Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 1664

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1664 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will not be overly long. I just want to take a few minutes to thank my colleagues. This bill is the culmination of 17 years of work. It is interesting for me, as Senator Ted Kennedy and I were both on the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy 17 years ago. With this bill, we have brought to fruition most of the things that Father Ted Hesburgh and that commission suggested to us then. We have also taken welcome direction from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, and the late Barbara Jordan, who chaired that body. I think with what we have done in this bill, the recommendations of those Commissions--instead of remaining as studies which stayed on the shelf--have become sweeping measures to control illegal immigration. This bill is truly sweeping. I want to thank Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has worked with me and has helped me over quite a few hurdles. He chaired the Subcommittee on Immigration before I came to the Senate. After the Republicans became the majority party in 1980, I chaired it. There were times when we disagreed, but we were never disagreeable. He is a very special friend and a remarkable legislator of the first order. I also want to thank Senator Bob Dole, who has consistently arranged so that we could go forward with this important legislation. I personally appreciate not only his leadership, but his friendship. Serving as the assistant Republican leader--his assistant--for 10 years was one of my greatest honors and privileges. I must also thank my staff. My staff includes Dick Day--the ``Reverend'' Day, I call him. He is not a Reverend, but he should have sainthood. Back in Cody, WY, I told him, I have an issue of disaster, one filled with guilt and racism, and I will be called everything in the book, but I need somebody to move to Washington to help me and love me and help me along. Well, he did that. He has lost 5 pounds within the last 13 days. I want to thank Charles Wood, who was been with me via Harvard and Berkeley and who is willing to hang in there late at night; John Ratigan, who has come to my staff from the State Department with his wealth of knowledge; John Knepper, a wonderful, bright young man from Wyoming, a very able person to assist me in these matters; Trudy Settles has been a wonderful addition to our staff; and I must also thank Kristel DeMay, Maureen McCafferty, and Uzma Ahmad--some our marvelous interns at the Subcommittee on Immigration. I also want to thank Ted Kennedy's staff, including Michael Myers; he and Dick Day work together without any kind of partisanship or things that set them apart in that way. Then there are Patty First, Bill Fleming, Ron Weich, and Tom Perez--all of whom have been a great help in moving this bill through the Senate. There have also been so many staff for so many Senators who have worked so diligently on this issue. I must say that we have completed 51 hours and 45 minutes on this piece of legislation over 8 days--although that 51 hours 45 minutes would have been considerably shortened without the minimum wage activities of Senator Kennedy. Nevertheless, he may have actually saved us a great deal of time because when we went into the cloture, with its parliamentary limitation of germaneness, we were saved a great deal of time on some very controversial amendments. I do not want to give him too much credit, though, because I am sure we will be trying to undo him in a few hours. Do not go home and analyze the votes of each Senator, though, because you will never be able to explain them. Every Senator's staff is wondering why he voted this way or that. This immigration issue is about America, and America is about conflict and resolution. It is debate about these issue that pull and tear at our hearts, and that is what makes us the country we are--the most magnificent country on this bright earth. This debate is the essence of America--passion, conflict, controversy, all the rest of it. It has been an exceedingly pleasant experience. I mean that. I love the work. I wish Senator Kennedy well as he proceeds forward with it in the years to come. I will be observing from my future teaching post at Harvard, being assured that he is doing it correctly. I thank my colleagues. I thank those on the floor. I thank my former co-assistant leader, Senator Ford. He helps me when he can and vexes me whenever he has the opportunity. Yet, I had come to enjoy him thoroughly in my work when we served together as assistant leaders of our parties. He did not care what I did, as long as we did not do anything with the motor voter law. That was easy to accomplish. David Pryor, who sits here, is a friend who came with me to this place. Bill Bradley and I have a great friendship, and we will go on and do other things, and while the rest of you will be here to do the work. As I look around the Chamber--I do not intend to address all the Members here, but I see my colleague from Montana, who is a very special, wonderful and earthy friend. Then there is Bob Dole, who is, I think, a most remarkable leader for this body--and perhaps other places, too.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Thursday, May 2, at 2:30 p.m., hearing room (SD-406), to receive testimony from Hubert T. Bell, Jr., nominated by the President to be Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996, at 10 a.m., to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services and the associated subcommittees be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 2, 1996, for markup of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1401, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Amendments Act of 1995; and S. 1194, to amend the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 to promote the research, identification, assessment, and exploration of marine mineral resources.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 742, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to limit acquisition of land on the 39- mile segment of the Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as a recreational river, to acquisition from willing sellers; S. 879, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to limit acquisition of land on the 39-mile headwaters segment of the Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota, designated as a recreational river, to acquisition from willing sellers; S. 1167, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to exclude the South Dakota segment from the segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river; S. 1168, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to exclude any private lands from the segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river; S. 1174, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and S. 1374, a bill to require adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe now that the status of matters is that we have two Simon amendments that we will deal with.

