Alan Simpson

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 I am not prepared to bring those up at this time, and I ask unanimous consent that that request be withdrawn.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. So with respect to birth certificates, the bill already requires, the bill we are debating, that as of October 1, 1997 no Federal agency--and no State agency that issues driver's licenses or ID documents--may accept for any official purpose a copy of a birth certificate unless it is issued by a State or local government rather than a hospital or nongovernmental entity, and it conforms to Federal standards after consultation with the State vital records officials. The standards would affect only the form of copies, not the original records kept in the State agencies. The standards would provide for improvements that would make the copies more resistant to counterfeiting and tampering and duplicating for fraudulent purposes. An example is the use of safety paper, which is difficult to satisfactorily copy or alter. There is no requirement in this bill that all States issue birth certificate copies in the same form, but in response to concerns that some have expressed the amendment I now propose explicitly to require that the implementing regs not mandate that all States use the single form for birth certificate copies and require the regs to accommodate differences among the States in how birth records are kept and how copies are produced. These are the things that this provides. There is more. We will discuss it in further depth after we return from recess for our caucuses. But these are modifications suggested by the Governors and some of my colleagues, and the real issue is a very simple one. Birth certificates are the breeder document. You get the birth certificate-- you can get it by reading the obituaries. Read the obituaries and write for the birth certificate--no proper certifications. I yield to my colleague for any time he would wish on this or any other matter.

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside temporarily, and ask unanimous consent amendments 3853 and 3854 be considered en bloc.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, all of those who come under the new proposal with the 20,000 per year for the 4 years, or the 5, are exempt from this provision. They would continue to come under that agreement between the President and the Cuban Government. They are not part of this.

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. Mr. President, I believe my friend the Senator from Alabama would like to speak on his own hour. I certainly yield for that.

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.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. On behalf of our majority leader, I announce this will be the last vote this evening.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3776

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. Mr. President, to require that all deportation notices be in Spanish, as well as in English, when many deportees do not speak Spanish but rather one of other scores of languages, and many Spanish speakers do understand English, I think makes little sense. I think you have to remember that it is in the INS's interest to guarantee that the subject of a deportation order understands what it is. Therefore, today, all the INS does is provide translations, or translators, whenever necessary in any language, not just Spanish, but into whatever language is most appropriate. That is the essence. So that we remove the word ``shall.'' It is difficult to have someone delivered a deportation notice in English or Spanish when they are Chinese. There is no requirement for it. They will be taken care of by the INS through all types of deportation procedures, including translators.

