Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Fifteen minutes to offer an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution which seeks to reign in some of the excess defense spending in the Senate budget resolution and bring a little common sense to our Nation's defense budget. The Grassley amendment seeks to reduce $8.3 billion in new budget authority and $2.3 billion in budget outlays of the Senate Budget Committee's markup for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1997, unless the President certifies that these additional funds are needed to ensure the national security of the United States. Mr. President, while I feel this amendment does not go far enough in cutting all of the $11.3 billion added by the Senate Budget Committee over and above the President's fiscal year 1997 request for defense spending, I feel it is a necessary first step in beginning to bring some sanity to our Nation's defense spending. As every other budget account is on a glidepath to reduction, the largest budget of them all--the defense budget--is reversing course and moving to return to its artificially high levels. The budget resolution funds the Defense Department at a level of more than $11 billion over the Clinton Administration's fiscal year 1997 request. The Pentagon is seeking $254.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 budget authority and $260.8 billion in budget outlays in defense spending, while the Senate Budget Committee has recommended $265.6 billion and $263.7 billion, respectively. Already our military budget is more than 3 times that of Russia's; 17 times larger than the combined budgets of North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya, and Syria who are most often identified as our most likely enemies; and is above the level spent by Germany, France, England, Russia, China, South Korea, India, Japan, and Australia combined. Mr. President, this budget plan for the Department of Defense is a recipe for fiscal havoc, and the Senate should insist upon more rationality. We simply cannot afford to continue spending at current or increased rates for defense, as this budget resolution seeks to do to a tune of $11.3 billion. Nor can we afford to insulate any department, including the Defense Department, from scrutiny as we seek to reduce the Federal debt. In a year when we are cutting programs and fighting for deficit reduction, increasing the defense budget is simply irresponsible. We cannot achieve a balanced budget by bloating defense spending. Deficit reduction requires that we make very hard choices and defense programs cannot be insulated in this manner. For these reasons, I have cosponsored Senator Grassley's amendment to the budget resolution, supported by the National Taxpayers Union, which seeks to begin to bring our fiscal house in order and to budget a little more wisely for the future. We simply cannot afford to jeopardize our country's economic health and to mortgage our future by spending tens of billions of dollars in additional funding beyond that which the Pentagon and the Clinton administration have requested. I urge my colleagues to support the Grassley amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on another matter, international trade is a high priority in almost every country today. We are negotiating all sorts of agreements to bring down barriers and protect our workers and promote economic development worldwide. One issue, Mr. President, that I have tried to identify as a barrier for competition for American businesses is the issue of bribery. American businesses live in accordance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This was a bill offered by my predecessor from Wisconsin, Senator William Proxmire. Most businesspeople praise it as a way of maintaining honesty, and thus stability, in their business relationships. But, unfortunately, other countries--and one example is Germany--actually give their businesses the opportunity to write off a bribe in a foreign country as a tax deduction at the end of the year. So it is illegal for one German to bribe another German, but if they were to offer that bribe to somebody in another country, they can use it as a tax deduction. This produces some pretty unhappy faces when American businesspeople find this out. Some say that bribes are the cost of doing business overseas, particularly in some developing countries. I believe, however, it is a barrier to doing business in the long run, particularly overseas, since it can only retard economic growth in some of the developing countries. As a result, Mr. President, I have introduced legislation to try to get at this problem. In the State Department authorization bill for this year, I offered an amendment requiring an interagency study on bribery and corruption and the impact it causes on American businesses. I was disappointed that the majority dropped it in conference committee, but I am pleased that the Commerce Department is going ahead and pursuing a study of its own on this study anyway. I appreciate that. I have also raised the issue of international bribery consistently in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, not only as we examine how to promote U.S. products, but in my role as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, to try to raise the issue of bribery with the African heads of States and other officials when we have confirmation hearings for ambassadors headed to the region. I believe that the ambassadors should be intimately involved in this issue as we seek to promote American products overseas. I also want to praise Ambassador Kantor's very direct and public efforts on this issue and to say that I think his recent efforts have been critical in making headway on a universal acceptance of the principles that underlie the American Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I am particularly encouraged that the administration seems to want the WTO to consider sanctions against bribers when Government contracts are under consideration. Mr. President, it is important that even though we have this tough law and our businesses have to abide by it, we are not alone in this campaign. There have been many significant accomplishments. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, took a landmark step 2 years ago in recognizing that bribery is a destabilizing factor in international trade, and they recommended that the member states cooperate on revisions of their domestic laws about bribery. Several weeks ago, OECD tried to eliminate tax writeoffs on the laws of the member States of the kind that exist in Germany. Latin America has also taken this issue on. In March of this year, the Inter-America Convention Against Corruption, known as the Caracas Convention, identifies corruption as a main obstacle to democratic development in public trust in government institutions, and it also calls and provides for the prohibition on transnational bribery. Mr. President, perhaps some might see this document from the Inter- America Convention as a utopian document that cannot be enforced, but what it does do is begin the process, in Latin America, as has been done in the rest of the world, to commit the parties--in theory, at least--to the notion that bribery is a destructive force in democratic development and international business. Given the developments with the OECD, the United States and Latin America, one would have thought it was a trend for the future, but we are really making progress. Unfortunately, however, at the end of April, the seven-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations spoke out for the first time on the issue of bribery and unfortunately opposed any attempt by the United States to stamp out corruption, saying they would not talk about it in the context of the World Trade Organization. Deputy United States Trade Representative Jeff Lang tried to raise the issue and was criticized by Malaysia and Indonesia officials for plotting against the developing nations. This reaction to the seven countries is a very counterproductive reaction. We focus on bribery to engage more in business, not to discriminate. I hope that Malaysia and Indonesia and others think of this as an area of cooperation, of mutual interest, rather than an area for polarizing, as has been done in this case. Mr. President, to conclude, if international markets are indeed to connect nations around the globe, somehow we have to be able to conduct business in a transparent and responsible manner. Bribery has to be discouraged, not rewarded, by all governments. I hope that the ASEAN countries will reconsider this issue and join governments from every continent in seeking to end the corruption that does exist in international markets. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. First, with regard to the matter that just came up on the floor a few minutes ago, I want to clarify an exchange that occurred with regard to the issue of campaign finance reform. The Senator from Arizona came to the floor and spoke and pointed out that he had heard the minority leader asked unanimous consent that the campaign finance reform issue be added to a unanimous-consent proposal that the majority leader had propounded. The Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, indicated that he believed a different attempt had been made and that in fact the minority leader had simply suggested that this was a matter that might come up. The Senator from Minnesota asked that I clarify this issue and that it is, in fact, the case that the minority leader, Mr. Daschle, did specifically ask unanimous consent that campaign finance reform be added to the unanimous-consent agreement. So, in fairness, the Senator from Arizona did accurately portray what was requested. Let me just say this, however. It is very important, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, as I know the Senator from Minnesota believes, that this issue remain not a part of partisan bickering. Obviously, there are many reasons why some partisanship is being demonstrated on the floor at this time. That is entirely inappropriate on some of the issues that are being discussed. But I agree with the Senator from Arizona that when it comes to campaign finance reform, in this session, with this Congress and this President, that it has to be a bipartisan effort. It is my view that when Mr. Daschle, the minority leader, made this unanimous-consent request, that he was not seeking to make this a partisan issue. Senator Daschle has indicated that he believes that the so-called McCain-Feingold bill ought to be the vehicle for achieving campaign finance reform. He has indicated that he disagrees with some aspects of it. But I believe that the Senator from South Dakota is a friend to the issue of campaign finance reform. Nonetheless, I think we will do better on the issue of campaign finance reform if it is offered on the basis of a bipartisan agreement, either by Senators working together on the bill, as Senator McCain and Senator Wellstone and I are doing, or preferably if the two leaders, the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from South Dakota, were to get together and make sure that in the very near future this body turn specifically to the issue of campaign finance reform as the order of the day. That is what all of us who cosponsor this bill prefer, although we stand ready to attach this bill as an amendment to other legislation if we are not afforded that opportunity. So let me just reiterate, the campaign finance reform effort is the first bipartisan effort of its kind in 10 years in this body. It is a real effort. It is an effort that has enormous support, and we will not allow any partisan maneuvers on either side to prevent us from our opportunity to make this change that the American people want very, very much.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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. 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 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.

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. 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. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I use these few seconds to say I strongly agree with the Senator's opposition to this amendment. As we learned in committee, this is a duplication to add to this agency. Where is the $100 million going to come from that this amendment provides for this agency? The Clinton administration has been clear that they do not need it, that this would probably make their lives more difficult in terms of fighting the problem. On a bipartisan basis in committee we were able to defeat this notion. I hope we will not go backward on it on the floor. I thank the Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. This has been a good debate. It appears to be winding down. Let me just add a couple responses to the comments of the Senators from Wyoming and Massachusetts. One of the words that has been kicked around here is the word ``permission.'' Does this employer identification system, if it is fully implemented, require permission from the Federal Government for an employer to hire somebody? It has been sort of muddying the issue. I suppose you could call the current system, asking for ``permission.'' It is kind of a loose use of the word, because what is required now with the I-9 is the obtaining of a certain kind of identification card. But what it does not include--and this is the phrase I used when I spoke; I did not just say ``permission,'' I said, ``having to ask permission from Washington, DC.'' That is what this system that could arise from this proposal may create. What happens now is the employer does not have to get on the phone or through a computer to find out something from a national databank. That is a big difference. Ask anybody who tries to run a small business or a farm how they are going to like the idea that, in addition to everything else they have to do now to try to keep their business going, every time they want to hire somebody under one of these alternatives, they would have to either call Washington or they would have to communicate with Washington through some other system, such as a computer system. Who is going to pay for all those systems? Who is going to make up for the lost time of the employer who has these additional burdens? It is very important to distinguish here between what is current law and what this bill could do if this amendment is not adopted--getting permission from Washington, DC. I think that is a fair statement of what this adds to this bill. How can this possibly square with the rhetoric and legislation proposed in the 104th Congress? Whatever happened to the notion that we should not do more unfunded mandates from Washington, especially on small businesses? Whatever happened to the notion of regulatory reform, which almost every Senator at least paid lip service to? This seems to be one of the biggest potential unfunded mandates that has ever been proposed on this floor. I am confident that almost no employer in the State of Wisconsin would feel comfortable with the notion that suddenly, in addition to everything else they have to do, they have to call up Washington under this. If there is any ambiguity involved about the possibility that this might occur, I refer to page 26 of the bill, and subsection (E), where it explicitly states that one of the things that could be done in these pilot projects is to create the following: A system that requires employers to verify the validity of employee social security account numbers through a telephone call, and to verify employee identity through a United States passport, a State driver's license or identification document, or a document issued by the Service for purposes of this clause. So it is explicit in the bill. It is not just some objectives, general objectives, as the Senator from Massachusetts was reading earlier. You go 13 pages later, there are the explicit approaches that are permitted. One of those approaches is to put in place a pilot program that presumably would lead to a national program requiring every employer to essentially call