[Senate Hearing 112-154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-154
THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR ENACTING IMMIGRATION REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2011
__________
Serial No. J-112-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-996 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JOHN CORNYN, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
DICK DURBIN, Illinois ORRIN HATCH, Utah
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Stephanie Marty, Democratic Chief Counsel
Matt Johnson, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 3
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 5
prepared statement........................................... 125
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.
prepared statement........................................... 162
Schumer, Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York........ 1
WITNESSES
Arora, Puneet S., M.D., Los Angeles, California on behalf of
Immigration Voice.............................................. 14
Bridges, Paul, Mayor, Uvalda, Georgia............................ 30
Gilbert, Laurent F., Mayor, Lewiston, Maine...................... 35
Greifeld, Robert, Chief Executive Officer and President, NASDAQ
OMX Group, New York, New York.................................. 8
Hira, Ronil, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rochester
Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York................... 16
Roefaro, David R., Mayor, Utica, New York........................ 32
Skorton, David, President, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
on behalf of Association of American Universities.............. 10
Smith, Brad, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Legal and
Corporate Affairs, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington.. 12
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Ron Hira to questions submitted by Senator Grassley. 42
Responses of David J. Skorton to questions submitted by Senator
Grassley....................................................... 50
Responses of Brad Smith to questions submitted by Senator
Grassley....................................................... 56
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Subcontractors Association, Inc., Franklin L. Davis,
Director of Government Relations, Alexandria, Virginia, August
2, 2011, letter................................................ 68
American Engineering Association Inc., Richard F. Tax, President,
Nashville, Tennessee, statement................................ 70
Arora, Puneet S., M.D., Los Angeles, California on behalf of
Immigration Voice, statement................................... 74
Beck, Edward, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, statement................ 85
Brawn to Brains, article......................................... 87
Bridges, Paul, Mayor, Uvalda, Georgia, statement................. 101
Bruey, Jacqueline, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, statement.......... 104
Conroy, Donna, Director, Bright Future Jobs, Chicago, Illinois,
statement...................................................... 105
DallasNews.Com, August 22, 2008, article......................... 108
Fink, Steven, statement.......................................... 110
Foster, Lynn, Austin, Texas, statement........................... 111
Freise, Steven, Massapequa Park, New York, statement............. 112
Gilbert, Laurent F., Mayor, Lewiston, Maine, statement........... 114
Gittelson, Robert, Co-Founder, Conservatives for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform, statement.................................. 122
Greifeld, Robert, Chief Executive Officer and President, NASDAQ
OMX Group, New York, New York, statement....................... 135
Heath, Robert, statement......................................... 140
Hira, Ronil, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rochester
Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, statement........ 142
Huber, David, statement.......................................... 154
IIUSA, Peter D. Joseph, Exective Director, Chicago, Illinois,
statement...................................................... 158
Intel Corporation, Peter M. Cleveland, Washington, DC, statement. 160
LA-MAG.com, July/August 2011, article............................ 164
Kavanaugh, Brendan, Miami, Florida, statement.................... 171
Kritzer, Steven, statement....................................... 173
Marr, Ray L., Austin, Texas, statement........................... 177
McDonald, James, Alexandria, Virginia, statement................. 179
Miller, Christine L., Baltimore, Maryland, statement............. 180
Moustakas, Leonard, Lynbrook, New York, statement................ 183
Nelson, Gene A., Unemployed American Citizen Radiation
Biophysicist, statement and attachments........................ 184
Ochs, Larry, Oceanside, California, statement.................... 204
Otto, John G., Tallahassee, Florida, statement................... 206
Palmer, Jack (Jay) B., Jr., Lowndes County, Alabama, statement... 213
Partnership for a New American Economy, memorandum and
attachments.................................................... 223
Picot, Harrison, Database Administrator, Haymarket, Virginia,
statement...................................................... 233
Popescu, John, San Francisco, California, statement.............. 235
Scott, Damon, Professor of Mathematics, Florence, South Carolina,
statement...................................................... 236
Skorton, David, President, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
on behalf of Association of American Universities, statement... 238
Smith, Brad, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Legal and
Corporate Affairs, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington,
statement...................................................... 251
Stein, Dan, President, Federation for American Immigration
Reform, Washington, DC, statement.............................. 262
United Agribusiness League, Richard G. Schmidt, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Irvine, California, July 21, 2011,
letter......................................................... 265
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice
President, Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits, and Amy M.
Nice, Executive Director, Immigration Policy, Washington, DC,
July 26, 2011, joint letter.................................... 268
Valek, Brian, Ortonville, Minnesota, statement................... 276
THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR ENACTING IMMIGRATION REFORM
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Refugees, and Border Security,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Schumer, Franken, Blumenthal, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Chairman Schumer. Good morning, everybody, and our hearing
will come to order. Senator Cornyn and I will make an opening
statement, and then we will go right to the witnesses, and
Senator Grassley has asked to make an opening statement as
well, and so please do.
Okay. Anyway, today's hearing is on the economic imperative
for enacting immigration reform. I am often asked why I am so
adamant about passing immigration reform. My answer is always
that I believe there are two issues that will determine
America's global competitiveness for the 21st century, and this
is in the long term: Education and immigration.
Our economic supremacy arose because our schools
successfully developed America's best minds, and our
immigration successfully attracted the world's best minds. But
now the world is far more competitive. Students in countries
around the world are outperforming U.S. students in math and
science. At the same time, our competitors are enacting
immigration policies that offer scientists and engineers from
around the world up to $250,000 to emigrate in order to deploy
their talents and skills for the good of our competitors'
economies. If we do not enact an immigration policy that
continues to attract the world's best minds, we will cease to
be the world's economic leader. Not only will our economy be at
grave risk; eventually our National security will as well.
Unfortunately, our broken immigration system actually
discourages the world's best and brightest minds from coming to
America to create jobs. Here is the problem: Every year,
according to the Institute of International Education, there
are about 250,000 foreign students enrolled in our American
universities to study science, technology, engineering, and
math. That is known as ``STEM'' subjects. Foreign students
represent the majority of our degree recipients in these
subjects. So what happens to these students after they graduate
from our colleges? Are we putting them to work to invent new
technologies that would employ American workers? No, we are
not. Instead, we are telling these folks to return to their
home countries to compete for a limited number of temporary
visas known as H-1Bs.
Even if you are lucky enough to obtain one of these visas,
the visa is temporary, does not allow your spouse to work in
the country, and does not permit you to earn a promotion or
switch jobs unless the Immigration Service approves a lengthy
second application filed by your employer.
If you are a smart student at the top of your class and in
demand globally, would you want to stay in America under these
circumstances? Unfortunately, the answer is often no. It is
time for our immigration policy to reward hard work and to
foster job creation rather than discourage it.
The immigration proposal that we are working on will ensure
that the best and brightest students from around the world in
science and engineering, technology and math, who study in our
universities can stay here after getting degrees. And, by the
way, it is good news that the brightest students still want to
come to our higher education. They do. And we get many more
applicants than we have people who can be admitted. But then we
send them home. It just does not make any sense if we want to
stay the greatest economic power in the world.
So how do we do this? Well, after they study in our
universities, they will stay here after getting their degrees.
We will do this by virtually stapling a green card to their
diploma. The green card will allow those students to start new
companies, change jobs if a better opportunity exists, and
allow their spouses to work in the country. But as this hearing
will make clear today, fixing our broken immigration system is
not just about attracting highly skilled immigrants to the
country. Study after study is showing that even the immigrant
who comes here with little or nothing in order to make a better
life for his or her family, just as many of us or our ancestors
did, is also critical to making America a more vibrant and
economically successful country.
As some of our local mayors will discuss here today,
immigrants are renewing many of our Rust Belt communities that
were once seen as having no hope for the future. The Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston recently released a report which said
that in the top ten ``resurgent cities'' in the Nation, defined
as Rust Belt cities that have made substantial progress in
improving living standards for their residents, the immigration
population in those cities increased from 4.5 percent in 1980
to 15 percent, more than 15 percent today.
And a recent study from the Kauffman Foundation showed that
immigrant-owned businesses jumped from 13.4 percent of all new
businesses in 1996 to 29.5 percent of all new businesses in
2010. Just listen to that. Immigrant-owned businesses, new
immigrant-owned businesses, jumped from 13.4 percent to 29.5
percent between 1996 and 2010. And these are not big
businesses. They may be a restaurant. They may be a drycleaner.
But they employ people and create economic vitality as
immigrants for generations of America have done.
So unlike those who attempt to fear-monger the issue of
immigration, I am not at all concerned that people want to come
to America. I am much more worried about a day they no longer
find America attractive.
I am confident that our distinguished panelists today will
help us better understand the urgent need we face to reform our
immigration system in a manner that will grow our economy by
attracting those who want to come here to start a business or
to contribute their innovative skills and talents to keep
America's economy strong.
The purpose of this hearing: Immigration is a job creator.
That is the key. And it is vital that we reform our immigration
system to keep America the greatest job engine in the world.
I would now like to call on Senator Cornyn.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. I think it is a very important, and I agree with
much of what you said in your opening remarks.
It may seem a little strange, though, to people listening
to be talking about immigration reform, bringing foreign
nationals to the United States at a time when our unemployment
rate is 9.2 percent. But as we all know, there is a scarcity of
qualified people for many jobs, particularly high-tech, those
requiring special skills, and those, of course, are the
target--should be the target of the H-1B program. But we should
assure every American and all Americans that we will never
hire, never allow to be hired a foreign national under an H-1B
program where there is a qualified American ready, willing, and
able to do that job. And, in fact, that is illegal. But we are
going to hear today--and I know Senator Grassley has taken a
particular interest in trying to root out some of the fraud
associated with this program, and we need to make sure that
happens.
But it is hard to ignore the benefits to our Nation of
attracting high-skilled talent. For example, in Texas, one
study reports that one out of every five technology companies
was founded by an immigrant. We all know the success stories of
Intel, eBay, Yahoo, and Google--American companies founded, in
part or in whole, by immigrants, which, of course, now employ
thousands of workers.
It is a fact that America's lack of a sensible and coherent
high-skilled immigration policy is causing our Nation to lose
too many entrepreneurs and job creators to our competitors
abroad who are more than happy to take advantage of our failure
to compete effectively for this talent.
It is also a fact that in order to remain competitive in
today's global marketplace, U.S. companies must have access to
a high-skilled temporary labor pool from abroad, which includes
top foreign graduates who are educated at American
universities.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently summed it up
this way. They said, ``The future of U.S. prosperity depends on
having a skilled workforce. This requires educating the native-
born population and continuing to attract the world's best and
brightest to the United States. For decades, the Nation has
been the world leader in attracting skilled immigrants who,
until recently, had few good alternatives. Today other
destination countries increasingly recognize the economic
benefits of these workers and are designing policies to attract
them, even as immigrants' nations of origin seek ways to entice
them to return home.''
The Dallas Fed has also noted that the U.S. immigration
system has not kept up with global competition, that piecemeal
fixes have turned the current law into a web of outmoded,
contradictory, and inefficient quotas, rules and regulations.
In one example, the number of high-skilled immigrant
workers admitted on a temporary visa has doubled since 1996,
but the number of employment-based permanent residence visas,
or green cards, has remained roughly the same. As a result, the
wait for employment-based green cards extends now to more than
a decade.
``It is not known how many high-skilled immigrants are
turned away by the broken system,'' the Federal Reserve says,
``but the U.S. risks falling behind in the global race for
talent if immigration laws are not reformed.''
The economists aptly called this America's policy of
national self-sabotage. I put forward several proposals in the
past to try and remedy this problem, including the skill bill
in 2007 and the Global Competitive Act in 2008. These include
modest but sensible increases to H-1B temporary worker visas,
recapture of unused temporary and permanent visas, and
increased access to green cards for high-skilled immigrants. I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses on their own ideas
for addressing this problem.
In 2006, almost 5 years ago, I chaired a hearing of this
Subcommittee when my party was in the majority and I was
Chairman and not Ranking Member. The title of that hearing
was----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cornyn. Hope to return someday.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cornyn. The hearing of that Subcommittee then was
called ``U.S. Visa Policy: Competition for International
Scholars, Scientists, and Skilled Workers.'' It took place in
Richardson, Texas, on the campus of the University of Texas at
Dallas.
