[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4820-S4830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2611, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2611) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
Pending:
Ensign/Graham modified amendment No. 4076, to authorize the
use of the National Guard to secure the southern border of
the United States.
Chambliss/Isakson amendment No. 4009, to modify the wage requirements
for employers seeking to hire H-2A and blue card agricultural workers.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the majority leader and the
Democratic leader are still in the Chamber, I wish to express my
gratitude to each of them, as well as the managers of the comprehensive
immigration reform bill that is in the Chamber and that we have been
debating this week, for the progress we have made. I think it has been
in the greatest traditions of the Senate that we have taken a
controversial subject where debate that has been long overdue and we
have had an open and honest and vigorous debate on many important
amendments that have helped improve the bill, from my perspective. But
this is the Senate at its best. While we know we will not always agree
with one another, there is one place on the face of the planet
[[Page S4821]]
where we have the freedom, we have the opportunity to have debates and
try to build consensus.
I know there are some--and I was just on a talk show moments before I
came to the floor, and the person hosting that had expressed some
frustration about what has been going on here, and I encouraged him to
think of this according to the old adage that watching legislation
being made is somehow like watching sausage being made.
Parenthetically, I note sometimes that we maybe give sausage-making a
bad name, but in all sincerity the important thing is that we are
having the debate, we are having votes, and majorities are ruling. I do
not necessarily always like the outcome of those votes. Sometimes I do.
But the fact is that we are having votes and we are letting the process
move forward. Hopefully we will have a comprehensive reform bill passed
by the Senate, a bill we can be proud of and will then be sent to the
President's desk for consideration and possible signature. My hope is
we will continue to have this process move forward and have an
opportunity to call up additional amendments.
I wanted to speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer not
today but at a later time. I have previously spoken about this issue.
The compromise bill that is currently in the Chamber contains
language that prohibits information sharing and restricts how the
Department of Homeland Security may use information submitted in
applications. The text in the underlying bill is exactly the same as
that contained in the 1986 amnesty legislation. Twenty years ago now,
we know from hindsight and experience, those provisions led to hundreds
of thousands of ineligible aliens receiving green cards. The amendment
I intend to offer does not eliminate the confidentiality provisions. It
does, however, state that once an individual's application is denied,
there is no longer a need for confidentiality, and that information may
be shared with law enforcement personnel, that may be necessary to
investigate fraud and bring others to justice.
The underlying bill says that information furnished by an applicant
can only be used to make a determination on that specific application.
The information may also be used in connection with a criminal
investigation or prosecution. But if the Department of Homeland
Security identifies a pattern of fraud, it would be prohibited from
using that information in one fraudulent application to deny another
application that was submitted as part of a criminal conspiracy. The
same restrictions were included in the 1986 legislation program, and
that caused widespread fraud and abuse. There is no reason to treat
legalization applications any differently from any other immigration
application submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.
The New York Times described the 1986 agricultural worker amnesty as
``One of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against
the United States Government.'' Although the estimated size of the
illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was
only about 300,000 to 400,000 out of a total agricultural workforce of
2.5 million, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under the program.
Let me make sure that is clear. Although the estimated size of the
illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was
only 300,000 to 400,000, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under that
program.
The confidentiality provisions of the 1986 act were credited with
causing the widespread fraud and abuse. In 1999, the General Counsel
during the Clinton administration testified before the House that ``the
confidentiality restrictions of the law in the 1986 amnesty also
prevented the Immigration and Naturalization Service from pursuing
cases of possible fraud detected during the application process.''
In 1995, a man by the name of Jose Velez, the ex-president of LULAC,
was found guilty of immigration fraud after he filed fraudulent
applications under the 1986 amnesty. The task force that brought down
that particular conspiracy resulted in guilty pleas or convictions of
20 individuals who together were responsible for filing false
legalization applications for in excess of an estimated 11,000
unqualified aliens. In other words, 20 people pled guilty to falsified
legalization applications for in excess of 11,000 unqualified aliens.
Between March of 1988 and January 1991, Velez and his coconspirators
submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent applications. In connection
with the 1986 legalization program, there were 920 arrests, 822
indictments, 513 convictions for fraud and related criminal activity.
