[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IMPACTS CONSTITUENCIES: PERSPECTIVES FROM
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (PART I)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-507 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
STEVE KING, Iowa SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia MAXINE WATERS, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Counsel
Allison Beach, Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Full Committee Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 2
The Honorable Linda Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 28
WITNESSES
The Honorable Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
The Honorable Henry Bonilla, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
The Honorable Luis Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 26
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Abner Culberson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............. 55
Editorials Supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, submitted
by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez............................. 59
HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IMPACTS CONSTITUENCIES: PERSPECTIVES FROM
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (PART I)
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in
Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John N.
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order. As a
result of the necessity to accommodate schedules for members of
the panel that will be leaving, we'll start at this time.
This hearing is the first in a series of hearings
concerning the impact of illegal immigration on local
constituencies, and who better to explain what is going on
around the country than Members of Congress from impacted
areas.
Today, we have three Members whose districts are actually
on or near the border with Mexico and New Mexico and Texas, and
we also have our colleague from Chicago.
It is appropriate to begin this hearing series with an
examination mainly of those border districts because they bear
the brunt of much illegal alien traffic, even for illegal
aliens who settle elsewhere.
Next week, we plan to have Members from North Carolina,
California, and New York, Georgia, and other parts of the
country. Each of these Members and their districts have been
heavily impacted by the flow and settlement of illegal aliens.
Cities and towns around the country are negatively impacted by
the heavy toll on infrastructure, the costs of emergency and
non-emergency health care, primary and secondary education,
and, of course, the loss of jobs to our American population.
In addition, there is social impact in the form of
additional crime, high populations, and damage to the
environment.
We should also not forget the national security danger to
the country of having an estimated 10 million illegal aliens in
the country, when no one knows who they are and what their
intent is.
Surely, for most of them, they intend to work and perhaps
settle here. But a small handful of undocumented illegal aliens
may pose the danger of terrorists attacking our country once
again.
If there is something Members of Congress can agree on, it
is perhaps that illegal alien situations should be brought
under control.
Before Congress decides on legislation to gain control over
those illegal aliens who are here to work, we must look at the
overall impact to our constituents so that any problems can be
addressed in that legislation and not be ignored.
Do illegal aliens lower wages for Americans? We examined
this at a hearing on this issue earlier this year. If they
arguably provide cheaper goods for consumers, is the cost of
their work here worth the benefit? Will the taxes collected
from illegal workers cover the cost in public subsidies and
benefits that American taxpayers have been paying? What is the
cost for infrastructure? What is the cost for emergency care
for illegal aliens? What is the cost of increased crime and
population? Do counties that border Mexico bear the lion's
share of these costs?
For the border States, the cost of even legal traffic on
infrastructure is enormous. Please look at the chart on the
wall to my left, your right, and you will see that last year
121 million passenger vehicles and 11 million trucks legally
crossed land borders with 326 million passengers.
The Department of Transportation reported in 2003 that the
number of persons entering the U.S. legally was 33.7 million at
the Arizona border; 90.5 million at the California border; 1.8
million at the New Mexico border; and 119.9 million at the
Texas border.
In FY 2000, Border Patrol agents apprehended almost 1.7
million persons for illegally entering the country.
Last year, the Border Patrol apprehended 1.16 million. The
Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector alone apprehended 230,000
illegal aliens in 2004.
The cost of emergency care is likewise enormous for border
States as well. The U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition
estimates that more than $200 million in 2000 was spent by
border counties for undocumented alien health care.
And for the Members of the Committee, a chart showing those
counties affected is to our right.
The American Hospital Association reported that Southwest
border hospitals reported uncompensated care totaling nearly
$832 million in the year 2000.
Any increased crime rates due to illegal immigration is
both a social and an economic cost. The Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas conducted a study in March of 2003 entitled ``The Impact
of Illegal Immigration and Enforcement on Border Crime Rates.''
As you can see from these projected charts, it found that
border enforcement is significantly negatively correlated to
violent crime rates and poverty crime rates in Southwest border
counties. My chart to the right shows.
Instead of going over many statistics myself, let me allow
the witness Members to tell the story of their own districts in
their own words since they know the local conditions better.
At this time, I yield now to the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for purposes of an opening
statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You're
very kind, and I thank the witnesses, my colleagues, for their
presence. I notice that Texas is quite well represented this
morning--or this afternoon. Let me thank them and let me also
thank Mr. Gutierrez for his time. He serves in a very important
capacity, and we welcome his insight on this very important
issue.
I want us to discern the truth, and I hope as my colleagues
make their presentation in the backdrop of their minds will be
the longstanding principle that we are a nation of laws, and we
are a nation of immigrants.
I can't imagine that anyone could testify to their absolute
presence in the United States, short of Native Americans. And
so as we proceed on the question of how illegal immigration
impacts constituencies, let us walk gingerly, because I'm
reminded of the 1800's and the early 1900's, when large
migration of immigrants came to the United States--and I would
venture to challenge my Chairman and my colleagues to be able
to document that every single one of those individuals came
here in legal status.
But what we do know is that those individuals provided--
were provided an opportunity to access legalization, and
ultimately provided the contributions necessary to build a
great and powerful and wonderful America.
It's important to maintain a proper perspective on this
subject. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking
about people, although some undocumented immigrants come to the
United States for untoward purposes, illegal immigration
consists primarily of people who are coming to the United
States to seek a better life.
As I make that comment, let me say that I join my
colleagues in accepting the responsibility and the challenge of
border security. It must be done in a manner that shows the
American people that we mean business, and that we are working
with our allies and neighbors to mean business.
And so, strengthening our Border Patrol agents, providing
them with the equipment that they need, ensuring that their
necessary resources--detention beds--to protect the Nation in
the instance of OTMs that come and do not then meet their
requirements in terms of going to their court appointment is an
absolute imperative.
But at the same time, we must find a way to reach America
so that they can understand the balance, the prosperity, and
the generosity that has occurred in the United States because
of immigrants.
This point is illustrated by an observation that Stanley
Mailman and Steve Yaylov made recently on the term ``illegal
alien.'' They said an undocumented alien performing
construction work is not an outlaw engaged in illegal activity
such as bookmaking or burglary. Rather, the work is lawful and
legitimate. It simply happens to be work for which the alien is
ineligible or disqualified.
That is cited in undocumented workers seeking personal
injury compensation.
America was founded by immigrants seeking freedom and
opportunity. It created new jobs by establishing new
businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and
services, paying taxes, and raising the productivity of the
United States businesses.
Throughout American history, immigrants have helped build
American cities, towns, farms, businesses, and cultural
institutions. Unfortunately, the presence of millions of
undocumented workers in our communities also has had in the
past negative consequences.
Our failed immigration policies have encouraged employers
who use foreign workers to lower labor standards and working
conditions for all who labor in the United States--citizens and
lawful permanent of the United States, as well as undocumented
workers.
We need an increase in the minimum wage. We need to ensure
that the prevailing wages are paid. We also need to find out
how we can fix our broken health system, and I can assure you
that there are immigrants in my community, some undocumented,
who are willing to pay for their health care. We've just got to
put a system in place.
Our current legal framework also makes it nearly impossible
for many immigrant workers, particularly the undocumented to
exercise their legal rights. Fear of deportation, fear of
losing their livelihoods is enough to silence workers. This
encourages such unscrupulous employers to hire and exploit
undocumented workers instead of hiring American workers.
We must reinforce the value of American workers, and we
must break the cartels' backs who bring in unsuspecting and
victimized individuals who are attempting to cross the border
utilized by mules and others who are bringing them in in
dangerous conditions. We must stop the devastation of Victoria,
Texas. It must not happen again.
We must also recognize the U.S. Department of Labor has
determined that the poultry industry, nearly half of which
consists of immigrant workers, has been as much as 100 percent
out of compliance with Federal wage and hour laws. Also the
Labor Department estimates that more than half of the country's
garment factories violate wage and hour laws and more than 75
percent have violated health and safety laws.
Workplaces that are dangerous for immigrant workers are
equally dangerous for those in the United States.
Let me also say that collectively we recognize this
problem. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that, as we listen to the
testimony, it will be balanced.
I am gratified for the teamwork that many of us have
engaged with our other colleagues, particularly, for example,
in the area of Katrina, when we saw that there were some
conflicts between American workers and undocumented, it was the
combination of Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and
the Hispanic Caucus to come to work together to ensure that the
laws are not broken and that we address those issues and that
American workers are protected.
We can work together, but we cannot work together in a
manner that scapegoats us and does not, if you will, Mr.
Chairman, balance the good and the bad and the call to the
United States to address the question of comprehensive
immigration reform.
With that I yield back, and welcome the panelists this
afternoon.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady. Without objection,
all Members' opening statements will be made a part of the
record. We generally have opening statements by Members of the
Subcommittee, but given the time constraints of our panel
members, we will move into introduction of the panel members.
First of all, Congressman Henry Bonilla represents the 23rd
District of Texas, which spans close to 800 miles of the
international border with Mexico.
Congressman Bonilla was elected to Congress in 1992, which
marked the first time a Hispanic Republican was elected to
Congress from Texas. As Member of the House Appropriations
Committee, he chairs the Subcommittee on Agriculture, and sits
on the Subcommittees on Foreign Operations and Defense.
Prior to his election to Congress, most of the
Congressman's career was in television news. He started as a
reporter in San Antonio, Texas, and then became a producer for
several stations throughout the country. Most recently, he was
executive producer for public affairs at KENS in San Antonio.
Congressman Bonilla earned a bachelor of journalism degree
from the University of Texas at Austin.
Congressman John Culberson has represented the Seventh
District of Texas since 2000. Congressman Culberson serves on
the House Appropriations Committee. He is a Member of the
Subcommittee on Transportation and the Subcommittee on Science,
State, Justice, and NASA. He is also a part of the Republican
Whip Team.
Prior to his election to Congress, John Culberson served in
the Texas House of Representatives for 14 years. He was elected
to the legislature while he was a law student. During that
period, he practiced law as a civil defense attorney. He has
worked in political consulting and advertising.
Congressman Culberson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in
history from Southern Methodist University, and his J.D. degree
from South Texas College of Law in Houston.
Congressman Stevan Pearce is serving his second term in
Congress, representing the Second District of New Mexico. He
serves on the Homeland Security, Financial Services, and
Resources Committees.
Formerly, Congressman Pearce was elected to the New Mexico
House of Representatives in 1996, and reelected in 1998.
While in the legislature, he served as Republican Caucus
Chairman. He and his wife owned and operated Lee Fishing Tools,
an oilfield services firm. They were honored by the Association
of Commerce and Industry with an award for outstanding business
in New Mexico. Additionally, the Congressman served as a pilot
in the United States Air Force, where he received the
Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal.
Congressman Pearce graduated from New Mexico State
University with a B.B.A. degree in Economics, where he was also
elected student body president. He holds an M.B.A. from Eastern
New Mexico University as well.
Congressman Luis Gutierrez has represented the Fourth
District of Illinois since 1992. He currently serves on the
Veterans Affairs Committee and the Financial Services
Committee, where he is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations. During his time in Congress,
Congressman Gutierrez has focused his efforts on immigration
issues, and he is Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
Task Force on Immigration.
Prior to being elected to Congress, the Congressman worked
as a teacher, social worker, community activist, and city
official.
He was elected in 1986 as Alderman for Chicago's 26th Ward.
Congressman Gutierrez graduated from Northeastern Illinois
University.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time today. I
know--I understand that a couple of you will have to be leaving
early and so as a result of that, Congressman Pearce if you
would give your opening statement. Without objection, your
written statement will be a part of the record.
We have 5-minute lights, as you are all aware, sitting
generally on this side of the dais, and if you could stick to
those as nearly as possible, I'd appreciate it.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking
Member Jackson Lee.
I really feel the need to convey this idea that Jackson Lee
suggested that we walk gingerly in this area. I represent a
border district, 47 percent Hispanic, that recognizes the need
for immigration. But we also have to recognize that immigration
discussions must be broken into two halves--legal immigration
and illegal immigration.
The legal immigration we all know creates vitality,
vibrancy, and brings us new ideas and new entrepreneurships.
In August, I conducted 18 town hall meetings in my district
on immigration. Where possible, I allowed the Hispano Chambers
to moderate those discussions, to host the discussions, and we
had very productive talks about what must be done.
There is great consensus among all cultures that we should
increase border security, but we also need to recognize that
coming across to better one's life should not be a crime.
Mr. Chairman, the entire U.S. border with Mexico in the
State of New Mexico is in my congressional district. It's about
180 miles long. There are three counties providing almost
10,000 square miles for circumventing Border Patrol
authorities, with 80 agents per shift. There's only one agent
per 25 square miles in my district.
To compound the problem, we had the Border Patrol reissue
and reassign agents away from our district into Arizona and
California, and it has caused then a funneling of activity to
the southern border of New Mexico, with increases in detentions
growing from 61,000 to over 76,000.
The graphic that is up on slide two, if we get that up,
shows the yellow school bus right there, which routinely brings
people right to the border and then drops them off for staging
to cross the border at night. We took the Homeland Security
Department Committee to see this section of the border, and we
watched that bus in operation bringing people in to deliver
them for the illegal crossings.
The Border Patrol has a lack of necessary surveillance
capabilities, but unfortunately they also squandered, the
Border Patrol has squandered apparently $239 million designated
for the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, the ISIS
system.
The problem is four-fold. Basically, we have a problem with
constituents. One of my constituents living in a border area
recently was quoted, before you didn't call and report illegal
immigrants on a property. You simply made them a sandwich, gave
them a jug of water, and sent them on their way. But you did
not fear for you life.
