Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Exactly. For 15 years this essential support is provided by WHCA and funded through the Defense Department. Now, because after 15 years someone has decided to interpret guidelines differently, we must alter the funding process and add bureaucratic redtape to the process that works just fine. Providing the funds to the Secret Service so that they can return it to the White House Communications Agency is a waste of time and effort. There are no savings, just added redtape.

Mr. SHELBY. Absolutely, the support is essential in order for the Secret Service to effectively carry out their protective mission. The 15-year practice of providing this support under the Presidential Assistance Act has worked well. Recently, because of strict interpretations of that act it has been suggested that the funding to cover the cost of this support be transferred to the Secret Service so that they can then return the funds to the Defense Department to cover the cost.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Judge Joseph Phelps who was killed tragically in a car accident on June 22, 1996. Joe retired from his Montgomery circuit judgeship in 1995, after spending 18 years on the bench. He served the State of Alabama, the Alabama judicial system, and our Nation with dignity, prudence, courage, and honor. Joe received both a bachelor's degree and a law degree from the University of Alabama. Even as a youth, Joe showed character in all that he did providing a glimpse into the future of the wise, Christian adult, leader, and honorable jurist he would later become. In 1990, Joe was awarded the Alabama Bar Association's Judicial Award of Merit, its highest award for outstanding and constructive service to the legal profession in Alabama. Joe's Christian values are reflected not only in the way he lived his life, but in the many positive organizations which he led, founded, belonged, and served. He was the past president of the Montgomery County Bar Association, and has served as a member, past president, trustee, and founder. He also served diligently in the YMCA; Montgomery Lion's Club; Lion's Club International Youth Day in Court Program, which he founded; Jimmy Hitchcock Memorial Award; Fellowship of Christian Athletes; Salvation Army; Capitol City Boys Club; STEP Foundation; Blue-Gray Association; Leadership Montgomery; the Governor's Study Task Force on Drugs; Alabama Trial Lawyers' Association; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; American Judicature Society; Montgomery Magnet Grant Review Committee; and numerous other legal, civic, and Christian groups. He was an elder at Trinity Presbyterian Church, where he served on the Christian education committee, congregational involvement committee, and long-range planning committee. Joe also taught ninth grade Sunday School. In 1980, Joe was honored as YMCA Man of the Year in recognition of his service to youth in Montgomery. Joe's list of accomplishments are reflective of the life he led, the type of friend he was, and the positive contributions he made throughout his life to his community and his fellow Alabamian. Not the least of which was his role as husband and father. My heart goes out to Joe's family. Joe's lifelong dedication to community and country made our world a better place. His presence will be sorely missed.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to express my support for provisions in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, that will help make higher education a reality for thousands of young people in America. It is no secret that many families in our Nation are struggling to finance their childrens' education. College tuition costs have skyrocketed in the past decade increasing 95 percent at private institutions and 82 percent at public institutions. Some families will spend more than $100,000 just to send one child to college. Mr. President, the financial burdens facing parents with college-age children is overwhelming. The tendency of some in this Chamber would be to create a new Federal program to try to deal with this issue. Yet, many States, including Alabama, have shown that is not necessary by developing their own prepaid tuition funds. These funds allow parents to make a tax-free investment, years in advance of their child's enrollment in college, with the guarantee that the child's full tuition will be paid for by the State when he or she enrolls in college. These tuition plans provide parents some help in dealing with the exorbitant inflation in tuition costs. The Clinton administration, until very recently, was planning on taxing these State funds and the parents who invest in these plans. After months of encouragement, we have been successful in getting the administration to temporarily back off from taxing these funds and the working class families who invest in them. At the same time the President was cheering the benefits of lowering the cost of education through his new education tax credit, his administration was preparing to slap a new tax on families. Mr. President, this bill ensures that these funds will not be taxed, and it provides that parents will not have to pay taxes on the money they invest in these funds. These are two very positive steps, but I believe we should go further. Congress should ensure that students are not forced to pay taxes on their education when they enroll in college. Currently, the student is taxed on the difference between the value of the education services they receive from the State and the amount his or her parent paid for the prepaid tuition contract. Mr. President, the correct way to view these prepaid tuition arrangements should be as a prepayment of services, not an investment scheme to make money. When parents enter into these contracts with the States, they are trying to buy their child's future education at an affordable price. Neither they nor their children are trying to get rich. Therefore, I don't believe the Federal Government should saddle students with taxes on their college expenses. Students today are already facing a lifetime of enormous taxes to pay off the debts of previous generations. Now, the IRS would have these same people pay taxes on a service their parents purchased for them long before they enrolled in college. Unfortunately, because of the minimum wage issue, we were unable to offer amendments to this legislation. Had we been permitted, I would have offered an amendment to ensure that students would not be taxed on their college expenses. I am a cosponsor of Senator McConnell's bill which would accomplish that, and I applaud him for his efforts in this area. I will continue to do everything I possibly can to find ways to make education in America more affordable. The bill before us today is a significant step in that direction, and I look forward to working with Chairman Roth and others in the future to provide even more favorable tax treatment for families.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. President. Taxpayer Subsidies for Military Contractor Mergers

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with premise of Senator Conrad's sense of the Senate amendment regarding the Air Force's National Missile Defense proposal. The program would violate the ABM Treaty and perhaps even the START I Treaty, the cornerstone of nuclear arms reduction. I certainly hope that the committee's acceptance of this sense of Senate amendment does not constitute an endorsement of this highly questionable program.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond and my distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Howell Heflin.

Mr. SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for addressing our concerns.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this is a carefully tailored amendment intended to broaden the opportunities for military personnel to obtain financial services. There exists in current law an exemption from the penalties associated with failing to meet mortgage asset requirements of the qualified thrift lender [QTL] test. It was created some years ago for specialized savings associations serving military personnel. At least 90 percent of the association's customers must be active or former officers--commissioned and noncommissioned--in the U.S. military services or widows, widowers, divorced spouses, or current or former dependents of such officers. The rationale for the exemption is that relatively few transient military personnel and their dependents have the need or desire for a residential mortgage. Accordingly, it would be very difficult for a savings association serving the military community to comply with the QTL test requirement. The present exemption language is too narrowly drawn to apply to similarly situated organizations serving the military community. The amendment retains the essential requirement that at least 90 percent of the savings association's customers be military related. By permitting new market entrants, it will have the effect of expanding competition in this underserved market. This amendment has been endorsed by the Military Coalition, an organization of all the major active duty and veterans groups. The Treasury Department and the Office of Thrift Supervision have indicated no objection to the amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of the renomination of Alan Greenspan to the Chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board. First nominated in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, Chairman Greenspan has reduced the consumer price index from almost 7 percent then to about 2.6 percent now. In fact, inflation was below 3 percent in 1995, for its fifth consecutive year, marking the first sustained period of low inflation since the Kennedy administration. Alan Greenspan has been renominated for a third term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve because he has earned the respect of his peers with a strong record of low inflation and economic stability. Indeed, Mr. Greenspan is currently leading us through a volatile transition from an overheated economy to one operating near capacity without inflation. To understand the importance of this transition, one must know that such a transition has never been achieved in the postwar period. It has been said the highest honor a man can receive is recognition among his peers. Chairman Greenspan has received just that: Thomas Juterbock of Morgan Stanley has said, ``The market sees Greenspan as the last gatekeeper of rational macroeconomic policy that will preclude inflation.'' Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and a well- known Fed watcher, has said, ``He's the best chairman the Fed has ever had.'' Lawrence Lindsey, a current Fed Governor, has stated, ``If the curve you're grading on is `What's attainable by mortals,' he certainly deserves an A.'' Indeed, former Vice-Chairman of the Fed, Princeton professor, and Clinton nominee, Allan Blinder, recently said of Greenspan's policies, ``This is perhaps the most successful episode of monetary policy in the history of the Fed.'' In fact, Mr. Blinder voted with Chairman Greenspan through a long series of rate increases in 1994. With such high regards, a sound record, and possibly the strongest and safest banking system in history, I believe the renomination of Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve is imperative to the continuity of monetary policy and certainty of financial markets. I continue to believe the best monetary policy a country can have is one that strives for price stability and zero inflation. Inflation is a tax, plain and simple. Americans are taxed too much already and should not have the purchasing power of their $1 stolen from them. Hard- working Americans deserve to bear the fruits of their labor, and a strong, sound independent bank is essential to that goal. Some claim that the Federal Reserve is not accountable to Congress. Some Members in the Senate have even suggested that we politicize the Federal Reserve Bank. I believe that would be the biggest mistake we could ever make. Congress and the President cannot even agree on a balanced budget deal, much less the rate of growth of monetary aggregates or the correct Federal funds rate. Monetary policy should not be subject to the whims of the political cycle. Without qualification, the Federal Reserve Bank should maintain its independence. Mr. Greenspan has always been mindful and considerate of Congress, but he has never let the political process manipulate him or the Federal Reserve. His expertise and strong will are needed at the central bank and we should show our appreciation of his diligent work by reconfirming his nomination to the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. I believe, Mr. President, these criticisms of the Federal Reserve are nothing more than an excuse not to adopt sound fiscal policies like a balanced budget and a pure flat tax. These criticisms are not based on an understanding of macroeconomic principles. I have not heard any discussions based on the purchasing-power-parity theory, interest-rate- parity theory, or even the rise in commodity prices. It is clear to me Mr. Greenspan is being made a scapegoat for individuals who will not adopt sound fiscal policies. Lastly, I want to voice my support for the confirmation of Laurence Meyer as a Federal Reserve Governor. He has a sterling academic record as well as a demonstrated professional record as an economic forecaster and will have a great deal to offer the Board.