Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 84 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 84 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4450-S4460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION
ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes in order to call up my
amendment, that Senator Vitter then be recognized for up to 8 minutes
in order to call up his amendment, and then Senator Hirono be
recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1198

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1198.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester] proposes an amendment
numbered 1198.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the Border Oversight Task Force to include tribal
government officials)

On page 922, line 13, insert ``and tribal'' after
``border''.
On page 923, line 9, strike ``29'' and insert ``33''.
On page 923, line 15, strike ``12'' and insert ``14''.
On page 923, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

(III) 2 tribal government officials;

On page 924, line 7, strike ``17'' and insert ``19''.
On page 924, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

(III) 2 tribal government officials;

On page 925, line 8, strike ``14'' and insert ``16''.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I am proud to be joined by Senators
Murkowski, Crapo, and Murray in offering this bipartisan amendment.
Border security is one of the most important aspects of this bill, and
on both sides of the border, especially the northern border, the only
way to secure the border is to involve State, local, and tribal law
enforcement in that effort. Native-American lands and people are a
vital but, unfortunately, an often overlooked part of our border
security plan. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Right
now, drug smuggling and trafficking in persons is happening on Indian
reservations on our border, moving virtually unnoticed into America.
The problem, as the GAO told me in a recent report on this very topic,
is a lack of communication and coordination between tribal and U.S.
border officials.
This amendment adds four tribal voices to the Department of Homeland
Security Task Force, two from the northern border region and two from
the southern border region. As drafted, this task force included border
security experts from various government entities and is responsible
for solving problems related to border security. But somehow the tribal
perspective was left out. Yet in Montana, the Blackfeet Reservation is
bigger than the entire State of Delaware and it directly borders Canada
for 50 miles. The Fort Peck Reservation sits less than 30 miles from
the Canadian border. This amendment will increase communication and
improve coordination between the Federal and tribal governments that it
relies on to secure these borders. Adding a tribal representative to
that task force is the right thing to do and it is just plain common
sense.
I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1228

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up to my pending amendment No.
1228.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 1228.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of June 12, 2013,
under ``Text of Amendments.''
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment was in the group of four
that was the subject of the previous unanimous consent so I look
forward to an ongoing debate and vote on this amendment, hopefully
early next week, because we need to start voting on this topic and on
amendments to this bill. The amendment is simple and in my opinion very
important. It would mandate finally that we have an operational US-
VISIT system to track visas coming into the country and exiting the
country to guard against visa overstays.
This is an important part of security and enforcement, but one that
is not talked about enough. We always talk about the border, as we
should. We often talk about workplace enforcement, as we should. That
is extremely important. This is the third leg of the stool that we do
not talk about enough but we need to focus on because this goes to our
national security as well as border security.
The 9/11 terrorists all were individuals who came into this country
legally, with a visa, but what happened? They overstayed their visa by
a lot and they plotted to kill and destroy, which unfortunately they
successfully did on 9/11. Because of that, one of the top
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to implement this visa
entry-exit system using biometric data. We call the system that has
been developed the US-VISIT system. The problem is full implementation
of the US-VISIT system has never come close to occurring as the 9/11
Commission recommended that it be executed.
This amendment says simply we are finally going to do it. We have
talked about it for years. We have lived through actual terrorist
attacks that go to the heart of this need. The 9/11 Commission has
rated it as a top recommendation, so we are finally going to do it. We
are not going to move on to changing the legal status of current
illegals in this country under this bill until we do it and until we
verify that it has been done. That is a very simple idea.
I look forward to a continuing debate on this need, on this
amendment, and a vote on this amendment early next week.
Second, I also want to mention a point of order I will be making on
this underlying bill as soon as possible, hopefully also early next
week. The point of order is simple. It is a point of order against the
emergency designation provision contained in the bill in

[[Page S4451]]

section (d)(1). It is pursuant to section 403(e) of the fiscal year
2010 budget resolution.
We all consider spending and debt a big problem in this country. We
put enormous focus and energy and debate and discussion on that issue.
The problem is so often, after we set budget caps, after we set these
limits with the very serious spending and debt issue in mind, whenever
a big bill comes up they bust the caps. We put a so-called emergency
designation on the spending and all of a sudden, like that, with that
simple phrase we exempt that entire bill from the spending caps, from
the provisions we have put in place to try to get spending and debt
under control.
This immigration reform bill is another example of that because it
would spend $8.3 billion and it calls all of that spending emergency
spending. That is a sleight of hand. That is avoiding the caps and the
limits we have tried to put in place to begin to rein in spending and
debt.
This is not an emergency in any reasonable sense of the term. This is
not an unforeseen storm. This is not an unpredicted earthquake. This is
not an unpredicted attack on our country from a foreign power. This is
a problem, for sure, but we have annual spending bills and a whole
department of government that is supposed to be about this problem--the
Department of Homeland Security. We have an annual Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill, so this is not something
unforeseen, a true emergency. To call this $8.3 billion emergency
spending is a pure sleight of hand to avoid the discipline of the
spending caps.
At least on my side of the aisle, when this exact same point of order
has been made before on many other bills, we have upheld it. We have
said: You are right, this is a sleight of hand. You are right, this is
an end run around those budget provisions. You are right, this is just
busting the budget cap by another name.
We should do the same here. We should respect the budget law. We
should not do an end run around the budget caps. We should not
essentially lie to the American people and say this is unforeseen, this
is a true emergency, when it is not.
I will be raising this very important budget point of order regarding
the emergency designation of $8.3 billion of spending in the bill at
the earliest possible opportunity, when it is in order. I expect that
to be early next week as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion?
Mr. VITTER. Yes, I withhold the quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I believe hope and fairness lie at the
core of what makes our country great. Fifty years ago, President
Kennedy called on the country to embrace civil rights legislation that
would end the unfair treatment of millions of people as second-class
citizens. Congress responded, and the country is better for it. This
week, we in the Senate are debating comprehensive immigration reform
legislation that gives hope to the millions of undocumented people who
live in this country that they will be able to emerge from the shadows
and live full lives. It is our time to act. We should pass this
important legislation.
I thank the Gang of 8, and their staff, for their hard work
negotiating the bill and getting it through committee and onto the
floor. They have set an example of bipartisanship on a tough issue that
is all too rare these days.
I also thank Senator Leahy, and his staff, for his able leadership
during the markup. It was a remarkably open and fair process, full of
principled debate. That is how the Senate should work.
Their hard work, and that of others, has produced the bill that is
before us.
Many senators have already spoken about what is in the bill: the
billions of dollars for border security, the tough employment
eligibility verification requirements, the pro-tourism policies, and
the path to citizenship.
Rather than cover that ground again, I want to talk about two
problems with the bill that I hope can be fixed: first, the system
designed for future immigration is unfair to women; and second, the
pathway to citizenship is unfair to immigrant taxpayers.
The new merit-based point system for allocating visas to future
immigrants is the first problem. Simply put, the point system
inadvertently makes it harder for women than for men to come to this
country.
The new point system is based on an attractive economic idea, but
unfortunately one that clearly disadvantages women. The idea is if we
want a stronger economy, then we should give immigration preferences to
people who hold advanced degrees or work in high-skill jobs.
This idea ignores the discrimination women endure in other countries.
Women in too many other countries do not have the same education or
career advancement opportunities available to men in those countries.
In practice, the bill's new point system takes that discriminatory
treatment abroad and cements it into our immigration laws, making it
harder for women to come to our country than for men.
While unintentional in this case, the idea that we want to attract
the most educated and skilled people but they just happen to be mostly
men is the same argument used for generations to protect gender
discrimination in our work places. We all want a stronger economy, but
we should not sacrifice the hard-won victories of the women's equality
movement to get it.
By contrast, the current family immigration system treats men and
women equally. The current system is based on keeping families
together. That system reflects our shared values about the social
importance of family. My family and millions of others also know the
family system makes good economic sense.
Anyone, whether an immigrant or natural-born citizen, has a better
chance of being successful if they are surrounded by a strong family
that can pool its resources to help start a business or to help one
another during tough times. In many families aunts and uncles, parents
and grandparents, even brothers and sisters, use part of their
paychecks every week to help a young man or a young woman in their
family pay for college and take one step closer to that American dream.
That is how it worked in my family.
My mother brought my brothers and me to this country to escape an
abusive marriage at the hands of my father. My mother raised me and my
brothers as a single parent, and times were tough for us. But with the
help of my grandparents, who later joined us, I was able to learn
English and succeed in school. The amazing thing about this country is
millions of families have stories like mine.
If I had not been able to come to this country, who knows where I
would be today. But I know I would never have had the kind of
opportunities given to me by this great country of ours. I want other
women to have those chances too.
The biggest losers in this bill's new point system will be unmarried
sisters of U.S. citizens. Why? Because the new system not only makes it
harder for women to immigrate here, but it eliminates visas for
siblings of U.S. citizens while allowing new immigrants to bring their
spouses. What this means is a woman who aspires to live with her family
and work in the greatest country in the world should not have to get
married to do that.
The future immigration system in the bill needs to be modified to
give unmarried women more opportunities to come here. There is more
than one way to fix this problem. One solution could be to restore the
sibling category. I will file an amendment to do that. Another solution
could be to modify the point system in the bill. I am working with
other Senators on an amendment to do that, which I hope will be ready
soon.
The second problem in this bill that needs to be fixed is how it
treats immigrant taxpayers. Make no mistake, immigrants pay taxes. A
study released in May by researchers at Harvard and the City University
of New York found that immigrants contributed $115.2 billion more to
Medicare than they took out between 2002 and 2009.
Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. A 2006 survey by UC-San Diego
showed that 75 percent of undocumented immigrants had taxes withheld
from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both. The Social Security
Administration estimates undocumented immigrants have contributed
between $120