Now, when they knock, you don't dare answer the door. The
residents who live right on the border, in the area of that
yellow bus, they have built their own fences. There's the one
barricade--if we move back one slide--there's the one
barricade, but then that won't stop the cattle and so our
ranchers have built their own barbed wire fences on Government
easement property and still they--the properties have--or the
people on the other side of the border have stolen that fence.
It's impossible for the ranchers to rebuild. The Border Patrol
simply says you should stay away from your fence; that it's
that dangerous, and, yet, they're then faced with losing their
livestock.
The impact on law enforcement officers is the second thing.
Many times our local law enforcement officers have supplemented
Border Patrol agencies, but I will tell you that many of our
departments are two and three people, and Border Patrol has
their expressed desire of driving the illegals away from the
major thoroughfares onto the country roads and to be
interdicted in rural areas, and that is putting an extreme
strain on our particular sheriff's departments and police
departments.
The criminal activity that is being conducted by the
illegal immigrants is also straining to capacity our ability to
respond. The detention costs are left to the local providers.
Fifty dollars per day. One county applied last year for over
$60,000 in alien assistance program funding. Drug smuggling
counter intelligence is so sophisticated the stakes have become
so high for smugglers that they find out who the sheriffs are
and who the deputies are, and they tell them simply if you get
in our way, we're going to kill you first, and then we're going
to kill your families. So we've had young people who are in the
law enforcement business in this area who've packed up and
left, and they've gone somewhere else to be in law enforcement.
The--another impact that we face in the district is the
extraordinary cost of Federal mandates to provide emergency
care to illegal immigrants. Each year, thousands of immigrants
require care for heat exhaustion and for the different problems
that they've experienced, so we find those to be severely
impacting us. Crushing caseloads for our judgeships. Three
hundred and sixty-six cases per judgeship is what we
experienced in our district; 89 is the national average.
We have an additional problem that affects us--the
inability to search into--to look at the long stretches of the
border.
Eventually, we must also, in addition to border security,
Mr. Chairman, we must address the desire and reasons for people
coming here. That tells us that we, at some point, are going to
have to have a common sense guest worker program to deal with
both the needs of workers, but also the reasons that people
come here.
Our policies have been somewhat hypocritical, indicating
that we need you to come and work, but we're going to make it
as difficult for you to do so as possible.
And, Mr. Chairman, I also speak for a balanced
comprehensive reform legislation, but also the need to reform
immigration, where we have some commonsense guest worker
program.
I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Stevan E. Pearce, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New Mexico
ATTACHMENT
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Pearce.
Congressman Bonilla?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HENRY BONILLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Chairman. As you pointed out in
your introduction, Chairman, no Member of Congress represents a
longer portion of the Mexican border than I do.
It spans over 700 miles, and, Chairman, there is an
invasion going on as we speak of OTMs, which is the primary
concern that we have now. As you know, the Border Patrol
categorizes other than Mexicans, OTMs, in a different category
as they do Mexican illegals that come across the border. And
while the Mexican illegal immigrant is a separate issue, and
one that's been with us for a long time, the new invasion, of
OTMs, is something that every American needs to be alarmed
about.
So far this year, almost 150,000 OTMs have come across the
Southwest border. They come from the Mideast. They come from
Asia. They come from South and Central America, which is where
a lot of the gang problems are rooted now in our country. And
in many cases, Mr. Chairman, the culture is such now because of
the catch and release program that the Department of Homeland
Security has undertaken where they come across the border, and
they're given court papers, and it's a joke. They're asked to
appear, and everyone has documented now that between 85 and 90
percent never show up in court; and they use that as a free
ticket to go into whatever city they need to go.
And the culture now is pathetic, Mr. Chairman, with the
fact that these OTMs, now the cultural message out there is
that they come across the border looking for the Border Patrol
agents. They don't even run from them anymore. We have this
documented on photographs. In the last several months, we have
actually had people out there with cameras, where they come
across the Rio Grande, and they look for the Border Patrol;
throw their hands up, knowing full well they're going to get a
meal. They're going to get a place to sleep. They're going to
get medical care. They're going to get asked a couple of
questions. In many cases, they do not have the manpower to
debrief any of these people, and then they set them free with
court papers, claiming that they don't have the detention
space.
Now, there are lot of issues involved that present a danger
to communities, and again let me also emphasize that that this
is not an Hispanic issue or an Anglo issue or a Republican or
Democrat issue. My colleague, Mr. Culberson, for example, who
was just here a moment ago, has had many one-on-one
conversations with border sheriffs, many of which are Members
of the other party. They are members of the Latino ethnic
groups, county commissioners and mayors. My mayor of Eagle
Pass, for example, is right on the border, which is a 95
percent plus Hispanic community, they're outraged at what our
country is now allowing in terms of the OTM invasion in this
country. And it's embarrassing as a federally elected
representative to go down there and ride in a car with my
sheriff in a border county or the mayor of a border town that
look at us and say, ``why is our policy now allowing this to
happen, and you're watching the OTMs walking down the street?
And they're headed who knows where?''
That's why this is not just an issue for those of us right
on the border, it's an issue for Americans who live in New York
and Colorado and California, because they've seen this
incredible influx of OTMs now with the catch and release
program.
I've told every word of this to Secretary Chertoff on a
couple of occasions, one in an official hearing in another
Committee just a couple of weeks ago, and I asked him point
blank: ``If I'm not mistaken, Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, who
used to be a Border Patrol chief in El Paso once used tents to
properly shut down the border in that community of El Paso. And
he was a hero when he did that.''
And again, my--our understanding is that he used temporary
tents to humanely house illegals that were coming across the
border, and it had an incredible impact not just on the influx
of illegals at the time, but it also did several other things
that helped the morale of the Border Patrol. It also--the
cultural word on the street started to reverse itself, and the
illegal immigration rate dramatically dropped, and it just
worked all the way around.
And I'm suggesting to Secretary Chertoff and I'm suggesting
to any Member of Congress who has any say in this that we need
to look at temporarily housing OTMs in tents, humanely.
We're not talking about treating anybody inhumanely. But
and quite frankly, if they had to spend some time in these
tents, it would be probably better, a better facility than they
would have slept in for the weeks on end that they spent coming
across those dangerous mountainous and desert terrains that
they had to traverse.
So we're talking about doing this the right way, and also
forcing, using the State Department, to try to force some of
these countries who are not cooperative. You know a lot of
people in this country talk about how we're not sensitive
enough to illegal aliens.
You know how inhumane and how much the Mexican Government
tries to shut down illegal immigration on its southern border.
It's an embarrassment. And then sometimes for these consuls to
come across the border and say, hey, you're not doing enough to
pander to illegal aliens. It is an absolute outrage.
So anyone who researches the immigration policy of Mexico,
for example--how do you think they're getting in here in the
first place? They're coming from their southern border and
coming up through our border. And they put absolutely no
priority into stopping the flow of illegal aliens or in trying
to help us get them back to their original countries where they
come from.
So, again, it's a complicated issue, and if we're able to
do something to provide more detention beds, detention space,
and more beds to house these OTMs, then we're going to have to
talk about the legal system because that's overly taxed right
now as well. And so we're going to be able to process them. So
we're trying to be creative in looking at ways to do this.
And as I have said in letters to the President, in letters
to former Secretary Ridge, to people like that, if this was
the--if the OTMs were being released in your neighborhood,
you'd be doing something about it now. If they were walking
through your neighborhood, you don't know what they're up to.
The background checks are shallow at best, and to watch them
come through, I just don't know how to put it more clearly, Mr.
Chairman. It is an absolute outrage.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonilla follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry Bonilla, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
I represent more than 700 miles of the Texas/Mexico border. A few
years ago the only people worried about border security were those
living on the border. Times have changed. If you live in America and
you're not worried about border security, you should be.
It takes only one terrorist to slip into our country and increase
the risk of a terrorist catastrophe. The threat is real. Hundreds of
illegal aliens invade our border communities each day. Recent
intelligence gives frightening insight into terrorist plans on the
U.S./Mexico border. The Washington Post reported this month that Abu
Ali, a man indicted in a plot to assassinate President George W. Bush,
admitted his plan to bring members of an al Qaeda cell into the U.S.
through Mexico. Just this spring U.S. officials revealed that Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, mastermind of several Iraq terrorist attacks, may be
planning U.S. attacks and entering through the southern border. As long
as our nation's borders are porous, we have an increased chance of
terrorism on our own soil. Known terrorists, ruthless members of drug
cartels and free loaders from around the world now use the southwest
border as a revolving door.
While many crossing the border are seeking work and a new life,
many are also bringing violent crime and drugs into these small towns
that are ill equipped to deal with the problem. Analysis of the latest
Census data indicates Texas' illegal immigrant population is costing
the state's taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education,
medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions
of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount
to more than $3.7 billion per year.
Approximately 11.9% of children in the Texas public
school system are illegal aliens.
Texan taxpayers pay approximately $520 million a year
for health care of illegal aliens.
Finally, the uncompensated cost of incarcerating
illegal aliens in Texas state and county prisons amounts to
about $150 million a year. This figure does not include local
jail detention costs, related law enforcement and judicial
expenditures, nor the monetary costs of the crimes that led to
their incarceration in the first place.
The problem is very immediate and personal to border communities.
My proximity to the border gives me a first-hand appreciation of the
problem. My border communities are small and rely on cross border
commerce. Some of my constituents have family and friends on both sides
of the border. Efficient LEGAL border crossings are essential to this
region, but illegal border crossing have become an excessive burden.
As of last month, an estimated 146,000 Non-Mexican Illegal Aliens
(NMIAs) illegally crossed the US-Mexico border so far this year. Gangs
and drug traffickers can easily overwhelm small, local law enforcement
departments. Increased crime rates require the diversion of limited
local funds from other important local needs impacting these
communities economically and overburdening other social services.
Imagine if this was happening in your town. You might feel under siege.
I recognize there is no quick-fix. The issue must be addressed from
several angles. That's exactly what I have been championing for years,
and is the basis for a series of legislative initiatives that I been
rolling out over the summer and this fall.
The first step toward a safer, more secure border is basic
preparedness. You can't secure a border without man-power, equipment
and facilities. We've made great advances in this arena. Over the last
year our Congress has added 1500 Border Patrol agents and 568
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the force. We've
also funded $61 million for border security technology, including
surveillance and unmanned aerial vehicles. I can't deny that these are
fantastic advances, but we cannot stop here.
One of the border's largest pitfalls has been the amount of
detention bed space. Border Patrol agents are doing their job by
capturing illegal immigrants. But once captured they are almost
immediately set free because there is not room for detention.
Additional bed space allows our immigration system to do its job by
keeping illegal immigrants behind bars and holding them until they can
be properly deported. A major accomplishment occurred this past year
when Congress funded 3870 detention beds for the U.S./Mexico border.
This is a tremendous step toward filling a gaping hole in our system.
However, 3,870 new detention beds will not fix the problem, and we
need help now. Until your expedited removal program is fully
implemented, DHS could erect temporary detention facilities using
tents, and stop releasing illegal NIMAs immediately. This is not an
untested idea either. Tents were used for temporary detention
facilities in the mid-1980's in Southern Texas (McAllen Sector) and it
was a huge success. Three things happened as soon as the tents went up.
1) The morale of the Border Patrol officers improved.
2) Assurance of detention had a dramatic deterrent effect and
attempted illegal border crossings went way down.
3) There was a resulting back-up of NIMAs on the Mexican side
of the border which caused the government of Mexico to take
action to reduce the number of NIMAs that they allowed into
their country. The bottom line is that the number of illegal
NIMAs reduced so much that the temporary detention facilities
could be removed in just over a year.
Once the enforcement infrastructure is in place, the next step is
reducing the backlog of illegal immigrants awaiting trial. This will be
accomplished by streamlining the justice system for adjudication and
removal of the illegal immigrants. Part of my legislative package will
include funding for additional immigration trial attorneys and judges.
The shortage of attorneys and judges is appalling. By filling these
slots and making more available we can expedite the adjudication
process and eliminate a log jam that has existed for years.
The final phase of my border security proposal is to facilitate the
deportation of illegal immigrants. Secretary Chertoff has pledged to
implement an expedited removal program in all Border Patrol sectors.
Expedited removal would allow the vast majority of illegal immigrants
to be repatriated within days, rather than months and reduce judicial
back-log. Although an expedited removal system was authorized last
year, only three Border Patrol sectors have been approved by DHS to use
the program so far. This simply is not enough. The Department of
Homeland Security must make it a priority to implement an expedited
removal program in every sector. Additionally, Secretary Chertoff
recently wrote me a letter expressing concern over what he calls, ``an
overstuffed removal pipeline.'' Delays in country clearances and
related repatriation issues must be fixed to ensure the success of the
expedited removal programs.
The bottom line is that we live in an age where a porous border is
a danger not only to border states, but to our entire nation. Every day
that our border security is ignored, gangs, criminals and terrorists
are finding new ways to exploit the weaknesses of our security systems.
Terrorists are no longer playing by the same rules and neither should
we.
Ignoring this problem is like ignoring the war against terrorism.
Those of us who live near the border cannot fight this war on our own.
We must stand together as a nation to regain control of our border.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Bonilla.
Congressman Gutierrez.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LUIS GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Gutierrez. Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler and
Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members of the Committee. It's a
pleasure to be here this afternoon.
I hope to use my time to try to debunk some of the myths
and misinformation about the issue of our broken immigration
system.
I'll start with the following quote: ``Foreign immigration,
which, in the past has added so much to the wealth, development
of resources, and increase of power to the Nation, as the
asylum of the oppressed of all nations should be fostered and
encouraged by a liberal and just policy.''
