Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

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

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

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

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I hear very clear what my friend from Nebraska is saying. I enjoy working with him. We proved up together on many issues, and we will again because the tough ones are still out there, like Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement. We seem to be the only ones who are willing to leap into that cauldron. But it is because of my admiration for him in what he did on the entitlements commission--the bipartisan entitlements commission, chaired by the Senator from Nebraska and our fine friend, Jack Danforth of Missouri, that we know what we have to do. The American public, hopefully, will know, when we finish telling them, what they have to do on those issues. So that is separate and apart from this. Let me be as brief as possible. That is quite a difficult task in itself. But there really is not a need for a lengthy debate and, yet, we must be aware of what we are doing here. I have been in the Senate a good long time, since 1978, to be exact. My role for 10 years was to learn how to count votes. If there were a motion to strike the language that came from the House, there is a question in my mind that that would carry. But in this situation, there is more to it than this. We did some work here on this issue in the Senate. All of you were present. The Senator from Michigan was involved in that debate. Many others on both sides of the aisle also were. Questions arose: Who does this affect? Does it affect the Red Cross? Does it affect the Boy Scouts? Does it affect the Girl Scouts? Let me share this with you, once again, until we have our eye on the rabbit. What I did was to affect only section 501(c)(4) corporations. There are a lot of them. Some of them spend nothing much, and some spend a ton because if you are a 501(c)(4)--this is all I was ever speaking of--you have the ability of unlimited lobbying. You can spend yourself to oblivion. You are able to lobby without monetary restriction. Now, some 501(c)(4)'s love that role and perform it beautifully. Others simply have huge resources and revenues and seem to restrain themselves somewhat. But 501(c)(4) is a corporation under the tax laws that is ``nonprofit,'' if you will, in that sense, that can do unlimited lobbying. And so what we were saying was very simple: Any 501(c)(4) that receives money from the Federal Government in the form of a grant, or anything of that nature, will not be allowed to lobby; or if a 501(c)(4) loves to lobby, then they will not get Federal money. That was not directed at the AARP. I have had some interesting discussions with them, however, through months past. It was not directed at them. It was directed at any corporation, any 501(c)(4), whether it was the NRA, AARP, any other 501(c)(4) corporation in America that chooses that particular title. The reason they choose that title is to do what they do best, in many ways, which is to lobby. It seemed incongruous that a corporation would then receive money from the Federal Government, which would help them then go lobby the Congress for more money for their members. That is exactly what some of them do. They lobby vigorously, and they will say, ``We do not keep that, we do not get that money; that goes to the citizens, to our members, to the good of society.'' But it also reduces the amount of money they have to dig out of their own coffers to do their work. So we were saying if you want to play in the big time, you want to be a 501(c)(4), and you get grant money from the Federal Government, you are not going to be able to lobby without restriction. Then that passed here by a vote of 59-37, a good, strong, bipartisan vote. Then we went forward into the usual procedures of legislating. It went out in that fashion. As we began to try to compose our differences in the conference committee on Treasury and Postal--remember, this measure came up on the Treasury-Postal bill here when it went through the House on the Labor Committee, that appropriation--Labor, Health, Human Services. So it ended up a little off center in the sense of jurisdiction. We agreed to try to resolve things there to make that limit, instead of $10 million, where it would apply to any organization, the original Simpson-Craig language, Senator Larry Craig and I, these are the cosponsors of this measure. That was the ban on C-4's which was above $10 million. That passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote. I did not hear any objection to that. Treasury-Postal was a unanimous vote, including the $10 million threshold. Now, we are ready to bring that down to a $3 million threshold and say that it does not apply to those under that figure. What occurred, then, with the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich proposal--it was a very sweeping measure; there is not any question about that. Senator Craig and I worked with them and said this is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to pass in the Senate. They felt very, very strongly that they should proceed. They did. In that proposal that the three fine House Members prepared, there was tremendous complexity. There was tremendous controversy. That was borne out again last night when the measure was discussed and debated in the House with regard to the continuing resolution. You can bet it was contentious. There is an amendment that I will shortly propose at some appropriate time which would strike the lion's share of the language passed by the House known as the Istook amendment. The language has been the subject of much, much controversy and excitement here in Washington these past few weeks--editorial commentary, opinion pages. It is something that the [[Page S 16862]] House Members feel very strongly about. I cannot identify how passionately they feel about it. I hear that. That is why I have tried to work with them. I find staff--and Chuck Blahaus, my legislative director, has invested innumerable hours of his day in this effort. Senator Larry Craig and his fine staff person have done the same. We have been actively, all of us, involved in negotiations with the House sponsors of it. I know that much of what has been said about it is simply not true. Now is not the time nor the place to debate the fine points of that amendment--the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich amendment. This amendment is too complex at this time, too cumbersome at this time, to subject to any lengthy debate here in the context of a continuing resolution. If it were any other place, it would be highly appropriate. In fact, there is a vehicle for it that is just built for it. That is lobbying reform, and lobbying reform will be up very shortly in the House of Representatives--I believe next week. In the context of the continuing resolution, it is simply inappropriate and, more importantly, impossible to move the language that has been worked on so hard by my colleagues and friends in the House. It is precisely because of that complexity that this language, known as that amendment, will not pass the Senate. That is reality. The votes are not there. It would be a bipartisan vote to eliminate that. I have spoken to many of my colleagues in the House and in the Senate about the particulars of the language. I know their concerns. I know their hopes. I know their fears. I know their confusion about this language. This is a very, very sweeping and comprehensive piece of legislation. I can understand every single reason for every bit of it because of the frustration and anguish of the political arena that gave rise to it in the House. That deserves a full airing so that the American people can understand what some 501(c)(3)'s really do with their money and how they get thoroughly involved in political activity. You can believe they do. We will deal with that. It will be a very important part of lobbying reform. In the context of the continuing resolution, not 100 percent of it will come through, not 90 percent of it will come through, not 80 percent of it will come through. It is my intent to offer an amendment to strike out almost the entirety of it, leaving only a few components. The amendment would strike out all of the House language and leave simply the following: It would leave the Craig-Simpson or Simpson-Craig ban for grant money for the largest 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations. This provision passed the Senate unanimously by voice vote. I would not think it would be controversial. There would be a provision simply requiring that Federal grantees report their expenses on lobbying activity and that this report be publicly available. Simple, short, and I think uncontroversial. Finally, a provision mandating that the current law, 501(h), limits on lobbying activities expenses apply to the Federal grantee organizations. Right now, under current law, the formula applies only to certain 501(c)(3) organizations. It would here apply to all of the grantee organizations, except that there would be no global cap of $1 million, even though current law has such a cap. And we will detail how that will be expanded. A cap is controversial so we would remove it as far as grantees would be affected. That is it. That is it. That is the measure as it would be dealt with. If it were then to go back to the House, it would not go back into conference. There would be no further conference activity with this measure as it would leave the Senate. It would not come up on another bill. It would not come up on Treasury-Postal. It can come up later, but it would not come up under the Treasury-Postal bill, which is the other pending material floating in these last hours and days before we reach our statutory limit. So I simply believe we regretfully have to strike all of the provisions of this legislation which are controversial in the eyes of the Senate. I could detail them all, but I think all of us know what they are. Some have been magnificently distorted by groups that have learned to love Federal largess as they do their lobbying work. Those things will be debated at length here in private and in public. We will not settle those issues today. The Senate will not come to agreement on what kinds of reforms to make in this area today. They will not be settled in the context of the CR. This is reality. It is not the invention of Senator Simpson. It is not the invention of Senator Larry Craig. I hope my colleagues will look at the text of our amendment closely and will give their full support. There are no tricks, nothing up the sleeve as to getting it before you. It is extended as an effort to try to resolve a very vexatious issue and try to recognize clearly the fine work of three able Congresspersons in the U.S. House of Representatives. Amendment No. 3046

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me just now refer briefly to my work on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I chaired that committee. Mr. President, each and every day the Secretary of Veterans Affairs apparently greets his employees with a memo on their computer. Usually that memo recognizes the accomplishments of individual employees, notes the significance of a particular date in terms of this country's military history, or exhorts VA employees to a higher level of service to America's veterans. Nothing at all wrong with that. But, on August 21, the Secretary took a leap beyond that boundary. In that day's message, he launched into his old stump speech about the woeful VA budget. About the same time, he also communicated with all VA employees by means of a similar message printed on their own personal pay stub. I ask unanimous consent that these messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, these messages, and their distribution to all VA employees, are highly political, and seem to me to be wholly inappropriate. They all state a biased, partisan perspective of the Department's budget and its implications. This is a perspective with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Nothing new in that either. Reasonable men can disagree. However, my disagreement regarding the effects of the Congressional budget for veterans' programs is fully supported by a General Accounting Office [GAO] analysis of the budget conducted for the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. GAO documented that, on the merits themselves, Secretary Brown's criticisms of the VA budget which was approved by the Congress are indeed ``exaggerated.'' GAO also points out that if Secretary Brown were to analyze the President's budget using the same assumptions he used when he analyzed the budget approved by the Congress, he would find that veterans are better off under the Congressional budget--than under the President who appointed him. In short, Mr. President, veterans should not be misled. Veterans are better off under the budget that Secretary Brown is attacking than they are under the President's budget he is defending. Please hear that clearly. The VA knows this. The Secretary knows this. Secretary Brown complains that the Congress will force him to close hospitals. What he doesn't tell us, and what he doesn't tell the VA employees who are pretty much compelled to read his daily ration of propaganda, is that, using the very same pessimistic assumptions, the President's own budget would require him to close 6 additional hospitals than he would have to close [[Page S 16654]] under the Republican Congressional budget. Hear that too. Secretary Brown then uses--rather misuses--the power of his fine office to scare the wits out of VA employees, and the veterans they serve, by asserting that the Congressional budget would ``force'' VA to treat fewer veterans. What he does not tell them is that under his budget, using these very same pessimistic assumptions, again VA would provide 283,000 fewer outpatient visits--and treat 12,500 fewer veterans--than VA would be treating under the very Congressional budget he is attacking. Hear that. In short, Mr. President, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is playing plenty fast and loose with the facts in order to divert attention away from the tough and necessary budget decisions made by our President. He is our President. I find that offensive. That is cheap politics and demeans his office. But, it is certainly not unheard of in this town. What is absolutely unacceptable is his use of taxpayer funded VA resources to place his purely political message in the hands of every VA employee--and on the screen of every single VA computer when it is cranked up every morning. What is absolutely unacceptable is his use of the full authority of his office, and the latent power of his supervisory position over VA's 240,000 employees, to add to the weight of his opinions. Stump speeches are for out on the road Mr. Secretary, not for the taxpayers' computers. Mr. President, Secretary Brown has stepped right up to the plate of public service and there are now two strikes in the count. Strike one is found right there in Secretary Brown's message. It is distorted and it is wrong. And the distortions serve a clear political purpose. The distortions serve to create the impression that this Republican Congress is hell bent on--and is--harming our veterans. Strike two is found in Secretary Brown's delivery. He piously then states that he is not trying to provoke any action on the part of VA employees. He is not ``calling on you to act'' he says, in the computer. No, not much. He is only keeping his loyal employees informed of what is happening in Washington. But let us just think about that a moment, Mr. President. These messages are on employee pay slips. What do you think the average worker in America would think if their pay slip included a message from their boss attacking the Congress? I do not know about others, Mr. President, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that many employees might take that as a pretty good hint to take some action or at least say something to somebody. Come on. If it talks, walks and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. And Secretary Brown's belated attempt to put some latter invented public service label on his inappropriate lobbying cannot pluck the feathers from the manipulative and political duck he has hatched out. Why do we think Secretary Brown is keeping in such close touch with his myriad empire of employees--240,000 of them to be exact? Just being a genial communicator of the morning hour? Maybe like Don Imus? Give us a break. I have been here now for 17 years and I have never seen a VA Administrator or Secretary--Democrat or Republican--misuse VA's internal communications methods in this blatant fashion. It is wrong. It should stop. The World Series is over, Mr. Secretary, and you already have these two big strikes against you. But you should put down your big bat, reflect a bit, cease abusing your fine office in this fashion and step up to the plate one more time. And this time, Mr. Secretary, do not resort to unfortunate distortion and childish scare tactics in a desperate attempt to enlist America's fine veterans to be used--and that is the word--``used'' as point men to try to turn back a historic effort to protect the future of the next generation by balancing the budget of those living in this one. When you do that, you dishonor yourself and you dishonor the veterans you profess to serve. And many of them do not believe you any more. That is sad. Mr. Secretary, finally, those of us who are veterans served to protect the future of our country. I am very proud to have been one. We served to provide for a better future for our children and grandchildren. The budget you take pleasure in attacking is an honest and forthright budget that keeps faith with America's veterans by keeping faith with America's future. If a balanced Federal budget is to be defeated by the ugly forces of reaction and fear, then all that America's veterans fought to achieve will also be lost. If this very stirring movement for a truly balanced Federal budget is turned aside, whether or not you agree with it, then all the sacrifices of the servicemembers who died or were wounded in the service of our country will have been in vain. It sounds dramatic, does it not? No more dramatic than the words the Secretary uses in his standard stump speech. If we fail to balance this Federal budget, the inevitable collapse of the American economy will destroy the future that we American veterans wanted to ensure. This inevitable collapse of the American economy will also destroy the ability of our country to be able to fund the benefits upon which many veterans depend. So, Mr. Secretary, when