U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Parren Mitchell (D-MD) rails against considering adopting a "pass card system similar to that in South Africa," pleads with colleagues that whatever else is done with the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, the possibility of a national ID system be removed. Several males (o/s) ask for Mitchell to yield; Rep. Edward Roybal (D-CA) wishes to recognize Chairman of House Immigration Committee. Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) refers to page 9 of the bill, explains "nothing will authorize directly or indirectly the issuance or use of a national identification card." He says all conversations in committees and subcommittees have stated that nothing like that could happen. Rep. Mitchell wishes to reply and Rep. Roybal (o/s) yields.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Parren Mitchell (D-MD) is not satisfied with clarification made to Simpson-Mazzoli Bill: "It's so easy for those in this House, who have never been the victims of oppression or surveillance, to say that we are making the safeguards, and the House would have to vote to protect it." Mitchell asks for more time, is granted more time by Rep. Edward Roybal. Mitchell continues voicing concerns, fervently advocates there should not even be the suggestion or possibility of national identification program. Roybal yields to Rep. William Donlon Edwards (D-CA) who asks for Roybal's observations. Roybal explains strategy in legal language that would have to reconciled in committee with the Senate.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Edward Roybal (D-CA) requests five minutes, which is granted. Roybal lays out his arguments against a national identification system. Though he is aware that there will be no immediate program in place, he sees the possibility of a system emerging that "will enslave the American people." While it is originally designed for working people, it's easy to see how the system would gradually encompass more people, invoking a system that came about under Nazi Germany. A card system did not work there, but there was a dog tag worn by Hitler and shown off as a way of identification. Roybal makes clear that he doesn't believe the U.S. is going backward to the Nazi regime, but it will be the start of rights violations where people are known as numbers.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Edward Roybal (D-CA) continues stating opposition to national identification system. While there is no such explicit language in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, it is open to the possibility in both Senate and House versions of the bill. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA) asks for Rep. Roybal to yield, and he does. Lungren points to language in the bill that states "nothing herein, directly or indirectly, shall be utilized for the purposes of a national identification card." Rep. Roybal states that Rep. Lungren is correct, that is what the language states, but that does not mean a different type of identification can't be established, such as a dog tag.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Edward Roybal (D-CA) believes the country would be going backward if the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was passed as currently constructed, and the responsibility would be placed on Democrats because they in control of the House. They can stop this. Roybal makes a plea for liberty, for upholding the rights of American citizens. Deleting the language in the bill that even keeps open the possibility of a national identification system would provide a clean slate for negotiation to begin with the Senate. Should the bill continue with the language as it stands would like to the American people protesting in both Democratic and Republican conventions.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Daniel Lungren (R-CA) is recognized; adult, predominantly Caucasian, males and females seated around the House Rostrum. Lungren begins rebuttal by stating the difficulty in getting fellow colleagues to see the facts in front of them instead of dealing with strawmen. Immigration reform is difficult enough without need to argue points that aren’t in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill. Lungren states the past two days have had picketers outside his office calling him racist for supporting the bill. The press attaches him to favoring identification cards, dog tags, Hitler’s Germany, and apartheid South Africa, but none of those things are in the bill itself.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Daniel Lungren (R-CA) begins reading the portions of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill that supposedly deal with possibility of a national identification card, in order to show in plain language there is no such thing as a national ID card. The bill plainly states the President may make recommendation after three years, and within a strict set of guidelines that specifically bans national identification cards; adult male (o/s) asks if he will yield, which he will after he’s finished. Further, for the purposes of hiring, if anyone is required to present an ID, it can only be presented to an employer and no other purpose. Rep. Lungren yields.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Parren Mitchell (D-MD) responds to Rep. Daniel Lungren’s argument by stating he has no intention of stigmatizing him with abhorrent characterizations. Mitchell states his worry about the language. He acknowledges reading the words, and they are clear, but so were the words “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal” and other laws written, but not carried out as intended; his concern being the intent of the language. Lungren interjects, saying the language also requires Congressional approval to make changes, so does Mitchell not trust his colleagues? Mitchell trusts his colleagues but is wary of the “human frailties” that, along with “tempestuous periods in history,” cause people to betray their best intentions and integrity, and cites post-Civil War history as an example.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Daniel Lungren (R-CA) argues the language in the amendment simply asks the President to make recommendations to Congress. The power still lies with Congress. The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill is trying to create a system which applies to all employees precisely to avoid discrimination. Lungren points out the Senate version of the bill gives the President authority to act without Congress. Yet still, any “system” cannot be used for law enforcement purposes other than for bill enforcement, and that includes carrying or showing any ID documentation. Lungren understands if his colleague wants to take out provisions of the bill he disagrees with, like employer sanctions, but asks the argument not be made that supporters are in favor of a national identification card.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Edward Roybal (D-CA) states Democrats want to delete the language about the study in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, which will place the committee in better position to negotiate with Senate. Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA) understands but does not see how negotiation takes place when one party believes the other wants to implement a national identification card. They go back and forth on the importance of words and meanings in relation to the debate text in bill, with Roybal referencing similar debate that took place around the issuance of the Social Security card. The original language has been violated since that time and a Social Security card is needed for many more things than just employment.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA) thinks it is ironic that removal of the language and amendment would remove the very words that would prohibit a national identification card. Furthermore, to strike this amendment would be to deny Congress knowledge; that it is fearful of receiving information from an administration, Democrat or Republican. Rep. Lungren believes that Congress is “adult enough” to receive said information and make an informed judgement. He repeats that the study is for a period of three years after which the President will make a recommendation for Congress to review; that is all. Rep. Edward Roybal (D-CA) retorts that he is talking about the negotiating power now between the two houses of Congress, not the three-year study. Rep. Lungren yields to the Chairman of the Immigration Committee, Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) (o/s).
