Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Inhofe amendment is enormously important. It is complicated. Members on both sides, including the author of the amendment, are working in good faith to try to work this out. To my knowledge, it has not been worked out. Hopefully, after 25 minutes we will be able to tell the Senate whether it is worked out, whether we will have to have side-by-side amendments. But at this time, we will not enter into a short time agreement. Hopefully, as we have been making progress in other areas, we will have a chance to do that in this area as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate and have cooperated with the Senator. I think it is premature to establish a time on the Ensign amendment. I don't think it will be an undue period of time. But it would be difficult now to agree to a specific time. I hope we would be able to agree after a while. I welcome the chance to continue this. I think this discussion has been enormously valuable and helpful. We can proceed in whatever way the leader wants to proceed. Right now, we would not be in a position to agree to a 1-hour time limitation on the Ensign amendment, half an hour on each side. But we will well work to try to get a reasonable time, if that is the decision.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, identity fraud is a major problem, a major issue in this country, and it ought to be dealt with. We ought to do whatever is necessary to make sure we are going to deal with this issue. I think most of us have seen the various national publications and magazines talking about identity fraud. It is there with the use of credit cards. We have it on telephone calling. We have it for purchasing over the Internet, obtaining access of financial records, and with individuals making illegal withdrawals. All of that is bad and wrong and violates the law, and we ought to deal with that. But we are talking about individuals who are not involved in identity fraud and have paid into the Social Security fund. Should they have that payment they have made into the fund denied to them? So I am with the Senator from Nevada in trying to deal with identity fraud, but I separate myself from him when he says all illegal immigrants are involved in the identity fraud and, therefore, they should not get credit for what they have paid in in terms of Social Security. Now, who are we talking about? Basically, we are talking about individuals who have the opportunity to try to earn their position, the opportunity to be an American citizen, who have to pay a fine, have to go to the end of the line for those who are coming into the United States currently, who have to demonstrate they have paid all of their taxes, who have to demonstrate they have been free from violating the law. There are all of those conditions that are set up. But once they have achieved all of those conditions, then they have the possibility of citizenship 11 years from now. So the issue is, should they be denied the credits they have paid into Social Security? The Senator from Nevada thinks they should. Well, first of all, who are these people? First of all, his proposal would deprive, for example, widows and surviving children of needed Social Security benefits, even if the widows and children are U.S. born. We will have circumstances where the children are American citizens. The widows might be American citizens. Now, let's say this individual regularizes their position and has paid into Social Security. If that person dies, their survivors would be eligible for survivor benefits, but not under the Ensign amendment. It is interesting, some 85 percent of immigrant-headed households include at least one U.S. citizen. Under the Ensign proposal, citizen children may not be eligible for survivor benefits if their parents had gained legal status or even citizenship but die before they gained the 40 hours of coverage. The Ensign amendment effectively would deprive the immigrants who have become legal residents of the right to receive Social Security credits for the payroll tax payments they made on the work they performed when they were undocumented. Some do now. The 1986 act permitted 3 million people--they received the amnesty. That was amnesty. We did not move ahead in terms of the enforcement against the undocumented afterwards. But that was amnesty. Now they are able to receive the benefits today. We are going to say to them, we are evidently going to cut you off from being able to get any credit because I don't see in the Ensign amendment where they are going to respect their position. It is important to focus on who would be hurt by this highly punitive proposal. Only immigrants who have attained legal status are eligible to receive Social Security. So everyone this amendment would affect will be legal residents under the terms of the bill. Many of them will even be citizens by the time they apply for Social Security. Those are the hard-working men and women this amendment seeks to penalize. Those are the individuals who really want to be Americans, be part of the American family. They are going to have to pay the penalty, pay their back taxes, abide by all of the laws, continue to believe in their faith. And then they will have the opportunity to go to the end of the line. And then, in 11 years, they will be able to achieve citizenship. They will be working during this period of time. They are paying into Social Security. And, finally, when they become citizens--11 years from now--the Ensign amendment is going to say: Well, all right, you paid. You have waited your turn. You paid the penalties all the way along. But you are not going to be able to benefit from paying into Social Security because of identity fraud. Well, I have difficulty assuming that all of those who have paid into Social Security have been a part of identity fraud. Before this bill passed, these workers were undocumented. But once in the country, they complied with the rules of the workplace and paid Social Security taxes on their earnings. Their payroll tax payments and the matching contributions of their employers were paid to the Social Security Administration on a timely basis. Those dollars are sitting in an account at the Social Security Administration today. Social Security has a record of receiving these payments. There is no dispute about that. The issue raised by this amendment is whether these workers should be given credit in Social Security for the hard-earned dollars they paid into the system. Shouldn't the payroll tax payments they made count toward determining the level of retirement benefits and disability benefits they have earned when they reach retirement age or become disabled? Now, the amount of benefits a worker receives depends on how many years the individual worked and how much payroll tax he or she paid in. I believe it would be terribly wrong to arbitrarily deny these hard- working men and women credit for all the payroll tax dollars they paid into Social Security on the wages they earned. But that is exactly what the Ensign amendment would do. Most undocumented workers do pay Social Security taxes. Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, estimates that ``about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes''--three-quarters of them. The amounts paid in by them are substantial. Payments into the Social Security system by undocumented workers total $7 billion a year. Unfortunately, most of these workers do not have genuine Social Security numbers, so the money goes into what they call the Social Security Administration's earnings suspense file. This money is identified by the employer who submitted it but not by the individual worker it belongs to. Each year, Social Security identifies approximately 130,000 employers who submitted W-2s that cannot be matched to a worker. So the undocumented immigrants account for the vast majority of the funds in the suspense file. The unidentified W-2s closely track their geographic distribution and types of employment to that which undocumented workers typically hold. According to an analysis by the GAO, three of the categories of business with the largest numbers of inaccurate W-2s were restaurants, construction companies, and farm operations. In order to get credit for the payroll taxes he paid in when he was undocumented, a worker would have to prove how much he paid in while working for a particular employer and when it was paid. The burden of proof would be on the worker, and the worker would only receive credit for payments that the Social Security Administration could verify. Whatever rules and regulations Social Security established, we are for. They ought to be accurate. They ought to be tough. They ought to be fair. But we are not prepared to say that every individual who paid in, who is now in the process, over this 11 years--here, they are paying in. I want to be a citizen. I am paying my fine. I paid my back taxes. My sons have joined the military serving in Afghanistan. We are going to church every single week. And I am paying into Social Security. I wait 11 years, and I finally become a citizen. Under the Ensign amendment, no, no, you are not going to receive any of that. You are not going to receive a cent of that. So we are all for Social Security establishing whatever requirements are necessary to ensure the integrity of the fund and the accuracy of the work effort by individuals. But I think the only reason for the Ensign amendment is to deny the legal residents the Social Security benefits they have earned and paid for. Their money sits in the Social Security Administration waiting to be matched with an eligible beneficiary. Once those workers establish eligibility, how, in all fairness, can we deny them credit for their past contributions? This legislation before the Senate sets out a difficult process for undocumented workers seeking to become legal residents. Most of them have very little money. Yet the legislation will require them to pay thousands in fines and fees. It would be wrong to deny them credit for the Social Security tax dollars they have paid from their often meager wages. Once these workers are legal residents, if they become disabled, shouldn't they be entitled to receive disability benefits based on the payroll taxes they contributed to Social Security? And if they die prematurely, leaving minor children, shouldn't those children--who in many instances are American children--shouldn't those American children be eligible to receive survivor benefits based on the payroll taxes they contributed to Social Security? And when, after a lifetime of hard work, they reach retirement age, shouldn't they be able to receive a retirement benefit based on all the years of payroll tax payments they contributed to Social Security? This is not a handout. This is not welfare. Social Security is an earned benefit. If these immigrant workers earned it, they should receive it like everyone else. The Ensign amendment would take their hard-earned money and give them nothing in return. That is not the way America operates. Allowing these workers to receive the Social Security benefits they have earned not only helps them, it serves the interests of the larger American community. They are living amongst us. As I say, many of the children were born here. If they cannot rely on the Social Security benefits they have earned when they become elderly or disabled, on what source of support will they rely? Certainly, the people of this great Nation would not leave them destitute. We all benefit when the earned benefits of Social Security are there for those in need. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have been here on the floor since the Senator started, and in response, I would be glad to inquire of those who are interested. I think there are some members of the Finance Committee who are interested in this amendment and want to be heard since it deals with the Finance Committee jurisdiction. So I will inquire and report back to the floor manager. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if there is offered side-by-side, that would be voted on after the Inhofe amendment at 4 o'clock. So there is an hour and a half allocated time for debate on the Inhofe amendment, and as I understand, there would be approximately 45 minutes evenly divided. I thought Senator Akaka's amendment was agreeable or acceptable.

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Akaka would like 25 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could suggest, why don't we vote at 4:15. That gives 45 minutes to Vitter.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a moment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator for raising this issue. He has been a constant advocate for the families he has spoken about today. And he has communicated with us in the Immigration Committee on so many different occasions about the fairness and the importance of the family unifications and the uniqueness of service that so many of these parents were involved in at a very difficult and challenging time during World War II. So the Senator from Hawaii deserves great credit for bringing this to the attention of us in the Senate. I speak for the Senator from Pennsylvania, who urges the acceptance of this amendment. This will help provide some very important family reunification. It is entirely warranted and entirely justified. We thank the Senator for bringing this issue again to our attention and for his continued advocacy on this issue. We will do everything we possibly can to make sure this is carried at the conference as well. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, on page 350, you strike lines 8 through the rest of the page; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, this is on the intent of Congress, the basic kind of understanding, the intent of Congress be interpreted in a manner that recognizes the difficulties encountered by the alien in obtaining evidence. As I understand, you strike that. And then you strike the burden of proof provisions through the top of 351, once the burden is met, the burden shall shift to the Secretary of Homeland Security. So those provisions are dropped. The essence of your amendment is to tighten up verification in terms of the applicant.

