Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I move to recommit S. 1664 to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report back forthwith. I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, just a prefatory remark, with regard to my friend from North Dakota. I enjoy working with the Senator from North Dakota. We are near neighbors in that part of the world. I can understand the depth of his very honest conviction about Social Security and the balanced budget. It is not an opinion I share, because I feel that the Social Security System is going to go broke, whether you have it on budget, off budget, hanging from space or coming out of the Earth. It is going to go broke in the year 2029. It is going to start its huge swan song in 2012, and the reason we know that is because the trustees of the system are telling us that. So I understand completely. He is sincere in what he is doing. He is a believer in that cause and he is persistent, dogged, and I know that very well. So, in that situation we will just see how it all plays out. Amendment No. 3669

Mr. SIMPSON. So the status of the floor is that the bill is now reported. I, therefore, ask that the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 3669.

Mr. SIMPSON. I send a second-degree amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I now ask the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 3670.

Mr. SIMPSON. I send a second-degree amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think we could go on--and we may--but I think, as we get back to the substance of minimum wage--and apparently the Senator does that--and I think I misspoke earlier about Shakespeare. I think Senator Kennedy is King Lear and I am puck, because certainly he launched one end of the tempest there, and here I am. But we will resolve this. We will move forward perhaps, or we will not. If suddenly the procedure fails at this time, we will come back to it tomorrow or the next day, whatever it may be. But since we want to talk about the substance of minimum wage, I think it is important then just quickly, if I may, to talk about it in connection with immigration, because the other day in debate the Senator from Massachusetts talked about janitors. Do you know what happened to janitors in the last 15 years? Janitors in Los Angeles in public buildings were making $12 an hour or $14. You know what they make now? $6. You know why? Because we in this body have allowed a glut of immigration to come to the United States and especially to that city, and the union janitors no longer are in a job at $12. The nonunion foreign immigrants came and knocked off the union wage. Now we have the situation--if we are wanting to talk about the plight of janitors--there is a study by the General Accounting Office noting that janitors in downtown Los Angeles office buildings had won excellent wages and working conditions through their unions since World War II. By 1983, the prevailing wage reached $12 an hour--this is a GAO report. The ability to deliver credible threats to strike if wage increases were not forthcoming played a very important role in that success. I know where Senator Kennedy is on that one. But Congress, those of us in Congress, overriding the recommendations of a Federal commission on which Senator Kennedy and I served, continued a legal immigration program that poured hundreds of thousands of foreign workers into the country annually during the 1980's--hundreds of thousands. Thus, Washington, thus us, inadvertently provided the opportunity for aggressive, nonunion businesses to take the jobs or deflate the wages of union workers, union workers in the Los Angeles area, taking over the office building contracts. Most of the native born workers were then driven from their jobs. Real wages for the foreign born and remaining native born have fallen further toward and even down to the minimum wage. There is a tie here somewhere, and we will get to it. We will discuss it. Now I have opened Pandora's box once again, but realizing the hazard of that. But there is where we are. We go ping pong all day long. It is theater, any way you cut it. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the status of the present situation?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I object to this procedure. This is totally out of order.

