a million criminal aliens currently residing in this country. If only a
quarter of those criminal aliens now on U.S. soil request deportation
hearings and an appeal to the BIA--which is probably an extremely
conservative estimate--12 board members will have to process over
100,000 appeals only to get through the deportations of these criminal
aliens.
We will never reduce this backlog without adding much-needed
personnel to handle these deportation proceedings fairly and
expeditiously. Doubling their number is a modest increase if we are
serious about deporting deportable criminal aliens.
Fourth, criminal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes
would be added to the list of aliens ineligible for naturalization.
Naturalization already requires that the alien demonstrate good moral
character and have resided in the country for at least 5 years, among
other things. Yet aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are
able to delay their deportations for many years allowing them to,
first, achieve the 5 year requirement for naturalization, and, second,
apply for naturalization 5 years after their conviction.
This not only injects into the deportation process an extremely
powerful incentive for criminal aliens to delay their deportations, but
rewards those who have not only been convicted of serious crimes to
become citizens, but rewards the criminal aliens who have been able to
manipulate the system in order to avoid being deported.
There are already various types of aliens that are foreclosed from
naturalization. This amendment adds convicted criminals to the list. It
is not unreasonable for the Congress to conclude that aliens who have
been convicted of serious crimes while guests in this country cannot be
deemed to have demonstrated good moral character for purposes of
naturalization.
These are all reasonable reforms--reforms, I believe, that would
shock most Americans only by their absence from current law.
Let me give just one example of why these reforms are needed. This
example is not hypothetical. It is a real case of what happens when
this country tries to deport noncitizens who are convicted of
committing serious crimes in this country.
The case of Lyonel Dor is typical in all but one respect. Dor was an
illegal alien, whereas the great majority of the criminal aliens in
this country are lawful permanent residents.
Lyonel Dor entered the United States illegally in 1972. Six years
later he was convicted of first degree manslaughter for participating
in the murder of his aunt and served 6\1/2\ years in prison.
Illegal immigrants are deportable. Legal immigrants who help murder
their aunts are deportable.
Yet Dor remained in this country for at least another 5 years after
serving his prison sentence. He accomplished this by requesting and
receiving unending review of the order of deportation against him. Dor
was first ordered deported in March 1985. As of late 1989, Dor had not
been deported. I do not know whether Lyonel Dor was ever deported or
whether he is still here, requesting still more review.
But I do know that during that 5 years, Dor received 13
administrative proceedings and 4 judicial proceedings for review of the
order of deportation against him. Every one of these proceedings
concerned this country's attempt to deport Dor--an illegal immigrant
and murderer. In two of the four judicial proceedings, Federal courts
ordered that Dor not be deported--so that the order of deportation
against Dor could be subjected to yet more review.
It is important to note that, although Dor's multiple requests for
review of the deportation order were granted--upon review, not one of
his claims was found to have any merit. Dor requested asylum, this was
denied. Dor requested withholding of his deportation, this was denied.
Dor requested adjustment of status, this was denied. Dor again applied
for adjustment of status, and it was again denied. Dor applied for a
writ of habeas corpus, this was denied. Each one of these requests for
waiver of deportation was appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals
and sometimes to the courts, as well. Five times throughout these
proceedings, Dor requested that his case be reopened. These requests,
too, were denied. And these denials, he appealed.
This example is far from unique. To the contrary, it is rather
typical. I could cite many, many others. It is time for this to stop.
Some reforms Senator Hatch included at my suggestion in the anti-
terrorism bill that was recently enacted will go a long way toward
stopping it. The reforms contained in the legislation now before the
Congress, including those from the original bill and those added
through the amendments I offered at markup, would go still further in
that direction. I am sorry that on account of the procedural posture

[[Page S4600]]

we are in, made necessary by the effort of some Members to bring up
matters entirely extraneous to reforming illegal immigration, we will
not have the opportunity to consider this additional amendment. I
expect, however, to find an occasion in the near future to ensure its
consideration.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to commend my able colleague
for this excellent suggestion. Unlike some of the rest of what he has
proposed in connection with this legislation, I wholeheartedly commend
his untiring efforts with respect to criminal aliens, which I believe
have improved the bill. I think this most recent proposal is likewise
one I would support, and I do hope to have occasion to consider it
further.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I very much appreciate the kind words of my colleague
and friend from Wyoming.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of this bill,
on which Senator Simpson and others have labored so hard and for so
long. The bill will do much to stem the tide of illegal immigration
into this country.
During the Judiciary Committee's mark up of the bill in March,
several provisions were added that address the problem of criminal
aliens in this country. I want to draw my colleagues' attention in
particular to these provisions, because they significantly strengthen
the Federal Government's ability to deport and exclude aliens who have
committed serious crimes in our country. Senator Abraham pushed for
these provisions in committee, and he is to be commended for that
effort.
I would like to offer a brief historical perspective on the nature of
the criminal alien crisis, based on my past investigative and
legislative work in this area. Criminal aliens represent a problem of
enormous proportions, and a problem, regrettably, that our present
criminal and immigration laws do little to address.
In simplest terms, criminal aliens are noncitizens who commit serious
crimes in this country. Currently, aliens who commit certain serious
felonies are deportable or excludable. The problem is that at present
we permit such aliens to go through two completely separate systems--
one for their crimes, and one for their immigration status--in a way
that invites abuse and creates confusion. The results are dismal.
At my direction during the previous Congress, the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations conducted an investigation and held 2
days of hearings regarding criminal aliens in the United States. The
subcommittee's investigation found that criminal aliens are a serious
and growing threat to our public safety. They are also an expensive
problem. Under even the most conservative of estimates, criminal aliens
cost our criminal justice system hundreds of millions of dollars each
year.
No one, including the INS, knows for sure how many criminal aliens
there are in the United States. A study by our subcommittee staff
estimated that there are about 450,000 criminal aliens in all parts of
our criminal justice system including Federal and State prisons, local
jails, probation, and parole. Incredibly, criminal aliens now account
for an all time high of 25 percent of the Federal prison population.
Under current law, aliens who commit aggravated felonies or crimes of
moral turpitude are deportable. But last year only about 4 percent of
the estimated total number of criminal aliens in the United States were
deported. The law is not being enforced in part because it is too
complex with too many levels of appeal. It needs to be simplified.
The law is also not being enforced in part because INS does not have
its act together. The INS is unable to even identify most of the
criminal aliens who clog our State and local jails before these
criminals are released back onto our streets.
As things now stand, many criminal aliens are released on bond by the
INS while the deportation process is pending. It is not surprising that
many skip bond and never show up for their hearings, especially in
light of the fact that the INS makes little effort to locate them when
they do abscond. In 1992 alone, nearly 11,000 aliens convicted of
serious felonies failed to show up for their deportation hearings. It
is safe to assume that many of them walk our streets today.
A frustrated INS official described the current state of affairs
aptly when he said of criminal aliens--and I quote--``only the stupid
and honest get deported.'' The others abuse the system with impunity.
Ironically, criminal aliens who have served their time and are
fighting their deportation routinely received work permits from the
INS, which allow them to get jobs while their appeals are pending. One
INS deportation officer told the subcommittee staff that he spends only
about 5 percent of his time looking for criminal aliens who have
absconded, because he must spend most of his time processing work
permits for criminal aliens with pending deportation proceedings. This
is an outrageous situation.
Although, our investigation found that the INS is not adequately
responding to the criminal alien problem, the INS does not deserve all
the blame. Congress has made it far too difficult for the INS and law
enforcement officials to identify, deport, and exclude criminal aliens.
In response to these problems, I introduced legislation last Congress
and again during this one that would simplify the task of sending
criminal aliens home. I am gratified that through the work of Senator
Abraham and the Judiciary Committee, S. 1664 contains some of the
provisions in my legislation, as well as some additional improvements.
Among them are the following: First, the bill broadens the definition
of aggravated felon to include more crimes punishable by deportation.
Second, it prohibits the Attorney General from releasing criminal
aliens from custody. Third, it requires the Attorney General to deport
criminal aliens--with certain exceptions--within 30 days of the end of
the aliens' prison sentence, and mandates that such criminal aliens
ordered deported by taken into custody pending deportation. Finally, it
gives Federal judges the ability to order deportation of a criminal
alien at the time of sentencing.
To be sure, during the floor debate on this bill, many colleagues
have expressed sharp differences in how they wish to go about reforming
our immigration laws. However, it is my hope that all Senators would
agree that deporting and excluding aliens convicted of committing
serious crimes ought to be a top priority. Because fixing existing laws
to accomplish this goal ought to be an equally high priority, I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.

