Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I respectfully say that the INS has translators in each of these situations. There is a clear understanding because a deportation notice is a serious issue, and the current law requires--demands--and says ``shall'' even if the alien does not speak Spanish. If the alien does speak Spanish, there is someone there from the INS, and it does not matter what language. That person is then provided with the translation and the translators to be certain that they heard what was said. If you remember the Medvid issue, the Soviet ship jumper, we not only had a person there speaking Russian; we had a person there speaking Ukraine. That is what we do in this situation. All we are saying is it seems rather puzzling to know that, though we are going to have deportees from the wide world over, we still then have presented something that is printed in English and Spanish regardless of who they are.

Mr. SIMPSON. That is a very helpful part of the central debate. My friend knows I can trust him and he can trust me. Let me speak quickly on Senator Feinstein's amendment with regard to the fence. I think that that flexibility may be appropriate. I have carried a good deal of water on this. I do not see others here to speak on it. That flexibility may well be appropriate. But with regard to the requirement of deportation notices in Spanish and English--and that is also the amendment of the Senator from California--I would oppose that amendment and let me share just briefly why. To require that all deportation notices be in Spanish as well as English, when many deportees do not speak Spanish, but rather one of a score of other languages--Spanish is not the language of all people we deport. We deport people from all over the world. Many Spanish speakers do understand English. Many deportees do not speak Spanish and, as I say, it is a puzzle and it is also wasteful. I also believe it is important. It creates the impression that Spanish is equal to English in this country. Spanish is not equal to English in this country as the common language that is the United States of America. We are going to vote on that soon. I did not vote to make English the official language of the United States when it came up years ago. I will do so now because I think there have been some adjustments, some understandings that will be helpful. But this creates the impression that Spanish is, as I say, equal to English in this country. We should not mandate that our Government conduct its business in any language other than English. It is in the INS' interest to guarantee that the subject of a deportation order understands its contents. I agree with that, having been a lawyer for 18 years. Therefore--please hear this --the INS does, and should, provide translations, or translators whenever necessary, and not just into Spanish, but into whatever language is most appropriate. My colleagues should know section 164(a) does not impair the due process rights of any alien in a deportation proceeding--none. So, as I say, I am puzzled at that, unless we are going to ignore scores of other languages and that is apparently what we would do in this instance.

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, I believe there is one other possible objection on my side of the aisle with regard to that. I will have that information in a few moments. With regard to the colloquy, it is perfectly appropriate for me. It resolves the issue. I say to my friend from California--if I might have the attention of my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, if I could just have a moment with my friend from California, I commend her for her extraordinary work in this field. But what we are trying to avoid here by what we did in the bill is that the law does not give an option to put it in Spanish or English. The present law says that it ``shall be'' in English and Spanish. ``Each order to show cause, or other notice under this subsection, shall be in English and Spanish,'' which seems absurd when you are presenting it to Chinese or someone else. That is why we dropped it. It was not so we could be sinister. It is absolutely bizarre that someone from any other country on Earth, non-Spanish-speaking country, is presented with this order in English and Spanish which is a waste of resources of the INS. Our provision would simply allow the translators and interpreters to be there, and they would. They are there. You can require that in any language of the dozens or hundreds of the world. That is what that was. It was a requirement. There was no option to it.

Mr. SIMPSON. The amendments have been consolidated en bloc; 3855, 3857, 3858, 3859, 3860, 3861, 3862 all relating to the birth certificate issue and driver's license portion--has my amendment on birth certificates and driver's licenses. Is that the regular order?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

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. President, I have spent not so many years with people telling me how helpful they can be, and that is the most gratifying thing that I can hardly speak on it through the years. ``I want to help you, Senator Simpson.'' But this amendment is not helpful. This is a very controversial amendment. I share the Senator's views about this brutal procedure. It is a cultural matter. You get into serious issues that are unresolvable. If we are to give the yeas and nays, is the Senator indicating he wishes that to be discussed or debated tonight? According to many I have spoken to, that will take a great deal of debate.

