Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2011, a bill relating to the use of appropriated funds for the operation and maintenance of golf courses on real property controlled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated June 20, 1996. My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just say I am deeply troubled the conferees for the health insurance bill have apparently decided to not include any form of mental health parity on the final bill. In April, 68 Senators voted aye on an amendment by Senators Domenici and Wellstone that would prohibit health plans from discriminating against people who have mental illness. This amendment was not a sense-of-the- Senate proposal or some meaningless resolution. We do plenty of those in this place. They always come back to haunt us, but we do them all the time--sense-of-the-Senate this, sense-of-the-Senate that. That is not what this was. It was a real piece of legislation. It was real legislation that expressly prohibited health plans from imposing treatment limits and financial requirements on services for mental illness that are not also imposed with respect to physical ailments. It was deeply gratifying to me personally to see so many Senators cast a rollcall vote, clearly ``on the record,'' in bipartisan support of ending this terribly unfair discrimination. It is discrimination, that is what it is. We talk about that all day in here. If there is ever a more blatant form of discrimination, I do not know what it is. To think we still carry such a stigma in society of mental illness is dark ages stuff. So 3 months later, I am absolutely stunned that we are unable to gain support for the Domenici-Wellstone compromise which represents a very mere ``slice,''--a minuscule slice--of the original amendment that received 68 votes. All this compromise would require is that mental health ``parity'' be achieved with respect to annual payment limit caps and lifetime caps. I think it is rather curious that the conferees rejected this compromise, held tough for so long and, at the same time they accepted another compromise on medical savings accounts which received only 46 votes on the Senate floor, and I am one of the 46 who voted for medical savings accounts. I am pleased we were able to work out an agreement on that aspect of the bill, but I certainly must question why the same spirit of cooperation was nowhere to be found when the issue of mental health was considered. I am especially troubled that some of the special interest groups-- boy, have they been sharpening their fangs in this session of the legislature; I have felt a little of it--have been so aggressive in lobbying against this compromise. To say that this small measure of parity is too costly is absolutely utterly absurd. As Senator Domenici pointed out, this entire bill is a mandate. To single out this one lone lonely mental health provision and label it as a costly mandate when the whole thing is a mandate is a classic example of absurdity and discrimination. Yes I will use the term one more time. Sadly, that is what this debate is now all about. Discrimination is surely not something new to those who suffer from mental illness, I say to my colleagues. They have had it for a lifetime, and the stigma hangs and it is demeaning and it is wrong. It is not something we should accept without a good fight. I have deepest admiration and respect for my friend Senator Kassebaum. She too came here when I did. I would certainly hate to see her work product injured or disrupted, but I respectfully urge my colleagues to consider what we are doing, and I hope Senators Domenici and Wellstone will work toward some other result, and I will work with them in that objective. It is time to rid ourselves of this tragedy of stigma and discrimination. To see the business community do what they have done with regard to this issue deserves closer attention from all of us on this and other issues of the day where they apparently feel a great strength surging through their muscles and they do things they never did before. We will address that at some future time, too. I certainly respect those who have worked so hard to bring this about and will certainly give my full energies to seeing if we cannot get a better result. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, always, for his courtesy, his kindness and his generosity in what he does for all of us; and to recognize once again how hard he works. And, also, Senator Exon, who came here to this body when I did. I do not think anyone realizes the task of the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee and what they do. Through the years I have watched with awe, as they deal with every single issue that confronts us and do it with a steadiness and skill that is enviable. I do mean that. I think we have a good measure here. It has certainly been through the grinder. We have all looked at it carefully. There is nothing new in it. I support it. I served on the Finance Committee. I listened to the hearings. I tried to add my own dimension of activity and support to it in its passage. So I commend those who have worked so hard on this issue. I commend the President who has indicated he will sign the bill. There are some troubling things in there for me. One especially, because I did not have any real active participation in it, and that is with regard to the benefits to legal immigrants of the United States. There is a great difference between an illegal immigrant and a permanent resident alien. We should not be making distinctions on permanent resident aliens, in my mind, to the degree here. I did not participate in any aspect of that because I felt it would detract from what I was trying to do with legal and illegal immigration--which we have dealt with, and legal immigration, which we did not deal with. Next year, when legal immigration goes up from 900,000 to 1 million people, the people of America will wonder what we did in this Congress. But I think we will deal with the issue of illegal immigration. We are not far from resolving that.