I couldn't agree more. Where did I read that? Was it in
some policy papers produced by some progressive think tank? No.
Was it in the editorial pages of a liberal leaning
newspaper? No.
Actually, those eloquent and forward looking words were the
Republican platform of 1864, and I think we would be wise to
pay close attention to that vision.
While much has changed, the fundamental point of that
statement rings true today. But if you want a more modern quote
on the subject, Grover Norquist said just yesterday:
``Immigration bashing is not a vote winner.''
Look, I'm the first to agree that the immigration system in
this nation is badly broken, but how did we get there? Is the
answer that we deport 8 to 11 million undocumented individuals
who are working and contributing to their communities? How much
would that cost?
According to a recent study for the Center for American
Progress, it would cost more than $41 billion a year, and would
exceed the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security
for fiscal year 2006 to begin to deport 10 to 12 million
people.
But don't trust my numbers or the numbers of that
institution. Secretary Chertoff recently testified to the
Senate Judiciary Committee that it would cost ``billions and
billions and billions,'' adding that it would not be a feasible
idea.
More importantly, what would happen to our workforce and to
our economy? In the factories of Chicago, immigrants today make
up more than one out of every four workers. And without their
labor, these factories might need to move elsewhere to find
available workers, even overseas.
And similar trends across our country's industries exist.
Mexican immigrants today fill almost half of the blue
collar, service-related and unskilled jobs in my city. It is
not an exaggeration to say that our cities would grind to a
halt without these workers.
In fact, the Department of Labor, our own Department of
Labor, President Bush's Department of Labor, estimates that the
total number of jobs requiring short-term training will
increase from 53 million in 2000 to 60 million in 2010, a net
increase of 7.7 million jobs--low-skilled, very little
training, low paying jobs. We're going to create 7.7 million.
And the fact is Americans are simply unwilling to do these
jobs. I don't blame them. Who would want these arduous, back
breaking, dead end, low-paying jobs? I think President Reagan
probably summed the issue up best when he described apples
rotting on a tree.
President Reagan said: ``It makes one wonder about the
illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really
victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal
tourists actually working, doing work that our own people won't
do? One thing is certain in this hungry world. No regulation or
law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in our
country, in our fields, for lack of harvesters.''
And that's President Reagan, describing rotting apples on a
tree.
It is probably important to note today that more than 80
percent of the apple pickers in Washington State are
immigrants, and half of them, according to our Justice and
Labor Departments, are illegally in the United States.
Look at other industries, and you'll arrive at the same
conclusion.
Today, there are more than 700,000 undocumented restaurant
workers; more than 250,000 undocumented household employees,
and one million undocumented farm workers.
So what should we do to ensure that we create an
immigration policy that, as President Bush said, ``match
willing foreign workers with willing employers when no American
can be found to fill the job.'' I think the answer is
comprehensive immigration reform, because our current policies
are simply not working.
A recent study by Princeton Professor Douglas Massey on the
U.S. Border Patrol budget shows that its budget, the Border
Patrol budget, has increased 10-fold since 1986. But as we all
know, the number of illegal immigrants to the United States
continues to increase.
So I think we need to do more than simply throw money at
the problem. We need to look more comprehensively and more
strategically about this issue, because building a giant fence
or sending more unfunded mandates to our States will not solve
this problem. And the hard reality is these policies will only
drive millions of undocumented workers further into our
nation's underground.
If we want to solve the challenges of immigrant health care
and education, we need to bring these people out of the shadows
so that they can be fully functioning and fully taxed members
of our society, paying their fair share.
I believe the solution lies in the fact that we must stop
targeting Windex-wielding cleaning ladies, and start focusing
our limited resources on targeting real terrorists and
criminals.
However, none of this will be successful unless we deal
directly with the 8 to 11 million undocumented workers who are
already here, living and working and contributing.
And let me be clear here. These people should be penalized,
but the punishment should fit the crime. They should be fined.
They should be fingerprinted, and they should be thoroughly
vetted so that we can have a more secure America.
In terms of health care, a recent Harvard-Columbia
University study showed that health care expenditures are
substantially lower for immigrants than it is for U.S.-born
persons. Just as undocumented workers--and I want to make this
clear; these are not my--specifically, these are Social
Security Department statistics. Just as undocumented workers
help sustain our Social Security System with a subsidy of as
much as $7 billion a year, these individuals are also helping
to subsidize our nation's health care system through taxes they
pay.
Since the late 1980's, more than $189 billion in wages
ended up recorded in the Social Security Administration's
earnings suspense file. This file has grown by more than $50
billion a year in the current decade, generating more than $6
to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and $1.5 billion
in Medicare taxes.
In addition to these taxes, no storekeeper in Chicago has
ever said, oh, you're undocumented. You don't have to pay a
sales tax on your purchase. You don't have to pay gas tax,
cigarette tax, property tax. They pay each and every one of
these taxes, and I think that we as a Congress would be wise to
take these factors into consideration as we carefully consider
proposals such as those of Representative Jackson Lee and the
one I introduced with Representatives Kolbe, Flake, and
Senators McCain and Kennedy.
And I would like to just wind up, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, by having to introduce to the record 153 editorials
supporting comprehensive immigration reform, and the Secure
America Orderly Immigration Act in 74 publications in 31
States.
The country is ready for comprehensive immigration reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement Mr. Gutierrez follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Illinois
Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee,
and members of the committee.
It is with great pleasure that I appear before this subcommittee
today to share my views on how our immigrant community impacts the City
of Chicago, where my Congressional District resides.
I hope to use my time to try to debunk some of the myths and
misinformation about the issue of immigration and to explain why we
desperately need to reform our broken immigration system.
I thought I'd start today by quoting something I recently read.
And I quote . . . ``[F]oreign immigration, which in the past has
added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of
power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should
be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.''
I could not agree more.
But where did I read that? Was it in the policy papers produced by
some progressive think tank? No. Was it in the editorial pages of a
liberal-leaning newspaper? No.
Actually, those eloquent and forward-looking words were from the
Republican Party Platform in 1864 and I think we would be wise to pay
close attention to those sentiments.
But if you want a more modern, timely quote on the subject, Grover
Norquist said yesterday, ``immigrant bashing is not a vote winner.''
Look, I am the first to agree that our immigration system in this
nation is badly broken and fixing it must be a top priority of
Congress.
But how do we get there?
Is the answer that we deport the 8 to 11 million undocumented
individuals in this nation who are working and contributing to their
communities? What would a mass deportation even look like? How much
would it cost?
According to a recent study by the Center for American Progress, it
would cost more than 41 billion dollars a year--and would exceed the
entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year
2006. And if you don't trust those numbers, Secretary Chertoff recently
told the Senate Judiciary Committee that it would cost ``billions and
billions and billions,'' adding that it would not be a feasible idea.
And what if we were to spend these billions and billions of
dollars, what would happen to our workforce and to our economy?
In the factories of Chicago, immigrants today make up more than one
out of every four workers, and without their labor these factories
might need to move elsewhere to find available workers.
And similar trends cut across various industries. Mexican
immigrants today fill almost half of the blue-collar, service-related
and unskilled jobs in our city. It is not an exaggeration to say that
our city would grind to a halt without these workers.
In fact, the Labor Department estimates that the total number of
jobs requiring only short-term training will increase from 53.2 million
in 2000 to 60.9 million by 2010, a net increase of 7.7 million jobs.
And the fact is Americans are simply unwilling to do these jobs. I
don't blame them. It is truly arduous labor. But these jobs need to get
done to keep our economy growing and our communities thriving.
I think President Reagan probably summed this issue up best back in
1977, when he saw apples rotting on a tree because there were no local
workers to pick them.
He said, ``It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are
great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien
invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own
people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world; no
regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in
the fields for lack of harvesters.''
It is probably important to note that today more than 80 percent of
all apple pickers in Washington State are immigrant farm workers and
over half of them are undocumented.
So what should we do to ensure that we create an immigration system
that, as President Bush said, can ``match willing foreign workers with
willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job?''
I think the answer is comprehensive immigration reform.
I know there is a lot of talk about enforcement and border security
provisions. And--don't get me wrong--it is extremely important, but it
is only one part of the immigration equation.
A recent study by Princeton Professor Douglas Massey on the U.S.
Border Patrol Budget shows that its budget has increased tenfold since
1986. And, as you know, this rapidly rising budget has done very little
to stem the rapid rise in undocumented immigration.
So I think we need to do more than simply throw more money at the
problem. We need to abandon the same old, tired, narrow and failed
policies of the past. And we need to think more comprehensively and
more strategically about the issue--because building a giant fence or
sending more unfunded mandates to our states will not solve this
problem. And the hard reality is that these policies would only drive
millions of undocumented workers further into our nation's shadows. And
all the challenges that my colleagues talk about--from health care
costs to other factors--will remain if we have millions of people
operating in the shadows.
I believe the solution lies in the fact that we must stop targeting
Windex-wielding cleaning ladies and start focusing our limited
resources on better targeting the real terrorists and criminals and
smugglers who wish to do our nation harm.
And I think that goal is achievable if we combine smart enforcement
with a sensible and pragmatic path for new workers to come to this
country--in a legal, safe and humane way--to fill shortfalls in our
workforce.
However, none of this will be successful unless we deal directly
with the 8 to 11 million undocumented workers who are already here--
living and working and contributing to a better, more dynamic America.
And let me be clear here: I believe that these people should be
penalized. But the punishment should fit the crime. They should be
fined and fingerprinted and thoroughly vetted. But they should not have
their families destroyed for decades because they came here to support
them. They should be allowed to be full and productive members of our
society. So they can pay all their taxes and not have to rely on costly
emergency medical care.
But just attacking them will not solve the problem--we need real
solutions.
When I recently asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan about
immigration, he stated:
``As I've said before, I'm always supportive of expanding our
immigration policies. I think that immigration has been very important
to the success of this country. And I fully support it.''
And personally I think expanding our policies should be along the
lines of President Reagan's views of immigrants to our country as
people who ``posses a determination that with hard work and freedom,
they would live a better life and their children even more so.''
Or President Bush who stated: ``they're willing to walk across
miles of desert to do work that some Americans won't do. And we've got
to respect that, it seems like to me, and treat those people with
respect.''
So I think that it is important that we as a Congress and, in
particular the work of this committee, focus on creating an immigration
system that takes into account the important contributions immigration
make--and will continue to make--if we encourage them to come out of
the shadows.
I know many blame immigrants for all of our nation's ills, but the
statistics I see and the people I meet in Chicago and across the nation
reflect an entirely different perspective. And it seems to me that
these individuals who scapegoat our immigrant community ignore the very
obvious, documented and specific benefits of immigration to the U.S.
economy and society.
In terms of health care, a recent Harvard/Columbia University study
showed that health care expenditures are substantially lower for
immigrants than for U.S.-born persons.
Similar to how undocumented workers help sustain our Social
Security System with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year, these
individuals are also helping to subsidize our nation's health care
system through the taxes they pay.
Immigrants also pay billion of dollars a year in taxes. One study
showed that the undocumented in New York pay more than one billion
dollars a year in taxes. Whether that is sales tax, payroll tax,
cigarette tax, they are making enormous contributions.
And they are helping ensure the flow of the most important type of
capital--human capital--back into our cities.
According to Crain's Chicago Business, ``Immigrants are moving into
and bringing new life to many blue-collar areas of Chicago that had
previously been losing population. These new residents contributed to
the city's net gain in population during the 1990s.''
And I think that we, as a Congress, would be wise to take these
factors into account.
And that is why I believe it is so urgent for Congress to tackle
the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. And why I think it is
important to hard look at legislative proposals like Rep. Jackson Lee's
and the one I introduced with Representatives Kolbe and Flake and
Senators McCain and Kennedy.
Because each day that goes by with silence and inaction means the
potential for another dead body turning up in the desert, another child
separated from her parent, another worker exploited and another dream
denied.
Thank you again, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson
Lee, for giving me this great opportunity to be here today. I welcome
any questions you and the other members may have.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, the gentleman's
editorials will be--the material will be entered into the
record.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Hostettler.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Mr. Hostettler. At this time, I'd like to turn to the
gentlelady from California for purposes of an opening
statement.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking
Member Jackson Lee for conducting this oversight hearing.
Throughout American history, immigrants have helped build
America's cities, towns, farms, businesses, economies, and
civic and cultural institutions.
Now, I don't know about where everybody else lives, but I
know first hand the benefits that immigrants contribute to my
local community in the 39th Congressional District.
Immigrants are a vital part of my community, and by
immigrants, I mean immigrants of every ethnic makeup. They are
the very same people who take care of our children and the
elderly, educate our youth, clean our hotel rooms, pick and
cook the food that we eat. They revitalize blighted areas and
are successful entrepreneurs who pay taxes.
If we deported every single immigrant in the country, I am
told it would mean removing 12 to 15 million individuals. This
is approximately the same as removing everybody from the States
of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and give or
take all of Kentucky.
What do you suppose the economic and social implications
would be of removing this many people? I frankly find the
debate very disingenuous; that the very same people who oppose
any realistic solution to the immigration problem are the same
people who are enjoying the benefits of immigrants and
immigrant labor in this country.
People need to wake up, and people need to get real and
drop the rhetoric.
This weekend, for example, I was walking around the Capitol
grounds, and I saw immigrants washing the windows of a certain
political party's office building. This is the same theme that
I see every day in my district and all around Washington, D.C.
repeated over and over and over again.