Asylum Amendment

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate adopted the asylum
amendment that I offered along with Senators DeWine, Hatfield, Kerry,
and Wellstone to preserve our asylum law for those seeking refuge from
oppression. In addition to our colleagues who voted for the amendment,
there are a number of people to thank for this important change in the
Senate bill.
Three of our House colleagues, Representatives Diaz-Balart, Ros-
Lehtinen, and Smith felt so strongly about these provisions that they
took the extraordinary step of sending ``Dear Colleague'' letters to
the Senate urging that others join us ``in protecting human rights
around the world'' and in supporting this amendment.
I would like to thank Alan Baban and Ana X. who appeared with me on
April 30 in advance of the vote and retold their experiences with
oppression and asylum. Without them and the refugees who came forward
to make the case, we could not have succeeded in amending this bill and
the antiterrorism law.
I want to thank all of those from around the country who wrote to me
and my colleagues about the importance of this amendment. I know that
the correspondence and calls that I received from Patrick Giantonio of
Vermont Refugee Assistance; Gerry Haase of the Tibetan Resettlement
Project; David Ferch and Philene Taomina of Groton; Bob Rosenfeld, Jane
Bradley, Jean Lathrop, and Helen Rabin of Plainfield; Brenda Torpy and
Dr. Jennifer Heath of Burlington; Barbara Buckley of Worchester;
Valerie Mullen of Vershire; Helen Reindel, Joanna Messing, Sylvia Terry
and Charles Ballantyne of Montpelier; Margaret Turner of Belmont; Don
Kizer of Cavendish; Roald Cann of Springfield; Dr. A. Joshua Sherman of
Midd; Pinelope Bennett of Norwich; Richard Moore of Putney; Sydney Liff
of Attamount;

[[Page S4601]]

Abbas Alnasrawi of Shelburne; Robert and Mary Belenky of Marshfield;
and other Vermonters about the asylum provisions of the bill were most
meaningful. They understand what the disastrous impact of the changes
in our asylum law, which would have been imposed by this bill, would
have meant to real people facing oppression around the world.
I want to thank the Committee to Preserve Asylum, which has worked
diligently from the beginning to focus needed attention on these
provisions of the bill. Earlier this week I met with a number of
representatives of organizations who support this effort, including Eve
Dubrow of UNITE; John Fredicksson of the Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service; Richard Foltin of the American Jewish Committee;
Richard Li Albores of the National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium; Michelle Pistone of the Lawyers' Committee for Human
Rights; John Swenson of the U.S. Catholic Conference, Carol Wolchok of
the American Bar Association; and Patricia Rengel of Amnesty
International USA. I thank them all for their efforts on behalf of the
asylum amendment and in connection with serving refugees in need from
around the world.
I am grateful for the letters of support from the U.S. Catholic
Conference, the American Bar Association, the American Friends Service
Committee, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American
Jewish Committee, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Asian Law
Caucus, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the
United Church Board for World Ministries, the ACLU, the National Asian
Pacific American Legal Consortium and the Women's Commission for
Refugee Women and Children.
At the risk of offending others, I want publicly to commend Carol
Wolchok of the ABA, Michelle Pistone of the Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights, Michael Hill of the U.S. Catholic Conference, Professor Philip
Schrag of Georgetown, and Dr. Allen Keller of N.Y.U. for their tireless
efforts on behalf of this amendment. They and those working with them
live their commitment to justice and freedom every day. They help make
America the great country that it is and must remain.
I am also especially grateful for the support of Bishop Cummins, the
chairman of the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Catholic Conference.
I had received an earlier letter from Cardinal Law in which he noted
his opposition to the provisions in the bill that would have virtually
eliminated the United States' commitment to help refugees seek
protection from persecution. I am proud that the U.S. Catholic
Conference supported the Leahy amendment, even though our amendment
does not get as far as they would like.
I want to thank Anne Willem Bijleveld, the Representative of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for all her support on
this matter.
In signing the antiterrorism law last week, the President included
the following in his message: ``The bill also makes a number of major,
ill-advised changes in our immigration laws having nothing to do with
fighting terrorism. * * * The provisions will produce extraordinary
administrative burdens on the Immigration and Naturalization Service.''
I believe that the President was referring to the requirements for
summary exclusion that the Senate immigration bill would amend.
In a February letter the President sent to Congressman Berman, he
noted his concern that ``we not sacrifice our proud tradition of
refugee protection and support for the principles of the Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees.'' The President noted: ``This
critically important Treaty, which responded to the displacement that
followed the Second World War, has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in
the Congress. Moreover, our efforts to urge other governments to comply
with its provisions has been a major element of our diplomacy on
international humanitarian issues.''

Specifically on the matter of summary exclusion, the President favors
a ``carefully structured stand-by authority for expedited exclusion.''
That is what our amendment, in contrast to the bill, now provides.
With regard to the overall proposals for summary exclusion, the
President wrote that they were ``too broad and would also result in
considerable diversion of INS resources.'' He noted that: ``These
provisions seem particularly unnecessary in view of the successful
asylum reforms we have already initiated.''
Human rights organizations have documented a number of cases of
people who were ultimately granted political asylum by immigration
judges after the INS denied their release from INS detention for not
meeting a credible fear standard. Under the summary screening that was
proposed in the bill, these refugees would have been sent back to their
persecutors without any opportunity for a hearing. I included many such
examples in the Record on April 17. I now have collected many, many
more.
I urge my colleagues to consider how the bill will impact refugees
seeking asylum here and not just consider the theoretical possibility
that they might be treated as the exceptional case.
Furthermore, the bill would have denied the federal courts their
historic role in overseeing the implementation of our immigration laws
and review of individual administrative decisions. The bill would have
allowed no judicial review whether a person was actually excludable and
would have created unjustified exceptions to rulemaking procedural
protections under the Administrative Procedure Act. These proposals
would have signaled a fundamental change in the roles of our coordinate
branches of Government and a dangerous precedent.
I urge my colleagues, especially those who did not support the asylum
amendment, to think further about these important matters. While doing
so, please do not continue to confuse asylum with illegal immigration.
Do not vote with regard to circumstances that no longer exist after the
recent reforms of the asylum process.
Refugees who seek asylum in the United States are not causing
problems for America or Americans. They come to us for refuge and for
protection. Let us not turn them back. Let us not abandon America's
vital place in the world as a leader for human rights.
I want to thank and commend the Managers of the bill. Both Senator
Kennedy, who supported the asylum amendment, and Senator Simpson, who
did not, have been exceptionally fair to me and to all of us on this
issue and on every aspect of the bill. Immigration is a complicated
issue and one that evokes emotions and strongly held feelings. They
have been exceptional managers of this legislation and are
extraordinary members.
I want to pay special tribute to my friend from Wyoming. On the
asylum issue I might call him a worthy opponent, except that I do not
believe that we are opponents. I believe that we both are working
toward the same goal and both want America to remain a beacon of hope
and freedom to the oppressed, wherever they may be.
He has announced that he will not be seeking reelection. That will be
the Senate's loss. He is a dedicated, respected and productive member
of this body. There are not many like Alan Simpson and I will miss his
counsel and his humor. I look forward to our continuing to work
together on this important bill and many other matters in the days
ahead.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member of the Immigration Subcommittee--Senators Simpson and Kennedy--
for their dedication and commitment to the issue of illegal
immigration. They have steered the Senate through a difficult process,
and we are all appreciative of their efforts this time, as we have been
on numerous occasions past.
I will vote against final passage of this bill. The bill contains
much that I support. I am gratified that the Senate has voted to retain
the verification pilot programs that were adopted as a compromise in
committee. These pilot programs are essential to combating the job
magnet that lures illegal immigrants to the United States, and will
also make immigration-related job discrimination less likely.

[[Page S4602]]

