Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered with respect to S. 1664 occur beginning at 2:40 p.m. today, with the first vote being 15 minutes in length and any stacked votes in sequence be limited to 10 minutes, with 2 minutes for debate, to be equally divided, between each vote.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I further ask that any votes remaining to be disposed of at 3:45 p.m. today be further postponed, to begin at 5:30 p.m. in the order in which they were debated and under the same time restraints as mentioned above.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Chafee amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I direct my comments now to the amendment of Senator Graham. I conclude in my remarks, I do not believe that the Federal Government is going to be a deadbeat dad in this situation. In fact, I am reminded of the old road sign, the picture of the very dapper-looking Uncle Sam that says, ``He's your uncle, not your dad.'' We are a very generous nation. Medicaid has been picked to bits by the States. Medicare has been picked to bits and will go bankrupt in the year--originally we were told 2002; now we are told it will be 2001; now the other day it will be 2000. We can talk about this all day and there will not be enough to do anything unless we deal with the entitlements programs. You will not want me to give that pitch again-- deal with Social Security, deal with Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement. Nothing will get done. We can pick through these piles forever. Then, of course, remember how this is happening. You are talking about legal immigrants. I did not see much activity on this floor to do much about legal immigrants. There will be a million of them next year and they will all be fitting right here, and nobody, at least the vast majority, decided to do nothing with the flow of legal immigrants. I hope that those colleagues who have already voted to keep legal immigration at its historically highest levels in the history of our country at least will know what is happening when we find the resources of this country, where they are and where they go, for legal immigration. But remember this: If the sponsor is unable to provide the support, loses his job, dies, whatever, the Federal Government will pay. The Federal Government is here to support those people --and it should. I encourage my colleagues to read the bill. We provide an exception for indigent immigrants whose sponsors cannot be located. We have it in there. If you cannot find their address, cannot hunt them down, or if they refuse to pay, the Graham amendment--let us be clear what the amendment does--allows the States to exempt themselves from the new welfare restrictions and forces the U.S. taxpayers to pick up the tab. I want to be perfectly clear here. CBO says that this bill, as modified by the Simpson-Dole amendment, does not have any unfunded mandates. There are no unfunded mandates in the Simpson amendment, which is the bill. There were unfunded mandates in the original legislation which underlies. So when the point of order comes, it will look strange to you because it will say that there was an unfunded mandate--and there was--but it is corrected when we get to the final product. We have already removed the unfunded mandate portion of those provisions. I think that should be made quite clear. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is like a symphony. We are returning once again to the central theme: This is about deeming, and it is about the sponsor paying what the sponsor promised to pay. I hear every one of those remarkable and compassionate examples that the Senator from Florida portrays. I know him well. He believes deeply in this. He is a caring person, and he obviously is receiving a great deal of information from his State and from those who administer health care in his State. I understand that. I understand it all. However, I understand something even more clearly, and that is this. We are talking about legal immigrants, and a legal immigrant cannot come to this country, cannot get in until the sponsor has promised and given an affidavit of support that the person coming in will not become a public charge and that whatever assets the sponsor has or income that the sponsor has are deemed to be the assets of the legal immigrant. Too bad we have come to the word ``deem.'' The word ``deem'' seems to confuse people, but I think with the votes we have had the last few days, or 2 or 3 days on this same issue, they are not confused. Deeming means that if your sponsor has money, his money is considered your money when you go down to get relief from the taxpayers. I do not know how that seems to escape the debate. When you walk up to get money from the Federal Treasury, from the rest of us, why should the rest of us cough up the money when the sponsor has not done it yet, or has not run out of money himself or herself? That is the issue. There is no other issue. Now, what if the sponsor is in trouble? What if the sponsor cannot cut the mustard? What if the sponsor says: I did agree to bring this person to the United States and I did agree that they would not become a public charge, and I did agree to sign an affidavit of sponsorship, and I promised to do that, but I cannot do it. I have had a bankruptcy. I have lost my job. I cannot do it. And what happens then? That is it. The sponsor is off the hook, and the taxpayers pick up the load. Nobody is saying that these people wander around in the streets; that they do not make it; that they are not going to make it. All we are saying is whatever the program, if the sponsor has the assets and the income stream and can afford to pay, that sponsor will pay before the taxpayers of the United States pay anything, regardless of what it may be, with the exception of what was in the managers' amendment, which was in the committee amendment, which was about soup kitchens--that is in there. We do provide that--and there were several other