[Senate Hearing 109-117] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-117 THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SERVING OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MAY 26, 2005 __________ Serial No. J-109-23 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 23-249 WASHINGTON : 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma David Brog, Staff Director Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois James Ho, Majority Chief Counsel Jim Flug, Democratic Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1 prepared statement........................................... 29 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement.............................. 51 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 64 WITNESSES Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C........................... 13 Griswold, Daniel, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C..................................... 15 Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C................................................ 4 Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.................... 17 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., prepared statement...... 32 Former Commissioners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, joint letter.......................................... 44 Griswold, Daniel, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., prepared statement................ 46 Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 56 Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, prepared statement 65 United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Albert Zapanta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Washington, D.C., letter 67 THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SERVING OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 United States Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:49 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Cornyn and Kyl. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Chairman Cornyn. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will come to order. We appreciate your understanding as we finished the markup on the asbestos bill, and we were delayed slightly while we reorganized the chairs and got our thoughts together. I want to thank Senator Specter for scheduling today's hearing, as well as Senator Kennedy, my Ranking Member, for working with us to help make this hearing possible. This Subcommittee has held a number of significant immigration hearings this year, and I appreciate all of our colleagues-- Senator Kyl, whose Subcommittee sat with us in each of these hearings, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein, our Ranking Members--working with us to make them productive. Today, we continue our review of the immigration system. Our immigration and border security system is, I think the evidence is clear, badly broken. In a post-9/11 world, we simply do not have the luxury of accepting the status quo any longer. National security demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration system, and that means both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws. We must solve this problem, and we must solve it now. First, we must recognize that in the past we simply have not devoted the funds, resources, and manpower to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. That must change, and that will change. As history amply demonstrates, reform without enforcement is doomed to failure. No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is possible without a clear commitment to and a substantial and dramatic escalation of our efforts to enforce the law. That is why Senator Kyl and I have embarked on a series of hearings, as I mentioned, devoted exclusively to the topic of strengthening enforcement throughout our Nation's immigration system--at the border, between the ports of entry, and within the interior of our Nation. These enforcement hearings have shown that our border inspection and security system at the ports of entry is full of holes, our deployment of manpower and use of technology to secure the border between the ports of entry is deficient, and our deportation process is over- litigated and under-equipped. So, it is clear we need stronger enforcement. But, it is also clear that enforcement alone will not get the job done, nor will our job be done by merely throwing money at the problem. Our laws must be reformed as well as enforced. Any reform proposal must serve both our national security and our national economy. It must be both capable of securing our country and compatible with the demands of a growing economy. Our current broken system provides badly needed sources of labor, but through illegal channels--posing a substantial and unacceptable risk to our national security. Yet, simply closing our borders to secure our Nation would only destroy our economy. Any comprehensive solution must address both our security needs as well as the needs of our national economy. Accordingly, just last week, we began a series of hearings examining the benefit that comprehensive immigration reform would provide. Noted experts testified that national security would be bolstered if we properly reformed our system. Specifically, they testified that any reform should be designed to allow the government to focus its efforts on those who mean to do us harm as opposed to expending those resources on people who merely want to work. Reform along these lines would allow law enforcement to target its limited resources where they belong on high priorities like smugglers, drug dealers, and terrorists. Today, we shift our focus to explore the importance of immigration reform to our national economy. Our current economic system provides the necessary sources of labor crucial to many areas of commerce, but as I said, through illegal channels. Commissioner Bonner has previously testified before this Subcommittee that the vast majority of those the Border Patrol apprehends are migrant workers simply coming here to work. He said ``...the Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal flood of people on a daily basis...most of whom are attempting to enter this country in order to work.'' While the situation Commissioner Bonner faces at the borders represents a substantial and unacceptable risk to our national security, it also demonstrates why we cannot simply close our borders or round up and remove the approximately 10 million people who live outside our law. We do not have the resources, we do not have the facilities, we do not have the ability to identify, locate, and apprehend 10 to 12 million undocumented workers. Securing our Nation's borders at the expense of weakening our economy by choking off or removing needed sources of labor is not an acceptable alternative. But, even if we were equipped to do so, our economy would suffer if we stripped millions of workers from our national workforce, just as it would suffer if we eliminated entire stocks of natural resources from our national inventory. On the other hand, our economy would be strengthened if all workers could simply come out of the shadows, register, pay taxes, and fully participate in our economy. It is my hope that today's hearing will help us to better understand the benefits that would accrue to our national economy should we properly reform our immigration system. Some have expressed concerns about the impact of reforming the immigration system on the American worker. Today's hearing will examine that question. To be sure, America is a welcoming Nation. The hard work and strength of our immigrants have made our Nation prosperous. And, many immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants have joined the military to help safeguard the liberty of America, advance scientific discoveries, and otherwise lead our Nation at various times. Nevertheless, we must craft a fair and consistent system that reforms our Nation's immigration laws without harming the economic security of American citizens. I want to end by noting that a bipartisan group of former INS Commissioners wrote to me recently, calling for a comprehensive immigration solution that both protects our national security and serves our national economy. The desire of these dedicated public servants to see that the immigration system is enforced and reformed transcends political ideology and is formed by years in the trenches. We would do well to heed their call. Without objection, I will make that a part of the record at the end of my comments. I am confident that Americans, working together, will rise to this challenge and find a solution that serves the best interests of our country. [The prepared statement of Chairman Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. With that, I will turn to Senator Kyl, who has worked so closely with me and I with him on this issue for, lo, these many months, and as border State Senators, I think we understand perhaps as well as anybody about not only the reasons why we need to address the security issue, but also the necessity of addressing equally the economic issues associated with this phenomenon. So, Senator Kyl, I will turn the floor over to you for any statement. Senator Kyl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, because we want to hear from the witnesses--we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses, and I appreciate all of you being here today. Our good friend, Steve Law, is going to lead off. Therefore, I am simply going to apologize in advance for having to leave in about half an hour. But to the extent that I do not hear somebody, I will read your testimony and look forward to visiting with you in any event. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cornyn. We are pleased today to have Deputy Secretary of Labor Steven Law appear here. Deputy Secretary Law serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Labor, a 17,000-employee agency with an annual budget of more than $50 billion. Mr. Law was confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Labor by the Senate in 2003. While at the Department of Labor, Mr. Law has worked to update overtime regulations, provide transparency reforms for labor unions to protect rank-and-file union workers, and develop initiatives on, among other things, immigration reform. We are pleased to have you here today, and we would be pleased to hear your statement, Mr. Law. I can only think, as I am introducing you, how we are going to add to your burdens by creating an asbestos trust fund. But, that is another subject for another--something Senator Kyl and I have been working on along with the entire Judiciary Committee. If you would please remember to turn your microphone on, and I ask that you initially limit your statement to about 5 minutes, and then we would like to engage in a conversation with you. Thank you. STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. LAW, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Law. Absolutely. I would like to offer an extensive statement into the record on the asbestos legislation, but I will not do that at this time. [Laughter.] Mr. Law. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on the role of immigrant labor in our 21st century economy. The Department of Labor has long played an important role in immigration policy. In fact, in the early 1900s, 85 percent of the Department's 2,000 employees worked in its Bureau of Immigration before it was transferred over to another department. The first two Secretaries of Labor were both immigrants, from Scotland and South Wales, respectively. Our current Secretary of Labor, Secretary Chao, is also an immigrant. And my own grandfather came from Norway to San Francisco in 1906. You may remember that was the same year as the great San Francisco earthquake, which only goes to show that we Norwegians have no sense of timing at all. Over the centuries, immigrants have helped the American economy prosper, literally helped build the country, fought its wars to defend our liberties, and enriched our culture in countless ways. And yet our attitude toward immigration has run hot and cold through the years, and that has been exacerbated by an immigration system that is increasingly torn between the needs of our economy and our security and between the rule of law and gritty realities. Last year, President Bush proposed dramatic reforms to that system to better control our borders, to ensure long-term economic growth, and to deal equitably and responsibly with the millions of undocumented workers who currently live in the shadows of American life. The President's proposal for a new temporary worker program recognizes that many sectors of our economy rely on foreign- born workers to fill jobs where there simply are not willing U.S. workers available. The President's proposal also recognizes that the current system for bringing in temporary workers is complex and cumbersome, and we would streamline that process so that willing workers can be matched efficiently with employers while always putting American workers first. And, finally, the President's plan recognizes that America's vast underground labor economy needs to be brought into the daylight for the benefit of all. We would do this compassionately but without conferring amnesty, without creating an entitlement to citizenship, and without putting those who have ignored our laws in front of those who have obeyed them and waited patiently for their turn. Now, the focus of this hearing is the intersection of the economy and our need for foreign-born workers. Our labor market today is healthy and robust. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.2 percent, which is below the monthly average of the last 50 years. In April, the economy created 274,000 new jobs, and that is part of the 3.5 million jobs that have been added since June 2003. At the end of March, there were 3.6 million unfilled job openings in the United States. At the same time, a quiet revolution has been taking place in the composition of our workforce. Over the last 15 years, the number of foreign-born workers in America has swelled 50 percent to a total of 21.4 million workers in 2004. And yet this rapid growth in the foreign-born labor force has not come at the expense of American workers. For example, just between 2002 and 2004, just a 2-year gap, about 1.2 million foreign workers were added to our labor force, at the same time that the unemployment rate for American workers went from 5.7 percent to 5.5 percent. In the future, demographic trends will make the steady influx of foreign-born workers not only sustainable but ultimately economically necessary. And yet today, the need for foreign-born workers is being felt acutely in many sectors of the U.S. economy, from construction and agriculture to health care and high-tech. At the Department of Labor, we watch for gaps between wage rates and employment levels. If wages are climbing much more rapidly than employment levels in particular occupations, this suggests a tightening labor market and a pent-up demand for more workers. For example, between 2002 and 2003, wages for pharmacists increased 44 times faster than employment. Wages for dispensing opticians grew more than 18 times faster than employment. Of course, these are just numbers on a page. The importance of foreign workers to our economy is presented to you every day through your constituents. The Department of Labor receives scores of letters from Members of Congress every year making requests about the status of visa petitions that are filed by employers who are in desperate need for workers to harvest crops, to cut trees, to provide rural health care, and to write software. In all these areas we find that very typically there is a connection between the jobs that need to be filled by foreign workers and supporting jobs that are currently filled by Americans. This intersection of immigration and the needs of our economy is a crucial issue for our Nation, and we look forward to working with this Subcommittee and Congress to achieve immigration reforms that respond to our economy's needs, that reflects America's character, and that guard our Nation's security. Thank you. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Law. We will proceed with a round of questions. First of all, I think, as I said in my opening statement, many people in America today are frustrated by our inability to control our borders. It is an issue that, from a national security perspective, after 9/11, has taken on a new sense of urgency and concern. The real national security deficit and the frustration that many people feel about the Federal Government's not living up to its responsibilities is something that, as I said, Senator Kyl and I address with Title I of our comprehensive immigration reform bill. At the same time, the Congressional Research Service has estimated as recently as last year that we have approximately 10 million undocumented immigrants, people who have come in outside of the laws currently residing in the United States, approximately 6 million of those in the workforce, is the number Congressional Research Service uses. I have heard different estimates. What studies or reports has the Department of Labor undertaken to identify the types of jobs that immigrants currently perform, if any? Or what kinds of sectors of the U.S. economy will continue to need migrant labor in the future? Mr. Law. There are a variety of different external reports, not Department of Labor-specific reports but external reports, that have documented the extent of immigrant employment in various sectors of the economy. There is, just for example today--and this is purely anecdotal, but it is confirmed much more broadly--an article in the Washington Post that describes the influx of Hispanic workers, mostly foreign-born, in the construction industry just around this particular area. Again, that is an anecdotal answer, but it is replicated by numerous reports and studies around the country that the construction industry has become an area where immigrant labor is increasingly needed as the employment in the construction sector is now at an all-time high and continuing to increase every single month. In addition to that, immigrants have become increasingly important to the agricultural sector, particularly in rural areas where it is very difficult to get surge capacity employment from the domestic labor force so that there is increased reliance on migrant farm workers, which are largely foreign-born immigrants. In addition to that, there is an increasing need for typically immigrant labor in the health care sector, and lastly, also in the area of highly skilled workers, in particular the software industry, the computer hardware engineering industry. These are areas where there simply is a much greater need for additional workers than the current domestic labor supply can keep the pace with. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Law, some Members of Congress have proposed--and I am thinking about, in particular, the ag jobs bill that was introduced earlier, or taken up even during the course of our debate about the supplemental appropriation bill earlier this year--that we deal with this on a sector-by-sector basis; in other words, that we deal just with the ag industry and farm workers. My own question about that is: Is there any good reason, from your perspective, why we would deal with this on an industry-specific basis as opposed to creating a system which would allow people to match willing workers with willing employers, once they have determined an American is not able to fill that job? Is there any good reason why we would limit the kinds of jobs that these people, once screened and once qualified, could perform in our economy? Mr. Law. Well, probably the best answer to that question is that today, as my previous answer suggested, immigrant workers, foreign-born workers, occupy a very, very broad array of occupations and sectors of the economy. A fix in one area obviously would not address the need for workers in significant other areas. There is undoubtedly an acute need for a steady and predictable supply of foreign-born workers in the agricultural sector, but simply dealing with that problem alone will not deal with the equally acute and deeply felt need for immigrant and foreign-born workers in the high-tech sector, for example, or in health care or in construction. And so very clearly the benefit, I guess I would say, of a comprehensive approach is that all of the different economic needs we have would be addressed by a comprehensive approach, and in addition to that fact, we would also be reaching all of the workers who currently live and work here who are undocumented who are in this broad array of different industries and occupations. Chairman Cornyn. What kind of assurances could be provided to assure the American people that any immigration reform that would allow immigrants to work here on a temporary basis would not be displacing American workers? How would you see that we would best address that? Mr. Law. Absolutely. That is a very important question, and one of the central principles of the President's approach which he announced last year was that American workers need to come first. We need to protect their rights to get access to jobs that are available above all else. We administer a number of worker visa programs, and a key feature of several of them is a labor market test which requires us and employers to go through reasonable, verifiable efforts to test the market to see whether there are available and willing American workers. We would expect that such a feature would be part of whatever ultimate temporary worker program were designed and implemented by Congress. And that is something that we would want to ensure, which is that employers working together with the Government put American workers first and make sure that we are not giving jobs away to foreign-born workers that an American is available to fill. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much. Senator Kyl? Senator Kyl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I had noted to Secretary Law that his name is a good intro for one of the things that we are trying to accomplish here, and I know he will agree with the statement. The Department, I am sure, agrees with Senator Cornyn and I that the key here is for us to develop a system in which everybody can work within the rule of law. Would that be a fair summary principle? Mr. Law. I think that is a very important principle, yes. Senator Kyl. Clearly, we have employer needs for workers in our country, but I think all of us would agree that they need to be satisfied within a legal framework. Among the principles that you testified to were that the undocumented workers who are here today but for whom some legal status is urged, nevertheless should not gain an advantage over those who have followed the rules. Let me just flesh that out just a little bit. That would not preclude in your view, would it, allowing people who are illegal immigrants today from participating right alongside legal immigrants in a new temporary worker program? In other words, if we create a new temporary worker program for people to be here temporarily, both people who are coming from another country and these people who came here illegally today would be able to participate in such a program? Mr. Law. Yes, that is correct. Senator Kyl. That would be consistent with the principle. Mr. Law. Right. Senator Kyl. I gather an example of something that would not be consistent with that principle would be, however, to allow those illegal immigrants to gain legal permanent residency while someone who is seeking to do so legally from their home country--well, obviously, would be doing it in a totally different way, the way it is currently done. Mr. Law. Right. In fact, that was one feature that has been somewhat criticized and regretted about the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which did exactly as you said, and one of the principles that has been enunciated in this temporary worker program is that this should not be an occasion for someone who is here illegally to get in front of the line of people who have waited outside patiently and obeyed our laws. Senator Kyl. Right. Now, I don't know if you have read some of the other testimony, but I read Tom Donohue's testimony, and as always, he has got a lot of good meat in his statement. On page 8 he said something that I really want to emphasize here and get your reaction to it. He said, ``Some ask whether the high level of employment means''--and this is of people who are not documented--``that employers are violating the law. No, it does not.'' ``Necessarily,'' I guess I would add. ``It should be emphasized that employers are required to, and do, verify that each employee is eligible to work in the United States, but by law employees get to choose which documents from [DHS'] approved list (set out on the `I-9)' . . . '' And he goes on to say, ``These documents look valid on their face and many times they are in fact legitimate documents belonging to relatives or friends who are authorized . . . '' and so on. ``By law, the employer must accept these documents.'' And, of course, that goes on to illustrate why this is very difficult for employers, because employers cannot go behind the documents and say, ``Well, you don't look right to me, I am going to demand something else of you.'' They will get hit with EEOC complaints in that event. So we have put a real tough burden on the employers not to hire illegal immigrants but, by the way, not to ask too many questions, and we have given them the documents they can choose from, which everybody knows can be and in many cases are counterfeited. Would it be the Department's view that critical to the success of a new program of comprehensive immigration reform would be a system for hiring that is simple, relatively inexpensive, easy for employers to use, and would have absolute verification requirements that would, if enforced and if applied properly, ensure that no more would illegal immigrants be hired? Mr. Law. Certainly employers are put between a rock and a hard place in the current system. Many of them do have very compelling needs for foreign-born workers to fill jobs for which there are simply no willing Americans available. And the current system is cumbersome. The current system, in many cases we are trying to make it simpler. But the current labor market tests in some cases are very, very complicated. And so I think any effort to simplify and clarify what the employers' responsibilities are and to ensure that those requirements actually do what they are intended to do I think would make the program work better and, therefore, encourage both employers and those who are undocumented to participate in it. Senator Kyl. The bottom line is that everybody working within the rule of law is better for society. The employers are protected and know that they have legal employees. The legal employees know that they have protections. And society at large knows that both the employers and the Government are sticking with the rule of law, which we really need in a society if we are going to have trust in the Government and trust in the rule of law. You would agree with that? Mr. Law. As you pointed out at the outset, that is my last name, Senator. [Laughter.] Senator Kyl. Thank you. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Law, in your statement, you talk about the need for foreign workers and how that relates to the aging of current American workers. Could you expand on that a little bit so we could understand that better? Why aren't there enough younger Americans coming along to fill those jobs being vacated by those of us as we get older and reach retirement age? Mr. Law. Well, in large measure, this is a long-term demographic trend that is having an impact on a wide variety of issues in our country, including the Social Security debate, which we have been talking about in other settings. But as I think all of us know, the baby-boom generation, of which I am the tail end, is moving within range of retirement, and this is a very, very large cohort of people. In fact, the number of people who will be entering into the retirement years in the next few years is 50 percent larger than the same group that went through 10 years past. So it is a very, very large group of people who will be heading into retirement and leaving the productive workforce. Meanwhile, the generation of people who are coming behind them, those who are, say, between 16 and 25 years old, has remained essentially flat over the last several years. And so what we are seeing is a large number of people who will be outside the workforce, a somewhat smaller group of people who will be in their productive years in the years ahead, and that will create substantial pressure, is, in fact, already creating substantial pressure on labor markets. And it goes to the issue that I mentioned a little bit earlier where we look at what is happening to wage rates in key professions and comparing it to the employment levels. If wage rates are climbing dramatically in particular professions vis-a-vis how many new jobs are being filled, that suggests some pent-up demand for laborers. One of the examples I did not get a chance to talk about was computer hardware engineers. We have heard a great deal, for example, about the dotcom bust, and so a lot of people assume there are no opportunities left in the high-tech industry. Well, anyone who is from that industry will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true. We have heard about the dotcom bust, and yet despite that and despite the fact that that particular occupation of computer hardware engineer has been steadily filled with foreign-born workers through the H1-B visa program, and also despite the fact that these are traditionally very, very highly compensated positions, the wages of computer hardware programmers increased nearly 2 times faster than employment levels for that particular occupation between 2003 and 2004. So we see a lot of examples all across the economy of greater need for workers in these particular occupations than the domestic labor supply can provide, and as you pointed out at the outset of your question, that will only get more substantial as the baby-boom generation retires, and the next generation, which is much smaller, will be there to fill those jobs. Chairman Cornyn. I have found out during the time that I have spent focusing on immigration issues that one reason that our law appears to be so badly fragmented and not comprehensive in any real sense of the term is because it is controversial. So, people tend to favor rifle-shot solutions perhaps that do not get a lot of attention, but yet relieve a little bit of the problem here or there--for example, caps on H1-B workers and the like. But, I wonder what your perspective would be on whether the caps that we have on legal immigration or perhaps the administrative burdens on legal immigration and legally working in the United States, do those provide an incentive for some people to simply avoid a legal way of coming into the country or working here because the burdens are just too high, the caps are too low? Mr. Law. Well, certainly if you look at the past history of our capped temporary work visa programs, in the past these visa program caps were not always met. Today, increasingly, they are being met and frequently being met very early in the program year. And so as a result of that, those programs become impossible to use for large numbers of employers who are concerned about using them. The Senate recently passed an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski to at least reserve some of the H2-B visas for the latter part of the year, where some seasonal workers in her State and in other States are needed for various food- processing tasks and that sort of thing. So there is a lot of pressure on the current system with its current restrictions and caps and requirements, and I think that all argues for the kind of comprehensive approach that the President has talked about and that is being talked about here, where we deal with all of these different pressures on the system and different concerns, such as the ones that Senator Kyl talked about earlier and you talked about earlier, which is also ensuring the rule of law while at the same time meeting the economic needs