[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOW WOULD MILLIONS OF GUEST WORKERS IMPACT WORKING AMERICANS AND
AMERICANS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 24, 2004
__________
Serial No. 78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
92-672 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
STEVE KING, Iowa
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Full Committee Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 24, 2004
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 Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California........................................ 3
The Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona............................................... 4
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 5
The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Utah.................................................. 6
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Iowa.................................................. 7
The Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California........................................ 9
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 10
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 42
WITNESSES
Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Dr. Frank Morris, Chairman of the Board, Diversity Alliance for a
Sustainable America
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Mr. Roy Beck, Executive Director, NumbersUSA Education and
Research Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
Mr. Muzaffar Chishti, Director, Migration Policy Institute, New
York University School of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 35
Prepared Statement............................................. 36
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Chris Cannon, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Utah
Letter of Support for S. 1645 and H.R. 3142.................... 69
Prepared Statement of Bob Stallman, President, American Farm
Bureau Federation (AFBF)..................................... 78
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Legislative Alert............... 79
Letter from Robert Guenther, Vice President, Public Policy, the
United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association................... 80
Release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................... 81
The Weekly Standard Article.................................... 82
Release from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC). 86
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Holt, on behalf of the
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform and the
National Council of Agricultural Employers................... 87
Wall Street Journal Article.................................... 98
National Foundation for American Policy Report................. 99
Wall Street Journal Article.................................... 122
Release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................... 123
Letter from J.R. Gonzales, Chairman of the Board, the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce................................. 124
Material submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a
Representative in Congress From the State of California
Letter from Vibiana Andrade, Acting President, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)......... 125
Letter from Manuel Mirabal, Chair, the National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda (NHLA)..................................... 128
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a
Representative in Congress From the State of California........ 130
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas............. 130
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Virginia.......... 131
HOW WOULD MILLIONS OF GUEST WORKERS IMPACT WORKING AMERICANS AND
AMERICANS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N.
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order.
There has recently been much discussion of the creation of
an expansive new guest worker program to meet the needs of
employers for low-skilled workers. A number of plans have been
proposed that would allow the employers of the estimated 5.7
million illegal aliens working in the U.S. to sponsor the
aliens for guest worker status. In addition, the plans would
allow employers to import, as guest workers, an unlimited
number of aliens living outside the U.S. who could work in any
occupation as long as they were paid at least the minimum wage.
This hearing will consider the impact that such mass guest
worker programs could have on American workers and unemployed
Americans. We already have evidence of the impact that low-
skilled immigration has had on American workers. Harvard's
George Borjas estimates that the immigrant influx since 1980
has decreased the wages of the average native worker by 3.2
percent and the average native worker without a high school
degree by 8.9 percent. Steve Camarota from the Center for
Immigration Studies estimates that current immigration policy
has resulted in a reduction of the average wage of a native
worker in a low-skilled occupation by 12 percent or a little
over $1,900 a year.
Think just of teenagers. The Boston Globe recently ran an
article finding that, quote, for people of all ages, the
current U.S. job market is a tough one. For teenagers, it is
brutal. The weak economy has forced adults to seek the low-
skill, low-wage jobs that teens usually occupy. On top of that,
a continuing inflow of immigrants has created still more
competition at the bottom of the job market. The net result?
Teenagers are being elbowed aside.
The youth labor market is in a depression, said Neil
Sullivan, president of the Boston Private Industry Council, a
group that finds jobs for young people. According to a new
study by Andrew Sum, a professor at the Center for Labor Market
Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, the percentage of
16- to 19-year-olds holding jobs in the United States is the
lowest it has been since the Government began tracking
statistics in 1948. For middle class youth, having no job may
mean there is less money for clothes and cars. For poor
teenagers, the loss is more serious, end quote.
One could say that wages for American workers have already
been depressed as a result of competition with millions of
illegal alien workers and that legalizing the illegal aliens
would have no further negative effect. This would be a
plausible argument if one has forever given up on returning
these illegal aliens to their homes.
Of course, we have an untried alternative: simply to
enforce employer sanctions that would, year-by-year, brighten
the prospects for American workers. But put amnesty aside, for
example. A guest worker program would accomplish much more than
legalizing illegal aliens. It would also allow employers to
fill literally every job vacancy in America with aliens as long
as they could find prospects abroad who would accept the
minimum wage, while American workers refuse to work for such a
sum.
And it would allow those same employers to dismiss any
American worker who was unwilling to work for $5.15 an hour.
Suddenly, American workers would be faced with the prospect of
hundreds of millions of new potential replacements. Most
threatened are the almost 12 million native-born workers who do
not have high school degrees plus the millions of such
Americans who are unemployed or who have abandoned the work
force altogether.
But many more are at risk. Although we are told that native
born Americans won't work in service jobs, 79 percent of the 23
million workers in such jobs are native-born Americans.
Although we are told that native born Americans won't work in
construction jobs, 81 percent of the 6 million workers in such
jobs are native-born Americans. Although we are told that
native-born Americans won't work in production jobs, 77 percent
of the 10 million workers in such jobs are native-born
Americans.
How many of these native born workers will lose their jobs
to recruits from abroad if we create a massive guest worker
program? Currently, 90 percent of workers in service jobs, 99
percent of workers in construction jobs and 99 percent of
workers in production jobs earn more than the minimum wage. How
many of these workers will lose their jobs to recruits from
abroad or be forced to accept drastically lowered wages if we
create a mass guest worker program?
We might see more and more occupations suffer the fate of
meat packing. A few decades ago, meat packing jobs were some of
the highest-paying blue collar jobs around. I think we can all
remember Sylvester Stallone working in a Philadelphia meat
packing plant as he trained to take on Apollo Creed. But today,
meat packing jobs are not only low-paying but they are also
some of the most dangerous jobs in America. Not coincidentally,
this has been accompanied by a large flow of immigrant workers.
Can we at least be sure that in times of recession, guest
workers will have to go home before American workers will lose
their jobs? Not if we rely on the experience of the economic
downturn that started in 2000. From 2000 to 2003, the number of
employed native-born workers dropped by 769,000, while the
number of employed foreign born workers increased by over 1.6
million. American workers, it seems, bore the brunt of the
recession.
Before we embark on the journey toward a mass guest worker
program, let us view the destination through the eyes of those
it is our job to protect.
At this time, I would like to recognize that the Ranking
Member, Sheila Jackson Lee, is actually going to be managing a
bill on the floor of the House very shortly, and that is why
she was absent, but the Chair will recognize her when she
returns for her opening statement.
At this time, the Chair recognizes, on the minority side,
Ms. Sanchez or Mr. Berman for an opening statement.
Mr. Berman. Well, I don't have a prepared opening
statement, but as I heard the Chairman's opening statement,
there are certain ironies that I can't help myself but pointing
out.
I'm not a big fan of guest worker programs. But as I
listened to the Chairman cite the statistics regarding the
displacement of U.S. workers, the thing I did not hear him say
was this had nothing to do with guest worker programs. I find
it interesting when the people who are most--where you start
sort of shapes how you define this issue. People who oppose
increases in the minimum wage law, extension of unemployment
insurance benefits, stripping overtime pay from large numbers
of people, have generally been hostile to efforts to reform and
strengthen our labor laws to enhance the power of workers to
attain better wages bemoan the role that guest worker programs
play in depressing wages and displacing U.S. workers from jobs,
notwithstanding their opposition to all of the legislative
efforts that I just mentioned.
On the same--and the other irony is that some of the people
who are most strongly supporting guest worker programs never
want to acknowledge the potential that it has not simply for
filling urgent labor needs where there are shortages but in
actually displacing and deterring people in the United States
from taking those jobs, even as they advocate those programs on
behalf of workers generally.
The fact is, if you have meaningful enforcement, one could
structure guest worker programs very readily to deal with
situations where there are key labor shortages and provide the
kinds of protections that ensured that employers were not
incentivized to go to guest workers before they exhausted the
supply of U.S. workers, but the people who oppose guest worker
programs never entertain the idea of supporting meaningful
protections in the guest worker programs that exist now.
And the fact is that a relatively small number of workers
in the U.S. come from legal guest worker programs. The issue of
job displacement has essentially hardly anything to do with the
existing guest worker programs, and I just find it interesting
to hear the concern about the plight of U.S. workers expressed
by people opposed to the Administration's proposal and others--
and I have my own very strong concerns about what I view as the
ineffectiveness of the Administration's proposals, but and then
are so hostile to any efforts to try and protect U.S. workers.
And with those comments, I'll yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Flake, for an opening statement.
Mr. Flake. I thank the Chairman.
I just want to register my objection, to begin with, with
the structure of this hearing. We have hearing after hearing on
the immigration issue, and unless the minority party is able to
get somebody who has a different opinion, those of us in the
majority party who have a differing view aren't really
represented or don't have witnesses to actually speak to other
parts of the issue.
And so, I feel that we're not going to hear a
representative view today; the title of the hearing, ``How
would millions of guest workers impact working Americans and
Americans seeking employment,'' sounds like an ominous kind of
warning about what's going to come. And I have to tell you,
it's already here. Those who worry about the Bush plan and
those who call it an amnesty, which it is not, are not
recognizing that we have a de facto amnesty at present. Once
you get past the border, and I can say that from an Arizona
perspective, you are home free.
We have a situation where the border leaks heavily still,
but it only leaks one way. It used to be that the average stay
of a migrant worker in Arizona was about 2 years; now, it's
about 10, because it is tough to cross that border. It is
expensive. It is dangerous. And they figure I only want to do
it once, and they come and stay, and they typically now bring
their families, which imposes huge costs on the State of
Arizona and its taxpayers in health care and education and
criminal justice.
We will never enforce the law like we need to do unless we
recognize that we have the need for labor. I just want to take
issue with a few things said. We were told that native-born
Americans will not take work in construction or in the
hospitality industry or in agriculture. I don't think we've
ever been told that. I mean, I grew up in agriculture. I took
that job when it was forced upon me, at least.
But there are a lot of native-born Americans. The problem
is there aren't a sufficient number of them. And anybody who
speaks to contractors and others in Arizona will find that out
very quickly: the restaurant association and the construction
trades, there simply aren't a sufficient number of Americans
willing to take those jobs. And it's not because they're
minimum wage jobs. Few of them are. In fact, some of them are
paying much higher, double, triple the minimum wage and still
have difficulty filling those jobs.
Under the guest worker plan, the temporary worker plan that
myself and Congressman Kolbe and Senator McCain have offered,
it would protect American workers in that in order to have
somebody come in on what we call an H-4A visa, the employer
would have to pay a $500 fee in order to be able to import
somebody. That is a pretty good deterrent against importing
somebody, I would believe, and the employers that I talked to
would all much rather have a native-born American fill those
jobs if they can do it.
So there is plenty of deterrent there from doing it. I just
do not accept the premise that there are some people will say,
well, there are 10 million unemployed, and there are 10 million
foreign workers in the country. Do the math; just replace one
with the other. That assumes that it is the Federal
Government's job to say to an unemployed school teacher in
Maine, you have got to go roof houses in Arizona or an
unemployed mill worker in Ohio to say you've got to go pick
lettuce in Yuma.
It is just--unless you accept that that is the Federal
Government's role, then, you are going to have pockets with
labor shortages at different times, and we ought to have a
program, and I believe the President's plan is a step forward
in the right direction in actually addressing that, to actually
recognize that we're not going to enforce the law until we
recognize we need a law that can be reasonably enforced.
Enforcing employer sanctions at the moment is like trying
to enforce a 20 mile an hour speed limit on a freeway. You're
simply not going to do it. We do not have the political will or
wherewithal to do it. And unless we get a law reasonable enough
to enforce, we're not going to enforce the law, and so, that's
why I say let's recognize that we have a need, and that's what
I want to hear from the witnesses today: is there a recognition
that there is a need, or are we just simply going to dismiss
that and say hey, we're going to deport everybody who's here?
Some worker who has been in the country for a couple of
years who has kids that are born here who can legally stay, are
we going to send them back to Guatemala or El Salvador or
Mexico? And with the child here, are we really going to do
that? Absent that, what is the solution? What can we do?
So I would like to hear some real solutions and not just
explanations of the problem; believe me, coming from Arizona,
we know the problem. We're paying for it disproportionately.
Our citizens are taxed heavily to do so. So we have got to find
a solution, and that is what we are looking for, and with that,
I would yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired.
In response to the gentleman, I have spoken about the issue
of this hearing and the perspective of the majority witnesses;
however, I will note that it is my observation of the other
chamber's proceedings and the emanations from the
Administration that I am not sure that the other perspective is
not represented in the debate today, and so, it is my desire
here to potentially be a voice crying out in the wilderness
with another point of view.
That being said, the Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Utah. Oh, I am sorry; the gentleman from Michigan, the
Ranking Member of the full Committee wish to be recognized?
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I won't delay the witnesses. I've been told there have been
some very excellent opening statements. And I've never done
this before, but I'd like to associate myself with the remarks
of Mr. Flake. I hope it does not---- [Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield? Because I would like
to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Flake as well, and
it is good company; thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Right, because this is an issue that smashes
together some very important and different considerations, and
it's an enormous task, and I think that he's looking at it from
the point of view of the importance of separating them out, and
that's what I'm trying to do as well.
Immigration, our domestic economy, where this new plan of
letting everybody in for 3 years and seriously expect them to
leave is a real test on our powers of belief. And so, I come to
this with this one consideration to the witnesses: You know, we
have an agricultural system that calls for everybody in the
world doing the dirty work but us. We don't want to pay them.
We don't want them, sure, to stay in town. Please leave as soon
as you've done the stoop labor.
And of course, we're not really that happy to make you
citizens. And we have an agriculture, one of the biggest
subsets of our economy, that's dependent on all, mostly,
immigrant labor. And it presents several different kinds of
problems that you can't solve by one quick happy bill to fit
everybody. And I hope the distinguished witnesses will keep
this in mind as we go forward.
And I thank the Chairman for allowing this intervention.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Cannon, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
May I inquire, do we expect to do a couple of rounds of
questioning today?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Great; thank you.
Let me just point out that the Chairman talked about a lot
of statistics relating to jobs, and I'd like to share an
anecdote from my district to point out that we do not live in a
statistical world; that individuals make individual decisions
with individual opportunities, and so we actually sort of live
in an anecdotal world as opposed to a statistical world.
I have a dairy that was in my district before it was
redistricted, but I still stay in touch with these folks, and I
was visited the other day by--in fact this is several months
ago--by the owner of the dairy who told me that he is--
actually, I raised the topic, because I wondered what was going
on in our labor markets in Utah, and I asked him how much he
paid, and he said, well, we pay $12 cash, but with benefits and
housing, our cost per employee is about $18 an hour.
That was a pretty stunning number. And so, I have been
accosted at least three times by mothers who are complaining
about their sons not being able to get jobs. I suppose
daughters are not part of the equation when it comes to
immigration. But in any event, I have pointed out to all three
of these women that there is a job nearby that pays essentially
$18 an hour.
I have not had one of them respond that--in fact, I know
that none of their sons have tried to get a job there. I
suspect that's because working in a dairy is actually hard
work. We have about 650,000 farms in the United States that
hired labor, and $1 of every $8 of farm production expenses is
spent on hired labor. We have approximately 2.5 million people
working in the United States who are engaged in hired
agricultural work, and conservative estimates are that 65 to 75
percent of them are in the U.S. illegally.
We have a legal program, the H-2A program, for admitting
and employing aliens in seasonal agricultural jobs in the
United States, and it's currently employing about 30,000
workers. There is something radically wrong with this picture.
We have an illegal guest worker program that is providing
nearly three-quarters of the agricultural labor employed in
this country and a dysfunctional legal guest worker program
that is providing less than 2 percent, or fewer than 2 percent,
of the agricultural labor that is employed in the country.
There are more than three times as many Americans with good
jobs in agriculture and in the up and downstream jobs, food
processing, transportation, farm credit, et cetera, supported
by American agriculture than there are illegal aliens employed
in U.S. agriculture. These are the working Americans and
Americans seeking employment who will be adversely affected by
the failure of this Congress to enact the agricultural labor
and guest worker reform.
Their jobs or the prospect of getting jobs are dependent on
our fixing this broken system and preserving agricultural
production in this country. I will submit for the record a
statement that discusses in detail the impact of guest workers
on agriculture and American agricultural jobs and why it is
essential that we enact H.R. 3142, Ag Jobs, the agricultural
immigration reform legislation that I have introduced.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King,
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I sincerely appreciate your holding this hearing today, and
I want to tell you that I support an immigration policy that
are designed to enhance the economic, the social, and the
cultural wellbeing of the United States of America. That should
be the purpose for immigration policies. And I cannot and will
not support a guest worker program that gives mass amnesty to
people who violate our immigration laws.
Immigrants have made and will continue to make valuable
contributions to our nation. I will work to develop an
immigration policy that aids in the assimilation of newcomers
by ensuring that the United States does not admit more
immigrants than it can reasonably accommodate and assimilate.
Assimilation is valuable to immigrants as much as it is to
the native-born Americans. Immigrants benefit from our shared
American culture of personal responsibility, freedom and
patriotism. The values shared by our civilization, founded on a
heritage of Western civilization, religious freedom and free
enterprise capitalism serve immigrants and native born alike.
I'm concerned that the recent rise in immigration levels in
this country will make it difficult for newcomers to assimilate
and to find jobs, but we must assure cultural continuity for
our great nation. That's the key word is cultural continuity.
I believe we must enforce immigration laws currently on our
books rather than hold out the prospect of legal status or
citizenship to immigrant lawbreakers. We must increase
immigration law enforcement not only at our borders but in our
interior, and we must make it more costly for lawbreakers to
disregard our immigration laws. It is unjust to reward people
who break our immigration laws and while many potential
immigrants outside the United States are waiting to be admitted
to the United States lawfully.
If we allow people who break rules by entering the United
States illegally to go to the front of the immigration line,
it's a slap in the face to law-abiding immigrants and potential
guest workers. I owned and operated a construction business for
over 28 years and met payroll for over 1,400 consecutive
months, and I empathize with the plight of employers who do all
they can to comply with the laws but must compete with
businesses who do not obey the laws, businesses who hire
illegals and thus gain an additional competitive advantage.
We've got to give employers the tools they need to find out
whether a potential employee is allowed to work in the United
States, and we must make sure that any temporary guest worker
program is effective. Finally, we must give some relief to
employers who comply with our immigration laws but are
constantly disadvantaged by competitors who do not.
Now, in the construction industry, in the agricultural
industry, I look, too, and I see that there are jobs, as Mr.
Flake said, that there's hardly you can describe that some
Member of Congress has not done; not always by choice but some
by assignment. And there is a preference by employers for
illegals, because illegals aren't going to cause you the
problems. They're not going to go and file a lawsuit, and they
are not going to raise an employment problem, and they are not
going to have a bad back on certain days.
They're not going to take those days off and game the
system. And so not only are they cheaper to hire, but they're
cheaper to maintain. And that is an advantage that is just a
common calculus. This is a free enterprise economy. That's why
it is that way. I'm not blaming the employers. I am blaming the
policy that we have out here and our unwillingness to enforce
the policy. So it's the market's job to attract employees. I
remember a situation, a story written in Milwaukee some years
ago, about six blocks by six blocks, 36 square blocks, where
there was not a single employed male head of household. Those
people had moved up from the South, and 30, 40, 50 years ago to
take the brewery jobs in Milwaukee, and when those jobs
disappear, they find themselves unemployed and living there.
But because we have a system that funds people who stay in
those homes, they did not migrate then and take the next wave
and go where the jobs were. The market has got to attract
people, and we should not be attracting them at a cheaper rate
from a foreign country and ignoring our laws.
And by the way, where I come from, we had 11 illegals who
died tragically in a train car that arrived at Denison, Iowa.
And that affected our entire community and our entire State in
the Midwest, and it affects the policy in the United States.
And the people who go out and move illegals into this country
and profit from it are the most despicable variety of criminal.
And we have a circumstances, when we deal with coyotes, where I
come from, we just skin them.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Sanchez, for an opening statement.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
And I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for
convening another Subcommittee hearing to examine an important
issue that is related to immigration. Today, we are going to be
looking at the issue of how guest workers impact American
workers and Americans looking for jobs. And it is interesting
because this hearing brings together two issues that are
extremely important to me, immigration and labor.
I believe that hardworking law-abiding people who immigrate
to this country should have every opportunity to work so that
they can provide for their families, and if they choose to, to
America their new home. I also feel that undocumented
immigrants who have been in this country for years contributing
to American businesses and to our economy should have a chance
to earn legal status and a stake in this country so that they
can contribute to the United States permanently.
I just want to remind everybody here that we should not
forget that immigrant labor is what helped to build this
country and what continues to help build our economy.
Obviously, however, American workers helped build and sustain
this country as well. You will not find a stronger advocate for
American workers than myself. I'm a proud member of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and I'm a co-
chair and founding member of the Congressional Labor and
Working Families Caucus.
Simply put, I fully support American workers and want their
jobs and their families to be protected. I am confident that we
can create a guest worker program that makes sure that American
jobs are secure and also lets law-abiding immigrants work
toward earned legalization in this country. As this
Subcommittee and this Congress work on immigration reform and
specifically guest worker reform, we have to take the rights
and the needs of both immigrant workers and American workers
into consideration.
The enhanced temporary worker program that is part of the
Democratic principles on immigration reform accomplishes these
goals. The Democratic principles create a guest worker program
that lets immigrant workers move back and forth between their
home country and the United States so they can fill open job
opportunities and provide for their families. The Democratic
guest worker program will also protect the immigrant workers
from abusive employers, exploitation and unfair wages, and this
is extremely important because if shady employers can abuse
immigrant workers, it undermines the labor conditions for
American workers as well and makes it easier for employers to
demand that they accept lower wages and poor working
conditions.
Another way to protect American workers is to make the
guest worker program market-focused so that U.S. workers do not
lose their jobs. All of these concerns must be addressed to
have a guest worker program that benefits immigrants and
protects American workers. We must remember that the guest
worker program has to be part of the comprehensive immigration
reform plan that lets immigrants work their way to legal status
and also lets immigrant families stay together.
We need to completely overhaul our immigration system and
guest worker laws to improve the labor market system so that it
can help foster growth in jobs and the economy. I look forward
to hearing from the witnesses today, and I thank them for
taking the time to come to testify before the Subcommittee and
answer our questions. I hope they can find ways to create a
workable, enhanced guest worker program that benefits both
immigrants and American workers. And I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes that Members of the Judiciary
Committee are managing bills, managing legislation on the floor
of the House of Representatives. As a result of the rules of
the Committee, the Subcommittee must, for the time being,
recess subject to the call of the chair until such time as the
Judiciary Committee has ended its management of legislation on
the floor of the House.
I apologize to members of the panel and Members of the
Subcommittee. My understanding is that this will not be a very
long recess, but we will have to recess for the time being. And
we will contact all of you when we will reconvene.
The Subcommittee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hostettler. The Subcommittee will come to order.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ought to say at the outset that earlier in the day,
before we started the hearing, you were discouraging opening
statements. But it is sort of like the border: once you start
crossing that threshold, there is almost no stopping all the
Members of Congress. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is to thank you for
having this hearing, which I consider to be one of the most
important we've ever held, and I say that because it involves
not only immigration policy, but it involves American workers'
jobs and the wages that they receive, and I think nothing could
be more important than that subject.
While the hearing itself is not specifically on the
Administration's guest worker program, clearly, that is
inferred by the subject of the hearing. So I just wanted to say
briefly again what the Administration guest worker program
involves that so concerns many of us. First of all, the
Administration has proposed a guest worker plan that opens up
every job in America, not just ag jobs, not just low-skilled
jobs, but opens up every job in America to foreign workers,
foreign guest workers. Everything from a high tech job to an ag
worker job only has to be paid the minimum wage in order for
them to be eligible for any job in America.
And I find that a little scary. An employer, supposedly,
has to make an effort to try to find an American worker, but we
do not know what is required by that effort. We don't know if
it's a bona fide effort or not, but we do know that it would be
very easy for an employer to say, well, I cannot find anybody
here, so I am going to take the other route, which is cheap
foreign labor, and I think that's the great temptation.
Another aspect of the Administration's plan concerns me,
and it is this: that they have said in a briefing, after the
Administration unveiled their guest worker program, that if you
already are hiring illegal immigrants, you don't have to make
an effort to find an American for those jobs. That is also
scary when it comes to worrying about American jobs and
American wages.
It seems to me that given that any job is now eligible;
that you only have to pay the minimum wage; that unless we
repeal common sense and the law of supply and demand, you are
inevitably going to displace American workers and depress
American wages, and that should be unacceptable to any policy
maker in America.
We really have two choices, Mr. Chairman. We can either
give up, surrender, or we can enforce the law. And the analogy
that I like best is that if we were living in a house that was
regularly burglarized; say, every month, our house is broken
into, well, we can leave the front door unlocked, or we can
pass out keys to the would-be burglars or we can get better
locks and ask the police to patrol the neighborhood a little
bit more frequently.
I think we should do the latter. I think we should enforce
the law, not give up, not surrender and, in effect, open up
every job in America to anybody who is willing to work for a
minimum wage.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting if not ironic
that many of the individuals who support guest worker programs
otherwise often profess to be on the side of low-income workers
and minorities. And yet, almost every study that I am aware of
by conservative or liberal think tanks have said that it is
exactly those workers, the minorities and the low-skilled
workers, who are disproportionately and adversely impacted by
guest workers. So I am surprised by the position that some
individuals take in support of the guest worker programs when,
in effect, the people that they profess to care the most about
are the ones that are most often hurt.
Mr. Chairman, that is enough said; and I'll yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair will now introduce members of the panel before
us.
Mark Krikorian is currently the executive director of the
Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan research
organization devoted exclusively to research and policy
analysis of the economic, social and other impacts of
immigration on the United States. Mr. Krikorian frequently
testifies before Congress and has published articles in the
Washington Post, the New York Times, Commentary, National
Review and other publications.
He has also appeared on 60 Minutes, Nightline, the News
Hour with Jim Lehrer, CNN, National Public Radio and many other
television and radio programs. Mr. Krikorian holds a master's
degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a
bachelor's degree from Georgetown University. Before joining
CIS in 1995, Mr. Krikorian worked in the editorial and writing
fields.
Dr. Frank Morris presently serves as the chairman of the
board for the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America. Dr.
Morris had a distinguished career in academia and was most
recently a visiting professor of social sciences at the
University of Texas at Dallas. In 1995, Dr. Morris retired as
the dean of graduate studies and research at Morgan State
University in Baltimore, Maryland. He was involved in
development for historically black colleges and universities'
graduate programs.
Dr. Morris has also worked in various nonacademic
capacities, including experience as executive director of the
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and as a senior foreign
service officer at the U.S. Agency for International
Development. Dr. Morris received his B.A. with high honors from
Colgate University, a master's in public administration from
the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, and a Ph.D. in
political science from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Roy Beck is the executive director of the NumbersUSA
Education and Research Foundation. Mr. Beck is founder of the
NumbersUSA Foundation and was labeled as, quote, one of the
five leading thinkers in the national immigration debate, end
quote, by the Houston Chronicle. He has authored four public
policy books and has contributed to many major newspapers. Mr.
Beck's career in journalism spanned three decades and won him
nearly two dozen awards, including a citation from the
Encyclopedia Britannica for one of the five most important
writings of 1994 with his investigative report, Ordeal of
Immigration in Wausau.
Roy Beck was formerly chief Washington correspondent for
Booth Newspapers. Mr. Beck received a Bachelor of Journalism
from the University of Missouri School of Journalism.
Muzaffar Chishti is director of the Migration Policy
Institute or MPI, offices at New York University School of Law.
He focuses on U.S. immigration policy and its relation to labor
and immigration laws, civil liberties and immigrant
integration. Prior to joining MPI, Mr. Chishti was director of
the Immigration Project of the Union of Needle Traders,
Industrial and Textile Employees. Mr. Chishti has testified
extensively on immigration and refugee legislation and, in
1992, assisted the Russian parliament as part of a U.S. team in
drafting Russian legislation on immigrants and refugees.
For his efforts, he was awarded the New York State
Governor's Award for Outstanding Americans in 1994, and he is
also a 1995 recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Mr.
Chishti studied at St. Stephen's College in Delhi, the School
of Law at the University of Delhi, Cornell Law School and the
Columbia School of International Affairs.