items, and Senator Kennedy will recall what those are. If this is one that I guess our colleagues do not understand, then I think we have failed in the debate, and people may vote it certainly either way. But I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It is one more amendment on deeming. The amendment would allow State welfare agencies to avoid the requirement to deem if the State agency itself-- now listen to that--it is the State agency itself determining that, one, the administrative costs would exceed the net savings or, two, that Federal funds are insufficient to fund the administrative costs, or, three, that deeming would ``significantly delay or deny services in a manner that would hinder the protection of life, safety, or public health.'' The enactment of the bill itself would create a congressional requirement for deeming, for Federal and all federally funded programs, and that requirement is based on the basic belief that after immigrants are admitted to the United States they should be self-sufficient. It is based on the belief that when immigrants need assistance, such assistance should be provided, first, by the immigrant's sponsor who made the initial promise, and if they have not made the initial promise, these people would not have been admitted to the United States. That was the sponsor's promise. That was a condition of the immigrant's admission to our country, a very generous country. And I do not feel it should be up to a State welfare agency or even a Federal welfare agency to decide that such deeming should not be required. Let us face the real basic fact. You have some agencies in some States and, boy, they have a tremendous drain--I am sure Florida is one--created by a legal and illegal immigrant population, created by parolees, created by Cubans and Haitians. I understand that. I do understand that. And that is why we provide and always have provided in this work for extra money, extra money always for Florida, California--I remember that in the original bills. I remember that. But let us face the facts. Those agencies, for the best of motives, are far more interested in spending money than in saving it. Mr. President, if the Congress decides that deeming is not appropriate for particular programs or particular classes of immigrants, I think then and only then the deeming should not be required, but it should not be done by State fiat. Let me just say a few words about the issue of administrative costs. The Senator from Florida mentions the administrative costs to the States of the deeming requirements. I remind my colleagues the deeming requirements only apply to programs that under current law are means tested. The effect of deeming is that when an immigrant applies, as I say, for assistance, he or she must report to the provider not only his or her income and assets but also that of the sponsor. That just adds another line or two to the application form. So to be told that this is a terrible administrative burden, here is how I foresee it. You fill out the form, and it says on there your assets and your income. You fill it out, and you add two new lines: Do you have a sponsor in the United States of America? If the answer is yes, you say, what are the assets of your sponsor in dollars? And you enter it. And the second line: What is the income of the sponsor? And you enter that. That does not seem to me to be a great administrative burden. But, how deeming is enforced, and I hear that argument, how agencies determine whether applicants are telling the truth, of course is another matter, as we all know. I assume various agencies will have different enforcement policies, as they do today. Some may require verification of income levels from every applicant. Some may adopt an audit-type approach similar to that of the IRS. I do not understand why the bill would lead to any change in that situation. Enforcement policy would be determined by the agency involved. It appears likely to be similar to current practices. If an applicant's own income must be verified, and I assure my colleague that is always the case, then the income of the applicant's sponsor also is likely to be verified also. That is the extra administrative burden, and the purpose of it is to find out what they have, and if they have it you make them pay it before the rest of us pick up the tab for people who promised to pay for them when they came here or they could not have come here unless they made the promise. I do not know--and I respect greatly my friend from Florida, and certainly consistency and persistency are his forte--but I just think the American public has a lot of difficulty wondering why the general taxpayers have to pick up the tab for anything on someone who came here on the sole promise that their sponsor would take care of everything and that they would not become a ``public charge.'' Now, under the present bill, if they become a public charge for 12 months out of the 5-year period they can be subject to deportation, with certain clearly expressed exclusions. I regret being in a position where one would have to be portrayed as, ``Why are you doing this?'' We are doing it only because I think Americans understand something about taking care of others. Our budget this year is $1,506,000,000,000 so we must be taking care of someone in the United States of America; $1,506,000,000,000. Food stamps, cash, noncash, I vote for those things and will continue to do so. But I do not know why I should do it if someone agreed to pay it before I had to pay it. I guess I have enough regard for my own promises, that if I promise to bring people to the United States and pay for them and they went down to get some kind of means-tested assistance or welfare, I would be embarrassed that I could not cough up the money to do it because they are probably relatives of mine and I promised they would not become a burden on the taxpayers. I would keep that promise. I have done that with relatives of mine. I do not know why that should be the responsibility of others. And that is where we are and that is what deeming is and there is a reason for it. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have not visited with our majority leader, but the plan is to conclude the debate on the pending amendments. So I am ready to set aside the pending amendment and go immediately to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island, if that is appropriate. I believe there is one other amendment to be offered by Senator DeWine. There is a Senator Chafee amendment. There is the Graham amendment. The Simpson-Kennedy amendment is pending. We would like to complete the debate. So, if the Senator from Rhode Island would like to offer his amendment at this time--we can set aside and continue debate later on the Graham amendment with no time agreement. We will try to get a time agreement on these various measures. If the Senator wishes to enter into a time agreement, I would enjoy that opportunity.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island offer an amendment with a time agreement of 20 minutes equally divided, and if the Senator should require more time, I will yield sufficient time from what little time I have left. What is the status with regard to my time, Mr. President?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, when we eventually enter that unanimous- consent request, indeed there will be the usual provision and assurance that there will be 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham's amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there is no one more sincere in his beliefs than my friend from Rhode Island. He is a man of great integrity and courage, and I admire his strength as he does his work. He is good at it. This is another one of those amendments--this is my view of it, which I get to express--this is exactly what this is, another form of this amendment, of what we have done before in six previous votes and will do again. We are considering an amendment which would have the effect of shifting cost from the persons who sponsor immigrants, usually their relatives. We are shifting that to the American taxpayers. This argument of how could we possibly do this for illegal aliens and not do it for legal aliens who are paying and doing their share is a great argument. The reason we allow illegal aliens to receive certain benefits, if the alien is needy, is because most Americans are like Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island or Senator Al Simpson of Wyoming. The issue is, they should have that basic support system if they are needy. I have voted for that consistently. There were some in the House of Representatives who did not want to consistently stay with that support level. I have never been of that category. Most Americans, almost all Americans, would agree that that is a wonderful thing to do for illegal aliens who are here and who are needy. The immigrants, the legal immigrants, can also receive all of those benefits, too, if they are needy. I hope you hear this. I think I will never make it through any more of it. If a legal immigrant is needy, they will get everything in the left-hand column. I hope you hear that. But if they have a legal sponsor who said that he or she was bringing these people here only on the condition that they would not become a public charge, then when that legal immigrant goes in to get a means- tested program, cash or noncash, they say, ``Are you needy?'' and he says, ``I am.'' They say, ``Do you have a sponsor?'' ``I do.'' ``Does your sponsor have any money?'' ``Yes.'' ``How much? List it.'' If that sponsor has funds, that sponsor will pay the bill and not the rest of us. It is then a confusion, I guess, for people. It is deemed that the sponsor's income and assets are the assets and income of the legal immigrant. So when they go to get those benefits, they are not going to get them if the sponsor has money. If the sponsor does not have money-- and I want this very clearly heard, because the Senator from Massachusetts is saying, what will happen, what will happen if the sponsor does not have the money, cannot meet the obligation? Ladies and gentlemen, it is very clear what will happen if the sponsor cannot cut the mustard and something has happened to the sponsor, the sponsor is sick or ill or bankrupt or whatever, then the sponsor is off the hook. That is listed in this bill; a determination that, if the sponsor cannot meet the obligation that they assumed in the promise, once that determination is made, then the U.S. taxpayers will pick that up. That is the purpose of our effort. The issue is just as simple as it always was: Sponsor or taxpayer; take your choice. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, after serving as this leader's assistant for some 10 years, I do know that he does desire to move things along rather adroitly. We are ready to do that. Let me share with my respected leader where we are. No one has come over to debate on the Simpson-Kennedy amendment, so I think we are ready to proceed with that. I think we are nearly concluded with regard to the Graham amendment--I think maybe another 5 minutes or so. The DeWine amendment is an amendment about coerced abortion in China. I think it is out of order. Respectfully I say that. A point will lie toward that. I do not know if the Senator will be coming to address that. I think he will. Then we have the Chafee amendment under a time agreement which is nearly expired. That is it. So I am sure that that is cheerful news for the leader. There is a point of order, too, I share with Senator Dole.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the leader. I think that would be an appropriate scenario. I hope that might be part of a unanimous-consent request, with that time set, with a 15-minute first rollcall vote, and 10-minute votes thereafter. There will be four votes and a point of order, with a 1-minute explanation on each side of the three following votes, not the first one. We would be ready, I think, to propose that.