(Mr. Isakson assumed the Chair.)
Mr. CORNYN. This is not about history. This is about what is also
happening even today. I am reminded of the report of the 9/11
Commission and the studies and investigations we conducted after 9/11
which indicated a consensus that we had to bring down some of the
stovepipes that prohibited information sharing in our intelligence
community. Essentially this amendment is designed to bring down the
stovepipes that have prohibited the Department of Homeland Security
from sharing information that would lead to discovery of evidence of
massive fraud in our immigration system. I hope that when the amendment
is called up, when we have a chance to vote on it, my colleagues will
support it.
But again, this is not just about history. This is about what is
happening today. I have in front of me a news release dated May 19,
2006, from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency entitled
``Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy.''
This is out of Atlanta, GA, which may be of particular interest to
the Presiding Officer. Several individuals--it looks like six
individuals were indicted by a Federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on
charges of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside
unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements in
applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security. They
were charged in separate counts for making false statements in
applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security, and also
there were two counts of money laundering.
The U.S. attorney in charge described this conspiracy in these words:
The six individuals indicted in this conspiracy were
involved in a multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who
were illegally present in the United States to file
fraudulent applications for amnesty with the Department of
Homeland Security. The defendants, as part of a money making
scheme, allegedly assisted immigrants who did not meet
legitimate amnesty program requirements to file applications
containing false statements. This office--
The Office of the U.S. Attorney--
is committed to vigorous investigation and prosecution of
schemes such as this one as part of the President's
initiative to strengthen enforcement of our Nation's
immigration laws.
The U.S. attorney goes on to say:
Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal
immigration system for personal financial gain, they used
their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the
immigrant community.
That statement was attributed to Ken Smith, special agent in charge
of the Office of Immigration and Custom Enforcement. That office is
located in Atlanta. He goes on to say:
This case highlights the importance of ICE's close
partnership with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to
dismantle criminal document and benefit fraud networks.
Mr. President, I will not read the rest of this news release, but I
will ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks this document
be made part of the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
So, Mr. President, we have had a productive week in the Senate
dealing with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Each of us
has perhaps won some and lost some in terms of the amendments we
favored or disfavored, but I think it has been a good week for the
Senate, a good week for the cause of securing our borders and restoring
public respect for our laws. At the same time, as we continue to be a
nation that does welcome legal immigration, one of the things that I
will say that I hope we continue to focus on is what in our immigration
system really is in America's best interest--recognizing that we can't
simply open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come to the
United States or we would be swamped by a veritable tsunami of
humanity.
[[Page S4822]]
We should continue to be a welcoming country but one that respects
not only our heritage as a nation of immigrants but also respects our
heritage as a nation of laws. Indeed, at this time, we are trying to
export that heritage as not only the Democratic country that respects
democracy but one that respects the rule of law in places such as
Afghanistan and Iraq, and so we need to tend to business here at home.
But as we continue to debate and discuss and hopefully pass laws that
are in America's best interest and improve our system, we will look at
exactly what type of legal immigration we should encourage. I would ask
my colleagues to not only focus on the massive low-skilled immigration
that is part of this underlying bill but also focus on those people who
have special talents and special educational credentials and
experience, highly skilled individuals whom we ought to encourage to
come to this country and, if they want to become American citizens,
provide them an opportunity to do so. When we look at the costs
associated with the underlying bill, what we have learned is low-
skilled, poorly educated individuals are more likely to be a financial
burden on the American taxpayer than those who are highly skilled and
highly educated. Indeed, those highly skilled and highly educated legal
immigrants whom we ought to be encouraging to come to the United States
and become part of this great country are people who are going to help
America to continue to be competitive in the global marketplace. That
includes, of course, foreign students who study at our universities.
I personally believe that when someone graduates with one of these
important advance degrees in math, science, engineering, the very sorts
of skills and talents which will make America competitive, we ought to
give them preferential treatment when it comes to their application for
legal permanent residency and putting them in line for American
citizenship, if that is their wish.
