Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4351 to S. 2638 be agreed to, the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Energy Committee be discharged from the following bill, and the Senate proceed en bloc to its consideration and the consideration of the following bill at the desk: S. 2638 from the Energy Committee and H.R. 3388.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc. The bills (H.R. 2941 and H.R. 4646) were read the third time and passed, en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed, en bloc, to the following bills: H.R. 2941, H.R. 4646.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment, No. 4350, to S. 2751 be agreed to, the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Energy Committee be discharged from the following bills and the Senate proceed, en bloc, to their consideration: S. 2751 from the Energy Committee and H.R. 4312.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 383 submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record. The bill (H.R. 3621) was read the third time and passed.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3621, which is at the desk.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged, and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 138.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration H. Con. Res. 408 which is at the desk.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following bills which are at the desk: H.R. 848, H.R. 3184, H.R. 3414, and H.R. 5266. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 660, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague made some pretty good points on fairness, except we asked ``is it fair,'' too. Is it fair to allow 3.5 million legal immigrants to be held in line so that we can take care of approximately 4 million illegal immigrants? That is the point I was making earlier in the day. Frankly, it is a matter I find of great importance.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I listened to the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and I would like to say that there is a real difference between the two candidates for President. I think we in America can say that the candidates running for President and Vice President are decent people. Their wives are good people. I know them all very well. The differences between them, however, are really stark. I believe if you compare the Bush and Gore economic programs you will find that the programs of George Bush have much more justification than the other side. We all know that these comments about reducing the national debt are just a front. We haven't seen that happen since 1994 when the first Republican Congress in decades took over. The year 1994 was the first time in decades that we controlled both Houses of Congress and since then we have balanced the budget three times. We have paid down the debt $361 billion. By the end of next year it will be $\1/2\ trillion. That would not have happened had it not been for the first Republican Congress. I remember as a Member of this body in 1994 when the President submitted the budget for $200 billion in deficits well into this century. President Clinton said at the time that nothing could be done, there was no way we could have anything but those deficits for at least 10 years. Of course, we have shown that good fiscal discipline can literally balance the budget. I have to say what we are in right now is a mess. I think it will take George Bush and Dick Cheney to straighten it out. One of the things I like about George Bush so much is that he picked Dick Cheney, who, without question, is head and shoulders over most people who have served in Washington. Cheney is bright. He is extremely intelligent. He is extremely knowledgeable and has a lot of experience. He is honest to a fault, and he is straightforward. He is just the type of a person we need in government today. When you have a $4.6 trillion projected surplus, it is pretty clear to me that taxpayers are being asked to pay too much in taxes. Frankly, Bush's approach is to set aside $2.3 trillion for Social Security; he has $1.3 trillion to give back to the taxpayers and use the other $1 trillion to pay down the national debt. In order to have a $4.6 trillion surplus, we better pursue a wise economic approach. This economic approach has reduced the marginal tax rates from 70 percent down to 28 percent in 1986, and reduced capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent 3 years ago. We had to think seriously about balancing the budget during our battles for the balanced budget amendment. But the first Republican Congress in decades managed to balance the budget. And we also had a wonderful head of the Federal Reserve in Alan Greenspan, a Republican, who basically has done miraculous work. There is no question that Secretary Robert Rubin did a good job and helped to stabilize world markets. In all honesty, if we want to keep this economy going, we have to realize that marginal tax rates have jumped from 28 percent in 1986 up to over 40 percent today. Of course, they are still 30 points below where they were when Ronald Reagan took office with double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. I hope the American people realize we have to have a change in Washington or we are going to go back to the old ways of deficits, high interest, and high taxes. I might also add that I get tired of this 1 percent business. Let's face it, the top 1 percent of those who pay income taxes pay almost 35 percent of the income taxes in this country. The upper 50 percent, which comprises people with incomes over $27,000 a year, pay 96 percent of all taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay around 4 percent of all taxes. Naturally, Bush wants everybody who pays taxes to receive some benefits from having done so. Those who earn less than $35,000 a year are going to have a 100-percent reduction in most cases. Since the average wage in Utah is $37,000, it is easy to