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. A typical nuclear powerplant produces 30 tons of spent fuel every year. Right now more than 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel are being stored at 75 sites across this country. And 23 reactors will run out of room in their storage pools by 1998. By 2010, a total of 78 reactors will be out of storage space for their spent fuel and have about 45,000 tons of metric tons of spent fuel. It is very important we get the waste out of these inappropriate and unsafe locations into a technologically sound, permanent storage site. It is also very important for every person in this country to realize that it is perfectly possible and technically feasible to transport and store this waste with very little risk to human health or the environment. I point out the Department of Energy has been transporting nuclear waste from the weapons facilities under its jurisdictions for 30 years without a single incident of environmental or human harm. It is crucial to get on with the business and get on with the work of an efficient and safe system for civilian nuclear waste before the risks we have been dodging with our current haphazard setups catch up with us. I applaud the work of Senators Murkowski and Craig and Johnston, their bipartisan effort through the years. They have a realistic piece of legislation which finally allows the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to provide a safe, secure, and centralized location for the storage of the most radioactive of the nuclear waste. It also provides the money and Federal assistance for training State and local personnel in safety and emergency procedures. It is a very important bill and a good compromise, and good work all around. I am very pleased to support it and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I thank very much the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think 5 to 7 minutes will be quite adequate.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do richly commend my friend, Senator Murkowski. I have watched him doggedly work in this area. There are many who have done so much in this area over the years: Senator Johnston from Louisiana; I was involved with it as chairman of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations; Senator Gary Hart, and back through the years. The problem with nuclear waste storage is a most serious and complex one. I cannot tell you how tired I am of the people on both sides who are extremists in the area; those who are the ``Hell, no, we won't glow'' group and the ``nobody's ever been killed'' group. Somewhere between those two groups is sanity. I think we are finally on the track of doing something sensible. The mere mention of nuclear waste sends shivers up the spine of many people. I discovered that when I came to the Senate and joined the Nuclear Regulatory Subcommittee. That is what happens when one utters, ``All right, I'll take an assignment no one else wants.'' I did that a couple of times, and I got Immigration and Nuclear Regulations and Veterans Affairs, so cursed with business three times in some ways. I have enjoyed those issues, but they are filled with emotion, fear, guilt and racism, all three of them. So here we have this entire issue that has been a continuing victim of gross misinformation, reprehensible scare tactics, particularly in the 17 years since Three Mile Island, and certainly people deserve to know more of exactly what we are dealing with. The waste products resulting from many good and beneficial uses of nuclear elements are not just going to go away. It is a little late for protesters just to run around the streets with signs saying, ``Don't put it here, don't put it there.'' Wastes of varying levels of activities are piling up at thousands of sites across this country from sources like universities, nuclear powerplants, vital medical procedures conducted at hospitals and even dismantled Soviet missiles. Much of this waste is sitting--sitting--in or near highly populated areas which face potential threats with regard to earthquake, tornado, and hurricanes. The specific problem the bill addresses is the disposal of high-level nuclear waste from powerplants, the spent-fuel rods that are left over after years of generating electricity. Back in 1982--incidentally, the same year Cal Ripken's playing streak started--Congress passed the law. I was involved in that. In essence, it said we will make a deal with the nuclear power consumers in this country. We said the Federal Government would provide a place for storing the spent-fuel rods, but the consumers had to pay for it. Since that law has passed, those fees, plus interest, have provided $11 billion; $6 billion has already been spent, some of it for unrelated purposes, and still construction of the disposal site has not even started. We are running out of time. No more time for placards, no more time for running through the streets, no more time for standing out on the highway, because here is where we are: There are 109 active commercial powerplants in 35 States providing 20 percent of the country's electricity. For the most part, the spent-fuel rods produced in those facilities are there on site in pools under 30 feet of demineralized water. If the water were to drain away for any reason because of some structural defect from natural disaster, the rods would reheat and eventually melt down. These pools were never designed for long-term storage. Yet, because of the strength of the political opposition to a permanent site--I can understand all the reasons--we run the risk of jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans. A typical nuclear powerplant produces 30 tons of spent fuel.