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
Chairman of the Immigration Committee, Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) states his objection to striking the language of the amendment entirely on the grounds that then the House goes into negotiating with the Senate on an “all or nothing basis”. The Senate version of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill would allow the President to mandate a program after the three-year study. At least the current House version of the bill allows for a middle ground. Reps. William Donlon Edwards (D-CA) and Daniel Lungren (R-CA) briefly argue about what the subcommittee requested from the full committee; Rep. Edwards referencing a national identification card while Rep. Lungren rebutting that it could be an implemented program, but not one that allowed any kind identification card. Elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House mediates debate time, adult Caucasian males and females seated around House Rostrum.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
Elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House recognizes U.S. House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). Rep. Frank compliments only to then criticize Rep. Parren Mitchell’s (D-MA) (o/s) rhetoric surrounding the language of the amendment in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill when it comes to using apartheid in South Africa as an analogy. For that to come remotely close to the language in the current bill, there would have to be a systematic absence in morality. Rep. Frank yields to Rep. Mitchell who states apartheid in South Africa was only one example. Rep. Frank states he’ll get to his other points and criticisms.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Barney Frank’s (D-MA) rebuttal to the amendment language in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill references the very origin of the bill. Opponents first claimed that restricting the language of the bill to only those who are at risk of being in the U.S. illegally would lead to discrimination. The language was then broadened to include everyone, and now there is criticism accusing proponents of the bill of creating a national identification card. Rep. Frank argues that a system of identification that applies to all peoples protects minorities. What kind of system that will be is unclear, which is why the President is allowed to make recommendations for Congress to consider. Rep Frank stresses that this bill will not require any type of identification that must be carried on person at all times. It will only be pertinent when applying for a job, proving nothing more than legal status to work in the U.S., and stipulations in the bill.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) continues rebuttal to arguments made against the amendment language in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, addressing the argument that no matter the language, there will be those who ignore and exploit a national identification system. Law breakers won’t break only one law, they are usually repeat offenders who would hassle and harass job seekers and employers with or without the amendment’s current language. Rep. Frank stresses that all that is trying to be accomplished is to establish a system precisely to avoid hiring discrimination, especially among minorities. Rep. Frank goes on to rebut the arguments against the amendment made by Rep. Parren Mitchell (D-MD) (o/s), but not before requesting three additional minutes after his time expired.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) concludes his rebuttal on past laws by stating the intent did not match with the law or language of the law. There is no malicious or evil intent behind the language in the amendment. It is meant to prevent discrimination, not encourage it. Rep. Frank yields to Rep. Parren Mitchell, who states even the study of a national identification system is repugnant to the process of democracy. No one would support a study on euthanizing senior citizens. The idea of it is just repulsive. Rep. Frank reclaims his time and fundamentally rejects the notion that there is any evil intent behind a law that would verify a person’s employment eligibility. Comparing that with a study on euthanasia wrong, and so is the “slippery slope” argument whereby legislative actions cannot even be considered because future outcomes may or may not be favorable. Rep. Frank yields to Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) who compliments Rep. Frank.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) briefly states that there are safeguards in the language of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill that ensure no system can be imposed by the President and that both houses of Congress must approve. Additional time is given by the elderly Caucasian adult Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House; adult Caucasian males and females seated around the House Rostrum. Rep. Robert Garcia begins his rebuttal of Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) arguments, calling “the ‘silliness of this debate”. Rep. Frank immediately calls back his time and angrily states that is not the word he used, Rep. Garcia apologizes. He states that the motives in question will be most acutely felt by the minorities who are arguing against this version of the bill. Rep. Garcia is asking for the House to listen to the minority representatives telling them that amendment language is unacceptable instead of being told not to worry and to just “go along”.