that our country has. Chairman Cornyn. It struck me as ironic that, as we have heard during the course of our hearings, the Border Patrol detains about 1.1 million people a year. These are relatively uneducated, low-skill workers who are coming across in that way. Of course, we are also told that they probably detain one out of every four or so. And, of course, they detain them, many of them, most of them, and then release them on their own recognizance pending a hearing on deportation for which most of them do not show up. Mr. Law. Right. Chairman Cornyn. But, my point is we have put caps on some of the best educated and the best trained people, and yet we have virtually uncontrolled illegal immigration for unskilled workers. That seems backwards to me. Mr. Law. Well, certainly one of the issues that has been raised that needs to be looked at is just the role of high- skilled immigration in this country, and people have increasingly been talking about that. There has been some recent analysis done about the tremendous contribution that high-skilled foreign-born workers make to our economy, to our standard of living, and the degree to which they really contribute to our economy's competitiveness and vitality. So, once again, I think it argues for looking at the entire picture, what each temporary worker or foreign-born worker contributes to the economy, as well as these other issues that you have raised earlier in this hearing. Chairman Cornyn. Well, one last point in that same vein. Senator Lugar, Senator Alexander, Senator Coleman, and I have begun to have a series of roundtables on the decrease in the number of foreign students who come and study in the United States due to heightened security procedures and scrutiny given to these foreign students, many of whom, because of the difficulty of getting into the United States to study, are going to study in Europe. Unfortunate, from my standpoint, not only do we lose some of the brain power that might ultimately inure to the benefit of the United States, a lot of the public diplomacy that occurs when foreign students come to the United States and study and then return to their home countries is lost. Mr. Law. Right. Chairman Cornyn. Because, it seems to me that there is probably no better person to communicate the positive attributes about our country than a student who comes from another country, who studies here, and then returns to their home country, and then is able to their fellow countrymen what America is really like as opposed to what they read in the newspapers, in some newspapers, and watch on some TV screens. Thank you very much. Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I am going to have to go, but just again, relating to the Department of Labor's desire to serve both employer and employee here with a sensible system, and Tom Donohue's observation in his testimony, I was reminded of that old saying that was kind of the cynical humor of the Soviet Union era when the workers would say, ``Well, the government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.'' It was a cynical reflection on the fact that there was no rule of law there. The government was breaking the law and everybody knew it, and so the workers felt no obligation to try any harder than the government. We have a Government that sets out a standard that everybody knows does not work. The employers are required to comply with it. They and certainly the employees who are hired illegally know that it is all a sham. And yet we allow it to continue. The employers do not want it to continue that way. The Government certainly should not want it to continue that way. The employees would obviously like to be legal. We have got to get a handle on this and create a system where people in the future will have respect for the system, the rule of law, and will say now we have got something where people can legally be employed in a relatively easy way by employers who want to comply with the law and are now doing so, and the Government that cares about enforcing the law. If we can get to that point, I think Senator Cornyn and I will have succeeded. But since you are always available, I am not going to take any more time to question you. I will just talk to you later. Thank you. Mr. Law. Absolutely. I would be glad to do so, Senator. Thanks. Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much. We will now go to our second panel. Thank you for being with us. Mr. Law. Thank you very much, Senator. Glad to be here. [The prepared statement of Mr. Law appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. While our panel is taking their seat, let me just say that we have a very distinguished second panel in addition today. Our first witness is Thomas J. Donohue, the President and CEO of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Donohue leads the world's largest business federation representing 3 million companies, State and local chambers, and American Chambers of Commerce abroad. Mr. Donohue brings important perspectives on a variety of issues being considered by Congress including intellectual property issues, corporate governance, and today's topic, immigration reform. Thank you for being here with us today. Joining Mr. Donohue on our second panel is Dan Griswold. Mr. Griswold is Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, and has authored or co-authored studies on, among other subjects, globalization, the World Trade Organization, trade and manufacturing, immigration and trade in democracy. Mr. Griswold has been published extensively and has appeared in numerous TV and radio news and talk shows. Welcome, Mr. Griswold, to the Committee. Finally, I would like to welcome Douglas S. Massey. Dr. Massey is Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Dr. Massey is also published extensively on Mexican immigration, including co-authoring Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, which discusses U.S. immigration and the economic integration of migrant workers. Thank you as well, Dr. Massey, for being with us. We are privileged to have such a distinguished panel of witnesses to bring a broad base of practical experience to these issues, and we would be pleased at this point to hear your statements. Mr. Donohue. STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Donohue. Senator, thank you very much, and thank you for inviting me here to speak on this critical issue. It is important to the well-being of our country immigration reform. I last testified on this subject before Congress on September the 7th, 2001. At that time you will recall our Nation was moving towards major reform. John Sweeney and I had testified together with some common thoughts. President Bush and President Vicente Fox appeared also to be heading towards a mutual set of agreements. Just four days later after we testified the tragedy of September 11th occurred, and the Nation, understandably, focused all of its attention on security. Immigration reform fell by the wayside. But nearly four years later the need for immigration reform is greater than ever. Our immigration system is broken and will stay broken until we fix it. Allow me, Senator, to add just a personal note before I carry on with my testimony. I travel around the country talking about immigration, and its importance to this Nation, and I am somewhat turned off by the very often vicious reaction of sensible people to the need to add immigrants to our workforce. I always ask how many American Indians are in the room. There are not too many. I remind the others that they are all them, those people. That is where we came from. But at the same time I am not worried about the result because this long discussion about this complicated subject is going to still be going on when the problem becomes so severe that the Congress, the States and our fellow citizens are going to deal with it. If you look at all the people that are unemployed in the United States now, there are about 1.6 million of them that are ready, willing and able to go to work. If you look at all of the immigrants that are undocumented and here working, and the Pew study said, what, 10.3 million? That suggests if we send them home or we do not make them employable, we have got a national crisis now. If you listen to Steve Law's comments about what happens in the coming years in retirements, we have an even more serious crisis. So I think we are dealing with two issues here, basically the need to fix the system, and second, the reality that no matter how prejudiced or emotional or understandably angry our fellow citizens are, they are going to be ready to solve it long before they are going to change their attitudes. Let me suggest that there are three things we can do to change this system. First is some type of targeted earned adjustment to take care of the status of undocumented workers who are here, many of them paying taxes, and certainly working in a lot of our very important industries. Some like to use the word ``amnesty.'' I do not. We support legislation that would provide a step-by-step process in which an undocumented worker could qualify for permanent legal status. I know that some people, as I said, are uncomfortable with providing these workers with legal status, but the alternative solutions are not only indefensible, they are not workable. We are not going to adopt a massive deportation program, and if we did, we could not make it work. Our economy would grind to a halt if we tried to round up and deport the estimated 10 plus million undocumented workers, and maintaining the status quo is equally wrong. A shadow society of undocumented workers and a booming fraudulent document industry--which by the way, gets more effective every year because the technology is better-- protects criminals and terrorists and it makes it easy for people to exploit undocumented workers. Creating a pathway for earned legal status in this country would rightfully recognize those upon whom our economy depends and would enable our law enforcement officials to do their job more effectively. I second think that immigration reform should allow employers to hire foreign workers under a temporary worker system. By the way, these would not all be low-end jobs. Our problems on the higher end are moving in a negative way faster than on the lower end. A temporary worker program is absolutely essential for us to address these needs of an expanding economy, a declining working age population, a lower birth rate and an impending retirement of much of the workforce. By the way, we have done this five or six times since the founding of our country with major thrusts of immigration. We might want to try it again. It has produced some pretty good people. My written testimony gives you all the demographic data, but rather than go into that, I would like to just report one line from a workforce expert