Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I never dreamed, when I came on the Finance Committee, we would be involved with so many vigorous activities. Of course, this was the principal beginning, and now, within these next hours, our committee will meet to decide how to trim some $470 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. And that is a must or else that program will go broke in the year 2002. Welfare reform is long overdue. We have had 2 weeks of debate on all of the issues. It is time to pass this in a bipartisan way, give these programs over to the States. What we have done before has failed. So change is difficult, but something is very, very wrong with welfare. We know it. The Democrats know it. The Republicans know it. The President knows it. Now is the chance--to have a chance for the States to run these programs with much less Federal regulation, much more flexibility. They have recognized the needs of so many of us in this body. I want to commend leader Dole, Bob Dole, Senator Dole, on listening to our concerns, paying careful attention to our needs at every level, every State receiving necessary attention to the things that concern us and, because of his efforts, this is now a bipartisan effort with most Senators voting to support this legislation. He has accommodated many of the Democratic concerns, including much needed child care, State maintenance of effort, and a contingency fund for the States. I thank him for his efforts. We will wait for the conference report but, hopefully, those of us who have been involved in this one so long know it is better to get a crumb when you cannot get a loaf, in this type of work. Thank you very much.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on Friday, I joined with the Members of this body, and with all the citizens of our Nation, in commemorating the American service members who are missing in action and whose fates yet remain unknown. Our Nation honored those who are missing, both for their service and for their sacrifice. We acknowledged the shared loss inflicted upon all of us when young men and women are sent to war and do not return to us. We expressed our understanding of the terrible frustration, and, yes, even the anger, energized in us by the fact that the fates of those American service members remain unknown. We restated our sacred obligation to take every reasonable step to obtain the fullest possible accounting for those still missing. We endorsed anew our national commitment to recover and identify the remains of the honored dead. Yes, it is so important to honor our missing service members. And it is necessary to ever remember our obligations, both to them and to their families. Yet it is also important to acknowledge that there are practical and realistic limits to what can ever be learned. There are mysteries that will remain forever unsolved in this world. We do our Nation's service members no justice if we fail to take every single reasonable step to recover them when they are lost from our midst. But we do them no honor--yes, we even dishonor them--if we are to allow their loss to become an albatross forever about the necks of our caring countrymen. Mr. President, Friday our Nation paused to commemorate our missing in action, including members of my own family in World War II. Today, and every day, we must remember their service and their sacrifice. And today, and every day, our Nation can continue to honor them by ensuring that America remains wholly committed, at home and abroad, to the freedoms they fought to preserve forever.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. As I understand it, this amendment is intended to cover those few programs involving little cost in which an individual income determination is not required.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, as in last night's activity, a difficult and emotional issue, couched in the terms of immigration and welfare--either we do something or we do not. It is very simple. The Dole welfare reform bill would for 5 years require the deeming of a sponsor's income and resources in the case of a sponsored immigrant seeking public assistance. Immigration law is riddled with compassionate loopholes and people are fed up. We must place sensible controls on these continuing conditions or Americans will be in terminable compassion fatigue. This 5-year deeming period is consistent with the 5-year deeming period for SSI, which we did last year. It is exactly the same as that 5 years. It is exactly the 5-year deeming period for AFDC and food stamps proposed by the President of the United States in his own welfare reform bill, the President's proposal. The sponsor's assets and income are deemed to be those of the immigrants when you come to the United States. The only immigrants affected by this 5-year deeming period are those who have already entered within the last 5 years and who apply for or are already receiving public assistance of some form or amount. Please hear that. Remember, please--and you cannot miss this point--the people who are admitted as immigrants to the United States, to this very generous land, are here only after their sponsors convinced the visa officer that the immigrant would not require public assistance at any time--not just for 5 years or the first 3 years or any year, but at any time, and that they would not become a public charge. Under the Graham-Simon amendment, sponsored