Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. It would be our intention to ensure that is the case, with only one caveat. The seven States that currently do this legally, I am not sure exactly what their laws say, and it is not our intention here to deal with those one way or the other. Those are all grandfathered in. I suspect they at least require an address, if not something else. The State should require something else. It is our intention, at least prospectively, with our amendment, that they should and would.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, obviously, we will listen to those concerns. I need to go back and mention one thing I mentioned when I introduced it earlier. There is a long list of things for which the law permits us to use Social Security numbers precisely because the Federal Government does need to verify identity. If you apply for food stamps, if you apply for Medicaid, if you apply for a green card, a passport, a lot of things that the Federal Government and in some cases State governments do, we really need to be sure that the person who is applying for the benefit or applying for the activity involved is in fact who he says he is. We don't have a national ID card, and the card that has more closely approximated a government identifier than anything else of uniform use is the Social Security card. That is why the Federal Government does in fact require it. Obviously, our right to vote is one of our most sacred. We don't want that diluted by people who should not be voting. We want to ensure that people who are voting are in fact who they say they are. This is one of the better ways of doing it, through the Social Security card. It can be stolen. There are fraudulent Social Security cards in circulation, to be sure. It is not a perfect identifier. The Social Security Administration is concerned that the more uses there are to which the Social Security card is put, the more incentive there is to steal cards or make invalid cards. Until we have a different kind of identifier, perhaps one that involves biometric data or some other way to ensure that the person appearing before the Federal agency requesting the benefit is in fact the person he says he is or she says she is, the Social Security card is about the best thing we have. If nothing else, this points up the fact that the Government, for all kinds of purposes, needs to know who people really are. We need to consider what kind of identifier would work best. The argument is not that we should not have it, it is what will be the best one. For our purposes today, about the best we can do is the Social Security card. Some States already use it. We want to make that opportunity available to the other States.

Mr. KYL. The Senator from Connecticut is exactly correct.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the comments of the Senator from Connecticut. I will describe again what we intend this to do. The language does do it, especially with the second-degree amendment that has been accepted that the Senator from Kentucky offered. This amendment allows what 11 States currently are allowed to do and 7 actually do do, which is to use Social Security numbers to validate people for voter registration purposes. When the Privacy Act was adopted, those States were grandfathered. The other States were prohibited from doing this. There are several States that request Social Security numbers but don't require them. This would simply allow but not mandate States to request or to require Social Security numbers as one of the methods of identification. To the two specific points Senator Dodd raised, it is our intention, I reiterate--it is clear in the amendment language--that this is voluntary, not mandatory. No State would have to do this. And, of course, any State that did do it would have to meet all constitutional requirements, could not violate any privacy requirements, and so forth. Secondly, it is not our intention that this would be in any way an exclusive method of identification and that States should not, as a result, use Social Security numbers as the only way of validating the identity of the person being registered or the person whose name is being expunged from the rolls or for whatever purpose they would use it. The Senator from Connecticut is correct in his understanding. I think the language is clear. We need to work with the Social Security Administration or others during the continued progress of this bill. It is certainly our intention to do that to ensure that this intention is carried out.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has the floor. I am happy to sit down and work out additional language right now, discuss it further, or go on to other business. I am not sure what the pleasure of the bill managers is. I am willing to dispose of this as quickly as we can.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if the Senator understood me to say a State could mandate this as the only method of identification, that is not correct. If I said that, I certainly did not mean to say it. It is not correct. Let me again read the language because it is very important. If you do not have a Social Security number, they cannot force you to present a Social Security number as the means of identification. The language of the amendment that ``the Social Security account number issued to such individual by the Commissioner of Social Security. . . .'' If you do not have a Social Security number issued, there is nothing in the amendment that authorizes the State to require you to have one, and there is nothing in the amendment that authorizes the State to mandate as the only method of identification the presentation of a Social Security number. If I may reiterate what I thought the Senator from New York was asking--perhaps I misunderstood--it was, Can a State mandate that an individual must present a Social Security number for his registration validation? And the answer to that is, a State could pass a law that used the Social Security requirement for voter registration. But would that mean they could require somebody who does not have a Social Security card to present one? Not under the wording in the amendment. Does it say it is the only way you can validate your identification? Absolutely not; that is not what this says.