John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ``illusions deliberately and systematically created'' by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. This legislation addresses comprehensively one of the most important and complex issues facing our country. Our Nation's immigration system is broken. I don't think there was one Member of the Senate to argue that fact. Without enactment of comprehensive immigration reform as provided for under this bill, our Nation's security will remain vulnerable. That is why we must pass this bill and reach a meaningful final product through conference deliberations. Our failure to produce a final comprehensive measure is an unacceptable proposition. I want to first thank the President for his leadership on this issue. The President's speech to the Nation last week, which I thought was inspired, was greeted by 74 percent of the American people overnight favorably, including his absolute determination to see the Congress send him a bill which has a comprehensive approach to the issue which we as a Congress and a Federal Government have ignored for too long. I also commend the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate address this important issue and give us more than adequate time for a thorough debate. I think this is a proud moment for the Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. I also again recognize Chairman Specter for his work in leading us to this point in the legislative process. He and all the members of the Judiciary Committee deserve our appreciation for the considerable effort they have taken on this issue during this Congress. Of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue. He and I spent many months working to develop a comprehensive, reasonable, workable legislative proposal, much of which is contained in the bill before us. I also thank Senators Brownback and Lieberman and Graham and Salazar, Martinez, Obama and DeWine for their shared commitment to this issue, in working to ensure this bill moves successfully intact through the legislative process. Throughout this debate we were reminded that immigration is a national security issue, and it is. It is also a matter of life and death for many living along the border. We have hundreds of people flowing across our borders every day, coming here only in search of better lives for themselves and their families. They come to fill the vacant jobs at businesses and farms that struggle with real labor shortages that impact our economy negatively. This Nation is calling for our borders to be secure, for an overhaul of our immigration system, and that it be done in a humane and comprehensive fashion. Vote after vote after vote taken in this body reaffirms that fact. The new policies as provided for in this legislation will increase border security and provide for a new temporary worker program to enable foreign workers to work legally in this country when there are jobs that Americans will not fill, and will acknowledge and address in a humanitarian and compassionate way the current undocumented population. As many have noted, there are over 11 million people in America today who came here illegally. They live in our cities and towns and rural communities. They harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, and clean our houses. They came as others before them came, to grasp the lowest rung of the American ladder of opportunity, to work the jobs others won't, and by virtue of their own industry and dreams to rise and build better lives for their families and a better America. Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up, and send them back to the country they came from. I don't know how you do that, and I don't know why you would want to. Yes, in this post- 9/11 era America must enforce its borders. There are people who wish to come here to do us harm, and we must vigilantly guard against them, spend whatever it takes, devote as much manpower to the task as necessary. But we must also find some way to separate those who have come here for the same reasons every immigrant has come here from those who are driven here by their hate for us and our ideals. We must concentrate our resources on the latter and persuade the former to come out from the shadows. We won't be able to persuade them if all we offer is a guarded escort back to the place of hopelessness and injustice that they have fled. Why not say to those undocumented workers who are working the jobs the rest of us refuse: Come out from the shadows, earn your citizenship in this country. You broke the law to come here, so you must go to the back of the line, pay a fine, stay employed, learn our language, pay your taxes, obey our laws, and earn the right to be an American. SSgt Riayen Tejada immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights by way of the Dominican Republic, father of two young daughters, died in an ambush on May 14, 2004. He had never fulfilled his first dream, to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved this country so much that he gave his life to defend her. Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers whose parents are not yet American citizens but who have dreamed the dream that their sons and daughters risked their lives to defend. They should make us proud to be Americans. These people have come for the very same reason immigrants have always come to America. They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. We will be better for it. For America--blessed, bountiful, beautiful America--is still the land of hope and opportunity, the land of the immigrant's dreams. Long may she remain so. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Perhaps the Senator from Alabama would grant the Senator some time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I understand the remarks of the Senator from Alabama, these people are not mistreated, as others in our society have been mistreated. Wouldn't an objective observer view mistreatment as giving someone legal status in the United States, forcing them to earn citizenship, a whole program to bring people out of the shadows, and yet say you are ineligible for perhaps the most important tax incentive for the poorest of Americans, called the earned income tax credit? I call that mistreatment, Mr. President. I would call that mistreatment. We are going to make you pay a fine, we are going to do a background check, we are going to make you work for 6 years before you can get a green card and, yet, while you are doing that--and most of you are low- income people--we are going to deprive you of the benefit that was absolutely designed to help low-income families. That is what it was all about. If you have a lot of children, I am sorry, but this benefit that was specifically designed for low-income people, which is the majority of the people we are talking about, just as all of our forefathers who came here were usually at the lowest wrung of the ladder, and we are going to say you cannot have that benefit. Why? Why is that? Then what we are really saying is that we are going to give you legal status, but not really, because under a Republican administration, a way to try to help low-income families was designed, instead of a handout to give them a credit, instead of welfare to give them some extra income, but we are not going to give that to you. We may cause your children to go hungry because you are low-income people. I don't get it. It is mistreatment by any objective view. It is mistreatment. As the Senator from Alabama said, this is an important issue. Maybe for the first time since we have debated this on the floor I agree with him. I totally agree that this is an important issue. It has a lot to do with what kind of country we are. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we go again. We have before us another amendment that says legal workers under this bill must play by our rules--by our laws--but they will not be allowed to live by those same rules. I know that my colleagues know that illegal immigrants are ineligible for the earned-income tax credit. The legislation before us does not change that fact. But this amendment incredibly--incredibly--would deny the earned-income tax credit to taxpayers who will be working in this country legally as a result of this legislation. Remarkable. I want to point out again, it would deny an important tax credit to some low-income workers who have legal status who are playing by the rules, meeting all the requirements of the legislation, who might otherwise be eligible for the earned-income tax credit. Some things are within a certain area that I can probably understand the rationale behind it and legitimately respect and argue against. But what is the rationale behind saying people who have attained a legal status here, who are living by all our other laws and rules and are paying taxes--sales taxes, Social Security, et cetera, every other tax--are going to be denied a tax credit that is available to all other persons? We are not saying in the legislation that anyone who is here illegally would make themselves available to that. We are only talking about people who are here in a legal status. The legislation is designed, rightly, to ensure that legalized workers and new guest workers would largely be taxed in the same manner as U.S. citizens. If they have attained a legal status, then clearly they should pay the taxes. They would pay payroll taxes, income taxes, excise taxes. They would pay back taxes for the period of time they had been working in this country prior to the enactment of this bill. Payment of back taxes is a very important part of this bill. The CBO and Joint Tax Committee estimate that bringing these legal immigrants into the Federal tax system would substantially increase Federal revenue collections overall. It is patently unfair to make them abide by our tax rules yet deny any legal workers equal treatment under these same rules. I am having a hard time understanding amendments as this which would really impose an indefensible double standard on legalized workers. What is next? Are we going to say work-authorized immigrants have to ride in the back of the bus? Some of these amendments are sending a very troubling message to the American public about what direction we want our country to go. We need to be going forward and not backward. I wonder, do some of my colleagues really think there is an underground movement afoot plotting and scheming plans for how foreign workers can gain legal work status solely so they can freeload off of the taxpayers? These people are here to work, and they are doing jobs that most of us do not have the will to do. These are workers. They are not risking their lives to come into this country with the goal of freeloading off of us. They are here to earn a wage for the betterment of themselves and their families, the same reason our forebears came here to this country. They aren't looking for a handout. They are looking for a chance, a chance for a better life. And they are willing to work harder than most of us to have just a few of the opportunities most of us take for granted. This amendment, if adopted, would result in highly inconsistent treatment of legal workers--legal workers. On the one hand, they would be subject to income and payroll taxes in the same manner as other workers, but on the other, they would be denied the use of a key element of the U.S. Tax Code that can mean the difference of whether or not food gets put on a child's table. About 98 percent of the earned-income tax credit goes to working families with children. Census data shows that the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other Federal program. This amendment to deny the EITC to legalized workers would harm children, including many children who are U.S. citizens. Many of the children in these low- income families are citizens who live in families that experience hunger and other hardships. This amendment, if adopted, would mean that a large number of children would be thrust into, or deeper into, poverty. An Urban Institute study found that 56 percent of young, low-income children of immigrant parents live in families that experience hunger or other food-related problems. It seems to me there is an issue of humanity here on this issue. We have spent a week and a half debating amendments to this bill. Most of the amendments that were designed to alter substantially the comprehensive approach to immigration reform have failed. But they were debated on and voted on. I think that has been a good showing for the Senate. I think we have shown we can debate honestly and openly and reach conclusions. Some of these issues have been complex and some fairly simple. We have been conducting business the way the place is meant to have it conducted. I hope that after all this effort, we will not now adopt such a questionable amendment to a bill that provides a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system--a solution that is based on sound judgment, honesty, common sense, and compassion. Mr. President, I really, on this one, would like to see not just victory in this vote but a significant signal that we would not engage in this kind of treatment of people who have come to this country and are in a legal status. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Specter.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. If the Senator from New Mexico--by the way, this amendment is opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the majority of the unions and certainly by every major Hispanic and immigrant group in the United States of America. The Senator from New Mexico may prevail. But lately these amendments have, obviously--they have a tenor and an effect that I don't think is healthy for this country and I don't think is good for America. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed 5 minutes in opposition.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator for 3 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his leadership, along with that of my friend from Massachusetts, on this issue. They have done a great job in the last few days. Hopefully we are winding down. I pay special attention and appreciation to my colleague from the State of Florida who is the embodiment of the American dream, as is my colleague on other side of the aisle, Senator Salazar, from Colorado. They have provided the experience, the knowledge, the background and the motivation to continue our efforts to see this bill passed. Let's be clear. It is not a practice of mine to waive budget points of order. I believe the circumstances surrounding the validity of the point of order and the actual intent of its sponsors warrants my support to the waiver. First, I take issue with the Senators over the misinterpretation and editing of the CBO score of this bill. If one were actually to read the text of that report, one would see that the CBO study also finds that the impact of the compromise bill would actually be moderately positive for the Federal Government during the next decade. Legalization would actually produce an increase in Federal revenues between 2007 and 2016 of $66 billion, mostly through increased collection of Social Security and income taxes but also from fees and fines. Remember, we have at least a $2,000 fine being paid. That has been raised a couple of times already through amendments. Spending would go up by an accumulative $54 billion, but the surplus would be $12 billion. In reality, this program has the possibility of producing a net gain for the Federal budget. However, putting the argument about the numbers aside, we have to get down to the fundamental question of whether or not we really want a bill. We have voted several times over the past week and a half to affirm the intent of this Senate to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is clear to me that the Senators from Colorado and Alabama are not nearly as interested in saving money in our budget as they are to sink the bill because we know that if this budget point of order were passed, it would take the bill down--as the Senator from Alabama articulated in his press release, relating to this point of order, ``to derail'' the bill. So your vote on this amendment should be clear. Do Members want an immigration bill or not? I understand there are Members in this Senate who will answer that question with a resounding no. However, I believe that is not the true intent of the majority of this Senate. This Nation is calling for our borders to be secured and an overhaul of our immigration system, and that it be done in a humane and comprehensive fashion. Vote after vote after vote has indicated that. The President's speech to the Nation last week, which I thought was inspired, was greeted by 74 percent of the American people overnight favorably, including his absolute determination to see the Congress of the United States send him a bill which has a comprehensive approach to this issue which we as a Congress and a Federal Government have ignored for 40 or 50 years. We will not be deterred from this effort. We will not be deterred from this effort. I tell my colleagues that the cloture vote indicated the support for this bill. More importantly, the American people want us to act. And the American people, driven fundamentally by Judeo- Christian principles, want this issue handled in a humane fashion, taking into consideration the highest priority, which is our national security. No one believes that simply by enforcing the border we will be able to solve this issue. I thank my colleagues again for their efforts. I hope this may be the last poison pill we have to fight off, but it may not be. Again, I appreciate the overwhelming support of my colleagues on this issue as well as the cloture vote which I think sends a clear message. I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I would like to say I appreciate very much my friend from North Dakota, with whom I have had the great privilege and pleasure of working with on many issues. He is an articulate and impassioned advocate of the American worker, and his view of what is best for the American worker I not only agree with, I respect. But let's have no doubt about what this amendment is really all about. This amendment, if we would sunset the temporary worker program, which is going to take a long period of time to get set up and functioning, obviously would be a killer for the legislation. If we tell people that after 5 years what is designed to be an ongoing and continuing program is going to be sunsetted, and the other parts of the legislation obviously are not, we all know what the effect is. I want to just make an additional comment about 1986. My colleagues keep coming back and coming back to the failure of 1986. I am the first to admit that 1986 was a failure. But why did it fail? That was because there was no enforcement on employers that hired people illegally. An integral and vital part of this legislation--which we now have the technology in order to construct--is for these tamperproof documents, biometric documents, and no employer can hire anyone else unless they have that. That way it is easy when you go to find out whether the employer is employing someone legally or illegally. When the word gets out south of the border or north of the border that you can't come here and work unless you have that one required document, then those illegals are going to stop coming illegally. I think it is important to recognize that the difference between 1986 and this bill is, No. 1, there is an enforceable guest worker program on both employers as well as employees, and there is a hard path to citizenship. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are advocates for these people say this is way too harsh. I understand that it is harsh and it is difficult, and there will be many who fall by the wayside for a variety of reasons. I worry that we have raised this payment so high now that we may be disqualifying people and their families under that system. We have raised it from $2,000 I think, now, to over $3,500. It is long and it is hard and it is a tough road. It is because they broke our laws, even if it is for the best of motives. An integral part of it is a guest worker program which has to last as long as we are willing to accept the premise of the temporary worker program. If we are not, then let's take it out of the bill. But to say after 5 years that it is going to sunset obviously is a totally unrealistic approach. I know my time is about to expire, but, again, I appreciate the passionate and articulate comments and statement which I think present a cogent point of view on the part of my friend from North Dakota. I just happen to fundamentally believe that a temporary worker program is a vital part of this comprehensive approach to immigration reform. Being without it--after 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years--would obviously destroy the whole concept behind this carefully crafted compromise. I believe my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, very briefly, of course, they didn't expect to receive benefits they had to pay into the system because they were here illegally. The whole thrust of this legislation is to give them not only Social Security benefits but, as importantly, the protections under the law, as they now live in the shadows and are exploited and mistreated in many cases. Of course, they didn't expect to. That is why we are going through this process of letting them earn citizenship. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada will let you earn citizenship, but what you have paid into a system, you will not only not receive the benefits but on top of that is a $2,000 fine. This is not about administrative costs. The fact is that each year the Social Security trust fund continues to grow by $50 billion, generating up to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. So as to the Senator's argument that this could cost money administratively--yes. But the fact is that when these people came here, of course, they accepted--because they came here illegally and broke our laws--of course, they accepted the fact that they probably wouldn't get Social Security or Medicare or protection of our laws against exploitation and mistreatment and all of the protections that citizens have. We are trying to give them a path to earn that. Yet under the Senator's amendment, they would be ineligible for the same benefit of citizenship which we, under this legislation, are trying to make them earn. I apologize to the Senator from Pennsylvania for taking additional time, and I understand the pressing time issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. As is true of anyone else who works in the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is aware of that. When their employer pays them, the taxes are withheld.

