[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 86 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4499-S4501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we continue yet another week debating S.
744, the bipartisan immigration bill, I hope we can start making some
progress on this vital legislation. The American people know what some
of us have to realize: our immigration system is broken; it has to be
fixed. If we are going to have an effective solution to this complex
problem, we cannot focus simply and effectively on one border or any
single aspect of our immigration system. We have to address all parts
of our immigration system.
Of course, we all agree we have to secure our borders, but we must
also reduce the incentives people have to come here illegally or to
overstay their visas. It means we have to implement E-Verify so
employers stop hiring those who are not authorized to work here. We
also have to eliminate the extensive backlogs that tear so many
families apart.
We have to respond to the needs of American farmers and technology
companies and investors who create jobs in this country. We also need
to remember that our history and the future of the Nation is based on
immigrants when we are considering the legalization process provided in
this bill.
Almost 4 weeks ago the Judiciary Committee voted to report this
immigration reform bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. I
understand the Congressional Budget Office's task is a difficult one,
with complex, comprehensive measures such as this. We expected their
score today. I hope they are able to get the official score early
tomorrow so we can move forward and complete consideration of this
bill. As we closed out each title during our extended mark ups, we
forwarded the text to the CBO, so they have had the border security
title and the non-immigrant visa title for well over a month. I look
forward to reviewing their analysis when we receive it.
In addition to the CBO score we are awaiting, we should also credit
the extensive testimony the Judiciary Committee received from former
CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He testified that immigration reform
``will increase the productivity growth in the U.S. economy, the
fundamental building block of higher standards of living, and generate
larger economic growth numbers than we have seen in recent years.''
Specifically, he estimated reform of this nature would increase
growth so that ``the overall growth rate and real GDP would rise from 3
percent to 3.9 percent, on average annually, over the first 10 years.
The upshot of GDP after 10 years would be higher--a difference of
$64,700 per capita versus $62,900 per capita. This higher per capita
income of $1,700 after 10 years is a core benefit of immigration
reform.''
According to Holtz-Eakin this increase in growth would also help
lower our deficit. In fact, he testified that ``Over 10 years an
additional 0.1 percentage in average economic growth will reduce the
federal deficit by a bit over $300 billion. In this context, the rules
imply that over the first 10 years of the benchmark immigration reform
the federal deficit would be reduced by a cumulative amount of $2.7
trillion.''
Also, the Judiciary Committee received powerful testimony from Grover
Norquist. He was asked repeatedly by those who oppose this bill whether
legalizing immigrants would lead to a drain on our safety net. His
response was that just the opposite would occur. He testified that
``immigrants come at the beginning of their working lives, which means
they will have years to pay taxes and contribute to the economy before
being eligible for entitlements.'' Furthermore, Mr. Norquist testified
that ``Some argue that the fiscal burden of America's entitlement
programs make more immigration cost prohibitive. That is a false
choice. That our entitlement systems are broken is not an argument for
less immigration; it is an argument to fix our entitlement systems.''
It is not every day that I agree with these very conservative
commentators and advocates, but I was happy to invite them to testify
before the committee and commend their analysis to Members who are
concerned about the approximate `cost' of reforming our broken
immigration system. All the valid testimony--all the valid testimony we
received says that fixing the broken immigration system adds to our
bottom line in a beneficial way.
One of the hallmarks of this country is how we have historically
treated those who have sought shelter and refuge on our shores. America
protects the most vulnerable among us. This includes survivors of
domestic violence and human trafficking, as well as pregnant women and
children. I am proud to report that there are strong protections in
this bill for the treatment of children caught in the broken
immigration enforcement system.
In the Judiciary Committee we added to those protections for domestic
violence and human trafficking victims. But the Judiciary Committee
also considered and rejected, as it should, several amendments that
sought to take away protections in our safety net programs for
immigrants who need them. I know some may want to punish the 11 million
undocumented people currently living here in the shadows. The bill
specifically contains a steep financial penalty for that purpose. The
undocumented also need to go to the back of the line and take classes
to learn English, but even these tough steps are not enough for those
who oppose this bipartisan bill.