[[Page S4452]]

and $240 billion to the Social Security trust fund.
I have a fact sheet with citations of several studies about immigrant
taxpayers, and I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed
in the Record following my remarks.
The bill makes clear that immigrants on the pathway to citizenship
have to continue working, paying taxes and other penalties, and meeting
other requirements. In fact, they have to do all of this before they
can even start on the path to citizenship.
The Social Security Administration estimates the tax requirements in
this bill will raise more than $300 billion in payroll taxes alone. The
general fund will also receive more in tax revenues. Although we have
not yet seen CBO's official score, in all likelihood the Treasury
Department will collect billions more in revenue for the general fund
from these immigrants.
In his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April
22, 2013, Grover Norquist pointed out that once immigrants have lawful
status and work authorization, they will be able to get better jobs and
contribute even more to the funding of Federal programs. He wrote that
after the 1986 immigration law was enacted, ``their incomes rose by an
average of 15 percent just by gaining legal status. Those immigrants
today are making much more than they did then and, as a result, paying
more in taxes.''
My point is immigrant taxpayers contribute to the funding of not only
Medicare and Social Security, but of all Federal programs. No one
disputes that it should be this way. Immigrants on the pathway must pay
taxes, just like everyone else. The strict tax requirements in the bill
are the right policy.
What is wrong are the policies in the bill that prohibit immigrant
taxpayers who are on the pathway from being able to use Federal safety
net programs for at least 13 years. Their taxes pay for these programs,
but they cannot use these programs; that is profoundly unfair. Imagine
a person buys homeowner's insurance, but the policy won't cover their
house if it catches fire until 13 years after they started paying their
premiums. That is obviously not fair, but that is exactly the situation
in which we are putting immigrants who are on the pathway to
citizenship.
Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah spoke on the floor about
several amendments he filed to further restrict immigrant taxpayers'
access to the programs their tax dollars pay for. He said:

I don't want to punish these immigrants. I simply want to
make sure they are treated no better or no worse than U.S.
citizens and resident aliens with respect to federal benefits
and taxes.

I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Utah. I agree
with him that these immigrants should be treated no worse than U.S.
citizens and resident aliens, but they are not being treated that way.
They are being treated worse because of the restrictions in this bill.
Under current law, immigrant taxpayers who are resident aliens cannot
use the Federal safety net programs they pay into for 5 years. Their
taxes are paid into the system for 5 years, but they get no help during
that time if their kids get sick or if they lose their jobs. That is
already unfair, but the bill treats immigrants on provisional status
even worse. They have to pay taxes for 13 years before they can use the
programs they are paying for.
The 13-year-long pathway to citizenship will be hard enough. If they
lose their job, they risk losing their legal status and being deported,
work hard to save up money, not just for the kids' school supplies but
to pay the penalties under this bill. The restrictions on Federal
safety net programs make their pathway even more treacherous.
We are saying to these immigrants: Pay your taxes, but if your kids
get sick, don't come to us for help. We are saying: Pay your taxes, but
if you have to work part time because of a recession, don't come to us
if you need some help putting food on the table. We are saying: Pay
your taxes, but we are not going to help you. That is not fair.
I want to be clear: I am talking only about immigrants who will be
lawfully present. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these
programs at all and no one is proposing to change that, but the pathway
provides a way for certain people to earn lawful status. Let's treat
lawfully present taxpayers fairly, including those on the pathway.
Let's do as the Senator from Utah suggests and at the very least make
sure they are treated no worse than U.S. citizens or resident aliens.
Finally, not only are the prohibitions in the bill unfair to
immigrant taxpayers, they are also bad economics. Both Republican and
Democratic Senators say they want immigrants to be successful, start
businesses, and continue contributing to the economy. We all do. But
few people would use their life savings to start a business if they
think their children will go hungry or go without health care if their
business fails. The safety net programs exist so people can take risks
to improve their economic circumstances.
Immigrants come to this country to work. They don't come to get
handouts. They come here to work. Two papers from the Cato Institute
show that immigrants are more likely to be working or looking for work
than natural-born citizens. Immigrants are less likely to use Federal
safety net programs.
The title of one Cato article sums it up nicely: ``Evidence Shows
Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect Welfare.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two papers be
printed in the Record following my remarks.
Both political parties should be able to support the idea that
taxpayers who are lawfully present, working, and paying taxes should be
able to use the programs their taxes are paying for. That is only fair.
I will file an amendment that says precisely that.
In closing, during the debates on immigration reform, I hope we
remember who undocumented immigrants are. Like other immigrants, they
had the courage and aspiration to leave their hometowns and all they
knew to find work elsewhere in order to give their kids better lives
than they could dream for themselves.
The undocumented should pay penalties for the laws they broke by
coming here, but we should remember that our Founding Fathers were
willing to break up an empire to achieve their dreams.
We are a Nation of immigrants. Let's treat immigrants how we would
have wanted our immigrant ancestors to be treated--with dignity and
forgiveness.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fact Sheet about Immigrant Taxpayers and the Hirono Amendment

Imagine you buy homeowner's insurance, but the policy won't
cover your house if it catches fire until 13 years after you
start paying premiums.
That's the situation that millions of immigrants will find
themselves under the immigration bill. Immigrants pay
hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes that contribute to
the funding of federal safety net programs like Medicaid,
CHIP, and SNAP, but they are prohibited from using them.
Current law prohibits legal immigrants from using these
programs for five years. And the immigration bill prohibits
immigrants on the path to citizenship from using these
programs for at least 13 years. Thirteen years is an entire
childhood.
It is unfair that immigrants pay for these programs but are
prohibited from using them if they lose their job or if their
kids get sick. If they pay for it, they should be able to use
it. We should not treat immigrants as second class citizens.
The Hirono amendment simply states that a person who is
lawfully present, working, and paying taxes, shall not be
prohibited from using any federal programs or tax credits
because of their immigration status.
Here are some facts about immigrant taxpayers:
Immigrants pay taxes. A study released in May by
researchers at Harvard and the City University of New York
found that immigrants are paying billions in taxes.
(``Immigrants Contributed An Estimated $115.2 Billion More to
the Medicare Trust Fund Than They Took Out in 2002-2009,''
Health Affairs, May 2013)
Undocumented immigrants also pay taxes, both payroll taxes
and income taxes. A 2006 study by UC San Diego found that
``75 percent of undocumented immigrants had taxes withheld
from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both.'' (CBO
report, ``The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the
Budgets of State and Local Governments,'' December 2007). The
Social Security Administration estimated that undocumented
immigrants contributed a net $12 billion to the Social
Security Trust Fund in 2010.
The path to citizenship will increase federal tax revenue.
Immigrants will have to continue paying taxes, and legal
status will allow them to move out of the shadows into

[[Page S4453]]

higher paying jobs. Grover Norquist's written testimony to
the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2013: ``After the
legalization of immigrants during the Reagan amnesty, their
incomes rose by an average 15 percent just by gaining legal
status. Those immigrants today are making much more than they
did then and, as a result, paying more in taxes.'' In a
letter to Senator Rubio dated May 8, 2013, the Social
Security Administration's Chief Actuary estimated the
immigration reform bill will increase payroll tax collection
by more than $300 billion between 2014-2024.
Immigrants use federal safety net programs less often than
natural born citizens, and when they use them their average
costs are less than for natural born citizens. Immigrants are
also more likely to be working or looking for work. See Cato
Institute papers ``Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a
Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens,'' March 2013 and
``Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect
Welfare,'' August 2010.
Even Grover Norquist warns against believing ``Baseless
Criticisms'' in flawed analyses about the costs of immigrants
use of safety net programs. His written testimony cited above
cautions against analyses that ``exaggerat[e] public benefit
costs by citing household costs, rather than individual
immigrant costs'' or ``portray[] impossible levels of welfare
use.''
____

[From the Cato Institute, Mar. 4, 2013]

Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate Than Poor Native-
Born Citizens

(By Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen)

Low-income immigrants use public benefits like Medicaid or
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
the Food Stamp Program) at a lower rate than low-income
native-born citizens.\1\ Many immigrants are ineligible for
public benefits because of their immigration status.
Nonetheless, some claim that immigrants use more public
benefits than the native born, creating a serious and unfair
burden for citizens.\2\ This analysis provides updated
analysis of immigrant and native-born utilization of
Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance (Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families and similar programs), and the Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) program based on the most recent data
from the Census Bureau's March 2012 Current Population Survey
(CPS).
Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-
citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash
assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable
low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the
average value of public benefits received per person is
generally lower for non-citizensthan for natives. Because of
the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average
benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost
of public benefits to non-citizens is substantially less than
the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.

background on immigrants in the United States

About 40 million immigrants reside in the United States,
comprising 12.9 percent of the total population.\3\ Of those
immigrants, 43.8 percent are naturalized citizens and 56.3
percent are non-citizens--including undocumented
immigrants.\4\ Immigrants are more likely to participate in
the labor force,\5\ lack a high school degree,\6\ and to have
incomes below the poverty line than the native-born.\7\
Immigrants begin with lower earnings but over time their
incomes improve as they remain here.\8\

immigrant eligibility for public assistance benefits

Immigrants' eligibility for public benefits is based on
specific aspects of their immigration status and state
policies.\9\ Some key elements of the rules are:
Citizenship. Naturalized citizens and U.S.-born children in
non-citizen families are citizens. They are fully eligible
for public benefits like Medicaid, the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP), SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI, if
they meet other program eligibility criteria.\10\
Refugees and Asylees. Immigrants granted refugee or asylee
status are generally eligible for public benefits if they
meet program eligibility criteria.
Lawful Permanent Residents. Lawful permanent residents
(LPRs) must wait at least five years before they are eligible
for benefits, but states have the option of providing them
earlier.\11\ After five years, LPRs are eligible for federal
benefits if they meet the program eligibility criteria. As
exceptions, LPR children have been eligible for SNAP benefits
since 2003 and states have been able to restore Medicaid
benefits for children and pregnant women since 2009.
Temporary/Provisional Immigrants. Temporary immigrants
(e.g., work or student visa holders) are generally ineligible
for public benefits, including the youth who are categorized
as ``Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.''
Undocumented Immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are
generally ineligible for the public assistance programs
mentioned above.\12\
Immigrant-related eligibility restrictions do not apply to
some programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, the
Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program (WIC), and Head
Start.
The unit of assistance (benefits received on an individual
or family basis) and eligibility varies across programs. For
Medicaid, CHIP, and SSI, benefits are provided to individuals
and eligibility is individually determined. Thus many U.S.-
born children in immigrant families receive health insurance
through Medicaid or CHIP, but their non-citizen parents do
not. SNAP and cash assistance provide household-level
benefits. In many immigrant families, some family members are
ineligible non-citizen immigrants, so the household SNAP
allotment or cash assistance check is reduced. For example,
if a very poor three-person family is composed of two LPR
parents who have been here for two years and an American-born
child, the benefit level is computed only using the child,
not the ineligible parents.

results

Medicaid/CHIP. Figure 1 shows that more than one-quarter of
native citizens and naturalized citizens in poverty receive
Medicaid, but only about one in five non-citizens do so.
Figure 2 shows that about two-thirds of low-income citizen
children receive health insurance through Medicaid or CHIP,
while about half of non-citizen children do so. Low-income
non-citizen immigrants are the least likely to receive
Medicaid or CHIP.
A major reason for these gaps is strict benefit eligibility
barriers for many immigrants. Benefit use by poor immigrants
was low even before the 1996 welfare reform, suggesting that
eligibility factors are not the only reason for low levels of
benefit use by non-citizen immigrants.\13\
Figure 3 shows that immigrants who receive Medicaid or CHIP
tend to have lower per beneficiary medical expenditures than
native-born people, reducing the government cost of their
benefits.\14\ Immigrant adults who received Medicaid or CHIP
benefits in 2010 had annual expenditures about a quarter
lower than adult natives. Immigrant children had average
annual Medicaid expenditures that were less than one-half
those of native-born children. Generally, immigrants have
lower per capita medical expenditures than the native-born,
regardless of type of insurance.\15\
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Figure 4
shows that among low-income adults, 33 percent of native
citizens, 25 percent of naturalized citizens, and 29 percent
of non-citizens received SNAP benefits in 2011.\16\ Figure 5
shows that about half of poor citizen children in citizen
households receive SNAP, compared to about one-third of non-
citizen children and two-fifths of citizen children in non-
citizen-headed families. It is likely that the actual
percentage of SNAP eligible non-citizen immigrants is even
lower, but the gaps in the CPS data prevent us from knowing
how large the gap is. Figure 6 shows that the average annual
SNAP benefits per household member are about one-fifth lower
for non-citizens than native adults or citizen children with
citizen parents.
Cash Assistance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Figure 7 shows that the SSI receipt was higher for native and
naturalized citizens than non-citizen immigrants.\17\ Figure
8 shows that children in households with non-citizen family
members are less likely to be in house-holds receiving cash
assistance or SSI than citizen children living in full-
citizen households.
Figure 9 shows that average annual cash assistance and SSI
benefits for the native-born, naturalized, and non-citizens
were very similar. In contrast, Figure 10 shows that the
value of these benefits per household member was lowest for
children living in non-citizen households. The cash
assistance benefit for citizen children in non-citizen
families was 13 percent lower, and the cash assistance for
non-citizen children was 22 percent lower compared to citizen
children with citizen parents. The average SSI benefit was 30
percent to 33 percent lower for children in non-citizen
families and non-citizen children than for citizen children
in citizen families.

comparing studies

A study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found
that immigrant-headed households with children used more
Medicaid than native-headed households with children and had
higher use of food assistance, but lower use of cash
assistance.\18\ The CIS study did not examine the average
value of benefits received per recipient.
There are several reasons why our study differs from CIS's
study. First, CIS did not adjust for income, so the percent
of immigrants receiving benefits is higher in their study in
part because a greater percent of immigrants are low-income
and, all else remaining equal, more eligible for benefits.
Non-citizens are almost twice as likely to have low incomes
compared with natives.\19\ We focus on low-income adults and
children because public benefit programs are means-tested and
intended for use by low-income people. It is conventional in
analyses like these to focus on the low income because it
reduces misinterpretations about benefit utilization.
Second, CIS focused on households headed by immigrants
while we focus on individuals by immigration status. Our
study focuses on individuals because immigrant-headed
households often include both immigrants and citizens. Since
citizen children constitute the bulk of children in
immigrant-headed households and are eligible for benefits,
CIS's method of using the immigrant-headed household as the
unit of analysis systematically inflates immigrants' benefit
usage. For example, 30 percent of U.S children receiving
Medicaid or CHIP benefits are

[[Page S4454]]

children in immigrant-headed families and 90 percent of those
children are citizens.\20\
Third, CIS focused on immigrants in general, including
naturalized citizens, while we also included non-citizen
immigrants. Naturalized citizens are accorded the same access
to public benefits as native-born citizens and are more
assimilated, meaning their opinions of benefit use are more
similar to those of native born Americans. Separating non-
citizens from naturalized Americans gives a clearer picture
of which immigrant groups are actually receiving benefits.

conclusion

Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have
lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or
citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover,
when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the
average value of benefits per recipient is almost always
lower than for the native-born. For Medicaid, if there are
100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be
about $98,400, while for the same number of non-citizen
adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The
benefits cost of non-citizens is 42 percent below the cost of
the native-born adults. For children, a comparable
calculation for 100 non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs,
while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in
benefits. The benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66
percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of
citizen parents.
The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower
average benefits means that the overall financial cost of
providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most
naturalized immigrants is lower than for native-born people.
Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than
similarly poor natives.

