    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    REID-KENNEDY BILL'S AMNESTY: IMPACTS ON TAXPAYERS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
                              AND THE RULE OF LAW

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                AUGUST 24, 2006

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-153

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    29-605                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
    HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois              JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        ZOE LOFGREN, California
    WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee        SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   MAXINE WATERS, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
    BOB INGLIS, South Carolina           WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
    MARK GREEN, Wisconsin                ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    RIC KELLER, Florida                  ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California             LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    STEVE KING, Iowa
    TOM FEENEY, Florida
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

                 Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
                   Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                AUGUST 24, 2006

                               OPENING STATEMENT

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee
      on the Judiciary...............................................     1
    The Honorable Martin T. Meehan, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Massachusetts, and Member, Committee on the
      Judiciary......................................................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Andrew Renzullo, Member of the General Court of the
      State of New Hampshire
      Oral Testimony.................................................     8
      Prepared Statement.............................................    10
    Mr. John Young, Co-Chair, Agriculture Coalition for Immigration
      Reform
      Oral Testimony.................................................    83
      Prepared Statement.............................................    84
    Mr. Peter Gadiel, President, 9/11 Families for a Secure America
      Oral Testimony.................................................    87
      Prepared Statement.............................................    89
    Mr. John Lewy, American Academy of Pediatrics
      Oral Testimony.................................................    90
      Prepared Statement.............................................    91
    Mr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration
      Studies
      Oral Testimony.................................................    94
      Prepared Statement.............................................    95

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
      a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and
      Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary...........................     4

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles F. Bass, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire,
      with attachment................................................   121
    Letter to the House Judiciary Committee from the Honorable Jordan
      Ulery, New Hampshire State Representative......................   197
    Prepared Statement of David Lamarre-Vincent, Executive Director,
      New Hampshire Council of Churches..............................   199
    Prepared Statement of the Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Theuner, VIIth
      Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Member of the Board of
      Directors of Lutheran Social Services of New England...........   199

    REID-KENNEDY BILL'S AMNESTY: IMPACTS ON TAXPAYERS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
                              AND THE RULE OF LAW

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006

                      House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at the
    Hall of Representatives, The State House, 107 North Main
    Street, Concord, New Hampshire, the Honorable F. James
    Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A quorum
    for the purpose of taking testimony is present.
        I am Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, the
    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. With me at the
    present time now are Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana who
    is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Congressman
    Marty Meehan of Massachusetts.
        I would like to welcome you all to the third field hearing
    on the subject of illegal immigration. The purpose of this
    series of hearings is to examine the challenges our Nation
    faces with regard to illegal immigration and the impact the
    Reid-Kennedy bill passed by the Senate would have on the
    problem if it were to become law.
        Today's hearing will focus on the enormous fiscal costs
    illegal immigrants pose on American taxpayers as well as the
    impact of the amnesty proposal on the rule of law and the
    concept of fundamental fairness. The Reid-Kennedy amnesty
    provides an eventual path to citizenship for millions of
    individuals who broke our laws to enter and reside in the
    United States, much like the mass amnesty provided under the
    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, also known as
    Simpson-Mazzoli.
        Based on the lesson learned from the 1986 amnesty, we know
    that the Senate scheme will simply result in the cottage
    industry of fraudulent documentation that will allow
    individuals to falsely claim that they have been in the country
    long enough to get amnesty. Moreover, granting another amnesty
    provides would-be illegal immigrants outside our country every
    incentive to enter illegally in the future knowing that the
    U.S. is likely to provide them amnesty at some time in the
    future.
        Illegal immigrants already account for billions of dollars
    of costs to hospitals, local schools and the full range of
    other State, local and Federal Government entities. Relying on
    data compiled by the National Research Council and the Center
    for Immigration Studies, it is conceivable that over their
    lifetimes, the 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the
    U.S. today cost American taxpayers a half trillion dollars.
        From a fiscal standpoint, illegal immigrants who are
    legalized will become eligible for a full array of State and
    Federal entitlements at an enormous cost to the government,
    especially after they become citizens. The Congressional Budget
    Office 2 days ago released a cost estimate on the Senate bill
    finding that it will cost taxpayers $127 billion over a 10-year
    period. This includes $48 billion for Social programs such as
    Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, tax credits and a host
    of other benefits.
        And this 10-year estimate does not even begin to capture
    the long term cost of the amnesty. Amnesty immigrants will
    generally have to wait 6 years to get their green card and
    another 5 years to get citizenship. Therefore, the biggest
    fiscal drain will not occur until after the 10-year mark in the
    CBO estimate when the illegal immigrants become eligible for
    additional social benefits programs.
        The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that illegal
    immigrant households receiving amnesty under the Senate bill
    would cost taxpayers $29 billion a year. Robert Rector from the
    Heritage Foundation believes that the cost would be even higher
    once the amnesty immigrants bring their parents to the United
    States, up to an additional $50 billion a year.
        Aside from the monetary costs of amnesty, we cannot afford
    to ignore the fact that amnesty is fundamentally unfair to
    legal immigrants who play by the rules and wait in line. What
    do we say to the millions of individuals who are patiently
    waiting outside the United States for their green cards, some
    up to 22 years, when we grant amnesty to individuals who have
    lived illegally in the United States? It is simply not fair to
    give preference to those who have broken our laws and would
    encourage future law breaking by rewarding such behavior.
        Some argue that because most illegal immigrants' primary
    motivation to come to the United States is to better their
    economic conditions, that somewhat justifies their disregard
    for our laws. As a Nation founded on the concept of the rule of
    law, we cannot forsake our principles by allowing anyone to
    place themselves above the law, even when they may be appearing
    to act with noble intentions. Today we must ask whether it is
    fair to legal immigrants in the U.S. and U.S. citizens and
    consistent with our historic tradition for respect for the rule
    of law to grant amnesty once again to millions of illegal
    immigrants?
        I would like to thank the New Hampshire legislature for
    graciously providing the venue for today's hearing and look
    forward to the testimony from our panel on these important
    issues. Before I recognize a Member of the minority for opening
    remarks, I would like to remind Members, witnesses and those in
    the audience that this hearing is conducted consistent with all
    applicable rules of the U.S. House of Representatives and of
    the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I ask witnesses to limit
    their oral remarks to 5 minutes of testimony and will recognize
    Members for 5 minutes of questions, alternating between the
    minority and majority Members seeking recognition.
        Also I have noticed that we have three more people who have
    joined us, Representative Charles Bass who represents this
    district in Congress, Representative William Delahunt from
    Massachusetts, and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz from
    the great State of Florida, both of whom are Members of the
    Committee. And additionally, because we do have Members of
    Congress present today who do not serve as Members of the
    Committee on the Judiciary, I would ask unanimous consent that
    they be permitted to participate in today's hearing. And
    without objection, it is so ordered.
        I would now like to recognize the gentleman from
    Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan, for an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]

      Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a
     Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
                           Committee on the Judiciary

        Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    having this hearing so close to my home in Lowell. It only took
    me about 35 minutes to get here, so it worked out well.
        You know German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once remarked
    that laws are like sausages, no one should ever see how either
    is made. Well, this is quite an unusual hearing. The House of
    Representatives has passed an immigration bill. The United
    States Senate has passed an immigration bill. From my
    perspective, we should be rolling up our sleeves and working
    out the differences between those bills.
        It is interesting because, in the past 10 years since the
    House and Senate was controlled by Republicans, there have been
    5.3 million undocumented immigrants who have come to the United
    States. Under President Bush, there have been 2 million more
    undocumented immigrants that have come to the United States. So
    I think we all see that the signs are clear that there is a
    growing problem and the American people want a solution.
    Republicans have complete control. They have the House. They
    have the Senate. They have the White House. They have the
    Supreme Court. The American people expect leadership on this
    issue.
        This is not an easy issue. It is a complex issue. The House
    has passed a bill. Ironically enough, the House-passed bill, we
    haven't had a hearing on the bill that was passed in the House.
    The American people expect the leadership of both branches to
    roll up their sleeves and find a way to report out a bill.
    Doing nothing means more illegal immigrants coming in over the
    borders. Doing nothing makes the situation worse.
        But it is interesting because if any of you read the
    Federal publication, ``How Our Laws Are Made,'' it is a great
    publication. It says that the House has a hearing, then the
    House has a hearing in the Committee, and they vote to pass a
    bill. And the Senate votes to pass a bill. And then when they
    are finished, page 42 talks about a Conference Committee. The
    Chairman has said that the Senate has not filed its paperwork
    yet for a Conference Committee. We go back September 1st. It
    will be 3 months of inaction on this because of the lack of a
    Conference Committee.
        If you look down at the material, it says the Reid-Kennedy
    bill's amnesty impact. The ``Reid-Kennedy'' bill? I don't know
    where that name came from, but it is simply not accurate. And
    if you don't believe that I think it is not accurate, I would
    point out to your own Senator from New Hampshire who made a
    statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Judd Gregg,
    on the McCain-Specter-Brownback-Graham-Hagel-Martinez-Kennedy
    immigration bill. This is what Senator Gregg said; he said, ``I
    support Senate Specter and Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain's
    position. I have come to the conclusion that we can secure our
    borders. But you cannot do it with just people and money on the
    border. There has to be a policy in place that creates an
    atmosphere that lessens the pressure for people to come across
    the border illegally, and that is what this bill attempts to
    address.''
        Now, the other body sat down. They worked hard. It wasn't
    easy. But the bill that they came up with was a bipartisan
    bill. I don't think there is anyone in the United States Senate
    or anyone in America more familiar with what happens in the
    border than Senator John McCain, the distinguished Republican
    from Arizona, because he lives with it day in and day out on
    those borders, and he worked hard in a bipartisan way to
    produce a bipartisan bill. What we ought to really be doing
    here is rolling up our sleeves and working out the differences.
    Not having hearings all across America.
        With all due respect, the time for hearings was when the
    bills were being considered. They had a hearing in San Diego.
    It had to have cost the taxpayers at least $25,000. There are
    hearings all across America. With all due respect, the American
    people want us to go do work, to get a Conference Committee
    going to work out the differences, to look at the data and make
    this country secure, get this country up to date and deal with
    the people that we need to deal with in a reasonable way.
        So, Mr. Chairman, while I love to come to Concord, New
    Hampshire, it is one of my favorite places, I think we really
    ought to get to work and get that so-called paperwork done and
    get a conference meeting. Three months of inaction, it is
    inexcusable and indefensible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have five witnesses today. One is New
    Hampshire State Representative Andrew Renzullo from Hillsboro
    District 27, serving Hudson, Litchfield and Pelham. He had
    sponsored and cosponsored numerous pieces of legislation in the
    New Hampshire House concerning illegal immigration including
    H.B. 1137, a bill that would expand the definition of ``illegal
    trespass'' in New Hampshire.
        Also, Steven Camarota, who serves as director of research
    at this time for the Center for Immigration Studies. In recent
    years, Dr. Camarota has testified before Congress more than any
    other non-government expert on immigration. His articles on the
    impact of immigration have appeared in both academic journals
    and the popular press. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of
    Virginia in public policy analysis and a masters degree in
    political science from the University of Pennsylvania.
        Peter Gadiel is president of the 9/11 Families for a Secure
    America, an organization he helped found which is comprised of
    victims of families killed in the September 11th terrorist
    attacks and the survivors of those attacks. His 23-year-old son
    James, an assistant trader for Cantor Fitzgerald, worked on the
    103rd floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. Mr.
    Gadiel has worked since early 2002 on the issue of securing
    U.S. borders against entry by terrorists. A graduate of the
    Case Western School of Law, he is a member of the New Hampshire
    Bar.
        Dr. John Lewy is testifying on behalf of the American
    Academy of Pediatrics, an organization for which he serves as
    director of Federal Affairs. Dr. Lewy is also the former
    chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the Health Sciences
    Center of Tulane University, and he resides in Moultonboro, New
    Hampshire.
        And also here is John Young, who currently serves as the
    co-chair of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform
    and is chairman of the National Council of Agricultural
    Employees Immigration Committee. He is a director of the
    Florida East Coast Travel Service Board which recruits and
    arranges travel for workers coming from Jamaica, Mexico, and
    other Caribbean islands who plan to work under both the H2A and
    H2B foreign worker programs.
        Thank you for agreeing to testify before the Committee
    today, and will each of the witnesses please rise and raise
    your right hand to take the oath?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let the record show that all the
    witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        Without objection, all Members' opening statements can be
    placed in the record at this point. All of your written
    statements, without objection, will be placed in the record
    during your testimony.
        I would like to ask that each of you confine your oral
    testimony to 5 minutes or so. And we do have timers in front of
    each of you so that when the yellow light goes on, there is a
    minute left, and when the red light goes on, the 5 minutes is
    up.
        Representative Renzullo, why don't you be first?

       TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW RENZULLO, MEMBER OF THE
              GENERAL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Mr. Renzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee.
        I am a New Hampshire State Representative. I am retired,
    have a part-time job where a talk with a lot of ordinary folks,
    working men and women. They are upset with illegal immigration,
    and they know the difference between legal and illegal
    immigration. They don't know what is fashionable or what is PC.
    But they're absolutely sure what is fair and what is right and
    usually know when they are being snookered. They don't want a,
    ``comprehensive immigration bill.'' The 1986 bill was a
    ``comprehensive bill.''
        As Scotty said on a Star Trek episode: ``Fool me once,
    shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Secure the border.
    We will talk about what to do with the millions of illegal
    aliens already here once that is done.
        Let's look at a few issues and try to relate them to New
    Hampshire. New Hampshire has a population of 1.3 million.
    According to a 2006 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there
    are between 10,000 and 30,000 unauthorized migrants in New
    Hampshire.
        Does illegal immigration have any effect on public
    education in New Hampshire? In 2005, New Hampshire spent $2.2
    billion on public schools. According to a report by the Pew
    Hispanic Center, in 2004, there were 13.9 million people in
    ``unauthorized families,'' of which 3.1 million are citizen
    children of illegal aliens and 1.6 million are children
    illegally here.
        Using this formula and the 10,000 estimate of illegal
    residents already mentioned, that would equate to 4,350 pupils
    in New Hampshire as a result of illegal immigration. That
    equates to $46.5 million per year. Of course, these numbers are
    estimates and extrapolations, because nobody asks the questions
    or collects the data. All that is required is proof that the
    child lives within the school district. Not good when the
    primary funding source for public education in New Hampshire is
    the property tax.
        What about medical care? One of the most irritating aspects
    of illegal immigration is the drain on the medical care system.
    Data shows that illegal aliens are twice as likely to use an
    emergency room, the most cost intensive of medical facilities.
    That is understandable as Federal law requires emergency
    medical treatment. In New Hampshire, the uncompensated care
    costs was $237.4 million in 2004, of which $160 million were
    not Medicare or Medicaid underpayments. These costs are shifted
    to everyone else in New Hampshire. How much is due to those
    illegally here? No one knows. No one takes the data. In our
    politically correct society, no one even dares ask the
    question.
        And finally, there is jobs. The Nation's highest ranking
    public official says illegal aliens are coming here ``to do the
    jobs Americans won't do.'' That's not quite really accurate.
    Actually, it is jobs Americans won't do for the wages and
    working conditions being offered. How can the American worker,
    especially at the lower end of the wage scale, hope to compete
    with the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens willing to work for
    lower wages and no benefits in an underground economy?
        New Ipswich Chief of Police Garrett Chamberlain relates the
    story of his first encounter with the illegal immigration
    issue. Hidden in a van stopped for speeding were 10 illegal
    aliens from Ecuador who were doing roofing in a nearby town. He
    learned they were being paid $180 a day. Not each. All. That's
    $2.25 an hour. How can an American worker compete with that,
    and should he or she have to? And don't for a New York minute
    think that the lower labor costs were passed on to the
    consumer. And if one of the workers fell from the roof and was
    injured, who do you think would foot the medical bills other
    than the taxpayer?
        The point of the story is that the American worker is on a
    downward slide to public assistance. Not just agricultural jobs
    but good paying union jobs are being undercut. A recent report
    put out by the Pew Hispanic Center states that in the United
    States, 27 percent of the dry wall and tile installers, 22
    percent of the cement masons and finishers, 21 percent of the
    roofers and 19 percent of the brick layers are here illegally.
        In closing, illegal immigration is one of those subliminal
    gut issues. It is not the type of thing that shows up in polls.
    Ask a New Hampshire citizen what is the most important issue
    facing the State, and they will probably say taxes or health
    care. But with God as my witness, I have yet to meet an
    ordinary person who is not upset about the disregard of our
    border by the millions of people and the lack of enforcement of
    our laws by our own government. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Renzullo follows:]

              Prepared Statement of the Honorable Andrew Renzullo

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Representative Renzullo.
        Mr. Young, why don't you go next.

