and understanding of the fundamentals of U.S. history and the principles of the Government of the United States; and be a person of good moral character attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

These requirements are intended to ensure a common framework for Americans and to protect the fundamental institutions that Americans hold dear. These requirements ensure that those who have the privilege of citizenship are able to exercise the responsibilities which accompany it. Some individuals promote American citizenship on the basis of the practical benefits that it brings. Citizens are entitled to several important privileges-the right to vote for representatives in their local, State, and national government; a U.S. passport and all the protection that offers when traveling the world; opportunities for employment in certain Federal jobs and, under the new welfare reforms, access to certain Federal welfare programs.

Recently, one individual, a naturalized American, who strongly opposes the recent welfare reforms advocated and adopted by Congress, announced that he will devote $50 million not simply as a private charity to ameliorate hardships that may or may not result from the reforms, which I supported, and many of us did in a bipartisan way, but rather that that money go toward naturalization efforts, which will then guarantee continued access to taxpayerfunded support systems. That is an interesting concept.

While there are very practical benefits that derive from U.S. citizenship, and thus from naturalization, they should not, in my view, be the goal. I would hope that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and others who administer the naturalization process will focus on its central purpose; that is, to admit new members into our body politic, persons whose full allegiance is to this Nation and who have shown that they will be able to assume all the responsibilities, people who embrace a common flag and a common language, and that they will then be able to assume the responsibilities, as well as obtain the benefits of that full membership.

I am just going to cite a couple of quotes, and I wouldn't let you guess where they came from. Here is one from many years ago during World War I:

You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.

That was Woodrow Wilson who said that. I knew you probably thought it was some evil rascal somewhere.

Here is another one. It says:

We have no 50-50 allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else or he is not an American at all. We Americans are children of the crucible. The crucible does not do its work unless it turns out those cast into it in one national mold.

That was Teddy Roosevelt who said that one. He also said:

The absolutely one certain way of bringing this Nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German Americans, Irish Americans, English Americans, French Americans, Scandinavian Americans, or Italian Americans each preserving its separate nationality.

Those are things in the background that are not here for us to address today, but those are the things that are uniquely American. When we see things happening with the naturalization process either through the use of testers or ethnic groups or people who are simply desirous of seeing more at the expense of seeing what this precious gift is, I think then we need to examine that, and that is the purpose of this hearing.

We will review how current legal requirements for naturalization are being implemented by the INS. As I say, recent reports have cast some doubt on INS' commitment to fully implementing these requirements, requirements intended to prevent the award of U.S. citizenship to those who are not fully entitled to it. So I am eager to proceed.

The timing was magnificent. I had just concluded my remarks and suddenly, like a phantom from the wings of the opera, the phantom of the opera himself-oh, no-and we have had enough good-byes and we will have some more, but this is one delightful gentleman whom I shall greatly miss from my Washington years. Even though we have tangled and scrapped and will continue to do so, he is a very remarkable man and a very delightful friend. Ted.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Senator Simpson, and I think, as we have remarked at other times, the Congress may have been adjourned and Senator Simpson's time of service in the Senate may be coming to a close, but he is once again demonstrating his dedication to service by continuing during the beginning of the fiscal year oversight in some very, very important areas that need attention. While others are in different parts of the country, Senator Simpson, as we might know, is at his desk and conducting these hearings. So we appreciate the chance again to be here at this important hearing and to commend him for conducting the hearing this morning.

Just very briefly, America is a nation of immigrants, and naturalization, the act of becoming a citizen, is the heart and soul of the immigrant tradition that has contributed so much to the Nation throughout the two centuries of our history.

Few processes are more significant for the Nation than the steps established by the Government to enable immigrants to become citizens of the United States. Naturalization is a fundamental and intended result of immigration. As the report of the Jordan Commission emphasized, "Naturalization is about ensuring the vitality of this Nation, ensuring continuity of our past, present, and future."

Today's hearing deals with an unprecedented consequence of the current national debate over legal and illegal immigration. Hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants are rushing to qualify for naturalization and become citizens in order to protect themselves and their families against the harsh anti-immigrant tide that has become increasingly prevalent in many parts of the country, and blatant attempts by some in Congress to reduce the benefits available to legal immigrants.

