Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I think we have had an interesting debate. We probably will have a little bit more. There is no time agreement here. But there are some serious distortions presented to us, and that is always vexing because obviously persons are listening to those distortions and taking them to heart. I have been in this business for 17 years, and that is not to say it has been a joyful experience, but it was much more a pleasure when Senator Paul Simon joined this ragged subcommittee consisting of Senator Ted Kennedy and myself because no one else would take on the issue. So for several years it was just a little three-member subcommittee--Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Simon--because others would come up to us in the course of the entire year of work saying, ``When you get busy on doing something about illegal immigration, you let me know and I will help you.'' Unfortunately, nobody does help because there are so many cross- currents. I have never seen more--I am not talking about the Senate. I am talking about outside the Senate. I have seen groups hop into the sack with other groups they would not even talk to 10 years ago. I have seen some of the most egregious pandering and prostituting of ideals outside this beltway that I have ever seen, people who are cynical, cynical in the extreme with what they are doing on this issue, some of the think tanks cynical to the extreme. I am not, please hear me, talking about a single person in this arena. I have the deepest respect for Senator Spencer Abraham. I helped campaign for him in Michigan and would do it again in an instant. I have high regard for Senator Michael DeWine. I helped campaign for him in Ohio, and I would do it instantly. Senator Feingold I have come to know, a spirited legislator of the old school--doing your homework. So that is not the issue. But you are missing everything we are trying to do. Somebody is missing the entire thing, and Senator Simon has expressed it beautifully: You cannot do the things that are in this bill unless you have at least an attempt to find out what verification systems we will use in the United States. The present stature of the bill simply says that we will have verification projects or processes of these following options. If I had my way, I would make them requirements, and I would say it is required that these following pilot projects take place in the next years. That is what we should be doing. Then none of them go into effect, or not one of them goes into effect, until we have another vote. That is what is in this bill. There is nothing in here that has to do with national ID or all the sinister activity that you can ever discuss--Americans on the slippery slope, a tragedy of employers having to seek permission to hire people. They already do. It is almost as if one were speaking into a vacuum. I know what it is. It comes from the fact when you are in it this long, you understand the nuances. That is not a cocky statement, I can assure you. But, boy, I tell you, when I first started the business, I would say, ``You can't do that.'' Then 2 years later I said, ``You have to do that.'' That is where this one is. When I am up at Harvard teaching, I shall think of you all, and I will reflect. In a year or two--and I hope you are all here for many years--you are going to say, ``I didn't know that's what we did,'' because if this amendment passes, you will have taken away everything from this bill. The rest of it, as Senator Paul Simon says, is like eating steak without teeth. You cannot do it with what you have put in this bill. If you think you have solved the problems of illegal immigration by the Border Patrol--put 20,000 of them down there--if you think you are going to solve it by this or that and all the things that are in this bill, forget it, because over half the people come here legally. You will not even touch them unless, ah, with the new Border Patrol we will give them the power to now go up and ask visa overstayers if they are visa overstayers. How is that one for discrimination in America? You are going to go up to people who look foreign under this provision, when we have nothing else that gives us any power or authority to do anything, and find out whether people are visa overstayers. I assume they will most likely be people who look foreign. So, remember, that one will take place. It is a curious thing that the people and the institutions who want to do the most to hammer illegal, undocumented persons will give us the least hammer. I do not understand that and I would like to have that explained to me in the course of the debate. How you can come to subcommittee and full committee and the floor and add layer upon layer of things which have to do with tightening the screws on illegal, undocumented people--and that is what you have done, and that may assuage all guilt, it may take care of all pain--but, then to take every bit, every tiny crumb left of how to do something about illegal undocumented persons in the United States, and that is to allow some kind, some kind of more counterfeit-resistant, more verifiable, identifiable--whether it is through the phone system with a slide- through or some kind of revised Social Security card or something--and then to go home and tell our people that, here in the United States of America, we finally did something about illegal immigration? And a year from now or 2 years from now you find out you could not get it done because you did not take the final step, which was minuscule, and that was to do something about the breeder document that Senator Feinstein described so powerfully--you did not do anything with that document, did not do a thing with it. You did not do a thing with the most stupefying thing that happens in America, where you look at the obituary list, and if you are between 20 and 40 years old you really look at that. You find out who died and then you go get their birth certificate--and between the years of 20 and 30 and 40, that is when most of this happens--and then off they go with the new birth certificate and into the stream they go, into the stream they go with a Social Security card, and into the stream with a driver's license, and into the stream of the public support system. We are talking about the cost of a system to set that up? The cost to America, by what is happening to the welfare systems, the cost of what is happening to America with the hemorrhaging of California and Illinois and Florida, hemorrhaging--absolutely hemorrhaging, and we are not going to do anything about it? We are going to talk about the cost of a system? If this system costs $10 billion, it would be worth it, because we are losing $20, $30, $40 billion, with people who gimmick the