The University of Texas at Dallas continues to be one of
the Nation's leaders in producing top-notch science,
technology, engineering, and math graduates. Its graduates
include STEM students who are U.S. born and a sizable
percentage of foreign students who are visa holders. Eighty-two
percent of all UTD graduates earn degrees in science,
engineering, business, math, and the key disciplines that the
region needs to compete in the global economy.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent to place a few items in
the record.
Chairman Schumer. Without objection.
Senator Cornyn. First, a report by the Dallas Federal
Reserve that I cited earlier; second, an op-ed piece by Geoff
Wurzel in the San Antonio Express New titled, ``Highly skilled
immigrants should be part of debate;'' and an editorial from
the Dallas Morning News entitled, ``Exporting jobs; green card
hassles drive our brightest overseas.''
[The information referred appears as a submission for the
record.]
Senator Cornyn. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying I
could not help but notice that President Obama spoke again to
La Raza, where he used that forum to criticize Congress for
lack of action on immigration reform. Indeed, it was in July
2008 when then-Candidate Obama, before he was President, said
that, if elected, he would make immigration reform,
comprehensive immigration reform a top priority.
Well, I think it is clear, at least to me, that he has not
done so, and we need to find a way to try to work together to
solve this particular aspect of our broken immigration system.
But I am committed once again to working with you to fix the
entire system, which does not serve the best interests of the
United States of America.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Cornyn.
We are joined not only by a member of the Subcommittee,
but he is the Ranking Member of the full Committee, and so out
of respect for him in that position, we are going to let
Senator Grassley to an opening statement. And then we will get
right to the panel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
also I will have some inserts and a short statement I am going
to give, but I have a longer statement as well, and I would
like to insert that. And because I do have other
responsibilities, I may not be back here to ask questions. If I
do not get back to do it, I would submit questions for answer
in writing. And I am very glad to be here not only to thank you
for holding this hearing, but also to recognize President
Skorton, who is a friend of mine, and who was for 25 or 30
years at the University of Iowa, including a presidency there,
before he moved to New York.
Chairman Schumer. Well, Iowa's loss is New York's gain.
Senator Grassley. If there is any way we can get him back,
we will take him back.
Chairman Schumer. Keep sending the money to Cornell now.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Schumer. Anyway, without objection, Senator
Grassley's entire statement will be read into the record, and
the inserts that he mentioned.
[The prepared statement and inserts of Senator Grassley
appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Grassley. For years, our country has struggled to
find a way forward on immigration reform. Americans are out of
work, families are being foreclosed on, and businesses are
suffering. And I agree we must do all we can to improve our
economic situation. However, I have concerns with the notion
that increasing immigration levels and enacting legalization
programs is an answer to the current economic downturn.
We know it is unlikely that this administration will push
immigration reform at least in the next year and half. However,
it is my firm belief that we can find agreement on reforms for
high-skilled workers, and this hearing is a good first step in
that discussion.
I have spent a lot of time and effort in rooting out fraud
and abuse in our visa programs, specifically the H-1B and L
visa programs. I have always said these programs could and
should serve as a benefit to our country, our economy, and our
U.S. employers. However, it is clear they are not working as
intended, and the programs are having a detrimental effect on
American workers. For this reason, and for many years, Senator
Durbin of Illinois and I have worked in a bipartisan way on
legislation to close the loopholes in the programs.
Among other things, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act would ensure American workers are afforded the
first chance to obtain the available high-paying and high-
skilled jobs. The bill would strengthen the wage requirements,
ridding the incentives for companies to hire cheap, foreign
labor. Our bill would also require companies to attest that
they have tried to hire an American worker before they hire a
foreign worker.
The attention that Senator Durbin, I, and others have put
on the H-1B program has had an impact already without the
legislation passing. Our efforts have increased scrutiny and
forced bad actors to find other ways to enter, live, and work
in the United States under false pretenses. The increased
oversight of the H-1B program, for instance, has caused
businesses to ``think creatively'' to get around the program,
using both the L and B-1 visa to bypass the requirements and
protections under the H-1B visa program.
Recently, this scenario came to light when an employee of
Infosys filed a complaint alleging that his employer was
``sending lower-level and unskilled foreigners to the United
States to work in full-time positions at . . . customer sites
in direct violation of immigration laws.'' The complaint
further states, ``Infosys was paying these employees in India
for full-time work in the United States without withholding
Federal or State income taxes.'' Infosys, one of the top ten H-
1B petitioning companies, has worked to ``creatively'' get
around the H-1B program by using the B-1 business visitor visa
in order to bring in low-skilled and low-wage workers. That
plaintiff, Jay Palmer, has written a statement, and I ask
unanimous consent to put that in the record. The courts will
decide if the activities of Infosys were illegal. But I can
definitely say that their actions do not comport with the
spirit of the law.
Also troubling to me is the Optional Practical Training
program, often called OPT. This is a program that was created
solely through regulation. OPT allows foreign students the
ability to further their knowledge by working in the United
States for an extra 12 to 29 months before returning to their
home country. There is no limit on how many can apply for OPT,
and more importantly, it is the schools and universities that
principally administer the program. There are very few checks
and balances, resulting in the potential national security
risk. We had 95,259 OPT petitions approved in fiscal year 2010.
More scrutiny must be placed on this program.
Finally, I would like to address the idea being pushed by
many immigration advocates and some members in the House of
Representatives. As part of the solution to America's
immigration problem, some policymakers have proposed the idea
of giving foreign students a green card upon graduation. In
their opinion, this would prevent the loss of the resources put
into these students. Now, who can argue with that point of
view? While it is important to keep the best and the brightest,
getting a degree from U.S. institutions and universities should
not equate to a fast track to citizenship for all. Should this
happen, the demand for enrollment in U.S. universities by
international students would only increase and further erode
the opportunities for American students. Universities would, in
essence, become visa mills.
I will continue to push for more reforms in our immigration
system to ensure Americans are the No. 1 priority and the
students are afforded every opportunity that they deserve. And
I also would further say that part of my unanimous consent
request was statements of American workers from across the
country who have written to me on this subject.
Thank you.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Grassley. The
comprehensive bill we are continuing to work on would deal with
H-1B reform in a very significant way. I could not agree with
you more that there are companies that abuse it. It is one of
the reasons in the bill protecting the border last year we paid
for part of that with an increased fee on those companies. They
did not like it, but I thought it was appropriate.
Okay. We will now go to our witnesses, distinguished
panels, both of them. I am going to introduce all five and then
ask each of them to speak for no more than 5 minutes, and we
will put your entire statements into the record.
So from my left to my right, Robert Greifeld is the chief
executive officer of NASDAQ OMX Group, a position he has held
since 2003. NASDAQ is the world's largest exchange company with
trading, technology, and public company service capability
spanning six continents. It is headquartered in New York City,
has nearly 2,500 employees, and serves as the marketplace for
many of the world's largest and most successful technology
companies and advocates for those companies.
David Skorton, former president of the University of Iowa,
is now president of Cornell University, one of the greatest
universities in the world. He has been president since 2006--
not to the University of Iowa is not, by the way. He was a
faculty member at Iowa before being president for 26 years, and
he is past chair of the Business Higher Education Forum, an
independent, nonprofit organization comprised of Fortune 500
and other CEOs, leaders of colleges and universities and
foundation executives.
Brad Smith is Microsoft's general counsel and leads the
company's Department of Legal and Corporate Affairs. He plays a
central role in ensuring that Microsoft fulfills it corporate
responsibilities and is responsible for the company's legal
work, its intellectual property portfolio, patent licensing,
and its Government affairs and philanthropic work.
Dr. Puneet Arora is the clinical research medical director
at Amgen. In this capacity, he works on development of new
medicines for the treatment of osteoporosis and is responsible
for planning and execution of large multinational clinical
trials. He has completed 15 years in the United States and is
still awaiting his green card.
Dr. Ronil Hira is an associate professor of public policy
at RIT, the Rochester Institute of Technology, another one of
the greatest universities in the world, where he teaches
courses on technological innovation, communications, and public
policy. He is a licensed professional engineer, a research
associate with the Economic Policy Institute, and a co-author
of a book entitled ``Outsourcing America.''
Gentlemen, all your statements, your entire statements,
will be read into the record, and we will now start with Dr.
Greifeld. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREIFELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
PRESIDENT, NASDAQ OMX GROUP, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Greifeld. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking
Member Cornyn, for the invitation to speak to you this morning.
In May of 2008, my frustration with the state of affairs on
our immigration policy led me to write an editorial that holds
true today. It bothers me dearly that Lady Liberty's message of
welcome no longer resonates and we place quotas, inexhaustible
red tape, and, in many cases, deportation in the path of the
best and the brightest who are anxious to contribute to our
free market economy.
Since 2008, when I wrote that editorial, three June classes
have graduated from school, and too many talented people have
left or been forced to leave this country. Out of about 50,000
advanced math and science students, those who have a long
tradition of activities that create jobs, we lose about one-
third, about 17,000 each and every year.
I fervently believe to help our country Congress should:
One, see immigration reform as a pressing jobs issue. The
current legal immigration regime is inadequate and its cost is
robbing America of the next generation of great companies. A
sobering fact is that Google, Yahoo, and eBay---many of the job
drivers of the last 20 years--would likely not be founded in
America today under the current system.
Two, we need to debate legal immigration on its own merits.
Do not link it to reform of illegal immigration laws. Americans
are losing jobs and opportunity while we let one issue drag
down the other. I understand and agree that we need to reform
the entire immigration system, but given the urgency of our
economic situation, we cannot afford to continue to wait for a
grand plan that may not be achievable.
Three, we need to enact a more flexible and stable regime
for legal immigration. Reform must convey economic priorities
about job growth and global competitiveness. Increasing H-1B
visas is simply not enough. We need to admit and keep
entrepreneurs here so that the creative dynamic of our economy
is enhanced by the very best skills and minds. The default
should be ``yes,'' not ``no.''
This is an issue I am passionate about because I know that
as a CEO, NASDAQ relies on one critical raw material for its
economic vitality--entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs take ideas and
turn them into companies, and those companies ``grow up'' to
become listed on NASDAQ. Existing NASDAQ companies hire
brilliant people who solve problems, invent and improve their
company, making them stronger and its employment base grow.
Our economy and NASDAQ itself have directly benefited from
the contributions of foreign-born talent. Among Fortune 500
companies, we have found that at least 14 NASDAQ companies have
foreign-born founders. These companies have created over $522
billion in market capitalization and employ almost 500,000
workers.
Markets, including human capital markets, work best when
there is certainty. Uncertainty always creates distortions,
whether it is in the derivatives market waiting on the rules of
the road from regulators, the equity markets waiting for
Congress and the President to agree on fiscal policy, or labor
market participants that look to our restrictive, sometimes
arbitrary, and unwelcoming immigration system as they decide
where and where not to take their talents.
In countries like India and China, they actively recruit
graduates and qualified researchers for their expertise and
abilities, paying top salaries and other benefits to get
graduates to return home to help their economies grow. The
competition for smart, capable math and science graduates is a
global one.
Let me take the job-stealing issue head-on. Opponents of
enhanced legal immigration argue that when a foreign--born,
highly skilled immigrant gets a job, American graduates are the
losers. But my research and experience tell me quite a
different story. For example, the National Federation for
American Policy says that for every H-1B worker requested, U.S.
technology companies increase their overall employment by five
workers. I was in Silicon Valley last week, and virtually every
company I met said they had more engineering jobs than
qualified applicants. These are jobs that are, in fact,
advertised, including a website, StartUpHire.com, which caters
to venture capital-backed companies. They have over 13,000 job
openings posted right now. In this week's San Jose Business
Journal, I read that the State of California released a June
employment report that noted in just the San Jose metro region
Apple had listed 868 jobs, eBay 617, Google 582, and Yahoo 571
jobs that are not going filled.
When we keep the best and brightest graduates here, they
help employment here. Brookings reports that as a result of
immigration, 90 percent of native-born Americans with at least
a high school diploma have seen wage increases.
Companies have little choice about the skill they need to
hire, but the immigration system can, in fact, determine where
they locate their employees. Isn't it better for all of us if
they build their research and development centers here? Many
companies can, if needed, locate people in Canada, Europe,
India, or any country that wants those jobs and the benefits
they bring. Whether in Silicon Valley, Austin, Chicago, or
anywhere else in the United States, I hear from CEOs that the
H-1B visa system is inadequate for today's human capital
marketplace and the backlog for green cards, and what they mean
to the quality and the uncertainty of the lives of these
foreign-born employees is a legitimate threat to their
businesses.