Mr. SIMPSON. We have not quite finished dealing with them. I had a comment or two to make. Mr. President, with regard to Senator Graham's remarks and his amendment, I hope--and I will not be long--we have heard in that amendment the revisitation of an old theme. The issue is very simple. As we hear the continual discussion about taxpayers and what is going to happen to taxpayers--taxpayers this, taxpayers that--I have a thought for you. I will tell you who should pay for the legal immigrant: the sponsor who promised to pay for the legal immigrant. This is not mystery land. This is extraordinary. How can we keep coming back to the same theme when the issue is so basic? If you are a legal immigrant to the United States, this is such a basic theme that I do not know why it needs to be repeated again and again and again. But I hope it will be dealt with in the same fashion again and again and again, because it is this: When the legal immigrant comes to the United States, the consular officer, the people involved in the decision, and the sponsor agrees that that person will not become a public charge. That was the law in 1882. We have made a mockery of that law through administrative law judge decisions and court decisions through the years, where it is not just the ``steak and the tooth,'' as my friend from Illinois referred to, there is no steak and no teeth in it. And so, one of the most expensive welfare programs for the United States taxpayers is Medicaid. Everybody knows it. The figures are huge. Senator Domenici knows it. He covered it the other day. They are huge, and we all know that. We know the burden on the States. So all we are saying is the sponsor, the person who made the move to bring in the legal immigrant, is going to be responsible, and all of that person's assets are going to be deemed for the assets of the legal immigrant. So it does not matter what type of extraordinary situation you want to describe to us all, and all of them will be genuinely and authentically touching, they will move us, maybe to tears. I am not being sarcastic. Those things are real. They will be veterans, they will be children, they will be disabled, they will be sick, and all we are saying is that the sponsor will pay first, which is exactly what they promised to do. And so, if the sponsor, having been hit too hard, is pressed to bankruptcy, is pressed to destruction, is pressed wherever one would be pressed, then we step in, the U.S.A., the old taxpayers step into the game --but not until the sponsor has suffered to a degree where they cannot pony up the bucks that they promised to pay. If the sponsor has the financial resources to pay for the medical care needed by an immigrant, why on God's earth should the U.S. taxpayers pay for it? That is the real question. That is one that is easy to debate. Does any Senator in this Chamber believe that the taxpayers of this country would agree to admit to our country an immigrant if they believed that the immigrant would impose major medical costs on the taxpayers, and that the immigrant sponsor would not be providing the support that they promised to pay? Now, that is where we are. That is where we have been. We can argue on into the night and get the same result, I think, that we got last night and will get tomorrow--the issue being, regardless of the tragic nature of this situation, whatever it is, the sponsor pays. Then if you are saying, ``But if the sponsor cannot pay,'' we have already taken care of that. If the sponsor cannot pay--goes bankrupt, dies, or whatever--the Government of the United States of America, the taxpayers, will pick up the slack; but not until the sponsor has had the slack drawn out of them--not to the point so they cannot live or become public charges themselves, but that is what this is about. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside for a few moments so Senator Bradley can go forward with an amendment. I do not think it will take a great deal of time. So if Senator Bradley will go forward, and then Senator Hatch could speak on this bill, and then I have a few more remarks on the pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside at this time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no one I enjoy and regard more highly than my friend from Vermont. He and I have, fortunately, been on the same side of more issues than ever on opposite sides. I find him a fast and true friend whom I enjoy very, very much. When he speaks, he speaks with genuine clarity and authenticity about something in which he deeply believes. Let me be so very clear here. We are, as the Senator from Vermont said, not talking about an antiterrorism bill. There was an amendment on the antiterrorism bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38 which is, in many cases, quite similar to this measure. It had to do with exclusion and summary proceedings. We are not speaking of that. What we are talking about is the bill itself, and Senator Leahy is intending to strike--we are not talking about female genital mutilation, we are not talking about terrorism; we are talking about the immigration laws of the United States. The bill as it stands before you has section 131, which is a new ground for exclusion of aliens, for aliens using documents fraudulently. That would be stricken by the Senator's amendment. There is a section 132 which is a limitation on withholding of deportation relief for aliens excludable for using documents fraudulently. There is a provision for summary exclusion. That would substitute a similar procedure for only situations which would be described as an extraordinary migration situation and not for other circumstances of the bill. So, I speak against the amendment for these reasons. The committee's bill provision, which is in the version we are addressing now on the new ground of exclusion relating to document fraud, on summary exclusion, and on asylum applications, three things there--new ground, summary exclusion, and asylum application by those who have attempted to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents--will greatly reduce the ability of aliens to unlawfully enter this country and then remain here for years through use, or misuse, of various administrative and judicial proceedings and appeals. It is almost what we would refer to as an overuse of due process. These people in the past--this is what we are trying to correct-- often receive more due process than a U.S. citizen receives. For example, the provisions relating to asylum and withholding of deportation will help the United States deal promptly and fairly with a very common scenario. Here is the scenario. For every example that touches our hearts--and this floor is filled with stories that touch our hearts; we will hear many of them today--for each one I get to tell another one. Here is a story that will not touch your heart. A young person with no obligation to family, or anything else, who has decided to take off from his country to seek the promised land, and that is us--here is the common scenario used by those who would abuse the compassion of the American people. This is why the American people suffer compassion fatique. This is what gives rise to proposition 187's. This is what gives rise to the continual polls saying 70 to 80 percent of these people should be excluded and so on--not excluded, but indeed that we should do something with both illegal and legal immigration. The scenario is this: The young person with no family, no spouse over there in the country they are leaving, no children, no parents perhaps, maybe an orphan, whatever--they board the plane with documents. Then they give them back to the smuggler on the plane who is with them, or else flush them down the toilet of the aircraft. Some have eaten them. Then they come to the United States, and at the U.S. port of entry they claim asylum. Many of us saw this so dramatically in the ``60 Minutes'' presentation. We are going to talk about dramatic things, where the alien without the document said the magic words. The magic words in any language, or their own, is, ``I want asylum. I want to claim asylum,'' just as the smuggler instructed him or her to say. You need to know only one word when you are there, ``asylum.'' The program of ``60 Minutes'' ended with the alien going forward out of the door of JFK, suitcase in hand with a rolling cart to disappear into America probably never to be heard from again because he is certainly going to tear up any notice to appear at some future time.

