Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I yield.

Mr. SIMON. I am not trying to prolong that. I am willing to recess at this point. I was told by my staff what the majority leader preferred.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2934.

Mr. SIMON. That will be perfectly acceptable to me.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, believe it or not, I will take just 1 more minute. When you say Castro is on his last ropes, I heard that 5 years ago. I heard that 10 years ago. I heard that 15 years ago. I heard it 20 years ago, and so forth.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will be very brief in response to my friend. I could buy his arguments on assisting with hard cash if there was any consistency to our policy. We do not follow that in China. The Senator from North Carolina and I agree, we do not like the government that is in charge in China. We do not follow that in North Korea. We are in agreement, we do not like the Government of North Korea. You can list a number of nations and, in terms of security, frankly, Cuba is less of a long-term threat than China is, for example, in terms of security. So I think that argument simply is not valid. The second basic thrust is, somehow we can isolate Castro. That has been our policy for the last few decades and, obviously, it has not worked. I think it makes much more sense to try to open up Cuba and to also keep in mind that, if tomorrow Fidel Castro should die of a heart attack or something happen to him, we ought to be preparing the ground so the successor government is a free government, is a democracy. That is in our interest. That is in the interest of the people of Cuba. Under the present law, theoretically--I say theoretically because any American who wants to get around this can do it very easily by giving some money to a Mexican airline or a Canadian airline, and a great many other countries. But you cannot travel directly from the United States to there, and people who have relatives cannot visit the relatives. And human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, which would go there and be critical of the Castro record on human rights--which is not a good record--are not permitted to do so. I think we would be much better off if we said to Americans that-- unless you have a physical threat--Americans can travel wherever they want so that we do not have to follow some Government line in terms of how we get information. I think it is a basic freedom that we ought to have as Americans. I hope the amendment can be adopted. I do not want to prolong this. I know the Finance Committee wants to meet. I yield to my friend from North Carolina. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as I indicated, I think part of free speech is that we do not just get the Government line on anything. I do not care what it is--popular, unpopular. That means that we ought to have the freedom to travel where there is no risk. That includes unpopular countries. That includes China. I happen to be one of those, along with the Senator from North Carolina who is very critical of the human rights record of the Chinese Government, but I defend the right of American citizens to travel. I defend the right of American citizens if there is no risk to travel to Iran or Iraq. It does not mean I approve of any of those governments. The same for Cuba. The leader of Cuba has probably the worst human rights record of any leader in this hemisphere. There is no question about that. There are two questions. One, do you change policy by restricting travel, or do you change policy by permitting travel? That is one question. The second question is, is this a first amendment right or is it in the spirit of the first amendment? On the first question, whether it can change and modify the government there, I recognize that people who are sincere can disagree. We faced this same debate with the Soviet Union. There were those who for a time said Americans should not travel to the Soviet Union because you simply encourage that Government by giving them hard currency. Others said--and it turned out to be right--we ought to travel there so we can expose more people to our point of view. Virtually every other government in the world--the British, the French, the Canadians--in fact, when I say ``virtually,'' I think we are alone and the Senator from North Carolina can correct me, I think we are alone among the nations of the world in not permitting travel to Cuba. Israel was the only nation that voted with us in the United Nations but Israel is putting in investment in Cuba. I just think our isolation here just does not make sense. The reality is, American citizens do travel to Cuba today. Now, they go by way of Canada or Mexico, but not one American citizen has been arrested for it. Not one American citizen has been fined. Not one American citizen to my knowledge has had his or her passport taken away. I think our policy just does not make sense. Americans ought to have the liberty, the freedom, to travel to Cuba unless there is a physical risk. Now, if there is a danger that someone is going to be taken as a captive there, or something like that, that is different. The southern part of Lebanon, for example, would not be safe for Americans. I understand that. But I think we ought to be free to travel there, and that goes for any dictatorship anywhere. I think it is a way of promoting freedom. I think it is also a basic freedom that American citizens ought to have. That is basically my argument. In terms of philosophy, my guess is the Senator from North Carolina would agree with me. In terms of its specific application to Cuba, he may not. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. That is true. But today they have an infusion of British, French, and other investments that they did not have then. Let me just say--because the Senator mentioned North Korea--that the place in the world today where you have more troops facing each other across a border where there is no contact with the other side is Korea. I do not remember the number, but I think we have about 140,000 troops in South Korea; American troops. I think you could use the argument we should not be propping this Government that might be a threat to American troops. But we do not, and we believe--and I think this is correct--maybe we can have an influence on that Government of North Korea which, believe it or not, is even harsher than the government of Castro. But I respect my colleague from North Carolina. This is an area where we simply have a disagreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. I, frankly, have presented the cause. It is not complicated. So I am willing to yield to my colleague. I probably would like 2 minutes to respond to whatever he might have to say, and then we could recess and each have 10 minutes tomorrow morning.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification I have at the desk.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding to me. Senator Boxer, whose work I have come to appreciate more and more in this body, and I had a press conference in which we had some senior citizens and some students, senior citizens talking about the need for student aid, students talking about how we have to protect our grandparents. The reality is this should not be a partisan fight. I am sure the Presiding Officer has heard me mention before we have become excessively partisan. It is one of the changes that has happened in my years in Congress, and it is not a good change. I think, frankly, the Republican Party is going to get hurt somewhat in the course of all this. But there is too much partisanship in all of this. I do not believe it makes sense when we have huge deficits--and the Washington Post had an editorial about this this morning--to be saying we are going to have a tax cut. It is like saying you are having a New Year's resolution of going on a diet, and you are going to start it off by having a great big dessert. That is what we are doing now. We are going to balance the budget, but we are going to have a $245 billion tax cut. If we want to use that $245 billion for reducing the deficit, I would understand that. But that is not what is happening, and I do not think there is any question about what we are going to impose on seniors. Also--and it has not received as much attention as Medicare has-- Medicaid is also going to really be hurt. Who receives Medicaid? The majority of those who receive it are children, poor children--24 percent of our young people live in poverty--and senior citizens, those who are in nursing homes. They are basically the primary recipients. But it is part of a pattern of not being as responsive as we should be. Let me just tie in with what those grandparents said out in front of the Capitol just a few minutes ago at the press conference on student aid. The Presiding Officer will forgive me to say he is old enough, along with me, to remember the GI bill. It is interesting how the GI bill emerged. The GI bill, which we look back to with great pride and say what a great thing it was for our country, was a matter of controversy. There were those who said we ought to give a cash bonus to veterans, and the American Legion, to their great credit, said we ought to have the GI bill which will provide education to veterans. That was the fight. Today we have almost a similar fight. Cash bonus--we do not call it a cash bonus, we call it a tax cut. Like the cash bonus, it will be frittered away and will not do much for our country. But if we put money into student aid, we are going to do something for our country. Direct lending is under attack, and this is not a Democratic program. Tom Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin, was the first one to suggest it. My colleague, Senator Dave Durenberger, was a cosponsor with me of direct lending when it was introduced. Senator David Durenberger has properly said, in regard to the role of banks and the guarantee agencies, ``This is not free enterprise, it is a free lunch.'' That is why the banks and the guarantee agencies are fighting for this. The commission that looked into how we ought to have student aid, headed by our former Republican colleague Senator Paula Hawkins, recommended direct lending. Larry Lindsey, a Bush appointee to the Federal Reserve Board, has said we should have direct lending, it makes more sense, in a letter to our colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham. We have to be looking out for the interest of the young and the old, for everyone in our society. We have to reach out. And I hope we use some common sense. We are going to be in this battle the middle of next week. And to say we are going to have tax cuts for people at the same time we deprive elderly and students of the help that they need, I do not think is in the national interest. I simply ask the Presiding Officer--and I know he cannot answer this from the chair--I have not yet had one person with an income over $100,000 come up to me and say, ``I ought to have a tax cut.'' I have had a lot of people come to me and say, ``We should not be cutting back on Medicare, we should not be cutting back on Medicaid, we should not be cutting back to assistance to students.'' Those are the choices that we have, and I hope we do the responsible thing here.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I share that experience, including people who make many times what the Senator and I make, who tell us this really does not make sense.