I am also gratified that the Senate passed the Leahy asylum amendment
yesterday. This amendment, by preserving our Nation's commitment to
providing safe haven for victims of persecution abroad, was a
substantial improvement in this legislation, and one that corrected one
of the major problems with this legislation as it came out of the
Judiciary Committee.
Finally, unlike the House immigration bill, the Senate bill does not
contain any provision allowing States to deny undocumented alien
children primary or secondary education. Adoption of such an amendment
would have been an imprudent response to the problem of illegal
immigration, and would have cost the Nation far more than it would have
saved it.
Despite the virtues of this legislation, I am compelled to vote
against it because it still suffers from some serious problems--in
particular, the provisions of the bill that serve to deny legal
immigrants Government assistance. While I support the idea of
tightening current deeming requirements, the bill will deny legal
immigrants assistance that will prevent, not encourage, legal
immigrants from receiving welfare, such as higher education and job
training assistance. The bill makes a sieve out of the safety net that
is essential for the most vulnerable of our society--children, pregnant
women, and the disabled. Finally, this bill retroactively expands
deeming requirements for those immigrants who are in the country today,
without the benefit of a legally binding affidavit of support. There is
no question that sponsors should be primarily liable for the well-being
of the immigrants they bring in. At the same time, this bill lacks the
flexibility that is necessary if we are to ensure a balanced and fair
approach to the issue of immigrants and public assistance.
I am concerned about much of the rhetoric about immigrants and public
assistance that has accompanied this debate. While we have heard much
about the pressures immigrants place on our system of public
assistance, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of immigrants--
over 93 percent--do not receive welfare, and that working-age
nonrefugee immigrants use Government assistance at the same levels as
native-born Americans. While specific programs--in particular, SSI--
receive disproportionate use by immigrants, we should address such
problems specifically, without cutting off access to resources that
will help immigrants avoid the welfare dependency that concerns us all.
Having set out my objections to the bill, I hope that I will be able
to support a conference agreement on illegal immigration. The House
immigration bill has several provisions in the public assistance area
preferable to the Senate bill--in particular, the exemption from
deeming for higher education, and the limitation on programs that can
give rise to deportation as a public charge. Adoption of these
provisions in the conference will substantially improve this
legislation.
On the other hand, any illegal immigration conference agreement
should not include any provision allowing States to deny primary or
secondary educational assistance to undocumented aliens. Such a
provision, while not in the Senate bill, is in the House bill.
Inclusion of such a provision in the conference agreement would cause
many of those who support the Senate bill to oppose the conference
report.
We are close to having an illegal immigration bill we can all be
proud of, but we are not there yet.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1664, the
Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. It cannot
be disputed that our immigration system is currently fraught with
serious problems, including a flood of illegal immigrants, criminal
aliens, undesirable burdens on public services, and many other
concerns. These problems weaken our country as a whole, and erode
public support for basic principles which are central to our Nation.
Americans are a generous people, but they do not like to have their
generosity abused. I am pleased that we have confronted these hard
issues with both compassion and resolve, and that the Senate is now
giving consideration to final passage of this immigration reform bill.
Among the many notable provisions in this immigration bill are those
designed to increase enforcement of our borders; limit ineligible
aliens' public benefits; improve deportation procedures; and reduce
alien smuggling. There is no serious disagreement over the pressing
need to strengthen our laws against illegal immigration, but there has
been much debate over the details of how this can best be achieved. I
am committed to enacting this legislation in order to sharply reduce
the flow of illegal aliens into our Nation, by ensuring adequate
enforcement along our borders, among other things.
Mr. President, I commend Senator Simpson for his leadership on
immigration issues, and particularly on his role in bringing this
important legislation to this point today. Although we have not agreed
on every issue, the commitment and expertise of Senator Simpson have
been invaluable in moving needed reform forward.
Immigration matters are complex and tend to be divisive. It is my
belief, however, that illegal immigration is among the most serious
problems confronting our Nation today. We should pass this legislation
to address these problems, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this
measure.

relax naturalization requirements for HMONG patriots

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for an
important provision in the House version of S. 1664, the illegal
immigration bill, which I had intended to offer as an amendment to this
bill. This House provision, authored by Congressman Vento, would help
expedite the naturalization of Hmong patriots recruited by the CIA who
served alongside U.S. military forces during the Vietnam war. Earlier
this week, I submitted a corresponding amendment in this Chamber. The
Wellstone amendment No. 3872, would have relaxed the naturalization
requirement for permanent residents who served in these guerrilla units
in Laos, and their spouses or widows, by waiving the language
requirement and the residency requirement aliens normally must meet. I
still believe these steps are necessary to address the unique situation
of the Hmong, and I will continue to press for their enactment.
Let me describe what has happened over the past few days. I was
prepared to offer the amendment, but after discussion with numerous
colleagues on and off the committee, it has become clear that a number
of Senators had concerns about the reach and scope of the changes being
proposed, and thus would likely be unwilling to support my amendment in
its current form. While I intend to continue to press hard for these
changes, I do not want to endanger the chances for these provisions in
the conference committee by pushing this to a premature vote, the
outcome of which is in doubt, and so I will not offer the amendment.
Instead, I will continue to work with Senator Simpson, Senator Kennedy,
the other Senate conferees, and Congressman Vento to craft a provision
they will find acceptable.
I was surprised and disappointed that there were concerns expressed
about this amendment. I had thought it would be noncontroversial.
During the Vietnam war, the CIA recruited tens of thousands of Hmong
people to serve in special guerrilla forces, to fight against the
Communist government in Laos. Between 10,000 and 20,000 of them are
estimated to have lost their lives in this struggle, and thousands more
were forced to flee to refugee camps or to other nations when the war
ended to avoid the persecution that many feared would follow. Many came
to the United States, concentrating in California, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, New York, and several other States.
These men and women, many of whom were very young when they served,
have sacrificed a great deal in defense of our Nation, and they deserve
an improved chance to become citizens. The waivers I have proposed are
consistent with our long tradition of recognizing the service of those
who come to the aid of the United States during wartime.
Normally, under current law, aliens or noncitizen nationals who
served in U.S. forces are eligible for naturalization regardless of
age, period of residency, or physical presence in the United States.
The Hmong patriots, however, fall through the cracks because the units
with which they served

[[Page S4603]]

were not technically U.S. units, despite the fact that in many cases
they were recruited, trained, and funded by the intelligence services
of the U.S. Government, and coordinated closely with U.S. forces in the
region. Many served as scouts for U.S. forces, and there are many
stories of their extraordinary heroism in helping to rescue downed U.S.
pilots during this period.

The most serious obstacle these Hmong patriots face in obtaining
citizenship is the language barrier. The Hmong language has not existed
in written form until very recently, so it has been enormously
difficult, especially for older Hmong, despite their best efforts, to
learn to read and write in English.
The House bill would waive the residency and language requirements
for naturalization. These steps are necessary to address the unique
situation of the Hmong. By far the most serious problem facing this
community is their difficulty with learning English. While for some
current law waiver regulations applying to residency are sufficient,
this authority does not cover all of them.
Mr. President, there is a long-established precedent for granting
waivers to groups who fought bravely on the side of U.S. forces in
defense of freedom all over the world. U.S. law has allowed those who
fought with us in WWI and II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war to be
naturalized, regardless of age, period of residence, or presence in the
United States. It has also been allowed for those who served with us,
but were not technically part of U.S units. In the 1990 immigration
bill, Congress adopted a waiver for Filipino scouts who served in World
War II. Many of them have now become full-fledged citizens who
participate in the democratic process.
No one appreciates the value of the democratic process more than Seng
Thao, who fought for 7 years against the Communists in Laos and was
wounded twice. When he began his training, he was only 14. Although his
military service ended in 1975, he stayed in Laos to defend his family
and his village until 1979. It was in 1979 that his family made the
voyage to Thailand, where they were sent to a ``re-education'' camp.
There they were reportedly physically abused, and coerced to give up
everything they had. They were later moved to Ban Vanai Refugee camp.
Seng Thao came to the United States in 1980, and now works at
Riverview Packaging in Minneapolis. He is a productive member of
society, and has earned the right to be called a U.S. citizen. He
writes, ``I would like to be a citizen of this great country * * *
because this is my home now.''
Another Hmong patriot, Wa Chi Thao, was recruited in 1961 when he was
11 years old. During his 14 years of fighting, he suffered a wound in a
bomb explosion, came to the aid of two downed American pilots, and saw
his wife die in combat. Before coming to live in St. Paul, MN, Thao and
his family spent 10 miserable years in refugee camps.
Mr. President, however we feel about the legacy of the Vietnam war,
let us recognize the service of these patriots who came to the aid of
the United States in a time of war, and honor the memories of those
they left behind, with this modest step. It would not open the
floodgates for new immigration by creating a new category of
immigrants, nor would it make Hmong patriots eligible for veterans
benefits. It simply recognizes the service of Seng Thao and other Hmong
like him, who served in U.S.-recruited units during the Vietnam war, by
granting them a waiver of the English residency requirements and a
waiver of the residency requirement. It does not automatically extend
them citizenship, but acknowledges their contributions by easing the
path to citizenship.
As the immigration bill moves to a House-Senate conference committee,
I urge my colleagues who will serve on the conference to recede to the
House language on this important provision. I am confident that we can
work together to provide these critical benefits to Hmong veterans who
served or Nation during wartime.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate considers S.1664, the
Immigration Control and Fiscal Responsibility Act, I want to take this
opportunity to explore and comment on a number of the key issues.
Immigration reform has always been a controversial issue for our
immigrant based society. As our Nation continues to develop and grow,
it is appropriate for the Senate to debate these issues. Therefore, I
want to complement the members of the Judiciary Committee, both the
majority and the minority, who have labored to bring this bill to the
floor.
The bill does do much to address the problems associated with illegal
immigration. I support the bill's provisions to add several thousand
new border patrol agents between now and the year 2001. Additionally, I
support the language to add new INS investigators to enforce alien
smuggling and employment laws. Illegal immigration along our Southern
border is a serious and costly problem. We have a responsibility to
meet the needs of our Southern States and to ease the financial burdens
associated with illegal immigration.
It is important to note that many of the bill's provisions dealing
with illegal immigration are similar, and in some cases identical, to
legislation proposed by President Clinton. Despite the ongoing problems
with illegal immigration, the Clinton administration has waged an
unprecedented campaign against illegal immigration. The administration
has increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 40 percent since
1993. The administration is on target to meet its goal of 7,000 Border
Patrol agents, trained and deployed, by the end of fiscal year 1998. I
commend the administration for committing the financial resources and
political capital to fight illegal immigration.
Despite laudable attempts to combat illegal immigration, this
legislation threatens to become a punitive vehicle aimed directly at
children and families. My objections are numerous; I will detail a few
today. If the Senate chooses to follow our House colleagues down the
road of punishing children and families as well as abandoning our
historical and cultural acceptance of legal immigrants, I will oppose
the legislation.
My objections begin with any effort to combine legal immigration
restrictions and cutbacks with S. 1664, the bill before the Senate to
curb illegal immigration. The effort to combine the two issues will
doom passage of illegal immigration reform this year.
Legal immigrants have long been a source of strength for our Nation.
My own family has an immigration story to tell. My husband's family
immigrated to Washington State from Norway and settled in the Ballard
section of Seattle. Even today, the Ballard community remains the focal
point for Scandinavian culture in Seattle. Flags from Norway dot most
of the storefronts, school children can learn to speak Norwegian and
summer festivals highlight our shared cultural heritage. My husband's
family came to Seattle as the shipping and fishing industries first
began to shape the Pacific Northwest economy. Today, these industries
generate thousands of jobs for Washingtonians and more than $1 billion
in annual economic activity.
Just as early immigrants boosted the growth of the shipping and
fisheries industries, today's immigrants are instrumental to the growth
of Washington's high-technology sector. My Washington State colleague,
Senator Slade Gorton, and I wrote to Chairman Simpson in late November
to express our opposition to language that would severely restrict the
ability of the high-technology industry to access global talent when
necessary to facilitate economic growth in the United States. Tens of
thousands of Washington State residents are employed in the high-
technology industry at high-skill, high-wage jobs. Senator Gorton and I
both believe in the historic record of the United States in attracting
and keeping the best international talent and harnessing this talent
for the benefit of all residents of our State and our country.
I also want to take a moment to express my strong personal and moral
objection to any amendment to deny educational benefits to any child.
This in my mind is perhaps the most troubling language associated with
this bill. I simply cannot understand this attempt to punish innocent
children as well as turn our classrooms into interrogation rooms, and
our teachers into INS agents. This language is veto bait; both