Employers no longer have to locate jobs and workers because
of physical capital to support those jobs. Human capital is
highly mobile, and STEM and other high-tech workers are just a
plane ticket or Internet connection away.
I know I am over time here, so what I want to speak to at
the end is just that we certainly recognize that we need to
improve the education system. We certainly recognize that we
need to ensure that these programs are properly policed and
adequately run. But we have to implore you to find a
legislative solution to make improvements in this area. Making
our legal immigration system work for us will raise revenue,
increase our productivity, create very good jobs, and make us
more competitive.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greifeld appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Greifeld.
Mr. Skorton.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SKORTON, PRESIDENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
ITHACA, NEW YORK, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Skorton. Good morning, Chairman Schumer, Senator
Cornyn, and members of the Subcommittee, and I thank Senator
Grassley for his leadership, friendship, and kind remarks.
Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, with
campuses or programs in New York City; Geneva, New York;
Appledore Island, Maine; France; England; Italy; Singapore;
India; China; Tanzania; Qatar and elsewhere, is the largest and
most comprehensive school in the Ivy League and is the land-
grant university for New York State. Our enrollment is
approximately 20,000, with students from every State in the
Union and more than 120 countries studying under an
internationally renowned faculty.
The Association of American Universities, for which I am
proud to also be speaking, is a nonprofit association of 59
leading U.S. public and private research universities and two
Canadian universities. AAU's 59 U.S. members perform 54 percent
of federally funded university-based research and award more
than half of all doctoral degrees earned in our country.
We all want to thank Chairman Schumer for calling this
important hearing, and I thank you for inviting me to share my
perspective.
I have the privilege, Senator, of being a member of the
National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, a group of
some 20 university presidents and chancellors, appointed by the
Director of the FBI to meet with senior officials of the Bureau
and other agencies to discuss issues of national security
related to higher education, prominent among which are issues
related to immigration policies and procedures. Through this
board I have gained an appreciation of the importance of
ceaseless vigilance to maintain national security. But I have
also learned of the need for balance in our approach to this
volatile set of issues, and I applaud you for seeking that
balance.
The issue is a personal one for me. I am a first--
generation American, the son of immigrants. And my father took
it for granted that through hard work, adherence to the law,
and an earnest desire to become an American citizen, he would
create a better life for himself and his children. My own life
and those of countless other first-generation Americans have
proven him right.
But the recent debate, however, suggests that many
Americans have stopped seeing immigration as an integral part
of the American dream. We cannot afford to close off the United
States from the rest of the world, and we must reach a
consensus on comprehensive immigration reform that balances our
physical and economic security with the realities of our
growing immigrant population and our changing national
workforce.
American colleges and universities are educating a record
number of international students. According to the IIE, there
were 690,000 international students in the U.S. in 2009-10, a
3-percent increase, and at Cornell currently, 18 percent of our
student body are international students.
In the 21st century, the American relationship with
international students has, of course, become more complex as
national security concerns have risen. There is a real cause
for concern, however, if the U.S. does not remain the top
choice for students from around the world who want to apply to
graduate studies in science and engineering.
Contrary to concern expressed by some critics, there are
not enough qualified or interested American students to fill
all the slots in STEM undergraduate and graduate programs, nor
in the workplace.
The most difficult immigration issues, as you have heard,
arise when international students graduate and want to enter
the U.S. workforce. While some students always intend to return
home, others may want to stay here--to work, to invent, to
innovate, to start companies, to create jobs, and thereby to
contribute to the economic growth of our country.
We know from our career placement offices and alumni
associations that U.S. companies want to hire Cornell's
international graduates--not surprising, as you have heard,
when foreign-born inventors are responsible for a large share
of companies and startups, and I want to give a quote from a
colleague of mine, Bill Swanson, Chairman and CEO of Raytheon:
``Raytheon, like the Nation, depends upon highly educated and
experienced STEM graduates, many at the doctoral level. Foreign
nationals with these qualifications, with appropriate
immigration status, are critical to our country's
competitiveness.''
The Partnership for a New American Economy--a national
bipartisan group founded by New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg that includes more than 300 mayors and business
leaders--has compiled some impressive statistics, including
that more than 40 percent of the current Fortune 500 companies
were founded by immigrants or their children and more than a
quarter of all technology and engineering businesses launched
between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder.
Immigrant STEM graduates help fill projected job shortages.
McKinsey Global Institute projects that as many as 190,000
positions for data analytics experts such as industrial
engineers and mathematicians will go unfilled in the U.S. by
2018.
Our immigration policy is right now causing us to lose
international graduates and other highly motivated individuals
to countries including England, Australia, and Canada--
countries that encourage and promote immigrant entrepreneurs
with streamlined visa application processes, more flexible
pathways to permanent residence or citizenship.
To sum up, I believe Congress that should pursue four
imperatives, and I support the administration's and
specifically Senator Schumer's efforts in this regard.
Number one, we should create a streamlined green card
process for international students who graduate with STEM
degrees from U.S. universities.
Number two, we should reduce the backlog of skilled
immigrants waiting to become permanent residents by increasing
the number of employment-based visas.
Number three, we should enact policies and procedures that
allow families to stay together and allow for reasonable visits
back home without too much red tape upon return.
And, number four, I believe we should pass the DREAM Act.
Even though the DREAM Act is not the subject of this hearing,
it is vitally important that undocumented children who are in
the U.S. through no fault of their own be given the chance to
earn citizenship through hard work, either in college or
military service.
Chairman Schumer, I thank you again for your work and for
the opportunity to testify, and at the right time I am more
than pleased to answer questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skorton appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Skorton.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF BRAD SMITH, GENERAL COUNSEL AND SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, LEGAL AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
REDMOND, WASHINGTON
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking
Member Cornyn. It is a pleasure for me to be here. We have long
worked on comprehensive immigration legislation, and we welcome
the opportunity to talk again this morning about the issues
relating to high-skilled immigration.
Microsoft has subsidiaries in about 120 countries around
the world. We are one of the most global companies on the
planet, and if there is one thing we see every day, it is this:
The world economy has changed. It used to be that people would
move in search of the right jobs. But, increasingly, jobs move
in search of the right people. If a country wants to create
jobs, it has to skill up its people.
This was underscored by a recent study at Georgetown
University. It showed that in 1973 only 28 percent of the jobs
in the United States required a postsecondary education. But by
2008 that had risen to 59 percent, and the study estimates that
by 2018 a full 63 percent of all jobs in the United States will
require a postsecondary education. We need to skill up as a
Nation.
And yet we are falling short today. Senator Cornyn, as you
mentioned, we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate in the
country, but in many ways what is even more interesting is
this: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month,
the unemployment rate for individuals who have only a high
school diploma is 10.0 percent. The unemployment rate for
Americans that have a college degree or more is less than half
of that. It is 4.4 percent. So, in short, we not only have a
jobs problem in this country; we have a skills problem. And the
fundamental question for the country is how to address this
skills gap.
Senator Schumer, I think you put it right on the nose. What
we need to do is two things: we need to invest in education,
and we need to address immigration. We wholeheartedly agree
that our top priority should be education. That is why we as a
company and many other companies in our industry are investing
our own dollars in helping to improve education in the country.
That is why Microsoft alone over the last year has announced
new investments on the order of roughly $100 million to support
scholarships, to support schools, and to support students.
And yet, unfortunately, we also see that while education is
a long-term goal, it is also a long-term process. It is going
to take a long time to get where we need to go. We need
immigration, and we need immigration reform in the interim.
Certainly we as a company see the benefits that come when
we can create world-leading R&D centers in the United States
where we employ a large majority of Americans, but bring these
leading American employees together with some of the best and
brightest talent from the rest of the world as well.
As a company, we employ 54,000 people in the United States,
and they create jobs not only for themselves, but for others in
the economy as well. Last year, the University of Washington
estimated that with a 5.81 multiplier effect, the 54,000
employees of Microsoft create 267,000 jobs elsewhere in the
U.S. economy. It is the type of thing we can do solely because
we can bring people of talent together and enable them to work
in one place.
If we are going to continue to create these jobs, we need
high-skilled immigration reform, and in particular, we think it
is important for this reform to focus on three things:
First and foremost, addressing the green card backlog that
you have heard about this morning;
Second, we think it is important to address and modernize,
as you have heard, the visa system for students so that they
have greater ability and greater incentive to stay in the
United States;
And, third, we need to ensure that our temporary visa
programs remain healthy, that we address fraud, that we prevent
abuse, but that we also ensure that demand and supply move
forward together.
Ultimately, we want to create more jobs in this country.
Microsoft spends more money on research and development than
any other company in the world--$9.6 billion. Today we spend 83
percent of that money to create jobs in one country--the United
States. We want to continue to create jobs in this country. We
need the help of this Congress to do so.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Dr. Arora.
STATEMENT OF PUNEET S. ARORA, M.D., LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ON
BEHALF OF IMMIGRATION VOICE
Dr. Arora. Distinguished Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member
Cornyn, and distinguished members of the Committee, it is a
moment of great privilege for me and a moment of great
education for me to be here in front of this august panel on
behalf of Immigration Voice and really on behalf of highly
skilled workers and their families that are patiently awaiting
permanent resident status in the United States.
Immigration Voice is a grassroots organization of highly
skilled immigrant workers that have come together to advocate
for change in the current system. I thank you deeply for this
opportunity to present my views.
I would like to address with you the problems faced by 1
million highly skilled immigrant workers and their families who
live and work in America, who see themselves as future
Americans, and have been gainfully employed for a decade or
more, but find themselves in lines for green cards. Our
community has invested in America with diligence, innovation,
productivity, with our assets and with our future--our children
who were born in the United States.
In 1996, I began a medical residency program at the
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield,
Illinois. This was followed by a fellowship in endocrinology,
diabetes and metabolism at the New York University School of
Medicine, thus moving me to one of the greatest cities in the
world.
This was followed by a fellowship in advanced diabetes at
the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the greatest center
for endocrinology in the world and a dream come true for me. I
was awarded a master's of biomedical science degree in clinical
research by the Mayo Graduate School in 2005.
In the year 2003 I joined clinical practice with the
HealthPartners medical group in St. Paul, Minnesota, and took
up significant teaching responsibilities and was appointed
assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota
Medical School. My practice in a medically underserved area
with a substantial population of indigent patients qualified me
for a National Interest Waiver. However, a harsh interpretation
of the statute by USCIS prevented me from this until the year
2007, when it took a lawsuit to finally overturn the
immigration agency's position.
In late 2008, I was offered the position of clinical
research medical director at Amgen, the world's largest
biotechnology company. I was able to accept this offer only
because of a small window of relief offered in July of 2007
that allowed me to take work authorization. Without this, it is
likely that I would not have made it to California. Many of my
colleagues at Immigration Voice were not so fortunate, and to
this day they lack this kind of job mobility.
In June this year, I celebrated 15 years of life in
America. My green card application meanwhile is gathering dust
somewhere. Let me take a moment to tell you why that is so.
Congress has allotted 140,000 employment-based green cards
for immigrant workers and for their families every year, but no
country can receive more than 7 percent, which makes less than
5,000 in a year across all skill categories regardless of size,
population, and ability to provide skilled workers. As a
result, those in our community with entrepreneurial ambitions
are held back, and their energies are dissipated. I, therefore,
respectfully recommend that this panel consider the removal of
per country caps in the employment-based system.
An independent task force on immigration policy for the
Council for Foreign Relations has specifically recommended
eliminating the nationality quotas for skilled workers. The
benefit of this measure would accrue to only one Nation in the
world--the United States of America.
I would like to respectfully ask this panel to consider the
recapture of unused green cards that number over 300,000 across
the family and employment-based categories. Many of you--and
Senator Cornyn and Senator Schumer, both of you--have proposed
innovative solutions which I wholeheartedly support, including
exemptions for U.S. STEM advanced degree graduates, exemptions
for family members, from numerical quotas. Senator Conrad has
proposed a bill that would exempt physicians that provide
service in medically underserved areas, which is in the
national interest.