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today has been a very interesting day for our former leader, Bob Dole. While the U.S. Senate suffers what I believe is a tremendous loss today with the departure of the majority leader, Senator Robert Dole, I can tell you it is a great day for America. I believe that. For, while Senator Dole leaves behind a legacy of extraordinary leadership and commitment to this institution, his departure promises the American people a much more important commitment to this country. But, perhaps more important, his departure gives the American people a better opportunity to learn more about a man that I and many of my colleagues greatly admire and have come to know. So I would like to spend just a few minutes to describe the man that I have come to know, with whom I have worked, and I hope the American people will come to know over the next few months. Bob Dole, Senator Dole, is a man of his word. You can trust him. He is a plain speaker and not one for flowery oratory. He believes in what he says. He means what he says. He does not try to be everything to everybody. He stands for a few important principles--not everything. Senator Dole is honest and he is very straightforward. He is loyal. He is a doer and he is not a talker. His values are constant; they do not change from day to day. He knows who he is, where he comes from, where he wants to go, and his word is his honor. He is a man who chose sacrifice over self, finding strength at an age when others sought the leisure of self-expression. Briefly, Bob Dole is a man of courage, a man of character, a man of integrity. These measures of the man are what sets Bob Dole apart and what has led his colleagues in the Senate to entrust him with leadership time after time. It will be these same characteristics that will distinguish for the American people who they should trust to lead them in the years ahead. While it may be easy for others to constantly change what they stand for in order to distinguish themselves on the issues, character, courage, and integrity are not mantles of convenience. They cannot be adopted at will, converted by choice, or otherwise assumed. They are bedrock principles. They are like a fingerprint, intractably a part of you, easy to trace and difficult to fake. Over the next few months it will be for the American people to ask the same question that the Senate has, who do they trust to lead this Nation? I believe the answer will be the same ultimately. It will be Senator Dole. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, Webster's dictionary defines the term ``red herring'' as ``something that distracts attention from the real issue. [From the practice of dragging a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs].'' The reason I share this definition with you tonight is because most of the arguments we have heard in objection to the balanced budget amendment amount to little more than red herrings. The objections, I believe, are simply distractions from the real issue before us. The real issue before us is that Federal spending is out of control, make no mistake about it, and unless we pass a constitutional amendment to control spending, our children and grandchildren will never know the America we take for granted. The United States has a current national debt of more than $5 trillion, and based on projections under President Clinton's latest budget it will be more than $6.7 trillion by the year 2000. I have said it before and I believe I will say it again tonight, Madam President: Debtors are never free; they are only subject to the dominion of their creditors. That is the real issue here. Throughout the debate on this issue, we have heard no less than five red herrings repeated time and again. I ask you to listen carefully as I go through them one by one and explain why they are just distractions from the real issue. Red herring No. 1 I will share with you. Red herring No. 1: ``The balanced budget amendment would raid Social Security and put the burden of balancing the budget on the elderly.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that there is no Social Security trust fund--no Social Security trust fund. The surplus of which many speak is actually a form of IOU. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure the solvency of the United States so we can protect the living standards of Americans and pay our creditors. I believe if you truly care about the elderly and clearly understand the issue at hand, I see no other option than to support the balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget amendment know that protecting our Nation's economic solvency will do far more to protect the standard of living of every American than to rely on blatant political halfhearted remedies that, in the end, do more harm than good. Red herring No. 2 I will share with you. Red herring No. 2 is that ``the balanced budget amendment is not enforceable. The amendment would curtail the authority of and respect for the U.S. Constitution.'' Again, there is no truth in that. The amendment speaks for itself. Section 2 of the amendment requires a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. If you consider that insignificant, I ask you, why do we vote every year to increase the debt limit? Why does the President submit his budget by the first Monday in February every year? Neither of these procedures are identified in our Constitution. Indeed, these budget procedures are based on statute. As U.S. Senators, we are obligated to abide by the law. To suggest that Members will arbitrarily disregard the Constitution at best undermines the role Congress plays in our participatory democracy. Red herring No. 3 I will share with you. What is it? They say, ``The balanced budget amendment will have dire consequences on the elderly and the children.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again, on the one hand, the opponents of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget will say that the balanced budget amendment will lead to draconian cuts in very critical programs. According to them, every old person, young person, and poor person will be hurt by balancing the Federal budget. But, red herring No. 2 claims that the balanced budget amendment is not enforceable. No amendment will be able to force the President and Congress to balance the budget. Who is going to sue them, they ask? Which is it? Are we going to experience draconian cuts or are we not? The arguments against the balanced budget amendment contradict each other, they say. Since the logic is inconsistent, opponents will try to paint a dreadful picture to the American people, hoping this will elevate opposition to the balanced budget amendment. I have a frightening picture I would like to share with the American people. Imagine a day 30 years in the future as your children are planning to retire. They have worked all their lives, spent frugally, and saved religiously. Yet the Federal Government has continued to run massive budget deficits, piling up an unconscionable amount of debt. One day your children wake up and find that the rest of the world no longer believes that the United States is able to meet its financial obligation. Thus, the value of the dollar crashes in financial markets. The Federal Reserve cannot stop the falling dollar. And, in response, the Treasury prints money. Suddenly--yes, suddenly--your children's assets are worth half of what they were a day before. Inflation is rampant and we are reduced to a Third World country. Everything your children have worked for has been taken from them because some Members of this body did not think that addressing the debt was important. We know it is important. In order to pass the America we know on to our children, we must restrain ourselves from passing our bills on to our children and to our grandchildren. Red herring No. 4. You have heard this. The opponents say, ``The balanced budget amendment is just some popular idea we are voting for, brought about by the Contract With America. We need time to think about a balanced budget amendment.'' Do we? The fact of the matter is that the balanced budget amendment is not a new idea at all. It has been debated right here in the U.S. Senate. One of Thomas Jefferson's well known sayings is, ``If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from borrowing funds * * * We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' In 1936, Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota proposed the first constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Since then, a number of balanced budget amendments have been proposed. We have held hearings as far back as 1979, and even voted on the amendment. Indeed, the issue has come up several times since then. Several of the Senators opposing the balanced budget amendment today have been around for many of those debates. The balanced budget amendment is not a new idea. We know the issue all too well. We are not rushing to judgment. Red herring No. 5, that I will share with you. The opponents say--we do not believe it, but they say: ``Federal accounting does not allow for capital budgeting. Federal accounting would throw chills down the spine of any business executive.'' Trying to confront the arguments against the balanced budget amendment is like following a bouncing ball. When they are defending Social Security, the books are fine, they are in surplus. However, when we discuss the tremendous deficits and debt of the United States, the Federal accounting is somehow inept. Once again, there is an inconsistency in the opponents' reasoning. If you maintain the argument that Federal accounting is flawed, then one must take another look at the books of the Social Security trust fund. The bottom line is there is no fund, there is no surplus. According to accounting rules used by business executives, liability exceeds assets. By definition, that is not a surplus. In addition, I hear analogies being made between the Federal budget and the homeowners who enter into substantial debt when they purchase a house. The difference is that homeowners do not buy a house this year, next year, and the year after that. A homeowner pays down the principal each month, each year. The Federal Government, on the other hand, never gets to this point because it has to borrow just to pay the interest. It is a perpetual problem that all of us are familiar with, that feeds itself. The balanced budget amendment opponents have used every red herring imaginable, hoping just one of them will distract for a moment the American people from the issue at hand. But the fact is, Madam President, the trail of debt now tops $5 trillion, as I said earlier. The red herrings of a balanced budget amendment will not convince anyone on Wall Street or Main Street. The hunting dogs were not confused. The time has come for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America if we are going to save anything for our children and our grandchildren. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to share with my Senate colleagues the outstanding accomplishments of a very talented group of students from Montgomery. On April 13, the Montgomery Academy Forensics Team won the State forensics championship at the Alabama Forensic Educators Association State Tournament. While this is wonderful achievement, it was an even more impressive showing, for this is the second consecutive year the Montgomery Academy team has won this award. For the past 5 years, the team has been led my Mr. James W. Rye III. Mr. Rye founded the forensics program at Montgomery Academy, and in those 5 years, the team has grown in both size and strength, and I would like to congratulate and commend him for his efforts today. Mr. President, I would also like to extend my congratulations to the young men and women from Montgomery Academy who performed so well at this year's tournament. To win two consecutive State championships is an impressive accomplishment, and I wanted to share their success with my colleagues. The Montgomery Academy Forensics Team has certainly earned their award, and I would wish them the best of luck in next year's competition and in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is my understanding. Because we did not want to reopen the Treasury chapter in the conference, this technical change was not made, but it is certainly my intention as the subcommittee chairman that the Commission should honor our intent that nine members of the Commission will constitute a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, there has been substantial debate recently regarding the connection between legal and illegal immigration. Those who favor increased legal immigration have argued there is no link between legal and illegal immigration. In their view, these matters are completely unrelated and should be treated separately, as you just heard. I disagree. It is simply impossible, I believe, to control illegal immigration without first reforming our legal immigration system. One- half of all illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay their visa. No amount of effort at the border will stop this. The only way, I believe, to effectively prevent illegal immigration is to reform our legal immigration system. Thus, I believe there is a clear link between legal and illegal immigration. I support Senator Simpson's proposals to reform the legal immigration system, but I am concerned that even his efforts to reduce legal immigration do not go far enough. With all the misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding this issue, it does not seem possible for this body to pass legislation which will, in my view, bring the number of legal immigrants into line with our national interests. The central question, as I see it, is not whether we should continue