John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. My amendment is designed to accomplish two purposes: one, deny the earned income credit, EIC, to undocumented workers; and two, to ensure that applicants under section 601 are not manipulating their tax attributes to generate refunds that would not otherwise be due.

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him in conference.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, the 1996 historic welfare reform bill signed into law by President Clinton clearly stated illegal immigrants, people who were unlawfully in this country, would not be able to receive the benefits of the earned-income tax credit and would not be able to benefit from any of the other tax credits the law provides. That is right and that is fair. We should reserve those benefits for citizens and permanent residents. This bill undoes that. The bill says: We know what the law says, but now we forgive you and, therefore, go ahead and claim those credits retroactively. Without my amendment, that is exactly what will happen in this bill. The idea of stealing somebody's identity, stealing their Social Security number, ruining their credit, ruining everything that many folks have worked so hard to achieve, and then rewarding the person who stole the identity seems to me to be unfair, it seems wrong. If you have fraudulently used someone's social security number that--by the way--is a felony. We are forgiving that felony under this bill. So we are giving amnesty for that felony. It would seem to me that amnesty should be enough. We shouldn't, at the same time, allow the person who committed a felony to collect Social Security benefits and to claim the earned-income tax credit. I want to put up a chart here because people have been talking about the earned-income tax credit. Senator Coburn earlier this year had a hearing on the earned-income tax credit. This program--and this is pretty consistent with what I have seen over the years--has somewhere between a 23 percent and 28 percent error or fraud rate. That is the error rate that currently exists each year without regard to persons affected by this bill. That fraud--according to best estimates--costs us over $10 billion a year. Just in errors and fraud. Now we want people who are here illegally to be able to go back and claim a tax credit adding more burden to the U.S. taxpayer, adding more to the deficit. It was said by some that our amendment doesn't allow people to get refunds. That is absolutely true. If they paid into the system, and they overpaid, you are correct, we do not allow tax refunds. One of the reasons for this provision is because it is impossible to determine whether people using multiple social security numbers, as is the case with so many illegal immigrants, have overpaid. In that regard, there would be no way to match a W-2 with the person who earned the wages on that document. This bill places a huge burden on the IRS, forcing the service to prove if someone has used 13 different Social Security numbers. Sorting out who actually messed up the system. Having to prove what someone owes and if they have overpaid, if they have overclaimed or overdeducted, it is a huge burden. By the way, we are not solely placing the burden on the IRS; we are also placing a huge burden on the American taxpayer. How? The American taxpayers have to fund the IRS. So it will be very difficult to prove whether someone has overpaid or not, and whether they are due a refund. We take care of all of that. We say, No, you don't get a refund and you cannot claim the tax credits that I believe are due for American citizens, and they certainly weren't due for people who are here illegally. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time. The Senator from South Carolina just talked about how coming across the border illegally is a misdemeanor. What he didn't address was that stealing somebody's Social Security number is a felony. In this bill, we forgive that felony. We forgive it. What we are saying is, if somebody who has operated under false pretenses--the 1996 welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton said that they would not qualify for earned-income tax credits or any other tax credits that we have for the low-income folks in this country--this bill will reward them and reverse the welfare act. They will be able to go back and say, Well, here is where I worked, and present some W-2 forms, maybe falsified, but they can go back and try to claim that, and then qualify for the earned-income tax credit. I fundamentally think that is wrong. We are already forgiving a felony; I think that is enough. All of the things that the Senator from South Carolina said about people coming here and working--and I am a big supporter of immigration--I think it is the strength of our country: The diversity that it brings, the hard-working people who make us appreciate America. I am as pro-immigration as anybody in this Chamber. What I want, though, is folks who, when they