you face that third pitch, there is a message that you can share with America's veterans on the taxpayer's computers linking up with the 240,000 VA employees who are committed to serve them. You can tell them about the strength of America's commitment to her veterans and the willingness of the Congress--Democratic and Republican alike--to reinforce that commitment with hard bucks. During my own time here in the Senate, I have watched the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs nearly double--from $20 billion in 1978 to nearly $40 billion now. And that growth will only continue. Indeed, even under the rigorous budget constraints applicable to us today, the VA budget is anticipated to increase by nearly $4 billion more under these evil Republicans by the year 2002. And the growth in the VA health care budget has been real growth. We are not just ``keeping up'' with inflation. In the time I have been in the Senate, the number of VA physicians has increased by 9.6 percent. The number of VA Registered Nurses has increased by 40 percent. The total Veterans Health Administration staff has increased by 10.8 percent. These are real increases in the real numbers of real health care professionals who provide real increased services to real veterans. Forget the other hokum the Secretary puts out in the old stump speech and remember we are talking about real, real things. In contrast to the proposed Congressional, that is Republican budget, which protects VA health care spending to the fullest, the President's budget proposes a reduction in the veterans' health care account. Hear that. The Secretary knows that too. And it irritates him greatly because he knows the President is on mighty thin ground with many veterans anyway. The budget the President has sent to the Congress would actually reduce VA health care spending from $16.2 billion in 1995 down to $15.4 billion at the turn of the century. The Secretary knows that. Secretary Brown is caught complaining about a budget with no reductions while at the same time ignoring his own President's budget which would provide $337 million less bucks than the Congressionally approved budget he is continuously and hysterically attacking. I have said to Secretary Brown in the past: ``Every man is entitled to his own opinion--but not to his own facts.'' These are the cold hard unrefuted facts. This Nation has been absolutely unstinting in its support of her veterans over the years. No Nation on earth has been more generous to her veterans. Why is it this Secretary never acknowledges that? He should. Our own Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, so ably chaired by my old [[Page S 16655]] friend Senator Kit Bond, recently reported out an extremely generous budget for veterans--to include a $285 million increase over fiscal year 1995 for veterans' health care. Items eliminated from the budget, as originally requested in it, include hospitals in East Central Florida and Travis Air Force Base, CA. In a consensus document expressing the views and estimates on the administration's budget proposal, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee expressed its own reservations about the need for this additional construction of infrastructure at a time when the veteran population is declining at a rate of 2 percent per year. The GAO recently reported to Congress that with the veteran population declining--even in Florida--there is no documented need whatever for another VA hospital there. We take awfully good care of our veterans. We should--those who bore the battle and their widows and orphans. So let it be recorded that I personally was incensed, as I know some VA employees were, to see the partisan political message the Secretary sent out to his troops on August 21. I consider it grossly wrong to use employee's pay vouchers or access to the VA computer system to circulate that type of hoorah. Secretary Brown may--and I think often does--perceive his mission to be a purely political one, to toe the line for this President. But he steps over that line when he uses his access to, and his control over, the taxpayer provided resources of the Department of Veterans Affairs as a means to preach a political message to his civil service subordinates. It is wrong and he knows it is wrong. Mr. President, Secretary Brown owes it to the veterans he serves, to the Congress, and to the Department he leads, to change his course away from a path of politicized, distorted and exaggerated rhetoric on the stump speeches and toward a course of statesmanlike and steady leadership. Mr. Secretary, you are now headed toward treacherous shoal waters and it is long over due time for a change in course. Many of us will be watching more closely than ever before. Save the politics for when you no longer serve in this type of position of trust. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. They are wonderful, contributing members of this society. Mr. President, there are those in this country, including some in this body, who eternally say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I have heard that old, tired canard too many times. They assert that the present immigration-related problems of this country relate entirely to illegal immigrants, to the failure to prevent rampant violation of immigration law--not only by the hundreds of thousands per year who cross this border illegally, but also by a perhaps equal number of persons who [[Page S 16666]] enter legally on temporary visas, and then remain here even after their approved period of stay has expired. Mr. President, illegal immigration is, indeed, a major problem, and I introduced legislation earlier this year which would greatly improve our ability to combat that. In June, that bill, S. 269, was favorably reported out of the Immigration Subcommittee, which I have the honor to chair. Perhaps the most important element of that bill is its proposed enhancement of the employer sanction system that is so necessary if we are ever to control both forms of illegal immigration, visa overstays, as well as illegal border crossing. The employer sanction system has been left incomplete and ineffective in the years since enactment of the 1986 immigration reform bill, because expected improvements in the system that is used to verify work authorization have never been made. S. 269 would require a series of pilot programs and within 8 years a final verification system. This system would be used not only for employment but for welfare or any other form of public assistance. The proposals for an improved verification system have been controversial. Ironically, I point out to my colleagues that anyone getting on an airplane in the United States in the last 3 weeks has been asked to present a picture ID of themselves. I have not seen much media squawk about that, or any concerned and high-emotion editorials about the ``slippery slope,'' or threats to our privacy or civil liberties. Perhaps it was partly because no Federal card was involved. Yet, even when the President held up before the joint session of Congress 2 years ago a card and said, ``This is a health care card and everyone will have one,'' not much was said about ``the card'' then--a great deal about health care but not much about ``the card.'' Maybe it was also because such actions have to do with their personal interest and their health and safety. In any case, the system I favor would involve no ``national ID card,'' no new card of any kind--just improvements in various ID and other systems that are already in use. I refer to telephone verification of a Social Security number--a service already available to employers--plus improvements in the State driver's license or ID card, and in the birth certificate. That would be it. I honestly do not believe the American people have any reason for concern, and I honestly do not believe that they will be concerned, else we would have heard a little bit about that in these past weeks with what is happening to them at each and every airport in this country. But, Mr. President, curbing or even stopping illegal immigration is not enough. Why do I say this? A major reason is that the American people are increasingly troubled about the impact legal immigration is having on their country. Poll after poll shows us this. The people have made it so very clear they believe the level of immigration is too high. The people have been saying more or less the same thing for a very long time. According to a recent article in the American Enterprise, which reviewed 11 major polls taken since 1955, well over 60 percent of the American people favor a reduction in immigration, according to most polls since 1980--and that has always included legal immigration whenever it was specifically asked about. Yet, what do people see going on, year after year after year? They see steady increases. In 1953, 170,000 new legal immigrants. In 1963, 306,000; 1973, 400,000; 1983, 560,000; in 1993, 904,000. Thus, in these 40 years since 1953, the annual level of new immigrants has gone up fivefold, rising from 170,000 to 904,000. The American people have become increasingly restless and dissatisfied at seeing their will ignored. Proposition 187 may be only the first of many indicators of their real displeasure. Mr. President, there are individuals and groups who are actively and obsessively working against the efforts of those of us here and in the other body--and on the Commission on Immigration Reform--who are all doing our level best to develop and enact into law an immigration policy that will better promote the long-term best interests of this entire Nation. These individuals and groups form an unholy alliance composed of, one, those wanting to preserve the historically high current level of immigration and all aspects of current law which enable a person to bring to this country extended family members, not even part of the nuclear family--a nuclear family being spouses and minor children--joined with, two, certain employers who want to avoid paying wages high enough to attract U.S. workers, or to preserve their ``right'' to bring in the employee they really want, notwithstanding the impact on any U.S. workers. I submit that we must break through all of this clatter. We must not allow these defenders of the status quo to deter us from the national interest-based policy the American people so deeply want--and deserve. Now, I have recently read that one in the other body claimed that to reduce legal immigration is to ``punish legal immigrants'' for the actions of the illegals. That is surely quite an extraordinary claim. To use the word ``punish'' in this way is another fine example of rhetorical exuberance--not uncommon around this village, of course. But, still, let us try to keep at least one foot on the ground. No one has the ``right'' to immigrate to the United States. Hear that. There are apparently hundreds of millions who would like to do so, but none of them has any ``right'' to do so. For the citizens of this country and their legislators to decide to reduce the level of legal immigration is not to ``punish'' anybody. ``Punishment'' is something imposed because of a judgment that the punished person has done ``something wrong.'' It is most usually meted out with an intent to encourage more acceptable behavior. The issue involved in legal immigration reform is not whether individual aliens abroad, who would like to be legal immigrants--or even aliens who have already succeeded in becoming legal immigrants-- have done anything ``blameworthy.'' It is simply that the annual addition of 800,000 new residents, including hundreds of thousands of new workers, has some major consequences--and some of these consequences are ones the American people simply and clearly do not want. No mystery here; no evil reasoning. Taking it as a given that a majority of the American people believe that immigration, under current law, has consequences which are harmful to their interests, it is appropriate that they demand change. And that is exactly what they are doing: demanding change--not punishment--but change. Mr. President, the American people are so very fed up with being told--when they want immigration laws enacted which they believe will serve their national interest and when they also want the law to be enforced--that they are being cruel and mean-spirited and racist. They are fed up with the efforts to make them feel that Americans do not have that most fundamental right of any people: to decide who will join them here and help form the future country in which they and their posterity will live. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these wretched rhetorical excesses and the confused non sequiturs and the babble used by so many of the opponents of the direly needed reform. Let us focus our attention always on the main issue: What will promote the best interest of the entire Nation. We are so fortunate in having the substantial assistance in our efforts of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, who have worked so diligently and so well to produce their recommendations on changes to be made to the system of legal immigration. Their ideas have been of immense help to me. As I describe my bill, I will refer frequently to their well-founded and thoughtful recommendations. We are also most fortunate in having such talented and dedicated legislators working in a consistent, bipartisan fashion in the other body, the House of Representatives--especially my friends, Lamar Smith and John Bryant. The steady, patient, and fair way they have proceeded in the processing of a bill under the chairmanship of Senator Henry Hyde--a lovely friend of many years--is something we would do well to keep in mind as we go forward with our work here. I and my immigration sidekick here in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, will heed their lessons. [[Page S 16667]] Mr. President, the people are demanding change--and soon--and they are so right. Most immigration to our United States is of a legal nature and, thus, many of the impacts the people find most troubling are due to legal immigration. For too many U.S. workers, the impact of immigration includes adverse affects on their own wages and individual job opportunities. At this time--when major U.S. employers like IBM, AT&T, and GM are laying off workers by the tens of thousands, when the defense industry has undergone a major downsizing, when we read of the difficulty so many young American college graduates are facing in finding a job in their own field--we must then reconsider some of the increases that we authorized in 1990, before so many of these events had occurred and when certain experts were predicting to us shortages of scientists and engineers, shortages that would not have occurred even if the 1990 increases in immigration had not come about. The current major reform of the Nation's welfare system, which we will complete this session, is another reason why we must revise the present system. It is expected that these reforms will add large numbers of unskilled workers to the labor market. That is how the law will read: ``After 2 years on welfare, if you are able bodied, you will work.'' As a result, it is increasingly inappropriate for U.S. employers to be able to continue to petition for unskilled or low- skilled workers. That adversely affects the job opportunities and wages of the least-advantaged U.S. workers. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today contains new and lower limits on immigration; and assigns a ``higher priority'' to immigrants with skills and other characteristics that are consistent with the needs of the entire Nation--rather than primarily the needs or wishes of those abroad who would wish to come to this country, or the fraction of our own population who wish to bring in their relatives or who want to employ foreign workers. Mr. President, in 1990 the level of legal immigration was increased substantially, by 37 percent. This was done partly because Congress and the President believed that the 1986 immigration reform law had instituted workable measures--including sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens--that would greatly reduce illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the belief was overly optimistic. As a result, total immigration--legal plus illegal--had been in excess of 1 million per year. For this reason--and because the American people so clearly want it-- the annual level of legal immigration to the United States must--at least for the time being--be significantly reduced. The bill I am introducing today would reduce the annual level of regular nonrefugee legal immigration from 675,000 to about 540,000. This would include 90,000 employment-related immigrants, plus 450,000 family immigrants--composed of 300,000 of the ``nuclear family,'' that is, spouse and minor children citizens and permanent residents, and 150,000 per year to reduce the backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent residents who are already eligible to come here. Mr. President, I believe my colleagues should be aware that most other bills in this area introduced in this Congress and in the last Congress have proposed nonrefugee totals much lower than mine. Most have proposed 300,000, or even less. Now, I do know that some do find the constant talk about numbers to be quite distasteful, but I sense that many who feel this way are not in very close touch with the American people--who observe firsthand just how much these ``numbers'' mean to conditions in the heavily impacted areas of this country. Yes, the issue of ``numbers'' is an essential element of the problem and the people will not let us forget that. Yes, I know full well that the numbers represent human beings--human faces--and that to reduce immigration because it is in the interest of the entire Nation, nevertheless has its cost. And this cost may, indeed, involve many fine individuals in many places outside of this country giving up their dreams of a lifetime. This is not easy for us, and that is why we must keep focused always on the ultimate issue of what will promote the long-term best interests of the American people-- those of us here. It is time to slow down, to reassess, to make certain that we are assimilating well the extraordinary level of immigration the country has been experiencing in recent years. Yes, I say ``assimilating.'' Barbara Jordan uses that term, too. That should not be a ``politically incorrect'' term. Terms like ``assimilation" and ``Americanization'' should not be ``politically incorrect.'' Mr. President, my bill also proposes major reform of the criteria for selecting immigrants, including both family-sponsored and employment- based immigrants. The bill would reserve family-sponsored immigration for those most likely actually to be living with the relatives in the United States with whom they are in theory being ``reunited.'' Mr. President, in 1965 the United States adopted an immigration law that was primarily oriented toward family reunification. With some modifications, this emphasis has continued ever since. The policy has not been limited to reunification of the closest family members, those most likely to actually llive together in the United States; that is, spouses and unmarried minor children: what is called the ``nuclear family''--the family unit the American people believe is most conducive to the raising of healthy, productive, and happy children. No, the current policy has also given preference to adult or married children, parents, and brothers and sisters, who are much less likely to live with the U.S. relative who has petitioned for them. Last year, family immigrants outside of the nuclear family totaled more than 150,000. This policy of admitting immigrants who are relatives of citizens and immigrants but outside of their nuclear families is serving primarily the interests of the immigrants themselves and those of their relatives in the United States Because the American people want immigration reduced, and because eliminating the preferences for nonnuclear family would not greatly offend the family values of the American people, this is an area where significant change should be made. Accordingly, the bill would narrow the presently numerically unlimited category of ``immediate relatives'' of U.S. citizens to include only: spouses and unmarried minor children, plus parents 65 or older, if the greatest number of their sons and daughters reside in the United States. It would also reserve numerically limited family immigration for spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent resident aliens--``green card'' holders--at an annual ceiling of 85,000, still above the current level of new petitions coming in on behalf of such immigrants. The Commission on Immigration Reform also recommends this elimination of most family classifications not related to the nuclear family. In addition, ``special immigrant'' status would be provided for severely disabled adult sons and daughters of citizens or permanent residents, which is again consistent with the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform. This provision would require a showing of being able to provide adequate medical and long-term care insurance for any such dependent immigrants. The bill would also provide for a very generous program to reduce the current backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent residents--now 1.1 million. The bill would authorize 150,000 additional visa numbers per year until all who are now ``on the waiting list'' have been reached. This too was recommended by the Commission. Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues of a final point on family immigration. Neither the Government of these United States, nor the American people are responsible in any way for ``breaking up'' extended families abroad. Please hear that. No, immigrants who have come here consciously chose to do so and, by doing so, they personally chose to leave most of their family behind--to ``break up'' their family. No one else is responsible. The American people will continue to generously favor allowing individual citizens and permanent residents to [[Page S 16668]] ``sponsor'' members of their immediate family--their spouse or unmarried minor children, even those disabled sons and daughters and elderly parents who they want to have live with them. But it is not in the best interests of the American people to continue to allow the immigration of the entire ``rest of the family'' they made a conscious choice to leave behind, and then witness the spawning of the chain migration of the in-laws, and in-laws of in-laws, to which this clearly leads. Mr. President, the bill's proposed changes in the employment-related classifications are intended to protect the wages and job opportunities of our U.S. workers, especially those who are first entering upon their careers, and to preserve long-term incentives for Americans to acquire needed skills and education, and for employers to continually encourage them to do so. We have a wonderful group of fine young people who have acquired an excellent and often very expensive education--and much of it, interestingly enough, paid for directly or indirectly by the U.S. taxpayers. It is in the national interest that their learned and natural abilities be fully utilized before employers are permitted to employ foreign workers. At this time then I will review briefly the bill's employment-related provisions. Reform of preference requirements Section 103 would reform the ``employment-based'' preference classifications, generally again along the lines recommended by the Commission. Two of the three components of the existing first preference--priority workers--would be essentially retained in the first two new preferences: First, aliens with extraordinary ability-- the ``superstars''--and second, executives and managers of multinational firms. The first would be modified, as recommended by the Commission, by the addition of aliens with the clear potential for extraordinary achievement. The second provision, relating to multinational executives and managers, would be modified by the addition of a definition of the current multinational firm and a requirement for meeting a longer period of prior work experience. Both of these classifications would be exempt from the new labor certification requirements I will also explain. Also exempt from the labor certification requirement would be two other classifications in current law: third, investors and fourth, ``special immigrants,'' which includes clergy and other religious workers, as well as several other classifications, such as former employees of the U.S. Government. The ``outstanding professors and researchers'' category would be dropped, but please be assured that more than enough ``numbers'' would be provided under our ``extraordinary ability classification'' to accommodate all of these genuinely outstanding individuals. In addition to the four classifications that would not be subject to the new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three classifications that would then be subject to labor certification: fifth, professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 years experience in the profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of their degree, sixth, professionals with a baccalaureate degree and at least 5 years experience in their profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of their degree, and (7) skilled workers with at least 5 years experience gained outside of the U.S., plus having at least a high school education, and 2 years of college or of specialized vocational training. The foreign work experience requirement is basically intended to provide protection for U.S. workers who are just beginning their careers. These three classifications would also require a minimum score on a test of the English language. Again, this is employment-based only. We are not talking about family. No test there. New labor certification requirements Section 104 proposes that the present labor certification process be replaced with a new system involving two alternative approaches. Under the first alternative, a petitioning employer would be required to pay a fee equal to 25 percent of annual compensation and to demonstrate they have made appropriate efforts to recruit U.S. workers, including the offering of at least 100percent of the actual wage paid by the employer for such employment or 105percent of ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher. The fees would be paid into private, industry- specific funds that would use the money solely to finance training or education programs or in other ways to reduce the industry's dependency on foreign workers. This section also proposes that the permanent resident status to be obtained under the preferences subject to the labor certification would be ``conditional''--as is the status obtained as the result of marriage. The conditional status would become full permanent resident status after 2 years if the alien were still employed by the petitioning employer and had also received the required wage. This first approach to labor certification generally follows the recommendations of the Commission, although they did not recommend a particular amount for the fee. Twenty-five percent was chosen because it is a balance between the standard fee charged by recruiters in the computer programming industry and ``recruitment'' for other positions. The goal is to make an employer's ``cost'' of obtaining and employing a foreign worker at least as expensive as the cost of paying a professional recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying all of the worker's wages and benefits. Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or labor surplus does exist in the United States with respect to one or more occupational classifications. If there was a determination of labor shortage made, a labor certification would be deemed to have been issued. The fee would still be required, in order to provide funding for the private, industry-specific funds mentioned earlier, and to maintain the basic incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to increase the supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a determination of a labor surplus, no labor certification could be issued. Numerical limit for employment-based immigrants Section 112 would reduce the total for employment-related immigrants to 90,000. Although the total immigrants allowable under current law, as the result of the 1990 act, is 140,000, the actual entries in fiscal year 1994 were about 93,000--excluding unskilled workers and immigrants under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act. Thus, this provision of the bill would reduce the employment-based numerical limit to about the current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker categories. We believe it to be fair. Nonimmigrants The bill also contains provisions relating to nonimmigrants, including temporary foreign workers. Prohibition of ``dual intent''; reduction of maximum stay to 3 years Section 201 would, first, prohibit what is commonly known as ``dual intent'' for the visa classifications of H-1B--temporary foreign worker in a ``specialty occupation''--or L--intra-company transferee. Before 1990, an overseas consular officer could refuse a visa applicant if the officer thought the applicant ``intended'' to remain in the United States permanently--in other words, if he or she had the intent to become, ultimately, an immigrant, as well as the similar intent to be, initially, a temporary worker. The 1990 act authorized this ``dual intent'' for H-1B and L visas. After the change proposed by my bill, those visas would once again not be issued unless the applicant had a ``residence'' in a foreign country which he had no intention of ever abandoning--which is the rule for all other temporary visas. The second change proposed by this section is that the ``maximum stay'' under these visas would be reduced to 3 years--from 6 years--for H-1B and H-2B--or from either 5 or 7 years--for L. A 3-year maximum is more consistent with the ``supposedly'' temporary nature of the job-- and of the stay of the worker. It would also reduce the total number of such foreign workers who could be in the United States at any one time. Annual fee; recruitment and other attestations; foreign experience requirement Section 202 would require the petitioning employer to pay an annual fee [[Page S 16669]] in order to employ an H-1B worker. The fee would be used for the same purposes as the fee for immigrants that I mentioned earlier, although the H-1B fee would be lower--5 percent in the first year, 7.5 percent in the second, and 10 percent in the third. The section would also require petitioning employers to make several ``attestations'' in addition to those that are required under current law before entry of an H-1B worker could be approved: the employer would have to agree: First, to pay the H-1B worker at least 100 percent of the actual compensation as paid by the employer for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher; second, not to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement worker were paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation paid to the replaced workers; third, to take ``timely, significant, and effective steps'' to end dependence on foreign workers; and fourth, if it is a job contractor, to require its clients to make the same attestations as would the direct employers. The employer would also have to attest that it had attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering at least 100 percent of the actual compensation paid by the employer for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher. Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers have 2 years experience in their specialty while working outside of the United States after obtaining their most recently received degree. Similar to the foreign work experience required for immigrants, this is intended basically to protect job opportunities for U.S. workers who are just entering their careers. Definition of multinational firm for L visas Section 203 would apply to L visas--intracompany transferees--the same definition of ``multinational firm'' as is contained in the bill for purposes of describing the employment-based immigrant classification as used for certain multinational executives and managers. Conclusion Mr. President, the citizens of this Nation very much want, and they do surely deserve, an immigration policy that is designed primarily to promote their own long-term interests--their Nation's--and the interests of their descendants. This has thus been the fundamental criterion in the drafting of my own bill--together with my own intuition and feelings about the realities of today's political world. We must remain reasonable and responsive in pursuing this legislation and avoid the efforts of extremists, revisionists, and restrictionist. And be assured, this fundamental national-interest criterion will be my constant and steady guide as I move the bill through the ofttimes treacherous waters of the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have stood before my good colleagues so many times over the last 15 years seeking their support for reform of the immigration laws of our country. Today I do so once again, and this time the proposed change is fundamental. The bill I am introducing today is the product of many years. It would reform the law relating to legal immigration--to reduce the level and to revise the criteria of selection. Many of the proposals are consistent with recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and its very able Chairwoman, that remarkable and impressive woman, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She and a bipartisan group of people put together some very important recommendations for us. The members of the Commission were appointed by the Speaker, by the Republicans, by the Democrats, by the majority leader, the minority leader. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. They are wonderful, contributing members of this society. Mr. President, there are those in this country, including some in this body, who eternally say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I have heard that old, tired canard too many times. They assert that the present immigration-related problems of this country relate entirely to illegal immigrants, to the failure to prevent rampant violation of immigration law--not only by the hundreds of thousands per year who cross this border illegally, but also by a perhaps equal number of persons who [[Page S 16666]] enter legally on temporary visas, and then remain here even after their approved period of stay has expired. Mr. President, illegal immigration is, indeed, a major problem, and I introduced legislation earlier this year which would greatly improve our ability to combat that. In June, that bill, S. 269, was favorably reported out of the Immigration Subcommittee, which I have the honor to chair. Perhaps the most important element of that bill is its proposed enhancement of the employer sanction system that is so necessary if we are ever to control both forms of illegal immigration, visa overstays, as well as illegal border crossing. The employer sanction system has been left incomplete and ineffective in the years since enactment of the 1986 immigration reform bill, because expected improvements in the system that is used to verify work authorization have never been made. S. 269 would require a series of pilot programs and within 8 years a final verification system. This system would be used not only for employment but for welfare or any other form of public assistance. The proposals for an improved verification system have been controversial. Ironically, I point out to my colleagues that anyone getting on an airplane in the United States in the last 3 weeks has been asked to present a picture ID of themselves. I have not seen much media squawk about that, or any concerned and high-emotion editorials about the ``slippery slope,'' or threats to our privacy or civil liberties. Perhaps it was partly because no Federal card was involved. Yet, even when the President held up before the joint session of Congress 2 years ago a card and said, ``This is a health care card and everyone will have one,'' not much was said about ``the card'' then--a great deal about health care but not much about ``the card.'' Maybe it was also because such actions have to do with their personal interest and their health and safety. In any case, the system I favor would involve no ``national ID card,'' no new card of any kind--just improvements in various ID and other systems that are already in use. I refer to telephone verification of a Social Security number--a service already available to employers--plus improvements in the State driver's license or ID card, and in the birth certificate. That would be it. I honestly do not believe the American people have any reason for concern, and I honestly do not believe that they will be concerned, else we would have heard a little bit about that in these past weeks with what is happening to them at each and every airport in this country. But, Mr. President, curbing or even stopping illegal immigration is not enough. Why do I say this? A major reason is that the American people are increasingly troubled about the impact legal immigration is having on their country. Poll after poll shows us this. The people have made it so very clear they believe the level of