     TESTIMONY OF JOHN YOUNG, CO-CHAIR, AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR
                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today. I am a fourth generation apple farmer from New
    England and have been raising apples for 44 years here in New
    Hampshire. I am also co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for
    Immigration Reform. And today I am also testifying on behalf of
    the National Council of Ag Employers, the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce, and the New England Apple Council.
        The title of today's hearing should be: ``How will illegal
    immigrants impact the costs of health care, local education and
    social services without passage of comprehensive immigration
    reform legislation?''
        Certainly, illegal immigration has negative consequences,
    yet a fair and complete treatment of the issue would consider
    contributions of immigrants and most importantly the impacts of
    more delay or even failure yet again to enact a truly
    comprehensive immigration reform bill.
        I say this because for decades I have been closely involved
    with the immigration issue. I am intimately familiar with the
    existing temporary foreign worker programs. I worked on the
    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I can tell you
    that the chief failure of that legislation was not the
    legalization program but rather the lack of a long-term
    solution in the form of expanded temporary worker programs.
        I wish to go on record by saying that, year after year, we
    have heard excuse after excuse for congressional inaction. Had
    we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 or
    in 1994 or 1996 or in 1998, we would probably not be here today
    talking about numbers like 12 million people, numbers which
    reach nearly 5 percent of the workforce. And we would not have
    the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor
    threatening the existence of agriculture industries coast to
    coast, from oranges in Florida to tomatoes in California to
    dairies right here in New England.
        The core elements of a comprehensive approach must be, one,
    rational border and interior enforcement; two, expanded and
    improved legal channels for temporary workers to meet the needs
    of the American economy; and, three, a realistic approach for
    addressing the undocumented. While we may quibble about some of
    the elements of the Senate-passed bill, it is comprehensive in
    scope, and it does address all of these elements.
        Mr. Chairman, since this hearing is looking at the cost of
    immigrants, I have attached the analysis of the Congressional
    Budget Office's report on cost prepared by the Essential Worker
    Coalition, and I ask that it be included in the record.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
        Mr. Young. As well as the experience of the New England
    Apple Council with the existing H2A and H2B programs as
    Attachment I.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, as well.
        Mr. Young. The current guest worker programs have deep
    flaws that limit their use. H2A is bureaucratic, unresponsive,
    expensive and prone to litigation. H2B is hamstrung by an
    artificially low cap in admissions. Neither accommodates
    employers who need workers year round, but instead are
    restricted to seasonal employment. If you are an employer who
    has year round needs for general labor which cannot be
    successfully filled with U.S. workers, there is no program for
    you.
        Our agricultural economy and much of our service economy is
    fueled by undocumented workers. We need a comprehensive
    immigration policy which will allow these workers to come
    forward, undergo background checks and be allowed access to
    jobs legally. They will pay taxes, but more importantly, they
    will help create many jobs upstream and downstream of the
    production, for services and goods which will allow these
    businesses to expand. In agriculture, as an example, each farm
    worker job sustains three jobs in the surrounding economy.
        We believe the mess which is America's current immigration
    system can only be fixed through a comprehensive approach.
    Comprehensive immigration reform must deal with each aspect of
    the problem. It must provide a workable program for
    agriculture, such as a reformed H2A, it must address the
    artificially low H2B cap. It must create a new temporary worker
    problem that is accessible to the industries that fall through
    the cracks of the current limited program framework.
        Comprehensive reform must also address enforcement.
    Employers can also be part of this solution. Employers are not
    opposed to an expanded employment eligibility verification
    system, but it must be accurate, responsive, easily accessible
    and hold the employer harmless for any system errors. Most
    importantly, expanded employer responsibilities in this area
    must be coupled with--and I say coupled with and not
    implemented in advance of means to an access to a legal
    workforce.
        Without comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform,
    without a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform
    approach, legislative efforts will fail and we will continue to
    suffer the consequences. We will again have walked away from
    the issue and a year from now, based on the recently released
    statistics, there will be 300,000 more undocumented aliens here
    in the United States. The time for action is now. I urge the
    Members of the House to return to Washington and work with the
    Senate to pass a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill and
    do it during this session of Congress. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

                        Prepared Statement of John Young

        Mr. Chairman,
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I'm a fourth
    generation apple farmer from New England, and have been raising apples
    for 44 years here in New Hampshire. I am also co-chair of the
    Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR). Today I am also
    testifying on behalf of the National Council of Agricultural Employers,
    the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the New England Apple Council (NEAC).
        The title of today's hearing is ``The Reid-Kennedy Bills Amnesty;
    Impacts on Taxpayers, Fundamental Fairness and the Rule of Law''. In my
    opinion the fairer question is ``How will illegal immigrants impact the
    costs of health care, local education, and social services WITHOUT
    passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation?'' Certainly
    illegal immigration has negative consequences. Yet a fair and complete
    treatment of the issue would consider contributions of immigrants and--
    most importantly--the impacts of more delay or even failure, yet again,
    to enact a truly comprehensive immigration reform bill.
        I say this because for decades I have been closely involved in the
    immigration issue, and am intimately familiar with the existing
    temporary foreign worker programs. I worked on the Immigration Reform
    and Control Act of 1986, and can tell you that the chief failure of
    that legislation was NOT the legalization program, but rather, the lack
    of a long-term solution in the form of expanded temporary worker
    programs. I have been at the table ever since, seeking reforms to the
    existing temporary worker programs through the 1990's up to the
    present.
        I wish to go on record by saying that year after year, we have
    heard excuse after excuse for Congressional inaction. Had we solved
    this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986, or in 1994, or 1996,
    1998, we would probably not be here talking about numbers like 12
    million people, numbers like nearly 5% of the workforce! And, we would
    not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor
    threatening the very existence of agricultural industries from coast to
    coast, from oranges in Florida to tomatoes in California to dairies
    right here in New England.
        The core elements of a comprehensive approach must be (1) rational
    border and interior enforcement; (2) expanded and improved legal
    channels for temporary workers to meet the needs of the American
    economy; and, (3) a realistic approach for addressing the undocumented.
    While we may quibble about some of the elements of the Senate-passed
    bill, it is comprehensive in scope. It does address all these elements.
        Along with my testimony, I offer the experience of the New England
    Apple Council with the existing H2A and H2B programs (see Attachment
    I). The current programs have deep flaws that limit their use. H2A is
    bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. H2B is
    hamstrung by an artificially low cap on admissions. Neither program
    accommodates employers who need workers year-round, but instead are
    restricted to seasonal employment. If you are an employer who has year-
    round needs for general labor which cannot be successfully filled with
    U.S. workers, there is no program for you.
        Meanwhile our agricultural economy and much of our service economy
    is fueled by undocumented workers. We need a comprehensive immigration
    policy which will allow these workers to come forward, undergo
    background checks, and be allowed access to jobs legally. They will pay
    taxes, but more importantly they will help create many jobs upstream
    and downstream of the production, for services and goods, which will
    allow those businesses to expand. In agriculture, as an example, each
    farmworker job sustains three jobs in the surrounding economy. We are
    talking about sustaining and creating job opportunities for Americans.
        We believe that the mess which is America's current immigration
    system can only be fixed through a comprehensive approach.
    Comprehensive immigration reform must deal with each aspect of the
    problem. It must provide a workable program for agriculture, such as a
    reformed H2A. It must address the artificially low H2B cap. It must
    create a new temporary worker program that is accessible to the
    industries that fall through the cracks of the current limited program
    framework.
        Comprehensive reform must also address enforcement. I believe that
    every American wants to see a well-managed border. Employers can also
    be part of the solution. Employers are not opposed to an expanded
    employment eligibility verification system. But it must be accurate,
    responsive, easily accessible, and it must hold the employer harmless
    for any system errors. Most importantly, expanded employer
    responsibilities in this area must be coupled with--not implemented in
    advance of--means to access a legal workforce.
        The problem of those who are in this Country without documents must
    be dealt with at the same time that we secure our borders. I like to
    think of our problem, of illegal immigration, as a dam that has been
    breached. When you have a hole in a dam the first thing you do is
    relieve the pressure. If we provide better legal channels that are in
    our own economic interest, and we find a way for those here
    undocumented to become legal, we will have released the pressure. We
    will then be able to go about fixing our dam. A recent study by the
    National Foundation for American Policy documents this by looking at
    the positive effect the 1950's-era Bracero program had at reducing
    illegal immigration.
        Without a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform approach,
    legislative efforts will fail and we will continue to suffer the
    consequences. We will again have walked away from the issue. And a year
    from, now based upon recently released statistics, there will be
    300,000 more undocumented aliens here in the U.S. The time for
    congressional action is NOW. I urge House Members to return to
    Washington to work with the Senate to pass a comprehensive bipartisan
    immigration reform bill.
        In conclusion I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to
    testify today.

                                   __________

                                  ATTACHMENT I

                    The New England Apple Council Experience

            with the Existing H2A and H2B Temporary Worker Programs

                                  Submitted by

                      John Young, Past Executive Director

        The New England Apple Council includes growers in all six New
    England States, who raise various agricultural products. Many of our
    growers, including me, have used the H2A program since the early
    1960's. Our members started using Legal foreign workers in 1943. Mr.
    Chairman it has been almost 11 years since I last testified before this
    committee. In that time the guest worker program known as H2A has
    become nearly unusable. The approximately 190 members of NEAC have
    decreased their usage of H2A by 53%. Although employment of H2A workers
    has decreased, overall employment at our members has remained stable.
        Where have the additional workers come from? Many were referred by
    the Employment Service without verification of their legal authority to
    work in the U.S. Growers took the Employment Service's word that all
    referrals were qualified. Part of being qualified is being work
    authorized. Later growers were notified that many workers' social
    security numbers did not match the names reported.
        A referral of 125 workers approximately 13 years ago began the New
    England Apple Councils change from a legal (H2A) workforce to a heavily
    undocumented workforce. Growers were not in a position to use the pilot
    verification system because H2A workers are not included in the Social
    Security system, and would all come back as no-match. Employers were
    also afraid to use the system for only U.S. workers for fear of being
    charged with discrimination in hiring by the Office of Special Counsel
    of the U.S. Department of Labor.
        I believe H2A is broken. It is unresponsive, burdensome in
    paperwork, excessively costly, and I as an Association Director can not
    guarantee workers will be at the farm when they are needed.
        The government's approval process has become less dependable since
    9/11. Prior to 9/11 we would expect petitions for workers to be
    approved within two weeks. Today many are not back in even a month. For
    our H2A jobs we are asking to have unnamed petitions approved. The
    background checks of workers are done at the port of entry, and there
    is no function required at Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
    other than stamping the petition approved.
        We also have employers who use H2B workers. These are seasonal
    workers in hotels, restaurants, golf courses, landscaping, fisheries
    and ski areas. This program is also broken. An employer must start 120
    days before workers are needed. With good luck they receive an approval
    from the Department of Labor 30-60 days before need; this is after an
    attempt to find local U.S. employees to do the job failed. This
    approval must then be sent to USCIS with the regular fees plus an extra
    $1,000 for expedited processing. Without premium processing it can take
    as long as 5 months for approval. We recently had one that took 5
    months and a day, to approve an unnamed petition. There are other
    problems with the H2B program. It is capped at 66,000 visas per year.
    There was a temporary fix to exempt most returning workers from
    counting against the cap, but it will expire on October 1st. This will
    leave many New Hampshire businesses without workers next spring.

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Young.
        The Chair will advise the Members of the audience that the
    rules of the House specifically prohibit expressions in support
    of or in opposition to any statements that are made by
    witnesses or by Members of the Committee. And the Chair will
    enforce that rule.
        This is a legislative hearing that is conducted pursuant to
    the rules of the United States House of Representatives. I know
    that there are strongly held views on both sides of this issue.
    I think it is important that this hearing be conducted
    according to rules because what someone agrees with in 1
    minute, someone will disagree with when somebody else comes to
    speak. And the only way that we are able to conduct this
    hearing according to the rules is that everybody respects the
    statements that are made by the witnesses and by the Members of
    the Committee, whether they happen to agree with those
    statements or disagree with those statements.
        Mr. Gadiel, the floor is yours.

                 TESTIMONY OF PETER GADIEL, PRESIDENT,
                   9/11 FAMILIES FOR A SECURE AMERICA

        Mr. Gadiel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
    opportunity to speak today.
        Since independence, one of America's most treasured ideals
    has been that of equality under law. In practice, we have often
    failed to achieve that ideal, but with the civil rights
    revolution, the clear trend of our 230 years of existence has
    been a progress toward making that goal a reality.
        Now comes the U.S. Senate with S. 2611, a bill that will
    reverse our progressive course by rejecting the concept of
    equality before the law. This would be done in order to create
    a special class of millions and offer them special treatment
    and privileges that have never before in our history been
    offered to any single citizen let alone an immense group of
    them.
        Who are the people the Senate has selected for special
    privileges? Not combat veterans of our military services; not
    the elderly people who have contributed to our Nation for many
    decades; not Americans who have made contributions in medicine
    or science. The elite chosen by the Senate are illegal aliens,
    citizens of other nations who, like thieves in the night,
    sneaked across our borders illegally. Aliens who obtained visas
    to visit our country with the stated promise to return home on
    the expiration of their visas and who, by violating that
    promise, revealed themselves to be liars. The privileged class
    chosen by the Senate consists entirely of criminals, and not
    even American criminals but criminal aliens.
        S. 2611 would forgive illegals for immigrations crimes, tax
    evasion, identity fraud, and other crimes and then goes far
    beyond that to grant them one of the greatest gifts our
    government can bestow: citizenship, a benefit that the law
    breakers will be able in turn to pass on to their descendants.
        Senators object to calling this amnesty, and on this one
    single point, they are correct. A true amnesty would merely
    restore the criminals to the same position they occupied before
    they committed their crimes: the right to apply for immigration
    like anyone else in the world. But S. 2611 goes on and rewards
    the acts of this specified criminal class. And to conceal the
    nature of its discriminatory and regressive plan, the Senate
    calls this idea comprehensive or a path to legalization. But to
    everyone else, it is discrimination, a violation of fundamental
    fairness and abandonment of the rule of law as we have known
    it.
        The law breaking illegal aliens will be the beneficiaries
    of S. 2611, and it is American citizens who will pay the costs,
    both financial and social. Tens of thousands of American
    workers who have lost their jobs to illegal aliens who will
    work for a pittance and live 40 and 50 to a house. It is
    fundamentally unfair to these Americans who will see their law
    breaking competitors rewarded with citizenship. Fundamentally
    unfair to make permanent the conditions that deprive these
    American workers the ability to earn a living wage. Many
    Americans have been killed or injured in auto accidents or
    crimes committed by illegals who violate our motor vehicle and
    criminal laws as readily as they violate our immigration laws.
    And I might add today they show a disregard for even common
    civil proprieties of this hearing.
        Since every illegal is by definition a person whose true
    identity has never been documented, the perpetrators in many
    cases just disappear, is it not grossly unfair to the American
    victims and their families that illegals who have killed and
    injured Americans will be able simply by adopting a new
    identity to take advantage of a path to citizenship?
        The health care costs of Americans are inflated because
    hospitals are overrun by illegals who utilize their services.
    Is it not fundamentally unfair to Americans to increase our
    population by perhaps 60 million who will inevitably increase
    those costs?
        The open borders lobby relentlessly speaks of the romantic
    past, but the world is not the place it was in 1870 or 1900.
    Many, many, many conditions have changed and the most important
    one of those changes is that our government no longer seems to
    care who gets into our country. Let me provide a personal
    perspective on that point.
        My father was born in Germany in 1906. He was only part
    Jewish, but that and his family's anti-Nazi activities were
    sufficient for the Hitler government to target him for death.
    In 1940, he arrived in this country officially classified as a
    ``stateless person'' and was allowed entry, but his entry as a
    refugee was conditional. He used to tell me that despite his
    Jewish blood and his work in opposing Nazis, before he was
    entitled to remain in the U.S., the FBI investigated him
    carefully to make sure he wasn't a German agent. He said they
    practically looked under my fillings to make sure I wasn't a
    Germany agent.
        Yet my father was pleased that the FBI examined him so
    closely. I didn't want German agents in the U.S. anymore than
    FDR did. I wanted to be safe. My father was proud that he
    passed the test, and he felt safe in this country because he
    knew his government was carefully screening every single person
    who wanted to immigrate to this wonderful country.
        How sadly ironic it is that my son, his grandson, was
    murdered on 9/11 because the government of this country
    abandoned the practice of carefully examining those who wish to
    come to our country.
        S. 2611--make no doubt--will result in many more millions
    of criminal aliens from all parts of the earth winning the
    right to stay in the United States of America without any
    effective investigation of their possible violent or terrorist
    backgrounds. And this is the worst of all the many crimes
    against fairness, justice and morality S. 2611 will produce: It
    will make our Nation even more vulnerable to attack by hostile
    foreign powers infiltrating agents into the USA as ordinary
    illegal aliens.
        I implore the Members of this Committee to remember that it
    was negligence on the part of U.S. Government officials that
    allowed the terrorists of 9/11 and tens of thousands of
    ordinary street criminals to destroy the lives of innocent
    Americans. S. 2611 would perpetuate this madness. Illegal
    immigration is not a victimless crime----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Dr. Lewy?
        Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
    the gentleman be allowed to finish his statement.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
        Mr. Gadiel. I appreciate that very much. Amnesty for
    illegals means Americans will die. It is up to the Members of
    this House to save Americans from this assault by a Senate that
    is deaf to the wishes of the vast majority of this country's
    citizens. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gadiel follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Peter Gadiel