Gentlemen, thank you for your appearance today. Without
objection, all of your written statements will be entered into
the record, and Mr. Krikorian, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the Committee.
I want to address some of the assumptions that underlie
guest worker programs, not any specific legislative proposal.
And I am going to examine three assumptions, but let me first
start with one that I'm not going to examine and that is that
guest workers will actually go home. Nothing in human history
contradicts the insight that there is nothing more permanent
than a temporary worker, and this is why none of the guest
worker programs before Congress really even pretends to be a
temporary worker program; rather, they are simply avenues for
permanent immigration.
The three assumptions I want to examine briefly are these:
first, that immigration is an unstoppable force that we have to
accommodate one way or another. The second assumption that
underlies support for guest worker programs is that foreign
workers are essential, because there is work that won't be done
without them. And third is the assumption that the Federal
Government actually has the capacity to properly manage
whatever kind of guest worker program we put into effect.
Let me begin with the first one: Is immigration inevitable?
Is it really like the weather or the tides that we have to
accommodate, either ignoring it, and it will come in illegally,
or deal with it in a legal way and turn it into a guest worker
program. The fact is that immigration is not like the weather.
It is not an inevitable force. People usually discuss
immigration in terms of pushes and pulls, poverty in the
sending country, prosperity and liberty in our country.
But the fact is that something has to connect those two
countries. There have to be networks. Nobody wakes up in
Timbuktu and says this morning, I will move to Buffalo. People
go where they have relatives, where they have friends, where
they have connections, and Government policy creates those
connections. Specifically with regard to Mexico, the Bracero
Program, which was the guest worker program we ran for about 20
years starting in World War II set in motion, created the
networks and set in motion the illegal immigration that we have
been dealing with ever since. The IRCA amnesty of 1986
refreshed and expanded those networks, and the Federal
Government's abandonment of interior immigration enforcement
has again further strengthened those networks that cause
immigration.
And the result is that the Mexican immigrant population has
grown from 800,000 in 1970 to 10 million today. And in dealing
with that, I will be happy to elaborate on in questions, we can
in fact control this through attrition, through ordinary law
enforcement causing the illegal population to shrink over time
rather than look at only the two options of amnesty or mass
roundups.
The second assumption is that immigrants do jobs that
Americans won't do is the way it is usually put, although I
appreciate Congressman Flake's insight that there in fact is no
such thing as a job that an American won't do; that there are
some 17 million Americans of working age who have less than a
high school education.
But the fact remains, as Mr. Flake said, that a teacher in
Maine is probably not going to be doing roofing in Arizona, if
that's what happens. So the question is what happens if we
don't have a guest worker program and we do enforce the
immigration laws? And employers would respond in two ways: one,
they would increase wages, benefits and change working
conditions to get more people to work for them, and that would
have a significant effect. The other thing they would do is
find ways of making their existing workers more productive, so
that a smaller number of workers would be able to do more work.
I would commend to you a story in the New York Times, the
front page of the New York Times Monday which described this
process in agriculture, and the reverse of this is very
important to keep in mind, and that is that immigration, high
levels of immigration, whether it is illegal immigration or
guest worker programs, actually slow the process of
productivity improvements, such that a guest worker program,
whether it's illegal immigration, which is a kind of de facto
program, or a formal guest worker program is actually a threat
to the long-term viability, the long-term competitive position
of American business, and this is not merely in agriculture.
In garment manufacturing, for instance, Southern California
Edison did a report about how apparel manufacturers in Southern
California had become inordinately dependent on cheap labor.
And this had caused them to ignore investments in technology
that even their low cost competitors overseas were making. So a
guest worker program is potentially a serious threat to
American business.
And the third assumption is administrative feasibility,
that the Federal Government, regardless of the economic and
other arguments, that the Federal Government actually has the
ability to manage a guest worker program properly, and this
clearly does not exist. The immigration authorities have a
backlog of more than 6 million applications of various kinds
they have to deal with. This backlog has increased by some 60
percent just in 2 years. The immigration service is being
instructed by this body, and appropriately so, to implement
vast new tracking systems for foreign visitors and foreign
students.
There is a reorganization process where the new Homeland
Security Department is still being put together. And the Labor
Department would have to manage any worker protections or wage
protections which would end up in any guest worker program,
which would inevitably be there in anything that was passed.
The fact is that none of those things could be managed
properly by an overwhelmed agency, and the result would be
massive fraud, as we saw with a similar vast program managed by
an overwhelmed agency, the INS, in the amnesty in 1986, which
gave legal status to Mahmud Abouhalima, an illegal alien in New
York who applied for and got a green card, something the
immigration service was not really able to vet and prevent
because it was overwhelmed.
And the result was not just Mr. Abouhalima but dozens of
terrorists have used our overwhelmed immigration system to
enter the country. Now, the existence of an illegal alien
terrorist does not delegitimize immigration as such, but what
it tells us is that our mechanism for controlling and screening
immigration simply is not up to the job, and a guest worker
program would, and I say this as a certainty, and please quote
me, it is guaranteed to admit terrorists into the United States
because of our administrative incapacity.
I've gone over time. I will be happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krikorian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Krikorian
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to speak before you. Rather than discuss the many specific
guestworker proposals that have been introduced in this Congress, I'd
like to take this opportunity to examine some of the premises
underlying guestworker programs in general. In other words, what things
must be true in order for a guestworker program to be advisable? If
those things are not true, then the adoption of a guestworker program
would be a mistake.
There are many premises or assumptions behind support for a
guestworker program, but I will examine only three of the more
important ones. I will not examine the assumption that guestworkers
will actually return home; every example in human history has shown
that to be false, because there is nothing more permanent than a
temporary worker. It is perhaps for that reason that none of the
guestworker programs before Congress even pretends to be a temporary
worker program; instead, all of them provide for permanent immigration.
The assumptions I will examine are three: 1) Immigration is an
unstoppable force that we have to accommodate one way or another; 2)
Foreign workers are essential because there is work that simply cannot
be done without them; and 3) The federal government has the capacity to
manage a guestworker program properly.
IS IMMIGRATION INEVITABLE?
The bedrock assumption underlying the debate of the last several
years over guestworker programs is that the flow of workers from Mexico
and elsewhere is unstoppable--a natural phenomenon like the weather or
the tides, which we are powerless to stop. Therefore, it is said,
managing the flow in an orderly and lawful manner is preferable to the
alternative. As one observer recently said, ``The mission to Mars is
probably easier than the attempt to control the border.''
On the surface, the flow of Mexican immigration, in particular, may
indeed seem inevitable; it is very large, rapidly growing, and
spreading throughout the country. But a longer view shows that this
flow has been created in large part by government policies, both in the
United States and Mexico. And, government policy having created the
migration flows, government policy can interrupt the flows, though a
social phenomenon like this is naturally more difficult to stop than to
start.
Migration is often discussed in terms of pushes and pulls--poverty,
corruption, oppression, and general societal dysfunction impel people
to leave their homelands, while liberty, high wages, and expanded
economic and social opportunities attract people to this country. While
true, this analysis is incomplete because it overlooks the connection
between the sending country and the receiving country.
No one wakes up in Timbuktu and says, ``Today I will move to
Buffalo!''--migration takes place by way of networks of relatives,
friends, acquaintances, and fellow countrymen, and few people immigrate
to a place where these connections are absent. Consider two countries
on the other side of the planet--the Philippines and Indonesia. Both
have large, poor populations, they are neighbors and share many
cultural similarities, yet there are more than one million Filipino
immigrants in the United States and only a handful of Indonesians, and
annual immigration from the Philippines is routinely 40-50 times
greater than immigration from Indonesia. Why? Because the ties between
the United States and the Philippines are numerous and deep, our having
colonized the country for 50 years and maintained an extensive military
presence there for another 50 years. On the other hand, the United
States has very few ties to Indonesia, whose people tend to migrate to
the Netherlands, its former colonial ruler.
At the end of the Mexican War in 1848, there were only a small
number of Mexican colonists living in the Southwest, many of whom soon
returned to Mexico with the Mexican government's assistance. The
migration of Mexican workers began in a small way with the construction
of the railroads beginning in the 1870s and later with the expansion of
other industries. But the process of mass migration northward to the
United States, and the development of the networks which made further
immigration possible, began in earnest during the Mexican Revolution of
1910-1920. The Cristero rebellion of the late 1920s was the last major
armed conflict in Mexico and was centered in the states of west-central
Mexico; partly to prevent further trouble, the newly consolidated
Mexican regime adopted a policy of encouraging emigration from these
very states. The power of government-fostered migration networks is
clear from the fact that even today these same states account for a
disproportionate share of Mexican immigrants to the United States.
On the U.S. side, federal policies that established migration
networks between the United States and Mexico arguably began in the
1920s, when Congress specifically excluded the Western Hemisphere from
the newly enacted immigration caps so as not to limit the flow of
Mexican immigrants. Then in 1942, the Bracero Program to import Mexican
farmworkers was started under the cover of World War II, and it
continued until 1964. About 4.6 million contracts were issued to
Mexican workers (many were repeat contracts for workers who returned
several times, so that an estimated one to two million individuals
participated). By creating vast new networks connecting the United
States and Mexico, the Bracero Program launched the mass illegal
immigration we are still experiencing today. Illegal immigration
networks were reinforced by the IRCA amnesty of 1986, which granted
legal status to nearly three million illegal aliens, at least two-
thirds of whom were Mexican. This new legal status conferred by the
federal government generated even more immigration, legal and illegal,
as confirmed by a 2000 INS report. And the federal government's
effective abandonment of the ban on hiring illegal aliens has served to
further promote immigration from Mexico.
As a result of this series of government decisions, the flow of
Mexican immigration to the United States is quite large. The totlal
Mexican immigrant population (legal and illegal) ballooned from less
than 800,000 in 1970 to nearly eight million in 2000, and is around 10
million today, most having arrived since 1990. This rapid growth has
created a snowball effect through the reinforcement of old networks and
the establishment of new ones. If present trends continue, within a few
years Mexico will have sent more immigrants to the United States in 100
years than Germany (currently the leading historical source of
immigrants) has in more than 200 years.
So, far from being an inevitable process with deep historical
roots, mass immigration from Mexico is a relatively recent phenomenon
created by government policies. This is even more true for other
sources of immigration to the United States, such as Cuba, India,
Central America, Russia, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
Even though the federal government is responsible for creating the
illegal immigration wave, perhaps the toothpaste is out of the tube,
perhaps it is too late to do anything about it now. There is no
question that interrupting migration networks is harder than creating
them. It is not, however, impossible--after all, the trans-Atlantic
immigration networks from the turn of the last century were
successfully interrupted, and atrophied completely. And, to move beyond
theory, the few times we actually tried to enforce the immigration law,
it has worked--until we gave up for political reasons.
During the first several years after the passage of the IRCA,
illegal crossings from Mexico fell precipitously, as prospective
illegals waited to see if we were serious. Apprehensions of aliens by
the Border Patrol--an imperfect measure but the only one available--
fell from more than 1.7 million in FY 1986 to under a million in 1989.
But then the flow began to increase again as the deterrent effect of
the hiring ban dissipated, when word got back that we were not serious
about enforcement and that the system could be easily evaded through
the use of inexpensive phony documents.
After 9/11, the immigration authorities conducted a ``Special
Registration'' program for visitors from Islamic countries. The
affected nation with the largest illegal-alien population was Pakistan,
with an estimated 26,000 illegals here in 2000. Once it became clear
that the government was actually serious about enforcing the
immigration law--at least with regard to Middle Easterners--Pakistani
illegals started leaving in droves on their own. The Pakistani embassy
estimated that more than 15,000 of its illegal aliens left the U.S.,
and the Washington Post reported last year the ``disquieting'' fact
that in Brooklyn's Little Pakistan the mosque is one-third empty,
business is down, there are fewer want ads in the local Urdu-language
paper, and ``For Rent'' signs are sprouting everywhere.
And in an inadvertent enforcement initiative, the Social Security
Administration in 2002 sent out almost a million ``no-match'' letters
to employers who filed W-2s with information that was inconsistent with
SSA's records. The intention was to clear up misspellings, name
changes, and other mistakes that had caused a large amount of money
paid into the system to go uncredited. But, of course, most of the
problem was caused by illegal aliens lying to their employers, and
thousands of illegals quit or were fired when their lies were exposed.
The effort was so successful at denying work to illegals that business
and immigrant-rights groups organized to stop it and won a 90 percent
reduction in the number of letters to be sent out.
Immigration control is not a pipe dream, or achievable only with
machine guns and land mines on the border. We need only the political
will to uphold the law using ordinary law-enforcement tools, and to
resist measures that make things worse, such as new guest-worker
programs. Once the message gets out that it's no longer business as
usual, the illegal population will shrink through attrition, reducing
the problem over several years to a manageable nuisance rather than a
crisis.
JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO?
A second premise of a guestworker program is that there are
essential jobs Americans simply won't do, and foreigners, either as
illegal aliens or as guestworkers, must be imported to do them.
It is indeed likely that middle-class Americans would not be
interested in most of the jobs held by Mexican immigrants, because they
are generally low-paying jobs done by unskilled workers. However, it is
also clear that there are millions of Americans who are already doing
precisely these kinds of jobs. In March 2003, there were 8.8 million
native-born adults without a high-school education who were employed,
1.3 million native-born dropouts unemployed, and a further 6.8 million
not even in the work force. There is a good deal of evidence that these
Americans--nearly 17 million people--are in direct competition with
Mexican immigrants--i.e., these are jobs that Americans will do and are
doing already.
With the exception of agricultural labor, Mexican-born workers and
unskilled native-born workers have a similar distribution across
occupations. Thus, natives who lack a high school education and Mexican
immigrants appear to be doing the same kind of jobs and are therefore
in competition with one another. Another way to think about whether
Mexican immigrants compete with unskilled native-born workers is to
look at their median wages. If Mexican immigrants were employed in jobs
that offered a very different level of pay than native-born dropouts,
then it would imply that the two groups do very different kinds of
work. But, in fact, the median wage of Mexican immigrants and native-
born high school dropouts is very similar; the median weekly wage for
native-born high school dropouts who work full time is $350, while the
median weekly wage for full-time Mexican immigrants is $326. Like their
distribution across occupations, the wages of the two groups seem to
indicate that they hold similar jobs. Indeed, a 1995 report by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics concluded that native-born and immigrant
high school dropouts are almost perfect substitutes for one another in
the labor market.
The idea, then, that there are ``jobs Americans won't do'' is
simply false. But what would be the result of reducing illegal
immigration without replacing it with a guestworker program? In other
words, what would happen if there were fewer of the people industry
lobbyists have labeled ``essential workers''?
Elementary economics gives us the answer. Employers would respond
in two ways to a tighter labor market; first, they would raise wages,
increase non-cash benefits, and change working conditions in order to
recruit and retain a sufficient workforce. And second, they would look
for ways of making their available workers more productive so as to
make up for some of the jobs previously done by foreign labor. The
result would be a smaller number of unskilled workers, each earning
higher wages.
As to the first part of the employer response: The employment
prospects of the 17 million working-age native-born high-school
dropouts mentioned above would improve dramatically. In fact, employers
would begin to look more favorably upon any potential worker not
currently in the mainstream of the economy--former welfare recipients,
teenagers, young mothers looking for part-time work, the handicapped,
ex-convicts, the elderly, et al. Adam Smith expressed it with an 18th-
century candor unlikely to be heard today: ``The scarcity of hands
occasions a competition among masters, who bid against one another, in
order to get workmen, and thus voluntarily break through the natural
combination of masters not to raise wages.''
There would clearly appear to be a need for this first part of the
employer response. The inflation-adjusted wages of full-time workers
with less than a high school education actually declined more than 7
percent during the booming 1990s. The drop in wages was even more
pronounced among the subset of the low-skilled workforce which would be
most immediately affected by a guestworker program--farmworkers.
According to a March 2000 report from the Department of Labor, the real
wages of farmworkers fell from $6.89 per hour in 1989 to $6.18 per hour
in 1998--a drop of more than 10 percent.
Nor would higher wages for the unskilled fuel inflation to any
significant degree. Since all unskilled labor--from Americans and
foreigners, in all industries--accounts for such a small part of our
economy, perhaps four percent of GDP, we can tighten the labor market
without any fear of sparking meaningful inflation. Agricultural
economist Philip Martin has pointed out that labor accounts for only
about ten percent of the retail price of a head of lettuce, for
instance, so even doubling the wages of pickers would have little
noticeable effect on consumers.
So the first part of the employer response to a tighter labor
market would be that the poor would see their wages increase due to the
natural workings of the free market. The second part of the employer
response would be to find ways of doing the same work as before with
fewer workers, thus making each worker more productive. Again, this is
elementary economics. In a sense, a reduction in illegal immigration
(absent a guestworker program) would serve as the free-market
equivalent of increasing the minimum wage through legislative fiat.
And, as the Cato Institute has written, ``higher minimum wages go hand-
in-hand with substantial declines in the employment of low-productivity
workers.'' Unlike minimum wage laws, however, which may price low-
productivity American workers out of the market, tighter immigration
laws would simply eliminate the unnecessary jobs that we are now
importing foreign workers to fill.
Conversely, instituting a guestworker program would lower wages,
increase the employment of low-productivity workers (whom we would
import), and thus slow the process of technological innovation and
increased productivity. A 2001 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston highlights this problem by warning that a new wave of low-
skilled immigrants over the course of this century may slow growth in
U.S. productivity.
That this is so should not be a surprise. Julian Simon, in his 1981
classic, The Ultimate Resource, wrote about how scarcity leads to
innovation:
It is all-important to recognize that discoveries of improved
methods and of substitute products are not just luck. They
happen in response to scarcity--a rise in cost. Even after a
discovery is made, there is a good chance that it will not be
put into operation until there is need for it due to rising
cost. This point is important: Scarcity and technological
advance are not two unrelated competitors in a Malthusian race;
rather, each influences the other.
This is true not only for copper or oil, but also for labor; as
wages have risen over time, innovators have devised ways of
substituting capital for labor, increasing productivity to the benefit
of all.
For instance, the period from 1960 to 1975 (roughly from the end of
the Bracero Program to the beginning of today's mass illegal
immigration) saw considerable mechanization in agriculture. Despite
claims by California farmers that ``the use of braceros is absolutely
essential to the survival of the tomato industry,'' the end of the
program created the incentives that caused a quintupling of production
for tomatoes grown for processing, an 89 percent drop in demand for
harvest labor, and a fall in real prices.
But a continuing increase in the acreage and number of crops
harvested mechanically did not materialize as expected, in large part
because the supply of workers was artificially large (and thus wages
artificially low) due to growing illegal immigration--the functional
equivalent of a guestworker program.
An example of a productivity improvement that ``will not be put
into operation until there is need for it due to rising cost,'' as
Simon said, is in raisin harvesting. The production of raisins in
California's Central Valley is one of the most labor-intensive
activities in North America. Conventional methods require bunches of
grapes to be cut by hand, manually placed in a tray for drying,
manually turned, manually collected.
But starting in the 1950s in Australia (where there was no large
supply of foreign farm labor), farmers were compelled by circumstances
to develop a laborsaving method called ``dried-on-the-vine''
production. This involves growing the grapevines on trellises, then,
when the grapes are ready, cutting the base of the vine instead of
cutting each bunch of grapes individually. This new method radically
reduces labor demand at harvest time and increases yield per acre by up
to 200 percent. But this high-productivity, innovative method of
production has spread very slowly in the United States because the mass
availability of foreign workers has served as a disincentive to farmers
to make the necessary capital investment.
And, despite the protestations of employers, a tight low-skilled
labor market can spur modernization even in the service sector:
automated switches have replaced most telephone operators, continuous-
batch washing machines reduce labor demand for hotels, and ``fast-
casual'' restaurants need much less staff than full-service ones.
Unlikely as it might seem, many veterans' hospitals are now using
mobile robots to ferry medicines from their pharmacies to various
nurse's stations, eliminating the need for a worker to perform that
task. And devices like automatic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and pool
cleaners are increasingly available to consumers. Keeping down low-
skilled labor costs through a guestworker program would stifle this
ongoing modernization process.
ADMINISTRATIVE FEASIBILITY
In any large government program, plans on paper must translate into
policies on the ground. Any guestworker program would require extensive
background checks of prospective workers as well as simple management
of the program--checking arrivals, tracking whether a worker is still
employed, enforcing the departure of those who are supposed to leave.
Supporters of guestworker programs seldom address this question but
assume implicitly that the government has the administrative capacity
to carry out whatever plans they can devise.
But it is not explained how the immigration bureaus within the
Department of Homeland Security are supposed to be able to accomplish
these goals. The service and enforcement bureaus are already groaning
under enormous workloads. The General Accounting Office reported
recently that the backlog of pending immigration applications of
various kinds was at 6.2 million at the end of FY 2003, up 59 percent
from the beginning of FY 2001.
What's more, the immigration bureaus are implementing vast new
tracking systems for foreign students and visitors. The crush of work
has been so severe, that many important deadlines established by
Congress have already been missed.
And the context for all this is a newly created Department of
Homeland Security, which incorporates pieces of the old Immigration and
Naturalization Service and many other agencies in various combinations.
The reorganization process is still very new (the department having
coalesced only in March 2003), and it is extremely unlikely that any
new guestworker program could be effectively managed in the midst of a
thoroughgoing institutional overhaul.
Another aspect of inadequate administrative capacity is in the
Labor Department. Any guestworker plan that would actually be passed by
Congress would inevitably contain some kind of nominal protections for
American workers, though none exist in the current proposals. But such
protections would mirror the current labor certification process,
whereby certain categories of permanent and temporary visas have
prevailing-wage and labor-market tests. The problem is that the Labor
Department can't carry out these duties adequately now, let alone when
millions of additional assignments a year are added to the heap. What's
more, the very idea carries a whiff of the command economy about it; I
mean no disrespect toward federal employees, but if it were possible
for bureaucrats to determine prevailing wages and labor-market
conditions in an accurate and timely fashion, then the Soviet Union
would never have collapsed.
The result of overloading administrative agencies with the vast and
varied new responsibilities of a guestworker program would be massive
fraud, as overworked bureaucrats start hurrying people through the
system, usually with political encouragement. A January 2002 GAO report
addressed the consequences of such administrative overload. It found
that the crush of work has created an organizational culture in the
immigration services bureau where ``staff are rewarded for the timely
handling of petitions rather than for careful scrutiny of their
merits.'' The pressure to move things through the system has led to
``rampant'' and ``pervasive'' fraud, with one official estimating that
20 to 30 percent of all applications involve fraud. The GAO concluded
that ``the goal of providing immigration benefits in a timely manner to
those who are legally entitled to them may conflict with the goal of
preserving the integrity of the legal immigration system.''
Although we are not discussing amnesty programs, the amnesty
included in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 is a
case study of how administrative overload leads to massive fraud. The
part of the amnesty called the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW)
program was especially outrageous in this regard. There were nearly 1.3
million applications for the SAW amnesty--double the total number of
foreign farm workers usually employed in the United States in any given
year, and up to six times as many applicants as congressional sponsors
of the scheme assured skeptics would apply. INS officials told The New
York Times that the majority of applicants in certain offices were
clearly fraudulent, but that they were approved anyway, since the INS
didn't have the administrative wherewithal to prove the fraud. Some
women came to interviews with long, painted nails, while others claimed
to have picked strawberries off trees. One woman in New Jersey who
owned a five-acre garden plot certified that more than 1,000 illegal
aliens had worked on her land.
Such fraud is a problem not just because it offends our
sensibilities but because any large guestworker program would enable
ineligible people to get legal status--people like Mahmud ``the Red''
Abouhalima, an Egyptian illegal-alien cabbie in New York, who got
amnesty as a farmworker under the 1986 law and went on to help lead the
first World Trade Center attack. Having an illegal-alien terrorist in
your country is bad; having one with legal status, even as a temporary
worker, is far worse, since he can work and travel freely, as
Abouhalima did, going to Afghanistan to receive terrorist training only
after he got amnesty.
Nor can we assume that guestworkers from Mexico would necessarily
be harmless, and therefore not need to be scrutinized closely. Iraqi-
born alien smuggler George Tajirian, for instance, pled guilty in 2001
to forging an alliance with a Mexican immigration officer to smuggle
Middle Eastern illegals into the United States via Mexico. And late
last year the former Mexican consul in Beirut was arrested for her
involvement in a similar enterprise. It is, therefore, certain--
certain--that terrorists would successfully sneak operatives into the
United States by way of a guestworker program managed by our
overwhelmed bureaucracy.
To sum up: None of the commonly held assumptions underlying support
for a guestworker program is valid. There may well be other reasons to
support such a program--a desire by employers to force down the wages
of their employees and prevent unionization, for instance, or a desire
by immigrant-rights groups to increase the size of their ostensible
constituencies. But none of the reasons usually presented by proponents
is grounded in fact.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes Dr. Morris for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF FRANK MORRIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, DIVERSITY
ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE AMERICA
Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
The focus of my remarks are twofold. The first focus is the
real plight of working Americans. I didn't mention it in my
written testimony, but I would like to refer to David K.
Shipler's Pulitzer Prize-winning book on The Working Poor. This
and other books have really pointed out the tremendous factors
that are impacting working poor already under current
conditions, much less additional conditions.
One of the assumptions which I make, and I think it's
almost inevitable without debate, is that a guest worker
program will bring additional low-wage, low-income, less-
educated workers--and as Congressman Smith and as others have
noted, higher-educated workers into the United States. But I
want to focus on the low income workers. I hope we will have
another opportunity to talk about the impact on high-wage
workers. But it is the low-wage workers that particularly I'm
concerned about, because many African-Americans are
disproportionately reflected in that.
And it is these other kinds of factors which are working on
the working poor that we should be concerned about including
the increase in the supply of additional workers that will
bring additional competition. One, of course, is the fact of
our decline in our manufacturing jobs. We are well aware that
our proportion of the work force employed in manufacturing has
dropped from 30 percent in the sixties down to 11 percent now.
But there are other workers, too, that I would hope we would be
concerned about the working poor.
One impact of welfare reform is that many single women have
once again been moved into the work force. Current studies show
that of the nearly 3 million women who left the welfare rolls,
at any given time, only about 1.8 million of them or about 60
percent have jobs on any given day. The rest are out there
looking for jobs and in competition, increasingly difficult
competition with other low-wage workers, and they don't need
any more competition.
One of the other kinds of workers that I would be concerned
about is the fact of that we have released from prisons each
year almost 600,000 people. A high proportion of these are
African-Americans. These folks often get the opportunities for
employment only when other sources are not available. And to
increase the supply has tremendously difficult social costs
that don't get factored into many kinds of considerations about
increase in supply that will inevitably happen with guest
workers.
One of the things that also, I think we need to talk about;
we don't often talk about it, is that one of the reasons why
low-wage workers, and I associate my comments with Congressman
King, too, low-wage workers, and particularly the working poor,
are in difficulty is for the increasing preference of employers
and not just--of all races, including immigrant employers, for
workers other than, for instance, African-Americans.
I have pointed to this as the last-hired, first-fired
effect. I have mentioned it before, but now, we even have
scholars such as William Julius Wilson of Harvard who has noted
it. He noted in his analysis that when the black unemployment
rate in Boston dropped to 7 percent during the boom, and when
it went up, now, after the boom, it has been pretty clear, he
says, that one of the reasons is the preference of employers
for immigrants over African-American workers.
In my statement, and you will see the evidence which I
point out that shows that the high-immigrant categories of the
work force have had tremendously negative effects and
displacement effects for African-Americans, in janitorial work,
in construction, in hospitality. These are serious displacement
effects that economists are finally beginning to recognize.
Although there is macro evidence of the preference for
immigrants; one of the things that we see is the labor force
participation data showing that for the first time, the rate of
foreign-born participation tops local participation by 79,
almost 80 percent to 73.4 percent.
One of the other things we see is that during the last
recession, we see that from 2000 on, when we had a net increase
in foreign born adults holding jobs, they grew by 1.7 million,
while we saw the number of native workers, American workers,
dropping by 800,000. This is tangible kinds of evidence that we
shouldn't ignore. One of the things that I have also pointed
out is an interesting study that's by the Community Service
Society in New York about the plight of African-American
workers in New York City.