legal immigration; we should. The problem is not that legal immigrants or legal immigration are bad per se--they are not. We are a Nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made great contributions to our country, as you have heard on the floor. Immigration is an integral part of our heritage, and I believe it should continue. The real issues that Congress must face, however, are what level of legal immigration is most consistent with our resources and our needs. Yes, and what criteria should be used to determine those who will be admitted. I am convinced that our current immigration law is fundamentally flawed and I want to share with you some charts to illustrate this point. First, the law has long been allowing the admission of excessive numbers of legal immigrants. Let me show you this chart. This chart here shows that the average number of immigrants in this country admitted per year has climbed to about 900,000. You can look at the chart. From the 1930's to the 1990's, it is just in an upward spiral. Additional legal immigration levels averaged about 300,000 per year until the 1965 Immigration Act. As this chart indicates, this is the bulk of immigrants in our country. Three-fourths of the immigrants are legal immigrants. This is three times our level of illegal immigration. There is no other country in the world that has a regular immigration system which admits so many people. Current law fails to consider if such a massive influx of foreign citizens is needed in this country. It also fails to recognize the burden placed on taxpayers for the immigrants' added costs for public services. Excessive numbers of legal immigrants put a crippling strain on the American education system. Non-English speaking immigrants cost taxpayers 50 percent more in educational cost per child. Schools in high immigration communities are twice as crowded as those in low immigration areas, as this next chart indicates. Immigrants also put a strain on our criminal justice system. Foreign- born felons make up 25 percent of our Federal prison inmates--25 percent, much higher than their real numbers. Immigrants are 47 percent more likely to receive welfare than native- born citizens. In 1990, the American taxpayers spent $16 billion more in welfare payments to immigrants than the immigrants paid back in taxes. At a time when we have severe budget shortfalls at all levels of government, our Federal immigration law continues to allow aliens to consume the limited public assistance that our citizens need. Moreover, high levels of immigration cost Americans their jobs at a time when we have millions of unemployed and underemployed citizens, and millions more who will be needing jobs as they are weaned off of welfare. It is those competing for lower skilled jobs who are particularly hurt in this country. Most new legal immigrants are unskilled or low skilled, and they clearly take jobs native citizens otherwise would get. Second, criteria to select who should be admitted does not incorporate, I believe, our country's best interests. As the next chart shows, who are the legal immigrants? Employment based is only 15 percent. Immediate relatives, 31 percent; other relatives, 27 percent; 4 percent is relatives of people who were given amnesty under other legislation. The others are refugees and asylees, 15 percent. The diversity lottery, 5 percent. But look at it again: Immediate relatives, 31 percent; other relatives, 27 percent. Relatives predominate the immigration. The 1965 Immigration Act provisions allow immigrants to bring in not only their immediate family, Mr. President, such as their spouse and minor children, but also their extended family members, such as their married brothers and sisters who then can bring in their own extended family. The brother's wife can sponsor her own brothers and sisters, and so forth. This has resulted in the so-called chain migration we have been talking about, whereby essentially endless and ever-expanding chains or webs of distant relatives are admitted based on the original single immigrant's admission. This can be 50, 60, or more people. I believe this is wrong, and it must be stopped. Immigrants should be allowed to bring in their nuclear family--that is, their spouse and minor children--but not, Mr. President, an extended chain of distant relatives. Some opponents of reforming legal immigration who are fighting desperately to continue the status quo will say that only a radical or even reactionary people favor major changes in the immigration area. However, bringing our legal immigration system back under control and making it more in accord with our national interest is far from adequate, I submit. Let me remind my colleagues that the bipartisan U.S. Immigration Reform Commission, under the leadership of the late former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recommended fundamental reforms in the current legal immigration system, and the overwhelming majority of the American people want changes in our legal immigration system. I certainly would not consider mainstream America radical or reactionary. The next chart shows that the results of a recently released national Roper Poll on immigration are dramatic: More than 83 percent of Americans favor lower immigration levels: 70 percent favor keeping immigration levels below 300,000 per year; 54 percent want immigration cut below 100,000 per year; 20 percent favor having no immigration at all; Only 2 percent--only 2 percent, Mr. President--favor keeping immigration at the current levels. I believe we should and I believe we must listen to the American people on this vital issue. If we care what most people think, and we should, and if we care about what is best for our country, I believe we will reduce legal immigration substantially by ending chain migration and giving much greater weight to immigrants' job skills and our own employment needs. Mr. President, I support the Simpson amendment, which I am cosponsoring, to begin reducing legal immigration. Only Initial Step I emphasize ``begin'' because the amendment is but a first step toward the fundamental reform and major reductions in legal immigration that we need. I would like us to do much more now. Congress should pass comprehensive legal immigration reform legislation this year instead of adopting only a modest temporary reduction. Even as an interim step, I would prefer tougher legislation, like S. 160, a bill that I proposed earlier. That bill would give us a 5-year timeout for immigrants to assimilate while cutting yearly legal immigration down to around 325,000, which was roughly our historical average until the 1965 Immigration Act got us off track. Nevertheless, I am a realist and have served in this body long enough to know that the needed deeper cuts and broader reforms cannot be adopted before the next Congress. This is a Presidential election year and the time available in our crowded legislative schedule is quite limited. Most attention has been focused until recently on the problems associated with illegal immigration, and many Members have not yet been able to study legal immigration in the depth that is needed to make truly informed and wise decisions. The House has already voted to defer action on legal immigration reforms. Moreover, the separate legal immigration bill recently reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is controversial and fails to provide a proper framework for real reform. The committee's bill disregards most of the widely acclaimed recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform made under the able leadership of the late former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Let me take a moment to comment on the history of the committee's legal immigration bill, S. 1665, because it is relevant to this discussion. Originally, Senator Simpson, chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, took many of the key recommendations of the Jordan Commission, which spent 5 years studying every aspect of U.S. immigration policy, and turned them into S. 1394, the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. The bill, as Senator Simpson drafted it, set out many very sensible reforms--reforms proposed by the Commission and which the American people overwhelmingly support. It would have instituted a phased reduction in legal immigration, ended extended family chain migration and placed greater emphasis on selecting immigrants based on their job skills and education while taking our labor market needs more into account. Unfortunately, the legal immigration bill that has been reported to us is radically different than the original Simpson legislation and the Jordan Commission's recommendations. The American people want fundamental immigration reform, and yet the committee's bill gives us the same old failed policies of the past 30 years, albeit in a different package. Mr. President, supporters of that bill ought to be thankful that truth in advertising laws do not apply because what they are selling to the American people as immigration reform is anything but. That bill not only fails to make such much needed recommended systemic reforms, it actually increases legal immigration levels. Given these circumstances, it is clear that major cuts and comprehensive legal immigration reform will have to wait until the next Congress. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to begin the debate and to begin making at least some reductions in the numbers of legal immigrants. This amendment's modest temporary reductions in legal immigration appear to be about all that might be done this year. Therefore, I am supporting this amendment. Reform In 105th Congress I want to make it clear, however, that in the next Congress I will fight very hard to ensure the enactment of the fundamental reforms needed to restore common sense to our immigration system and to best serve our national interests. I intend to push for legislation incorporating many of the changes recommended by the Jordan Commission and other immigration experts. I believe that while we must allow immigration by immediate nuclear family members of citizens and legal permanent residents, we must significantly reduce legal admission levels by eliminating many preference categories, especially those for extended relatives, as proposed by the Commission. Most of our legal immigrants are admitted through the family preference system put in place by the misconceived 1965 Immigration Act. Admission is not on the basis of their job skills or our labor market needs. Only about 6 percent of our legal immigrants are admitted based on employment skills. Chain Migration The 1965 act's provisions allow immigrants to bring in not only their immediate family members--such as their spouse and minor children--but after they become citizens they also may sponsor their extended family members--such as their married brothers and sisters--who then subsequently can bring in their own extended family. For example, the brother's wife can sponsor her own brothers and sisters, and so on. This has resulted in the so-called ``chain migration'' effect whereby essentially endless and ever-expanding chains or webs of more distant relatives are admitted based on the original single immigrant's admission. This can be 50, 60 or more people. This is wrong, and it must be stopped. It creates ever-growing backlogs because the more people we admit, the more become eligible to apply. Immigrants should be allowed to bring in their nuclear family (e.g., spouse and minor children), but not an extended chain of more distance relatives. In addition, we must give greater priority to immigrants' employment skills and our labor needs when we reform admission criteria. Proponents of high immigration levels argue that we must retain extended family admission preferences in order to protect family values. Well, let us remember, Mr. President, that when an immigrant comes to this country, leaving behind parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins, it is the immigrant who is breaking up the extended family. Why does it become our responsibility to have a mechanism in place to undo what the immigrant himself has done? Why is it the responsibility of the American taxpayer who picks up the tab for so many legal immigration costs to have to let the immigrant bring more than his or her immediate nuclear family here? Where do our obligations to new immigrants end? Apparently they never do in the minds of immigrationists who advocate continuing an automatic admission preference for this ever-expanding mass of extended relatives. Each time we admit a new immigrant to this country under our present system, we are creating an entitlement for a whole new set of extended relatives. For most, this means being added to the admission backlogs. Chain Migration Increases Backlogs In that regard I want to observe that proponents of bringing in backlogged relatives at an even faster rate claim that family chain migration is largely a myth. I find this an astounding contention. The very fact that in recent years we have developed a massive, ever increasing backlog of extended relatives proves the point that chain migration is a reality. As the committee's report on its legal immigration bill, S. 1665, notes: ``Backlogs in all family-preference visa categories combined have more than tripled in the past 15 years, rising from 1.1 million in 1981 to 3.6 million in 1996.'' Family chain migration is real, and it's a real problem. Confusion Between Legal And Illegal Immigrants Mr. President, even the very modest reductions made in the pending amendment are viewed as unnecessary by those who favor retaining high levels of legal immigration. They