Mr. McCAIN. As soon as I finish my statement, I will be glad to yield to my friend from Nevada. I point out to my colleagues a recent Los Angeles Times article that indicates tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants are already lining up to pay current and back taxes. They want to do that because they want to play by the rules. So we are going to tell them there is one set of rules for them to pay their back taxes, but the taxes they have already paid they will receive no benefits for. What about the fiscal consequences of the amendment? I submit that if Social Security is not available in the future for immigrants, that when they retire or become disabled, then State and local governments and potentially the Federal Government will be forced to absorb significant costs as the Federal Government has refused to provide services and supports paid for by tax dollars of millions of legal immigrants. This amendment would simply continue this trend. The Senator from Nevada has argued that his amendment is about combating identity theft and that the bill before us says identity theft is OK. That is inaccurate. I don't know one Member of the Senate who would say: I support identity theft. Not one. In fact, the Senate Commerce Committee has been working to approve legislation, which I have cosponsored, to combat this egregious crime. Identity theft is a serious issue. In fact, the highest rate of identity theft occurs in the State of Arizona. It happened to me and my wife. But this immigration bill isn't drafted to comprehensively address identity theft, and the amendment before us isn't going to do a thing to fix this problem. Maybe we should add the Commerce Committee legislation to the bill. I assume other Members may not be agreeable to doing that, but I stand ready to work with the Senator from Nevada, and I suspect the Senator from Massachusetts would be willing to join us in pushing legislation to combat identity theft in a meaningful, comprehensive way. Now I will be glad to respond to any question the Senator from Nevada might have. I understand the patience of our manager is somewhat limited. Please go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Ensign amendment. Under current law, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Social Security benefits which I think is entirely appropriate. But we all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy. According to Stephen Goss, the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes. These payments generate approximately $8.5 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year. In fact, according to a 2005 New York Times article, the Social Security Administration records these payments in a so-called earnings suspense file, which grew by $189 billion in the 1990s and continues to grow by over $50 billion each year, generating up to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. According to the article, most of these payments come from illegal immigrants. The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our country. If this amendment is enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families. It pains me to disagree with my good friend from Nevada on this matter, but I believe the amendment is wrong. It is fundamentally unfair to collect taxes from these workers and then disqualify the taxes paid once the workers achieve legal taxes. I believe instead of supporting the amendment, we should stand for the principle that people who worked and paid into the Social Security system for years should be able to depend on their retirement income to which they contributed. The amendment compounds the unfairness by ignoring the underlying legislation that already calls for payment of all back taxes and a $2,000 fine. So what we are asking the immigrants to do is pay all back taxes and, at the same time, forgo the taxes they already paid into the Social Security trust fund. It is fundamentally unfair.

Mr. McCAIN. I rise in support of this amendment. It is an important amendment. I point out that I appreciate very much the efforts of Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl to have a respectful debate on this issue. We have honestly held views, and I am very appreciative of the level of this debate and our discussion not only in the Senate but in the cloakroom as we have worked out a number of differences we have had in a mutual effort to come up with legislation which is appropriate to the future of America. The language in the amendment is identical to what we passed last night, only this amendment adds an additional paragraph giving the alien more of an opportunity to prove their current work status. If we allow people to gain permanent residency, we want them to be hard- working, upstanding individuals. The amendment allows illegal immigrants to prove, through the use of valid government documents--we would be more than happy to define ``valid government documents'' more carefully in report language or in additional amendments--they should have, we believe, an opportunity with secure, government-issued documents that they can prove they are eligible. This is an important right they should be given. It releases them from the possibility of the bondage of an employer who would like to keep them in the status of which they are. That would only apply to a few, but this is a necessary addition. The original Cornyn-Kyl amendment does not mandate that the employer attest they will employ this individual in the future, only that they employ them currently. This is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time for the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is aware that when people come here illegally, obviously, they do not have citizenship, so, therefore, any Social Security number they use, whether it belongs to someone else or is entirely invented, is not valid. But I also know, if I can complete my answer to my friend, their taxes, part of their earnings are going into the Social Security fund, and that is a fact that it is theirs and their employers.

Mr. McCAIN. Under this legislation, we allow the illegal immigrants a path to citizenship which, if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, according to an amendment, then they would be ineligible to embark on that path to earn citizenship.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. The intent of the amendment is that they must pay and the legislation--I will be glad to state--must pay all backs taxes, a-l-l.