It looks not just at the unemployment figures but the ratio
of those working to the total population and found devastating
results. I found that about half the black men ages 16 to 64 in
New York City held jobs, compared to 75 percent for white
Americans, 65 percent for Hispanics. These are devastating
kinds of figures that cries out that the situation not be made
any worse.
One of the other areas of contemporary issues for
consideration, of course, is the public health issues. In the
guest worker programs, who will be responsible for the public
health costs of the guest workers? Our county hospitals in
Dallas--Congressman Lee has left; same problem in Houston,
L.A., many places are under tremendous strains from the costs
of care that's not currently addressed. This can only make the
situation worse.
I can go on to point out, as I have in my paper, that in
times when we're faced with tremendously high both current
accounts and fiscal deficits, does it really make sense for
guest workers who will be sending money home for remittances
instead of spending that money in the United States to generate
additional economic activity here, does it make sense? I think
it doesn't.
And so, without dealing with a specific proposal, at this
particular time, anything that will additionally increase the
competition and the supply of already vulnerable workers should
be carefully considered and I hope not enacted at this time.
The working poor in America do not need an additional supply or
anything that will increase the supply of those who will bring
in further competition.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank L. Morris, Sr.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Morris.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beck for 5 minutes for his
statement.
STATEMENT OF ROY BECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NUMBERSUSA EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Mr. Beck. We thank the Chairman for this hearing and for
placing such focus on the American worker.
As we heard from the opening statements, it makes a lot of
difference what paradigm you're looking at this issue in. But I
think this is the most important paradigm. There are three
large groups of Americans and noncitizen immigrants who deserve
your top priority attention when dealing with all immigration
proposals and all current immigration policies.
The first group: Nearly 15 million American workers who
would like full-time jobs cannot find one. The second group:
Millions more Americans who once were part of the work force
have given up and dropped out entirely. As is often the case,
the worst damage can be seen among African-American men. The
Washington Post recently released, really, a shocking statistic
that 40 percent of all African-American men throughout the
United States do not have a job. Forty percent do not have a
job. There is a huge untapped work force among Americans of all
races and ethnicities who no longer look for jobs but who need
jobs. The third group: Still more millions of Americans who
have full time jobs live in or near poverty, the working poor.
Most of them are in occupations that once paid at least lower
middle class incomes with benefits, but these are what I call
collapsed occupations.
My written testimony refers to several case studies of
occupational collapse over the last few decades and the role of
foreign workers in those collapses. And it reports the work of
distinguished economic historians who find that the effect of
flooding occupations with foreign workers recently has been
similar to every time we ran high immigration in the past.
Over the last 30 years of massive increases in legal and
illegal foreign workers, the occupations where those workers
have settled have seen wages plummet, benefits disappear and
working conditions deteriorate. Many of the pressing social
problems that Congress is tackling right now are directly
related to the collapse of whole occupations into subsistence
or poverty-level jobs. Americans are not nearly so much in need
of more Federal programs and assistance as they are in need of
higher wages that would allow them to raise families in
dignity.
The economic laws of supply and demand as well as our
economic history indicate that adopting a program for hundreds
of thousands of more guest workers a year would almost
guarantee falling wages, even with stringent safeguards
attached. Most guest worker proposals would open up every
occupation up and down the economic ladder. Nearly every
American would have to compete with every worker in the world.
Now, this is a world that has 4.6 billion people who are in
countries with incomes that are below those in Mexico. Most of
the proposals only require that jobs be advertised at a minimum
wage. A group of businesses and others fighting for more lower-
educated foreign workers calls itself the Essential Workers
Coalition. And they note that the work performed by lower-
educated workers is essential to the U.S. economy and to the
comfort of most Americans. I agree. These are essential
workers, essential jobs.
But why fill these jobs with foreign workers? Alan
Greenspan said last month America has an oversupply of low-
skilled, lower-educated workers. Official unemployment rates
for Americans without a high school diploma are nearly twice
that as for other Americans, and that doesn't include all of
the Americans who have dropped out of the work force.
Unfortunately, a new study has found that our school systems
are pouring more and more high school dropouts into the work
force. About half of all Hispanic, Black and Native American
high school freshmen do not finish high school, do not
graduate, do not get a diploma.
They are the Americans who must compete the most directly
with the next imported foreign work force. The country is awash
in lower-educated American workers who have no jobs. While we
may lament that so many American workers are so poorly
educated, it hardly seems fitting for Congress to punish those
American workers by giving away their jobs or by depressing
their wages. The dirty little secret of our society over the
last decades is that many of these jobs have deteriorated so
far in wages, benefits and standards that many jobless
Americans will not take them any more.
As long as the Federal Government allows the importation
and the illegal migration of almost 2 million foreign workers a
year from countries that pay less than 10 percent of our wages,
essential jobs that do not require much education will be
priced at levels below lives of dignity. Adding more foreign
workers by greatly expanding our present guest worker programs
will ensure that those essential jobs never pay an American
wage or offer American working conditions.
In a free market without massive foreign labor flows,
essential jobs that are really tough to do and hard to fill
would pay fairly high wages. I was pleased to hear about the
wages in the dairies in Utah, but that is an anomaly for low-
educated workers.
But in our economy, the harder the work, the less you get
paid, in general. In our economy, the more essential your low-
skilled job may be, the less likely you will be paid wages that
allow you to raise your family in dignity. It doesn't have to
be that way. And I'll finish by just noting that the economist
Harry T. Oshima has described a virtuous circle. We know in
economics there's the vicious cycle. He's talking about the
economic--a virtuous circle that has driven our middle class
economy.
And he notes that when immigration was drastically reduced
during World War I and then later after 1924, this virtuous
circle went to work. It caused employers, with a tighter labor
market, to increase the wages. And because they had to increase
the wages, they had to make major advances in mechanization. In
that situation, the resulting technological applications of
gasoline and electric machines made it possible to mechanize
enough unskilled operations and handwork to release many
workers into skilled jobs. Parents realized that they needed to
educate their kids for those skilled jobs that were paying
better.
Because of the demand for skilled workers, in the end,
productivity was increased; wages went up, and what happened in
this cycle of productivity and wage gains, each feeding on the
other, the United States became a middle-class nation. That was
the nation that I happened to be born in as a baby boomer in
the forties, fifties, sixties. We were a fully--almost a
fully--middle class society. We have been moving backwards ever
since we began flooding the labor markets with foreign workers.
We could do the virtuous circle again. We have stopped--the
importation of foreign workers has stopped the economic
virtuous circle. We could do it again if we would trust the
free market and trust our own workers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy Beck
Perhaps the first and most important question to ask about any
proposed large-scale foreign guestworker program is what will be its
effect on the nearly 15 million American workers who would like a full-
time job but cannot find one. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David Streitfeld, ``Jobless Counts Skip Millions,'' Los Angeles
Times, 29 December 2003, A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just how much of a worker shortage can there be when so many
Americans cannot find a full-time job?
And the available pool of American workers is actually much larger
than that 15 million figure which includes people who are actively
looking or just recently gave up reporting to the unemployment office.
Millions of other Americans who once were part of the workforce and who
once were interested in remaining in it have dropped out of the labor
force entirely.
As is often the case, the worst damage can be seen among African-
American men. The Washington Post recently reported the astounding
statistic that 40 percent of black men throughout America do not have a
job. \2\ In New York City where the importation of foreign workers is
at one of the highest rates in the nation, 50 percent of black men are
no longer employed. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David Finkel, ``The Hard Road to A Paycheck,'' Washington Post,
4 November 2003, A01.
\3\ Michael Powell, ``In New York City, Fewer Find They Can Make
It,'' Washington Post, 14 March 2004, A01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The competition from the expanded guestworker force would be
fiercest with the lower-skilled and lower-educated jobless American
workers. But let it be noted that most of the expanded guestworker
proposals now before Congress would open every American occupation up
and down the economic ladder to competition from the global labor
force.
Americans too qualified to do ``essential'' jobs?
One of the arguments for importing more foreign workers even with
such high numbers of Americans out of the job market is that the labor
shortages are in very low-skilled and low-paid occupations and that
most of the jobless Americans are simply overqualified for those jobs.
But Alan Greenspan last month said America has an oversupply of
low-skilled, low-educated workers. \4\ In fact the Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports that the rolls of millions of unemployed Americans
include a disproportionate number of workers who do not have a high
school diploma. \5\ Official unemployment rates for Americans without a
diploma are nearly twice as high as for other Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nell Henderson, ``Greenspan Calls for Better-Educated
Workforce,'' Washington Post, 21 February 2004, E01.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, this country is awash in lower-educated American
workers and no jobs. Yet, the primary purpose of these expanded
guestworker proposals is to import low-educated, low-skilled foreign
workers for jobs that require no more than low education and low
skills.
Now, those jobs are not unimportant. These are jobs essential to
Americans' every day life. A group of businesses and others fighting
for more foreign workers calls itself the ``Essential Workers
Coalition.'' These ARE essential jobs. And it makes no sense to move
our own essential American workers to the sideline while giving the
jobs to foreign workers.
While we may lament that so many American workers are poorly
educated, it hardly seems fitting for Congress to punish those workers
by giving away their jobs.
Who would be most hurt by expanded guestworker programs for
``essential'' jobs? We got a stark view late last month from a new
report by the Urban Institute and the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University. Entitled ``Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth Are Being
Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis,'' the study concludes that
barely half of the black, Hispanic and Native American youth who enter
high school in this country earn a diploma. \6\ The rates for the three
groups are nearly identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Linda Perlstein, ``Report Disputes U.S. High School Graduation
Rates,'' Washington Post, 26 February 2004, A03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That report lets us know of the colossal failure throughout our
society in engaging and properly educating these youth. Much needs to
be done. Much has been attempted. But while the education establishment
tries to figure out how to deal with these incredible drop-out rates,
millions of young adults who did drop out of high school in the past
need an opportunity to earn a living. Unfortunately, jobs for which a
high-school drop-out are suited are being earmarked by leaders of both
political parties for foreign guestworkers eager to underbid the price
of labor.
Adding further to the incongruity of all this talk about the need
for lower-educated guestworkers is the President's State of the Union
call for assuring better job possibilities for inmates as they finish
their prison sentences. The President said that some 600,000 inmates a
year leave prison desperately needing a job to start a new kind of
life. Most of them are qualified for the same kinds of ``essential''
jobs that all these pieces of guestworker legislation are designed to
fill with foreign laborers.
but will americans do jobs that are this hard and pay this little?
For 13 years as an author on these issues, I have done scores of
radio shows and have consistently been told by callers identifying
themselves as business owners that these jobless, lower-educated
American workers are too lazy, too soft and too demanding to take these
``essential'' jobs. On NPR the other morning, I even heard a business
owner say that his jobs were just too hard for Americans to do and paid
too little.
Of course, we all know that is the secret ingredient in why we have
so many Americans unemployed and yet so much talk of job shortages. As
long as the federal government allows the importation and the illegal
migration of almost two million foreign workers a year from countries
that pay less than a tenth of our wages, ``essential'' jobs that don't
require much education will be priced at levels at which American
workers cannot live in an American lifestyle and will be offered with
benefits and working conditions also unacceptable to Americans.
Greatly expanding our present guestworker programs will ensure that
those ``essential'' jobs never pay an American wage or offer American
working conditions. That's the way the free market operates.
Alan Greenspan in his speech to the Greater Omaha Chamber of
Commerce last month decried the inability of our lower-educated
American workers to earn a dignified income. His solution was for great
new investments to further educate them for better jobs. Members of
this Congress responded in the news media by wondering where all that
money was coming from. But a better question is this: If we supposedly
have large numbers of ``essential'' jobs desperately needing workers to
fill them and not requiring high education, why don't we fill those
jobs with our own lower-educated workers?
And if these jobs are so ``essential'' and so tough to do,
shouldn't the market be forced to raise wages to a level that can
attract American workers to fill them? Why shouldn't workers doing jobs
that are ``essential'' to our economy and to our comfort be paid wages
that allow them to raise their families in dignity? One answer is that
many in this government do not want ``essential'' workers to earn
middle-class wages. They are addicted to an economy that depends on
poorly paid workers who must be subsidized by taxpayers.
For 40 years, this government has systematically gutted lower-
middle-class occupations of their dignity, of their decent wages, of
their safe working conditions and of their American benefits by
flooding those occupations with foreign workers. We don't have to
wonder what expanded guestworker programs would do to American workers;
we have a lot of recent history to show us quite explicitly.
Expanded foreign guestworkers programs would just add to the
already long list of ``Occupation Collapses'' created by 40 years of
radically increased mass immigration, illegal migration and guestworker
programs.
``occupation collapse'' has long u.s. history tied to high immigration
``Occupation Collapse'' has been one of the gravest blows and
continuing threats to America's working class households over the last
couple of decades.
By ``Occupation Collapse,'' I mean the process of wages plummeting,
benefits disappearing and working conditions deteriorating in whole
occupations.
The evidence of recent history and of 150 years of U.S. economic
history suggests that the initiation of a large-scale foreign
guestworker program would expand Occupation Collapse into as yet
untouched localities and occupations--both unskilled and skilled--in
our country.
Many of the pressing social problems Congress is tackling recently
are directly related to the collapse of whole occupations from middle-
class and lower-middle-class incomes, benefits and working conditions
into near-poverty and below-poverty wages.
Look at some of the issues the federal government is trying to
resolve for large numbers of Americans: lack of health insurance,
inadequate health care, over-crowded and substandard housing, poor
education, neighborhoods torn by crime, overloaded jails and prisons.
In every one of those problems, you will find a disproportionate
population of households who are connected to collapsed occupations.
These Americans simply can't earn enough money to afford the goods and
services that make for a life of dignity.
Why have these occupations collapsed? There have been many reasons.
In some cases, the collapse has happened only regionally; in others,
nationally. But one of the most common ingredients is the large-scale
entry of foreign workers into those occupations--through the million
legal immigrants a year, through nearly that many illegal aliens
settling each year and through a few hundred thousand guest workers
each year. These add up to numbers that are six to eight times higher
traditional levels in this country.
Americans are not nearly so much in need of more federal programs
and assistance as they are in need of higher wages. Current high levels
of legal and illegal immigration are a serious barrier to those higher
wages. Adopting a program for hundreds of thousands or more
guestworkers a year would almost guarantee falling wages, even with
stringent safeguards attached.
To imagine what would happen to American jobs and workers under a
new, greatly enlarged guestworker program, we can start by looking at
what the great increase in foreign workers over the last couple of
decades has already done. The primary effect of all forms of adding
foreign workers to the domestic labor market has been to distort the
way the free market sets the value of labor by legislatively increasing
supply.
EXAMPLES OF OCCUPATIONAL COLLAPSE UNDER THE WEIGHT OF
HEAVY FOREIGN-WORKER INFLUX
By the 1970s, menial jobs such as janitorial work had become
middle-class occupations in many cities. The overwhelming majority of
American workers of all kinds were able to live at least modest middle-
class lives. That was before the advent of our new governmental ethic
that some jobs are just too low-class to deserve decent wages.
Cleaning office buildings was an essential task in this economy,
and the economy rewarded many of those who did the task with livable
wages and dignified working conditions. But a GAO study found that as
federal policies allowed tens of thousands of foreign workers to enter
those cities, their presence in the janitorial occupations led to a
collapse of wages, benefits and working conditions. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Government Accounting Office, Illegal Aliens: Influence of
Illegal Workers on Wages and Working Conditions of Legal Workers
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accounting Office, March 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An especially dramatic example can be found in Miami where
occupations began to collapse earlier due to earlier mass flows of
foreign workers into the job market. Sociologists Guillermo Grenier and
Alex Stepick found that before the 1970s, construction workers earned
middle-class wages with middle-class benefits and lived middle-class
lives. But the influx of foreign workers led to a series of changes
that collapsed a large number of the construction jobs into little more
than minimum-wage labor with few employee protections that had
previously existed. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Alex Stepick and Guillermo Grenier, ``Brothers in Wood,'' in
Newcomers in the Workplace: Immigrants and the Restructuring of the
U.S. Economy, Louise Lamphere, Alex Stepick, and Guillermo Grenier,
eds. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), pp. 148-9, 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By now, we can find construction occupational collapse in parts of
nearly every state as foreign labor has swelled in local job markets.
Perhaps nowhere is the role of foreign labor importation in
collapsing an occupation more vivid than the meatpacking industry.
Numerous studies have detailed how jobs in this industry by the 1970s
were high-middle-class industrial jobs with great safety protections
and benefits that allowed the employees to raise families on one
income, take vacations and send children to college (many of whom came
back to work in the plants because of the high income). \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Roy Beck, ``Jobs Americans Will Do'' in The Case Against
Immigration (New York/London: W. W. Norton & Co., 1996) 100-135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, after 25 years of pouring foreign workers into the
occupation, nearly every journalist and politician commenting on these
jobs calls them ``jobs that Americans won't do'' because the pay is so
low that taxpayers have to provide public assistance to many of them,
and the accident rate is among the worst in the nation.
And in occupations that always were fairly poorly paid--such as
poultry processing, farm labor, hotel and restaurant work--the influx
of large numbers of foreign workers has generally driven real wages
downward even further.
One does not have to focus entirely on lower-skilled jobs to find
Occupational Collapse. Under the combination of the dot.com bubble
burst, overseas outsourcing and the presence of hundreds of thousands
of foreign workers, the information-technology occupation is indeed in
the middle of a collapse. Besides having an extraordinarily high
unemployment rate, America's information-technology workers have seen
their wages plummet, with large portions now working at two-thirds,
one-half and even one-third their incomes a few years ago. Although
their wages surely would have fallen some even without the various
existing foreign guestworker programs, adding around a million foreign
workers over the last four years severely worsened the supply-demand
ratio in the occupation.
HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE FOR FOREIGN WORKERS COLLAPSING WAGES
In his presidential address to the American Economic Association in
1955, Simon Kuznets laid out a theory about rising and falling income
inequality in capitalist societies. Many economists since then have
sought to quantify the factors that, in different countries and
different decades, have depressed earnings for the lower working class
while increasing the wealth of the affluent and skilled.
One renowned economist who has spent a career exploring these
issues is Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard. Delivering the Kuznets
Memorial Lecture at Harvard, Prof. Willison showed how economic
inequality in America was greatest from 1820 to 1860 and from the 1890s
until World War I. Those periods coincided with the two greatest waves
of immigration prior to the present unprecedented wave.
According to Williamson, the occurrence of high immigration and
high levels of economic inequality at the same time was not
happenstance: immigration fosters income inequality. Despite having
democratic institutions, abundant land, and a reputation as a
workingman's country, America during those periods of nineteenth-
century immigration surges was a land of jarring inequality.
The economist Peter H. Lindert has noted in his writing that
American inequality has lessened when immigration was curtailed. When
World War I abruptly cut off most immigration to the United States, the
huge gap between rich and poor closed incredibly fast: ``Within three
years' time, pay gaps dropped from historic heights to their lowest
level since before the Civil War.'' \10\ But just as quickly,
inequality grew as soon as mass immigration resumed after World War I,
so that later in the 1920s, ``income looked as unequal as ever,''
Lindert said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Peter H. Lindert, Fertility and Scarcity in America
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once Congress curtailed immigration in 1924, the middle class grew
again and inequities receded to historic low levels by the early 1950s.
America finally had become a paradise for the common workingman and
woman.
Lindert found it peculiar that America would have such a robust
march toward middle-class equality during a period that included widely
varying external events, such as the nation's deepest depression, a
sudden wartime recovery and moderate postwar growth: ``This timing
suggests that the explanation of this drop in inequality must go beyond
any simple models that try to relate inequality to either the upswing
or the downswing of the business cycle.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid., p. 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the egalitarianism of the era after the 1924 curtailment of mass
immigration, the economic bottom of society gained on the middle, and
the middle gained on the top. The closing of the gap in wages had as
much of an effect in enlarging the middle class as did all the transfer
taxes and programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's governmental
activism combined, according to Lindert and Williamson.
Several factors caused the fluctuations in inequality during U.S.
history. But the ``central role'' has been played by the change in
labor supply, claims Lindert. The rise of powerful unions during that
period also played an important role in moving larger and larger
numbers of laborers into the middle class. But Lindert concluded that
the unions were able to gain their power because low immigration and
low population growth kept the size of the labor force smaller while
the demand for labor remained high. Not surprisingly, unions have
withered in workforce participation during the wave of mass immigration
since 1965.
Contrary to superficial thinking, a tightened labor pool that
forces employers to pay more for scarce labor does not necessarily hurt
business nor the economy. It can be a great stimulator of a country's
creativity. The economist Harry T. Oshima has helpfully described the
``virtuous circle'' that occurs in an economy that is far different
from our own very loose labor market with surpluses of workers. \12\ He
has particularly studied the mid-1910s and the mid-1920s when
immigration was seriously restricted. He notes that during that time,
employers were forced to raise wages. That induced the employers to
press for major advances in mechanization. The resulting new
technological applications of gasoline and electric machines made it
possible to mechanize enough unskilled operations and hand work to
release many workers into more skilled jobs. Growth in output per
worker hour was phenomenal. That made it possible to raise wages still
further. Because of the increasing demand for skilled workers, American
parents realized they would need to spend more money to help each child
gain a better education. This contributed to lower birth rates, and
thus to slower labor-force growth, and thus to tighter labor markets,
and thus to higher wages, which pushed manufacturers to push the skill
levels of their workers up even further. In this cycle of productivity
and wage gains--each feeding on the other--the United States became a
middle-class nation!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Harry To. Oshima, ``The Growth of U.S. Factor Productivity:
The Significance of New Technologies in the Early Decades of the
Twentieth Century,'' Journal of Economic History, vol. 44 (March 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we have had for three decades in this nation is the opposite
of that economic ``virtuous circle;'' we have had the ``vicious
cycle.'' The availability of larger and larger numbers of foreign
workers has led employers to substitute labor for capital development
and innovation. A key example is the atrophy in our agricultural
industry which relies on incredibly low-wage labor instead of
continuing its once global leadership in innovation and technology.
And, of course, the rising incomes of American workers during a
``virtuous circle'' economy drives consumer purchasing and business
success.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF OUR SOCIETY
At stake is whether the United States manages to remain a middle-
class culture or becomes what I would call a ``servant culture'' more
on the line of Europe or even third world nations--a path we are
currently traversing.
Europe is a continent that long has had a servant class. When it
began to find it difficult to keep its nationals in those poorly paid
servile roles, it imported foreign workers to ``do the dirty work.''
In the United States, however, we long have been a culture in which
most people live middle-class lives. People may have servants but they
are expected to pay them wages that allow for at least lower middle-
class conditions. If there was dirty work to do that the genteel didn't
care to do, the folks who did the dirty work tended to get paid a
decent wage for their trouble. Witness the meatpacking industry jobs in
all their disgusting sights, sounds, smells and squishiness before our
immigration policy collapsed the occupation. The people who did that
work got some of the best semi-skilled manufacturing wages in the
country.
But most of these expanded guestworker proposals would guarantee
that whole occupations would be considered ``foreigner work,'' always
paid below American standards with below American benefits and below
American working conditions. Those Americans whose wages are not pulled
below middle-class by the presence of the guestworkers would be able to
revel in status found in so many countries in the world of having their
own peasant class.
These massive guestworker programs are about assigning a certain
portion of our economy to a new foreign peasant class. And
inadvertently, they are about creating a much larger permanent
underclass of American natives largely dependent upon taxpayers and
ever-increasing government programs.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Beck.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Chishti for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MUZAFFAR CHISHTI, DIRECTOR, MIGRATION POLICY
INSTITUTE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Chishti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other
distinguished Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
invitation to testify this morning on this extremely important
issue.
The President himself has opened an extremely important
political space for us to have a serious discussion about
immigration. The President was honest in admitting that our
present immigration system is broken. It is a system where it
is not legality but illegality that has become the norm. It is
a system that has turned integrated labor markets into black
markets. It is a system that rewards smugglers and producers of
fraudulent documents. It is a system that forces people to
cross borders at huge risks to their lives. It is a system that
encourages exploitation of workers and some of the most
vulnerable workers in our country. It's a system, clearly, we
cannot be proud of.
To fix this broken system, we need a comprehensive
approach. And I believe there are at least three fundamental
elements of the comprehensive approach: first, it must squarely
address the present dilemma of the existing undocumented
population in the United States; two, we must introduce a
reasonably-tailored, highly-regulated labor migration program
for future flows of workers to meet the labor needs of the
country; and third, we must immensely and significantly improve
the protections of both U.S. workers and foreign workers.
Let me just take these one at a time. The existing
undocumented population: as I think we all know, whatever the
numbers are, they range from 8 to 12 million. This is a group
of people that is now embedded in our economy and our society.
They have deep roots from their family connections, and they
are performing some of the most essential jobs in important
sectors of our economy. It is simply not possible for us to
round up this group of people without hugely disrupting our
economy and without exacting huge prices in civil liberties
which I think none of us are prepared for.
We have got to be honest about it. We do not have the moral
will, we don't have the political will, and we certainly don't
have the resources to deport this bunch of people. So both
policy and pragmatism dictate that we should legalize this
population. And if the goal is to clean the slate here and make
these people fully integrated in our society, then, the
emphasis should be on full and maximum compliance. The only way
to guarantee full compliance is to give these people the best
incentive, which is to give them permanent residence at the end
of the road.
We do not have to do this in one step, Mr. Chairman. We can
devise a couple of steps for this process of legalization, and
there are many bills that have now been introduced that offer
models to go in this direction.
For the future flows, I think for the first time, many
people in this country are willing to look at temporary worker
programs as a route to do that. We know that temporary worker
programs in this country have a huge legacy of abuse and
exploitation. But just because they have a history of abuse and
exploitation in the past does not mean that there is not scope
for a reformed temporary worker program. To me, the essential
elements of a reformed temporary probably, number one is that
workers should be able to move from one employer to the other.
They cannot be tied to an employer. That is an extremely
unequal relationship.
Two, they must have access to our court system, and they
must be able to bring private causes of action against
employers who abuse them. Third, they must at some point have
the access to turn their temporary residence to permanent
residence. And for those who want to return to their countries
of origin, we must provide them incentives to do that.
A new approach to future flows through a temporary worker
program must begin with one fundamental assumption: that U.S.
workers come first. No temporary worker should be allowed to
come to the U.S. at the expense of a U.S. worker's job or by
undermining U.S. wages and working conditions. Therefore, some
important protections for U.S. workers have to be included in a
temporary worker program. For me, that's numerical limitations.
I do not think we can have an unlimited program. Numbers are
important.
Second is that we should carve out occupations and regions
of the country where we have demonstrated labor shortages, and
those are the occupations and locations alone where guest
workers should be allowed to come. We should have labor market
tests. This is one of the most difficult public policy issues
we have faced. The current labor market test does not work very
well, but I think we can have better labor market tests in
which employer groups, unions, independent analysts can help us
gauge areas and pockets of economy where there is shortage.
Foreign workers must have the same protections of our labor
laws and remedies as U.S. workers have. And finally, they must
be paid at least the prevailing wage, and employers who
systematically abuse that system should not be allowed to get
foreign temporary workers in the future. And last element on
this, we must immensely increase the funding for enforcement
agencies of our Government, because without that, we will not
be able to have an effective program.
Mr. Chairman, you have a huge opportunity to write the next
chapter of immigration history in our country. Our President
has provided us an outline. I suggest that as you fill in those
outlines, you fill it with the strong acknowledgement that
immigrants have been hugely important to our history, and they
will be important to our future, and we will do it with a sense
of optimism and not pessimism.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chishti follows:]
Prepared Statement of Muzaffar A. Chishti
Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and other distinguished
members of the sub-committee.
My name is Muzaffar Chishti, and I direct the Migrations Policy
Institute's office at New York University School of Law.
One must assume that the backdrop of today's oversight hearing is a
proposal for a temporary worker (``guest worker'') program that
President Bush announced on January 7th of this year. The President's
high profile and well orchestrated announcement has generated
considerable controversy. It has been attacked from both sides of the
political spectrum for doing ``too much'' or ``too little''. The timing
of the President's announcement may have had something to do with the
electoral considerations of this year. But the reaction to his
proposal, once again, establishes that immigration reform--complex in
any season--is intensely contentious in an election year. The
President, it seems, did not need any help from the members of his
opposing party to abandon any attempts at legislation this year to
pursue his proposal; influential voices within his own party have
offered strong opposition.