housing programs, gimmick the welfare program, gimmick the employers. That is where we are. It is absolutely startling to me that those who want to do the most will allow us to do the least. Let me just address a couple of old canards that just have to be addressed. In this league you are supposed to be as patient as you can. But I am always reminded of that great phrase in Rudyard Kipling's ``If.'' Read it. You want to read ``If.'' Read it every 5 years of your life because it will change. If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise: * * * * * If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son. But there is one part in it that is marvelous. It says: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, And that is what I have seen outside, in this beltway, ``twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.'' I am not referring to a single person in this Chamber. I am referring to people who I know out there. I know the groups. I know them well. I have seen them in action. So, let us look at the stuff that has floated through here with regard to the national ID card. In an April 11 ``Dear Colleague'' letter you were all told that: Americans should not have to receive permission from the Federal Government to work and support their families, nor should U.S. employers need permission from the Federal Government to hire their fellow citizens. But ill-conceived measures in the illegal immigration bill to be taken up on the Senate floor during the week of April 15 will do just that. And we have heard similar claims here on the floor today. I do not know whether this outrageous statement reflects willful distortion or something more bizarre, because, first, it is already unlawful under section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a) for any person or entity to knowingly employ illegal aliens, or to hire without complying with the requirements of an ``employment verification system.'' That is the law. And that is described in that section. Most important, neither current law nor the proposals in S. 1664 require citizens or lawful permanent residents to obtain any form of permission from the Federal Government to work: None. Nor is there any requirement that U.S. employers obtain ``permission'' to employ such persons. In the present context, the word permission connotes a form of consent that can be withheld, at least partly on the basis of discretion. In fact, there is not, under current law, and there would not be under any pilot project authorized under the bill or any system actually implemented in accordance with the provisions of this bill, after the required implementing legislation, that would give any legal authority to withhold verification except on the basis that an individual is not a citizen, lawful, permanent resident, or alien authorized to work. Indeed, the bill includes as an explicit prohibition, a requirement that verification may not be withheld except on that basis. That was to protect the employer. We did not do that for any other reason but to protect the employer. In that same letter you were informed that the verification provisions of the bill are ``more than merely a pilot program. It is a new system that can cover the entire United States and last for up to 7 years at the discretion of the President.'' In fact--fact, section 112 of the bill authorized the President to conduct ``several local or regional demonstration projects.'' Are you going to let California just sink? Are you going to let California just sink and float off into the ocean? That is what you are doing if you do not allow them at least to do something; a pilot program. What about Texas? Are you just going to let it sink? What about Illinois? What about Florida? You cannot get there. So we provided several local or regional demonstration projects. That this does not authorize at all what the authors of this letter assert, it will be made ever clearer as we finish up our work on this bill. I had an amendment. We will see what happens with that. The word ``regional'' will be defined as an area more than an entire State, or various configurations. That would make it clear that the system covering nearly the United States of America, the entire Nation, would not be authorized. No one ever intended that. But the letter also asserts that the bill ``does not replace the I-9 form but is added on top of the existing system.'' The bill does not say that. The bill provides that if the Attorney General determines that a pilot project satisfies accuracy and other criteria, then requirements of the pilot project will take the place of the requirements of current law, including the I-9 form. Furthermore, those are things that seem to escape us. We are trying to assure that employers will not have to comply with the requirements of both current law and pilot projects, pilot projects where their participation is mandatory. In addition, this same letter states, ``Error rates are a serious problem.'' The letter refers to an estimate by the Social Security Administration that in 20 percent of the cases handled, it will not be able to identify an individual's employment eligibility ``on the first attempt.'' Hear that, ``the first attempt.'' I am not familiar with the details of the estimate, but there are three responses that come to mind immediately. First, in the INS' pilot project, if verification is not obtained electronically and the very first time, an additional, nearly instantaneous, electronic attempt is made--instantaneous--using alternative databases or names. In the vast majority of cases, verification of persons actually authorized to work is obtained in a very few seconds. Obviously, the whole point is to not verify certain individuals. Illegal aliens will not be verified. A handful of cases then require a visit to an INS office. To our knowledge, every one of those cases was resolved without significant delay, and remember that this is a pilot project and not a fully developed system. Second, if there is something wrong with the data base of the Social Security Administration, it should be fixed, but we will not have to worry about that because we do not deal with that issue either. We cannot do anything with the Social Security card, to make it as secure as the new $100 bill. We cannot seem to do that, and it will not bother us because we are already told that Social Security will be broke in the year 2029 and will begin to go broke in the year 2012. But we do not deal with that one at all. That one will be one for all of you to deal with. Third, the whole point of the pilot project is to develop a workable system, I say to my colleagues. We are not trying to do a number on our fellow Americans. We do not have a workable system right now, and you helped correct some