Mr. SIMON. I think the point is extremely important. The GI bill was a grant. If you were to take the average grant and put the inflation factor on it, today it would be a grant of $9,400--an incredible amount. There is not a school in Iowa or Illinois or any other State where students get that kind of a grant. Let me point out one other little bit of history that I did not know. The immediate past national commander of the American Legion stopped in my office last week and he said in the old GI bill which we all-- everyone looks back to and said what a great thing it was--the American Legion and the other veterans groups were in a fight. The other veterans groups wanted a cash bonus instead of the GI bill for education. The American Legion prevailed. Ironically, we are going through the same fight today. Is it a cash bonus of tax reduction, or do we put the money into education? We ought to learn from history. The lesson from history is that the Nation benefits when instead of a cash bonus we put the money invested in education. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. SIMON. Pell grants are about $2,400, and you have to be below a certain income level. Most students do not qualify. The GI bill was available to everyone no matter what your income was. Of course, you had to be a veteran.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in the 2 minutes that are remaining, let me just thank my colleague and underscore what he is saying. We face, really, the same choice we faced right after World War II. The Presiding Officer was not here when it was mentioned. The GI bill, which we look to now with so much pride, was a matter of great controversy. The American Legion wanted the GI bill. The other veterans groups wanted a cash bonus. And now we face the same question: A cash bonus in a tax reduction or investing money in education? I am pleased the Senator from Iowa, along with the Senator from Washington, are among those who voted for a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Our experience with legislative efforts is they last about 2 years and then there is too much political drag. The particular difficulty of this approach right now, with the tax cut, is without a constitutional amendment, basically the budget amendment that we adopted--and in the Budget Committee, I voted along with the Senator from Washington for that goal of balancing in 7 years--but it is like a New Year's resolution on a diet. Only we are going to start the diet with a great big dessert called the tax cut. What we are saying here is, let us see if we cannot get bipartisan agreement to reduce that dessert just a little bit. Let us take $10 billion of that dessert and put it into education. And we are going to have a much better country if we do it. That should not be a partisan thing. We ought to be able to agree on that across the aisle and I hope we can work something out on that line.

Mr. SIMON. What is the experience now that we have had direct lending? The experience, Mr. President, is that it cuts redtape, it eliminates layers of bureaucracy--how many speeches have we made about that on the floor--uses competition and market forces, and is simple and consumer friendly, promotes accountability, is flexible, and provides education opportunity. My colleague from Iowa went to Iowa State University. Instead of having the experience that Sallie Mae talked about, Iowa State University has been able to shift four people from student loans over to other fields, and they have canceled eight computers, at a savings of $200 each month. Less bureaucracy; direct lending. Here is a student newspaper. ``Direct Loan Ends Long Lines,'' from the Daily Egyptian of Southern Illinois University. The Milwaukee Journal, ``Direct Student Loans Pay Off.'' The Chicago Sun Times, ``Direct Loan Program Is Good Deal for All.'' The St. Louis Post- Dispatch--Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with that newspaper--``Loans Should Help Students, Not Bankers.'' The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is right. ``Student Loans: The Wrong Cuts, With This Vital Program Republicans Appear to Prefer a Wasteful Monopoly to Effective Competition.'' That is the Washington Monthly. The University of Florida. Here is their experience in the first week of classes under the old program. They had $3.7 million in for students. Their first year under direct student lending, the first week they had $9.1 million. But this current year, $21 million in the first week. And it is similar in the other statistics here. The University of Colorado in Boulder, under the old program, 3,068 loans disbursed; under the new program, the first year 4,800, the second year 6,500. Here is a USA Today editorial: ``Banks Cash In, Taxpayers Lose on Loan Program.'' And then it says in a subheading in this editorial in USA Today, ``Congress in a sweet deal for the banks is on the verge of killing direct student loans.'' We hear a lot about unfunded mandates around here. If we go ahead with the bill that came out of our committee, Mr. President, what we are saying to the banks and the guarantee agencies is, ``You have an 80 percent