Senator SIMPSON. I believe the Thurmond bill says 16. That would not be acceptable? Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think the sense is that when you are talking about persons of tender years, that there is a rationale that transcends the event, and most of the aggravating and mitigating factors are designed to put the individual in the setting of what the particular offense was. Senator SIMPSON. Well, I get 1 minute back, don't I? Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me continue. Senator Kennedy spoke of the GAO report on employer sanctions. That remains to be one of the most curious documents I have ever seen, and I need to repair to my library late at night and look at the word "widespread." Because when it was all finished, they found that there was 6.6 percent discrimination with regard to employer sanctions. And the Kennedy amendment had one word added to it that was added by me in conference, called "solely, that discrimination, that widespread discrimination be based solely on the implementation of employer sanctions. They did not come up with any determination. They used the word "substantial" which can be zero to 49. They took the 19-percent discrimination, knocked 9 percent off of it because of the fact it was discrimination based on alienage, which was not the charge, and then knocked off half of the 10 percent because that had to do with discrimination based upon the verification systems, leaving about 5 to 6 percent. I don't see how any sensible person can call that widespread discrimination. Nevertheless, we will have to wade through that. There isn't a single American that isn't concerned about discrimination. I think it is not part of the argument to say that some are for less discrimination and some for more, something of that nature. That always puzzles me. But in any event, I obviously disagree with the report's findings, but I plan on responding. I think it is very important, two parts of the report. We should further educate U.S. employers about the law, and we should improve our worker verification system. This is what Father Ted Hesburgh, the Chairman of the Commission, felt was the premium thing, was to get a good identifier, a more secure identifier. We are going to have to go back and really review that and not get into the tangled web of "national ID cards," which is how we got diverted the last time. But I notice in the INS budget proposal that you have $884,000 reserved for an antidiscrimination campaign. How much more funding do you think is necessary there in light of the GAO report, which came out since your preparation? Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think we would have to defer a response until we have had a chance to fully review the GAO report. But I think the education aspect is one that truly ought to command more attention. We are working now on proposals that would use public service announcements through the television media, flyers to remind employers of their responsibilities. It is a twofold prospect that has to be pursued: one, aggressive enforcement of the law, but also aggressive enforcement of the rights of persons who might otherwise be subject to discrimination. As I recall, one of the troublesome features of the assessment that has been made of IRCA and the employer sanction side is how that is, what we are going to do there, and when we are going to deal with it on the floor of the Senate. And we will be doing that. But I think a crucial factor in all of that is the existence of any and all mitigating factors, and under the Thurmond approach there are extensive mitigating factors that must be considered, should be considered. The list is not exclusive but certainly open for addition for others. That is, I think, what we must do. Let me just ask you on that issue, Is there any reason to believe that a defendant's age or mental competency would not be considered as strong mitigating factors under the Thurmond bill? Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think the point that I was trying to make, perhaps inartistically, is that it is very difficult to categorize in the abstract a structure of consideration of the death penalty that, as you point out, takes into account a whole series of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It is individuals who in particularly egregious cases come before the court for sentencing and for consideration by the jury as to whether a death penalty is appropriate. And certainly mental capacity, age, a whole variety of other circumstances would be considered in any particular case. That is why it is difficult to generalize about categories of cases. Senator SIMPSON. I agree. I think that is very true. I will leave further parts of that to Senator Thurmond and Senator Biden. But I know the chairman mentioned the word "civilized," and I just would humbly say it is not very civilized to cut somebody up in pieces and go off and have a Big Mac either. I don't think that is very civilized, whether you are 16 or 28. I mean, I think there is a reality here. Then the death penalty and racism, how we ever got into that sophistry I haven't yet quite determined. But you are either for it or against it. And then to come in with all these loopers from right field is I think not too attractive an adventure to watch. But we are going to get to the floor with that. We are going to discuss the death penalty and what we do with people who really should not be in society. I know from my experience from practicing law and some first-degree murder trials and so on that that is just exactly the way it is in real life. It may not be the want in your own heart, but that is the way it is. The CHAIRMAN. Will the Senator yield for a clarification? The CHAIRMAN. I am not sure I heard the General's answer. You suggested whole categories should not be excluded, but I thought the General said the entire category of juvenile offenders should be excluded. So I guess he is engaging in an exercise. Senator SIMPSON. I don't know. Ask him. The CHAIRMAN. Is that right? The whole category of juvenile offenders should be excluded. Attorney General THORNBURGH. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. No death for any juvenile. Is that right? The CHAIRMAN. That is the administration's position. OK. I just wanted to make sure. Senator SIMPSON. Well, what is your definition of a juvenile? Senator SIMPSON. I believe the Thurmond bill says 16. That would not be acceptable? Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think the sense is that when you are talking about persons of tender years, that there is a rationale that transcends the event, and most of the aggravating and mitigating factors are designed to put the individual in the setting of what the particular offense was. Senator SIMPSON. Well, I get 1 minute back, don't I? Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, let me continue. Senator Kennedy spoke of the GAO report on employer sanctions. That remains to be one of the most curious documents I have ever seen, and I need to repair to my library late at night and look at the word "widespread." Because when it was all finished, they found that there was 6.6 percent discrimination with regard to employer sanctions. And the Kennedy amendment had one word added to it that was added by me in conference, called "solely, that discrimination, that widespread discrimination be based solely on the implementation of employer sanctions. They did not come up with any determination. They used the word "substantial" which can be zero to 49. They took the 19-percent discrimination, knocked 9 percent off of it because of the fact it was discrimination based on alienage, which was not the charge, and then knocked off half of the 10 percent because that had to do with discrimination based upon the verification systems, leaving about 5 to 6 percent. I don't see how any sensible person can call that widespread discrimination. Nevertheless, we will have to wade through that. There isn't a single American that isn't concerned about discrimination. I think it is not part of the argument to say that some are for less discrimination and some for more, something of that nature. That always puzzles me. But in any event, I obviously disagree with the report's findings, but I plan on responding. I think it is very important, two parts of the report. We should further educate U.S. employers about the law, and we should improve our worker verification system. This is what Father Ted Hesburgh, the Chairman of the Commission, felt was the premium thing, was to get a good identifier, a more secure identifier. We are going to have to go back and really review that and not get into the tangled web of "national ID cards," which is how we got diverted the last time. But I notice in the INS budget proposal that you have $884,000 reserved for an antidiscrimination campaign. How much more funding do you think is necessary there in light of the GAO report, which came out since your preparation? Attorney General THORNBURGH. I think we would have to defer a response until we have had a chance to fully review the GAO report. But I think the education aspect is one that truly ought to command more attention. We are working now on proposals that would use public service announcements through the television media, flyers to remind employers of their responsibilities. It is a twofold prospect that has to be pursued: one, aggressive enforcement of the law, but also aggressive enforcement of the rights of persons who might otherwise be subject to discrimination. As I recall, one of the troublesome features of the assessment that has been made of IRCA and the employer sanction side is how many employers are unaware of their responsibilities in this regard. That is clearly an area that can be addressed better by education than by enforcement. Senator SIMPSON. Well, just one final question, then. The interesting thing of the report to me was that they said that IRCA had worked. They said that they agreed that it has worked, that it decreased illegal immigration. They were rather positive things. And yet they spoke of the discrimination. Yet the reason it works is because of employer sanctions. So to me they really kind of twisted themselves around in that report. Just a final point, and it had to do with what Senator Kennedy was referring to, back to the monitoring of the issue by these groups. If the system of verification in the bill proved to be ineffective, the President was to make improvements to the system with certain conditions on the issuance of new documents. And according to the report, the verification system obviously is not secure. Fraud is rampant. We know that. Some of the results show, as you say, that employers are confused. Discrimination is occurring. Employer sanctions are difficult. I don't need any answer this morning, but what is the status of your review of the verification system issue? And when might we expect your recommendations there? We really need that now as we go forward with our legislating. If you could furnish that or if you have a comment now, but verification is the one that I am interested in at the present time. Attorney General THORNBURGH. Let me address that just preliminarily, Senator. The problem of counterfeit and false documents is one that is pervasive and difficult to deal with in our society. I remember when I was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in 1975, a Federal False Identification Advisory Committee was established, encompassing all of the various agencies that dealt with documentation, and made a series of recommendations-not including, incidentally, a national identification card, but address on a discrete basis Social Security cards, driver's licenses, birth certificates, all those things which are indicia of identity, all too frequently susceptible to being counterfeited or altered in some way. These were fairly straightforward findings, but the implementation of them has proved to be vexing at the Federal, State, and local level over the years. It simply requires too much effort and, in some cases, too much expense to create documentation that is absolutely fraudproof. I suggest, however, that these findings in the GAO report may prompt a renewal of efforts to achieve this goal, and, if so, it will certainly have the support of the Department of Justice. Senator SIMPSON. I thank you very much, General. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator DeConcini. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DECONCINI Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here, and I want to tell you that I want to compliment you on some of your successes, particularly in the area of organized crime recently. I think you are making some major strides there. Also, in your statement, Mr. Attorney General, I would like to turn your attention to the Border Patrol. You state that during 1989 Border Patrol agents made 5,441 drug seizures with a combined estimated value of $1.2 billion. That is almost double what it was in 1988, 3,257 seizures and $700 million. And yet I have a real problem, Mr. Attorney General, and I am not here to be contentious. What I am here for is hopefully to draw your attention to this and to give me some idea as to what we can expect, at least in the Southwest border, but there are other places besides the Southwest border where the Border Patrol plays a major role. In fact, the Border Patrol is responsible for approximately 60 percent of all drug seizures along the border. The National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement that you sat on, as I did, found that nearly 40 percent of the Border Patrol officers leave within the first year. Despite the staffing problems, the Border Patrol has been under a hiring freeze for nearly a year now. I don't know if you are aware of that. With the hiring freeze and its high attrition rate, by summer Border Patrol sectors along the Southwest border will be staffed at 60 to 70 percent of their authorized level under the 1986 immigration bill alone. Despite the administration's proposed personnel cuts for the Border Patrol in the 1990 budget which were recommended, Senator Hollings and Senator Rudman and the Appropriations Committee added an additional $9 million for 200 officers for fiscal year 1990. My staff has been told by INS recently that because of budget constraints they will be able to hire only 50 of these people. So my first question, Mr. Attorney General, Is where is the administration's commitment to the Southwest border when you receive enough money to hire 200 and you only hire 25? Attorney General THORNBURGH. The Border Patrol is an important component of the drug interdiction effort, Senator. We realize that. We commend their ability to, in effect, carry water on both shoulders. They have an important role in policing our borders, but they have also taken on a new and important role in becoming part of the antidrug trafficking effort. Part of the problem with regard to staffing levels is historic. It goes back to the setting of goals for hiring which involved the authorization of additional agents being hired and the failure of funding to keep up with that authorization. In the past 4 or 5 years, hiring was geared up to a level that exceeded the amount that the appropriations would carry, and appropriate adjustments had to be made as time went on. Senator DECONCINI. Excuse me, Mr. Attorney General. Are you telling me that the $9 million would only hire 25 agents instead of 200? Attorney General THORNBURGH. For this current year? Senator DECONCINI. Yes. Attorney General THORNBURGH. No, the problem is really historic. It is, in effect, that more agents were hired than there were ap |