Mr. SIMPSON. It is a crude exercise, a truly crude exercise.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their patience in the procedure intervening there. Without question, I see why you are all gathered at the desk for some reason. Yes. Is there something sinister going on? Nevertheless, we have a cloture petition which was quite surreptitiously slid to the desk, which was remarkable to watch. I have never seen that in 18 years of my presence here. I have found in my time here that those who remain obsessed about certain aspects of legislation almost always find that that obsessive behavior is often visited subsequently on the perpetrator. That is not my idea. That is just the way that works. It is always a more genial approach. I visited with Senator Dorgan this morning, told him exactly what the lay of the land was and why. I did not receive that same courtesy. Enough of that. We can debate that at any time in the future. It seems to me the present status of the issue is with regard to this amendment on the current ban on open-field searches. That is the amendment at hand. I would just add one dimension to that, and then I think we are ready to go to a rollcall vote on that, unless there is further debate. I ask any of those who wish to further debate this issue to present themselves. Senator Simon asked a valid question, and I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed working with that gentleman through the years. We met when we were State legislators in 1971. We kept close ties and worked together here in a very steady, bipartisan fashion. He asked a question. He wondered if there were denials when INS agents sought warrants to search open fields and inquired if I knew of any. I do not know of any denials either, but I do know this, that the requiring of agents to prepare an affidavit, find a judge, and get a search warrant has resulted in a great reduction in immigration enforcement in agriculture. That I do know. In fact, it has practically eliminated employer sanctions enforcement in agriculture. Of course, that was the purpose of it. As I say, it was a rather unholy alliance at the time, still perhaps defined as that, when you have the ACLU joining with the agricultural growers, who I found to be absolutely insatitable with regard to everything I ever proposed. It is estimated now that 40 percent or more of the field workers in west coast agriculture are illegal. Some of my colleagues in the debate have pointed out that although probable cause requires more than mere appearance, immigration officers will search on that basis anyway. I would say, in response to that argument, if immigration officers would be willing to ignore the legal requirements for warrantless searches, why do my colleagues believe that these officers follow the current requirements for a warrant? I believe that we should assume that immigration officers, like other law enforcement officers, generally follow the law. Of course, there are exceptions. We should try to minimize the number of such exceptions by vigorous oversight of INS and disciplinary action against the INS officers who do violate the law. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues the reason the present ban was added to the law in 1986 was that there was no constitutional right at all of the type that my friend from Illinois, Senator Simon, had described. That is why only--only--INS officers are required to have a warrant to enter and to search open agricultural fields even when they have probable cause to believe that unlawful activity is taking place, which is the present constitutional standard and the one applied to law enforcement officials in every other Federal or State agency. Why--and this is the purpose of my amendment--should only the INS officers need a warrant? Of all Federal law enforcement personnel, why should the INS alone and their officers need a warrant even when they have probable cause, and only for agricultural fields? It makes no sense. That is a phrase that has been used in the debate from time to time, that something may make no sense, and in this event I think this is a classic case of that. Why should every single other law enforcement agency of the Federal Government have this power to do warrantless searches except the INS? The reason: to take care of growers who use blatantly so many illegal agricultural workers and say they are dependent upon them, and if they did not have them, they would go broke. I have heard that argument now for 17 years. In the course of responding to some of the arguments in the opening statements or comments, let me assure my colleagues that all of this effort here is not the creation of Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Every single thing that has been presented to the body has not been possibly more considered, more debated, more crafted--I do not know what it could be--than this issue because we have had it through the years with the Select Commission on Immigration Refugee Policy. That is where the ideas came from. That was the Commission in 1980. Some say, where do these things come from? Where does this evil spirit come from? There is no evil spirit. Everything I have been trying to do with regard to legal immigration is a direct result of the work of the Barbara Jordan Commission. I hope that that will be heard. I notice that sometimes detractors of the legislation will say, ``How could it possibly be that we are turning our back?'' ``How can it possibly be that we are so treating these people who play by the rules?'' ``How can it possibly be that we could turn our back on the Statue of Liberty?'' Ladies and gentlemen, we are not doing that. Does anyone here believe that former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan would be involved in such an effort? That is absurd and bizarre. When someone says, ``Well, do you realize this is going to apply to everyone?'' the answer is, yes, it will apply to everyone. When we do this final procedure, whether it is this year or in 6 years or in 10 years, and when we have a more secure and verifiable document and when we have a more secure system, whether it is the call system or whether it is documentation or whatever it may be, of course, it will apply to everyone. If it did not, then it would be truly discriminatory. If it is some document, are we going to ask it only of people who look foreign? Of course not. It is for people who look foreign and bald Anglo-Saxons like me, too. That is how it works. It happens only twice in a lifetime. You use it when you are seeking funds from a State or Federal Government on welfare or public assistance; you present or go through this verification procedure. That is one. The other one is simply at the time of seeking employment. That is two. That is it. There is no third strike and you are out. That is it. We hear of the great burden placed on American citizens. Ladies and gentlemen, why do you think proposition 187 came about? It came about because of the great burden on the people of California who are tired of that burden. The greatest burden on the people of the United States is people who are gimmicking and using our systems. That is a lot greater gimmick, a lot greater burden than somebody asking when they go to work--and remember you already do that when you go to work. There is a form called the I-9. It is one page. I hear the argument, what will employers think when they have to go through this exercise? I tell you what they will probably think: ``Thank Heaven somebody came to change the law so we wouldn't have to go through 29 documents. Thank Heaven somebody changed the law so that if I ask a person for a different or additional document, I am not charged with discrimination. Thank Heaven they are going to start working out something where I do not need the I-9.'' That is in this bill. That is what we have. All of these so- called reforms that are sometimes rather negatively portrayed, all came from either the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, chaired by Ted Hesburgh, or the Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. They were not ripped from the air to vex American employers, nor were they ripped from the air to turn our back on our heritage of legal immigration. That is not where they came from. They have a fine-founded, deep-rooted source in the realistic work of two very splendid commissions. I hope that will be recalled in the course of the activities. I call the question on the amendment with regard to open field searches. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I will inquire of my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. How much time do you require?