        Since Independence, one of American's most treasured ideals has
    been that of equality under the law. In practice we have often failed
    to achieve that ideal, but the clear trend during two centuries has
    been of progress toward making the goal a reality. Now comes the US
    Senate with S.2611, a bill which would reverse our progressive course
    by rejecting the concept of equality before the law. This would be done
    in order to create a special class of millions and offer them special
    treatment and privileges that have never in our history been offered to
    any single citizen, let alone an immense group of them.
        Who are the people the Senate has selected for special privileges?
    Not combat veterans of our military services; not elderly people who
    have contributed to our Nation for many decades, not Americans who have
    made unique contributions in the medicine or science.
        The elite chosen by the Senate are illegal aliens. Citizens of
    other nations who, like thieves in the night, sneaked across our
    borders illegally. Aliens who obtained visas to visit our country with
    the stated promise to return home on the expiration of their visas and
    who, by violating those promises, revealed themselves as liars. The
    privileged class chosen by the Senate consists entirely of criminals.
    And not even American criminals, but criminal aliens.
        S. 2611 would forgive illegals for their immigration crimes, tax
    evasion, identity fraud and other crimes, and then goes far beyond that
    to grant them one of the greatest gifts our government can bestow:
    citizenship, a benefit that the lawbreakers will in turn be able to
    pass on to their descendants. Senators object to calling this
    ``amnesty,'' and on this one point they are correct. A true ``amnesty''
    would merely restore the criminals to the same position they occupied
    before they committed their crimes: a clean slate and the same right to
    stand in line with the rest of the world to apply for immigration.
    However, S2611 rewards the criminal acts of this chosen class of
    lawbreakers. To conceal the nature of its discriminatory and regressive
    plan the Senate calls this idea ``a path to legalization,'' but to
    everyone else it's discrimination; a violation of fundamental fairness.
        While lawbreaking aliens will be the beneficiaries of S2611, it is
    American citizens who will pay all the costs, social and financial.
        Tens of thousands of taxpaying American workers in the building
    trades, hospitality industry, agriculture, service industry,
    manufacturing, high tech . . . the full spectrum of this country's
    private sector have lost their jobs or have been forced to take lower
    wages because of illegal aliens who will work for a pittance and live
    forty and fifty to a house. It is fundamentally unfair to these
    Americans that their lawbreaking competitors will be rewarded with
    citizenship; fundamentally unfair to make permanent the conditions that
    have deprived these American workers of the ability to earn a living
    wage.
        Illegal aliens, violating our criminal laws and motor vehicle laws
    with the same contempt they show for our immigration laws, have killed
    or injured many thousands of Americans in street crimes or highway
    accidents. Since every illegal is by definition a person whose true
    identity has never been documented, the perpetrators often just
    disappear. Is it not grossly unfair to these American victims and their
    families that the illegals who are responsible will be able, simply by
    adopting a new identity, to take advantage of the ``path to
    citizenship?''
        The health care costs of all Americans are inflated because
    hospitals are overwhelmed with illegals getting ``free'' health care.
    Is it not fundamentally unfair to Americans to permanently add perhaps
    60 million people who will inevitably increase these costs?
        Many Americans who have needed emergency care but have lost access
    to nearby hospitals which have been forced to close by the cost of
    caring for illegals who abuse the ``free'' care offered by emergency
    rooms. Is it not fundamentally unfair to Americans that the very same
    people who caused these denials of service will be rewarded with the
    Senate's ``path to citizenship?''
        Many Americans of modest means have their entire life earnings
    invested in their homes and many have seen their homes rendered almost
    worthless because nearby houses were converted by absentee owners into
    dormitories for dozens of illegals. Is it not fundamentally unfair to
    these Americans to reward the illegals (and the landlords) who have
    robbed them of the work of a lifetime?
        The open borders lobby relentlessly speaks of the romantic past.
    But the world is not the place it was in 1870, 1900. Many, many
    conditions have changed. Most important among those changes is that our
    government no longer seems to care who gets into our country. Let me
    provide a personal perspective on that point.
        My father was born in Germany in 1906. He was only part Jewish but
    that and his family's anti-Nazi activities were sufficient for the
    Hitler government to target him for death. In 1940 he arrived in the
    United States officially classified as a ``stateless person.'' However,
    his status as a refugee was conditional, with permanent status only
    being granted after a complete investigation. He used to tell me that
    before he was permitted to remain in the US the FBI ``practically
    looked under the fillings in my teeth to make sure that I wasn't a
    German agent.'' Yet, my father said he was pleased that the FBI
    examined him so closely. ``I didn't want German agents in the US
    anymore than FDR did. I wanted to be safe.'' My father was proud that
    he passed the test, and felt safe because he knew his government was
    carefully screening every person who wanted to immigrate to this
    wonderful country.
        How sadly ironic is it that his grandson, my son, was murdered on
    9/11/2001 because the government of the United States had abandoned the
    practice of carefully examining those who wish to come to our country,
    and S.2611 will result in many more millions of criminal aliens from
    all parts of the earth winning the right to stay in the USA without any
    effective investigation of their possible violent or terrorist
    backgrounds.
        And this is the worst all the many crimes against fundamental
    fairness that S.2611 will produce: it will make our Nation even more
    vulnerable to attack by hostile foreign powers infiltrating agents into
    the USA as ``ordinary'' illegal aliens.
        I implore members of this Committee to remember that it was
    negligence on the part of US government officials that allowed the
    terrorists of 9/11 and tens of thousands of ``ordinary'' street
    criminals to destroy the lives of innocent Americans. S.2611 will
    perpetuate this madness.
        Amnesty for illegals means Americans will die.
        It is up to the Members of this House to save Americans from this
    assault by a Senate that is deaf to the wishes of the vast majority of
    our citizens.

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Gadiel.
        Dr. Lewy now.

                        TESTIMONY OF JOHN LEWY,
                     AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

        Dr. Lewy. Thank you. I am very pleased to meet with you
    this morning. I am a pediatrician, and I am the immediate past
    chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on
    Federal Government affairs. I was the chairman of the
    Department of Pediatrics at Tulane Medical School from 1978
    until my retirement in 2004, and I now live in Moultonboro, New
    Hampshire. I would like to address the issue of how illegal
    aliens impact local taxpayers in terms of cost and health care.
        The American Academy of Pediatrics is concerned about the
    children who are the innocent victims of illegal immigration.
    All children need care in our communities; comprehensive,
    coordinated and continuous care in a medical home, meaning in a
    doctor's practice, is cost effective and provides the best
    quality of care.
        Unfortunately, the rules requiring Medicaid recipients to
    document citizenship and identity will harm the health of the
    children in our country and their communities. Let me elaborate
    and explain. About one-third of the Nation's low-income
    uninsured children live in immigrant families. These children
    are less likely to gain access to health care services. When
    they become ill, they are more likely to use emergency rooms
    which are far more expensive than medical homes. They also
    delay care far more and more often therefore require
    hospitalization.
        Immigrant children have more depression, more anxiety, more
    linguistic problems, and often were exposed to traumatic events
    such as war and persecution. They are also less likely to be
    immunized. This increases community risk. An example occurred
    with measles which was largely eliminated in our country by the
    year 2000. Last year, a 17-year-old unvaccinated girl from
    Indiana visited an orphanage in Romania where she picked up the
    measles virus. When she returned home, she attended a church
    gathering where there were 500 people including a number of
    unvaccinated children; 34 people developed the illness and
    three required hospitalization, one quite severely ill.
        A particular concern is the interpretation of this
    citizenship identification and documentation requirements. An
    extreme problem can be found in the denial of eligibility for
    infants born in the United States, and therefore citizens, to
    undocumented mothers and in families who can't find their
    documentation, and a strong example of that is families who
    lost all documentation in Katrina.
        We would hope that, one, the deemed sponsor rule would be
    changed so that children are not denied access to insurance;
    secondly, that newborns would be presumed eligible for Medicaid
    coverage; three, that payment policies would be designed to
    encourage a medical home for all children who reside in the
    United States; and fourth, that State outreach efforts be
    designed to enroll eligible children in the Medicaid or the
    State child health insurance program.
        In closing, then, I would hope that the Congress keeps in
    mind that all children living in our country need to receive
    quality care. This is the most cost-effective way to provide it
    in a medical home. We must not compromise children's health
    while we restructure immigration law. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewy follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Dr. John Lewy

        The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an organization of
    60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists,
    and pediatric surgical specialists, who are deeply committed to
    protecting the health of children, adolescents and young adults in the
    United States. Our testimony in today's Oversight Hearing, ``The Reid-
    Kennedy Bill's Amnesty: Impacts on Taxpayers, Fundamental Fairness and
    the Rule of Law,'' will focus on children, the innocent victims of
    illegal immigration.
        Children, whether they are undocumented or not, need care in our
    communities. Most immigrant children's care should be preventive, but
    too often, that care is foregone. Comprehensive, coordinated, and
    continuous health services provided within a medical home should be
    integral to all efforts on behalf of immigrant children. Children need
    and deserve access to care, and communities benefit when they receive
    it.
        Unfortunately, immigrant children often do not receive the care
    they need because of federal, state and local laws limiting payment for
    their care, or a generalized belief that if children seek care, their
    families or loved ones may become the target of law enforcement.
        AAP believes that barriers to access, such as the recent
    promulgation of rules by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    requiring Medicaid recipients to document citizenship and
    identification, will harm the health of the children in our country and
    the communities they live in.

                               IMMIGRANT CHILDREN

        One in every five American children is a member of an immigrant
    family. About one-third of the nation's low-income, uninsured children
    live in immigrant families. Children of immigrants, often racial or
    ethnic minorities, experience significant health disparities. These
    disparities arise because of complex and often poorly understood
    factors, many of which are worsened by the circumstances of their
    lives. Although these children have similar challenges with regard to
    poverty, housing, and food, significant physical, mental, and social
    health issues may exist that are unique to each individual child.
        Children of immigrants are more likely to be uninsured and less
    likely to gain access to health care services than children in native
    families. Socioeconomic, financial, geographic, linguistic, legal,
    cultural, and medical barriers often limit these families from
    accessing even basic health care services. Once care is available,
    communication barriers often result in immigrant children receiving
    lower-quality services. Many immigrant families also have varied
    immigration statuses that confer different legal rights and affect the
    extent to which these families are eligible for public programs such as
    SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and Medicaid.
    Thus, the immigration status of children in the same family may differ.
    As a result, a foreign-born child may be ineligible for insurance
    coverage, while his or her younger, U.S.-born sibling is eligible as a
    native citizen.
        Each immigrant's experience is unique and complex but certain
    overarching health issues are common in caring for immigrant families.
    Immigration imposes unique stresses on children and families,
    including:

              depression, grief, or anxiety associated with
            migration and acculturation;

              separation from support systems;

              inadequate language skills in a society that is not
            tolerant of linguistic differences;

              disparities in social, professional, and economic
            status between the country of origin and the United States; and

              traumatic events, such as war or persecution, that
            may have occurred in their native country.

        The health of immigrant children not only impacts the child, it
    impacts the entire community. Preventive care commonly provided to
    children born in the United States will often not be available to
    children of immigrants. Left untreated, the health issues caused by
    this lack of prevention cause immigrant families to seek care for their
    children in emergency settings. Children commonly present with worse
    health status in the emergency room than if they had received
    preventive care.
        Beyond the health status of the child, communities should also care
    about the health of the children who live in them because immigrant
    children may have diseases that are rarely diagnosed in the United
    States. Left untreated, these diseases may be passed on to the
    communities in which immigrant children reside. In addition, many
    foreign-born children have not been immunized adequately or lack
    documents verifying their immunization status. Dental problems are also
    common among immigrant children.
        The measles vaccine is an example of the importance of prevention
    for communities. Measles is a highly infectious viral disease that can
    cause a rash, fever, diarrhea and, in severe cases, pneumonia,
    encephalitis and even death. Worldwide, it infects some 30 million
    people and causes more than 450,000 deaths a year. In the United
    States, measles was once a common childhood disease, but it had been
    largely eliminated by 2000. Nevertheless, an outbreak of measles
    occurred in Indiana last year. A 17-year-old unvaccinated girl who
    visited an orphanage in Romania on a church mission picked up the virus
    there.
        When the girl returned, she attended a gathering of some 500 church
    members that included many other unvaccinated children. By the time the
    outbreak had run its course, 34 people had become ill. Three were
    hospitalized, including one with life-threatening complications.
    Clearly, communities should care about the health of those who reside
    in them.

                FEDERAL AND STATE HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR IMMIGRANTS

        One of the most important risk factors for lack of health coverage
    is a child's family immigration status. Some children in the United
    States are ineligible for Medicaid and SCHIP because of immigrant
    eligibility restrictions. Many others are eligible but not enrolled
    because their families encounter language barriers to enrollment, are
    confused about program rules and eligibility status, or are worried
    about repercussions if they use public benefits.
        The vast majority of immigrant children meet the income
    requirements for eligibility for Medicaid or the State Children's
    Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but for various reasons are not
    enrolled. Medicaid and SCHIP are not available to most immigrant
    children because of eligibility restrictions imposed by various federal
    laws. Two examples include the sponsor deeming rule and the recently
    promulgated citizenship and identification documentation requirements.
        While qualified immigrants can become eligible to receive federal
    benefits after five years of U.S. residency, secondary rules often
    interfere with their access to benefits, such as the ``sponsor
    deeming'' rule. Current law requires that people who immigrate through
    family ``sponsors'' may have their sponsors' income counted in
    determining eligibility. This rule applies even if the sponsor lives in
    a separate household and does not actually contribute to the
    immigrant's financial support. Sponsor deeming has made a majority of
    low-income immigrants ineligible for benefits, even after five years
    have passed. Moreover, if an immigrant uses certain benefits, including
    Medicaid and SCHIP, his or her sponsor can be required to repay the
    government for the value of the benefits used until the immigrant
    becomes a citizen or has had approximately 10 years of employment in
    the United States. Together, these requirements impose significant
    barriers to securing health coverage, even when immigrant children are
    otherwise eligible.
        Immigrant children who used to qualify based on certifications as
    to their immigrant status now may not qualify because of changes
    contained in the Deficit Reduction Act. These changes require that
    Medicaid applicants, who would otherwise qualify, must now also provide
    documentation such as a passport or original birth certificate to
    verify their citizenship status and identity. While designed to weed
    out fraud and abuse from the system, AAP has already received
    information that the rule has limited access to care for poor children
    who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid. An extreme example of this
    can be found in new rules denying coverage for children born in the
    United States to undocumented mothers.
        According to these new rules, newborns may not be eligible for
    Medicaid until strenuous documentation requirements have been
    satisfied. Hospital records may not be used in most cases to prove that
    children are citizens, even though the child was born in the hospital
    providing care and are, by definition, citizens. Thus, care for some
    citizen newborns may not be paid for by Medicaid because paperwork
    documenting their status is not yet available. Pediatricians treating
    these citizen newborns whether they are low-birthweight, have post-
    partum complications, or simply need well-baby care, may not be paid.
    This result is completely unnecessary because the child will eventually
    qualify for Medicaid benefits as a result of where he or she was born.

