U.S. Senator Larry Craig
Serving the citizens of Idaho
http://craig.senate.gov/

Idahoans have contacted me, concerned that rebate checks from the new economic stimulus bill could be going to illegal immigrants in this country. They are correct, and this only adds to the many reasons why I voted against this bill and opposed its tactic of handing out checks indiscriminately, instead of focusing on addressing the real problems with our economy.

For those who want the longer story on this issue, here it is: The U.S. House of Representatives passed a version of the stimulus bill relying on tax code definitions that would have allowed illegal immigrants to qualify for the rebate—even including some illegal immigrants who were successfully deported and are now living in their foreign homes. The Senate attempted to correct the problem; in fact, I cosponsored an amendment to do just that. The final Senate version of the economic stimulus bill contained a "fix" designed to prevent illegal immigrants from being able to receive rebates, but it did not fully resolve the problem: while this "fix" corrected the original oversight from the House bill, illegal immigrants with undiscovered fraudulent Social Security numbers can still obtain rebates.

Although the Senate bill does not stop all rebate checks that might go to illegal immigrants, a majority still passed the bill over my opposition, on a vote of 81-16, sending it to the House and then the President to be signed into law.

I continue to hear from Idahoans concerned that our country is negotiating agreements to enable illegal aliens to earn Social Security benefits. That's not true.

Since the late 1970's, the United States has negotiated international agreements concerning the U.S. Social Security program and comparable programs of other countries. These international agreements are called "totalization agreements" and have two main purposes: to eliminate double social security taxation that occurs when workers from one country work legally in another country and are required to pay social security taxes in both countries on the same earnings; and to help fill gaps in benefit protection for workers who have careers divided between the United States and another country, but who have not worked long enough to qualify for social security benefits.

The United States has entered into totalization agreements with twenty-one countries, including Canada, Chile, South Korea, Australia, and most of Western Europe. Totalization agreements only affect foreign workers sent to work legally in the United States, or U.S. workers hired in the United States and sent to work in a foreign country. These agreements do not affect Social Security policy for illegal workers. I support current totalization agreements because they provide fair Social Security compensation for workers who have jobs that require them to work in more than one country.

Considerable misinformation is being circulated about totalization agreements and illegal immigrants. The facts are these: Since most work in America is covered by Social Security, it is true that illegal immigrants who are employed here are automatically paying into the Social Security system. However, that does not mean they receive benefits; federal law prohibits Social Security from providing benefits to aliens residing in the United States unlawfully. Furthermore, Congress has not passed legislation to allow illegal immigrants access to these benefits.

Some folks have contacted me about a possible five-cent tax on email. This is a hoax that began circulating on the Internet several years ago. An email message warns people that "House Bill 602P" will levy a five-cent surcharge on every email sent. It goes on to say that the bill is sponsored by Congressman Tony Schnell, and the funds would go to the U.S. Postal Service. Further, it refers to an "editorial" in the "March 6 issue" of The Washingtonian supporting the tax.

Let me assure you, there is no Bill 602P. There is no Member of Congress by the name of Tony Schnell, and the United States Postal Service has nothing to do with delivering email. The Washingtonian is a monthly magazine, and does not even have a "March 6" issue. It is highly unlikely that a measure like this will ever come to the Senate floor for debate.

Contrary to persistent Internet rumors, Members of Congress do not have a special retirement plan. For more than twenty years Members of Congress have been paying into the Social Security system and are covered by the same retirement plan that is available to all federal employees.

The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was enacted by Congress in 1920 to establish a retirement program for executive branch employees. In 1946, this program was extended to Members of Congress. At that time, CSRS-covered employees were exempt from having Social Security deductions taken out of their salaries (although monies earned in addition to their federal salaries were not exempt.) The CSRS was closed to new participants as of January 1, 1984, when P.L. 98-21 required Social Security coverage for all Members of Congress and new federal workers hired on or after that date.

Members, as well as any other federal employees, who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security.

Therefore, since 1984, civilian federal employees (including Members of Congress) have been paying into and receiving monies from the Social Security System. In addition, they contribute towards a basic benefit fund and can contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan, a program much like the 401(k) programs set up by private employers. Each pension depends on the particular member's years of service, but they start at 8.5 percent of the annual Congressional salary. Typical retirement after thirty years of service - which is substantially longer than most members serve in Congress - is 56 percent of the annual salary.

The "NAFTA Superhighway," Interstate 69, currently exists in two parts as a freeway connecting Indianapolis, IN, to Port Huron, MI, before continuing into Ontario, Canada. There is also a section in northwestern Mississippi. In 1998, Congress approved plans to extend I-69 from Indianapolis through Texas to the US-Mexican border. Once completed, I-69 would join Interstate 5 as one of two freeways connecting the US, Mexico, and Canada.

While this proposal has been opposed by those concerned with the environment, trade, and border security, it appears that further progress on I-69 will depend on the actions of the individual States along the proposed routes. In matters that specifically affect one State, it has long been my policy to defer to the judgment of that State's elected officials.

The ratification of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been an issue for the U.S. government since 1982, but was originally refused by the Reagan Administration, mainly because President Reagan felt that this treaty would dictate that ocean resources would be shared among all nations, including the deep sea technology used for mining. President Reagan also believed that ratifying this treaty would place the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, something that I have opposed and continue to oppose. I do not believe that we should give up sovereign judicial rights to an international authority.

However, now the Bush Administration has become a proponent of ratifying this treaty, and the Senate majority party is split in our views on this treaty. I am not in favor of LOST because I feel that ratifying LOST will not provide the United States with any benefits we do not currently enjoy. Instead, it will give an international organization more control over our maritime actions and place us at the mercy of the International Criminal Court and other similar proposed international entities.

Because it is such a controversial issue, this treaty was not considered by the Senate during the last Congress. Should it reach the Senate floor this year, however, I will oppose ratification.

President Bush, President Fox of Mexico, and Prime Minister Harper of Canada signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America initiative to ensure both our economic stability and national security between our three countries. This agreement acknowledges a mutual effort by our three great nations toward freedom, economic opportunity, and information sharing.

Some Idahoans have expressed concern that this initiative could be a movement to create a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. I can assure you that I will never vote to give up the sovereign rights we enjoy as a country. However, there is a very real security threat to our nation because of our extensive borders with both Canada and Mexico. I am open to finding ways to improve our border security with both countries, and I will work with my colleagues in the Senate and with the Bush Administration to do so.

While I recognize there is a movement to oppose this initiative, I believe that there is a lot of misinformation out there. If we are to have a secure and functioning border, it is necessary that we work with both Mexico and Canada to ensure that both sides of the border are protected - and we can certainly work together without surrendering our sovereignty.