I hope what is not lost in all of this debate about immigration
reform is America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants, our
heritage as a nation that believes in the rule of law. What that means
to me is we ought to be encouraging legal immigration that is in the
best interests of this Nation while discouraging and preventing illegal
immigration by comprehensive border security, interior enforcement,
worksite verification, and sanctions against employers who cheat, while
we also create a legal immigration system to deal with the workforce
needs and our prosperity in America going forward.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
May 19, 2006.
NEWS RELEASE
Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy
Atlanta, GA.--Emma Gerald, 54, of Kennesaw, Ruy Brasil
Silva, 49, of Roswell, Marcos Amador, 19, of Atlanta, Denise
Silva, 45, of Roswell, Douglas Ross, 29, of Marietta, and
Hudson Araujo, 27, of Brockton, Massachusetts, were indicted
by a federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on charges of
conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside
unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements
in applications presented to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Emma Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, and Marcos
Amador are charged in separate counts for making false
statements in applications presented to DHS. Emma Gerald is
also charged with two counts of money laundering.
Ross was arraigned today in Atlanta. Araujo was taken into
custody by federal agents in Brockton, Massachusetts, and had
his initial appearance in federal court in Boston today.
Denise Silva is a fugitive being sought by federal law
enforcement authorities. Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, and Amador
were indicted on related charges on February 14, 2006. Gerald
was released on a secured bond and Ruy Brasil Silva and
Amador are in custody. Their arraignments on this indictment
have not yet been scheduled.
United States Attorney David E. Nahmias said, ``The six
individuals indicted in this conspiracy were involved in a
multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who were illegally
present in the United States to file fraudulent applications
for amnesty with the Department of Homeland Security. The
defendants, as part of a moneymaking scheme, allegedly
assisted immigrants who did not meet legitimate amnesty
program requirements to file applications containing false
statements. This office is committed to vigorous
investigation and prosecution of schemes such as this one, as
part of the President's initiative to strengthen enforcement
of the Nation's immigration laws.''
``Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal
immigration system for personal financial gain, they used
their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the
immigrant community,'' said Ken Smith, Special Agent-in-
Charge of ICE's office of Investigations in Atlanta. ``The
case highlights the importance of ICE's close partnerships
with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to dismantle
criminal document and benefit fraud networks.''
According to United States Attorney Nahmias, the charges
and other information presented in court: Emma Gerald, the
pastor of a local church, held herself out as a consultant to
aliens seeking amnesty in the United States. Gerald did
business under the name ``EJ Consulting Services.'' Under a
program known as the ``Catholic Social Services/Lulac/Newman
Amnesty Program'' (the ``CSS Amnesty Program''), certain
aliens who were illegally in the United States were eligible
to apply for temporary residence in this country. In order to
be eligible, an alien had to meet certain requirements,
including having been present in the United States unlawfully
from prior to January 1982; and having previously applied for
temporary residence but having been turned down because the
alien left and re-entered the United States without the
permission of the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS).
Gerald conducted meetings at Marietta churches to solicit
aliens, largely Brazilian nationals who were illegally
present in the United States, to apply for the CSS Amnesty
Program. Ruy Brasil Silva was a pastor of one of the churches
and made it available to Gerald for the meetings. Marcos
Amador acted as a translator and assistant to Gerald. Gerald
advised the Brazilian aliens that the Department of Homeland
Security did not have records to establish whether an alien
met the CSS Amnesty Program requirements as to length of
residence in the United States or previous unsuccessful
application for amnesty, so that they could apply even if
they did not qualify. Over the course of the scheme, Gerald
charged the aliens between $300 per person/$500 per married
couple to approximately $600 per person/$1100 per married
couple. For an extra fee, Gerald and Amador would provide the
aliens with letters falsely stating that they met the program
requirements as to length of residence and previous
application for amnesty. Douglas Ross, Gerald's son, attended
the meetings, assisting Gerald with preparing and collecting
applications and collecting money from the aliens.
Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, Amador, Ross, and Denise Silva
conducted similar meetings in Florida, collecting money from
Brazilian aliens to assist them in filing fraudulent
applications. Gerald, Ross, and Hudson Araujo conducted
meetings in Brockton, Massachusetts.