Now, just for the record, I want to get one thing straight
here: I don't disagree with some of my colleagues who testified
that our immigration system is broken and that we need to get a
better grip on our borders. But while enhanced enforcement is
an integral part of improving our nation's security,
enforcement alone, without other reforms, simply will not
achieve the control that the American people want and quite
frankly deserve.
The past decade has taught us a hard lesson. The border
build up doesn't stop the flow. It merely shifts it to more
dangerous areas, where apprehensions are more difficult, and
death is more likely.
So it's my hope that any immigration reform proposal that
this Committee reviews is a comprehensive solution that doesn't
just focus on trying to enforce our broken system.
And I might remind my colleague that in the Book of
Matthew, Jesus tells us for whatsoever you do to the least of
my brethren, you do unto me. And I would yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for the
purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What I'd like to do is use my time to comment on some of
the things that Congressman Gutierrez has just mentioned
because I do think he, in his opening statement, touched a
number of issues that do need to be addressed.
First of all, I'd like to thank him for quoting from the
1864 Republican Platform. That was when President Lincoln was
renominated, and the quote, to mention it again, was, ``Foreign
immigration, which, in the past, has added so much to the
wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to the
Nation'' and so forth.
And I just want to say I don't know that there's anyone who
would disagree with that statement or with that platform today.
And, in fact, as long as I've been in Congress, the Republican
National Platform has included words that are very similar to
that.
But, of course, we make a distinction between legal
immigration and illegal immigration. And we recognize that our
country is great today because of the contributions of legal
immigrants, who have been coming for generations. And we know
that we would not have the inventions. We would not have the
strong economy that we're enjoying today, and many of the other
benefits that we taken for granted, were it not for generations
of immigrants in the past.
But there is a distinction between those who come to our
country legally and play by the rules and come in the right way
and individuals who cut to the front of the line, who disregard
the rules and laws, and who come in the wrong way.
And that is a distinction we ought not to forget. I want to
mention that the we had a law that we passed overwhelmingly in
Congress back in 1996 that included an entry-exit system, which
I think is the key to any reasonable determination of who's in
the country legally and illegally. And what this entry-exit
system simply did was to say we're going to find out who's
coming into the country, why they're coming into the country,
how long they're going to stay if they're coming temporarily,
and whether they leave the country or not.
You simply have to know that if you're going to protect our
homeland security.
And unfortunately, a lot of people coming into the country
illegally are coming in for the wrong reason, and one
absolutely astounding figure that demonstrates that is the fact
that now today over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners are
illegal immigrants--over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners
are illegal immigrants.
Clearly, not everyone is coming into the country for the
right reasons.
Furthermore, I think most of us also know that at least 40
percent of the millions who are in the country illegally
actually came in on short-term tourist visas or business visas
and overstayed those visas, and then simply failed to return
home.
So it wasn't a situation where individuals came into the
country illegally. They came into the country and then
overstayed their visas, which puts them in illegal status, and,
of course, makes them violators of our immigration laws.
But those are the individuals who, along with those who
blatantly cross our borders illegally, we ought to be able to
determine who they are and encourage them or help them return
to their home countries if necessary.
A couple of other issues that were mentioned, and I've
heard it at least twice today, is that the only thing that
those of us who believe in border security failure is the
immediate deportation of 8 to 11 or more million illegal
immigrants. I don't know of a single Member of Congress who
today would deport the 10 or 20 million illegal immigrants who
are in the country today en masse, which is the implication of
what we've heard.
What we do think ought to be done is to enforce our current
immigration laws. If we were to do just that alone, there would
be enough disincentive for people that come to the country
illegally, and there would be enough incentive for those who
are already here illegally to return home to dramatically
reduce the number of illegal immigrants who are in the country.
So the other thing is when it comes to jobs, again to make
blanket statements that all of certain types of occupations are
occupied by illegal immigrants is simply not accurate. Every
occupation that we can think of has many times illegal, but
most often legal immigrants who are working those jobs. And we
ought to put American workers first. If we need, in my
judgment, to increase the minimum wage, maybe we should do
that. If we retrain American citizens and legal immigrants who
are, in fact, here for the right reason and legally, we ought
to do that.
There are a lot of things that we can do to try to fill
those jobs that are now being filled by illegal immigrants,
including mechanizing the growing of crops, for example. But
let's put Americans first when it comes to the scarce jobs that
we have in America.
Another subject that is often brought up is that the
current system is not working. We're throwing a lot of money at
the problem. Well, the reason the current system is not working
is because we're not enforcing current laws. If we, for
example, were to enforce laws that say you cannot hire someone
who's in the country illegally, that would be the kind of
disincentive that I was talking about a few minutes ago to even
arrive in America at the beginning. But we are not enforcing
current laws, and so we shouldn't be surprised that we're not
having as much success as we should be having in reducing
illegal immigration.
Also today, the Social Security system was mentioned. Is
there somehow illegal aliens paying into the Social Security
system are going to save it or help it? At the wages that the
typical illegal immigrant makes, the Social Security system is
actually going to pay that individual $100,000 or more over
their lifetimes than they ever put into the system.
So for their participation in the Social Security system,
the result is simply do you make the Social Security system
bankrupt sooner. It's not going to help it or save it.
Finally, and I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I will
stop. I would ask those who speak so eloquently in favor of
various immigration reform programs, what specific border
security measures they support, because that's really what we
need to learn if we're going to try to help our immigration
system and reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the
country today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and I'll yield
back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire through the
Chair, if there's not going to be any questions, then might I
leave? I'll be happy to stay, but if there are not going to be
any questions----
Mr. Issa. There's only one more opening statement?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes, one more opening statement. And we
will have questions.
Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, okay.
Mr. Hostettler. And, of course, you'll be the target of
those questions.
Mr. Gutierrez. As I said again, I don't want to leave. You
know I'll stay.
Mr. Hostettler. We expect a Member or two to return. The
Appropriations Committee is doing some work.
Mr. Gutierrez. It's important.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from California for purposes of an opening
statement.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And perhaps I can move the process of opening a dialogue
along.
I have to tell you, I believe that much of what you said
was absolutely right. I also believe that all of what Chairman
Smith said was absolutely right.
The challenge we have is in the Chairman's very question or
very statement is what are we going to do about it. We do have
a challenge and that is that, and I know that one of the
representatives of Border Patrol is here. The border today, the
border enforcement policy is like the French Maginot Line.
Now, for those who didn't study the failure of the French
to win a war--except perhaps the French Revolution--ever, I'll
switch it to baseball.
Imagine a baseball game in which the players, the
outfielders, the short stop and each of the basemen must stand
in one position and may not move. And if a ball happens to come
to them, they can catch it. But they can't move. And they
certainly cannot run over to another base to cover somebody.
That's our present border situation.
The Border Patrol--and I am within the Border Patrol
envelope in my district, my entire district--what you discover
is it's a silly game. It's a game of can you get over the
border, and sure, you don't get over the border every time. But
you don't have to. As Chairman Smith said, 40 percent of the
people that are here illegally are overstays.
More importantly, if you don't get caught the first time,
or if you get caught the first time, there's no penalty. Do it
again. Do it again. Do it again.
In my district, we don't even have the ability to prosecute
criminal alien coyotes, people who repeatedly bring over and
sometimes lead to the death of people trying to come here
illegally, albeit. But the people, the human traffickers that
do it, aren't even being prosecuted.
I've called for a zero tolerance on coyotes. It doesn't
seem like a big request. Guess what? It's left unanswered by
this Administration, by the Justice Department, by the U.S.
Attorney.
And repeatedly, we've had to call on county sheriffs to
hold a repeat offender, a criminal alien who's come back yet
again, because the Border Patrol is having to release them
because the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute somebody who has
committed crimes, been deported, and is back in the country.
So do we have problems? Absolutely.
But as Chairman Smith said, we must begin enforcing the
border or all of us, including Chairman Smith, who do believe
that a guest worker program similar to Bracero, some real guest
worker, something where you're a guest, is not simply another
name for permanent immigration is in order.
But the only way we're going to get it is if we have the
cooperation of this Administration, if we have enforcement of
laws.
That's a problem on both sides.
So for all of those who want to move the immigration issue
along, absolutely we need to have a discussion on how we're
going to deal with our need for labor and, Luis as you said, in
all the sectors. It's not just about crops being picked in
Imperial County or in San Diego County or in Riverside County,
where I represent. It's about all these jobs.
However, for all of us represented, and I represent an
approaching half Hispanic District, we have to recognize that
we are doing no favors for all of our citizens, all the people
who vote for us, all the people who pay taxes, all the people
who played by the rules to get here, if we do not protect them
from simply having their job taken by the next person willing
to work for less; and as you said, sometimes for minimum wage
or less.
So I hope that from these hearings will come a cooperation
on a bipartisan basis. From these hearings, I hope that your
bill, which is often known as the McCain bill or the Flake
bill, my bill, other people's bills will be rolled together.
But at the same time, on behalf of the American people, we all
have to insist that there be prosecution of criminal aliens,
rounding up of gangs terrorizing our cities, zero tolerance for
people who return who've been previously deported, zero
tolerance for coyotes.
Only with that kind of enforcement are we going to get the
kind of support by our constituents for a broad bipartisan
overhaul of the system and some fairness, both for people who
want to come here legally and work, and that's all they want to
do, and for my constituents who are tired of the crime rates,
tired of all of the negative sides that really do exist aligned
with criminal alien and illegal aliens coming to this country.
So hopefully, from this hearing and from your statement and
the other Members', we can recognize every one of you was right
substantially on what you were saying, but we have to quit
talking past each other. We have to talk about agreeing to the
common solutions that are allowing us to move the legislation
along, but also, on behalf of the Border Patrol, which operates
literally in my district, we have to make it very clear that
they have to be unshackled and allowed to do their job. It is
insane to have them standing at first base hoping the ball
comes to them and being able to do nothing if it doesn't.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair will now entertain questions from Members of the
Subcommittee, and, Mr. Gutierrez, we appreciate your being
here.
Mr. Gutierrez. And staying.
Mr. Hostettler. That's right.
The subject of the meeting is the impact of illegal
immigration on congressional districts, on our constituencies.
Do you believe that illegal immigration has had a negative
impact on America with regard to crime, and especially with
regard to crime that is committed on immigrant populations, and
especially illegal immigrant populations, as a result of the
concentration of, in some cases, illegal immigrant populations
and the fact that many of these illegal aliens do not wish to
interact with law enforcement. And so, the minority of illegal
aliens that come to do ill in America, not necessarily ill to
American citizens, but do ill to immigrant populations that
ultimately has a spillover effect, do you believe that illegal
immigration has led to an increase in violent crime as a result
of the explosion in illegal immigration?
Mr. Gutierrez. I bet that you and I, Mr. Hostettler, can
find statistics and actual reality of illegal immigrants being
part of crime in our neighborhoods, as we can find that among
any other sector of our population in the human race
unfortunately.
What I have called for, Mr. Chairman, is to fingerprint, to
bring those out of the darkness and out of the shadows and say
we want your fingerprints. You're going to pay to have your
fingerprints. And if you've violated any law, we want an
expedited, immediate removal from the United States of America
of those elements.
So in that sense, it would make the broader community. But
what we have, Mr. Hostettler, is no system in place for, as Mr.
Chertoff said, it would cost billions upon billions, upon
billions of dollars to deport them all, and it would be an
unfeasible thing to do. So if that's true, where is the
political will, and where are the requisite resources to deport
them all so that we can challenge those criminal elements
within our community that live among the millions and millions
of hard-working undocumented workers in our country, because I
think we could both agree that, as we go to the vineyards of
California or the apple orchards of Washington State, or the
orange growers in Florida, what we find is hard-working
immigrants, many of whom, hundreds of thousands of whom in the
agricultural industry, a million of whom work really hard in
pesticide-ridden, with no bathrooms, no educational system,
very poor housing, doing work that I don't know I could find
anyone in my district would challenge me and say, Congressman,
how could you let those people do that work? Yet, we eat their
apples. Eat their oranges. Eat their grapes. Drink the wine
that's derived from them. And we benefit from their work.
So I want to see us clean up our security system--the
criminal element, the terrorist element.
And I think the best way we could do that--one of the ways,
not the best way--one of the ways we could do that is by
offering them an opportunity.
And I'll end with this. You know President Reagan, in 1984,
I've talked about Abraham Lincoln, in 1864, but in 1984,
President Reagan, when running for reelection, debated the
Democratic nominee, Mondale, and he was for immigration reform
and for having a new system of legalization.
Indeed, they did that in 1986, the Immigration Reform and
Control Act. And my point is if you look at the 3 million
people that took advantage of that legalization program in
1986, they're better educated today. They have better salaries
today. They're more productive today, and the vast majority of
them speak English, and have sworn to the Constitution of the
United States of America by becoming citizens of this country.
So it worked.
Let's see if we can't revisit that future immigrants to the
United States of America that want to come here to work, I
would say they would come here to work. Their visa has expired.
They would go back to their country.
We have to figure out a way--what we do with the 10 to 12
million that are already here.
Mr. Hostettler. You bring up an excellent point about visas
that expire.
I believe three of the 19 9/11 hijackers had visas that
expired, and, according to the 9/11 Commission, two of those
individuals, Mr. Alghamdi and Mr. Almihdhar, would have--the
very--I think the 9/11 Commission said they could have been
picked up on immigration violations.
But just as today, back then we did not enforce the
immigration laws, so we didn't pick them up. And the 9/11
Commission said as a result of their detention, the 9/11 plan
could have been derailed. Those are the 9/11 Commission's
conclusions.
Without objection, I will allow myself an additional minute
for an additional question.