have been saying that legal and illegal immigration provisions should not be considered together because there is confusion between legal and illegal. They say that Congress might let concerns over illegal immigration taint its view on how legal immigration should be handled, and that this could lead unjustly to reductions in legal numbers. Well, after talking about immigration with many citizens in Alabama and elsewhere, I must admit that I have found that there is in fact considerable public confusion about legals and illegals. Furthermore, I agree that this is affecting how Congress is dealing with these issues, but the effect is not what immigrationists think. Ironically, the confusion is greatly benefiting the special interest immigration advocates and their congressional allies and undercutting the efforts of those of us who believe that major cuts in legal immigrant numbers and other reforms must be made. Concerns and confusion over illegal immigration actually are keeping Congress from making the large cuts in legal admission that otherwise clearly would be made this year. Let me explain why. What I have found in repeated discussions with citizens from all types of backgrounds is that they are overwhelmingly concerned about the high numbers of new immigrants moving to our country. However, most people are under the mistaken impression that almost all of the recent immigrants came here illegally. When you explain to them that in fact that about three-fourths of the immigrants in the last decade are legal immigrants they are shocked. At first, they can't believe that Congress has passed laws letting millions of new people come here legally. Then, I have found that the shock and disbelief of most individuals I talked to quickly turns to outrage and anger, and they start demanding that Congress change its policy and slash legal admissions. Thus, Mr. President, what I have found convinces me that most of our constituents are really just as upset about legal immigrants as they are about illegal ones. However, they frequently have only been voicing their concerns in terms of illegal aliens because they did not realize that the people they are upset about actually were here legally. Legal And Illegal Immigration Are Linked High immigration advocates also have argued that there is no link between legal and illegal immigration and that amendments relating to legal immigration are not appropriate to the illegal reform bill we are now debating. I strongly disagree. Legal and illegal immigration are closely linked and interrelated. Legal Provisions Now Included First, with respect to the linkage of legal and illegal immigration, Mr. President, let me also remind my colleagues that the so-called illegal immigration bill that we are debating already contains important provisions relating to legal immigration like those imposing financial responsibility on sponsors of legal immigrants. Thus, it clearly is appropriate to consider the pending amendment to reduce legal immigration. Legal Fosters Illegal Our current legal admissions system makes literally millions of people eligible to apply, and therefore causes them to have an expectation of eventual lawful admission. But, the law necessarily limits annual admission numbers for most categories and massive backlogs have developed. By allowing far more people to qualify to apply for admission than can possibly be admitted within a reasonable time under the law's yearly limits, the present law guarantees backlogs. It can take 20 years or longer for an immigrant's admission turn to come up. This then encourages thousands of aliens to come here illegally. Some come illegally because they know that under current law they either have no reasonable chance for admission or they will have to wait many years for admission given the backlogs. Illegals Can Legalize Without Penalty It is important to note that our current law does not disqualify those who come illegally from later begin granted legal admission. Therefore, illegals often feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by jumping ahead of the line. In short, our legal immigration process has the perverse effect of encouraging illegal immigration. Even though we granted amnesty to legalize over 3 million illegal aliens in 1986, today well over 4 million--and quite possibly over 5 million--illegal aliens now reside in the United States Hundreds of thousands of the new illegal immigrants later will be getting a legal visa when their number eventually comes up through the extended family preference system. Many of these illegals--ho I remind you have broken the law, and who everyone in Congress seems to be so concerned about--thus will become legal immigrants. Magically, it would seem the bad guys become the good guys and all problems go away. Mr. President, how can this be? How can anyone honestly say the legal and illegal issues are not very intertwined and linked together? Illegal Increases Legal In another paradoxical result of our current flawed system, illegal immigration also tends to increase legal immigration. How? Well, look at the situation under the 1986 amendments. The 3 million illegals who received amnesty were allowed to become legal, thereby increasing the number of legal immigrants. And, after becoming legal residents and citizens, what have these former illegals done? After being transformed into good guys by legalization, they have played by the rules, as flawed as the rules are, and petitioned to bring in huge numbers of additional legal immigrants who are the relatives of these legalized illegal aliens. This greatly increases the backlogs. The Jordan Commission found that about 80 percent of the backlogged immediate family relatives are eligible because of their relationship with a former illegal alien. And, as the backlogs grow, Congress is asked to raise admission levels by special backlog reduction programs, which will then increase the number of legal aliens. Thus, we have an integral process here where the legal system works so as to guarantee backlogs which in turn lead to special additional admission programs and to more illegals who, after a while, may be legalized and then become eligible to bring in more relatives legally. Many of the new legal applicants in each cycle are then thrown into the backlogs so the process can repeat itself. Many of the applicant's relatives also will come here illegally to live, work and go to school while waiting to legalize. Legal Has Similar Impacts Legal immigration is also linked to illegal immigration because it has many of the same impacts. Both legal and illegal immigration involve large numbers of additional people, with legal in fact accounting for nearly three times more new U.S. residents every year than illegal immigration. Many of my colleagues have expressed grave concerns about illegal immigrants taking jobs from Americans, or these immigrants committing crimes, or costing taxpayers and State and local governments millions for public education and welfare and other public assistance. Well, as I will point out later in detail, it is time to recognize that legal immigrants often cause these same types of adverse impacts. Congress must stop overlooking or disregarding this patently obvious fact. Let there be no mistake we will not solve most of our national immigration problem by just dealing with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is in many ways an even greater part of the problem. Florida Example Often, the adverse impacts of legal immigration actually will be much greater than illegal because so many more people are involved. For example, consider the situation in the State of Florida. As my colleagues know all too well, especially those who are concerned with unfunded Federal mandates, the Governors of high immigration States like Florida have been coming to Congress for the last several years demanding billions of dollars in reimbursements for their States' immigration-related costs. Governor Lawton Chiles, a former distinguished Member of this body, presented testimony in 1994 to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking for such reimbursement. Governor Chiles' detailed cost analysis showed that in 1993 Florida's State and local governments had net--not gross--immigration costs of $2.5 billion. About two-thirds of this cost--$1.6 billion--came from legal immigration. That's right, listen up everyone, legal immigrants were responsible for two-thirds of Florida's immigration costs. Florida's public education costs alone from legal immigrants came to about $517 million that year. So, my colleagues, we must face the facts that many concerns being raised apply with equal or greater force to legal immigration and that legal and illegal immigration are interrelated. Neither Immigrant Bashing Nor Glorification While I do not condone unjustified immigrant bashing, neither do I subscribe to much of the one-sided emotional immigrant glorification and mythology that so often permeates the legal immigration debate. Supporters of high immigration levels often appear to be saying that legal immigrants are much smarter than citizens and that almost all are harder working, more law abiding and have stronger family values than native-born Americans. They imply that we do not support family values if we do not support allowing every immigrant who comes here to later bring his or her entire extended family of perhaps 50 or more relatives. Immigrationists also tend to see only positive benefits from legal immigration and to disregard or downplay any negatives. Both Positive And Negative Impacts Must Be Weighed Well, Mr. President, this Senator believes that Congress has the responsibility to weigh both the positive and negative aspects of immigration and to factor in our national needs and citizens' interests when setting legal admissions levels and procedures. Yes, we should consider the positive contributions made by immigrants, and the fact that legal immigrants pay taxes to help defray some of our immigrant- related costs. However, we also need to consider the impacts on American families when one or both parents loses job opportunities to legal immigrants, or when a parent's wages are depressed by cheap immigrant labor. We need to consider the impacts on American schoolchildren of having hundreds of millions of dollars diverted from other educational needs to pay for special English-language instruction or scholarships for children from recent immigrant families. We need to consider the impacts on America's senior citizens and our needy native- born people who are unable to obtain nearly the level of public assistance they require because billions are going to pay for benefits for millions of legal immigrants. We need to consider the impact of legal immigration-related unfunded mandates on State and local governments and taxpayers, especially in high immigration areas like Florida and California. And, we need to remember that many immigrants who do pay taxes are paying relatively little because they are making very low wages, and thus do not necessarily pay taxes at a level that will cover nearly all of their costs. Legal Immigration Should Continue The central question that Congress must decide is not whether we should continue legal immigration. Of course we should. The problem is not that legal immigrants or legal immigration are bad per se. They are not. We are a Nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made great contributions to our country. Immigration is an integral part of our heritage, and it should continue. However, while immigrants bring us many benefits, but they also bring certain added costs and other adverse impacts. Furthermore, we do not have unlimited capacity to accept new immigrants. What Level And What Criteria The ultimate question that Congress must face here is what level of legal immigration is most consistent with our resources and needs, and what criteria should be used to pick those who are admitted. After studying this question, I am convinced that our current legal immigration law is fundamentally flawed. The heart of the problem is twofold: First, the present law has for years allowed the admission of excessive numbers of legal immigrants; and second, the selection criteria are discriminatory and skewed so as to disregard what's in our country's overall best interests. Dramatic Legal Increases The current immigration system, based on the 1965 Immigration Act, has allowed legal immigration levels to skyrocket. Legal immigration has grown dramatically in recent decades after the 1965 Immigration Act. We have been averaging 970,000 legal immigrants--that's nearly 1 million people legally every year--during the last decade! When you add in the 300,000 plus illegal immigrants who move here every year, this means we are taking well over a million immigrants a year. We now have over 23 million foreign-born individuals residing in the United States, both legally and illegally. This translates to 1 in 11 U.S. residents being foreign-born, the largest percentage since the Depression. Immigrants cause 50 percent of our Nation's population growth today and will be responsible for 60 percent of the U.S. population increase that is expected in the next 55 years if our immigration laws are not reformed. Before commenting further on our high levels of immigration, let me briefly explain why the 1965 act is discriminatory. Most immigration under the act occurs through the family preference system. In the early years after the act was passed, a few countries were then the primary immigrant sending countries. After a few years, immigrants from those nations were able to petition for admission of more and more relatives. These