Mr. SIMPSON. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, just moments ago I left a reception for a friend, David Brody. I am very pleased to just rise briefly and commemorate the 80th birthday of one of the most remarkable men who it has been my privilege to know, Mr. David Brody. He is perhaps best known to all of us in the Senate as the ``101st Senator,'' which was a characterization appropriately applied to him in 1989 in a Senate resolution which passed unanimously. That resolution was passed on the occasion of David Brody's so-called ``retirement'' from the Anti-Defamation League of the B'Nai B'rith. As I have previously noted in other remarks, it was most carefully phrased so as to avoid any mention of the word ``retirement.'' There is nothing ``retiring'' about David Brody--nothing. He remains the essence and embodiment of energy, spirit, enthusiasm, and good will which he has always been. It has been my personal pleasure on occasion to pay tribute to David Brody on the Senate floor, to participate in a retirement ceremony on his behalf several years ago, and most recently on March 11, 1993, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the wedding of Bea and David Brody. I have informed David that he and I have one thing in common for very certain above all others, and it is that we both ``severely overmarried.'' The marriage and partnership of Bea and David enriches our lives in so many ways, a monument to their boundless love to each other, and to the innumerable good works of each of them individually. So on David's 80th birthday, I am certain he will have cause to reflect on his good fortune in spending evermore time and more than the 50 years of life wedded to that fine lady. And all of us will have cause to reflect upon our own good fortune in having David with us for now 80 years. And our wish for him is that he may have many more years of life to savor. My wife Ann and I wish him Godspeed and all our love. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that 2 minutes or 1 minute?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, what is the status of matters in order? Is the first amendment the Simpson amendment?

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to go back to the 1980 Refugee Act. The 1980 Refugee Act provided for case- by-case determination of all refugees. In 1989, we had the Lautenberg amendment, which was very appropriate at that time. It simply said we would presume that people who were Jewish or Angelical Christians or Pentacostals would be refugees. That was appropriate when the Soviet Union was our enemy. In this bill, we give them $640 million. They are a G-7 partner. They are our ally. Now we are still using 48,000 precious numbers out of an entire number of 78,000 to give to people who are presumed to be refugees--we give them the status. Some of them wait a year before they even come. Then we find it being misused by fraud and abuse with the Russian mafia coming through the system with regard to this presumption of refugee status. We ought to go back to case by case, and no one will be left out. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the manager, indeed, for his patience and courtesy. Amendment No. 5088 (Purpose: To strike the provision which extends reduced refugee standards for certain groups)

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment will strike a very ill- defined section of this bill on page 196, which would give no one any indication as to what it is because it leaves us simply in the section numbers and subsection numbers. The amendment would strike that provision in this bill, one whose title is Section 576, ``Extension Of Certain Adjudication Provisions.'' It does not accurately capture its full importance in any way. My colleagues may be unaware of this provision's significance. And the committee report provides precious little guidance. The report says only that this provision ``amends current law to extend for another year the authority to adjust the status of certain aliens.'' This provision, Mr. President, has far more serious consequences than its title indicates. It is the continuation of what was known originally as the Lautenberg amendment, a very well-founded amendment in 1989. I commended my friend then, and I have always enjoyed working with Senator Lautenberg. It is now a provision which has distorted, in these times in 1996, has distorted our refugee system and permitted the entry of frauds and criminals into the United States. This provision is an abuse in its present form, an abuse of the refugee act. I hope my colleagues will join me in sweeping away this cold war provision, this relic, in restoring credibility to U.S. refugee admissions. Let me review it with you very briefly. Under the Refugee Act of 1980--I know this amendment will probably get trashed by a vote of 80-20, but it will be in the Record--we know that we cannot continue to make presumptive status of ``refugeeness'' when we should be doing it on a case-by-case basis. That is what the law provided, the 1980 law. You have a situation today where if you are presumed to be a refugee, you are taking a precious number from someone who is a real refugee, someone fleeing persecution based upon race, religion, or national origin. Under the Refugee Act of 1980 and under the U.N. Convention and Protocol, a ``refugee'' is someone with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. This is the international definition, and the U.S. adopted it in 1980 under the able leadership of Senator Ted Kennedy. Determination of whether an individual is a refugee is to be made on a case-by-case basis. It is the law. Under the so-called Lautenberg amendment, with the best of intentions and the sincerest of motives, persons in the former Soviet Union qualify as a refugee just by being a member of a particular group. For Jews and Evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union, and others, Ukrainian, Orthodox, a refugee applicant need only ``assert'' the fear of persecution and ``assert" a credible basis for concern about the ``possibility'' of such persecution. Mr. President, 50,000 Americans receive refugee status under this standard each year, and the total number of refugees as set by the United States is 92,000. In other words, admission to the United States as a refugee, and