Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 83 (Monday, June 9, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 83 (Monday, June 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5075-H5081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[Congressional Record: June 9, 2003 (House)]
[Page H5075-H5081]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr09jn03-83]

IMMIGRATION REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
is recognized for half the time until midnight, approximately 56\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it has been very elucidating listening to
the folks who have such concerns about the possibility of a tax cut
going to people that think they deserve it, and although it is not the
topic of my discussion tonight or my presentation, I still feel it is
worthy of some sort of rhetoric, and that is what we are really seeing,
interestingly, is a discussion of what should be the tax cut policy of
this country as proposed by the Democrats.
That is great. It is great to hear. It is a wonderful thing actually
to hear Democrats say things like we need a tax cut. I am sure they
almost have to gag when they say it, but the reality is we need a tax
cut. It is just not the one that you guys proposed. You guys proposed a
tax cut for the rich and all this and other stuff, but what is even
more fascinating about this, Mr. Speaker, is that we all know, there is
not a single person in this body who thinks, and perhaps I hope very
few people in the listening audience in America who think, that there
would be any tax cut proposal from the other side tonight or any other
time had not we proposed one first.
Does anybody really believe that if the other party were in charge of
the Congress of the United States or the White House that there would
be any sort of tax cut proposal we would be debating? Does anybody
really think for a second that there would have been something that the
Democrats would have said we need a tax cut, because those words do not
emanate freely and easily from our friends on the other side. They are
prompted, they are urged and they come with great difficulty; and so
they say, well, okay, we have a tax cut, we want a tax cut, but in
reality, it is not the one that you guys have proposed.
We will take a tax cut anytime, anyplace, anywhere. A tax cut is
essentially and generally a good thing. Having people pay less of their
hard-earned money for the task of expanded government is a good thing,
I think, and so the fact that we would have even gotten the Democrats
into the position of debating what their tax cut policy would be is a
great, great boon for America. It is a great thing for all of us to
have them try to stand up and defend a tax cut policy that they would
never have put in place in a million years. No one thinks it, no one
believes it, no one has the slightest idea that that would have come
out of the Democratic Party had they been in charge of the Congress of
the United States.
That is part of who we are and what we are all about is reducing the
cost of government to the people of this country; and so they think,
well, we have to figure out a way to attack that. We have to attack the
President. We have to attack the Party, the Republican Party, for doing
this. How do we do it? I know. Let us drag up all of those things that
we have used, time after time after time, somewhat successfully. Let us
always say that it is the rich guys that the Republicans are giving a
break to and it is the poor that are not getting their due rewards, and
maybe they will buy it this time, or I should say maybe they will still
buy it. Maybe we can still get the people who

[[Page H5076]]

believe that, in fact, people should not be, that people do not, in
fact, earn what they attain through the labor and the sweat of their
brow, and that somehow or other everyone in this race of life should
end up at the finish line at the same time.
I used to teach ninth grade social studies at Jefferson County Drake
Junior High, and one time one of my students asked about the difference
between conservatives and liberals and how I would describe that. I
said, I am a conservative and I want you to take that into
consideration when I tell you how I think about that. I said, this is
the way I really do envision our division in our country between these
two major philosophies of the Republicans generally and Democrats
generally. Republicans are generally conservative. Democrats are
generally liberal. Not all, of course; differences on both sides. But
for the most part, you can say this: that if you look at life as a
race, and start at birth, and the finish line is death, and a lot of
things can happen to you in between time, and you are trying to
accomplish certain goals as you move through life, that for the most
part a liberal would say that everyone has to end up at the finish line
at the same time. That is the important role of government, to make
sure that everyone ends up at the finish line at the same time, that
there are no winners and there are no losers; everybody gets there at
the same time.
That is an idealistic approach and idealistic thought and philosophy.
And remember, I am trying to explain this to ninth graders. I said,
then, on the other hand, you have conservatives I think are saying if
the government has any role at all, it makes sure the gate opens up
exactly at the same time and everybody has the same opportunity, and if
government has any role at all, it is to make sure there are no
obstacles in the way, but no one is going to make sure you end up at
the finish line at the same time because if you do that, of course, it
is not a race. Pretty soon, if you do that, everybody walks because why
should you run? It does not matter; we will all be at the finish line
at the same time.
It is true, it can be portrayed as hard-hearted from a conservative
standpoint to say that government's responsibility is to simply make
sure that the gates open on time and that from that point on make sure
that there are no obstacles in the race, and there will be losers,
there will be winners, and people will say how dare you, how can you
accept that? That is, the government should not be in the position of
accepting the idea that there are winners and losers. That is the way
of life.
I wish I could be on an NBA team. I am not tall enough. I am not
capable of it. There are a lot of things I cannot do as a result of
some of the shortcomings, literally and figuratively, that I think I
face. And so no matter how much I would like the government to make
sure I could get on that team, and therefore participate, and want the
government to make sure that I am able to make baskets the same way as
any other member of that team, it does not work that way.
So I think our position is right. I think that in fact in the race of
life, the government has relatively few responsibilities, and that the
most important one is to make sure that the gates open up exactly at
the same time and there are no obstacles in the track and that whoever
ends up at the finish line, some win and some do not, and there are a
hundred different races. We all are better at some things than others.
It is not just where you race. We all accomplish certain things that we
can do better than other people, and that is, again, the way of life.