who says the ``most inescapable challenge facing the American workforce in the coming 20 years'', the next 20 years, ``we will not have enough people to fill'' the jobs. When we did our outsource study we got a result that said by 2010--that is 5 years from now--that we would have between 6 and 10 million jobs in this country with no one to fill them. That is why I have a sense we will move forward. I do not want to bleed on your time anymore. I would simply say that we need skilled and unskilled, moderately skilled workers. You look at the numbers on housing starts, at an all- time high. Who do you think are building these houses? You look at what is going on in our expanded agricultural business in your own State, with massive exports of agriculture products and coming to a better--who do you think is working these industries? A sizeable chunk of our economy requires these immigrants, and we need their help. Finally, we recognize that stronger enforcement of our immigration and border security laws are important, and people have to have a law that has credibility in it, and we have seen all the reports about violence and people dying unnecessarily. We certainly do not want to have that happen. I do remember a lot of Irish people that got on boats and came here through terrible storms, and a lot of them died. They were not only leaving a famine. They were coming to a great time of opportunity, and this country has not got the facility to lock those borders. Senator, let me just say we need more workers. We need enhanced security. We need a document system we can trust, and obviously many details have to be worked out. The Chamber is a leader in the Essential Worker Coalition. We are going to work very hard on that. We are going to work with you and your colleagues, but let us try and get something done before reality overtakes us, and it is breathing hard down our necks. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Donohue appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Mr. Donohue, for your statement. Mr. Griswold, we would be glad to hear yours. STATEMENT OF DANIEL GRISWOLD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TRADE POLICY STUDIES, THE CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Griswold. Senator Cornyn, thank you very much for inviting the Cato Institute to speak today on immigration and the U.S. economy. Our research at Cato has consistently shown that immigrants plan an important part in the success of our free enterprise economy. Immigrants work willingly to fill important segments of the labor market. They gravitate to occupations where the supply of workers tends to fall short of demand, typically among higher-skilled workers and lower-skilled occupations. That hour-glass shape of the immigrant labor pool compliments the native-born workforce, where most workers fall into the middle range in terms of skills and education. As a result, immigrants do not compete directly with the vast majority of American workers. Lower-skilled immigrants benefit the U.S. economy by filling jobs for which the large majority of Americans are simply over qualified. Important sectors of the U.S. economy, hotels and motels, restaurants, agriculture, construction, light manufacturing, health care, retailing and other services depend on low-skilled immigrant workers to remain competitive. Even in our high-tech economy demand for less skilled labor will continue to grow in the years ahead. According to the Department of Labor, the largest absolute growth in jobs during the next decade will be concentrated in categories that require only short-term on-the-job training. Of the 20 job categories with the largest expected growth in employment between 2002 and 2012, 14 of them require only short-term training. These occupations include retail sales, food preparation, grounds keeping, janitors, waiters and waitresses. The net employment growth in those categories alone is expected to be 4.9 million. Meanwhile, the pool of American workers willing and happy to fill such jobs continues to shrink. We are getting older as a Nation and we are getting better educated. I am also one of those aging baby-boomers. Between 1982 and 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of workers in the U.S. labor force will increase from 34.6 to 41.6 years. That is the highest level ever in American history, and the pool of workers between 16 and 24, the share is dropping by a third. At the same time workers in the U.S. labor force are more educated than ever. In the past four decades the share of adults 25 and older who have not completed high school has plunged from more than half in 1964 to less than 15 percent today, and if you look at adult native men in the workforce, it is below 10 percent and dropping. Immigrants provide a ready and willing source of labor to fill that growing gap between demand and supply on the lower rungs of the ladder. Yet here is the rub. Our current immigration system offers no legal channel for peaceful, hard- working immigrants from Mexico and other countries to come into the United States and fill these jobs that the vast majority of Americans do not want. The result is large-scale illegal immigration. Our current dysfunctional immigration system is colliding with reality, demographic and economic, and as usual, reality is prevailing. Since 1986 the U.S. Government has dramatically increased spending on border enforcement. For the first time in our history we have imposed fines on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Yet the number of illegal immigrants continues to grow by several hundred thousand a year to an estimated 10 million today. The only realistic answer is comprehensive immigration reform. Such reform should grant temporary but also renewable visas that would allow foreign-born workers to fill those jobs where labor is most needed. Such visas should allow multiple reentries for as long as the visa is valid, complete mobility between employers and sectors, and full protection of U.S. law. Comprehensive reform should also legalize the millions of workers who are currently in the United States without documentation. Many of these workers have lived and worked in the United States for several years. They are valuable participants in their workplace and their communities. They should be allowed and encouraged to come forward and be legalized and documented. Legalization does not mean amnesty. Newly legalized workers can be assessed a fine. They should be required to get in line with everybody else to apply for permanent status. Whatever way we achieve legalization, it would be far preferable to the status quo of millions of people living in a social and economic twilight zone outside the rule and protection of law. Reform is not about opening the door to millions of additional foreign workers. It is about legalizing the millions already here and the hundreds of thousands who are coming in each year already. According to research, legalization would raise their wages, benefits and working conditions by giving them more bargaining power in the marketplace. They could more easily change jobs to improve their pay and working conditions. They would be more likely to qualify for health insurance and to invest in their job and language skills. They could put their savings in the bank. Legalization would replace an underground supply of illegal workers with a safe, orderly and documented population of legal workers. In conclusion, we need to recognize reality, adopt comprehensive reform, and fix America's flawed immigration system so that it conforms to the realities and the ideals of a free society. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Griswold appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Mr. Griswold. Dr. Massey, we would be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Mr. Massey. Mr. Chairman, since 1982 I have co-directed a large research project studying Mexican migration to the United States with my colleague Jorge Durand at the University of Chicago. The Mexico Migration Project, which is funded by NICHD and the Hewlett Foundation, offers the most comprehensive and reliable source of data available on documented and undocumented migration from Mexico. The project won a merit award from the National Institutes of Health, and based partly on its success, Jorge and I have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Two decades of intensive research using these data reveal a fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.S. relations with Mexico. On the one hand, we have joined with that country to create an integrated North American market characterized by relatively free, cross-border movements of capital, goods, services and information. As a result, since 1986 total trade with Mexico has increased by a factor of 8. On the other hand, we have also sought to block the cross-border movement of workers. The United States criminalized undocumented hiring in 1986, and over the next 15 years tripled the size of the Border Patrol while increasing its budget tenfold. The escalation of border enforcement was not connected to any change in the rate of undocumented migration from Mexico. Rather, U.S. policymakers appeared somehow to have hoped to finesse a contradiction, integrating all markets in North America except one, that for labor. This contradictory stance has led to continued migration under terms that are harmful to the United States, disadvantageous for Mexico, injurious to American workers, and inhumane to the migrants themselves. Rather than increasing the likelihood of apprehension, the militarization of the Mexico-U.S. border has reduced it to a 40-year low. Before 1975 the odds of getting caught on any given attempt at entry were about 33 percent. Today they are around 10 percent, and this is because militarization channels migrants to more remote sectors where the chance of getting caught is actually smaller. In these relatively unguarded sectors, however, the risk of death is greater. Mortality among migrants has tripled, bringing about the needless death of 300 to 400 persons per year. Although U.S. efforts to increase the costs and risks of border crossing did not discourage undocumented migrants from coming, they had the perverse effect of deterring them from going home. Once in the United States migrants are reluctant to face again the gauntlet at the border, so they stay put and they send for their family members. The end results has been an unprecedented increase in the size and growth rate of the undocumented population. The hardening of the border in San Diego and El Paso also pushed migrants away from traditional destinations towards new receiving areas. In the end, during the 1990s, what had been a circular flow of able-bodied workers into three States became a settled population of families across all 50 