Washington after they have hired someone. I think this is very troubling and certainly something that should be removed from the bill. Another comment that I found interesting was the comment of the Senator from Wyoming. He said that if this system costs $10 billion, it would be worth it. I think that is debatable, perhaps. But we have no assurance that even after we have gone through this process, either allowed every employer to do this or mandated every employer to do this, after we spend $10 billion, we have no assurance at all that this system will work. There will still be fraud. There will still be fraudulent documents. No one has been able to assure us this is foolproof. We may have created this giant mandate and spent $10 billion, have this huge system in place, and it may not work. So it is not just a question of spending the money. There is no guarantee it would, in fact, work. So the question here in the end is, What the adoption of this amendment will do to this whole bill? Some say it will destroy the bill. Others think, as I do, as Senator Abraham does, that it will make it a measured response. Instead of using a meat ax to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, we will focus on the tough items that are in the bill that the Senator from Ohio identified. There are strong measures in this bill. Frankly, I think a couple of them might go a little too far. This is not a weak-kneed piece of legislation if we get rid of this extreme mandate that could potentially arise from these pilot programs. So, Mr. President, for those who support a strong immigration bill, I reject the notion that getting rid of this potential employer verification system would make it a weak bill. I think that is wrong. I think everyone should remember the balance here between keeping the strong provisions that are in the bill versus making the bill so difficult for so many Americans and so many businesses that it would be resented rather than welcomed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Abraham-Feingold amendment to strike the worker verification proposal from this bill. It has been said many times already in the past, and today on the floor, that we cannot effectively combat illegal immigration without having a national worker verification proposal. It has been said that the employer sanction laws implemented in the 1986 act have been largely ineffective due to the absence of such a verification system. As we all know, Mr. President, there are two major channels of illegal immigration. The first is composed of those who cross our borders illegally, without visas and without inspection. Roughly 300,000 such individuals enter and remain in our country unlawfully each year. This, as we all know and agree, is unquestionably a serious problem along our southwestern border. This Congress does have a responsibility to provide additional resources to the U.S. Border Patrol and other enforcement agencies to prevent such individuals from crossing the border in the first place. So I strongly support the provisions in S. 1664 that provide additional border guards and enforcement personnel. Mr. President, the second part of the equation, though, which represents up to one-half of the illegal immigration problem, is the problem known as visa overstayers. These are people who enter our country legally, usually on a tourist or student visa, and then remain in the United States unlawfully only after the visa has expired. But despite this phenomenon, representing up to 50 percent--50 percent--of our illegal immigration problem, there was not a single provision in the original committee legislation to address this problem--not a single word about half of the whole illegal immigration problem. Instead, the bill supporters proposed a massive, new national worker verification system, complete with uniform Federal identification documents. So, rather than targeting the individuals who break our laws and are here illegally, the premise of that proposal was to ensure that the identity of every worker in America--U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, and so on--had to be verified by a Government agency in Washington, DC. Mr. President, we are going to hear extensive debate about whether or not what is in this bill is actually going to work, and I will comment on that in a few minutes. But I think we first need to ask the question of whether this, in any way, is an appropriate response to the illegal immigration problem. According to INS figures, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is here illegally. Mr. President, do we really want to require 98 percent of Americans to have their identities verified by the Federal Government every time they apply for a job or public assistance? Think about what this means to every employer in this country, Mr. President. Every employer would have to live under such a system if it was fully implemented. Suppose a dairy farmer in rural Wisconsin, or perhaps rural New Hampshire, wants to hire a part-time employee. Should that farmer have to get permission from a Washington bureaucrat before he hires the worker? How is the verification check to be completed? If it ends up being an electronic system, does that mean the farmer is going to have to spend $2,000 or $3,000 on a new computer and another $1,000 on the required software to be able to interface with a computer somewhere in Washington, DC--all so he can hire just one part-time employee on his farm in Wisconsin or New Hampshire? Mr. President, if fully implemented, this, obviously, is not a measured response to the illegal immigration problem. It suggests that the way to find a needle in a haystack is to set the haystack on fire. It is not as if we are moving to a national verification system as a last resort. Just in the past few years has the administration begun to take seriously the task of patrolling our Nation's borders. Experiments such as Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, have demonstrated that there is a way to prevent undocumented persons from entering the United States. Moreover, we have never tried to attack the visa overstayer problem. Again, that is the problem that constitutes nearly one-half of the illegal problem. No one has ever proposed such targeted reforms--until now. Our amendment contains provisions that impose tough new penalties on persons who overstay their visas by withholding future visas from persons who violate the terms of their agreements. In addition, anybody who applies for a legal visa must submit certain information to the INS that will allow the INS to track such persons and determine who is here lawfully and who is here unlawfully. These bold reforms should be given an opportunity to work. Let us give them a try before we commit ourselves to experimenting with a costly and burdensome national verification system. Moreover, Mr. President--and, of course, I acknowledge that during the committee's work, this was turned into more of a pilot program approach. Nonetheless, the so-called pilot programs contained in this legislation are riddled with problems. Let us be honest. We would not be having these so-called pilot programs if the eventual goal was not to have a national verification system up and running in the near future. Why would we do them if that was not the ultimate objective? Indeed, in addition to the pilot programs, this bill, as reported out of the Judiciary Committee, requires the President to develop just such a plan for a national system and submit it to Congress. We also know there are going to be numerous errors in the system. As the Senator from Michigan has pointed out, one Federal data base that is to be used with this system currently has an error rate of over 20 percent. So we know that millions and millions of Americans will be wrongfully denied employment and Government assistance due to bureaucratic errors. Now the sponsors of the provision will tell you that the system is only supposed to have an error rate of 1 percent. But read the bill. The bill clearly states that the system should have an objective of an error rate of