Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I also rise in support of the Leahy amendment. Senator Simpson is correct that for a period, we went through this where people just memorized three or four words in the English language, ``I seek asylum.'' When his bill was first introduced, I was inclined to believe some additional strengthening language was needed. But I was visited by the INS people. I have to say Commissioner Doris Meissner just has made a terrific impression on all of us. She really knows her stuff, is very conscientious, and is very able. This morning's Washington Post has a story, ``Russia Bars Jewish Agency,'' and the Russian Ambassador to Israel said he thinks it was just a bureaucratic slipup. But then you get to the inside pages and read the story that out in the boondocks in Russia there are some anti- Jewish activities taking place. I hope it is just temporary and isolated. We do not know what is going to happen. I think that the Leahy amendment is one that moves us in the right direction. I think the graph that Senator Kennedy has shown us shows fairly dramatic improvement in the situation. I hope the Leahy amendment will be accepted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article to which I referred.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Let me differ with my friend from Wisconsin who is one of the finest Members of this body. It was a great day for the Senate when Russ Feingold was elected to serve here. When he says this amendment increases penalties for those who come in legally and overstay, this amendment does nothing of the sort. This amendment does one thing and one thing only, and that is to weaken enforcement of illegal immigration. What the bill does--not this amendment--on those who overstay legally, anyone who overstays more than 60 days cannot apply for coming back in again legally for 3 or 5 years. We hire more investigators. You have to apply for a visa to the original consular office where you made the original application. Three things I do not think anyone can question. No. 1 is the thing that Senator Simpson has stressed over and over again, and that is the attraction for illegal immigration is the magnet of a job. I do not think anyone seriously questions that. No. 2 is that we have massive fraud that assists people who are here illegally. I do not think anyone questions that. No. 3 is the GAO report shows that we have a serious problem with discrimination particularly against Hispanics and Asian- Americans or people who speak with an accent, maybe a Polish accent or whatever the accent might be because there is a reluctance on the part of employers to hire them. Unless we have some method of a voluntary identification, that discrimination is going to continue. So, in line with the recommendations of the Jordan Commission, pilot programs have been suggested. No pilot program can be followed through by a Clinton administration or a Dole administration or anyone else without congressional action. So there is that safeguard here. I think this is essential. If this amendment is adopted, frankly, you just defang the whole bill. It is a toothless venture. You are trying to eat steak without teeth. I hope to never try that. I hope the Presiding Officer never has to try that. You have to have teeth in this if we are going to do anything about illegal immigration. There are provisions in this bill that I do not like. I was defeated last night on an amendment, and I am probably going to be defeated today on a couple of amendments that I think make a great deal of sense. I think in some ways the bill is too harsh. But it is essential that we take a look at this. Let me just add--and I know you should not make appeals on the basis of personalities--this whole issue of immigration is one of these cyclical things. Right now there is a lot of interest, but for a while there was very little interest. There were just three of us who served on that subcommittee, the smallest subcommittee in the Senate, because there was not that much interest--Alan Simpson, Ted Kennedy, and Paul Simon. I was the very junior member both in terms of service and in terms of knowledge. I say to my colleagues who may be listening or their staffs who may be listening, whenever Alan Simpson and Ted Kennedy say this is a bad amendment in the field of immigration, I think you ought to listen very, very carefully. They know this area. Complicated as it is, they know this area well. We have a problem with illegal immigration, and you cannot deal with this problem unless you deal with the magnet that employers have, the area of fraud, and I also think the area of discrimination. There is no way of solving this without having some pilot programs. We could launch something without having a pilot program. I think that would be unwise. It seems to me this is a prudent approach that really makes sense, and with all due respect to my friend from Michigan, I think this amendment should be defeated. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think we may be able to dispose of one of my amendments just before the 4 o'clock vote. I will simply speak briefly on this. This is an amendment that says, ``To exempt from the deeming rules, immigrants who are disabled after entering the United States.'' That is the current law. It simply goes back to the current law. It sets a safety net there. So that no one thinks all of a sudden people are going to claim that they are disabled, the amendment says, the requirements of subsection (A) shall not apply with respect to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence and who since the date of such lawful admission has become blind or disabled, as those terms are defined in the Social Security Act. Social Security disability is not an easy thing to achieve, as my colleagues here know. I will add, the amendment is endorsed by State and local governments. I think it makes sense, and I hope it can be adopted.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, after the 2 minutes of explanation on this, I will make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will not make the motion now, but immediately after the 2 minutes of explanation on this amendment, I will make the motion to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me just comment, I have frequently said on the floor we are too partisan, excessively partisan. It is true. But this is a case where we discussed the issues, where on one side you had the Simpson-Kennedy leadership, on the other side you had Senator Abraham and Senator Feingold. That is the way it should be on most issues. Very few issues, really, involve party political philosophy. Whether you won or lost on this issue, this is the way legislating ought to take place. Amendment No. 3810