Mr. KENNEDY. And that is effectively the purpose of the amendment. In your description and in the language, you talk about bank records, business records, sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work, including name, address, phone number of the affiant, the nature and duration of relationship. You also talk about remittance records and that the burden is on the alien applying for the adjustment, the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that he has satisfied the employment requirements.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to urge that we accept that amendment. We want to make sure, those of us who support this proposal, that we are going to reach those people who are defined in the legislation. And we want to make sure that it is accurate. We are not interested in people gaming the system or in the identity theft problems and other kinds of challenges and false documents. We have made a very strong effort because if we have that and we lack the verification of information and lack the verification in terms of the individual and we are going to have continued forgery of documents, this is going to be a disaster. But we have given strong emphasis in terms of legality and veracity, and we are going to have the biometric identification cards. We are going to try to do this correctly and by the book, so to speak. The Senator has redrafted provisions we had in the legislation to ensure the applicant is going to provide the best information and that the best information has to be reliable and dependable in order to be able to participate in the system. I think it is useful and valuable. At the appropriate time, I will urge our colleagues to accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we are trying to find out how much time the Senator wants. Ten minutes, does that work?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I think those who have been listening to this debate understand what this discussion is all about. On the one hand, we have the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, which is effectively a way to unite all of us, and on the other hand, we have the Inhofe amendment that is a way that is going to divide us. The language couldn't be clearer. From the Salazar amendment: English is the common and unifying language that helps provide unity for the people of the United States. It is clear. Preserving and enhancing the role of the English language. The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the common and unifying language of America. On the other hand, we have the Inhofe amendment that has the statement: Unless otherwise offered or provided by law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English. We have had a debate about how that applies or whether it doesn't apply, and we have had a rather mixed debate. I would be impressed if the Inhofe amendment had provided some resources to help those who are limited English speaking to be able to learn English. In the immigration legislation before the Senate, we have the requirement that no person, except otherwise provided in this title, can be naturalized upon their application without understanding the English language, including the ability to read, write or speak the English language. That is what we have said. That is underlined. That is what we are committed to. Now we have this amendment which is effectively a limiting one. In Albuquerque, NM, Catholic Charities reports 1,000 people on their waiting list and a waiting time of 12 months to learn English. Is there anything in the Inhofe amendment that will help those people? No, there is not. In my hometown of Boston, there are 16,000 adults on the ESL list waiting to learn English. It is 2 to 3 years. Anything in the Inhofe amendment to help those people who want to learn English? No. There is nothing. In Phoenix, AZ, in the Rio Solado community, over 1,000 are waiting 18 months. The list goes on. In New York, 12,000 are waiting. All of these individuals are waiting to study English. But does their amendment do anything about that? No. We can't help people to get to the point where English is their language. What did the 9/11 Commission say. It said we lacked sufficient translators. It also had a provision in the 9/11 Commission report that we ought to give emphasis to other languages and that that was in our national security interest. It is on page 415, developing a stronger language program with high standards. Do you think that is consistent with the Inhofe amendment? Of course, it is not consistent with the Inhofe amendment. We have outlined the requirements in this legislation that have to be met. It is very clear that an understanding of the English language, the ability to read and write and to speak, that is the requirement, a restatement of the importance of developing and keeping consistent with a common and unifying language, which is English. I don't understand those who say that English is a part of our national identity. Is that more a part of our national identity than our common commitment to liberty or fairness or decency or opportunity? Are we going to say we are the only ones who own those? Other countries don't own those values; it just belongs to the United States? The Salazar amendment states effectively and well what we as a nation are committed to. It deserves to be supported. It defines English as the common and unifying language, guarantees that nothing shall diminish existing rights relative to services and materials in a language other than English. I urge my colleagues to reject the Inhofe amendment and support the Salazar amendment. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. Patriotism doesn't belong to a political party or any individual. The Salazar language is very clear. English is the common unifying language of the United States. It helps provide unity for the American people, preserving and enhancing the role of the English language. It couldn't be clearer. Let us not distort and misrepresent the amendment that is before us. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Salazar amendment and the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is now before the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we intend to support that as soon as we get a chance to see the Cornyn amendment. May we see that before the Senator makes that request? Is that possible?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Clinton has a very sensible and responsible amendment. The way the funds are allocated, there will be approximately more than $1 billion that would be available under her amendment that will be allocated to these needs which she has outlined. It seems to me that is the way to go. On the other side, Senator Cornyn is going to raise, for these workers, immigrant workers who are working hard, playing by the rules-- he is just going to jack up the amounts they are going to have to pay by another $750. The sky is the limit. Why not $2,000, $3,000, $4,000? I mean, the fact is, they are already going to be paying the $2,000. This is going to add at least $750; $100 per child additional. So you are giving additional kinds of burdens on the worker, those who are in line to become citizens. I think the Clinton proposal is far superior and more fair. I yield the remainder of my time.