of that yesterday, and I appreciate that. Well done. You protected the employer from a heavy fine or penalty just by asking for another document. That was good work; I think good work. We do not have a workable system. We do not know all the problems on the surface as these projects are conducted, but if the development process is not begun, if something as milk soup in consistency as the present part of the bill, which is the Kennedy-Simpson verification process, which is all optional, if we cannot even start that, we will never have a workable system, at least in the years to come. The letter also states that, ``Employers who break the rules will continue breaking the rules while legitimate business owners must confront new levels of bureaucracy.'' Most employers try to comply with the current law. They work hard to do that. They work hard not to hire illegal aliens. However, the current verification system, with which they are required to comply, is not reliable because of fraudulent documents. I am going to show it one more time. There is no such thing in our line of work as repetition. There it is. Anybody can get one and when you get one, you can begin to do things that to the Cato Institute would be repugnant, because when you get one of these, you can go down and get welfare. You can get welfare, you can access other programs, you can do this and you can even vote in some jurisdictions with that kind of a card. What are you going to do about that? Well, we have something in there about that, about forgery and about this and about that. We handle that. You will not handle it until you go to a pilot program to figure out what you are going to do with this kind of gimmickry, and then every time I read a report or paper from some of these opinion-filled brilliants off campus here, I am always stunned by the fact that they say what are we going to do, what are we going to do about people who abuse the welfare system, what are we going to do about people who come here pregnant and have a child in the United States of America and then give birth to a U.S. citizen? What are we going to do about people who denied a mother or father the opportunity to receive a welfare benefit because the county and the State had expended it all? It is all gone, millions are gone down the rat hole because of fake documents. So what you have here without reliable documents is you have hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens employed by such employer. Employers can be punished if they fail to employ someone because they suspect a person is illegal if such person has documents that ``reasonably appear on their face to be genuine.'' At least we protected the employer a bit yesterday. Right now employers can be fined by simply asking for another form of document. Now the letter asserts, finally, ``The system will lead to a national ID card. A number of congressional advocates of this system have admitted that the system will not work without a biometrically encoded identification card.'' I am quoting. ``Establishing this far-reaching program sets us on a dangerous path toward identity papers and other objectionable elements incompatible with a free society.'' I also saw an article during the days of this issue coming before the American public where it was even suggested that we were looking into the examination of bodily fluids. There is a debate and there is a thing of give and take and there is a thing such as honesty, but bodily fluids was never anything ever mentioned by any ``congressional advocate'' that I have ever met. This is an especially blatant--blatant--example of the misleading nature of so many of the statements in these letters. First, the assertion that there is a national ID card, but then the statement about congressional advocates does not refer to a national ID card, and I am one of those trained ``congressional advocates'' who has opposed national ID cards for all of the 17 years I have been involved in this issue, period. I put it in every bill. Anybody who can read and write has found it in there and ignored it. I am tired of that one. You do not have to take all the guff in this place, and that is not a personal reference. I have heard that one, too. I am talking about lying. I have put in every bill I ever did that this would not be a national ID card, and that it would be used only at the time of new hire, and it would be only presented at that time or at the time of receiving welfare benefits, that it would not be carried on the person, that it would not be used for law enforcement. That is in every single bill I have ever done, period. The card that I believe is probably necessary is the one already used for ID purposes by most Americans, and especially in California, the State that takes all the lumps while we give all the advice. That is the driver's license or some kind of a State-issued identification card. But, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think this is? This is a State-issued identification card. That is what this is. That is why I favor the bill's required improvements in these State documents. The reference to ``biometrically encoded'' is pure demagogery. ``Biometric'' merely refers to information relating to physical characteristics that are unique to an individual making it easier to determine if a card is being used by an impostor. That is what ``biometric'' is. Look it up. A photograph is a common example. A fingerprint is another. Use of the ominous term ``encoding,'' I guess, just appears as a totally gratuitous crack or shot. Is a photograph on a card encoded on that card? I guess it is, if you want to be stern about it. You will have to ask the authors what they mean, if they mean anything at all, by the use of that term, except inflammatory language. With respect to the ``dangerous path'' statement, it is an indication of something I have noticed about many of the opponents of any improved verification system. I have found, in the 17 years of my work in this area, and especially with the Congressman from California, who is tougher than anybody ever in this Chamber--he is no longer a Member, but I had the highest respect for him; he was tough--but he displayed a fundamental distrust of the Government to do what it would do, fundamental distrust of our people, fundamental distrust of our political system. That has to be the root of this, a fundamental distrust of what we are doing. For, as I said many years ago, ``There's no slippery slope toward some loss of liberty, only a long descending stairway. Each step downward has to be allowed by the American people and their leaders.'' That will never happen. The claim is also made that the system ``imposes costly new burdens on States and localities.'' CBO estimates the cost of