Mr. SIMPSON. I am trying to get a unanimous-consent request to a time certain for the vote on this amendment. So if I might get Senator Kennedy's attention. I am trying to obtain a unanimous-consent agreement that a vote occur on or in relation to the pending amendment at the hour of 3:40, or at a time when the group returns from the White House with regard to the activities in the signing of the antiterrorist bill. Would that be appropriate at 3:40 so our Members might be apprised of this?

Mr. SIMPSON. The pending business is the amendment. Let me respond briefly to the remarks of Senator Kennedy. I am fully aware--I think all of us are aware--of what this is. It is, again, an attempt to drive the issue of minimum wage into the work of the U.S. Senate. There is nothing else to this. I referred to it earlier in the day as somewhat like theater, with myself in the role of Puck and Senator Kennedy in the role of King Lear. It is about class warfare. It is about the rich versus the poor. It is about poor women and poor children. Ladies and gentleman, if we cannot grasp the issue of what we are talking about--we are talking about an issue which on one side the economists tell us that, if it passes, employers will quit hiring anybody. I love the debate about human rights. It is a touching thing. But the best human right is a job. You do not get a job if the employer is not hiring people. It is always stunning to me that some--I do not attribute to a person in any sense--but some who have this strange feeling that they love employees and hate employers. Employers employ employees. I heard one part of the debate several days ago that the taxpayers are not going to pay this--that the employers are going to pay it. Well, who are employers? Employers are taxpayers. It is the most remarkable flight of phantasmagoria, whether it is spun--whatever way you spin it--or whether we do it nicely, or whether we have to do it harshly, or whether we just watch a continual obsessive activity with two amendments that everybody knows are good stuff. It is pretty molten right now--dealing, mix them while they are hot. And they are molten, and everybody is watching. But that is really not the way it is. What we ought to do is just get right with it because if we do not America will stop, and we will be dealing with illegal immigration in a separate matter. I am not obsessed with illegal immigration. Let me say that. If you want to bury the dead right now on that, that is fine with me. I do not think the issue will go away. But I want the Record to be very clear where the sponsor of the legislation is. And the sponsor of this legislation is saying you can do anything you want with this. I have plenty of work to do. I am missing a hearing today on veterans that I was to chair as chairman of that committee. I am stunned at the essence of the debate and the class warfare aspects about it. So I just want to throw into the mix so we all chomp around on it. It is like bear meat. The more you chew it, the bigger it gets. I know this is shocking. We should not really ever do this. But the Congressional Budget Office reports. Guess who pays the taxes in America? Who pays the most taxes? The rich. I know that is a shocking thing. I wish I had not said it. So let us just put it in. The top 1 percent of all tax, the top 1 percent of the people in America, pay 15.8 percent of all taxes. The top 5 percent of all the rich in America pay 31 percent of all taxes. The top 10 percent of all the ugly rich in America pay 42.7 percent of the taxes. And the top 20 percent pay 59.2 percent of the taxes that fuel the Government of the United States. And most of them are called ``employers.'' I guess the rest of them are called ``rich.'' But I have always had a philosophy that we should not talk about the rich versus the poor. We should not talk about hitting them a little more. What we should do is confiscate every cent of those on the Forbe's list and the Fortune 500--take it all, every stock certificate, every Treasury bill, every yacht, every ranch--and guess what? It would be about $349 billion, and would run the country for 83 days. It is absolutely bizarre to hear exercises of that nature with regard to the rich versus the poor while the real issue is how do you get a job and how do you keep a job? If we are talking about the women, the children, and all the rest of it in theater, then let us let the American people know. No wonder they look at both sides and all of us in these types of debates and say, ``I mean, I cannot believe it.'' Does anybody here think that those--some of us--over here care less about children, or less about women, or less about men, or the poor? Bizarre, absurd, and offensive, best described as absolutely offensive that somehow those of us on the other side of an issue are simply uncaring, and do not have any compassion. That is balderdash of the first order. And I guess, as someone said, ``minimum wages'' mean minimum jobs. As one person said, they say there are 8 million new jobs. I know. I have three of them. So that is where we are. But where we really are is dealing with illegal immigration and that is going to be difficult enough. I just have been advised of a remarkable thing which I will put in the