Frustration with the U.S. immigration system sent Wharton
graduate Kunal Bahl back home in 2007 when he went and founded
snapdeal.com. This is a rapidly growing company with over $20
million in annual revenue, over 400 workers, and growing at the
rate of 70 workers a month. This, India's equivalent of
Groupon, has major U.S. venture capitalists like Vinod Dham,
the father of the Intel chip, investing significantly in it.
Reports from India and China suggest that this is not an
isolated example; this is a growing trend.
We often hear concerns that foreign-born workers are taking
jobs and are stalling the economic recovery. Instead, I am here
to represent a community that has held steady employment for
years now in areas with widely documented workforce needs, as
in my case. A study conducted by Duke University concluded that
between 1995 and 2005, 25 percent of startups in Silicon Valley
had at least one immigrant founder and generated more than $52
billion in sales in 2005 and created just under 450,000 jobs.
It is clear that highly skilled immigrants are net job
creators, and they add more jobs to this economy than the jobs
they occupy. We have tied our futures to the U.S. economy and
our children's futures as well. Therefore, the growth of
America's economy and the availability of jobs in America is of
great significance to all of us. We want nothing more than to
see America prosper and grow while remaining the most welcoming
Nation on the face of the Earth.
On behalf of Immigration Voice, again, my sincere gratitude
for this opportunity and for the patient hearing you have given
me today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Arora appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Dr. Arora.
Now, finally, last but not least, Dr. Hira.
STATEMENT OF RONIL HIRA, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
POLICY, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
Dr. Hira. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member
Cornyn, and the members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to
testify here today. I have been studying high-skill immigration
policy for more than a decade, so it is a great opportunity for
me to share some of my thoughts on its impact, our current
policy, its impact on the American economy, American workforce,
and competitiveness and innovation policy, which I study also.
I have concluded that our high-skill immigration policy, as
currently administered and designed, does more harm than good.
To meet the needs of both the U.S. economy and American
workers, the H-1B and L-1 visa programs need immediate and
substantial overhaul.
The goal of these programs is to bring in foreign workers
who complement the American workforce. Instead, loopholes have
made it too easy to bring in cheaper foreign workers, with
ordinary skills--these are not specialized skills, these are
not the best and brightest; these are ordinary skills--who
directly substitute for rather than complement American
workers. The programs are clearly displacing and denying
opportunities to American workers.
The H-1B and L-1 have serious design flaws, and legislation
is needed to fix them. Administrative changes alone, such as
stepped-up enforcement, while necessary, are simply not
sufficient to correct the problems. I will just briefly
highlight a few of these design flaws that we have in the
programs.
First, the programs allow employers to legally bring in
foreign workers at below-market wages, so you can legally bring
in cheaper workers to substitute for American workers. How do
we know this? Well, employers have told the GAO that in some
cases they do that, so they have been explicit about this. And
54 percent of the H-1B applications were for the lowest wage
level, the 17th percentile. So if you think about that on a
scale, that is hardly the best and brightest being paid the
17th percentile.
In the case of the L-1 program, it has no wage floor at
all. There are no wage requirements. By far, the largest
sending country for L-1 workers is India, where typical wages
for engineers is a mere $10,000 per year. So you can pay home-
country wages and bring in L-1 workers instead of hiring
American workers. So if you think about the differential
between an $80,000 a year American engineer versus a $10,000 a
year engineer from India, you can imagine the kind of arbitrage
opportunities and also why these companies that are exploiting
these loopholes are extraordinarily profitable--much more
profitable than companies that are hiring American workers.
Second, the programs allow employers to bypass qualified
American workers and even outright replace American workers
with H-1Bs and L-1s. News reports indicate that American
workers are being replaced by H-1B visa workers in companies
such as Wachovia, A.C. Nielsen, and Pfizer. This is at a time
when the unemployment rates for STEM fields remain very high,
and so contrary to some of the discussion here this morning, in
fact, the STEM job market is mired in a jobs recession like the
rest of the country. The unemployment rates are twice to three
times what we would expect at full employment, so instead of 2
percent or 2.5 percent, they are more like 5 percent, 4.5 to 5
percent. So they are mired in a jobs recession just like the
rest of the country.
According to the IEEE-USA's analysis of Labor Department
data, there are more than 300,000 unemployed engineers and
computer scientists. Given the poor job market for STEM fields,
being forced to train your foreign replacement is particularly
egregious at this time.
The third flaw I would point out is that because the
employer rather than the worker holds the visa, an H-1B or L-1
worker's bargaining power is limited, and they can easily be
exploited by employers. One consequence of all of these issues
is that it provides an unfair competitive advantage to
companies specializing in offshore outsourcing, speeding up the
process of shipping high-wage high-tech jobs overseas. It has
disadvantaged companies that primarily hire American workers,
forcing those firms to accelerate their own offshoring. For the
past 5 years, the top H-1B and L-1 employers are using the
programs to offshore tens of thousands of high-wage, high-
skilled American jobs. Using the H-1B program to offshore is so
common, it has been dubbed ``the outsourcing visa'' by India's
former Commerce Minister.
Simply put, the U.S. Government is subsidizing offshoring
through the current H-1B and L-1 regimes. As former Congressman
Bruce Morrison, who was the architect of the H-1B program, put
it, ``There is no reason why the Government should have a thumb
on the scale to actually speed up the process of outsourcing
these jobs.''
Even more disturbing is that many American high-tech
workers and students believe the program and Government policy
purposely undercuts their careers. The program has lost
legitimacy amongst these critical workers. American tech
workers are leaving the field and telling students to stay
away. This threatens the country's capacity to innovate and
create jobs for the economy.
In conclusion, let me say that I believe the United States
benefits enormously from high-skilled permanent immigration. We
can and should encourage the best and brightest to come to the
United States and settle here permanently. But our high-skill
immigration policy is failing on both accounts.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hira appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Dr. Hira, and I want to thank
all the witnesses for their testimony. We will limit the
questioning period to 5 minutes, so I will ask the witnesses to
try to limit their answers.
First, to Dr. Greifeld, just tell us some of the types of
jobs at NASDAQ that have been done by high-skilled immigrants
where they have made a really important contribution to your
company that you would not have gotten from other sources.
Mr. Greifeld. Speaking for NASDAQ ourselves as an employer,
we take great pride in our technology where we are basically
beyond the limits, what is known is commercial computing
capability. We have the ability to process over a million
transactions a second, in about 50 milliseconds. And when we
look at our development team that is responsible for that core
activity, it is about 60 people of which 20 of them are foreign
born, and those people are certainly critical. And we certainly
cast a wide net to find that unique set of talent to allow us
to build these systems which are deployed globally.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you.
To Dr. Skorton, there has been an argument that immigrant
students in our schools are taking slots from other capable
American students. Can you address that? I think Senator
Grassley alluded to that. Can you address that argument?
Mr. Skorton. Yes, and thank you, Senator. It is a complex
issue, but my impression after 30 years in higher education at
multiple institutions is that that just is not true overall in
the high-skill areas that we are talking about. But I also want
to take advantage of the question to make a couple of points
about additional advantages that international students bring
to our campuses in favor of the positive effects on American
students who are their classmates.
Students from other countries contribute enormously to the
cultural diversity of the campus, and in an age, as you have
heard, where globalization has actually affected the way
companies work, not just a catch phrase but actually a way of
living, our students need to have cultural competencies that go
far beyond America's borders, and international students add to
that cultural competency.
They also add an alternative perspective on many, many
issues that I think broadens debates and puts our own students
in a better position to go forward with their own international
leadership.
And, finally, we do have a challenge in the pipeline for
not only STEM graduates but for other high-tech areas in the
American K-12 system.
And even though it has not been the immediate focus of this
panel today, I think it is important to say that one of the
other areas that needs to go hand in hand with immigration
reform is continued work on the STEM pipeline in K-12 so that
there will be a better balance of available and qualified
American students for these jobs and so we will not have the
structural unemployment that was mentioned by the last speaker.
I also want to take advantage and just a quick commentary
to resolve what I think might be apparently to the panel a
conflict between the first speaker and the last speaker about
whether or not there actually are jobs going unfilled because
of lack of skills. I believe there are, and I believe an
unemployment rate, a raw unemployment rate, is too gross a
measure to answer the question: Do we have the right skill
match with the jobs that are going unfilled?
Chairman Schumer. Well, in your region we have three great
engineering schools, two of which are represented here--Cornell
and RIT; there is RPI where I believe one of the witnesses
attended--turning out engineers, and Lockheed Martin needs
engineers in Syracuse, and they cannot get all the engineers
they need right in that area.
Mr. Smith, let us say we were no longer--let us say we did
not change our immigration policy. How would it affect jobs at
Microsoft, both here and abroad?
Mr. Smith. Well, right now we at the company have over
4,500 jobs that are open. Over 2,600 of those jobs are in the
computer science and engineering fields. I think if we do not
have immigration reform, you know, what we are going to see is
a continuing pressure by technology leaders, especially in our
industry, to put more jobs in R&D centers in other places.
Chairman Schumer. You mean overseas.
Mr. Smith. Overseas, outside the United States. We opened a
development center in Vancouver, British Columbia, a few years
ago precisely because we could not get sufficient visas for the
people we had hired. And when we did that, the premier of
British Columbia, the equivalent of their Governor, looked at
us and said this: ``You all have a problem. Your Government
does not like your foreign employees. But I do. Bring your jobs
here.''
Chairman Schumer. Say no more.
Dr. Arora, first, how long would it take you, waiting in
line because the Indian percentage is only 7 percent, to get
your green card? How many years more at present rates?
Dr. Arora. Senator, I have to say that this is one of the
most--this is the $64 million question. There are many
thousands of people ahead of me in the line today.
Chairman Schumer. We estimate about 8 more years.
Dr. Arora. That could well be possible.
Chairman Schumer. That just makes no sense.
Dr. Arora. It is 2,800 a year, including----
Chairman Schumer. No sense. Okay. You make a very good
point. And do you have any estimates on the number of people
that would open their own companies here in the U.S. but cannot
because of the broken immigration system we have?
Dr. Arora. Senator, I think there are many people in our
community who have entrepreneurial ambitions. I have run across
many examples of these on a daily basis. I have a colleague who
was a few years ahead of me in medical school, a few years
ahead of me at Mayo, and then joined Amgen a few years ahead of
me. I almost feel like I am following him around the world. He
has now opened up his own small biotech venture in Thousand
Oaks and lives near me, employs people, and is doing the most
innovative work.
I know that at Immigration Voice we hear every day that
there are many who would like to open small businesses and
simply cannot because of this status in limbo.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you. Okay. I have exceeded my time
by a little bit, so I will stop my questions now.
Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
About 85 percent of U.S. green cards go to family members
of U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents, people seeking
humanitarian refuge and diversity immigrants who come from
countries with low rates of immigration. So that leaves us with
15 percent of the visas going to people based on their work,
and indeed, half of the 15 percent, roughly only about 7
percent, go to principal workers, with the vast majority of
those highly skilled workers.
As the Dallas Fed report says, ``No other major developed
economy gives such a low priority to employment--based
immigration.''
So my question for the panel is: Do you think we ought to
give, in the interest of energizing our economy, more emphasis
to employment-based permanent immigration? Or should we
maintain the status quo? Maybe, Mr. Greifeld, do you have a
view about that?
Mr. Greifeld. I certainly do. Certainly when you look at
the situation, we had H-1B first at 195,000, and we would
advocate for going back to that limit. With respect to the
employment-based visas, to me, reading through it, there are
just too many categories, and we need to simplify that and look
at it as a number that certainly should not include the
families that come along with the person who is working. And we
have to recognize when somebody is working and contributing to
this economy, that is a good thing and should be a faster path
for them to have permanent status in this country.
Senator Cornyn. I suspect I will get similar answers from
others on the panel, so let me just move on to another topic.
The Economist said there was a time when ambitious
foreigners had little choice but to put up with America's
restrictive ways. Europe was sclerotic, and India and China
were poor and highly restrictive, but these days the rest of
the world--and I am paraphrasing--is opening up and competing
with the United States for these highly skilled workers.
Mr. Smith, maybe you would be a good candidate for this
question. What exactly are nations like Canada--you mentioned
your Vancouver facility, but I would include New Zealand,
Australia, the U.K.--what are they doing differently than the
United States is to attract these best and brightest foreign
workers?
