Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me go forward with the debate on the Kennedy proposals, so that we might press forward toward the dual votes within the shortest possible period of time. I will simply go to the root of the matter. Mr. President, with regard to the Kennedy amendment, the American people believe strongly in the principle that immigrants to this country should be self-sufficient. We continue to emphasize this principle, as I said several times today. It has been part of U.S. immigration law since the beginning, and the beginning in this instance is 1882. There is a continuing controversy on whether immigrants as a whole or illegal aliens as a whole pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare, noncash plus cash support. Or whether that is the case with public education and other Government services, there are experts, if you will, on both sides who say that they are a tremendous drain, and others say they are no drain at all. I have been, frankly, disenchanted by both sides in some respects, especially on the side that says bring everybody in you possibly can because it enriches our country regardless of the fact that some may not have any skills, some may not have any jobs, and without jobs there is poverty, and with poverty the environment suffers in so many ways. But that is another aspect of the debate. I believe that, at least with respect to immigrant households--this is an important distinction; that means a household consisting of immigrant parents, plus their U.S. citizen children who are in this country because of the immigration of their parents--there is a considerable body of evidence that there is a net cost to taxpayers in that situation. George J. Borjas testified convincingly on this issue at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing. Mr. President, an even more relevant question, however, may be whether any particular immigrant is a burden rather than immigrants as a whole. I respectfully remind my colleagues that an immigrant may be admitted to the United States only if the immigrant provides adequate assurance to the consular office, the consular officer, and the immigration inspector that he or she is ``not likely at any time to become a public charge.'' Similar provisions have been part of our law since the 19th century, and part of the law of some of the Thirteen Colonies even before independence. In effect, immigrants make a promise to the American people that they will not became a financial burden, period. Mr. President, I believe there is a compelling Federal interest in enacting new rules on alien welfare eligibility and on the financial liability of the U.S. sponsors of immigrants in order to increase the likelihood that aliens will be self-sufficient in accordance with the Nation's longstanding policy, and to reduce any additional incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of welfare and other taxpayer- funded benefits. S. 1664 provides that if an alien within 5 years of entry does became a public charge, which the bill defines as someone receiving an aggregate of 12 months of welfare, he or she is deportable. It is even more important in this era that there be such a law since the welfare state has changed both the pattern of immigration and immigration--both the pattern of immigration and immigration--that existed earlier in our history because, before the great network of social systems, if an immigrant cannot succeed in the United States he or she often returned ``to the old country.'' This happens less often today because of the welfare safety net. Many back through the chain of history in my family returned ``to the old country'' because they could not make it here. That is not happening today because of the support systems within the United States. The changes proposed by the bill clarify when the use of welfare will lead a person to deportability. These changes are likely to lead to less use of welfare by recent immigrants, or more deportation of immigrants who do become a burden upon the taxpayer. One of the ways immigrants are permitted to show that they are not likely to become a public charge is providing an ``affidavit of support'' by a sponsor, who is often the U.S. relative petitioning for their entry under an immigrant classification for family reunification. You heard that debate when we spoke briefly of numbers and legal immigration. We talked of that. That is what those classifications, or preferences, for family reunification are. Under current law, sponsors agree to provide support only for 3 years. That is current law. Furthermore, the agreement is not legally enforceable, because it has been ripped to shreds by various court decisions down through the years. The bill's sponsor provisions are based on the view that the sponsor's promise to provide support, if the sponsored immigrant is in financial need, should be legally enforceable and should be in effect until the sponsor's alien (a) has worked for a reasonable period in this country paying taxes and making a positive economic contribution or (b) becomes a citizen, whichever occurs first. That is the provision. The bill provides that the maximum period for the sponsor's liability is 40 ``Social Security quarters''--about 10 years--the period it takes any other citizen to qualify for benefits under Social Security retirement and certain Medicare programs. The bill also provides that deeming of the sponsor's income and assets to the sponsored alien should be required in nearly all welfare programs--all--and for as long as the sponsor is legally liable for support, or for 5 years, a period in which an alien can be deported as a public charge, whichever is longer. Remember, we are talking about means-tested programs. We are talking about all programs. Yet, amendments make distinctions, and those things have been addressed as we debated. But it is simply not unreasonable of the taxpayers of this country to expect recently arrived immigrants to depend on their sponsors for at least the first 5 years regardless of the specific terms in the affidavit of support signed by their sponsors. It was only, I say to my colleagues, on the basis of the assurance of the immigrant and the sponsor that the immigrant would not at any time become a public charge that the immigrant was even allowed to come to our country, to come into the United States of America. It should be made clear to immigrants that the taxpayers of this country expect them to be able to make it in this country on their own. I have heard that continually threaded through the debate--that they come here, they want to make it on their own. We are a great country for that; the most generous on the Earth. They do that, and they do it with the help of their sponsors. Again, remember, if the sponsor is deceased, or bankrupt, or unable to provide any of the assistance or support, then, of course, the taxpayers step in in a very generous way to do that. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks with regard to the amendments, unless Senator Kennedy or others wish to address the issue anew. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have about 30 seconds. Let me just say we have already exempted school lunch and WIC in the managers' amendment which we passed yesterday. This amendment combines several distinct exemptions to the ``deeming'' requirements in the bill. Everyone should understand what ``deeming'' does. Deeming requires sponsors to keep their promises. Since 1882, our law has stated that no one may immigrate to this country if they are ``likely at any time to become a public charge.'' Many individuals--about half of those admitted in 1994--were only permitted to enter after someone else promised to support that newcomer. The sponsor guarantees that the sponsored immigrant will not require any public assistance. Senator Kennedy's amendment provides a number of exceptions to this ``deeming'' rule for: First, emergency Medicaid; second, foster care; third, Headstart; and fourth, Pell grants and other federally funded assistance for higher education. On the general issue of exemptions from deeming, I would stress that deeming only prevents a sponsored individual from accessing welfare if the sponsor has sufficient resources to disqualify the applicant. When a sponsor is not able to provide assistance, then the Government will provide it. I am not certain that there should be any exemptions from deeming. Why should we permit individuals to access our generous social services, when they have sponsors who have promised to provide for them and presumably have the wherewithal to provide the needed assistance? Furthermore, I have concerns about exempting Headstart and Pell grants from the deeming requirements. These programs are not open to every American. Even though we spend more than $3 billion on Headstart, the program only serves about 30 percent of poor children ages 3-4. I am not certain that we should continue to permit newcomers access without regard to the incomes of the sponsors that promised to support them. The Government has limited money for Pell grants as well. At a time that college tuition costs are rising, it does not make sense to provide scarce resources to sponsored individuals--who have sponsors that promised to provide support--when many citizens are having difficulty affording the high costs of college. We have already provided exemptions for those students who are in school--they will have no deeming applied to their financial aid. Are we going to educate those who come from around the world--promising never to use public assistance as a condition of coming here--before we provide enough funds to educate all the people who are here right now and who are having trouble with college expenses right now? It seems most puzzling. I thank the Chair. vote on amendment nos. 3820 and 3823, en bloc