see we are going to have a lot of people in Utah benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. If you make $50,000 or less, you have a 50 percent or a 55 percent reduction in your tax burden. At $75,000, you have 25 percent. I felt it necessary to make these comments because the differences between the two candidates are stark. I think both candidates are good people. Vice President Gore and his wife Tipper are good people. There is no question that Governor Bush is a very good person, and his wife, Laura, is a wonderful person. The difference is philosophy. It is time for us to get the country going in the right direction. That is my view. Mr. President, I make a few comments to discuss a matter of great importance to immigrants and to all Americans. President Clinton has repeatedly threatened to veto the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations if it does not include his proposals for immigration amnesty for undocumented aliens, or in most cases, illegal aliens. He calls it the Latino Immigration Fairness Act. The CJS conference report does far better than the Latino fairness bill that the President is advocating. This CJS Report includes provisions that will restore fairness to immigrants from all countries, including hundreds of thousands of Latinos. The CJS bill contains a proposal carefully crafted by myself and others and we call it the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, the LIFE Act. Our proposal has at its foundation a simple goal--to take a much needed step toward bringing fairness to our Nation's immigration policy by reuniting families and helping those who have played by the rules. Our proposal does not pit one nationality against another, nor does it pit one race against another. Our legislation provides relief to immigrants from all countries involved. By contrast, the Clinton-Gore proposal would grant a blanket amnesty to millions of undocumented aliens--many or most of whom have broken our immigration laws. It also picks out specific groups of immigrants-- namely, Central Americans--for special treatment. Unlike the Clinton- Gore proposal, our plan does not provide relief to those who have violated our laws at the expense of those who have played by the rules. Instead, it restores due process to a class of immigrants wrongly denied the ability to apply for residency nearly 15 years ago and expeditiously reunifies husbands, wives, and children of resident aliens. In other words, legal aliens. It is important to bear in mind that at the same time the administration wants to grant amnesty to millions of people, it cannot even tell us how many people are waiting in line to come here legally. The administration's best guess on the number of immigrants waiting in line--a figure which is nearly four years old--is that over 3.5 million people are waiting to immigrate to the United States. Over 1 million of these applicants are spouses and children of permanent residents, that we take care of in our bill. The others we will look at, but not in the context of this bill. No; instead, the administration proposes to move to the front of our immigration lines those who have violated our immigration laws. That doesn't seem right to me. We have to focus our efforts on helping reduce this backlog in addressing any legitimate due process issues. Our proposal does these things to accomplish these goals. The first part of our LIFE Act creates a new form of visitor visa for spouses and children of permanent residents. Our plan puts our Nation's resources behind reuniting families, instead of processing amnesty applications. Eligible applicants would be allowed to reunite with their families residing in the United States, and work legally while awaiting a decision on the merits of their petitions. Our proposal would allow approximately 600,000 over the next 3 years to come to the United States legally, ahead of schedule, to be reunited with their immediate families. Second, the LIFE Act further strengthens family and marriage by permitting spouses of U.S. citizens married outside the United States to obtain visas allowing spouses to enter the United States to await immigrant visa processing. Before the Clinton-Gore White House proposes that we give residency to those who have broken our minimum immigration laws, shouldn't we first be in the position of letting the wives of our citizens into this country, those who are legal? Third, the LIFE Act restores due process to immigrants who are wrongly denied adjustment of status because of an INS administrative error. My proposal allows the late amnesty class of 1982 to pursue their legalization claims under the original terms of the 1986 Act. We restore fairness to this group of individuals that has spent over 10 years in litigation. This portion of the LIFE Act would assist approximately 400,000 immigrants in the class of 1982 who have played by the rules and now deserve the chance to legalize their status in accordance with law. Our proposal is strongly supported by those who lived through this litigation and fought against the Clinton administration's INS for fairness--not the political interest groups that would prefer to divide our country over this issue. Members of the class of 1982 prefer our solution to the administration's. One member of the class recently pleaded: We urge President Clinton to now call upon his INS to lay down its arms, to stop its decade-old battle to block our legalization, to comply with the numerous court orders we have won. In short, our LIFE Act will help close to one million people who have been treated unfairly by our nation's immigration laws. But Republicans have not stopped there. We recognize that there is a serious need to reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service in both its mission and its structure. We have complaints all the time about it. It is time to reform it. The INS should offer better service and a culture of respect for our newest Americans. Many Republicans and Democrats