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

        Lawmakers should be aware of and sensitive to the onerous
    financial, educational, geographic, linguistic, and cultural barriers
    that interfere with achieving optimal health status for immigrant
    children. This awareness should translate into:

              CMS confirming with states that newborns are presumed
            eligible for Medicaid coverage. Paperwork should not delay
            payment for services provided to resident newborns.

              The deemed sponsor rule should be changed so that
            immigrant children are not denied access to insurance, and by
            extension, quality health care.

              The pooling of community resources to address unpaid-
            for care provided by pediatricians to immigrant children.
            Undocumented children receive care from pediatricians.
            Communities benefit from the provision of this care.
            Communities should not expect pediatricians alone to provide
            the resources needed to furnish this care.

              Encouraging payment policies to support the
            establishment of a medical home for all children residing in
            the United States. Comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous
            health services provided within a medical home should be
            integral to all efforts on behalf of immigrant children. In
            addition, the establishment of a medical home should be a
            ``scorable element'' for children, as the medical home will
            have the effect of providing care for children away from the
            emergency room in many instances.

              Outreach efforts for children who are potentially
            eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled, simplified
            enrollment for both programs, and state funding for those who
            are not eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. The Medicaid
            reciprocity model, which allows Medicaid recipients in one
            state to qualify for services in another state without
            reestablishing eligibility, is an example of a model that
            enables underserved families to access health benefits more
            easily.

        In closing, the American Academy of Pediatrics seeks to ensure that
    Congress keeps in mind the children we care for as it considers
    restructuring immigration law. Pediatricians and a host of other health
    professionals provide care to children throughout the United States. We
    must not compromise children's health in the name of reform.

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Mr. Camarota.

    TESTIMONY OF STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR
                          IMMIGRATION STUDIES

        Mr. Camarota. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee,
    my name is Steven Camarota from the Center for Immigration
    Studies and I want to thank you for inviting me to testify.
        When it comes to immigrants and public coffers, there is
    general agreement that their fiscal impact depends largely on
    the education level of the immigrant in question. Immigrants
    who come with a lot of education tend to pay much more in taxes
    than they use in services, while those with little education
    tend, who have low incomes, pay relatively little in taxes and
    often use a good deal in public services. In the case of
    illegal aliens, services are often received on behalf of their
    U.S. born children who are currently awarded U.S. Citizenship.
        It is critically important to understand that the fiscal
    drain from less educated immigrants is not because they came to
    America to get welfare, nor is it due to an unwillingness to
    work. Rather, the costs simply reflect the fact that there is
    no single better predictor of one's income, tax payments, or
    use of public services in modern America than one's education
    level. And some 60 percent of illegal aliens have not completed
    high school. And another 20 percent have only a high school
    degree. While the most detailed study of the fiscal effects of
    immigration was done by the National Research Council, it found
    that during their lifetime an immigrant who arrives without a
    high school education will create a net fiscal burden of
    $89,000. This includes all the taxes they will pay and all the
    services they will use. The net drain on taxpayers at all
    levels of government is $89,000. For an immigrant who comes
    with only a high school degree, the net drain is $31,000.
    However, the study found that immigrants who come with more
    education were a fiscal benefit. But the people who will be
    legalized under 2611 are overwhelmingly people who create large
    fiscal costs.
        In terms of the impact on taxpayers, the fundamental
    problem with the Senate bill is that it ignores this basic
    fact. My research shows that if we legalized illegals and they
    began to pay taxes and used services like legal immigrants with
    the same level of education, the net fiscal drain would roughly
    triple on just the Federal Government from $10 billion a year
    to $30 billion a year. That's the difference between what they
    would pay in taxes and use in services.
        This happens because illegals would now be eligible for
    many more social programs, but their low education levels would
    mean their incomes and taxes would still be very modest, even
    though they would be paid on the books. As you know the Senate
    bill increases legal immigration from roughly 1 million to 2
    million a year and grants legal status to some 10 million
    illegal immigrants. For the most part, the bill makes no real
    effort to select new immigrants based on their skills and
    education, nor is that part of the selection criteria for
    legalization. If you take nothing else away from my testimony
    it is the knowledge that it is not possible to avoid the fiscal
    costs of large-scale, unskilled immigration given the realities
    of the modern American economy and the existence of our well-
    developed welfare state, unless we are prepared to drastically
    cut spending on programs like the Women, Infants and Children
    Nutrition Program, public education, emergency medical care,
    free school lunches, just to name a few. There is simply no
    desire to do that. The kind of programs that illegal aliens use
    are a permanent feature of our society.
        Let me comment briefly specifically on State and local
    governments. In 2005, one out of every seven persons without
    health insurance in the United States was an illegal alien. The
    cost of providing health care to illegals and their U.S. Born
    children totals some $4 billion a year for State and local
    governments. State and local governments spend another $22
    billion a year to provide illegal aliens and their U.S. born
    children with a free education. As I said, the very low
    education level of the vast majority of illegals means that
    even when paid on the books, they can't pay enough to cover the
    costs they impose even though the vast majority of illegal
    aliens work, typically full-time.
        There is, if you will, a high cost to cheap labor. Now
    putting aside the impact on taxpayers it should also be
    remembered that all the research shows that the economic gain
    to Americans from immigration is very tiny or minuscule in the
    words of the Nation's top economists. And the benefits come
    mainly by driving down the wages and benefits of the least
    educated and poorest Americans which itself is very
    problematic. There is no possibility that the economic benefits
    from unskilled immigration will somehow offset the cost to
    taxpayers.
        We face a simple choice. Either we enforce the law and make
    illegal alien go home, or we shut up about the fiscal costs.
    They are the only two possibilities when it comes to public
    coffers. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Steven A. Camarota

                                    SUMMARY

        There is general agreement that the fiscal impact of immigration
    (legal or illegal) depends largely on the education level of the
    immigrants in question. Immigrants with a lot of education pay more in
    taxes than they use in services, while those with little education tend
    to have low incomes, pay relatively little in taxes and often use a
    good deal in public services. In the case of illegal aliens, the vast
    majority have little education, and this is the key reason they create
    fiscal costs. Illegal families often receive benefits on behalf of
    their U.S.-born children. The costs associated with illegal immigration
    are difficult, such as emergency medical care or public education, if
    illegals are allowed to stay. As a matter of policy, either we enforce
    the law and make the illegals go home or stop complaining about the
    costs.

                           KEY FINDINGS OF RESEARCH:

              The National Research Council (NRC) \1\ estimated
            that immigrant households create a net fiscal burden (taxes
            paid minus services used) on all levels of government of $20.2
            billion annually.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The National Research Council's 1997 report entitled, The New
    Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. A
    summary of the report's findings can be found at www.cis.org/articles/
    1999/combinednrc.pdf

              The NRC estimated that an immigrant without a high
            school diploma will create a net lifetime burden of $89,000,
            and an immigrant with only a high school education is a
            negative $31,000. However, an immigrant with education beyond
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            high school is a fiscal benefit of $105,000.

              Estimating the impact of immigrants and their
            descendants, the NRC found that if today's newcomers do as well
            as past generations, the average immigrant will be a fiscal
            drain for his first 22 years after arrival. It takes his
            children another 18 years to pay back this burden.

              The NRC also estimated that the average immigrant
            plus all his descendants over 300 years would create a fiscal
            benefit, expressed in today's dollars of $80,000. Some
            immigration advocates have pointed to this 300-year figure, but
            the NRC states it would be ``absurd'' to do so.

              The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates
            that in 2002 illegal alien households imposed costs of $26
            billion on the federal government and paid $16 billion in
            federal taxes, creating an annual net fiscal deficit of $10.4
            billion at the federal level, or $2,700 per household.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the
    Federal Budget, Steven Camarota. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/
    fiscal.html

              Among the largest federal costs were Medicaid ($2.5
            billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food
            assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school
            lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison/court systems ($1.6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

              If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay
            taxes and use services like households headed by legal
            immigrants with the same education levels, CIS estimates the
            annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or
            $7,700, per household at the federal level.

              The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that
            state and local governments spend some $4 billion a year to
            provide health care to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born
            children and $20 to $24 billion to educate children from
            illegal alien households.

              The primary reason illegal aliens create a fiscal
            deficit is that an estimated 60 percent lack a high school
            degree and another 20 percent have no education beyond high
            school. The fiscal drain is not due to their legal status or
            unwillingness to work.

              Illegal aliens with little education are a
            significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are
            legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they
            are eligible for many more programs.

              Many of the costs associated with illegals aliens are
            due to their U.S.-born children who have American citizenship.
            Thus, barring illegal aliens themselves from programs will have
            little impact on costs.

              There are now some 400,000 children born to illegal
            alien mothers each year in the United States, accounting for
            almost one in ten births in the country. Of all births to
            immigrants 39 percent were to mothers without a high school
            education, and among illegals it was more than 65 percent.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ These figures are based on analysis of birth records complied
    by the National Center for Health Statistics. See Births to
    Immigrations in America, 1970 to 2002, which can be found at
    www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805.html

              The costs associated with providing services to so
            many low-income children is enormous and will continue to grow
            if the large-scale immigration of less-educated immigrants
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (legal and illegal) is allowed to continue.

              Focusing just on Social Security and Medicare, CIS
            estimates that illegal households create a combined net benefit
            for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year. However,
            they create a net deficit of $17 billion in the rest of the
            budget, for a total net federal cost of $10 billion.

        While there is still much that is not known, we now have some
    reasonably good information about the impact of immigrants on public
    coffers. As I tried to make clear in the summary above, there is a
    pretty clear consensus that the fiscal impact of immigration depends on
    the education level of the immigrants, not their legal status.
    Certainly other factors also matter, but the human capital of
    immigrants, as economists like to refer to it, is clearly very
    important. There is no single better predictor of one's income, tax
    payments, or use of public services in modern America than one's
    education level. The vast majority of immigrants come as adults, and it
    should come as no surprise that the education they bring with them is a
    key determinant of their fiscal impact. In my own research I have
    concentrated on the effect of illegal aliens on the federal government.
    For those wanting a more detailed look at these questions, my most
    recent publications are available online at the Center for Immigration
    Studies web site, www.cis.org.

                   ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET

        A good deal of research has focused on the effect illegals have on
    taxpayers at the state and local level. Much of this work has examined
    only costs, or only tax payments, but not both. In my work I have tried
    to estimate both, and I have focused on the federal government. Based
    on a detailed analysis of Census Bureau data, my analysis indicates
    that households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3
    billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid $16 billion
    in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or
    $2,700 per illegal household. The largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5
    billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance
    programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9
    billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and
    federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).\4\ Obviously, the size of the
    illegal population has grown since 2002, so the costs have as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See footnote 2 for the source of this information and all
    information dealing with the fiscal costs of illegal immigration on the
    federal budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A Complex Fiscal Picture. While the net fiscal drain illegals
    create for the federal government is significant, I also found that the
    costs illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half
    that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth
    that of other households. Many of the costs associated with illegals
    are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S.
    citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts to bar illegals from
    federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children
    can continue to access them. It must also be remembered that the vast
    majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for
    the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
    In 2002, I found that 89 percent of illegal households had at least one
    person working, compared to 78 percent of households headed by legal
    immigrants and natives.
        Legalization Would Dramatically Grow Costs. One of my most
    important findings with regard to illegal aliens is that if they were
    given legal status and began to pay taxes and use services like
    households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels,
    the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per
    household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. Costs
    increase dramatically because less-educated immigrants with legal
    status--what most illegal aliens would become--can access government
    programs but still tend to make very modest tax payments. Of course, I
    also found that their income would rise, as would their tax payments if
    legalized. I estimate that tax payments would increase 77 percent, but
    costs would rise by 118 percent.
        These costs are considerable and should give anyone who advocates
    legalizing illegal immigrants serious pause. However, my findings show
    that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of
    illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use,
    receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while
    Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than that for other
    households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly
    higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the
    perceptions that illegal aliens do not pay payroll taxes, we estimate
    that more than half of illegals work on the books. On average, illegal
    households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes.
    Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
        What's Different About Today's Immigration. It is worth noting that
    many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America
    and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is
    true, but the size and scope of government was dramatically smaller
    during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested
    programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads
    were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of
    immigrants with little education in the past did not have the negative
    fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy
    has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with
    education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that
    unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern
    American economy and welfare state. It is very doubtful that the fiscal
    costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

               ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

        In my own research I have focused on fiscal costs at the federal
    level. It should also be noted that in the 1997 NRC study, The New
    Americans, mentioned above the estimated lifetime fiscal drain at the
    state and local level from all immigrants (legal and illegal) was
    negative $25,000. That is, immigrants cost state and local government
    $25,000 more in services than they paid in taxes in the course of their
    lifetime. Some newer data exists to estimate the impact of illegals on
    state and local governments in such areas as health care and public
    education. The estimates below provide some insight into the likely
    impact of illegal immigration at the state and local governments on
    these two key public services. Below I discuss only the impact of
    illegal immigration.
        Health Care. In 2004, state governments spent $125 billion on
    Medicaid--health insurance coverage for low incomes.\5\ Based on prior
    research, some $2.1 billion of that money went to persons in illegal-
    alien households, mostly their U.S.-born children.\6\ Data from 2005
    also indicated that of the 45.8 million uninsured people in the country
    (persons on Medicaid are considered to have insurance), some 7
    million--or 15 percent--are illegal aliens or the young U.S.-born
    children of illegals under age 18.\7\ State and local governments spend
    some 12 billion on treatment for the uninsured.\8\ Thus, it seems
    likely that illegals and their children cost state and local
    governments some $1.8 billion on top of the $2.1 billion spent on
    Medicaid. In total, the best available evidence indicates that illegal
    immigration costs state and local governments some $4 billion a year.
    The federal government likely spent an additional $6 billion on health
    care for illegals and their children in 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income:
    Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY2002-FY2004, Karen
    Spar, Coordinator. Congressional Research Service, March 27, 2006.
        \6\ See The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the
    Federal Budget, which can be found at www.cis.org/articles/2004/
    fiscal.html I estimated that slightly less than 2 percent of federal
    expenditures on Medicaid went to persons in illegal households. The
    above estimate assumes that the same percentage holds true at the state
    and local level.
        \7\ The number of uninsured illegals and their children is based on
    my analysis of the March 2005 Current Population Survey conducted by
    the Census Bureau and is consistent with other research on topic.
        \8\ In a February 2003 study in Health Affairs, which can be found
    at http://www.healthaffairs.org, Hadley and Holahan estimated
    government expenditures for treating the uninsured in 2001. An updated
    study for the Kaiser Family Foundation, which can be found at http://
    www.kff.org, has estimates for 2004. Our estimated costs for treating
    illegals does account for the fact that illegals are not eligible to
    use all of the services provided to the uninsured by virtue of their
    legal status.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public Education. State and local governments spent some $400
    billion on public education in 2003. Between 5 and 6 percent of all
    children in public school are themselves illegal aliens or are the
    U.S.-born children of an illegal alien. Putting aside the higher costs
    associated with educating language minority children, the costs of
    providing education to these children still must come to $20 to $24
    billion for state and local governments. The federal government also
    provides funding for public education, a significant share of which is
    specifically targeted at low-income, migrant, and limited English
    students. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that
    the costs of educating illegal-alien children at all levels of
    government, including the federal expenditures, was nearly $12 billion
    in 2004, and when the children born here are counted they estimated the
    figure at $28 billion.