The United States is seeking forfeiture of Gerald's
Kennesaw, Georgia home and several vehicles, including
Gerald's Mercedes-Benz automobile, on the grounds that they
were purchased with proceeds of the criminal scheme or were
used to facilitate the criminal activity. The United States
is also seeking forfeiture of several bank and investment
accounts, on the grounds that criminal proceeds were
deposited into the accounts.
The indictment charges one count of conspiracy against all
the defendants, one count of false statement against Gerald
and Amador, one count of false statement against Gerald and
Ruy Brasil Silva, and two counts of money laundering against
Gerald. The conspiracy charge and false statement charges
each carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a fine
of up to $250,000. The money laundering charges each carry a
maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to
$250,000.
This case is being investigated by special agents of the
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and postal inspectors of the United States
Postal Inspection Service.
Assistant United States Attorneys Teresa D. Hoyt and Jon-
Peter Kelly are prosecuting the case.
Members of the public are reminded that the indictment
contains only allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent
of the charges and it will be the government's burden to
prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for
up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. REED. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S4823]]
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4038, As Modified
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
4038, previously agreed to, be modified to reflect a technical change
in the instruction line of the amendment. The modification is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 4038), as modified, is as follows:
On page 264, strike lines 10 through 20.
On page 370, line 21, strike ``this subsection'' and insert
``paragraphs (2) and (3)''.
Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had some good debate this week
on the immigration bill that is before the Senate. We made some
progress toward improving the legislation. I think to some degree the
good and decent and deeply felt views of the American people are
beginning to be heard--but not clearly enough in this body. We still
need to listen to them more.
I submit that on every single issue the American people have it
right. We discussed last night and debated last night some key issues.
I know one of the supporters of the bill described this as a difficult
issue, complicated, emotional, but we are trying to do something. He
suggested that was courageous and we should be not afraid to move
forward. Well, we do need to move forward but we did not have to move
forward on this bill. We could have moved forward, as the House did,
taking the first step to ensure that we have a legitimate legal system
of enforcement that works, and then we could move on to the
comprehensive solution of what to do with the illegal alien population
and the future immigration policies of the United states. We can do
that separately, or we can try to do them together at the same time.
I was inclined to believe that we weren't ready to deal with this
issue comprehensively. That is why I thought the House's idea wasn't so
bad. But it was complained about on this side, with great moral
superiority, that their approach to security first was somehow bad and
not worthy of respect.
I think it is very worthy of respect. In fact, I think this bill
would show that we probably would have been better off to have followed
their lead. This is the great Senate of the United States of America,
and we are not here just to do something, anything. We are here to do
the right thing. We are here to confront one of the big issues of our
time, and to do it in a way that is consistent with our laws and our
values and the values of the American people. That is what we should
do. That is our responsibility to our constituents, to our posterity,
to the heritage we have been given. That is absolutely our
responsibility.
I will tell you, and I will say it plainly, and others may not, but
this legislation fails miserably in that regard. It is unworthy of the
Senate. It should never pass, it should never become the law of the
United States of America. It does not meet our highest ideals. It does
not create a system that is consistent with the national interest of
the United States.
Let me say with regard to the work that we did this week, I will sort
of run down and point out some of the things that occurred, some good
things occurred, and some things that were not so good that occurred.
Also, in my time today, I want to move from that to a more thoughtful
discussion of what any good immigration reform bill should have in it,
what issues it should deal with, and point out how this bill is
defective in the most fundamental way it lacks the basic principles of
any good immigration reform bill.
We started out on the floor of the Senate with a 614-page bill , My
staff, Cindy Hayden and her team, discovered that the bill on the floor
that they were urging passage of would have brought 78.7 to 217 million
legal immigrants into the United States in 20 years, equal to 26 to 66
percent of the entire total population of the United States of America
of 298 million. That is what we were being asked to vote on.
I believe we were correct. We were the only group, apparently, to
have ever researched this, and I think that includes the authors
themselves.
Those who were opposed to this bill were being accused of wanting to
lock up people and close our borders and not let anybody in and do all
these horrible things, which was never the case. We simply said let's
talk about a good policy for America.