monopoly, 20 percent will be limited for direct lending.'' In my State of Illinois, because they have seen what a good program it is, over half the loans right now are direct loans. It is interesting that not a single college or university that has gone to direct lending is moving away from it; not a single one anywhere in the 50 States, including Missouri and Illinois. Unfunded mandates? What we are doing is we are imposing costs on universities if we do not take that 20-percent cap off and permit choice--that is all I ask. I am not going along with the administration that says it ought to be 100 percent direct lending. I recognize that would save money. But let us give colleges and universities the choice. Let competition prevail. What did we do in order to somehow make the old program, the guaranteed loan program, appear to be a money saver? Well, in the words of the Chicago Tribune editorial, ``Cooking the books on student loans,'' that is what we did. We passed in the budget resolution a provision that said on the old guaranteed student loans, ``You will not count administrative costs, while you will on the direct loans.'' We asked CBO--and my colleague who is presiding, and I see my colleague from Michigan here--we asked CBO, ``If you don't take this rigging that took place in the budget resolution, if you just put under the old law what we would save or what it would cost''--under the old Congressional Budget Act the cost of going to this 20-percent limitation would be $4.64 billion instead of a phony savings--I heard Senator Domenici talking about phonying up numbers. That is what we did in a major way in order to protect the banks and the guarantee agencies. I think we have to do what is right. Our former colleague--and, Mr. President, you did not serve with him nor did the Senator from Michigan--but Senator David Durenberger said, ``This is not the free market. It is a free lunch.'' He is talking about the old guaranteed student loan program. Take a look at the numbers of Government personnel involved in the old program: 2,500 or more in the guarantee system, only about 500 under full direct lending. And this does not count college and university personnel. Every college and university says that a direct loan program reduces paperwork, reduces personnel demands. Just take a look at the personnel under the Federal Government and the guarantee agencies paid for by the Federal Government under the direct loan program and under the guaranteed loan program and add on top of this, Mr. President, the colleges and universities. Now, why, if this is so obviously good, why are we having opposition? Why do we have this 20-percent limitation? The banks, my friends--and I am all for healthy banks; I have a house mortgage on my home in southern Illinois--the banks make more money on student loans than they do on house mortgages, on car loans, on any other enterprise other than on their credit cards. And they are interested. And the guarantee agencies are interested. Take a look at what happens--forget all the other things--what happens on the collection of defaulted loans. Under the old program--Mr. President, I direct this to you because I know you are a fiscal conservative. Under the old program we want to guarantee 80 percent to the old programs. We say to these financial institutions, ``You get 27 percent on defaulted loans for collection.'' Take a look at what happens under the direct program. Instead of just giving people a monopoly, we put it out for competitive bidding. Do you know what it is turning out to be? Fourteen percent. You want to save money? Here are millions and millions of dollars that you can save. Why are the guarantee agencies, which do not have--these are not stockholders. This is not private enterprise versus Government. It is Government versus Government. But the guarantee agency in Indiana, called USA Group--their CEO incidentally, Roy Nicholson's 1993 salary was $619,949, not too bad for an agency that does not have any private funds in it. We pay the President of the United States $200,000 a year. They are spending $750,000 to lobby against direct lending. This is just one group. Let me tell you, this Guaranteed Student Loan Program was fine for its time, and I would say in fairness to these groups, they helped students when we were trying to find our way, but we certainly ought to do it the right way. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to print in the Record a letter from the president, Dallas Martin, of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, they say what I think makes sense: Give people the choice. We are going to have an amendment to do precisely that. Then, finally, Mr. President, the inspector general of the Department of Education testified that with these guarantee agencies who are handling Federal funds, we have $11 billion at risk. Indiana University, ``What we have learned'': Ninety percent less paperwork, this is under direct lending; 25 percent fewer errors, easier adjustments, faster disbursement. Director of financial aid, University of Idaho: On registration day, we had 46 percent more funds available for students who did not