are coming here, are coming here for the right reasons. They are coming here to work hard. They are coming here to do the things that make America great. I think that is wonderful. They are saying in this bill that people will pay restitution, to earn legal status by paying back taxes. I don't know how many times I have heard those words from the people who are supporting this bill. In fact, under this bill, when immigrants go back to pay back taxes, to pay restitution, many actually get money from the federal government solely because of the earned-income tax credit. America is a compassionate country. We want to embrace people who are coming--we always have--from around the world. But I don't think it is right to ask the American people, OK, forgive them for the felony of stealing Social Security numbers, we are going to give you amnesty as far as citizenship and things like that, and on top of that, we are going to write you a check. We are going to write you a check courtesy of the American taxpayers. Yes, some may pay a fine and back taxes, but the EITC and other tax credits will actually operate so that the American people are going to write the illegal immigrant a check. Without my amendment, that is exactly what can happen to financially reward millions of the folks who are going to be legalized under this bill. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield back my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ENSIGN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from South Carolina 4 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly on this amendment. It is different than Senator Sessions' amendment. It does deal with some of the very same programs, including the earned income tax credit. Senator Sessions' amendment addresses the tax credit prospectively. In other words, when somebody is given legal status under this bill they would be prohibited for the first 5 years from benefitting from the earned income tax credit. My amendment is different. It looks back. When people have worked here illegally, many used a stolen or a false Social Security number. That is a felony. Our amendment says that under those circumstances, someone would not be able to qualify for the earned income tax credit. So my amendment is looking retrospectively instead of prospectively. My amendment would also disallow other tax credits that are meant for low- income American citizens and legal residents. Mr. President, I believe that I need to explain why this is issue is important. During this debate, the American people have heard, again and again, that people are going to earn citizenship. The supporters of this bill reminded us of that every day. One of the things that they have consistently talked about is the requirement to pay a $2,000 fine and they are also going to pay back taxes. During the debate on my Social Security amendment, several people stated that immigrants have paid into the system. Most people who are here illegally--and I think the statistics bear this out--are low- income folks. Under our taxation system, most low-income people will qualify for the earned income tax credit. Which is a way to supplement a person's income, like welfare, but through the tax code. With the earned income tax credit, a family that makes up to $36,000 a year can qualify for EITC. In 2005, they could be paid about $4,400 and in 2006 a refundable tax credit of $4,500. So if we are making these folks pay a ``penalty''--in other words, they have to pay back taxes--these folks will qualify for this tax credit. In fact, many will get a refund instead of paying their back taxes. So what will happen is that the U.S. taxpayers will actually write them a check. This amendment will stop that from happening. It will stop people from receiving a retroactive tax refund while they were here working illegally. Senator Sessions does it prospectively. Mine does it retrospectively. I think it is only right, especially for those folks who are here and have stolen an American identity and ruined someone's credit history. Last week, I spoke about Audra, a woman whose identity was stolen. She had 218 illegal immigrants fraudulently using her identity. The IRS sent her a bill for a million dollars in back taxes. She cannot get a job. Her financial future is ruined. But what happens to the perpetrators of these crimes? Under this bill, those same 218 illegal immigrants will not only qualify for Social Security, because our amendment failed by 1 vote, but they could collect tax benefits too. If this amendment is not adopted, they will be able to qualify for the earned income tax credit, up to $4,500 per year, for years when they were, at the same time, ruining somebody else's credit and identity. So, Mr. President, I think this is an amendment that should be adopted. It is a commonsense amendment. Even if one cannot support Senator Sessions's amendment, I think we should all at least be able to support this amendment. Mr. President, does the other side want to go first?