immigrants who have entered within the past 5 years could continue to receive assistance under programs which they already benefit and could apply for and receive assistance under many other programs immediately, and several others in less than 3 years. Most other Americans would certainly question that fairness, when their own children cannot get in those programs because they happen to be native born. Keep in mind, now, these persons were admitted only--only--because they were able to convince, to make a promise to the visa officer that they would not become a public charge, and the law says ``at any time.'' This amendment would therefore have the purpose of relieving the immigrants and his or her sponsor from that promised obligation to give the required assistance, and the good old American taxpayers would then take over to the tune of $623 million over 5 years. I want to emphasize that clearly again. Before an immigrant can be admitted, it must be established that he or she is not likely to become a public charge, that the real contract the immigrant and the sponsor have with the American people, the real promise of America, is keeping promises. Whether the affidavit of support is for 3 years or 5 years is much beside the point. The understanding was the immigrant would not become a burden on the public of the United States, especially not in his first 5 years in the United States. What would the American taxpayers say if they knew we were admitting persons as immigrants who they knew would then be covered under this amendment, would be able to receive public assistance so soon after their arrival, even within 3 years? My colleague from Florida is honestly concerned about college students in his State who are recent immigrants who may want to receive public-funded college assistance. It is good and in our national interest that the newcomers seek to improve themselves through additional education and training, but the agreement of admission, the promise made was that the immigrants and his or her sponsor would take care of the cost of that education and not the American taxpayers. A sponsor is a sponsor is a sponsor. If the Senator says that we must maintain the status quo and not change the rules of the game, there is a good way to do it: reject this amendment because the rule of the game is the newcomer must be self-supported, not likely at any time to become a public charge. Those are the words of the immigration law.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the time for the Senator from Wyoming?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I think 5 minutes would be adequate. Mr. President, again, this is one of those areas of dealing with immigration and welfare and deeming provisions. Let us understand what deeming is. The sponsor brings you here to the United States, and his or her income is deemed to be yours. You as a sponsor are responsible for this person coming to the United States, for their assistance, their welfare. And you cannot come to the United States at any time if you are going to be a public charge. At any time you become a public charge while you are still in this category, you do not come on as a naturalized citizen. You must be self-sustaining. That has been the law since 1882. So, again, we are at one of these impasses where I am surprised some of these have been successful. This is an ancient ritual. It is about people who say we want to do something about legal immigration, we want to do something about illegal immigration, and we want to do something about people who misuse the systems. But we do not. Now, in the last Congress, we increased the deeming period for SSI to 5 years. We did that. We already did that. In his proposal--I hope you all hear this--President Bill Clinton in his proposed welfare reform bill raised the deeming period for AFDC and food stamps to 5 years. This President, President Clinton, has agreed that this is what we should do. That is what the Dole bill quite logically and properly then does. It sets a deeming period on all welfare programs at 5 years, in accordance with the directive and the wishes of the Justice Department and the President of the United States. Please remember that the folks that are affected by this amendment were admitted as immigrants only--only--after they and their sponsors promised--promised--that they would not become dependent on public assistance at any time, period, not just for 5 years, but for any time. Now, under this amendment, they would be permitted to access the public welfare systems of the United States after only as few as 3 years in the United States of America. The sponsor [[Page S 13608]] would be off the hook, relieved of his promise of support, and the taxpayers would take over. I think that is basically very wrong. I guess to paraphrase the words of Gertrude Stein: A sponsor is a sponsor is a sponsor. If you do not want to take care of someone when you bring them to the United States, do not sponsor them. If you bring them in as an immigrant, you have to. That is why people have misused the refugee programs. If you come here as a refugee, the Government takes care of all of it. So we have people coming here as refugees who do not qualify in any way as refugees. We have presumptive refugees in certain areas of the world who wait 1\1/2\ years to come here after they have been designated as a presumptive refugee. You talk about gimmickry of the system. I have been at this game for 16 years, and there is plenty of it. And this amendment would cost $623 million over 7 years. I want to say, too, that the students who the Senator has expressed concern for are sponsored immigrants who have been in the United States for less than 5 years. They are persons now seeking public assistance for college education who have a sponsor who promised, in order to get that immigrant admitted, to provide whatever assistance the immigrant might require in order to avoid becoming a public charge. That is where we are. It is not pleasant in any way to continually year after year stand here and try to present the issues as they really are without being described as mean spirited, pinched, riven, uncaring. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about often people with a grand design of how to gimmick the systems. And if you really are watching, keeping your eye on the rabbit, this is not in any way helpful to the welfare system or to the immigration laws of the United States. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes to speak in opposition to the amendment of Senator Feinstein. I admire the Senator greatly. She has contributed so much, so vigorously, to my efforts and members of the subcommittee. This is an issue of an honest difference of opinion. I oppose the amendment for several reasons. I hope that my colleague will hear them clearly. To begin, I want to put to rest some serious misconceptions about the sponsor alien deeming--the ``deeming'' provisions in this bill. Please know that the bill's immigrants provisions do not affect anyone in the United States who is already a naturalized citizen. Please hear that. Similarly, noncitizens within the United States who become citizens will also be wholly unaffected by the bill's immigrants provision. Deeming provisions which the Feinstein amendment seeks to alter affect only those who immigrate after enactment. This Nation's policy on welfare used by immigrants should conform, in my mind, to three basic principle: First, the newcomers should be self-supporting. That is our Nation's first general immigration law. That was put on the books in 1882. It prohibited the entry of individuals likely to become a public charge. To this day our law prevents the immigration of those who are ``likely at any time'' to become a public charge or to use welfare. That is the language--``likely at any time.'' Second, if a friend or a relative has promised to the U.S. Government that the newcomer will not require public assistance as a condition of that person's entry into the United States, and that is the condition, then it is the responsibility of that sponsor, that friend or relative who has promised the support, to provide aid before the newcomer turns to the American taxpayers for relief. Third, the welfare system should not induce immigrants to naturalize for the wrong reasons; for example, to obtain access to welfare. We should avoid provisions which would enable a recent immigrant to obtain a benefit or a sponsor to avoid responsibility solely by naturalizing. If we do not require the sponsored individual to disclose this particular asset in this situation--and that is the sponsor's contract to provide financial support and have it considered in the welfare determination--then we are treating the naturalized citizen better than we do the native-born citizen. I hope my colleague will hear that. When native-born citizens apply for welfare, they have to disclose their assets and their income, including court-mandated payments such as alimony or child support, or any contractual obligation. Under the welfare reform bill, a native-born citizen and a naturalized citizen would be treated exactly the same. There is no second-class citizen status. Both would be required to disclose all assets and income which reduce ``the need'' for public assistance. If naturalization enables both the sponsored individual and the welfare provider to ignore an individual's right to receive support from the sponsor, then the taxpayers will be much more likely, and, of course, the sponsors less likely, to provide the needed assistance. Also, immigrants would have a very strong incentive to naturalize for all of the wrong reasons, and the wrong reasons are to receive public assistance. One of the principal reasons for the general animosity toward immigrants' use of welfare is that many naturalized citizens have brought their elderly parents to the United States where after 3 to 5 years, a period of deeming, the immigrant's parents receive SSI for the elderly. These elderly parents, who have never contributed to our system in any way, then receive a generous pension for the rest of their lives from the American taxpayer. And if deeming is ended, simply by naturalization, then the immigrants could receive the welfare just as if the sponsor's legalization, or legal obligation, never existed--and as early as 5 years after entry, to boot. Immigrants, I think, should naturalize because of a personal commitment to the democratic ideals and constitutional principles that America represents, and that, namely, is liberty and democracy and equal opportunity--not in order to find access and enter into the welfare system. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SIMPSON. I just came to the floor many minutes ago to debate a different amendment. But I see apparently there is no one on the other side of this, and that should not go untended. If I may then speak in opposition to the amendment, that, first of all, this amendment is not about domestic violence and the other tragedies that visit upon our Nation. I have found--and I share with my colleague from California that on these issues of immigration, filled with emotion, fear, guilt and racism, your colleagues during the entire day say, ``Alan, we are very pleased to assist you in all this work.'' But when it comes time to stand on the floor, they are absent in great droves--droves--I have found, because these are not popular issues. How about cash assistance, noncash assistance? The Senate has already accepted an amendment from Senator Wellstone which will address all concerns about violence, domestic violence, all that. That is clear. That has already been done somewhere along the line. This amendment exempts all noncash programs from all of the immigration-related provisions within this entire welfare bill. The cost of it is $707 million. We are never going to reach the reconciliation instructions with this welfare bill. And the Finance Committee has now been charged--there are some on the floor. Senator Bradley serves on that committee. Of all the savings to be obtained in reconciliation, $607 billion are to be saved. And the Finance Committee is supposed to find a way to save $503 billion or $530 billion of that. This welfare bill has already taken us over the jumps. Senator Santorum will tell you that, the occupant of the chair--yes, yes, the occupant of the chair will tell you that we are a little bit over our mark. And we have done that out of charity and kindness and caring. And that is fine; those are good motives. But we are way over the target with this bill. Now, this amendment exempts all noncash programs and, as I say, all of the immigration-related provisions within this bill. Before a prospective immigrant may enter the United States, that person must guarantee that he or she will not use public assistance, I say to my colleagues. That has been the law of the United States since 1882. It never worked because the court systems, in their interpretation of it, made it simply a neutered statute. So you could not prove anything. The deeming was overturned and sponsoring agencies scoffed at it, relatives scoffed at it. So what was a very precious thing--and it is still on the books, since 1882, that a person will not become a public charge when they come to the United States of America. That person indicates by oath that they will not, and the sponsor is indicating that they will not allow that usually precious relative to become a public charge. So, finally, in the Finance Committee, we corrected this abuse, a terrible abuse of the system, the kind of thing that makes people sour on immigration, sour on our precious heritage. That is what happens here. So, in turn, we have this measure which requires immigrants to look first to the sponsor, this friend or this relative who guaranteed this support. They did this. They could not bring them unless they did this. So we were saying in the bill, before receiving any public assistance, the sponsor is responsible for you, and his income is deemed to be yours for purposes of this. In the public's interest, the Dole bill then exempted certain limited programs, such as childhood immunizations and school lunch. I have no problem with that at all. Senator Feinstein's amendment would exempt all noncash programs. This includes Medicaid, public housing, job training and any other program which does not provide cash assistance to the recipient. That is where we are. I have a hunch where this amendment will go. It will be well received, but it is $707 million, and we are going to have to go find that somewhere in this process. Guess where it will come from, very likely? Medicaid. That is where it will come from, unless someone can tell me another approach to it. So here we are again with an immigration-related issue which has to do with compassion, kindness, tenderness. I know those things. Those are emotions not foreign to me, but I also know how this works. It is a great infertile field to just add and add and add. Sponsors have committed that the sponsored immigrant will neither require nor use assistance from the taxpayers of this country from any Federal welfare program, and that is the law of the United States of America. To be consistent, all Federal welfare programs should require the sponsored immigrant to look to this friend or this relative or this sponsoring agency for assistance before turning to the American taxpayer for support. We are not talking about illegal, undocumented persons who we care for with emergency medical assistance and hospital assurance. We are talking about people who are playing on the up and up when they came, sponsors who were playing on the up and up when they came, which was a very simple procedure: ``You come, I'll take care of you until you become self-supporting.'' That is the law of the United States of America. You keep making these exemptions, and now we have to go find $707 million. I wish it were not a money item. It certainly is more than a money item. It is called responsibility for those you bring to the United States of America as a sponsor under the law of the United States. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, yes, that is true. The Wellstone amendment took care of battered women and foster children, without question.