[[Page S4604]]

the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General have indicated this
language will generate veto recommendations for the President.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler versus Doe ruled that States may
not, consistent with the 14th amendment, deny undocumented children the
same free public education they provide to other children living in the
State.
The language barring children from school is mean-spirited. I am
saddened the House of Representatives chose to include this language in
its version of illegal immigration reform. I implore on the Senate,
please reject this cruel attack on innocent children. The language is
in reality a massive unfunded mandate upon our schools and upon the
State and local government entities that will be forced to pay costs
associated with these barred children in the community on a daily
basis.
This legislation proposes to allow States to base a legal immigrant's
eligibility for a host of public assistance programs on their income,
and that of their sponsor. I am particularly concerned about this
legislation's impact on children.
Here are just some of the services children now have access to that
States could deny them under this proposal: Maternal and Child Health
Services, Preventive Health and Health Services, public health
assistance for immunizations and testing and treatment to prevent the
spread of communicable diseases, services from Community Health
Centers, Child Care and Development Block Grant services, Child
Nutrition Act Programs, including Women and Infant Children [WIC], and
Head Start.
All these programs help children. All could be denied to certain,
legal immigrant children. I would like to remind the proponents that
children's needs are not different, just because their paperwork is
different. And what could be more noble or of greater benefit to the
Nation than giving a child--any child--every opportunity to succeed in
life?
Mr. President, I remain committed to combating the problems
associated with illegal immigration, particularly in the Southern
States where our problems are most severe. It remains my hope that this
legislation will not lose focus on this objective.
Therefore, Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of S. 1664. I do
so with reservations, however, because the Senate rejected a number of
very good amendments, which, if adopted, I believe would have
strengthened this bill. As it stands, this bill will achieve some
needed reforms in immigration policy. However, I feel it dances a bit
too close to the line in terms of humanitarian treatment of individual
people.
I can say with confidence that if the Senate bill is altered in any
way to reflect the House-passed bill during conference, I will not
support it. Specifically, I cannot in good conscience support any
provisions that would deny basic human services, such as education and
health care, to children. Likewise, I cannot support any conference
report that places new onerous restrictions on legal immigration. I do
not believe this would be in the interest of the Nation's economy or
culture.
By sticking close to the Senate mark, a conference committee on
illegal immigration reform can show the American people that Congress
is occasionally capable of putting aside fundamental differences and
crafting consensus legislation that serves the public interest. I
sincerely hope this happens.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of our
efforts to address the problem of illegal immigration. It is shameful
and, frankly, embarrassing that the strongest nation in the world has
had such difficulty controlling its own borders. This bill will help us
make progress in this crucial area.
The administration has already begun to make headway. Commissioner
Meissner and the INS have strengthened the Border Patrol and targeted
agents and equipment to the areas with the highest number of illegal
entries. They've improved the asylum process, reducing asylum claims by
57 percent and clearly restoring integrity to the system. And they
deported a record number of criminal and noncriminal illegal aliens in
1995.
But with almost 4 million illegal aliens residing in this country, we
obviously need to do more. Mr. President, this legislation is a good
start. With broad bipartisan support, S. 1664 was voted out of the
Judiciary Committee. This bill is not perfect and the proposed reforms
not foolproof, but the American public has sent a clear message. They
want us to act against those who break our laws to come here, who take
jobs at the expense of hardworking Americans, and who surreptitiously
benefit from the generous safety net provided by our tax dollars.
We approved a number of good amendments during the Judiciary
Committee markup, as we have done these past weeks during floor debate.
We have worked together in a bipartisan manner and moved forward,
recognizing that this issue is too important, and this problem too
serious, for us to have let progress be indefinitely delayed by
peripheral debates.
Mr. President, let me address a number of the contentious issues that
arose during our debate on this bill.
First and foremost, I am pleased that we kept separate the illegal
and legal immigration measures. Simply put, illegal and legal
immigration are fundamentally different issues. And Congress must not
let our common frustration with illegal immigrants unfairly color the
circumstances of legal immigrants: The risk of injustice is too great.
Mr. President, we put our minds to it and effectively debated the
provisions of S. 1664, and we can do the same with regard to the legal
immigration bill. If the majority of the Senate agrees that problems
exist in both areas, then combining legal and illegal reform packages
would only have impeded fair and deliberative treatment of either
issue.
Second, we should be pleased that we maintained the guts of this
bill: The proposed verification pilot projects. Those who oppose the
pilot projects have legitimate concerns about the accuracy of data, the
uses to which that data is put, and whether it will really decrease
employment discrimination and the employment of illegal aliens. But the
response to these concerns should not be to throw out the idea
altogether. I am pleased that the Senate voted to uphold the reasonable
compromise adopted by the committee. That is, conduct extensive
demonstration projects, see if they work and then ask Congress to take
a look at the results and decide whether a national verification system
is a good idea. If the verification system is ineffective or, worse,
civil liberties are compromised, we can junk the system. And we should.
But if pilot projects could move us down the road toward a workable
approach, one which stops illegal aliens from getting jobs, then at the
very least it deserves a try.
Third, with regard to the summary exclusion provisions, we all agree
that the United States must uphold its obligation to provide refuge for
people legitimately fleeing persecution. And obviously the challenge
lies in balancing our desire to provide a safe haven with the need to
protect our borders and avoid fraud.
As mentioned earlier, INS has begun to move us toward achieving this
balance. And the Judiciary Committee added its help by adopting a 1-
year post-entry time limit for filing defensive asylum claims. However,
S. 1664's provisions establishing new grounds for the exclusion of
immigrants who arrive at our borders without proper documentation and
claim asylum were troubling. Senator Simpson's bill would have
essentially left the determination of whether that claim is credible to
a Border Patrol agent. These changes would have placed the United
States at serious risk of sending legitimate asylees back to their
persecutors. Indeed, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees had told us
as much, all in the name of solving a problem that does not exist.
Fortunately, Senator Leahy's amendment to remove the summary exclusion
provisions succeeded.
Fourth, the issue of deeming and the related obligations of an
immigrant sponsor are extremely complex. Persuasive arguments can be
made on both sides but, overall, this bill's provisions strengthening
an immigrant sponsor's obligations are fair and prudent. It is
reasonable to ask that the sponsor's affidavit of support be legally
enforceable and that deeming extend to more public assistance programs.
When legal immigrants come to this country they take a vow not to
become a public