Mr. Smith. Well, ironically, I think the single thing that
has happened the most often is this: The rest of the world sort
of figured out what was working in the United States, and they
replicated it even as we perhaps stepped away. So, in fact, we
see wages going up quite quickly in our industry for engineers
around the world. We see cities, States, and countries doing
more to make development centers attractive, putting incentives
in place to attract companies. We see some Governments really
changing their visa policies to make it easier for students to
continue to stay and get a job, making it easier for spouses to
work sooner in the process, to accelerate the path to the
equivalent of a green card and eliminate or reduce the kind of
legal uncertainty that we increasingly feel here. So things
have become much more competitive.
Senator Cornyn. Dr. Hira, you talked about the problems
that we have with current administration of the H-1B program. I
cannot think of anything that would sabotage our desire to try
to fix this broken system and to do what is in the best
interests of the United States and certainly our economy than
examples of people gaming the system, which you have talked
about. Do you feel like Congress has the capacity and ability
through new legislation to fix the broken parts of the system
that allow people to game it while preserving the benefits of
attracting these best and brightest workers?
Dr. Hira. Yes, absolutely. I think there are definitely
proposals that have been introduced, in fact, in the last
Congress by Senators Grassley and Durbin, who are both members
of this Subcommittee, S. 887, which would go a long ways to
actually fixing many of the--closing many of the loopholes that
I mentioned earlier.
Let me also just address the U.K. Interestingly enough, the
U.K. has actually tightened up their work visa program quite
significantly with the new coalition government, and when I met
with the Migration Advisory Committee, which is an arm of the
government that advises the government on immigration issues,
they were shocked that our L-1 program, our intra-company
transfer, multinational transfer program does not have a wage
floor. They were just flabbergasted.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things
that we might want to consider in working together on
legislation here is sort of a rheostat or way to power up or
power down the system in times of a booming American economy
and times when our economy is not doing as well. But I dare say
that between you and me and the members of this Committee, if
we were agreed to deal with this problem, we could fix this. We
could fix this. I am not sure what the prospects are for
comprehensive immigration reform because of the credibility
problem that Congress has when it comes to various aspects of
it. But this is an area I think we could fix working together.
Chairman Schumer. I certainly think the area has to be
fixed. One of the problems we have seen in the past--we will
see if it remains in the future--is when you do not do
comprehensive reform, the people who are not included say, ``I
am not going to let a bill go forward unless I am included.''
So that has been the old dilemma.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Thank you
for holding this hearing and for your leadership, longstanding
leadership in this area, and thank you to the witnesses who
have come here today on this critically important topic. We
hear about it every day. Connecticut has a number of companies
which, like Microsoft, have openings but are looking for folks
with the skills to fill those openings--United Technologies and
General Electric and all of the great companies located in
Connecticut--which leads me to my first question.
Mr. Smith, you know, your observation that jobs follow the
talent reminds me of the National Venture Capital Association
which commissioned a study entitled ``American Made: The Impact
of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S.
Competitiveness,'' a study that indicated that immigrant-
founded companies have generated more than half of the
employment by United States public venture-backed high-tech
manufacturers. So entrepreneurs coming to this country are the
source of employment, new jobs that are created when they
create new companies.
I wonder if you could talk about the two or three revisions
in immigration law that you think would enable us to attract
more entrepreneurs as well as individuals to fill those 4,000
openings that you mentioned at Microsoft.
Mr. Smith. Certainly. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I
think the real key today is to focus on green cards, and, in
fact, I think that might be something that most or all of us
even share on this panel. We have such a backlog of green
cards, and as you have heard, the fact that we have a per
country cap is a real problem.
We have a huge backlog in the country today, especially for
people from a country like India, and that is discouraging them
from staying here. It means their spouses cannot work. It is
creating incentive for them to return home, create companies,
and create jobs in other places. So I would say priority No. 1
really should be to address the current green card backlog.
Then the other point I would make is, as you have heard,
there is a huge amount of benefit that would come from putting
graduates of American universities, especially in high-demand
fields, the so-called STEM fields, for example, on a path to
green cards. That would give them the incentive to put down
roots here. It addresses a lot of the issues that people have
been expressing concern about with respect to temporary visas.
It would strengthen the country's economy.
Senator Blumenthal. And I gather from your testimony, Dr.
Skorton, that you would agree on a number of those points.
Mr. Skorton. Yes, Senator Blumenthal, I would definitely
agree with the points, and I want to say again, at the risk of
redundancy, that the beauty of what you are talking about is
that it is comprehensive. And I believe that, as Dr. Hira has
mentioned, it is very important to deal with inadequacies and
rooms for loopholes in the current system. It is very, very
important to do a better job of matching skills needs with
skills production.
And, third, I think as Senator Cornyn mentioned, it is very
important to make the system inherently flexible enough to deal
with different industries and different eras. And just because
I have garnered the floor briefly, I will say again that even
though it is not necessarily in the purview of this particular
Committee, it is important that we all, all Americans, work
toward improving the STEM pipeline in K-12 education so that
our successors in years to come will not be dealing with this
very frustrating problem.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I appreciated your mention of
that point and also of the DREAM act, even though it is not
directly on point today.
Mr. Greifeld, from your experience would lifting the caps,
the per country caps, also be something that we should do?
Mr. Greifeld. Definitely. As I mentioned in my testimony, I
was in the Valley last week, and I met during my time there
about 24 or 25 different CEOs of high--technology companies.
And these are companies with active job searches, active job
openings for obviously highly qualified engineering talent, and
this talent is fundamental to their growth. And in terms of the
ripple effect in terms of employment, it is real. The openings
are real, the ripple effect is real, and we have to respond to
that as soon as we can and allow them to hire these people,
create the ripple effect, and, you know, obviously address in
some way our economic issues that we face today. So we need to
move beyond that. And these numbers are obviously artificial.
There has to be some way, as I think Senator Cornyn mentioned a
rheostat, where it is geared to actual demand here. So we
cannot have an arbitrary number. We have to respond to the
real-life situation on the ground.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, again, my time has expired, but I
want to thank all of you for being here, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you. Again, I appreciate Senator
Schumer's leadership in this area. It has been great.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
all the panelists. I am sorry I missed your testimony, but
obviously we have it in writing.
I have some questions. I will start with Dr. Hira. In your
testimony you described how the loopholes in the high--skilled
guest worker program have eased the way for companies to bring
in cheap foreign labor who directly substitute rather than
complement workers already in the United States. So my first
question is for you to rebut the assertion that some, including
your co-panelist Brad Smith, have made that the U.S. does not,
in fact, have enough highly skilled workers.
Dr. Hira. Well, the data just does not support that
assertion by Mr. Smith. The unemployment rates, as I mentioned
earlier, are very high. In fact, they are higher for STEM
graduates than they are for all college graduates. So unless
you are going to argue that liberal arts majors are somehow in
short supply, it is hard to argue this. The unemployment rates
are twice to three times what we would expect. Now, some of
this is a cyclic phenomenon. It is part of the jobs recession
that the whole country is facing right now.
There are always cases where there are shortages of very
narrow occupations, and let me give you a very good example of
this: petroleum engineering. What we saw was the market worked.
Wages went up from about $60,000 to $86,000, and what happened?
Well, enrollments went way up within universities in petroleum
engineering, filled mostly, almost exclusively, by Americans
into those programs. So markets work when you let them work.
By using these H-1B and L-1 programs, what you are really
doing is intervening in the normal functioning of the labor
market, and with that privilege should come some
accountability.
Senator Grassley. Again, Dr. Hira, we have seen trends in
large corporations where they are finding ways to circumvent H-
1Bs besides using and L and B visa. What other ways are
companies obtaining foreign workers? And is this something that
deserves more scrutiny?
Dr. Hira. One of the things that is interesting about this
in the way the regulations work--and I do not know enough about
it because I do not think it has been studied. But many of the
temporary workers come in and do not work directly for the
clients. They may not work for Microsoft or for one of the
large American companies. What they do is they work for
contractors, and by doing that, through that process of
outsourcing, they are able to then circumvent some of the non-
displacement and other regulations. At least this is my
speculation. I do not know of anybody who has actually studied
it within the Government or outside the Government to see how
this process works. But definitely there are problems there,
and that is something that needs to be scrutinized.
So one has to not just look at the direct workforces of,
let us say, Microsoft but also the people that they contract
with. For example, Infosys does all of their tech support and
services.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Smith, Microsoft is a real employment
machine, so we have obviously got to be cognizant of what you
say about it, but I have some questions in regard to H-1B. An
issue that has been raised about H-1B and L-1 visa programs is
employers are not required to demonstrate that qualified
American workers are, in fact, available. And, of course, I
know through visiting with you and other people that work for
you that you and other companies oppose Grassley-Durbin because
it requires attestation that an employer recruit qualified
Americans first.
Why is it so much to ask for your company and others to
look for American workers first and foremost? And a second
question: Would Microsoft support a requirement for companies
to first attest and actively recruit American workers before
they resort to foreign labor?
Mr. Smith. Well, Senator Grassley, we appreciate the
opportunity to have an ongoing conversation. As you know, there
are a number of steps in the immigration process where one has
to have certain attestations, one has to jump through certain
hoops, one has to post information on the Department of Labor's
website. We would not think it would be helpful to inject into
the labor market yet more bureaucratic hurdles that make it
harder to hire employees. We do not pay foreign nationals any
differently from the way we pay U.S. nationals, and our wages
are not cheap. We and other leaders in our industry today are
hiring in the computer science and engineering fields right out
of college, and people who get a diploma 1 day are able to
start work the next day with a salary and a stock grant in
excess of $100,000. I think there are a number of us who might
not have gone to law school if we had realized that future.
Senator Grassley. I am done, but I did have a question for
Dr. Skorton that I will give----
Chairman Schumer. Without objection, any member of this
panel, those here or not here, can submit questions in writing,
and there will be a week to return those.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
Chairman Schumer. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Arora, thank you for being here and thank you for your
clinical work in Minnesota. You have made a difference in the
lives of countless poor Minnesotans without reliable access to
medical care.
First, can you give me a rough estimate of how many
Minnesotans you have served as a physician in the course of
your career?
Dr. Arora. Just to be clear, you are asking me about my
practice as a physician, Senator?
Senator Franken. Yes.
Dr. Arora. I started practice as a physician--well, we
should go back a little bit. I was a medical resident for 3
years where I practiced as a physician, but as a resident
physician. I did another 2 years at NYU at Bellevue Hospital
and the Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Following
this, I was in Rochester, Minnesota, at the Mayo Clinic for 2
years doing a fellowship in advanced diabetes, although I have
to say that a rather good section of those 2 years was really
spent doing clinical research. That was a lot of my research
training.
I then spent time from July of 2003 until December of 2008
with a full-time practice at Regions Hospital and its
affiliated clinics with the Health Partners Medical Group.
In December of----
Senator Franken. I was just at Regions this weekend--at a
Regions, yes.
Dr. Arora. And in December of 2008 I moved to a clinical
research position at Amgen, so I have had a 2\1/2\ year hiatus,
but as we speak, I am actually preparing to go back to work at
a local volunteer clinic. I feel the need to get back a little
bit to my practice roots.
Senator Franken. And I know your path to a green card has
been frustrating and is still not complete. Can you describe
the challenges you face and how having to deal with those
challenges has affected your ability to focus on your clinical
work?
Dr. Arora. Senator, there are a number of things that do
not occur to one intuitively when you think of what happens
when you are in the state where you do not have a green card
but you are waiting for one. I have been through a number of
different phases. I was on a J-1 exchange visitor visa for many
years when I was training. That visa would run out every year,
even though I was in a 3-year program or a 2-year program.
Every time I traveled home, I would spend--out of the 8 days I
would get after traveling the long distance, I would spend 2
days preparing and going to the embassy to get visa stamp. I
never knew when they would decide, as they do very commonly
these days, to just put me in some kind of administrative
processing and hold me for 3 months, maybe getting me to lose
my position. I would get a stamp, but because my academic year
was finishing in July and I visited in February, it would
expire in July.
There were all kinds of hurdles there, but that is not the
least of it. These days my driver's license expires every so
often. I find that I am either applying for a driver's license
which is expiring or for work authorization which keeps
expiring or for an advance parole so that I will be able to
travel to work or home on a near continuous basis because
something or the other always seems to be going away because I
do not have a green card.
I applied for a mortgage to buy a home, which I was
fortunate to be able to do eventually, and had to pass some
serious hurdles because I had employment authorization and the
statute--and I understand exactly why--said you had to have
either a valid visa or a green card, and nobody quite
understands the state of limbo that many of us exist in. It
seems to be a vacuum.