Mr. SIMPSON. If I could finish my remarks, I would--I yield for a question. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, much of this is being relieved by the simple procedure of detention facilities. When those detention facilities are available--and we have provided significantly more money for detention facilities--we find that these things are going to be glimmering in more cases. But I wanted to cite it indeed. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that the bill provides very clearly an opportunity for every single person, every single person without documents, or with fraudulent documents--please hear this-- fraudulent documents or proper documents allow every person to seek asylum. A specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case. This is the key. I want my friend from Vermont to share with me in the debate as we do this, which he will in fairness. A specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the alien is found to have a ``credible fear of persecution,'' he or she will be provided a full--full--asylum hearing. However, if he or she does not have such a credible claim, he or she will be subject to the summary exclusion procedures as will all persons who enter without documents or with fraudulent documents. There is discussion about persons not being permitted to apply for asylum if they do not travel directly from the country in which they allegedly have a fear of persecution. This is always a difficult situation because we find people who will leave the country where they are being persecuted legitimately, or, if they are just simply using an inappropriate way to get here, they will go to one, or two, or three other countries all of which might be democracies, all of which would be free countries, all of which would be giving the precious refuge of a refugee or an aslyee. The only difference between a refugee and an aslyee is a refugee is over in the home country and an aslyee is here. They are absolutely the same. But the term is used ``aslyee'' when they are here, and ``refugee'' when they are there. So the United States cannot be expected to provide asylum. I am not talking about asylum. I am talking about people who are fleeing persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, national origin, or membership in a social or political organization. That is an aslyee. That is a refugee. That is the definition under the law of the United States of America and the United Nations. We will always provide asylum. There are some great asylee-receiving countries in the world. Two of them have completely revised their asylum laws because of the absolute gimmickry that is taking place. One is my native land, my original native land, Holland, the most open country in the world, a country that gave solace and comfort to fleeing Jews 500 years ago and to those fleeing Nazi Germany. They have now changed their asylum laws the same as we are doing in order to avoid gimmickry. The other country is Germany. After the war, the horror of the war, and the imprint of the Nazis upon the German people, who were appalled--I believe this because I lived among them for 2 years--appalled at the Nazi regime, real Germans are appalled by that. They realized that, because of what they had done during the war, they made the broadest, most extensive asylum laws in the world because they had to; people were watching them after the war. And being the most generous country, they have had now to simply shut down the process because of gimmickry. So it is important to know that those who come from a safe country where they could have obtained asylum--normally someone who is fleeing, I mean fleeing in terror of their lives, with the dogs and the soldiers and the arms coming at them--they stop where it is safe to do so, not select or choose leaving one or more safe countries in order to enter the United States or another country for which he or she has a personal preference. And the ultimate personal preference is always the United States of America. Mr. President, I do want to point out, however, that the Attorney General will have the discretion to waive, under my proposal, under extraordinary circumstances this requirement of direct travel to the United States. I wish to conclude by saying a few words about the summary exclusion procedure in general. The present system is vulnerable to mass migration and other extraordinary situations and to persons who exploit the numerous levels of administrative and judicial review to stay in this country for years even though they have surreptitiously entered or sought to enter this country or have presented themselves for inspection with fraudulent documents or no documents and such individuals have no grounds for being in the United States of America except the possibility of asylum. The bill's summary exclusion procedures provide a method for the Attorney General to significantly reduce this problem while still giving aliens a reasonable opportunity to seek asylum or withholding of deportation because of a fear of persecution for race, religion or one of the statutory or treaty grounds. And subject to the credible fear asylum procedure I have already described, an immigration officer can order an alien who has entered without documents or with fraudulent documents to be removed from the United States without bringing the alien before the immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals. Only limited judicial review would be available. It would be limited to a habeas corpus proceeding devoted to no more than three issues: First, Whether the individual is an alien or if he or she claims to be a U.S. citizen; Second, Whether the individual was in fact specially excluded; Third, Whether the individual has proven that he or she is a lawful permanent resident. The court could order no relief other than the full exclusion hearings. Finally, let me conclude, at least for this moment, and I hope we will continue toward a result here. We are talking here of immigration, and certainly there has been a reference to female genital mutilation. That is a very serious issue. I certainly concur totally as to the horror of that, and who could not? Certainly any compassionate person could not. My colleague from Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, noted that Canada had made female genital mutilation a ground of asylum 3 years ago and had only two persons apply since that time. My information from the Canadian Embassy is a bit different, and I hope my colleagues will hear this. All of us admit that this is a hideous, barbaric thing. I understand, first, that this mutilation is not by itself grounds for a grant of asylum. This is our Canadian neighbors. But it is merely one of several factors to be considered in determining whether the applicant qualifies under the definition of a refugee. Second--I think we must hear this--I understand that as victims of mutilation have come to Canada, they have brought their relatives along with them, or the relatives at least followed later. In any case, the result now has been that the practice of female genital mutilation has become a growing legal and criminal problem in Canada. It has now been imported into Canada, and one or more Provinces plan to make it a criminal offense. Police currently have to prosecute it under the assault statute, I say to my friend from Vermont, who has been a prosecutor, as I have, on the lower levels. In other words, we have a situation where Canada has found that the victims end up being joined by the perpetrators. That fact suggests as well that we may be dealing here with a cultural practice--and that is exactly what we are dealing with, ladies and gentlemen, a cultural practice--and perhaps not a practice of official government-sanctioned persecution. This is going to be a real debate in the coming times because we in this body talk continually about respect of other cultures--cultures of the native American in my State, cultures of other ethnic groups, cultures of Hispanic-Americans, cultures of African-Americans. The best practice is not to create some per se ground of asylum but do just as we do in all asylum and refugee determinations, and that is consider each one of them on a case-by-case basis. That is what we must do. So, again, we get into these situations by our remarkable strength and our remarkable weakness, which is our compassion, and then we get the blend of emotion, fear, guilt, and racism and blend that in, and we do erratic things in immigration reform, or we would not be doing what we are doing in these last days. The reason this is so difficult, you will be on one side or the other and you say: ``How can we do this? Why can't we do this? How can this be? How did I vote this way? How can I get out of this thicket? '' The reason is, you are going to stay right in it because this is about America. It is about America, and America is a very complex place, thank God. We still have one thing that binds us, or several--a common flag, a common language, and a public culture. When we break it all down into individual cultures, Balkanize these great States that were fought so hard for in this Chamber to unite and to unite in the great melting pot, we do a disservice. We are about to pass what many in this body will describe as a tough illegal immigration bill, and it will be, and it will pass, whatever form it is. Win or lose your amendments, forget it. It is an accomplishment that we will proudly reflect to our constituents. But remember this: We take in more asylees than all the rest of the countries on Earth, total. We take in more refugees than all the rest of the countries on Earth, total. We take in more immigrants than all the rest of the countries on Earth, total, period. Finally--you have all heard that a thousand times--and it is very important to someone listening, wherever these words fall, this bill explicitly provides that this special exclusion procedure does not apply if the alien has a credible fear of persecution on one of the required grounds--race, religion, membership in national organization, and so on. Therefore, nearly the entire argument of the Senator from Vermont, my friend, vests on the inadequacy of the procedure provided in the bill to determine whether an alien has a credible fear of persecution--that is the intent of the Senator from Vermont, saying it is inadequate. Let me read the standard that would be used by the specially trained asylum officers to determine whether an applicant for asylum has a credible fear of persecution and therefore should receive a full-- full--asylum hearing and not be subject to the special exclusion. I cite the language in section 193 on page 173 of the bill, lines 6 through 14, saying: As used in this section, the term ``credible fear of persecution'' means that (A) there is a substantial likelihood-- ``Substantial likelihood'' that is, that the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim are true, and (B) there is a significant possibility in light of such statements and of country conditions-- Which will be determined by the State Department, that the alien could establish eligibility as a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A). That is what this bill provides. It is not some swift or harsh provision. And this bill does not gut our asylum laws. The bill's provisions bring some sense and effectiveness to our asylum laws. These are laws that have been effectively gimmicked over the years because 400,000 backlogged asylum cases can well attest to that. As my friend from Vermont says, if a person is fleeing for his life because of religious beliefs and must use forged papers and travel through several countries to get here under the bill that person will be summarily sent back--it is not so. If such a person arrives under the provisions of the bill he or she would get a hearing before a specially trained asylum officer. And if he or she had a credible fear of persecution, and there was a substantial likelihood the facts are true, as I have just cited, he or she will be permitted to remain in the United States and have a full asylum hearing when he or she is prepared and ready, with counsel. So, I yield at this time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, at least this amendment and the next amendment of Senator Abraham and Senator Feingold will come up at a time around the hour of 2 o'clock. We will stack votes on these two, or others we might have problems on, including, perhaps, that of Senator Bradley, who is here.