              POLICY OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

        The negative impact on the federal budget from illegal immigration
    need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding
    what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal
    status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that
    might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One
    set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country but
    attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would
    be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they
    pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of
    the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
        Let Illegal Stay Illegal, But Cut Costs. Reducing the costs
    illegals impose would probably be the most difficult policy option
    because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much
    in costs on the federal government as other households. Moreover, the
    fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen
    children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households
    from accessing the programs they do. It seems almost certain that if
    illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will
    persist.
        The High Cost of Legalization. As discussed above, our research
    shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase
    tax revenue. Unfortunately, we also find that costs would increase even
    more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to
    access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover,
    even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some
    means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign
    their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose
    whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because
    immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and
    resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen
    children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal
    aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for
    programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically
    with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number
    and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result,
    relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized,
    payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
        Enforcing the Law. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal
    costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the
    law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this
    would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea
    borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time
    on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must
    be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary
    basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in
    the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement
    effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At
    present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require
    using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to
    work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that
    knowingly employ illegal aliens.
        Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens,
    denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all
    the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time
    and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the
    federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year,
    significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still
    leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has
    the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is
    very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can
    expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially
    ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community
    that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or
    pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap,
    unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or
    to grant illegals legal status, both the public and policymakers have
    to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for
    taxpayers.

                                   CONCLUSION

        If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be
    remembered that it simply is not possible to fund social programs by
    bringing in large numbers of immigrants with relatively little
    education. This is central to the debate over illegal immigration
    because 60 percent of illegals are estimated to have not completed high
    school and another 20 have only a high school degree. The fiscal
    problem created by less-educated immigrants exists even though the vast
    majority of immigrants, including illegals, work and did not come to
    America to get welfare. The realities of the modern American economy
    coupled with the modern American administrative state make large fiscal
    costs an unavoidable problem of large-scale, less-educated immigration.
        This fact does not reflect a moral defect on the part of
    immigrants. What it does mean is that we need an immigration policy
    that reflects the reality of modern America. We may decide to let
    illegals stay and we may even significantly increase the number of
    less-educated legal immigrants allowed into the country, which is what
    the immigration bill recently passed by the Senate would do. But we
    have to at least understand that such a policy will create large
    unavoidable costs for taxpayers.