have to wait for the whole process. Every school that has gone with the direct loan program sees it as a simpler program for students. It saves taxpayers money and provides the students with more options. Kay Jacks, director of financial aid, Colorado State University: I can hardly talk about eliminating the direct lending program without crying. Students are happy, universities are happy. Why they want to cut it, I just don't get it. Every college and university, I repeat, that has the direct lending program wants it to continue. Not a single one wants to back off. It ought to be clear, Mr. President, that we ought to give colleges and universities choice, and when reconciliation comes up on the floor, there will be an amendment, I hope a bipartisan amendment, which will save money for taxpayers, save paperwork, give colleges and universities the choice. That is what it ought to be about. One other not so minor point, Mr. President, under the old program, many, many students could not qualify. Under the changes we made when we first adopted this program, any student can qualify, including middle-income students. I hope we do the sensible thing. I am pleased to yield the remainder of this time to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Harkin and I are going to talk a little bit about direct lending and what is happening in the area of student aid. Here is an area where we can save real money. It is very interesting what happened when direct lending was under consideration. Sallie Mae, the student loan marketing association which we created-- the chief executive officer of Sallie Mae, I say to the Presiding Officer and about to be Presiding Officer--they said that direct lending would cost the average school $219,000. Here is what they said in their letter of March 31, 1993. As a result of our indepth visit with 10 schools, it is abundantly clear that direct lending will mean increased costs, additional personnel, and upfront investment. This is Sallie Mae. They had big ads about what a great job they are doing. And they have done some good. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. SIMON. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. I commend our colleague, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, for leading a fight on this. We are going to have an amendment on this on the floor. I hope sounder heads will prevail. We all love to hand goodies out. But this is a time for restraint and not handing goodies out, and certainly not taking back from educational opportunity. Mr. President, I see I am getting a signal up there our time is expired. I thank my colleague from Iowa again.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I will be generous with my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, since we originally agreed to 45 minutes, that the time be extended to 12:45.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, as I almost always do.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, immigration has been in the news a great deal over the past few months. The debate usually fails completely to account for the vast difference between legal and illegal immigration. Amidst calls for increased enforcement of our laws against illegal immigration to the United States--enforcement which I strongly support--we see proposals aimed at cutting back admissions of legal immigrants: those immigrants who play by the rules and enter our Nation the correct way. In general, I oppose the idea of further restricting legal immigration to the United States, and particularly oppose drastic cuts in family-based immigration. Those foreigners who demonstrate the initiative to move to the United States are among the most industrious and motivated members of their own nations. Like the immigrants who arrived in America before them, they come to this country to join their families and to carve out opportunities for themselves. In doing so, they enrich our country economically, culturally, and socially. Those who support cuts in legal immigration often do so without identifying any concrete [[Page S 15168]] reason for these cuts, repeating only that the ``national interest'' justifies restricting both legal and illegal immigration. I cannot see how preventing worthy immigrants from reuniting with their families is in our national interest. Today, I would like to focus on one particular category of legal immigrants who face the threat of a locked door to the United States: the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, who are currently eligible for immigrant visas under the fourth family preference category in our immigration laws. Currently, 65,000 immigrants enter the United States annually under this category, and hundreds of thousands of others face a backlog. Both Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform and various Members of Congress have proposed eliminating this family preference category outright. I have great concerns about these proposals on two levels. First, proponents of elimination of the fourth family preference justify their proposals by emphasizing that our family-based immigration system should focus on the