immigration is too high. The people have been saying more or less the same thing for a very long time. According to a recent article in the American Enterprise, which reviewed 11 major polls taken since 1955, well over 60 percent of the American people favor a reduction in immigration, according to most polls since 1980--and that has always included legal immigration whenever it was specifically asked about. Yet, what do people see going on, year after year after year? They see steady increases. In 1953, 170,000 new legal immigrants. In 1963, 306,000; 1973, 400,000; 1983, 560,000; in 1993, 904,000. Thus, in these 40 years since 1953, the annual level of new immigrants has gone up fivefold, rising from 170,000 to 904,000. The American people have become increasingly restless and dissatisfied at seeing their will ignored. Proposition 187 may be only the first of many indicators of their real displeasure. Mr. President, there are individuals and groups who are actively and obsessively working against the efforts of those of us here and in the other body--and on the Commission on Immigration Reform--who are all doing our level best to develop and enact into law an immigration policy that will better promote the long-term best interests of this entire Nation. These individuals and groups form an unholy alliance composed of, one, those wanting to preserve the historically high current level of immigration and all aspects of current law which enable a person to bring to this country extended family members, not even part of the nuclear family--a nuclear family being spouses and minor children--joined with, two, certain employers who want to avoid paying wages high enough to attract U.S. workers, or to preserve their ``right'' to bring in the employee they really want, notwithstanding the impact on any U.S. workers. I submit that we must break through all of this clatter. We must not allow these defenders of the status quo to deter us from the national interest-based policy the American people so deeply want--and deserve. Now, I have recently read that one in the other body claimed that to reduce legal immigration is to ``punish legal immigrants'' for the actions of the illegals. That is surely quite an extraordinary claim. To use the word ``punish'' in this way is another fine example of rhetorical exuberance--not uncommon around this village, of course. But, still, let us try to keep at least one foot on the ground. No one has the ``right'' to immigrate to the United States. Hear that. There are apparently hundreds of millions who would like to do so, but none of them has any ``right'' to do so. For the citizens of this country and their legislators to decide to reduce the level of legal immigration is not to ``punish'' anybody. ``Punishment'' is something imposed because of a judgment that the punished person has done ``something wrong.'' It is most usually meted out with an intent to encourage more acceptable behavior. The issue involved in legal immigration reform is not whether individual aliens abroad, who would like to be legal immigrants--or even aliens who have already succeeded in becoming legal immigrants-- have done anything ``blameworthy.'' It is simply that the annual addition of 800,000 new residents, including hundreds of thousands of new workers, has some major consequences--and some of these consequences are ones the American people simply and clearly do not want. No mystery here; no evil reasoning. Taking it as a given that a majority of the American people believe that immigration, under current law, has consequences which are harmful to their interests, it is appropriate that they demand change. And that is exactly what they are doing: demanding change--not punishment--but change. Mr. President, the American people are so very fed up with being told--when they want immigration laws enacted which they believe will serve their national interest and when they also want the law to be enforced--that they are being cruel and mean-spirited and racist. They are fed up with the efforts to make them feel that Americans do not have that most fundamental right of any people: to decide who will join them here and help form the future country in which they and their posterity will live. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these wretched rhetorical excesses and the confused non sequiturs and the babble used by so many of the opponents of the direly needed reform. Let us focus our attention always on the main issue: What will promote the best interest of the entire Nation. We are so fortunate in having the substantial assistance in our efforts of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, who have worked so diligently and so well to produce their recommendations on changes to be made to the system of legal immigration. Their ideas have been of immense help to me. As I describe my bill, I will refer frequently to their well-founded and thoughtful recommendations. We are also most fortunate in having such talented and dedicated legislators working in a consistent, bipartisan fashion in the other body, the House of Representatives--especially my friends, Lamar Smith and John Bryant. The steady, patient, and fair way they have proceeded in the processing of a bill under the chairmanship of Senator Henry Hyde--a lovely friend of many years--is something we would do well to keep in mind as we go forward with our work here. I and my immigration sidekick here in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, will heed their lessons. [[Page S 16667]] Mr. President, the people are demanding change--and soon--and they are so right. Most immigration to our United States is of a legal nature and, thus, many of the impacts the people find most troubling are due to legal immigration. For too many U.S. workers, the impact of immigration includes adverse affects on their own wages and individual job opportunities. At this time--when major U.S. employers like IBM, AT&T, and GM are laying off workers by the tens of thousands, when the defense industry has undergone a major downsizing, when we read of the difficulty so many young American college graduates are facing in finding a job in their own field--we must then reconsider some of the increases that we authorized in 1990, before so many of these events had occurred and when certain experts were predicting to us shortages of scientists and engineers, shortages that would not have occurred even if the 1990 increases in immigration had not come about. The current major reform of the Nation's welfare system, which we will complete this session, is another reason why we must revise the present system. It is expected that these reforms will add large numbers of unskilled workers to the labor market. That is how the law will read: ``After 2 years on welfare, if you are able bodied, you will work.'' As a result, it is increasingly inappropriate for U.S. employers to be able to continue to petition for unskilled or low- skilled workers. That adversely affects the job opportunities and wages of the least-advantaged U.S. workers. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today contains new and lower limits on immigration; and assigns a ``higher priority'' to immigrants with skills and other characteristics that are consistent with the needs of the entire Nation--rather than primarily the needs or wishes of those abroad who would wish to come to this country, or the fraction of our own population who wish to bring in their relatives or who want to employ foreign workers. Mr. President, in 1990 the level of legal immigration was increased substantially, by 37 percent. This was done partly because Congress and the President believed that the 1986 immigration reform law had instituted workable measures--including sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens--that would greatly reduce illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the belief was overly optimistic. As a result, total immigration--legal plus illegal--had been in excess of 1 million per year. For this reason--and because the American people so clearly want it-- the annual level of legal immigration to the United States must--at least for the time being--be significantly reduced. The bill I am introducing today would reduce the annual level of regular nonrefugee legal immigration from 675,000 to about 540,000. This would include 90,000 employment-related immigrants, plus 450,000 family immigrants--composed of 300,000 of the ``nuclear family,'' that is, spouse and minor children citizens and permanent residents, and 150,000 per year to reduce the backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent residents who are already eligible to come here. Mr. President, I believe my colleagues should be aware that most other bills in this area introduced in this Congress and in the last Congress have proposed nonrefugee totals much lower than mine. Most have proposed 300,000, or even less. Now, I do know that some do find the constant talk about numbers to be quite distasteful, but I sense that many who feel this way are not in very close touch with the American people--who observe firsthand just how much these ``numbers'' mean to conditions in the heavily impacted areas of this country. Yes, the issue of ``numbers'' is an essential element of the problem and the people will not let us forget that. Yes, I know full well that the numbers represent human beings--human faces--and that to reduce immigration because it is in the interest of the entire Nation, nevertheless has its cost. And this cost may, indeed, involve many fine individuals in many places outside of this country giving up their dreams of a lifetime. This is not easy for us, and that is why we must keep focused always on the ultimate issue of what will promote the long-term best interests of the American people-- those of us here. It is time to slow down, to reassess, to make certain that we are assimilating well the extraordinary level of immigration the country has been experiencing in recent years. Yes, I say ``assimilating.'' Barbara Jordan uses that term, too. That should not be a ``politically incorrect'' term. Terms like ``assimilation" and ``Americanization'' should not be ``politically incorrect.'' Mr. President, my bill also proposes major reform of the criteria for selecting immigrants, including both family-sponsored and employment- based immigrants. The bill would reserve family-sponsored immigration for those most likely actually to be living with the relatives in the United States with whom they are in theory being ``reunited.'' Mr. President, in 1965 the United States adopted an immigration law that was primarily oriented toward family reunification. With some modifications, this emphasis has continued ever since. The policy has not been limited to reunification of the closest family members, those most likely to actually llive together in the United States; that is, spouses and unmarried minor children: what is called the ``nuclear family''--the family unit the American people believe is most conducive to the raising of healthy, productive, and happy children. No, the current policy has also given preference to adult or married children, parents, and brothers and sisters, who are much less likely to live with the U.S. relative who has petitioned for them. Last year, family immigrants outside of the nuclear family totaled more than 150,000. This policy of admitting immigrants who are relatives of citizens and immigrants but outside of their nuclear families is serving primarily the interests of the immigrants themselves and those of their relatives in the United States Because the American people want immigration reduced, and because eliminating the preferences for nonnuclear family would not greatly offend the family values of the American people, this is an area where significant change should be made. Accordingly, the bill would narrow the presently numerically unlimited category of ``immediate relatives'' of U.S. citizens to include only: spouses and unmarried minor children, plus parents 65 or older, if the greatest number of their sons and daughters reside in the United States. It would also reserve numerically limited family immigration for spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent resident aliens--``green card'' holders--at an annual ceiling of 85,000, still above the current level of new petitions coming in on behalf of such immigrants. The Commission on Immigration Reform also recommends this elimination of most family classifications not related to the nuclear family. In addition, ``special immigrant'' status would be provided for severely disabled adult sons and daughters of citizens or permanent residents, which is again consistent with the recommendations of the Commission on Immigration Reform. This provision would require a showing of being able to provide adequate medical and long-term care insurance for any such dependent immigrants. The bill would also provide for a very generous program to reduce the current backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent residents--now 1.1 million. The bill would authorize 150,000 additional visa numbers per year until all who are now ``on the waiting list'' have been reached. This too was recommended by the Commission. Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues of a final point on family immigration. Neither the Government of these United States, nor the American people are responsible in any way for ``breaking up'' extended families abroad. Please hear that. No, immigrants who have come here consciously chose to do so and, by doing so, they personally chose to leave most of their family behind--to ``break up'' their family. No one else is responsible. The American people will continue to generously favor allowing individual citizens and permanent residents to [[Page S 16668]] ``sponsor'' members of their immediate family--their spouse or unmarried minor children, even those disabled sons and daughters and elderly parents who they want to have live with them. But it is not in the best interests of the American people to continue to allow the immigration of the entire ``rest of the family'' they made a conscious choice to leave behind, and then witness the spawning of the chain migration of the in-laws, and in-laws of in-laws, to which this clearly leads. Mr. President, the bill's proposed changes in the employment-related classifications are intended to protect the wages and job opportunities of our U.S. workers, especially those who are first entering upon their careers, and to preserve long-term incentives for Americans to acquire needed skills and education, and for employers to continually encourage them to do so. We have a wonderful group of fine young people who have acquired an excellent and often very expensive education--and much of it, interestingly enough, paid for directly or indirectly by the U.S. taxpayers. It is in the national interest that their learned and natural abilities be fully utilized before employers are permitted to employ foreign workers. At this time then I will review briefly the bill's employment-related provisions. Reform of preference requirements Section 103 would reform the ``employment-based'' preference classifications, generally again along the lines recommended by the Commission. Two of the three components of the existing first preference--priority workers--would be essentially retained in the first two new preferences: First, aliens with extraordinary ability-- the ``superstars''--and second, executives and managers of multinational firms. The first would be modified, as recommended by the Commission, by the addition of aliens with the clear potential for extraordinary achievement. The second provision, relating to multinational executives and managers, would be modified by the addition of a definition of the current multinational firm and a requirement for meeting a longer period of prior work experience. Both of these classifications would be exempt from the new labor certification requirements I will also explain. Also exempt from the labor certification requirement would be two other classifications in current law: third, investors and fourth, ``special immigrants,'' which includes clergy and other religious workers, as well as several other classifications, such as former employees of the U.S. Government. The ``outstanding professors and researchers'' category would be dropped, but please be assured that more than enough ``numbers'' would be provided under our ``extraordinary ability classification'' to accommodate all of these genuinely outstanding individuals. In addition to the four classifications that would not be subject to the new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three classifications that would then be subject to labor certification: fifth, professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 years experience in the profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of their degree, sixth, professionals with a baccalaureate degree and at least 5 years experience in their profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of their degree, and (7) skilled workers with at least 5 years experience gained outside of the U.S., plus having at least a high school education, and 2 years of college or of specialized vocational training. The foreign work experience requirement is basically intended to provide protection for U.S. workers who are just beginning their careers. These three classifications would also require a minimum score on a test of the English language. Again, this is employment-based only. We are not talking about family. No test there. New labor certification requirements Section 104 proposes that the present labor certification process be replaced with a new system involving two alternative approaches. Under the first alternative, a petitioning employer would be required to pay a fee equal to 25 percent of annual compensation and to demonstrate they have made appropriate efforts to recruit U.S. workers, including the offering of at least 100percent of the actual wage paid by the employer for such employment or 105percent of ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher. The fees would be paid into private, industry- specific funds that would use the money solely to finance training or education programs or in other ways to reduce the industry's dependency on foreign workers. This section also proposes that the permanent resident status to be obtained under the preferences subject to the labor certification would be ``conditional''--as is the status obtained as the result of marriage. The conditional status would become full permanent resident status after 2 years if the alien were still employed by the petitioning employer and had also received the required wage. This first approach to labor certification generally follows the recommendations of the Commission, although they did not recommend a particular amount for the fee. Twenty-five percent was chosen because it is a balance between the standard fee charged by recruiters in the computer programming industry and ``recruitment'' for other positions. The goal is to make an employer's ``cost'' of obtaining and employing a foreign worker at least as expensive as the cost of paying a professional recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying all of the worker's wages and benefits. Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or labor surplus does exist in the United States with respect to one or more occupational classifications. If there was a determination of labor shortage made, a labor certification would be deemed to have been issued. The fee would still be required, in order to provide funding for the private, industry-specific funds mentioned earlier, and to maintain the basic incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to increase the supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a determination of a labor surplus, no labor certification could be issued. Numerical limit for employment-based immigrants Section 112 would reduce the total for employment-related immigrants to 90,000. Although the total immigrants allowable under current law, as the result of the 1990 act, is 140,000, the actual entries in fiscal year 1994 were about 93,000--excluding unskilled workers and immigrants under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act. Thus, this provision of the bill would reduce the employment-based numerical limit to about the current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker categories. We believe it to be fair. Nonimmigrants The bill also contains provisions relating to nonimmigrants, including temporary foreign workers. Prohibition of ``dual intent''; reduction of maximum stay to 3 years Section 201 would, first, prohibit what is commonly known as ``dual intent'' for the visa classifications of H-1B--temporary foreign worker in a ``specialty occupation''--or L--intra-company transferee. Before 1990, an overseas consular officer could refuse a visa applicant if the officer thought the applicant ``intended'' to remain in the United States permanently--in other words, if he or she had the intent to become, ultimately, an immigrant, as well as the similar intent to be, initially, a temporary worker. The 1990 act authorized this ``dual intent'' for H-1B and L visas. After the change proposed by my bill, those visas would once again not be issued unless the applicant had a ``residence'' in a foreign country which he had no intention of ever abandoning--which is the rule for all other temporary visas. The second change proposed by this section is that the ``maximum stay'' under these visas would be reduced to 3 years--from 6 years--for H-1B and H-2B--or from either 5 or 7 years--for L. A 3-year maximum is more consistent with the ``supposedly'' temporary nature of the job-- and of the stay of the worker. It would also reduce the total number of such foreign workers who could be in the United States at any one time. Annual fee; recruitment and other attestations; foreign experience requirement Section 202 would require the petitioning employer to pay an annual fee [[Page S 16669]] in order to employ an H-1B worker. The fee would be used for the same purposes as the fee for immigrants that I mentioned earlier, although the H-1B fee would be lower--5 percent in the first year, 7.5 percent in the second, and 10 percent in the third. The section would also require petitioning employers to make several ``attestations'' in addition to those that are required under current law before entry of an H-1B worker could be approved: the employer would have to agree: First, to pay the H-1B worker at least 100 percent of the actual compensation as paid by the employer for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher; second, not to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement worker were paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation paid to the replaced workers; third, to take ``timely, significant, and effective steps'' to end dependence on foreign workers; and fourth, if it is a job contractor, to require its clients to make the same attestations as would the direct employers. The employer would also have to attest that it had attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering at least 100 percent of the actual compensation paid by the employer for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher. Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers have 2 years experience in their specialty while working outside of the United States after obtaining their most recently received degree. Similar to the foreign work experience required for immigrants, this is intended basically to protect job opportunities for U.S. workers who are just entering their careers. Definition of multinational firm for L visas Section 203 would apply to L visas--intracompany transferees--the same definition of ``multinational firm'' as is contained in the bill for purposes of describing the employment-based immigrant classification as used for certain multinational executives and managers. Conclusion Mr. President, the citizens of this Nation very much want, and they do surely deserve, an immigration policy that is designed primarily to promote their own long-term interests--their Nation's--and the interests of their descendants. This has thus been the fundamental criterion in the drafting of my own bill--together with my own intuition and feelings about the realities of today's political world. We must remain reasonable and responsive in pursuing this legislation and avoid the efforts of extremists, revisionists, and restrictionist. And be assured, this fundamental national-interest criterion will be my constant and steady guide as I move the bill through the ofttimes treacherous waters of the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have stood before my good colleagues so many times over the last 15 years seeking their support for reform of the immigration laws of our country. Today I do so once again, and this time the proposed change is fundamental. The bill I am introducing today is the product of many years. It would reform the law relating to legal immigration--to reduce the level and to revise the criteria of selection. Many of the proposals are consistent with recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and its very able Chairwoman, that remarkable and impressive woman, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She and a bipartisan group of people put together some very important recommendations for us. The members of the Commission were appointed by the Speaker, by the Republicans, by the Democrats, by the majority leader, the minority leader. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair because I know full well that it is the staff that needs the recess as much as we do. I cannot tell you how much we appreciate what they do for us, especially when we have had a week where there were 39 rollcall votes one day and some 20 the next or the day before, everybody back behind these halls that we do not see, the reporters--I never like to take advantage of that. But I have an important measure, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. SIMPSON and Mrs. FEINSTEIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 1394 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the parliamentary situation, Mr. President?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do not like to do that, and do not do it often at all; however, I will do so. I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed an additional 35 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to make technical amendments to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The original act was passed in 1977 to stop the abusive debt collection practices of third-party debt collectors. In that regard, it has worked well. Debt collectors were told that if they ran honest, ethical operations they would not have problems with the act--that only the lawless collectors would be penalized. The law-abiding among them would thus not need to worry nor would they have to hire lawyers to interpret the act. In that regard, the act may well have reached too far. Certainly, unscrupulous collectors have been forced to play by the rules, but may law-abiding collectors have found themselves unjustly burdened by many minor provisions found in the act. There have been hundreds of lawsuits based on technical and totally unintentional violations of the act. We should remember that collection agencies are, in most cases, the smallest of small businesses. Also, some 38 percent are owned or operated by women, one of the highest of such percentages in all business categories. These companies cannot afford huge legal bills and they certainly cannot get free legal representation. Because of the large increase in the number of such lawsuits, many collection agencies have seen huge increases in their insurance premiums. The most distressing result is that small and highly dedicated group of attorneys is using the act to extort money from collection agencies. For example, the act has a $1,000 minimum statutory damage provision, even for the smallest, technical violation. These attorneys will comb collection files to find the smallest violation and then sue collection agencies for the $1,000 amount. The agency is usually forced to pay a settlement because, even if they have done nothing wrong, the legal fees required to defend such an action will run many thousands of dollars. Some agencies have even set aside money each month to pay off the demands of these lawyers, even though the company knows it has not violated the spirit of the act. Let me cite some examples of ridiculous lawsuits that would be eliminated under this legislation. A Nevada agency was sued for allegedly violating the prohibition against third-party contacts after the agency sued the debtor in court to obtain a judgment. The consumer attorney felt that communicating with the court was a third-party violation. An agency that collects students loans for the Department of Education was similarly challenged in court. At issue was the language used by the agency in its letters as required by the Department. The language stated that no legal action is required for the Department to enforce an administrative garnishment against a debtor. The attorney argued that the notice was deceptive because it did not state that the debtor has a right to a hearing before the garnishment is enforced. What about the collectors who are big enough to fight back? In many cases, collection agencies that can afford this costly litigation are not bothered by claimant attorneys. So effectively, the act has served to selectively penalize the small collector. To compound confusion, different courts have handed down totally contradictory decisions and opinions regarding the provisions of the act. Thus we have a Federal law requiring collectors to follow procedures that vary from State to State. The situation has become so confusing that the Federal Trade Commission has asked Congress to clarify the opposing court decisions and that, in part, is one of the purposes of this legislation. In addition, the bill gets rid of the $1,000 statutory damages ``carrot'' that has, through its misuse, become a winning lottery ticket for some lawyers. Certainly a debt collector who wrongfully damages a debtor should be required to pay for those damages--and the legislation will preserve such compensation. A collector will be held responsible for actual damages, but not for an arbitrary standard that is not imposed by most other consumer laws. Additionally, when Congress passed the Truth in Lending Simplification Act in the 1980's, it cleared up a major problem in class action lawsuits by limiting the total damages and number of such suits that could be filed against one defendant. Because of an oversight, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act was not made part of the legislation and today debt collectors face a legal financial burden that other companies covered by consumer protection enforcement laws are protected against. This legislation corrects that oversight. The legislation would allow judges to award defendants the cost of their actions plus legal fees if one of these suits is brought in bad faith. Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would now apply to lawsuits associated with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Under that standard, when a defendant offers a settlement and the plaintiff refuses, if the ultimate court award is equal to or less than such an offer, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal costs. This rule has worked well and should help end technical lawsuits. Collectors are also being attacked by another class of attorneys-- district or county attorneys who are setting up ``for profit,'' collection agencies that compete directly with private enterprise. Under a very narrow reading of the act, these State and local officials contend they are not covered by the legislation. In some areas, these public officials are telling merchants that they will not accept debts for collection if they have previously been turned over to a private collection agency. At present, the local government collection agencies are only collecting bad checks but they may well branch into other collection fields. Do not be fooled. These public officials are not collecting bad checks as part of their government function. No, only merchants who join the program can get this type of law enforcement. Individuals who have received bad checks cannot use the service. This amounts to law enforcement judged by the size of your wallet. This legislation would still allow local officials to operate such collection activities but they would have to comply with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. No longer would such operations be able to charge a consumer $120 for a $5 returned check as has happened in some cases. The legislation does not remove any of the other basic consumer safeguards that are in the act. Still in place are the restrictions against harassment by collectors, calls in the middle of the night, informing employers about debts and the all important safeguard that makes it illegal for a collector to do anything in a deceptive manner. Mr. President, the amount of debt owed to American businesses that goes unpaid is skyrocketing. In the latest figures available, 226.2 million accounts totaling $79 billion were turned over to third-party collection agencies in 1993. It is estimated that bad debt cases cost every man, woman, and child in America $250 per year. That means that a family of four will pay $1,000 more for goods and services during each year. The figures for bad checks are even more staggering. On average, Americans write more than 1.5 million checks a day that are subsequently dishonored by U.S. banks. In 1992 some 533 million checks totaling $16 billion were returned to U.S. banks. Projections for 1995 estimate that 619 million checks will ``bounce.'' By the year 200 the estimate is that 731 million will be returned. Our Nation's economy can't afford such losses and businesses deserve the services of an affordable collection industry that is not bogged down by the technical and nuisance lawsuits.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to make technical amendments to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The original act was passed in 1977 to stop the abusive debt collection practices of third-party debt collectors. In that regard, it has worked well. Debt collectors were told that if they ran honest, ethical operations they would not have problems with the act--that only the lawless collectors would be penalized. The law-abiding among them would thus not need to worry nor would they have to hire lawyers to interpret the act. In that regard, the act may well have reached too far. Certainly, unscrupulous collectors have been forced to play by the rules, but may law-abiding collectors have found themselves unjustly burdened by many minor provisions found in the act. There have been hundreds of lawsuits based on technical and totally unintentional violations of the act. We should remember that collection agencies are, in most cases, the smallest of small businesses. Also, some 38 percent are owned or operated by women, one of the highest of such percentages in all business categories. These companies cannot afford huge legal bills and they certainly cannot get free legal representation. Because of the large increase in the number of such lawsuits, many collection agencies have seen huge increases in their insurance premiums. The most distressing result is that small and highly dedicated group of attorneys is using the act to extort money from collection agencies. For example, the act has a $1,000 minimum statutory damage provision, even for the smallest, technical violation. These attorneys will comb collection files to find the smallest violation and then sue collection agencies for the $1,000 amount. The agency is usually forced to pay a settlement because, even if they have done nothing wrong, the legal fees required to defend such an action will run many thousands of dollars. Some agencies have even set aside money each month to pay off the demands of these lawyers, even though the company knows it has not violated the spirit of the act. Let me cite some examples of ridiculous lawsuits that would be eliminated under this legislation. A Nevada agency was sued for allegedly violating the prohibition against third-party contacts after the agency sued the debtor in court to obtain a judgment. The consumer attorney felt that communicating with the court was a third-party violation. An agency that collects students loans for the Department of Education was similarly challenged in court. At issue was the language used by the agency in its letters as required by the Department. The language stated that no legal action is required for the Department to enforce an administrative garnishment against a debtor. The attorney argued that the notice was deceptive because it did not state that the debtor has a right to a hearing before the garnishment is enforced. What about the collectors who are big enough to fight back? In many cases, collection agencies that can afford this costly litigation are not bothered by claimant attorneys. So effectively, the act has served to selectively penalize the small collector. To compound confusion, different courts have handed down totally contradictory decisions and opinions regarding the provisions of the act. Thus we have a Federal law requiring collectors to follow procedures that vary from State to State. The situation has become so confusing that the Federal Trade Commission has asked Congress to clarify the opposing court decisions and that, in part, is one of the purposes of this legislation. In addition, the bill gets rid of the $1,000 statutory damages ``carrot'' that has, through its misuse, become a winning lottery ticket for some lawyers. Certainly a debt collector who wrongfully damages a debtor should be required to pay for those damages--and the legislation will preserve such compensation. A collector will be held responsible for actual damages, but not for an arbitrary standard that is not imposed by most other consumer laws. Additionally, when Congress passed the Truth in Lending Simplification Act in the 1980's, it cleared up a major problem in class action lawsuits by limiting the total damages and number of such suits that could be filed against one defendant. Because of an oversight, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act was not made part of the legislation and today debt collectors face a legal financial burden that other companies covered by consumer protection enforcement laws are protected against. This legislation corrects that oversight. The legislation would allow judges to award defendants the cost of their actions plus legal fees if one of these suits is brought in bad faith. Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would now apply to lawsuits associated with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Under that standard, when a defendant offers a settlement and the plaintiff refuses, if the ultimate court award is equal to or less than such an offer, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal costs. This rule has worked well and should help end technical lawsuits. Collectors are also being attacked by another class of attorneys-- district or county attorneys who are setting up ``for profit,'' collection agencies that compete directly with private enterprise. Under a very narrow reading of the act, these State and local officials contend they are not covered by the legislation. In some areas, these public officials are telling merchants that they will not accept debts for collection if they have previously been turned over to a private collection agency. At present, the local government collection agencies are only collecting bad checks but they may well branch into other collection fields. Do not be fooled. These public officials are not collecting bad checks as part of their government function. No, only merchants who join the program can get this type of law enforcement. Individuals who have received bad checks cannot use the service. This amounts to law enforcement judged by the size of your wallet. This legislation would still allow local officials to operate such collection activities but they would have to comply with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. No longer would such operations be able to charge a consumer $120 for a $5 returned check as has happened in some cases. The legislation does not remove any of the other basic consumer safeguards that are in the act. Still in place are the restrictions against harassment by collectors, calls in the middle of the night, informing employers about debts and the all important safeguard that makes it illegal for a collector to do anything in a deceptive manner. Mr. President, the amount of debt owed to American businesses that goes unpaid is skyrocketing. In the latest figures available, 226.2 million accounts totaling $79 billion were turned over to third-party collection agencies in 1993. It is estimated that bad debt cases cost every man, woman, and child in America $250 per year. That means that a family of four will pay $1,000 more for goods and services during each year. The figures for bad checks are even more staggering. On average, Americans write more than 1.5 million checks a day that are subsequently dishonored by U.S. banks. In 1992 some 533 million checks totaling $16 billion were returned to U.S. banks. Projections for 1995 estimate that 619 million checks will ``bounce.'' By the year 200 the estimate is that 731 million will be returned. Our Nation's economy can't afford such losses and businesses deserve the services of an affordable collection industry that is not bogged down by the technical and nuisance lawsuits.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I want to pay tribute to Senator McCain. There is not a more fierce advocate of his position in this area. He has been that way since I have known him. I have been on the other side of the issue all that time, also. We have serious disagreement. But I have a deep respect and admiration for him. He has been of great assistance to me in dealing with the tough issues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, like POW's/MIA's. No one speaks with more credibility and integrity than this man from Arizona. So I want that clearly on record. As to Senator Kerrey, let me share with my colleagues here that I hope you heard every word that Senator Kerrey was saying, because every word that he was saying is absolutely true with regard to Social Security. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot continue to leave out of serious total discussion something that is $360 billion a year, and we are not touching it. You do not dare touch it. That is why this will pass. Do not worry about the 60 votes on a point of order. Do not worry about 70 or 80; it will pass by 90 to 10. Then we will deal with it. We will ``find the money.'' I hear that plea. I can understand that clearly. This, however, in my mind, does not comport with the sense-of-the- Senate resolution which I voted for the other day, because it said if it can be done ``without injuring the long-term solvency of Social Security or negatively impacting the deficit.'' What this fundraising mechanism does is get the money short term, but in the long term it is absolutely devastating. Now, this legislation, in my mind, does violate the Budget Act because it increases outlays in the Finance Committee area of jurisdiction during the 5-year budget windows of 1996 to 2000. I hope the Senate will sustain the point of order lying against it, but I know that will be a very remote possibility because I am sure the phone lines are jingling right now as to the fact that we are going to free up senior citizens to do what they need to do. We may well be doing that between these ages of 65 and 70, which has been apparently a very vigorous movement in America with regard to the earnings limit. There is not a single person in this body that has been more dedicated to that issue in all my time of serving with him than the Senator from Arizona. I am sympathetic. The rest of the Senate is sympathetic. They will prove it in their votes. There is no question that Americans are living longer and are productive for a longer time. Our retirement policy should reflect that. Let me caution my colleagues and the vapors of the day that it will pass in the Chamber as we vote this because I know how this game works. This is a $360 billion program, the biggest and largest of all handled by the Federal Government. Millions of Americans depend upon it. They should not, but they do. They never should have under the original Social Security law because it was never intended to be a pension. Regardless of what the senior groups may tell you, it is not a pension. It was an income supplement, very well put together, as the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out. A majority of Americans who stand to retire some day--and almost all of us hope to and many of us in this line of work hope we get out before they throw us out--some day will be dependent upon it as a principal source of income. It is not right that it should be, but nevertheless it is. It is very difficult to craft it now in these later years to be a principal source of income when it was never intended to be a principal source of income but only a supplemental source of income. That is all very well reflected. I just want to review the bidding one more time as to what you put into this--as people complain vigorously about what they are getting out--and give some very critical comments about COLA's and why are the seniors being treated this way. Let me put it in a very personal way. I am 64 years old. I have worked since I was 15. My first job was at the Cody Bakery in Cody, WY. I was the person who put that remarkable strawberry clear glop in the middle of the sweet roll. That was my job. You went tick, tick like that every morning. Somehow I have never eaten one of those again and never shall. That was my job. Do you know what I put into Social Security that year? Five bucks-- they really bit me that year, 1959. Worked at the B4 Ranch, did not put in a nickel. Off to college after high school, never put in a nickel. Never earned enough in the summer--there was an earnings limit--I never earned enough in the summer to contribute to Social Security. Went to the army. Never put in a nickel in those years. Got out. Went to finish law school. Started to practice law. The first year I practiced law, I put in $59 that year. Then the old man put me to work and he kept the money. I remember how that worked in the partnership. I put a shingle up and it said ``Simpson and Father,'' and he never got over that--instead of ``Simpson and Son.'' But I had a dear, loving father and we worked together. Then for all the years of my practice--I hope you will hear this--I never put in over $874 a year and neither did anyone else in America. Got it--874 bucks a year and self-employed, and no other person did either, because there was a cap. A person could make $100,000 a year and the cap was $12,000. A person could make $1 million and the cap was set at $12,000 or $8,900 or whatever it is, and you applied the percentage rate to that. I understand what Social Security is and what it was. So, earning the maximum, from the year 1959 until 1976, I never put in over $874 per year. Then off to Washington: $1,200 a year, a real hit there, and then $1,500 a year, and then $2,000 a year and then $3,000 a year up in the late 1980's, and now I think I am up to 4,200 bucks a year. Got it? If I retire at 65 I will receive $1,120 a month--got it? If I save my strength until the age of 70 and not take it until then, I will receive $1,540 a month. That is the way it is. That is Social Security. It cannot be sustained. There is no way it can be sustained. When I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, there were 16 people paying into this system and one person taking benefits; today there are three people paying into the system and one person taking benefits. In 20 years, there will be two people paying into the system, one taking benefits. Everybody in this Chamber knows that. Everybody who is a trustee of the Social Security Administration knows that. So this continual ritual is played out that somehow we are doing something hideous to senior citizens. If you retired in 1960, you got all your money back in the first 2\1/2\ years, plus interest. Got it in 2\1/2\ years, every penny back. In the 1970's, you got it all back in 3 years. Today, if you retired, you get it all back in 6\1/2\ years, plus interest. That is where we are, a totally unsustainable system. Who is telling us that? The trustees. Are the trustees all Ronald Reagan Republicans or far-right legions? No. No, they are not. The trustees are Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, Shirley Chater--one Republican, one Democrat--telling us very simply, in the year 2013 there will not be sufficient revenue coming in under this pay-as-you-go plan, only [[Page S 16586]] sufficient revenue to pay the benefits right there. At that point, in 2012, you have no choice but to cash in the bonds. You take the IOU's and you cash them in. If this passes, the interest rate is going to be .25 percent more. It will be good for the short term. It will take care of this for the short term. That is the Senator's intent. But if this is long-term solvency, it does not meet that test. It does not, because when cash-in time comes, you will pay more because the interest rate is higher and you pay more. I just think we should be very, very careful about making Social Security policy or any policy which may increase outlays without sufficient offsets on the floor of the Senate. I hope my colleagues will see this legislation, as I say, does not follow the sense-of-the- Senate vote last week. I know this is the intention. I attribute not a single ulterior motive to the Senator from Arizona. He is a believer. He says to me often, ``Look, I will get a vote on that, regardless of where you are.'' And he will and he does. And that is his forte. But, as chairman of the Social Security and Family Policy Subcommittee, we have not had a hearing on this. Win, lose, or draw, I will promise one on this. It makes no difference what happens here. I think we need to have a hearing on this to see that it comports with the long-term solvency of Social Security. The measure before us acknowledges that increases in the earnings limit will itself worsen the solvency of Social Security, so the offsets are offered. First, of course, is the across-the-board cut in discretionary funding. I have now information--I want to submit it for the Record--I think it is very important that we have these figures, that this measure cannot be scored as producing the necessary savings. This is from Congressional Budget Office today. This constitutes, thus, a violation of the Budget Act. This legislation, according to CBO, would add $9.9 billion to the budget deficit. That is a violation of the Budget Act. I point out to my colleagues, even if this offset were to make up for the projected increases in the deficit, it would not resolve the question of solvency in the Social Security trust fund itself. I hope you hear that. That offset money is going to come from the general appropriated revenue. Thus, the balance sheet within Social Security would not be improved, and that is what we have to improve if we are to meet the sense-of-the-Senate recommendation. It would not be improved in any way. Thus, I believe this offset would not meet the terms of that vote which we state we would only increase the earnings limit if--if--if the solvency of Social Security were not adversely affected. And finally, another proposed offset--and here is the one--you do not have to listen to it, you do not have to do anything with it, pitch it, throw it over the side of the ship, but the other proposed offset is a devastating one. It increases the interest rates paid on obligations within the Social Security trust fund. My understanding of this--and the Senator is here and can educate me--but my understanding of this measure is that it will provide a short-term infusion of capital. It will do that. I will agree to that. I will agree that that is the case. But over the long term and the long run, it would mean higher costs, higher outlays as the Social Security trust fund is drawn down. In fact, this legislation goes so far as to increase the interest paid, if I read it--and I need to know this--to increase the interest rate paid on such bonds that have already been issued, effectively reissuing them at higher rates of return, with potentially severe consequences for the long-term solvency of the trust fund. I am told that the increase in interest rates would bring the overall long-term costs up toward--and, in some cases, even beyond--the so- called high-cost scenario which is used by the trustees of the Social Security system to measure the long-term solvency of Social Security. They tell us where the high-cost scenario is, the low-cost, the mid- cost. In other words, then, such a measure would move the crash date for Social Security closer in time than it is under current policy. And remember where the crash date is today? It is 2029, crash date. Where was it in the early 1980's, after Senator Moynihan and many others of our fine colleagues righted that listing program? It was 2063. Now it is 2029. In another year, I suppose they will move it up to 2025. Then crater day will be 2020. So I have also asked the Social Security actuaries to review the consequences of the legislation and I expect to have that from them shortly. My mind is not closed on the subject. I will work with this fine friend and Senator, as chairman of the Social Security and Family Policy Subcommittee; be pleased to have the Senator as a witness, hold hearings. He has been a leader. I know he will continue to be, and indeed he will. But in the present moment I do not believe that in any sense we should go forward. I think the Senate should sustain the budget point of order lying against this legislation. This is far too serious an issue to be dealt with in this way on the floor of the Senate. I hope the Senate will not take an action which could conceivably worsen the long-term outlook--I am talking about the long-term outlook for Social Security, or which will cause an increase in the outlays permitted to the Finance Committee under the terms of the Budget Act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a letter dated today from June E. O'Neill of the Congressional Budget Office, citing the figures and where we are with regard to this additional $9.9 billion, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. I am talking about the point of order. The point of order which I made is nondebatable, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, as a matter of procedure, I believe that point of order that I made was nondebatable but I was willing to go forward. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes to reply to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SIMPSON. At that time, let the record show that it was not debatable. And I knew that, and I was willing to let my friend go forward. But let me just respond here. Of course, we are not into ridiculous questions to shoot back and forth at each other. Ridiculous or sarcastic questions serve no purpose here. I was there. So was the Senator from Arizona. And I can tell you not once did we ever discuss the long-term effects of Social Security on raising the interest rates on securities obligated to the trust fund, or to go back and reissue new interest rates on those. That I can tell you never happened. So let us get that very clear. We are not here to box each other around and whack on ourselves. We are here to try to get some reason on a very emotional issue which has a tremendous impact on Social Security. If anybody believes that by fiddling with the interest rates on the obligations of Social Security to get a short-term result to get something that someone is pledged to get, then I want to know where the rest of them are going to be too when we do another part of the Contract With America which is to not back, to expose only 50 percent of Social Security benefits to tax instead of 85 percent, and we will do that too. These are bills that nobody will vote against. That is part of the reason they come up. You do not dare vote against this. But I cannot wait for that vote because you know where the money is going to come from when we expose only 50 percent of this money, this benefit to tax instead of 85 percent. It comes from part A, the health insurance trust fund. I hope everybody is ready for that one. That will be contract day at the old ranch. So, I was there. I remember what we did. I am fully aware that we had hearings. I am fully aware of what they were about. And I am fully aware of what this one is about. It was not anything that we talked about or had a single word about in a hearing, especially with regard to the interest rate on the bonds. We need to ensure that we do not in doing this take actions that injure the long-term solvency of the U.S. Social Security system, and increasing these interest rates could have consequences of which we have no ability to determine. And we have not had hearings on that issue; period. I have only chaired this subcommittee for several months. If all these things took place before, more power to them. I will get back and rattle around in them too. We will all look at them once again. We cannot change too much, and then we will go ahead and pass it. And then people between 18 and 45, when they are my age, will look around and blink like a frog in a hailstorm, and they will deserve everything they get.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I then respectfully render a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, and state that in formal fashion. Madam President, the pending measure increases outlays in 1996 and over the 5-year period 1996 to 2000 in excess of the Finance Committee's allocation for these time periods. I therefore raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act against this measure. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. I made the formal point of order, Madam President.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I deeply appreciate those comments of my friend, and they are sincere. I take them that way. I am just glad to set that record straight. The Senator from Arizona and I almost have a signal on this issue. We will sit across the room and suddenly someone will mention [[Page S 16589]] something, and we just kind of go into a rigor and a catatonic state. Then we usually meet, he looking this way, and me looking this way. And I have found in life a very interesting thing; that oftentimes I see something in someone else that might irritate me. And it is most always something I do myself, that I do not handle very well in my own daily doings. With John McCain of Arizona, I will just say it takes one to know one. And we do. I commend my friend, and he is going to get a nice vote here. And he is going to be tickled to death. There you are. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I yield to myself such time as required, under the previous order of morning business.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I came to the floor this morning to speak lightly about the AARP, which I will do in a moment. But, as my colleague from North Dakota is here, and I have listened to his comments today, or a portion of them, and also over the past weeks listened to a series of these presentations about the rich versus the poor, and various allusions about what sounds to me almost like class distinction, class warfare, and also discussions of things like Social Security. My friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota asks: Why does someone not come to the floor and speak on the issue of trade? He relates that not four people will come to the floor to do that. I can tell you, not four people will come to the floor and tell the people honestly what is happening to Social Security either. It is going broke. And people here on this floor who speak a great deal will let it go broke. There is not any question about what will happen to it. And there is not a single argument rendered in this debate on reconciliation, where we are talking about Republicans taking from Social Security, where the Democrats did not do exactly the same all these decades. There has not been a single budget in my presence here that did not do what was just done here with Social Security. It was done under Carter, it was done under Reagan, it was done under Bush, and it is being done under Clinton. The Senator from North Dakota knows that. I am on the Finance Committee. There is not a single one of us who does not know that the same ``masking process,'' the same chicanery, the same smoke and mirrors has been pulled off by the Democrats and the Republicans in my entire 17 years here. There is not any question about that. The Senator's colleague from North Dakota is on the Finance Committee, and he would also share that information with the senior Senator from North Dakota. Without any question, if anyone believes that the Republicans are doing something different with Social Security than what the Democrats have done, the same way, the same years--or the Republicans--please be disabused. I think we should at least remember one--everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. If Social Security is going to be used in this way, as some horrifying example of being ripped to shreds, then go read the Trustees' Report of Social Security, which was not prepared by the hobgoblins of the right or Ronald Reagan or George Bush. It was prepared by three of the President's Cabinet: Robert Rubin, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, with the Commissioner Shirley Chater adding her dimension, and one Republican and one Democrat appointed from the general public. What do they tell us? They tell us that the solvency of Social Security is ``unsustainable.'' We can get another word, we can use ``broke.'' It is unsustainable in 75 years, unsustainable in every way. We know it, the Senator from North Dakota knows it, but more importantly the trustees know it. If anyone wishes to have a copy of that document, I will be very pleased to share it, because it shows that in the year 2013 we will have to be trading in the old IOU's and getting the bonds cashed, which is then a double hit on Social Security. Meanwhile--and I will get to my full theme a bit later--the AARP, this remarkable group of people, the American Association of Retired People, this extraordinary group of 33 million people bound together by a common love of airline discounts and automobile discounts and pharmacy discounts and every other discount known to man or woman, is a group of organized people who have already settled with the IRS on a claim of back taxes for $135 million. They asked their executive director, ``How did you pay that?'' and he said, ``We just wrote a check.'' They have $314 million in the bank, in T-bills. They lease a little hut down here in downtown for $17 million a year; a 20-year lease at $17 million a year. That is your AARP, speaking for ``the little guy.'' Where we are is--if anyone cannot understand it yet, is who we are going to hear continually about the little guy, the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the abused in society--and does anyone in America know how Social Security will be restored to solvency? There are only two ways. You reduce the benefits or you increase the payroll tax. And what do you think the senior groups are continually requesting? I can tell you, it is not reducing the benefits; it is increasing the payroll tax. And who pays the payroll tax? You got it, the little guy pays the payroll tax. The little guy in America is the ``stick-ee'' of this remarkable process regarding Social Security. If you will remember, our fine colleague from New York, Senator Pat Moynihan, and a ``Blue Ribbon Commission,'' in the early 1980's, got together and honestly put this program ``on the table'' and got off the table all the tired babble about Social Security, about the poor and the wretched, the disabled and the infirm and so on--got that off the table and said, ``This program is going broke, absolutely broke.'' Senator Moynihan and a remarkable group of Democrats and Republicans then came together. That is impossible in this atmosphere. The water in the well is so poisoned now on this issue, we could never address it again. You are not supposed to even touch it. My mail will fill the room and the phone system will bust down later in the day as I choose to address this remarkable issue of Social Security. So you have the situation where it was going broke and the Commission made some sensible recommendations. The recommendations were made in a very conscientious, bipartisan manner, to reflect that, if these things were carried out--and remember what one of them was; it was increasing of the payroll tax; but we were ready for that then--that the Social Security system would be saved until the year 2069. I hope you will hear that, 2069. That gave everyone a remarkable sense of a job well done. Except, since the early 1980's, through, now, the projections of the Social Security Administration and the trustees themselves keep moving up the doomsday date. And guess what the date of insolvency is now for Social Security? It is not the year 2069 or 2063 or 2050 or 2040. It is 2029. So since the early 1980's, Social Security is still long-term unsustainable, and the doomsday date--in just 13 years--has been moved from 2069 to 2029-- moved up 40 years. Next year it is very likely the trustees may present to us their report saying that it will not be sustained past the year 2025. What a tragedy. And here we sit--all of us just sitting. We know it. We all know it. I am going to accept the word of those three fine Democratic Cabinet members, who I respect and know--each of them individually. They are able Americans. I like them personally. We have our differences politically. But these fine people are telling us that in the year 2012--stretch it to 2013, if you want to--that the IOU's will be cashed in. Bonds will be then sold, and the American people will take a hit that will take the Social Security system from the year 2013 completely to bankruptcy in the year 2029. Everybody knows it. There is not a soul that can come into this debate and tell me that is not true. They will not come to this Chamber and tell me that is not true. We all know it. So we continue our process of these short-term fixes. Senator Bob Kerrey and I, in a bipartisan effort, have presented seven bills to restore solvency to the Social Security system. If you really want to get aboard, we are looking for cosponsors. But it is a little difficult to pick up cosponsors when you mention the secret sinister dual phrase ``Social Security'' and necessity to restore its ``solvency'' because people do not believe it. But Bob Kerrey and I believe it. [[Page S 16456]] So, if we are going to be doing some positive things, why, take a look at the good thoughtful bipartisan approach of Senator Bob Kerrey and myself and what we are doing to save the Social Security system-- without any gimmickry whatsoever. We are going to phase up the retirement age. We are going to let people put in 2 percent of their payroll tax into a personal investment plan where they can call the shots on that themselves, 4\1/2\ percent would then still go to the Social Security system, which will reduce the size of the benefit and will also help to salvage the system. If the American people understand nothing else--and the fortunate part of all this is that we have a year to tell them what really happened in reconciliation--if we had but just a few months or weeks, we would never be able to get it through the clatter, the flak, and the tinfoil that is being shot out over America to, I guess, divert truth. But we will have that opportunity for an entire year to tell the American people exactly what we are doing--such things as ``doing something'' with Medicare, which is going to go broke in the year 2002. You have heard that. You are thinking, there he goes again, and they are all nuts. They are just telling us that. We all know what we did in the reconciliation by allowing Medicare to go up 6.4 percent per year, and so I want everyone to be absolutely cheered to know that Medicare will now not go broke in the year 2002. No, it will go broke in the year 2009. Everybody knows that. I know it. Those on the other side of the aisle know it. The President knows it. Think of this. This is what is happening. These numbers are correct. No one can come and challenge these figures. Somebody will come in and say, ``He is terribly wrong. It will not go broke until the year 2012.'' That ought to cheer us all, too. It will not go broke in 2002. It will not go broke in 2009. It will go broke in 2012. That is pretty short rations in any form. If we are continually trying to frighten ``the little guy,'' then there is a good way to really frighten the little guy. Tell him or that Medicare will not just be there going up 6.4 percent each and every year; it will be broke, flat busted, out of money. Tell them that. That will get a reaction out of them--probably a little more startling than being told it had been cut. ``Cut schmut!'' How can you say ``cut'' when you go up 6.4 percent? That is exactly what we are doing. So if you like to frighten the little guy, let us do it right. Let us just get down to the political reality because we live in that arena. Let us say that we fail to tell our story in a year. There is not a question in my mind but that we will, and the American people know that finally a responsible political party decided to do something responsible. Let us say we fail, and they take up a pitchfork on November 6, 1996, and just pitch us all out in the snow, which they have a way of doing in this country--recalling that ``Get out before they throw you out'' is a great phrase in our line of work. Let us say they do that. And I guess the campaign then to that date to have done that would be a simple one. It will be that ``We saw what those rascals, the ragamuffin Republicans, did to you, and we are going to get it all back for you. We are not going to let Medicare go up only 6.4 percent, which is the horrible thing they did to you. No, we are going to let it go up 10 percent and 12 percent a year just like it did before. We are not going to let them get away with letting Medicaid go up only 4.8 percent. We are going to let it go up 9 just like it did before. We are not going to let them talk about phasing up the retirement age of Medicare so that it matches that same increment of Social Security, which we have already done.'' If that all happens then any figures that I have given you from the trustees or other sources--just accelerate them up 100 percent, and all of the systems will go broke even faster. Each and every one of them will go broke faster. Ladies and gentlemen, if we can also get away from the travesty of pretending that there really is a Social Security trust fund and that somehow we politicians on both sides of the aisle dabble in it and mix around in it with our hands as if it were something from the cauldron in the first act of Macbeth, as we draw it out of there and wildly spend it. Remember there is no Social Security trust fund. And we have never ``dipped into it.'' I take it back. One time we did. But that lasted only about 2 days. We spanked our own hands so vigorously the redness is still there. We never did that again, and cannot, and will not by law. So, these funds are all in IOU's because the law on Social Security says whenever there are surpluses in Social Security--and there are huge surpluses right now, and they will become ever more magnificent. They could reach $2 trillion before 2012 when the big decline, the final fall off, the ultimate drawdown, begins to take place. So here we are knowing these things--all of us. All of us know it, and we all know, too, that the surplus cannot be used except to be placed in securities of the United States of America, secured by the full faith and credit of the United States. So every single penny of reserves of Social Security is, by law, used to purchase T-bills, savings bonds, whatever, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and purchased by your bank, and purchased by individuals and other nations' too. The interest on those securities is not paid from any Social Security trust fund or funds. It is paid from the general Treasury of the United States of America. No one can come to the floor and say that is not the case. So, when the time comes--and it is coming soon--for when I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, there were 16 people paying into the Social Security system and one person taking benefits out. Today, there are three people paying into the Social Security system and one person taking out, and in 20 years there will be two people paying into the Social Security system and one taking out. How long do you think that the younger generation then is going to sit and put up $10,500 each, two people, to sustain a person at $21,000 a year or $20,000 or similar amount on Social Security? The saddest part of the debate in the last 3 years was that this President, President Clinton, put in his first budget--and I commend him sincerely and heartily for it--an entire section called ``intergenerational accounting.'' It was powerful stuff. It was real. It was true. It talked about what is going to happen--the program is unsustainable, what will occur to the young people, and how it has to be adjusted. Yet this time in his budget presentation there was not one single word about ``intergenerational accounting,'' not a word. I find through my less-than-positive sources, since I labor in minority status there on Pennsylvania Avenue, that the good, thoughtful people on the President's cabinet and staff wanted to include that statement again, Secretary Reich, Dr. Alice Rivlin, several there--but that the ``political types'' in the White House said: Do not touch that one again. You touched it the first time and it was so true it even leaked down and people could understand what was going to happen to those systems. But do not touch it this time. So we did not touch it. He did not touch it. And then he appointed this fine commission to look into these entitlements, with Bob Kerrey and Jack Danforth as chair and co-chair. They did a beautiful job. Read their report. I commend that to anyone. Then soon after that appointment we did another little statute that said we owe it to ourselves to