Mr. SIMPSON. We will put that in the unanimous-consent request, that there be 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think my old friend, Senator Bradley from New Jersey, has put his finger right down on one of the most critical issues in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, which is the magnet of jobs, employment, which draws illegals to this country. This amendment would establish an office within the INS, as I understand it, specifically staffed and mandated to perform both of the functions that are essential to the success of any employer sanction provisions. That is, the office would both educate employers about the law and their responsibilities to prevent unlawful discrimination, and would investigate and prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. I think that we cannot claim to be serious about dealing with the problems of illegal immigration unless we are serious about dealing with those who knowingly hire illegals. So long as they can get the jobs they seek, illegal aliens will continue to regard this country as the land of opportunity, and some will refer to it almost as the land of slave labor as they come here as illegals and remain in that status. That is why it is important that we remove illegal persons from our society or else make them legal. So we already have a special counsel for the prevention of discrimination against aliens. That is already on the books. I did not like that when it went in, but it is on the books. Surely, it would be appropriate to have an office of employer sanctions to deal with the single-most important element. As Barbara Jordan's Commission put it, ``Shifting priorities and reduced funding have hamstrung some of those provisions.'' As I understand it, this does not create a new Justice Department agency to enforce employer sanctions. It creates a new office within the INS. But there is a funding level increase. That is correct. Originally, that was not so, but it is so now, is that correct?

Mr. SIMPSON. This provision would not disrupt the balance between employer sanctions and antidiscrimination. I will have to, if I may, set the amendment aside because several wish to speak on that amendment. I personally do not have grave reservations about it, but others do. Amendment No. 3780

Mr. SIMPSON. I ask that the amendment be set aside and that we go back to the Leahy amendment, and then we go to Senator Abraham to lay down his amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just come to a little review of the amendment of Senator Leahy. The Senator from Vermont spoke of the alien who was so traumatized that he or she cannot speak about it at entry, and so they would not be in a position to immediately show a credible fear and, thereby, attain a full asylum hearing. The Senator certainly goes to the hardest case. If the Senator's amendment was precisely directed only to that possibility, it would be appropriate. But the Senator's amendment goes far beyond that. It would simply gut the reforms proposed in the bill to deal with the large number of aliens. What we are trying to get at is aliens who enter without inspection, or with fraudulent documents, and those who board a plane with documents, then dispose of them, and upon entry fraudulently claim asylum. I think we are still having a bit of distortion, not from the Senators from Vermont or Ohio, but when someone says that they will not be interviewed by ``the guy at the border,'' that is simply not true. This provision will only be administered by specially trained asylum officers with translators. There will be translators. There always are translators of any language, subject to review by a superior, another trained asylum officer. These are not low-level immigration officers. This is not correct. These are highly trained individuals. I remind our colleagues of one other item that has sprung from the debate. Our laws and treaties prevent our Government from returning any person to any country where their life or freedom may be in danger. That is the law of the United States. It is the law of the United Nations. It is the sacred law. It is called nonrefoulment: You cannot return a person to a country where their life or freedom may be in danger. That is not done. We do not do it, and that is the law of the United States. That is the law of the United Nations. No matter if a person can establish credible fear or not, the person will not be returned to certain imprisonment and danger. That will not change under any provisions of this bill. Finally, I hope that we recognize that 70 percent--I hope these figures can be heard--of all asylum applicants in fiscal year 1995 came from three countries. El Salvador, 72,000, which, at last look, was a democracy. They had worked through tremendous civil war to get where it is a democracy. We gave their people an extended program called ``extended voluntary departure'' a few years ago. Guatemala, 22,900; and 9,300 from Mexico. So out of a total of 149,500 applicants, they are the countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico. While there may be problems in those countries, they are not highly repressive countries. At least our Government does not find them such. There is turmoil in Guatemala, killings in Guatemala. There are killings in the United States--an awful lot of them. They are, however, known