less than 1 percent. It could have an error rate of 5, 10, or 20 percent and it would be perfectly OK under this bill. But perhaps nothing is as troubling to me about this proposal as the fact that it puts us squarely on the road to having some sort of national ID card. Now I know that the very words ``ID card'' ruffles the feathers of the sponsors of this provision. And I know that they have crafted this language very carefully so there is not an actual identification document created by this language. But even many of the congressional supporters of a national verification system have pointed out that this proposal will not work without some sort of national identification document. Why? Because any job applicant can hand an employer a legitimate ID card that has, for example, been stolen or doctored. The employer will run the card through the system and it will check out. But the card does not belong to the individual, so that individual has just fraudulently obtained a job or received welfare assistance. That is exactly what is likely to happen if this bill becomes law. Well, Mr. President, is there any way to prevent this sort of fraud from happening? One solution has been suggested. Let me quote Frank Ricchiazzi who is the assistant director of the California department of motor vehicles. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee last May, Mr. Ricchiazzi said the following: All the databases and communication systems in the world fill not prevent the clever and resourceful individual from assuming multiple identities with quality fraudulent documents. What is needed is the ability to tie the documents back to a unique physiological identifier commonly referred to as biometric technology (retinal scan, fingerprint, hand print, voice print, etc). So fingerprinting every person in America is one suggested solution to this problem. Now this approach may sound a little farfetched, but my colleagues on both sides of the aisle may be surprised that the original committee bill required every birth certificate and driver's license in America to be adorned with a fingerprint. This is not totally far-fetched. It is what we had to consider in the first place in committee. And it is my understanding that even with the last-minute changes made yesterday to the birth certificate requirements, the bill continues to allow Federal agencies to preempt the authority of the States by requiring State agencies to follow federally mandated regulations with respect to the composition and issuance of their birth certificates and drivers license. The bill's supporters claim that the fingerprint requirements have been removed from the legislation. But again, read the bill. The legislation before us allows the administration to determine what sort of safety and tamper-proof features every State's driver's licenses must have. We are going to put something in this Congress to say you cannot use it for something else. So if the Department of Transportation decides to require the State of Wisconsin to begin collecting and processing fingerprints of all driver's license applicants, the State of Wisconsin would be forced to comply under this legislation with the national fingerprint mandate. That is why this provision, even with the recent modifications, continues to be opposed by the National Association of Counties and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bill's supporters will also say that the legislation clearly prohibits any identification documents required for the verification system to also be required for other purposes. Mr. President, that is not much of a guarantee. In fact, it is no guarantee and on the contrary, by establishing such federally mandated identification documents we open the door for these documents and the verification system to be used in the future for a variety of purposes that could be completely different from what we intended, and something that none of us would support. At first, Mr. President, Members of Congress may propose that people present these documents and go through the verification process for very legitimate purposes. Maybe they will say, ``Well, we have to use these ID's or documents to board an airplane; maybe we will be required to use them to adopt a child; maybe it will be required if you want to enlist in the Armed Forces.'' And pretty soon, the verification process and identification documents will be required for so many purposes that it just might be a good idea to carry the I.D. document around in your wallet. Does that sound farfetched Mr. President? It should not, because I just described the Social Security card--a card that was originally intended for one purpose and is now required for so many purposes that most people carry it around in their wallets or pocketbooks. And Social Security numbers are used for numerous identification purposes from the number on your driver's license to assessing computer networks. I know, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming will claim that the bill specifically prohibits the verification system from being used for other purposes. But nothing in this legislation, including the so-called privacy protections, can prevent a future Congress from passing a law to require these identification documents and the verification system to serve different purposes than originally intended. That is precisely why Senators should not be misled into believing that the pilot projects contained in this legislation are harmless and will have no effect on their constituents. The pilot programs are not intended to merely provide a testing ground. If the pilot programs are just meant to provide us with test results, why does the bill specifically require the President to develop and submit to Congress a plan for expanding the pilot projects into a nationwide worker verification system? That is the goal of the verification proposal contained in the legislation and Senators should not be misled into believing that these are harmless pilot programs that are not going to affect their constituents and are going to somehow magically disappear in a few years. Mr. President, the number and range of groups and organizations supporting the Abraham-Feingold amendment is quite astounding. It is a coalition of the left, represented by the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza and the American Jewish Committee, and the right, represented by the NFIB, the National Restaurant Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as some 30 other national organizations representing business, labor, ethnic and religious organizations which all support the Abraham-Feingold amendment. Why do they do this? Because they know it is critical that we abandon this rather heavyhanded, costly approach to combating illegal immigration and instead focus on true reform that focuses on the individuals who break the law, and not those who abide by them. So I very much commend my friends from Michigan and Ohio, and others, in their efforts in fighting this intrusive proposal. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the organizations supporting the Abraham-Feingold amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what this article is about is a reaction to the effort that Senator McCain and I and others have been preparing to try to change our Nation's campaign financing system. There are those who have indicated that the effort will go nowhere because it is already too late in the 104th Congress, and that it is just going to go the way of all other campaign finance reform efforts in the past. Frankly, Mr. President, this article gives me heart. It is eloquent testimony to the reason why we have got to have campaign finance reform in this country and why we need it now. What happened yesterday was, according to the article, an unusual alliance of unions, businesses, and liberal-conservative groups trying to defeat campaign finance legislation that would abolish political action committees and other restrictions on election spending, got together, all together, to try to kill the McCain-Feingold bill. It included groups such as the AFL- CIO, the NEA, National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Business Political Action Committees, Cato Institute, Conservative Caucus, Americans for Tax Reform, EMILY's List--you name it--National Association of Broadcasters, the American Dental Association. This was a gathering of all the special interests in Washington, even before we have had the bill come up, saying, ``Let's kill it before it has a chance to live.'' The reason it gives me heart, Mr. President, really, there are two reasons. First of all, if this bill is not going anywhere, what are they worried about? Why are they coming together, as they so infrequently do, to kill a piece of legislation that is the first bipartisan effort in 10 years in this body to try to do something about the outrageous amount of money that is spent on campaigns and the outrageous influence that this community, Washington, has on the entire political process in this country? I recall when I ran for the U.S. Senate, I might talk to somebody from the labor community or to an independent banker, and they would say, ``Gee, we think you are a pretty good candidate, but first I have to check with Washington to see if I can support you.'' That is how the current system works. You have to check in with Washington first. I think that gives way too much power to this town and way too much power to these special interests that want to kill campaign finance reform in this Congress. It gives me heart that there is concern. It also gives me heart that they are drawing attention to the fact. In fact, this article is eloquent testimony to what is really going on in this country. There is too much money in this town; there is too much money in these elections. What they are trying to do, Ann McBride of Common Cause pointed out, is to preserve the status quo, the meeting of labor and business coming together and agreeing on the one thing they can agree on, which is maintaining the status quo and their ability to use money to buy outcomes on Capitol Hill. What our bipartisan effort is about is returning the power back to the people in their own home States, to let them have more influence over elections than the special interests that run this town. We will join this issue on the floor, and we will fight these special interests head on, regardless of their new coalitions. Mr. President, I simply indicate we are prepared, as I did a couple of days ago along with other Senators, we are prepared to offer this as an amendment to a bill in the near future, or if the leadership sees it this way, to bring this up as separate legislation. The time is drawing near for campaign finance reform. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just briefly, before we go back on to the important business at hand, the immigration bill, I just want to call to the attention of the body an article today in the Washington Post entitled ``Campaign Finance Proposal Drawing Opposition From Diverse Group.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the technical correction bill to the continuing resolution which the Senate is about to consider. It is my understanding that the legislation passed last week inadvertently included the text of the Hatfield amendment, which provided that the harsh restrictions on the operations of the international family planning program could be waived if the President determined that they would interfere with the delivery of such services and result in a significant increase in abortions than would otherwise be the case in the absence of such restrictions. That amendment had been adopted by the Senate by a vote of 52 to 43, but the conferees nevertheless evidently decided to abandon the Senate position. That was a very unfortunate decision, in my view, that will have an adverse impact worldwide on efforts to provide family planning services to individuals in developing countries. It is not my intent, nevertheless, to take advantage of what was a clerical error in the actual text of the continuing resolution. I recognize that the comity of the Senate requires that both sides of the aisle work in good faith in these areas. However, I do want to note for the record, that this courtesy was not extended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority to the minority when a somewhat similar drafting error occurred during consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the international family planning authorization legislation on the foreign aid authorization bill. At that time, we were advised that although the intent of our amendment was clear, a drafting error occurred which did not reflect the intent of the Committee in adopting, by a vote of 11 to 5, an amendment relating to the international family planning program, and that a technical correction would not be permitted without the entire committee revisiting the issue. My staff was advised that this comity, which is routinely provided when committee staff are authorized to make technical and conforming amendments, would not be extended in this case because the issue involved family planning and abortion which were important to the chairman. Unfortunately, there were other incidents involving population issues during the Foreign Relations Committee's deliberations that also damaged the sense of comity that has traditionally characterized the Senate. Mr. President, these issues are very important to me and to many Members of the Senate. Indeed, a majority of the Senate repeatedly voted in favor of the international family planning program in a number of votes taken on the foreign operations appropriations bill. The position taken by the conferees on the continuing resolution does not reflect the Senate's position on this issue and I very much regret that the Senate conferees did not uphold the Senate's position. I must say I am confounded why the anti-abortion movement would try to dismantle the very program that does more to prevent abortions than any other campaign. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to take advantage of a clerical error to regain our position. I hope that in the future similar courtesy will be extended when the shoe is on the other foot-- even when the issue is of great importance to individual Members or is as sensitive as population policy is. I also hope that now that the population program is resolved for this year, that the program--however small it is--be allowed to go forward. There are currently over 50 population program actions that the administration has notified the Congress of, but which cannot proceed since the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee routinely puts a hold on all population programs. Even those of us who fervently oppose these reductions accept we need to live with them; I wish that opponents of the program would also try to abide by this compromise, and allow what is left of the program to proceed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with the comments of the Senators from Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. We just had an overwhelming vote, that I think in large part reflected the will of this body, that the legal and illegal immigration issues have to be kept separate. I am sure there were a variety of concerns, as well, about the specifics of the previous amendment. But the overwhelming sentiment, I think, is that these issues have to be kept separate. As indicated in the comments during that debate, that last vote was the vote on whether or not we should take up the legal immigration issues in this bill or not. The vote was very overwhelming. The Senator from Massachusetts suggests that this amendment might be referred to as Simpson-like. I differ. I argue that it is more like perhaps ``Simpson, the sequel,'' because in both amendments you have this absolute cap. The consequence of that, I think, is very real for families that want to be reunited. In fact, there is an element of the Feinstein amendment that is even harsher. As I understand, the amendment provides for a 5-year moratorium on siblings being able to come into the country and be reunited in this way. At least the Simpson amendment provided for a category, although, practically speaking, it was pretty clear we would never get to that. I think anyone who thinks that this is somehow a major compromise or splitting the difference between current law and the Simpson amendment--I think that would be inaccurate. But the most important point is that because of this amendment, if we go this route, there will be families who are conducting themselves legally, who today could legally obtain a visa and will not obtain a visa. Those families will not be reunited. That is what will happen because of this amendment. In the end, Mr. President, obviously, this is a legitimate debate. It is the kind of thing we should do out here, but we should do it at the right time. There is a legal immigration bill where this subject could be brought up and dealt with at the appropriate time to review this amendment. So in light of the last vote, in light of the fact that this will have a real harsh consequence on many families conducting themselves legally, in light of the fact that this body clearly has indicated a desire to keep these issues separate, I urge that the amendment be rejected. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from California and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me again strongly associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Michigan. Although it is suggested that somehow this amendment does not violate the distinction between the illegal and the legal immigration issue, I do not know how else you can say it. It is indisputable that this amendment is not only about people who may at one time be illegal immigrants. But they are legal immigrants. It is not about people engaged in any kind of activity that is illegal. I made this point in my earlier remarks. Senator Abraham and I did offer an amendment that was approved in committee for those situations where someone has come here legally and then overstays their visa. We increased the penalties for that. That is appropriately in an illegal immigration bill. But this amendment has nothing to do with that issue at all. It has to do with which family members and which relationships and in what order people should be able to come to this country in a strictly legal context. So I am troubled by the attempt here to, on the one hand, suggest that, of course, we should separate these two issues and then come right here at the beginning of this bill and offer an amendment that clearly goes over the line, that clearly goes into legal immigration, and to somehow suggest it is just one little amendment. It is not one little amendment. It is a big deal that is going to affect thousands and thousands of families, of people who are acting completely legally, and they are going to be forced into a bill that is all about the public anger and concern having to do with illegal immigration. I think that paints the issue. That is why I think an overwhelming majority of people in this body, if they are given a simple opportunity to vote, whether they wanted to consider illegal and legal immigration separately would vote to separate the issue. Mr. President, what I am going to suggest, since the amendment came up in this order, is that this is going to be the key vote on whether or not you really think the issues of legal and illegal immigration should be separated. I talked to a number of Senators about this issue. They think it is very clear. There is no question in their minds that the illegal and legal issues should be separate. Make no mistake. This is the amendment that will decide whether that is really their position. Those who vote for the Simpson amendment cannot possibly argue that they have kept the faith of keeping the legal and illegal issues separate. It is impossible. It is too big of an issue. In fact, I would even argue that it is worse than just straightforwardly saying, ``We are going to merge legal and illegal immigration.'' It is just piecemeal. It takes one very significant aspect of legal immigration, family immigration, and somehow decides it in the context of an illegal immigration bill while leaving other important issues having to do with legal immigration to this side, presumably to be dealt with when we bring up the legal immigration bill. This is the worst of all worlds because it does not allow people to look at the legal immigration issue in its context. It just separates one thing, puts it in the illegal bill, and in my view it is a disingenuous attempt to have the cake and eat it, too--that you respect the split, but, nonetheless, we are going to resolve the very basic issue at this time. Whatever the merits of the issue, I think the Senators from Michigan, Ohio, and others have done a wonderful job of explaining the problems with the extreme limitations that this amendment brings forward. Whatever your view on the merits, I hope Senators will realize that this is the vote about whether you want to keep the issues of illegal and legal immigration separate. There may be other related amendments later. There may be a sense of the Senate. But if you go ahead and pass this amendment, you have already broken the line between the two issues, and you cannot put it back together. Mr. President, I hope all Members realize the importance of this, not just from the point of view of the merits, which are terribly important, but also from the integrity of this whole process, which the vast majority of the House and the vast majority of this body believe it would receive by separating and keeping separate the issues of legal and illegal immigration. Mr. President, I suggest that it is very, very important that we reject this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the Simpson amendment. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his leadership on it. First of all, I think that this amendment is an unfortunate attempt to circumvent the will of the majority of this Congress, which has clearly indicated its strong desire to keep the issue of legal immigration separate from the issue of illegal immigration. The other body has already sent a very strong message on a strong, bipartisan vote not to have any cutbacks, Mr. President, in current legal immigration levels. Just a few weeks ago, after a very, very long process, the Senate Judiciary Committee, again on a very strong, bipartisan vote, voted by a large margin to keep these two areas of law separate--legal and illegal immigration. Groups and organizations from across the political spectrum have united behind the common goal of keeping legal immigration separate from the issue of illegal immigration. This includes a lot of business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers; labor groups, such as the AFL-CIO; religious groups, such as the American Jewish Committee and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and liberal and conservative groups ranging from Americans for Tax Reform to the National Council of La Raza. They are all opposed to this attempt to rejoin the issues of legal and illegal immigration. That is why, Mr. President, with this immense amount of support for considering legal immigration reform as a separate piece of legislation, I am disappointed that the Senator from Wyoming has chosen to offer this amendment today. Just to review, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted by a 12 to 6 margin to split the two issues. Nonetheless, that vote did not prevent the committee, nor will it prevent the whole Senate from considering both issues. Indeed, after the committee had dealt with, at length, the illegal immigration bill and disposed of it, the committee very shortly moved on to discuss and consider and vote out a separate bill on legal immigration. Mr. President, I am also somewhat troubled by what has been suggested both privately and publicly, that cutbacks in legal immigration cannot pass unless they are riding the coattails of strong illegal immigration reform. I think that is a very troubling notion. If there are not enough votes in this Congress to pass a bill that reduces