all of the birth certificate and driver's license improvements required by section 118 of the bill, as modified by the floor amendment which was adopted without objection yesterday--how curious, a floor amendment of mine to get all of the snarls and the bumps out of an amendment that had objection in the committee, and I then made these specific corrections to satisfy most of my colleagues, and it passed here by a voice vote without objection. That will be stricken by this amendment. This motion to strike will take the work product that was done, with all of us in here and their staffs, and junk it, gone, history. You can do that. You may do that. If that happens, life will go on, the Sun will rise in the east, and it will be a joyous day on the morrow. But let us be real. What I did with the phase-in of the driver's license requirements is going to cost now $10 to $20 million, spread over 6 years. I have seen estimates of the losses to the American people because of the use of fraudulent ID's. That is in the billions and billions and billions of dollars, ladies and gentlemen. That is what is happening. Not to mention voter fraud, terrorism, and other crimes that often involve document fraud. One other one we have to put to bed, at least pull the covers up, and then go on anywhere you wish to go with this. I have to respond to a wild charge that has been made before. You try not to respond to all this stuff, but finally you just kind of get a belly full of it. The heated rhetoric which has been flying about the Chamber--threatening and stern--is totally untrue. That was about the pilot program in Santa Ana, CA. My colleagues have heard the bill will create a massive, time- consuming, error-prone, error-riddled bureaucracy. They have heard accusations that we are racing, with no brakes, toward a national ID card that will be ``riddled with mistakes'' and will be ``dangerous to our own workers.'' Mr. President, I would like to extinguish this fiery, heated rhetoric with the cold splash of hard fact. Once my colleagues hear the truth, maybe they will be better able to sort out some of the rest of it, and the American people will finally hear the truth. I believe we will no longer have to deal with some of the old canards which are in vogue and have been in vogue for weeks here, because currently under the authority of the 1986 immigration bill, the INS is conducting a pilot project on an employment verification system. I hope no one here will try to stop it, but you never know. It is working. You might want to go scotch it before it goes too far. It is just like the pilot projects authorized by this bill. Let me tell you what has happened so that you can hear it. Over 230 employers in Santa Ana, CA--230 employers--have volunteered to participate in this INS project, volunteered. After the hiring of a new worker, the employer fills out an I-9 form and checks the worker's documents. Everybody is doing that in the United States, so if you hear any more argument about what we are putting on the employers to find out if the people in front of them are authorized to work in the United States of America, are citizens, do not think that I put it in this bill. It has been in the law for nearly 10 years. So this is just like every other employer in the United States. It is a requirement of current law. It is a total distortion of fact and reality to say that we are going to ask something more of an employer to either get ``permission to hire,'' or to ``clear it'' when he had not had to clear it before. Ladies and gentlemen, they have been doing it for 10 years, every single day while we go about our work here. The I-9 is asked for, and people do it every single day. Some were offended when it first began. ``Why should I do that?'' I have a provision, if you are a U.S. citizen, you need do nothing more than a test that you are a U.S. citizen. That would take care of that. But we will not get the opportunity, likely, to get to that. So let us at least start with what is there. We have a requirement in current law which requires the employer to ask the potential employee in front of him for documents. He is asked to ask for 29 different ones under the previous legislation, the present law--worker authorization ID--and then to make a tragic mistake, with no intent to discriminate, and ask for another one, and get a fine or the clink. So we corrected that. I hope we will keep that. But remember now, in this pilot program, if the new hire is not a U.S. citizen, the employer then begins the verification process. Using a computer the employer transmits the alien registration number or the ``A'' number on an employee's green card to the INS. This happens after the employee has been hired. Please remember that. It happens after the employee has been hired. The majority of the time the employer's request is answered in 90 seconds. All of the inquiries are answered within 48 hours by the INS. Here is where this fake figure comes in. For 17 percent of the newly hired workers--or maybe it is 20; I have heard both, about 1,100 workers; this was newly hired, about 1,100 workers--the INS was unable to confirm that they were legally authorized to work, ladies and gentlemen. So all of those individuals then were given 30 days to set up an appointment with a specific INS officer in a special office set up to correct possible mistakes in the INS data base. Guess how many--I hope my colleagues will hear this--guess how many of these 1,100 individuals actually came to the INS? Mr. President, 22--22--of them came to the INS. Of these 22 people, only 17 were actually authorized to work in the United States. Their troubles were resolved within the day--within the day. The other five people who showed up were not authorized to work in the United States. I guess you have to assume that the other 1,000 people or so who never showed up to the INS were not authorized to work, either. What about the 17-percent error rate, or 20 percent, that some opponents have spoken about? Is it the number of illegal aliens who were denied jobs by the INS pilot program? Is that it? Look at the statistics, the real statistics. The current INS pilot project is more than 99 percent accurate. In the few cases where mistakes were made, they were fixed promptly. In no case did any legal permanent resident of the United States lose a job due to this system--not one, nor any U.S. citizen. Let me repeat myself because this is one of the most important facts my colleagues should remember: No one has ever lost a job due to faulty data in the INS pilot program. The system is used only after a new employee had been hired. No one will ever be denied a job under this system. The horror stories which opponents have bandied about are completely and utterly without