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, very much, Mr. Camarota.
        In order for us to have more than one round of questions,
    the Chair intends to enforce the 5-minute rule on Members,
    including himself, pretty strictly and that way we can have a
    couple of rounds of questions and maybe even three rounds of
    questions before noon.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Meehan.
        Mr. Meehan. Representative Renzullo, how long have you been
    a State legislator in New Hampshire?
        Mr. Renzullo. I have been a legislator for 2 years.
        Mr. Meehan. In the House?
        Mr. Renzullo. In the House. Before that, I was in local
    politics.
        Mr. Meehan. And when you pass a bill in the House and the
    Senate passes a bill, does it go to a Conference Committee?
        Mr. Renzullo. If there is a difference, yes.
        Mr. Meehan. Right. And you are aware that the House passed
    a bill and the Senate passed a bill, and we're awaiting a
    Conference Committee?
        Mr. Renzullo. I am aware of that.
        Mr. Meehan. Do you know Senator Gregg from New Hampshire?
        Mr. Renzullo. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Meehan. Did you send him a letter as this bill was
    being debated the United States Senate?
        Mr. Renzullo. I'm not certain if I did or not. I know I
    have told him that the Senate bill was----
        Mr. Meehan. But you are not certain whether you sent him a
    letter or not?
        Mr. Renzullo. I probably did. I know I sent--if I didn't
    send him a letter, I probably called his office.
        Mr. Meehan. You mentioned the cost of people going to the
    emergency rooms. You phrased it as illegal aliens that go to
    the emergency rooms in our hospitals.
        Mr. Renzullo. I did not say--I said the costs, yes, okay. I
    understand what you are saying, okay.
        Mr. Meehan. Right. Do you know how many legal American
    citizens in the United States don't have health insurance?
        Mr. Renzullo. I think it is approximately, if I look at the
    data, 45 million. And Mr. Camarota has the data that says 6 or
    7 are illegal.
        Mr. Meehan. It is about 45.8 million Americans who don't
    have health insurance. And those 46 million Americans that
    don't have health insurance who are legal citizens are going to
    emergency rooms all across America to get their health
    insurance. And the reason: to get coverage. That's what is
    happening now. So this idea that we are going to blame our
    problems in the health care system on illegal immigrants, the
    fact of the matter is, we should be ashamed of ourselves as the
    richest, most powerful country in the world that 46 million
    American citizens don't have health insurance. It is
    unconscionable.
        I really believe that what we need to do is provide
    leadership and get this legislation--work out the differences
    between the Senate and the House. And I honestly I don't
    believe that anyone is fooled by this process of having
    hearings after the bill has passed the House and the Senate.
    The newspapers all across America are rightly calling these
    hearings pointless and calling them a stalling technique.
        I don't understand where advocates for stronger Border
    Patrol, more guards on the border, more and better technology
    to implement the 9/11 Commission reports that haven't been
    implemented, I don't understand why it is better to do nothing
    than to try to work out differences between the House and the
    Senate. I just don't understand it.
        In Massachusetts, the Boston Herald, a pretty conservative
    newspaper, they say that the House's unwillingness to get to
    work is the only roadblock to reform. House Bill 4437 was
    introduced on Tuesday, December 6. It passed the House on
    Friday the 16th. Not one hearing. Not one hearing. It is
    unprecedented to have the House pass a bill and the Senate pass
    a bill and then decide to do a road show with hearings all
    across the country.
        There comes a time when people have to roll up their
    sleeves and go to work. And I might add, I gave the statistics
    earlier, as the Republicans are in control of the House--they
    are in control of the Senate; they are in control of the White
    House; they are in control of the Supreme Court--illegal
    immigrants are still coming over the border in record numbers.
    The enforcement on the borders under this President has been
    terrible. In fact, this Congress has not even funded all of the
    border security personnel that have been authorized.
        So I don't know how we get into this, we are going to do
    nothing because we think that doing nothing is better than
    doing something, because we will have an election in November,
    and we will make it seem that we are for something so tough
    that we can't do anything. And I think that is wrong. I think
    the American people are calling for reform. They want us to
    deal with this issue. And they want us to deal with it openly
    and honestly, and what that means is rolling up your sleeves
    and working it out in the Conference Committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
    Hostettler.
        Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        At the outset, I think the record should be clarified. In
    you testimony, Dr. Camarota, your written testimony, you give
    the figure of 45 million uninsured people in the country, but
    that is not 45 million citizens of the United States.
        Mr. Camarota. Over 13 million of them are either immigrants
    or the young child of an immigrant parent. About 6.3 million of
    those are illegal aliens. It is from the March 2005 current
    population survey. Most research suggests that 90 percent of
    illegal aliens respond.
        Mr. Meehan. Will the gentleman yield on that point? My
    figures didn't come from him.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman from
    Indiana.
        Mr. Hostettler. So your figures are probably wrong. Given,
    Dr. Camarota, that 15 percent of the uninsured population in
    America are illegal aliens, let me ask you about the growth in
    that. Relative to the total population of illegal aliens and
    the proportion of American citizens, is the population of
    uninsured illegal aliens growing faster than the population of
    uninsured American citizens?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, sir, absolutely. Since about 1989, the
    uninsured population is up roughly 12 million. About 9 million
    of the increase in the last 15 years are new immigrants or the
    children born to immigrants, and half of that or more is
    illegal aliens. So you are looking at around half of the growth
    in the uninsured in the United States being from illegal
    immigration.
        Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Camarota, your cost on taxpayers are
    costs that are as a result of direct payment of services for
    illegal aliens; is that correct?
        Mr. Camarota. Services that they would use in a broad
    sense. Plus I tried to take into account all the taxes they
    would pay, too.
        Mr. Hostettler. In previous testimony before our
    Subcommittee, you have remarked that, between 2000 and 2004,
    foreign born workers added 1.1 million to the number in three
    job classifications, contribution labor, building maintenance
    and food preparation. But in 2004, there were 2 million adult
    native Americans unemployed in those three job classifications.
    Is that correct? Do you remember that testimony?
        Mr. Camarota. That sounds about right. I can't say exactly,
    but that sounds about right.
        Mr. Hostettler. Given the displacement that has taken place
    with regard to American workers in the workplace as a result of
    illegal aliens coming into the labor pool, are there not
    significant indirect costs as a result of displaced Americans
    who do have access to a much larger array of government
    programs for government aid as the result of being once against
    displaced by illegal aliens?
        Mr. Camarota. Yes, lower wages for natives should result in
    them using more social services as a result of the immigrant
    competition, and also, those who leave the labor market
    entirely or become unemployed, there are added social services
    costs associated with that as well. I haven't calculated those.
        Mr. Hostettler. There are significantly higher costs as of
    result of that. We appreciate that.
        An expansion of health benefits as suggested by Dr. Lewy
    would do what to the foreign population of individuals who
    would consider coming into the country illegally? If we
    expanded social spending programs for illegal aliens and
    especially the children of illegal aliens not born in the
    United States, what would that do to the motivation of foreign
    populations with regard to their desire to enter illegally?
        Mr. Camarota. One would have to expect that, obviously, it
    is a very attractive option in a country like Mexico where it
    is difficult to access a less developed health care system,
    coming to the United States and at least getting care for your
    children would make it more attractive. How much of an impact
    we don't know. The other thing it would do is make illegal
    aliens who often go home on their own each year more likely to
    stay. There is a wealth of literature that shows that benefits
    tend to reduce out-migration.
        Mr. Hostettler. Thank you. Mr.
        Young, in your testimony, you use the analogy of a dam and
    its repair and the breach of a dam, a hole being placed on the
    dam. Interestingly, when that takes place, where there is a
    hole below the water line what takes place, according to the
    Corps of Engineers, is they build what is called a cofferdam.
    They create a barrier that surrounds the place of the breach, a
    barrier, a physical barrier, pump the area dry to effect the
    repairs. It has to be dry. They can't have water obviously
    streaming in.
        This is a very good analogy. I commend you for the analogy.
    This is an analogy that is very apropos to the House passed
    bill, the Sensenbrenner bill that included exactly what you are
    suggesting. And that is the creation of a barrier that would
    stop the upstream flow--or if you use the analogy of the
    southern border--the upstream flow into the United States. That
    is what the House is attempting to do is to repair that breach
    of the dam.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I clearly want to defer to you
    as Chair, and you haven't posed your questions. If you are
    extending the courtesy to me.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Your turn, Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that will
    not be taken off my time.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I will reset the clock.
        Mr. Delahunt. Thank you for resetting the clock.
        Mr. Camarota, you have testified before in numbers of
    hearings. You are part of the traveling show at this point in
    time.
        Mr. Camarota. This is my first traveling hearing that I
    have attended.
        Mr. Delahunt. And I want to be very clear. This is not an
    ad hominem remark, but I am unsure as to the methodology that
    you utilize when you come to your figures. And I am sure it is
    a good-faith effort, but I have seen statistics--whether it is
    Social Security, whether it is the CBO or the OMB statistics,
    we see them all the time in the U.S. Congress, the deficit, for
    example, that bounces around and up and down, and I dare say,
    to a significant degree, it is a guess.
        Back in 1986, much has been talked about in terms of that
    legislation. The number of illegals was estimated to be 9
    million at that point in time. And subsequently, we learned
    after the passage of the 1986 act that in fact it was 3
    million. So it causes me some unease to be relying on
    statistics that are put forth.
        But be that as it may, as I said, you testified earlier
    that in the aftermath of the passage of the 1986 act, there was
    a dramatic decline in the number of illegals coming into the
    country. And yet, well, let me quote your testimony: ``But it
    does appear,' and I'm quoting you, ``that as soon as they
    realized that that wasn't going to happen, meaning that the law
    was not going to be enforced, there was an upturn.'' That is
    your testimony.
        Mr. Camarota. Yeah, I think there is general agreement that
    right after passage----
        Mr. Delahunt. I am asking a specific question. That is your
    testimony? Without enforcement, without enforcement, no law is
    worth the paper that it is written on. I think we can all agree
    in that. And because of the failures of the executive and
    Congress at the time to enforce the law, there was an exercise,
    if you will, that was a sham. As soon as the word filtered out
    to the immigrant community that, don't worry, they are talking
    tough, but they really are not doing anything, there was a
    resurgence of undocumented aliens coming into this country.
    That's a statement by me, not a question, I'm just looking at
    your testimony.
        But I'm going to ask--there is a chart to be put up here.
    Because let me suggest that whatever we do--and by the way, I
    believe, with all due respect to New Hampshire--I love New
    Hampshire, you are part of Red Sox Nation, we appreciate that--
    but we ought to be in Washington, D.C., not myself, but at
    least Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Subcommittee chair working
    with the conferees in the Senate to see if we can iron out this
    difference and do something. But for those of you that are
    concerned about this issue, please note that President Bush
    called President Fox earlier this month subsequent to our
    recess to inform President Fox that there appeared to be no
    hope of passage of any legislation this year.
        So now what we have accomplished is a big fat nothing,
    whether it be border security, whether it be comprehensive--
    whatever you want to call it--we are not going to get the job
    done. And as my colleague from Massachusetts mentioned, there
    is only one party--there is only one party in our political
    system today that controls the House, controls the Senate,
    controls the White House, and that's the Republican Majority.
        So we know what this is all about today. This is about
    securing some sort of political advantage. Now, some might
    suggest that they want to pressure Senator Gregg, because it
    could be the Gregg-Frist-McConnell bill, not necessarily the
    Reid-Kennedy bill. But they all support that particular
    approach comprehensively.
        But I don't really think it is about that. I think it is
    about House seats and where there are competitive races going
    on, and that is why we are in New Hampshire, and that is why
    the Democrats in this Committee will have a press conference
    immediately after this hearing to describe what we think is
    happening with this particular issue as far as whether it is
    real or a sham.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I ask unanimous consent that the general
    have an additional 2 minutes if he would like to keep on going
    on.
        Mr. Delahunt. Yes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Delahunt. I thank my dear friend and colleague from
    Wisconsin for the additional 2 minutes.
        Mr. Meehan. Will the gentleman yield for a question? We
    passed the 9/11 act calling for an additional 2,000 Border
    Patrol agents, 800 immigration agents and 8,000 beds per year.
    Have the Republicans funded that?
        Mr. Delahunt. No.
        Mr. Meehan. They only funded about half of it; isn't that
    right?
        Mr. Delahunt. We will have more charts and more to say
    after this is over. Because we are here because we knew that we
    had to come. But what I would do is refer to this chart that is
    just about ready to fall, just to show a comparison, because we
    know what the Republicans are trying to do. They are trying to
    say that the Democrats are soft on border enforcement. That is
    just pure bunk. Okay? That is absolute bunk.
        We all know that we have got to strengthen our borders.
    That's a given. The question is, how do we get there in a
    thoughtful and reasonable way? And we ought to be able to work
    together to do it. They did it in the Senate. You know, Frist
    did sit down with Reid, and Kennedy did sit down with McCain
    and Senator Gregg. Of course, there are disagreements, and
    nothing is perfect. But this chart speaks for itself as far as
    who is doing what.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once again
    expired.
        Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr.
    Bass.
        Mr. Bass. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    express my gratitude for the invitation to participate in this
    hearing as a non-Member of the Committee. I want to thank my
    friends, my neighbors from Massachusetts. I am glad to see that
    my friend from Lowell travels farther north than the Manchester
    Regional Airport, which he does many times. And my friend from
    Cape Cod, one of the nicer parts of America.
        I also want to bring to the Chairman's attention the fact
    that both my colleague Jeb Bradley and I have spent many
    enjoyable years in this chamber. And the chair right in front
    of the Chairman is a chair that I occupied for 2 years and
    subsequent to that moved back in section 3 for reasons which we
    will probably not go into detail today. Placement in this
    chamber is very important, Mr. Chairman.
        I also want to say that my friends from Massachusetts have
    pointed out very eloquently that immigration is not a partisan
    issue. Clearly, there are Republicans and Democrats on both
    sides of this issue, and it is a legitimate debate that
    deserves to occur anywhere in the United States, not just in
    Washington, D.C.
        And from my perspective, I would like to make six
    observations about the element that I think a comprehensive
    immigration reform bill needs to contain. First of all, as has
    been said already, we need to have a better effort to secure
    our borders with additional manpower, technology and resources.
    We need to allow State and local law enforcement officials more
    latitude in helping Federal officers in dealing with illegal
    immigrants and their disposition. We need to provide employers
    with the resources that they need to adequately determine
    eligibility of potential foreign workers and penalize those
    companies that continue to hire illegal aliens. Fourthly, we
    need to reform the immigration processing system in this
    country to cut down on the long backlogs and waiting periods
    that exist for people who are trying to receive visas and green
    cards.
        I also think that we need to address visa programs to
    assure that this country remains compassionate to those who
    want to enter this country legally. And lastly, I think a
    comprehensive immigration bill needs to address, as Mr. Young
    mentioned, the need have our legal immigration system
    adequately reflect the real employment needs in this country.
    This country was built over a 230-year period with access to
    labor from many, many, many hundreds of thousands of people who
    came to this country legally and built America to be the strong
    Nation that it is today. We need to make sure that we continue
    to make that happen but that people who are here are here
    legally. We know who they are, and they don't provide a
    national security threat to America.
        And lastly, I would say that the concept of providing legal
    status to somebody who broke the law and is here illegally
    should not be tolerated. There are ways which we can deal with
    this issue, and I, again, have to agree with my friends on the
    other side of the aisle that we will at some point get together
    and work this issue out. But let me just say that it is
    important for America to participate in this debate. And I have
    no objection with the idea that we have a debate in Concord,
    New Hampshire, or Concord, California, or anywhere else in the
    United States because it is good for America to participate in
    this important issue.
        I want to thank the Chairman for allowing me to be here and
    participate. I hope that he will excuse me if I am unable to
    stay for the entire length of the hearing. I welcome him to New
    Hampshire and welcome him to the oldest capitol building in
    continuous use in the United States here in Concord, New
    Hampshire. I yield back.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
    witnesses for being here and for their interest in this
    important issue. The American people expect Congress to do more
    than just talk about this problem. They want us to get down to
    the tough business of hammering out a compromise between the
    House and Senate bills. They know that we have a border
    security problem, although you would not know it from the
    actions of the Republican-controlled Congress. The American
    people want action.
        The House passed an enforcement-only bill in December, and
    the Senate passed a comprehensive bill in May. And it is time
    for Congress to start legislating and stop pontificating which
    is what we have been doing here this morning. The Republican
    leadership of this Committee and of the House of
    Representatives essentially want to run out the clock with this
    election year road show that they have been on in congressional
    districts with vulnerable House Members. And what is worse is
    that they are holding these hearings on the taxpayer's dime.
        But the American people see through it. Whether they are in
    New Hampshire, where I am a home owner and a seasonal resident,
    or my home State of Florida, Americans want a solution, not
    election year spin.
        Now how about we start enforcing the immigration laws that
    are already on the books? That would be a solution. I would
    like to just walk the people assembled here through the
    difference between how Democrats handled border security and
    how Republicans have handled it.
        If you look at this chart right here, ``Border Security By
    the Numbers,'' under the Clinton administration, the average
    number of new Border Patrol agents that were added per year
    from 1993 to 2000 were 642. Since President Bush has been in
    office and this Congress has been controlled by Republicans, we
    have added 411.
        If you look at the INS fines, the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service now called CIS, fines for immigration
    enforcement. That is against employers who illegally employ
    illegal immigrants. There were 417 fines against employers in
    1999 when President Clinton was in office, and in 2004, when
    President Bush was in office, there were only three. So who is
    for border security, and who is just kidding?
        48 percent fewer completed immigration fraud cases. In
    1995, when President Clinton was in office, there were 6,455
    completed immigration fraud cases. Under the Bush
    administration in 2003, there were 1,389.
        Thousands of illegal immigrants have been caught since
    President Bush has been in office, and they are going free each
    year. Why? Because there are not enough beds at detention
    facilities to house them. Why are there not enough beds?
    Because this Republican Congress has refused to deliver the
    resources needed to do the job right. Even though the 9/11
    Commission recommended and the Intelligence Reform Act demanded
    8,000 additional beds, this Republican Congress has funded only
    1,800, a small fraction of what it should have. As a result,
    out of all the undocumented immigrants who are caught and
    released on their promise to come back to court, 70 percent
    never return. That is no surprise, and it is certainly not a
    solution.
        It is not just beds and detention centers. Republicans have
    taken bad vote after bad vote on border security. We have
    proposed dozens of amendments to increase the funding for
    border security, and every one has been defeated along party
    lines. Even though the 9/11 Commission recommended and the
    Intelligence Reform Act mandated 800 more immigration agents,
    this Republican Congress has so far funded only 350. That is
    not a solution. And I could go on and on about the Republicans'
    failure to lead on this issue as the party in charge of the
    House, the Senate and the White House, but they have not gotten
    it done. All they are doing is going around the country talking
    about getting it done.
        So Representative Renzullo, I am also a former State
    legislator, and I am sympathetic to the frustration you must
    feel with your party. Our former late Governor Lawton Chiles
    actually filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government, and
    that was thrown out by a Federal judge, because we do not get
    the funding that we expect from the Federal Government to deal
    with our illegal immigration problem.
        You expect the Federal Government to solve Federal
    problems, but when it fails the way Republicans have
    consistently failed on border security, you want to take
    matters into your own hands, which is why you filed a number of
    pieces of legislation to do that. Understandably frustrating.
        So let's talk about how Congress is going to solve this
    problem. Enforcement always sounds good, but it is not a
    complete solution. Do we need border enforcement? I'm from the
    State of Florida. Trust me, we do. But we need more than that.
    We need policies that will take pressure off the border. We
    need comprehensive immigration reform.
        Mr. Gadiel, I am truly sorry for the loss of your son on
    September 11th. And you know better than anyone that we must
    know who is in this country if we are to keep our Nation
    secure. But we will never know who is in our country so long as
    a broken immigration system keeps millions living in the
    shadows.
        So I'm asking all of you, what do we do with the 12 million
    folks that are currently here, 12 million people who are not
    terrorists but hardworking people who have come to find a
    better way of life for their families? Even Florida's Governor
    Jeb Bush, who is no liberal by any definition, believes that
    the House immigration policy ignores reality. When he decided
    to support legislation allowing illegal immigrants to have
    driver's licenses, he said this: We shouldn't allow them to
    come into our country to begin with, but once they are here,
    what do you do? Do you say that they are lepers to society,
    That they don't exist? It seems that a policy that ignores them
    is a policy of denial.
        That's the Governor of my home State of Florida.
        What do we do with a haystack of unknown people so large
    that it is impossible for our security agencies to target the
    few bad apples that want to harm them? We just can't declare
    all illegal immigrants to be felons as the House bill does and
    hope that they will deport themselves. It won't work. This is a
    complex problem, and it is going to take a comprehensive
    solution. And yes, as we have heard here today, it is going to
    be expensive. But are we really going to say that we are not
    willing to spend over the next 10 years one-third of what we
    already spent in Iraq in the last 3 if we could solve a major
    problem in our homeland that is crucial to our national
    security?
        Some people say the United States is a Nation of
    immigrants. Other people say the United States is a Nation
    laws. We do not have to choose between the two. We have to
    understand that it is the only way--what we have to understand
    is that the only way to----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
    minutes for some questions.
        First of all, let me say that I think we all agree that
    illegal immigration is one of the major problems facing our
    country today. I was in Congress, alone among the Members of
    this panel here today, in 1986 when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill
    passed. I voted against it because I didn't think it would
    work. And we are here today talking about a much more
    complicated issue because Simpson-Mazzoli failed.
        I genuinely believe that the amnesty provisions that are
    contained in the Senate bill are the Son of Simpson-Mazzoli,
    and they will fail as well. And because there are more people
    in this country, it will be more expensive, and there will be
    an even greater magnet to bring people across the border.
        For the last 20 years, I have said that the key to making
    any immigration reform work is the enforcement of employer
    sanctions. And one of the provisions that is in the House-
    passed bill sets up a mandatory verification of Social Security
    numbers system to make sure that someone who is applying for a
    job is actually using their own Social Security number. And if
    the system shows that there is a true match, then the employer
    would be given protection against prosecution. However, if
    there is no match and somebody is using a number that is either
    made up or obtained through identity theft, then the employer
    would be prosecuted. And the bill raises the fines for hiring
    illegal aliens significantly. Currently the fine is $100 per
    illegal worker per day for the first offense. My bill raises it
    to $5,000. Because you do not have fines act as a deterrent to
    illegal activity in anything unless the fines are high enough
    so that if somebody gets busted, it really hurts and everyone
    who is thinking about that type of illegal activity will say,
    ``gee, I don't want to have that happen to me.''
        Now there have been a lot of allegations of why the
    immigration issue is procedurally wrapped around the axelrod.
    When the Senate passed their bill before Memorial Day, they did
    not message the bill to the House. Conversely, when the House
    passed its bill right before Christmas, there was a message
    that was sent to the Senate. Now, the House can't send the
    Senate bill to conference if it does not have the message. And
    furthermore, what the Senators did is they added $50 billion in
    new taxes in their bill. The Constitution is quite plain that
    tax legislation has to originate in the House of
    Representatives. And if the House should ever receive the
    Senate bill, then the tax writing Ways and Means Committee
    would blue slip the bill and send it back to the Senate, and we
    would be right back where we started from.
        So I am eager to get some type of legislation passed
    because doing nothing, in my opinion, is the worst possible
    alternative. But because of the failure of the Senate on both
    the Constitutional and the process issue, we have been
    hamstrung on that. And that, I sincerely regret.
        I think what is going to have to happen is that we have to
    work on getting a comprehensive bill that is on a clean piece
    of paper rather than trying to untie the Gordian knot because
    of the Senate's constitutional and procedural violations.
        Now, having said that, Mr. Young, I have a question for
    you. The House bill requires verification of Social Security
    numbers under the system I have described; new hires within 2
    years and existing employees in 6. The Senate bill does not
    require the verification of existing employees.
        That concerns me because a current illegal immigrant worker
    would be able to keep their job forever, but much worse is that
    they end up becoming an indentured servant because they would
    not be able to change jobs because a bad Social Security number
    would be caught when they applied for a new job.
        The Chamber of Commerce has been opposed to verifying the
    status of existing employees. Will they change their position
    on this because of the concerns that I have just raised?
        Mr. Young. I don't think that they will change their