I have tried to buy disability insurance just to make sure
if something unfortunate were to happen my family and I would
be cared for, and I have been told that if I am not a permanent
resident I cannot do that.
I have friends who have wanted to adopt children and could
not because they do not have permanent residence.
So there are a number of issues like this where we are held
back, and, you know, we spend a lot of time and energy as a
community dealing with these little things in daily life which
seem so natural to everyone else, and I think they do take away
from our efforts at practice and other work.
Senator Franken. Thank you. I know that if you worked at
Regions and at Mayo, you are a very, very fine doctor and
clinician.
Mr. Skorton, you point out that nearly half of all recent
graduate degrees awarded by U.S. universities in science,
technology, engineering, and math were awarded to foreign
nationals, and this means that international students who
receive their education in Minnesota, for example, often must
travel to another country to make use of that knowledge instead
of contributing to the economy of the State that educated them.
I think it would be good to keep those folks in Minnesota
where they are able to contribute to our economy. How would
States that educated international students benefit
economically from national immigration reform?
Mr. Skorton. Thank you, Mr. Franken. I would like to first
of all say that, as a long-time Iowan, I have great respect for
the wonderful work done in the great State of Minnesota, one of
the only places that we could think about that was even colder
than the State of Iowa.
Senator Franken. And we have great respect for the State of
Iowa.
Chairman Schumer. Let the record show he is from upstate
New York.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Skorton. This is a very, very important point that you
have raised, and I think that earlier comments I made but also
those of others on the panel have indicated the importance of
utilizing the mechanism that you talked about to improve the
economy locally based not only on the ability to fill those
jobs but to start companies and also to invent things that
others can use to start a company or that established companies
can use to move farther down the line. So by all these
mechanisms, I think they are very, very important, and I think
that the objective is clear. And it is easy for us on this side
of the table to say what we would like to see happen. I do not
envy you and the other Senators the jobs that you have to do to
figure out how to make it happen. But I think the goal that you
have laid out is the right goal. The question is how to get
there.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Chairman Schumer. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you for letting me join you, Mr.
Chairman.
During the debate over immigration reform, which I was
active in and felt the comprehensive bill was not a good piece
of legislation, the American people agreed with that and it
failed, and we are not going to see a comprehensive piece of
legislation like the one last time. If it comes back, it will
not be like that one.
And I just have to say to my high-tech friends, you guys
made a mistake. You endorsed a bill that did little for high-
tech workers, but basically would have undermined the
lawfulness of our immigration system. And I pleaded with a
number of you folks, why don't you come forward with a real
plan to help us focus on higher-skilled workers? And, Mr.
Smith, you made comments about the United States and said that
we do not like foreign workers. I am quoting the Canadian who
was saying that, certainly. But I have consistently endorsed
the Canadian plan of immigration. I would take it immediately.
Have you thought about that, proposing that for the United
States?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think we would be best served as a
country, Senator Sessions, if we took what we have today, took
what works, and then make it better rather than try the
Canadian one.
Senator Sessions. Well, that is what I thought. So this is
a political deal. I know how it worked out. The Canadian system
gives points. They give points for education. They give points
for skills. They give points for youth. They give points for
people who speak English or French. And that is how they allow
people into the country, and jobs that they need. Would that be
a good plan for the United States? Would that favor the high-
tech industry? Would it help get us more high-skilled workers
or not?
Mr. Smith. Probably not the French part, but the rest, if
you look at it, I think we would welcome a discussion on any
option, but----
Senator Sessions. Well, I would have thought you would
support that.
Mr. Smith. No. This is why----
Senator Sessions. Okay. Why?
Mr. Smith. This is why: What we really want is labor
markets that can adapt to changing economic circumstances, and
the challenge, in our view, with any point system is it
basically puts the Government in a position where it is trying
to determine, you know, what, in fact, is going to best meet
needs in the marketplace. In fact, if you take the U.S.
system----
Senator Sessions. Well, you could use that system to do
that, could you not? Couldn't you alter the points to emphasize
the skill needs that the country has and not emphasize more
workers in areas where there is high unemployment?
Mr. Smith. I am not saying it does not have some virtues.
The challenge is that basically it asks a Government commission
or Committee to basically try to manage or even micromanage a
labor market in a way that takes stock of changes in the market
itself. And our experience would suggest that----
Senator Sessions. Well, you would rather be able to do that
yourself. You would like to be able to handle it. I can
understand that. I am not sure you are empowered to select what
workers come into the country. I think that is a governmental
function, frankly.
What about the 50,000-person lottery deal? We let hundreds
of thousands of people apply to be selected as--to be in the
lottery, and their names are drawn at random. It does not have
an age factor. It does not have an education factor. I think I
have talked with Senator Schumer about it. What about
converting that to a real high-skill, high--tech entry
mechanism? Would that be something you could support?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think there is a basis to have a
conversation about ways to give a higher priority to certain
fields where there is a clear shortage, and the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and math clearly rise very
high on that. And then one can discuss, you know: Is a lottery
the best way? Is there an alternative approach?
But I would agree that there is absolutely a kernel of
something that is worth pursuing.
Senator Sessions. Well, the INS report a few years ago said
that H-1B employees are paid a median salary 25 percent less
than the national median for their field. A 2001 National
Research Council report found that, ``H-1B workers requiring
lower levels of high-tech skill received lower wages.'' The
Independent Computer Consultants Association in 2003 reported
the use of cheaper foreign labor has forced down the hourly
rates of U.S. consultants by as much as 10 to 40 percent.
So I think there are other studies that agree with Dr.
Hira. I think he is fundamentally right. I mean, I know you
have different views, and you would like to be able to pick and
choose around the world, Microsoft would, whoever they would
like to bring in to help. But we have to set a national policy,
and we have to decide, first of all, how many can be allowed,
and this cannot be an unlimited number. And if that is the
case, we have to choose, and so I thought the Canadian system
is a good program. It seems to be focused on how to serve the
Canadian national interest.
Mr. Smith. I think you raise a really interesting point,
but I do not think we should obscure the fact that there is
something in common in what all five of us are saying.
The principal reason that some people believe that
employees on an H-1B visa have a disadvantage in negotiating
for salaries with their employer is their difficulty of taking
another job. And the principal difficulty they have in taking
another job is they go to the very back of the green card queue
and have to start over when their next employer gets the visa
extension.
We are advocating reform that would address and eliminate
that problem. That will be good for employees. Obviously, we
think it will be good for employers as well. It will be good
for employment more than anything else.
Senator Sessions. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That may
be something that we could all work on, and I look forward to--
--
Chairman Schumer. Look, I think there are lots of things we
can work on on this.
Senator Sessions. I agree.
Chairman Schumer. Obviously, I prefer comprehensive and I
am still working that way.
I am going to take the prerogative of the Chair to ask an
off-topic question and take advantage of Mr. Greifeld being
here, and that is this: You know Congress is debating two
possible solutions to raise the debt limit. There is one
offered by Speaker Boehner--cannot get away from this.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Schumer. There is one offered by Speaker Boehner
in the House that would raise the debt limit for 5 to 6 months;
one offered by Leader Reid that would take the prospect of
default off the table at least until 2013. Would you prefer a
longer-term solution or a short-term patch? Specifically not
you personally, but do you think the markets would react better
to a longer-term solution that at least takes the prospect of
default off the table for a period of time?
Mr. Greifeld. Can I say I prefer not to answer the
question?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Greifeld. No, but I would say this, and I did reference
it in my testimony. Markets certainly want to feel certainty,
and to the extent there is greater certainty and there is a
time duration to that certainty, that is more beneficial to the
markets. So in a general philosophical sense, the longer the
deal that Congress makes, an agreement with the President, the
better markets will feel about it.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you. I appreciate that, and that
would mean that the Reid deal is preferable to the Boehner
deal. But you do not have to say that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Schumer. I am drawing that conclusion myself.
Senator Blumenthal. You have the right to remain silent.
Chairman Schumer. Yes, with the direct corollary that it is
longer. Okay. I want to thank the witnesses. This was excellent
testimony. This is an issue that America aches for reform--we
do--in this area in particular, because I think there is
general agreement, even Dr. Hira would say, in certain places
there is a need to fill skills and get people around the world.
So it has been very elucidating, and I want to thank the
witnesses, all of them, for being here--particularly my fellow
New Yorkers, but no affront to anybody else.
Thank you.
Chairman Schumer. Now the second panel will please come
forward. I want to thank our second panel for being here. We
are going to try to finish by 12:15 because that is when a vote
has been called.
As I mentioned, immigration is an economic engine,
certainly with highly skilled people who come here and learn
and want to stay here and create companies and jobs. But people
forget that even lower-skilled immigrants who come are job
creators, and our three witnesses today are witness to that
because in each of the communities they represent, immigration
has really been a shot in the arm. So I would like to introduce
all three, and then we will ask them each to speak for 5
minutes and open it up to questions. We will go from right to
left this time, not to show any political preference.
First, Paul Bridges is the mayor of Uvalda, Georgia. That
is a town in Montgomery County. He is an educator and a farmer
in his community. He has served as mayor since 2010. About 53
percent of the land in Uvalda is farmland, and Uvalda is one of
America's most productive farming communities. Maybe in your
testimony you can tell us what grows there. Peanuts? I do not
know.
Second is my good friend, David Roefaro. He is the mayor of
Utica, New York. He is a lifelong resident of Utica, where my
father was raised, so I have special affection for the town.
And he has been a member of the Utica City School District
Board of Education and a Common Council representative for the
city. He serves at Utica's 75th mayor, and I might say serves
very able as Utica's 75th mayor, a seat he won in November of
2007.
And Laurent--Gilbert?
Mr. Gilbert. Yes.
Chairman Schumer. Ah, very good. I remember the hockey
player Rod Gilbert, so I know how to say it. He is the mayor of
Lewiston, Maine. Before that, he served 25 years on the
Lewiston Police Department rising through the ranks to chief of
police, a position he held for 5 years before retiring to
accept an appointment at the United States Marshal for the
District of Maine. He is a graduate of the FBI Academy and has
been appointed so several State criminal justice commissions.
We will put your entire statements in the record,
gentlemen, and ask you each to speak for 5 minutes and then be
available for questions. So we will first start with Mayor
Bridges.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL BRIDGES, MAYOR, UVALDA, GEORGIA
Mr. Bridges. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Subcommittee
members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
My name is Paul Bridges, and I am mayor of a small town,
Uvalda, Georgia, which is an agricultural community in
southeast Georgia. I am also a plaintiff in a lawsuit
challenging Georgia's new anti-immigration law. I am here today
to speak about this new law and how it is affecting us in south
Georgia.
Uvalda's story is a microcosm of the national debate about
immigration. Like other States, Georgia passed a law that would
supposedly address illegal immigration. Among other things, it
gave local police the power to question residents about their
immigration status during a traffic stop. It also made it a
crime to give a ride to an undocumented immigrant if you commit
another crime as innocuous as having a burnt-out headlight or
failure to use a turn signal or even to invite an undocumented
immigrant to stay in your home.
The reality is this law will not solve the immigration
problem in the State. It will only devastate local economies.
It will burden our communities with the cost of enforcing a law
designed to create a climate of fear. Even though parts of the
law were blocked by a Federal court, its impact can already be
seen in my community and other farming communities around
Georgia. And we have no assurance that that block will hold.
Uvalda is a small town of about 600 people, but more people
call themselves Uvaldans because the address reaches into
adjoining Toombs County. Throughout the Uvalda addresses, there
are neighborhoods of Latino immigrants. Many of them work on
the farms. We grow many different crops, Senator Schumer,
throughout the year, including the Vidalia onions. These crops
are harvested by skilled migrant laborers who have harvesting
down to a fine art. The Georgia peaches, strawberries,
blueberries, and many other fruits and vegetables that they
harvest ends up on America's dinner tables. We also have a
multi-million--dollar pine straw industry. These workers who do
those jobs are a critical part of Georgia's economy. Their work
helps agriculture to inject $6.85 billion into Georgia's
economy.
These workers also contribute to local economies as
consumers. Every time they buy a good or service, they pay the
same taxes that I pay. Many of them own their own homes and pay
property taxes. Their taxes are commingled with my taxes, and
they are used to pay for schools and public services. The loss
of their tax revenue will be felt in Georgia.