Record--a news release that the INS has given us phony figures on legal immigration. Instead of 800,000, it would be closer to 1 million, and here they were--their minions were giving us a press conference the day we are debating this bill on March 28 so that everybody could read up and see how we are diddling America. We do not need to do anything up here because the report released that day said ``widely circulated.'' Oh, indeed it was. They said, ``Well, we reported what it was. We just did not spin the future.'' So they have left us now with a situation under any scenario where legal immigration is going to go up a million a year, and that they have lied to us and given us phony figures that there are at least 100,000 to 150,000 persons a year off. So now we are going to have that debate. Somewhere along the line we are going to have an honest debate about honest numbers. I think the people of America will demand that. I would like to know how anyone is going to get around addressing that issue with this kind of Jim Crackry, and it is extraordinary. It is hard to imagine. I cannot imagine my friend, Doris Meissner, being part of that. I am sure she will have an opportunity to explain her position because there will certainly be hearings that will be joined in a bipartisan way on that particular bizarre and false information which was to prevent us from doing anything in the law to lower legal immigration because they, bless them, were doing it themselves, and they lied. That is another one in this line of work that goes with our particular conduct. So now I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the pending amendment 3730 at the hour of 3:30, and, further, that time be divided as follows: Senator Kerry, 10 minutes; and Senator DeWine, 5 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. I amend my request to the time of 3:40.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from California has the floor.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the correct procedure? Is that motion appropriate in the midst of a singular address, at the time of an opening statement with regard to a piece of legislation?

Mr. SIMPSON. Indeed, I say to my friend from Kentucky, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I can understand the frustration of the Senator from Massachusetts. He expressed that frustration in a very clear way. Let us then review the bidding so that we do all hear what we are doing. We are dealing with illegal immigration. That has been the pending business before this body for over a week. The pending business of the Senate is the measure with regard to illegal immigration, which when we finish the amending process will probably pass by a rather significant vote. So if we are talking about important legislation, then surely we should be talking about this. So what occurred here today is nothing mysterious, nothing sinister, nothing harsh. It is called legislating, and it is called using the rules of procedure, and it is done beautifully by the Democrats when they are in the majority and by the Republicans when they are in the majority. So if we are talking about what is germane, what could be more nongermane than Social Security and an attempt to say that Social Security somehow is not to be dealt with when we do a balanced budget, when Social Security is $360 billion of the national budget. That is what we are talking about, nothing mysterious, nothing sinister. What are we talking about that is germane about minimum wage? But there might be something very interesting and germane with minimum wage because the same people who are seeking an increase in the minimum wage are at the same time restricting efforts--some--restricting efforts to reduce the number of low-skilled immigrants who are entering under the family preference system. I hope that we are able to divine that extraordinary difference. It is these low-skilled newcomers who flood the labor market which results then in stagnant wages. That is what happens. So this is one of the most curious parts of the entire debate to me. I am not attributing that to Senator Kennedy. I am attributing it to some who continue to resist the fact that we are trying to say that low-skilled persons are no longer required to come here under our immigration laws. We need people with skills. We need people with ability. We need people who are here to pull their share. We need people to come here whose sponsors say, ``When you come here, I will assure that you do not become a public charge.'' That is what we are up to here. No mystery, nothing sinister. You asked how we could be precluded from dealing with things that are very important to Senator Kennedy or to Senator Dorgan. The same would be my argument. I am being precluded from dealing with illegal immigration reform. And I think that we want to keep all those interesting balances before the body. That is a very important thing. I wish to insert in the Record a very interesting column that was in the Washington Post in the Outlook section last Sunday about this extraordinary argument about the minimum wage and the extraordinary, remarkable flight from common sense of those who will not allow us to reduce the number of those people presently entering under