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me say, Mr. President, to my friend from North Carolina, it is perfectly appropriate with me that every succeeding vote will be 10 minutes in duration. But I have a bit of a problem with regard to the amendment, the first amendment of Senator Feinstein. One of our Members who would like to speak on that issue has been a great supporter of the amendment as it left the Judiciary Committee, and so I would ask that that simply not be part of the vote, and it is not. We were going to possibly accept that, but there will be further debate on that at least from one Member on our side. So we will have four amendments to vote on so that our colleagues will know the lay of the land. The first amendment is a Kennedy amendment to determine work eligibility of prospective employees. The second is a Simon amendment to adjust the definition of ``public charge.'' The third is to allocate a number of investigators with regard to complaints. Now, that one we may get taken care of with a colloquy. And then the fourth one, and I would ask unanimous consent that a vote occur with respect to the Feinstein amendment No. 3776 last in the sequence under the same terms as previously entered.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, one of the improvements made by the bill is in the definition of ``public charge'' and ``affidavits of support.'' The bill defines ``public charge'' with reference to taxpayer-funded assistance for which eligibility is based on need. Mr. President, I believe that this definition is quite consistent with the general policy requiring self-sufficiency of immigrants. Programs should not be limited to cash programs. The noncash programs are also a serious burden on the taxpayers. If the immigrant uses such taxpayer-funded assistance, he or she is a public charge. How else should the term ``public charge'' be defined than someone who has received needs-based taxpayer-funded assistance? That person has not been self-sufficient, as the American people had a right to expect.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there will not be a necessity for two more rollcall votes. Only one will be required. amendment no 3829

Mr. SIMPSON. Finally, Mr. President, that is a powerful, poignant story of discrimination and a disgusting activity, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an employer who has in front of him someone that he has an idea, and he has seen the documents, he knows something is wrong. He has been doing this for years, ever since 1986, and the signal goes up, and he says, ``I want to ask you for another document,'' and suddenly he has violated the law and is subject to tremendous fines. That is not right. That is the purpose of the bill. It is not about such an egregious and foul procedure as we have just heard described.

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the status?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, can we say then, at least for the purposes of those of us here debating, that we close, informally close, the debate with regard to the Simon amendment, and maybe in a few minutes close debate with regard to the intent standard and maybe perhaps be in a position to have four or five votes which should satisfy all concerned?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I feel like somehow I have spoken on this, I think, probably 10 times today, and I am using up my precious time. Let us, if we can all understand this--maybe I do not understand, which would not be the first time, but I think I do. We are not talking about the poor and the wretched and the ragged here, and people being taken advantage of. We are talking about people who are here under the auspices of a sponsor, a sponsor who signed up and said: I promise that this person will not become a public charge. That is who we are talking about. If a person is as ragged as I have heard in the last 15 minutes, cannot do this, cannot do that, stumbling around--those people are taken care of under the present law. We are talking about a person who is here under the good faith and auspices of a sponsoring person. We are not talking about anything that is not means tested. Anything that is not means tested somebody is going to get. We are talking about, when you line up for whatever it is--Stafford or Pell, whatever it is, that is means tested and you line up and say, ``Here I am. I need this program.'' And they are going to ask you, ``You are an immigrant and you have a sponsor. What assets does your sponsor have?'' And then they are going to say, ``Those assets are deemed to be your assets for the purpose of receiving this means-tested grant.'' And all we are saying is the sponsor is going to be responsible before the taxpayer is responsible. There is no mystery to this. This is not some strange thing where we are pulling the rug out from under people. They say why do we do this with legal and not illegal? Illegal immigrants receive the benefits that I have discussed: WIC, emergency medical assistance, immunization. And why? Because they are here and we want to take care of them so they do not become sick and so on. We know that. Then the argument is why do legal persons not get the same benefits that the illegal get? The reason is simple beyond belief. It is because a sponsor, who had enough assets and resources to take care of them, promised to do so. And should. And there is no reason on God's Earth, why the taxpayer should have to pick it up, unless the sponsor cannot cut the mustard anymore, has died, is bankrupt. And we have in the bill: Under those conditions the taxpayers will pick up the slack.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am going to leave it at that. I am using precious time, but I will just say that all these things do not take place, all these horrible things, little old ladies, veterans, people. Nothing here takes place if there is a sponsor who stepped up to the plate and said, ``I'm going to take care of this person, I vow that, I promise that.'' So anything means tested we are simply saying the assets of the sponsor become the assets of the immigrant. If you wish to allow newcomers to come here spending more than 20 percent of their time on public assistance during the first 5 years after entry, that seems quite strange to me when people are hurting in the United States. That is where we are. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if we could perhaps deal with the intent standard language, which we had discussed earlier, I maybe have another 5 minutes or so on that. And then Senator Feinstein.

Mr. SIMPSON. Would that not be a joy?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on affirmative action, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on California and affirmative action.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, just a moment.