Many also file income tax returns on April the 15th, just
like I do, using a TIN, or a tax identification number issued
by the IRS.
In addition to the economic problems this law creates, it
also puts the workers, as well as anyone associated with those
workers, directly into the crosshairs. Anyone who looks foreign
will be under suspicion. Immigrant workers, regardless of
immigration status, have already left the State rather than
deal with the racial profiling that this law will encourage.
They do not want to live with the fear that their family will
be torn apart because a family member cannot produce the proper
papers during a traffic stop.
Now that migrant workers are fleeing Georgia, perfectly
healthy crops have been rotting in the fields. The Georgia
Agribusiness Council has already reported that farms have lost
over $300 million due to the lack of workers. The economic toll
could reach $1 billion.
This hits home for many small farms around Uvalda. When
crops are left in the fields, farmers do not get paid. Some
fear the inability to repay their loans, even Federal loans.
They are unable to meet their families' needs, and when they
have this fear, they also stop contributing to the area's
economy by buying goods and services. The farms produce less,
which means that the consumers at the supermarket pay a little
bit more when the produce actually reaches the marketplace.
This misguided law hurts Uvalda in another way. It imposes
a significant burden on our area's resources. It forces local
law enforcement agencies, with officers untrained in
immigration, to use its resources to enforce immigration laws.
It distracts officers from their real mission of protecting
residents. No family with an undocumented member will dial 911
in the event of an emergency or need for medical services.
Also, when officers arrest people for alleged immigration
violations, they have to house these detainees. They have to
house the ones who have associated and be arrested with those
detainees somewhere. Uvalda does not have a jail, nor does
Montgomery County. We will have to rent space in the jail in an
adjoining town--another drain on my town's resources. The
bottom line is that Uvalda, like so many towns dealing with
these anti-immigration laws, will take a major economic hit and
will no doubt be less safe as a result.
There are so many wonderful things about the town of
Uvalda. It is a friendly place and our residents know each
other. If a person needs a ride to the grocery store, to the
church, or to the doctor, I give them a ride. And I do not ask
for their papers first.
In the past, when people needed a place to stay, I opened
my home to them, regardless of their immigration status. I know
that I am not alone. Other people do the same thing in my area.
But under this new law, Good Samaritans face fines and jail
time. Grandparents who have undocumented in-laws become
criminals if they allow their undocumented in-laws stay
overnight. Spouses who are citizens become criminals if their
spouse is undocumented. Citizen children who drive their
parents to the grocery store become criminals if their parent
is undocumented. This law threatens the very fabric of my
little town.
Many folks have been surprised that a conservative
Republican like me is involved in a lawsuit against my beloved
State. It is shocking. But it should not be a surprise. This
law is not immigration reform. This law is Government intrusion
of the worst kind. It threatens our economy. It threatens our
way of life. And it simply makes no sense. Famous Republicans
like Presidents Reagan and Bush understood immigration. Our
former Governor, Sonny Purdue, warned incoming Republicans to
not give in to the ``gang-type mentality that could be harmful
to those who want the American dream.'' And then after the law
passed, Governor Purdue also said, ``The GOP needs to ensure
that people of color and people who are not U.S.-born feel
welcome.'' I am one Republican who is in good company.
The Assistant Georgia Attorney General defending this law
before Judge Thrash in the hearing to determine if the law
should be blocked said that this law may be unkind, it may be
unfair. She acknowledged that an 18-year-old citizen driving
his undocumented mother to the grocery store could be arrested.
I would like to follow up----
Chairman Schumer. Mr. Bridges, if you could wrap up.
Mr. Bridges. Real quick. I would like to follow up on what
happens to the two children also in the seats, buckled, in a
10-year-old and 5-year-old, if their older brother is arrested
and sent to jail for a year and their mother deported.
I want real immigration reform. We want immigration reform
now, and we want immigration reform that holds American values
and fairness and equality. The truth is immigration reform is
an economic necessity. It is crucial to our National security,
and our National leaders from both sides of the aisle know it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridges appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
And now my good friend, who does an outstanding job in
Utica, Mayor Roefaro. I see he is accompanied by his cousin,
Angelo, who does a good job for me, a great job for me in
central New York.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID R. ROEFARO, MAYOR, UTICA, NEW YORK
Mr. Roefaro. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for having
me here today. I was hoping I did not get this chair. Mr. Smith
from Microsoft, he did not have a sheet of paper, and he was 5
minutes to the second.
Chairman Schumer. Right.
Mr. Roefaro. So I figured that Microsoft must have
implanted a chip in him. I would like to thank you for inviting
me here today, Senator Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn, for
inviting me to speak before this Committee today. I would also
like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for their hard
work and commitment to fixing and reforming our Nation's
immigration policy. The work in front of this Subcommittee has
the potential to leave a lasting legacy for our country.
Many years ago, my family lived in Italy. They struggled
for jobs and economic opportunity. Seeking a better life, they
came to America, where the streets were paved with gold and
there was a chicken in every pot.
When they came to our country, my family sought a community
that would give them those opportunities. They chose the
beautiful city of Utica, New York. After coming to Utica, they
laid roots, raised a family, established a small business, and
became an active part of the city. They had the opportunity to
live the American dream.
Today that simple dream is threatened. The dream of so many
to come to America and find the streets paved with gold has
become vulnerable to fear. In times of economic downturn, like
our country now faces, we begin to fear that
which we do not know. And many choose to point the blame
for our economic problems on immigrants. But to deny those who
want to come to America and create a new life for themselves
would be to deny our own history. Our country was built on the
backs of immigrants. From the young Irishmen who built the Erie
Canal across New York to the Bosnian families seeking political
refuge and starting small businesses in Utica today, immigrants
have been the key to our past success and will serve as a
catalyst to both Utica's and certainly our Nation's future.
But do not mistake my words: While immigration is crucial
to the social and economic fabric of our country, we need to
work harder to ensure it is done legally. We need to make sure
our borders are secure. We need to make sure our communities
are safe and criminals are off the streets.
As the mayor of Utica, I have spent the last 4 years trying
to make life better for those who live in my city. One of my
top priorities has been to help refugees assimilate, offer them
a stake in our city, and show them how they can assist us in
growing our local economy and creating jobs--all things I have
worked to accomplish.
We have benefited from the recently welcomed immigrants
from Bosnia, Belarus, Russia, Somalia, the Dominican Republic
and Vietnam. Groups like this enjoy assistance from our local
refugee center, a center that has helped transition so many. In
my city, there are 42 languages spoken in our Utica school
district, and centers like the Mohawk Valley Refugee Center
help connect the dots for immigrants. So no matter how you say
it, ``We're in this together'' is the motto everyone lives by.
Yes, our economic growth is tied directly to how we as
Nation utilize the talent of immigrants, and there are
statistics to back those words up. Nationwide, cities with
growing immigrant populations have the fastest economic growth.
Immigrants, by making our economy more productive, contribute
over $37 billion to the wages and output of native-born
Americans. And we have already heard that between 1995 and
2005, 25 percent of all high-tech startups were founded by
immigrants. These new Americans paid over $162 billion in
Federal, State, and local taxes, proving their worth to our
communities.
In Utica, economic success stories mirror national ones.
Take Zaim Dedic, for example. Zaim came to Utica at the age of
14 from Mrkonjic Grand, a small town in the Serb Republic.
Today, at 31, he has built himself a successful business. He is
the founder and owner of Multilingual Interpretation Services,
a translation firm that helps new immigrants navigate
hospitals, the courtroom, practically anywhere, as they learn
English for themselves. Zaim boasts eight independently
contracted employees, but that is not all. Aside from his
translation business, Zaim has worked to revitalize an
important downtown block called Bleeker Street. He has invested
thousands into a high-end nightclub there. He employs staff and
contributes to the revitalization of a block my administration
made priority No. 1.
Then there are the ever increasing immigrants from the
Dominican Republic who are opening and expanding businesses in
my city. For example, Joel's Spanish Restaurant has been a huge
success for 5 years and keeps on growing strong, and they are
going to be moving to our West End very shortly in our city.
That means more great food and more jobs.
Moving forward, it is important that we all work together
to create an innovative solution to immigration reform. For
those who are here in our country illegally, we must create a
path for them to become citizens. Through a tough but fair
process including security checks, payment of back taxes, and
an educational requirement to learn English, we can begin to
assimilate now-illegal immigrants into our country and
cultivate their economic potential.
Moreover, my experience as a mayor working on national
issues has showed me how this issue, this debate, is likely one
of the most important facing our Nation. I proudly profess our
immigrant populations have added to the vibrancy of the city of
Utica. Their presence has been vital to our housing stock, our
culture, our regional economy, and even our local agriculture.
Certainly, their presence remains crucial to the development
and growth in every part of upstate New York. The national
importance of this issue is why I am a proud member of the
Partnership for a New American Economy, joining my mayors right
here and representatives from Microsoft and NASDAQ on this
morning's previous panel and over 300 other mayors and business
leaders from across the country who know that smarter
immigration will generate economic growth and create new
American jobs.
As we go forward in this process and create a new
immigration policy for our country, we need to remember our
heritage--the reason we all sit here today. We are a Nation of
immigrants, and we must preserve this legacy into our future.
When my own family came to America, they came in search of a
better tomorrow. It is my hope that we can ensure another
generation of immigrants come to this country accepted,
assisted, and empowered to dream the never impossible dream.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you today, and I
will gladly answer any questions that you may have. Thank you,
Senators.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roefaro appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Mayor Roefaro. Your chip was
not quite as good as the person who sat in the seat before you,
but not bad.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Schumer. Mayor Gilbert.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAURENT F. GILBERT, MAYOR, LEWISTON, MAINE
Mr. Gilbert. Chairman Schumer, Senator Blumenthal, thank
you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the benefits
of immigration reform for renewing America's communities. I am
currently serving as the mayor of the All-America city of
Lewiston, Maine, a designation awarded in 2007 by the National
Civic League for our civic engagement. As my biography will
attest, my lifelong career has been in law enforcement until my
election as mayor in 2007.
I am a first-generation American and son of French Canadian
immigrants. My first language was French. At the age of 10, our
family moved to southern California. While in school, I had a
great many Mexican American friends. As a son of immigrants, I
could relate to my Mexican American classmates. I would at
times trade my sandwich with a Mexican American student for his
burrito--something I continue to love to this day.
Somali refugees started arriving in Lewiston in 2001 to
seek a quality of life they could not find or afford in major
larger cities. Word of mouth to friends and relatives outside
of Maine led more secondary migrants to Lewiston, a city and
State that are statistically one of the safest in the country
and where these families and their children can receive a good
education.
As the refugee population started to grow in Lewiston, a
number of opinions about the new refugee arrivals were
expressed both privately and publicly as fear, and in many
cases prejudice fueled the public and sometimes political
discussion about Lewiston's ``new Mainers.''
An open letter to the Somalis requesting that they reduce
their numbers coming into the city was picked up by the
national and international media, whose coverage also caught
the attention of a national hate group. Those this hate group
attracted few supporters to their event, the group's arrival in
Lewiston was met by some 5,000 demonstrators who supported our
new refugee immigrants.
Though there was measurably more public, State, nonprofit,
academic support for refugees following the Lewiston rally,
rumors and misguided myths about refugee funding, cultural and
religious customs, and employment persisted.
Concerns about refugee employment were driven by
observations that more refugees were not seen in the local
workforce. In the recently published book, ``Somalis in Maine:
Crossing Cultural Currents,'' Deputy City Administrator Phil
Nadeau's research showed that refugee employment levels had
been steadily declining since 2006. Nadeau postulated that the
combination of higher levels of overall unemployment and the
significant underfunding of workforce training for many
limited-English-speaking adults will continue to fuel refugee
unemployment until current Federal refugee policy addresses
workforce readiness. Our city's opinion of the inadequacy of
the existing refugee resettlement program in the U.S. was
recently echoed in a July 21, 2010, report to the U.S. Senate
Committee on Foreign relations entitled ``Abandoned Upon
Arrival: Implications for Refugee and Local Communities
Burdened by a U.S. Resettlement System That Is Not Working.''
In my opinion, though we have grave concerns regarding
refugee resettlement programs, there are signs that our
immigrant population is having a positive impact on the social
fabric of our community and our local economy. They purchase
groceries, clothing, cars, along with a number of other goods
and services. They keep the dollars circulating locally and are
beginning to weave themselves to a great degree into the
community.