legal immigration, it should not be piggybacked onto a separate piece of legislation that has far more support. If a particular proposal cannot pass based on its merit, what other possible justification could there be for its passage? We have heard the argument that the issues of legal and illegal immigration are intertwined because so many immigrants come here on temporary visas and remain here unlawfully after their visas have expired. Fair enough. This is known as the visa overstay problem. But before the Abraham-Feingold visa overstay provision was adopted by the Judiciary Committee last month, there was not a single word in this bill about that issue, about the significant number of people who are here illegally because they overstay their visas. Let me emphasize that point, Mr. President. It is important for all Senators to understand that the visa overstay problem represents roughly one-half of our entire illegal immigration problem. We are not talking here about people who jump the fence along the Mexican border in the dead of the night and disappear into the American work force. We are talking about people who come here on a legal visa, usually a tourist or a student visa, and then refuse to leave the country when the visa expires. That problem alone represents one-half of illegal immigration. The Senator from Wyoming is suggesting that the only way to combat that problem is to tie reductions in legal immigration to an illegal immigration bill. Mr. President, that theory has already been discredited. The new visa overstayer penalties, authored by the Senator from Michigan and myself, are not contained in the legal immigration bill. They are contained quite appropriately in this bill. They are in the illegal immigration bill and that is where they belong because the issue of visa overstay has to do with illegality. But this amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming has nothing to do with illegality. It has to do with questions of levels of legal immigration and who should come in and when. But what was offered in committee--and what is a part of this bill--are targeted penalties and reforms against those legal immigrants who break the rules and, therefore, have conducted themselves illegally. It does not represent the approach of the Senator from Wyoming which is to clamp down on all of these immigrants whether they are playing by the rules or whether they are breaking them. So the proposition that we need to tie the legal provisions to the illegal provisions so we can clamp down on the visa overstayer problem is just plain false. We have clamped down in visa overstayers, who are illegal aliens, in the illegal immigration bill. As I indicated yesterday in my opening remarks, there has unquestionably been some abuse of our legal immigration system. I will not, of course, deny that. But much like you wouldn't stop driving your car if you had a little engine trouble, we should not pass such harsh and unnecessary reductions in lawful immigration simply because a few have chosen to abuse the system. Mr. President, let me be clear about my position on this issue; I will oppose any amendment that prevents a U.S. citizen from bringing a parent into this country. I will oppose efforts to eliminate the current-law preference category that allows a U.S. citizen to reunite with a brother or sister. And, I will oppose any proposal that would effectively prohibit a U.S. citizen from bringing their child into this country, whether a minor or an adult child. And that is essentially what the proposal before us, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, would accomplish. It would redefine what a nuclear family is. Supporters of this amendment assert that in terms of allocating legal visas, we should place the highest priority on spouses and minor children, both of U.S. citizens and of legal permanent residents. I agree with this, Mr. President. And we can accomplish that goal and still permit sufficient levels of legal immigration of other family relatives. That is why a bipartisan amendment was adopted by the Judiciary Committee to place a stronger emphasis on the immigration of spouses and minor children while still providing visas to parents, adult children, and brothers and sisters. That is what is currently in the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment before us would essentially terminate the ability of a U.S. citizen to bring these other family members into the country. Parents would no longer be part of the nuclear family. Children, if they have reached the magic age of 21, would no longer apparently be children in the sense of being part of the nuclear family for purposes of the very strong desire of families to be reunited. The goal of wanting to be reunited with your children I do not think cuts off when the child reaches the age of 21. Mr. President, in a sense that raises the question, What happened to family values? This proposal would turn the family friendly Congress into what in many cases would be a family fragmenting Congress. So I think it is clear that we have two very distinct issues at play. We should not deal with this issue in a manner that suggests that those who abide by our laws are as much a problem as those who break them. I think that is an injustice to the millions and millions of immigrants who over the years have come to this country, and who have played by the rules and have become productive and contributing members to our society. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Ohio, and others in urging my colleagues to join the majority of the House, to join a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to join numerous business, labor, religious, and ethnic organizations, and to join the overwhelming majority of the American people who do not want to see such dramatic legal immigration cutbacks tacked on to a piece of legislation that seeks to punish those who break our laws. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues again this year in remembering today the 1.5 million Armenians who died in 1915 in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. These Armenians were victims of a policy explicitly intended to isolate, exile, and even extinguish the Armenian population. As we look at world events today--in Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere--we must remember the events of 1915, with the hope that with history as a guide, humanity will not engage in such brutality again. We will also learn from history that America served as a haven for those Armenians fleeing persecution. At the time of the atrocities, America spoke out in defense of a defenseless people, and provided massive amounts of humanitarian assistance to the Armenian people. Today, America still leads the world in championing human rights, and our shores offer refuge to those fleeing persecution throughout the world. On days like today, we must remember what we stand for, and ensure that the U.S. continues to be a beacon of strength and hope for the heroes that stand up and survive such atrocities. I compliment President Clinton on his commitment to the Armenian cause, and I am proud to join him and my colleagues today in commemorating this import ant occasion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. The failure to formally segregate the Social Security trust funds is not the only reason I oppose the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but it is certainly one of the reasons. Even if there were no other reasons, the assault on Social Security is reason enough to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment. And make no mistake, Mr. President. The unwillingness to formally exempt it from the proposed constitutional language is nothing less than an assault on Social Security. The opponents of this exemption want those funds, pure and simple. Mr. President, it is unlikely that we will hear a plain statement to that effect here on the floor. Other reasons will be provided. But the bottom line is that the opponents of exempting Social Security in a constitutional amendment want to be