To a large extent, legal immigrants are the innocent victims of the backlash against illegal immigration. To protect themselves against that backlash, it is hardly surprising that they are exercising their legal right to become citizens and participate in our de

mocracy.

In 1992 when the Clinton administration first took office, INS received almost 350,000 applications for naturalization. By the end of 1995, the number had tripled to over 1 million applications. Unfortunately, the INS was given no significant additional resources to handle this massive increase. As a result, INS was able to process only half of the applications received in 1995. Backlogs were already 2 years long in some parts of the country and were likely to increase to 4 years longer. Immigrants fully qualified for immediate American citizenship were being denied that right for unacceptable lengths of time.

I think, to her credit, Commissioner Doris Meissner made dealing with the backlog of naturalization one of the top priorities for INS in 1996. She received bipartisan support in Congress to reprogram funds and hire additional personnel and equipment. She streamlined the management of the program, while maintaining and improving the integrity of the process. The results of these initiatives have been a great American success story. Backlogs that threatened to deny citizenship to large numbers of qualified applicants for years were reduced to months. Justice was no longer being denied because of these long delays.

Yet, now we hear complaints from some Republicans that INS is doing its job too well and that it is doing so for partisan political reasons. Nonsense. What is happening is democracy at work. It is also poetic justice. Anti-immigrant Republicans have created an unintended backlash against themselves. It is hard to take them seriously when they complain that too many immigrants are becoming citizens and preparing to exercise their right to vote against an anti-immigrant Republican.

There is no evidence of impropriety. Standards are being enforced. INS is responding properly to the soaring demand for citizenship that our Republican friends have created. Denial rates remain as high or higher than ever before-about 17 percent-hardly an indicator of lower standards.

The Citizenship USA campaign created by INS in response to the demand for citizenship has focused on 5 cities that have 75 percent of the applications-Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, and San Francisco. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, INS efforts have received impressive bipartisan praise from Republicans in the South Florida congressional delegation, from the Republican mayor of New York, and from the Democratic mayors of Chicago and San Francisco.

So I commend the efforts of the men and women of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They deserve praise, not blame, for their effective response to the current crisis. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

I thank the Chair.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, and I think it is important, at least with Senator Kennedy and myself through the years of our association, which are now 18, that immigration and refugee issues are

not partisan. They are bipartisan, and it cannot be done in any other form. Perhaps that was why the great tangle took so long to get untangled this year because of attempts to make it a partisan issue. That will always fail. I hope it will fail. It isn't worth wasting time on, but I think it is very important that this, for me, has never been anything in connection with any type of partisan activity, none, and the record will disclose that very, very clearly.

I have a statement of our colleague, Senator Paul Simon, which I will enter into the record as if read in full. Certainly, he has been a fine, contributing member of our work. At one time, there were just three of us doing this work-Senator Kennedy, Senator Simon, and myself-because there wasn't ever a rush to the door to help us do it.

Certainly, Paul Simon was well, we know who he is, one of the most compassionate and remarkable men. He is Will Rogers' epitome of never knowing a man he didn't like. He is a wonderful gentleman. He will be greatly missed in this place.

[The prepared statement of Senator Paul Simon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL SIMON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS

I thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Simpson, for whom I have the utmost respect and whose retirement will leave the Senate a much poorer institution, for holding this hearing. The gift of citizenship is the greatest that this nation can bestow on any immigrant, so it is essential that this Subcommittee and the American people get the facts straight regarding the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Citizenship USA initiative.

I have long advocated a greater emphasis on naturalization on the part of the INS, as well as Congress. Prior to this administration, for too many years, the "Service" component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service generally—and naturalization in particular-was the subject of virtually complete neglect. With Commissioner Meissner at the helm, this has changed, and I applaud her commitment to this important aspect of the INS' mission. She is without question the most competent, engaged INS Commissioner that I have encountered in my 22 years on Capitol Hill, and our immigration policy-in the area of naturalization and elsewhere is sounder for her leadership.

The INS' newfound commitment to naturalization has been painted by some as a political maneuver designed to get votes for the current administration in the upcoming election, at the expense of standards and adequate review of applicants' histories. While this is a convenient explanation for the surge in naturalization applications and approvals, let me suggest a different one.