We attempted to deal with the important issue of making sure
enforcement will happen. I raised it in the Judiciary Committee and got
a modest amendment on this issue passed. The Presiding Officer, Senator
Isakson from Georgia, went right to the heart of the issue and drafted
a very good amendment that I thought had a very good chance to pass,
and should have passed, and it deals with this fundamental problem,
most clearly demonstrated by what happened in 1986.
In 1986, they passed comprehensive amnesty and immigration reform.
Those who were in the Senate then--I was not yet here--and remember the
debate know it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. It was supposed to
create a legal immigration system, and we were told we would not have
to do this again. Those concerned about it warned, however, one amnesty
begets another amnesty. The more you go down that path, the easier it
is. This sends a signal to the world that we are not serious about our
laws. In that one bill in 1986, we passed the amnesty, and we
authorized a number of things to occur that were supposed to result in
an effective legal system. Well, the amnesty became law just like that.
But the other things that the enforcement side took--the required
funding and congressional assistance, and mostly Presidential
leadership--never occurred. It didn't occur.
So Senator Isakson came up with an amendment this week that I thought
was pretty good. It basically would have ensured that the borders were
secure before any of the amnesty provisions could be implemented. They
are telling us constantly that the borders are going to be made secure
if we pass this bill, so let's hold their feet to the fire and say this
time the American people want to have a little hold on you before you
grant amnesty again. Let's be sure the borders are secure first, that
Congress won't forget that goal after the bill passes. Without the
Isakson language, the amnesty provisions in the bill take effect the
day the bill is signed. But we didn't accept that amendment. Instead,
we will remain in the position where we hope that we will have
immigration enforcement in the future. We accepted the Salazar trigger
amendment that simply requires the President to determine that the
bill's amnesty and guest worker provisions will ``strengthen the
national security of the United States.''
That is not sufficient. That doesn't go to the meat of the issue like
Senator Isakson proposed. And why was it rejected? Why was it rejected?
I have had a suspicion and a growing suspicion over the years that this
Congress is always willing to pass some bits of legislation dealing
with immigration. But if any piece of legislation hits the floor of the
Senate that will actually work, that is when the system pushes back
and, for one reason or another, one excuse after another, it never
happens. So I think this would have worked, and that is the reason it
got rejected.
What else occurred, good and bad, through the week? My amendment was
accepted 83 to 16 to put 870 miles of physical barriers on the border,
370 miles of fencing, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers--a good
amendment, consistent with what the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the President said they desired. We probably need more, but we need at
least that. It was accepted.
Amusingly, I saw in the paper--I wasn't there when the final vote was
counted, but I saw in the paper that 17 Senators changed their votes,
mostly on the other side, the Democratic side, after it became clear
the amendment was going to pass. Many Senators, for months, have been
rolling their eyes
[[Page S4824]]
and said we don't need fences. That is not very good. That is not a
good thing to do. Fences will work, trust me. They will work. But that,
of course, begets the objection, I suspect. But when we voted, it was
interesting that we ended up with a vote of 83 to 16, suggesting that
the American people are beginning to have their voices heard a little
bit in Congress.
Then perhaps the most significant amendment that was adopted was a
Bingaman amendment. It would reduce the incredible escalating number
under the new H-2C visa foreign worker program. Under the original
bill, the numbers were unbelievable. The amendment reduced the total
number of immigrants that would have come into the United States if
that bill became law from 78 to 217 million to a lower 73 million to 93
million. That was a strong vote for that provision and we make progress
in reducing the numbers.
However, this bill, S. 2611, still enacts a four- to fivefold
increase over the current levels of legal immigration into America over
20 years. Current law would bring in 18.9 million over 20 years. Did
you get that? This bill, if passed today, even after the Bingaman
amendment passed by a substantial majority, would still bring into our
country three, four, five times--at least four times, I suggest--the
number of people who can come into our country legally today.
That is a huge number and will lead us at the end of 20 years to have
the highest percentage of foreign-born Americans this Nation has ever
had in its history, including the great migration period between 1880
and 1925. It is a colossal bill still in terms of those numbers.