nuclear family, and that the sibling relationships protected by the fourth preference category are too attenuated to qualify as a priority in our immigration policy. I think that if we were to survey the American public, we would find that people of every ethnic and racial background value sibling relationships so much that they would--and do--fully support an immigration system that reunifies siblings as well as nuclear family members. While the public is undoubtedly and justifiably concerned about illegal immigration, I have seen no evidence that it devalues legal immigration generally, or sibling relationships in particular, in the manner suggested by those who propose eliminating the fourth family preference. In fact, quite the contrary. Second, I am especially concerned about the effect of elimination of the fourth preference on those individuals who are currently in the backlog. These prospective immigrants and their sponsors--who are citizens of the United States--have expended substantial resources and funds in attaining eligibility for an immigrant visa. They have played by the rules, and waited patiently for their numbers to come up. As much as these individuals want to reunite with their siblings, they have decided against taking the rash but convenient step of entering or staying in the United States illegally. It would be fundamentally unfair for the United States to take the money and run without fulfilling its commitment to these individuals. I submit for the Record a New York Times article from September 24, 1995, which tells the story of Sonya Canton, a naturalized American citizen. She has two sisters, one of whom has illegally overstayed her visa to the United States, is living here today legally under the 1986 amnesty, and will soon become eligible for citizenship; and the other of whom waits patiently in the fourth preference backlog, having paid both her fees and her dues. Mrs. Canton states: ``It is some kind of injustice when those who played by the rules can't get in, but those who broke the rules are now going to become citizens.'' I could not say it any better. At the very least, proposals to reform the fourth preference should, as a matter of fairness, provide for those in the current backlog. I bring to this issue a personal perspective. The director of my Chicago office, Nancy Chen, has sponsored two of her brothers into the United States under the fourth preference. Both of them live near her in Illinois, and both are productive members of society with good jobs. The closeness and industry demonstrated by this family is the very behavior we should applaud and encourage. I fear that by eliminating the fourth preference category we do just the opposite, and call on my colleagues in Congress and on the administration to find a more suitable solution in this area--one that, at the very least, treats those backlogged visa applicants with the fairness they deserve. The article follows: [From the New York Times, September 24, 1995] Narrowing the U.S. Immigration Gate (By Seth Mydans) Seventeen years ago, Sonya Canton, an American citizen born in the Philippines, petitioned for her sister, a banker, to join her here under the family-reunification policy that has been the basic principle of United States immigration law for 30 years. While she was waiting, a second sister, who sold exotic seashells for a living, visited the United States as a tourist, liked the place and decided to stay on illegally with her three children. To this sister's surprise and good fortune, in 1986 Congress offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and she and her children became legal residents, eligible for citizenship. Today she works as a saleswoman in a department store, and her children have all graduated from high school with honors. Meanwhile, as a banker sister continues to wait, the mood of the country, and of Congress, has changed. Struggling to stem a flood of legal and illegal immigrants, Congress is preparing to cut deeply into family-reunification quotes this fall and drop people like her from eligibility. If the changes are enacted, the United States would shut the door on about 2.4 million people--the brothers, sisters and adult children of citizens and legal residents--who have waited for years or decades to enter the country as legal immigrants. That number nearly matches the three million illegal immigrants granted amnesty in 1986. ``It is some kind of injustice when those who played by the rules can't get in, but those who broke the rules are now going to become citizens,'' said Ms. Canton, an import specialist for the United States Customs Service. But even immigration advocates concede that the current law has become unwieldy, with a total of 3.5 million people waiting--some in lines that stretch for 40 years or more--to join relatives in the United States. In some countries, like the Philippines, the projected wait for American visas is so long that the categories for siblings and adult children effectively no longer exist. Nonetheless, the applications keep coming in, and the lines grow longer. The solution most favored by Congress is to focus on the nuclear