[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8826-8837]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 8827]]




                           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 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

[[Page 8828]]

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 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

[[Page 8829]]

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 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-citizens than 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

[[Page 8830]]

     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 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

[[Page 8831]]

     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\
       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.

[[Page 8832]]




                                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 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.

[[Page 8833]]

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 
     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,

[[Page 8834]]

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, 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,

[[Page 8835]]

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 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

[[Page 8836]]

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 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?

[[Page 8837]]


  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.

                          ____________________