[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 163 (Saturday, December 17, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2602-E2603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT 
                                OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 16, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under

[[Page E2603]]

     consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the 
     immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, our Nation has long been a beacon for the 
dispossessed and downtrodden around the world who come to our shores 
for a shot at achieving financial security, personal security, and to 
fulfill their human potential, the very essence of the American dream. 
Our Nation was built on the sweat and ingenuity of immigrants. My 
father's side emigrated from Italy, and my mother's side came from 
Ireland. We should be proud of this heritage.
  However, a nation that does not have control over its own borders is 
a nation that cannot claim to be sovereign. We need to know who is 
coming into our country, and we need to be able to keep out those who 
are not authorized to enter. The status quo, with 500,000 or more 
individuals entering the U.S. illegally every year, including untold 
numbers from countries of concern, meaning countries in which radical 
Islamic terrorists are prevalent, is not acceptable.
  Prior efforts by Congress to control and rationalize immigration, 
including the reforms enacted in 1986 and 1996, have failed. One of the 
primary reasons these reforms have failed to stop the flow of 
undocumented workers and the exploitation of immigrant labor is the 
lack of meaningful employer sanctions. I believe the crux of the 
legislation under consideration today, in addition to enhanced border 
security provisions, such as more agents, improved technology, and 
cracking down on document fraud, is that for the first time Congress is 
imposing tough employer sanctions, which will decrease the incentive to 
exploit immigrant labor. H.R. 4437 would double the fines for employers 
who hire undocumented workers to a minimum of $5,000 for a first 
offense and up to $40,000 for subsequent offenses. H.R. 4437 would also 
require employers to verify an applicant's eligibility for lawful 
employment with immigration and Social Security officials.
  These enhanced employer verification provisions are one of the 
reasons why the powerful business lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, some of whose members regularly hire low-wage exploitable 
immigrant labor, are opposing the bill, but also one of the reasons why 
I support it.
  Many business and immigrant rights organizations, along with some in 
organized labor, have raised the concern that H.R. 4437 does not 
include guest worker provisions.
  I have serious reservations about the guest worker proposals that 
have been proposed by the President and in various bills in Congress. 
Very little has changed with respect to guest worker programs since I 
came to Congress. They continue to be a source of worker exploitation. 
When I was first elected, I fought a small group of government 
contractors in the forestry and reforestation industries who were 
abusing their workers. A recent series in the Sacramento Bee newspaper 
documented that abuse of immigrant labor continues to be widespread in 
guest worker forestry programs. The new guest worker proposals are 
unlikely to improve that situation.
  Guest-worker programs have also historically been used to break 
unions. The meatpacking industry is a prime example. The meatpacking 
industry broke the unions by bringing in low-wage immigrant labor. Once 
the union was broken, the industry cut wages and benefits for the 
immigrant workers, sped up conveyer belts, and just generally made 
working conditions miserable. The rate of worker injuries and workplace 
accidents are extraordinarily high. It's taken the industry back to the 
days described in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.
  I am wary of the impact on low-income Americans and low-wage legal 
immigrants from guest-worker proposals. Such proposals threaten to 
increase the low-wage labor pool in the U.S. by millions of workers, 
further eroding the pay rates and working conditions of tens of 
millions of Americans and legal immigrants. The nearly 20 percent of 
Americans without a high-school degree will be particularly hard hit. 
Under the leading guest-worker program in Congress, the number of 
unskilled workers authorized to enter every year would be 400,000. In 
addition, 290,000 higher skilled workers would be allowed in every 
year, nearly double the number in current law.
  The Commission on Immigration Reform, created in 1995 by President 
Bill Clinton and headed by former Democratic Member of Congress Barbara 
Jordan, reported, ``Guest-worker programs have depressed wages'' and 
reduced employment opportunities for ``unskilled American workers, 
including recent immigrants,'' who can be easily ``displaced by newly 
entering guest workers.''
  A study by Harvard University professor George Borjas shows wages for 
Americans dropped 9 percent for high school graduates and 5 percent for 
college graduates in the wake of the unprecedented migration of 
undocumented immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s. Other studies, 
including research by the National Research Council and the Economic 
Policy Institute, show immigrants under ``guest'' worker programs are 
paid 15-33 percent less than American citizens, driving down wages for 
all workers.
  I am also concerned that the administrative burden created by guest-
worker programs will disadvantage immigrants from around the world who 
are now waiting in line for their paperwork to be processed so they can 
enter the U.S. legally. Though they have complied with the law, filed 
all the required applications, provided all the needed documentation, 
and paid all the fees, it will be years before they have legal status. 
My staff and I devote countless hours every week to the plight of 
frustrated legal immigrant husbands, wives, mothers and fathers, and 
children trying to navigate the immigration maze. Families are 
separated for years and years going the legal route, and immigrants 
from the Philippines and Mexico often have to wait at least a decade to 
be approved with no chance to jump to the head of the line.
  H.R. 4437 is not a perfect bill. Far from it. Immigrant rights 
organizations, labor unions and others have rightfully pointed out that 
the bill does not in any way address the 10-12 million undocumented 
workers already in the U.S., no matter how long they've been here or 
how much they've contributed to their local community or the economy. I 
am concerned that the alien smuggling provisions are written in an 
overly broad way that could penalize the everyday actions of social 
service organizations, churches, and others who may provide 
humanitarian aid and counsel to immigrants. Further, a dubious 
amendment was adopted during consideration on the floor that requires 
the construction of $2.2 billion worth of fences along a part of the 
southern border, which, as evidenced by the failure of similar fences 
in Spain and along the Hong Kong-China border, will do little or 
nothing to combat illegal immigration, but will certainly divert money 
from programs that could. Instead, this money could be spent to hire 
and equip 2,000 additional agents for 10 years and to improve 
technologies used to protect the border.

  We need to move this complex and emotional debate on border security 
and immigration reform forward. Although H.R. 4437 is flawed, I am 
voting in favor of the bill because it contains a number of provisions 
that I support related to border security; because this is the only 
immigration legislation the Republican leadership will bring to the 
floor, meaning it is the only opportunity I will have to go on record 
in favor of enhancing border security; and because I expect that the 
Senate will address the major deficiencies in the bill. Immigration 
will be debated again in the House next year after the Senate has 
worked through its own version of immigration reform and border 
security legislation and a conference committee has met and resolved 
the differences between the two chambers bills. I will reserve judgment 
on whether to support the final bill until I see the details.

                          ____________________