Whatever the President's motivations, credit must be given where it
is due. The need for a fundamental revision and reform of our
immigration policy has been evident for close to two decades. However,
the prospect for such a reform has been elusive. Political events and
calculations of the 1990s left little appetite for any immigration
reform legislation. A slow momentum toward a fresh engagement of the
debate was brought to a halt by the tragic events of September 11th.
Immigration reform certainly became one of the casualties of the
terrorist attacks.
The President's announcement of January 7th, is ,thus, a bold move
at creating a new political space for a serious deliberation of
immigration reform. He has put the subject--complex, divisive, and
emotionally charged as it is--at the center stage of our political
discourse. For that he deserves due credit.
Important as the President's proposal is, it is sketchy on details.
Some would say that it is deliberately vague. It is incomplete, and
many aspects of it are problematic. But simply opening the door for
reform creates a big opportunity for Congress--and all of us interested
in the future of our country--to craft the details of a legislative
framework that does justice to the importance of the challenge of true
immigration reform. Perhaps it is for the best that no legislation can
be enacted in the heat of an election. That gives us time to be
thoughtful and responsible.
A thoughtful and responsible reform package must accomplish a few
things: a) it must address the dilemma of the existing immigrant
population in our country; b) it must regulate future flows of
immigrants consistent with our labor market needs and economic
interests in an increasingly inter-dependent world: and c) it must
advance the protection of both U.S. and foreign workers. And it must
ultimately reflect the deeply engrained American value of fairness.
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS CURRENTLY IN THE US
The outline of a true reform package must begin with the honest
admission of the facts regarding the current undocumented population.
No one knows for sure, but estimates of the undocumented population
range from eight to twelve million. Even if we make the removal of this
population the exclusive priority of our law enforcement agencies, it
would take us years to deport them. It would cause massive dislocation
to our economy, and exact unacceptable price in the loss of civil
liberties. Simple honesty compels us to conclude that we do not have
the moral will, the political will, and certainly not the resources to
round up this size of a population for deportation. If we acknowledge
this central reality, the responsible course of action is to offer the
undocumented an opportunity to regularize their status. Many of them
have become important participants in our society and economy. Many
have spent years in our country, are parents of U.S. citizen children,
are performing jobs that are essential to our economic productivity and
lifestyle, are paying taxes, and building stable communities. Many have
been unable to regularize their status because unconscionable
bureaucratic backlogs would not allow their applications for
immigration benefits to be processed. (There are currently 6.2 million
un-adjudicated applications for various immigration benefits in DHS
pipelines). It is simply unfair and unrealistic to ask these people to
uproot themselves and return to their countries of origin. They must
have the opportunity to earn permanent resident status. The President's
proposal especially falls short with respect to this population. His
proposal would offer them opportunity to enroll only as temporary
workers, with no real prospects of permanent residence. A program that
only offers temporary residence is unlikely to generate full
participation. Maximum compliance should be the goal of any successful
regularization program--especially a program that has the stated
additional objective of responding to the post September 11th security
imperatives.
In addition, simple pragmatism argues against temporary status. We
cannot expect people who have lived for years in the U.S. to return to
their countries of origin after an interim lawful temporary period of
three (or six) years. The tendency to revert back to undocumented
status would be strong.
As we design a mechanism for regularizing the existing undocumented
population, we should learn from the lessons of the past: especially
lessons from our 1986 legalization program. By introducing cutoff dates
for eligibility that are further away from the dates of enactment, we
only invite fraud. Proving long periods of residence inevitably gives
rise to a cottage industry in fraudulent documents. Similarly,
immediate members of the family of legalized population should also be
extended the benefits of legalization. When families are apart, the
impulse to unite illegally is strong and natural.
The status of permanent residence need not be granted in one step.
It is perfectly rational to make it a two-step process. In the first
instance, the current undocumented population, by coming forward, would
receive a conditional lawful status. They would then ``earn'' permanent
resident status by meeting a combination of criteria: work, payment of
taxes, civic participation, gaining English proficiency, and a ``good
citizen'' crime-free behavior. Such a two-step process would lend both
integrity and a special meaning to the process of legalization.
Future Flows
While there is a much broader consensus on the treatment of the
current undocumented population, the policy toward future flows of
immigrants has generated far more controversy and anxiety. Many
proposals, including the President's, would rely on a temporary worker
program to respond to these future flows. Opponents of a temporary
worker program see it simply as a way to legitimize a pool of cheep
exploitable workers for the benefit of organized employer groups. It is
a difficult issue, which merits serious debate.
To be fair, the skepticism about temporary worker programs is well
founded. They come with a troubling legacy of abuse and exploitation by
employers. From the infamous ``bracero'' program that ended in the
1960s to the current H-2A temporary agricultural worker program, these
programs have been stacked against real protections for foreign
workers.
But, the legacy of these programs must not foreclose the
possibility of their reform. Historical positions must be reviewed in
the context of present reality. There are a few central elements of
this reality:
The 1986 legalization program taught us important
lessons. Though the program provided a remedy for the
undocumented who were already in the country, it ignored the
fact that undocumented workers would continue to come to the
U.S. to meet the demands for their labor in various segments in
the labor market. In the absence of legal channels, the
undocumented population mushroomed, confronting us with a
problem that we face today. We must learn from the lessons of
the past.
The absence of legal avenues for labor migration
often forces people into desperate and dangerous acts. In last
year alone, more then 400 people died trying to cross the US-
Mexico border; the death toll since 1994 is over 2600. The
human toll of illegal border crossings cannot be ignored.
The views of the undocumented workers deserve to be
heard. As they have frequently told credible researchers, they
would rather have the status of temporary, or ``guest workers''
with some basic rights, than be undocumented with no rights and
live with constant fear.
We must recognize that, given a choice, many foreign
workers may prefer to work in the U.S. for a short period of
time and then return to their home countries. We must not
assume that permanent residence in the U.S. is the only goal of
foreign workers. This is much more true in today's inter-
connected world where people--even low wage workers--are
comfortable in living in more than one place.
PROTECTIONS FOR FOREIGN WORKERS
There are good arguments for revisiting the historical (and
principled) positions against the idea of temporary worker programs.
But, on the other hand, endorsing a temporary worker program in
principle today does not mean accepting elements that have discredited
past programs. Indeed, if we make the philosophical shift and
acknowledge that these programs can be an appropriate vehicle to
regulate and manage future flows of labor migrants, we may have a
unique opportunity to fundamentally reform temporary worker programs as
we know them. The following would be the elements of a reformed
temporary worker program:
The foremost is the ability of workers to change
employers. Under most temporary worker programs, a foreign
worker is tied to his/her sponsoring employer, establishing an
inherently unequal relationship. This can be remedied by
allowing the worker to move to a comparable job with a
different employer without jeopardizing his/her visa status.
Foreign workers must have full access to and
protection of our court system. Workers must be allowed to
bring private causes of action against employers for violations
of their contractual or statutory rights, and be entitled to
lawyers' fees. Under existing temporary worker programs,
workers' exclusive remedies are complaints to regulatory bodies
that lack adequate resources and appropriate remedies.
Temporary workers must have the option, over time, to
earn permanent resident status in the US. Prescribed periods of
employment in the US maybe a requirement for attaining such
status. The option of permanent residence is also to
acknowledge the social phenomenon of migration: that workers
may have US born children, or develop other close family ties
in the US. For this population, the temporary workers status
thus becomes a path--or a transitional status--toward permanent
residence.
However, permanent residence may not be the preferred
option for all temporary residents. Those who wish to return to
their countries should not be adversely affected--either in
their ability to move between the US and their countries of
origin, or in their eligibility to participate in temporary
worker programs in the future. In this regard, bi-lateral
arrangements like transfer of social security payments to the
workers' home countries (suggested in the President's proposal)
are worth exploring. Such arrangements remove the disincentive
for those workers who may want to return to their home
countries.
PROTECTING US WORKERS
Important as the protections of foreign workers are, a reformed
temporary worker program must ultimately protect US workers. Temporary
worker programs must not be used to displace US workers or undermine
the wages and working conditions of US workers. This is, unfortunately,
easier said than done. There is a strong need for some fresh, new
thinking on a number of interconnected issues: on gauging the labor
markets needs of employers, on testing the labor market to identify
qualified US workers, in devising an enforcement mechanism that
provides real incentives to hire such qualified workers, and in
designing an efficient process that allows employers to hire foreign
workers when no US workers are available. It is universally conceded
that the present system of the labor market test, i.e. the labor
certification process, is too cumbersome, is ineffective in protecting
the US interests of US workers, and does not meet the legitimate needs
of employers seeking to hire foreign workers. However, as we move
toward new and expanded temporary worker programs, the following are
some ideas to consider as we develop a framework for protecting US
workers.
There must be numerical limits on the number of
temporary workers who are admitted to the US each year. These
numbers could vary depending on the state of the economy, and
the conditions of the labor market.
Admission of temporary workers should be confined to
certain occupations, industries or to geographic locations
where there is a demonstrated shortage of US workers.
Temporary workers must be paid at least a prevailing
wage. Prevailing wage should be determined by local standards
and where appropriate, by national standards. Where
appropriate, standard employee benefits should also be made
available to foreign workers.
Temporary workers must be entitled to the same
workplace rights and remedies as US workers, including the
right to collective bargaining.
Simple attestations of an employer (as envisaged in
the President's proposal) cannot be accepted as the test of the
labor market. A labor market test that merely relies on the
word of an employer lacks credibility. The labor condition
attestation (LCA) system contemplated in the President's
proposal is close to the existing attestation system for H-1B
applications. The present H-1B attestation system--which is
done online--only ascertains the completeness of an
application. There is no scope even for determining the
accuracy of information provided by an employer. The present
LCA system is too loose a mechanism on which to build a new and
enlarged program of temporary workers.
If the individual labor certification process cannot
be streamlined, it is worth exploring certification of specific
occupations, sectors of the labor market or geographical areas
as open to admission of temporary foreign workers. Unions,
employer groups or independent experts (perhaps even jointly)
may have a role to play in such certification process. State
and local governments may, similarly, seek greater role in
determining access to labor markets by temporary workers in
their states.
Certain occupations may lend themselves only to local
labor market tests, while for others, it may be more
appropriate to extend recruitment efforts regionally or even
nationally.
Employers found guilty of violating any of the
provisions designed to protect foreign workers or US workers
should be precluded from access to temporary foreign workers in
the future.
While these elements of a comprehensive immigration reform are
being designed, there already are some legislative initiatives pending
in Congress that deserve special attention. The AgJobs bill is the most
significant of these because it addresses the special plight of
agricultural workers. Agricultural workers are in a class by
themselves. The importance of the AgJobs bill cannot be overstated. A
compromise on an agricultural worker bill has eluded us for a long
time. Finally, an unusual coalition of major growers' organizations,
labor unions, and agricultural worker advocates, supported by an
equally unusual bi-partisan cast of legislators has agreed on a
legislative compromise that goes a long way to improving the status quo
regarding agricultural workers. It deserves passage by this Congress.
Even beyond the AgJobs bill, various legislative initiatives have
introduced concepts that contain some important elements of what should
form the basis for a comprehensive immigration reform. These include
bills introduced by Senators Daschle and Hagel, by Senator McCain, and
by Congresswoman Jackson Lee. We have a number of exceptionally good
ideas on the table.
The President has opened the door for a tough but necessary debate
on immigration reform. We may not have legislation enacted this year.
But there is no going back. It is our combined obligation to improve on
the President's proposal and fill in the important and necessary
details in his outline. As we fill in those details, we must
acknowledge the unique importance of immigrants in our history and for
our future. And we must reflect the sense of optimism that defines the
spirit of our country. This committee has an extraordinary opportunity
to do that.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chishti.
And I wanted to ask you the first question with regard to
maybe clarification of your testimony in light of the context
of the hearing. You suggest a guest worker program must be
incentivized by legal permanent resident status. That is no
longer a guest worker or temporary worker program, would you
not admit?
Mr. Chishti. Well, I'm making a distinction between
existing population, which I think the only way to deal with
the existing population is to give them permanent residence. I
do not advocate a guest worker program for the existing
population. I'm suggesting that for future flows, we should
allow a program which will be mostly a guest worker program but
which will have some provision for those people who have
employers who can sponsor them for permanent jobs to be able to
stay in the United States.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you; thank you.
Mr. Krikorian most temporary workers that I am familiar
with require that alien workers be paid the prevailing wage or
higher in order to reduce the possibility that programs will
negatively impact native-born American workers. What do you
think would be the result of a mass guest worker program where
the floor would actually be the minimum wage, given that 90
percent of workers in service occupations currently make above
the minimum wage? How many of these do you think would be at
risk from a mass guest worker program?
Mr. Krikorian. Well if, in fact, the Congress passed and
the President signed legislation as the President outlined it,
where the minimum wage was the only wage or labor market
protection, all employment, every job in the United States,
would be open to competition, and quite frankly, the Mexican
illegal immigrant working in agriculture ought to be the first
person concerned about the program, because he may be picking
tomatoes for $8 an hour, but there are 100 million people in
China willing to do it for $7.
So at the low end, it potentially creates new jobs that
Americans, jobs perhaps that Mexicans won't do is what they'll
turn into. And so, only Bangladeshis or Chinese, for instance,
may be imported, depending on how the dynamics work. But then,
at the higher end of the labor market, likewise, occupations
would be exposed. And the two that I think would be, as the
economists say, colonized first, in other words, the two
occupations that would become jobs Americans won't do would be
nursing and teaching.
I would be willing to bet within 5, at most 10, years,
there would be only a handful of Americans still working in the
nursing and teaching professions, because why bother with
better pay, better benefits, continuing education
opportunities, and all of that, when there are enormous pools
of people from overseas who have English language abilities,
from the Philippines, India, et cetera, who can do that work
cheap, for minimum wage, conceivably?
So the potential effects of what the President outlined are
devastating.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Dr. Morris, a recent article, as I mentioned earlier, in
the Boston Globe stated that the percentage of 16- to 19-year-
olds holding jobs in the U.S. is the lowest it has been since
the Government first started tracking these statistics in 1948.
Do you think that immigration policy has been a cause of this
phenomenon? And how does this lack of teen employment affect
especially inner-city communities?
Mr. Morris. It has a devastating impact on inner-city
communities. This was--I quoted William Julius Wilson, who has
pointed out that one of the impacts of that has been the
preference of some employers for immigrant labor certainly over
not only teen labor but older labor of African-Americans.
The immigration policy as a guest worker policy has the
fact of bringing additional people who will, in fact, be in
competition. Now, you say what's wrong with that? Shouldn't
that be the free market? Well, this is sort of a distortion of
the free market. The free market should permit folks to be able
to gain maximum kind of benefit under existing conditions. When
you increase, when you change those conditions radically, or
it's changed by lack of control, that increases greatly the
supply and reduces the bargaining power. Not only do you have
wage depression, but for African-Americans, we have
displacement, because there are preferences. Others are
preferred over our labor supply.
This is, I think, the most difficult and devastating
impact.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Mr. Beck, you say in your testimony that Chairman Alan
Greenspan of the Federal Reserve said that America has an
oversupply of low-skilled labor. Could you elaborate on that?
Could you give the context of his statement? That is pretty
incredible.
Mr. Beck. Well, I'm not a personal acquaintance, but the
Washington Post reported his speech to the Omaha Chamber of
Commerce last month, and he was lamenting the fact that we have
so many lower-educated American workers who just can't make
enough money. And he was talking about the need to provide more
education to these workers so they could get jobs that paid
more. My disagreement with that is that those are just the
facts as he was stating them. My disagreement with the
Chairman's analysis, though, is that although it would be great
for those 17 million--I believe someone said 17 million
American workers without high school diplomas--for them to get
more education, and there are a lot of efforts to try to make
that happen, but they aren't happening, it also would be great
for those workers who are needed to be paid a living wage right
now.
The Chairman was acknowledging that the low-skilled, low-
educated jobs don't pay a living wage. And that is really the
question, I think, before us is what kind of a society or
economy do we want? Do we want to have sort of a peasant
economy in which some jobs are just known as, ``this is foreign
work, this is peasant work?'' Or do we want to go back to the
forties, fifties, sixties, whenever most jobs were known as
American jobs, middle class jobs?
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes----
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent
to place my opening statement into the record? I have another
meeting and----
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, the
Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, for a 5-minute opening
statement and questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much.
Let me first of all, to the panel, thank you for your
presentation and to the Chairman and thank my Members, the
Members of the Committee from the Democratic caucus for their
presence here and just to indicate to them that my inability to
be at the beginning of this hearing is in no way diminishing
the crucialness of this hearing. As we speak, the 9/11
proceedings are going on, and I was engaged very much in
discussions dealing with the cause of 9/11 as well as the Iraq
war and terrorism as a Member of the Homeland Security
Committee and had the responsibility of managing legislation on
the floor and as we speak, there is a meeting going on about
the Haitian crisis. So please accept my apologies.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to articulate partly my opening
statement, but I would ask your permission that I have the
entire statement be submitted into the record; I ask unanimous
consent.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me offer a policy or a promotion or a
pronouncement that I would hope that we could rid immigration
policy of all of its partisan politics and just deal with
common sense. Let me cite an example for you: I joined with
then-Chairman Lamar Smith to try to write a common sense H-1B
initiative, Mr. Morris, because I concede the fact that we must
be concerned about employment.
And in that legislation, we had laid out a defined job
recruitment, training to recruit American workers and to insist
that American workers would be utilized before we managed to
take those high-paying technology jobs outside of our country.
We were insistent on that. Let me just say that for lack of a
nicer word, the bill was kidnapped, and as it went to the floor
of the House, a lot of that very good language was taken out.
So, I join you in trying to find better ways to address
this question. But let me offer to some of you my underlying
premise as relates to minority workers and as relates to
American workers. Infused in the difficulty of finding
employment is still the issue of racism and discrimination. And
so, we can't hang on the hats of immigrants. Many of us have
come to this country, whether we be black or white or brown or
Asian, to look for better opportunities. And they have heard me
say that many of us, Mr. Morris, that come from our heritage
came here in a slave boat.
But the point is that racism is very intimately involved in
this. The other point that I would like to make is that I don't
deny that porous borders, wherever they are, Europe, South
America or the United States, have the possibility to allow in
in this new climate, terrorists. But let me make it very clear:
when you begin to randomly and recklessly suggest that
immigration equates to terrorism, I'm going to take you on,
because it does not equate to terrorism at all.
So we need to get partisan politics, hysterical politics,
out of this question dealing with immigration. Now, I take
issue with the President's guest worker program for this
reason, because I think it is unrealistic to think if you open
the door and say jobs available, after 3 years, anybody is
going to leave. Likewise, I think it's unrealistic that 8 to 14
million that are here, and I think that Mr. Chishti is going
to, at least in our last opportunity to deal with his position,
it will take eons, years into infinity, to actually bus out,
fly out, send out the 8 to 14 million that are already here.
So let me try to raise some questions, as it's part of my
opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that I am doing. First of all,
let me say that I proudly--my mother and my grandmother and
parents used to always chide me to make sure that I bring home
those As. And I think I stay pretty close to that challenge.
But I am proud to have an F grade in the pronouncement of the
NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation. I am sorry that I
got a B and a C. That means I am really going up. But I
basically got an F.
And that's because I believe in common sense, Mr. Beck, in
dealing with immigration. I'm not sure what this means about
reducing illegal immigration, reducing chain migration, but let
me tell you the legislation that I am offering, and I would
offer you to respond to this: do I have an F because I believe
in reunification of families under 245(i)? Do I have an F for
that reason? Do I have an F because I believe a guest worker
program has no sense whatsoever and that we should put people
on the pathway to legalization, not terrorists, but individuals
who have been in the country for 5 years, have no criminal
background, can be familiar with the culture and get them on a
list so that we know who is a terrorist and who is not?
Do I get an F because there are students who were not born
here who want a better life and therefore should be allowed to
access our institutions? Do I get an F to try and address the
question of the Haitians' equality to Cubans? Do I get an F to
deal with Liberians? Do I get an F because I want to protect
those children who have been here and age out while they have
been waiting in line to access benefits, do I get an F?
To Mr. Krikorian, would he join me in an amendment that
would help to reduce the line of those who are in line legally
to access legalization? We are spending all of this money on
enforcement. We have a backlog of 6 million people, and would
Mr. Krikorian support me in providing those resources so we can
get those people who are legally engaged?
Do I get an F for the legislation that I have just offered
that has in there recruitment of American workers first and
retaining American workers and training American workers so
that we are not opening the door and putting those who have
come into this country first but realizing that they have come
into this country for an opportunity?
So, first of all, to Mr. Beck: you've talked about all of
this illegal population, et cetera. My question to you is
explain how you're going to work with a population of
undocumented aliens, 14 million of them, how you're going to
get them out of town, if you will, out of Dodge, without some
common sense approach to dealing with these individuals.
Mr. Chishti, would you likewise just repeat what you had
said to me earlier, the enormity, if you will, of deporting
people out of this country and the common sense way that we
should be able to do that? And the question to Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck. Yes, thank you.
I don't believe there probably is a common sense way to
deport 14 million illegal aliens----
Ms. Jackson Lee. We've got agreement, my friend.
Mr. Beck. --out of the country this year. The answer is
attrition; that is, the problem for our American workers is the
presence of all of these people in their labor markets, and it
is their labor markets. And what we do is first of all, we
start doing some real enforcement; maybe double the
deportation, which is not that much, and start to give people a
sense that actually, if they do run into their police officers,
they might get deported.
Second, we do a force multiplier for our Government by
mandating that the Federal Government always come to the aid of
a local government that says we have this illegal worker
population. Thirdly, we make the very wise decision that you
all made last fall to expand the voluntary workplace
verification system nationwide. We make that as soon as it is
in place and shows that it works; that is, that it is not
stopping people wrongly, we make that mandatory.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have a guesstimate of how long it
will take to get to the 14 million and get them out by
attrition?
Mr. Beck. I think it might take as much as 10, 15 years.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mister----
Mr. Beck. But the most important thing is not to keep
adding more millions of illegal workers to the economy.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We have a consensus on the guest worker
program, which I think you are speaking to. We have a
consensus. My bill speaks to earned access to legalization,
which does not speak to a guest worker program. I am not
supporting that, because I believe it is a flat earth theory.
But could you give me, Mister--am I--is that----
Mr. Chishti. Chishti.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chishti with a C-H? I am sorry; I just
want to----
Mr. Chishti. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, sir. Would you give me a
realistic idea of deporting 14 million, and is attrition
realistic? And would you comment is race a factor, still, in
hiring American workers in this country, if you have some----
Mr. Chishti. On the numbers, I think it's a pipe dream for
anyone to believe that we can deport this large a population.
Even if we had the moral will to do this, we just simply do not
have the resources to do this. We would have to turn our
country into Fortress America, and no one is prepared to do
that. We will have to put cops at every street corner to find
undocumented workers, many of whom, by now, have U.S.-born
kids; many of them have permanent resident spouses; many of
them have other close members of the society, and most
importantly, many of them are extremely important members of
our economy. And I think it will cause a huge disruption for us
to do that.
And then we----
Ms. Jackson Lee. You gave me a figure before; you
calculated something that----
Mr. Chishti. Well I think people--if you just look at, you
know, even if we started deporting, like, rounding up 500
people a month, I mean, this would take more than 20 years to
do it, not to mention, then, how long it would take in the
court process for people who decide to challenge those
proceedings and sort of logjam our court system.
So on a variety of fronts, it's just simply not possible
for us to do it. That is why I think the cleanest way to deal
with this is to acknowledge the reality of this population and
say that let's give these people a one-time opportunity to
adjust their status. And I think your bill, which actually
does, I think, very rightly talk about family reunification in
this context is extremely important, because if you do not let
people rejoin with their families, it is only going to create
an incentive for them to bring those people illegally, which is
just going to increase undocumented immigration in the future.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Krikorian just
answer yes or no on the adding to help facilitate those who are
legally here, Mr. Krikorian----
Mr. Krikorian. Sure.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Who are in line, who have been waiting, as
you may know, for years to provide resources to get them moving
on?
Mr. Krikorian. Whatever our immigration policy is, it ought
to be properly funded, professionally run, so that it works the
way that it should. And Government does not have to work this
badly. DMVs in various States have become increasingly
professionalized and efficient. And that's why what you're
describing is an indication of how we have an anti-immigrant
policy of mass immigration, as opposed to the direction I try
to make the case for, which is a pro-immigrant policy of low
immigration.
So, yes, I would agree that whatever our system is, it
needs to function professionally and expeditiously, and we
don't have that now.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And with the right resources.
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, with the right resources.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Flake, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krikorian, I was interested in your analysis of the
national security issue. You mentioned near the end of your
testimony that surely, we're guaranteed to admit terrorists in
the program. I don't disagree at all, whatever system you have,
that's going to happen. I think the question is, is that more
likely under a structured program of legal immigration or the
current de facto amnesty that we have?
Mr. Krikorian. Leaving things as they are, with illegal
immigration explicitly permitted by the Federal Government once
you pass the border, there's no question that's a security
problem. My problem is that enforcing traditional immigration
law, in other words, ordinary, across the board immigration law
enforcement is a powerful tool for homeland security. The fact
is we traced the 48 al-Qaeda-related operatives. From the
hijackers a decade back, there were 48 of them; about half had
violated immigration law at one point or another, and almost
certainly, others had as well. We just weren't able to get the
documentation on that.
So the fact is that immigration law is not really not just
a tool as it is used now, an additional tool to go after
terrorists. Unfortunately, that's the main way it's been used.
In other words, going after Al Capone for not paying his taxes,
but ordinary immigration enforcement can, in fact, disrupt
terrorist conspiracies and would have had we been doing it.
Mr. Flake. Just yes or no, do you feel that we have a law
that can reasonably, politically or otherwise, be enforced
today?
Mr. Krikorian. Sure, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Flake. All right.
Mr. Krikorian. I mean, that doesn't mean that we don't need
legal changes, but yes, we can, in fact, enforce the law, and
without machine guns and land mines; with normal law
enforcement tools, yes.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Morris, your Website mentions--says DASA
supports replacement-level fertility, on average of two
children per family, and replacement-level immigration. In what
way do you support that two children per family? Is that like
China's one child policy or----
Mr. Morris. No, no, no, no; in fact, that is what America
has really, actually, moving toward. But we have a
disproportionate amount of our increased population comes from
demographics--from immigration-driven demographics. In other
words, most industrial societies, as the income goes up, as the
society gets more advanced industrial, you find a natural
dropping off of the replacement, and as education rises, et
cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Flake. So you're not advocating any----
Mr. Morris. No, no, no.
Mr. Flake. Good.
Mr. Morris. What I am advocating is that we really move
toward, as we had been, a middle class society and the--one of
the benefits that comes from that is, you know, higher incomes,
greater education, and, you know, less children by choice.
Mr. Flake. Along those lines, you mentioned high
immigration contributing to our Social Security problems. If
you look in countries that don't have high immigration or
don't--or are pursuing a two-child family, Japan, for example,
or what Rumsfeld calls Old Europe, there are massive problems
in the future with pension benefits, and we face those same
struggles here.
Mr. Morris. I don't think we do; not with the rate of
immigration that we've had.
Mr. Flake. Well, that's what I'm saying. But if we had a
policy like you're advocating, then, we, in fact, would face
substantial problems in that area. As it stands, there's
between, I think, $28 billion and $30 billion over the last
decade being paid into Social Security that isn't paid out in
benefits because it's paid into fraudulent accounts. And I'm
not saying that's a good thing, but I'm saying that's the
reality of unless you have a good number of workers to follow,
if you say simply we're just going to stop, no more immigrants,
just very few, just replacement level, we're going to have a
massive problem, I would suggest, in a number of years.
Mr. Morris. You know, I think that was the goal,
Congressman. I don't think that we urged this immediately
happen. That's where we really want to go, not that there is
any, there should be any steps to do that with any kinds of
things right away. And I didn't mention Social Security in my
discussions.
Mr. Flake. There's a part of your Website that mentions it.
Mr. Morris. Oh, okay.
Mr. Flake. Mr. Beck, you mentioned the idyllic forties,
fifties and sixties as if there was no imported labor for
anything. You're familiar, I'm sure, with the Bracero Program
that happened prior to that; a number of decades before, the
Transcontinental Railway. If I remember my history right, that
wasn't exactly built with domestic workers. Do you have any
comments?