end notes

This is a condensed version of Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen,
``The Use of Public Assistance Benefits by Citizens and Non-
citizen Immigrants in the United States,'' Cato Working
Paper, February 19, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/
working-paper/usepublic-assistance-benefits-citizens-non-
citizen-immigrants-united.
1. R. Capps, M. Fix, and E. Henderson, ``Trends in
Immigrants' Use of Public Assistance after Welfare Reform,''
in Immigrants and Welfare:The Impact of Welfare Reform on
America's Newcomers, M. Fix, ed. (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2009), pp. 123-52; and L. Ku, ``Changes in
Immigrants' Use of Medicaid and Food Stamps: The Role of
Eligibility and Other Factors,'' in Immigrants and Welfare:
The Impact of Welfare Reform on America's Newcomers, M. Fix,
ed. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009), pp. 152-92.
2. S. Camarota, Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with
Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food
Programs (Washington: Center for Immigration Studies, 2011);
S. Camarota, Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of
America's Foreign-Born Population (Washington: Center for
Immigration Studies, 2012); and Office of Senator Jim DeMint,
``Pickpocket: How Big Government Bureaucracy, Regulations,
Taxes and Out-of-Control Spending Rob Taxpayers: One-third of
Immigrants Households Use Welfare,'' October 12, 2012, http:/
/www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.
cfm?p=pickpocket&contentrecord_id=c81 c7eb2-3d1a-42a1_a3e5-
a5c913f4fd23. Because Senator DeMint has resigned from the
Senate to become President of the Heritage Foundation, this
website has since been closed.
3. An immigrant is a foreign born person, except those born
to American citizens living abroad.
4. The Census Bureau does not ask about non-citizen
immigrant legal status.
5. Ibid.
6. Q. Ji and J. Batalova, ``College-Educated Immigrants in
the United States,'' Migration Policy Institute, December
2012, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/ display.
cfm?ID=927.
7. E. Grieco et al., ``The Foreign-Born Population in the
United States: 2010, '' U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey Reports (ACS-19), May 2012.
8. H. Duleep and M. Regets, ``Immigrants and Human-Capital
Investment,'' American Economic Review 89, no. 2 (1999): 186-
91; and H. Duleep and D. Dowhan, ``Insights from Longitudinal
Data on Earnings Growth of U.S. Foreign Born Men,''
Demography 39, no. 3 (2002): 485-506.
9. Many of the key federal rules were established in 1996
by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, as amended by the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, although there have
been subsequent amendments in a variety of laws. For primary
federal rules, see Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human
Services, ``Summary of Immigrant Eligibility Restrictions
under Current Law as of 2/25/2009,'' http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
immigration/restrictions-sum.shtml. For a more comprehensive
review, including state variations in policies, see National
Immigration Law Center (NILC), Guide to Immigrant Eligibility
for Federal Programs, 4th ed. (Los Angeles: National
Immigration Law Center, 2002). In particular, see the NILC's
updates of laws and state options at http://www.nilc.org/
guideupdate.html.
10. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
begins: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.''
11. See the NILC updates for more detail about state
choices at http://www.nilc.org/guideupdate.html.
12. In Medicaid, payments to health care providers for
emergency services are rendered to undocumented immigrants
who otherwise meet Medicaid eligibility criteria (e.g.,
income, category, age). Emergency rooms, because of the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, are
required to treat undocumented immigrants like other patients
regardless of insurance status. The Medicaid provision helps
ensure that reimbursement is available to the emergency care
providers.
13. R. Capps, M. Fix, and E. Henderson, ``Trends in
Immigrants' Use of Public Assistance after Welfare Reform,''
pp. 123-52.
14. MEPS does not have information about citizenship, so we
compare native-born vs. foreign-born low-income children and
adults.
15. L. Ku, ``Health-Insurance Coverage and Medical
Expenditures for Immigrants and Native-Born Citizens in the
United States,'' American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 7
(2009): 1322-28; and S. Mohanty et al., ``Health
CareExpenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A
Nationally Representative Analysis,'' American Journal of
Public Health 95, no. 8 (2005): 1431-38.
16. CPS data do not indicate which particular household
members receive SNAP benefits, so all that can be determined
is that a household received SNAP and that some members of
the household are immigrants and some are not. If two citizen
children are eligible for SNAP but their two immigrant
parents are not, Census data only reveal that all four are
part of a household receiving SNAP.
17. The CPS does not enumerate which children receive cash
assistance and SSI benefits because the Census Bureau uses
these data to compute adults' incomes, but it does not
compute income for children. The CPS data indicate which
individual adults report receiving cash assistance and SSI
but does not reveal which children received these benefits;
we only know if they are members of households that received
cash assistance or SSI. Thus, some immigrant children may be
in families getting TANF or SSI benefits, but they may not be
recipients.
18. S. Camarota, Immigrants in the United States: A Profile
of America's Foreign-Born Population (Washington: Center for
Immigration Studies, 2012); and S. Camarota, Welfare Use by
Immigrant Households with Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid,
Housing, and Food Programs (Washington: Center for
Immigration Studies, 2011).
19. C. DeNavas-Walt, B. Proctor, and J. Smith, Current
Population Reports, P60-243, Income, Poverty, and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011, U.S. Census
Bureau (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012).
20. Ibid.
____

[From the Cato Institute, Aug. 2010]

Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not To Collect Welfare

(By Stuart Anderson)

Some oppose immigration because they believe immigrant use
of welfare demonstrates immigrants do not assimilate in
America. Others argue the immigrant work ethic remains strong
and that immigrants do not come here to get on the dole.
Examining data and eligibility rules provides an answer as to
who is right on this issue.
Welfare and immigration is a combustible topic. In many
ways, the issue is less fiscal than emotional. Americans
treat the concept of newcomers arriving in America and
immediately receiving government handouts as akin to an in-
law moving into their basement and refusing to look for a
job. It's not so much the cost as the principle of the thing.
The good news is there is little evidence that immigrants
come to America to go on welfare, rather than to work, flee
persecution or join family members in the United States.
To evaluate whether immigrants come here to be on the dole
one has to examine several aspects of the issue. First, it is
necessary to look at the eligibility rules for immigrants,
which are complicated and were overhauled in 1996. Second,
one should evaluate their level of workforce participation,
since if immigrants are working, then they are not bursting
the welfare rolls. And third, we should compare native and
immigrant use of welfare programs. Similar benefit use rates
would indicate immigrants are not becoming fiscal burdens on
other residents of the country.

ELIGIBILITY RULES ARE TIGHT FOR ARRIVING IMMIGRANTS

Upon first arriving in the country, immigrants are
generally ineligible for federal means-tested benefits
programs. With the exception of refugees, eligibility for
programs usually requires immigrants to have been in the
United States for 5 years or more in a lawful immigrant
status.
In 1996, Congress changed the rules for immigrant benefit
eligibility as part of a broader reform of the nation's
welfare laws. The tighter regulations resulted in a decrease
in immigrant welfare use. ``There were substantial declines
between 1994 and 1999 in legal immigrants' use of all major
benefit programs: TANF or Temporary Assistance for Needy
Children (down 60 percent), food stamps (down 48 percent),
SSI (down 32 percent), and Medicaid (down 15 percent),''
according to a 2003 report by the Urban Institute.\1\

[[Page S4455]]

Even before the changes in the law, there was little
support for the view that individual immigrants were more
likely to be on welfare than natives.\2\ One of the
difficulties in measuring welfare use is that eligibility for
some benefits are geared toward individuals and others are
based on family, and families may live in households that go
beyond two spouses and their children. If one labels a
household as ``using welfare'' even when only one person in a
house is receiving benefits, then it is likely to inflate the
data on welfare use for immigrants, since the foreign-born
tend to maintain larger households. On the other hand, such a
calculation could capture data on a U.S. citizen child born
to immigrant parents.
At the state level, eligibility rules differ and can be
less restrictive than federal rules. Moreover, a child born
in America is a U.S. citizen and can receive benefits if he
or she meets a program's eligibility criteria, regardless of
a parent's immigration status.
If immigrants have been seeking states with lenient benefit
eligibility, then they're not doing a good job. Author and
Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley notes many
states with recent large increases in their immigrant
populations, such as Arkansas, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Utah and Georgia, are primarily states with low and
below average social spending.\3\
Prior to the 1996 reforms, there was concern that non-
citizen parents were making excessive use of SSI
(Supplemental Security Income). With the exception of
refugees and other ``humanitarian immigrants,'' veterans,
active duty military and their families, and certain Native
Americans born abroad, Congress enacted a complete ban on SSI
for non-citizens who enter the United States after August 22,
1996.\4\ Lawful permanent residents with credit for 40
quarters of work history in the U.S. can receive SSI once
they have been in ``qualified'' status for 5 years or more.
In 1995, 3.2 percent of non-citizens used SSI, compared to
1.3 percent in 2006. Similarly, Congress barred most non-
citizens arriving after August 22, 1996, from using food
stamps, although this was modified in 2002 to allow non-
citizen children and certain other lawfully residing
immigrants to use food stamps. In general, a sponsor of an
immigrant can be ``required to reimburse the government for
any means-tested public benefit the alien has received,''
notes attorney Susan Fortino-Brown.\5\

WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION RATES: IMMIGRANTS AND NATIVES

Immigrant men, ages 18 to 64, are more likely to work than
native-born Americans. According to 2004 Census data analyzed
by the Pew Hispanic Center, the labor force participation
rate for legal immigrant males in that age group is 86
percent, compared to 83 percent for native-born males (see
Table 1.) The rate is even higher--92 percent--for illegal
immigrant males. Immigrant women are more likely to be
married and have children, according to Census data, and this
leads to a lower labor force participation rate--64 percent
for legal immigrant women vs. 73 percent for native-born
women.\6\

NATIVE VS. IMMIGRANT USE OF WELFARE

An analysis of Census data released by the House Ways and
Means Committee indicate the proportion of natives, non-
citizens and naturalized citizens who use AFDC/TANF (Aid to
Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for
Needy Children), Medicaid and food stamps is similar for the
three groups. More important, the data show the vast majority
of immigrants are not receiving these types of public
benefits. Less than 1 percent of naturalized citizens and
non-citizens in 2006 received benefits under TANF.\7\
The data tell the story:
In 2006, 0.6 percent of natives used AFDC/TANF, compared to
0.3 percent of naturalized citizens and 0.7 percent for non-
citizens.
For Medicaid: 13.1 percent of natives used Medicaid,
compared to 10.8 percent of naturalized citizens and 11.6
percent of non-citizens.
For SSI, which most natives would not use because they are
eligible for Social Security benefits, 1.6 percent of natives
used SSI (Supplemental Security Income) in 2006, compared to
3.0 percent of naturalized citizens and 1.3 percent of non-
citizens. (See Table 7.1.)
And 7.7 percent of natives used the Food Stamp program,
compared to 3.9 percent of naturalized citizens and 6.2
percent of non-citizens.