And so what I guess what I'm hearing you say is--and this
will only require a yes or no--there's no contribution of
violent crime disproportionate to the numbers of illegal aliens
to the demographic addition to the country? You do not believe
so?
Mr. Gutierrez. I don't believe so. I believe that there is
a criminal element, as there are in all sectors of our society,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Second--my other question for the minute
would be, earlier this year we held a hearing where
representatives from the Center for Labor Market Studies of
Northeastern University testified before this Subcommittee that
between 2000 and 2004, there was a loss of jobs held by native-
born American citizens of over 500,000, meaning that in 2004,
there were 500,000, over 500,000, fewer jobs held by native-
born Americans than there were in 2000.
However, they went on to testify that there were actually
2.3 million foreign-born workers, more foreign-born workers,
employed than there were in 2000, for a net increase of about
$1.7 million to $1.8 million (sic).
They went on to conclude that there is little empirical
evidence to substantiate the notion, and I'm paraphrasing what
they said, there is little empirical evidence to substantiate
the notion that immigrants are doing large numbers of jobs that
Americans will not do.
Do you believe that--do you believe that--and they went on
to say something I'll ask you a question regarding their
conclusion--do you believe that large numbers of native-born
American citizens are being displaced by foreign-born workers,
at least half of which we know are here illegally?
Mr. Gutierrez. I guess you and I would have to have a
conversation about if we're talking about legal immigrants to
the United States displacing American-born citizens or
undocumented workers displacing American citizens.
I do know that as you--foreign-born American citizens----
Mr. Hostettler. No. No. No.
And that's--they were actually immigrants, foreign-born----
Mr. Gutierrez. Americans. Yeah, but foreign-born legal
permanent residents and citizens----
Mr. Hostettler. Well, not citizens--they weren't citizens.
Mr. Gutierrez. Well, they could be either--well, foreign--
--
Mr. Hostettler. According to these statistics, they
weren't.
Mr. Gutierrez. Legally in the United States?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Gutierrez. Legally in the United States. Here's what I
do know about----
Mr. Hostettler. No. No. No. Let me just say there were
1.7--the net that--one hundred percent of the net increase in
jobs between 2000 and 2004 was contributed by foreign-born
workers--immigrants----
Mr. Gutierrez. Legally in the United States?
Mr. Hostettler. Immigrants, illegal aliens--the folks don't
say on here illegally when they do the census necessarily.
But they're not born in America.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay.
Mr. Hostettler. So there are 500,000 fewer Americans, and,
for example, between that 2000-2004, there are more--millions
more of foreign-born workers, not all of them--most of them
aren't citizens. Some of them are legal immigrants, but over
half of them, according to the testimony, were here illegally.
Mr. Gutierrez. Let me try, Mr. Chairman. And I'd love to
have a conversation, a broader conversation.
If they didn't define who they were, here's how I can
answer the question truthfully.
I do know that those that are here legally tend to have a
higher education, get paid more, go to school, participate in
our electoral system; that is, Americans--those of us that are
here, not born in the United States, foreign-born, and----
Mr. Hostettler. I guess my question, Mr. Gutierrez, is----
Mr. Gutierrez. --I understand the immigration, but it is--
--
Mr. Hostettler. --I have--well, let me ask you a question.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay.
Mr. Hostettler. I probably need to make this very clear.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay.
Mr. Hostettler. I have constituents that come up to me in
Southwestern Indiana, and they say, Congressman, I can take you
to a job site today, where there are illegal aliens working for
my boss's competitor, and they are being paid wages lower than
I am being paid. My boss's company cannot compete; therefore,
my job is in peril. That's what they say.
Mr. Gutierrez. Right.
Mr. Hostettler. And indeed--and so my question is, do you
think that those people are----
Mr. Gutierrez. And, again, I--then I'll try to answer your
question in 15 seconds. Americans said that about the Irish as
they were arriving, about Italians as they were arriving, about
the Polish as they were arriving, about every immigrant group
as they were arriving if you were here ahead of them, number
one.
But number two, if they're here illegally, if they're here
undocumented, then let's figure out a way that we define what
jobs they can be in so that they do not compete in a market
with Americans. I will be the first to join you in putting
American citizens and those that are legally here and born in
this country ahead of any foreigner coming here.
I believe that foreigners coming here should fill the jobs
that no one else wants, and should work their way up the system
as past immigrants have done in this nation.
And I will join you in making sure that those abuses are
ended.
Let's figure out a way to get that done.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
sorry that our colleague, Mr. Issa, had to step out for a
moment, but I do want to associate myself with his call.
Mr. Pearce, you were not here when he said that we needed
to combine all of the issues dealing with immigration and
really sit down breaching the partisanship and do it in a
bipartisan manner.
Might I just simply say to my Chairman, we have talked on
many occasions, but frankly the agenda of this Congress is set
by your leadership, and we will not get to where you would like
to go. As you well know, I joined you in your State, with your
constituents, and saw the--visually, the realism and the
descriptions of what you have just said here today, and
associated myself not only with you during that time, but also
with your constituents.
Frankly, I believe that Mr. Issa has an idea that many of
us have already spoken to, and that is a working session that
looks to the Secure America legislation, and might I say I have
the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that
specifically speaks to the issue of ensuring that employers
make a substantial effort to hire American workers before
turning to foreign workers.
And then, at the same time, in being moved by the visit to
the border in your region have authored the Rapid Response
Border Protection Act, which I think must go hand in hand. It
deals with not ignoring the Border Patrol agents and agency,
but it deals with giving them every single skill and equipment
piece that they need, from night goggles to computers, to
helicopters, to speed boats, to training, to scholarships, to
improving their health benefits, and improving their personnel
status among others. And it responds to the issue of detention
beds.
I only say this to follow up with both you and Mr.
Gutierrez on the question that the Chairman has asked. And I'm
going to go back to this citation dealing with the 500,000 jobs
and 2.3 million and look at it in a different perspective.
He is saying all foreign workers. So first of all, let us
look to how many of those are in corporate entities, how many
fall under the H-1B, where the numbers are going up and up and
up, which results in some of the overstays. And these are
people who are educated and primarily they are overstays or
they are undocumented because and the H-1Bs, of course, require
you to be employed, and they don't want to leave.
So you have this gap of educated individuals who fall into
this sort of, if you will, ever ending hole. And they fall into
the lack of a comprehensive reform, because there's no place to
put those individuals as well.
So we talk about the numbers. Let us make sure that we look
at--that these are foreign workers and the last time I heard
Governor Schwarzenegger was a foreign worker. I assume that he
is documented as the Governor of the State of California.
But that is all of the individuals who may be foreign
workers fall under this particular category.
Mr. Gutierrez, we come at it from a different perspective,
but let me ask you this: Is there value to the idea of allowing
people to earn access to legalization, whether they do it, as I
have offered--a 5-year period, community service vetting, or to
guest work and then transition. Doesn't that go to the question
of the Chairman's that when you have people documented--and
documented individuals can be hired and fired; that it means
they won't be deported out of the country. Documented
individuals can be paid the wages of the private company that
decides to pay them that. To add to the solution, I would also
suggest that we all support prevailing wages, so no one will
under compete in American companies.
But do you see the value in that some vehicle called earned
access to legalization as opposed to what you have just
indicated to us would be a long journey of deportation? And
when you answer that question, would you provide that number
for me again. You cited two--the billions and billions, but you
also cited another number of how costly it would be for
deportation.
Might I ask, Mr. Pearce, as well to answer the question,
could you look comprehensively at immigration reform that would
include, since you have so eloquently noted that your
constituency is diverse, that would include strong border
enforcement and resources that would empower our Border Patrol
agents, because, as we stood at that border line, we heard the
tale of woe--if I could only have resources; if I could only
have 25,000 more Border Patrol agents. I happen to--and we may
agree and disagree--two panelists may agree and disagree on
that--but I believe that training professionals versus
volunteers or Minutemen--and that's a conversation that I'm not
really asking you to pursue as much as I am talking about the
importance of reinforcing our resources at the border that
helps to stem the tide somewhat of illegal immigration,
because, as you well know, people fighting for economic
survival sometimes are much more mightier than we might be.
But, Mr. Gutierrez, can you speak to the issue of the value
of earned access to legalization and the whole concept of
working on a comprehensive reform package?
Mr. Gutierrez. Sure.
Mr. Hostettler. And without objection, the gentleman will
have a minute to answer the question.
The subject of the hearing is not about a guest worker
program, earned access, so the Chair will show great latitude
in allowing the answers to questions that have no basis in the
meeting for the hearing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But if the Chairman would yield, I would
suggest that in the question of impact, we might be weaving
into a cure.
Mr. Hostettler. The law is the law. Reclaiming my time. The
law is the law today with regard to illegal aliens and their
presence in the United States. It is the law today. That is the
subject of this hearing. We will have hearings on changing the
law, to repealing the law or whatever in the future, but really
the subject of the hearing today is the impact of illegal
immigration as the law today defines illegal immigration on
particular districts. And so but, given that, still, without
objection, you can answer the question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you for your latitude and the
ability of the witnesses to answer.
Mr. Hostettler. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Gutierrez. It has worked. In 1986, a Republican
President, Ronald Reagan, signed the last legalization, earned
legalization bill, the 1986 Immigration Reform Control Act.
It was a bipartisan bill. There was a majority of
Republicans in the Senate; a majority of Democrats in the House
of Representatives.
Today, there are 3 million people who successfully went
through that process. They're better educated. They're more
productive. The vast majority of them are American citizens,
and, as we see, they have a higher participation rate in our
electoral system than those of us who were born in the United
States. They strengthen our nation. So it has worked.
I think bringing people out of the shadows and the darkness
today is the only way. Mr. Chertoff said it would cost billions
and billions and billions of dollars, and an estimate by a
study made by a private think tank said it would cost $42
billion a year for 5 years to attempt to deport the $10 to $12
billion. So it's unfeasible. So you need to incentivize them to
come out of the darkness, as we did in 1986, and make people
Americans, permanent residents of the United States and give
them the ability to do that; and I think, Madam Jackson Lee,
Congresswoman, I think the way we do it is we penalize them.
Let's fine them a thousand five hundred bucks. Let's figure out
what the fine is. Let's talk about their contributions to
Social Security, and whether they're entitled to them, because
they were here undocumented while they were working. We can
figure it out. Let's put them into a program for 7 years and
say, well, you don't get anything for 7 years unless you work,
you pay taxes, you follow all the laws. Let's put them into
indentured servitude programs, but let's give them hope at the
end of the day that after they've proven to us, they already
are hard-working, committed people to America, that we say at
the end of the day, okay, you've earned it. You get to join the
rest of us, as our history has always allowed us to do in our
immigration policy.
So I join the Congresswoman in seeking that earned
legalization.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Pearce?
Mr. Pearce. Yes. Mr. Chair and Madam Jackson Lee, your
question is right on point.
We have a very diverse population. We're a majority
minority State, and I will tell you that at our 18 town hall
meetings, there was unanimous consent that we should enforce
the border strictly. It should be done fairly. It should not be
done heavily handed against those people who've come illegally,
but it should be strict.
There is also consensus that it should be done by the
trained professionals. I think you're exactly right on that.
But two comments really stood out in the comments by the
Hispanic community and many of the illegals come through our
district. One was a young Hispanic gentleman in Dona Ana
County, the southernmost county up against the border, saying
that we should not go at this piecemeal like we've done it
before; that we need this time to fix all the parameters in one
fashion. That's the comprehensive bill.
The other one, her, she lived up in the northern part of
the district, in fact, in the southern part of Heather Wilson's
district, and she, her father had come over as an illegal, had
become legalized. But he had been here less than 20 years, and
he was beginning to say we must stop the flow of illegals into
this country, and he's in a predominantly Latino area in
Southern Albuquerque, and she was coming up saying please we
must begin to address this question of illegal immigration.
I think that in the end, the consensus also was deeply
among Hispanics, African Americans, Anglos, whoever, the
consensus was do not give these illegals, even if you let them
work, don't give them amnesty. Don't let them become citizens,
because most of them have friends and family on the other side
of the border who are trying to come here legally, and we've
had testimony that it has taken up to 20 years to get the right
to come here and get a green card, permanent status, then
citizenship. And they're saying you should have a different
pipeline for guest workers; that they should not get de facto
citizenship, should not get ahead of those people who have been
willing to wait and follow the law.
And that was a very strong stand on the part of the
Hispanics: please don't compromise our standards. Let those
people chose to go back and get in line if they want to come
here and become citizens or let them chose to stay here and be
guest workers, but don't give them citizenship ahead of those
people who have been willing to stand in their country's in
line and do it legally.
Mr. Gutierrez. If I could just quickly. Our proposal says
they have to go to the end of the line. We don't put anybody in
the middle of the line, and, true, in the 1986 Immigration
Reform and Control bill, they did move to the head of the line.
We do not propose that.
We simply propose that they get in line, but while they're
in line, they continue to work. They continue to raise their
families. They continue to contribute, and maybe they don't
move to citizenship; maybe they don't move to bring their
relatives to this country ahead of the others that are already
in line from all different countries of the world until that
other line that exists is already exhausted.
So we'll put them at the end of the line. I agree with you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
We had some discussions just yesterday, where I said to
Congresswoman Jackson that I think the Members of Congress
either we were talking in the Black Caucus, and I think all of
the Members of Congress really need what she refers to as a
tutorial. You know people are all over the place, and they
understand this issue differently.
I think that there are real concerns about people who work
for lesser wages and the question really becomes whether or not
they're undermining other people's ability to work or whether
they are doing jobs that others don't want to do.