States, significantly increasing the cost of migration to U.S. taxpayers. The economic costs were likewise exacerbated by the criminalization of undocumented hiring in 1986, which was an effort to eliminate the magnet of U.S. jobs. This action, however, only encouraged U.S. employers to shift from direct hiring to labor subcontracting. Rather than dealing directly with migrants, employers began increasingly to work through intermediaries to escape the burdens of paperwork and the risks of prosecution. In return, subcontractors pocketed a portion of the wage bill that formerly went to migrants, thereby lowering their wages. Unfortunately, the ultimate effect was not to eliminated undocumented hiring, but to undermine wages and working conditions in the United States, not so much for undocumented migrants who had always earned meager wages, but for authorized workers who formerly had been able to improve their earnings over time. In the new regime everyone had to work through a subcontractor regardless of legal status, and the advantaged bargaining position once enjoyed by citizens and legal resident aliens was nullified. At this point all we have to show for two decades of contradictory policies towards Mexico is a negligible deterrent effect, a growing pile of corpses, record low probabilities of apprehension at the border, falling rates of return migration, accelerating undocumented population growth, and downward pressure on wages and working conditions in the United States. These outcomes are not simply my opinion, but scientific facts that can be reproduced by anyone else, using the data that is publicly available from the Mexican Migration Project on the Web. The situation is thus ripe for reform. Rather than undertaking repressive actions to block migratory flows that are a natural consequence of Mexico's economic transformation and its growing integration with the United States, a more salutary approach would be to bring flows above board and manage them in ways that are beneficial to both nations. The steps that I believe that are needed to accomplish this reform include, but are not limited to: (1) the creation of a temporary visa program that gives migrants rights in the United States and allows them to exercise their natural inclination to return home; (2) expand the quota for legal immigration from Mexico, a country with $1 trillion economy and 105 million people to whom we are bound by history, geography and a well- functioning trade agreement, and yet it has the same quota as Botswana and Nepal; (3) offering amnesty to children of undocumented migrants who entered as minors and have stayed out of trouble--these children who came here as minors are guilty of no sin other than obeying their parents and they should be offered immediate amnesty; (4) finally, establishing an earned legalization program for those who entered the United States in unauthorized status as adults. These actions, along with others I could enumerate, go a long way to resolving the current mess. They would enable the United States to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of a migration that will likely occur in any event. The approach of management, rather than repression, will better protect American workers and allow Mexico to develop more quickly to the point where forces now promoting large-scale migration ultimately disappear. The legislation submitted to Congress by Senators Kennedy and McCain moves the agenda of immigration reform substantially in this direction, and for this reason I support it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Massey appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Cornyn. Thank you very much, Dr. Massey. Let me start, if I may, with you, and you paint a rather grim picture of the consequences of our policy since 1986. You have given us some ideas about how it is we might address some of those. How would your proposed reforms deal with the threat of international terrorism where people who want to come here and hurt us can use the same means that people who want to merely come here and work currently use in order to come into our country and then simply melt into the landscape? How would the proposals that you suggest help us deal with that challenge? Mr. Massey. Well, in two ways. First, when you have got 10 to 12 million people in undocumented status who are afraid of the law, that provides a big sea for terrorists to swim in without being detected. The way to detect terrorists who are out to harm Americans and their interests, is to bring all these people above board and document them. Then the undocumented will stand out and can be more easily identified and apprehended. Second, I think the evidence shows that our militarization of the border with Mexico has not bought us any additional security. None of the terrorists came through that border. And why would a terrorist attempt to come through the Mexico-U.S. border, which is heavily policed, when they can waltz across the Canadian-U.S. border without being bothered. So I think what we need to do if we want to enhance our security is not try unilateral police actions at the border, but engage in cooperative law enforcement activities with our two close neighbors in North America, and get the Mexicans and Canadians to work with us in deterring people even before they get to Mexico or Canada. Chairman Cornyn. We have had previous witnesses, Dr. Massey, who said that the two things that Mexico could do to help the most in terms of international terrorism and the threat of danger to American citizens would be to, No. 1, to protect their southern border, and No. 2, to deal more effectively with OTMs, as we have heard the phrase, other-than- Mexicans who transit through that country, through their airports or across their roads to come into the United States. Do you agree with that? Mr. Massey. Yes. A model here is what the European Union is doing with Poland. They are providing the Polish Government with technical assistance to enforce its eastern border from other countries in the former Soviet Union, and in return, they have admitted Poland into the European Union. It is not complete labor mobility yet, but they have a very generous temporary visa program to allow Polish workers in, and it seems to have been relatively successful. I will note that the southern border of Mexico is much shorter than the Mexico-U.S. border, which is about 2,000 miles, and if we were to work with Mexico and provide technical assistance in patrolling that border, I think it would be much to our benefit. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Donohue, let me ask you about what Congress could expect, Congress should expect from American employers that you represent, that the Chamber represents, if we provide the means for employers to determine the status of prospective employees? Should we be able to expect that they will avail themselves of that ability to determine whether the person they are looking at as a prospective employee is in fact authorized to work in the United States? Mr. Donohue. I assume, Senator, you would like a very candid response to that, so I will give you one. Chairman Cornyn. I would expect nothing less from you. Mr. Donohue. First of all, a great majority of American companies want to abide by the law, not only because they may be caught and pay a penalty of some sort, but because they are Americans. There are some people in any organization, whether it is Government or church or associations or companies, who will not play by the law, so you can write that percentage off. But there is a fundamental reality when you stop and think that some 92 percent of the adults who came in who are undocumented workers, are all employed in this country. When you add their families to it, you know, it is even a greater number, and they are available to work. Now, if you go back to Texas and you decide to run a small company, a small manufacturing company, a small printing company, a small hotel, and you cannot find workers, you are going to keep your business going. The better question would be, if we make it possible for these companies to get the workers they need to keep providing the service to their customers and therefore stay in business and keep their people employed, the rest of the people employed, they will respond to that aggressively. I am asked all the time when I am in Europe, ``How come the United States economy is so strong, 3.68 percent, 4 percent last quarter of last year, and we cannot get off a dime?'' I say, ``It is very simple. We have got 20 million small companies in our country, and they are honorable, thoughtful people. They just do not pay too much attention to Government.'' Government is running behind this issue. The only way to get in front of it is to deal with the challenge and the problem, and that is we do not have enough workers, and we like to tell everybody there are all sorts of American workers. The unions tell me all the time, there are all kinds of American workers ready. Just pay them enough money. There is not enough money in the world to pay people that do not exist. The demographics of this society should be a required study before members of the Congress, members of the Senate, the administration and the press, decide to take this issue apart. If you were not born 21 years ago, you are not here today ready to go to work. Chairman Cornyn. You indicate in your written testimony that the application process for some of our visas, for example, the H2-B process, is too bureaucratic, too burdensome, that it causes many employers simply to avoid that process in the first place. What sort of impediments do you see to the way that our immigration system is currently being administered that make it unworkable to the average American employer, if there is such a thing? Mr. Donohue. Well, first of all, if you go back to Texas and find a guy who is building small homes or adding rooms to homes or doing refurbishments and all that sort of thing, and he hired wallboard guys on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, and he gets a plumber to come in some other days, and he has a tile guy coming in, first of all, he is running the whole company out of his left breast pocket. All his tools and everything are in his pickup truck. He knows who to hire. He hires the people that work hard, do not steal his stuff, he can trust to come into homes, and the word is out in the industry, they know who is going to produce. I am not sure they are much into doing the paperwork required to figure out this visa business. Have you ever looked at it? Chairman Cornyn. I have not tried to hire anybody, no. Mr. Donohue. My son is a builder, our middle son, you know, middle sons are cool. My son is a builder in Colorado. He is my resident expert on this subject and I regularly consult with him on the difficulties