Mr. SIMPSON. That was taken care of very nicely by Senator Kennedy. We agreed to exempt Head Start and soup kitchens. That has been done.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as far as I know, that, too, is also true, yes. But, Mr. President, there is another issue. The bill itself provides that there is a year period--an entire year--if a person is abused, if there is no money, if the sponsored individual is not there, or whatever may happen, it says that in the absence of assistance provided by the agency, if someone is unable to obtain food and shelter, taking into account the individual's own income, plus any cash, that is taken care of in this measure for 12 months--without question, whatever the reason. So this is not a case of some draconian business where we delight in taking people and waiting and suddenly see them fall into disarray and then whacking them or hitting them in the head. What will get hit in the head is Medicaid with this one.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have not much time left. I just want to say again that when a sponsor gives an affidavit of support--if we are talking about the things cherished in America, let us talk about keeping a promise. That would be a good place to start. When a sponsor agrees to bring in an immigrant, they agree that that person will not become a public charge. Not just for 5 years or 3 years, but the law says at any time. That is what the law says. I did not invent it. It came on the books in 1882. It says at any time, not just 5 years, not just 3. It does not matter what was thought to be agreed to, the sponsor is deemed to have their assets considered the assets of the immigrant for a period of any time, and that is the law of the United States and a contract or an obligation to do that----

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we have already agreed to a Wellstone amendment which had to do with battered women and foster children, the exemption there. There was a Kennedy amendment with regard to Head Start, soup lines and kitchens. We have agreed to that. This opens up this bill. This includes Medicaid, public housing, job training and any other program which does not provide cash assistance to the recipient. We have a year's gap in the bill to take care of people in extremity who are broke or sponsors that cannot make it, or people who cannot make it and have no food and shelter. That is all in this bill. For a whole year we take care of those people. This opens the gate for $707 million. I do not know where it is supposed to come from--maybe Medicaid.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as many of you know, through the years, we do immigration reform legislation. It is always materially dressed, and then when we come to tough votes, we do not stick. This is one of those. We are not making second-class citizens of anyone. We are saying that whether you are naturalized or whether you are native born, one of the assets that is considered as to whether you are a public charge should be a contract, should be a court-ordered support, and we think that one of the things that should be in there is the affidavit of support of the sponsor. That is all we are saying. That does not make anyone a second-class citizen. If you do not include that, then, in my mind, you are going to induce people to naturalize so they can get into the public support system. That is why I object to this measure.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Feinstein. I welcome these expressions to toughen the sponsor's promise that he or she will ``not at any time''--that is the law--permit the sponsored immigrant to become a public charge. That, in my mind, is a very key phrase. To me in this debate it means before naturalization and after naturalization. I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the thoughts of my friend from California and will look forward to working with her on the issues of the sponsorship. I think that is a key thing. I think we can strengthen that, and I will look forward to working with her on that and on things such as insurance or support, releasing those who are not able to pay or be sponsors, perhaps setting a poverty level there. We can do those things. But I emphasize, too, we always get into immigration matters. Every one of us is a child or a grandchild or a great-grandchild of immigrants. That is my history, my heritage, my roots. And it is most interesting to me when I hear the discussion of the second-class citizen. I agree totally with my friend from California; there is no distinction between a naturalized citizen and a native-born citizen except the Constitution. This certainly does not draw the distinction. If there is a difference here, it is a difference expressed only by the sponsor of the amendment, because we are treating them exactly the same. We are treating the naturalized citizen and the native-born citizen exactly the same under this. I agree we should not in any way treat them differently, treat them as second-class citizens. Treat them the same. So here, in this case, as the bill is drafted, a native-born citizen today must disclose all assets when applying for welfare and the naturalized citizen should also, likewise, disclose all assets as well. One of the assets of the person to be naturalized is a contract of their sponsor that they will take care of them. It is the same as a court-ordered sponsor agreement. It is the same as any other thing, any other obligation of life. The sponsor's contract of support is an asset of the naturalized citizen, just as alimony or a child support agreement is an asset that must also be considered. We treat the naturalized citizen no differently than we do the native born. Both must present all of their assets while seeking public assistance. That is the intent of the legislation in its original form. If the sponsor loses his or her assets and income--please hear this-- the deeming period is over. If the sponsor dies, the deeming period is over. If the sponsor has too little wherewithal or assets to assist the immigrant, to help with school or whatever, the deeming then will not reduce the applicant's ability to receive this assistance. It is very critical that we hear these distinctions. What is the remainder of my time?