{time} 2215

We have to accept that. But our friends on the other side of the
aisle keep suggesting that somehow or other we have to say that in fact
all people will end up at the finish line at the same time, and that is
a winning sort of political proposal. People will respond, especially
those who know they cannot make it to the finish line will say, yes, we
should have the government stop everybody else until I get there. But
in the total scheme of things, I do not think that will be the best for
the country. I hope America understands when we start talking about tax
cuts and who should get them and who should not, the reality is that if
the Democrats were in charge of this place, there would be no tax cuts,
there would be tax increases because that is the way they run
government. That is the way they ran it for 40 years. That is why we
are in power, and they are not.
Now I want to get on to the issue that I wanted to address tonight,
and that of course revolves around the issue of immigration and
immigration reform. Tonight I want to talk about a couple of things.
First of all, I want to talk about the impact of legal and illegal
immigration on American society in one particular area, the area of
jobs. A lot of the rhetoric we have heard on the floor and we will
certainly hear over and over again revolves around whether or not the
tax cut package we have just passed in this Congress and signed by the
President, whether or not that will create jobs because we all know
that is an important thing for the country and that is what we all
want.
The creation of jobs, I do not know of a single person in the
Congress who would be opposed to it. Members recognize it is an
important thing for us all, and it will be the stimulus for America in
terms of us getting on the road to economic recovery.
Well, there are various ways to do that; and I believe firmly that
tax cuts do in fact create a stimulus that will improve the opportunity
for many Americans and improve the job opportunities, especially for
millions of Americans. I believe that. But there is something else, Mr.
Speaker, that could be done and that no one, not our side, not their
side, no one wants to talk about, and that is the number of jobs that
would be created if we enforced our immigration laws. That is all. Just
that. Not even impose new immigration laws or try to deal with the fact
that we have got crossing our borders every day literally thousands and
thousands of people coming, low-skilled people who are seeking jobs in
America and getting them by employers who are using these folks and, in
fact, abusing them in many ways.
But if we just enforced the laws on the books, and surprising as it
may be, it is against the law to hire someone who is here illegally.
Now, who does not know somebody who may be or probably is hiring
somebody or is in fact working for somebody in violation of that law.
We all do. We all have anecdotal references we make to instances where
somebody may be here working and they may be here illegally. We all
know that.
Now the first thing we usually hear when we raise the question is the
question of real-world impact on American jobs and employment, and that
these millions of illegal immigrants take only the jobs that Americans
do not want to do. That is a mantra. We have to have people here from
all over the world taking jobs because in fact there are a few jobs
that Americans will not do, and we need all these folks to do the hard
stuff.
I am sure Members have heard that refrain many, many times. If it
were true, the other problems brought about by illegal immigration
would still remain, but we would not be worried about the loss of jobs
or an adverse impact on wage rates. But is it true that illegal
immigrants are taking jobs that no one else would take, no American
citizen? I believe that the weight of the evidence is that it is not
true. I believe there is ample evidence to the contrary. I believe
there is ample evidence that illegal immigrants are increasingly taking
jobs that American citizens would do willingly if wage rates for these
jobs were not artificially suppressed by the ready supply of cheap
labor from so-called undocumented aliens.
Mr. Speaker, about 6 months ago now, there was an article in the
Denver paper, the Rocky Mountain News, and it was interesting because
it was a news article rather than a want ad; but it was a news article
about a want ad and the article was about an ad that had been placed in
the paper by a restaurant in Denver, a restaurant I have visited many
times and know well, it is called Luna Restaurant. It is in an area
where I grew up in north Denver. The article was interesting because it
said Luna Restaurant puts an ad in the paper for a $3-an-hour waiter.
We all know that waiters and waitresses make less than minimum wage
because tips