of running a small business. His brother, the lawyer, has advised him that if he takes care to deal with the IRS and the Colorado IRS, he is 95 percent of the way there. Chairman Cornyn. I take it that you mean that American employers need workers, and presumably if we were able to create a legal framework for immigrant labor to work in this country in a way that was less bureaucratic, less burdensome on the employer, less paperwork, that it would be--and we were able to provide a means for that employer to determine whether this prospective employee could legally work here--would it be reasonable for Congress to expect that that would be a program that could be, at least in theory, implemented and usable? Mr. Donohue. Of course it would. If we make the system simpler, the paperwork simpler. You heard Dr. Massey tell you we have added of people, a bureaucracy of high significance, and we have gone from a third interdiction to 10 percent, and obviously we are making progress. But the issue that is fundamental here is, first of all, any company of size, any company that has a personnel department, a human resources department, any company that has sufficient size to be held responsible, is going to jump at that opportunity, and by the way, they do not only need low-end workers. We are in a major crisis on high-end workers. They all used to like to study here and then get an H1-B visa. They are going home to India and China to make their fortune. We have got an up end. But do not let us kid ourselves about the 20 million really small companies that are in certain kinds of businesses in this country that use temporary workers, that use seasonal workers, that use workers that have skills that are needed only part of the time. What we need is a system that is going to encourage them to be as reasonable as we can, but I am not going to sit here and tell you that this Government has any facility to stop entrepreneurs of great energy and courage and ambition from getting the wallboard put up on Tuesday. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Griswold, one of the frustrations that I hear expressed by people who are concerned about our inability to control the influx of illegal immigrants across our borders relates specifically to the cost imposed on two particular sectors of local communities by the Federal Government. For example, in the health care field, Federal law mandates that anyone who shows up at an emergency room in a hospital, regardless of their legal status, regardless of their ability to pay, must be seen and must be treated. We can all understand from a human compassion standpoint why that is important; however, it does impose a substantial financial burden on local communities. The other example relates to public education. From my own standpoint, it is better if people are going to be here that they be educated and be productive rather than the converse. Nevertheless, we see that in places around the country where the immigrant population is exploding that the burden put on local schools and on local taxpayers is increasing mightily, and there is frustration associated with that. Could you comment on how you believe that Congress could and should address those two issues? Mr. Griswold. And I think these are legitimate concerns that need to be taken seriously. The National Academy of Science just did a very thorough of immigration in about 1997, and they came to the conclusion that the typical immigrant and their descendants paid more in taxes than they take from the Government. So immigrants over their lifetime and their children--the big payoff is their children, who tend to be overachievers. So immigration is not an overall burden on taxpayers, but low-skilled immigrants of course do incur more costs, they pay fewer taxes. And the costs tend to be focused on the State and local level where these sorts of services are delivered. They are great for the Federal Government, the Social Security system, that sort of thing. They pay in and do not collect. One, I think we need to look at reforms within those sectors, and I am not about to offer any advice on reforming health care of education, but those need to be tampered with. We have got systems there that-- Chairman Cornyn. Feel free if you have any ideas. [Laughter.] Mr. Griswold. My colleagues at Cato have lots of advice, Cato.org. [Laughter.] Mr. Griswold. But I think one thing Congress could do is some kind of revenue sharing. The Federal Government tends to make a lot of money off of immigrants, whereas the costs are concentrated in the short term at the State and local level, some kind of cost sharing in terms of offsetting that. You know, frankly, these problems are not an immigrant problem, they have to do with low-income people, and they cause these sorts of burdens wherever they are, whether they are immigrants or not, and the ultimate answer is to help people get educated, get the skills they need to raise their income and their productivity, and be less of a burden to taxpayers. Chairman Cornyn. I appreciate your answer. I would just tell you that the Federal Government's track record in this area is abysmal. Coming from a border State where the costs of health care are borne by local communities--25 percent of the population in Texas is uninsured, and a large number of those are undocumented immigrants. So, the challenges are real and I hear what you are saying. It remains a big problem. Let me ask you, Professor Massey, we have heard from time to time a discussion of circularity of immigration patterns, and you have noted that by enhancing border security, assuming you would agree that that is what we have done, we have probably compounded the problem and forced people to stay in the United States who could be expected to return at least on a periodic basis to their country of origin. Could you address that and how you believe we could best respond to that phenomenon? Mr. Massey. That dovetails with your last question about the social costs of immigration. Of course there are inevitably some costs because you are not just bringing in labor, you are bringing in people. The problem is when it is underground there is nobody to pay and it usually falls heavily on State and especially local governments. The advantage of bringing it above board is that you can tax people and you can charge them a fee. We know the migrants are willing to pay now an average of $1,200 to get smuggled into the United States. So the Federal Government can undercut the coyotes and charge them $600. Over several hundred thousand people creates millions of dollars in revenue that you can use to create an insurance pool to pay for the services provided to temporary migrants when they get injured or sick and end up in an emergency room. And they will not be uninsured and the burden will not fall on the local hospitals. Second thing is, yes, by militarizing the border, the paradoxical effect is we really did not have very much of an effect in the inflow, but we had a huge effect on the outflow, and dramatically decreased the rate of return migration. So if you keep the inflow the same and you decrease the outflow, demographically only one outcome is possible, you are going to get a big population increase, and that is what has happened. But as people stay longer, what had been a flow of single men, as people stay longer, as the men stay longer, they naturally get lonesome and send for their family, and so it has also transformed it from a population of male workers into a settled population of families. That drives up the social and economic costs. You pay more for education. So by legalizing the people that are already here, and especially the children who really are an ongoing human tragedy in the United States, but legalizing those, putting their revenues into the tax pool, bringing it all above board, I think you will provide greater revenues for educating the second generation, and by creating a temporary worker program and demilitarizing the border a bit, you actually get higher rates of return migration so fewer people are going to settle here, and more people will go home. By militarizing the border we actually frustrate the desire of most Mexicans to return to Mexico and people who would otherwise work here a couple seasons and go back, repatriate their money, self-finance the construction of their house or start a business in Mexico, they end up here and then their kids come here, and then once your kid is here, you know, you start to build roots on this side of the border and it becomes a much more costly enterprise. So I think if we just try to manage it more rationally and reasonably, Mexico would be better off, we would be better off, the American workers would be better off, and the State and local governments would be better off. Chairman Cornyn. You mentioned people of course returning back to Mexico after working here, assuming they could under some legal framework. It always struck me as being in the best interest both of the United States and of, for example, Mexico, not to have Mexico's workforce permanently leave that country and hollow it out in terms of the labor they need in order to develop their economy and provide opportunity there. But it also struck me as being in our best interest, even if we need a temporary workforce, or one that can go back and forth across the border, to encourage workers to return to their country of origin with the savings and the skills that they acquire in the United States to help develop their own country. This is one of the reasons I believe in trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, which is coming up, as one gentleman told me in Guatemala recently, he said, ``We want to export goods and services, not people.'' What I understood him to say is we would love to be able to create jobs and work in our home countries and export those goods and sell those elsewhere, rather than export our human capital and make ourselves poorer and less able to support ourselves. Mr. Donohue, you had a comment? Mr. Donohue. First of all, I associate myself with your analysis there, except for one thing. We are going to need a very significant permanent workforce. If you look across the border in Mexico and look at the extraordinary number of workers below 27, and you look across the border into the United States and see an aging workforce, this thing fits together in an extraordinary way. It is hard for some people to swallow. We certainly need a temporary workforce that is seasonal, but this country needs permanent workers all up and down the daisy chain because we are running out of them and it is very hard for the unions to stomach, it is very hard for people to look at this and say, you know, why did this happen? We have done this again and again and again in our country, which has given us the greatest gene pool in the history