Mr. Beck. Well, that happened during the great wave of
immigration that you're talking about. But during the thirties,
forties, actually, from 1924 until the seventies, there was
what the economists called the great compression. That was the
time when the lower class gained a lot on the middle class, and
the middle class gained on the upper class. Yes, there was the
Bracero Program. It was one that just kind of sneaked in in the
middle of World War II. There was no sign that the country
needed those workers, but some of the lobbyists for some of the
agribusinesses managed to sort of persuade them to do that.
But for the most part, we had very low immigration. We had
a very tight labor market in the fifties and sixties, and that
propelled us toward a great middle class economy.
Mr. Flake. And that does not exist today; no need for labor
today?
Mr. Beck. There's plenty of need for labor but no need for
imported labor, yes.
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Sanchez, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to ask unanimous consent that a letter from
MALDEF be entered into the record as part of the written----
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Second, I just wanted to make a couple of points before I
get down to some questions. We had a Subcommittee meeting, I
believe it was either last week or week before last, where we
had somebody estimate that if we were to deport 500 out of this
8 to whatever million undocumented workers that are in this
country--the number seems to rise with people's, you know,
depending on who's using the number to meet their needs for
argument, 500 people a day were to be deported and given 400
days in a year, and we know that there are less than that, but
just for simple mathematics sake, it would take 50 years to
deport all of the workers that are currently in this country.
So when we talk about immigration reform, we need to do
something to address that in a comprehensive way, and I think
that there can be a way that guest worker programs can be
structured to alleviate some of that problem and to put people
on the path to citizenship. These are workers that are integral
parts of our economy that have been working here and living
here, raising families here, contributing to taxes,
contributing to our Social Security system, and I might suggest
that the idyllic, you know, 1940's and fifties labor market,
when we talk about a lack of jobs in this country, something
that has glaringly been omitted from everybody's testimony is
the fact that we continue to export jobs overseas and that our
labor standards here, while they look wonderful on paper, the
enforcement mechanism for them is very low as well.
So there are a number of other factors that play very
heavily into this lowered working conditions and lowered wages
and lower standards for American workers, and I do believe that
Ms. Jackson Lee was correct in saying that you cannot hang all
of those problems in the necks of immigrant labor.
Mr. Beck, in your testimony, you talk about occupation
collapse, where wages plummet, benefits disappear, and working
conditions deteriorate, which you claim threatens American
lower middle class jobs. If a guest worker program included
prevailing wage provisions to ensure that wages didn't plummet,
that guaranteed secured benefits and demanded solid working
conditions to a particular labor market, wouldn't those
protections prevent that occupation from, in fact, collapsing?
Mr. Beck. The kind of protections that you're talking about
and Mr. Chishti talked about, none of them are in any of the
proposals that are being talked about: not the President's
proposals, not the Democratic leadership's proposals. It would
be helpful, if someone were serious about guest worker
programs, to actually put forth one that would try to meet Mr.
Chishti's standards, that is, someone who actually supports
guest worker programs, says they support them, to protect
American workers.
I do not believe, we do not believe the information is
there--the studies are there--to show that we actually need
these people. But I think that, yes, if you would put all of
those truly enforceable provisions in place, you could probably
prevent occupational collapse. What you would get is not a race
to the bottom but a gradual decline. Remember prevailing wages
don't stop wages from declining, but they do stop them from
collapsing.
Ms. Sanchez. I understand, so if those protections could be
included in a guest worker program----
Mr. Beck. Truly enforceable, we probably would not see
collapse.
Ms. Sanchez. And our Government was serious about enforcing
them, then, we would not see that collapse in occupations.
Mr. Chishti, do you believe that ensuring employers pay the
prevailing wage and provide the adequate benefits is a way to
ensure that both American workers and guest workers are
protected?
Mr. Chishti. It's absolutely essential, because otherwise,
there will be huge incentives to continue to hire undocumented
workers.
Ms. Sanchez. And those of us who do advocate for meaningful
immigration reform and immigrants' rights, we always talk about
legalization, earned legalization through guest worker
proposals as a part of our proposals. Would you give your
thoughts, please, on why legalization is an important and
integral part of protecting American workers and immigrant
workers in this country?
Mr. Chishti. Because right now, whatever, as you said, we
don't know the numbers; whatever the numbers, 8 to 12 million
people, these are people who are part of our labor market. In
many places, they're working in the same factory as a U.S.
worker. They certainly are working in comparable occupations.
If you have a pool of people which is exploitable and
constantly exploited on a daily basis in this country because
of their status, that provides a huge downward pressure on
wages and therefore affects U.S. workers.
So the only way to improve the conditions of U.S. workers
is to establish a parity between them and the foreign workers
who are right now getting exploited, and frankly, the only sure
way of doing that is to give them a legal status.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you very much; I appreciate your
comments, and I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, looks like all we have is 5
minutes. I am going to split my time, Mr. Chairman, with the
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, who had a noon conflict and now
has a vote conflict as well.
I want to make a couple of points. First of all, I'd like
to point out that there was a recent poll in Texas this last
week that was absolutely amazing to me. This was a Scripps-
Howard Texas Poll. Eighty-six percent of those surveyed said
illegal immigration is a very serious or somewhat serious
problem, and 69 percent of Texans said the U.S. Government is
not doing enough to stop unauthorized immigration.
Mr. Chairman, there is no reason we can't enforce our
immigration laws. Clearly, there is a public support for it. It
is politically sustainable and supportable. It may not be
politically correct, but it shows that the American people want
their Government to do more than it is right now to reduce
illegal immigration.
Mr. Krikorian, I'm not going to ask you a question, but I
just want to say I agree with what you said in your testimony.
I also happen to agree with what Ms. Jackson Lee said awhile
ago, but we come to different conclusions. And that is if you
have a guest worker program as the Administration has proposed,
which says to an individual we're going to give you a job,
we're going to let you bring your family into the United
States, we're going to let you stay here for six or more years
and perhaps choose a citizenship track, that there is a very
small likelihood that these individuals are going to return
home.
Now, that concerns me as opposed to makes me want to give
everybody citizenship, which is how some feel. But anyway, I
agree with your point there.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Beck, a quick question for you: who gets
hurt the most by a guest worker program?
Mr. Morris. In my testimony, I think I generally--low-wage
workers. And all of my academic life, it's been pretty clear,
when we're talking low-wage, low-educated workers in America,
we're talking about a disproportional number of those who are
African-Americans, because as Congressman Jackson Lee, in
addition to being low-income, low-educated, you have clear
racism and clear nonpreferences as the last hired and first
fired.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck. Same answer except to emphasize that Hispanics
are greatly affected. There are some studies that suggest that
Hispanic Americans are more disproportionately impacted
negatively.
Mr. Smith. And, Mr. Beck, on the basis of your testimony,
would you agree that if there were fewer guest workers, wages
would rise, and if wages rose, more American workers would be
likely to take those jobs?
Mr. Beck. Yes, it's the virtuous circle.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Smith, I appreciate your yielding.
In the narrow time that we have here, I want to try to roll
out one piece of philosophy and try to get a response to that,
and it is that the statement has been made that we can't
logistically deport 14 million illegals in this country, and
there's some discussion on whether we could actually do that or
not, and we couldn't do that in a year; we couldn't do it in 2
years; we might be able to do it in 10 years.
But I think there's another way to approach this, and
certainly, with regard to the necessity to enforce our borders
and the necessity to enforce internally, but it's to remove the
jobs magnet. And that's really the attraction here. And we
talked about the competition piece of this, we don't have the
enforcement by the INS, and then, when they do come in, and
they do raid a factory that has a lot of illegal workers, they
tend to call ahead and let the word be leaked out, and those
folks don't show up for work that day.
So what I'm suggesting is this: that we look at this
another way, and that is employers are, willingly and some
unknowingly, hiring illegals for the reasons that we know: the
economic incentives are there. Now, just suppose that the
deductibility, Federal deductibility for wages and benefits
paid to illegals were no longer deductible. Just suppose the
IRS could come in and audit any company that had access to our
computer database now where they can verify by Social Security
number whether they in fact have a legal worker on their hands
in their employment or not, and so, we can start within the
next couple of years once we verify that system. And the IRS
could come out, then, and do the auditing and make the
verification and do the appropriate billing of removing that
deductibility so that an employer, then, would be liable for
wages and benefits and penalty on the deductions they've made
to illegals?
What effect do you believe that that would have on the
numbers of illegal workers that we have in this country, and I
would direct initially to Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck. Well, that's the first I've heard that idea, so I
can't give a full thought on it. But on first thought, it
sounds like a very useful tool. And I think in order to deal
with illegal immigration, we need lots and lots of tools
working all at once. We have parts of Government that pretend
like they aren't noticing laws broken. So I think anything that
further discourages businesses from hiring and makes life
tougher for illegal aliens is helpful. Sounds good.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Beck.
Could I ask unanimous consent for one more minute?
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for one
more moment, and we will be recessing after this minute of
questions.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? Not
objecting, but if I am willing to miss this series of votes, if
you are willing to let me take the chair so that everybody else
can go over and vote and come back?
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Mr. Cannon. That way, I'll defer my questions and withdraw
any----
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Iowa.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm directing it to Dr. Morris, and that would be there are
quite a number of Members of this Congress who represent
minority Congressional districts, and they seem to also be
representing or at least speaking on behalf of illegal aliens
in this country and their employability. Can you explain to me
that phenomenon as to why representatives of the minority
community might also be defenders of illegal immigration?
Mr. Morris. Well, one of the things that happens is that in
our African-American communities, especially from our churches,
there is a tremendous often sympathy for the underdog. There is
a realization that not only are African-Americans under duress
and under strain; our history of our experience in this country
leads us and leads many of us to identify with those others who
may be under strain.
Now, as to the representatives, I let them sort of speak
for themselves. But I think that increasingly, the statistics
show that there is concern among our African-American
population, concerns that are not reflected in legislation,
concerns about--because many of them about competition, not
only low-wage competition; about the lack of seeing African-
Americans in the services. If you've gone around anywhere in
African-American fraternities, sororities, when you go to
service establishments, to know that African-Americans can do
this and not see it.
So there has been a great deal of discussion. The only
other explanation I can say is that our African-American
Representatives are not unlike the other Representatives here;
that there are issues where they differ from their
constituency. The Center for Immigration Studies published a
study from the Council on Foreign Relations that shows that on
immigration, there is this--the difference is greatest of all
between the views of some of the constituents and some of the
elites. With all due respects, you are all elite, and I think
that this is a reflection of that, too.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Morris.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cannon. [presiding.] I sort of like this chair.
[Laughter.]
I actually thought this was going to be my chair at this
point in time.
Would you like to--the Chair yields to the gentlelady from
Texas for 5 minutes or so much time as she may consume.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentleman very
much. I will be yielding to the Chairman, because I will be
going to the floor to vote, and I thank him for his
graciousness and his respect for the time of the panelists here
to sacrifice and to remain in the chair, and maybe if he
remains, he will continue to remain in the chair, but we
certainly appreciate his leadership and the leadership of
Chairman Hostettler as well.
Let me, Mr. Morris, focus on questions or a point of Mr.
King. Let me just say to you that I proudly joined with the
nation's unions when they joined in in a collaborative effort
to deal with what we call access to legalization. I happen to
have a majority minority district, but I happen to have a very
eclectic, diverse district, Hispanics, African-Americans,
Asians, others and Native Americans, and in Texas, we say
Anglos.
I think it is--I think we should not be debating and
discussing this issue when it relates to both Hispanics and
African-Americans without keenly focusing on race. And why do I
say that? I'll try to be as brief as I can. Before the wave of
immigration came into this country, there was a decided society
of black and white. We didn't do what we needed to do with the
African-American community post-civil rights era, 1964 and
1965, in infusing capital into inner cities and rural areas
with job training, with educational opportunities, and
therefore, in the pecking order just like the wave of
immigrants that came in into the 1800's, Irish, Italians, early
1900's, their boats rose, they left those jobs, and then, a new
wave of immigrants came in.
In actuality, because of the economics of this country, we
built our economy on immigrant labor over the years. What
happened with African-Americans is that, unfortunately, racism
kept them in a divided community, and their boat did not lift
exponentially the way it should have been lifted. The
representation that minorities or minority Congresspersons or
Representatives support illegal immigration is an outrage,
because what is being supported is the existence of individuals
in your community, putting them on a track to become citizens,
and, as you have heard me say, I am not a fan of the guest
worker program; do not believe it has any substance to it
whatsoever.
But what I would like to see any immigration bill have
retainment of American workers, training of American workers,
recruitment of American workers, promotion of American
businesses to hire them but at the same time recognize the
roles and opportunities for immigrant workers.
Can you not deny that race is a deciding factor and that
when we look at immigration, we should track alongside of it
the whole job training and education aspect to it?
Mr. Morris. Undoubtedly, it is, Congresswoman. But one of
the things that also stands out is that education does not
explain, I mean, that African-Americans who have better
education, who are better educated, better English proficiency,
are still not preferred in the low wage job market. So, you
know, it's just--I just want to caution you that it's not
education and training that are the reasons why there are these
African-American deficits that run throughout the labor market.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I would say to you that race still
remains a factor, even at that level, and that is our
responsibility in Congress not to mix apples and oranges,
whether it's Hispanics who are being discriminated against on
the basis of language or whether it is an African-American,
there is the factor of race or distinction. And what I am
saying is because this immigration issue is so sensitive, we
must reinforce the civil rights responsibility of this
Government, because I've heard that, and I am against low wage
minority workers being discriminated against. It all goes down
to a factor in some sense on this question of race, which we
have not ridded ourselves of. When we talk about improving or
clarifying immigration issues, we have got to go and penetrate
the fact that race is a dividing factor in this country.
Mr. Morris. No doubt about that, that that is a real
concern. But I would also hope that when you are looking at
ways of reforming immigration that you would also look for ways
of reinforcing citizenship also, incentives, especially
economic incentives that will generate citizenship and
encourage American employers to hire Americans. The economic
incentives are some of the greatest incentives.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We may come at it a different way, and
thank you, Mr. Chairman, but we may get to the same point.
My concluding remark is immigration does not equate to
terrorism, and this nation is a nation of immigration and a
nation of laws, and I think we must find the balance and not
run hysterically into the wind to do something, to try to do
something that we just cannot do. And I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Be happy to yield.
Mr. Cannon. I'm just wondering if you will interpret Texan
for me. Does Anglo mean Anglo-Saxon, or does that include the
Celts as well? [Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Celts have distinguished themselves,
but we broadly use Anglo as Anglo-Saxon, but we also broadly
use it in Texas since we are loose with our words as the
caucasian population. But I would beg to say to you that our
distinctive communities under the Anglo umbrella make it very
clear that they are this and that and this. That's why we are a
nation of immigrants, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, and I respect that diversity. Thank
you.
Mr. Cannon. I thank the gentlelady. In fact, we are a
nation of immigrants. We are a nation of diverse cultures. I
think we have done remarkably well together, and I think that
we have a significant problem right now. Thank you. I thank the
gentlelady.
First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Krikorian and Mr. Beck
for being here again. You've been here in the past. I
appreciate the forthcomingness of your answers in the past. Mr.
Krikorian, we were talking a little earlier; I appreciate that,
and Mr. Beck, I just read the transcript of the last hearing
that we had, and you were very thoughtful and very forthcoming,
and I appreciate that.
Most of my questions are going to be for the two of you. We
were talking at the break, Mr. Krikorian and I, about the Wall
Street Journal article which he disputes and points out that
that is guilt by association, but in fact, what I would like to
explore is the association of groups, how they work together.
This is what we talked about, I think, a little bit before, Mr.
Beck; a lot of information, I think, that has become public
since then, some of it in articles, and I don't suggest that
journalists are all that reliable sometimes, so we're not going
to hold anybody to a journalistic standard.
But there are some things that I would like to understand,
and let me just start off with the context that we're facing
right now in America. One of the major national environmental
associations is under, as Business Week and Time, and I think
there was also an article in Newsweek that said, under assault
by forces who want to limit immigration. And so, you have on
the board of the Sierra Club currently Dr. John Tanton, and you
have seeking membership on the board former Governor Dick Lamm
along with two others, and all of these articles have been
consistent that there would be a coalition which would include
two other people who are People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals types and therefore would ultimately control the Sierra
Club and an organization that has a budget of $95 million.
Mr. Morris, you are obviously anxious about this. Would you
like to say something?
Mr. Morris. Thank you, Congressman, because I'm a candidate
for the Sierra Club board who has been defamed by this kind of
activity.
Mr. Cannon. Are you one of those people that Dick Lamm
would say is running?
Mr. Morris. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Cannon. Well, great, we'll have a discussion about it.
Mr. Morris. Yes, I would be delighted to have a discussion.
[Laughter.]
Since it was claimed that I am----
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me, Mr. Morris, let me just take a few
more steps, and then, you can actually be responsive to some
questions, because I think it is fair. Now, I have been quite
careful to only give the characterization of this that Time and
Newsweek--in fact,
Business Week had a couple of articles, I think. So, in
fact, I'm only saying what's said, and we'd like the response
on that.
But in particular, I'd like to pursue what these
relationships are and associations are and funding relations
are. So I am going to ask the questions of who is funding your
organizations, and I hope that you'll be forthcoming with that.
But that said, I think the question is, as one of the
three, and I did not realize you were one, because they have
only mentioned Dick Lamm.
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. You need to be governor of a State, I suppose,
to get the kind of attention.
Mr. Morris. I guess that's right, yes.
Mr. Cannon. But is there not a view that the three of you
who are running together with the PETA folks would dominate the
policy of the Sierra Club?
Mr. Morris. That is totally unfounded, sir.
Mr. Cannon. It's founded, because it is published
everywhere, but if you explain why that is not the case, I'd
appreciate it.
Mr. Morris. Well, I'd like to explain why. We've had almost
unprecedented violation of Sierra Club rules, elections where
you have the executive director, Mr. Pope, getting actively
involved in a board election. You know, after Sarbanes-Oxley,
you would really wonder about that. My own particular run for
the board goes almost back to the days when I served with the
Congressional Black Caucus Foundations, when I saw that there
was Sierra Club activities from progressive Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus and others, but I didn't see the
reciprocal response of the Sierra Club to the kinds of health
and environmental issues that disproportionately impacted low
wage African-American and other kinds of communities.
So my early involvement went with the Global Tomorrow
Coalition and then my church, the United Church of Christ, we
funded the initial studies that showed a disproportional
location of toxic waste dumps in low wage communities and so
forth. So it wasn't until later that the Sierra Club began to
get involved.
So the real issue here is the fact that there is a fear of
loss of control. Some of us are running for the board because
we feel the Sierra Club has not been as effective as it should
be, a, that there is an issue of $100 million of anonymous
donations that goes to the club that influences policies
greatly, and those anonymous donors are not even known to
members of the board.
There are issues of outreach. The Sierra Club has not had
effective outreach into minority communities. Some of us feel
that we know how to do that. These are the reasons why we're
running for the board. But to run for the board, then, to
have--to be slandered by saying that, you know, that those
supporters----
Mr. Cannon. In fairness, there are two kinds of groups out
there, if it is slander, of course. Slander is not true. But
one of them is the current leadership of the Sierra Club.
You're certainly threatening them, are you not?
Mr. Morris. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Cannon. And they are the guys who are planning to----
Mr. Morris. They don't want to lose control. That is
exactly right.
Mr. Cannon. But do you support Dick Lamm's views?
Mr. Morris. Do I support--Dick Lamm has his own views, sir,
and I have my own views.
Mr. Cannon. But are you running together?
Mr. Morris. No, sir; no, we are not, but we have similar
views. We have similar views on a number of things. One of the
things we share is a concern about sustainability.
Mr. Cannon. You know, there are a lot of things that the
Sierra Club does that I don't care very much about. I do care
about population right now. It is at least said in the press,
and maybe coming from the current leadership of the Sierra
Club, is the allegation that many, many hate groups, white
supremacist groups and racist groups are supporting Dick Lamm
and his slate, which, according to the press, would include
you. [Laughter.]
The question is not do they support you. The question is
are there--is it true that you have these hate groups that are
coming in, joining the Sierra Club, and voting in this
election?
Mr. Morris. I don't believe that is true at all. We've
asked them to give evidence of that, and they do not because
they cannot. What that charge wants to do is to say that
anybody who is really concerned about population stabilization
and the impact of immigration on that must be identified with
hate groups.
One of the things that I've had the privilege of doing, and
I am going, in a letter to the New York Times, it will come out
clearly, that the position which I hold on immigration is the
position that's been held by the most distinguished African-
American leaders of the past centuries, from Frederick Douglass
to W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to A.
Philip Randolph.
To say that these positions, which are also held by the
majority of African-Americans and on concerns about immigration
by the majority of Americans are held by--are positions that
are engendered by nationalism or racism is just absurd, and
it's vicious, and it is just simply very much unfair.
Mr. Cannon. Now, you've been around the community for a
long time.
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Are there not groups out there funding these
various organizations that have a wide interest which, in fact,
are tied to funding groups that fund racist groups?
Mr. Morris. I think that's absolutely not correct. I'm
intimately familiar with both DASA, which has sometimes been
charged with that. I am very familiar with the Center and Mark
here, who also has been charged with that charge, and that's
just simply not true, sir.
Mr. Cannon. It's not true that you have groups out there
that are funding racist organizations and the group of
associated organizations that are promoting immigration control
and population control?
Mr. Morris. All I can say----
Mr. Cannon. Well, let me ask some specific questions.
Mr. Morris. Sure, go ahead.
Mr. Cannon. Because generalities don't help. Let me talk
about, since Governor Lamm is now the issue, let me read two or
three quotes from Governor Lamm and just get your personal,
your organizational responses to those. In 1986, Governor Lamm
said, ``I never did believe in that give me your tired, your
poor,'' quoting from Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of
Liberty. Do you and your organizations associate yourself with
such remarks?
Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. What was the remark, now, again? What about
Emma Lazarus?
Mr. Cannon. ``I never did believe in that give me your
tired, your poor stuff.''
Mr. Krikorian. I'm not really sure what the poem means; I'm
not sure what the Governor meant when he said it. So, do I
endorse cliches? I don't know. I mean, give me a substantive
statement, and I will tell you whether I am for it or not.
Mr. Cannon. How about in 1984, Governor Lamm stated
``terminally ill people have a duty to die and get out of the
way.''
Mr. Krikorian. That I can answer.
Mr. Cannon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Krikorian. CIS does not now nor has it ever supported a
duty to die, because it is not an immigration issue, and
therefore, we take no position on any nonimmigration issues.
Mr. Cannon. You don't take a position on immigration or
population control.
Mr. Krikorian. CIS takes positions on immigration
specifically. We have no--CIS is not now nor has it ever been
in favor of abortion. CIS is not now nor has it ever been in
favor of Government policies to control the population.
Mr. Cannon. Have you taken money from organizations that
propose those theories?
Mr. Krikorian. CIS is not now nor has it ever been a
recipient of funds from the Pioneer Fund, which is apparently
the group that everybody is----
Mr. Cannon. Well, there are actually a number of groups out
there. Can you tell us who you have received funds from?
Mr. Krikorian. We get funds from a variety of groups on the
right, the left and the center. I can list some of them. The
Scafe and Olan Foundations and Bradley on the right. Among
liberal groups, the Weeden Foundation is a conservation-
oriented group, and then, in sort of the middle or nonpolitical
groups, the Hewlett Foundation and the German Marshall Fund.
These are all pretty mainstream outfits.
Mr. Cannon. What percentage of your funding do those groups
account for?
Mr. Krikorian. Most of it; I mean, we don't have any direct
mail stuff. So I don't know the numbers, but the majority, the
overwhelming majority of it comes from foundations.
Mr. Cannon. Let me--do you, Mr. Morris, do you agree with
that statement about people having a duty to die?
Mr. Morris. No, but that's, you know----
Mr. Cannon. Do you find it offensive?
Mr. Morris. I don't know the context, sir, I really don't
know the context. You know, we all are going to die. I just
would like to know the context.
Mr. Cannon. The context was we need to reduce the
population, I think. Does your group believe that we need to
reduce the population?
Mr. Morris. Of the United States?
Mr. Cannon. Yes, of the United States.
Mr. Morris. Yes, through natural means, through means of
increased economic development. And the population was dropping
by natural means. Immigration is really what stimulates--and it
continues to stimulate our population growth much
disproportionately. The United States, like other advanced
industrial countries, had been, you know, stabilizing, had been
moving toward stabilization.
Mr. Cannon. And do you think that's a good thing?
Mr. Morris. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. I think that one of the
things that--when industrial countries move toward
stabilization, it's often accompanied with increases in many of
the kinds of benefits: increases in education, increases in
wealth; you know, that's one of the things that differentiates
industrial countries, advanced industrial countries, from those
that are not. And I want us to be among the best.
Mr. Cannon. I think that you need population to be the
best, and we have the best tools. But we differ on that point.
Mr. Beck, do you agree with that?
Mr. Morris. Excuse me; can I just say--we are not arguing
not having population. I think we are talking about the degree
of magnitude of increase, aren't we?
Mr. Cannon. Well, let me get through another couple of
questions so we have some context.
Mr. Beck, do you agree with that quote by Governor Lamm?
Mr. Beck. Which quote?
Mr. Cannon. That is that people have a duty to die and get
out of the way?
Mr. Beck. I can't really comment very well, because
NumbersUSA does not deal with those issues. But I do remember
as a newspaper reporter at the time when that quote was made,
and as I recall, I believe if you will check, I believe it has
nothing to do with population. I think it has everything to do
with health care costs.
Mr. Cannon. Well, he did talk about--let me just give you
another quote here. The best thing that could happen--this is
1985--``the best thing that could happen to this country is for
a whole bunch of hospitals to go broke.'' And I think the
context of that was if hospitals go broke, people die, and we
have a smaller population.
Mr. Beck. I don't believe that that was really the context.
But as I say, NumbersUSA doesn't take positions on those kinds
of things. We are not involved in health care.
Mr. Cannon. Who funds NumbersUSA?
Mr. Beck. Pretty much the same funders as when I answered
your questions 3 years ago.
Mr. Cannon. We never got to that. We never got the answer.
Unfortunately, we lost my time, and I couldn't----
Mr. Beck. There was a very long list, and I submitted them
to you. But we have a number of foundations but primarily
individuals. That is, the majority of our money comes from
individuals. We have about--it's about 25,000 active members.
Mr. Cannon. And how much do they pay per member? What is
the cost of membership?
Mr. Beck. There is no cost of membership. It's pass the
collection plate.
Mr. Cannon. What proportion of your funding comes from the
``collection plate'' of many members or in small contributions,
and what portion comes from larger contributors?
Mr. Beck. To give you an accurate answer, I really should
get back to you, but I believe it's about 60 percent comes from
the collection plate.
Mr. Cannon. Okay; and does, Mr. Krikorian, you mentioned
the Pioneer Fund. Does the Pioneer Fund give money to your
group?
Mr. Beck. No, it does not. Never has.
Mr. Cannon. Never has? Great. Mr. Krikorian what is your
relationship with Dr. Tanton? What has it been historically?
Mr. Krikorian. You mean personally or institutionally?
Mr. Cannon. Both; let's go with institutional.
Mr. Krikorian. In either case, none. Dr. Tanton has never
been on the board of CIS. He wrote us a check, I think it was a
year ago. It was the first check I have seen from him in 9 or
10 years. It was $100. I didn't think to send him a
questionnaire before I cashed his check, but that's about it.
We have no institutional relationship with him one way or the
other.
Mr. Cannon. On January 11, 1986, he wrote--he had been the
founder of FAIR, as you recall, and he wrote a memo stating, To
expand our fundraising machine, we created the Center for
Immigration Studies last year. We need to get CIS fully funded
and entrenched as a major Washington think tank, one that can
venture into issues which FAIR is not ready to raise.''
Mr. Krikorian. We were indeed a spinoff of FAIR, a kind of
spinoff. Not a spinoff like Mr. Chishti's group is a spinoff of
the Carnegie Endowment, where it actually was sort of an
incubator, grew there, and then became a separate organization.
We were a spinoff in sort of the minimal sense in that we were
under FAIR's nonprofit tax status. If you know how 501(c)(3)s
work, we were under the umbrella of their nonprofit IRS ruling
for a few months until our independent status came through. And
since then, we have had no institutional or financial
relationship. They do their thing, we do ours.
