Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Perhaps the debate is drawing to a close. It has been a good debate. I very much have enjoyed it. I enjoy my colleagues. I have worked with them and am learning to know them. It will be a great influence on the debate in years to come. That is very important. The purpose of this amendment is simply to try to stabilize what is presently totally out of control, unless you raise the numbers. I thank the Chair. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I appreciate that.

Mr. SIMPSON. I guess I remain somewhat skeptical--not of the Senator. Of course there is no House conference, but we will hold the debate. I think that is good. It will be good for America. I yield to the Senator from Texas--I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. It is clear here--two generations; about 45 years; two generations. This is it. That is happening now. But you ought to remember what we did. We did legalization. The Senator from Illinois was part of that. I always appreciated his remarkable interest in that. We then ``legalized'' people who were here illegally living in a subculture of America. That was in 1986. Then there was a temporary period. Those people have now begun a full range of petitioning. They are U.S. citizens. They are filing, and they are filing under the present system. They are big numbers down the road. But we also have big numbers on the road right now, according to the INS, where they short-informed us, or short-sheeted us by 100,000 to 150,000 in number this year. So when I get up--and I have a tendency to rant lightly from time to time. But when I say what we are trying to do is eliminate the issue of persons bringing in 30, 40, 50, 60, the all-time record was 83 persons on a single petition, that is what we are trying to do. So, if we are going to continue to talk about family and treating those fairly who are here and those who play by the rules--I understand that and all of those things--then this is where we are. Even the most ardent proimmigration advocates cannot with credibility oppose legislation to control illegal immigration. That will not happen. But this, at least for me, is a presentation of where we are in this country, and we will just see where the amendment goes. If it is gone, it is gone. But I do not intend to come this far in the immigration debate in the United States and not deal with something that the Jordan Commission report felt was very much a concern. Others have different views. But if you are talking about reducing immigration, you cannot just talk about illegal immigration. The reason I am talking about it here so I will not hear about combining and pureeing and splitting again is--and you must hear this-- half of the people in the United States who are illegal came here legally. Over half of the people in the United States who are here illegally came legally. So how in God's name do you pretend that you can separate the issue? You cannot separate the issue. They came here on tourist visas and they came here on student visas or they came here on any kind of legal visa. They went out of status. They went into the communities. They went with their relatives, and they are here. That is the way it works. The length of time--and I will throw it open--the length of time for chain migration, I say to my friend from Illinois, does not change the effect. It displaces the entry of spouses and unmarried minor children. If you continue this ritual--and it is already at 1.1 million. Remember, 1.1 million permanent resident aliens cannot bring their spouses and minor children because the numbers are going here, to someone who is not part of the blood line, not part of the ``immediate family'', and that is what is happening. And the mystery--that this is something that is anti-American, we are doing something to those who play by the rules--is extraordinary. But there are some players out in the land, not in this Chamber--I have had the greatest and richest regard for Senator Abraham and Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold. They are doing yeoman work on the position they feel very strongly about. But there are some groups in the United States that are doing yeoman distortion, groups that send out stuff like this. Oh, I love this one. You must see this one. This is big Grover Nordquist. He is really a dazzler. We hope Grover will come into the Chamber with us on this ghastly exercise. This is the Simpson-Smith bar code tattoo, compliments of Uncle Grover, who is getting paid 10,000 bucks a month by Mr. Gates of Microsoft to mess up the issue. And he has done a magnificent job of messing up the issue and should for 10,000 bucks a month. I think he should be very active. So here is Grover. This is the Lamar Smith-Simpson tattoo. This is on illegal immigration. How to do your tattoo. Clean skin with alcohol pad. Place tattoo ink side down on skin. Dab with pad until design shows thru. Lift paper off while still wet. Dust design with baby powder for longer wear. Stays for days. Remove instantly with alcohol or oil. That is Uncle Grover's little caper, and for 10,000 bucks a month you can afford to do a lot of those, which they have. They are in a deceptively difficult looking packet, I will admit that. I will not go into that. Well, now, there we are. The situation on this chart is a hypothetical situation. It says right here, so that you do not be deceived: ``Hypothetical illustration * * * chain migration through the family preference system for two generations.'' No tricks. It is what can and frequently does occur as a result of our current preference system. And my proposal will change that temporarily--and horribly--for 5 years so that we can stop the action, stop the carousel, let everybody get on and get off, and in 5 years decide what we are going to do. If we do nothing, the spike goes right back into existence. I will yield the floor at this time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. You are going to hear the story about joining the family, keeping the family together, and all of this. I think it is important to see what happens with the phenomenon of chain migration. Yes, I will yield for a question.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I know of no other speakers on that amendment. I believe the managers are prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have business to do that has nothing to do with this bill before the Senate. I want everyone to be alert. No need to alert your staff that I am up to some giant caper. I understand there are two bills due for their second reading.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I shall not object. I do not think there is any need for all this activity, and I have the greatest respect. I am supposed to be up at 10 o'clock. So I am not going to lose any sleep on that. Let us proceed and then we will go to the regular order. Senator Murkowski can have 5 minutes and certainly Senator Bryan. There is no rule in the U.S. Senate in morning business, in any sense, that there be an accommodation on both sides. That is not morning business. It is the first one present and the first one seeking recognition. Really, I hope there will not be any acrimony with regard to that decision.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Which is to go to the illegal immigration bill, is that correct?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe we are at the order of business under the previous order.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a personal privilege.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, that is correct. I think we will see it take place in its ephemeral form, somewhat obscure but nevertheless quite appropriate, I think. Amendment No. 3740 to amendment No. 3725 (Purpose: To limit and improve the system for the admission of family- sponsored immigrants)

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is not a unanimous-consent request. It was felt that the parties had resolved this and so it was presented on that basis. There was to be little debate, as I understood it, and I was told that there would be a motion to table within 20 or 25 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. The time would be equally divided.