    position about retroactivity. We have to remember that the
    Senate bill also contains adjustment of status of workers. At
    that time, they will have to come forward with new Social
    Security cards which do identify them in order to take
    advantage of that system.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. If I could reclaim my time and ask
    unanimous consent for an additional minute. It is always
    cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant and to pay that illegal
    immigrant off the books than it is to hire a citizen or legal
    immigrant with some type of work authorization. So if we do not
    enforce the employer sanctions on existing employees strictly
    and adequately, there will be another flood of illegal
    immigrants that come across the border that will take away the
    jobs of the people who will be newly legalized in the Senate
    bill.
        Does the Chamber of Commerce want to solve the problem or
    does the Chamber of Commerce want to continue being able to
    hire cheap labor which they pay off the books because the
    people are not legally authorized to work in the United States?
        Mr. Young. Prospectively, business and agriculture is
    willing to verify all their workers, and that will include new
    people coming into this country after the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bradley.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the fact that you are willing to come to New
    Hampshire today to hold this hearing. Like my colleague,
    Charlie, it is great to be back in this room where I had the
    opportunity to spend 12 years and to see a lot of friends on
    both sides of the aisle.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a somewhat unique perspective on this
    immigration debate that we're having. My wife of 27 years,
    Barbara, is a legalized citizen. She went through the regular
    process of applying for citizenship and then becoming an
    American and several years ago proudly did so. So I understand
    firsthand having gone through it the challenges that people
    will face in order to become American citizens, and I also
    understand the attraction of those people who would like to
    become American citizens.
        However, we also have to recognize that we are a society of
    immigrants, but we are a Nation that adheres to the fundamental
    rule of law. Our country welcomes immigrants, like my wife
    Barbara, who go through the proper channels, the legal channels
    to come to this country. But we are that Nation of laws, and
    affording those individuals who came to this country illegally
    or became illegal after entering this country, affording them
    an automatic path to citizenship in my opinion is not fair for
    those immigrants who patiently wait in line doing everything
    they are required to do to come to this country legally.
        So we should not in my view be creating incentives for
    people to come here illegally, because it rewards that behavior
    and it encourages it. Mr. Chairman, that is why I support the
    House bill and I support your leadership in making the House
    bill the House position on this issue, because it enhances our
    border security. It strengthens immigration laws. It promotes
    policies that enforce those laws. We all know that securing our
    border is essential to the safety of all Americans, and it is
    essential to thwart the possibilities of attacks against our
    Nation.
        The House bill will end the catch-and-release practice by
    requiring mandatory detention of all illegal immigrants
    apprehended at U.S. land borders. In addition to other strong
    provisions, the legislation improves our ability to crack down
    on illegal smuggling rings, strengthens our asylum laws,
    employs surveillance technology and more people at the border.
    These are the tools that will allow us and allow our Border
    Patrol agencies to better do their job.
        Lastly, Mr. Chairman, history tells us that rewarding
    illegal behavior leads to more illegal behavior. Congress
    should not be in the business of rewarding that illegal
    behavior with an automatic path to citizenship. Illegal
    immigration weakens our security, burdens our social services--
    --
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bradley. And hurts American taxpayers. No, I would
    yield the balance of my time to the Chairman who I thought did
    an exceptional job last night on national television talking
    about the CBO scoring of the Senate bill and perhaps would want
    to describe it to the Granite Staters who are here today. And
    once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for coming to New
    Hampshire.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I appreciate the gentleman from New
    Hampshire yielding. It certainly is a pleasure being here.
        Let me say that, earlier this week, the Congressional
    Budget Office did score the Senate bill at $127 billion of new
    expenditures. About 40 percent of that is various types of
    welfare and public assistance benefits that illegal immigrants
    are currently not entitled to receive as well as the earned
    income tax credit which is actually a payment by the Federal
    Government to certain low-income people which has been on the
    books for a couple of decades.
        By contrast, the House bill was scored by the CBO before it
    passed at $1.9 billion, and much of that was in law enforcement
    enhancements, the fence that is proposed in both bills but a
    longer one in the House bill, as well as the cost of getting
    the Social Security database up to snuff so that the
    verification of Social Security numbers that I have described
    can be done as easily and quickly as accurately as a merchant
    swiping any of our credit cards to see if they are good when we
    want to buy something on credit.
        Again, I emphasize the fact that the key to any immigration
    reform that works is enforcement of employer sanctions, because
    the market will always work since it is cheaper to hire an
    illegal immigrant than it is to hire a citizen or legal
    immigrant with a green card.
        Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming 10 seconds of my
    time, it is important for people here to note that the CBO or
    the Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan office that is
    charged with scoring or estimating the costs of various
    government initiatives. And given the fact that it is
    nonpartisan, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle do
    depend on it for its unbiased presentation on those numbers.
    And I thank the Chairman. Like Charlie, I have engagements in
    another region of the State so I have to leave shortly.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank both Members from New Hampshire
    for coming.
        Mr. Meehan.
        Mr. Meehan. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I thank my colleague from
    Massachusetts, and I wonder if either gentleman from New
    Hampshire would like to explain to the crowd assembled why they
    are professing support for increased and enhanced border
    security, yet when they had 10 different opportunities in the
    Congress for additional funding to enhance border security,
    they voted no on every single one of those opportunities.
        Mr. Bradley. I think, certainly, in listening to the
    gentlewoman's question, if you go back and examine the record,
    while I can't speak for Congressman Bass, I probably will, both
    of us have voted for enhanced border security on a number of
    different occasions in the Homeland Security Appropriations
    Bill, House Bill 4437, and other measures which I would remind
    the gentlewoman have been adopted by significant majorities on
    a bipartisan basis and both sides of the aisle, at least the
    appropriations bills. And I would hope that we can continue to
    work together on both sides of the aisle to enhance our border
    security.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time, I just want to
    point out that we have documentation of the 10 instances in
    which both gentlemen from New Hampshire voted against
    additional funding to enhance border security, and we would be
    happy to provide that and expand on that information after the
    hearing. I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Meehan. I thank the gentlewoman. I am curious,
    Representative Renzullo, 13 million people, how would we find
    them? This bill says we're going to criminalize them. Would we
    round them up? Would we put them on to planes? How would we
    know what plane to put them on? How many planes would it take?
    Or would we put them on buses? George Will, the conservative
    columnist, says, if you put them on buses, the buses will be
    lined up from Alaska all the way down to the Mexican border.
        I can't for the life of me understand why would we
    demagogue on this and pretend that somebody has some kind of a
    magic way to round up 13 million people and get them on buses
    and put them somewhere. Is that--would they be put on planes?
        Mr. Renzullo. I think what you really are looking to do is
    enforce the border security----
        Mr. Meehan. Reclaiming my time, we're going to do that. But
    what I am saying is, there seems to be a difference of opinion
    between the Senate and the House as to what you do with 13
    million people undocumented all across the country. I am just
    curious how much it would cost to round up 13 million people
    and put them on buses.
        Mr. Renzullo. Enforce the border security, and then we will
    talk about it in a couple of years when you have determined----
        Mr. Meehan. So we're going to go a couple of years? We are
    going to go a couple of years with 13 million people across
    this country without documentation, without papers?
        Folks, I lost 32 people in my district on 9/11, and we need
    to get documentation as a national security matter on everyone
    that is in the country. It is not good enough to say we will do
    it some time later on. 13 million people. With all the money
    that is being spent in Washington, to demagogue on this issue,
    there is not one credible proposal from one Senator or one
    House Member anywhere that says how in the world you would try
    locate 13 million people and remove them from the country.
        It is the worst demagoguery on anything imaginable. Nobody
    has a plan. It is a joke. Unfortunately, our national security
    requires us to get our act together. We still haven't funded
    what the 9/11 Commission said to fund. We passed an act in 2004
    that said 2,000 Border Patrol agents, 800 immigration agents,
    8,000 beds per year. The 9/11 Commission said targeting travel
    is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as
    targeting their money, and the Commission made recommendations.
    Even after the tragedy of September 11th highlighting the clear
    need for more border security, that figure up there of 411
    border agents per year is a disgrace. It is an absolute
    disgrace, and yet we are having hearings and demagoguing across
    the country.
        Mr. Delahunt. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Meehan. I would be glad to yield.
        Mr. Delahunt. In terms of border personnel, immigration
    agents, detention centers, with all due respect to the
    gentleman from New Hampshire, what we really need and we have
    heard this term before is more boots on the ground. How about
    that? More boots on the ground. And really, let's try
    enforcement rather than coming up, giving speeches indulging in
    some rhetoric and then not delivering when it comes time to
    deliver with the resources.
        Mr. Meehan. Reclaiming my time. The other thing is this
    idea that Washington speak, the Senate didn't file the right
    thing, so we didn't approve it. My friend from Massachusetts
    said that the President has already called President Fox and
    said, you know what, the Congress is going to do nothing on
    this. Nothing. Another year without border security. I ask
    unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
        Mr. Hostettler. [Presiding.] Without objection.
        Mr. Meehan. Another year letting things go, another year
    without providing technology to our borders and another year of
    13 million people in the country. Nobody knows where they are.
    But know what, what a great election issue. What a great
    election issue. The problem is, when one party controls the
    House, the Senate and the White House, the gig is up. The
    American people know that one party controls everything. There
    are some distinguished Senators, Republican Senators, 22 or 23
    of them, that supported the Senate bill. Let's get to work on
    that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hostettler. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    has left myself, the gentleman from Indiana, in charge of the
    gavel. I will yield myself 5 minutes for purpose of questions.
        I am reminded of the account of the minister who was giving
    a sermon and has questions about his own subject matter when in
    the margin of his sermon it says: Pound pulpit hard, argument
    weak here. I am hearing a lot of that today.
        Mr. Meehan has suggested that we need documentation for
    these individuals that are here. Let me ask you, Mr. Gadiel,
    you are very familiar with the 9/11 Commission's report with
    regard to the three of the 9/11 hijackers that were in the
    country illegally as result of their visas lapsing, are you
    not?
        Mr. Gadiel. Yes.
        Mr. Hostettler. So with all of the documentation that is
    being suggested by the Senate and by Mr. Meehan and by others,
    how would that have solved the situation that led to the death
    of your son?
        Mr. Gadiel. Mohammad Atta was well documented, and yet he
    managed to pull off 9/11, as well as all the others. All but
    one had U.S. identification. I would like to add something. I
    am no friend of President Bush. He failed us miserably on this,
    absolutely miserably. But when it comes to the 9/11
    implementation act, I would remind Members of this Committee
    that it was Democrats like Mr. Lieberman as well as Republicans
    like Mr. McCain who were determined to prevent any document
    security measures from being included in the 9/11
    implementation act as well as the border security measures.
    This is a bipartisan problem, and certainly the President has
    failed us miserably and failed us continuously and refuses to
    enforce the law, but the record of Mr. Clinton before, although
    it is far better than Mr. Bush's in terms of the need, is
    minuscule as well.
        Mr. Hostettler. Dr. Camarota, the question today is with
    regard to busing 13 million illegal aliens back. The simple
    fact is, if we would enforce, especially the employer sanctions
    provision of the immigration act put in place in 1986, wouldn't
    there be a significant amount of attrition and hasn't there
    been a particular study by the Center for Immigration Services
    that may suggest that there may be excess of a million
    individuals who would actually self deport as a result of not
    being able to maintain employment in the United States?
        Mr. Camarota. Let me run through the numbers briefly
    because I, the Pew, Hispanic, Urban, we all generally agree,
    900,000 new illegal aliens come in each year. Some people die.
    A large number go home. Some get deported, and some get legal
    status each year. So the illegal population is thought to grow
    by half a million. The secret here is to avoid this canard that
    either we have to legalize all the illegal aliens or we have to
    deport them all by a week from next Tuesday. The bottom line is
    it took us decades to get into this problem. The policy of
    attrition through enforcement, cutting them off from jobs,
    public benefits, driver's licenses, no in-State tuition, get
    the cooperation of local law enforcement. Stop IRS and Social
    Security from knowingly accepting bogus Social Security
    numbers. Stop the Treasury Department from knowingly issuing
    regulations that allow illegal aliens to open bank accounts.
        All of these things, coupled with great border enforcement,
    a better job in consulates overseas, the goal is to increase
    the roughly 150,000 that go home early each year, the self
    deportations. We think we can quadruple or triple that number
    easily and hopefully get it up bigger so that we are in a
    situation each year that the population falls by half a million
    or a million a year rather than a situation where it grows by a
    million a year. If you are saying that we have to solve it a
    week from next Tuesday, there is no solution.
        The other thing is the bureaucratic capacity doesn't exist
    to legalize all these folks. That's one of the dirty little
    secrets. The Senate bill calls for everybody to come forward
    and be processed within 18 months. Nobody who studies
    immigration thinks that is possible. The only way to do that is
    to rubber stamp the applications which defeats the idea that we
    know who those folks are. It takes time to know who these folks
    are. The Senate bill doesn't do that.
        If you started enforcing the law, it doesn't require us to
    do anything right away. It's what we have on hand and then we
    keep adding to it, and over time, we fix the problem through
    attrition and through enforcement. Self-deportation is the key.
    Though we obviously are going to having to deport more people
    as well.
        Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Renzullo, as you understand the
    legislative process, if one body such as the House believes in
    enforcement and the Senate suggests that they are in favor of
    strong enforcement but want an amnesty program, isn't it
    reasonable for the two bodies to come together and pass
    legislation on the parts of the proposed legislation that we
    agree on?
        Mr. Renzullo. Absolutely.
        Mr. Hostettler. So if we did come together, if the
    technical and constitutional hurdles were overcome, it would
    not be unreasonable for the two bodies to come together and
    fashion an enforcement-only bill as a result of the compromise
    that is part of the legislative process?
        Mr. Renzullo. Absolutely.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
        Mr. Delahunt. I yield to my colleague.
        Mr. Meehan. Mr. Gadiel, no one is suggesting that you would
    agree with the President's record on immigration. We all agree
    he has done a terrible job. The problem is that the Republican
    Congress rubber stamps his budget every year when it comes
    before the Congress. No increases that we should have in Border
    Patrol agents, we don't have the increase we should have in
    immigration agents, and we don't have the increase we should
    have in detention beds. The problem is rubber stamping this
    President is letting him get away with whatever he wants to do.
    I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Delahunt. I think that was the statement. But if the
    gentleman wishes to respond, and I speak to Mr. Gadiel, you
    know, I read your testimony. I found it particularly moving
    when you referenced, I think it was your father, maybe it was
    your grandfather, who came to this country. And I think the
    words were, the FBI just about took out his fillings to examine
    him. And that really struck a note with me because of what my
    friend just said about the need for oversight by Congress to
    ensure that the resources are there and that the laws are being
    implemented.
        All of the sudden, we are just discovering that there is a
    problem. This is 6 years into the Administration. And beyond
    that, the Republicans have had control of the House since 1994.
    And guess what? They discover it in an election year, and we're
    having a hearing in New Hampshire.
        I mean, please ask yourself why. My colleague from Florida
    referenced the fact there has been amendment after amendment
    that would provide funding and support for more boots on the
    ground, people to go out and enforce the border, immigration
    agents, increased beds in detention centers. And you know what?
    They will say one thing in New Hampshire, but when they go down
    to Washington, they vote against the funding. Well, enough
    said.
        But getting back to my issue about the FBI, we don't know
    what the FBI is doing. This Committee, ably led by this
    Chairman, who is not bad on oversight. Okay? Not bad. A B-plus.
    You know----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Delahunt. No.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. At least I passed.
        Mr. Delahunt. How many times do you think we have had the
    director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in front of
    this Committee to tell us what they are doing about terrorism?
        Mr. Gadiel. I have no use for Mr. Mueller. When a group of
    family members met with the man talking about 9/11----
        Mr. Delahunt. How many times, Mr. Gadiel, do you think that
    the FBI has come in before into the Judiciary Committee where
    we have jurisdiction to respond to the concerns that you have
    expressed today to us?
        Mr. Gadiel. I'm sure it is a lot. I am sure it is many
    times.
        Mr. Delahunt. How about zero. That is what we're dealing
    with. That is what we're dealing with. We don't have that kind
    of consultation and collaboration. And like I said, we are
    fortunate; most chairmen are not as strong as our Chairman. So
    what we have is a Congress that sits there like a bobblehead
    and lets this crowd get away with that.
        Talk about employer sanctions. Three last year. Three in
    2004. I mean, Clinton had his problems, but he certainly did
    one heck of a better job in terms of enforcement.
        You have got to have enforcement. If you don't have
    enforcement--but you have to pay for it, Mr. Renzullo. I bet
    that you, from what I listened to, would have voted for all the
    authorized Border Patrol agents, immigration agents and
    detention centers. You wouldn't have said something here that
    was different when you went down to Washington and voted a
    different way.
        Since I'm handing out compliments, one for you, too, Mr.
    Camarota, you know, I read your testimony, and I was surprised
    that you acknowledged that actually it is a net plus in terms
    of illegals paying into the Social Security Trust Fund and the
    Medicare Trust Fund. So let's remember, before we get too
    quick, that those illegal immigrants are paying in and kind of
    helping us with that Social Security problem that we are not
    fixing.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to illuminate the panel and the people
    assembled as to the other differences and stark contrast
    between the support for border enforcement and border security
    under Democrats versus the support for border enforcement and
    security under Republicans.
        The number of apprehensions at the border has declined by
    31 percent under President Bush. From 1996 to 2000, there were
    1.52 million apprehensions at the border. From 2001 to 2004,
    there were 1.05 million apprehensions. The number of
    apprehensions inside the country has declined 36 percent under
    President Bush. From 1996 to 2000, there were 40,193 internal
    apprehensions. From 2001 to 2004, there were 25,901. Cutting
    personnel, the Bush administration has cut personnel for
    worksite enforcement by 63 percent. This is worksite, on-the-
    job enforcement. You know, the I-9 forms that employees, all
    employees, have to fill out and ensure that they are supposed
    to be in the country and legally here. We are talking about the
    number of agents assigned to worksite immigration enforcement.
    In 1999, there were 240. In 2003, there were 90.
        Number of worksite enforcement fines, we have already gone
    over. The number of worksite immigration enforcement arrests
    have fallen drastically under President Bush: 2,849 in 1999;
    445 in 2003.
        Number of immigration fraud cases, we have already gone
    over that.
        So what is unbelievable to us is that there are hearings
    all across this country in which our Republican colleagues--and
    I agree with Mr. Delahunt that our Chairman, compared to most
    of the Republican Committee Chairmen, has been vigilant about
    bringing or attempting to bring the Administration's officials
    in front of us and asking them questions to one degree of
    success or another. But why are we on the road talking about
    this instead of being in the Conference Committee?
        The only way we are going to resolve this--I think it was
    Mr. Camarota that talked about the 18 months that is a
    provision in the Senate bill that is described as an automatic
    path to citizenship. There is no one that would define the
    Senate bill as an automatic path to citizenship. But if you
    differ with that--I apologize if I am pronouncing your name
    wrong.
        Mr. Camarota. Camarota.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Camarota, if you differ with
    that, isn't that what the Conference Committee is for? Are we
    going to get those differences between the House bill and the
    Senate bill hammered out here? That is not the way the bill
    becomes a law process works.
        So wouldn't you think that we belong in Washington or at
    least our conferees belong in Washington? And, Mr. Chairman,
    with all due respect, the people in this room, they don't
    understand the Senate has not sent us a message, and we haven't
    received a message. They just want us to get down, roll our
    sleeves up and get the work done. That is how we're going to
    get a law that is truly going to make sure that we crack down
    on illegal immigrants, that we make sure that they are not
    streaming across the border, that we make sure that employers
    are not thumbing their nose at the law, and that we make sure
    that we don't ignore the fact that there are 12 million people
    here who are not going to just deport themselves once we pass a
    border-security-only law that makes them all felons. It is just
    unrealistic.
        Mr. Camarota, if you would like to respond to that, don't
    you think we belong in conference rather than just being on the
    road talking to the world?
        Mr. Camarota. I have to leave that questions to the other
    Members. I am not an expert.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am not surprised. I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair will yield himself 5 minutes
    for the last word. I have served on the Judiciary Committee
    ever since I was first elected to Congress in 1978, and the
    issue of how to deal with immigration is complicated. It is
    emotional. It is vexing. And there are never any easy solutions
    to it. And I think my colleagues to my left are kind of
    expressing the political aspects of the frustration that we
    have not dealt with this issue. That's why I drafted the
    legislation that the House passed in December.
        Now, we have heard a lot of complaints from people on both
    sides of the aisle that there has not been enforcement of
    existing laws. And I would be willing to stipulate that
    presidents, both Democratic and Republican, and congresses,
    both under Democratic control and Republican control, have
    really let this issue slip.
        But the point that I think is evident is that unless we
    handle the enforcement questions first, any bill, whether it is
    the Senate bill or somebody else's bill, that does not address
    effective enforcement is going to fail. And if in the decades
    ahead there are figures like these, which are accurate and
    which I did give to President Bush over 2 months ago, pointing
    out the problem that we have, the market is always going to end
    up having illegal immigrants come across the border because it
    is cheaper for the employers to hire them than other people.
        So really what we have to do, whether it is in terms of an
    enforcement-only approach and deal with the issue of what to do
    about the 12 million who are here illegally some time in the
    future, or have some kind of a phased in and trigger approach,
    is that we have got to get our act together as a country in
    terms of enforcing it is law.
        Now, what this means is enforcing the law at the border. It
    means enforcing the law against employers. It means giving law
    enforcement officials, particularly those in the 29 border
    counties and four States on the southwest border, additional
    tools, which my bill does and the Senate bill doesn't, to get
    more boots on the ground and better equipment and better
    training of the local law enforcement officers so that they can
    supplement the Border Patrol.
        Now, this is more than a human problem and an economic
    migration problem. It has become a drug control problem, and it
    has become a national security and terrorism problem. For
    example, many of the criminal alien smugglers across the
    southwest border who are called coyotes have become full
    service criminal enterprises where they are requiring their
    customers to carry backpacks of drugs across the border; 85
    percent of the illegal drugs sold on the streets of Chicago by
    gangs were smuggled across the southwest border, and 80 percent
    of the meth that is consumed in the United States comes across
    the southwest border as well.
        It is also a terrorism problem, and when we had our
    hearings in San Diego, there was testimony to the effect that,
    in just that small sector of the Border Patrol, there were 47
    ``persons of interest,'' who were people who were on terrorist
    watch lists or came from Middle Eastern countries far removed
    from Mexico and Central America who were caught by the Border
    Patrol. And that was in just 1 year and just in one segment of
    the southwestern border.
        And we have also got a northern border problem as well,
    because there are a number of cells of Al Qaeda and other
    terrorist organizations that are operating in Canadian cities
    that are less than a 2-hour drive from the United States
    border.
        So I don't make any apologies in bringing this issue on to
    the national agenda, because it is something that had to be
    dealt with. I have been called a whole lot of names. I come
    from the State that elected Joe McCarthy to the U.S. Senate
    twice and some of those names, it makes McCarthyism kind of
    look like a speech at a holy name society.
        Be that as it may be, we were elected to make tough
    decisions, and this Chairman is making tough decisions. I want
    to get another bill passed. I don't know if procedurally we can
    get another Conference Committee for the reasons that have been
    described, but it is going to be a bill that, if it is done on
    my watch, that is going to be effective and not be the fiasco
    that we had 20 years ago with the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
        So I would like to thank my colleagues for coming. I would
    like to thank all of you for coming today to hear this
    testimony. And I would like to also thank--I don't think they
    call it the great and general court up here north of the border
    as they do in Massachusetts, but whatever the New Hampshire
    legislature is called, it is nice to add just a little more
    history to this very historic chamber.
        What purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek
    recognition?
        Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
    consent--I bumped into Claire Ebel, the Executive Director of
    the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, she had some
    testimony, and I ask that we submit it for the record.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    this hearing was printed.]
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, it will be submitted.
    There being no further business to come before this Committee,
    without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

     Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles F. Bass, a Representative
          in Congress from the State of New Hampshire, with attachment

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I like to take a moment and welcome Chairman Sensenbrenner and the
    other members of the House Judiciary Committee to the Granite State. I
    thank you for your invitation to attend this field hearing on
    immigration reform and giving me the opportunity to participate. I am
    pleased to see on the panel of witnesses today--Representative Andrew
    Renzullo--who has been taking an active role here in Concord on how the
    State should deal with its illegal immigration problem.
        In light of the fact that illegal immigration is a more prominent
    problem in the southern states, I am pleased that the Members of the
    House Judiciary Committee recognize that any decision made in Congress
    will have far-reaching ramifications throughout the nation. The
    estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. can be founded in
    all fifty states and decisions made by myself and my colleagues will
    fiscally impact our citizens. Therefore, I am grateful for this hearing
    today and how any reform will affect my constituents.
        Immigrants have been settling here in our state since 1623 and
    continued to come in large numbers through the 1800s. Many of them came
    to work in our granite quarries. Even though the number of immigrants
    to New Hampshire has decreased since the early 1900s, the 2000 U.S.
    Census showed that over 54,000 citizens of New Hampshire were foreign-
    born. Even though the majority of immigrants in NH are law-abiding
    legal citizens, there is a growing illegal population working and
    living in our communities

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Some studies have estimated that between 10,000 to 30,000 illegals
    are currently living in the Granite State.\1\ Just this last spring,
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked up 14 individuals
    illegals in New Hampshire as part of Operation Return to Sender. During
    2005 Operation Flash, 15 of the 189 fugitive immigrants deported back
    to their native countries were also located living in New Hampshire. In
    both operations, many of these individuals had criminal records.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Pew Hispanic Center. (April 26, 2006). Fact Sheet: Estimates of
    the Unauthorized Migrant Population for States based on the March 2005
    CPS.
        \2\ Marchocki, Kathryn. (July 24, 2006). Mysteries surround NH's
    illegal aliens. Union Leader.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain and Hudson Police
    Chief Richard Gendron brought national attention to their departments'
    difficulties in the lack of authority and resources in detaining
    illegal aliens that their officers encounter during their routine
    duties. Out of frustration with ICE's response to their repeated
    requests, both gentleman used the resources available to them and
    charged several individuals illegally present in the United States with
    criminal trespassing under state law. Even though the cases were
    dismissed by a New Hampshire district court, it highlighted the
    difficulty law enforcement faces regarding illegal immigration in their
    communities. Our local, county, and state law enforcement officers
    serve on the frontlines of the illegal immigration battlefield--dealing
    with many illegal aliens that they encounter during their routine
    duties, but no ability to detain these individuals for deportation
    proceedings--often being told by the federal agencies to release the
    individuals.
        I have worked on various efforts to urge the Administration and my
    fellow colleagues to address enforcement issues. Last year, I led an
    effort to urge the President to end ``catch-and-release'' practices
    beyond just that in border states--but throughout the country.\3\
    Additionally, I have supported legislative measures, such as H.R. 4437
    and the CLEAR Act, which would ensure that state, county, and local law
    enforcement have the authority, resources, and training to work with
    federal agencies in detaining illegal aliens they encounter during
    their routine duties. It is important to note that 17% of the
    incarcerated population in our federal prisons are criminal aliens and
    after serving their time are not always deported, but remain in this
    country to commit additional crimes.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ December 9, 2005 Letter Addressed to President Bush with 28
    U.S. House Members.
        \4\ Camarota, Steven A. (August 2004). The High Cost of Cheap Labor
    Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget. Center for Immigration
    Studies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FISCAL BURDEN

        In deciding any course of action regarding comprehensive
    immigration, it is important to know the fiscal impact the decision
    will have on our citizens--whether through increase tax burden,
    draining of resources, or loss of jobs and wages. It has been estimated
    from earlier studies that illegal immigrants have a net cost on
    American taxpayer of $49.4 billion annually,\5\ which amounts to New
    Hampshire citizens paying $202,193,903 yearly in taxes for illegal
    immigrants.\6\ It is also roughly estimated that the State of New
    Hampshire spent close to $3.75 million on illegal alien students and
    U.S. born children of illegal aliens \7\ and hundred of thousands of
    dollars in medical costs through the New Hampshire Department of Health
    and Humans Services. Overall, the Federation of American Immigration
    Reform has calculated that the current local cost of illegal immigrants
    is $11 million annually going toward education, emergency medical
    services, and incarceration.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Based on Data from: Huddle, Donald. (1997) The Net National
    Costs of Immigration: Fiscal Effects of Welfare Restorations to Legal
    Immigrants. Include in The Estimated Cost of Illegal Immigration from
    The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
        \6\ U.S. Census Population (2000). US = 299,482,393; NH =
    1,235,786.
        \7\ Federation for American Immigration Reform. (June, 2005).
    Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools
    into the Red
        \8\ Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006).
    The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal or ``Guest'' Workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the Senate bill was passed, it is estimated that the cost to
    county, state, and local governments would amount to $61.5 billion by
    2010 and $106.3 billion in 2020.\9\ Specifically, New Hampshire would
    see the burden increasing to $19 million in 2010 and $34 million in
    2020.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006).
    The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal or ``Guest'' Workers.
        \10\ Federation for American Immigration Reform (April 11, 2006).
    The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal or ``Guest'' Workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, it is predicted that if the Senate's guest-worker
    provision is passed that New Hampshire would see a rise in population
    to 1.85 million by 2050, with the increase attributed to 23,116 from
    receiving amnesty and an additional 24,427 individuals that were
    illegal aliens post-2004.\11\ These increases would have significant
    impact on the State's housing, school systems, infrastructure, and
    employment rates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Federation for American Immigration Reform. (March 2006).
    Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even though there would be increased tax revenue from illegal
    aliens paying taxes, it would not offset the total cost that these
    households would have on our federal, state, and local agencies. The
    average illegal alien household would pay $3,200 (77%) more a year in
    federal taxes once legalized. However, each household would have an
    average increase cost of $8,200 per household (118%) \12\ to our
    deficit. This added cost on our federal, state, and local services
    would be carried by our citizens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Camarota, Steven A. (August 2004). The High Cost of Cheap
    Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            REFORMING VISA PROGRAMS

        I understand how the topic of illegal immigration is a difficult
    issue--we are not simply talking about numbers but people who have
    established lives here. This country needs to continue to be
    compassionate, but at the same time it must be remembered that those
    that would be assisted under the Senate ``amnesty'' immigration plan
    are individuals who violated our laws. There are millions of people who
    are either in the U.S. legally or currently trying to attempt to this
    country by following our laws that would be overlooked by this policy.
    Instead, the message that we would be sending them is that the U.S.
    cares more about assisting those who break our laws rather than those
    who have been patient with our system. By allowing those illegally here
    to have an expedited process--while others in this country under other
    various visas such as H-1B and H-2B are barred--is wrong and not the
    message this government should be sending.
        Nevertheless, I do believe that any comprehensive immigration
    reform should also consider provisions that will reform our visa
    programs. The availability of foreign workers is crucial to many of
    American industries and business--including those in New Hampshire. New
    Hampshire's unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, well below the national
    rate of 4.8 percent, and often foreign workers mean the difference to
    Granite State businesses in being able to operate at full capacity.\13\
    These low unemployment rates particularly impact our State's small
    seasonal businesses that often have difficultly in finding workers that
    are critical to their business' needs. Here in New Hampshire, tourism
    industry brings an approximately $9.6 billion into the state and is
    nearly 8% of the gross state products. More than 68,000 granite state
    jobs directly tied to tourism and also 84,000 jobs indirectly.\14\
    Programs, like H-2B visa program, provide these and other seasonal
    industries crucial employees to fulfill their job commitments and be
    able to operate at full capacity during their short work season. The H-
    2B program has been shown to protect small businesses and American
    jobs, preserve competitive wages, while providing the needed avenue for
    foreign workers. That is why I have supported and led efforts in
    modifying legal visa programs. My bill, H.R. 4740, the Save Our Small
    and Seasonal Businesses Act is one of the bills that would take the
    right step forward in helping businesses while not hurting American
    workers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau.
    (August 11, 2006).
        \14\ New Hampshire Tourism Policy Coalition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, it is important to look to the future and ensure that
    we have the necessary workers that will allow our economy to grow and
    prosper. One in every four scientist and engineers in the United States
    is foreign born. Half of graduate enrollments in American universities
    for engineering, math, and computer science are foreign students. I
    believe that our country must encourage increase enrollment of our
    young people, but at the same time we must ensure that our immigration
    policies do not create a brain drain on our country. Our visa programs
    must ensure that we keep the best and brightest here in America to
    bring cutting edge technology to our companies that will in turn create
    more U.S. jobs. A June 2004 study showed that U.S. businesses roughly
    lost $30 billion over two year period due to visa delays.\15\ Our
    country can not afford to outsource talented American-educated
    foreigners that will return to their home country and take with them
    important technical advances that will create new businesses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Data from: June 2004 Study Commissioned by Santangelo Group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, I like to point out that by supporting the House
    comprehensive immigration bill that members are not ignoring or
    belittling the contributions of our nation's immigrants and the role
    they have played in building this country. Our country has been built
    on the hard work of immigrants who have come to this country for a
    better life and to embrace the ideals of our nation. The difference of
    opinion is how to deal with illegal aliens that have entered this
    country and placed the security and welfare of our nation in jeopardy.
    Additionally, illegal immigration has a significant negatively
    impacting our legal visa program. Once again, I thank Chairman
    Sensenbrenner for having this field hearing. Additionally, I would like
    to thank the witnesses and the citizens here in the audience that have
    taken the time out of their busy schedules to attend this hearing and
    have the concerns of New Hampshire heard in this national debate.

                                   ATTACHMENT

       Letter to the House Judiciary Committee from the Honorable Jordan
                   Ulery, New Hampshire State Representative

     Prepared Statement of David Lamarre-Vincent, Executive Director, New
                         Hampshire Council of Churches

        The religious leaders of all faiths in this country have spoken
    eloquently regarding the urgent need for comprehensive immigration
    reform. The principles that this reform should be grounded upon has
    been enunciated by other speakers here today.
        I would like to take my time to draw attention to the convictions
    the New Hampshire religious leadership.
        One, the urgent need is for a reasoned consideration of overall
    U.S. immigration policies, not the use of immigration reform by
    partisan politics. This is an area that directly affects the lives of
    millions of individuals and their families here in the United States,
    both with and without documentation. It affects the lives of millions
    of other individuals and families who wish to participate in the
    freedoms and opportunities that we take for granted in the U.S. We know
    this through our direct experience with ethnic faith communities here
    in New Hampshire from all continents of the world. Therefore, we plead
    for both the House and Senate to set aside partisan politics and focus
    upon the comprehensive immigration reform opportunity that is before
    you at this very moment.
        Second, we urge Congress to avoid letting this civil discussion
    slide into a divisive and narrow diatribe. This is a time for Congress
    to demonstrate through their actions that public discussion and
    legislation resolution of immigration policy can be done in a civil
    manner with respect for all. This extends beyond avoidance of partisan
    politics but also steering clear of a descent into mean spirited focus
    upon individual groups of immigrants, both documented and undocumented,
    as though they, the victims of global economic transformation and
    regional national circumstances, are the problem to be solved.
        A civil discourse must avoid ethnic stereotyping and a blame the
    victims focus. All sides in this public discourse should be invited to
    be heard with courtesy and respect that is their right as human beings.
    Only under these conditions can Congress lead the American people to a
    higher level of understanding and a resolution that fits the needs of
    all parties, the American economy, other world economies, workers and
    families. This is a rare opportunity for Congress to truly lead for the
    generation to come as we enter the 21st century.
        Finally, this is an issue close to many in New Hampshire, who like
    myself, are second or third generation immigrants from French speaking
    Canada. As the largest ethnic minority in Northern New England, we have
    our own personal experiences of being strangers in a new land. We
    understand the challenges that immigration policy, language barriers,
    and economic status confronted our parents and grandparents. We bring
    who we are to this larger debate and urge that Congress seize upon this
    as an opportunity to lift up the highest values of human dignity and
    brotherhood of all.

                                   __________
    Prepared Statement of the Rt. Rev. Douglas E. Theuner, VIIth Episcopal
     Bishop of New Hampshire, Member of the Board of Directors of Lutheran
                         Social Services of New England

        Members of religious organizations in New Hampshire, as elsewhere
    in the United States, are aware of the enormous contribution made to
    our economic and social well being by undocumented aliens who work in
    our midst, and upon our behalf; particularly as migrant farm workers.
        The religious community seeks for ALL persons, government support
    in providing the following basic human rights:

              uniting families separated by economic and political
            factors not of their own making and providing opportunities for
            them to prosper in and for the larger community;

              assuring ALL persons of the human and workforce
            rights;

              ending marginalization of ALL people which force them
            into situations which exploit and abuse them;

              providing access to citizenship to those responsible
            people who have helped this nation to prosper.

        Millions of undocumented aliens in our midst are a reality
    generated by their needs and those of our economy. They are also a
    legal anomaly which must be regularized in a positive and constructive
    way.
        The healthcare, local educational and social service costs of the
    presence of undocumented aliens is far offset by the contribution they
    make to our economy. That's why they're here. That's why we accept them
    in our midst. It's time for Congress to act in a way that turns that
    acceptance into welcome, ensuring ALL people of the basic rights which
    we hold dear for ALL people.