family and to eliminate from eligibility those with less immediate ties. ``I don't think there is any risk that family unity will be eliminated as a basis for immigration to the United States,'' said Arthur C. Helton, an immigration expert with the Open Society Institute, a lobbying group in New York that studies international issues. ``But what that means in a number of specific contexts will be redefined, and a focus on the immediate nuclear family will emerge.'' That approach became evident when a Presidential commission led by Barbara Jordan, a Democrat and former Representative from Texas, recently began drafting proposed changes in the immigration law. In an interim report issued in June, the commission recommended, among other things, allowing citizens and legal residents to bring in only spouses and minor, unmarried children--not their siblings or adult children. Congress is now considering a number of immigration bills. The most far-reaching was submitted in June by Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who heads the House subcommittee on immigration. His bill is in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, is preparing to introduce a similar bill. The Smith and Simpson measures largely attack illegal immigration; they propose stronger border controls, workplace enforcement and deportation procedures. In addressing legal immigration, the bills drastically cut family-reunification admissions by making the siblings and grown children of legal residents and citizens no longer eligible for immigration. The Smith bill would reduce the number of legal immigrants to 535,000 a year, compared with about 800,000 last year. The changes would reduce the waiting lists and speed the entry of the spouses and minor children of legal residents. Currently, the spouses and minor children of United States citizens can enter immediately, without a numerical quota. But about 1.1 million spouses and minor children of legal residents are caught in the backlog, along with siblings and children over 21. Apart from family reunification, the primary avenue for immigration into the United States is employment. The 1986 amnesty is partly responsible for the flood of applicants that has created pressure for the changes. About 80 percent of the spouses and minor children on the immigration waiting lists are relatives of those who won legal residence under that law, Government figures show. The total family-preference waiting list of 3.5 million is twice as long as when the amnesty law took effect. Under current quotas, only 253,721 of those waiting will receive visas this year, even as the list of applicants grows longer. The backlog includes one million applicants from Mexico and about 500,000 from the Philippines. Before the 1986 amnesty, the Philippines was the largest source of legal immigrants into the United States. Those countries are followed by India, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, South Korea, El Salvador and Haiti. Short of raising the ceiling for immigration, there seems to be little way to accommodate the lengthening waiting list of siblings and adult children. ``Clearly the public mood and the practical realities of today's America require that we cut down on immigration,'' said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an independent lobbying group. [[Page S 15169]] Calling the Jordan, Smith and Simpson proposals ``an effort to strike a balance,'' he said, ``We have to make these decisions based on what is in our national interest.'' He added, ``We have no duty or obligation to people who have been waiting in line because the system is impractical in the first place.'' But opponents say the cuts are politically motivated and unnecessary. ``Since when did the United States become too small for the parents and children and brothers and sisters of United States citizens?'' asked Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration lobbying group. ``The idea of bringing in energetic newcomers who are helped by family members to get a leg up in this society is something that has worked for 300 years.'' He added, ``For a Congress that prides itself in being pro- family, it seem hypocritical to cut family immigration by 30 percent.'' One potential victim of the expected changes is Leticia Chong, a Filipino nurse who has played by the rules and prospered. She entered the country legally in 1981, became a legal resident, obtained both business and nursing degrees here and brought up five Philippines-born children to become American doctors, nurses and engineers. Today they are all either citizens or legal residents. Her problem is her sixth and last child, an engineering student who will turn 21 this month, having waited in vain for his name to come up in the backlog of petitions for minor children of legal residents. He now enters the category of adult children, and--like Ms. Canton's banker sister--he would simply be dropped from eligibility under the proposed changes. ``He has been here since he was 11 years old,'' Mrs. Chong said. ``He has friends here. His family is here. This is his home. What will he do if he has to go back to the Philippines?''