[[Page S4605]]

charge. And it is the sponsor, not the taxpayer, who should foot the
bill when a legal immigrant needs help. However, I must express regret
that the Senate voted down the Chafee amendment. At a minimum, the
Senate should have ensured that illegal aliens are not afforded more
privileges than legal immigrants and approved this provision in the
interest of public health.
Finally, I am pleased that S. 1664 includes my amendment on the
international matchmaking business. This amendment launches a study of
international matchmaking companies, heretofore unregulated and
operating in the shadows. These companies may be exploiting people in
desperate situations. The study is not aimed at the men and women who
use these businesses for legitimate companionship. Instead, it is a
very positive and important step toward gathering the information we
need so that we can determine the extent to which these companies
contribute to the very troubling problems of domestic violence against
immigrant women and immigration marriage fraud.
Mr. President, my own parents were immigrants. There is no doubt that
our Nation has benefited immensely from the hard work and ambitions of
the generations of legal immigrants that have chosen to start new lives
in America. This bill, by cracking down on illegal immigration, will
continue this rich tradition. I commend the hard work and commitment of
the managers of the bill, Senators Simpson and Kennedy.
Our current immigration policies, though not perfect, stand as strong
evidence that the United States is fundamentally a generous and
compassionate nation. Though we sometimes differ over the best way to
continue that strong tradition, we all share a common desire to stem
the tide of illegal immigration to this country. With our minds on the
common goal, let us approve this legislation on behalf of the American
public.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of this
bill to curb illegal immigration.
Since its first days as a nation, the United States has always been a
refuge for those seeking to escape political and religious persecution.
America has consistently provided limitless economic, political, and
social opportunities for those who come to our Nation and are intent on
working hard and improving their lives and those of their children.
It is this influx of immigrants from diverse cultures and distant
lands that has made America a shining example to the world. That's why
millions of people across the globe look to the United States as a land
of opportunity. It's why they come to our borders in the hopes of
entering our Nation and achieving a better life.
It was the promise of the American Dream that brought my family to
this country from Ireland. And it was the desire for a better life that
brought millions of other immigrants to America, whether they came over
on the Mayflower or if they came to our land in just the past few days.
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt reminded us more than 50 years ago, with
the exception of native Americans, ``All of our people all over the
country. * * * are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, including
even those who came over here on the Mayflower.''
Nearly every Senator in this body is a descendant of immigrants. And
I believe that we should provide the same opportunities for those who
come after us as our forefathers accorded to those who came before us.
However, while I strongly support continued immigration to our
Nation, there are proper rules and procedures to be adhered to. If you
play by the rules and follow the laws of our country than the
opportunity to live in America should be available.
But, the opportunity to come to America does not give people the
right to enter our Nation illegally. It does not give them the right to
break the law. Nor does it give companies or businessman the right to
hire illegal aliens and take away jobs from hard-working Americans who
pay their taxes and play by the rules.
Let me just say that I commend this administration for all it has
done in curbing illegal immigration. Since 1993, the Clinton
administration increased the Immigration and Naturalization Service
budget by 72 percent. More than 1,000 new Border Patrol agents have
been deployed. Additionally, more than 140,000 illegal and criminal
aliens have been deported since 1993.
What's more, this administration is helping more eligible immigrants
become citizens. In fact, in fiscal year 1995 more than half a million
citizenship applications were completed.
These are substantial gains, but there is more to be done and this
bill takes important steps in the right direction.
This legislation increases the size of the Border Patrol. It
authorizes voluntary pilot projects to test improved employee
verification system. It forces sponsors to take greater responsibility
for the immigrants they bring into the country. And it increases the
penalties for alien smuggling and fraud.
These are all necessary steps and I believe they are necessary to
curb illegal immigration in our country. What's more they were strongly
influenced by the bipartisan Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform.
While, I do remain concerned about the benefit provisions in this
legislation, there are enough positive aspects of this bill to make it
worthwhile.
I am particularly pleased that this body decided to defer taking up
the issue of legal immigration. It is essential that we do not confuse
the two issues.
Legal immigrants play by the rules that this government has
established. What's more, legal immigrants have an overwhelmingly
positive benefit for this Nation.
Legal immigrants pay nearly 95 percent more in taxes then they
receive in benefits. More than 93 percent do not receive welfare
benefits. In fact, native-born Americans are more likely to receive
welfare then poor immigrants.
Legal immigrants are not the problem. They play by the rules and they
don't deserve to have their benefits or their rights cut.
I am also pleased that this bill includes the Leahy amendment, which
prevents barriers from being placed in front of those who seek
political and humanitarian asylum.
We must avoid putting those who come to our country seeking asylum,
into a position where their political beliefs could cause them to face
the possibility of imprisonment, injury, or even death if they return
to their homeland.
We must never forget as a nation that America has and will continue
to be seen as a beacon of hope and freedom for those who are oppressed
or maltreated. We must not shirk our role as a haven for those fleeing
persecution.
Unfortunately, I think those facts have sometimes been lost in our
recent national debate on immigration. They should always be our core
concern when discussing immigration reform measures.
Our Nation was founded on the concept of taking in the downtrodden
and persecuted. And throughout our history, America has prospered
because we have kept the doors open for new immigrants.
Today, we must continue to maintain our obligation to immigration as
a nation and as a people. While not perfect, I believe this bill takes
us in the right direction toward upholding our commitment to an
inclusive and common-sense immigration policy.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the U.S. Government has a duty to control
immigration, and it is failing miserably. Passage of this bill will
help halt the large migration of illegals into our country.
But, due in part to the service rendered by the able Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] on this bill, S. 1664, ``The Immigration Control
and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996'' the Federal Government will
have meaningful tools to discourage illegal immigration and better
handle illegal aliens in our country. We are grateful for the enormous
amount of time and expertise Al Simpson has devoted throughout his
tenure in the Senate to the formulation of a workable, credible
immigration policy. All of us have benefited from Senator Simpson's
tireless efforts.
Mr. President, immigration is an especially important issue to the
American people, and it is important that we not forget that ours is a
nation of

[[Page S4606]]