[[Page H5077]]

are included. So this position was for a $3-an-hour waiter. The article
was in the paper because it was a news story. And what was the news
story? The news story was the day that the article appeared there were
600 applicants for the job.
Mr. Speaker, maybe some of those people, maybe a majority of those
people were here illegally and were willing to do jobs that no one else
was willing to do, but I do not believe that all 600 applicants were
illegal immigrants. I believe a lot of them were American citizens
looking for a job.
It is undoubtedly and undeniably true that illegal aliens will work
for lower wage rates than legal immigrants or American citizens. They
do so because the wage is higher than they would earn back in Mexico,
Guatemala, or other poorer nations. We all understand this, and most
Americans sympathize with their plight. We can admire people willing to
travel thousands of miles and evade the U.S. Border Patrol to get to
Chicago or Philadelphia or Seattle in order to better their lives
economically. There is nothing wrong with that goal in and of itself,
and we can respect it because it is the goal that was in front of all
of our grandparents or great grandparents or however long ago our
family heritage established roots here in the United States.
But there are several things wrong with the consequences of that
behavior; and they need to be discussed even though it is not popular
to do so, even though people get very antsy when you bring this
up. They sort of go, oh, gosh, he is going to start talking about
immigration again. I do not like dealing with that because people might
think I am a racist or a xenophobe, so let us not talk about. Well, it
needs to be talked about.

First of all, one of the consequences of the behavior is that people
are entering our country illegally, and the habit of breaking one law
for economic benefit often creates a disregard for law and a
willingness to violate other laws for personal benefit. And the more we
choose to ignore it, the more we pretend that it is a law that we can
wink at, a law that, gee, I know it is a law, but, and I have heard
that 100 times. If it is a law, but, if it is a law that does not have
importance, if it is a law that is not meaningful, then I urge this
body to do what it should do.
Mr. Speaker, if there are laws in the books in America that are no
longer valid and meaningful, repeal them. I urge this body to actually
address this issue head on and bring a bill forward in this body that
says we will repeal all laws regarding immigration. We will essentially
erase our borders. We will eliminate the Border Patrol, close the
stations, the ports of entry because after all, we cannot control it.
And if people want to come to the United States, for the most benign or
most wonderful reasons, the reasons that we can all applaud, let them
come. Why should we call someone here illegal? Why should we draw any
sort of conclusions about someone who came into this country without
our permission? Let us just let them all come from wherever they want
to come and as many as wish to come.
Now, I want that debated in this House. I want Members to vote yea or
nay to this concept. If you vote ``yea,'' you are for erasing the
borders. You can make that case to your constituents. Try and make that
case. Some of us will be able to do so. Some of us will not be at all
excited about that possibility and will vote ``no.'' I will not vote
for such a bill, of course. I am a ``no'' vote because I do not believe
it is good for America. I will tell Members I am a ``no'' vote on the
issue of eliminating borders. I believe it goes to the very basic, to
the heart of what we call our country, to the heart of national
sovereignty. I will make the case as strongly as I can against any sort
of bill that would in fact invalidate the borders. But that is exactly
what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, every single day.
That is the problem. It is happening, our opponents, the people who
want the elimination of borders, know they can accomplish their goal by
pretending that they support national sovereignty and national
security. They can stand up and suggest that all day long. They do not
want to vote on this idea of whether or not we should erase our borders
because in their heart of hearts many people want to, and many times
they want to for political reasons. They know that people coming into
this country as immigrants tend to vote for one party over the other.
They tend to vote for the Democrats. The other side of the aisle knows
that.
Again, this is not brain surgery we are dealing with here. It is
politics 101. How do they gain supporters, especially when their side
is losing? Where do they look? If the majority of Americans are now
turning to the Republican Party or becoming more conservative and
expressing that, where do the Democrats look for people who will
support their efforts? Where do they look for people who support their
efforts, for greater welfare and expanded government? They go to the
immigrant class coming into the United States.
So it is not unusual, it is not illogical, it is not crazy for us to
deal with it in that way, for political parties to look at it that way.
So our friends on the other side of the aisle see massive immigration
and say, I do not care whether they are coming here legally or not.
They eventually become my voters, so I am for it. So I am going to on
the one side of my mouth I am going to suggest that we need national
security, everybody should come in legally, wink, wink. On the other
side I am going to say we need your help, we need your labor, and vote
for me when you get here, whether you do so legally or not.
On our side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, we
have many Members who look at this whole thing and say there is an
awful lot of cheap labor that is coming into this country, and that is
good for business. That keeps wage rates low, prices low, and what is
good for business, as Calvin Coolidge said, is good for America.
Mr. Speaker, in this case it is not good for America. I would
challenge my opponents on the other side of the aisle and I would
challenge my opponents on this side of the aisle that massive
immigration today both legally and illegally is not good for America.
Now, as I mentioned, the first consequence of ignoring the fact that
people come in illegally and break our laws is that is the wrong way to
start off your citizenship in the United States. Of course it is not
citizenship, your residency in the United States.