While some may want to look like they are being even tougher on the
undocumented population, we all need to consider how further punitive
measures may deter people from coming out of the shadows. When children
and pregnant women are put at risk by an urge to punish millions of
people who are trying to make a better life for their families, as
my grandparents did, we do not live up to our American values and we do
not make this a safer country. Last week, Senator Hatch filed several
amendments to deny or delay protections for the millions of people who
apply for registered provisional immigrant status. I will oppose all of
those amendments. They are not fair. They deter people from coming
forward to register. That makes us all less safe.
It is a cruel irony when my friends on the other side of the aisle
talk about border security, the high cost of implementing their
proposed measures is always absent from the discussion. But when we are
talking about programs that help children who live near the poverty
line, well, then suddenly fiscal concerns are paramount.
So if we are talking about a specific type of fencing, or a new
expensive exit program, our concern is supposed to trump any hesitancy
about government spending. Spend whatever it takes. Spend whatever it
takes, and at the same time dramatically increase the boon that their
proposals give to the government contracting firms that make money off
of them.
However, if we are talking about programs literally to feed the
hungry or provide vaccinations to children, vaccinations which make us
all healthier because of the disease it stops, then we hear lectures as
to how we cannot afford those programs in the current fiscal
environment. Maybe some of these contractors with their lobbyists ought
to be covering those programs. Maybe we will hear more need for them.
I would say from a moral point of view, as an indication of how great
a country we are, we ought to be saying: Hungry children, children who
can be saved from childhood illnesses, it is in our moral core as a
Nation, the most wealthy, powerful Nation on Earth to help them. The
bill we are considering prohibits immigrants in registered provisional
immigrant status from accessing Federal means-tested public benefit
programs throughout their time in provisional status.
In addition, as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, even qualified legal permanent
resident immigrants must wait an additional 5 years after they are
legalized to receive any safety net protections. We have already put
all kinds of barriers up here.
So including the 5-year bar, most immigrants who are working their
way through the path to legalization will have to wait anywhere from 13
to 15 years before having any access to safety net programs. Given the
penalties and the fines they have to pay, it is wrong to further deny
these low-income families protection that some may desperately need.
[[Page S4500]]
We have seen amendments that try to designate an immigrant a ``public
charge'' and thus deportable simply because the individual's child
received health or nutrition benefits. If a child is an American
citizen, would we really want that child's parents deported simply
because the child needed food stamps while the parent was in
provisional status?
We should protect the children of immigrants and their families. In
2009, President Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance
Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA). Under Senator Rockefeller's strong
leadership, CHIPRA included a provision which allowed states the option
to waive the five-year bar to the Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) and Medicaid for lawfully residing immigrant children and
pregnant women. Today, 25 states offer this safety net for children and
20 states offer it to pregnant women. My own state of Vermont offers
this protection to both pregnant women and children. I commend my
friend, Chairman Rockefeller, for allowing states the option to
immediately provide CHIP and Medicaid for immigrant children and
pregnant women.
Like so many harsh amendments that have been filed with respect to
the safety net, I have seen similarly harmful amendments on the issue
of the earned income tax credit, the EITC, or the child tax credit,
CTC, which were designed to help hard-working families pay their taxes.
The earned income tax credit is available only to families who are
working and paying payroll taxes, not some kind of giveaway. They have
to be working and paying taxes. EITC is a core part of the Tax Code
like any other tax credit that adjusts Federal tax liability, based on
family circumstances. It is not, and it has never been, considered a
``public benefit.'' But some amendments have been filed seeking to deny
the EITC for all registered immigrants for eternity, even after they
have obtained legal status. One of these amendments was offered during
the committee process, and was rejected.
Similarly, the Child Tax Credit was enacted in 1998 for the benefit
of U.S. citizens or U.S. resident alien children under the age of 17.
In practice, it first requires that an individual work and pay her
taxes. If the person meets this basic requirement, undocumented or
otherwise, the Child Tax Credit may be claimed for the benefit of the
U.S. citizen or U.S. resident alien child. Undocumented immigrants who
use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number are able to benefit
from the Child Tax Credit since they work and pay taxes. However, there
are numerous workers who are lawfully present that also use Individual
Taxpayer Identification Numbers to pay taxes. During the Committee
markup, one senator proposed an amendment that would have denied the
Child Tax Credit to low-wage workers who pay their taxes using an
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. This overreach would have
harmed numerous U.S. citizen children and their families. Fortunately,
this unduly harsh amendment was rejected by the Committee as well.