all of the protection and the financial assistance which accompanies such a status, is made on the basis of two assertions that do not in themselves involve any test of credibility at all. Every other refugee applicant is required to establish his or her identity for eligibility to establish that. Those who benefit from this special treatment need only to assert their eligibility. About 80 percent of these special refugee admissions go to Jewish applicants, with the balance to Evangelicals. Not surprisingly, there has been a wave of dubious conversions reported in the latter group, Evangelicals especially, among Pentecostals. There are church members who say they did not know this person was a Pentecostal, but they were near enough to the church and they learned what to say at the interview. In fact, a leader of a Pentecostal group in Russia told the INS that many who claim to be so are not Pentecostals at all. According to this church leader, most of the applicants simply have family members who are Pentecostal, and these applicants use their familiarity with the religion to pass themselves off as category members. According to interim cables which I will have printed in the Record from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, less than--I hope you hear this in this debate--less than one-half of 1 percent of those who apply under the Lautenberg standards would meet the worldwide definition of refugee. Nevertheless, 91 percent of these applicants were approved under the reduced guidelines. In the most recent human rights reports from the State Department to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department found in Russia ``the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government respects this right in practice.'' The report continues that ``although Jews and Muslims continue to encounter prejudice,'' and indeed they do, ``they have not been inhibited by the Government in the free practice of their religion.'' Does anyone here doubt that there is no prejudice in the former Soviet Union? Of course not. There is tremendous prejudice in the former Soviet Union, please hear that. It is also a fact that there is prejudice in this country. I do not dispute that fact either, and no one else can, but simple prejudice does not make a person here or in the former Soviet Union a refugee. Refugees are persons fleeing official political persecution. They are not fleeing discrimination. Now my colleagues should know that the categories under the Lautenberg amendment, which receive a special lower adjudication standard, was established in 1989 when there was a clear history of religious persecution by the Communist Soviet State apparatus. This is no longer the case. The Soviet Union is gone. Russia is an ally. This foreign aid bill we are debating tonight provides $640 million in aid to this country. How can we possibly decide that up to 50,000 of the precious numbers of 90,000-plus are refugees? This program does great violence to the Refugee Act of 1980. The inspector general of the State Department just completed a thorough audit of the refugee admissions program. I want to share some of the findings in the January 1996 report. INS officers told State Department investigators that the so-called Lautenberg designations have changed the U.S. refugee admissions program into a ``side-door immigration program.'' You see, if you bring a refugee to this country, the United States of America pays the bill, pays the transportation, pays for the support system after they come here. But if you immigrate, you pay it. Hear that--if you bring a sponsored immigrant to the United States, you pay; you, personally, pay for their transportation; you, personally, say they will not become a public charge, and people obviously would prefer to come in under refugee status. Evidence is mounting, mounting, and this has been echoed by Moscow- based groups working with the former Soviet refugees, that this is a ``side-door immigration program.'' Undoubtedly, most of these people, the evidence is mounting, showing that most of these people are not refugees. The State Department reports that there more than 42,000 people--at least it will be in the Record; if nobody is paying attention, it will not make that much difference--there are more than 42,000 people who have received refugee status but who have not yet left the former Soviet Union. More than half of those individuals have remained for more than a year. How can you be a real refugee and not get out? The inspector general reports that many of these folks are holding refugee status as an insurance policy against future upheaval in the former Soviet Union, or simply waiting for an opportunity to leave. I want to acknowledge that many fine immigrants enter under the Lautenberg provisions. Many are well-educated and become productive members of the Nation and citizens, but these are not refugees, and individuals who are not refugees should not receive special refugee benefits. We should stop pretending these individuals are fleeing any type of State-sponsored persecution. They may be fleeing prejudice. That does not qualify you as a refugee. Unfortunately, the program has also become rife with fraud, a direct result of the lowered standards. Let me read an internal INS cable from Moscow: Category fraud is relatively easy to perpetuate as the Washington Processing Center requires no written documentation to corroborate a category claim. Applicants who claim they are Jewish by nationality arrive at their interview with a passport showing Russian nationality and a birth certificate showing both parents are Russian. The claim is then made that one maternal grandmother was Jewish. Such an assertion, while not very credible, is unverifiable. Blank and fraudulent documents are readily accessible. Only blatant cases of fraud can be denied outright, otherwise parole must be offered. The INS claim points out that not only are refugee claims of dubious quality--that is, few of the applicants have actually experienced persecution--but applicants do not even satisfy the category selected for special treatment. In other words, the applicants are not even Jewish or Evangelical Christians or Pentecostals or Orthodox Ukraine. The program has become an international disgrace. A State Department report mentions a satirical play