{time} 2230

The second consequence of this law-breaking behavior, the consequence
of entering our country illegally, is that they also enter our labor
market illegally. It is this consequence that I wish to talk about this
evening.
I want to ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, some aspects of this
underground labor market that is not getting much attention or
discussion in the press and not much attention by this body or
policymakers in general. In the first place, with the possible
exception of a few agricultural jobs, it is simply not true that
Americans will not do certain jobs because of their low status or
because they involve hard labor. We have done these jobs throughout our
history and well into the second half of the 20th century.
Mechanization of agriculture over the past 100 years has led to a
diminishing need for farm labor and our food is the least expensive in
the world because of this. This trend was well established long before
agricultural interests started relying on migrant labor and becoming
more and more dependent on illegal migrant labor. Fewer and fewer
Americans were needed to harvest our crops and there was an adequate
supply of indigenous labor in the vast majority of cases. Harvesting
peaches and tomatoes and strawberries is indeed very hard work.
Mechanization has taken over in many crops but there is still a need
for some amount of seasonal physical labor in some sectors of
agriculture. Does this require 8 or 10 or 13 million illegal
immigrants? I do not think so.
There is another aspect of this that is very important to understand,
Mr. Speaker, and, that is, when we allow massive immigration of low-
skilled, low-wage workers, we have a tendency, therefore, to screw
around with the market in a way. What we do is actually delay the
implementation of the use of technology to accomplish certain goals.
Specifically I remember when we used to have a bracero program in the
United States. That was a program that allowed migrant workers, mostly
from Mexico, to come in and do

[[Page H5078]]

agricultural labor. And they had to return to Mexico and they could not
bring families. When that program was ended, there was an outcry from
the tomato growers in the United States. There was a massive sort of
rush to legislative remedies. They wanted us to do something because
they kept saying, it is impossible for us to actually do our job. We
cannot possibly grow tomatoes, we cannot harvest tomatoes, without the
help of this kind of labor. So we ended up in a situation where we went
ahead and eliminated this bracero program. And what happened? Did
tomato growers go out of business as they said they would? No. They
were forced to actually invest in technology, to invest in different
kinds of technology and actually develop some sort of mechanized
approach to doing the labor that had been done heretofore by
individuals. So today tomato growers in the United States are far more
productive than they ever were before when they relied solely on
individuals picking tomatoes. Now they can do it with machines, now
they can do it more cost effectively, and they are more productive in
the process.
So when we import massive numbers of illegal workers into this
country, or even legal workers who are low-skilled, low-wage workers,
we need to actually again get involved and kind of skew the
marketplace. We mess up the process that should lead to a development
of greater use of technology and productivity. To the extent that
American workers cannot be found for some seasonal agricultural jobs,
that need can be met by a new guest worker program. I intend to
introduce legislation to accomplish that goal very soon. A well-
designed and properly managed guest worker program would allow migrant
workers to come into this country legally, work as long as they are
needed in jobs that are certified as requiring foreign nationals and
then return to their homes. That is the important part we ought to
remember about guest worker. Guest worker is a program that allows
people to come into the country for a period of time, do a specific
job, and return to their country of origin. That is a guest worker
program. On the other side, you can have people come into the country
and begin the process of becoming a citizen of the United States; that
is called immigration. Two different things.
We are right now by far the most liberal Nation on the planet in
terms of who we let come into the country legally, 1 million, 1.5
million every year. We are also, of course, the most liberal Nation in
the world in terms of who we let come into the country illegally, 1
million, 1.5 million people every year, that we turn a blind eye to. We
do so for the reasons I mentioned earlier, political advantage for the
Democrats, a business interest for the Republicans. And so we ignore
the law.
Once again I go back and say to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, if you want to accomplish your goals and let people into the
country at their desire, not in any way, shape, or form connected to
our needs in this country, if you want to do that to the Democratic
Party, fine. To Republicans, if you want to just have a massive influx
of low-skilled, low-wage workers in order to reduce the cost of labor,
fine, let us tell America that is where we stand. Let us have a bill
that actually eliminates the borders, allows people to come at their
desire, not in response to our need. Let us do that. Let us let
Americans know how you feel about this. Unfortunately, I do not think
we are going to get that bill in this session or the next session,
because I have never seen it introduced by anybody on either side of
the aisle.
And so when the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, talk about
job creation and the need to protect workers in America, I find it
always fascinating that they never ever want to talk about the thing
that would protect American workers to a very large extent, and that is
to actually control our own borders and to allow people into this
country based upon our needs and to determine what those are. If they
are, in fact, needs that can only be filled by low-skilled, low-wage
workers, fine. If that is it, fine. If in reality, quote, no American
wants to do these jobs, then, yeah, they are open to anybody who wants
to come in and work hard and accomplish their life's goals.
What about the jobs in other areas, the so-called low-status jobs
that now employ illegal aliens? What about restaurants and car washes
and leaf blowers and gardeners and carpet installers and hotel and
motel housekeeping staff? These are a few of the typical jobs we are
told that cannot be filled except by illegal aliens who will work for
less money than legal workers or citizens. But should we stop and think
about the statement they will work for less money, because that is
really what we should add to the first part of the statement. There are
jobs Americans will not do, at least for the money someone is willing
to pay them to do it. It is true, but it is half a truth and hides a
deeper reality. The illegal aliens will indeed work for less money
because they can, because they come from a culture where $6 an hour is
more than a living wage, and that family members often pool their
incomes and share living quarters. This is to their credit. I do not
mean to demean their efforts. They are doing exactly what my
grandparents did and our great grandparents or however long ago our
individual families ended up in this country. Most of them came for the
same reason. I do not for a moment mean to demean that particular goal.
But it is only half the story and the half that everyone sees and
understands. The other half is that American workers used to do these
jobs before the supply of cheap foreign labor drove down wage rates
relative to the rest of the economy. In other words, the conventional
wisdom has the story exactly backwards. We do not have 8 to 13 million
illegal aliens in this country because we need them to fill jobs. We
have 8 to 13 million illegal aliens in this country because there is a
ready supply of cheap labor to keep wage rates low. We have that ready
supply of cheap labor because we have an open border policy.
Once again, maybe you can make this case, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is
something that all Americans will agree with. Maybe our friends on the
other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side will in their
heart of hearts say, yes, it is true that we have to keep people in
very low-wage situations because it is good for the economy. I just
want them to make that case to their constituents, that is all. That is
all that I ask. I want them to tell the people who are struggling in
those low-wage jobs that they are there and they are going to be there
for a long time, and there is no real opportunity for advancement
because open borders will keep wage rates low and, therefore, the
economy moving.
Do we need an open borders policy? Not to help our economy, which
would adjust and prosper without the supply of cheap labor, just as I
mentioned earlier in what I described about what happened in the tomato
growing industry. It is interesting how business does adjust and how
the economy does in fact relate to these things called labor shortages.
We would adjust and we would prosper without the supply of cheap labor.
But because it benefits Mexico and maintains good relations with the
Mexican Government and because it benefits the cheap labor advocates in
the Congress of the United States and the political advantage that our
friends in the Democratic Party get because of massive immigration, we
will continue the program. If these workers were not available, if we
did not maintain an open border policy, our economy would adjust and we
would continue to be the most prosperous Nation in the world. The few
companies that must have such low-wage workers in order to compete in
the marketplace will move their plants to the source of the labor. But
our history teaches that most employers will not do this. Denied a
source of below-market cheap labor, employers will generally not move
their operations. Instead, they do one of two things. They will either
mechanize their operations, as agriculture has in fact done steadily
over the past 150 years, or they will raise their wages to attract
American workers or legal workers.
Actually there is another part to this. We will increase
productivity. That is what we have done. Because in reality, no matter
how much we talk about the need for open borders, it is very difficult
to compete in a world in which, today especially, you can move work to
worker anyplace in the world. So how does American labor compete? It is
not, frankly, with just the importation of cheap labor; it is with the
development and the continual increase