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, what is the status of things at the moment? I know that is unfair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, just to review the matter at this time, the clock is running on the 30 hours. There are many amendments filed and few people to come to present them. That is usual procedure. We do not want to inconvenience people. There are several amendments. Senator Kennedy, I believe, does the desk reflect that there are two amendments of Senator Kennedy that are pending?

Mr. SIMPSON. Two total?

Mr. SIMPSON. Then there are two of Senator Simon, one of Senator Shelby. Are those at the desk or have they been presented?

Mr. SIMPSON. We can proceed with the Simon amendments, discuss those, debate those, and see if we can process those this evening. I would like to get a time agreement if at all possible. We are trying to give our colleagues some indication as to the requirements of their preparation here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMPSON. That will be on the Senator's hour. Change of Vote

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the concern here of some of us is the conducting of an investigation on the initiative of the Secretary of Labor or on the basis of a complaint. I wonder if I might inquire of my friend from Massachusetts, if we were to strike the word ``or otherwise''--on line 6, where it says the Secretary of Labor to conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint ``or otherwise''--I wonder, if we were to remove that, my objection would be less. Then you would still have to have reasonable cause to believe the employer has made a misrepresentation of a material fact on a labor certification. I share the Senator's view and the view of the Secretary of Labor that certainly there have been abuses, and there have been, but I think that alone rather lends an uncomfortable aspect to it as to what ``otherwise'' would mean there.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the Graham amendment No. 3760 at 2:15 today, and immediately following that vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Graham amendment No. 3803 with the clarification that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on each of those amendments, and that the debate begin at 2:15.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. Mr. President, I will submit the amendment in a moment. As we prepare to do that, let me say that I will proceed to an amendment. Senator Kennedy has certainly accelerated the process. I am very appreciative. He and I intend to deal with the hot button items, and certainly the one with regard to deeming and public assistance and welfare is one of those. Anything to do with verification is one of those. So now I do not think this one will be exceedingly controversial because it will deal with the issue of the birth certificate, and the birth certificate is the most abused document. It is the breeder document of most falsification. I have tried to accommodate the interests of Senator DeWine. I may not have met that test. But I certainly have tried. I have tried to meet the recommendations of Senator Leahy, and certainly we have met the test of the issue of cost. Because we have it now so provided that I think we have met those conditions. Amendments Nos. 3853 and 3854, En Bloc