Most exciting is the energy of our immigrant entrepreneurs
who are bringing new life to our downtown. Over a dozen
immigrant-owned businesses occupy formerly vacant storefronts
over a two-block area. The businesses include general
merchandise markets, specialty foods and good, restaurants,
coffee shops, tax preparation services, translation services,
and clothing stores, as well as starting up cab companies.
The road to full assimilation into American culture and
economic self-sufficiency is not easy, but with perseverance
and support it will continue to happen. The question is whether
we choose to let this be a process requiring several
generations to occur or do all that we can to move the process
forward more quickly.
As mayor of my city, my work with the League of United
Latin American Citizens in support of the DREAM act and the
Partnership for a New American Economy has convinced me that
sensible immigration and refugee resettlement reform today will
spur the economy, the economic growth, and independence that
every American can support.
In conclusion, I appreciate the interest of the Chairman
and Mr. Blumenthal and members of the Committee who will
receive this report to share Lewiston's newest chapter in our
ongoing immigrant story. I believe that the Committee's and
Congress's continued involvement with immigration reform and
the need for significant refugee resettlement reform is
critical to the future success of a refugee resettlement
program whose primary mission is economic self-sufficiency.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and
I certainly remember Rod Gilbert, No. 7 for the New York
Rangers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Thank you. And you are as good in what
you do as he was in what he did, so thank you for being here.
I am going to call on Mr. Blumenthal first--I will excuse
myself for a brief minute--to ask questions; then I will come
back and ask questions. Senator Blumenthal?
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Schumer, and thank you all for your very moving and inspiring
testimony here today. It has been really very instructive to
hear your firsthand experiences, and I want to thank each of
you for your public service in your communities, your
longstanding public service even before you became mayor in
each of your towns and cities. And thank you, Mayor Gilbert,
most especially for your career in law enforcement and your
service to the United States in the United States Army. And let
me begin with a question to you, if I may.
Have you noticed a change in attitude in Lewiston since the
time when there was that outpouring of opposition based on
stereotypes and misapprehension?
Mr. Gilbert. I certainly have, Senator. You know, the dust
has really settled over the 10-year period. More and more
people are interacting. The children are now in the schools.
They are playing on sports teams. They are visiting each
other's families, and they are seeing that what people feared
initially was really myths that were being perpetuated and so
on.
We always have a tendency as immigrants that once I am in,
I shut the door behind me. And it has been that way in
Lewiston. Before that it was the Irish who first arrived, and
their first Catholic Church was burned. The Ku Klux Klan was in
Maine as well and were opposed to Catholics. Certainly when the
French Canadians arrived, the Irish tended to want to shut the
door behind them. And now the Franco-Americans are the same
way.
But I think time has a way of healing any abrasions that
people may have at newcomers, and now, if I may, I would like
to introduce into the record this Lewiston Auburn Magazine, the
current issue, and it says, ``Dreaming with Deco: The growing
and thriving Somali business. Business community helps renew
our Lisbon Street.'' And, also, a story that appeared, to
answer your question, Senator, on the ``CBS Evening News,'' a
clip dated April 11, 2009, on the Somali assimilation in
Lewiston. And then, last, a senior project by a student from
the College of the Atlantic called ``Newcomers.'' I have
submitted that, four copies.
Senator Blumenthal. Without objection, we will allow all
those exhibits to be in the record.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Blumenthal. Let me turn to Mayor Roefaro, if I may,
and thank you for your leadership in Utica, not only in public
service but as a member of the Funeral Directors Association, I
know of your longstanding involvement in the community. I
wonder what you have done as mayor, as a community leader, to
educate about the advantages of immigration, about the impact
on the fabric and economy of your community and in favor of the
reforms that you have suggested this morning.
Mr. Roefaro. Well, in our community, like my fellow mayor
here, change is always difficult and acceptance is difficult.
And we actually tried to change that perception, and we have
done that over the last 3\1/2\ years that I have been mayor.
And I find that the immigrant population that has come really
does not ask you for anything. They just want to be accepted. I
will give you an example.
The Bosnian community, they needed a place of worship, and
we had an old church behind our City Hall, and we had somehow
ended up with that church. And before I became mayor, they were
going to tear down this church to the tune of about $1 million.
We ended up selling this church to the Bosnian community for
$1,000, and the day that we closed on that, they had probably
75 to 80 workers stripping the roof, doing all kinds of work,
and this church was 4 feet underwater. They wanted a place of
worship, and they made it their mosque. Today it is one of the
leading mosques in the whole area between, you know, Syracuse
and Albany and Rochester. And all they wanted was a place of
worship.
When it was first going up, there was talk, you know, and
people would really say, ``What is it?'' They did not
understand it. They did not understand the Muslim faith. They
just thought that they would stereotype it.
Well, these people have been so integrated into our system
now that they have become prominent people in our
administration. I have my deputy engineer who is a Bosnian. I
have a fellow that runs our urban interagency that is a Bosnian
fellow. We have so many that are now opening businesses and
that are really becoming really part of the community because
we welcomed them into this community, and they showed what they
are all about, instead of just being in the background.
So we are bringing it to the light, and, you know, we have
a Buddhist temple there, also. So I go to them. I do not wait
for them to come to me. I go to them.
Senator Blumenthal. That is a very powerful story, and I
want to thank you and Mayor Bridges as well for your leadership
by opening your home. I do not know how many times you have
done that, but that is truly impressive, and thank you very
much for being here as well.
My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Schumer. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
I would like to first just follow up with Mayor Roefaro.
The Bosnian community, as I understand it, has 6,000 people or
so in Utica. They have revitalized the downtown. The economy is
better. Job creation numbers in Utica are considerably better
than in many of the other areas because of immigrants, and the
Bosnian community being the largest. Tell us, how did the
Bosnian--just give us a little more. You mentioned one
immigrant from that community and now the church. But give us a
little more history. How did they come? How has the community
grown? Give us some context and texture as to how the Bosnian
community did for your city what the Somalian community did for
Mr. Gilbert's city?
Mr. Roefaro. Right. Well, the first Bosnian I think came
about 20 years ago, and they came to the refugee center in
Utica. We have a very big refugee center in the city of Utica.
And the Bosnian population has really--they are probably the
oldest immigrant population that has come in most recent years
to Utica. They have really assimilated into our city very well.
They came into--you know, they are contractors. They are
craftsmen. They have become part of the fabric of Utica. So
many have opened businesses--restaurants. There is a restaurant
probably on every corner, and they are all busy. They have
great food. They actually have become part of our system where
I say that they will become the leaders of tomorrow. You will
have a mayor that will be Bosnian eventually in the city of
Utica. You will have leaders--and we are trying to get--there
are some running for our Common Council right now. So we are
trying to integrate them into our system to make them part of
our system because they are like my ancestors when my father
came over. My father was born in Italy. When they came over,
they needed someone to show them the way. But once they were
shown the way----
Chairman Schumer. What made them choose Utica?
Mr. Roefaro. Well, the Srebrenica massacre, which I spoke
about a year ago in Syracuse, New York, the exodus of the
Srebrenica massacre for the Bosnian population, they----
Chairman Schumer. What made them choose Utica as opposed to
another place?
Mr. Roefaro. You know, there is only one other city--and I
do not know whether it is Minneapolis or--I cannot remember
where it is, but I think it is the refugee center how they got
here. That was long before my time. But I did a little bit of
history, and our refugee center really brought most of them in.
Chairman Schumer. And what are the other large immigrant
communities in the city of Utica?
Mr. Roefaro. We have Somali, Vietnamese, Dominican
Republic. We really are a melting pot.
Chairman Schumer. And have the people who have lived in
Utica a long time who are not immigrants seen this as an
economic shot in the arm for the city?
Mr. Roefaro. Absolutely. When I talk to people out in the
community, they actually are thankful that the Bosnian
community came and all the other communities come because we
had--like the Lower East End of our city of Utica, the Bosnian
community has come in, and they do not just buy one house.
Their families come, and they buy blocks at a time, and they
have really restructured those blocks, and they have redone the
houses that were falling apart. They have taken them, put them
back on the tax rolls, and they have made them beautiful.
They have this technique that they use, it is like a
stucco, and so everything that they do is beautiful.
Chairman Schumer. Now Reader's Digest, didn't they call
Utica the ``Second Chance City'' because of this?
Mr. Roefaro. Yes, they did.
Chairman Schumer. And let me ask you, Mayor Gilbert, the
same thing? Do the people who have lived in Lewiston for
generations see the Somalian community as an economic shot in
the arm, as a real help to the community?
Mr. Gilbert. Certainly.
Chairman Schumer. How many Somalians are there in Lewiston?
Mr. Gilbert. About 4,000, and the population of the entire
is about 37,000. Then across the river we have our twin city of
Auburn with about 1,000 Somalis.
You know, this is an old textile city where the mills were
emptied and so on. And so consequently. the downtown, there
were empty storefronts, and now they are occupying a couple of
city blocks of Somali businesses, and they are doing well. They
are starting to buy homes and providing various services. So
they are adding to the economic well--being of the community
because we had all of this housing, available housing, from the
people who used to work in our mills and so on and have moved
elsewhere or have died off. And so we had this available
housing. Now they are filling these apartments, these four- or
five-story tenement buildings where, if they were not there, I
wonder where we would be. And certainly landlords benefit, car
dealers benefit, and so on.
I think they are seeing the benefit of that, and any
differences that there were, these things are settling down.
And so I see it as positive.
Chairman Schumer. And, finally, to Mr. Bridges, Mayor
Bridges, you have mentioned how the farmers really depend on
immigrants and crops are not getting picked, et cetera. What
does the community think? And the city represents the
surrounding area for people who are not farmers, the tradesmen
and teachers and cops and firefighters, do they see the
economic harm that is happening because of Georgia's law? Do
they join you in opposing the law? Is that true in many of the
agricultural regions of Georgia as well?
Mr. Bridges. It is true throughout Georgia. From everyone I
have spoken with--and I have spoken with several mayors as
well--we are recognizing the detriment that this law is causing
throughout the States. Teachers do not have any problems at all
teaching migrant children. In fact, it is a challenge that many
of them embrace. The entire State of Georgia welcomes the
immigrants and their contribution economically and socially.
There are some people who are anti-immigrant who are very
loud in what they have to say, but we do embrace the
immigrants, and we recognize their contribution and their hard
work that they do to provide the vegetables and the fruits for
our tables.
Chairman Schumer. Right. Well, I want to thank all three of
our witnesses here. They have shown there are different sides
to immigration. We need high-tech workers. Microsoft needs
them, Lockheed Martin in Syracuse needs high-tech workers,
cannot find them. But we also have immigrants who come who do
not have the high skills. In both cases, in Bosnian and
Somalian, they came because they were refugees, because of war
that tore their countries apart. And yet they produce real
economic growth and real economic activity as your two cities
exemplify, and, of course, we all know the economic dependence
our farmers have. Throughout upstate New York, our farmers are
always telling me how much they depend--they cannot get native-
born Americans to pick the crops and do the farm work, and they
depend on immigrants.
So the point we are making here today, hopefully, is that
immigration is an economic engine and we need immigration. And,
you know, Senator Cornyn mentioned high unemployment. There is
high unemployment, and certainly we do not want our immigration
laws to have immigrants displace or take away jobs from
Americans. That tends to happen more in illegal immigration
than in legal immigration. And what we are trying to do with
comprehensive reform is stop the flow of illegal immigration,
rationalize the policy of legal immigration so that we can
benefit in terms of jobs up and down the line. And I think all
eight witnesses today at our hearing have shown that.
I very much appreciate, gentlemen, your time and effort,
and so the hearing is now concluded. Again, I want to thank all
of our witnesses. I want to ask unanimous consent to put the
statements in the record of Chairman Leahy, who is very
supportive of our hearing, as well as the following groups that
are supporting basically our thrust to get immigration reform:
the Chamber of Commerce, Compete America, Intel, the American
Council on International Personnel, the Partnership for a New
American Economy, the United Agribusiness League, Conservatives
for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, IIUSA, Third Way,
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the U.S. Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce. They have all submitted statements, and I
am going to ask unanimous consent that their statements be
added to the record.
[The statements appears as a submissions for the record.]
Chairman Schumer. Without further ado, again, thanking our
witnesses, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]