[[Page H5079]]

of productivity by the American worker. When this is done across the
entire industry, it does not disadvantage any one employer because all
employers are in the same boat. Costs to the consumer will rise as the
cost of labor rises, but the product will be produced and will be
available on the market. To cite one of the most obvious examples, if
restaurants in New York City and San Francisco and Dallas could not
employ these illegal immigrants as their dishwashers and busboys and
valet parking attendants, they would be forced to pay slightly higher
wages to legal workers. Would they all go out of business? No, they
would not. I respectfully submit that it would not be a calamity for
our economy to have to pay a price for a prime rib dinner that would
move from like $16 to $16.50, and the price of delivery of pizza to go
up 50 percent, if the car wash goes up from $12 to $13, if the price of
a Motel 6 room increases from $34.95 in Lubbock to $36.95.
I recognize that this might be a difficult adjustment for some
people, but we have been through hardships that we endured and we can
endure this one. To offset these temporary adjustments in our life-
style, there would be many favorable things that would happen in our
economy if the supply of cheap labor and illegal labor was cut off. The
first thing we would notice is that our college students could in fact
find summer jobs and part-time jobs year around. Some of the 8 million
unemployed Americans would find jobs in the service industries at a
higher wage than is now offered. As the job magnet disappears, the flow
of illegal aliens across our borders, now estimated at 1.5 million a
year, would stop. This would have some very positive effects on our
economy. Hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and public schools all
across the border States and in many of our bigger cities would notice
a diminished burden on their budgets. As a result, State and local
governments all across the West and South would discover they have
revenues available that had previously been devoted to the needs of a
growing immigrant community. Legal immigrants seeking jobs would not be
competing with people willing to work for below-market wages. The U.S.
Border Patrol and the Customs Service could concentrate all of their
energies on stopping the flow of illegal drugs into our Nation instead
of worrying about the flow of illegal people; people like several
members of my own community in Denver, Colorado; people in my own
neighborhood. One gentleman in particular comes to mind. He is employed
in the high-tech industry, and we will talk about that in a few
minutes, about exactly what is happening there because we have spent
most of the time talking about low-skilled, low-wage workers, but there
is just as big a problem, if not more so, in the area of white collar
workers, high-skilled workers in the United States and the various
programs that we operate to bring people into this country to displace
American workers in this area. My friend is one of those.