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is my amendment No. 3810, is that correct?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, what this does--and this is not a complicated one--this simply says that we are going to go back to the current law that if someone is disabled under the definition of the Social Security Act, if you are blind or disabled, then the deeming provision does not apply. The pending bill requires that 100 percent of an immigrant sponsor's income be deemed to the immigrants. Say your sponsor has a $30,000-a- year income; it is totally unrealistic, among other things, to assume that sponsor can provide $30,000 worth of support for the immigrant. I hope we would keep the current law. I think it is simply sensible and compassionate as well as practical that we not move in this direction. I know my colleague from Wyoming has a slightly different perspective on this. My amendment is supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Natural League of Cities and the National Association of Counties.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute in rebuttal. The figures that my friend from Wyoming cites are people, many of whom came here disabled, and so they have ended up on SSI. This applies to people who have become disabled after they have come here. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I ask the Senator from Wyoming this. I have another amendment that I am ready with. The understanding is that we will stack the votes, is that correct?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if this is acceptable to the Senator from Wyoming, I will ask that we set aside the amendment I just offered so that I may consider a second amendment that I have.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my first amendment.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SIMON. The Senator then did not respond to my question. The question is whether Uncle Sam is going to live up to his contract. We say to the sponsors you are a sponsor for 3 years. Now we come back with this legislation and say, sorry, we are changing the contract. You thought you signed up for 3 years. We are going to make it 5 years. I think that is wrong.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is cosponsored by Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Feinstein of California, and Senator Murray of Washington. This amendment simply makes the deeming provisions prospective. Every once in a while--not often in this body--we retroactively change the law. And three out of four times, we do harm when we do it. This simply says to sponsors that this is going to apply prospectively. Let me give you a very practical example. Let us say that, right now, because under the present law the only Federal programs that are subject to deeming are AFDC, food stamps, and SSI. Without my amendment, I say to my colleagues here from Michigan, Kansas, New Mexico, and Wyoming, if a student is at a community college and getting student assistance of one kind or another, without this amendment, the sponsor who signed up for 3 years is responsible for 5 years, not just for the three welfare programs, but for any Federal assistance. I just think that is wrong. We ought to say it is prospectively. And I support Senator Simpson in this. Let us make it 5 years, but we should not say we are going back to sponsors who signed up for 3 years, and say, ``Even though you signed up for 3 years, we are making it 5. And you thought you were only going to be responsible for three programs--AFDC, food stamps, and SSI--but you are going to be responsible for every kind of Federal program.'' Let me just add, the higher education community strongly favors my amendment. I think we ought to move in this direction. I think it is fair. I think, again, three out of four times when this body tries to do something retroactively, we make a mistake. If we go ahead with this retroactively, we are going to make a mistake. I see my colleague, Senator Graham, on the floor. I believe he wants to speak on this, too.

Mr. SIMON. Will the Senator from Texas yield?

Mr. SIMON. My friend talks about the contract you sign. What I want to do is say the United States, which signs the contract with the sponsor, will live up to its side of the contract. That contract right now is for 3 years for every sponsor. I am for moving to 5 years but doing it prospectively. This bill says to the people who signed the contract that Uncle Sam has changed his mind. He is going to make you responsible for 5 years when you sign for 3 years. Does the Senator from Texas think that is fair?

Mr. SIMON. First of all, the Senator does not understand the amendment, obviously.

Mr. SIMON. We already have a provision in here for 5 years. That is not the issue. The issue is, are we going to go back, on this amendment, retroactively and say to sponsors, sorry, Uncle Sam is not going to live up to his word; we are changing your contract from 3 years to 5 years. I think I know the Senator from Texas well enough--and, incidentally, he has had a lot more amendments on this floor than the Senator from Illinois over the years.

Mr. SIMON. Not today.

Mr. SIMON. I am not complaining about the Senator from Texas offering too many amendments. But the question on this amendment--

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is a relatively simple amendment. If anything, this area is simple. If you are a sponsor of someone coming in, you sign up for 3 years. The Simpson bill says we go to 5 years. I am for that prospectively. I do not believe it is right for Uncle Sam to rewrite the contract and say, ``You signed up for 3 years, now you are responsible for 5 years.'' That is what happens without my amendment. I favor the 5 years prospectively, but I think if Uncle Sam signs a deal, Uncle Sam should be responsible. He should not change a contract. That is true for a used car dealer. It certainly ought to be true for Uncle Sam.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.