basis and fact. They are fears and illusions summoned up from the vapors to scare the wits out of the American people. My colleagues should also know that the employers who participate in this verification pilot program think it is great stuff. They do not consider it a burden. They believe it to be a great help. I share with my colleagues' comments of those who use the system and try to look askance at the blather of the business lobbyists. When I make these remarks, I am not speaking of people in this Chamber, but those groups I know so well. I know them well. So they look askance at this blather of the business lobbies whose sole job is to vigorously oppose all legislation which impacts business. Here is what these employers say about the INS pilot program. ``I love this system,'' says Virginia Valadez, the human resources officer for GT Bicycles. ``Now I don't have to be responsible for whether or not these people are legal. I don't have to be the watchdog.'' Comments of the California Restaurant Association: ``Some means of verifying Government documents is vital to the integrity of the employment system. We desperately need a reliable, convenient means for employers to verify the authenticity of the documents that the Government itself requires. I can assure you the restaurant industry will participate eagerly.'' It will be the first time in my memory--the restaurant groups, when I started this business, were the most resistant, and they feel this would be extremely helpful. Says their publication, describing the fledgling pilot verification program, ``Bring offers of ready volunteer to our offices.'' The testimony of Robert Davis, the president of St. John Knits Co., before the select committee of the California Assembly, after describing the widespread availability of this stuff and the great difficulty that puts on the law-abiding employer says, ``To a business that wants to comply and build a stable labor force, this is a major concern. Economic loss from hiring, training and loss of output from the removal of a forged document worker can be severe.'' He said, now he can ``invest with confidence in the training of the individual, and plan for a long-term permanent work force.'' He believes in it. He has seen it work. ``As a businessman * * * it is exciting and reassuring'' and has had dramatic success. There they are. The current program only tests individual or noncitizens in order to get a job. The illegal alien only has to claim to be a U.S. citizen, present a driver's license, Social Security card, and those are the things we will find out. How do they avoid the verification process? What do they do? Find out. Others say we should try and call in--there has been a toll-free number called 1-800-BIG-BROTHER. They must have forgotten the one called 1-800-END-FRAUD. That is an 800 number, too, that you want to pipe into that next time you are grappling with 1-800-END-FRAUD or BIG- BROTHER and find out whether it will be cost effective, find out what we will do, see what is up in this country, do the testing we need to do, trust a Congress 6 years in the future having to cast another vote to do it right. If you do not get started, you will never get it started. Obviously, I hope my colleagues will oppose the Abraham amendment and will acknowledge that some of the apocalyptic cries that come from out there, from the beltway, are truly without foundation and reality or fact. Remember, this is a pilot project that you are seeking to strike, with all the inevitable problems that a pilot project to a new system will involve, but if we do not even try to work out the bugs through pilot projects, we will never have a workable system. That will be, then, truly a hazing of the American public. They thought we got the job done, but we failed--and failed totally--in that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I wish to review the situation. We have a Leahy amendment, on which, I believe, if anyone wishes to address that, we are ready to close that debate. There is no time agreement here, but I think that is ready to be closed. I think Senator Hatch has a statement and maybe will enter that in the Record. Senator Bradley has an amendment, and there were several who said they wished to speak on that. I have not had any further word from anyone on that. There is no time agreement on it. Then the Abraham amendment, which now goes to Senator Kyl for his time. I have really nothing much further on any of those three. So, again, if we are going to go on, maybe we could lock in a time agreement to be sure that we let our colleagues know there will at least be three votes on these three amendments. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me propose a unanimous-consent request, which will get us to vote on the pending amendments, if I may, and answer any questions, or you may reserve the right to object. I will certainly do that. Here is the consent agreement I would propose. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to amendment No. 3790 at the hour of 4 o'clock today to be followed by a vote on or in relation to amendment No. 3780, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to amendment No. 3752; further, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each of those votes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me say, too, that there are two other amendments. There was an amendment of Senator Feinstein from last night with regard to fencing, which Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein are working toward resolving and may have something on that. We are not ready for a vote there. Of course, that is not part of this. Then there is an amendment of Senator Simon with regard to deeming, with regard to the issue of disabled persons. We have not included that here, but that will be coming up as soon as we conclude this. Senator Reid has an amendment with regard to criminal penalties on female genital mutilation.