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to the Senator from Kentucky, that is exactly correct. I tried to repeat myself. I noticed there was conversation going on, so I am not sure my colleagues did pick up on that. Obviously, that can be used for any of the legitimate purposes for registration, including preventing wrongful removal. It is a good voter protection. I am not sure we need to talk a lot more about it. I am happy to do that if my colleagues would like. To reiterate, it is voluntary, not mandatory. It allows for use of Social Security numbers as one additional element of which the States could take advantage. It does have a privacy protection, but with the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, it provides an additional element of privacy protection.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the answer to that question is yes. There are seven States that currently do this. This would simply authorize other States to do the same.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am aware of the second-degree amendment. I will speak to it in a moment. I want to describe this amendment. It is very straightforward. It authorizes--it does not mandate--that Social Security numbers may be used by States to validate voter registration. I believe that there are currently seven States that do this. Because of the way the Privacy Act was enacted several years ago, those States were grandfathered. Other States don't have that ability. This would provide that ability. It can prevent duplication and fraud. Current law allows State officials access to a person's Social Security number for a variety of identification-related purposes. We are all familiar with that. This would simply add to that list of items verification for voter registration purposes. The amendment is important to resolving a widespread problem in election administration which is, of course, the problem of verifying the identity of the person registered to vote. While the Social Security number is not an absolute guarantee, it is deemed to be good enough for a variety of other purposes for which we need identification, and it would provide a much more accurate voter identification, which, of course, is key to an honest and fair election. We all know that the rationale for that most sacred of our democratic rights, the right to vote, is that our vote counts 100 percent, that it is not diluted by virtue of other people's votes that were cast fraudulently, diluting that 100 percent vote that we have. So we want to make sure there is not fraud in the election process--that people who should not be voting, in fact, are not permitted to vote. That is why validating the registration with the Social Security number is important. This is a unique number that is issued by the U.S. Government, which is precisely why the Federal, State, and local governments use the Social Security number to identify individuals for a variety of programs and services. I will remind my colleagues of what some of these are. While they are all important, I submit that none is more important than our sacred right to vote. If you want to check into a Veterans Administration hospital, you have to show your Social Security number. If you want to receive food stamps, you must show it. In many States, you need to show it to apply for a driver's license and register a motor vehicle. Certainly, you need your Social Security number to register for the draft and to register for Medicaid. You need it to apply for a student loan and to donate blood. You need it to receive unemployment compensation. You need it to apply for a passport or a green card. You need it to purchase certain U.S. savings bonds. You need it to apply for Federal crop insurance. Many States require this to apply for professional licenses. One that I found interesting is, if you are a boxer seeking to register with the State boxing commission, you have to show your Social Security number. These are some of the countless ways in which governments have ensured the identity of people by requiring validation through their Social Security number. As I said, while the integrity of these processes is very important, I don't think we would argue that any is more important than maintaining the integrity of our sacred right to vote. If the election officials can positively identify the voter with a Social Security number, then two protections are codified: First, the integrity of the election is protected because duplicate registrations can be removed. Secondly, full access to the election by all of those registered is ensured. I will repeat that because this will be very important to my friends on the other side. Social Security number verification will help prevent the wrong person from being removed from voter lists when those lists are checked against felony citizenship records. Without the certainty Social Security numbers provide, election officials have no foolproof way to differentiate among voters with same or similar numbers. As a means of voter identification, this has been approved by Federal courts. Current law provides an element of protection against the public disclosure of those Social Security numbers. The second-degree amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is a further guarantee of that privacy protection. Frankly, I support the Senator's amendment because we don't want there to be any doubt that privacy is protected here, that those numbers cannot be disclosed other than for this purpose. This amendment restates those guarantees. The second-degree amendment will restate it a second time in a more specific way.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York, that is correct. This is for voter registration, I want to reiterate that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the problem with the argument of the Senator from North Dakota is that there is not one shred of truth to it. It is absolutely false to contend that we are going to be spending Social Security surplus funds on ``permanentizing'' the repeal of the death tax. It is simply false. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the budget estimates from President Bush's 2003 budget submission which demonstrates this fact.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted 98 to 0, recorded vote No. 27, in support of Senate amendment No. 2857 to S. 1731, the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. This amendment contained sense-of-the-Senate language that ``no Social Security surplus should be used to pay to make [sic] currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending.'' I voted aye because I knew that a vote against it would be construed wrongly as a statement in favor of dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Factual inaccuracies in the amendment deserve to be noted. It states that ``permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according to the administration's estimate, approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus.'' This statement is factually incorrect. In fact, the confiscatory inheritance--or more accurately, the estate or death tax--will be repealed for 1 year in 2010. In 2011, the death tax is resurrected and at the potency of 2001 rates. I support making permanent the repeal of the death tax. This would in no way endanger the payment of future Social Security benefits. Over the next 10 years, from 2003 through 2012, the President's budget projects a baseline surplus of $463 billion. That amount does not include any Social Security funds. A permanent death tax repeal is estimated to reduce Federal revenues by $104 billion over that time period. The resulting surplus, made up entirely of non-Social Security funds, would be $359 billion. To further illustrate the inaccuracy of the contention that permanent repeal would reduce the Social Security surplus by $104 billion, it is useful to look at the effect of permanence in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, the Federal Government is projected to generate a $199 billion surplus--a surplus that does not include any Social Security funds. Permanently repealing the death tax would reduce Federal revenues by $25 billion in 2011, which is 12.5 percent of the projected surplus for that year. In 2012, the Federal Government is projected to generate a $395 billion surplus--a surplus that does not include any Social Security funds. Permanently repealing the death tax would reduce federal revenues by $61 billion in 2012, which is 15.4 percent of the projected surplus for that year. The facts are clear. Making the death tax permanent will not deplete the Social Security surplus. Supporters of the continued existence death tax have long underestimated the depth of moral opposition to this ``virtue tax'' on our American families, small businesses, family farmers, and ranchers. Unfortunately, the death-tax supporters are now resorting to outright misstatements about the ramifications of permanent repeal. They are attempting to convince the country that making the repeal of this tax permanent will jeopardize our seniors' Social Security benefits. Not true. That is shameful and false, and a bipartisan majority of the Senate acknowledged so--in approving, right after amendment 2857, my amendment to make repeal of the death tax permanent. By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate memorialized its support for the following statement: ``Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that the repeal of the estate tax should be made permanent by eliminating the sunset provision's applicability to the estate tax.''

Mr. KYL. If the Senator from North Dakota is not willing to amend his resolution, then I will have to urge my colleagues not only to oppose his resolution, because it is simply false in its recitations and is an inaccurate portrayal of what we are going to be doing, but, secondly, it totally misrepresents the effect of our resolution, our sense of the Senate which is very straightforward. It says: We voted to repeal the death tax. Let's make that permanent. Let's not try to play games with the American people and say we did something which we all know is only going to be in effect for 1 year after which it sunsets. I defer to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what this shows is that during the period of time we are talking about, we are going to have a non-Social Security surplus of almost a half trillion dollars, $463 billion to be exact. The Senator from North Dakota can't have it both ways. In his resolution he uses these statistics to calculate how much a permanent repeal of the death tax is going to cost and says it is $104 billion over 10 years. That is what the budget says. But you can't use that statistic and then ignore the other half of the equation, which is that during the same period of time we will have a surplus of $463 billion. That doesn't count any of the Social Security surplus. If you subtract 104 from 463, you are not even close to getting to the Social Security surplus. You still have a significant $359 billion surplus, plus Social Security. I ask my colleague this: I would be happy to support his resolution if he would be willing to drop the clause that says it is going to cost $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus, since that is a false statement, and also if he would drop the sentence ``Under the administration's fiscal budget, the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years,'' because that also is demonstrably false under the President's budget submission. Would the Senator from North Dakota be willing to drop those provisions of his amendment, in which case I would be happy to support it and urge my colleagues to do the same?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have no objection to that point. Since there were two previous Democratic speakers, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota would allow me to proceed.