Mr. Cannon. But they created--FAIR, led by Dr. Tanton at
that point in time, created your organization as part of FAIR;
had a theoretical concept of where CIS should go and what gap
it would fill in an overall set of activities, and you don't--
I'm sorry; you don't see that as an important relationship?
Mr. Krikorian. CIS was necessary because there was no think
tank on the side, the sort of critics of immigration side, the
low immigration side. There were merely political advocacy
groups. And so it filled the role and continues to fill the
role of a----
Mr. Cannon. A role which he identified as very important.
Mr. Krikorian. Sure; yes, he did seem to identify it. A lot
of people identified it. There was one member of their board
who joined our board. We have one of our board members who is
no longer on our board but who was on our board for a number of
years and chairman of our board that was the, you know, that
was the extent, frankly, of the relationship.
Mr. Cannon. But you are now a separate 501(c)(3)
organization?
Mr. Krikorian. Have been for 17 or 18 years, something like
that, yes.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Beck, as I understand it, and we were just
at this point where we didn't quite clarify it when we had our
last hearing, NumbersUSA is what Mr. Krikorian characterized as
a project under FAIR. You are currently a project, as I
understand it, under US, Inc.?
Mr. Beck. No.
Mr. Cannon. Would you explain what your legal
organizational status is?
Mr. Beck. NumbersUSA is a separate 501(c)(3) with a
separate board of directors.
Mr. Cannon. How long has it been separate?
Mr. Beck. It has been since, I guess, January of '02.
Mr. Cannon. So recently. Prior to that, it was----
Mr. Beck. We were not quite as quick to fly the nest as
CIS. I did a book tour from my W.W. Norton book in 1996. As a
result of that tour, I started an organization called
NumbersUSA and looked for a place to hang the hat and worked
inside US, Inc., which is basically an umbrella organization
for about three dozen different nonprofits. It allows you to be
able to share legal and accounting facilities. And so, we
operated as a programmatically autonomous organization from
1997 until January of 2001.
Mr. Cannon. And now, you are actually an
independent----
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. --legally organized separate organization?
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. But you have had a long and intimate
relationship with Dr. Tanton, US, Inc. and the other allied
groups, of which I think there are 20 or 30 out there that
exist together to accomplish various objectives that he and
others likeminded have.
Mr. Beck. Well, I think I would like the definition of
intimacy before saying yes on that. But I have known--as I
explained last time--as a reporter, Dr. Tanton, when I was a
reporter in Michigan and Dr. Tanton was a newsmaker. I covered
him in the seventies; I covered him in the eighties, so yes, I
have known Dr. Tanton a long time.
Mr. Cannon. And you worked under his aegis for a very long
time?
Mr. Beck. Aegis being defined?
Mr. Cannon. Cloak, the coverage of his views of the world.
Mr. Beck. The umbrella.
Mr. Cannon. The umbrella.
Mr. Beck. The legal umbrella, yes, sir.
Mr. Cannon. But beyond just an umbrella that keeps the IRS
off your head, this is rather a close personal relationship
where you guys share ideas, and you perform functions that he
thinks are important.
Mr. Beck. No, that would suggest that he would be my
supervisor, no, he doesn't.
Mr. Cannon. Prior to the time you split off
organizationally, he signed your paychecks, didn't he?
Essentially, did the organization that he headed, that he
chaired, signed your paychecks?
Mr. Beck. Because all of the financial things were done
inside there. But I don't want to----
Mr. Cannon. But he wouldn't have signed your paychecks if
you didn't agree with him, if you were going contrary to him.
Mr. Beck. Of course. I don't want to make--I'm just trying
to answer your questions precisely. But I don't want to make it
seem like, for some reason, that there is any defensiveness
about knowing John Tanton or having been connected with John
Tanton or with groups that he is associated with. I am just
explaining what the organic relationship----
Mr. Cannon. No, I understand the nature of the organic
relationship.
Mr. Beck. As I explained 3 years ago both orally and with
the written answers to your questions, I have known Dr. Tanton
for three decades, and I would not be able to tell you how many
times I have talked to him.
Mr. Cannon. And Dr. Tanton has a vision of what ought to
happen in America related to immigration and other associated
ideas like the environment?
Mr. Beck. He does but I have a vision also.
Mr. Cannon. And there are many groups that perform discrete
functions within the context of what his ideas of what ought to
be done are, is that not true?
Mr. Beck. No, that would not be true.
Mr. Cannon. Why not? He certainly calls himself the founder
of many, many groups. You are aware of the various groups,
because you've reported on him, that he's founded.
Mr. Beck. I once as a newspaperman began an article saying
that Dr. John Tanton of Petoskey is a Petoskey--no, excuse me,
is a Petoskey ophthalmologist who is an obstetrician of
national, local and State nonprofit organizations. So yes, he
is a prolific father of many organizations.
Mr. Cannon. And you hold views that he thinks are important
in the area where NumbersUSA is operating and you are
operating?
Mr. Beck. I would assume so.
Mr. Cannon. And he paid your salary for many, many years?
Mr. Beck. No, I raised my salary.
Mr. Cannon. US, Inc. paid your salary.
Mr. Beck. No, I raised my salary. US, Inc., cut the checks.
Mr. Cannon. When people made checks to pay your salary, did
they write US, Inc. or did they write Project USA?
Mr. Beck. We're NumbersUSA.
Mr. Cannon. I'm sorry; NumbersUSA. Project USA is the group
that's put--the 501(c)(3) that's put billboards up in my
district, you know, odd coincidence, funded by many of the
people who fund your organizations, by the way.
But at any rate, when they made out checks, did they make
them out to Project USA or to--I'm sorry; here, we go again.
I'm obsessed with these people. They say that I am for amnesty.
I'm not for amnesty. Let me just be very clear for the record.
But for NumbersUSA, how did they make those checks?
Mr. Beck. Yes, they made out.
Mr. Cannon. To?
Mr. Beck. To--actually, they did not make out checks at all
to NumbersUSA. They paid our bills.
Mr. Cannon. I'm sorry; who paid your bills?
Mr. Beck. US.
Mr. Cannon. Okay; right, but you raised money----
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. For your project.
Mr. Beck. And put the money----
Mr. Cannon. When the donors made out checks, did they make
out the checks to NumbersUSA?
Mr. Beck. Yes, to NumbersUSA.
Mr. Cannon. And so, NumbersUSA had a bank account.
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. And that bank account was controlled by whom?
Mr. Beck. By me.
Mr. Cannon. In the context of an organization that was a
501(c)(3), US, Inc.
Mr. Beck. Yes. And then the accountants for the umbrella
group cut the checks, made the decisions on cutting the checks.
Mr. Cannon. Exactly; in other words, you brought the money
in; they said NumbersUSA, but they went into a bank account
controlled by the accountants who worked for US, Inc.
Mr. Beck. Okay.
Mr. Cannon. Meaning that when you raised money, you were
raising money in the context of US, Inc. and its allied groups,
of which you performed a narrow part; is that not correct?
Mr. Beck. I don't think that's precise.
Mr. Cannon. You have to be precise in this room, and I'm
not trying to catch you. I want to know what the relationships
are, and I'd like you to state them precisely.
Mr. Beck. NumbersUSA was a project which I attached to US,
Inc., which is an umbrella organization. There's a number of
recycling groups, foreign language study groups, book groups.
Mr. Cannon. All the groups that Dr. Tanton was the
obstetrician for.
Mr. Beck. No, no, actually, quite a number of them were
ones that were started by other people and, like I, attached
themselves under that umbrella. This is a very common practice
in 501(c)(3)s.
Mr. Cannon. Right, sure.
Mr. Beck. I raised the money for covering NumbersUSA. The
accountants and the auditors who were hired by US, Inc. were
the ones that took charge of that bank account, in terms of
that I did not have personal access to that bank account. That
would not have been good fiduciary responsibility. I think
maybe you're trying to get at the question if, does Dr. Tanton
agree with what we've done? I'd say yes, for the most part, he
does.
But it was a situation which we were a programmatically
autonomous group within that organization. He and his board
would not have allowed us in that organization, under that
umbrella, if they didn't substantially agree with what we were
doing. And we were very thankful for----
Mr. Cannon. Did you meet with other autonomous programmatic
groups under that umbrella occasionally?
Mr. Beck. No, I attended, once a year, I attended a board
meeting in Michigan.
Mr. Cannon. Did you go to lunch with the other folks that
were associated with that umbrella organization?
Mr. Beck. Oh, my.
Mr. Cannon. What we're talking about here is what is the
relationship? You are asking like it is--you are talking as if
it was somehow sterile. This is not sterile. This is not
ophthalmologic surgery. We are talking about ideology and
communicating ideological ideas and donors who would come in
and support those.
Mr. Beck. I would request the opportunity to revise and
extend this response, but I don't believe I ever had lunch with
anybody who was associated with any of the US, Inc.
organizations.
Mr. Cannon. You had lunch with John Tanton, I'm sure, did
you not at some point?
Mr. Beck. No, I think I've had dinner a couple of times.
Mr. Cannon. Lunch, dinner; dinner, is that what you've
had--is dinner what you do in New York--in the evening?
Mr. Beck. That's right.
Mr. Morris. Sir, do you want any questions of me? I never
met Mr. Tanton; don't know him. I think when I was--I remember
getting a note when I was on the Jesse Jackson Show of a
commendation but that's the extent. And no funding from DASA or
anything like that.
Mr. Cannon. We appreciate your contribution to that fact.
[Laughter.]
Do you know, a guy named Donald Mann? He is the founder of
Negative Population Growth, who had his offices at a time in
FAIR's D.C. Washington office, and, of course, FAIR is: you
have US, Inc., and you have FAIR, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform, and therefore both are very tightly tied to
Dr. Tanton. He said we should give incentives to low-income
people who agree to sterilization. We should make available
free abortion to low income people on demand, and companies
should cut back or deny maternity leave to women who have more
than two children. Tanton and Dan Stein, FAIR's executive
director, lavished praise on Mann's group. Stein said ``NPG is
one of the few serious, courageous, meaningful population
control groups that's seriously dealt with immigration.''
I take it, Mr. Krikorian, from your earlier statement, you
don't agree with that personally, and your organization
doesn't.
Mr. Krikorian. Let me repeat, the Center for Immigration
Studies does not now nor has it ever supported sterilization,
abortion. And in fact, the use of immigration policy for
purposes of social engineering, either to increase or decrease
population is something that we reject altogether. We think
that Americans should decide how many kids they have, not
Congress, not anybody else.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Beck, do you agree with that statement, Dan
Stein's praise of NPG?
Mr. Beck. NumbersUSA has never had a comment about that
organization or really, I think, most others. We don't take a
stand on those issues. We just don't deal with them.
Mr. Cannon. But the organization that you were part of for
a very long time with a series of other related organizations
all moved forward with John Tanton behind the curtain guiding
and directing where you're going in your independent
activities. Is that an unfair thing to say?
Mr. Beck. Yes, I think it is.
Mr. Cannon. Why?
Mr. Beck. Because you're ascribing a management pattern
that just didn't exist and doesn't exist.
Mr. Cannon. I'm not talking about management. I'm talking
about relationships, about friends, people who talk to each
other, people who know what they're doing and coordinating what
they're doing with other folks.
Mr. Beck. You're talking about what effect that John Tanton
as an individual has on all of these organizations, and that
would suggest that he was, you know, actually in control of
these organizations. The only organization he is in control of
is US, Inc.
Mr. Cannon. John Tanton is in control of US, Inc.
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. How does he control that corporation?
Mr. Beck. He's the executive director, and he's the
chairman of the board.
Mr. Cannon. And does he have the right to name people to
the board based upon the by-laws of that organization?
Mr. Beck. I don't think so. I believe it's board-elected.
Mr. Cannon. How would you describe his relationship with
FAIR?
Mr. Beck. He's a member of the board. But FAIR is not a
part of US, Inc.
Mr. Cannon. I understand that.
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. But it is a part of the family of Tanton
groups.
Mr. Beck. That's right.
Mr. Cannon. And while he's a member of that board, you're
aware of it obviously, do you think that he asserts significant
control or direction of FAIR?
Mr. Beck. It's really not appropriate for me as part of
another organization to talk about--I mean, you really need to
have people in from FAIR if you want to talk about how FAIR's
organization works.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know people at FAIR?
Mr. Beck. Yes, I know people at FAIR.
Mr. Cannon. Do you talk to them about what their
organization is doing? I'm not asking you for what's in their
brains. I'm asking you for what they've said to you.
Mr. Beck. Yes, I talk to people at FAIR.
Mr. Cannon. And have they indicated to you that Dr. Tanton
controls FAIR?
Mr. Beck. No, I never heard that.
Mr. Cannon. Have they indicated that he's highly persuasive
in the direction of FAIR?
Mr. Beck. I've never heard that.
Mr. Cannon. Have you ever heard any of them talk about the
American Patrol?
Mr. Beck. No.
Mr. Cannon. It is a racist group that tries to capture
people sneaking across the border. Are you familiar with them
at all?
Mr. Beck. I am very familiar. Read the papers.
Mr. Cannon. That's another group that has been--Mr. Tanton
sits on the advisory board of that group.
Mr. Beck. Who's on the advisory board?
Mr. Cannon. Dr. Tanton, so just another one of his little--
one of the babies to which he gave birth as an obstetrician,
apparently. Not as a mother, apparently.
Mr. Beck. No, I do have to say, I do know that the American
Patrol, you should check with them, but they began on their
own. That's a California organization.
Mr. Cannon. Associated with the California Coalition for
Immigration Reform.
Mr. Beck. Not organically, I don't think.
Mr. Cannon. Associated, yes. But they have been classified
as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Mr. Beck. I imagine you have been, too. I mean, I'm
serious. They spread it pretty thick.
Mr. Cannon. No, I am actually the object of the American
Patrol's love. I think they call me Jabba the Hut or something
like that. I took that, as a mesomorph, pretty personally,
frankly.
I assume you're aware of the numerous articles and links on
your NumbersUSA Website that reference polls prepared for NPG
and that are paid for and prepared for by the Negative
Population Growth group.
Mr. Beck. We have a page that has probably 60 polls on
there, and I think there are a couple of Roper polls that were
sponsored by NPG.
Mr. Cannon. Let's see. Dr. Tanton and his Social Contract
published your video, Immigration by the Numbers; is that true?
Mr. Beck. No, actually, NumbersUSA published it.
Mr. Cannon. And distributed it? Was there any relationship
with the Social Contract Press on that?
Mr. Beck. Yes, I mean, the Social Contract Press is one of
the groups under the US umbrella and operates the warehouse.
And so, our videotapes were housed in that warehouse.
Mr. Cannon. Okay; but they didn't do anything other--they
didn't promote them, send them out, do anything else, pay for
the postage?
Mr. Beck. The tapes were listed in their brochure about all
of the products that they sold. We sold them. We sold them to
US, Inc., and US, Inc. sold them on consignment.
Mr. Cannon. Did you independently sell them to direct
purchasers----
Mr. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. --or groups that took them?
Did the Social Contract Press fulfill those orders when you
sent them?
Mr. Beck. Yes, I mean, we would have been happy if they had
done more, but they, yes, they were helpful.
Mr. Cannon. Are you familiar, Mr. Beck, with the word
eugenics; for those who aren't, eugenics is the study of
hereditary improvement of the human race by controlling
selective breeding.
Mr. Beck. I am.
Mr. Cannon. And are you aware that the Pioneer Fund, which
has been roundly distanced from your various organizations
today, has given money to FAIR? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Beck. I've read that in the newspapers.
Mr. Cannon. Any reason to think it's untrue?
Mr. Beck. What I've read in the newspapers is that FAIR
said they did.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Cannon, we have returned. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Cannon. The gentleman reclaims his chair. I think I
have 5 minutes remaining, don't I? [Laughter.]
Mr. Hostettler. [presiding.] You don't have 5 minutes in
about eight more hearings. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cannon. As I grab my papers together here, let me just
thank you for your participation today. Gentlemen, it has been
interesting.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the panel for your indulgence. I
apologize for my absence. I just have one more question myself.
And Mr. Krikorian, I probably ask you this question if you
could respond, and that is we've heard a lot of discussion
about sealing the borders and the cost of deportation and this
sort of thing, and if you could answer this question, I would
be most appreciative. How would the cost to seal the borders
and enforce our immigration laws to end the rise in illegal
immigration after a guest worker program has been put in place,
because that's what we're told by everyone that supports such a
program, that after we put this in place, we will enforce
immigration laws? How would that compare to the cost today
without a guest worker program?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, if a guest worker program were to be
combined with an effort to actually make it work properly by
enforcing the borders, enforcing the time limits, enforcing the
whole myriad labor protections and everything that would be
included in such a program, the infrastructure, the immigration
infrastructure required would have to be hugely increased; I
mean, massively increased, because without an enormous increase
in resources, a guest worker program would be nothing other
than a way to supercharge illegal immigration.
So if we want an immigration system that works, one way or
the other, we're going to have to spend more money. The
question is do we spend more money to control the immigration
flow both internally by enforcing the laws inside the country
and at the border without a guest worker program, or do we have
a guest worker program with that? I would have to say the
second alternative would likely be much, much more expensive
than anything I could ever propose to control the immigration
system without a guest worker program.
In other words, a guest worker program would make the whole
thing cost vastly more than it would cost otherwise.
Mr. Hostettler. To put it in the context of previous
comments, would we have the moral will, the political will, the
budgetary will to----
Mr. Krikorian. Spend that kind of money.
Mr. Hostettler. Spend that kind of money then as opposed to
now?
Mr. Krikorian. If we're not doing it now, I don't see where
the commitment to enforcement would come then, and so, what the
result would be is that a guest worker program would do nothing
but grease the skids for hugely increased illegal immigration.
Mr. Hostettler. As some might argue the 1986 amnesty did.
Mr. Krikorian. But this probably be even worse than that,
almost certainly.
Mr. Hostettler. Well, thank you. I want to once again thank
the members of the panel. I appreciate your appearance here,
your indulgence and remind the Subcommittee that all members
shall have seven legislative days to revise and extend and
enter extraneous material into the record.
The Committee business being completed, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Utah
Letter of Support for S. 1645 and H.R. 3142
February 12, 2004
Dear Member of Congress:
The undersigned organizations representing a broad cross-section of
America join together to support enactment of S. 1645 and H.R. 3142,
the Agricultural Job, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act (AgJOBS).
This landmark bipartisan legislation would achieve historic reforms to
our nation's labor and immigration laws as they pertain to agriculture.
The legislation reflects years of negotiations on complex and
contentious issues among employer and worker representatives, and
leaders in Congress.
A growing number of our leaders in Congress, as well as the
President, recognize that our nation's immigration policy is flawed and
that, from virtually every perspective, the status quo is untenable.
Nowhere is the status quo more untenable than in agriculture. America
needs reforms that are compassionate, realistic and economically
sensible--reforms that also enhance the rule of law and contribute to
national security. AgJOBS represents the coming together of historic
adversaries in a rare opportunity to achieve reforms supportive of
these goals, as well as our nation's agricultural productivity and food
security.
AgJOBS represents a balanced solution for American agriculture, a
critical element of a comprehensive solution, and one that can be
enacted now with broad bipartisan support. For these reasons, we join
together to encourage the Congress to enact S. 1645 and H.R. 3142, the
Agricultural Job, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2003,
before the 2004 Congressional April Recess.
Sincerely,
AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS
AFL-CIO
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
U.S. HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA (NCLR)
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (MALDEF)
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC)
WILLIAM C.VELASQUEZ INSTITUTE
UNITED FARM WORKERS (UFW)
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE
CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, USA
FARMWORKER JUSTICE FUND (FJF)
AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM (ATR)
ASSOCIATION OF FARMWORKER OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS (AFOP)
BIRDS EYE FOODS
DEERE & COMPANY
TYSON FOODS INC.
UNION OF NEEDLETRADES, INDUSTRIAL AND TEXTILE EMPLOYEES
(UNITE)
UNITED EGG PRODUCERS
NATIONAL CHRISTMAS TREE ASSOCIATION
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION (UFCW)
UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION
U.S. CUSTOM HARVESTERS, INC.
WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION
WESTERN UNITED DAIRYMEN
ESSENTIAL WORKER IMMIGRATION COALITION
SERVICES EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU)
A. DUDA & SONS
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL
GENERAL BOARD OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY, THE UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH
AGRICULTURAL AFFILIATES
AGRI-PLACEMENTS INTERNATIONAL
AL FRENCH, FORMER USDA DIRECTOR OF AG LABOR RELATIONS
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM
NATIONAL POTATO COUNCIL
NEW ENGLAND APPLE COUNCIL
COBANK
FIRST PIONEER FARM CREDIT
FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO (FLOC)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED LATINO
OFFICIALS (NALEO)
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (AILA)
NATIONAL CHICKEN COUNCIL
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION
SOUTH EAST DAIRY FARMERS ASSOCIATION
NORTH EAST DAIRY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
NORTHWEST HORTICULTURAL COUNCIL
WINEAMERICA, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN WINERIES
WINEGRAPE GROWERS OF AMERICA
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJA)
AMERICAN MUSHROOM INSTITUTE
CAMPAIGN FOR LABOR RIGHTS
COOPERATIVE PRODUCERS, INC.
COOPERATIVE THREE, INC.
COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST FARMER COOPERATIVES
DAIRYLEA COOPERATIVE
AMERICAN FROZEN FOOD INSTITUTE
NATIONAL MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START ASSOCIATION
FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN
GULF CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION
GULF HARVESTING, INC.
LABOR COUNCIL FOR LATIN AMERICAN ADVANCEMENT (LCLAA)
NATIONAL LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASSOCIATION (NLADA)
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS (LCCR)
MOARK LLC
TURFGRASS PRODUCERS INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FLORISTS
MAFO
MONROVIA GROWERS (CA, OR, GA, NC)
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CONSORTIUM (NAPALC)
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT
ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE (AAI)
NATIONAL FARM WORKER MINISTRY
NATIONAL KOREAN AMERICAN SERVICE & EDUCATION CONSORTIUM
(NAKASEC)
NORTHEAST FARM CREDIT REGIONAL COUNCIL
OFA--AN ASSOCIATION OF FLORICULTURE PROFESSIONALS
PAN AMERICAN RECRUITING
NORTHWOODS AGRI WOMEN
SALVADORAN AMERICAN NATIONAL NETWORK
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY
PERENNIAL PLANT ASSOCIATION
POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS
PACIFIC EGG AND POULTRY ASSOCIATION
SOUTHERN NURSERY ASSOCIATION
TOGETHER IN AMERICA
WESTERN CAROLINAS HORTICULTURAL ALLIANCE
YANKEE FARM CREDIT
TELAMON CORPORATION
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
CATHOLIC MIGRANT FARMWORKER NETWORK
HOUSING ASSISTANCE COUNCIL
* * * * * * *
ALABAMA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
AMANECER (AZ)
ARIZONA NURSERY ASSOCIATION
AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS GREEN INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
ALLIED GRAPE GROWERS (CA)
ALMOND HULLERS AND PROCESSORS (CA)
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINEGRAPE GROWERS
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF SANTA ROSA (CA)
CALIFORNIA APPLE COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINEGRAPE GROWERS
CALIFORNIA FLORAL COUNCIL
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
CALIFORNIA GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA GRAPE & TREE FRUIT LEAGUE
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR RURAL STUDIES
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION (CRLAF)
CALIFORNIA SEED ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA STRAWBERRY COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA WOMEN FOR AGRICULTURE
CATHOLIC CHARITIES, SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CA)
LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA (CA)
COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF LOS ANGELES (CHIRLA)
FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF ST. BARBARA PROVINCE (CA)
HARRY SINGH & SONS (CA)
IMPERIAL VALLEY VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION
JOHN HARRIS FARMS INC (CA)
KOREAN RESOURCE CENTER, LOS ANGELES
LASSEN CANYON NURSERY, INC. (CA)
LOS ANGELES COALITION TO END HUNGER & HOMELESSNESS
MARIN INTERFAITH TASK FORCE FOR THE AMERICAS
NISEI FARMERS LEAGUE (CA)
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA GROWERS ASSOCIATION
NURSERY GROWERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OUR LADY OF VICTORY MISSIONARY SISTERS (CA)
RAISIN BARGAINING ASSOCIATION (CA)
VENTURA COUNTY (CA) AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION
VENTURA COUNTY (CA) FARM BUREAU
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION (UFCW)
LOCAL 1442 (CA)
UNIVERSAL IMMIGRATION SERVICE (CA)
COLORADO NURSERY ASSOCIATION
COLORADO SUGAR BEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION
ESTES VALLEY MULTICULTURAL CONNECTIONS (CO)
NORTHERN COLORADO ONION ASSOCIATION
SISTERS OF LORETTO (CO)
CONNECTICUT FARM BUREAU
CONNECTICUT NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
CONNLEAF, INC (CT)
H.F. BROWN INC. (CT)
THE LYMAN FARM, INC. (CT)
DELAWARE NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
LATIN AMERICAN COMMUNITY CENTER (DE)
LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER (DC)
MIGRANT LEGAL ACTION PROGRAM (DC)
BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION (FL)
CENTRO CAMPESINO (FL)
CARLOS ROSARIO INT'L CAREER CENTER AND PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
CARIBBEAN IMMIGRANT SERVICES INC. (FL)
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORLANDO, INC.
COALITION OF FLORIDA FARMWORKER ORGANIZATIONS
EVERGLADES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
EVERGLADES HAMMOCK, INCORPORATED
FAIR FOOD AMERICA (FL)
FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC
FARMWORKERS SELF-HELP (FL)
THE FELLSMERE COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT PROGRAM (FL)
FLORIDA CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
FLORIDA CITRUS MUTUAL
FLORIDA CITRUS PACKERS, INC.
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
FLORIDA IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER
FLORIDA IMPACT
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
FLORIDA NURSERYMEN & GROWERS ASSOCIATION
FLORIDA STRAWBERRY GROWERS ASSOCIATION
FUNDACION SALVADORENA DE LA FLORIDA
GUATEMALAN UNITY INFORMATION CENTER (FL)
IMMOKALEE MULTICULTURAL MULTIPURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION
AGENCY, INC. (FL)
INDIAN RIVER CITRUS LEAGUE (FL)
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. (FL)
LIVE OAK VILLAS, LLC (FL)
LITTLE MANATEE HOUSING CORPORATION (FL)
MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT, FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES,
INC.
MUJER (FL)
PINELLAS SUPPORT COMMITTEE (FL)
RANCH ONE COOPERATIVE, INC. (FL)
REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSOCIATION (FL)
RETAIL SYSTEMS CONSULTING (FL)
SARASOTA/MANATEE FARMWORKER SUPPORTERS
SISTERS OF THE HUMILITY OF MARY--INDIAN RIVER (FL)
SKINNER NURSERIES (FL)
SUGAR CANE GROWERS CO-OP OF FLORIDA
UNITE FOR DIGNITY, INC. (FL)
CENTER FOR PAN ASIAN COMMUNITY SERVICES (GA)
GEORGIA GREEN INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
GEORGIA RURAL URBAN SUMMIT
IDAHO COMMISSION ON HISPANIC AFFAIRS
IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
IDAHO FARM BUREAU
IDAHO FOOD PRODUCERS
IDAHO GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
IDAHO GROWER SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION
IDAHO MIGRANT COUNCIL
IDAHO NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
POTATO GROWERS OF IDAHO
SNAKE RIVER FARMERS ASSOCIATION (ID/MT)
CENTRO ROMERO (IL)
CHICAGO JOBS WITH JUSTICE
CONGUATE (IL)
DISCIPLES JUSTICE ACTION NETWORK (DISCIPLES OF CHRIST) (IL)
HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS (IL)
HISPANIC LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS
ILLINOIS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
ILLINOIS MIGRANT COUNCIL
ILLINOIS NURSERYMENS' ASSOCIATION
IMMIGRATION PROJECT (IL)
INSTITUTO DEL PROGRESO LATINO (IL)
KOREAN AMERICAN RESOURCE & CULTURAL CENTER (KRCC), CHICAGO
LAW OFFICE OF SHIRLEY SADJADI (IL)
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS W. WORRELL, CHTD. (IL)
THE MIDWEST IMMIGRANT & HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER (IL)
PROJECT IRENE (IL)
THE RESURRECTION PROJECT IN CHICAGO
CENTRAL INDIANA JOBS WITH JUSTICE
INDIANA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
IMMIGRATION OUTREACH OFFICE, CATHOLIC CHARITIES/ARCHDIOCESE
OF DUBUQUE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS NETWORK OF IOWA AND NEBRASKA
IOWA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
IOWA PROJECT
SISTERS OF CHARITY (IA)
EL CENTRO, INC.--KANSAS
KANSAS FARM BUREAU
KANSAS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
KENTUCKY NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
CATHOLIC CHARITIES ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS
FARM CREDIT OF MAINE
MAINE NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
ANGELICA NURSERIES (MD)
BELL NURSERY (MD)
CASA OF MARYLAND
CENTRO DE LA COMUNIDAD, INC (MD)
JOHN SHORB LANDSCAPING, INC. (MD)
MARYLAND AQUATIC NURSERIES, INC.