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think this has been a very impressive and important debate. I commend Senator Abraham. I can see why the people of his State placed him here. He will have a great career here. I wish him well. He is very able, formidable, and fair. We try to express to each other what is occurring on the floor, even though it may be arcane and somewhat bizarre from time to time, but I always try to do that. To Senator DeWine and his participation, and Senator Feingold, a very thorough debate. Now, the reason we set that unanimous-consent agreement is that there are at least several who have told me, ``I do want to get over and speak on the amendment of Senator Leahy and Senator Bradley.'' I do not believe any further persons intend to debate on the issue of the Abraham amendment, but the reason we set the vote for 4 o'clock is to allow those who wish to debate the issues of Senator Leahy's amendment and Senator Bradley to come forward. If they do not, they are foreclosed as of 4 o'clock. I hope they realize that, that there will be no further opportunity to address those two amendments, or three amendments --the Abraham amendment, too--after the hour of 4 o'clock. Then we will go to the order of the amendments as Senator Bradley, Senator Leahy, Senator Abraham, with the usual 2 minutes of debate. Mr. President, let me inform the Chair that the majority leader has designated Senator Hatch as the manager of the bill for the present time and that the majority leader has yielded 1 hour to me, in my capacity as an individual Senator, for the purposes of being able to complete debate on the bill, because I only have 27 minutes left. That is the purpose of that. I promise I shall not expend any more on the other issue. Maybe on the birth certificate--I could do a few minutes on that. Well, I think I will since no one has come forward. Let me indicate that I will speak a very few minutes on the issue of the birth certificate, but if these Senators who are going to come forward immediately will notify me--I will yield to them--that will expedite our efforts. Let me just briefly remark about the birth certificate, because I think it is very important that we understand that that is the fundamental ID-related document. I think it would be just as disturbing to the Senator from Ohio as it is to me. We do not have any way to match up birth and death records in the United States. That seems bizarre, but we do not. Maybe some States have tried to do that. One of the questions that arose in the debate was, well, what will this do? One thing it will do, which we do not do now, is that if it is known that the person is deceased, the word ``deceased'' will be placed upon that birth certificate, wherever that birth certificate is. Now, that is one of the advantages of the word ``deceased'' being stamped on a birth certificate. You would think, surely, they must be doing that in the United States of America. But they are not doing that in the United States of America. That is just one part of the proposal. Again, please recognize that the motion to strike is directed toward the revised or amended form as it left the Senate Judiciary Committee, as I say, trying to work with all concerns, realizing that we cannot indeed satisfy all aspects; but a good-faith attempt was done with regard to that. Of course, the ID-related document that is the most fundamental. It proves U.S. citizenship, the most valuable benefit the country can provide. As we all have indicated, it is the common breeder document used to obtain other documents, including a driver's license and a Social Security number and card. That is the power of the birth certificate. With the birth certificate, plus the driver's license, and a Social Security card, a person can obtain just about any other ID-related document and would be verified as authorized to work and receive public assistance by nearly any verification system it is possible to conceive, including any system likely to be implemented in the foreseeable future. Yet, the weird part of it is that this birth certificate--and it is a sacred document, the type of document that is pressed into the Bible; it is the book that goes into the safe deposit box--is the most easily counterfeited of all ID-related documents, partly because copies are issued by 50 States, some with laws like Ohio, some with laws like Wyoming--50 States and over 7,000 local registrars in a myriad of forms and political subdivisions and, as Senator Leahy indicated in committee, I think townships. So how can anyone looking at a particular certificate know whether it even resembles a bona fide certificate? Furthermore, birth certificates can readily be obtained in genuine form by requesting a copy of a deceased person's certificate. And birth and death records are only beginning--this is the very beginnings--to be matched. That is puzzling to me in every sense. In most States, it is only for recent deaths. So we have a situation where people want to build a new identity. They try to get the certificate of a person who was born in the year they were, or near their own birth year, or died as an infant, perhaps, so that the deceased person would not have obtained a Social Security card or otherwise established an identity. It is acknowledged by a great majority of experts that a secure verification system cannot be achieved without improvements in the birth certificate, and in the procedures followed to issue it. Without a secure, effective verification system, the current law prohibiting the knowing employment of illegal aliens cannot be enforced. I emphasize current law because some of my colleagues argue as if this bill would put this provision into law, and that is not so. It need not. This is the law now. We are not putting this into the law. There is a system in the law. The issue simply is, do we here in Congress intend to take reasonable steps so that this part of current law can be effectively enforced? That is the problem. Do we want to do that? Mr. President, without effective employer sanctions, illegal immigration, including not only unlawful border crossing, but visa overstays, will not be brought under control. It is just that simple. Thus, fraud resistant birth certificates and procedures to issue them are a crucial part of any effort to make that effective. In addition to immigration and welfare advantages, a more secure birth certificate will help us to reduce many more harms associated with fraudulent use of ID's, ranging from financial crimes--we will see ever more of those--and then those through the Internet--and we will see more of those--and through electronic and computer-based systems, to voting fraud, to terrorism. Accordingly, S. 1664 proposes significant reforms in birth certificates themselves, and in the procedures followed to issue them, and improvements of a similar nature for driver's licenses, which I think are critically important. The final provision on birth certificates was drafted with assistance from the Association for Public Health Statistics and Information. I want to share that with my colleagues. The National Association of State Registrars and Vital Statistics Offices--that was drafted with their assistance--these officials made very valuable suggestions to us, and they expressed their approval of the final language, which is here to be stricken. Additional improvements were made in the amendment I offered yesterday, which was accepted, and which will be stricken if this amendment is passed. I will just summarize the birth certificate provisions of the bill. I