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I would like to suggest one change in the proposal. I know Senator Domenici would like to speak tomorrow. He is not here this evening. Since there are no other Senators in the Chamber to listen to this debate except for the four who are here, might I inquire of the assistant majority leader whether he would be agreeable to a total of 10 minutes, with 5 minutes per side, and then adjusting it, the 9:40 or 9:45 time; in other words, to add 2\1/2\ minutes per side?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate those remarks of the Senator from Texas. The Senator from Alabama, I know, and the Senator from Oklahoma, as well, want to speak. I just wanted to make a couple of points. No. 1, President Bush wants us to do this. His budget for this next fiscal year has in it the permanent repeal of the death tax. So he wants us to go forward with it. As the Senator from Texas said, we will have a Social Security surplus at the time when we make this death tax repeal permanent. So we are not raiding the Social Security trust fund, as the Conrad amendment would suggest. In fact, because we are injecting more money into our economy, one could expect there will be additional Federal revenues, not less Federal revenues. One of the experts on this subject, Dr. William Steger, has estimated that immediate repeal of the death tax would provide a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the economy. He is president of Consad Research Corporation and an adjunct professor of policy sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. So it is a $40 billion automatic stimulus to the economy--not taking the Social Security trust fund. I will have a lot more to say about this after we enter into our unanimous consent agreement, but I think both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Oklahoma would like to speak, and I will yield the floor to them at this point.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I anticipate a unanimous-consent request to be delivered momentarily which will set the stage for the debate on the Kyl-Nickles amendment which I believe is the pending business. But we do not need to waste time prior to that. We can actually begin this discussion and lock that in and proceed. With that understanding--and I have spoken to Senator Conrad about this--I propose we begin the discussion on this amendment, and when the agreement is ready, we can propound it to the body. Let me say by way of introduction, and then I will yield to the Senator from Texas for some remarks, that the Kyl-Nickles amendment is a sense of the Senate. We should finish the job we started last year and make the repeal of the death tax permanent. As my colleagues will recall, because the tax bill was considered under the reconciliation procedure, it could only last 10 years. That means that even though we repealed the death tax in that 10th year, after that, the bill sunsets and we go right back to the position of the death tax as it existed last year, with a 60-percent higher rate and a $675,000 exemption. That is very unfair, it is very poor tax policy, and if we really meant to repeal the death tax, as we voted to do, then we should finish the job we started. This amendment simply puts us on record as committing to that proposition so that when the appropriate bill comes along, we can accomplish the result. Clearly, this farm bill is an appropriate vehicle for us to discuss this issue as a sense-of-the-Senate issue because there are an awful lot of owners of family farms who would like to see the death tax repealed so they do not have to worry about the burden of it. To further discuss this proposition, I yield now to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think at 7 o'clock we should revisit this question of a time agreement. We perhaps could enter into it. I want to wait until Senator Nickles returns.

Mr. KYL. I am sorry. If the suggestion was that we should have a vote, I think there are folks who would like to talk about this.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I had understood earlier, the idea would be to have a separate up-or-down vote on both. I thought that is what the agreement was. Am I incorrect?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in response to the assistant majority leader, the answer is, yes. Senator Gramm is prepared to speak. I think Senator Hutchison was here a moment ago. Senator Nickles will be back in about a half hour. So until we know exactly how many people want to speak, I am reluctant to enter into a time agreement. I don't want to take all night, but I don't want to limit it at this point. If I could further propound an inquiry, it is my understanding we will have separate votes on both the second-degree amendment and on the Kyl-Nickles amendment. What I am unclear of is the effect of the Conrad amendment and whether it would obviate the Kyl amendment. It is a little unclear by virtue of the language. I have only seen a handwritten copy of it. It would be helpful if we knew what the effect of that is before we proceed.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from Indiana yield me another 2 minutes?