I would strongly oppose any amendment to deny hard-working families
from participating in these tax credits when they are paying payroll
taxes. We know that these credits are vital to working families and we
have a moral obligation not to harm children in our communities and
their families by denying their families these credits.
We give huge tax benefits and loopholes to millionaires. Yet a hard-
working family, should they not be entitled to these tiny benefits?
They are dwarfed by what we give to millionaires. Let's start paying
attention to the people who need our help.
Some who oppose comprehensive immigration reform have raised the
false alarm this immigration bill would drain the Social Security trust
fund and bankrupt our Medicare system. Nothing could be further from
the truth. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary are two publications
that almost never agree with my positions. In fact, the opposite is
true. In an editorial dated June 2, 2013, entitled, ``A $4.6 Trillion
Opportunity,'' the Wall Street Journal states unequivocally that
``Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances''--not
take away from it, but will improve it. In fact, it notes that
The Senate bill raises immigration quotas by about 500,000
a year over the next decade (to reduce backlogs) and by about
150,000 a year after that. Thus the net effect of the
immigration bill on the long-range Social Security trust fund
``actuarial balance will be positive,'' Mr. Goss recently
wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. These higher post-
reform levels of immigration would mean an extra $600 billion
into the trust fund to about $4.6 trillion over 75 years.
It is true that ``Immigration won't solve all of Social Security's
financial problems.'' However, it said ``immigrants unquestionably
narrow the funding gap. More generous immigration is a wise step toward
solving the entitlement crisis in Washington.''
I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2013]
A $4.6 Trillion Opportunity
Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances
The Senate immigration bill has ignited a debate over the
fiscal costs of reform, with some conservatives claiming
costs far exceed the benefits. We think that's wrong, and one
place to look for evidence is the costliest of all federal
programs, Social Security. As some 75 million baby boomers
prepare to retire, immigrants will be crucial to keeping the
federal pension program afloat.
As too few Americans understand, Social Security is not a
pre-funded retirement system and there is no ``lock box''
with money set aside for each worker's retirement. It
operates as a pay-as-you-go system.
Benefits paid out each year roughly match payroll tax
revenues collected, at least until the program goes into
annual deficit in a few more years, and the so-called trust
fund only contains IOUs that the government owes itself.
Those IOUs don't help. The Social Security Administration
estimates that the present discounted value of the 75-year
shortfall of promised benefits beyond the taxes expected to
be collected is $8.6 trillion.
The crux of the problem is that the ratio of workers to
retirees is falling fast. While there were 16 workers for
every retiree in 1950, the ratio now stands at a little under
3 to 1 and within 20 years when the baby boomers are age 65
or older the ratio will fall to about 2.5 to 1.
Immigrants help ease this demographic problem in three
ways. First, most come here between the ages of 18 and 35,
near the start of their working years. Second, few come with
elderly parents (only about 2.5% of immigrants are over age
65 when they arrive), and the seniors who do come aren't
eligible for Social Security because they have no U.S. work
history. Third, immigrants tend to have more children than do
native-born Americans and their offspring will also pay into
the system.
These facts are confirmed in the latest report of the
Social Security trustees released last week. They conclude
that the program's long-term funding shortfall ``decreases
with an increase in net immigration because immigration
occurs at relatively young ages, thereby increasing the
numbers of covered workers earlier than the numbers of
beneficiaries.''
How big a bonus are we talking about? Enormous. We asked
Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, to estimate
the value of the 1.08 million net new legal and illegal
immigrants that currently come to the U.S. each year. He
calculates that over 25 years the trust fund is enriched in
today's dollars by $500 billion and the surplus from
immigration mushrooms to $4 trillion over 75 years.
``The numbers get much larger for longer periods,'' Mr.
Goss explains, ``because that is when the additional children
born to the immigrants really help.''
