CBO: Senate Immigration bill would help economy

June 18, 2013 @ 6:07 pm


People shout out against the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act in the hall outside the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 18, 2013. The committee in the Republican-led House is preparing to cast its first votes on immigration this year, on a tough enforcement-focused measure that Democrats and immigrant groups are protesting loudly. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) | Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sweeping immigration legislation moving toward a vote in the Senate would boost the economy and reduce federal deficits, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, at the same time it would bestow legal status on an estimated 8 million immigrants living in the United States unlawfully.

In an assessment that drew cheers from the White House and other backers of the bill, Congress' scorekeeping agency said the measure would reduce federal red ink by $197 billion across a decade, and $700 billion in the following 10 years as increased taxes paid to the government offset the cost of government benefits for newly legal residents.

The White House quickly issued a statement saying the report was "more proof that bipartisan commonsense immigration reform will be good for economic growth and deficit reduction." Several members of the "Gang of Eight" senators who drafted the legislation also hastened to welcome the news.

The assessment came as the pace of activity increased at both ends of the Capitol on an issue that President Barack Obama has placed at the top of his domestic agenda.

Challenged by protesters chanting "shame, shame," House Republicans advanced legislation to crack down on immigrants living illegally in the United States, at the same time the Senate lurched ahead on a dramatically different approach offering the hope of citizenship to the same millions.

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said the bill moving through the House Judiciary Committee was part of a "step by step, increment by increment" approach to immigration, an issue that can pit Republican against Republican as much if not more than it divides the two political parties.

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren predicted there would be "millions of American citizens taking to the street" in protest if Republicans pressed ahead with the bill. The measure permits state and local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws and requires mandatory detention for anyone in the country illegally who is convicted of drunk driving.

Despite the protests, approval by the committee was a foregone conclusion. The panel's chairman, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., said future bills would require companies to make sure their employees are living in the United States legally, create a program for foreign farm workers who labor in the United States and enhance the ability of American firms to hire highly skilled workers from overseas.

Those steps and more are already rolled into one sweeping measure in the Senate, a bipartisan bill that Obama supports and that appears on track for a final Senate vote as early as July 4.

The CBO said in its report and accompanying economic analysis that the legislation would raise economic activity in each of the next two decades, in part because of the legal immigration fostered by the measure, and also because millions of workers currently in the country illegally would join the legal workforce and pay taxes.

Not all the forecast was as favorable, though. CBO said average wages would decline through 2025 as a result of the bill, and that unemployment would go up slightly.

One critic quickly seized on the impact on pay. "It's going to raise unemployment and push down wages," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said of the bill. He added: "The impact will be harshest for today's low-income Americans. Meanwhile, the 21 million Americans who can't find full-time work will have an ever harder time getting a job and supporting their families."

Supporters of the bill saw it differently.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and part of the Gang of Eight, said the CBO report "debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill's opponents of one of their last remaining arguments."

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican and a co-author of the bill, said in a statement that the budget agency confirmed that "reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers," although he said he hopes for changes before it comes to a final vote.

The report was issued near the end of a day of skirmishing on the Senate bill.

Thhe Senate rejected a move by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., to require the installation of 350 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border before legalization can begin for anyone currently in the United States illegally.

Similarly, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to prevent legalization until a biometric system is in place to track people entering or leaving the country through air, sea or land points of departure.

Those proposals were overshadowed by a larger debate over the types of border security requirements the legislation should contain. Republicans generally want to toughen the existing measure, particularly since the bill includes a 13-year path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally รข(EURO)" a provision that sparks opposition from voters who could be influential in GOP primaries in next year's mid-term elections.

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told reporters that he and others want the government to demonstrate an ability to apprehend the vast majority of those attempting to enter the country illegally before anyone already present can take the first step toward possible citizenship.

Democrats have previously been unwilling to consider proposals along those lines, arguing they could postpone legalization for years if not longer. As drafted, the bill gives the government six months to develop a plan to achieve border security, but does not hold up legalization while it is being tested for effectiveness.

It was unclear what, if any, compromise is possible on that point. Agreement would greatly increase the bill's chances for passage with a large bipartisan vote.