performed in Moscow based on an applicant deceiving the INS adjudicators. An INS cable from 1993 says, ``Many reliable sources have told us of a cottage industry which has sprung up which gives refugee applicants classes on how to successfully pass their INS interview.'' This amendment has the most pernicious effect--and I know there is not a person in this Chamber that would want this to happen, but it does--this amendment denies real refugees the opportunity for a safe haven in our country. This provision has established a multiyear commitment on behalf of the special categories--in other words, the pipeline is clogged--and has guaranteed that more than half of our fiscal year 1996 refugee numbers are going to people who are not really fleeing persecution. Our flexibility to respond to other refugee crises --in Liberia, in Burundi, in Bosnia--is sorely and cruelly limited by this commitment. ``Cruelly'' is a word I intended to use. So the INS officials go on to say, ``The irony is that there are plenty of cases from the former Soviet Union which could qualify [as a refugee] under worldwide standards, however these cases stand little chance of being scheduled [for an interview] as they do not fit into one of the Lautenberg categories.'' I believe that we should keep an INS refugee team in Moscow. I will vote for that every time. Please hear that. I am not advocating that we cut back on admission of real refugees, but these adjudicators should be considering the claims of all residents on a case-by-case basis. That is the law. These lowered standards and fraud also have another effect. This Lautenberg provision has created an attractive avenue for Russian organized crime figures to secure entry into the United States. Let me read from the FBI's white paper on Russian organized crime. The FBI discusses the Lautenberg process and says: Many of these immigrants claimed that their reason for leaving the Soviet Union was predominantly to escape religious persecution. Not all of these crimes can be considered to be accurate. The ranks of these emigres included intellectuals, professionals, and others from the middle and lower classes of Soviet society, who only claimed religious persecution, but had not actually experienced it. It has been estimated by American law enforcement authorities that roughly 2,000 of these immigrants were criminals who continued their criminal occupations in the United States. So the FBI has identified the Lautenberg program as a point of entry for some members of the ``Russian Mafia'' into this country. But we do not need to stop there. Try the Senate. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Government Affairs Committee has just completed a 6-month inquiry into Russian organized crime in the United States. At their hearing on May 15, the subcommittee heard testimony from a member of the Russian Mafia, who testified anonymously, behind the screen, for his own protection. He is in the clink now. During meetings with Investigations Subcommittee staff members, that individual, a member of a Russian crime ring in the United States, said the Lautenberg refugee program was used all the time by Russian Mafia members to enter our Nation. If we don't pay attention to our own Senate investigations, Mr. President, just who are we going to listen to? The time has come to let this program end. We must not continue to let domestic, selfish interests corrupt our refugee program, to the detriment of real refugees. We will never have more refugees maybe than we will this year. We don't have the numbers to produce, and we presume then that we will give them to a country we are giving $640 million to tonight, and jeopardize the safety of our own citizens. Let me share the recommendations of the State Department inspector general's report: We recommend . . . that Congress allow the Lautenberg amendment to expire in 1996. It cannot be stated any more clearly than that, Mr. President. The independent auditor of the Department of State believes this must be done in order to bring our refugee programs out of the cold war and into today's reality. I agree with her. I hope my colleagues will agree also. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment when it is processed tomorrow morning.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to inquire of my friend, Senator Lugar of Indiana, about a provision in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act [FAIR Act] which became law on April 4, 1996. Specifically, I am concerned with the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture has interpreted section 663, the section of the credit title that provides a transition period for elimination of the Leaseback/Buyback program. The statutory language says that only those borrowers who have submitted complete applications to acquire inventory property prior to the date of enactment will be considered for this form of loan servicing. The language is clear that applications must have been fully submitted on or before April 4, 1996, but a difficulty has arisen with regard to whether or not the property--on which the application is being made--must actually be in Federal inventory prior to the date of enactment. The statute is not clear on this point. The Department has interpreted the clause, ``Applications to acquire inventory property,'' to mean the property must already be in Federal inventory. This is called a ``post-acquisition'' application--``acquisition'' referring to when the Government takes ownership of the property. I am concerned that this ``brightline'' has stranded a number of ``pre-acquisition'' applicants in the pipeline. These borrowers have submitted complete applications for leaseback/buyback servicing within the valid timeframe, but for a variety of reasons, the Government has not yet acquired their property. I certainly do understand the desire of the Department to expeditiously resolve as many debt servicing cases as possible. and I am supportive of the FAIR Act's marked advances in streamlining the farm loan programs and returning Government to its proper role as a ``lender of last resort.'' I do believe, however, that we should grandfather those applications that were submitted prior to the change in law. I would ask my friend from Indiana whether he agrees with me that USDA's interpretation is incorrect?

Mr. SIMPSON. Then you agree that borrowers who had completed applications for inventory property that had not yet been acquired by the Government should be grandfathered?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my fine friend for his assistance in this matter. Amendments Nos. 4981 and 4982, En Bloc

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this will cost $16 billion. Our Nation's immigration law is very clear on one point. No one may immigrate to the United States of America if he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. And the American public expects the newcomers will work and receive any needed support from the relatives who brought them here. Period. That is the law. There is considerable evidence that this promise of self-sufficiency is not being honored. That is why in the other bill we enforce the affidavit of sponsorship. The welfare reform bill contains provisions which ensure that immigrants are self-sufficient. The bill shifts the welfare costs from the American taxpayers onto those who sponsor their immigrant relatives to the country. The immigration bill is in conference. It is not in peril. We have resolved 150 items of the Senate issues, 120 House issues. We have three significant issues yet to be resolved. But these provisions on immigrant welfare are important. We cannot afford to have these reforms delayed, and the Graham amendment would do just that. The simple premise: Sponsor brings the immigrant, sponsor promises to pay, sponsor pays before the taxpayer pays.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a most wonderful man and a dear friend of mine, Earl Varney. Earl Varney, a World War I Army veteran, will be honored by the community of Worland, WY, on Military Day, June 29, 1996. Earl will have celebrated his 100th birthday by that day! He is the oldest living veteran of that conflict now residing in Washakie County and quite possibly in the State of Wyoming. Earl is absolutely an extraordinarily dazzling man. He is Wyoming's answer to George burns! He has all of the energy, graciousness, wit and good humor and civility of George Burns himself--and especially the wit! His good humor reminds me of the old adage that my Mother, who Earl knew well, used to share with me--``Humor is the universal solvent against the abrasive elements of life.'' My dear father, Milward Simpson, also loved Earl Varney. They used to have a helluva lot of fun together. They were contemporaries in every sense. They were veterans of World War I, great friends and business associates. They also worked together in the American Legion. They had a shared and splendid lifetime of friendship and memories and love and affection. When my Dad died at the age of 95, Earl was one of the first to respond to offer his condolences. In addition to personally knowing my parents and grandparents, Earl knew the parents and grandparents of my dear wife, Ann. He was at her parents' wedding. He is such a thoughtful and kind man, too, as he always remembers others and the memorable dates and times in their lives. Earl served this Nation proudly in the final months of World War I before the Armistice. His dates of service were September 18, 1918 to November 26, 1918. He achieved the rank of Corporal. Not only did Earl give to the Nation in uniform, he has also been a great contributor to the good of the entire State of Wyoming. He was born in Ansley, Nebraska on June 14, 1896 but he went on to become a true Wyomingite. After release from the Army in 1918, Earl moved to Thermopolis, WY, and worked as a pharmacist in the local drug store where he first met my wife's father, Ivan Schroll. His other professions over the years included managing a finance and insurance office in Greybull, Wyoming, owning the Varney Motors Ford dealership in Worland, WY, and operating the Worland Oil Corporations-Mobil Bulkplant and Service Stations. He also worked in real estate. Earl didn't really embark on any kind of a retirement program until he reached his mid 80's!! We are so very fortunate to have Earl living among us in Wyoming. Earl is one of those special people that make up the core and fiber of the State--one of nature's nobleman. I cherish the years I have been the beneficiary of his counsel and friendship. My life is richer because of him. Those of us who know him so well think of him always as a rock solid citizen and a man who is authentic, honest and sincere--a man whose word is his bond. I know the proud community of Worland, WY, will be making June 29 a very special day for this good and dear man-- Earl Varney. He so richly deserves it. God bless him.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me reflect again, so the Record is clear, that I will have entered into the Record a letter from General William A. Navas, Jr., that this project was inadvertently omitted from the list. I restate that and ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.