Mr. SIMPSON. I will just take another 2 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in this rather unique 2 minutes, I want to go back to the chart of Senator Chafee, if I may. I have been given this stick. I want to tell you in 2 minutes that these people here, under the category ``legal immigrant,'' ``no, no, no,'' that these people are taken care of. They receive emergency Medicaid, they receive prenatal postpartum Medicaid services, they receive short-term emergency disaster relief, public health assistance, and the sponsor is paying for them--not the taxpayer. These people are not deprived. When we say how can they be receiving something that the illegal is receiving, they are receiving it, but we are not paying for it because the sponsor that agreed to bring them here and pay for them to not become a public charge is paying for them. The reason we do this for illegal immigrants is because we are a very generous nation. I have voted for all of that. I am not generous to somebody who brings someone here and says they will pay the whole tab and they do not.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I think at this point we will say debate on this amendment is concluded and it will be voted on in accordance with the unanimous-consent request which will be propounded shortly. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island very much.

Mr. SIMPSON. Perfectly appropriate. You require one person from the other party, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996, at 2 p.m. to hold a nominations hearing.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee to investigate Whitewater Development and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 2, 1996 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I now send to the desk the amendment I have described. By previous unanimous consent, amendments 3753 and 3754 were combined to be considered as a single amendment.

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

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am going to proceed with a discussion of an amendment which I believe I will send to the desk because Senator Graham and Senator Chafee apparently will not be here until approximately 11 o'clock. So we will proceed with the amendment. I will send it to the desk in a moment and proceed with the debate on the amendment. The amendment would modify section 112 of the bill relating to pilot projects on systems to verify work authorization and eligibility to apply for public assistance. It has three parts. The first part would require that at a minimum three particular pilot projects--remember, these are pilot projects. Remember, whatever one is selected has to have a second vote in this Chamber years down the line. This is not tomorrow. This is not next year. The purpose of the amendment is to require these to be pilot projects rather than the present language which makes it somewhat optional. The three parts are: The first part would require that at a minimum three particular pilot projects be conducted; one providing for telephone verification of Social Security numbers; one providing for use--pilot projects again--for use of a counterfeit-resistant driver's license with a Social Security number on it, but only in a State that already issues such a license. We are not imposing this as a national standard. But if the State of Wyoming has a driver's license with a Social Security number on it, which they do, that State will have the pilot on a counterfeit-resistant driver's license. Then the final one involves the confirmation of the immigration status of aliens, but with regard to citizens only, an attestation only for citizens, which people have said in the debate--I think it is a good debate--``Why should a U.S. citizen have to go through these procedures?'' The answer is, we will have a pilot project to find out. But I certainly hope that we could do that and require eventually, through the pilot project, only an attestation by persons who are claiming to be citizens. Under the present bill, current bill in its present form--after the amendment yesterday, this is in the bill--there are seven different types of pilot projects that are specifically authorized, but none is required. Senator Kennedy and I have concluded that it is especially important that the three projects I have specified are conducted, at least these three. The other four, making up the seven, that is fine, too. I think we need to study every possible aspect of this. The first type of pilot project providing for the telephone verification of the Social Security numbers of all new employees was a recommendation of the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and is and was the most frequently discussed option as it was in the House of Representatives. The second type providing for use of a counterfeit-resistant driver's license with a Social Security number on it in a State that already issues such a license--please hear that--would have the major advantage that employers would be required only to check a single document, one that is already in existence. There would be no new documents, no new database, no new procedure such as a telephone call verification. The third type involving confirmation of the immigration status of aliens but only an attestation by persons claiming to be citizens. That would also have a major advantage, in our mind. Employers would not have to verify employees. They would have nothing to do in that situation. Of course, in