CONCLUSION

Concerns about immigrant welfare use do not represent valid
grounds for supporting reductions in legal immigration. Nor
is it reasonable to oppose a better approach to addressing
illegal immigration, such as by instituting new temporary
visa categories. Historically, immigrants have come to
America not for a handout, but in search of opportunity.
There is no reason to think this will change.

endnotes

1. Walter A. Ewing, Not Getting What They Paid For
(Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, June 2003), 1.
2. In research for the Urban Institute in 1994, Rebecca L.
Clark wrote, ``Among immigrants, high rates of welfare use
are limited to one group of immigrants--those who entered as
refugees--and one type of welfare--SSI. For other types of
welfare, immigrants who did not enter as refugees are no more
likely to use welfare than natives.'' From Rebecca L. Clark,
``The Costs of Providing Public Assistance and Education to
Immigrants'' (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, May 1994),
18, as cited in Julian L. Simon, Immigration, The Demographic
and Economic Facts, (Washington, DC: The Cato Institute and
the National Immigration Forum, 1995), 35-36.
3. Jason Riley, Let Them In (New York, NY: Gotham Books,
2008), 108.
4. Thank you to Jonathan Blazer and Tanya Broder of the
National Immigration Law Center for their assistance.
5. Susan Fortino-Brown, ``Family-Sponsored Immigration, in
Navigating the Fundamentals of Immigration Law: Guidance and
Tips for Successful Practice, 2007-08 Edition, ed., Grace E.
Akers, (Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers
Association, 2007), 326.
6. Jeffery S. Passel, Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and
Characteristics, (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, June
14, 2005), 25.
7. House Ways and Means Committee, 2008 Green Book,
Appendix H, Table H-9--Estimated Benefit Usage by Citizenship
Categories: 1995, 19998, 2001, 2006.

Ms. HIRONO. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELLER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Barbara Vucanovich

Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, Monday was a sad day for my home State of
Nevada. This week we learned that Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich
passed away in Reno just a few weeks after her 92nd birthday. As the
first woman elected to represent Nevada in Congress, Barbara was a
dedicated and effective legislator, admired by her colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. As the first person to represent Nevada's 2nd
Congressional District--a district I was privileged to represent in the
House of Representatives--Barbara was a role model to countless
Nevadans. She exemplified the highest standards of public service.
Moreover, Barbara was a dear friend.
When I came to Washington for the very first time, Barbara invited me
to join her for lunch, even though I was a total stranger. It was a
kind and considerate gesture I will never forget. Even today, when
constituents come to Washington to visit, I tell them the story about
Barbara and how I aspire to the high standards she set.
During her seven terms in Congress, she was a vigorous advocate for
important issues, including breast cancer research and was herself a
breast cancer survivor. As chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on
Military Construction--at the time one of only two women ever to serve
as chairman of an appropriations subcommittee--she was a strong and
effective voice for America's men and women in uniform, and she played
a pivotal role in protecting Nevada's vast resources while serving on
the House Interior Committee, helping to create the Great Basin
National Park.
Barbara served in Congress at a time when Members of different
parties could come together and find solutions for the American people.
She served at a time when compromise and common sense guided
decisionmaking, when results were more important than petty
partisanship, and the same was certainly true of Barbara.
Barbara was a devoted mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. She
was an admired and beloved public servant, a patriot, a proud Nevadan,
and a dear friend.
My heart goes out to her family and friends during this difficult
time. My wife Lynne and I join our fellow Nevadans in remembering the
inspirational life and legacy of Barbara Vucanovich.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to speak in strong
support of the immigration bill currently on the floor of the Senate.
First and foremost, we need an immigration system that is fair. We
are a nation of immigrants. My grandparents came to this country
seeking a new life for their family. Our story is similar to the story
of millions of other families in this country.
Immigration is very important for our country. It is important for
our

[[Page S4456]]

economy. We need highly skilled workers who can innovate, create, and
move our country forward. All of our workers should be protected under
our laws and not just some.
We also need strong border security. We need to know who is coming
into this country, and we must make sure we have a legal system that
protects the homeland.
So we need a balance. For immigration reform we need a balance
between border security and lawful employment and a pathway to
citizenship and the ability to lawfully remain in this country for
those who are currently undocumented. The legislation before us creates
that balance. I wish to compliment my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who have brought forward this package. It is not what any one of
us would have written, but it does balance the security of our country
with border security and a lawful system for employment with the
realities of 11 million people currently living in the shadows who will
have an opportunity to remain in this country in a lawful way, to be
able to work and ultimately become citizens of America. But those
individuals have to earn their way. They have to pay taxes, learn
English, be law-abiding, and they cannot break into the line. They have
to go to the end of the line.
This is a fair bill. This is a bill that at long last fixes the
broken system we have in this country.
Over the past months, I have held a number of immigration roundtables
throughout the State of Maryland. At the Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Service in Baltimore we discussed the importance of
streamlining the process in refugee and asylum cases and eliminating
barriers to family unification.
We discussed the need for strong provisions to prevent human
trafficking and to make sure the U.S. labor protections apply to all
immigrant workers. We talked about making sure we have a realistic 10-
year pathway to citizenship that can be both started and finished in a
workable manner by undocumented immigrants. All those issues have been
addressed in the bipartisan bill that is currently before the Senate.
I held this similar discussion at CASA of Maryland in Hyattsville. We
discussed the DREAM Act recently approved by the voters in Maryland and
the DREAM Act provisions that are pending in the bill before the
Senate. The group stressed the importance of family reunification and
the need to create a workable pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants. We discussed the need to clear up and eliminate the backlog
of legal immigrants waiting in the system so the undocumented
immigrants do not have to jump ahead in line.
That is what this bill does. It provides the resources so we can
process those who are currently in the system in a fair manner, which
is in the best interests of this country and the best interests of
those who are currently caught in this backlog. The bill provides for
an orderly way to consider legal immigration and to deal with those who
are currently undocumented as they come into our system.
These roundtables were important for me to hold to hear directly from
Marylanders who are affected by the immigration policy decisions we
make in the Senate. Maryland, as well as the United States, has a long
and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, and our Nation is truly a
nation of immigrants. According to the Immigration Policy Center and
U.S. Census Bureau statistics, foreign-born immigrants make up roughly
1 in 7 Marylanders--14 percent of our population. More than a quarter
of Maryland's scientists were foreign born, as were roughly one-fifth
of our health care practitioners, mathematicians, and computer
specialists. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number of
immigrants in Maryland with a college degree increased nearly 70
percent between 2000 and 2011.
My point here is that immigrants contribute to the growth of America.
They help us develop the innovations of tomorrow that will create the
jobs of tomorrow. They help solve the problems we have today. They help
our economy grow. That is what has made America strong.
According to the Urban Institute, immigrant households paid nearly
one-fifth--or $4 billion--of all taxes collected in Maryland, including
Federal income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare taxes; State
income, sales, and auto taxes; and local property, income, sales, auto,
and utility taxes.
I hope we can keep these facts and statistics in mind as we enter
into this historic debate on how to overhaul our Nation's immigration
laws. We should avoid stereotypes and generalizations in this debate.
But more importantly, I want to put a human face on these facts and
statistics, so I am going to share two stories of individuals who came
in contact with our office. These two are representative of literally
millions of people. We hear the numbers, but when we listen to the
stories and look at the faces of people involved, we know we have to
act.
The first is about Yves Gerald Gomes, 20 years of age, who was
originally from India. I quote him:

