Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I urge the amendment be adopted.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, may I interject here with a unanimous- consent request that we lock in the two amendments? I think this may have been circulated. I will wait so that we might do that. Mr. President, let me go forward briefly and conclude my remarks about the amendment. I spoke on that this morning. I want to readopt the language that I spoke this morning and would be appropriate here, and conclude with this. Let me stress for my colleagues that this section of the bill does not permit employers to refuse documents because of an unreasonable concern about their validity. Administrative law judges have already found such a practice constitutes intentional discrimination. The bill is not intended to overrule any of those cases of intentional discrimination. Employers should be able to ask an employee for additional documents only when they have reason to suspect that the new employee is an illegal alien. We are not interested in burdening employers. In fact, this bill is an extraordinary assistance to employers. No longer 29 documents to look at, but 6. Employers around the country have been supportive of this measure. But I must also state that some of the numerous examples which are given in support of the amendment simply do not apply, especially the one about the Puerto Rican woman. Let us go to that. One example cited by opponents of the provision in the committee bill is that a New York watch wholesaler refused to hire a Puerto Rican woman because she did not have a green card. The administrative law judge ruled that that action constituted a knowing and intentional discrimination. Think of that. Simply because the person refused to hire a Puerto Rican woman because she did not have a green card, that was knowing and intentional discrimination. Most importantly, the employer in that case was punished under section 274B(a)(1) of the Immigration Nationality Act, a provision which is unchanged by my bill, not changed, not section 274B(a)(6), which the committee bill amends. In fact, this case was decided before the Congress enacted the section 274B(a)(6) in late 1990 and decided that merely asking for different documents constituted discrimination-- merely asking. This section of the committee bill provides protection only for employers who do not intend to discriminate. That is what the Senator is trying to reach. An employer who has constructive knowledge that an alien is unauthorized to work is permitted to ask for other documents. That is all we are saying. The employer knows something is wrong with those documents. He knows that, or he or she knows that, an alien is unauthorized to work, and they are permitted under this legislation to ask for other documents. There is one other incorrect argument on behalf of this amendment. According to the propaganda sheet I have from certain in the Clinton administration, the lawyers of the Clinton administration, the bill would permit a Texas nursing home to fire an African American because he could not produce his birth certificate. That is wrong. That is false. The decision in that case held that when employers refused to accept certain documents because of an unreasonable concern about their validity, as opposed to a specific, justified concern, that action constitutes intentional discrimination. We are talking about the employer. The signals are up. The employer knows something is not right. We are saying, he asks for another document. That is not discrimination. If they are in there to discriminate, the signals are not up. They are doing their hideous racism. That is not what we are talking about. I believe we have to provide some protection from heavy penalties for employers who are attempting in good faith to follow the law. This amendment provides no relief, and in fact is no more than a detailed description of current law, the current law which squeezes the American businessman between the rock of employer sanctions and the hard place of intentional discrimination for even deigning to question an employee's documents. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. The employers should be able to ask employees, when they have knowledge that a new hire is not legally authorized to work, for additional documentation and inquire of that without the huge fines which the administration insists on levying against employers who have never ever before--ever before-- intentionally discriminated at all.

Mr. SIMPSON. It will come back.

Mr. SIMPSON. I am not aware of that, Mr. President, but I will certainly inquire. Amendment No. 3816

Mr. SIMPSON. I then request of my friend, if he wishes to help the cause, not request the yeas and nays, and we will work tomorrow on a time appropriate to deal with that issue.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator. Certainly, it will not be foreclosed. It is a critical issue. It is also one of those issues that opens some extraordinary avenues of approach in the United States.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Either one.

Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that would be perfectly appropriate to me.

Mr. SIMPSON. That being the first amendment sent to the desk yesterday evening.

Mr. SIMPSON. I think we are nearly ready to perhaps close the debate and stack the votes on these two issues. I see no one further coming to speak on the issue. I will advise my colleagues--yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, now may we review the activity. Am I correct that we have two amendments at the desk of Senator Bob Graham of Florida, to which there has been a degree of debate and time has run on that, and that we are near readiness to vote--not at this time? I will wait until my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, is here to be sure we concur. What is the status of matters?