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I call up amendments at this time 3853 and 3854 and ask that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have just 5 minutes remaining. We will, of course, return to these issues. I appreciate the cooperation of my friend from Massachusetts. The first amendment at the desk--I do not recall the number, but the one on enforcement of labor conditions--is similar to the one my colleague offered at a subcommittee markup. It concerned me then because of the broad grant of power that it makes to the Secretary of Labor to bring employers before a tribunal, demand various kinds of information and assess substantial penalties, and I remain very concerned about the same problems in this amendment. He has argued that it provides investigative authority to the Department of Labor in H-1B nonimmigrant cases, indicating this simply provides similar investigative authority to the Department of Labor as in labor certification cases, but in this amendment, the DOL can initiate its own investigations. It is given authority under section 556 of title V which it does not have in H-1B cases. There is an array of penalties and remedies that is greater than that in 212. I certainly think it would not be appropriate, and I would speak against it. Quickly, with regard to the amendment dealing with the ``intent standard,'' I oppose that amendment. I have heard many more horror stories from employers who, when trying in absolute good faith to avoid hiring illegal aliens, have for one reason or another required more documents than the law requires or the wrong documents or fail to honor documents that appear to be genuine. Here is a common scenario. We often hear scenarios of the aggrieved. Here is one. A worker initially submits an INS document showing time-limited work authorization. At a later verification, however, the same employee produces documents with no time limitation--for example, a Social Security card--to show work authorization and a driver's license to show identity, both of which the employer knows are widely available in counterfeit form. What is the employer supposed to do? Under current law, if the employer asks for an INS work authorization, he or she can be fined, for a first offense, up to $2,000 per individual. Yet, if the employer continues to employ the individual, he or she will be taking the chance of unlawfully hiring an illegal alien. Remember that compliance with the law requires an employer to act in good faith. Would there be good faith under such suspicious circumstances? Furthermore, in hiring the individual, the employer would be facing the possibility of investing considerable time and resources, including training, in an individual whom the INS might soon force the employer to fire. There is also the loss of the work opportunity for the legal U.S. worker, people we speak of here. In another example, a college recruiter cannot ask a job applicant, ``Do you have work authorization for the next year?'' That is discrimination because it would discriminate against asylees or refugees with time-limited work authorization. A recruiter may only ask, ``Are you permitted to work full-time?'' Employers cannot even ask an employee what his or her immigration status is. An employer may only ask, ``Are you any of the following? But don't tell me which.'' I oppose any kind of employment discrimination, always have throughout the whole course of years. Employers who intentionally discriminate in hiring or discharging are breaking the law. Scurrilous. But I do not believe it fair to fine the employers who are trying in good faith to follow the law. Under this amendment, law-abiding employers would continue to be threatened with penalties. The amendment says an employer may not ask for different documents, even when the employer has constructive knowledge that the applicant's documents are likely to be false; must reverify an employee if their time-limited work authorization expires, and must accept documents provided; and will be fined for employer sanctions or unfair discrimination unless he or she asks for any specific documents from the alien. This is the same as current law, and I think this is unacceptable. We will review and discuss it further. I will have further comments. But I believe, under the previous order, that we will now proceed to regular order with the direction of the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe that those relate to verification. I am not prepared to bring those up at this time, and I ask unanimous consent that that request be withdrawn.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII the following Senators be considered as having yielded time under their control as follows: Senator Thurmond and Senator Cohen yield 60 minutes each to Senator Simpson; Senator Nickles and Senator Cochran yield 60 minutes each to Senator Dole; Senator Akaka and Senator Pell yield 60 minutes each to Senator Kennedy; Senator Ford and Senator Rockefeller yield 60 minutes each to Senator Daschle.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a modification to correct a drafting error in amendment 3871. That amendment was offered and accepted by the Senate this morning. I ask unanimous consent to modify it as indicated in the copy I am sending to the desk. I have reviewed that with my colleague.

Mr. SIMPSON. I further ask that the vote occur on adoption of the resolution immediately following the use or yielding back of time and that no amendments or motions be in order.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it was never referred to as the Cuban Democracy Act. There is no such provision. It was passed to allow the adjustment of hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing Castro's communism. They were welcomed with open arms. We have done that. They were given parole. They needed a means to adjust. You can come here legally and violate your tourist visa, stay for a year, and you get a green card. You can come here on a boat illegally and after 1 year get a green card. We do not do that with anyone else in the world, and we are trying to discourage irregular patterns of immigration by Cubans. We expect them to apply at our interest section in Havana. We do not need it. It is a remnant of the past. We have provided for the Cubans. Please hear this. We have provided in this measure for the Cubans coming under the United States-Cuba Immigration Agreement that was entered into between President Clinton and the Cuban Government. We should repeal it. It discriminates in favor of Cubans to the detriment of all other nationalities.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the question here is, who should pay for assistance to a new immigrant? Should the sponsor who brought the person in the United States and made the promise, the affidavit of support, or should the taxpayer? The bill before the Senate requires that all means tested--I am talking only about means-tested welfare programs--include the income of the sponsor, the person who promised their relative would never use public assistance, when determining whether a new arrival is eligible for assistance. That is as simple as it can be. The only exceptions are for soup kitchens, school lunch and WIC. That is it. This truth in application, that is it. The U.S. Government expects sponsors to keep their promises to care for their immigrant relatives. The Graham amendment would gut the provisions of this bill, would limit sponsored-alien deeming to only SSI, AFDC, food stamps, and public housing programs, that being almost unchanged from current law. It would exempt Medicaid, job training, legal services, a wide range of other multibillion-dollar noncash welfare programs from welfare provisions in the bill. I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a resolution I now send to the desk on behalf of Senator D'Amato relative to the extradition of the murderer of Leon Klinghoffer. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order we now go to the next amendment with a 1 minute explanation on each side. Is that correct?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar item No. 387, Senate Joint Resolution 53.