The Senate also accepted, after rejecting it 3 weeks ago when the
bill first came up--the bill was pulled from the floor because we
couldn't get a vote on Senator Kyl's amendment to make certain that
criminals are not given amnesty under the bill. It was a simple
amendment to say criminals, felons, couldn't be given amnesty, and we
couldn't get a vote on that amendment. It was so bad apparently, the
Democratic leader was so determined to block this vote, that Senator
Frist pulled the bill down.
As time went on, we were ready to vote on that amendment, and they
accepted it, not graciously, but they took it. It certainly makes sense
that we do that.
The Senate rejected the Vitter amendment by a substantial amount--66
people voted against it--which would strike the bill's provisions that
adjust the illegal alien population to lawful permanent residents, the
so-called amnesty provision.
The Senate narrowly accepted the Cornyn amendment, 50 to 48, which
protects U.S. jobs for workers by making sure the H-2C visa holder can
only apply for green cards if they have actually worked--they are
supposed to work--if they actually worked for 4 years and their
employer attests they will still have a job after they are given a
green card, and the Secretary of Labor determines there are not enough
U.S. workers available to fill the job position.
Then the very next vote, a companion amendment by Senator Kennedy
which was adopted with 56 votes, gutted that protection, in effect, and
it no longer requires that the employer promise to continue to employ
an H-2C alien.
Federal benefits was a key vote yesterday. The Senate shockingly
rejected the Ensign amendment 50 to 49--close, close vote--that would
have prevented aliens from collecting Social Security benefits as a
result of their illegal entry into the country, their illegal work, and
their illegal presentation of a Social Security number. Fraudulent
presentation of a Social Security number and criminal entry into the
United States, and this bill provides they can draw Social Security. We
had an amendment to clarify that issue, and the Senate voted to keep
the provision in the bill.
Social Security is in trouble now. Thankfully, the Senate accepted
the Cornyn amendment that assessed a $750 fine to illegal aliens that
will go into the State impact assistance account, and the money will be
used to help the States pay for costs that are connected with
immigration.
The Senate accepted an amendment by Senator Inhofe on a 63-to-34
vote, 34 Senators voting no, stating that English is a national
language and strengthening the citizenship test where one is supposed
to know something about the Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and crew,
and the history of the United States. It would strengthen that a bit.
But 34 Senators voted against that amendment. It was adopted. We are
moving forward.
My good friend, Senator Cornyn, who is as positive and effective a
Senator as we have had join us in quite a long time, said that we made
a lot of progress this week. I say we made some progress. I want to
share with my colleagues why I think there are serious problems in the
legislation.
Last week, I detailed 15 loopholes in the bill that is before us
today. Of those 15, maybe 4, 5, 6 have been fixed in significant part,
leaving 8 or 9 that have not been fixed. I will not go over those at
this time, but I do want to say that those concerns I raised last week
are very real. They really need to be fixed. Those loopholes need to be
closed. Those concerns need to be dealt with. I am prepared to debate
or negotiate with anyone about the importance of those points I made
last week. I think most American people would agree with me on every
single one of those issues.
Today I wish to talk about a more broad concern with the bill and its
potential impact. I again emphasize that we are sensitive to the good
and decent people who come here. Those of us who are unhappy with the
way this bill is written are not against immigration and not against
immigrants; we are not for closing our borders and not for not having
anymore immigration. That is all foolish. We are not for arresting
people by the tens of thousands and hauling them out of the country.
That is not going to happen. But, I don't think the view of the House
of Representatives, that we ought to deal with enforcement first and
demonstrate that we can create a lawful and workable system first, is
immoral, impractical, or radical. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Secondly, I am not aware of any Member of Congress who favors hostile
or extreme measures in dealing with the issues today. We want
immigration to occur. We will expect to see some increases in
immigration, but we want it to be legal, under policies and terms that
are appropriate for the United States of America.
The American people are with us on this issue. They expect us to
create an immigration system that works and is legal. They don't want
to reward those who break into our country with every single benefit we
provide to those who come legally. To me, that is, indeed, amnesty.
The American people do not think big business and advocacy groups
should be able to meet in secret and create some great design of a
plan, foist it on the Senate, and that we can't consider it, review it,
and reject it if we need to.