The Senate bill raises immigration quotas by about 500,000
a year over the next decade (to reduce backlogs) and by about
150,000 a year after that. Thus the net effect of the
immigration bill on the long-range Social Security trust fund
``actuarial balance will be positive,'' Mr. Goss recently
wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. These higher post-
reform levels of immigration would mean an extra $600 billion
into the trust fund to about $4.6 trillion over 75 years.
The reason is that most immigrant workers pay into the
program for 20 to 40 years before they collect any benefits,
and they don't have parents who collect benefits while they
pay in. Once the immigrants retire and collect benefits,
their children are making tax payments roughly covering the
payments to their parents.
All of this offsets the cost of legalizing currently
illegal immigrants. Illegal workers are especially beneficial
to Social Security because millions pay into the system--for
example, by using fake Social Security numbers when they
apply for a job. But since they are illegal, they don't
qualify for benefits when they get old. Legalizing their
status means they will qualify for future benefits based on
their work from now on, but the fiscal impact of the Senate
bill is still positive, says Mr. Goss.
The relative skills and earnings of immigrants and their
children also matter a great deal in measuring their
financial contributions. More skilled immigrants have higher
earnings, so they pay more in payroll taxes.
[[Page S4501]]
And because of the progressive benefit structure of Social
Security, those with higher incomes collect less per dollar
paid in.
This underscores an under-appreciated bonus of the Senate
immigration bill. The bill shifts U.S. immigration policy
somewhat more toward skills-based entry rather than family
unification. It also increases green cards for foreigners who
graduate from American schools in science and engineering,
thus raising the education and skills of new immigrants. This
means the future fiscal immigration windfall is likely to
exceed $4.6 trillion.
Immigration won't solve all of Social Security's financial
problems. The program still needs reform in its benefit
formula and to allow private accounts. But immigrants
unquestionably narrow the funding gap. More generous
immigration is a wise step toward solving the entitlement
crisis in Washington.
Mr. LEAHY. Likewise, an article dated June 6, 2013 in Commentary
debunks the myth that immigration would bankrupt the Medicare trust
fund. The title of the article is notable: ``Message to Congress:
Immigrants Pay More Than Their `Fair Share' of Medicare.'' According to
the article, ``it turns out that closing the borders would deplete
Medicare's trust fund.'' In fact, ``over a seven-year period,
immigrants paid in $115.2 billion more than they took out. Meanwhile,
native-born Americans drained $28.1 billion from Medicare. In other
words, immigrants are keeping Medicare afloat. And it's non-citizen
immigrants who make the biggest contribution. On average, each one
subsidizes Medicare by $466 annually.'' It concludes that ``Scare-
mongering about the cost of immigration has become a staple of
political debate . . . But our findings indicate that economic
fairness, not just morality, argues for immigrants' rights to care.''
The goal in this bill is to encourage undocumented immigrants to come
out of the shadows so we can bring them into our legal system and then
do what all Vermonters tell me, what Americans everywhere tell me: Play
by the same rules. I mean, that is a sense of fairness we should agree
to. If we create a reason for people not to come out and register, this
is going to defeat the purpose of this whole bill. It makes all of this
work: the hearings, the hours and days and weeks of markups and
consideration, makes it for naught. Amendments that seek to further
penalize the undocumented would just encourage them to stay in the
shadows. These steps are not going to make us safer and they are not
going to spur our economy.
One of the many reasons we need immigration reform is to ensure there
is not a permanent underclass in this Nation. As part of this effort,
we need to continue the vital safety net programs that protect
children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations.
Too often immigrants have been unfairly blamed and demonized as a
drain on our resources. Facts prove the opposite.
We are a nation of immigrants. As I have said many times before, my
maternal grandparents came from Italy to Vermont seeking a better life.
They created many jobs when they did that. They sent their children to
college and saw their grandson become a Senator.
My wife's parents came from the Province of Quebec, speaking French.
She was born here. Her family contributed to the economy of Vermont,
and our whole region, with the jobs they created. They raised three
wonderful children at the same time.
We are a nation of immigrants. Let's fight to maintain our tradition
of protecting the vulnerable. Let's allow the American dream to be a
reality for all those who are in this country because they want to be
in this country.
Time is not now divided from one side to the other, is it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________