Over the past two years, both in the 104th Congress and in states such as California, I have witnessed anti-immigrant sentiment the likes of which have not been seen in this nation for several decades. This anti-immigrant sentiment is directed not only toward illegal immigrants-who should rightly be the subject of some strict, but sensible, enforcement measures-but also toward legal immigrants, despite the fact that these individuals play by the rules, work hard, create jobs, and, on the whole, confer net benefits upon this country.

Legal immigrants have long been a source of great enrichment for our nation. Those immigrants who enter our nation legally today continue, as they have in the past, to make invaluable contributions to America's social, economic, and cultural well-being. Yet many Americans, including many members of Congress, have come to view legal, as well as illegal immigrants, as parasites who take from America without giving anything back, and who possess no interest or stake in the nation's well-being.

Such perceptions have given rise to laws like the new welfare reform law, which drastically and, in my view, improperly restricts legal immigrants' access to government assistance. The recent immigration bill, signed into law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, represents a further, but much smaller, step in that direct. We also have state measures like Proposition 187 which, while directed at illegal immigrants, have led to a great deal of discrimination against legal immigrants as well.

While the anti-immigrant sentiment in evidence today is not novel in our history, that is no answer to the many hard-working legal immigrants who hear themselves maligned and scapegoated by their neighbors and their representatives in state and federal government.

What is a legal immigrant to do under these circumstances? How can he or she act to change the direction of a government that in its hostility toward immigrants has forgotten the very foundations of this nation's greatness? How can he or she gain a greater stake in a society that has come to view immigrants-however long they have resided here as outsiders? The answer lies in naturalization, and in what naturalization provides the right to vote, the ultimate participation in democratic (not Democratic) society. Nothing could be more American than the desire to affect political outcomes through the casting of a ballot on election day.

So is it any surprise that legal immigrants seek to naturalize in record numbers? Is it any surprise that California-the site of Proposition 187-leads the nation in naturalization backlogs? Is it wrong for the Administration to try to address this phenomenon through an aggressive and long overdue pro-naturalization initiative? The answer to each of these questions is no.

Republicans charge that the Administration's naturalization initiative is a "get out the vote" strategy designed to help Democrats in November. Yet in the same way that immigration has never been a partisan issue, immigrant voting patterns have rarely reflected one-sided partisanship. Many immigrants vote Democrat; many others vote Republican. The cities with the largest backlogs-Los Angeles, Miami, New York-contain many of both. The Republican charges on this front fly in the face of history and reality.

Maybe it is unfortunate that immigrants have until today not been sufficiently motivated to naturalize. I think a review of our history would find many other groups whose participation in politics only really began in the face of the kind of threat_faced by legal immigrants today. If immigrants vote Democrat this year, those Republicans that have spent the better part of two years advocating anti-immigrant legislation will have only themselves to blame.

We all recognize the lengths that INS must still travel to make up for current shortcomings in a variety of areas. No one is suggesting that all the necessary work has been done. But it is moving in the right direction, and the Administration's commitment to facilitating naturalization is a positive, not a negative, sign.

In closing, let me add a few words about the individuals who have headed the Citizenship USA initiative for the INS. During my tenure in the Senate, I have worked with many of them. Like Commissioner Meissner, they are committed to helping immigrants and to helping immigrants help themselves, without compromising the standards of the Agency and the naturalization process. Far from being political "hacks" and "operatives", they are dedicated, honest individuals doing good work, not for Democrats, but for America.

Senator SIMPSON. So we will now proceed with the witness, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, the Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Immigration and Naturalization Service. We do have the time limitations and I thank you for your understanding of that, and we would be very pleased to have your testimony.

STATEMENT OF T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR PROGRAMS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY DON CROCETTI, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR EXAMINATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND DAVID ROSENBERG, DIRECTOR, CITIZENSHIP USA, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Mr. ALEINIKOFF. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to discuss with you the Immigration and Naturalization Service's achievements in responding to an unprecedented increase in applications for naturalization.

Under our initiative, called Citizenship USA, the Service has adjudicated more than 1.2 million applications for naturalization in fiscal year 1996, and we did so in a timely, accurate, and respon