able to tap into Social Security revenues for the rest of Government. To a certain extent, we already have that. The so-called unified budget includes the Social Security surpluses with the on-budget deficit to reduce our apparent budget deficit. I do not single out one party; both Democrats and Republicans have used that technique. To date, it has been a bookkeeping maneuver. But in a few years, when the Social Security Program begins to draw on the surpluses that have built up over the past several years, the free ride will stop, and many of the favorite spending programs of the advocates of the constitutional amendment will be at risk. Programs which have been so successful in escaping the budget scalpel, including our bloated defense budget and the billions in wasteful spending done through the Tax Code, may finally be asked to justify themselves a little more carefully. Mr. President, it is precisely that moment that those who oppose excluding Social Security from the constitutional amendment are anticipating. I fear that many would prefer to put Social Security on the block rather than ask these other areas to bear their fair share of reducing the deficit. Mr. President, some may argue that current law provides adequate protection for Social Security, or that if the balanced budget amendment is ratified, Social Security can be protected as part of implementing legislation. We should recall, though, that many of those who make that argument also maintain that mere statutory mandates are insufficient to move Congress to do what it needs to do. They argue that only constitutional authority is sufficient to engender the will necessary to reduce the deficit. Using the reasoning of the supporters of the balanced budget amendment, the willpower needed to resist the temptation to raid the Social Security cookie jar can only come from a constitutional mandate. Those who oppose giving this extra, constitutional protection for Social Security often suggest that there is no practical need for the protection because Social Security will compete very well with other programs. Let me respond to that argument with two comments. First, Social Security should not have to compete with anything. As many have noted, it is a separate program with a dedicated funding source, intended to be self-funding. Second, any assessment of the political potency of any particular program must be reappraised when we enter the brave new world of the balanced budget amendment. One prominent Governor was reported as suggesting that areas many claim are untouchable should be subject to cuts. Specifically including Social Security in that list, this Governor worried that Otherwise, the states are going to bear a disproportionate share. We're the ones who are going to have to raise taxes. And in a moment of revealing honesty, another Governor argued that Social Security must be asked to shoulder the burden of reducing the deficit. Reports quote him as saying that to take Social Security off the table, and then impose a burden on other spending systems is not going to be acceptable. There can be no more revealing statement of intent by many of those who oppose constitutionally separating Social Security than this statement. Given the growing support of State-based approaches to problems--a development I applaud--as well as the resurgent influence of States on Federal policy, how can anyone confidently predict that Social Security will remain untouched while we cut programs in which States have a significant interest. Mr. President, Social Security is fiscally and politically a special program. Apart from the fiscal problems of not excluding Social Security, the special political nature of the program makes it worthy of protection. Social Security is singular as a public contract between the people of the United States and their elected government. The elected government promised that if workers and their employers paid into the Social Security fund, they would be able to draw upon that fund when they retired. But the singular nature of Social Security, and the special regard in which it is held by the public, does not flow from some transitory nostalgia. Social Security has provided real help for millions of seniors. According to the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Entitlement Commission, the poverty rate for senior households is about 13 percent, but without Social Security, it could increase to as much as 50 percent. For almost half of the senior households below the poverty line, Social Security provides at least 90 percent of total income. For those seniors, and for millions of others, the Social Security contract is very real and vitally necessary. Anything other than partitioning Social Security off from the rest of the budget risks a breach of that public contract. Mr. President, some may try to characterize the proposed exemption for Social Security in a possible balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as pandering to senior citizens. With that assertion is the implication that somehow there is something wrong with older Americans who want their Social Security benefits. But, Mr. President, I do agree with those proponents of the balanced budget amendment who argue that no one will touch the benefits of today's retirees. Today's retirees are not at risk if the balanced budget amendment passes without exempting Social Security. However, there are three generations that are very much at risk. The first is my own generation--the baby boomers. If Congress has the ability to monkey around with Social Security benefits, under cover of a constitutional mandate, I can guarantee you there will not be anything left when the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age. There are a lot of Americans in that generation, and they also have a right to the benefits that they paid for and were told they were going to get by participating in this system. Mr. President, a second generation is very concerned about the future of Social Security. They are young adults in their late twenties and early thirties--the so-called Generation X. They are skeptical of there being any Social Security system on which to rely when they retire. They see today's retirees, and the huge group of baby boomers ahead of them, and they are concerned that the system into which they are now paying will not be around when they need it. Mr. President, there is a third generation--the generation of my children. They do not understand all of this debate. But some are aware of the big Federal deficit we have. And some are coming to realize that as they graduate from high school and go into the work force, they will be the ultimate victims of our fiscal irresponsibility if we do not protect Social Security. For those three generations, the future health of the Social Security system is a real concern. One of the most important results of the Kerrey-Danforth Entitlement Commission was to highlight this issue, and as I have mentioned on other occasions, I for one am willing to consider some of the proposals put forward by that commission to help ensure the long-term health of Social Security. Mr. President, if we are ever to address the long-term solvency of Social Security in an honest way, especially in the context of a constitutional balanced budget requirement, keeping Social Security separate is vital. Just as a Social Security system that is enmeshed in the rest of the Federal budget poses a temptation when the system is in surplus, so too will it become an enormous drain on resources if it starts to compete for general revenue. Providing a constitutional partition will serve both to protect Social Security, and to highlight the need for long-term reform. Mr. President, those who advocate a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution frequently argue that it is needed if we are to protect our children and grandchildren. How ironic if in the name of helping those children and grandchildren we deny them the protection of Social Security. We risk taking away the same rights and protections that so many of us hope to enjoy.