{time} 2245

He is an individual that has been out of work for a year or year and
a half in the high-tech industry. He now works a little bit for us, and
at nighttime drives a limousine to keep a roof over his head and food
on the table. If you ask him, you know, when you were a high-tech
worker and in this very high position in this industry that you were
involved in, would you believe that you would be driving a limousine at
night picking people up and taking them to the airport, he would said
no; but it does not matter, because that is what I need to do. That is
what I have to do today.
That is the case for millions of Americans. They are looking for ways
to keep the roof over their heads and food on the table. They will take
jobs. They will take jobs, if available.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the 600 people that applied for that $3-an-
hour job at the Luna Restaurant as a waiter were not all illegal
immigrants. I do not know how many, but I would guess 50 percent were
people who have lived here all their lives. They were American
citizens, and they were looking for a job; and their chances of getting
it were diminished by the fact that so many people are here and working
here and living here illegally.
I want to reiterate, it is not a slam against those people. They are
doing what they need to do, what they want to do, what they have to do
to try to improve theirs lives. I totally understand and relate to
that. I empathize with them in every single way. I know what my
grandparents went through, and I hear this a thousand times, that we
are a Nation of immigrants and everybody came here and worked hard.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time when in America we have to determine what
our needs are, what our needs are, and to what extent we want to
disenfranchise and do things that do not benefit the American citizens
of this country, so as to improve the lot of those people who are not
citizens. How much of what we have in America do we wish to diminish?
How much has to sink in order to allow this other part to rise? This is
something we have to think about. It is harsh. I know that to many
people, they feel that to be something that they would just as soon not
think about, not deal with; but it is important for us to understand
and deal with.
Is it right? Is it okay? If it is, if you believe so, if you come
down on the side that says that we need to in fact allow for markets to
work and simply have as many people who want a job in the United States
to come across the border and get it, if that is true, if that is what
we want, then eliminate the border. Erase the border. Forget about a
border. Allow people to come to this country at their whim, at their
desire. Allow them to come from every country in the world.
Now, what would happen, I ask? Would all of our lives be benefited?
Would everybody in the United States be better off, the people living
here, would they be better off as a result? Would the quality of our
life go up, or would it be diminished? If it would increase, let us do
it. Let us pass the bill. Let us put it on the floor; let us debate it.
To the extent you can make the case to the American public that the
United States should be open to every single person in every single
country who wants to come here, then let us do it.
The thing I just hate, the thing that I rail against, is the idea
that we are going to actually accomplish that goal, but we are going to
sneak it through. We are not going to tell Americans that is what we
want, that is the goal we are trying to accomplish, to reduce
everyone's standard of living in order to accomplish this sort of
idealistic libertarian goal of having markets actually determine all
aspects of our society. Let us just say it. That is what I want from
this Congress. That is what I expect from my colleagues and the
President of the United States. I expect him to tell the truth about
where we are going, about what they want to accomplish, because it is
one or the other. We cannot have it both ways. Either you have
unlimited massive immigration into the country, the elimination of the
borders, or you do not.
There is another very important dimension to this whole debate over
illegal workers, and it is a good news story when you really look into
it and understand it. I am thinking of the role that millions of
American workers play in our Social Security trust fund and the
actuaries for payout to tomorrow's retirees.
One of the arguments frequently heard in this Capitol is that the
Nation benefits from all these illegal workers because many of them do
in fact pay into the Social Security system, but they never gain any of
the benefits. The argument runs that if they are a net-plus for the
system, they will help fund the future payouts for retirees.
A recent research report by economist John Attarian called
``Immigration: Wrong Answer For Social Security'' examines the numbers
and the projects and comes to a different conclusion entirely.