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is curious who is telling Rep. Robert Garcia (D-NY) to “go along”. That is not the crux of his argument. He accepts dissent and disagreement, but does not believe he has been disrespectful or dismissive of anyone’s concerns at any point along the crafting of the bill. Rep. Frank simply sees nothing wrong with a Presidential study, and people are free to disagree, but he has not been cavalier or dismissive of other peoples’ concerns. Rep. Garcia is happy to get everyone’s position on the record as this legislation moves forward so that the concerns of the minorities are expressly heard by their representatives. Rep. Frank has no objections to that, but is taken aback by the hostility of the arguments. Elderly adult Caucasian Congressman announces time has expired, more time is given without objection; adult Caucasian males and females seated around rostrum.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Robert Garcia (D-NY) believes the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill will have a damaging effect on many Americans, and if he is out of order, it's because of strong feelings against any kind of national identification system or card. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) wonders at what point was it suggested he is not or has not taken those kinds of concerns seriously with regards to the amendment being taken under consideration? Regarding a universal identification system, he precisely believes it will affect everyone in a positive manner. Rep. Frank yields back his time; adult Caucasian males and females seated around the rostrum, elderly adult Caucasian Congressman announces time has expired. Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) asks how much more debate time is left or how many speakers are left, then requests to end debate after fifteen more minutes; member standing in for the Speaker of House asks for any objections, they are verbally heard and noted.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) continues to try and negotiate an end time to the debate and guarantee speakers who wish to speak time to do so; elderly adult Caucasian Congressman stands in place for the Speaker of the House, adult Caucasian males and females seated around the House Rostrum. House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) appears and stands behind Rep. Mazzoli, speaking briefly with him. After enough objections are heard, especially by Reps. George Thomas “Mickey” Leland (D-TX), Mervyn Dymally (D-CA), Robert Garcia (D-NY), and Edward Roybal (D-CA), Rep. Mazzoli retracts his request to end time for debate. Rep. Eugene Clay Shaw Jr. (R-FL) is recognized for five minutes.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Eugene Clay Shaw Jr. (R-FL) rises to speak against the amendment in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill; elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House, adult Caucasian males and females seated around House Rostrum. Rep. Shaw comments on the regression from debating constructive amendments to guerilla warfare, arguing about things which are not in the bill, or amendment. The debate is important, it should continue, and the legislation is important, but it is time to stop with strongman arguments and proceed to resolve the 69 amendments up for debate. He yields the balance of his time; Rep. Lawrence Smith is recognized and walks to the House well.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Lawrence Smith (D-FL) speaks on the House floor; elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House, adult Caucasian males and females seated around the House Rostrum. Rep. Smith rejects every analogy used by the proponents of the amendment as too extreme, and urges the amendment's passage, striking language from the bill. He continues to criticize the back-and-forth debate over a small matter of words that are not even being placed in the correct context of the whole bill. The words under debate can be struck from the amendment because "they are extraneous matter and go three years out and only give someone the power only to look at something that this Congress can look at itself". Smith rejects the arguments on discrimination and on all other grounds, but thinks the proponents of the amendment are correct; there is no real use for the language of the proposed study. It should stay entirely within Congress' purview.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Lawrence Smith (D-FL) concludes his remarks by arguing that the study is not worthy of the divisive debate being generated. The difficult task of immigration reform cannot be mired down over a bitter debate around a study that is not necessary. Rep. Smith urges his colleagues to pass the amendment, striking the language surrounding the proposed study, and get on with the debates about immigration reform that will affect the country now, not what might or might not happen three years from now. Rep. Smith yields back the balance of this time and Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) is recognized by elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House; adult, predominantly Caucasian males and females seated around House Rostrum.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Norman Mineta (D-CA) rises in support of the amendment to the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill that would strip out the proposed study of employment eligibility in the U.S. Though he admits the language in the bill does not establish a national identification card, Rep. Mineta believes it opens the possibility to it and he opposes any measure that would even consider going in that direction. It does not matter whether such an identification system comes in the form of a card or national database system. Those who argue such a system will not be abused; Rep. Mineta looks to precedent, and his own life experiences in a Japanese internment camp to know that is no guarantee. Mineta points to illegal use of Census Bureau records in rounding up citizens of Japanese descent into internment camps. Even if there were guarantees in place, Rep. Mineta could not imagine a system where citizens had to report their ethnic background.