And I think these issues are not understood, because I
don't think the proper study has gone into these issues, and I
know this. I mean people are coming to this country and looking
for opportunity, looking for a chance to have a decent quality
of life. I support having close--I mean having strong border
controls, and I don't support people coming across the border,
illegal immigration. I don't support any of that.
But I do support some kind of effort to provide for people
the opportunity to have citizenship, particularly people who
have been in this country for long periods of time. I've got
people in my district who have been there for 30 and 40 and 50
years. They don't have anyplace to go back to. This is their
country.
And I think that that has to be recognized. There are some
people that I would like to see deported. I'd like to see them
deported whether they're Latino, Black, or anything else.
They're wreaking havoc, and the gangs and that kind of thing,
and I've said this once, and I'll say it again: The gang
members really bother me. I'm very upset about all gang
members--Black, Latino, what have you. But I'm concerned that
there are gang members who come across the border, and they
commit crimes or get involved with some of this violence, and
then they slip back. And I understand that there are some that
are coming back and forth.
And I think, you know, I can be very, very comfortable with
dealing with that as an issue that, you know, I understand very
well.
The issues that I don't understand very well are these: I
hear some of our more conservative Members talking about this
problem and talking about, you know, deportation, but what I
don't really hear is an honest discussion about the division
among the conservatives in this Congress, where I think the
Chamber of Commerce and those who are very much interested in
labor are willing to take some very, very big steps in order to
maintain this workforce.
As a matter of fact, the last time I was in Palm Springs,
California, it was very clear to me. If you deport folks in
Palm Springs, that closes the city down. I mean it would just
close down. All of the work is being done by a combination of
legal and illegal immigrants in Palm Springs, and I have to
tell you the hotels and the chambers of commerce, et cetera,
are not willing to give that up. And they're not going to give
it up. I mean we could fight all day and talk all day about
deportation and whether or not, you know, we're going to have a
guest worker program or whether we're going to have some kind
of earned legalization, what you have. But I am convinced--and
I feel pretty comfortable that the moneyed interests of
America, the real capitalists, the major corporations of
America will see to it that there will be no massive
deportation of the people who are making them rich. I'm
convinced of that.
I mean I--we can just sit back, and we can watch it happen,
because that is the truth of the matter.
So having said all of that, I do there's room for the
tutorials or the education, the information sharing, the real
facts about all of this that we need to have in this Congress,
and not just in the caucuses where we're talking about them.
I think that the--I would really like to see my friends on
the opposite side of the aisle and the more conservative voices
have a real discussion among themselves about this issue,
because, for the most part, the--well, there are those who are
really, really, really supporting border patrols and talking
about deportation, et cetera, et cetera, but in that same
caucus, we have the voices that are emerging in a very strong
way about preserving the workforce, because it's--if the
workforce is not preserved, then the country won't be able to
operate. It just won't be able to carry out many of the
services that are being provided, and that discussion has not
really taken place yet.
So I am looking forward to that.
Having said all of that, I'm interested in Sheila Jackson
Lee's earned program--what do you call it?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Earned Access to Legalization.
Ms. Waters. Yeah. Earned Access to Legalization program.
I'm interested in how we can honor some of the people who have
been here for many, many years, and deportation is not
realistic, and it's not going to happen, and again the only
people I'm interested in deporting are the gang members who
cause me problems in my district.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady. We're going to go
to a second round of questions, and I want to ask--and I want
to assure the gentlelady from California that I can speak from
fairly good experience that conservatives are talking about
this, and it is an interesting dialogue, an interesting
discussion.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman? I need to--I'd like to be
excused.
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. I hope you have a good day.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Pearce. Thank you, Members of----
Mr. Hostettler. I will--I had a question, but I would just
make a statement. A lot of discussion is being had today about
this idea of mass deportation, like that's necessary if we're
going to enforce the immigration laws.
In 1986, workforce enforcement became the law. That's the
law of the land. It is illegal in the United States of America
to hire and employ an illegal alien. That is the law, just as
it is the law in the United States of America to pay Federal
income tax.
Now, my question would be, Mr. Gutierrez, and it might be
for Mr. Pearce, that if we had the IRS in place, and there was
no possibility--the purpose for the Internal Revenue Code is to
acquire revenues for the operation of the Federal Government.
If the IRS was in place, and everyone that made out a 1040
form that supposedly paid taxes realized there was never ever
any possibility of being audited at all, my question is, what
would happen to revenue levels?
I would say they would probably drop off. And, therefore,
the law would be moot. The law would not be enforced.
Likewise, if there's not ever a chance of enforcing the
immigration law with regard to worksite compliance, then you're
going to have the law flouted, and you're going to have illegal
aliens flood across the border and be employed in America.
But going back to the IRS, the knowledge that there is
going to be an audit causes most of us to be pretty honest. I'm
a 100 percent honest with our taxes.
Likewise, the knowledge that you are going to be
investigated with regard to violating Federal law and Federal
immigration law, will cause a lot of people to aggressively
adhere to the law. That would potentially remove what Barbara
Jordan referred to in her commission as the jobs magnet. If you
eliminate the jobs magnet, and there are no jobs, theoretically
at an extreme for illegal aliens in America, the question
hypothetically, rhetorically, how many, then, do you have to
deport?
And so that is the question.
And the question that I have--and so, the discussion of
deportation is really a red herring. If the worksite
enforcement laws are enforced by the Administration, as article
II of the Constitution requires them to do, then we have the
same situation with the adherence to the immigration law that
we do with the Internal Revenue Code.
Now, a lot of discussion, Mr. Pearce, has been had on this
idea of earned access, and I'll couch it in these terms: First
of all, the people violate the law by their presence, their
coming into the country. When they step across that border, for
better or for worse, a Democratically-controlled Congress in
1986 said that if they are also hired, they're violating
Federal law, as well, not only their presence here, but if
they're violating the Federal law.
The discussion was had that we will fine them. We will send
them back to the back of the line. We will do this to them. We
will do all these things to them. That's going to require oddly
enough, enforcement of an immigration law, and not only that
but the Border Patrol is going to allow these people to come
through because they're coming through legally to work in our
districts and work on border districts. But if the past
experience informs of us anything, they're going to come to
Southwestern Indiana, among other places, and they're going to
come and acquire work and do other things not necessarily as
virtuous as work, and impact our communities.
And so my question, Mr. Pearce, is this: Why should our
constituents believe you or me when we say if you give us a
guest worker program, we're going to enforce the law, when, in
fact, history indicates that we have the tools today; for
example, for worksite enforcement, for a lot of the expedited
removal to fill in the blank. All these tools are--and the
Department of Homeland Security has decided recently to
actually to begin to enforce these laws that are already in
place.
Why should they trust us this second time to say this time
we're going to actually enforce the immigration law?
Mr. Pearce. Sure. It's a great question, Mr. Chairman, and
there are two elements to an answer that need to be discussed
in my opinion. The first is as process I don't think that when
we set up the original law, that there was a very good process
to distinguish between who had a legitimate presence here as a
legal alien and who didn't.
So I've got employers in my district telling me in my
hometown that they're going to shut down their second business.
They've got--this Hispanic lady has two restaurants. She can
oversee one personally, and has to hire a manager. She said, I
can't tell by myself which green cards are green enough, and
which are not green enough.
So there's that process of enforcement that never was set
up. And it puts people in an extremely awkward position trying
to find the work.
But the second, more compelling answer I think that applies
exactly to what you're talking about is the imbalance between
needed workers and available workers.
I will tell you everywhere I go in the country, I'm always
talking to employers because I myself had to go out and find
employees, and we had to find qualified employees. We generally
pad in the $30,000 to $80,000 range, so it wasn't like we're
feeding off of people here with no skills.
And I will tell you that always the answer among
employers--and it's what I found to be true: that we just need
two things in employees. We need employees that can pass a drug
screen and that will show up for work tomorrow. If they don't
know English, we'll teach it to them.
Right now, you have a tremendous imbalance without
available workers, and that imbalance is going to accelerate in
the next years. If we have a guest worker program--and the
imbalance is going to accelerate, because 40 million Baby
Boomers are reaching retirement age, so the pressure is even
going to be greater.
Now, what I would tell anyone who's asking why should we
believe you is that that imbalance is going to be cured. It's
either going to be cured legally or illegally.
And in partial answer to Maxine's question that is it
exploitation. These are not exploitation wages. I will tell you
over the weekend that one dairyman has put in $250,000 of
houses because the law says if you bring them here to work as
immigrants, you got to provide housing and utilities. So
$250,000 to where he can bring people in. It says he also has
to pay at least a wage above minimum wage of $7.78 or he can't
bring them here. He's paying over $10, plus $10 for the housing
and utilities. So he's now at twenty something dollars.
That's in the dairy industry. The imbalance is so great
that people will either come here illegally or legally because
they're going to get paid better than they can at home.
Now, in the oil industry, which I made my living in, right
now jobs as a driller--drilling rigs are kind of the basic of
the oil industry--a driller is making over $100,000, with no
high school education, no college education generally, and
people are making--that are working on that crew anywhere from
$40,000 to $60,000 annually.
So these are not exploitation wages.
It's that the labor supply is so short, and the employer so
desperate that right now we don't have a way for these people
to come into the country.
I testified earlier that it's a 20-year wait sometimes to
get here legally, so people are scooting away from the borders
and coming through illegally to satisfy this need for employees
that's going to be satisfied or we're going to send the jobs
out to where they are. We're either going to bring workers in
or send the jobs out.
So if we have a guest worker program to where people come
through--and I suggested on my tours, and everybody thought it
was a good idea--all cultures thought it was a good idea, a
biometric scan. You have a retina, fingerprint, and then your
picture comes up. Your employer, the potential employer looks
and says that's you. Here is your Social Security number, so
they take out Social Security pay. You pay taxes.
Those things would take that pressure off the illegal part
and allow it to become legal, with that credit card looking--
just like our voting card here in Congress--that voting card
giving you access to come into the country. You go to your job.
If you don't report within 2 weeks that you're working, now you
go into illegal status, and there's a far smaller pool.
So we take the pressure off the border. Our agents, then,
have more access and more resources to direct into those
unmonitored uses of the border, because you take so much
pressure off if you give legal status and legal entry to the
people who are just coming here to make a better way for their
family and in addition satisfying a great need for employees
that we in the country have.
Mr. Hostettler. Would your competitor hire a $100,000 a
year legal driller if he knew that he could hire a $20,000 a
year illegal driller, and he would never face any consequences,
as is the case today.
Mr. Pearce. I will tell you that you can't answer for every
single person.
I will tell you that there are people out there who will
beat any system, but the dairyman that I talked to, a long-time
acquaintance, go to Sunday school together, and he could be
hiring illegals right now. I guarantee that the people are
there and available. But he's trying to follow the law. He's
trying to find--follow the letter of the law, so he's out
$250,000 in order to go get these legal immigrants who are
allowed to come in under the Agricultural Work Program. He can
only hire them for 10 months, and so that is a piece that we
should attend to.
But I think his answer is that, no, he wouldn't hire that
$4 an hour cash employee. If he would do that, he wouldn't have
put in the $250,000 set up to put people into housing, which
the law requires.
I think that most businesses would jump at the chance to
operate legally. There are some who would not frankly if we
were to give legal recourse to the employers who will do things
right, I will guarantee you, the market itself will begin to
discriminate against those people who are law breakers and who
would exploit.
I just think most people just want to be out of the shadows
operating correctly.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I listen to the discourse between you and the
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico and I listen to my
colleague, the distinguished gentlelady from California,
mention I think a very now evident concept that were
discussing, a tutorial, and the reason why I say that is
because I think if we are realistic, we know that leadership is
talking about potentially post the Christmas holiday for
serious consideration some of these very important issues.
I would be surprised if we were pre-holiday that this would
occur, but surprises do happen.
The reason why I say that, Steven, is because as I listen
to you in New Mexico, what the Chairman is saying is that he
will have a Midwesterner, if I might say the Rust Belt, look in
great frustration and consternation about the job loss. You, on
the other hand, can live with strong border security and the
recognition that you have substantial industries, businesses
that really would welcome that population.
Now, let me wear another hat. I confront in urban
population with African Americans, who will raise the question
that even if we are discussing the issue of immigration, that
they may be impacted negatively.
What is the basis of that? Unemployment. Poverty. The lack
of jobs. Our social societal ills that we have not responded
to. Job creation.
So I would say to my Chairman, he's discussing the issues
that I would be discussing. He's discussing the lack of job
opportunity, poverty, the lack of an economic engine, alongside
of employer sanctions. The difficulty with employer sanction
is, of course, we're talking about them now. They've been in
place. But we have been--and I would admit I'm not the
enforcer. I wasn't in Congress as these laws were started, but
I can certainly look back and say, yep, they have not been
enforced.
So I think the challenge that we have is that we will not
move past first base if we cannot convince the Chairman that
the answer to his constituents' question may not be totally, if
you will, infused, invested in the immigration issue. It may be
partly so, but it may be a variety of economic issues. And
maybe we can have a consensus around employer sanctions, but I
don't think we can get away from the comprehensive immigration
reform.
With respect to the African American community, I think
it's important for me to say to them, I support increasing the
minimum wage, and this is I saying it, and those will join in
increasing the minimum wage. I think that would impact the
constituents of the Chairman in Indiana. I support the idea of
prevailing wages. I support employer sanctions, and might I
say, though this hearing does not relate to trade bills. I
certainly oppose the lifting of American jobs and sending them
elsewhere, which has been a decided--has a decided impact on
our economy.