The measure was drafted by a bipartisan Gang of Eight and represents a series of political trade-offs among senators as well as outside groups like business and labor, growers and farm workers. In addition to border security and a path to citizenship, it includes an expanded number of visas for highly skilled workers prized by the technology industry and a new program for low-skilled workers. It also features a top-to-bottom overhaul of a decades-old system for parceling out visas to future legal immigrants, reducing the importance of family ties while emphasizing education, job skills and youth.

Any talk of compromise in the House appeared distant as Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sought to reassure conservatives who have expressed fears he will allow legislation to come up this summer that they oppose and Democrats support.

One official who attended the closed-door meeting quoted the Ohio Republican as saying he has no intention of allowing a bill to come up that would violate the principles of the GOP majority and split its ranks. The speaker also made clear that legislation must satisfy Republican concerns about border security, according to the official.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More National News
Top Stories

  • Back In Business
    A temporary bridge span across the Skagit River is set to open Wednesday

  • What to Eat?
    Woman living on light reveals what her first meal will be after 47 days without food

  • High Altitude Upgrade
    The state's highest outhouse atop Mount Rainier is getting a badly needed upgrade
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (60)


  • Add A Comment

  • HLC wrote...
    What happened to JOBs.
    January 25, 2013 9:52 am
    Wasn't that Obozo the Fools number 1 priority? Never mind if his mouth is moving he's lieing or having another go with Carl.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    HLC
    January 28, 2013 6:00 am
    The same can be said about The GOP led house. They said their number one priority in 2010 was JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. What happened instead was wasted time passing bills on Sharia Law, making E Pluribus Unum our national motto, making Christianity our official religion and English the official language, and many other laws that had absolutely nothing to do jobs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @wsualum
    March 30, 2013 7:26 am
    Don't forget the time they wasted passing 'tea party budgets' that they already knew were nothing more than symbolic acts of futility because they contained so little comprimise, so little for even the Republicans in the Senate to get onboard with that they had ZERO chances of passing. Oh - and don't forget the big dust up over light bulb standards - remember the big angry house republican waste of time (started by Bachman) where they angrily protested the 'government forcibly telling us what lightbulbs we could use'? When it turned out it was the House itself that had passed the very freaking law they were protesting? I think they spent 2 or 3 days whining about how they themselves had set those laws in place... and then ended up doing NOTHING whatsoever.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    Jobs? i thought it was about stripping million from health insurance
    May 21, 2013 12:01 pm
    that's why the House has wasted 50 million tax payer dollars holding 37 meaningless votes.

    Jobs?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    March 30, 2013 7:29 am
    Haven't you learned yet that when you spend half of a posting spewing hate that you only look the idiot yourself and don't achieve anything against the object of your hate? And don't forget that the Republicans have spent ALL of thier time telling you how to hate Obama and blocking his every move instead of providing the jobs they claimed they were elected to create / the economy they claimed they were elected to fix. So, less hate, more facts please.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    April 22, 2013 1:11 pm
    What about the Repubs #1 priority (other than thier stated #1 of denying Obama a second term)???? JOBS JOBS JOBS - yet all they've done is complain about how wrong Obama is - as the economy has very slowly improved in many, many ways.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Jobs council
    January 25, 2013 1:44 pm
    hasn't met in over a year. Maybe Oprah knows what the he)) is going on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    There are plenty of jobs that American's will NOT do....like
    January 27, 2013 1:36 pm
    roofer, carpenter, or anything that big business does not want to pay a living wage. However, more immigrants will reduce middle class wages even further. The elites know exactly what their doing, unfortunately, most American's never took economics in school and do not realize the impact of 20 million people in the workforce willing to work for slave wages. READ the history of the labor movement in the early 20th century....it's success was after limiting immigration.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    a living wage.
    January 29, 2013 10:40 am
    What is this? GIve me a definition...a number. You can't. It's just another leftie, commie lie meant to instill guilt on the productive and validate taking more from them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    Definition of a living wage....
    January 29, 2013 3:35 pm
    A working person should make more than a person able-bodied person on welfare. "Leftie, commie lie"....try a tea party conservative that is sick of the elites and corporations ripping off the American people through illegal immigration. Oh, I am a LEGAL immigrant. Took 12 years to get in....should I have swam the river prior to 87??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    11 million are here illegally!!!!
    January 28, 2013 5:23 am
    who let that happen? DEPORT THEM!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Sick
    January 28, 2013 6:03 am
    Brilliant! How will this be done? What will the cost be? Do we have the facilities to hold all of them? The resources? Ready to pay more for goods and services, let alone watch the economy shut down. Read the studies, they provide more for this country than they take.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Easy
    January 28, 2013 9:37 am
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.