that situation, the obvious weakness in such a system is the potential for false claims of citizenship. That is why I did offer a separate amendment which was accepted, I think, in the manager's amendments, creating a new disincentive for falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, which will be a new ground of exclusion and of deportation. I think that will be very effective in reducing that obvious weakness. Because of the potential advantages of these three approaches to verification, I believe that the Attorney General should be required to conduct pilot projects on those. Mr. President, the second part of the present amendment provides that if the Attorney General--and this is very important for employers-- again, if the Attorney General determines that a pilot project adequately satisfies accuracy and other criteria such as those relating to privacy, precious privacy, discrimination and unauthorized use, two results can follow. First, the project's requirements will supersede any verification requirements under current law for participating employers. In addition, the Attorney General will be authorized to make the participation mandatory for some or all employers in the pilot project's area of coverage for the remaining period of its operation. Here is what the intent of this portion of the amendment is. It is that no employer be subject to requirements of doing both the current law and the pilot project in which participation is mandatory. Of course, an employer can voluntarily participate in any project without any preliminary determination by the Attorney General, or anyone, that the criteria are adequately met. If there is no such determination, the requirements of both the project and the current law will be required, trying to assure there is not a double burdening upon the employer. The third and final part of this amendment defines words ``regional project.'' That was thoroughly discussed in committee and I believe referred to here yesterday and the day before. This amendment defines a ``regional project'' as a project conducted in an area which includes more than a single locality but which is smaller than an entire State. This definition is included because section 112 of the bill directs the President, acting through the Attorney General, to conduct several local or regional pilot projects. The reason the amendment is so crafted is that some persons have expressed concern that the reference to ``regional projects'' could be interpreted to mean projects involving several States. Then this could create something close to a de facto nationwide system, especially if there were a number of multistate projects. Thus, the reason for the amendment. Yet, such a system would not have been the subject of a Presidential recommendation or report and subsequent enactment of the legislation as would be required in the bill before a pilot project can be implemented nationwide. Let me say that again. Before any project, whether regional--and this defines regional--whether national, and this will take years to do, before the recommended pilot project--the ``preferred alternative,'' I suppose, would be the phrase--in some future year would be presented to the Congress, and then a second vote would take place with regard to which of the pilot projects would eventually come into the statutes of the United States. That is the essence of the amendment. I look forward to the discussion of it. Amendments Nos. 3853 and 3843, en bloc

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have no further comments with regard to the amendment, but I emphasize to our colleagues that we are going to proceed and try to accommodate each and every one of the Members who are involved in the amending process. We are certainly not going to cut off debate, but let all be aware we are going to finish this bill today in the morning hour or the darkening color of evening. I must relate to the occupant of the chair that the Senator from Massachusetts handed me a tattered document from some calendar of some kind that says, ``What State is home to more pronghorn antelope than people?'' I believe the occupant of the chair and I know the answer. It is our native State of Wyoming. But we also have a story we tell of the old cowboy out fixing his fence and doing a nice job. A tourist lady came by--I think Massachusetts plates--and she said, ``I understand you have more cows than people out there. Why is that?'' He looked at her with steady gaze, hooked his thumb in his belt, and he said, ``We prefer 'em.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me just relate where we are, and then I will certainly yield, and we can ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus continue for 7 minutes as in morning business. We have our order from yesterday, and we are going to go forward with four amendments, perhaps a motion, and we intend to finish this bill today. I know Senator Kennedy feels the same. He, particularly, so he can get on with his minimum wage issue--no, excuse me, I am sorry. He will eventually get on with that. We do know that. We do know him well. So I hope Senators will--and I know the Senator shares my view--come to the floor and process these floor amendments so we can move on to the next item of business. We are going to finish this bill. The sooner the better, and we will call for third reading at some appropriate time this morning if the action does not go swiftly. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.