I say this because Barbara Jordan was a predecessor--one of
the predecessors of the office that I hold. Now deceased, I
know that the climate was very different when she wrote this
report. There were elements in it that we could agree with and
some not. I think we failed in not pursuing at least the
question of employer sanctions. But on the other hand, you'll
speak to the Chamber of Commerce, and they will be--abhor
employer sanctions because they will say to you what do you
expect people to do.
So my question to you is--it looks like I'm doing a
tutorial or a philosophical dialogue or discourse, but my
frustration is that if we--and these are good hearings, Mr.
Chairman, by the way--but it does evidence the frustration that
we have and probably the divide of ever coming to sit down and
try to iron out what we need to do, supporting the Border
Patrol on illegal immigration, if we keep that terminology in
that they would help us on that, providing the workforce, but,
yet, saying to the American worker--and, by the way,
legislation that I have works to recruit American workers,
protect American jobs, does outreach in minority communities,
trains minorities who may not have jobs--but the point is what
you've seen from your town hall meetings, can we get away with
the horse being out of the barn, the chicken and egg concept?
Are we not going to have to look at this comprehensively,
because the Southern border States we can get together. We
might even be able to get together, Dems and Republicans,
because we're facing the same issue, short of my unique issue
dealing with the African American population, which I think we
need to address.
But where are we going to get that consensus from our Rust
Belt--I don't know if you would include the Western States--to
be able to understand that we cannot go without doing anything.
We cannot go with only dealing with border security, which I
think we have some meeting of the minds. Mr. Pearce, would you?
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, and I always appreciate the
gentlelady's approach. It makes me realize that we are much
closer to consensus in the Congress and in the country than
what many of ourselves believe. As the Chairman mentioned, we
have been having deep discussions on the conservative side
talking about enforcement and the guest worker program, and I
think that there is such significant movement among our
conference and I suspect the same is true in the Democrats'
side that the people are realizing we must do something.
I think Americans across the country agree that it should
not be the same sort of illegal act to come here and try to
make a better way for your family. In other words, that should
not be as illegal as importing drugs or humans--sex
trafficking. The--back to your point about the problems in the
African American country and----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Community.
Mr. Pearce. --communities in the large cities. It breaks my
heart. We're about 5 percent unemployment, and I will tell you
as an employer who has tried to hire people, at 5 percent,
you're not getting people who will walk through the door that
really have the skill sets to really work. And my wife and I
committed early on that we're going to reach out into the
community that does not get hired much, and we're going to work
ourselves, and we're going to just solve one or two cases. With
50 employees, you're not going to solve.
We had one guy that was working for us when I had sold the
company after coming here. He was forty-something years old. He
was tattooed from head to toe, and on every part of himself. We
hired him, and he was the first--it was the first full-time job
he ever had.
Now, he has stuck, but so many didn't. We hired one young
man that was about 5 years younger than myself. I knew his
family--well respected; had been in prison most of his life for
doing drugs. We hired him. I got--I called to the penitentiary
and said if you let him out, I'll hire him. We brought him in
and said, we'll get you counseling, whatever we can do. It did
not take in his case, and in many cases it did not take.
We have arrived at such a point that many of the people who
are not working today don't have the skill sets and the
discipline, and that is up to us as a nation to solve that
problem. My wife and I right now are--we have a small effort to
try to provide mentors for people in the State, because if we
don't catch this next population, this group of junior high and
high school students that are just wondering if they can be a
productive part of society, if we don't provide the help to
bridge them back in and literally take that mantra that has
grown offensive to some of not leaving any child behind, if we
don't solve that, this country has such deep problems exactly
from the part that you're talking about, we--I see almost
unanimous consent that once we begin to solve in some way the
availability of workers in a legal fashion, that sanctions to
those people or those employers who will break the law and go
out and hire people and keep them under the shadows, keep them
off the tax rolls, and keep them away from the protection of
the labor departments, those people need sanctions, and I would
find unanimous consent among my Mexican constituents as saying
yes, once we help them solve their problem, then there's no
going back.
Again, that would answer some of Chairman Hostettler's
question--how should the American people believe us. And your
points are very, very well made and, I just think that the
future of our country is at stake, because the international
competition now is such that when I grew up, it was those cheap
Japanese imports that were threatening to take our jobs. I have
been to China, and I will tell you they are not cheap
imitations. These are great, great replacements, knock offs of
the intellectual property that we worked here to create, and
they steal. North Face jackets--$150 bucks in the stores here--
$13, and they're exact replicas, maybe even better. And when we
allow our intellectual properties to be counterfeited and
stolen like that, we're at the risk of losing our entire
economic base.
But India is providing really strong competition in the
technology sectors. We must in this country be aware of the
threats to our overall economy and the hope and opportunity for
all of us.
But I appreciate your reminder about those people who we'd
have difficulty discussing this in that constituency, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlelady and the
Chairman just indulge me for 1 minute. I know there's a second
round to the gentlelady. I just wanted to thank Mr. Pearce for
the charitable approach that he has taken with respect to the
constituents in a State that has probably a very low African
American population, and, therefore, some of the ills that face
society are magnified.
But I do want to just get for the record that when we talk
about this problem, that's why the Chambers, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce should be engaged because they are very supportive,
as the gentlelady has said, of this question of reform.
She had mentioned that Palm Springs would close down, and
I'm sure there's some diversity there, but included in my
points, of course, were the future college graduates of
historically Black colleges and other institutions--engineers
who are unemployed, which I think tracks the Chairman's point
of his constituency that may be an Anglo, may be a White
population saying they don't have jobs, but we have populations
trained that don't have jobs for us to realistically be able to
answer the question of the impact of illicit immigration, but
also the impact of it on certain segments. We need to deal with
being able to say to these individuals you will have work, too,
and tell them that the reform of the immigration system will
enhance them getting work--we have to make it work--and at the
same time be true to our words that they will have work,
because I'm talking about college graduates and others who
still suffer unemployment, and it happened to be in this
instance African American, and though I don't step away from
immigration reform, they complain, rightly so that they're
without work.
Mr. Pearce. The gentlelady is correct, and I will tell that
rather than finding less competition of that sort, an amazing
thing happened back before the dot com collapse and that is
that we pretty well put fiber optics all the way across India.
Now, India is the source of many of our very highest caliber
scientists and mathematicians in this country. They are such a
small percent of the U.S. population, but the Indians who have
come here and lived as citizens are less than 1 percent of the
population, yet they provide 10 percent of the graduates every
year from the Ivy League schools.
But now, then, with India being wired with fiber optics,
those scientists and those great brains can stay at home and do
the same thing over the Internet. I think that we have a
challenge to come together as Democrats, Republicans, and
Independents and look at the challenges that face us, to gird
our loins and to fight the fight to preserve what we have in
this nation. Any guest worker program I think should always
recognize that Americans, if they will fill the jobs, should
get the first job at it. And I think we're all seeing the same
specter and the same thing that we should be afraid of, and the
same really things that we should solve, and I appreciate the
viewpoint.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask a little bit more about the guest worker
program that you described somewhat or alluded to where you
have an identification card, and if you're working, you're
gainfully employed, you may be in this country. How does it
work? I mean are you here forever if you work forever? Do you
get citizenship if you work for 10 years, 20 years? How does
your idea of a guest worker program work?
Mr. Pearce. The difficulty if we allow the guest worker to
gain citizenship while they're here is that we don't take any
of the pressure off the border, and you have to understand that
the only--I think the only solution to our border problem is to
take the pressure off of those untended portions. My district
is 180 miles. And if you put enough pressure at the point of
entry, they're simply going to scoot over. And we can build
that fence that someone has suggested, but until we put an
agent every mile along that fence, they're going to come
through.
So my impression of a guest worker program is that people
really will have to determine if they want to come here for
citizenship or if they're simply satisfied to come here as
workers. And I will you that we had illegals show up at our
town hall meetings saying, I don't ever want to be a citizen. I
just want to come here and make enough so that I can go home
and be self sufficient.
And we have people who have lived here 40 years legally,
working and saying, you ask them where they're from. I'm from
Chihuahua. I'll go home when I retire.
And so there is a mentality that says we love coming here.
It's the same mentality that you and I have. I was----
Ms. Waters. So the guest worker would be free to travel
back and forth across the border?
Mr. Pearce. Free travel back and forth--just access.
And these same people said if you give us that access,
we're probably not going to bring our families, because they
want their kids to grow up in the same high school where they
graduated, the same as I wanted my daughter to graduate where I
did.
The said if we leave our families, then we don't have so
much pressure on the social systems. We'll go back and forth.
That's pretty much how it used to work in the Bracero Program,
and I have a lot of Hispanics who were here as Braceros and
said, why did we stop that program? It seemed to work pretty
well.
And I think that it's up to all of us to determine what we
want----
Ms. Waters. So you're talking about the possibility of a
guest worker program with strong employer enforcement?
Mr. Pearce. Mm hmm.
Ms. Waters. That would eliminate the possibility of
employers having illegal immigrants without the documentation,
without the paying into the system, all of that--that's what
you are describing?
Mr. Pearce. Absolutely. And, again, right now, we require
enforcement by the employer. That one Hispanic lady says I got
to shut down a restaurant, because I can't--the people I hire
can't tell if those green cards are green enough. Those were
her words.
Ms. Waters. So you would couple this with strong
enforcement on the border, and for those people who are in the
system standing line in their correct places to apply for
citizenship? That would be kind of your general program?
Now, let me--I like the idea that you understand the need
for education and training. And you talk about, you know, those
individuals, be they Black or what have you, who are
underemployed or don't have skill sets, et cetera, and this
country appears to ignore that, while we are chasing people
from other places to fill these jobs like the citizens of India
who have become very popular in Silicon Valley and other places
where they were providing the skill sets and like you said,
because of fiber optics they are doing more and more because
they can do those jobs from wherever they are.
Now, wouldn't it be interesting if we could convince the
Congress of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to
really invest in human potential, and invest in job training,
invest in getting people trained for jobs that are otherwise
going to India or other places? It costs money, and I've not
seen a willingness on the other side of the aisle to do that. I
can recall a job training program that I just had a good fight
on the floor, and some years ago, following the problems of
South Los Angeles and trying to encourage this Congress to do a
job training program for what I called 17- to 30-year-olds with
what I consider supports the training while they're in
training, et cetera, et cetera, and you kind of mentioned
people who are coming out of penal institutions and on and on
and on.
Well, I like your idea that we should be supportive of
that. It costs money to do this. It costs money to train, but
I'm prepared to do tax breaks and to give tax incentives to
businesses that are willing to do some real training. I don't
want the paper training. I don't want what happened with the
Private Industry Councils and other kinds of so-called training
programs. But I do want real training by industry, and I'm
prepared to do--support tax incentives--all of that.
But I guess the big question is, do you think that your
side of the aisle would be prepared to couple kind of your idea
with job training that costs money, because I tell you if you
come up with something like that, and there may be a lot of
people who would be willing to look closer at your guest worker
program.
Right now, I'm not there on the guest worker program,
because I still think we'll get--and I could be dated on this--
but I still think of it as kind of exploitation. Let them come
and work, but don't try to stay here. We want you--and I still
think of it as cheap labor. I'm very impressed with your
industry and the amount of money you pay, but that's not most
of our undocumenteds. It's not most of those who come across
the border seeking better opportunity. You know, I'm just a, if
I may, I'm just outraged by what's happening in New Orleans and
on the Gulf where major contractors are exploiting workers from
Guatemala and places.
There was one story that it has brought tears to my eyes
where Guatemalans were sleeping on the ground. They had
inadequate clothing. Not only were they employed to do some of
the work that these big contractors who got no bid contracts to
do this work, some of the exploited workers were thrown off the
job and they didn't even pay them for what they worked for.
So I mean it's great to hear about hundred dollar an hour
jobs or whatever, but the fact of the matter is most are in
low-wage jobs, the very low-wage jobs.
However, having said all of that, if there was a real
willingness to invest in job training so that we eliminate the
argument about people who feel that the--the undocumenteds who
are taking jobs and but people feel that they don't have the
opportunity to get trained for jobs so they can get the skill
sets. They'll never get the experience without the training or
somebody taking a chance, as you described.
If we could figure some of that out, and couple that with a
guest worker program, I may--you know I may not only be
supportive of some that, but would encourage some other people
to be supportive of it.
So what do you think about some real investment in human
potential for job training and for people who have been kind of
dropped off of America's agenda, some of them who dropped out
of school that shouldn't have, but, you know, we could find
their way back in with some support. What about supporting
people while they're in job training. If you have to be in job
training for 6 months, you got to eat. You got to have
transportation. You've got to, you know, be able to stay there
to be trained.
What about that kind of support?
Mr. Hostettler. At this point, job training is a
fantastically stimulating issue. It just doesn't happen to be
the prerogative of this Committee. And in the future, we will
be taking up the issue of guest worker programs and earned
access and every other discussion of allowing more people into
the country to work from outside the country.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. But at this point----
Ms. Waters. Will the Chairman yield?
Mr. Hostettler. I will yield.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I thought this was about the
impact on our districts today.
Mr. Hostettler. Of illegal aliens.
Ms. Waters. Okay. Of undocumented.
Mr. Hostettler. Are you going to be training illegal aliens
in your job training bill?
Ms. Waters. No. The question becomes, yes, we have
undocumenteds in my district, many of whom are working in very
low paying jobs, being exploited, and we have people, African
Americans and others, in the same district who complain about
the undocumenteds, but they wish to be able to have access to
jobs, which would require job training.
So I think it fits your subject matter.
Mr. Hostettler. Yielding----
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Hostettler. --regaining my time.
Ms. Waters. Sure.
Mr. Hostettler. And so my question to the gentlelady is so
it is your experience that illegal aliens are displacing
significant numbers in the workforce of your constituents?