immigrants. America has always had a very generous immigration policy.
But while it is politically correct in some circles to call for an open
immigration policy--allowing in all who seek admission--it would be a
serious mistake of judgment to fail to assess the consequences of an
out-of-control influx of immigrants, legal or illegal.
During the 1985 consideration of immigration reform, some Senators
cautioned against granting amnesty to the illegal aliens pouring across
our borders. I was among those who stated such an apprehension. It was
envisioned that such amnesty would establish a dangerous precedent
certain to encourage even more illegal immigration. Another concern in
the 1985 debate was the potential for an enormous increase in Federal
welfare spending. Both concerns were valid and both have come to pass.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., has compiled
statistics showing that from 1984 to 1990, the percentage of welfare
benefits distributed to immigrant households has risen from 9.8 to 13.8
percent. There is no indication that the percentage will decrease in
the years ahead.
The abuse in the Supplemental Security Income Program alone is
startling. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 25 percent of
the growth in SSI between 1993 and 1996 is due to immigrants--an
astounding number because of the percentage of immigrants among SSI
recipients--2.9 percent of the general population are immigrants and 29
percent of the SSI-aged beneficiaries are immigrants.
Thousands of North Carolinians, and others across the Nation, have
contacted me to describe their problems with the current U.S.
immigration system. Most often, citizens express disgust at the numbers
of noncitizens receiving welfare benefits almost from the day they slip
over the borders into the United States.
Mr. President, it is impossible to suggest to my fellow North
Carolinians that there is any wisdom or common sense to an immigration
policy that allows noncitizens to receive welfare checks or any other
Federal benefits and services. Sponsors of this bill agreed. The bill
correctly changes the current system which aliens can sign up for a
long list of welfare benefits including Aid to Families With Dependant
Children, Supplemental Security Income, and food stamps. With mention
seldom, if ever made, of the U.S. law these aliens are violating--a law
which clearly states that nobody may immigrate to the United States
without demonstrating that he or she is not ``likely at any time to
become a public charge.'' Hard-working taxpayers should not be required
to shell out funds to aliens who have broken the promise they made when
entering the country.
North Carolinians will be relieved to learn that many attempts--
through the amending process--to lessen the impact of the bill's rigid
enforcement of this law were soundly defeated. In addition, the bill
further forbids receipt of any Federal, State, or local government
benefit by noncitizens.
Mr. President, it is virtually impossible to estimate the total
number of illegal immigrants in our country--in 1983, the Immigration
and Nationalization Service estimated that there were 3.4 million in
our country. Some have crossed our borders illegally while others have
overstayed their visas and permits. The National Immigration Forum has
given what is perceived as a conservative estimate that the number of
illegals in the United States is about 3.2 million, pushed downward by
the amnesty of 1987-88 which has resulted in a 200,000 to 300,000
addition to America's population each year.
At a time when the Federal Government is wrestling with its $5
trillion debt, it is the responsibility of Congress to find out where
the taxpayers' funds are being used. It is our duty to take a position
on the doling out of the taxpayers' funds to people not legally in our
country and aliens who should not be in line for welfare benefits.
As of Tuesday, April 30, the debt stood at $5,102,048,827,234.22,
meaning that every man, woman, and child in our Nation owes $19,271.23
on a per capita basis.
Mr. President, the bill before the Senate tightens the enforcement
and improves the effectiveness of our immigration law by: First, adding
additional Border Patrol and investigative personnel; second, creating
additional detention facilities; third, increasing penalties for alien
smuggling and document fraud; fourth, reforming asylum, exclusion and
deportation law and procedures; and fifth, by ending distribution of
welfare to noncitizens.
I support this measure because it will make it more difficult for
immigrants to enter this country illegally. This is a bold step to
protect the rights and best interests of citizens of the United States.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to explain my opposition to S.
1664, the illegal immigration bill approved by the full Senate today.
There are several provisions in the bill that I strongly support and
that I believe will significantly improve our ability to curb illegal
immigration. For example, providing additional personnel and resources
to the Border Patrol marks an unprecedented effort to provide law
enforcement agencies with the tools to maintain the integrity of our
border. And the tough new penalties authored by the Senator from
Michigan, Senator Abraham, and myself for those who come here legally
and fail to depart when their visas expire is the first time ever
anyone has proposed cracking down on the visa overstayer problem--a
problem that represents up to one-half of our illegal immigration
problems.
In addition, I am also pleased that we were able to ensure that this
legislation does not dramatically reduce current levels of legal
immigration. As I have consistently said, we should focus on those who
are breaking the rules, not those who are abiding by them.
Unfortunately, the bill contains very troubling provisions relating
to the establishment of a national worker verification system that I
remain strongly opposed to and that I believe violate the principle I
have just outlined.
Some believe that a massive new national verification system to
verify the identity of all U.S. citizens and alien residents is a
measured response to the illegal immigration problem. I could not
disagree more. INS tells us that less than 2 percent of the U.S.
population is here illegally. I do not understand why some believe it
is a measured response to verify the identity of 98 percent of the
population--that which is residing here legally--to root out the small
percentage that is here illegally.
Moreover, the cost to employers of complying with this Federal
mandate and navigating this complex new Federal bureaucracy cannot be
understated. Will employers be required to buy expensive computers and
the necessary software so they can communicate with a Federal
bureaucrat in Washington, DC?
I do not understand how some of the same Senators who so vocally
supported regulatory relief for small businesses last year can be so
enthusiastic about passing yet another Federal mandate and more Federal
paperwork onto our Nation's employers.
Finally, I joined the Senators from Michigan, Senator Abraham, and
Ohio, Senator DeWine, in a bipartisan attempt to remove the bill's new
and onerous requirements relating to birth certificates and driver's
license.
S. 1664 would mark an unprecedented Federal preemption of every
State's right to fashion and issue their birth certificates and
driver's license. Under this bill, local and State agencies must comply
with federally mandated regulations relating to the composition and
issuance of these identification documents. I oppose the federalization
of these documents, and am gravely concerned that such an act puts us
squarely on the road to having some sort of national ID card.
Moreover, the bill does not contain one word about how the States and
local governments are to pay for these changes. Again, this provision
stands in direct contradiction to one of the 104th Congress' few
bipartisan successes--the enactment of unfunded mandates legislation.
These provisions represent an enormous unfunded mandate, and is
precisely why they are opposed by the National Conference of State
Legislatures and the National Association of Counties.
Mr. President, I do want to take a moment to commend the senior
Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, and the senior Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. They have

[[Page S4607]]

taken on a tremendously difficult task and they are to be recognized
for their hard work and dedication to reforming our immigration laws.
I do regret that I have some fundamental disagreements over how we
should go about reforming those laws, but I look forward to working
with my colleagues to modify these provisions during the duration of
the legislative process so as to minimalize the bill's impact on our
Nation's employers, workers, legal immigrants and State and local
governments.
I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep
appreciation to the managers of S. 1644, Chairman Simpson and Senator
Kennedy, for their support for my two amendments that have been adopted
en bloc. These are amendments Nos. 3873 and 3874, as amended.
Mr. President, these two noncontroversial amendments relate to
problems that have developed in recent years with the movement of
persons along Maine's border with the Canadian province of New
Brunswick.
The first amendment expresses the sense of Congress on New
Brunswick's discriminatory application of its Provincial sales tax only
on those Canadians crossing the border with the United States and not
on Canadians crossing the border from other Canadian provinces. The
second amendment calls for the U.S. Customs Service to conduct a study
of reports of harassment by Canadian Customs officials of Canadians
returning to New Brunswick from Maine.
Mr. President, nearly 3 years ago, in July 1993, Canadian Customs
officers began collecting an 11 percent New Brunswick Provincial sales
tax on goods purchased in the United States by New Brunswick residents.
It immediately became clear that this tax collection at the United
States-New Brunswick border was intended to discourage Canadians from
shopping in Maine. This is evidenced by the fact that New Brunswick
collects the tax only along its international border with the United
States, not along its border with other Canadian provinces. Thus, the
tax is being administered by Canadian authorities in a manner uniquely
discriminatory to Canadians shopping in the United States.
I would like to make it clear that while I regret such cross-border
impediments to the movement of people and goods, New Brunswick's right
to attempt to collect its sales tax on the purchase of goods outside
the province by New Brunswick residents has never been questioned. The
issue is the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's sales tax
only on goods purchased in the United States, an application that runs
directly counter to the letter and spirit of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.
Mr. President, this impediment to the cross-border movement of
persons and goods not only violates Canada's NAFTA obligations, but it
has severely damaged the economies of a number of communities in
northern Maine who formerly provided services to significant numbers of
New Brunswick residents.
Soon after the imposition of the New Brunswick Provincial sales tax,
I began working with the U.S. Trade Representative to seek redress
under the then-existing dispute mechanism available under the United
States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. But before that dispute mechanism
could be engaged, Congress approved the North American Free Trade
Agreement, which required an entirely new dispute mechanism to be
created.
In February 1994, more than 2 years ago, the United States Trade
Representative publicly stated that the United States would seek
redress from Canada for the discriminatory application of New
Brunswick's Provincial sales tax under the dispute resolution process
contained in chapter 20 of the NAFTA. Trade Representative Kantor said
that he would seek such redress as soon as the dispute resolution
process was established.
Mr. President, the dispute resolution process contained in chapter 20
of the NAFTA has now been in place for a year, but the USTR has still
not submitted this case. Therefore, my first amendment simply states
the sense of Congress that the United States should move forward
without delay in bringing the Provincial sales tax issue before the
NAFTA dispute resolution process. The people of Maine deserve their day
in court.
Mr. President, my second amendment would address disturbing reports
of harassment by Canadian Customs officials of New Brunswick residents
upon their return to Canada from northern Maine. The amendment asks the
U.S. Customs Service to investigate these allegations, and to report
back to Congress. If Customs officials find that such harassment has
occurred, the amendment calls on the U.S. Customs Service to recommend
actions that could be taken to address the problem.
The amendment also calls on the Customs Service to consult with
representatives of the State of Maine, local businesses, and any other
knowledgeable persons who might be able to assist Customs in the
completion of the study. This will ensure that the Customs Service has
full access to all those in Maine who have received reports of Canadian
Customs harassment of New Brunswick residents.
Mr. President, these two amendments may seem minor to many of my
colleagues, but they address issues that are critically important to
the economic health and livelihood of many small communities in
northern Maine. These communities have suffered severe economic harm
from the discriminatory application of New Brunswick's Provincial sales
tax and other actions taken by Canadian officials to impede cross
border shopping by Canadians in the United States. Before we move
forward on this important bill to better control our own borders, I
believe that these issues simply must be resolved.
Again, Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and
Senator Kennedy for their critical support for these important
amendments.

f-1 visa holders

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to bring an important issue to
the attention of my colleagues, INS regulations at 8 CFR sec.
214.2(f)(10) preclude practical training during the first 9-months of a
full-time undergraduate student's enrollment in a Service-approved
college or university. In other words, an F-1 visa holder lawfully
enrolled as an undergraduate student in a college or university with an
approved curriculum may not participate in practical training or an
internship program without completing 9 full months of classroom time.
This restriction applies to undergraduate students but does not apply
to graduate students. I might add that there is no legislative history
to support such a distinction.
Mr. SIMPSON. I was not aware of that regulation. Has my colleague
inquired as to the position of the INS and the agency's reasoning for
writing the regulation in this manner?
Mr. BOND. I sent a letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner
requesting her to advise me of the official position of the INS and any
actions the agency may take to remedy the situation. Unfortunately the
INS Commissioner must not have felt that the issue was of the
importance for her to respond personally. I did receive a letter from
the Office of Congressional Affairs stating that the rationale for the
regulation is the well-established fact that the initial academic year
of an undergraduate curriculum is focused around introductory
curriculum rather than paid practical training outside the classroom.
The agency representative said this position is consistent with
congressional intent.
Mr. SIMPSON. Is this response acceptable to my colleague?
Mr. BOND. I say to my colleague that I remain unconvinced that this
regulation is consistent with the intent of Congress. This situation
concerns me because a liberal arts college in Missouri that offers a
full-time undergraduate curriculum includes practical training. For a
number of reasons, the foreign students are rotated along with the
American students through the program and a number of students begin
the internship training in their first year of school. This is an
impressive program. The school ensures that all the foreign students
are lawfully enrolled. Finally, the college values the enrollment and
participation of the F-1 visa holders. It is important to the future
and the success of the program to have the flexibility to rotate the
students through the practical training as needed.
Would my colleague agree that this is a matter that deserves the
attention