MARYLAND NURSERY& LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
MIGRANT AND REFUGEE CULTURAL SUPPORT, INC. (MIRECS) (MD)
QUINN'S KINGSVILLE FARMS (MD)
ROBIN HILL FARM NURSERY (MD)
SPEAKMAN NURSERIES, INC. (MD)
CENTRO PRESENTE (MA)
IRISH IMMIGRATION CENTER (MA)
MASSACHUSETTS FARM BUREAU
MASSACHUSETTS IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE ADVOCACY COALITION
MASSACHUSETTS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY'S BILINGUAL BICULTURAL EDUCATION
TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM
MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU
MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT
MICHIGAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
LEITZ FARMS LLC (MI)
ZELENKA NURSERY, LLC (MI)
JEWISH COMMUNITY ACTION (MN)
MINNESOTA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
ST. JOSEPH THE WORKER CHURCH (MN)
CENTRO SAN MARTIN DEPORRES (MS)
MISSISSIPPI IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ALLIANCE (MIRA!)
OFFICE OF HISPANIC MINISTRY, CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF JACKSON (MS)
RICH SMITH, PASTOR OF ST. ANN CATHOLIC CHURCH, PAULDING, MS
THE SOCIAL CONCERNS COMMITTEE OF THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY OF
ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI (MS)
DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY IN ST. LOUIS (MO)
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTION SERVICE. ST.LOUIS (MO)
LATIN AMERICAN ACTION TEAM, GIDDINGS-LOVEJOY PRESBYTERY (MO)
MISSION EFFECTIVENESS, SCHOOL SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME, ST. LOUIS
MISSOURI NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
MONTANA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
NEBRASKA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 226--NEVADA
NEVADA LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
COMITE DE APOYO A LOS TRABAJADORES AGRICOLAS (NJ)
IRRIGATION ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY
MEXICAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY
MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES DIOCESE OF TRENTON
NEW JERSEY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
NEW JERSEY IMMIGRATION POLICY NETWORK, INC.
NEW JERSEY NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
RURAL HOUSING INCORPORTED (NM)
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW
CABRINI IMMIGRANT SERVICES (NY)
CAYUGA MARKETING, LLC (NY)
CENTRO HISPANO CUZCATLAN (NY)
CENTRO INDEPENDIENTE DE TRABAJADORES AGRICOLOS (CITA)--(NY)
CENTRO SALVADORENO, INC. (NY)
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS (NY)
COMMISSION ON PEACE AND JUSTICE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
DIOCESE OF ALBANY, NY
EMPIRE STATE COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS (NY)
FARM CREDIT OF WESTERN NEW YORK
FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK
LAKE PLACID GROVES LLC (NY)
NEW YORK ASSOCIATION FOR NEW AMERICANS
NEW YORK FARM BUREAU
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
NEW YORK STATE APPLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION
NEW YORK STATE CHERRY GROWERS ASSOCIATION
NEW YORK STATE NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
NEW YORK STATE VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION
PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE (NY)
PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE, ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER,
NY
RURAL AND MIGRANT MINISTRY (NY)
TORREY FARMS (NY)
WILLET DAIRY(NY)
WORKPLACE PROJECT (NY)
YKASEC--EMPOWERING THE KOREAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY (NY)
EL PUEBLO, INC (NC)
EPISCOPAL FARMWORKER MINISTRY (NC)
HIGH COUNTY AMIGOS INC. (NC)
IMMACULATE CONCEPCION CHURCH (NC)
LATINO COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION (NC)
NASH PRODUCE COMPANY, INC. (NC)
NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER
NORTH CAROLINA LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
STUDENT ACTION WITH FARMWORKERS (NC)
TRIANGLE FRIENDS OF THE UNITED FARMWORKERS (NC)
VITALINK (NC)
ZELENKA NURSERY, LLC (NC)
ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY (OH)
EN CAMINO, MIGRANT AND IMMIGRANT OUTREACH, DIOCESE OF TOLEDO
HIGH STAKES FARMS (OH)
IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT (OH)
NORTHERN OHIO GROWERS ASSOCIATION
OFFICE OF HISPANIC MINISTRY, CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CLEVELAND
OHIO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC.
OHIO FRUIT GROWERS SOCIETY
OHIO LANDSCAPERS ASSOCIATION
OHIO NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
OHIO VEGETABLE & POTATO GROWERS ASSOCIATION
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST JUSTICE AND WITNESS MINISTRIES (OH)
VLASIC PICKLE GROWERS (OH)
ASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICE ASSOCIATION, INC
OKLAHOMA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
VENEZUELAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF OKLAHOMA
CASA OF OREGON
FARMWORKER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (OR)
HOOD RIVER GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION (OR)
NORTHWEST WORKERS' JUSTICE PROJECT (OR)
OREGON ASSOCIATION OF NURSERIES
OREGON FARM BUREAU
OREGON FARM WORKER MINISTRY
OREGON LAW CENTER
PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE (PCUN) (OR)
EL VISTA ORCHARDS (WEXFORD, PA)
FIVE FORKS FRUIT (WAYNESBORO, PA)
FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS (PA)
HOLLABAUGH BROTHERS, INC. (BIGLERVILLE, PA)
PENNSYLVANIA FARM BUREAU
PENNSYLVANIA IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP COALITION
PENNSYLVANIA LANDSCAPE & NURSERY ASSOCIATION
PETER ORCHARDS (GARDNERS, PA)
SISTERS OF THE HUMILITY OF MARY--VILLA MARIA, PENNSYLVANIA--
(SISTER RUTH MARY POWERS)
STATE HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA
FEINSTEIN CENTER FOR CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES (RI)
RHODE ISLAND NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSN, INC.
AMICK FARMS (SC)
SOUTH CAROLINA GREENHOUSE GROWERS ASSOCIATION
SOUTH CAROLINA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE TREE GROWERS ASSOCIATION
CATHOLIC HISPANIC MINISTRY, DIOCESE OF KNOXVILLE (TN)
MID-SOUTH INTERFAITH NETWORK FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE (TN)
TENNESSEE IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS COALITION
TENNESSEE NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
CENTRO DE SALUD FAMILIAR LA FE (TX)
ELLISON'S (TX)
EL PASO CENTRAL LABOR UNION
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER (TX)
HOUSTON COMMUNITY SERVICES
JOVENES INMIGRANTES POR UN FUTURO MEJOR (TX)
MIDLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. (TX)
MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK, INC (TX)
RIO GRANDE VALLEY SUGAR GROWERS, INC. (TX)
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE COUNCIL
TEXAS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
TEXAS POULTRY FEDERATION
TEXAS EGG COUNCIL
TEXAS BROILER COUNCIL
TEXAS POULTRY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
TEXAS PRODUCE ASSOCIATION
TEXAS SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION
TEXAS STATE FLORIST'S ASSOCIATION
TEXAS TURKEY FEDERATION
TEXAS VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
TURFGRASS PRODUCERS OF TEXAS
UTAH FARM BUREAU
UTAH NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
HAMPTON ROADS COALITION FOR WORKERS' JUSTICE
HISPANIC COMMITTEE OF VIRGINIA
REFUGEE AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF
RICHMOND
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
VIRGINIA GREEN INDUSTRY COUNCIL
VIRGINIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
VIRGINIA JUSTICE CENTER FOR FARM AND IMMIGRANT WORKERS
VIRGINIA NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
EL CENTRO DE LA RAZA (WA)
GRUPO MEXICO OF WASHINGTON STATE
LUTHERAN PUBLIC POLICY OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE
MARSING AGRICULTURAL LABOR SPONSOR COMMITTEE (WA)
UNDERWOOD FRUIT AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY (WA)
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES (WA)
WASHINGTON GROWERS CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON GROWERS LEAGUE
WASHINGTON POTATO & ONION ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON STATE COMMISSION ON HISPANIC AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON STATE NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON SUSTAINABLE FOOD & FARMING NETWORK
COMMERCIAL FLOWER GROWERS OF WISCONSIN
GARDENS BEAUTIFUL GARDEN CENTERS (WI)
GROUNDS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF WISCONSIN
NORTHERN CHRISTMAS TREE GROWERS & NURSERY (WI)
OFFICE OF INTL. STUDENT SERVICES, UNIV. OF WISCONSIN-PLATTEVILLE
SOUTH CENTRAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO (WI)
UMOS (WI)
WISCONSIN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
WISCONSIN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
WISCONSIN LANDSCAPE FEDERATION
WISCONSIN NURSERY ASSOCIATION
WISCONSIN SOD PRODUCERS
IVAN KOHAR PARRA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LATINO COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (WI)
Prepared Statement of Bob Stallman
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Legislative Alert
Letter from Robert Guenther
Release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Weekly Standard Article
Release from the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC)
Prepared Statement of Dr. James S. Holt
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to file this statement on behalf of
the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform and the National
Council of Agricultural Employers describing the role of immigrant
labor in the United States agricultural work force and the need to
reform the H-2A alien agricultural worker program and adjust the
current agricultural work force to legal status.
The Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is a
national coalition of more than 100 national and regional agricultural
organizations devoted to reforming the H-2A temporary worker program
and providing legal status for the experienced agricultural work force
on which our nation depends. The National Council of Agricultural
Employers (NCAE) is a Washington, D.C. based national association
representing growers and agricultural organizations on agricultural
labor and employment issues and an organizer of the ACIR. The
membership of the ACIR and the NCAE membership includes employers in
agriculture and the ``green'' industries from all 50 states, and employ
more than 75 percent of the nation's hired agricultural workforce. The
membership of the ACIR and the NCAE were actively involved in the
legislative processes that resulted in the enactment of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, and have been actively involved
in immigration issues, and particularly H-2A reform, ever since. The
ACIR and the NCAE have the background and experience to provide
meaningful comments and insights into issues concerning immigration
policy and how it affects the employment practices of its members'
businesses and the availability of an adequate agricultural labor
supply, and how these programs impact working Americans and Americans
seeking employment, the subject of today's hearing.
My name is James S. Holt. I am Senior Economist with the management
labor law firm of McGuiness, Norris & Williams and the Employment
Policy Foundation in Washington D.C. I serve as a consultant on labor
and immigration matters to the ACIR and the NCAE. I am an agricultural
economist, and have spent my entire professional career specializing in
labor, human resource and immigration issues, primarily with respect to
agriculture. I served 16 years on the agricultural economics faculty of
The Pennsylvania State University, and for more than 20 years have been
a consultant here in Washington D.C. I also serve as a technical
consultant to most of the current users of the H-2A program and to
employers and associations who are attempting to access the program.
In summary, my testimony here today is that the agricultural
industry faces an imminent labor catastrophe. The commercial sector of
U.S. agriculture is absolutely dependent on hired labor. One of every
$8 of farm production expenses goes to pay for hired and contract
labor. In the labor intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural
sectors of agriculture, hired labor accounts for closer to $1 of every
$3 to $4 of farm production expenses. Yet the agricultural industry is
heavily dependent on aliens who are not legally authorized to work in
the United States. Under current law there is nothing employers can do
about this, and no alternative source of labor to turn to, even if
employers could determine who was and who was not legal. Increased
efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigration and secure the nation's
borders, as well as initiatives to ensure accurate payroll accounting
for Social Security purposes, make it impossible for the Congress and
the Nation to continue to ignore this problem.
The entire U.S. economy is facing a shortage of unskilled manual
labor. But seasonal and migratory agricultural jobs are the last
claimants for these workers. The current federal program which is
supposed to address the problem of insufficient seasonal agricultural
labor--the H-2A provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act--is
paralyzed and unworkable. The H-2A program must be reformed, and the
current agricultural work force must be provided with a means for
adjusting to legal status. The continued economic viability of U.S.
agriculture, and the jobs of millions of Americans who provide goods
and services to U.S. agricultural producers and who handle and process
U.S. agricultural products, are dependent upon an adequate work force
on U.S. farms. We urge this Committee to support efforts to address
this problem in the current Congress.
THE HIRED AGRICULTURAL LABOR PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES.
While the United States agricultural industry is overwhelmingly an
industry of family farms and small businesses, it is also heavily
dependent on hired labor. Labor is an essential input in farming, and
essentially all commercial farms rely to a greater or lesser degree on
hiring labor to perform certain essential tasks. The most recent U.S.
Census of Agriculture reports more than 650 thousand U.S. farms hired
labor directly, and more than 3.4 million hires by farmers annually.
More than 225 thousand farms also hire contract labor. Total
expenditures for hired and contract labor are estimated at $22.5
billion. This is about $1 of every $8 in farm production expenses.
Farmers spend more in hired labor expenses than they spend for such
essential agricultural inputs as seed, fertilizer, agricultural
chemicals, petroleum products, and more than farmers spend for interest
or property taxes. In fact, after purchases of livestock and feed,
hired labor accounts for more farm production expenditures than any
other category of expenses reported in the Census of Agriculture. In
the labor intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sectors, hired
labor costs average 25 to 40 percent or more of total production costs.
In modern U.S. agriculture, most production processes are
mechanized, even in the production of labor intensive commodities.
Typically, the farm family and perhaps a few year 'round hired workers
do the farm work most of the year. But seasonal hired workers are often
needed for short periods to perform certain very labor intensive tasks
such as harvesting, thinning or pruning. In many crops these labor
intensive tasks, particularly harvesting, must be performed during very
brief windows of opportunity, the timing of which can not be predicted
with precision, and which are beyond growers' control. The availability
of sufficient seasonal labor at the right time to perform these labor
intensive functions can determine whether or not the farm produces a
saleable product for that growing season.
The United States has some of the best climatic and natural
resources in the world for agricultural production, and especially for
the production of labor intensive fruits, vegetables and horticultural
crops. In a world economy where all resources, including labor, were
mobile, and there were no trade barriers, and where all countries could
specialize in those commodities in which they have a comparative
advantage, the North American continent would be, as it in fact is, one
of the major world producers of agricultural commodities, including
fruits, vegetables and horticultural specialties.
During the last several decades, markets for labor intensive
commodities have expanded dramatically in the United States and
throughout the world. This expansion has resulted from a number of
factors, including technological developments in transportation and
storage, increasing incomes both in the United States and worldwide,
and changes in consumer tastes and preferences favoring more fruits and
vegetables in the diet. National markets for labor intensive
commodities, once protected by trade barriers and the perishability of
the commodities themselves, have now become global markets, due to
technological improvements and the strong drive for freer trade that
has occurred over the past two decades.
Although it has been little regarded in policy circles, U.S.
farmers have participated fully in the dramatic growth in domestic and
world markets for labor intensive agricultural commodities. U.S. farm
receipts from fruit and horticultural specialties have more than
doubled, and from vegetables more than tripled, since 1980. Labor
intensive commodities are the fastest growing sector of U.S.
agriculture. At the same time, agricultural labor productivity has also
continued to improve. As a result, while production of labor intensive
commodities has expanded dramatically over the past two decades,
average hired arm employment has declined by about one quarter. But the
expansion of labor intensive agriculture has created tens of thousands
of new non-farm jobs for U.S. workers in the upstream and downstream
occupations that support the production and handling of U.S. farm
production for consumption and export.
Aliens have always been a significant source of agricultural labor
in the United States. In particular, labor from Mexico has supported
the development of irrigated agriculture in the western states from the
inception of the industry. As the U.S. economy has expanded, generating
millions of new non-farm job opportunities, and as domestic farm
workers have been freed from the necessity to migrate by the extension
of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers in 1976, and the
federal government has spent billions of dollars to settle domestic
migratory farm workers out of the migrant stream and train them for
permanent non-farm jobs in their home communities, U.S. workers have
moved out of the hired agricultural work force, especially the migrant
work force. These U.S. workers have been replaced by alien workers,
largely from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.
As a result, the U.S. agricultural work force has become
increasingly alien and increasingly undocumented. The U.S. Department
of Labor's National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) reported in its
1998-99 survey that 52 percent of seasonal agricultural workers working
in the United States self-identified as not authorized to work in the
United States. This was an increase from 37 percent in the previous
survey only 3 years earlier, and from only about 12 percent a decade
earlier. More than 80 percent of the new seasonal agricultural labor
force entrants in the NAWS survey self identified as not authorized to
work in the U.S. Most experts agree that the NAWS data on legal status
based on self identification by survey respondents are likely a very
conservative estimate of the illegal alien agricultural work force.
Evidence based on government I-9 enforcement actions, and verification
of Social Security information by the Social Security Administration,
often results in 70 to 80 percent or more of workers' documents being
determined to be invalid or not pertaining to the person who presented
them.
For more than 50 years there has also been a legal alien
agricultural worker admission program in the U.S. This program was
enacted as the ``H-2'' program in the Immigration and Nationality Act
of 1952. In 1986, Congress attempted to streamline the program and
redesignated it ``H-2A.'' In recent years, use of the H-2A program has
declined to a low of approximately 15,000 workers annually, although in
the past several years the number of admissions has increased
substantially, to about 45,000 workers annually.
The H-2A program has been used principally on the East coast in
fruit, vegetables, tobacco, horticultural crops, and until recently,
sugar cane. The program's structure and requirements evolved from
government-to-government treaty programs which preceded it. Over the
years the program has become encrusted with regulations promulgated by
the Department of Labor and adverse legal decisions generated by
opponents of the program which have rendered it unworkable and
uneconomic for many agricultural employers who face labor shortages.
Now that government policy is eliminating the illegal alien work force,
many growers are caught between an unworkable and uneconomical H-2A
program and the prospect of insufficient labor to operate their
businesses.
The illegal alien seasonal agricultural work force in the United
States consists of two groups. Some are aliens who have permanently
immigrated to the United States and found employment in agriculture.
Typically, these illegal immigrants start out in seasonal agricultural
work, and move into more permanent agricultural or non-agricultural
jobs as they become settled in the United States. The other component
of the U.S. illegal alien seasonal agricultural work force are
nonimmigrant migrant farm workers who have homes and families in
Mexico. Many of them are small peasant farmers. The adult workers from
these families, usually males, migrate seasonally to the United States
to do agricultural work. The most recent Department of Labor statistics
show that 42 percent of U.S. seasonal agricultural workers have their
home base abroad, while 58 percent have their home base in the U.S.
Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that as a result of intensified
border enforcement, some would-be non-immigrant alien farm workers are
finding it necessary to remain in the United States during the off
season rather than returning home, for fear that they will not be able
to get back in or because of the high cost of doing so.
Congressional efforts to control illegal immigration began with the
landmark Immigration Control and Reform Act (IRCA) of 1986. The theory
of IRCA was to eliminate the economic ``magnet'' to illegal immigration
by requiring employers to examine documents evidencing authorization to
work in the United States prior to hiring workers. It did not work for
at least three reasons. One was that one of the motives for illegal
immigration to the U.S. was not simply to better one's welfare, but to
survive, literally and figuratively. This survival drive overwhelmed
any fear of employer sanctions. The second was that Congressional
concern about invasion of privacy and big brotherism resulted in an
employment documentation process that was so compromised that it was
easily evaded by document counterfeiting. The third was that a serious
effort to enforce IRCA, including the provisions against document
counterfeiting, was never mounted. The result was that IRCA had little
impact on the volume of illegal immigration, and a perverse impact on
the hiring process. Whereas previously an employer who suspected a
prospective worker was illegal may have been willing to risk refusing
to hire that worker, the discrimination provisions of IRCA discouraged
employers from risking refusing to hire any worker who had genuine
appearing documents, even if the employer suspected the worker was
illegal.
With the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, Congress recognized the failure of
IRCA. In IIRIRA, Congress decided to test the conventional wisdom that
it was impossible to control illegal immigration at the border by
vastly augmenting the resources and personnel of the INS for border
enforcement. The result has been to make the process of illegal border
crossing more expensive and dangerous. Anecdotal evidence from farm
labor contractors and agricultural employers across the United States
is that many prospective border crossers, especially migrant farm
workers and prospective migrant farm workers, have been unable to cross
the border or have made the calculation that the cost of doing so is
too high based on their prospective earnings in the U.S. Reports from
all regions of the United States of reduced numbers of workers and
short crews are becoming more common as Congress continues to augment
resources and personnel for border enforcement.
Increased border enforcement has also had a perverse effect. It
apparently has induced some alien farm workers, who in the past crossed
the border illegally on a seasonal basis to work in the United States
during the agricultural season, to remain in the United States during
the off season for fear that they would unable to get back in the next
year. Some of these workers eventually try to smuggle their families in
to join them. Many of these workers would prefer to maintain their
homes and families in Mexico and work seasonally in the United States,
but current immigration policies make this an unattractive option.
IIRIRA also set in motion the testing of a process which many
believe is the only way to effectively control the employment of
illegal aliens. IIRIRA established a program of pilot projects for
verification of the authenticity of employment authorization documents
at the time of hire. These projects appear to have demonstrated that
pre-hire verification of documents is feasible. If and when Congress
mandates such verification, it will precipitate a real crisis in U.S.
agriculture.
Recently, Congress approved funding for a substantial increase in
enforcement of employer sanctions and audits of I-9 forms. The I-9 form
is the document completed by an employer at the time of hire on which
the employer records the employment verification documents the employee
offers to verify authorization to work in the United States. Employers
are required by law to accept documents offered by the worker which
reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, a test which virtually
all documents meet. However, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
audits of the authenticity of employment authorization documents often
reveal that 70 percent or more of seasonal agricultural workers have
provided fraudulent documents. The employer is then required to dismiss
each employee on the list who cannot provide a valid employment
authorization document, something few can do.
Independent of the effort to improve immigration control, other
forces are also affecting the agricultural work place. The Social
Security Administration (SSA) is under a Congressional mandate to
reduce the amount of wage reporting to non existent social security
accounts. Through its Enumeration Verification System (EVS), the Social
Security Administration checks employers' tax filings to match names
and social security numbers reported by employers with those in the SSA
data base. Employers receive lists of mismatches with instructions to
``correct the mistakes in reporting''. Of course, in most cases the
mismatch is not a mistake in reporting, but a fraudulent number. When
the employer engages the employee to ``correct the mistake'', the
employee disappears. It is not uncommon for employers to receive lists
of mismatches from the SSA containing 50 percent or more of the names
which the employer reported to the SSA. Confronting the employees on
these lists can have devastating effects on an employer's work force.
While the incidence of INS I-9 audits is relatively low, many
agricultural employers are receiving lists of mismatched numbers from
the SSA. Thus, many agricultural employers are being forced to confront
for the first time the reality of the legal status of their work force.
Both the I-9 audits and the SSA verification program are having a
churning effect on the agricultural work force. Farm workers with
fraudulent documents are rarely picked up and removed. Instead, the
employer is simply required to dismiss them. In effect, the illegal
aliens are being chased from farmer to farmer as their employers
receive SSA reports or are audited by the INS.
Some opponents of an alien agricultural worker program argue that a
program is not needed because employer sanctions cannot be effectively
enforced no matter what the government tries to do. The implication of
this argument is that employers should endure the uncertainties and
potential economic catastrophe of losing a workforce, and workers
should continue to endure the uncertainties of being chased from job to
job on a moment's notice. We find such reasoning unacceptable. It is an
argument for the status quo, which all agree is unacceptable.
Furthermore, it is unacceptable to refuse to address one public policy
problem on the grounds that another accepted and enacted public policy
will be ineffective. We must honestly face the issues revealed by our
policy of immigration control and employer sanctions. We believe that a
workable alien agricultural worker program is the most appropriate
answer.
ARE THERE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO A REFORMED H-2A
AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROGRAM?
Opponents of alien agricultural worker programs suggest there are
other ways to address the problem than legal admission of alien
agricultural guest workers.
One suggestion is that agricultural employers should be ``left to
compete in the labor market, just like other employers have to do''.
Under this scenario, there would be no alien guest workers. To secure
legal workers and remain in business, agricultural employers would have
to attract sufficient workers away from competing non-agricultural
employers and the ranks of the unemployed by raising wages and
benefits. Those who could not afford to compete would go out of
business or move their production outside the United States. Meanwhile,
according to this scenario, those domestic persons remaining in farm
work would enjoy higher wages and improved working conditions.
This ``solution'' will not work for several reasons.
No informed person seriously contends that wages, benefits and
working conditions in seasonal agricultural jobs can be raised
sufficiently to attract non-agricultural workers away from their
permanent jobs in the numbers needed to replace the illegal alien
agricultural work force and maintain the economic competitiveness of
U.S. producers. Thus, this scenario predicates that U.S. agricultural
production would decline. In fact, given that the U.S. hired
agricultural work force is, by most estimates, more than 70 percent
illegal, U.S. agricultural production would have to decline
dramatically.
Seasonal farm jobs have attributes which make them inherently
uncompetitive with non-farm work. First and foremost is that they are
seasonal. Many workers who could do seasonal farm work accept non-farm
work at less than the average farm worker hourly wage of $9.08 in 2003
because they prefer the stability of a permanent job. Secondly, many
seasonal farm jobs are located in rural areas away from centers of
population, so there is only a small pool of workers available locally.
Further, to extend the period of employment, workers must work at
several such jobs in different areas. That is, they must become
migrants. It is highly unlikely that many U.S. workers would be willing
to become migrant farm workers at any wage, or for that matter that, as
a matter of public policy, the federal government would want to
encourage them to do so. In fact, the federal government spends tens of
millions of dollars annually attempting to settle U.S. workers out of
U.S. migratory farm work. The success of these efforts is one of the
factors that has led to the expansion in illegal alien employment. In
addition to seasonality and migrancy, most farm jobs are subject to the
viscissitudes of weather, both heat and cold, and require physical
strength and stamina. Thus it is highly unlikely that a significant
domestic worker response would result even from substantial increases
in wages and benefits for seasonal farm work to replace the illegal
work force.
Over the past two decade, U.S. farm worker wages have increased at
a more rapid rate than comparable non-farm worker's wages, even with
the influx of illegal aliens. More rapid farm wage increases can not
occur for economic reasons. U.S. growers are in competition in the
markets for most agricultural commodities, including most labor
intensive commodities, with actual and potential growers around the
globe. Since hired labor constitutes approximately 35 percent of total
production costs of labor intensive agricultural commodities, and 1 in
8 dollars of production costs for agricultural commodities generally,
substantial increases in wage and/or benefit costs will have a
substantial impact on growers' over-all production costs. U.S. growers
are in an economically competitive equilibrium with foreign producers
at approximately current production costs. Growers with substantially
higher costs can not compete. If U.S. producers' production costs are
forced up by, for example, restricting the supply of labor, U.S.
production will become uncompetitive in world markets (including
domestic markets in which foreign producers compete). U.S. producers
will begin to be forced out of business. In fact, U.S. producers will
continue to be forced out of business until the competition for
domestic farm workers has diminished to the point where the remaining
U.S. producers' production costs are approximately at current global
equilibrium levels. The end result of this process will be that
domestic farm worker wages and working conditions (and the production
costs of surviving producers) are at approximately current levels
because the volume of domestic production has declined sufficiently
that there is no longer upward pressure on domestic farm worker wages
and production costs.
These same global economic forces, of course, affect all
businesses. But nonagricultural employers have options for responding
to domestic labor shortages that agricultural employers do not have.