    they will leave in droves on the no more freebies alone.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    One more thing Make English the national language
    January 28, 2013 9:39 am
    That will save Billions right there. No more printing forms in 100 different languages, no more needing to teach classes in 100 different languages thus no need for interpreters. If you need one bring your own.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    wsualumn
    January 30, 2013 5:26 am
    they provide more births....seriously all the wic, housing, food stamps, free programs, dream act, cell phones, health care....a one way ticket back to their country would be cheaper...what are you talking about? I am not suggesting holding them anywhere.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    I have to agre with SickofSeattle.....
    March 29, 2013 11:57 am
    your argument to do nothing is "it's too hard", and "it will cost too much". The fact is, we will save billions of dollars if we aren't supporting illegal aliens (by giving them tuition, medical benefits, welfare, etc..).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    WSUALUM?
    April 30, 2013 11:26 am
    You must be referenceing a liberal funded study. Only a blind retard can look at our situation and thinks that illegals give more than they take? ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @sickofseattleite
    March 29, 2013 7:14 pm
    "11 million are here illegally!!!! who let that happen?" --- How about those wonderful 'job creators' that illegally hired them? you know - the folks who's jobs brought them across the border over the last 40 years and the republicans and democrats that didn't do anything about it over those same years? That's WHY they're here. Or would you rather take the simpleton's way out and blame Obama?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    Obozo will like the immigration law.
    January 29, 2013 10:08 am
    After the fool gets rid of every part the republicans want. It may require his relatives to come out of the shadows.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Give us your poor...your huddled masses...
    January 29, 2013 10:38 am
    yearning to take advantage of hard working Americans and vote "D".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.
    January 29, 2013 10:42 am
    Bingo. Calif just began shutting down illegal baby birthing motels. The anchor baby loophole needs to be closed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @HPD 5-0
    January 29, 2013 11:32 am
    I want to thank you for your attitude. That is exactly the attitude that leads toward extinction for conservatives. Keep it up!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    Conservatives are....
    March 29, 2013 12:00 pm
    the remaining few who love America, and want it to prosper. Back in the day, those who work hard and achieve, reap the reward of the good life. Now, they are punished and forced to pay for the losers......
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    love America?
    May 21, 2013 12:04 pm
    by wasting it's money and blocking all legislation? They love their money and power, they do not love America. That's why they don't bank here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    Repbulicans are already losing because they wont stand up to Obama
    January 30, 2013 5:24 am
    and the overspending dumbocrats ruining our country! At this point what have they got to loose? While the dumbocrats let Americans who earn everything loose everything to everyone else who does nothing. Stand up Republicans and take back our country! Stop this madness! Stop this reckless spending! Enforce the laws they are breaking! What the dumbocrats are doing to our country is an embarrassing OUTRAGE!!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Whose country?
    February 8, 2013 11:29 am
    I'm always amused by the "take back our country" line. I have heard it used by whatever faction happens to not be in power, both republican and democrat, and I always wonder what they have in mind. Since we regularly have elections in our country, it would seem the real issue for the losers is winning a majority, and last time I checked it requires creating a platform and putting forth candidates that will appeal to the most voters. Or does the "take back" statement imply some other means of gaining power? Armed takeover? The other thing I wonder about is what is meant by "our country"? So the party in power aren't citizens? The people who voted for them weren't citizens either? Or are there not enough landowners among them? Or is it a matter of longevity? If they are relative newcomers to the U.S. does that mean they not rightful owners of "our country"? Oh wait...we have to give the country back to the native Americans!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    I realize CH you are only familiar with demo types bounceing off your chin.
    February 7, 2013 11:56 am
    The republicans typically have any use for that lifestyle choice that you have made.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    Part of the charm
    February 8, 2013 2:06 pm
    of the Republican backed parts of the current iteration of reform is that it creates a self selection between those illegals who actually want to be participants in our culture and those just here for handouts. The immigration activists quoted in the story appear to be representatives of the very much unwanted handout seeking illegals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }