[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10572-S10573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to speak on the issue of illegal 
immigration. Not legal immigration; that issue is not before this body. 
I know how to legislate. It was very clear this body did not wish to 
deal with legal immigration. That will be for others who come after me, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, to deal with that very tough issue. 
But, on Wednesday of last week, the House appointed conferees to the 
conference on the immigration bill, the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is legislation that passed 
both Houses of the Congress by overwhelming margins. There were only 
three votes against this very popular bill in the Senate. I think the 
vote was 97 to 3. The House version passed by a vote of 333 to 87.
  Our fine majority leader and the House majority leader have each 
stated that passing immigration reform legislation in this Congress is 
a priority. Senator Bob Dole, a man for whom I have the richest 
admiration and respect--I served as his assistant--was always a very 
strong supporter of responsible immigration reform issues, all such 
measures, and candidate Dole has always expressed his support for the 
present illegal immigration control bill.
  The conference committee will meet this week, but already we are 
hearing about a plan now to filibuster the conference report here in 
the Senate. We all received a letter, of course, from the President, 
explicitly threatening a veto. That is common knowledge. His reason is 
clear to him and clear to many others, and that is the so-called 
Gallegly amendment.
  But I would refresh and remind my colleagues why this legislation 
received such strong bipartisan support in both Houses.

  This legislation is to strengthen the border enforcement by nearly 
doubling the size of the Border Patrol.
  It will ensure that aliens who commit serious crimes are detained 
upon their release from prison until they can be deported, and then 
they will be deported under expedited procedures.
  It will provide prompt decisions for those who apply for asylum and 
ensure that those who genuinely fear persecution at home can remain 
here.
  It will create an expedited removal process, so that those who seek 
to enter the United States surreptitiously or with fraudulent documents 
can be promptly deported and not allowed to stay here for years while 
pursuing various frivolous appeals at all levels and in all forums, 
administrative and judicial.
  It will ensure that the sponsor and not the U.S. taxpayer will be 
primarily responsible for providing financial support to new immigrants 
in need.
  And it will provide for voluntary pilot programs on systems to enable 
employers and welfare providers more reliably to identify those who are 
eligible to work or to receive benefits in this country.
  The most controversial portion of the bill, of course, the one that 
gave rise to the veto threat and the filibuster plan caper, is the so-
called Gallegly amendment, which authorizes the States to decide 
whether or not to provide a free public education to illegal persons, 
illegal aliens--a proposal which in its

[[Page S10573]]

present form is presented to the conferees as including some rather 
extensive changes to that provision. Some say it does not matter what 
you do to that provision, it is not appropriate. That may assuredly be 
so, and yet that is called legislating and it is about discussing and 
amending.
  So it is now worded so that at least those who are opposed to any 
form of illegal immigration reform are not now able to say that we are 
``kicking schoolchildren out into the streets.'' No one I know is 
interested in ``kicking children out into the streets.'' I certainly am 
not, and I have always had some serious problems with regard to aspects 
of the Gallegly amendment, but if that is what is to be in this 
conference report in this form, in its amended form, then it is 
certainly acceptable to me.
  The proposal contains generous ``grandfathering'' provisions for 
those students now in school. They will be permitted to continue their 
education in the elementary or secondary school in which they are now 
enrolled at no charge. If they wish to change school districts in the 
same State or advance from elementary to secondary school, they may do 
so upon paying tuition, or a fee equal to the actual cost that others 
who are citizens pay within that district for their education.
  Furthermore, the proposed change will ensure that unless the Congress 
is given an opportunity to vote on repealing this provision in 30 
months, the provision will sunset--be gone. At the end of the 60 
months, if a bill to repeal the measures is introduced there must be a 
vote within 90 days or the provision will sunset--be gone.
  Those changes to moderate the provision were negotiated by Senators 
Hatch and Specter. They represent, obviously, substantial modifications 
to the elements that were there originally that were apparently the 
most objectionable. I believe they might be sufficient to make the bill 
acceptable to those who truly want illegal immigration control 
legislation.
  But there are some very disappointing signals, I share with my 
colleagues, some very disappointing signals from the Dole campaign. I 
think that my fine leader, who I served as assistant for those 10 
years--a most wonderfully decent man--is being ill-served on this 
issue. If what I read in the papers and hear through the media is true, 
and those who know me please believe that it is, indeed, always taken 
with a huge grain of salt by me as to what is in the media--indeed, 
that will always be so, hopefully--but I am informed he is being 
advised by those who advise these people who choose to submit 
themselves to seek the role of the Office of Presidency--that he is 
being advised simply to let the bill die. And the reason for that, 
apparently, is so, as I gather it, that the President will not have a 
Rose Garden ceremony with regard to illegal immigration; that 
apparently because the President had a Rose Garden ceremony with regard 
to welfare reform and with regard to health care and with regard to, I 
guess, anything else that he signs, that somehow this then cripples the 
effort of my friend, Bob Dole.
  Thus it is rather extraordinary to me that those on my side of the 
aisle often accuse this administration of cynical politics and yet I 
can't imagine anything more cynical than not signing an illegal 
immigration bill or working for its passage--something that was passed 
by such overwhelming margins--on the basis that it is simply going to 
``help the incumbent'' turning our backs on the singular issue that is 
reflected in polls across the country for years, and that is to ``do 
something'' about illegal immigration.
  There is and always has been overwhelming public support for measures 
to reduce illegal immigration. Both candidate Dole and President 
Clinton have stated their support for illegal immigration control 
legislation. I say to my colleagues, it is in the national interest to 
achieve control over our borders, to achieve control over illegal 
immigration and the misuse of our most generous public support and 
welfare programs that so burden the taxpayers of this country.
  When we have 60 percent of the live births in a certain hospital in 
California attributed to illegal undocumented mothers who then give 
birth to a U.S. citizen; when we have people who are minorities who go 
to seek public support because they need it and are then told that the 
cupboard is bare because it has all gone to illegal, undocumented 
persons, that stirs people up. They don't like it, and it really 
shouldn't be the guiding policy of anything we do here, but it is the 
way it is.

  So I just say, apparently the scenario is this now. I gather in my 
wisdom: Pass the bill in the House with the Gallegly amendment, which 
will be adopted; send it over here, and then it will be filibustered by 
those who do not like the Gallegly amendment. I guess they think all of 
those people are Democrats. And then we will point our bony fingers at 
all the Democrats and say, ``They brought down illegal immigration.''
  That is childish logic, because there are at least 10 to 12 
Republicans in this body who do not like the Gallegly amendment in any 
form and who will assist in the filibuster. So if anybody thinks it is 
just going to be a wonderful roundelay over here of Democrats 
filibustering an illegal immigration bill and then we pointing the bony 
fickle finger of fate at those who destroyed the issue. No.
  So, I guess that is where we are. We will pull the bill down and try 
to blame it on the Democrats and go home. Clever, not, because as I 
say, there are at least 10 to 12 Republicans who will join in that 
filibuster. Go home in October and tell voters a Republican Congress 
did nothing about illegal immigration in an election year.
  Then we also heard, ``Well, if we just send it to President Clinton 
and he vetoes it, we will win California.'' I never went for that 
scenario. I think that is about as boneheaded as you can get, too. But 
when they are telling us that my dear friend, Bob Dole, should do 
nothing and nothing should happen, and that is going to help Bob Dole, 
I must say I have purely missed out on most of the trickery and 
cynicism of the campaign, because there are many on our side who will 
have nothing to do with the Gallegly amendment. Not me, for I am ready 
to do the modified version.
  So what the public will see is a distorted figure of my friend, Bob 
Dole. We have had enough of those. Ten years as his assistant, I know 
him well. He will win the Presidency of the United States if the people 
of the United States come to know him as well as I do and as well as we 
do here, as well as my friend from Montana knows him, and he surely 
does, as well as the occupant of the chair.
  Each and every week for the past 2 years, Bob Dole has said to me, 
``When will we have an immigration bill, Al?'' And now we have one. Now 
we have people pulling at Bob Dole, mewling, puling, mumbling issuing 
from staff and others. He is being ill-served if he is led to believe 
that it is not a priority issue. And if California is in the balance, 
as we say in politics, by doing nothing, someone will have cut the 
tightrope wire for one great and decent man, my friend Bob Dole.
  So perhaps we can move on now with the national interest. There is no 
one who expresses it more in its most honest form than that most 
wonderfully decent and capable man, Bob Dole. We shall see how it plays 
out.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. It is my 
understanding that the hour from 1 to 2 p.m. is under my control and/or 
my designee; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is correct. We are in 
morning business until 2 o'clock, and from 1 to 2 o'clock is under the 
control of the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________