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Senator Mack is correct. Although the term ``assistance * * * for which eligibility is based on need'' in title V of H.R. 4 would apply to most forms of student financial aid, the unsubsidized student loan program is indeed a financial aid program which is not based upon need. Therefore, this particular program would not be subject to the deeming period or 5-year ban established in title V of this bill.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, the affidavit of support may be for 3 years. But the overriding understanding of the American people is that the immigrant will not become a burden upon the taxpayers or the public. That is the issue. There is no other issue, especially not in his or her first 5 years here. It never would have been allowed to take place if they knew they were going to access the public support systems in the first 3 years of their presence here. That is what this is about. That was the real condition of admission. We are forgetting something here.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in the last Congress, we increased the deeming period for SSI to 5 years. The President of the United States, in his welfare reform package, revised the deeming period for AFDC and food stamps to 5 years. We are trying to follow the President of the United States and his viewpoint. Then you wonder where the support is coming from. I can tell you where it is coming from: A small cadre of educational institutions. That is where it is coming from. We are not going to injure them in the process. We are just saying that a sponsor's promise is a sponsor's promise. I have been in these things for years. I am not the expert in any way. I would not even indicate that. But I do know what interest groups are when you deal with immigration. They come out of the woodwork. They are all out here right now, I suppose. There will be cadres of them. But one of them here is the group of educational institutions who see this, if this can get done, as tuition money, paid for. We have Pell grants, we have all sorts of things. We do take care of people in society. No one should miss the fact we are going to vote on a debt limit of $5 trillion in a few weeks, and Medicare will be broke and Social Security will be broke in the year 2031 and will go broke and start its decline, its swan song in 2013, and we will not even deal with that on the floor of the U.S. Senate, either party. Talk about obligations. And then just trot up $623 million and no place to get it. That is my humble viewpoint of this pointed issue.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment introduced by my colleague from Vermont. This amendment would strike the so-called ``illegitimacy ratio'' from the welfare bill. Let me just say obviously it is a difficult amendment, obviously a difficult area, a laudable pursuit, but I represent a state that values confidentiality and privacy and am greatly concerned about the inaccuracy of the data collection. I do agree with the Senator from Vermont when he says that ``federal strings often do not produce the desired behavior modifications and can even produce unintended negative results.'' I think this ratio is a clear example of just that. We all agree that the intentions of such a provision are in every way laudable, however, the implementation of such a ratio is what concerns me. We all want to reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births in this country. Every one of us. This issue is of major concern and needs to be addressed at all levels of government. I want to commend my colleagues for bringing this important issue to our attention. However, as a legislator who is pro-choice, I remain concerned that this ratio will actually hinder women from receiving abortions if and when they choose to do so. States possibly could actually restrict access to abortions in order to ensure that their abortion rate does not increase. Making abortions more difficult to obtain would obviously help to lower the abortion rate and that is the part that greatly concerns me. In addition, coming from a state that so greatly values confidentiality and privacy--the right to be alone. I am greatly concerned about the inaccuracy of the data collection. We do not have reporting requirements on abortions in my State for physicians or public health officials. The physicians in Wyoming fiercely value their anonymity in this matter. The State does not seek more accurate reporting from them for fear of violence. Wyoming has four abortion providers and access is very much a huge problem. In fact, most women in Wyoming travel to Colorado or Montana if they choose to have an abortion. Privacy is such an overwhelming concern in Wyoming, especially in our small towns. This ``ratio'' simply would not be an accurate indicator of abortions in any State for this very reason. Colorado and Montana's ratios would be skewed since they would have to account for the women who do travel to their States to have abortions. This is not a problem isolated to the Rocky Mountain States--this occurs across the country in every single rural and frontier area. So I remain deeply concerned about the lack of reporting procedures that currently exist, and this amendment will only aggravate this problem. It does not provide for any additional funding for States to set up the extensive reporting procedures that will be needed in order to calculate this ratio. If we pass this ratio provision, we will in fact be passing on another unfunded mandate to the States. We should all deal honestly with the issues of teenage pregnancy and illegitimacy, but there are so many other ways to address these matters including appropriate sex education in the schools, if I might add. For these reasons, I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend, my colleague. Senator Exon came to the Senate when I did. His consistency on this has been clear through the years, and we have taken care of the problems brought up by Senator Graham and by Senator Kennedy. I look forward to working with the Senator on these issues, as with Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the subcommittee, which I chair. We have also taken care of in this amendment veterans issues. There will be no diminution of veterans benefits, no denial of veterans benefits to someone who may have been illegal but [[Page S 13569]] served the country. So it takes care of that and takes care of the education issue. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not want to interrupt the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SIMPSON. May I inquire whether I may receive 30 seconds from the Senator from Nebraska?