relatives from those countries came and in turn sponsored other relatives from those countries, further expanding the immigrant flow from these sending countries. As a practical matter, few immigrants can now be admitted other than on the basis of a family relationship so new immigrants tend to come from the same countries where their earlier family members came from. This means that there is a de facto discrimination both against admitting immigrants from other countries and against immigrants from even the favored nations unless they happen to be a relative of other recent U.S. immigrants. Would-be non-relative immigrants can be much better educated and higher skilled, but unless they qualify under the much more limited employment categories, they need not apply because under the 1965 act's nepotistic system the admission quotas go to relatives. Well, Mr. President, I strongly believe that it's long past time for Congress to recognize the 1965 act's flaws and to readjust the statutory process so that we have far lower legal admission levels and fairer admission criteria that are more closely keyed to our national needs and interests. Some of my colleagues and I will probably disagree at least on the numbers of immigrants to be allowed, but I would hope that most will at least agree that an issue of such overriding and strategic importance to the future of our country merits their careful and detailed consideration. Our Nation should not be changed so fundamentally without Congress debating the issue and making a conscious, informed decision on how immigration should be allowed so as to best promote and protect our national interests. Not Like Traditional Immigration Levels Historically, except for a brief 15-year period around 1900, our legal immigration levels have been much lower than what we have experienced after the 1965 act and its subsequent amendments. Many of my colleagues may be surprised by this fact because immigration mythology may have led them to believe that high levels of immigration like we have experienced in recent years are typical or traditional throughout American history. Well, quite the opposite is true. During the 50-year period from 1915 through 1964, for example, legal immigration levels averaged only about 220,000 annually. From 1820 when our formal immigration records were begun until 1965, it averaged only about 300,000, including the unusually high years around 1900. From 1946 to 1955, it averaged about 195,000 annually; then from 1956 to 1965, it was averaging roughly 288,000 yearly. With the passage of the 1965 Act, the numbers began to skyrocket: from 1966 to 1975, the yearly average became 381,000; then from 1976 to 1985 it hit 542,000; and for the last decade from 1986 through 1995, legal immigration on average hit about 970,000 yearly. The post-1965 act constant high legal immigrant influx is radically different than our historical pattern. Another important aspect of our legal immigration problem is that there have been no immigration timeouts or break periods for the last 30 years to give immigrants time to assimilate and be Americanized. Even with the ending of legalizations under the 1986 amnesty law, the legal numbers are still very high. And, this huge wave of immigrants has helped fuel the application backlogs which now run around 3.6 million. Some apologists for high immigration numbers say that since legal immigration has averaged somewhat lower for the last couple of years, we are on a significant new downward trend. Well, we are not. Recent INS projections call for a large increase in legal immigration in fiscal year 1996, thanks largely to the current law's provisions allowing immigration by extended relatives of recent immigrants and the effects of family chain migration. Times Have Changed Mr. President, not only are such extremely high immigration levels not traditional, but it is important to realize that today times and circumstances have changed dramatically so that it is far less appropriate to have either such high immigration or the limited skills most current immigrants now bring us. Then In the good old days of yesteryear, we had a much smaller U.S. population and many more people were needed for settling the frontier and working in our factories. In earlier times, our economy also needed mostly low-skilled workers. We still had plenty of cheap land and resources. Quite significantly, we had no extensive taxpayer-funded government safety net of public benefit programs for unsuccessful immigrants to fall back on. Not surprisingly, 30 to 40 percent of our immigrants returned to their homelands. Furthermore, our domestic population's cultural and ethnic heritages were more similar to those of new immigrants. More Americans then had large families because the high domestic birthrate was similar to that of new immigrant families. And, the melting pot concept was generally accepted and fostered assimilation. In addition, there were periodic lulls in immigrant admission levels so as to allow for assimilation. Now Today, circumstances are quite different. Land and resource availability are much more limited and expensive. The United States now is a mature nation with a host of serious domestic difficulties, economic problems, chronic unemployment, crime, millions of needy, and so forth. Our population has grown many times over. In fact, the United States now doesn't need more people--we have no frontier to settle, and we have plenty of workers. And, our economy has been undergoing fundamental structural changes. We have been restructuring toward a high-technology economy that needs higher skilled, more educated workers to compete in the new global marketplace instead of unskilled or low-skilled immigrant labor. We now have a costly taxpayer-funded safety net of government assistance that immigrants can rely on such as welfare, AFDC, SSI, health care, and other benefit programs. Not surprisingly, now only 10 to 20 percent return to their home country. And, multi-culturalism is favored over the ``melting pot" concept by many immigrant groups, making assimilation often much more difficult and slower. Instead of following our traditional course of enhancing our strengths by melding a common American culture out of immigrants' diversity, multiculturalists now push to retain newcomers' different cultures. Mr. President, yes, times and circumstances have changed. How many Senators would be willing to vote today to start voluntarily admitting three-quarters of a million, or more, new people--most of whom are poor, unskilled or low-skilled and don't speak English--every year? I dare say that most of those who did so would face serious reelection problems when outraged voters learned of their actions. Perhaps, this is why the Judiciary Committee's legal immigration bill uses admission assumptions that are much lower than recent INS projections. Perhaps, some people hope to escape voters' wrath by claiming that they did not know what's happening and what's obviously going to happen if we don't make big cuts and other reforms. Whatever their reasoning, what we are experiencing is legislative business as usual, catering to the high immigration and cheap labor lobbies when it comes to legal immigration. Time To Face Legal Immigration Realities Well, my colleagues, we are paying a high price now for years of excessive Federal spending and for using smoke and mirrors accounting to understate our budgetary problems. We are facing an analogous problem here for having allowed both legal and illegal immigration levels to be excessive for years, and for failing to acknowledge difficulties caused by high legal immigration. We simply must begin facing up to the real numbers and the problems associated with admitting far too many new people through legal immigration. About three-fourths of our immigration comes from legal immigrants. That's three times our level of illegal immigration. Why are we trying to close the backdoor of illegal immigration and lamenting about all the impacts illegals are causing, but at the same time disregarding the fact that the front door is open wider than ever? Congress must stop giving little or no thought to the obvious interconnection between legal and illegal immigration and their similar adverse impacts. In the last Presidential campaign, there was a popular saying ``It's the economy stupid!'' Well, with respect to the heart of our immigration problems it can be said ``It's the numbers stupid!''-- we get three times more numbers from legal immigration than illegal. Legal Immigration's Costs Our current legal admissions policy fails to take into account whether such a massive influx of newcomers is needed, or the burdens placed on taxpayers for the immigrants' added costs for public education, health care, welfare, criminal justice, infrastructure and various other services and forms of public assistance. Let me highlight some of these costs: Education--For example, excessive numbers of legal immigrants are putting a crippling strain on America's education system. About one- third of our immigrants are public school aged. Immigrant children and the children of recent immigrants are greatly increasing school enrollments and adding significantly to school costs in many areas. Schools in many high immigration communities are twice as crowded as those in low immigration cities. In 1995, the Miami public school system was getting new foreign students at a rate of 120 per day, and as I noted earlier, Florida's costs in 1993 for legal immigrant education came to over half a billion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of children from immigrant families speak little or no English. This causes a tremendous increase in education costs and diverts limited dollars that are needed elsewhere in our school systems. English as a Second Language programs are very expensive. Non-English speaking immigrant children cost taxpayers 50 percent more in education costs per child. Welfare--Legal immigrants, who make up the largest part of our foreign-born population, also are costing billions for various forms of public assistance: According to the GAO, about 30 percent of all U.S. immigrants are living in poverty. The GAO has found that legal immigrants received most of the $1.2 billion in AFDC benefits that went to immigrants. Immigrants now take 45 percent of all the SSI funds spent on the elderly according to the GAO. In 1983, only 3.3 percent of legal resident aliens received SSI, but in 1993 this figure jumped to 11.5 percent; 128,000 in 1983 vs. 738,000 by 1994. This is a 580 percent increase in just 12 years. The House Ways and Means Committee indicates that in 1996, around 990,000 resident aliens--who are non-citizens--are receiving SSI and Medicaid benefits, costing $5.1 billion for SSI and another $9.3 billion for Medicaid, for a total of $14.4 billion. The committee projects that this cost for legal immigrants will jump to over $67 billion a year by 2004. As our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has pointed out, only about 40 percent of our immigrants are covered by health insurance, and therefore immigrants have to rely heavily on taxpayer funded public health services. Recent analysis by Prof. George Borjas of Harvard University of new Census Bureau data also has confirmed immigrants are using more public benefits. Borjas points out that immigrant households were less likely than native-born Americans to receive welfare in 1970. However, his analysis shows that today immigrant households are almost 50 percent more likely to receive cash and non-cash public assistance--they are about 50 percent more likely to receive AFDC; 75 percent more likely to receive SSI; 64 percent more likely to receive Medicaid; 42 percent more likely to receive food stamps; and 27 percent more likely to receive public housing assistance. Borjas also notes that 22 percent of the California's households are immigrants, but they get 40 percent of the public benefits; that 9 percent of Texas' households are immigrants, but they get 22 percent of the public assistance; and that 16 percent of New York's households are immigrants, but they get 22 percent of the public assistance benefits. Jobs--At a time when we have millions of unemployed and underemployed American citizens--and millions more who will be needing jobs as they are weaned off welfare--our Federal immigration law continues to allow in a flood of foreigners to depress wages and take jobs that our own citizens need. While corporate cheap labor interests profit, it is American workers who suffer, especially those who are competing for lower skilled jobs. Most new legal immigrants are unskilled or low- skilled, and they clearly take many jobs native citizens otherwise would get. Dr. Frank Morris, a noted African-American professor, pointed out in House testimony last year that immigration is having disproportionate adverse impacts on American blacks as follows: There can be no doubt that our current practice of permitting more than a million legal and illegal immigrants a year into the US into our already difficult low skill labor markets clearly leads to both wage depression and the de facto displacement of African American workers with low skills. . .. The American labor market is not exempt from the laws of supply and demand. If the supply of labor, especially unskilled labor, increases in markets where significant numbers of African Americans reside for any reason, you have either a wage depression or labor substitution effect upon African Americans, who because we have less education, work experience and small business creation rates than other Americans, are disproportionately negatively impacted in those