Mr. SIMPSON. That would be correct.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we go on now to continue our work. I think most of us know the lay of the land and our colleagues listening would soon know. I would withdraw my option to offer the next amendment, which is the pending business, with the understanding that Senator Feinstein be recognized to offer an amendment regarding levels of immigration. And you might, I say to my colleagues, expect a motion to table on that particular amendment within the next 20 or 25 minutes. I yield. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators Chafee and Breaux and the rest of the Centrist Coalition in announcing this bipartisan proposal for a balanced budget. This is a comprehensive plan that confronts our budget problems head on. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a serious look at it. I am particularly pleased that our plan partially corrects the inaccuracy of the Consumer Price Index [CPI]. What we propose is to reduce the CPI by one-half of a percentage point in 1997 and 1998--and by three-tenths of a percentage point thereafter--for purposes of computing cost of living adjustments [COLA's] and for indexing the Tax Code. While the AARP and other seniors groups will shriek and wail to the high heavens about this being some backdoor effort to cut Social Security benefits, that is not what is driving this issue. What we are striving to do is to have a more accurate CPI that reflects the true level of inflation. Last year, the Senate Finance Committee heard compelling testimony from Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and others who believe the CPI may be off the mark by as much as two percentage points. A commission appointed by the Finance Committee issued an interim report which estimates the CPI to be overstated in the range of 0.7 to 2.0 percentage points. The Coalition has selected the figure of 0.5 percentage points--which is a conservative estimate of how much the CPI is overstated--precisely because we want to avoid any perception that we are being unfair or unduly harsh. This modest step achieves $110 billion in savings over 7 years. This is not a popular proposal, but it is understood by us as a critically important component of our plan. Before I discuss other elements of our plan, let me join my colleagues in underscoring the importance of our product being received as a total package. Any balanced budget plan will have elements that we do not like. But we will all have to accept some of the undesirable in order not to lose all that is so necessary. Accordingly, this bipartisan budget plan also includes some very appropriate first steps toward slowing the growth of Medicare spending. These reforms would achieve $154 billion in savings over 7 years. From a long-term perspective, the most important reform is a provision that would conform the Medicare eligibility age with the Social Security retirement age. By gradually increasing the eligibility age to 67, this plan acknowledges that life expectancies are certainly higher now than when Medicare was first enacted in 1965. We also impose an affluence test on Medicare Part B premiums, beginning with individual seniors who have annual incomes exceeding $50,000 and couples who have incomes exceeding $75,000. I personally believe we should begin this affluence test at much lower income thresholds, but I realize that we simply do not have the votes to do that at this time. The Coalition plan also limits the future growth of Medicaid spending, saving $62 billion over 7 years. While our plan does not give the States as much flexibility as I would like to give them, I am willing to swallow these Medicaid reforms in the context of this comprehensive budget package, even though I might not be able to support them if they were to be considered separately in isolation from the broader package. I am absolutely convinced that the positive aspects of the total package are so critically important that they overwhelmingly outweigh certain concerns I have about the Medicaid provisions. On another front, our plan also calls for meaningful welfare reforms, including tough work requirements for welfare recipients and a 5-year time limit on cash assistance. At the same time, we include additional funds for child care assistance--thereby recognizing the importance of child care in helping recipients make the transition from welfare to self-sufficiency. Overall, these welfare reforms achieve another $45 billion in savings. In the area of taxes, many of us had to bite the bullet--and hard--on specific issues in order to reach consensus on the broad package. What we have here is a tax package that provides $130 billion in tax cuts. On the child tax credits, I have a personal concern about just giving 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 objections by offering a real savings incentive if parents contribute $500 toward an individual retirement account established in the child's name. The tax package has something for everyone to like--and to dislike. I urge my colleagues to look at this package in its entirety. If we start picking it apart, the package will fail and the Coalition that worked so hard to bring this all together will collapse. This plan brings us to the goal we have all been working so hard to achieve--a balanced budget and tax cut package that ends deficit spending by the year 2002. Again, I urge all of my colleagues to consider this plan. Those who automatically reject the notion of a bipartisan budget will have no trouble finding one or two reasons to oppose it. But I am convinced that anyone who approaches this plan with an open mind--and a recognition that bipartisanship always requires some degree of compromise--will conclude that this is an impressive plan. It does not rely on gimmickry or smoke and mirrors. Instead, it makes the tough, politically unpopular decisions that Republicans and Democrats alike have been putting off for too long. It deserves our earnest support. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Caucus on International Narcotics Control be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 25 at 19:00 a.m. to receive testimony on the domestic consequences of illegal drug trade.

Mr. SIMPSON

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