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. Mr. President, I think that is an excellent suggestion. Then we could go to the amendments of Senator Simon, because I think we can resolve this. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act it says, ``Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person or organization, including the bargaining representatives.'' I have no problem with that. Maybe we can do that. Then, if Senator Simon would proceed with his two amendments, we will have those available for voting later. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just briefly and in 1 minute tell you what we have done. In this amendment, we provide that the new counterfeit and tamper-resistant driver's license in the bill, whatever they are, whatever State, will be phased in over 6 years, and the new standards will apply only to new, renewed or replacement licenses--not something issued 10 or 20 years before. After this change, the bill will no longer be an unfunded mandate. CBO has an estimate after total State and local cost of driver's license and birth certificate improvements, finding it to be $10 to $20 million spread over 6 years. New minimum standards on birth certificates go into effect only after the Congress has had 2 years to review them, and cannot require all States to use a single form. I talked to the manager of the bill and will now urge the adoption of the en bloc amendment by voice vote. Mr. President, the amendment would phase in the bill's requirements for improved driver's licenses and State-issued I.D. documents over 6 years, beginning October 1, 2000--the year suggested by the National Governors' Association. Under my amendment, the improved format would be required only for new or renewed licenses or State-issued I.D. documents, with the exception of licenses or documents issued in one State where the validity period for licenses is twice as long--12 years--as that in the State with the next longest period. This one State would have 6 years to implement the improvements. Furthermore, the bill's provision that only the improved licenses and documents could be accepted for evidentiary purposes by government agencies in this country would--under the amendment I am now proposing--not be effective until 6 years after the effective date of this section, October 1, 2000. By this time 49 of the 50 States will have the new licenses and I.D. documents without any requirement for early replacement. In one State, some individuals wanting their license to be accepted by governments for evidentiary purposes would have to renew earlier than would be required without enactment of the bill, but would still have more time--6 years--than every other State except one, which would also have 6 years. Thus, the amendment would mean that 6 years after the general effective date for this subsection of the bill--October 1, 2000--the improved licenses would have completely replaced the old ones and would be required for evidentiary purposes in all government offices. Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues that fraud-resistant I.D. documents will not only make possible an effective system for verifying citizenship or work-authorized immigration status--and thus greatly reduced illegal immigration. The improved documents will also make possible an effective system for verifying immigration status for purposes of welfare and other government benefits--resulting in major saving to the taxpayers. Additional benefits to law-abiding Americans would come from reduced use of fraudulent I.D. in the commission of various kinds of financial crimes, voting fraud, even terrorism. My amendment is a response to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the cost of the bill's current requirement that improvements in driver's licenses and I.D. documents be implemented October 1, 1997. If the amendment is adopted, the additional cost of replacing all licenses and I.D. documents by 1998, including those that would otherwise be valid for an additional number of years would be eliminated. Instead of costing $80 to $200 million initially, plus $2 million per year thereafter, CBO estimates that the total cost of all the birth certificate and driver's license improvements would be $10 to $20 million, incurred over 6 years. CBO has written a letter confirming that fact. Mr. President, with respect to birth certificates, the bill now requires that, as of October 1, 1997, no Federal agency--and no State agency that issues driver's licenses or I.D. documents--may accept for any official purpose a copy of a birth certificate unless (a) it is issued by a State or local government, rather than a hospital or other nongovernment entity, and (b) it conforms to Federal standards after consultation with State vital records officials. The standards will affect only the form of copies, not the original records kept in the State agencies. The new standards will provide for improvements that would make the copies more resistant to counterfeiting, tampering, and fraudulent copying. One important example: the use of ``safety paper,'' which is difficult to satisfactorily photocopy or alter. There is no requirement in the bill that all States issue birth certificate copies in the same form. But in response to concerns that some have expressed, the amendment I am now proposing explicitly requires that the implementing regs not mandate that all States use a single form for birth certificate copies, and requires that the regs accommodate differences between the States in how birth records are kept and how certified copies are produced from such birth records. The bill provides that the regulations are to be developed after consultation with State vital records officials. Therefore, the differences between the States in how birth records are kept and how copies are produced will be fully known and accommodated by the agency developing the regulations. Mr. President, my amendment also requires a report to Congress on the proposed regulations within 12 months of enactment. In addition, the amendment provides that the regulations will not go into effect until 2 years after the report. This will give Congress plenty of time to consider the report and take action, if necessary, to prevent implementation of the regulations. The amendment also provides for a number of other changes suggested by HHS in a written comment sent in March, during the Judiciary Committee markup process: First, the implementing regs will not necessarily be issued by HHS, but by an agency designated by the President--and the agency developing the regs must consult not only with State vital records offices, but with other Federal agencies designated by the President. Second, in the description of the standards to be established in the regs, the reference to ``use by imposters'' will be deleted and replaced by the phrase ``photocopying, or otherwise duplicating, for fraudulent purposes.'' This change makes clear that there is no longer any requirement in the bill for a fingerprint or other ``biometric information.'' Third, funding is authorized for the required HHS report on ways to reduce fraudulent use of the birth certificates. Fourth, the definition of ``birth certificate'' is modified to cover not only persons born in the United States, but also persons born abroad who are U.S. citizens at birth--because of citizenship of their parents--and whose birth is registered in the United States. Fifth and finally, the effective date for the provisions relating to the new grant program for matching birth and death records and the requirement that the fact of death--if known--be noted on birth certificate copies of deceased persons will be 2 years after enactment rather than October 1, 1997. These modifications represent most of the changes suggested by HHS. Mr. President, back to the subject of driver's licenses: There is a technical correction that needs to be made to the grandfathering provision in the driver's license section of the bill. This grandfathering provision is one that my colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, and I agreed to at the Judiciary Committee markup. The agreement was that States would be exempted from the bill's requirement that State driver's licenses and I.D. documents contain a Social Security number, if--at the time of the bill's enactment--the State requires that applicants submit a Social Security number with their application and that a State agency verify the number with the Social Security Administration--but does not require that the number actually appear on the license or document. This agreement is not reflected in S. 1664 in its present form. The amendment I am proposing will correct that.

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. 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.