have worked hard toward promoting these broad goals. Although we have yet to receive any written or formal response from the administration concerning the LIFE Act, we have presented the White House with language that says we should hold hearings and consider legislation that addresses the backlogs in applications for lawful permanent residency, furthers keeping families together, and addresses whether there are worker shortages in different sectors of our economy. Further, we have proposed that the Attorney General prepare a report to Congress no later than March 1, 2001, addressing facts relating to the administration's proposal. Why do we need a report? Well, before the Congress is asked to proceed to grant separate treatment to different nationalities, or consider a blanket amnesty, I think it might make some sense to know how many people would be covered by the proposal. We have repeatedly asked for such information from the administration--they have yet to provide it. Let's be clear: the Clinton-Gore administration cannot even tell us how many people will be covered by their proposal. Why can't they tell us? Either they do not know the answer or they do know the answer but don't want the American people to know it. They would rather play politics with this issue. I have no objection to seriously considering immigration reforms during the next Congress. I am chairman of the Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force. I have worked very hard for Latinos throughout our country--frankly, throughout the world, and will continue to do so. But such major reforms should not be pursued in an election year rush to create wedge issues that divide, rather than unite Americans. Real INS reform requires that we proceed in a responsible way, after we know the facts. Unfortunately, the President appears not to care about the facts. If he did care, he would not threaten to veto this important bill since a veto jeopardizes funding for some of our most crucial government programs. This chart shows just some of the many programs funded by the CJS appropriations bill--programs which the President threatens to cut off funding for with his veto. The CJS appropriations bill allocates $4.8 billion for the INS. If those funds are cut off by that veto we are going to be in a bigger mess on immigration then ever before, as bad as some think INS is. It contains an additional $15.7 million for Border Patrol equipment upgrades. How will President Clinton explain to Americans that he wants to shut down the INS and Border Patrol in order to force Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? What kind of a message does this send to the men and women of the Border Patrol who risk their lives doing their job each and every day? I would note that the Border Patrol officers oppose his amnesty proposal--or should I say the proposal of those on the other side. This appropriations bill also contains $3.3 billion for the FBI, and $221 million for training, equipment, and research and development programs to combat domestic terrorism. How will President Clinton explain to the families of those killed in the U.S.S. Cole bombing that FBI agents may have to be brought home because he has cut off funding for the FBI in order to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented aliens who violated our immigration laws? This appropriations bill contains $4.3 billion for the federal prison system and $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration. How will President Clinton explain to the American people that funding for Federal prisons and drug enforcement and drug interdiction will be put at risk because he wants to grant amnesty to millions of people who have violated our immigration laws? We do not even know how many millions because they will not give us the figures. I suspect the reason they will not give us the figures is because it amounts to more than 4 million people. Let me just put another thing up here. At the end of this Congress, we got into an awful bind that threatened to stop us from reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act--for which we allocate $288 million. This is the Biden-Hatch bill. We passed it 6 years ago, as I recall. It has worked very well to help Women In Jeopardy Programs, legal aid for battered women and children, and a whole raft of other things to help cope with the problems of violence against women. This all goes down the drain if the President vetoes this bill. It is a matter of great concern. Like I say, this bill allocates $288 million for the Violence Against Women Act Program, legislation that I strongly supported and helped to break free at the end of this Congress. Does President Clinton want to cut off funding for assistance to battered women and their children in order to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? It does not sound logical to me. I know we are weeks away from an election. I also appreciate the desire of the Clinton-Gore White House to play wedge politics. But I feel it is incumbent upon me to note this White House, indeed, some White House officials involved in this immigration effort, have a pretty poor record when it comes to letting political motivations cloud their judgment on matters, important matters of public interest and public safety. Let's not forget how the Clinton-Gore White House granted clemency to convicted FALN terrorists in order to, in their words, ``have a positive impact among strategic Puerto Rican communities in the U.S. (read voters).'' The White House consciously targeted Puerto Rican voters and, it seemed to me, under the worst of circumstances and in the worst way. Actions have consequences. If President Clinton vetoes this bill, he is putting the public safety and well-being at risk, both at home and abroad. He is doing this all in an effort to play wedge politics. The President's veto threats ring especially hollow because this appropriations bill provides many proposals to help immigrants. The President