markets. . .. America is the only country in the world that has mass immigration at a time of slow growth, and industrial restructuring of the economy. African Americans are disproportionately hurt by this process because almost half of all immigrants head for cities that also have a large number of African American residents searching and fighting for better low rent housing, better low skill requirement but high paying jobs, and better public school education for their offspring. Secretary of Labor Reich in testimony regarding needed immigration reforms on September 28, 1995 before the Senate's Subcommittee on Immigration commented on the ``fundamental question of what purpose our employment- or skill-based immigration policy is meant to serve'' as follows: This nation of immigrants always has and always will welcome new members into the American family, though at a different pace and in different ways to suit the times. . .. Employment-based immigration to fill skill shortages, as well as the temporary admission of selected skilled foreign workers, is sometimes unavoidable. But I firmly believe that hiring foreign over domestic workers should be the rare exception, not the rule. And I believe such exceptions should be even rarer, and more tightly targeted on gaps in the domestic labor market than is generally the case under current policy. . .. If employers must turn to foreign labor, this is a symptom signaling defects in America's skill- building system. Our system for giving employers access to global markets should be structured to remedy such defects, not acquiesce in them. And it should progressively diminish, not merely perpetuate, firms' dependence on the skills of foreign workers. Crime--Immigrants also put a strain on our criminal justice system-- over 25 percent of the Federal prison inmates are foreign-born. This is clearly very disproportionate to immigrants' percentage of our general population, which is about 9 percent. Large numbers of these criminal aliens were admitted legally. It cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars just to incarcerate them. After an extensive study, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported in April 1995 that: Aliens now account for over 25 percent of Federal prison inmates and represent the fastest growing segment of Federal prison population. A conservative estimate is that there are 450,000 aliens who have been convicted of a crime and who are in prison, in jail, on probation or on parole in the United States. Criminal aliens not only occupy beds in our prisons and jails, they also occupy the time and resources of law enforcement and our courts. Mr. President, I say that we must recognize such negative impacts from excessive levels of legal immigration, and that we have a moral obligation to take care of American citizens first. We certainly cannot do so without making drastic cuts in legal immigration numbers. We also must change the criteria to give much more emphasis to immigrants' skills and our changing labor needs. Responsible, Reasonable Legal Immigration Reforms Many opponents of reforming legal immigration who are fighting desperately to continue the status quo say that only radical or even reactionary people favor major changes in this area. Their contentions are erroneous. Bringing our legal immigration system back under control and making it more in accord with our national interests is far from radical. Let me remind my colleagues again that the bipartisan U.S. Immigration Reform Commission, under the leadership of the late former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, has recommended fundamental reforms in the current legal immigration system. The Commission's recommendations included substantial reductions in legal admission levels and abolishing a number of admission categories including brothers and sisters of citizens and adult children of permanent residents. Surely, proposing such fundamental changes because they concluded this would be in our national interest does not mean that distinguished Americans like Barbara Jordan are radical or reactionary. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the American people certainly are not radical or reactionary, and they clearly want Congress to dramatically reduce legal immigration numbers. And dramatic is perhaps the best way of describing the results of a recently released national Roper Poll on immigration. This Roper Poll found over 83 percent of Americans favor lower immigration levels. Seventy percent favor keeping overall immigration below 300,000 per year, and this view is supported generally across racial, ethnic, and other lines--52 percent of Hispanics, 73 percent of blacks, 72 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans. A majority of the public--54 percent--want immigration cut below 100,000 per year; and 20 percent favor having no immigration at all. Even reform opponents were surprised to learn that only 2 percent favor keeping the current levels. It should be noted that the questions used in this poll specifically advised respondents that current levels of legal and illegal immigration totaled over 1,000,000 new immigrants per year. The people's answers stated the immigration levels they favored for all immigration, including both legal and illegal. While this new Roper Poll is consistent with many earlier polls, it shows even stronger public sentiment on these issues. Thus, it is clear that the public wants dramatically lower legal immigration. Mr. President, we must listen to the American people on this vital issue. If we care what our constituents think, if we truly want to represent their views, and if we care about doing what's best for our country, we will cut legal immigration substantially and we will make other fundamental changes in the system to end chain migration by extended family members and to give much greater weight to immigrants' education and skills and our employment needs. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to begin to make the responsible, reasonable reforms needed in our legal immigration policies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles showing the need for immigration reform be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Simpson amendment which, I believe, is a first step in restoring common sense to our Nation's immigration system. I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor of the Simpson amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am extremely gratified that the Senate has unanimously approved the Health Insurance Reform Act, S. 1028, with the inclusion of Senator Domenici's amendment relating to mental health coverage. Specifically, this amendment prevents insurers from imposing limits on benefits for mental illness that are not imposed on benefits for physical illness. This bill requires insurers to treat consumers fairly. It guarantees that insurers do not drop people's coverage when they change jobs or for pre-existing health conditions. It also prevents insurers from imposing arbitrary coverage limits on persons who need services for mental illness. I have long been a strong supporter of nondiscriminatory coverage for persons suffering mental illness. In the last Congress, I sponsored, with Senators Dole and Simon, a resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 16, that called on Congress to ensure that persons with mental illness receive equitable coverage with that afforded for physical illness. Our resolution received strong bipartisan support, and the Senate has included nondiscriminatory coverage for mental illness in S. 1028. Americans with mental illness deserve to have equitable access to health coverage. Because these Americans often cannot find adequate coverage under private coverage, they are frequently forced to resort to coverage in public programs. Without jobs and coverage, many are not adequately treated. This legislation will permit many mentally ill persons to have the coverage they need to hold down jobs and to lead productive and fulfilling lives. Mr. President, it is no secret that mental illness can strike at any time, to anyone. Many of us know someone who has suffered mental illness. This amendment will provide nondiscriminatory coverage for a range of mentally ill disorders, including schizophrenia, manic depressive disorder, or panic disorder. I believe that this amendment will make for a more productive and efficient work force. American businesses lose more than $100 billion per year due to lost productivity of employees because of substance abuse and mental illness. We can reduce this drain on employers by permitting employees access to nondiscriminatory mental illness coverage. I strongly support S. 1028 with inclusion of nondiscriminatory coverage for persons with mental illness. Inclusion of this provision is not only the right and compassionate thing to do, but it will also reduce overall mental health spending and make our health system more accessible for persons with mental illness. I urge my fellow Senators to support this provision in conference.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment and bring to my colleagues' attention the 20th anniversary of the Valley Haven School Hike/Bike/Run. The Valley Haven School, located in Valley, AL, is a school for mentally retarded and multiple handicapped citizens of all ages. Started 37 years ago by volunteers, the school is now professionally staffed and currently offers skilled training to 95 students ranging in age from 3 months to 60 years. Mr. President, local moneys of $100,000 must be raised each year to meet operating expenses and match State and Federal grants. The primary source of these funds is the annual Hike/Bike/Run, which consists of a 5 or 10 mile walk, an 11 or 22 mile bike ride, a skate-a-thon, a 1, 3.1, or 6.2 mile run, a 5 mile bike ride for children, and the Trike Trek for preschoolers. Each participant in the Hike/Bike/Run obtains pledges for their participation, and all proceeds go directly to Valley Haven to support the education and training for handicapped students. In 1995, this 1 day fundraiser involved over 1,000 participants and 8,000 pledging sponsors. The event generated over $100,000 in pledges to support the work of the school. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and commend Valley Haven and the entire Valley community for displaying such strong support and concern for these special students. This year's Hike/Bike/Run will be held on Saturday, May 4, and I know that the community will once again unite to support this wonderful program and help Valley Haven School help its students.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and bring to my colleagues' attention the 20th anniversary of the Valley Haven School Hike-Bike-Run. The Valley Haven School, located in Valley, AL, is a school for mentally retarded and multiple handicapped citizens of all ages. Started 37 years ago by volunteers, the school is now professionally staffed and currently offers skilled training to 95 students ranging in age from 3 months to 60 years. Mr. President, local monies of $100,000 must be raised each year to meet operating expenses and match State and Federal grants. The primary source of these funds is the annual Hike-Bike-Run, which consists of a 5- or 10-mile walk, an 11- or 22-mile bike ride, a skate-a-thon, a 1-, 3.1-, or 6.2-mile run, a 5-mile bike ride for children, and the trike trek for preschoolers. Each participant in the Hike-Bike-Run obtains pledges for their participation, and all proceeds go directly to Valley Haven to support the education and training for handicapped students. In 1995, this one day fundraiser involved over 1,000 participants and 8,000 pledging sponsors. The event generated over $100,000 in pledges to support the work of the school. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and commend Valley Haven and the entire Valley community for displaying such strong support and concern for these special students. This year's Hike-Bike-Run will be held on Saturday, May 4, and I know that the community will once again unite to support this wonderful program and help Valley Haven School help its students.