Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have an amendment, and I think it is that of our friend and colleague from New Mexico. So we want to let our colleagues know there is 40 minutes on this, and we expect to have a rollcall vote on this next amendment, just for the awareness of our colleagues at this time. Amendment No. 4131

Mr. KENNEDY. The answer is very simple, I say to the Senator. We had one figure when we came out of committee and then we had the Martinez legislation which forced individuals to go on back. We want to make sure the people who have been working here from 2 to 5 years would be able to go back and then come back in employment. So we increase that. I will just continue---- Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to make another point. Here is the legislation, the immigration act. It points out where the priorities for the green cards are. If the Senator offered that amendment and had a fair distribution of the green cards, I would support him. But he does not. Under this he gives the priority to workers, aliens with extraordinary ability. That is No. 1. Outstanding professors and researchers, they will get their green cards; certain multinational executives and managers, they are going to get their green cards; aliens who are members of professions, they are going to get their green cards; skilled workers and professionals, they will get their green cards. But the people we have talked about, to try to make this kind of balance, the ones who have been coming across the border, the ones for whom we are trying to get a legal system so they can come through as guest workers, under this they are the ones who will be left out. Fair ought to be fair. We have tried to work with the Senator from New Mexico to get a fair distribution so people will be treated fairly, and we have not gotten it. This is why we have this dilemma. If you wanted to try to work with us to try to get a fair distribution--but that has not been the case. We tried to do that. As a result, the point the Senator from Arizona makes has credit. I will withhold our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will just take a minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. The problem is that there is a limitation with the cap. Under the existing legislation the children and the wives were not counted. You are counting them now. The way the law works is going to be the squeeze. That is the effect. If the Senator wanted to--we tried to work this out. The Senator can say we are not changing anything, but, yes, we are changing it. We are changing it because you are moving numbers around. People will be able to come into this country. There will be a job out there, a person will be able to apply for it and come in here, but they can't get the green card because we only have a certain number of green cards. So that person will not be able to get the green card. So they will never be able to make an application for permanent residency. That is the effect of it. If the Senator wanted to work with us--which we indicated we were going to--and put in that kind of cap and work this around so we could still maintain that aspect in the legislation, we were glad to do it. But once you have that limitation which is in effect now--is in effect now--this skews this whole process in terms of green card and normalization to the highest skilled individual and says to those people we have been trying to deal with--there is pressure on the border. We spend an enormous amount of time with guest workers saying: You are going to be treated with respect, no Braceros. You are going to work hard for 4 years, and there is going to be a green card out there, and you can work 5 more years, work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, and get citizenship. Can the Senator give us assurance that under his proposal someone who comes as a guest worker and works 4 years is going to be able to get the green card and go for citizenship?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just so that our colleagues and friends understand exactly what we have done over the course of the development of this legislation, we have increased dramatically opportunities for high-skilled people to come here to the United States, probably two or three times, and the best estimate is about 600,000. That has been increased dramatically. Under the basic immigration law, the people who get the first crack at the green card--what is the green card? The green card is the path towards citizenship. That really is key in terms of their future and their family's future. Under existing law, of all the green cards that are going to be available, 70 percent of those are going to go to the high skills and only 30 percent to what I call the low skills. We have recognized in the development of the legislation the pressure that is on the border, people coming across the border illegally, the pressure that is on companies that need the unskilled individuals to work in American industry for jobs that virtually no Americans will take. So we set up the process. They have to go out and ask. Americans have to advertise for those jobs and indicate what the pay will be. If they can't get it, they are able to bring in a foreign worker. In this legislation, since we have found that farm workers have been so exploited over the period of the past we have given the assurance that we are going to have a tamper-proof card. They will able to come here and be able to be treated with respect, with decent wages and decent working conditions. We have put into effect