as leading sources of illegal immigration. What you are seeing is, when you have a country that is your leading source of illegal immigration, they are picking them up, and they have been here 2, 3 years, and they say, ``I am seeking asylum'' because they know that these procedures are interminable. That is what we are trying to get at. We are not after the person from Iraq, or the Kurd, or those people. We are after the people gimmicking the system. For every one that you can point to with passion and drama, you can point to a hundred who are gimmicking the system. This is what the people of America are appalled at, that we will not deal with the issue. There is a balance to be struck between granting asylum to those who are qualified and preventing this country's traditional hospitality being taken advantage of in a most extraordinary way. Remember, when you have 9,304 cases from Mexico--and a case can be more than one person--how many of those asylum claimants from Mexico were granted asylum? There were 55--55 out of 9,304. If that is not gimmickry of the system, I am missing something. It means that one-seventh of our asylum applicants, even under the new provisions, are almost guaranteed to be bogus or fraudulent. I hope that our colleagues will hear that as we go to the eventual vote on that. Of the first four major countries of asylum cases--Guatemala, Mexico, China, and India--the final approval rate is 2 percent--2 percent of these people that we have heard these poignant, powerful stories about. And 98 percent of them are fake or bogus. So if we hear the 1 and forget the 100, we are making a mistake. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do not think I am prepared to do that until the two people that have indicated they wish to debate come over. When I get in touch with them, and I will get back to you, perhaps we will get a half hour or an hour. I will work toward that, with the approval of Senator Kennedy. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3752 to Amendment No. 3743

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the ranking member, Senator Kennedy. I think we are in a position, now, to perhaps conclude this measure, at least on the so-called Simpson amendment, today. We had some 156 amendments proposed a day ago. We are down to about 30 today. Some are known in the trade as place holders--pot holders or whatever might be appropriate, some of them. Nevertheless we will proceed today. The debate will take its most important turn, and that is the issue of verification; that is the issue of the birth certificate and the driver's license, changes that were made yesterday and adopted unanimously by voice vote in this Chamber. We will deal with that issue. But one thing has to be clearly said because I am absolutely startled at some of the misinformation that one hears in the well from the proponents and opponents of various aspects of immigration reform. It was said yesterday, by a colleague unnamed because I have the greatest respect for this person, that tomorrow to be prepared to be sure that we do not put any burden on employers by making employers ask an employee for documents. That has been on the books since 1986. I could not believe my ears. Someone else was listening to it with great attention. I hope we at least are beyond that point. Today the American employer has to ask their employee, the person seeking a job, new hire, for documentation. There are 29 documents to establish either worker authorization or identification. And then, also, an I-9 form which has been required since that date, too. In other words, yes, you do have to furnish a document to an employer, a one-page form indicating that you are a citizen of the United States of America or authorized to work. That has been on the books, now, for nearly 10 years. If we cannot get any further in the debate than that, then someone is seriously distorting a national issue. Not only that, but someone is feeding them enough to see that it remains distorted. So when we are going to hear the argument the employer should not be the watchdog of the world, what this bill does is take the heat off of the employer. Instead of digging around through 29 documents they are going to have to look at 6. If the pilot program works, and we find it is doing well, and is authentic and accurate, then the I-9 form is not going to be required. That is part of this. Then yesterday you took the real burden off of the employer, and I think it was a very apt move. We said, now, that if the employers are in good faith in asking for documents and so on, and have no intention to discriminate, that they are not going to be heavily fined, or receive other penalties. That was a great advantage to the employer. So I hope the staffs, if there are any watching this procedure, do not simply load the cannon for their principal, as we are called by our staff--and other things we are called by our staff--principals, that they load the cannon not to come over here and tell us what is going to happen to employers having to ask for identity, having to prove the person in front of them is a citizen or authorized to work, unless you want to get rid of employer sanctions and get rid of the I-9. Those things have been on the books for almost 10 years. With that, I hope that is a starting point we take judicial notice thereof.