Dr. Attarian's analysis of all the most pertinent research by many
organizations and many pro-immigration advocates shows that in order to
make any significant dent in the long-term deficit projected for the
Social Security system, we would have to quadruple the number of high-
wage immigrants in the technology field, not the low-wage workers who
come from across our borders illegally. Moreover, the actual fiscal
effects of massive illegal immigration are probably negative,

[[Page H5080]]

because the low-wage workers contribute less in Social Security payroll
taxes than the workers they displace.
If you depress the wage rates paid to workers in order to hire
illegal aliens instead of higher-wage citizens, you decrease the net
income of the Social Security trust fund. You do not increase it.
Yet there is another aspect of this labor market that needs greater
attention and some serious scrutiny. We have talked only about the myth
of low-wage jobs that supposedly no one wants to do. There is a growing
problem with higher-level jobs that are now being taken by illegal
aliens and that no one wants to talk about.
This is a strange thing, this public silence about the loss of jobs
in the construction industry, jobs that pay $12, $14 and $15 an hour,
that are being filled by illegal workers.
Please, someone explain to me how it is that contractors cannot find
legal workers to do these jobs? Do you really believe, does anyone in
this body, anyone even in Washington, where the air here is so rarified
that it has sometimes affected all of our thinking and we have a hard
time relating to the people we represent, the working Americans, does
it really occur to anyone that there are in fact many Americans who
will not take $12 to $14 or $15 hour jobs in the construction industry,
and therefore they go begging and we have to import illegal aliens?
The explanation, however, is simple. The jobs that a contractor is
willing to pay an illegal worker $14 an hour to do, he would have to
pay $16 to $18 to carpenters, union workers, brick masons and union
workers. More importantly, when hiring the illegal worker instead of
the American worker, the employer does not have to pay withholding tax
or workman's comp or health benefits. Thus, he reduces his labor costs
by as much as 50 percent by breaking the law.
You may be surprised to learn that this practice is very widespread
in our Nation, especially in the West and Midwest. The Denver Post
recently ran a front page investigative report on this phenomenon. The
investigative reporter revealed that there is a large underground
network of labor brokers who specialize in providing illegal workers
for the construction industry. They provide buses and transport illegal
workers from one site to another when a project is completed. There are
thousands of workers involved in this scheme all across the West and
Midwest.
Two very interesting questions arise when looking at this matter. The
first one is obvious: Why does the U.S. Labor Department let employers
get away with this violation of our labor laws? Why are arrests and
prosecutions so rare?
The second question is not so obvious, but it is equally curious: Why
are the labor unions not objecting to this loss of jobs to their
members? Thousands of jobs, and probably tens of thousands on a
national scale, are going to illegal workers who are not union members.
Where is the voice? Where is the process of the AFL-CIO when union
workers lose their jobs and are displaced by illegal aliens? Where is
the protest from our deficit hawks when the IRS loses millions of
dollars in withholding because these illegal workers are paid off the
books or as independent contractors who do not have to pay withholding?
Where is the protest by the proponents of workers' safety rules and
standards when it is revealed that hundreds of thousands of workers are
not being covered by workman's comp laws because employers are skirting
the law in wholesale fashion, and neither the U.S. Labor Department nor
State authorities are willing to do anything about it?
Where are the Nation's frontline newspapers and news networks? Is
this story not told because it is not politically correct to talk about
it?
I will soon introduce a new guest worker program that will offer a
real and equitable solution to the so-called labor shortage. We will
authorize unlimited guest workers into this country to fill legitimate
jobs that cannot ``be filled by citizens and legal residents.'' If the
employer can demonstrate a real need, if he can offer a job to a
foreign national, then that worker can enter the job market and work at
it for up to 2 years. There will be penalties for fraud, and a part of
the worker's wages will be withheld until he or she returns to the home
country.
This is another issue. We will see other Members introduce
legislation for guest worker programs; and for the most part, they will
be disguised as a guest worker program with the purpose of creating
amnesty for people who are here illegally. This cannot be. This is
absolutely inappropriate. We should never, ever, ever reward people for
breaking the law, whether it is the employer who benefits or the
illegal alien. We should not do that as a Congress; we should not do
that as a Nation.