a program which will enable enforcement in the legislation for employers. We know that there are demands for these low-skill workers. That is what we have done. That is the pressure at the border--for people who want to come here and be part of the American dream and provide for their family. We said to the lower-skilled individuals that we are going to treat you the same as the higher-skilled individuals because we believe in equity and fairness. We value the work of lower-skilled persons. We value the work of minimum-wage workers as we do the presidents of universities. That is an essential part of our country and our system. They provide indispensable work. We said to them, Look, you come to the United States as a temporary worker; you work hard for 4 years. Then you have the opportunity to get a green card; 5 years later, if you pay your taxes and behave yourself, you can earn your citizenship. But they have to be able to earn the green card. With the numbers that have been increased over the course of the debate on McCain-Kennedy, the effect of this is going to eliminate the possibility also of those low-income people to be able to obtain a green card over the time that they are here in the 6-year period. That is effectively capping what you do. We tried to work out with the Senator from New Mexico a way to kind of deal with this disparity so we could have a fair distribution. We haven't been able to do that. But what we have done effectively is a dramatic alteration and change in this bill. At the end of the day there will not be the opportunity nor will we be able to represent the guest workers when they come to the United States. After 6 years, you have no alternative but to return home. I know that is not the intention of the Senator from New Mexico. But that is the effect of his amendment on this legislation. As I said to the Senator from New Mexico, we tried over the course of yesterday to say, OK, I understand the appeal of trying to get a definitive number of people, including children. It always involves some give-and-take. Some families have larger numbers of children than others, and we have always tried to be responsive to these family needs. We were trying to work out a process so that would not happen. The Senator from New Mexico points out that there is a difference in the underlying bill. Our underlying bill was changed both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. One of the principal reasons it changed on the floor is because we took the Martinez-Hagel amendment that said we are going to treat people who are here 5 years differently than we are going to treat the people that are here longer. Those who are going to be here only for 2 years are going to be deported. But they will know there is a guest worker program out there. If they want to go out and become a part of a guest worker program, they can find ways to be able to do it, play by the rules and be able to probably find a way to come back in and do it legally. Those who are here between 2 and 5 years are going to have to be certain of the other requirements. They will have to go back to the port of entry and come back in--and they are treated differently. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand all the time has expired. We ask for the yeas and nays on the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Excuse me. I apologize.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making progress. I see the Senator from Wisconsin on his feet. He has an amendment. We have two amendments following that. Then, hopefully, we will be ready for final passage. I understand we have an hour of time evenly divided.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes. I know the Senator from South Carolina wants a few minutes. And then we will be prepared to move ahead. Mr. President, as has been pointed out during this debate, all of the men and women who would become legal residents of the United States under the terms of this legislation are required to pay income tax, like every other worker in America. What the Sessions amendment would do, is really quite extraordinary and grossly unfair. It would arbitrarily deny those immigrants who have become legal residents one of the tax benefits available to every taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code. That provision is the earned- income tax credit, a provision designed to reduce the tax burden on low-income families with children. It is fundamentally wrong to subject immigrant workers to a different, harsher Tax Code than the one that applies to everyone else in the country. An immigrant worker should pay exactly the same income tax that every other worker earning the same pay and supporting the same size family pays--no less, no more. We should not be designing a special punitive Tax Code for immigrants that makes them pay more than everyone else. Yet that is exactly what the Sessions amendment seeks to do. The Sessions amendment would result in highly inconsistent treatment of legal immigrant residents and would drastically increase the amount of tax that many of these families had to pay. They would be subject to income and payroll taxes in the same manner as other workers, but would be denied the use of a key element of the Tax Code that is intended to offset the relatively heavy tax burdens that low-income working families, especially those with children, otherwise would face. Most of the EITC is simply a tax credit for the payment of other taxes, especially regressive payroll taxes. The EITC was specifically designed to offset the payroll tax burden on low-income working parents. The Treasury Department has estimated that a large majority of the EITC merely compensates for a portion of the Federal income, payroll, and excise taxes paid by the low-income tax filers who qualify to receive it. The earned-income tax credit is not welfare; it is an earned benefit in the Tax Code that is available to all tax paying, low-income working families with children. Immigrant families who are legal residents are subject to the same tax as other workers in America. They have the same tax burdens, the same tax benefit as everyone else under current law. The Sessions amendment would change that, depriving legal immigrant families of one of the primary tax benefits for low-income families with children in the Tax Code. To do so would be terribly unjust. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to yield back the remaining time on this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then I will withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, the CBO and Joint Tax Committee estimates show that the increase in refundable credits resulting from S. 2611 would be more than offset by the income and payroll taxes new filers would pay. The net effect of the increased costs and revenues would be a gain of more than $30 billion between 2007 and 2016. So their estimate is that the new legal residents would pay over $62 billion in income and payroll taxes, while the costs of refundable tax credit, the EITC, and the child tax credit would only be $29 billion. Thus, the Federal Treasury would clearly benefit from these immigrant workers becoming legal residents by about $30 billion. So only legal residents are eligible for the EITC. Undocumented workers are not eligible for the EITC today and will not be under the terms of this legislation. However, when they become legal residents, under the process created by S. 2611, they will be eligible for the EITC going forward under the same terms of all other legal workers. The Sessions amendment would deny these legal immigrant families with children the same rights to this tax credit as other low-income families with children, and it is wrong and unfair. I hope it will be defeated. I withhold the balance of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we are just about to vote on the Sessions amendment and the Ensign amendment. That concludes the amendments. Then we are going to have final passage. I think Senator Byrd wanted to speak and others wanted to speak, too. I think the leaders said they hoped we would be able to move forward on these amendments. So that is what we have been doing.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield that time back.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, the Ensign amendment does more than prohibit the immigrants from claiming the EITC when they file tax returns for the years in which they were undocumented. The amendment would prohibit immigrant workers from receiving refunds of their own money when more of their wages were withheld than they owe in taxes--do my colleagues understand? But under the Ensign amendment, when more is withheld than they owe, they cannot recover the money. What could be more unfair? The IRS is holding their money. It was withheld from their wages and sent to the Government by their employer. So these immigrant workers have now filed tax returns, like millions of American workers each year. They have overpaid, and are entitled to refunds. The Ensign amendment would prohibit them from receiving these refunds. They cannot get their money back under the Ensign amendment. The Government arbitrarily decides to keep it. Beyond that--listen to this, Mr. President--on page 2 ``or any other tax credit otherwise allowable under the Tax Code.'' What could that be? The child tax credit. This amendment also prohibits immigrant workers from receiving the child tax credit. The Tax Code permits families to take a $1,000 tax credit for each minor child. This is one of the most important provisions in the entire Internal Revenue Code for working families. It recognizes how expensive it is to raise children today, and it reduces a family's tax liability by $1,000 for each child. It allows these families to pay less income tax so that the money can be used to help them meet the child's basic needs. But the Ensign amendment says to immigrant families struggling on meager wages, trying to provide a better life for their children: You can't use the child tax credit to reduce your tax liability, even though every other family can. It does not matter that in many cases your children were born in the United States and are American citizens. Your children still cannot receive the benefit of the child tax credit because you were an undocumented worker. As a result, an immigrant family with two youth children, maybe American citizens, will have to pay $2,000 more in taxes each year than any other family in America who has the same income, same number of dependent children. That is an incredibly harsh penalty to impose on these families. The Ensign amendment would impose a special punitive Tax Code on immigrants who were once undocumented, making them pay higher taxes than anyone else with comparable incomes, denying them the basic right to a refund of their own money when the employer withholds more than they owe. I urge my colleagues to look closely at this unjust amendment and reject it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when Oscar Handlin, the eminent historian at Harvard, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1952 for his