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I think it is very important that we continue to fund the committee's work for a couple of pretty obvious reasons. For one, documents are turning up like wildflowers everywhere. Every week or so, the Whitewater Committee receives a pile of ``mistakenly overlooked documents'' from the White House. Mr. President, how is it that mistakenly overlooked Whitewater files labeled ``Whitewater Development Corporation,'' or that they fail to ensure that notes they took in meetings dedicated exclusively to the discussion of Whitewater, as part of a Whitewater damage control response team, are not produced as part of the subpoena's request? Mr. President, if you were going to comply with a subpoena that is seeking documents related to Whitewater, would you not start with a Whitewater response team? It is obvious that you would. Mr. President, that would seem to be the minimum in terms of compliance, would it not? Frankly, I am surprised that we are even debating today whether to continue funding for the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater. Mr. President, it was only a little more than a month ago that the committee first learned of the existence of billing records that had been under subpoena for over 2 years. What was incredible about their discovery, Mr. President, was that these billing records were discovered by a White House aide in the personal residence of the White House, probably one of the most secure places in the world. Mr. President, documents do not have legs. They cannot walk. They have to have somebody to carry them. The White House can argue that the billing records support the First Lady's prior statements until the cows come home. They can argue about what the word ``significant'' means, or about what ``minimal'' means. They can rewrite Webster's if they want to. But, Mr. President, that will not change the fact that these records we are talking about were under subpoena for close to 2 years and were not produced during that time. Regardless of motive, someone had custody of these records while they were under subpoena and chose not to produce them. Mr. President, the mysterious appearance of these records prompted the independent counsel to subpoena the First Lady to testify before the grand jury. This unprecedented action by the independent counsel, I believe, underscores the seriousness and the importance of the billing records' reappearance to this committee's investigation. What we do know about the billing records is this. Certainly, what we do know is certainly less than what we do not know. What information the committee has been able to glean thus far since the records' discovery is the following: Mr. Foster's handwriting is found all over the billing records in red ink. Mr. Foster's writing appears to direct questions to the First Lady about her billings of Madison Savings & Loan. Mr. Foster was the last person that we know of that had possession of these records after the 1992 Presidential campaign. And the records were found on a table in the book room of the personal residence of the White House sometime in late July or early August. Mr. President, the committee thus has a sense of who may have had the records last, but no answers to the who, what, where, and when of the billing records' reappearance. We need that information. More important is still what remains unanswered, like, for example, how did the billing records end up in the White House personal residence? Where have they been for the past 2 years while they have been under subpoena? Were the records in Mr. Foster's office when he died? If so, who took custody of these records after Mr. Foster's death? Finally, and most important, who left the billing records on the table in the book room of the White House residence? As the New York Times so aptly noted in its February 17, 1996, editorial, ``Inanimate objects do not move themselves, we all know that.'' These are serious questions, Mr. President, questions that the committee and the public deserve answers to. There is nothing partisan or politically motivated about trying to uncover the circumstances surrounding the much belated discovery of records under subpoena for over 2 years. Indeed, answers to these questions, I believe, are central to the committee's investigation. If Mr. Foster did, in fact, have these records in his possession as of his tragic death, how did they move, Mr. President, from the White House counsel's office to the personal residence? Obviously, not on their own motion. Testimony given before the committee about the Foster office search and movement of files to the personal residence leads us to some sense of how they may, Mr. President, have made their way to the book room. The committee heard testimony from a Secret Service officer who swore that he saw Maggie Williams, the First Lady's chief of staff, carrying documents out of Mr. Foster's office the night of his death. Phone records obtained by the committee, Mr. President, showed a spate of early morning phone calls between Ms. Williams, the First Lady, Susan Thomases, and Bernie Nussbaum, immediately preceding Mr. Nussbaum's decision to renege on his agreement with the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Heymann, on how the search of Mr. Foster's office would be conducted. A senior White House aide testified that the day of the search, Mr. Nussbaum, White House counsel at that time, told him of his concerns coming from the First Lady--told of concerns coming from the First Lady and Susan Thomases--about law enforcement officials having unfettered access to Mr. Foster's office. Department of Justice officials have testified before the committee as to suspicions and concerns that began to arise after the White House reneged on an agreement on how Mr. Foster's office would be searched-- suspicion and concerns, Mr. President, that prompted the Deputy Attorney General of the United States at that time, Mr. Philip Heymann, to ask the then White House counsel, Mr. Bernie Nussbaum, ``Are you hiding something?'' A White House aide testified that later on in the day of the search of Mr. Foster's office, he assisted Ms. Williams in carrying boxes of materials from Mr. Foster's office to the personal residence, during which time Mrs. Williams offered the explanation that the materials were personal documents that needed to be reviewed by the Clintons. Mr. President, Ms. Williams testified that documents were moved from Mr. Foster's office to a closet on the third floor, to the personal residence of the White House, where they were later reviewed and collected by the Clintons' personal attorneys. This testimony, Mr. President, in conjunction with the belated discovery of the billing records and other Whitewater documents, has only fueled suspicions that the White House has not been truthful about the search of Mr. Foster's office after his death. Mr. President, the many unanswered questions that remain are in truth due in large part to the lack of cooperation and evasive tactics coming from the White House. While the committee has undertaken to conduct its investigation expeditiously, events like the mysterious discovery of the billing records, the miraculous location of over 100 pages of notes from top White House aides and Whitewater damage control team members, undermine the committee's ability to conduct a timely and thorough investigation. Mr. President, these documents have been under subpoena, as I said, for over 2 years, and they only now, Mr. President, surface with explanations that confound credibility, such as ``Sorry, mistakenly overlooked.'' ``Didn't know you were looking for notes of those Whitewater meetings.'' Or, ``I thought they were already turned over to the White House counsel.'' Mr. President, the excuses are too little, and I believe they are too late. ``No harm, no foul'' just will not work for the White House anymore. The committee and the independent counsel will not and cannot, Mr. President, accept misunderstandings, miscommunications, mistakes, mismanagement, and general bungling as an excuse by the White House for not producing documents that we are legitimately entitled to. I think it is time for answers, not excuses. Indeed, Mr. President, the White House's lack of cooperation and forthcomingness, its defensive posture and its behavior in response to the legitimate congressional and law enforcement inquiries has led us to where we are today. The White House's handling of the documents in Mr. Foster's office after his death and its continued and persistent pattern of obstruction and evasion perpetuate the belief they have something to hide. Last summer, the committee heard testimony about the search of Mr. Foster's office after his death. I want to briefly read from the committee transcript testimony we heard from Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, because I believe it clearly reveals why this committee and many Americans continue to believe that the White House has not been truthful about what went on in the hours following Mr. Foster's death. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire script beginning on pages 41 of Mr. Heymann's testimony be printed in the Record.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this was a question that this Senator asked Mr. Heymann when he was before the committee. Senator Shelby. Was it your understanding by the end of the 21st that an agreement or understanding had been reached between the Department of Justice, the Park Police and the White House over how the search would be conducted, the search of the deputy counsel's office? Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby, in the sense that we all had agreed on how it would be done. And in what I still think was a very sensible way---- Senator Shelby. Would you relate what you recall of how the--what you agreed to or thought you had agreed to? Mr. Heymann. I'd be happy to. I just wanted to make clear, Senator Shelby, I didn't feel that I had a binding commitment by Mr. Nussbaum or anyone else. We simply all had talked about it by then and we all were on the same track, we all were on the same page, we all thought it would be done in the way I'm about to describe. Senator Shelby. Did you think when you sent Mr. Adams and Mr. Margolis over there that it would turn into an adversarial relationship or something close to that? Mr. Heymann. No, I did not. Senator Shelby. You did not. Mr. Heymann. You'd asked me to describe what the understanding was, Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby. Yes, sir, that's right. You go ahead. Mr. Heymann. The understanding was that they would see, these two senior prosecutors, not the investigators, but the prosecutors would see enough of every document to be able to determine whether it was relevant to the investigation or not. Now, I've been handed some pages from my transcript, but let's assume this is a document, it's about 30 pages long. They would look at this and it says ``deposition of Philip Heymann, re: Whitewater,'' and they would know that that didn't seem to have anything, any likely bearing on the cause of Vince Foster's death. if need be, they might have to look a page or two into it. But the object was to maintain the confidentiality of White House papers to the largest extent possible with satisfying ourselves that we were learning of every potentially relevant document. If there was a relevant document, it would be set aside in a separate pile. If the White House counsel's office believed that it was entitled to executive privilege, and therefore should not be turned over to us, we would then have to resolve that? There would be a separate pile of documents; some relevant and would go directly to the investigators some relevant but executive privilege claims, in which case we would have to resolve it perhaps with the assistants of the legal counsel's office of the Justice Department. Senator Shelby. Mr. Heymann, did you contemplate that this would be done jointly or just done by the White House counsel? Mr. Heymann. I thought it was essential, Senator Shelby, that it be done jointly with these two prosecutors being able to satisfy themselves, and through them satisfy the investigative agencies that whatever might be relevant was being made available to us. Senator Shelby. That it would be a bona fide investigation and not a sham; it that right? Mr. Heymann. Well, I don't---- Senator Shelby. Or be a bona fide investigation. Mr. Heymann. That it would be a entirely--it would be review of documents that would be entirely credible to us, to the investigators and to the American public. Senator Shelby. OK. Your notes mention, I believe, Mr. Heymann, that Steve Neuwirth objected to this agreement, but that Mr. Nussbaum agreed with Margolis that it was a done deal; is that correct? You want to refer---- Mr. Heymann. That is what they reported to me when Mr. Margolis and Mr. Adams returned that evening, the evening of Wednesday the 21st, to the Justice Department. Senator Shelby. What do your notes reflect, I was paraphrasing them? Mr. Heymann. It said they discussed the system that had been agreed upon, I just described it to you. BN that stands for Mr. Nussbaum, agreed. SN, that stands for Steve Neuwirth, said no. We shouldn't do it that way. The Justice Department attorneys shouldn't have direct access to the files. David Margolis, the Justice Department attorney, said it's a done deal and Mr. Nussbaum at that point said yes, we've agreed to that. Senator Shelby. Was it important to you and to the Department of Justice that you represented that the documents be reviewed independently, is that why it was important that the Department of Justice look for relevance and privilege jointly in this undertaking? Mr. Heymann. Yes, Senator Shelby. Again, I did not think it was necessary and do not think it was necessary to review documents which we could quickly determine had no relevance to Vince Foster's death. So our attorneys would not have looked at those, that was a clear part of the understanding. Or pages, yeah. Senator Shelby. I didn't say. I understand that you received a call from David Margolis the next morning from the White House about the search; is that correct? You want to refer to your notes? Mr. Heymann. That's correct, Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby. What was this call about? Mr. Heymann. He and Roger Adams had gone over with the Park Police and the FBI to do the review we planned. Senator Shelby. This was pursuant to the understanding you had with Mr. Nussbaum? Mr. Heymann. Pursuant to the understanding of the 21st. Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Heymann. Mr. Margolis told me that Mr. Nussbaum had said to me that they had changed the plan, that only the White House counsel's office would see the actual documents. Mr. Margolis had asked Mr. Nussbaum whether that had been discussed with me and Mr. Nussbaum had said no. I told Mr. Margolis at that point to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone, and I was---- Senator Shelby. Did he get on the phone? Mr. Heymann. He got on the phone. Senator Shelby. What did you say to him? Mr. Heymann. I told him that this was a terrible mistake. Senator Shelby. Terrible mistake. Go ahead. Mr. Heymann. Well, please don't---- Senator Shelby. That was your words; is that right? Mr. Heymann. Yeah--no, no, please don't assume that what I now paraphrase would be the words I actually used. This is 740 days ago and it would be quite unreliable to think they're the exact words. I remember very clearly sitting in the Deputy Attorney General's conference room picking up the phone in that very big room. I remember being very angry and very adamant and saying this is a bad--this is a bad mistake, this is not the right way to do it, and I don't think I'm going to let Margolis and Adams stay there if you are going to do it what way because they would have no useful function. It would simply look like they were performing a useful function, and I don't want that to happen. The Chairman. You told this to the counsel? Senator Shelby. You told this to Nussbaum; is that correct? Mr. Heymann. I told this to Mr. Nussbaum. The Chairman. But you volunteered this? In other words, it did not come from Mr. Margolis or Mr. Adams? This was your saying I'm not going to keep them here if this---- Mr. Heymann. I suspect, Senator D'Amato, that when I talked to Mr. Margolis in the same phone conversation shortly before I asked him to put Mr. Nussbaum on the phone he would have said to me something like we have no useful role here, and it would--I would have picked it up from that, and I would have said I don't think I'm going to keep them there. Mr. Nussbaum was, as always, entirely polite and he said--he was taken back by my anger and by the idea that I might pull out the Justice Department attorneys and he said I'll have to talk to somebody else about this or other people about this, and I'll get back to you, Phil [meaning Phil Heymann]. Senator Shelby. Did he tell you who he was going to talk to? Mr. Heymann. He did not tell me who he was going to talk to. Senator Shelby. He didn't tell you or indicate it was the President of the United States or the First Lady? Mr. Heymann. He never indicated in any way who he was going to discuss this with, nor has he ever. Senator Shelby. Just the phrase I'm going to talk to somebody? Mr. Heymann. I'm--just the notion was I have to talk to other people about this. I had obviously shaken him enough that he wanted to consider whether he should come back to what we had agreed to the day before on the 21st, but there were other people involved that he had to talk to about that. Senator Shelby. Was it your impression, Mr. Heymann, then that Mr. Nussbaum would get back to you before any review of the documents in the White House was conducted? Mr. Heymann. He said to me specifically don't call Adams and Margolis back to the Justice Department. I'll get back to you. Senator Shelby. Did he ever call you back? Mr. Heymann. He never called me back. Senator Shelby. Did you ever consent to the change in the plan in how the search would be conducted, Mr. Heymann? Mr. Heymann. I did not. Just think about it a minute. This is the beginning of it shown in this transcript that has been made a part of the Record here. Why should we extend the Whitewater Committee? Let us look at some other things. The Senator from Alaska talked about some editorials from some of the leading newspapers in the country and I want to expand on them a little bit. For example, the Washington Post editorial that I have here by my pointer, it says, on February 25, ``Extend the Whitewater Committee.'' For an administration that professes to want a quick end to the Senate Whitewater hearings before the election year gets into full swing, the Clinton White House seems to be doing everything in its power to keep the probe alive. Think about it, this is the Washington Post, not a Republican newspaper by any means. Another editorial that I want to refer to here from the New York Times entitled ``The Whitewater Paper Chase''; February 17, 1996. The excitement of Iowa and New Hampshire has diverted attention from the Senate Whitewater committee and its investigation into the Rose Law Firm's migrating files. Naturally this pleases the White House and its allies, who hope to use [this time] . . . to let their ``so what'' arguments take root. This is the New York Times saying we should extend the investigation of Whitewater. Another editorial, January 25, 1996, in the New York Times. Headline in the editorial section, ``Extend the Whitewater Committee.'' Why? Because the public has a right to know. It says: The committee and its chairman need to be mindful of the appearance of political maneuvering, but recent events argue strongly against too arbitrary or too early a deadline. That is what we are talking about here. Subpoenas were ignored. Perhaps the files will also show that there was no coverup associated with moving and storing these files. But inanimate objects, as I said earlier, do not move themselves. So it is pointless to ask Senators and the independent prosecutors to fold their inquiry on the basis of the facts that have emerged so far. To do so would be a dereliction of our duties. Mr. President, I have additional editorials that have run throughout this country. USA Today, January 10, 1996, ``Clintons owe answers about First Lady's role. Newly released documents reveal troubling inconsistencies. The public deserves the whole story.'' That is what this is all about. Additionally, ``The Whitewater Committee,'' the Washington Times editorial, February 27. There are plenty of documents the White House still has not released; and there are plenty of witnesses still to be questioned; there are also many witnesses whose testimony was so misleading or incomplete that they need to be re- questioned. Attempts by the administration to frustrate the work of the committee, I think, are not going to work. We need to extend the Whitewater inquiry, politics notwithstanding. We need to move to the next step. Mr. President, you cannot always agree with some of these papers. I do not always agree with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others. But the New York Times and the Washington Post for a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, are conventionally viewed as vanguards of good government, and I would venture to say can hardly be characterized as supporters of Republican partisanship. After reviewing everything that has gone on in the Whitewater committee, the mysterious disappearance of files, the finding of files in a mysterious way, Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting the continued funding of the committee to continue our investigation. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4. This bill is the most significant piece of welfare reform legislation to come before Congress in more than three decades. The current welfare system is destroying the hopes and opportunities of thousands of Americans by trapping them in cycles of dependency. President Roosevelt, the hero of liberal welfare advocates, warned us what would happen if we structured our welfare system in a way that fostered reliance on the Government. Listen to what he said in his 1935 annual message to Congress: The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. Mr. President, that is exactly what the architects of the modern welfare state have done. They have created a welfare system that encourages people to view welfare as a way of life. The typical welfare family has already spent 6\1/2\ years on welfare, and will end up spending a total of 13 years on the rolls. Thirteen years, Mr. President. After 13 years on welfare, the average family has received at least $150,000 of taxpayers' money. No wonder President Roosevelt said this type of welfare was a narcotic that destroyed the human spirit. The reason welfare has become so addictive is because it completely destroys any incentive to work or become self-sufficient. The current system essentially says to its potential victims, if you do not want to work, have a child you are not able to support. If you do this, the Government will send you a check every month, pay your food bills, give you some free child care, pay all of your health care bills, your heating bills, your college bills, give you some WIC money, pay for your children's breakfast and lunch at school, and possibly provide you with your own apartment. In other words, Mr. President, the message is the Government will take care of you. You do not need to take care of yourself. You simply need to sit at home and do nothing. That is a very cruel form of assistance. It destroys the natural inclination in every human being to reach their full potential. No private charity operates in that manner. No private charity simply mails people checks for having children they are not able to support. The bill before us today will begin to repair the broken welfare State; it will restore healthy incentives in our welfare system. It does not abandon poor Americans or their children. Rather, it requires adult welfare recipients to work in exchange for their benefits. If passed, these work requirements will be the first serious work requirements ever passed by Congress. This is not only healthy for the recipients, but it is good for their children to be raised in an environment where they see their parents getting up and going to work everyday. Work will become the norm among those receiving welfare, not the exception. While I am very optimistic about the results of the strong work requirements in this bill, I want to express my concerns with the lack of provisions to address the most serious problem facing our country today: the breakdown of the traditional family. Eighty percent of children in many low-income communities are born in fatherless homes and welfare is the dominant feature of these homes. For many poor people, the current welfare system makes bearing children out of wedlock a very practical alternative to the traditional method of raising a family--getting a job, a work skill, and finding a spouse committed to raising a family before having a child. If a young woman has a child before she has a work skill and a spouse, it will be almost impossible for her to ever escape the welfare trap. Mr. President, I regret that this legislation does not replace cash payments to teenagers with services to care for the child. But, I am glad we were able to at least give States the option to do that. It is my sincere hope that many States will pursue that option and will enact other policies to address the crisis of illegitimacy. I am glad that we were able to include the national prohibition against increasing cash payments to welfare recipients who have additional children while on welfare. Mr. President, if we do not contain the epidemic of illegitimacy, it will destroy the fabric of our society. America simply cannot survive without a strong family unit. This legislation represents real reform. It is a carefully constructed balance between those who would advocate a complete end to public assistance and those who would seek to expand the current welfare State. It is the boldest reform we could have taken in the current political environment, and I hope for the sake of our Nation's future, that all of my colleagues will support this bill and the President will sign it into law.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, just to paraphrase some of it, not all of it, in this advice to the President by Mr. Hamilton, the attorney: The White House should say as little and produce as few documents as possible to the press. Statements and documents likely will be incomplete or inconclusive, and could just fuel the fire. Listen to this advice to the President: The White House should ensure that what statements it does make are consistent and coordinated. Erroneous or conflicting statements could be disastrous; the Nixon White House brought huge trouble upon itself by issuing inaccurate, inconsistent statements about Watergate. The Washington Times in particular has dissecting current White House communications. Then, item No. 6 on the advice to the President: The White House should not forget that attorney-client and executive privileges are legitimate doctrines in proper contexts. While the ongoing release of Whitewater documents to Justice seems appropriate, Bernie initially acted properly in protecting the contents of Vince's files. Item 11: Because you will continue to receive reporter questions about these matters, I respectfully suggest that you always be prepared personally with a response to the issues of the day. I expect that ``no further comment'' often will suffice. Now, Mr. President, item No. 2, back on the first page of the letter which I have introduced, to the President by Mr. Hamilton says: Investigations, like other significant matters, must be carefully managed. One person in the White House, (Bruce I assume) should be assigned responsibility for coordinating information gathering, responses to official inquiries and public statements about these matters. This cannot be treated as an incidental assignment. However, Mr. President, rather than heeding the advice, this advice which has, in fact, led to the same mistakes that the Nixon White House made, I think the White House should be forthcoming on these subpoenas. If they have nothing to hide, and I hope they do not, why go through the exercise? Why go through this? What are we interested in, Mr. President, as this committee? We are looking at the truth of what went on. Did they have information that they should not have had? Where did they get this information? I believe the President would serve himself well and the American people if he produced these documents with no conditions, without reservation.