Many nonagricultural employers can ``foreign source'' the labor
intensive components of their product or service without necessarily
exporting all of the good jobs in the process. Since agricultural
production is tied to the land, the labor intensive functions of the
agricultural production process cannot be foreign-sourced. We cannot,
for example, send the harvesting process or the thinning process
overseas. Either the entire product is grown, harvested, transported
and in many cases initially processed in the United States, or all
these functions are done somewhere else, even though only one or two
steps in the production process may be highly labor intensive. When the
product is grown, harvested, transported and processed somewhere else,
all the jobs associated with these functions are exported, not just the
seasonal field jobs. These are the so-called ``upstream'' and
``downstream'' jobs that support, and are created by, the production of
agricultural products in the U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture
studies indicate that there are about 3.1 such upstream and downstream
jobs supported by every on-farm job. Most of these upstream and
downstream jobs are ``good'' jobs, i.e. year' round or long term
seasonal jobs paying good wages that are held by citizens and permanent
residents. Thus a workable agricultural guest worker program that
retains agricultural production in the U.S. creates or preserves more
than three times as many jobs for U.S. citizens and permanent residents
as the number of guest workers employed. The truth is that a workable
agricultural guest worker program is good for American workers.
It has also been suggested that employment of alien agricultural
workers could be avoided by recruiting the unemployed and welfare
recipients to do these jobs. Growers themselves, most notably the Neisi
Farmers League in the San Joaquin Valley of California, have tried to
augment their labor supply by recruiting unemployed workers and welfare
recipients. While these efforts have resulted in some unemployed
workers and former welfare recipients moving into farm jobs, the
magnitude of this movement has been insignificant. In fact, welfare
administrators suggest that the long term impact of welfare reform is
likely to exacerbate rather than reduce the shortage of domestic farm
labor. As limitations are set on recipients' lifetime welfare
entitlement, seasonal farm workers who supplement their earnings with
welfare will be forced into permanent nonagricultural jobs. Other
attributes of seasonal farm work are also deterrents. The preponderance
of those now remaining on the welfare rolls are single mothers with
young children. Many are not physically capable of doing physically
demanding farm work, do not have transportation into the rural areas,
and are occupied with the care of young children.
The unemployed also make, at best, a marginal contribution to the
hired farm work force. Relatively high unemployment rates in some rural
agricultural counties are often cited as evidence of an available labor
supply or even of a farm worker surplus. First, it should be noted that
labor markets with a heavy presence of seasonal agriculture will always
have higher unemployment rates than labor markets with a higher
proportion of year round employment. By the very nature of the fact
that farm work is seasonal, many seasonal farm workers spend a portion
of the year unemployed because there is little or no seasonal
agricultural work available at that time of the year. Second,
unemployed workers share the same values and aspirations as employed
workers. They prefer permanent employment which is not physically
demanding and takes place in a comfortable environment. They share an
aversion to migrancy, and often have transportation and other
limitations that restrict their access to rural jobs. The coexistence
of unemployed workers and employers with labor shortages in the same
labor markets means only that we have a system that enables workers to
exercise choices.
Many welfare recipients and unemployed workers can not or will not
do agricultural work. It is reasonable to expect an alien worker
program to have a credible mechanism to assure that domestic workers
who are willing and able to do farm work have first access to
agricultural jobs, and that aliens do not displace U.S. workers. It is
not reasonable to expect or insist that welfare and unemployment rolls
fall to zero as a condition for the admission of alien workers.
Another alternative to alien workers often suggested is to replace
labor with technology, including mechanization. This argument holds
that if agricultural employers were denied access to alien labor they
would have an incentive to develop mechanization to replace the alien
labor. Alternatively, it is argued that the availability of alien labor
retards mechanization and growth in worker productivity.
The argument that availability of alien labor creates a
disincentive for technological advancement is belied by the history of
the past two decades. From 1980 to the present, U.S. output of labor
intensive agricultural commodities has risen dramatically while U.S.
hired agricultural employment has declined. The only way this could
have happened is as a result of significant agricultural labor
productivity increases. Yet this was also the period of perhaps the
greatest influx of illegal alien farm workers into U.S. agriculture in
our history.
It does not appear that there has been a great deal of increase in
agricultural mechanization in fruit and vegetable farming since a spasm
of innovation and development in the 1960's and 1970's. Indeed, some of
the mechanization developed during that period, such as mechanical
apple harvesters, has proven to be uneconomical in the long term
because of tree damage as well as fruit damage. Agricultural engineers
claim the reason for this is the withdrawal of support for agricultural
mechanization research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture following
protests and litigation by farm workers in California that such
research was taking away their jobs.
But productivity increases can result from many different kinds of
technological innovations, of which mechanization is only one. Smaller
and lower fruit trees, which require less ladder climbing, trellised
trees, and changes in the way trees or vines are pruned are also
technological developments which improve labor productivity. The switch
from boxes and small containers to bulk bins and pallets in the field
has significantly improved labor productivity. Use of production
techniques and crop varieties that increase yields improves field labor
productivity by making harvesting and other operations more efficient.
These are the techniques that farmers have used to achieve the large
productivity increases obtained in the 1980's and 1990's. The fact that
there appears to have been a slowing down in the pace of mechanization
itself does not mean that growth in worker productivity has slowed.
The argument that alien employment retards productivity increases
is also belied by logic. The incentive for the adoption of
mechanization, or any other productivity increasing innovation, is to
reduce unit production costs. If an innovation results in a net savings
in production costs it will be adopted. It doesn't matter whether the
dollar saved is a dollar of domestic worker wages or a dollar of alien
worker wages, or a dollar of some other production input. On the other
hand, if the innovation results in a net increase in production costs,
it will not be adopted. The only way one can argue that a reduction in
alien labor will increase the incentive for technological innovation is
to argue that the reduction in alien labor will first increase
production costs. But if, as is argued elsewhere in this testimony, the
tendency for domestic producers' costs to rise in response to a
withdrawal of labor is offset by shifting domestic market share to
foreign producers, the incentive for additional domestic mechanization
will never occur. In a global market, the profitability of
mechanization, just like the profitability of everything else, is
determined by global production costs, not by domestic production
costs.
A fourth alternative to the importation of alien farm workers which
has been suggested is the unionization of the farm work force. The
implication of this scenario is that unionization would augment the
supply of legal seasonal farm workers and make alien farm workers
unnecessary. Alternatively, it is argued that an alien agricultural
worker program will make it more difficult for domestic farm workers to
unionize and improve their economic welfare.
First it should be noted that use of the H-2A program as a strike
breaking tool is expressly prohibited. H-2A workers may not be employed
in any job opportunity which is vacant because the former occupant of
the job is on strike or involved in a labor dispute. Secondly, there is
no impediment to an H-2A worker becoming a union member. Indeed, the H-
2A program has been used for decades in unionized citrus operations in
Arizona. If an employer seeking labor certification has a collective
bargaining agreement and a union shop, the H-2A aliens, like all other
employees, can be required to pay union dues and may become union
members.
There is no reason to believe that unionization will result in an
increase in the availability of legal labor, nor, indeed, any reason to
believe that the membership of farm worker unions is any more legal
than the rest of the agricultural work force. Farm worker unions and
farm employers are fishing out of the same labor force pool. The
argument that increased farm worker unionization will increase the
supply of legal labor is based on the supposition that farm worker
unions will be successful in negotiating higher wages and more
attractive working conditions than in nonunion settings, and that this
will attract more domestic legal labor. Yet wages and working
conditions in union and nonunion agricultural production settings are
not (and in competitive global markets cannot be) significantly
different in the competitive agricultural market place.
The reality is that an alien agricultural worker program is
probably union-neutral. Existence of such a guest worker program will
probably not make it significantly more difficult or easier to organize
farm workers.
WHY DOES THE H-2A PROGRAM NEED TO BE REFORMED?
There are two broad reasons why the existing H-2A program needs to
be reformed.
First, the program is administratively cumbersome and costly. Even
at its present level of admission of fewer than 50,000 workers
annually, the program is nearly paralyzed. Secondly, the program sets
minimum wage and benefit standards that many employers cannot afford.
As a result, the program's ``worker protections'' are cosmetic. They
``protect'' fewer than 50,000 job opportunities in an agricultural work
force estimated at more than 2 million. The vast majority of
agricultural workers, legal and illegal, get little or no benefit from
the H-2A ``protections''.
The current H-2A program must be reformed because it is
administratively cumbersome and costly. The regulations governing the
program cover 33 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. ETA Handbook
No. 398, the compendium of guidance on program operation, is more than
300 pages. Employers must apply for workers a minimum of 45 days in
advance of the date workers are needed. Applications, which often run
more than a dozen pages, are wordsmithed by employers and their
consultants, by the Labor Department and by legal services attorneys.
Endless discussions and arguments occur over sentences, phrases and
words. After all this fine tuning, workers see, at best, an abbreviated
summary of the application if they see anything at all.
Each employer applicant goes through prescribed recruiting and
advertising procedures, regardless of whether the same procedures have
been undertaken for the same occupation by another employer only days
earlier. The required advertising is strictly controlled by the
regulations and looks more like a legal notice than a help wanted ad.
Increasingly, the Labor Department is requiring that advertising be
placed in major metropolitan dailies, in addition to local advertising
that farm job seekers are most likely to see or hear. The
advertisements rarely result in responses, yet they are repeated over
and over again, year in and year out.
Even after all this, the employer has no assurance that if
``domestic'' workers are referred, they are, in fact, legal. Most state
workforce agencies refuse even to request employment verification
documents, much less verify that they are valid. It is the experience
of H-2A employers that a substantial and increasing proportion of
``domestic'' workers referred by state workforce agencies, on the basis
of which certifications to employ legal alien workers are denied, are
not work authorized. State workforce agency officials have even been
known to suggest to H-2A growers that they go back to employing illegal
aliens and save themselves and the employment service all the hassle of
the H-2A program.
Finally, a high proportion of the workers referred to H-2A
employers and on the basis of which the employer is denied labor
certification for a job opportunity, either fail to report for work or
quit within a few hours or days. This then forces the employer to file
with the Labor Department for a ``redetermination of need''. Even
though redeterminations are usually processed within a few days, the
petition and admission process after redetermination means that aliens
will, at best, arrive 2 to 3 weeks late.
The second reason why reform is needed is that the current H-2A
program requires wage and benefit standards that are unreasonably rigid
or not economically feasible in many agricultural jobs, effectively
excluding those jobs from the H-2A program.
The so-called Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is one such standard.
The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is a minimum wage set on a state-by-state
basis by regulation, and is applicable to workers employed in job
opportunities for which an employer has received a labor certification.
The Adverse Effect Wage Rate standard is unique to the H-2A program and
does not exist in any other immigration or labor certification program.
Each state's AEWR is set at the average hourly earnings of field and
livestock workers for the previous year in the state or a small region
of contiguous states. For the 2004 season, AEWRs range from $7.38 per
hour in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi to $9.28 per hour in Iowa
and Missouri. The AEWR sets a minimum wage standard that makes it
uneconomical to use the H-2A program in many agricultural occupations.
Another example of an unreasonably rigid standard is the
requirement to provide housing, regardless of whether there is already
adequate housing in the community for seasonal agricultural workers.
The current H-2A program requires an employer to provide housing for
all the job opportunities for which an employer applies for labor
certification except those job opportunities from which local workers
will commute daily from their permanent residences. The only
agricultural employers who are required to provide housing to workers
are those who participate in the H-2A program or use the Department of
Labor's interstate clearance system to recruit workers. Only about 15
percent of agricultural employment includes employer-provided housing,
either free or at a charge. In other words, the vast majority of
seasonal agricultural workers currently arrange their own housing.
Employer-provided housing tends to be provided to seasonal workers only
in those areas dependent on migrant workers that are so remote that
community-based housing is unavailable. In many communities, sufficient
housing is available for seasonal agricultural workers, yet employers
are not permitted to provide a housing allowance to workers and have
them live in the local community in lieu of building housing.
h.r. 3142--the agricultural job opportunities and benefits act (agjobs)
On September 23, 2003 Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Rep. Howard
Berman (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3142, the ``Agricultural Job Opportunity,
Benefits, and Security Act of 2003'', popularly known as ``AgJOBSs.''
On the same day, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
and 18 co-sponsors introduced identical legislation, S. 1645. AgJOBS
will substantially restructure and reform the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program, and provide a means for agricultural
workers currently living and working in the United States without
documentation who have made a substantial commitment to farm work in
the United States to earn adjustment to legal permanent resident
status.
While H-2A reform and/or farm worker adjustment of status bills
have been introduced in every Congress for the last eight years, this
is the first time that such legislation has received strong bipartisan
endorsement. H.R. 3142 has 95 co-sponsors and S. 1645 has 55 co-
sponsors, in both cases almost equally divided by party. AgJOBS is also
supported by organized labor, farm worker advocates, Hispanic and
church organizations, immigrant advocates, agricultural employer
groups, including the ACIR and the NCAE, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, associations of H-2A employers, and individual H-2A program
users. The legislation has received the endorsement of the general
business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
AgJOBS is the product of several years of arduous negotiations
between agricultural employers, farm labor organizations and a
bipartisan group of Congressional leaders. Unlike previous reform
bills, AgJOBS is legislation that can be enacted. It represents the
first and best chance for statutory reform of the H-2A program and the
U.S. agricultural labor system in more than a decade. It is the only
chance for such reform in the near future.
Title I of AgJOBS establishes a program whereby aliens who can
demonstrate that they have worked 100 or more days in a 12 consecutive
month period during the 18 months prior to enactment of AgJOBS may
apply for lawful temporary resident alien status. If the a temporary
resident alien performs at least 360 work days of agricultural
employment during the six years following the enactment of AgJOBS,
including at least 240 work days during the first 3 years following
enactment, and at least 75 days of agricultural work during each of
three 12-month periods in the six years following enactment, the alien
may apply for permanent resident status.
During the period of temporary resident status the alien is
employment authorized, and can travel abroad and reenter the United
States. During the period of temporary resident status the spouse and
minor children of the alien who are residing in the United States may
remain in the U.S., but are not employment authorized. The spouse and
minor children may adjust to permanent resident status with the alien.
Unauthorized aliens who do not apply or are not qualified for
adjustment to temporary resident status are subject to removal.
Temporary resident aliens who do not fulfill the agricultural work
requirement or are inadmissible under the INA or commit a felony or 3
or more misdemeanors as temporary resident aliens are denied adjustment
to permanent resident alien status and are subject to removal. The
adjustment program is funded through application fees.
Title II of AgJOBS replaces the existing H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program with a reformed program. Employers desiring
to employ H-2A aliens in temporary or seasonal agricultural jobs (10
months or less) may file an application with the Secretary of Labor and
a job offer for domestic workers. If the application and job offer
meets the requirements of the program and there are no obvious
deficiencies, the Secretary must approve the application.
All workers in job opportunities covered by an H-2A application
must be provided with workers compensation insurance, and no job may be
filled by an H-2A alien which is vacant because the previous occupant
is on strike or involved in a labor dispute. If the job is covered by a
collective bargaining agreement, the employer must also notify the
bargaining agent of the filing of the application. If the job is not
covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the employer must provide
housing at no cost to workers whose place of residence is beyond normal
commuting distance, or a monetary housing allowance if the Governor of
the state has determined that there is sufficient migrant housing
available in the area of intended employment. The employer must
reimburse inbound and return transportation and subsistence costs to
workers who meet employment requirements and who travel more than 100
miles to come to work for the employer. The employer must also
guarantee employment for at least three quarters of the period of
employment, and assure at least the highest of the applicable statutory
minimum wage, the prevailing wage in the occupation and area of
intended employment, or a reformed Adverse Effect Wage Rate. The
Adverse Effect Wage Rate is reformed by freezing the rate in effect on
January 1, 2003 for 3 years, and thereafter indexing the Adverse Effect
Wage Rate by the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers, unless Congress acts to set a new H-2A wage
standard. Employers must also meet specific motor vehicle safety and
insurance standards, and comply with all applicable federal, state and
local labor laws and regulations.
H-2A aliens are admitted for the duration of the initial job, not
to exceed 10 months, and may extend their stay if recruited for
additional seasonal jobs, to a maximum continuous stay of 3 years,
after which the alien must depart the United States. H-2A aliens are
authorized to be employed only in the job opportunity and by the
employer for which they were admitted. An alien is not permitted to
return as an H-2A worker until the alien has remained outside the U.S.
for at least 1/5th the length of time the alien was in the U.S. in H-2A
status. Aliens who abandon their employment or are terminated for cause
must be reported by the employer, and are subject to removal. H-2A
aliens are provided with a counterfeit resistant identity and
employment authorization document.
The Secretary of Labor is required to provide a process for filing,
investigating and disposing of complaints, and may order back wages and
civil money penalties for program violators. The Secretary of Homeland
Security may order debarment of violators for up to 2 years. Workers
are provided with a limited federal private right of action to enforce
the housing, transportation, wages, and other requirements of the
program, and written promises contained in job orders. A mediation
process is available to any party involved in such an action to attempt
to resolve the problem prior to litigation.
The administration of the H-2A program is funded through a user fee
paid by agricultural employers.
why is a workable alien agricultural worker program good public policy?
In the absence of effective control of illegal immigration and
enforcement of employer sanctions, the status quo will continue--
illegal alien migration, little use of the legal alien worker program,
few protections for domestic and alien farm workers, crop losses due to
shortages of workers, and vulnerability to random enforcement action
for employers. This will be true whether or not the legal guestworker
program is reformed, because without effective immigration control and
document verification, agricultural employers as well as all other
employers will continue to be confronted by a workforce with valid
appearing documents and no practical way to know who is legal and who
is not. No one can defend or advocate for continuation of the status
quo. The current system of illegal immigration and an agricultural
industry dependent on a fraudulently documented workforce is bad for
employers, workers and the nation.
But if the nation achieves reasonably effective control of illegal
immigration and enforcement of employer sanctions--which is the
objective of current public policy--then agricultural production in the
United States, particularly of the labor intensive fruit, vegetables
and horticultural commodities, will be drastically reduced, with
attendant displacement of domestic workers in upstream and downstream
jobs, unless a workable agricultural guestworker program exists.
In conducting the public policy debate about a workable alien
agricultural worker program, it is important to be realistic about what
the public policy options are and are not. The public policy options
are not between greater and lesser economic benefits for domestic farm
workers. The level of wages and benefits that U.S. agriculture can
sustain for all farm workers, domestic and alien, are largely
determined in the global market place. The public policy options we
face are between a larger domestic agricultural industry employing
domestic and legal alien farm workers and providing greater employment
opportunities for domestic off-farm workers, and a drastically smaller
domestic agricultural industry and drastically fewer employment
opportunities for domestic non-farm workers with a wholly domestic farm
work force. In either case, the level of economic returns to farm
workers will be approximately the same, namely those economic returns
that are sustainable in the competitive global marketplace. But in the
later scenario, the Nation will be vastly more dependent on foreign
sources for its food supply, and more vulnerable to economic, political
and security threats from abroad.
The ACIR and the NCAE believe the national interest is best served
by effective immigration control and a workable alien agricultural
worker program that enables the United States to realize its full
potential for the production of labor intensive and other agricultural
commodities in a competitive global marketplace, and which supports a
high level of employment for domestic workers in upstream and
downstream jobs while assuring reasonable protections for domestic and
alien farm workers. The ACIR and the NCAE believe an alien agricultural
worker program that is workable and competitive for employers and that
protects access to jobs and the wages and working conditions of
domestic farm workers, and that provides legal status, dignity and
protections to alien farm workers working in the United States, is
important to accomplish now. Congress should not wait any longer to fix
an indefensible status quo. The economic and social costs to our
economy, to American workers and to alien farm workers are too high to
delay. Congress should enact AgJOBS now.
Wall Street Journal Article
National Foundation for American Policy Report
Wall Street Journal Article
Release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Letter from J.R. Gonzales
Material submitted by the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative
in Congress From the State of California
Letter from Vibiana Andrade
Letter from Manuel Mirabal
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Illegal
immigration and the impacts of a guestworker program are issues that
greatly concern me.
We have 8.2 million people unemployed in the United States, and an
estimated 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants, most of whom come here
to work. The economy has lost 2.2 million jobs in three years. Between
March 2001 and February 2004, 7.1 million more people entered the
working age population than there were jobs for them to take. Something
has to give.
Not only do illegal workers take jobs that Americans need, but they
also depress the wages of working Americans. The Labor Department
recently attributed 50 percent drop in real wages to the influx of
cheap immigrant workers. To illustrate, the Los Angeles Times Magazine
reported that jobs that African-American workers were paid $25 an hour
for in the 1970s now pay only $8 to $10 an hour and are mostly held by
illegal immigrants. That's reverse inflation of the worst kind. Any
guestworker program must attempt to rectify this problem by setting
reasonable wage levels, removing illegal immigrants currently in the
country, and by deterring future illegal immigration.
Most of the proposals for guestworker programs do nothing to
protect American workers. Though they are all couched as
``guestworker'' proposals, many are actually amnesties that will only
worsen the fate of the American worker. The 11 million or more people
who would be legalized in an amnesty will immediately affect the job
prospects and wages of workers. Such proposals reward illegal behavior
by legalizing a population of illegal workers that are already in the
US. Therefore, they will only encourage further illegal immigration,
which can only lead to more Americans out of work and wages that are
further depressed.
Sensible guestworker policy is mindful of the burden that American
workers bear when immigrant workers are brought into the country. It
would protect American workers from depressed wages caused by a large
influx of immigrant workers by setting minimum wage levels. It also
would require all workers to leave the country to be eligible. It would
require the worker to spend a significant amount of time each year in
their country of origin so the worker maintains roots at home. It would
limit the guestworkers solely to industries that can demonstrate an
acute need. It would solve the problems created by illegality, such as
provision of housing and health care. It would provide interior
enforcement to police the parameters of the program and ensure that
workers are not staying in the US longer than they are permitted to. It
would be enforced with an entry and exit system at each port of entry.
And it would not reward lawbreakers by providing them with a path to
citizenship.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses. Thank
you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to examine the issues
surrounding a guestworker program.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
Guest worker programs were established initially to address worker
shortages during times of war. During World War I, tens of thousands of
Mexican workers performed agricultural labor as part of a temporary
worker program. During World War II, the Bracero program was initiated.
It was continued until 1964, and brought several million Mexican
agricultural workers into the United States.
The Bracero program has come to epitomize a history of abuse and
mistreatment of farm workers. The Bracero program had worker
protections in the law and in the workers' employment contracts, but
the Bracero guest workers lacked the economic and political power to
enforce their rights or to compel the United States government to do
so. We must do better with any new program that we establish,
particularly one that would provide temporary lawful status for
millions of guest workers.
I expect some of the witnesses today to talk about the fact that a
large supply of foreign workers would lower wages for the American
workforce. This is true to some extent and is a legitimate concern, but
it is not the mere presence of foreign workers that leads to low wages.
The problem is the lack of bargaining power that these workers have
against their employers. No worker chooses to pay himself low wages or
to work under poor conditions. The wage depression is attributable to
the ability of employers to exploit this foreign workforce.
Workers who participate in guest worker programs must be covered
fully by U.S. labor laws, including strong protections for wages,
working conditions, and the right to unionize. Similarly, it is
essential that such laws be vigorously enforced by strengthening the
wage and hour division at the U.S. Department of Labor as well as by
ensuring that these workers have access to legal services. A good guest
worker program must have ``portability.'' It is important that workers
who participate in temporary labor programs have the freedom to change
employers. They have to be able to avoid conditions that resemble
indentured servitude.
We need more than temporary legal status for the millions of
hardworking, undocumented workers who presently are living in this
country. The provision of guest worker status to these undocumented
aliens should not just be a means of providing a steady stream of
vulnerable workers for American companies. It should provide access to
legalization for people who deserve this privilege.
My Comprehensive Immigration Fairness Act of 2004, H.R. 3918, would
provide access to legalization for the undocumented aliens in our
country who have demonstrated that they deserve an opportunity to earn
permanent resident status. It would make legalization available to
undocumented aliens who have been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years; are persons of
good moral character; and have no criminal record. Moreover, if they
are older than 18, they would have to successfully complete a course on
reading, writing, and speaking words in ordinary usage in the English
language; show that they have accepted the values and cultural life of
the United States; and they would have to perform 40 hours of community
service.
For a new, large scale guest worker program to be successful, we
also would have to eliminate the backlog in benefits applications. The
Department of Homeland Security has a backlog of more than 6 million
benefits applications. A large guest worker program easily could double
that number. How can a large scale temporary worker program be
implemented if the applications cannot be processed?
Finally, we need to consider whether a large scale guest worker
program would be limited to nationals of certain countries. The Bush
Administration began discussions of a guest worker program with Mexico
in 2001, and there may be reasons for crafting a special immigration
relationship with Mexico. A guest worker program for millions of
people, however, should not be limited to nationals of a single
country.
Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Virginia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on
guest workers.
As Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I have had the
opportunity to travel to many regions across the nation and seen first-
hand that the H-2A temporary agricultural visa process is not working.
I have talked face to face with producers who have to deal with
participating in a costly, time-consuming and flawed program. Employers
have to comply with a lengthy labor certification process that is slow,
bureaucratic and frustrating. In addition, they are forced to pay an
artificially inflated wage rate. Many producers simply cannot afford
the time and cost of complying with the H-2A program. However, in order
to find and retain the legal workers these employers depend on for the
viability of their operations, they have no alternatives.
In addition, as a long-time Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am
aware of the illegal immigration crisis our country currently faces. It
is estimated that there are between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens
currently living in the United States. This population grows by over
350,000 each year. Clearly, this situation has reached crisis
proportions and cannot be allowed to continue.
That is why, as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and a
Member of the Judiciary Committee, I introduced H.R. 3604, the
Temporary Agricultural Labor Reform Act, a bi-partisan bill that will
reform the H-2A guest worker program and create a more streamlined and
fair process for everyone involved in the agriculture industry.
I do not believe in rewarding those who have broken our nation's
immigration laws by granting them blanket amnesty, and H.R. 3604 would
do no such thing. Instead, my bill would encourage the large population
of illegal farm workers to come out of hiding and participate legally
in the guest worker program. Potential workers would be required to
return to their home countries and apply for the program legally from
there. This would both provide a legal, temporary workforce that
employers can call on when insufficient American labor can be found,
and help ensure that those temporary workers entering the country are
not threats to our national security.
Proponents of including traditional amnesty as a part of a guest
worker reform bill believe that by aligning themselves with immigration
advocates who favor amnesty, they will have a better chance of getting
guest worker reform through the legislative process. I do not believe
this is the case. Not only will providing amnesty create the wrong
incentives for everyone involved in the H-2A process, but it will also
exacerbate our nation's illegal immigration problems. Since 9/11,
Congress has made securing our borders a priority in order to ensure
the safety and well-being of our citizens. Instead of encouraging more
illegal immigration, any successful guest worker reform should deter
illegal immigration and help secure our borders. It is possible to
simultaneously streamline the guest worker program, reduce illegal
immigration, and protect our borders.
In addition, this legislation would address the troublesome wage
issue. Employers are currently required to pay an inflated wage called
the Adverse Effect Wage Rate or AEWR. The AEWR was originally designed
to protect similarly situated domestic workers from being adversely
affected by guest workers coming into the country on a seasonal basis
and being paid lower wages. However, the shortage of domestic workers
in the farm workforce forces employers to hire foreign workers, and
thus, is also forcing them to pay artificially inflated wages. My bill
abolishes this unfair wage rate and creates a prevailing wage standard,
under which, all workers are paid the same wage as workers doing
similar work in that region.
Furthermore, H-2A users are currently required to go through a
time-consuming process in order to receive a ``labor certification,''
which is essentially an additional layer of red tape that requires the
Department of Labor to verify the shortage of domestic workers in the
area and permit employers to bring workers into the country. H.R. 3604
would shorten the labor certification process by replacing it with a
simple attestation process. Similar to the H-1B visa, employers would
be required to sign an attestation to prove that they are filling all
the domestic recruitment requirements necessary to attract and hire
domestic workers. This helps to ensure that domestic jobs are protected
while at the same time streamlining the process considerably.
Recently, President Bush announced his proposal for reforming the
immigration laws in this country. The plan he outlined describes a
temporary worker program but also includes some more far-reaching
reforms to the entire U.S. immigration system. I was pleased to see
that the President's proposal does not provide a direct path for
temporary workers to obtain Legal Permanent Resident or citizenship
status. However, I do have some serious concerns about many other
aspects of the President's proposal and will need further explanation
as the details are developed.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing.
I look forward to working with you to examine our nation's laws
regarding guest workers.