history of immigration ``The Uprooted,'' he said he had set out to write a history of immigrants in America, but ``discovered that the immigrants were America.'' With passage of this legislation, we reclaim that America. We lift once again the lamp beside the golden door. This is the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history. It is a comprehensive and realistic attempt to solve the real-world problems that have festered for too long in our broken immigration system. It strengthens our security and reflects our humanity. It is intended to keep out those who would harm us and welcome those who contribute to our country. It has the potential to build a stronger, better, fairer America for the 21st century. It protects our security through stricter enforcement, tamper-proof immigration cards, and high-tech border controls. It protects American jobs and wages by bringing immigrants out of the shadows and requiring employers to pay fair American wages. And it enables decent men and women who work hard and play by the rules to earn the privilege of American citizenship. That has been America's story. And it's a story we must live anew with each new generation if we hope to continue as a vibrant land of liberty, progress and opportunity--a land of people who want to do better, who love their families, embrace our Nation, and are proud to be American citizens. Wisdom in immigration policy doesn't just happen. It is a choice between a future of progress as a nation of immigrants or a future defined by high walls and long fences. Clearly, we still have much to do before this legislation becomes the new law of the land. Some believe that enforcement is the only path to take. I would urge them to remember that from the beginning to the present day, immigrants helped build our country, and made us strong. They worked in our factories and toiled in our fields, and we are stronger for it. They built the railroads that took America to the West. Even today, it is said that under every railroad tie, an Irishman is buried. Immigrants have loved America and fought under our flag, and we are stronger for it. And if we enact this bipartisan comprehensive reform, we will be stronger for it too. As we close this debate, I commend our two leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for their skill in enabling this debate to take place. At a time of heated political division in Congress, the debate we have seen these past 2 weeks is unique in recent times. Senators of both parties have come together for the common good. This opportunity would not have been possible without our leaders, and I hope it is a precedent for other major issues in the weeks ahead. I commend President Bush for putting this issue before the country and for helping Americans understand the need for comprehensive reform. I commend the chairman and ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, for their strong support throughout this process. I thank those of our bipartisan group who stood together to make this legislation possible--Senator Graham, Senator Salazar, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Obama, and Senator DeWine. And most of all, I express my appreciation to my colleague, Senator McCain, who made all this possible from the start. He'd probably prefer I didn't say this, but he's been a profile in courage once again, and I commend him for his leadership. I'm also grateful to the many staff members who helped to get us to this point. I'm grateful to Ron Weich and Serena Hoy of Senator Reid's staff; to Bruce Cohen, Tara Magner and Matt Virkstis of Senator Leahy's staff; to Joe Zogby of Senator Durbin's staff; to Jennifer Duck and Montserrat Miller of Senator Feinstein's staff; to Felicia Escobar of Senator Salazar's staff; to Tom Klouda and Alan Cohen of Senator Baucus' staff; to Kevin Landy of Senator Lieberman's staff; to Danny Sepulveda of Senator Obama's staff; and to Chris Schloesser of Senator Menendez' staff. This was a truly bipartisan effort, and I'm grateful to staff from the other side of the aisle as well: Juria Jones, Joe Jacqot, and Michael O'Neill of Senator Specter's staff; to Clay Deatherage, Brian Walsh, and Nilda Pedrosa of Senator Martinez' staff; to Jill Konz and Steve Taylor of Senator Hagel's staff; to Matt Rimkunas of Senator Graham's staff; to Steve Robinson of Senator Grassley's staff; to Ajit Pai and Bryan Clark of Senator Brownback's staff; and to Brook Roberts of Senator Craig's staff. And special thanks, of course, to Senator McCain's staff, with whom we've worked so closely over the past year--Ann Begeman and Brook Sikora. And I'd like to express my deep appreciation for Becky Jensen. Without her vision and determination, this bill would never have happened. On my own staff, I'm very very grateful to the many who worked so long and hard as well to make this day possible--Jeffrey Teitz, James Flug, James Walsh, Laura Capps, Missy Rohrbach, Lauren McGarity, Guarav Laroia, Charlotte Burrows, Christine Leonard, and Michael Myers. My special thanks go to two on my staff who worked so hard over so many months on this bill, Janice Kaguyutan and Marc Rosenblum. Finally, and certainly not least, there's our hero of the hour--a remarkable person with extraordinary talent, skill and compassion. We've all come to rely on her knowledge and judgment in moving this bill forward--Esther Olavarria. Some say the easy part of this debate is over, and now we face the hard part reconciling the Senate bill with the House bill. We'll do our best, and I'm optimistic we can resolve our differences again.