himself has stated that he wants, ``to keep families together, and to make our immigration policies more equitable.'' This is exactly what my LIFE Act does. In order to get that done, I have had to bring together people with all kinds of varying viewpoints, from those who do not want any immigration changes at all to those others who do not care about immigration. I believe in the Statue of Liberty. I believe this is a country that ought to be open for legal immigrants. I believe we ought to do everything in our power to solve these problems. I am willing to hold hearings right to see if we have not covered some of the problems that need to be covered. More than 1 million people are going to be covered by the LIFE Act. We have been able to bring together both Houses of Congress, as far as Republicans are concerned, and I think a lot of good Democrats when they look at this will be very impressed that we have been able to get this much done. I cannot go beyond that because there are people who just will not go any further. I am willing to commit to holding hearings right after the first of the year to determine what else needs to be done. I am not prepared today, without all the facts, without hearings, without knowing where we are going, to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and put them on the list ahead of those who need their spouses and families to be brought together. When we fought these matters on the floor, there was a lot of anguish and whining by some on the other side that we were not taking care of families and children. I said we would try to do that and we have done it. This bill does more than the President's bill, and it does it legally in the right way, giving preference to the people who have played by the rules rather than those who have not. Most Americans descend from someone who came to this great country in the hope of pursuing a better life, in the hope of fulfilling the American Dream. I believe the American Dream is still alive and that we in Congress should try to serve as its custodians. For this reason, I believe it is not right to penalize families and to disadvantage those who have played by the rules. Indeed, I believe most current and future Americans--most Hispanics, most Asians, most Africans, and most Arabs-- do not want to see people who play by the rules disadvantaged in an election year rush to help those who have not. And if you put the question to those the administration seeks to help, I think they would agree as well. A veto of CJS appropriations and the LIFE Act would elevate political posturing above immigrant families and would place interest group politics over protecting the health and well-being of all Americans. We have brought a lot of people together on this bill. I call upon the President to look at that. It is quite an achievement under circumstances that have been difficult for people such as myself. It surprises me that the administration has suddenly called for urgent immigration reform for fairness' sake. It was 4 short years ago that the President eagerly signed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996. The President's current proposal stands the 1996 law on its head. Here is what the President said then about the 1996 Act in his signing statement: This bill also includes landmark immigration legislation that reinforces the efforts we have made over the last 3 years to combat illegal immigration. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system--without punishing those living in the United States legally, or allowing children to be kept out of schools and sent into the streets. I think the President ought to live by those words, instead of undermining existing law through Latino fairness. Getting our LIFE bill together has taken a lot of effort on my part and on the part of others under difficult circumstances. We have been able to bring together people who almost always have difficulty with immigration laws. Our proposal has something that will solve the 1982 problem of due process rights. Those people have not been treated fairly by the INS. The INS keeps appealing their cases even though they win them every time. We will solve that problem for them. It solves the problem of reuniting minor children with their parents in this country. It does it in the best of ways, and it does it expeditiously. It solves the problem of bringing spouses together with their husbands and wives who are legal, and it will help close to 1 million people. That, to me, having worked on immigration matters over the last 24 years, is a pretty darn good accomplishment if we can get it done. I do not want to have this process break down because politics are being played. I know there will never be an agreement to allow up to 4 million people who are illegal aliens into this country in preference over these three categories of people I have talked about, these 1 million people who deserve to be treated better. I hope the President will listen to what I have said. I have not had a chance to personally chat with him, but I have talked with his Chief of Staff who is a good friend and decent man and who I think, having served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for all those years on the Democratic side, understands how difficult these matters are to put together. I believe it is time to resovle these problems. I have done my best to do it. This is as far as we can go now, but we make a promise to look into every issue that is raised in hearings as soon as we get back, assuming we are still in the majority. Even if we are not, I will cooperate in seeing those hearings are held in an orderly and intelligent way. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate messages from the House with respect to S. 1936 and H.R. 1444.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I modify my unanimous consent request to reflect that time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 2915.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.