So if you need to come into this country and if we need the labor, we
should have a legal process for that to occur, a process that
guarantees the rights of the people coming into the country so they are
not abused by the people who are hired by them to sneak them into the
country, the coyotes, the people that packed them into the back of
semis, like in Texas, where they died, 19 of them just recently, or
where they bring them into the country or bring them near the border
and the women are raped and the men in the family are robbed and they
are shoved into the border.
We have testimony from people who have ranches near the southern
border, and at nighttime they can hear the screams of women being raped
by the coyotes who have taken them to this point where the promised
land is just on the other side, but at that point they take advantage
of them in every single way imaginable and shove them into the desert
and they die there by the hundreds.
We can protect them. We can stop them from doing that. We can stop
the coyotes from doing this. We can protect workers coming into the
United States and make sure they are paid at least the minimum wage. We
can be sure they are in fact given the kind of protection that American
workers deserve, that all workers deserve.
On the other hand, we can protect our own interests in this country
and protect the interests of Americans who need jobs. If there are
truly ``jobs that Americans will not do,'' fine, let somebody prove
that; and when they prove it, let them import labor for that purpose.
It is okay with me. But I will assure you that if that test were really
that difficult, if we truly put it out there in that way, prove that no
American wants this job for what you are willing to pay, for what the
going rate is, by the way, not just what you are willing to pay, what
the going rate for this job is, okay, you can bring in a guest worker.
But I guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that most of these jobs that we are being
told would only be taken by people we have to bring in here illegally
would in fact be taken by American citizens. To the extent that is not
true, fine, import workers. Bring them in legally so that they are
protected in their rights and so that our rights are also protected.
There would be penalties for fraud, and part of the workers wage
would be withheld, as I say. The penalties for fraud are important,
because we have to stop the demand side of this equation just as much
as the supply side. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of American
corporations that are taking advantage of our laws, that are importing
workers, that are actually involved in the process, not just of hiring
illegal aliens, but bringing them into the country.
Tysons Foods, Tysons Foods in Arkansas is being prosecuted by the
U.S. Government, and it is a showcase. I really and truly applaud the
Immigration and Naturalization Service for bringing this case, because
I hope people in Tysons Foods, if they are found guilty, actually go to
jail for what they have done, because they are part of, according to
the government's case anyway, Tysons Foods and the executives at Tysons
Foods were actually involved in the importation of illegal workers.

{time} 2300

Well, that even goes one step beyond just hiring someone who is here
illegally, and the people who did that should go to jail. American
corporations who knowingly hire people who are here illegally should be
punished to the fullest extent of the law, and we should not wink at it
and we should not just pretend that it is the problem of the illegal
worker coming into this

[[Page H5081]]

country. He is coming or she is coming for a job. That job is being
offered by an American corporation or an American company or just an
American citizen, and we have to stop that. Each are culpable. When
those people died in Victorville, California, the people who are
responsible for their death, beyond those individuals who put
themselves in harm's way, who decided to actually take the risk of
coming into this country illegally, beyond those people, there is still
more culpability. Part of it goes to those American employers who
enticed these people into the United States. Part of it goes to our own
government and every Member of this Congress who refuses to deal with
the issue of illegal immigration. Yes, it is our responsibility. Yes,
their blood is on our hands.
Mr. Speaker, I state that categorically, that we have, over the
course of the last couple of decades, made it enticing for them to come
to the country illegally; made it illegal to do so, of course, to come
without our permission; but, on the other hand said well, if you can do
it, if you can make it, we will look the other way. So, of course,
millions do, and some of them get caught in this trap, and some of them
die. It is our fault. We share the blame. So does the Mexican
Government for encouraging this flow, for doing everything possible to
move unemployed young Mexican workers into the United States to reduce
their own problems in Mexico and to increase remittances from people
who come to the United States and send money back to Mexico, which
becomes a significant part of their own GDP.
They also encourage the flow of illegal immigrants into the United
States from Mexico in order to have them, as I was told by Juan
Hernandez, who was at that time the head of the ministry in Mexico
called the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States. He said
that it helps them influence our government's policy, the massive
number of Mexican nationals living in the United States helps them, he
said, influence our government's policy vis-a-vis Mexico. So Mexico has
a role to play and is equally culpable for the deaths of the people
that have come across this border and found themselves in horrible
circumstances and died as a result or were harmed in the process.
Mr. Speaker, all of these people have some role to play and some
degree of culpability, and I say to every single one of them, I
challenge you to actually deal with this forthrightly. Stand up in
front of the American public and state unequivocally that what you want
is, in fact, a Nation where there are no barriers to immigration, where
people can come at their will. Say that. It may win. It may win a
majority of the votes in the Congress of the United States and the
President may sign that kind of a bill. I, as I say, am a ``no'' vote,
but it may happen. I just want the debate. I want it to happen in this
body. I want it to be done in a de jure fashion, not in a de facto way.
I know that what we are doing in America today is in fact moving in
exactly that direction. We are eliminating our borders, but we are not
doing it through a legal process; we are doing it in a de facto way, by
looking the other way. And there are many, many bad things that happen
as a result of that desire on our part to look the other way. Well, I
want to force this Congress, I want to force this Nation, I want to
force the President of the United States to look at this straight in
the eye, and say we are going to deal with it one way or the other.
Open our borders or secure them. Those are the only two options open to
us as a Nation. Take your pick. Vote on one side or the other. Let us
get this job done. Let us tell the people where we really stand. Let us
get this problem solved one way or the other.

____________________