the preference system. We have a situation now with regard to naturalization, with regard to a movement toward naturalization created by the legalization of the 1986 bill, created by people who are stunned and alarmed by proposition 187 and think, boy, if they are going to treat people who are permanent resident aliens like that, I want to get naturalized. There is another movement toward that, and so you are going to have more numbers coming to the United States than you ever did before, even if we did the minimum under the ``legal immigration bill.'' And remember, there is a legal immigration bill at the desk which passed the committee by a vote of 13 to 4. That is legal immigration. There is also the illegal immigration bill, which passed the committee by a vote of 13 to 4, and that is what we are considering at the present time. Let me assure you that if you are talking about germane and nongermane, there should be not much question, at least in the eyes of the general American public, of a certain thing which is total reality, which is sometimes difficult to attain here, that the reason we talk about them together--whether you split them or puree them is not the issue--split, whole or pureed, you do not escape the fact that over one half of the people who come here legally become the illegal aliens which are the subject of this bill. Please hear that, I hope, and know that we are talking about people who come here, half of them who come here legally become illegal. They then go out of status with a tourist visa. They go out of status with a student visa. They then become part of the illegal community. So those are some things, and we are not here to disrupt things but we are here to deal with the bill as we do health care, we do line-item veto, we do this and we do that, and try and proceed. If the entire exercise should end in an hour, I can assure you that it will come back at some future time, but I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for at least processing four or five amendments. That is what we should be doing. There are two choices here: Be about our business on an illegal immigration bill or the leader will be required to pull up something else and the issue will simply never go away, either of the issues or all of the issues. So I just wanted to express that with I hope some clarity, that we are moving on an illegal immigration bill with a significant amendment here at the present time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it has been a good debate. I think I know where it is going with the vote, that all the votes are not there for my particular activity. But let us be very clear. I say to Senator DeWine and Senator Craig--let me tell you, the law before 1986 was that the INS could go do a warrantless search, ladies and gentlemen. Before we changed the law, with this linkage of the ACLU and the agricultural workers and the growers, the law of the United States was just like this for everybody else. The FBI could go into a field in plain view for a body or drugs, and with a warrantless search go forward. The INS could do that, the FBI could do that, the DEA. In 1986 we changed it. So the requirement that we have now is the special law. That is what is fascinating in this debate, I must say. I just think I have been here too long. This was on the books. There is not a single other law enforcement agency in the United States, when they come upon an open field and in plain view see something that gives them probable cause to believe there is a violation of the law--they go and do it. The only agency of the Federal Government that cannot is the INS. That is where we are. At least let us be realistic about what we have done. We retain it. That is the way it is. Move on to the next item of business. But let us be totally candid. And let us not have anybody with their own opinion; let us all have our own facts. That was the law before 1986. But I just want to add--since we were talking, I think, about the minimum wage for a moment--here is the one you want to keep in mind with the minimum wage and all you have heard all day long. This is from the New York Times of April 19, 1996. It is called ``Minimum Wage: A Portrait.'' Here is the portrait as compiled by the New York Times. There are three little items of interest. Number of times in 1993 and 1994, when Democrats controlled Congress, that President Clinton mentioned in public his advocacy of a minimum wage increase: 0. Next little item: Number of times the President has done so in 1995 and 1996--through March 11--when Republicans have controlled Congress: 47. Since March 11 there have probably been 47 more. Then finally: Number of Congressional hearings Democrats held on the minimum wage in 1993 and 1994: 0. Pure theater. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is not one that will pass by voice vote. We will require a rollcall vote on this issue. It is and always has been contentious. This is the original Simpson amendment No. 8 which is to repeal the current ban on open field searches. Therefore, any staff watching these proceedings at this moment will have immediately pressed a button, and the ejection device will propel their principal here to the floor to proceed with vigorous, vigorous debate on this issue. But this one, like all, up or down, and then move on. But here is where we are, ladies and gentlemen. Do not miss the impact of this. This happened back in the days of putting together the original legislation and what you want to recall is that no other U.S. law enforcement agency--none--except the Immigration and Naturalization Service requires a warrant, a search warrant, to enter and/or search open agricultural farmland. No other agency of enforcement in the United States is required to do that. That requirement that the INS agents obtain a warrant for such a search was placed in the law in 1986 by what I refer to as an unholy alliance between the agricultural growers and the ACLU. You really will not find the ACLU and the agricultural growers in the same sack very often. All other law enforcement agents--that is a DEA agent, a local police officer, even a local sheriff--can, without a warrant, and if they have probable cause, search an open field for drugs or for a dead body. INS officers alone are prohibited by law from entering a field to enforce immigration laws. Of course, the effect of this requirement is to make it extremely difficult to enforce our laws against the employment of illegal agricultural workers. There are tremendous abuses in that field. A further effect is to make it safer--that is the word--for employers to use illegal workers, at a time when the experts tell us that there are more than 1 million American agricultural workers that could perform that work. The present ban on open field searches, in other words, then protects those who hire illegal workers. That helps to deny those jobs to American workers. As a result, up to 40 percent of the agricultural workers on the west coast are illegal aliens. One of our Nation's most noted immigration experts, Prof. Barry Fuchs of Brandeis University, and the executive director, Rev. Ted Hesburgh, Select Committee on Immigration Policy and a member of the current Commission on Immigration Reform, has specifically recommended to us that a high priority be placed on repealing the ban on open field searches. Professor Fuchs has noted that the ban has taken away an ``important enforcement tool of the INS.'' I hope we might listen to the words of our friend, Larry Fuchs. He is our friend. Senator Kennedy has known him longer than I. Larry Fuchs is a remarkable resource for this country on legal and illegal immigration reform. As I have indicated in the past, Senator Kennedy and I were both original Members of the U.S. Senate on the Select Commission on Immigration Refugee Policy, chaired so ably by Father Ted Hesburgh, who was an inspiration to us and who is, to this day, one of the most remarkable people in this land and a loving friend. We should heed the words of Professor Fuchs. Proponents of the requirement--and you will hear that argument coming forth momentarily-- proponents of the requirement for warrants argue that it prevents INS officers from entering an open field simply because those who are working there ``look Hispanic.'' That argument ignores the fact that seeing workers who look Hispanic is not probable cause. That is not probable cause for a search. You cannot use that argument in that sense in any way. Entering a field for that purpose, that particular purpose, would be illegal, even if search warrants were not required. I think that is a very important distinction. I hope we will hold closely as we debate this issue. The American public wants us to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. The case is even stronger when, by doing so, we would be making jobs available to hundreds of thousands of U.S. agricultural workers, and there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. agricultural workers. Even though this is not quite ancillary to the debate, I was fascinated in my work in this field many years ago to find out what happens when they go to the open field. Some agriculture employers back then--not now, I do not know what the situation may be now--but they were often putting some expendable people next to the highway with el emigres and the green truck came by so that there would be someone to pick up, and then when all of that took place there was another rank in the foothills who would come down and be ready to go right back to work again. Further, way up in the foothills where we were told there were never children, never spouses, personal investigation of the select committee found obvious, obvious hovels of people who were just simply slave labor for some agricultural pursuits--pampers, diapers, cans of milk all there in the foothills. That was, as I say, not truly on target with this, but let me tell you there is no reason in the world why the INS should be the only Agency of the Federal Government that cannot do a search with a search warrant in an open field. And to say, then, the target would simply be to target people who ``look Hispanic'' so you can add a racist touch to the argument, it will not sell, because if that was the only reason you would not get the search warrant. That is not probable cause. With that initial volley on this contentious issue, I look forward to the debate.

Mr. SIMPSON

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