examine into these various programs, and somehow we left off the word and the entire program of ``Medicare.'' We will not address the word ``Medicare.'' The word ``Medicare'' is left out, and that is the one that is really eating our lunch. That is the one that is going to go broke, and that is the one we all know will go broke. Now, if we can wade through this type of garbled activity in these next days and weeks, we may be able to get there. If we can wade through it in the next year, we may be able to get there. And who did this? Who visited this sinful pile of debt upon us? Well, let me tell you. I hope the American people understand who did this. We did this. This was not done by Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter or George Bush or President Clinton. We in the Congress did this. The Presidents of the United [[Page S 16457]] States get not a single vote on this. They can veto it, yes. But no votes . I have watched this game for 17 years. Wire up a budget, ship it to the President, see if it will blow up under their chair. It is a great trick. Democrats are highly skilled at it. Republicans, it will take us a little longer to learn. Put it together, roll it back and forth up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, and see if it will detonate under whose chair. And that will not solve much for the people of America. But we did this. There is not a one of us in this Chamber, including your loyal scrivener and correspondent of the moment, who did not ``hire on'' in some way to bring home the bacon. Bring home the bacon: Go get the HUD program; go get this center; this building; go get the farm money; go get this; go get the dam; go get that; all accompanied with a press release. Who do you think did it? Nobody but us. I do not have the courage I used to, to do the press release anymore saying, ``Senator Simpson announced today more bucks for his State.'' It is a good way to get reelected forever, I guess. People I know who have been here have done just that. Bring home the bacon. I would love to share with you the outlay of Federal expenditures per capita to the various States of the Union, and then you might know who represents those people in this Chamber of the Senate. You would be very intrigued to see who brings home the most bacon, who burdens the taxpayers--burdens the taxpayers most. Mr. President, $3.6 billion goes to one State with only 0.2 percent of the population of the United States. How about that, $3.6 billion in Federal outlays to a State with a population of 638,800. That is a per capita spending of almost $6,000 of taxpayers' money per person. It is No. 6 in the country per capita. Those things need to be known, and they are not known. It is time they were known if we have to get into this kind of a continual ritual that somehow this is abject trickery or somehow it is ``the rich versus the poor.'' Ladies and gentlemen, I know this is shocking, but I have a theory about what we might do with the rich. Oh yes. Instead of taxing them more, we might well confiscate everything they have. Just take it all. Take every stock certificate, every yacht, every ranch, every villa or home, every trust, and just snatch it, take it. Go down through the Forbe's 400 and the Fortune 500--I am talking about individual wealth now--and just snake it off the table, every penny. And guess what? It will run the country for about 7 months. Got it. It is a figure of about $800 billion. Yes I am talking about the Wal-Mart money; I am talking about every family in America that we look upon as ``the rich.'' Take it all and it will run the country for 7 months because, ladies and gentlemen, the budget of the United States this year is $1.506 trillion. Got it? One year. Does anyone believe that we are not ``doing something'' for Americans? Can anyone believe in their heart and mind and soul that we are doing nothing for our country and its men and women and children when we are spending $1.506 trillion this year--1 year--1 year to run the United States of America? I know it is painful to go through these figures again, but it is very true that 1 percent of these ``rich'' pay 27.4 percent of all taxes in the United States of America. Oh I know I should not even have said it. And the top 5 percent pay 45.9 percent of all taxes in America, and the top 10 percent pay 57.5 percent of all taxes into the Federal Treasury of America. The bottom 50 percent pay only 1.5 percent, ladies and gentlemen. Those are figures from the Census Bureau, figures from the IRS, figures from the GAO report, and that is that. So when you give tax relief, which the President desperately wants to do too--the President of the United States has decided that he wants to give people a tax cut. We in the Republican faith have decided that we want to give people a tax cut. The President of the United States has said that he would like to see Medicare go up only 7.1 percent. We are saying that we would like to see it go up only 6.4 percent. So we are not that far away. Obviously, the President and this Republican majority are right on track with Medicare, but you would never know that. Oh, no, a serious ``cut'' is taking place. What is it then that the President is doing? Is that not a cut? You either cut or you cut or you slow an increase or you slow an increase. A rose is a rose is a rose. So if the 6.4 percent increase of the Republicans is a cut, then the 7.1 percent increase of the President is a cut, and we and the public should both use the same vocabulary on that. We will get there somehow. If we dull the rhetoric and the warfare, we will get there. So I just think it is always appropriate to talk about Social Security. And when people come to the floor and say let us leave it off, we ought to leave off the table Social Security, well yes we all did that. It was a magnificent flight from reality. How do you leave out of the equation something that is worth $360 billion? Social Security, ladies and gentlemen, is $360 billion a year. As we scratch around for money on this floor, where we are looking for something for my State or something for the State of the Senator from North Dakota, looking for only $100,000 or $2 million or $3 million, I can tell you where we could have found a ton of it. You just saw a cost-of-living allowance go out to Social Security recipients regardless of their net worth or their income. It was $8.7 billion. Mr. President, $8.7 billion went out to all of the recipients of Social Security on a 2.6 percent COLA, judged by the CPI, Consumer Price Index, and all of it with no means testing, no affluence testing, nothing, some of it going to people who have gotten all of their Social Security taxes back in the first 5 years. You know that, I know that. To some people the difference is not the cost of living but the cost of living it up. And we make no means test. No affluence test of any kind. You have the issue of part B premiums. If we are really talking about the little guy now, I want to hear much more about the little guy when we talk about part B premiums because, ladies and gentlemen, part B premiums are totally voluntary. Part B is totally voluntary. It was never part of any contract with anyone, certainly not with the seniors, because you step up, and they say, ``Do you want part B? If you do, you are going to pay $46.10 a month.'' And $46.10 a month is 30 percent of the premium. So, ladies and gentlemen, if you really want to talk about the little guy, then remember that the wealthiest people in America who have voluntarily chosen part B coverage are paying 30 percent of the premium, and the people that maintain this building at night when we shut down the action in this ``cave of the winds,'' the people who are working hard here, are paying 70 percent of the premium for the wealthiest people in America. Got that? Not one person can refute that. I want to hear from anyone on that one, if we have any rebuttal at all on that one. There will be none. So, 70 percent of all the premiums on part B, which is voluntary and which is an income transfer program, are paid by the general taxpayers of the United States. Let me conclude. I have here in my hand the most fascinating and intriguing mailing sent out to me by ``the mother of all mailers'' in the United States. This is the AARP I speak of again. The mother of all nonprofit mailers. And 1.5 percent of all mail in the United States under their particular permit class is by the AARP, ladies and gentlemen. And a larger percent of the mail men and mail women all over America get hernias carrying their good works and telling of the unselfish efforts of the AARP--applications for credit cards, insurance, investment advice, and even tax counseling, which is a dazzling array of services. I think they do need tax counseling because, you see, they settled with the IRS for $136 million that they had not paid in taxes because of unrelated business income. But remember, they just wrote a check. That is your poor, beleaguered AARP. But, anyway, they sent this. It came to the mother of one of our colleagues. Of course, the AARP is, as I say, the mother of all nonprofit mailers. You might remember them. We sent that group $86 million in Federal--that is, taxpayers'--money last year. This is also the noble group that rakes in more than $110 million-- million--annually in insurance premiums and does not pay any taxes on that. [[Page S 16458]] Prudential, New York Life, RV Insurance, no; remember they get 3 percent of every premium paid--from Prudential Life Insurance Co. And this is also the group that has over $300 million in T-bills just ``sitting around,'' lying around. But one clear use they have found for all their vast money is to use it in what I call ``astroturf'' lobbying, which is different from ``grassroots'' lobbying. Surely you know that. You know what astroturf is. It is fake grass, phony, a synthetic facsimile. And ``fakery'' is a pretty darn appropriate word to describe the tactics that they employ in this piece of correspondence. I honestly, for the life of me, cannot figure out how an organization of this size, power and clout cannot afford to hire some poor soul to get their facts straight. Maybe they do not care to. Perhaps deception is the intention. For starters, they say that the Senate ``will vote on a proposal to cut Medicare spending by $276 billion over the next 7 years.'' There is that word ``cut'' again. We will want to see it again when they describe the President's proposal on Medicare, which is a 7.1 percent increase in Medicare. We will see if they use that word ``cut'' again. They used it again when they say ``this level of `cuts' is unprecedented,'' even though they all know full well that under this plan Medicare will go up 6.4 percent per year, faster than any other major spending category in the budget. And, ladies and gentlemen, does anyone in this Chamber or in this country believe that if we are able to do this--and we will--that 7 years from now we will say a 6.4- percent increase was not enough, so we should raise it, or say 6.4 percent was too much, and we will now let it go up by only 2 percent a year? By then nobody is going to let it go up only 2 percent a year. No, we will always, from now to eternity, let it go up 6.4 percent or more per year because that is the figure we picked. And then tack 20 or 30 years onto that percentage increase and you will really see an unsustainable program, totally, totally, hideously unsustainable. Here is another one for you from this AARP mailing. It is a real chuckler. A headline that says, ``No Medicare Coverage Until 67.'' They usually have a block wreath around that or extra emphasis on the ink in the title. ``No Medicare Coverage Until Age 67.'' Is that not funny? Because I thought the current AARP members were sucked into this gargantuan operation when they were 50 years old--and they are. You can be a member of the AARP at the age of 50 by paying your $8 or picking up a copy of their magazine, usually a 4- or 5-year-old magazine, perhaps at the dentist's office. They include that as a membership. If there are magazines laying in these places, that is a ``member,'' I think, to them. So you can be 50 years old and be a member--whether retired or not. The plan before the Senate last week would have gradually increased the eligibility age to 67 over a span of 24 years, and never faster than 2 months per year and, thus, not fully phased in until the year 2027. Guess why we did that? Yet it was taken out. I hope the people of America will realize what will happen by taking it out. We did it that way to match what we have already done with the Social Security Program, which is already on the track for this kind of a phaseup. Hear that. So in this deception how old will the youngest current AARP member be then in the year 2027? Well, they would be 82 years old. They will have been collecting Medicare for more than a decade by the time this proposed eligibility age increase was fully ``phased in.'' In other words, not a single person who is an intended recipient of this mailing would be affected by the full impact of that, not a single person. In fact, no current AARP member would see their eligibility age postponed by more than 1 year--more than 1 year--no current member of the AARP. Now, that is a real slick organization. They also say that ``only $110 billion'' in cuts are actually necessary to restore solvency to Medicare. And for how long, I might ask? And they then say to the next decade. ``Through the next decade,'' they retort. Great. So up through the year 2005 then, only 3 years later than the current crash date. What chicanery. What bald-faced balderdash. Actuarial solvency is measured by the trustees over a 75-year period, and it is unsustainable. They know it and you know it and I know it. But the good old AARP is content to let the system go belly up in 10 years. It strikes me as quaintly odd that the AARP can get so agitated over eligibility ages that will not even be fully effective for three decades and do not care a wit about Medicare solvency beyond the year 2005. What a group. Here is another intriguing one for you. They express outrage that under our plan ``beneficiaries with incomes above $50,000 would pay a much higher monthly premium. How long,'' they ask, ``will it be before Congress lowers this to $40,000 or even $30,000,'' implying, of course, that any attempt--any attempt at all--at means testing or affluence testing of anything is dangerous and dastardly oppressing. Oh, I wish I could tell you how many times AARP representatives have come through my door, along with ``Edna the Enforcer.'' You have seen that wonderful cartoon by Jim Borgman of the Cincinnati Enquirer; ``Edna the Enforcer'' making her rounds for the AARP in the dark of night. She is a husky one. She comes in, and they have a caricature of me in the most emaciated form, actually--most shocking! I am saying, ``Don't pull the phone tree, Edna, not the phone tree!'' and then she gives you ``the word.'' Well, those are clever, and Jim Borgmann is one of the best. I met him many years ago. Go look at it. Its a kick. See it. So they have come to my door, the AARP, and visited with me and my staff, and they say this. Here is what they say: ``Oh, Senator, you are not correct, but we do support some kind of means testing or affluence testing. We would like to call it 'income relating' but not affluence testing. But we agree, it's the way to go. Of course, we can't come out too far in front of it, but we understand you're on the right track.'' That is the word you get in your office. That's what they tell me. What their members are hearing is something quite, quite different. Then ``income relating'' is the word they have now used, as they call it, and it is portrayed as a sinister precedent--a harbinger of evil things yet to come. What a courageous outfit. Then, of course, another letter has gone out from them about the CPI. They are saying, ``Oh, for Heaven's sake, don't mess with the CPI.'' I am on the Finance Committee. Not a single person from Alan Greenspan to all the experts we saw said anything but that the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, was ``overstated.'' And get the rest of this latest letter to all of us. This is supposed to make you cringe and certainly your staff is supposed to cringe when you get this in your mailbox from the AARP dated October 23: If Congress adjusts the CPI in the absence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics findings, AARP would regard such action as ``a thinly disguised effort to cut COLA's and raise taxes.'' I also know what that is. That is a thinly disguised threat. Then they go on to say, which they all do, and you know what they say, that the people who will be hurt the most will be ``the near poor, mostly single women permanently pushed into poverty,'' in addition, and so on and so on, not thinking that if they go broke, the poor in poverty will really be pushed into something grotesque. So this is the kind of rubbish that I see spewed out from the AARP through Horace Deets, John Rother--and they are genial people--except when they are not, and also their full chorus and company of apologists, paid actuaries accountants, lawyers, trustees, and trustors. Their budget for staff is $60 million a year. Try digging down through various entities and the foundations of the AARP. It is like digging through the Pyramids of Egypt. They have the Andrus Foundation, this foundation, that foundation, and nobody knows the bucks that they have in each of the stack. They have never come up with anything new, and everything they do can be refuted. Just as when they said to the IRS, ``We do not owe you any taxes, don't you understand,'' and then they paid 136 million bucks to ``settle up'' and wrote a check. When they said to [[Page S 16459]] the Postal Service, ``But we're permitted to mail our insurance solicitations at nonprofit rates,'' and the Post Office said, ``No, you're not,'' and they had to cough up $2.4 million to get off the hook there, and that will be the eternal struggle for them and should be. Remember, this is the group of worthies who clog your mailbox with 1.5 percent of all the nonprofit mailings in their class in the United States and this is evidence of the level of trust and reliability that they have in this country. If everyone in Congress really likes to thump their chest and say that they always stand up to the special interests, well, the AARP is the biggest, toughest, canniest, most powerful slugger, the most ruthless and, I think, the most deceitful of them all. So I trust my colleagues will show their true mettle and legendary courage in ``standing tall'' as we all deal with this remarkable 1,800- pound gorilla in the days and months to come. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.