[[Page S4608]]

of the INS? Should the INS find that the program is a valid program and
the students are lawfully admitted, I believe these students should be
permitted to participate in the practical training in this manner.
Mr. SIMPSON. I agree with my colleague that this situation deserves
the attention of the INS. I would have thought that the INS
Commissioner would have responded to you personally. Are the students
in these programs completing their course of study? Are they receiving
a liberal arts degree? I would be interested in those questions. I
commend you for your interest in this issue.
Mr. BOND. The students in this program are lawfully enrolled, they
complete their course of study and they receive a liberal arts degree.
I have prepared an amendment to correct this situation, but I am going
to withhold introducing the amendment at this time and attempt to work
through this situation with the INS. However, should this situation not
be addressed I will consider offering the amendment when the Senate
considers the appropriate future legislation.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would be willing to give such an amendment the
consideration it deserves at that time.
Mr. BOND. Will my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, agree that this situation warrants the full
attention of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?
Mr. HATCH. I agree with my colleague, the INS should give the issue
the attention it deserves. Should my colleague offer such an amendment,
I will also be willing to consider supporting the amendment.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and will keep
them apprised of the disposition of this important issue.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I applaud the hard work of the Senate
Judiciary Committee on this immigration reform legislation. This bill
contains many important provisions that will help stem the rising tide
of illegal immigration to the United States and reduce the costs to
taxpayers from any continued illegal immigration.
I take this opportunity to emphasize that I voted against an
amendment offered by Senator Leahy that would have stricken summary
exclusion provisions from this bill and the recently passed
antiterrorism bill because we must curtail asylum abuse in order to
fully address our Nation's serious problem of illegal immigration.
I also want to address a provision in the immigration bill that would
allow an employer to ask an employee or potential employee for
additional documentation to establish the employee's authorization to
work. This provision creates an intent standard which provides that an
employer does not violate fair labor standards in requesting additional
documentation from an employee unless the employer intended to
discriminate on the basis of race or national origin.
Under current law, an employer may not request any documents in
addition to those contained on a prescribed list of documents when
verifying an employee's eligibility to work. At the same time,
employers fearing sanctions for hiring an illegal alien often feel
compelled to request additional documents from individuals, especially
when they have constructive knowledge that an individual is not
authorized to work.
I understand that some have expressed concerns that changing the law
could make it more difficult to prove discrimination in document abuse
cases. However, cases decided before current law was enacted show that
our immigration laws protect against such discrimination even without a
harsh strict liability standard. Thus, I believe this change in the law
strikes a proper balance between the need to protect against
discrimination and the need not to punish employer's who reasonably
suspect that an employee or applicant is not authorized to work.
Again, I commend the Senate Judiciary Committee on their excellent
work in crafting this immigration reform legislation.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2202, the
Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996.
It has been said before, but it bears repeating that as a nation we
must close the back door to illegal immigration if the front door of
legal immigration is to remain open. This landmark legislation
represents a major step toward that goal.
Mr. President, as passed by the Senate, H.R. 2202 significantly
augments the Nation's Border Patrol. The bill also provides the
Department of Justice with important new legal tools to fight alien
smuggling and document fraud. In addition, H.R. 2202 enhances the
ability of the Justice Department to secure the prompt deportation of
criminal aliens.
Equally important, H.R. 2202 protects the taxpayers by taking
numerous steps to assure that legal immigrants come to the United
States to work, not to go on welfare.
The one major provision of H.R. 2202 with which I disagree is the one
that establishes pilot programs for various systems to verify the
employment eligibility of new workers. Some have called this part of
this bill the beginning of an eventual ``national identification
system'' or ``national identification card.'' I share this concern.
During the Senate's consideration of this illegal immigration bill,
therefore, I voted to support the Abraham-Feingold amendment to strike
the national identification pilot programs provisions from the
legislation.
On balance, though, H.R. 2202 is a strong bill. It will strike a
powerful blow against illegal immigration. In the majestic words of the
poet Emma Lazarus, America still lifts her ``lamp beside the Golden
Door'' for legal immigrants. With this bill, however, we are now moving
to put a new padlock on the back door to keep out those who seek to
violate our laws against illegal immigration.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we consider this legislation, I ask my
colleagues to focus on this fact: According to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, there are approximately 4 million illegal
immigrants permanently residing in this country today, and that number
grows by an estimated 300,000 each and every year. Clearly, such
numbers should be a siren song to this Congress.
That is why I will support this final, amended version of S. 1664,
the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act. It is, in my
opinion, a positive step in our overall effort to improve our Nation's
immigration policies. The bill makes much-needed and substantive
reforms in the current law by focusing on the problem of illegal
immigration without unfairly punishing law-abiding employers and those
who come to this country and play by the rules.
This bill concentrates on better enforcement, both at our borders and
in dealing with those who overstay their visa, by increasing the number
of Border Patrol agents and investigative personnel over the next 5
fiscal years. It provides for 4,700 new Border Patrol agents, a total
increase of 90 percent above current levels. It authorizes the hiring
of 300 full-time INS investigators who will concentrate on alien
smuggling and enforcing employer sanctions. And it authorizes 300 new
INS officers to investigate aliens who entered legally on a temporary
visa, but have overstayed that visa and are now in the United States
illegally.
This bill also works to streamline current exclusion and deportation
processes for anyone attempting to enter the United States without
proper documentation, or with false documentation. No longer will such
individuals be able to stay on indefinitely while their case is
endlessly adjudicated. While genuine refugees are still offered
important protections, abuse of the system will be largely curtailed
through a new system which allows specially trained asylum officers at
ports of entry to determine if refugee seekers have a credible fear of
persecution. If they do, then they can go through the normal process of
establishing their claim. But if they cannot establish a proper claim,
then the new provisions in this bill will prevent them from simply
being released into the streets.
Mr. President, S. 1664 also contains new language that will
effectively deal with criminal aliens. For those individuals who come
to this country and commit crimes--and there are an estimated 450,000
such criminal aliens in our jails and at large throughout the Nation--
there are tough new provisions

[[Page S4609]]

in this bill that will keep them off our streets and deport them more
quickly. For example, under this bill, criminal aliens will no longer
have the luxury of deciding whether they will serve their sentence in
this country or their home country. On the contrary, this bill allows
for the renegotiation of prisoner-transfer treaties that will take away
that decision from the criminal alien.
In addition, this bill places new restrictions--much-needed
restrictions--on the use of welfare by immigrants. For the first time,
self-sufficiency will be the watchword for those coming to the United
States. By making noncitizens ineligible for Federal means-tested
programs, and by ``deeming'' a sponsor's income attributable to an
immigrant, the American taxpayer will no longer be financially
responsible for new arrivals.

Mr. President, currently, individuals who sponsor an immigrant's
entry into the United States must pledge financial support for that
immigrant by signing an affidavit. But those affidavits, as it turns
out, are not legally binding, and therefore not enforceable.
Consequently, they are simply not worth the paper they are printed on.
Under this bill, though, the sponsor's affidavit of support will be a
legally binding document, thereby creating a legal claim that the
Federal Government or any State government can seek to enforce.
Moreover, the affidavit remains enforceable against the sponsor until
the immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen, or has worked 40
qualifying quarters in this country.
Mr. President, each of the provisions that I have noted are, I
believe, good provisions. Each will be effective in combating the
problem of illegal immigration. But on their own, these reforms cannot
stem the root of the problem. They cannot get at the underlying cause
for why the United States has such a large illegal alien population,
now estimated by the INS at some 4 million persons.
On the contrary, the only way to effectively halt the flow of illegal
immigrants into the United States is to take away the biggest magnet of
all: the magnet of jobs. Pure and simple, we must do more to deny jobs
to those who are in the country unlawfully than we are presently doing.
And I believe that the most realistic way to turn off the jobs magnet
is through the new worker verification system provided for in this
bill.
This provision, jointly crafted by Senators Simpson and Kennedy, will
require the President, acting through the Justice Department, to
conduct several local or regional pilot programs over the next 3 years
to test new and better ways of verifying employment eligibility. These
pilot programs will test the feasibility of implementing electronic or
telephonic verification systems that will reduce employment of illegal
immigrants, while at the same time protecting the privacy of all
Americans.
The verification systems that will be tested in these demonstration
projects will be required to reliably determine whether the person
applying for employment is actually eligible to work, and whether or
not such individual is an imposter, fraudulently claiming another
person's identity. Under the terms of the Simpson-Kennedy amendment,
any system tested would be required to reliably verify employment
authorization within 5 business days, and do so in 99 percent of all
inquiries. The systems must also provide an accessible and reliable
process for authorized workers to examine the contents of their records
and correct errors within 10 business days. And any identification
documents used in these demonstration projects must be resistant to
tampering and counterfeiting.
Mr. President, as I noted at the start of my comments, I believe S.
1664 is a good bill, with many tough provisions. In my opinion, this
legislation will make significant strides toward reducing the number of
illegal immigrants in the United States, and in helping to lift the
financial burden for these people from the shoulders of the American
taxpayer.