am using my time, but I will yield to my friend from Ohio. I emphasize to those who are waiting to come to the floor on the Bradley amendment or the Leahy amendment that their opportunity will close at 4 o'clock on that procedure. If my friend from Ohio has any comment at this time, I will save some of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from Nevada. This is not some issue that he has come to in recent times, simply because of media attention. He has been involved in this, and I have observed him with great admiration. It is a serious issue. It is an issue of criminal activity. It is an issue of assault. It is an issue of culture. And there is much to it. As the Canadian experience has indicated, the problem, sometimes, with bringing in an asylee is that soon thereafter, when other family members join, they have not only brought the victim but they bring the perpetrator. We will be glad to have some hearings on that. We will discuss that. I thank the Senator from Nevada. He has always been very helpful. This is very helpful, that we do not go into the deep issue of asylum, but that we make it a crime because at that point we will solve a great deal of it.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we do have a Member ready to debate briefly the Leahy or Bradley amendment. May we come back to that, please? I yield to Senator Hatch, whose time is limited. We certainly thank the chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do agree with the Senator's amendment. Senator Hatch and I respectfully differ on this. There are two things wrong with employer sanctions--lack of enforcement and fraudulent documents. This will solve one. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would seriously impair the bill's provisions to expedite the exclusion of aliens who attempt to enter the United States surreptitiously, or through the use of fraudulent documents. You saw the ``60 Minute'' segment some time ago. This is the scenario. The alien uses documents to board an airliner, then disposes of the documents, and claims asylum. And that cannot be. The amendment is not required to protect the deserving asylum applicants. We have a credible fear exception. If they have credible fear, they get a full hearing without any question. They simply show that to a specially trained asylum officer, and not to just somebody who is at a lower level. It is a significantly lesser fear standard than we use for any other provision. That is what we use with Hatians. I yield two seconds to Senator D'Amato.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is appropriate you recognize the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you asking for the yeas and nays?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is the critical test of the legislation. Without effective employer sanctions, the United States will not achieve control over illegal immigration. Without an effective verification system, there cannot be effective employer sanctions. Without more fraud-resistant birth certificates and driver's licenses-- this is my California variety, you can get them for 75 bucks--there will never be an effective verification system. This amendment strips the verification process that was in the bill and strips any ability to deal with the worst fraud-ridden breeder document, which is the birth certificate. I yield. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me commend you on a very forceful and fair procedure during these many months. It has been a rare privilege for me to come to know you better and to know you as a legislator. You are fair, formidable, efficient, and effective. That is not just because of the win and lose issue. I would have said that under either circumstance and meant it. And Senator DeWine, dogged and determined. I would not want to be practicing law or doing much more of this with worthy adversaries such as Senator Spencer Abraham and Michael DeWine and my friend Russ Feingold from Wisconsin. I commend them all. Someone came up to me said, ``Oh, you really are on a roll,'' and I said, ``I have been rolled for 6 months.'' The roll is not always in the eye of the beholder. Win a few, lose a few, and you move on in good camaraderie, good spirit. You are setting that tone as you occupy the chair after a very vigorous debate. You have learned the essence of the Senate: Do your work, give it your best shot, take a shot in the neck and a belt in the head, swallow hard and move on, shake hands with the adversary, and go off, have a great big pop or something else.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, what seems to be so appropriate in immigration matters often has a deeper tenor when we are talking about the blind and the disabled. We all want to respond. Let me say this: We only make the sponsor pay what the sponsor is able to pay. We are back to the same issue. This is a very singular issue, as were the amendments we voted on last night. The issue is, when you come to the United States of America as a sponsor, you are saying that the immigrant you are bringing here will not become a public charge. That is the law. If you become disabled or blind and you go to seek assistance, the law provides that if your sponsor has a lot of money, you are going to get the money from the sponsor first. That is what we are going to do. It does not matter what your level of disability; that is the law, or will be the law under this bill. It will be clarified, it will be strengthened, and that is what this is about. We are not saying that we are going to break the sponsor because the person is disabled. If the sponsor has tremendous assets, and you have a disabled or blind person, that sponsor is supposed to keep their promise. Why should he or she not? That was the promise made. Maybe they were not disabled at the time. I understand that. But they become disabled and here they are. Should the taxpayers of America pick that up when the sponsor is financially able to do it? But there is a little more to this here. The number of ``disabled immigrants'' receiving SSI has increased 825 percent over the last 15 years. That is an extraordinary figure. The number of disabled immigrants receiving SSI has increased 825 percent over the last 15 years. American taxpayers pay over $1 billion every year in SSI payments to disabled immigrants. The purpose of the requirement that immigrants obtain the sponsor agreement is precisely to provide a reasonable assurance to the American taxpayer that, if they need financial assistance, it will come first from the sponsor and not from the taxpayers. It would actually be more reasonable to provide an exception, I think, here, if the sponsor became disabled and it was impossible for that sponsor to provide the support. Of