My own story started in 1994, when I came to this country
in the arms of my parents. I was only a year and a half. My
parents came from India and Bangladesh, hoping to provide me
with opportunities, something they didn't have growing up in
poverty in their homes. My earliest memories in life are
growing up in MD in the basement of my great aunt and great
uncle's house and learning English from their children (my
older cousins) by watching Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Full
House. Soon after, in 1995, my brother was born.
My parents had an ongoing asylum case, which was denied in
2006. But over that 12 year span, my father worked hard as a
hotel server in order to help my mother pay for her college
education and for us to live comfortably; growing up I felt
as though I was just like any of my middle-class, American
peers from school. But in 2006, we became ``undocumented.''
Our work permits could no longer be renewed, so my father was
forced to quit his job at the hotel, and my mother had to
resign her tenure as a college professor, and surrender her
PhD studies in computer sciences. In 2008, our home was
raided by ICE, a few days after my dad was pulled over one
night for driving with a busted taillight in Baltimore.
Ultimately both of my parents were deported in 2009. I faced
my own deportation in 2010, but was able to remain in the US
because of the [hard] work of my lawyer . . . the support of
my friends, church community, [and] the media. . . .
It will be 5 years since my brother and I have last seen
our parents. Currently my brother and I live with the same
great aunt, great uncle and cousin with whom we resided when
my family first came to US. It was disheartening when my
parents missed my own high school graduation, and it will
again be disheartening when they will miss my younger
brother's high school graduation. . . .
Moreover, the pain of separation resonates to our extended
family too. My mother treated my great-aunt and great-uncle,
naturalized US citizens for 40+ years, like her own parents,
and she cannot be here to take care of them in their old age.
Their son, my cousin (a US citizen) has a degenerative muscle
disease which prevents him from traveling. If immigration
reform does not happen, it's possible he will never get to
see my father, whom he treats like his older brother, ever
again.
I will graduate from the University of Maryland College
Park in 3 semesters with my undergraduate degree in
Biochemistry, and I really hope that my parents will be there
to see me walk across the stage. For myself and millions of
others, immigration reform means a pathway to pursue our
dreams and give back to American society, our home;
personally, I want to enter into the field of medical
research or pharmacy. Moreover, for myself and so many
others, immigration reform means the hope of being reunited
with family members, and also it means no longer having to
wake up every morning with the constant fear of deportation.
I have lived in the United States since I was a year old.
This is the only country I have ever known as my home.
Despite all the challenges my family has faced, I still love
the United States, and have always considered myself to be
American at heart. I hope that after this year, I can be an
American on paper too.

Let me tell one more story. I could read from other letters we have
received. I am sure the Presiding Officer has the same situation. We
have all heard from people in our communities.
Let me talk about Raymond, who was originally from the Philippines. I
quote him:

My family and I came to the United States in hopes and
dreams of a better life; we left everything behind in the
Philippines in pursuit of the ``American Dream.'' At the age
of nine, assimilating to the American culture was not
difficult; naturally I felt as though I was just like
everyone else. Or so I thought. The harsh reality of being
undocumented hit me my senior year of high school when I came
home from an invitational track meet where I was scouted and
offered scholarships. I was so excited to tell my parents the
great news; to this day I still remember the proud look on my
father's face. My mother on the other hand suddenly broke

[[Page S4457]]

down in tears. . . . I was confused as to why she was asking
for forgiveness, she began to explain that we were
undocumented and due to my immigration status I would not be
able to accept the scholarships. Finally hitting that wall
made me realize that all my hard work would amount to
nothing.
For as long as I could remember my family has constantly
faced financial struggles, but somehow we always found a way
to make ends meet. My father, who was once a successful
businessman, was forced to work odd jobs such as landscaping,
delivery, and driving a taxi. My mother, who was once a nurse
practitioner, works multiple jobs from cleaning houses,
babysitting, and taking care of the elderly. My sister who is
only two years older than me, made the sacrifice of not going
to college so that I would be able to, and she works any job
that comes her way. They all work day in and day out to make
sure there's food on the table, clothes on my back, and a
roof over our heads. I know that if my parents were able to
work legally in the US in business and nursing, we would not
struggle as much, and we would be able to contribute much
more to the US economy. Yet, because of our current broken
immigration system, our hard work does not pay dividends.
In 2011, I became involved in the campaign for the Maryland
DREAM Act . . . which involved grassroots organizing. At this
point I realized that no longer would I stay silent in the
shadows, I had to let my voice be heard and take a stand
against this injustice that my community and I faced.
Throughout the campaign I realized that even as youth we can
still bring forth change, which is why to this day I continue
to fight for my family and all 11 million undocumented
immigrants in the US.
In this year's push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,
no one will be left behind; we must stand united and battle
this suppression. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr.
``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

I could bring up many other stories, put faces on these numbers,
because I think we need to do that. This immigration bill is for the
two persons whom I just talked about, their families, and the 11
million. It is for this Nation.
There is bipartisan agreement that our Nation's immigration and
border security system is broken and must be fixed. We must ensure our
borders are secure and that we know who is coming and going from the
Nation. At the same time we must find a tough but fair process that
allows the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States to come out of the shadows and sets reasonable requirements if
they want to stay in this country.
This legislation creates a fair path to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants currently living in the United States. This path to
citizenship must be earned and would require individuals to register
with the government, submit biometric data, learn English, pass
criminal background and national security checks, and pay taxes and
penalties before they would be eligible for a provisional legal status.
This pathway to citizenship requires individuals to earn their legal
status over a period of no fewer than 10 years.
In addition, the legislation addresses the need for improved border
security and requires a 90-percent effectiveness rate for apprehensions
and returns in high-risk border sections before individuals in
provisional legal status can adjust to permanent residence. It also
creates an effective employment verification system--using the E-Verify
system--that will prevent identity theft, end the hiring of
unauthorized workers, and help stop future waves of illegal
immigration. And finally, this legislation establishes an improved
process for future legal immigration that is responsive to the needs of
American businesses and supports reunification of families.
Despite fears that immigrants will take jobs from Americans, numerous
studies show that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not
compete for the same jobs. In fact, a 2009 study by the Cato Institute,
a conservative think tank, found that immigrants have a positive effect
on the workforce.
The business sector strongly supports comprehensive immigration
reform. That is because our economy is in need of highly skilled
workers who can help stimulate growth and keep our Nation at the
forefront of innovation and invention. From 1990 to 2005, foreign-born
nationals founded more than 25 percent of the technology startups in
the United States.
Immigration reform is about keeping families together and ensuring
that immigration laws are respected. I want to commend my colleagues
from both parties for coming together in crafting a bipartisan bill
that creates a workable framework for comprehensive reform. Now the
Senate needs to move forward in passing legislation that is both
comprehensive and fair.
This legislation enjoys broad support from a diverse coalition of
labor, business, civil rights, and religious groups. Polls indicate
broad support across party lines for comprehensive immigration reform,
with most Americans agreeing that immigration is a net positive for the
United States. Most Americans want Congress to take action to fix our
broken immigration system. While this legislation is not perfect--it is
not what I would have drafted--I believe it is a strong step forward
and a vast improvement over our current laws, and I urge my colleagues
to support this balanced approach to immigration reform.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that ``Congress
shall have power . . . to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.''
Congress last enacted a major overhaul of immigration policy in 1986
during President Reagan's administration, over a quarter century ago.
The time is now for Congress to act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Alabama.

Tribute To Marcus Peacock

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to do
something special. This week, the Senate community will say goodbye to
Marcus Peacock, my staff director on the Senate Budget committee.
During his tenure with the committee, he has been a constant warrior
for sound finances and this country that he so loves. I am going to
miss his exemplary service, and the Nation will miss his service.
Marcus has been with me since I became ranking member on the Budget
Committee. During that time, he has helped my staff and me negotiate
and navigate the intricacies, quirks, and arcana of the budget process,
which, as anyone with budget experience will tell you, can be a most
daunting and frequently frustrating task, even for the most savvy
budgeteer. He has approached every task and every challenge with his
trademark sunny disposition, remarkable unflappability, and can-do
attitude.
During his tenure with the Budget Committee, Marcus was instrumental
in crafting the Honest Budget Act--we need that around here--
legislation that I introduced in 2011 that exposed some of the most
egregious budget gimmicks, gimmicks that are often utilized to get
around budget requirements. Together we have achieved a string of
victories on budget points of order. I think as many as maybe seven
consecutive times the Senate has failed to proceed with spending bills
that exceeded our budget limits. That is a very significant
achievement. He has been able to therefore expose, and frustrate, some
of Washington's spendthrift ways.
I was very glad to have him at my side when the Senate finally
produced its first budget in 3 years. It had been so long since the
last budget that everyone was a little rusty, and I was grateful to
have his counsel.
Marcus brought invaluable experience to his leadership of the Budget
Committee staff because he's spent his professional career creating and
implementing ways to measure and improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of government programs. Whether he was managing oversight
efforts on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
leading the Performance Improvement Initiatives at the Office of
Management and Budget under President Bush, or ferreting out waste and
inefficiency as the Deputy Administrator at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Marcus has always been a careful steward of
taxpayers' dollars. It is their money. It comes to us in trust. We have
an absolute duty to show fidelity to it.
Marcus imposed those same principles at the helm of the Senate Budget
Committee, turning back 15 percent of his staff budget every year,
coming in 15 percent below the allocated amount--something I was very
proud of.
I would be remiss if I also did not thank Marcus' wife Donna and
their two lovely daughters, Iona and Mey,

[[Page S4458]]

for loaning his time to public service. Hours on the Hill can be long
and I know he's missed a recital or sports match here and there, and
probably several ``date nights'' too. So thank you Donna, Iona, and
Mey.
Truly, Marcus Peacock is one of the finest public servants I have
ever had the honor to work with. His character and integrity are
sterling. He honors his family. Surely he is a role model for a high
public servant.
Marcus, I know I speak on behalf of the entire staff of your Budget
Committee when I say that we will miss your wit, your leadership, and
your dedication to good government. I wish you the very best of luck. I
know our paths will cross again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Order for Recess

Mr. REID. Madam President, a number of people have said they did not
know what was going on with the intelligence situation that has
developed in the country. The programs have been around for 7 years. We
have had a number of briefings, both classified and unclassified. We
are having another one at 2:30. General Alexander will be there. He has
some new stuff he wants to lay out for us. Everyone should go. If you
do not go, you have no excuse for saying you do not know what is going
on. This meeting has been scheduled all week.
Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from
2:30 to 3:30 p.m. I do not want anyone to have an excuse for why they
are not going there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 953

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, in less than 3 weeks the interest rates
on subsidized student loans will double if Congress fails to act. This
is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. Senator Harkin and Senator Reed
have proposed a plan to hold the interest rate steady at 3.4 percent
for 2 years. This will give Congress time to develop a long-term plan
to address the rising burden of student loan debt, a long-term plan
that keeps interest rates low and that addresses rising college costs.
Two weeks ago a majority of Senators in this body voted to approve
this temporary extension to provide a measure of relief to our
families. Unfortunately, Republicans have decided to filibuster this
bill, blocking the measure that has majority support. That is not the
way our democracy should work.
I met with students in Massachusetts earlier this week. They told me
we need to fix this problem. They said to me: Do not double my rate. Do
not double my rate. Dozens of Massachusetts universities have asked us
to step in and help their students. Petitions urging us to stop
interest rates from doubling on July 1 have collected more than 1
million signatures. Students, parents, families are asking for help.
They do not have time for politics.
I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the
majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the
Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of Calendar No. 74, S.
953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, and that the bill be read a
third time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, and the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with
no intervening objection or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BURR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my good
friend and colleague from Massachusetts stated that students in
Massachusetts have come up and said: Senator, fix the student loan
program. Fix it. She said that what Republicans have done is they have
filibustered it. The fact is that what Republicans offered was a fix.
What the Senator comes to the floor today to do is to have a 2-year
extension of a student loan program that the Secretary of Education
admits does not fix the problem. As a matter of fact, in a Washington
paper today, Secretary of Education Duncan is very clear and implores
the Senate and the Congress: Fix it. Find a long-term solution.
Let me state for my colleagues that what the Senator from
Massachusetts is here to do is to extend a preferred interest rate of
3.4 percent for 2 years on 39 percent of the student loans that are
taken out. Current law is that for subsidized student loans, they are
subsidized at 3.4 percent. That preferred half, 50-percent cut, is
effective until the end of June. But under current law, the
unsubsidized Stafford loans are at 6.8 percent. The parent and graduate
PLUS loans are at 7.9 percent. My colleague's amendment only covers the
subsidized Stafford loans that are 39 percent of all of the loans that
are administered. So what her proposal says is that we are not going to
fix it, we are going to kick the can down the road for 2 more years. To
the parents and to those who do not get subsidized Stafford loans, we
are going to continue to charge you double what we charge other
students. If we look at the math, where we are is unsustainable.
I understand that when we voted on a Republican alternative last
week, it was the Alexander-Coburn-Burr bill where we actually wanted to
tie the interest rate on an annual basis to the rate of the 10-year
Treasury bond. The advantage was that if you locked that in in any
given year, that was your interest rate for the entire life of the
loan.
What students want is predictability. What they want to do is
understand how much is it going to cost them for their education, not
this year but over the life of having to pay it off. Well, you know
what. We put a proposal on the table. It was routinely rejected even
though it was a solution. It was a fix. It was what the President has
called for. It is what the Secretary of Education called for.
The President also proposed a fix. The President's--I do not agree
with all aspects of it, but it is a start. It is the nucleus of a
compromise. In the President's bill, he ties everything to the 10-year
Treasury bond--very similar to the fix Republicans came up with. Here
is the difference: The President ties subsidized loans to the price of
the Treasury bill plus .93. Ours was 3.0. On unsubsidized Stafford
loans, it was 10-year Treasury bill plus 2.93--almost identical to the
Republican proposal. For parents and graduates, the President's bill
called for a 10-year bond rate plus 3.93 percent. So if you do the math
and you look at 60 percent of it not being subsidized and 40 percent
being subsidized, what Republicans laid on the table and what the
President laid on the table are very similar. As a matter of fact, both
the Republican proposal and the President's proposal said: Let's fix
the rate for the life of the loan.
So not only am I being asked today to agree to a unanimous consent
request to take up a bill that does not fix the problem, I am being
asked to grant unanimous consent to a bill that does not even extend
the same rate for the life of the loan for the students who are
borrowing it. Imagine where we would be in the marketplace if we wanted
to buy a home, and when we walked in, our lender looked at us and said:
I am going to lend you the $300,000, but I have a right to readjust the
rate every year. Some people take a risk at doing that. They are called
mortgages that are fixed with ARMs--adjustable rate mortgages. After
the downturn, they were not very popular. As a matter of fact, many of
those were the ones that were foreclosed on.
Here is the challenge: We have to present something that is
understandable and that is predictable and something that is
financially sustainable for the American people. Some have come to the
floor and they have been brave enough to say that these bills actually
produce savings. Let me squash that. The Congressional Budget Office
has projected that direct student loans issued between 2013 and 2023
will cost $95 billion based upon a fair value basis, in contrast with a
projected savings of $184 billion using questionable fuzzy math.
So make no mistake about it, there are no savings that can be claimed
from any of the proposals that are out there. It is a cost to the
American taxpayer, one that I think is a justifiable investment in
education if we applied it to everybody. But this is not applied to
everybody. It is a unanimous consent request for 39 percent of the
individuals who take out student loans. To the other 61 percent, it
says: Hey, you live with 6.8 or 7.9.
So I am not in a position today to agree to the unanimous consent
request that has been made, but I am in

[[Page S4459]]