of the world, and it is important for everybody to understand we do not have a choice. Chairman Cornyn. One of the concerns that many have expressed about a system which would allow any worker to come here and qualify to work in a temporary worker program and then have a path permanent residency and perhaps citizenship, that that would create a virtual magnet for illegal immigration. Many point to the amnesty provisions of 1986 as an inducement to illegal immigration. People thought that if they get here, if they wait long enough, ultimately the Government would wave its magic wand and they would receive an amnesty and, thus, their illegal activity was rewarded. I would like to hear your comment. Mr. Donohue. I am not at all suggesting an open border. I mean, to say that anybody who wants to come here from anywhere in the world can come here tomorrow is not a practical or thoughtful solution. I think we need a clearer understanding of what kind of workers we need and how many we need, and we should start with the ones that are here and working and established roots and figure out a way under the various bills that are being discussed here to resolve that problem. Going forward, I think the idea on a temporary basis, as Dr. Massey indicated, of having a revolving system where people could come here seasonally and go home makes sense. The real challenge we have is to get from the idea to the practice, but we have to get there with a full understanding that we need a serious number of permanent workers and an ever-changing number of temporary workers. It is very, very hard for government writers of legislation and rules to deal with that, but we are going to have to find a way to do it. I am with those people that say we should not open up the borders and let every--you know, there are 1.3 billion people in China. I don't think we want to see 300 million of them show up here tomorrow. And there are ways we can do that. But in the Americas, where we are trying to--where we have one economy and we are trying now--we should at least try and do some of the things they were able to do in Europe. I think that there is a need for a dose of truth and then a way to sit down and try and figure out how to make this happen. And we will do anything we can to help you. The demand for people is going to be greater than the demand for energy. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Griswold? Mr. Griswold. Senator, could I just add that there were two mistakes made, I think, in the 1986 amnesty legalization. One was that it was an amnesty: You have been here before 1982, here is your green card. And they did jump ahead of the line. That sent the wrong signal. The other mistake was we did nothing about the flow coming in. There was no liberalization to allow people to come in legally. I don't think there is any Mexican worker--certainly the vast majority of them--who wouldn't prefer to come in legally to illegally. If you would give them this legal channel to come in, they will come in legally, and they will respond to demand. It is very expensive for a Mexican worker to come to the United States and be unemployed. Their lifetime savings disappear very rapidly trying to live here in the United States. So they tend to respond to demand. We are not going to get 10 million Mexicans coming in. They come in because they know there is a job. Often you have communities where the word gets out that there are jobs in Dalton, Georgia, or Laredo, Texas, or wherever, and they go there. So I don't think we need to fear that massive numbers are going to come in. We don't need to fear that they come in illegally if we have a legal way for them to come in. There is one historical precedent that I think we can learn from. We had the bracero program in the 1950s, and there are some lessons we can learn from that, too. That was a guest worker program. Workers were tied too closely to the employer. That gave the employer too much leverage. There was some abuse there. But we had illegal immigration in the early 1950s. The Eisenhower administration, in cooperation with Congress, significantly increased the number of visas available, and illegal immigration dropped dramatically because they could come in legally. And I think we can learn from that. Chairman Cornyn. On a related point, you mentioned this during your opening statement, Mr. Griswold. I know some of my colleagues, as a matter of fact, maybe all of my colleagues, are concerned that the immigrant labor pool will drive down the wages of people who are legally here in the country and working. Can you explain? I believe you say the immigrant labor pool is shaped like an hourglass and complements the native- born workforce rather than directly competes against it. Could you expand on that for a moment? Mr. Griswold. Yes, immigrants disproportionately tend to be concentrated on the higher end--you know, think a college physics professor--and on the lower end--a construction worker, a hotel worker; whereas, the American workforce skill spectrum tends to be bulging in the middle. And so, therefore, immigrants don't compete directly with the vast majority of Americans. In fact, the same National Academy of Sciences study I mentioned found there were only two groups that had downward pressure on their wages from immigration. One was other recent immigrants, which makes sense. They are similar to immigrants coming in. And the other were Americans without a high school degree. Now, if you are an adult in the U.S. workforce trying to get by in life, you are getting it from all sides if you do not have a high school degree--changing technology, an information economy. The answer is not to choke off the influx of immigration. It is to give those people the skills they need to be productive members of the workforce. Again, one thing we learned from history, when we had a large influx of immigrants 100 years ago, during the great migration, that also put downward pressure on lower-skilled wages. What that helped to start was the high school movement. It, in effect, raises the premium of having a high school degree, gives American kids one more reason to stay in school and get a high school degree. That is what we should be emphasizing. Chairman Cornyn. Dr. Massey, I think--well, I think it was Mr. Griswold, maybe I will ask him first, and then ask you to comment on this. You have referred a couple of times to mobility between labor sectors, and this is important to me because we have heard some proposals that deal just with, let's say, the ag industry. You mentioned the bracero program and one of the abuses being that it tied the workers too closely to the employers in a particular sector. Could you explain a little bit more about what you mean? Mr. Griswold. Yes, and I think you are on to something there, Senator. If a visa is tied to a particular employer, it gives that employer a lot of leverage. If that worker does not like their working conditions, they may face deportation. They lose their right to work if they do not work for that particular company. The best worker protection, I believe, is the ability to go across the street or out of State and get another job. You don't like the conditions, you don't like the pay, you find another job someplace, and that makes employers compete for labor. That is the best protection. So, one, I think for the individual worker, it is best to have mobility; but, second, for the U.S. economy. I don't want bureaucrats here in Washington deciding, you know, we need 100,000 workers for this sector, we need 200,000 workers for this sector. I think if we let workers come in responding to demand, as the economy changes and evolves, I would like those workers to have the freedom to move to other sectors. Maybe agriculture will not need as many workers as we think, but light manufacturing or the tourism industry will need more. So I think flexibility is the key, both for the individual worker and the U.S. economy. Chairman Cornyn. Professor Massey, do you have a different view, or the same? Mr. Massey. No, I agree completely. We have a mechanism for allocating people to jobs, and they are called labor markets. And if you believe that markets work, then you should set up a labor market so that it very efficiently allocates people to places they are needed. And you do not need a bureaucratic intermediary doing studies to figure out where the jobs are because that will take too long, it sucks up a lot of resources in between, it is inefficient. By the time you get the approval for the labor visa, conditions have probably changed, anyway. If you believe in markets, then you set up the markets and let them work. And you would do this by giving the migrants the visa and let them go to wherever the demand takes them. And they would not come here if there were no jobs. As Dan pointed out, it is very expensive to come to the United States. And they cannot stay very long unless they have a job. So it is more or less self-regulating. Chairman Cornyn. Mr. Donohue, I know you believe in markets. Do you have a different view, or the same? Mr. Donohue. Not at all. I share those views, but I would point out one in addition. Under the current system, employers spend a good deal of time trying to recruit workers, particularly those with legitimate visas, and, therefore, expect some period of time that the worker would stay with them. And we have to figure that out. I mean, if that leads to abuse, then that ought to be changed. But Dr. Massey just indicated, if the visa goes to you, sir, and you can go on the free market and find your work, then no one has a claim on you of any type. So if we could get from here to there, count me in. Chairman Cornyn. Well, very good. Thank you all for being here. We could continue this conversation, and no doubt will, for some time in the future. I know that we have a number of statements from some of our colleagues, those of Senator Kennedy and Senator Leahy, which will be made part of the record, without objection. We also have a letter from the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce that is supporting the efforts to deal with comprehensive immigration reform as others are. The letter will also be made part of the record, without objection. Thank you very much for your participation. We look forward to continuing to work with you and to seek your advice. There are a lot of different ideas pending even in the Senate, and everyone in the Senate is going to be contributing to this process. But on behalf of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank all of the witnesses. We will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, June the 2nd, for members to submit any additional documents into the record or to ask questions in writing of any of the panelists. With that, our hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3249.039