At the same time, however, I am disappointed that the Senate did not
see fit to address the entire issue of immigration, both illegal and
legal. I do not believe, as I know some do, that the issues neatly
separate into distinct matters. I do not believe, as some apparently
do, that we can have a coherent, integrated policy in this area when we
choose to ignore necessary reforms in legal immigration.
Mr. President, I believe that the time is way overdue for all of us
to take a fresh, cold, hard look at our total national immigration
policy and its impact on our society. It is clear to me that such an
evaluation is badly needed and that a new consensus about the kind of
immigration policies we need to enhance our particular goals must be
formulated by the Congress. It seems indisputable to me that any
nation's overall immigration policy must first and foremost seek to
enhance the survival and integrity of that nation's culture as a whole
by encouraging a broad consensus and shared beliefs. Simply put, our
Nation must put its own citizens' concerns above the laudable goal of
helping people from other nations. We must consider our own national
priorities and the needs of our own citizens first.
As Alexander Hamilton said on January 12, 1802, ``The safety of a
republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national
sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption
of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on the love of
country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected
with birth, education and family.''
But what we are beginning to see in our country is the fragmentation
of peoples into groups who tend to put the group above the Nation. This
trend toward Balkanization of America into ethnic enclaves is a
slippage we need to take positive steps to curtail.
The extreme result of Balkanization of course is the ethnic bloodshed
we have witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. When we think of
immigration in America, I believe most of us draw an image of America
as a melting pot where ethnic differences are subordinated for the
benefit of the greater whole. Recent evidence throws this imagery into
some question. The process of assimilation into a common language and
belief system, and shared values, is no longer occurring as it has in
the past with the waves of new immigrants now washing into our country.
Rather than melting into one people, we seem to fragment and separate
in warring groups.
The recent history of immigration into America shows that it is
governed by, first, the laws which we write, and second, the
implementation of those laws. Obviously when we write new law, we must
then look to our own employment needs, to the effects on our welfare
rolls, and to the impacts on the resources we dedicate to our schools
and health system as we proceed. We obviously have an obligation to put
our own people, their standard of living, and their opportunities for
education, employment and health first. So we here in Congress must
take responsibility for the effect of the immigration laws which we
write on the continued health of our Nation. We cannot shirk or shift
this responsibility.

The American people tell us in convincing polls, some 70 percent,
that they think we are taking in more immigrants--legal and illegal--
than we can properly absorb and assimilate. The Immigration Act of 1965
apparently triggered huge increases in immigration, and not necessarily
by design. Various estimates, including those of the INS, project an
average of well over 1 million immigrants per year, both legal and
illegal, will settle in the United States in the current decade, with
no subsidence of that flood in sight unless we in the Congress take
action to do something about it.
To really get to the heart of the problem, we have to be willing to
examine and debate the newly developing demographic dynamics among all
cultural and ethnic groups including developing trends in regional and
urban concentration, and our own national racial mix on a basis which
is dispassionate, fair and not prejudicial. Perhaps this is difficult
for many, but we cannot treat such practical analysis as taboo because
a changing cultural mix in a locality, a city, a State or a region can
have profound social, economic, and political consequences on us all
which cannot be ignored. For instance, should we not be looking at the
particular impacts of immigration in specific geographic concentrations
and make an effort to reduce the possibilities of Balkanization and the
creation

[[Page S4610]]

of enclaves? There is already some documentation of demographic
movements of some ethnic groups away from, and in reaction to, such
enclaves. We need to take steps to better understand the demographic
shifts that are occurring in our country and the consequent economic
and political results of those shifting tides.
There is one area of abuse which starkly highlights the need for
thorough dispassionate review of certain practices which have reached
near ridiculous proportions. It is time we re-examined our policy of
rewarding family preferences automatically to the children of illegal-
immigrant mothers. The practice of coming to the United States,
illegally, solely to have a child which is then automatically an
American citizen with right to preference in bringing in other family
members has reached epidemic proportions in California particularly.
Most of the births, according to the Los Angeles Times of January 6,
1992, in Los Angeles County are reported to have been of this variety.
Something is clearly wrong with our policy in this regard and I support
addressing the problem.
One fundamental issue which ought to be discussed is the primacy of
our national language. There is nothing more fundamental to an
integrated state and culture than a common language. The trend toward
bilingualism in some areas, I contend, may not be productive at all,
but instead may simply delay the mastering of English for many
immigrants. Any policy or law which encourages the use of other
languages at the expense of learning English naturally erodes our
traditional national identity in a most direct and important way.
Requiring education to be in English is the best way I know of to keep
the melting pot melting.

Second, we seem to have shifted away from employment-oriented
immigration, designed to fill particular gaps in our work force, and
gravitated instead to an emphasis on family reunification. The
Judiciary Committee has debated the numbers allowed for family
reunification, but I would question the emphasis on this priority above
employment tests for potential citizens. It seems to me to be simple
common sense to encourage immigration to the United States among
applicants who can help the United States meet certain needs that might
strengthen our workforce and help us be better able to compete in a
global economy.
Third, even when we review those employment-oriented visa programs
which are now on the books, we find them to be wrongly implemented. The
Labor Department Inspector General has recently found two key programs,
the Permanent Labor Certification [PLC] program and the Temporary Labor
Condition Application [LCA] program to be approaching a ``sham.'' These
programs, allowing a combined ceiling of some 200,000 worker entry
visas per year, were designed to bring in workers for jobs that could
not be filled by Americans, allowing us to hire the best and the
brightest in the international labor market so Americans can remain
competitive in the world economy. But instead of protecting American
workers' jobs and wages, the real result has been to simply displace
qualified American workers for essentially middle level jobs, and the
Labor Department report recommends the programs be abolished.
Fourth, there is solid evidence that some immigrants come to the
United States to participate in the welfare state, or do so because of
a failure to find a job in their own land. This bill, S. 1664, attempts
to address this issue through strict, new, deportation rules aimed at
any immigrant that becomes a ``public charge,'' and I commend the
committee for that initiative. However, these new public charge
regulations will have no affect unless we aggressively work to actually
deport such individuals. Implementation of similar legal provisions in
the past has been disappointing, and a renewed attempt is clearly
needed.
The pattern of immigration since 1965 has unfortunately shifted to
less skilled workers than was the case in earlier decades and, in the
1980's a large majority of immigrants came from the developing world,
particularly Latin America and Asia. Surely it should not be taboo to
consider whether the great numbers of developing world cultural groups
can actually provide the skills needed for the current U.S. job market.
Are these prevalent immigrant groups going to strengthen our Nation
with their skills or weaken it because of their needs? That should be
the question we ask when we write such law. The wave of immigrants is
arriving as a result of policy we write in the Congress and, therefore,
I suggest we are obliged to commission ongoing evaluations of the
process and success of immigrant assimilation into American society.
Any ethnic and national mix caused by our immigration laws should be
the result of conscious, deliberate policy embodied in the laws we
consider here on this floor, not of accident or politics or a
disinclination to take on sensitive groups or issues.
Finally, I suggest we need to be consistent in our approach to the
growing and complex problems associated with immigration. We cannot
complain about the changing ethnic mix of immigrants, on the one hand,
and then exploit such people for cheap labor, on the other. We need to
assume responsibility for the results of our immigration policies,
evaluate them on an ongoing basis, and take the legislative steps to
change what we do not favor. Let us for once attempt to remove
hypocrisy and political correctness from this issue, and face the
realities squarely and responsibly. If we feel the ethnic mix is
becoming unbalanced and the number of immigrants is too high, for the
sake of our survival as a Nation, we must take the difficult but
necessary steps to correct the situation. As the 1994 U.S. Commission
on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, stated in
its report on page 1, ``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.''
As the Jordan Commission pointed out, we need to address legal
immigration as well as illegal, and we need to install an enforcement
system that makes it far harder to overstay visas. I hope we can get a
time certain to consider S. 1665, on legal immigration and find a way
to engage the other body on that matter.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we are ready to proceed with the regular
order.

Vote on Amendment No. 3743, as Amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the underlying
amendment as amended.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3743), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.

____________________