a position to do this: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of the bill that is at the desk, which
is the proposal of the President of the United States on student loan
issues. I further ask that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in
the usual form and that at the expiration of time, the bill be read a
third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill.
Let's put this to bed now. Let's not wait until the end of June, when
we have used a couple of more weeks, to say to kids: You ought to be
concerned because rates are going to go up. Let's lock it down. I will
not argue with the rates the President set even though I do not agree
with it all. It starts to fix the problem. It is a solution in the
right direction, where just assuming that we extend what is currently
broken, does not fix it, and is not cost-sustainable, I believe is the
wrong thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from North Carolina?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Reserving the right to object, I would like to focus on
three words Senator Burr discussed, and they are ``unsustainable,''
``everybody,'' and ``fix.''
I heard all three, and I think all three are very important words
here. Let's go through this and figure out what it is the Senator is
proposing and what it is we need to do.
Right now we have a student loan program that produces $51 billion in
profits this year off the backs of our students, $51 billion. Yes, I
think that is unsustainable. We must find a way to deal with that.
In fact, Republicans did put a proposal on the table. Their proposal
would have increased profits to the Federal Government from the student
loan program by another $16 billion.
The Republicans' plan was to say let's take a debt load that is
already too difficult for students to deal with and let's make it
harder. That is, in my view, completely unsustainable. We have to do
better than that.
The question the Senator also raises is one about everybody: We need
to fix this problem for everybody. I agree with the Senator. We do,
indeed, need to fix this problem for everybody. Let's think about what
this is.
What we are talking about is student interest rates that are about to
double. What the Democrats have proposed, what I propose in the
original request for a UC, is that we not let those interest rates
double. We use that time to try to develop a comprehensive way to deal
with the rising costs of college and with the trillion dollars of
college loan debt that is outstanding.
In other words, we recognize this is a narrow slice. This is to
prevent our students from facing a double interest rate, a doubling of
their interest rates on July 1. We say we would use this time in order
to get a comprehensive answer for all of our students.
What the Senator has proposed and what he has asked for unanimous
consent on is not that. It is only a narrow slice of the question of
how we are going to deal with interest rates on loans going forward. It
doesn't deal with the interest of the loans outstanding, and it
certainly doesn't deal with the rising costs of college. They want to
put this problem to bed by saying that one problem we will deal with
and we will move on. Let's keep in mind we have seen what the
Republican plan will do. The Republican plan will cost our students an
additional $16 billion. That is the plan. Take a problem and make it
worse but not something that is sustainable and not something that
fixes it for everyone.
The third point he raised is he used the question of fix. I think fix
is exactly what we are talking about.
We have three different kinds of problems we need to solve. We have
the problem of $1 trillion of outstanding student loan debt that is
crushing our students. We have the problem of rising costs for college.
We must deal with this. We have the immediate problem of interest rates
about to double for our students.
We can fix one of those problems in the next 2 weeks. We could fix it
today. We could fix it by unanimous consent right now.
Then we could agree to sit down, on a bipartisan basis, and we could
work together to try to solve the larger problems. That is what our
students are asking for. That is what we need to do.
One last point I wish to make, I notice that Senator Burr cites the
Congressional Budget Office study. Let's just be clear what that same
study decided right from the beginning. The Congressional Budget Office
projects the total cost to the Federal Government of student loans
disbursed between 2013 and 2023--I believe that is what the Senator was
referring to--will be negative; that is, the student loan program will
produce savings that reduce the debt. Don't let anyone be confused by
what that language means--produce savings that reduce the debt--meaning
our kids have become a profit center for the Government. Right now this
government will lend to large financial institutions at less than 1
percent interest, but the plan has continued to produce profits off the
backs of our kids, and not small profits, tens of billions of dollars
of profits.
There is $51 billion projected this year. The Republicans are asking
for another $16 billion. We can't do that.
We need a sustainable answer. We need a fix that encompasses all of
our students, all of our families.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request from the Senator from
Massachusetts?
Mr. BURR. Madam President, continuing my objection, I am appalled. I
am, frankly, appalled. Out of the student loan program, the Democrats
push $8.7 billion to the Affordable Care Act; $8.7 billion of student
loan-designated money is going to pay for ObamaCare.
I realize the Senator wasn't here when the vote was made, but it is
$8.7 billion. To suggest that trying to be fiscally responsible is an
insult to this generation of students when they are sending $8.7
billion to a health care plan out of the student loan fund is
incredible.
Let me go a step further. The Senator quoted from the Congressional
Budget Office. Let me quote from the Congressional Budget Office as
well:

Taking account the cost of market risk significantly
reduces or eliminates the savings estimated for student loans
under the FCRA approach, making student loans costly to the
Federal government in most years during the coming decade.

Maybe you can pick these out that say we can make money off this, but
I am not sure it says it any clearer than that it costs the American
taxpayers money. Let me say I am fine with subsidizing student loans. I
am not objecting to that. I didn't object to the President's proposal.
I offered the President's proposal.
I am sure the President is going to be shocked to find out it doesn't
solve the problem because the Secretary of Education surely believes it
does.
Here is what I object to. I object to the fact that we are going to
give some kids a preferred rate, and we are going to sock it to the 61
percent of kids, parents, and postgrads. Why should they be denied the
same rate? Why are only 39 percent going to get a cut of 3.4?
Why? Because it is hard to do. It gives away a political tool.

You see, we are here arguing this because of politics, not because of
affordability of higher education. Thank goodness the President in his
budget proposal laid something on the table.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of waiting until the deadline. We
are going to come out here every week, and we are going to hear in 3
weeks: This is going to happen; in 2 weeks: This is going to happen;
and in 1 week: This is going to happen. We are going to come down to
the last day and we are going to dare each other not to do it.
I don't know what is going to happen on the last day, but I can tell
you what is going to happen every day until the last day. I am going to
come out and object to anything that does not solve the problem long
term. I don't want to go home and look at kids and tell them the rate
they agreed to this year is not the rate for the entirety of the loan,
period.
That is not the case under this bill. I am not going to go home and
look at two different students whom we have put in two different
categories and tell one: You have to pay 3.4 percent, but you have to
pay 6.8 percent.
That is wrong. It is not our role to pick winners and losers.
I would turn to my good friend from Massachusetts and ask, Have I in
any

[[Page S4460]]

way, shape or form misstated what her proposal does, which is extend
the 3.4 percent which is limited only to subsidized Stafford loans?
If the Senator thinks that is wrong, I would ask her to speak now.
Ms. WARREN. I believe, if I understand this correctly, what we are
trying to do is protect the subsidized Stafford loans. What I
understand the Republicans have tried to do is protect all the new
loans so no one is dealing with all the loans that already have been
issued and are at much higher interest rates. This is how I understand
it. If the Senator is talking about wanting----
Mr. BURR. Reclaiming my time----
Ms. WARREN. Then I assume the Senator means all the students with
student loan debt, and that is not my proposal.
Mr. BURR. Reclaiming my time, clearly, the Senator said her bill only
deals with the subsidized Stafford loan.
Under current law, let me state it again, unsubsidized Stafford
loans, current law, 6.8 percent; parent and graduate PLUS loans, 7.9
percent. Somehow, somebody thinks this is fair.
I, personally, participated in coming up with something that treats
everybody the same, that ties it to a 10-year Treasury, that fixes the
rate above a 10-year Treasury that sets that number once a year, lets
students know exactly what their exposure is going to be, and provides
them the certainty of that interest rate for the life of the loan----
Ms. WARREN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BURR. Let me finish--which this unanimous consent request doesn't
incorporate.
In essence, the unanimous consent request says we are not going to
deal with this 61 percent; we are only going to deal with 39 percent.
Because they have received the preferred rate up to this point, we want
to protect the preferred rate.
Some people think it is the role of Congress. I don't think that is
the role of Congress.
I yield to the Senator for a question through the Chair.
Ms. WARREN. I wish to make sure I understand. Have the Republicans
put any proposal on the table that will deal with all of the
outstanding student loan debt?
Mr. BURR. I would be happy to address the Senator's question.
No, we haven't. The President's proposal--and I said there are parts
of it I don't agree with--makes loan forgiveness tax free.
Maybe what we ought to debate is whether we are going to make college
tuition free, because this is a race for who can make it the cheapest
on the backs of the American taxpayer--when we are $1 trillion out of
balance, $1 trillion we spend.
Excuse me, we have new numbers: $646 billion this year, projected to
go up next year. We are accruing debt on this country's books at a rate
nobody ever dreamed. We are still talking about constructing programs
that financially are unsustainable because we are using somebody else's
checkbook.
This is the definition of insanity. Therefore, I would object to the
Senator's original request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. I just wanted to return to this question, since the
Senator has raised it, about the Congressional Budget Office. Let's all
be clear about what the current student loan interest rates produce for
the government.
The CBO, the agency in charge of estimating these costs for the
government, maintains that this year the government will make $51
billion in profits from the student loans. Their most recent report on
this--I read the language earlier--is clear and direct. We will make a
profit.
The CBO uses this accounting method because it reflects reality. It
is the reality of how these loans affect the Federal budget. The CBO's
method takes into account the cost of lending money from the Treasury
and the projected money that will be returned to the Treasury.
It takes into account the risk that some students will default; in
other words, it is basic math.
Some people don't like the idea that the government is profiting from
the student loans. Their approach is to try to change the accounting
rules to treat the government as if it were a private bank rather than
the Federal Government, which it is.
The government is not a bank in a private market. If we want to
reduce the profits from student loans, then we should actually reduce
the profits from the student loans, not change the map, not bury our
heads in the sand and pretend those profits don't exist.
Let's go back to what the Senator has proposed. The Republicans
propose that we take $51 billion in profits that will currently be made
from the backs of our students and add another $16 billion in profits
off the backs of our students. This is fundamentally wrong. It is not
sustainable.
I think the larger point the Senator makes is one that says we have a
big problem. We need to talk about the debt that is outstanding. We
need to talk about how we are going to pay for college over time. We
can't do that in the next 2 weeks.
We need to make sure interest rates don't double, and then we need to
address this problem. I am pleased to work with people on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. BURR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should be aware we have a previous
order to recess.
Mr. BURR. I ask unanimous consent to ask one question of my colleague
from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURR. Does the Senator from Massachusetts agree that out of the
student loan fund $8.7 billion is diverted to the Affordable Care Act?
Ms. WARREN. No.
Mr. BURR. The Senator is not aware of that?
Ms. WARREN. Look, we can go back over the CBO numbers, but what is
clear right now is what the CBO has made clear. We will make $51
billion in profits off the backs of our students. The Republicans
propose to make another $16 billion off the backs of our students. We
can't do that. It is unsustainable. Our students are asking for more.
Mr. BURR. I thank my colleague for not answering.

____________________