course, please hear this: If the sponsor has no income, there is no income to deem, and no exception is needed. You do not need to have an exception if the sponsor went broke or if the sponsor cannot afford to do this. Then there we are. The sponsor's income is not deemed, and then the taxpayers pick up the program, pick up the individual. That is where we are. I urge all of us to remember, as we do these amendments, that they all have a tremendous emotional pull. We have seen the emotional pulls for 11 or 12 days on this floor. But in each of these amendments related to deeming--whether it is blindness, whether it is disability, whether it is veterans, whether it is kids, whether it is senior citizens, whatever, plucks genuinely at your heartstrings--the issue is that none of those people should become the burden of the taxpayers if they had a sponsor that remains totally able, because of their assets, to sustain them. That is it. That is where we are. That was the contract made. That is what they agreed to do, and that is the public charge that we have always embraced since the year 1882, and which we are now trying to strengthen, and believe that we certainly will.

Mr. SIMPSON. No, Mr. President, that is not my understanding. The leader is here. Mr. President, we will work toward some type of agreement if we can either lock things in, and maybe get time agreements. There are not many amendments, actually, left. There are some place-holder amendments. But I cannot say that we will be stacking votes. Certainly, if you wish to present an amendment and go back-to-back on that, we will certainly do that and maybe have 15 minutes on the first vote and 10 for the second. I think we can get a unanimous consent to do that, with the approval of the leader, at an appropriate time, according to the leader.

Mr. SIMPSON. That is perfectly appropriate with me, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, here we are again dealing with the issue of deeming. When I said that my colleagues were persistent, I did not mean to leave out Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. In my experience of 25 years knowing this likeable man, I know his persistence is indeed one of his principal attributes. He is back again with another deeming type of amendment. They are all very compassionately offered. They are carefully thought through. But, again, it is an issue we dealt with last night. It is true, and he is right; he has found this provision that individuals already in this country will not be the beneficiaries of the new legally enforceable sponsor agreements. They are going to be very strict. We have done a good job on that. The ones that will be required is after enactment. It is also true that some of them who have been here less than 5 years will nevertheless be subject to at least a portion of the minimum 5-year deeming period. Thus, there could be a case where such an individual would be unable to obtain public assistance because under deeming they neither received the promised assistance from their sponsor nor were able to sue them for support. But, again, let me remind my colleagues that no immigrants are admitted to the United States if they cannot provide adequate assurance to the consular officer, or to the immigration inspector, that they are not likely become a public charge, making that promise to the American people that they will not became a burden on the taxpayers. If they do use a substantial amount of welfare within the first 5 years, they are subject to deportation under certain circumstances. That is not a swift procedure. It is a thoughtful procedure. I remind my colleagues again that major welfare programs already require deeming--AFDC, food stamps for 3 years, SSI for 5, even though sponsored agreements are not now legally enforceable. Furthermore, the President's own 1994 welfare bill proposed a 5-year deeming for those programs. This would have applied to those who had only received the sponsor agreement to provide support for 3 years, an agreement that is not legally enforceable. So I just do not believe it is unreasonable for the taxpayers of this country to require recently arrived immigrants to depend on their sponsors for the first 5 years under all circumstances if the sponsor has the assets. If the sponsor does not have the assets, we will pick them up. We have never failed to do that. It is only on that basis of assurance that they even came here because they could not have come here if they were to be a public charge. Regardless of the compassionate aspects of it, that is what we ought to do. Thank you. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator and Senator Gramm.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair. Let me review where we are and where the leader would like us to be. We have the Simon amendment and two Graham amendments, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Feinstein will modify her amendment. Senator Kyl and she have resolved any difficulty there. We will take that. We would like to proceed with debate and try to have votes stacked around 7 or 7:30, if we could proceed with gusto, and I will try to do that, too. It is very difficult. But that would be the pattern, if there is further debate. And I concur with Senator Gramm. It is about deeming, and we have addressed that last night and we will address it again today. Just remember one thing. We did not like this before. A few years ago, we voted to extend deeming from 3 to 5 years for SSI, and we did that to achieve savings for an extension of unemployment benefits. We did not ask the sponsors. We just extended the deeming period, and we have done that in the past. I think those would be my final remarks on that. I wonder if we might--unless there is some further discussion of that amendment, if we might set that aside and go to Senator Graham.

Mr. SIMPSON. I see.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think we have perhaps completed the debate on that amendment and we might set that aside and proceed to--my friend from Massachusetts is not here. Is there a second Graham amendment? Does the Senator from Florida have any idea as to the time involved in the presentation of this amendment? May I inquire, Mr. President, of the Senator from Florida if he has any idea where we are, because so many people are involved-- apparently there is an Olympics banquet, many awards banquets. Many people have asked for a window. I am perfectly willing to stand right here until midnight and finish this bill. I would do that. If we can get an idea of time, that would be very helpful.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may we set aside this amendment and go directly to the amendment of Senator Feinstein so she might modify a previous amendment?