Ms. Waters. No, that is not my experience.
Mr. Hostettler. Reclaiming my time----
Ms. Waters. My experience----
Mr. Hostettler. Then who needs job retraining?
Ms. Waters. I think that there is a need for job training
if there were no illegals or undocumented----
Mr. Hostettler. Okay. Very good. But that being the case,
that isn't the subject of----
Ms. Waters. And----
Mr. Hostettler. --this hearing. In fact, we will now return
to the subject of the hearing, which was the impact of illegal
immigration.
I appreciate the gentlelady's insight. We will be taking up
a bill that does--I mean we will be taking up hearings that do
discuss this issue, and in that context, but the gentlelady's
statement is that illegal aliens are not displacing
constituents in----
Ms. Waters. No, I didn't say that either. So you keep
saying what the gentlelady said, but you're not framing it
correctly. I think I first started out by saying you don't know
and I don't know, because we don't have the information. We
don't have the studies that have been done. People are----
Mr. Hostettler. And the answer is----
Ms. Waters. --alluding to it.
Mr. Hostettler. --the gentlelady does not know about these.
Ms. Waters. No. The answer is that the Chairman does not
know.
Mr. Hostettler. No. I know.
Ms. Waters. Along with the gentlelady.
Mr. Hostettler. No. I know wholeheartedly.
Ms. Waters. Okay. I yield----
Mr. Hostettler. Come on back to my district----
Ms. Waters. Okay. All right.
Mr. Hostettler. Tonight.
Ms. Waters. Thanks for the time.
Mr. Hostettler. So at this point, I want to thank the
gentleman from New Mexico for his input in this very important
subject. All Members will have 5 legislative days to make
additions to the record. The business before the Subcommittee
being completed----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And may I, Mr. Chairman--if I would add my
appreciation for the sticktoitness of the gentleman from New
Mexico, and certainly appreciate the other Members that you
have stuck it out. And we appreciate your testimony. It will be
valued in this process, and we're going to get some jobs for
the people that Congressman Waters and myself are talking about
and the jobs for the Chairman and comprehensive immigration
reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Abner Culberson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Ms. Jackson
Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the problem of illegal
immigration and its effect on my congressional district and the State
of Texas.
I represent the 7th District of Texas, an area roughly 200 square
miles that covers suburban west and northwest Houston. The problems
that my district and Texas face are not unique to border States, but
they are unique compared with other parts of the country. Roughly 1.5
million illegal immigrants live in Texas. These illegal immigrants work
in Texas, their children attend our schools, they use our public
hospitals, and if they commit crimes--they are detained in our jails.
What makes Texas unique to the rest of the country is the size of
our border with Mexico; Texas borders Mexico for 1,240 miles along the
Rio Grande. The length of the border presents unique challenges for
communities and law enforcement along the border. In the past year, the
numbers of Mexicans and OTMs has surged along with substantial
increases in the quantity of drugs being moved across our southern
border. The increases in human and drug trafficking are due, in part,
to the fact that organized gangs and cartels now control the movement
of people and drugs into the U.S. We have an obligation to address the
problem now before the violence on the other side of the border spills
over into our country, and irreparably damages the special relationship
that Texas and Mexico have enjoyed for over a century. Congress must
work to ensure that legislation is passed to secure our borders.
I became particularly concerned with the issue of illegal
immigration after a town hall meeting was held on April 25, 2004 by CIS
and ICE officials in Houston to assure illegal immigrants that federal
immigration laws would not be enforced. Hearing law enforcement
officers assuage law breakers that our laws would not be enforced is
completely unacceptable. After this meeting was held, I voiced my
serious concerns to the Bush Administration, the leadership in
Congress, and the committees of jurisdiction. Broadcasting the fact
that Houston is a safe haven for illegal immigrants only encourages
more illegals to come to Houston.
The following month I visited the Houston CIS office and was
shocked to find the policies and procedures employed in that office
were contrary to the intent of immigration laws passed by Congress. I
discovered that adjudicators do not have the tools needed to conduct
background checks on immigration benefit applicants. I learned that not
one adjudicator had been trained to detect a potential terrorist. I
learned that adjudicators were granted time off and other incentives
for rapidly processing applicants instead of being rewarded for
conducting thorough background checks on applicants. I learned that
marriage fraud was rampant. In general, I found that immigrants
applying for legal status were treated as customers. The American
taxpayer was not the customer, and in fact, the taxpayer was not even
considered by CIS officials. Awarding the greatest privilege in the
history of the world--American citizenship--without proper vetting and
background checks cheapens that privilege. Therefore, I included report
language in the FY2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill that
sought to correct these policies:
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
The Committee is concerned that agencies of the Department are
not complying with Congressional intent, particularly in
carrying out homeland security missions and priorities. The
Committee directs that neither the Secretary nor any other
employee of the Department prescribe any policy, procedure or
regulation that would be contrary to or frustrate the intent of
Congress as expressed in law.
HOMELAND SECURITY MISSION PRIORITY
The Committee is concerned that DHS agencies are not placing
top priority on their homeland security missions set forth in
the Homeland Security Act, but are in some cases giving more
weight to less urgent, legacy activities. It is the duty of
each officer and employee of each element of the Department to
protect the homeland of the United States, including by
ensuring that potential terrorist and criminal aliens do not
enter the United States. The Committee therefore directs the
Secretary to ensure that the policies and procedures of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and every other element of the Department
of Homeland Security are consistent with this duty, and that
such requirements are made clear to each officer and employee
of the Department.
After my visit to the Houston CIS office, I posed questions to the
Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin. He began an
investigation into the policies and procedures in the Houston office,
but I have been unable to obtain a copy of the report. The two
officials in Houston CIS and ICE who participated in the townhall
meeting have been replaced. My goal is to continue working with federal
immigration officials in Houston to fix the obvious security risks that
are exacerbated by lax enforcement policies.
Border Security:
Since the April town hall meeting, I have learned that Special
Interest Aliens (SIAs)--aliens from countries where al-Qaeda is known
to operate--have entered the United States illegally. I am particularly
concerned that aliens from countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Indonesia, and the Sudan are entering our country illegally. On March
8, 2005 I questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller during a hearing
before the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations
Subcommittee about SIAs entering the United States across the southern
border and he testified under oath that this was in fact occurring.
Specifically, he stated that ``[t]he FBI has received reports that
individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections have
attempted to enter the U.S. illegally using alien smuggling rings and
assuming Hispanic appearances. An FBI investigation into these reports
continues.'' SIAs are changing their Arabic surnames to Hispanic
surnames to elude detection and blend into the flood of illegal
immigrants coming across the southern border. I am convinced that our
porous borders present the most serious national security threat that
America faces.
To gain a better understanding of the problems for communities and
law enforcement on the border, I visited several cities along the
Texas-Mexico border in October 2005. During my visit, I met with a
number of sheriffs from the counties along the border. They briefed me
in detail on several cases involving terrorist activity, narco-
terrorist activity, violent gangs such as MS-13, and the increased
violence in their counties. I was very concerned to learn about the
growing influence of drug cartels in Mexico and their hired guns, the
Zetas. I also learned about the violence that is spilling over into
U.S. cities like Laredo, Texas. In the last year, more than 40 American
citizens have been killed or kidnapped in Laredo. In early 2005,
Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza issued a travel warning for all
Americans visiting or working in Mexican border towns. This warning
demonstrates the need for an increased number of Border Patrol agents
and local law enforcement officers on the southern border. The presence
and constant activity of narco-terrorists and human smugglers are
directly related to the kidnappings and the travel warning, and they
signify the lawlessness along the border.
During my visit I also learned about the special status given to
OTMs who enter the United States illegally. The number of OTMs
apprehended along the Texas border has doubled in the last year and
tripled since three years ago. Along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, the
number of OTMs apprehended has increased 175 percent in the last year.
The OTM problem is compounded by current policies that allow them to
walk free after being detained and processed by the Border Patrol. OTMs
are released because there is not enough jail space to detain them.
Last week, Secretary Chertoff announced his intention to detain and
deport every OTM apprehended at the border. Congress must ensure that
DHS has adequate detention space and manpower to accomplish this task.
The OTM problem can be fixed, but it will take additional resources,
policy changes, and effective deterrence.
Since returning to Washington from my trip to the border, I have
spoken with many Members of Congress and shared the stories and
pictures from my trip. I was not surprised to hear that many of them
said they felt safer during trips to Iraq than they would have in a
pickup truck on our southern border. The increased violence in towns
such as Laredo is frightening. Business centers are closing down,
tourism is declining, and the general population is demoralized by the
level of lawlessness. I am now convinced that you do not need to go to
Baghdad to see the war on terror--you can go to Laredo.
Costs of Illegal Immigration:
According to a Federation for American Immigration Reform report
issued earlier this year, illegal immigrants in Texas cost the State's
taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care
and incarceration. The annual fiscal burden amounts to roughly $725 per
Texas household.
Texas public schools, like many schools around the country are
overcrowded. After Hurricane Katrina, the citizens of Houston opened
their doors to our neighbors in New Orleans. School districts in Harris
County have taken in 14,000 students who were displaced because of the
storm. Our schools are simply drowning in the number of students, and
the burden on teachers and administrators is overwhelming. There are
currently an estimated 319,000 children of illegal immigrants in Texas
schools. This figure represents 10 percent of the total K-12 public
school enrollment in Texas and the costs of educating these children
has increased every year over the last ten years. In 1994 the Urban
Institute estimated the per student cost of a K-12 education in Texas
was $4,461. A 2000 report by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) estimated that the cost of educating the children of
illegal immigrants was $6,288 per child. Since public school outlays
have increased at least 10 percent since 2000, using the NCES data, it
is reasonable to assume that the cost of educating a child of an
illegal immigrant is $7,450 for this year. Education is paid for by
property taxes in Texas. These taxes have reached an artificially high
level and the Texas Legislature is looking for a solution to lower
property taxes while continuing to provide public education that meets
the standards set by No Child Left Behind. A solution can be found to
the education crisis in Texas, but we cannot continue to bear the
burden of educating the children of illegal immigrants.
In March 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that ``Over the past
10 years, the [Harris county hospital] district has provided $510
million in unreimbursed care to illegal immigrants.'' In the last three
years alone, the Harris County hospital district has spent $330 million
on care to illegal immigrants. Providing these services places a huge
and unnecessary strain on taxpayers and creates an incentive for
illegal aliens to come to this country and take advantage of the
world's best hospitals. These costs are staggering and are only going
to increase. In order to remove the burden from local taxpayers,
Congress must continue to reimburse hospitals for this care, but to
receive reimbursement for illegal immigrant care--hospitals must prove
they have treated these aliens. In contrast to their unwillingness to
provide information to federal immigration officials about illegal
aliens for immigration purposes, states and localities have been
willing to provide that information when seeking reimbursement from the
federal government for the cost of medical care to illegal immigrants.
Since hospitals are already asking the citizenship status of patients
when they receive care, it seems reasonable that they contact federal
immigration officials to alert them to the presence of these aliens. A
program can easily be implemented that places no undue burden on
hospitals and only requires cooperation with federal officials to be
eligible for reimbursement.
I am also concerned that ``sanctuary'' policies implemented by
local law enforcement that harbors criminals and makes immigrant
communities much more susceptible to violence and crime. The City of
Houston has such a policy:
HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER 500-05
Officers shall not make inquires as the citizenship status of
any person, nor will officers detain or arrest persons solely
on the belief that they are in this country illegally. Officers
will contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service
regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a
separate criminal charge other than a class C misdemeanor and
the officer knows the prisoner is an illegal alien.
General Order 500-05 provides a safe haven for criminals to hide
among immigrants. In 1998, Dr. Claudia Benton was beaten, raped, and
fatally stabbed in Houston by Angel Maturion Resendiz. Resendiz, also
known as the Railway Killer, entered the U.S. illegally at least seven
times in 1998 and had been deported seven times prior to the murder. On
January 26, 2004, 18 year old Virginia Garcia was raped and murdered by
David Diaz Morales in Austin, which has a police policy similar to the
one in Houston. Morales, an illegal immigrant, had been previously
arrested for child molestation. Many who support sanctuary policies
claim that immigrants would be unwilling to contact local police if
they were the victims of a crime out of fear that they themselves would
be deported. That fear is nothing compared to the fear and resentment
the families of Dr. Benton and Ms. Garcia have knowing that the murders
of their loved ones could have been prevented simply by removing
another barrier of communication between local and Federal law
enforcement. Every community would benefit from taking criminals off
the streets, and immigrant communities would benefit from not having
criminals hiding among them. If Houston, or any other city, continues
to receive Federal money for detaining illegal aliens, they should also
be required to report illegal immigrants to DHS.
I have heard an overwhelming plea from my constituents demanding
that the federal government secure our borders and enforce immigration
laws. My constituents feel the pressures of illegal immigration on
their pocketbooks. They are tired of paying high property taxes to fund
the education of illegal immigrants' children. They are tired of
increased county taxes to provide health care to people who are not in
this country legally. They are tired of criminals wandering their
streets with no fear of prosecution because of policies established by
police that allow them to hide among the population. Fortunately, my
constituents have not experienced the level of violence that I
witnessed in Laredo. The southern border is truly the frontlines of the
war on terror because of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and criminal
organizations. Mr. Chairman, with your help and the help of this
Subcommittee, I hope that we can find a solution that will protect our
borders and provide reasonable reimbursements to communities that are
suffocating from the costs associated with illegal immigration.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Editorials Supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Secure
America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, submitted by the Honorable
Luis V. Gutierrez