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter addressed to me from Mark J. Sprinkle in support of amendment No. 4076, which was agreed to yesterday, amending S. 2611, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, briefly, regarding the limitations the Senator from Missouri has brought up, a third of the forces the President has envisioned would not have any limitations. Two-thirds would basically be on their annual missions of 21 days, and they are specifically for the perception that they are there for police enforcement and are doing what the Border Patrol agents do. We put in the bill specifically what they would be doing. There is all the flexibility in the world for the Guard to do the mission they are being sent down there to do. I think the concerns being raised are unfounded.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, to inform my colleagues, this amendment is basically the President's proposal to use the National Guard to secure our borders as an interim step as we are adding to our Border Patrol agents on our southern border. We all know we cannot have a commonsense, comprehensive immigration policy without having secure borders. It is going to take us years to get enough Border Patrol agents down there. In the meantime, we need to have the National Guard to supplement and to multiply the force of the Border Patrol agents down there. That is what this amendment does. I believe it is an important step toward making sure we know who is coming into this country, making sure terrorists are not coming into this country. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment would codify the President's proposal to deploy the National Guard to the border. The President's proposal strikes a careful balance. Over the next year, they would send up to 6,000 guardsmen. The following year, they would decrease this to a maximum of 3,000 guardsmen. As the guardsmen stand down, the Border Patrol would stand up, and in the end, we would have 6,000 more Border Patrolmen securing the border. I remain concerned about the strain on the Guard. It is reassuring that the deployment will be limited in number and duration. I hope the administration will work closely with the Pentagon to ensure that we are not putting greater strain on those specialties that are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, I applaud the President's decision to use the Guard in a supporting role and not for direct law enforcement missions. The Guard is not trained for the civilian Border Patrol missions and its complex combination of law enforcement, civil rights, and human rights issues. Nor should we ask them to be, for this is not their mission. They should provide support to the Border Patrol. We must also ensure that any Guard activity is coordinated with the Governors. I agree with the border State Governors that securing our borders, particularly for the long term, is a law enforcement function. We should not militarize the borders. And, in the short term, we should respect the desires of the border State Governors regarding the utilization of the Guard along the border. I urge that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Under this legislation, we forgive that felony. We grant amnesty for that felony.

Mr. ENSIGN. I have another question for my friend from Arizona. Is he aware that it is a felony to use someone's Social Security number?

Mr. ENSIGN. Right. But, Mr. President, in Sections 601 and 614 of the legislation, it actually ensures that aliens who receive legal status cannot be prosecuted for document fraud, including the false use of Social Security numbers. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona that many people are paying into the system. They paid into the system with no expectation of getting social security's benefit because they didn't know we would be enacting a bill like this. They paid into the system simply because that was the price to pay to get a job in the United States. The immigrant knew they were using an illegal Social Security number but without regards of the impact of the victim. I have reviewed case after case related to identity theft and Social Security fraud. These cases are occurring all over the United States. In every case, in every State, where someone's Social Security number was stolen by an illegal immigrant to use to find work, the victim's credit history is destroyed. Sometimes their work history is too. Earlier I talked about Caleb, a gentleman in Nevada. The illegal immigrant who used Caleb's Social Security number was not trying to harm that person but he did. Caleb applied for unemployment but couldn't get it because the agency said he was working when, in fact, he wasn't. He lives in Reno. They said he was working in Las Vegas. It was an illegal immigrant using his Social Security number in Las Vegas. I never said this amendment is going to prevent identity theft. What I have said is that it is not right for somebody to steal somebody else's identity--granted for the noble purpose of getting a job--and reward the theft by giving work credit that counts towards Social Security. We should consider the victims who are forced to deal with the terrible consequences of the crime. I will make two other points. The chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment. One of the reasons the chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment is because the Social Security Administration will not be able to make determinations with respect to the earnings suspense files that the Senator from Arizona referenced. As of 2003, there were 255 million instances where the social security number did not match the name given the employer. This bill will legalize those who are in the workforce today--the 7 million or so in the workforce out of the 12 million who are in the country. The effect of this amnesty over the next 10 years, will require the Social Security Administration to hire nearly an additional 2,000 employees to handle the cases of people who worked illegally, received amnesty under this bill, and are now applying for this benefit. A benefit they earned illegally. Point No. 2 is, it is going to cost $1.7 billion in administrative costs--$1.7 billion in administrative costs. It does not include any future costs in benefits that the United States will have to pay. Some may say that the immigrants will have earned the benefit. But the Senate does not even know what amnesty will cost. The cost estimates for these policies are not known. My amendment is absolutely the right thing to do. Illegal immigrants did not expect to ever receive this benefit. They were using somebody's Social Security number or a made up one. They did so to get a job. I can appreciate that. I appreciate somebody trying to come to this country to better themselves. I don't believe we should reward the conduct of identity theft by giving people the right to claim the work history for purposes of Social Security. Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We all know that. This will further put the Social Security trust fund in trouble. The costs could be potentially huge. We don't even know that in this bill. That is why I think we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, could I spend 5 minutes responding to a couple things, and then I would be willing to yield to the Senator for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN. First, if the alien is self-employed, that is not correct. Remember, the employer pays half and sends in those funds.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, did I understand that prior to the debate, I would have 10 minutes?