Mr. SIMPSON. And then, Mr. President, is there another amendment also pending?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I make the eternal lament--if our colleagues could come forward with the same vigor in which they produced their amendments at the last call, as they draped some 100 or so up front at the desk. And, of course, we are limited procedurally. We are limited by hours, each of us having an hour. Yielding can take place or allocation of that hour. We are ready to proceed. I believe that we need not have too much further debate. I know Senator Dole would like to speak on the Cuban Adjustment Act. I think at the conclusion of that we will close the debate, and then we will stack the votes on the two Graham amendments. Then I will go forward with my amendment on phasing in, the issue of the birth certificate and driver's license, which I think is in form now where it does not have budget difficulty with what we have done. Of course, the birth certificate is the central breeder document of most all fraud within the system. That amendment will come up then after that. Then we will go back to an amendment of Senator Kennedy. I believe Senator Abraham had a criminal alien measure. Then I will go to a verification amendment. Once those issues, including deeming and welfare, verification and birth certificate discussion, are disposed of--those are central issues to the debate--I think that other amendments will fall into appropriate alignment with the planets. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair. Let me just say now, we are embarking on the issue of illegal immigration. I hope my colleagues will pay very clear attention to this debate. This is the critical one. This is where we begin to get something done. I must admit, and I thank my colleagues for their patience in my obstreperous behavior to propose to go forward with one or two items that had to do with legal immigration, thinking that I might get the attention of my colleagues to do something with regard to chain migration and other phenomenon. That certainly was a message clearly conveyed that that will have to come at another time. So I will not be trying to link anything. I have no sinister plan to proceed to reconstruct or deconstruct. But the theme of this debate must be very clear to all of our colleagues, and it is very simply said: If we are going to have legal immigrants come to our country, then those who bring them, who sponsor them will have to agree that they will never become a public charge for 5 years, and then when they naturalize, of course, that will end. That has come through very clear. But every single amendment that you will hear which says that the assets of the sponsor should not be deemed to be the assets of the immigrant, then remember that leaves only one person, or millions to pick up the slack, and those are called taxpayers. So every time in this debate when there is an amendment to say, ``Oh, my, we can't put that on the immigrant, that that asset should be listed as the immigrant's asset,'' every time that will happen, it means that the obligation of the sponsor becomes less and the obligation of the taxpayer becomes greater. You cannot have it both ways. The sponsor is either obligated, and should be, by a tough affidavit of support--and there is a tough one in there--or if they come off the hook, the taxpayers go back on the hook. That is the essence of observing this debate. The second part is very attentive to the issues of verification, because it does not matter how much you want to do something with regard to illegal immigration--and let me tell you, this bill does big things to illegal immigration because apparently that is what is sought--but you cannot get any of it done unless you have good verification procedures, counterfeit-resistant documents, things of that nature, which are not intrusive, which are not leading us down the slippery slope, which are not the first steps to an Orwellian society, which are not equated with tattoos, which are not equated with Adolf Hitler. That is not what we are about. But you cannot get there, you cannot do what people want to do some with vigor intensified, you cannot do that unless you have some kind of more counterfeit-resistant documentation, or the call-in system, or something. You must have, I think, pilot projects to review to see which ones might be the best that we would eventually approve, and we would have to have a vote on that at some future year as to which one we would approve. That is very important. You cannot help the employer by leaving the law to them. The employer right now has to look through 29 different documents of identification or work authorization. Then, if the employer asks for a document that is not on there, that employer is charged, or can be charged, with discrimination. We have done something about that. We must continue to do that. What we are trying to do is eventually even get rid of the I-9 form. But when somebody in the debate says that employers are going to be burdened, remember, they are already burdened in the sense that they do the withholding for us on our Tax Code. That is a pretty big load. They do that. God bless them. On the employment situation, all they do is have a one-page form called an I-9, and they have had that since 1986. We are going to reduce the number of documents that they have to go through. We are going to reduce it from 29 to 6. We are hopefully going to do something with the proper identifiers which eventually will get rid of the form I-9. But the whole purpose of this is to aid employers in what they are trying to do with regard to employment of others in the work force. Of course, any kind of eventual procedure or verification system that we use will apply to all of us. It will not be just asked of people who pull for them. That would be truly discrimination. It will be asked of those of us who are bald Anglos, too. Only twice in the lifetime can one be asked to present or to assist in this verification, and that is at the time of seeking a job and at the time of seeking public support--that is, public assistance or welfare. That is where we are. A quick review of the issues of illegal immigration reform: As I say, this is a plenty tough package. Everyone should be able to appropriately thump their chest when they get back to the old home district and say, ``Boy, did we do a number on illegals in this country.'' The answer is, yes, but you will not have done a thing if we do not have strong, appropriate verification procedures. Nothing will be accomplished--simply a glut of the same old stuff showing one more time fake ID's like this, fake Social Security like this. You can pick them up anywhere in the United States. Within 300 yards of this building you can pick up any document you want, if you want to pay for it. You get a beautiful passport from a little shop not far from here for about 750 bucks. That will fake out most of the folks. That is where we are. You cannot get this done unless we do something with these types of gimmick documents which then drain away the Treasury, which then create the anguish with the citizens, which give rise to the proposition 187's of the world. If we do not deal with it responsibly, we will have 187's in every State in the Union. So those are some of the things that I just wanted to review with my colleagues. To proceed, I will await the appearance of my good colleague, the ranking Member from Massachusetts. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMPSON

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. I call up amendments 3855 and 3857 through 3862, en bloc.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

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. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered read for a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I am pleased to join with Senators Chafee and Breaux, and the others of the centrist coalition, in announcing this plan. This is very comprehensive. I hope our colleagues will take a very clear look at it. But I just so admire Senators Chafee and Breaux--tireless, able, caring, sensible people, trying to do a sensible thing. We cannot continue this raucous partisanship about who is doing what to who. Medicare cannot be touched and now, of course, it is going to go broke a year, maybe 2 years, earlier than we thought 6 months ago. Here we rock along and, finally, we are addressing it in this proposal. I am particularly pleased that we are looking at the Consumer Price Index, and that we propose to reduce that CPI by one-half of a percentage point in 1997 and 1998, and by three-tenths of a percentage point after that, for the purposes of computing the COLA's, the cost of living allowances. And, of course, the AARP will shriek like a gut-shot panther and leap off their pinnacle down there at their temple, for which they pay $17 million a year rent. Please go see it. I hope everybody goes there. Get your shoes cleaned off before you go in, or you will hurt the marble floors. It is quite a place. They will go crazy on this. They will wail about tearing the back door down and the terrible effort to get Social Security benefits. And we are not cutting Social Security benefits. That is not what is driving this issue. What we are striving to do is have a more accurate CPI that reflects the true level of inflation. This is the issue that is most important to the senior citizens of this country--inflation. This certainly does drive seniors into doubt and concern. That is what we must do. It is inflation that eats away the seniors' lifetime savings. So we have had the testimony from Alan Greenspan, and others, who believe the CPI is off the mark. We think this is a very valid step-- $110 billion in savings over 7 years. That may not be a popular proposal, but it is critically important. If we were to do that for 10 years on a 1 percent, which we are not dealing with, but that would be $680 billion over 10 years. The figures are huge and, exponentially, they go on out. So it is a total package. Some are not going to like things here, but it is a very good first step. We achieve some really significant reversal of what is happening to us as a country. I served on the Entitlements Commission, and we all know where we are headed. I like the one about making Medicare eligibility link up with the Social Security retirement age by gradually increasing that eligibility age. That acknowledges that life expectancy is higher now. We are going to affluence test Medicare part B. I would have done more of that. We say those who have annual incomes exceeding $50,000 and couples who have incomes exceeding $75,000 will be affluence tested. I certainly think we could do that at a lower income sometime, but we do not have the votes to do it at this time. We limit Medicaid. I would have liked to have seen more flexibility, but I am not going to let that deter me from supporting this. Everything here will have an objection from somebody, but the totality of it overwhelmingly outweighs the concerns I have about these other things. So in many other areas--taxes--I had my concerns. Here is a tax package. I did not think we should just give away $250 for every child under the age of 17, but in the spirit of cooperation and consensus, we were able to address some of my concerns. There was not a single thing I addressed that was not met with the finest courtesy and genuine regard of what we were trying to do. So I urge all my colleagues to consider the plan. Those who automatically reject the notion of a bipartisan budget will have no trouble at all finding one or two items to oppose it, but I am convinced anyone who approaches the plan with an open mind and a recognition that all true bipartisanship requires a great degree of compromise--compromising an issue without compromising ourselves--will conclude this as an impressive plan. No tricks, no gimmickry, none of the usual stuff. It makes the tough, politically unpopular decisions Republicans and Democrats alike have been putting off for far too long. I again thank sincerely Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux. They are statesmen. Thank you. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we continue for an additional 5 minutes in morning business, which will enable me to speak 4 minutes and conclude with either Senator Chafee or Senator Breaux.