[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9209-9212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we continue yet another week debating S. 
744, the bipartisan immigration bill, I hope we can start making some 
progress on this vital legislation. The American people know what some 
of us have to realize: our immigration system is broken; it has to be 
fixed. If we are going to have an effective solution to this complex 
problem, we cannot focus simply and effectively on one border or any 
single aspect of our immigration system. We have to address all parts 
of our immigration system.
  Of course, we all agree we have to secure our borders, but we must 
also reduce the incentives people have to come here illegally or to 
overstay their visas. It means we have to implement E-Verify so 
employers stop hiring those who are not authorized to work here. We 
also have to eliminate the extensive backlogs that tear so many 
families apart.
  We have to respond to the needs of American farmers and technology 
companies and investors who create jobs in this country. We also need 
to remember that our history and the future of the Nation is based on 
immigrants when we are considering the legalization process provided in 
this bill.

[[Page 9210]]

  Almost 4 weeks ago the Judiciary Committee voted to report this 
immigration reform bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. I 
understand the Congressional Budget Office's task is a difficult one, 
with complex, comprehensive measures such as this. We expected their 
score today. I hope they are able to get the official score early 
tomorrow so we can move forward and complete consideration of this 
bill. As we closed out each title during our extended mark ups, we 
forwarded the text to the CBO, so they have had the border security 
title and the non-immigrant visa title for well over a month. I look 
forward to reviewing their analysis when we receive it.
  In addition to the CBO score we are awaiting, we should also credit 
the extensive testimony the Judiciary Committee received from former 
CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He testified that immigration reform 
``will increase the productivity growth in the U.S. economy, the 
fundamental building block of higher standards of living, and generate 
larger economic growth numbers than we have seen in recent years.''
  Specifically, he estimated reform of this nature would increase 
growth so that ``the overall growth rate and real GDP would rise from 3 
percent to 3.9 percent, on average annually, over the first 10 years. 
The upshot of GDP after 10 years would be higher--a difference of 
$64,700 per capita versus $62,900 per capita. This higher per capita 
income of $1,700 after 10 years is a core benefit of immigration 
reform.''
  According to Holtz-Eakin this increase in growth would also help 
lower our deficit. In fact, he testified that ``Over 10 years an 
additional 0.1 percentage in average economic growth will reduce the 
federal deficit by a bit over $300 billion. In this context, the rules 
imply that over the first 10 years of the benchmark immigration reform 
the federal deficit would be reduced by a cumulative amount of $2.7 
trillion.''
  Also, the Judiciary Committee received powerful testimony from Grover 
Norquist. He was asked repeatedly by those who oppose this bill whether 
legalizing immigrants would lead to a drain on our safety net. His 
response was that just the opposite would occur. He testified that 
``immigrants come at the beginning of their working lives, which means 
they will have years to pay taxes and contribute to the economy before 
being eligible for entitlements.'' Furthermore, Mr. Norquist testified 
that ``Some argue that the fiscal burden of America's entitlement 
programs make more immigration cost prohibitive. That is a false 
choice. That our entitlement systems are broken is not an argument for 
less immigration; it is an argument to fix our entitlement systems.''
  It is not every day that I agree with these very conservative 
commentators and advocates, but I was happy to invite them to testify 
before the committee and commend their analysis to Members who are 
concerned about the approximate `cost' of reforming our broken 
immigration system. All the valid testimony--all the valid testimony we 
received says that fixing the broken immigration system adds to our 
bottom line in a beneficial way.
  One of the hallmarks of this country is how we have historically 
treated those who have sought shelter and refuge on our shores. America 
protects the most vulnerable among us. This includes survivors of 
domestic violence and human trafficking, as well as pregnant women and 
children. I am proud to report that there are strong protections in 
this bill for the treatment of children caught in the broken 
immigration enforcement system.
  In the Judiciary Committee we added to those protections for domestic 
violence and human trafficking victims. But the Judiciary Committee 
also considered and rejected, as it should, several amendments that 
sought to take away protections in our safety net programs for 
immigrants who need them. I know some may want to punish the 11 million 
undocumented people currently living here in the shadows. The bill 
specifically contains a steep financial penalty for that purpose. The 
undocumented also need to go to the back of the line and take classes 
to learn English, but even these tough steps are not enough for those 
who oppose this bipartisan bill.
  While some may want to look like they are being even tougher on the 
undocumented population, we all need to consider how further punitive 
measures may deter people from coming out of the shadows. When children 
and pregnant women are put at risk by an urge to punish millions of 
people who are trying to make a better life for their families, as my 
grandparents did, we do not live up to our American values and we do 
not make this a safer country. Last week, Senator Hatch filed several 
amendments to deny or delay protections for the millions of people who 
apply for registered provisional immigrant status. I will oppose all of 
those amendments. They are not fair. They deter people from coming 
forward to register. That makes us all less safe.
  It is a cruel irony when my friends on the other side of the aisle 
talk about border security, the high cost of implementing their 
proposed measures is always absent from the discussion. But when we are 
talking about programs that help children who live near the poverty 
line, well, then suddenly fiscal concerns are paramount.
  So if we are talking about a specific type of fencing, or a new 
expensive exit program, our concern is supposed to trump any hesitancy 
about government spending. Spend whatever it takes. Spend whatever it 
takes, and at the same time dramatically increase the boon that their 
proposals give to the government contracting firms that make money off 
of them.
  However, if we are talking about programs literally to feed the 
hungry or provide vaccinations to children, vaccinations which make us 
all healthier because of the disease it stops, then we hear lectures as 
to how we cannot afford those programs in the current fiscal 
environment. Maybe some of these contractors with their lobbyists ought 
to be covering those programs. Maybe we will hear more need for them.
  I would say from a moral point of view, as an indication of how great 
a country we are, we ought to be saying: Hungry children, children who 
can be saved from childhood illnesses, it is in our moral core as a 
Nation, the most wealthy, powerful Nation on Earth to help them. The 
bill we are considering prohibits immigrants in registered provisional 
immigrant status from accessing Federal means-tested public benefit 
programs throughout their time in provisional status.
  In addition, as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, even qualified legal permanent 
resident immigrants must wait an additional 5 years after they are 
legalized to receive any safety net protections. We have already put 
all kinds of barriers up here.
  So including the 5-year bar, most immigrants who are working their 
way through the path to legalization will have to wait anywhere from 13 
to 15 years before having any access to safety net programs. Given the 
penalties and the fines they have to pay, it is wrong to further deny 
these low-income families protection that some may desperately need.
  We have seen amendments that try to designate an immigrant a ``public 
charge'' and thus deportable simply because the individual's child 
received health or nutrition benefits. If a child is an American 
citizen, would we really want that child's parents deported simply 
because the child needed food stamps while the parent was in 
provisional status?
  We should protect the children of immigrants and their families. In 
2009, President Obama signed the Children's Health Insurance 
Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA). Under Senator Rockefeller's strong 
leadership, CHIPRA included a provision which allowed states the option 
to waive the five-year bar to the Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP) and Medicaid for lawfully residing immigrant children and 
pregnant women. Today, 25 states offer this safety net for children and 
20 states offer it to pregnant women. My own state of Vermont offers 
this protection to both pregnant women and children. I commend my 
friend, Chairman Rockefeller, for allowing states

[[Page 9211]]

the option to immediately provide CHIP and Medicaid for immigrant 
children and pregnant women.
  Like so many harsh amendments that have been filed with respect to 
the safety net, I have seen similarly harmful amendments on the issue 
of the earned income tax credit, the EITC, or the child tax credit, 
CTC, which were designed to help hard-working families pay their taxes.
  The earned income tax credit is available only to families who are 
working and paying payroll taxes, not some kind of giveaway. They have 
to be working and paying taxes. EITC is a core part of the Tax Code 
like any other tax credit that adjusts Federal tax liability, based on 
family circumstances. It is not, and it has never been, considered a 
``public benefit.'' But some amendments have been filed seeking to deny 
the EITC for all registered immigrants for eternity, even after they 
have obtained legal status. One of these amendments was offered during 
the committee process, and was rejected.
  Similarly, the Child Tax Credit was enacted in 1998 for the benefit 
of U.S. citizens or U.S. resident alien children under the age of 17. 
In practice, it first requires that an individual work and pay her 
taxes. If the person meets this basic requirement, undocumented or 
otherwise, the Child Tax Credit may be claimed for the benefit of the 
U.S. citizen or U.S. resident alien child. Undocumented immigrants who 
use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number are able to benefit 
from the Child Tax Credit since they work and pay taxes. However, there 
are numerous workers who are lawfully present that also use Individual 
Taxpayer Identification Numbers to pay taxes. During the Committee 
markup, one senator proposed an amendment that would have denied the 
Child Tax Credit to low-wage workers who pay their taxes using an 
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. This overreach would have 
harmed numerous U.S. citizen children and their families. Fortunately, 
this unduly harsh amendment was rejected by the Committee as well.
  I would strongly oppose any amendment to deny hard-working families 
from participating in these tax credits when they are paying payroll 
taxes. We know that these credits are vital to working families and we 
have a moral obligation not to harm children in our communities and 
their families by denying their families these credits.
  We give huge tax benefits and loopholes to millionaires. Yet a hard-
working family, should they not be entitled to these tiny benefits? 
They are dwarfed by what we give to millionaires. Let's start paying 
attention to the people who need our help.
  Some who oppose comprehensive immigration reform have raised the 
false alarm this immigration bill would drain the Social Security trust 
fund and bankrupt our Medicare system. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary are two publications 
that almost never agree with my positions. In fact, the opposite is 
true. In an editorial dated June 2, 2013, entitled, ``A $4.6 Trillion 
Opportunity,'' the Wall Street Journal states unequivocally that 
``Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances''--not 
take away from it, but will improve it. In fact, it notes that

       The Senate bill raises immigration quotas by about 500,000 
     a year over the next decade (to reduce backlogs) and by about 
     150,000 a year after that. Thus the net effect of the 
     immigration bill on the long-range Social Security trust fund 
     ``actuarial balance will be positive,'' Mr. Goss recently 
     wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. These higher post-
     reform levels of immigration would mean an extra $600 billion 
     into the trust fund to about $4.6 trillion over 75 years.

  It is true that ``Immigration won't solve all of Social Security's 
financial problems.'' However, it said ``immigrants unquestionably 
narrow the funding gap. More generous immigration is a wise step toward 
solving the entitlement crisis in Washington.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2013]

                      A $4.6 Trillion Opportunity


       Immigration reform will improve Social Security's finances

       The Senate immigration bill has ignited a debate over the 
     fiscal costs of reform, with some conservatives claiming 
     costs far exceed the benefits. We think that's wrong, and one 
     place to look for evidence is the costliest of all federal 
     programs, Social Security. As some 75 million baby boomers 
     prepare to retire, immigrants will be crucial to keeping the 
     federal pension program afloat.
       As too few Americans understand, Social Security is not a 
     pre-funded retirement system and there is no ``lock box'' 
     with money set aside for each worker's retirement. It 
     operates as a pay-as-you-go system.
       Benefits paid out each year roughly match payroll tax 
     revenues collected, at least until the program goes into 
     annual deficit in a few more years, and the so-called trust 
     fund only contains IOUs that the government owes itself. 
     Those IOUs don't help. The Social Security Administration 
     estimates that the present discounted value of the 75-year 
     shortfall of promised benefits beyond the taxes expected to 
     be collected is $8.6 trillion.
       The crux of the problem is that the ratio of workers to 
     retirees is falling fast. While there were 16 workers for 
     every retiree in 1950, the ratio now stands at a little under 
     3 to 1 and within 20 years when the baby boomers are age 65 
     or older the ratio will fall to about 2.5 to 1.
       Immigrants help ease this demographic problem in three 
     ways. First, most come here between the ages of 18 and 35, 
     near the start of their working years. Second, few come with 
     elderly parents (only about 2.5% of immigrants are over age 
     65 when they arrive), and the seniors who do come aren't 
     eligible for Social Security because they have no U.S. work 
     history. Third, immigrants tend to have more children than do 
     native-born Americans and their offspring will also pay into 
     the system.
       These facts are confirmed in the latest report of the 
     Social Security trustees released last week. They conclude 
     that the program's long-term funding shortfall ``decreases 
     with an increase in net immigration because immigration 
     occurs at relatively young ages, thereby increasing the 
     numbers of covered workers earlier than the numbers of 
     beneficiaries.''
       How big a bonus are we talking about? Enormous. We asked 
     Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, to estimate 
     the value of the 1.08 million net new legal and illegal 
     immigrants that currently come to the U.S. each year. He 
     calculates that over 25 years the trust fund is enriched in 
     today's dollars by $500 billion and the surplus from 
     immigration mushrooms to $4 trillion over 75 years.
       ``The numbers get much larger for longer periods,'' Mr. 
     Goss explains, ``because that is when the additional children 
     born to the immigrants really help.''
       The Senate bill raises immigration quotas by about 500,000 
     a year over the next decade (to reduce backlogs) and by about 
     150,000 a year after that. Thus the net effect of the 
     immigration bill on the long-range Social Security trust fund 
     ``actuarial balance will be positive,'' Mr. Goss recently 
     wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio. These higher post-
     reform levels of immigration would mean an extra $600 billion 
     into the trust fund to about $4.6 trillion over 75 years.
       The reason is that most immigrant workers pay into the 
     program for 20 to 40 years before they collect any benefits, 
     and they don't have parents who collect benefits while they 
     pay in. Once the immigrants retire and collect benefits, 
     their children are making tax payments roughly covering the 
     payments to their parents.
       All of this offsets the cost of legalizing currently 
     illegal immigrants. Illegal workers are especially beneficial 
     to Social Security because millions pay into the system--for 
     example, by using fake Social Security numbers when they 
     apply for a job. But since they are illegal, they don't 
     qualify for benefits when they get old. Legalizing their 
     status means they will qualify for future benefits based on 
     their work from now on, but the fiscal impact of the Senate 
     bill is still positive, says Mr. Goss.
       The relative skills and earnings of immigrants and their 
     children also matter a great deal in measuring their 
     financial contributions. More skilled immigrants have higher 
     earnings, so they pay more in payroll taxes. And because of 
     the progressive benefit structure of Social Security, those 
     with higher incomes collect less per dollar paid in.
       This underscores an under-appreciated bonus of the Senate 
     immigration bill. The bill shifts U.S. immigration policy 
     somewhat more toward skills-based entry rather than family 
     unification. It also increases green cards for foreigners who 
     graduate from American schools in science and engineering, 
     thus raising the education and skills of new immigrants. This 
     means the future fiscal immigration windfall is likely to 
     exceed $4.6 trillion.
       Immigration won't solve all of Social Security's financial 
     problems. The program still needs reform in its benefit 
     formula and to allow private accounts. But immigrants 
     unquestionably narrow the funding gap. More generous 
     immigration is a wise step toward solving the entitlement 
     crisis in Washington.


[[Page 9212]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Likewise, an article dated June 6, 2013 in Commentary 
debunks the myth that immigration would bankrupt the Medicare trust 
fund. The title of the article is notable: ``Message to Congress: 
Immigrants Pay More Than Their `Fair Share' of Medicare.'' According to 
the article, ``it turns out that closing the borders would deplete 
Medicare's trust fund.'' In fact, ``over a seven-year period, 
immigrants paid in $115.2 billion more than they took out. Meanwhile, 
native-born Americans drained $28.1 billion from Medicare. In other 
words, immigrants are keeping Medicare afloat. And it's non-citizen 
immigrants who make the biggest contribution. On average, each one 
subsidizes Medicare by $466 annually.'' It concludes that ``Scare-
mongering about the cost of immigration has become a staple of 
political debate . . . But our findings indicate that economic 
fairness, not just morality, argues for immigrants' rights to care.''
  The goal in this bill is to encourage undocumented immigrants to come 
out of the shadows so we can bring them into our legal system and then 
do what all Vermonters tell me, what Americans everywhere tell me: Play 
by the same rules. I mean, that is a sense of fairness we should agree 
to. If we create a reason for people not to come out and register, this 
is going to defeat the purpose of this whole bill. It makes all of this 
work: the hearings, the hours and days and weeks of markups and 
consideration, makes it for naught. Amendments that seek to further 
penalize the undocumented would just encourage them to stay in the 
shadows. These steps are not going to make us safer and they are not 
going to spur our economy.
  One of the many reasons we need immigration reform is to ensure there 
is not a permanent underclass in this Nation. As part of this effort, 
we need to continue the vital safety net programs that protect 
children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations.
  Too often immigrants have been unfairly blamed and demonized as a 
drain on our resources. Facts prove the opposite.
  We are a nation of immigrants. As I have said many times before, my 
maternal grandparents came from Italy to Vermont seeking a better life. 
They created many jobs when they did that. They sent their children to 
college and saw their grandson become a Senator.
  My wife's parents came from the Province of Quebec, speaking French. 
She was born here. Her family contributed to the economy of Vermont, 
and our whole region, with the jobs they created. They raised three 
wonderful children at the same time.
  We are a nation of immigrants. Let's fight to maintain our tradition 
of protecting the vulnerable. Let's allow the American dream to be a 
reality for all those who are in this country because they want to be 
in this country.
  Time is not now divided from one side to the other, is it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________