That is basically part of the debate we had last night. It was
argued: Well, there has been a great compromise. Sessions, you and the
American people, your views weren't part of it, but we know better for
our country than you do. And if you amend this section, the compromise
will collapse, and the bill may not get passed. You can't change this
bill.
The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus
as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big
print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been
saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He
told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary
workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker
program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am
saying is not true.
Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language,
``Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers''--
what it really says is if you come into this country under this work
visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder--a legal
permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last
night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the
supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the
[[Page S4825]]
truth about your bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then
write it to actually do another?
Why are you putting in here ``temporary guest workers'' when there is
nothing ``temporary'' or ``guest'' about them. Why? Are they afraid the
American people will find out what is really in that provision which
would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman,
perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind
of temporary program is that?
How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job;
you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day
you arrive, your employer can seek a green card for you. If you
qualify--and most will--then that green card will be issued, and you
are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal permanent resident
within weeks or months of entry into the country, and within 5 years of
being a legal permanent resident and having a green card, you can apply
for citizenship. If you know a little English and don't get arrested
and convicted of a felony, you will be made a citizen by right under
that provision. So it is not a temporary guest worker program. We need
one in the bill. It is not there. That is what the President says he
supports.
The American people don't think we ought to huddle up, have some
groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the
American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about
legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages
of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand
has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.
In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest,
the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of
Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge
majority of the American people have been right on this issue for
decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been
derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been
listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy
and political class, we wouldn't have 11 million to 20 million people
in our country illegally today.
The American people have been concerned about this issue--and the
polls have shown it--for 20, 30 years. So what is our national interest
and what policies should we pursue? What about border workforce
enforcement? Any good bill would include a good enforcement system at
the border and workplace.
We should focus our policies on higher skill needs, college degrees,
instead of low-wage workers. Serious consideration should be given to
how we welcome new immigrants into the American world and have them
reach their fullest and highest aspirations. We are not able to do that
under the current system, and we certainly should fix this illegality
and actually provide some mechanism for a large number of people to
come out from the shadows, as they say.
We should consider seriously the impact of wages on the American
workers, and we need to consider what other developed nations, such as
Canada, Britain, and France are doing. How are they confronting these
questions? Why don't we do that? I will tell you why we don't. It is
because this bill is totally incompatible and inconsistent with the
principles those advanced nations are following.
All of this must be done with the full recognition that America
cannot accept everyone who might want to come here, and that is just a
fact.
I recently took a trip with Chairman Specter of the Judiciary
Committee to South America. We were provided State Department news
clips. There was an article about a poll in Nicaragua that said 60
percent of the people in Nicaragua would come to the United States if
they could. Sixty percent of the people of Nicaragua said they would
come to the United States if they could.
We next stopped in Peru, and I asked one of the officials at the
Embassy about that poll and asked him did he think it was true. He said
they just had a poll in Peru earlier this year--I mean this year, both
these polls were this year--earlier this year, he said, and 70 percent
of the people of Peru said they would come to the United States if they
could. What about the whole world? We have people who want to come from
India and China and South America and Brazil and Haiti and the
Dominican Republic and the Middle East and Bangladesh and Taiwan and
the Philippines. These are good people. I am not putting any of them
down. I am just saying for an absolute fact--an absolute fact--that we
cannot accept everybody who would like to come here. Therefore, we
should decide how to create a system that makes the laws enforceable
and then enforce them, and we ought to seek to bring in people who
provide the greatest asset to America.
So we will be confronting another issue we need to confront, and that
is chain migration. Once a person comes in and they get that green card
and then they become a citizen, once they get the green card, they can
bring their wife and children. They may have six children. And the wife
gets to come and the children get to come. Then, in addition to that,
once they become a citizen, they can bring their parents and their
brothers and sisters, even if it is a large number of them. They can
bring, through this chain migration system, huge numbers of people who
may not be what our Nation needs at the time. Maybe there is a glut in
the skills their brother or sister has. Maybe those things would
mitigate against them. And maybe there is some college graduate in the
Dominican Republic who is anxious to come but does not qualify, cannot
get in because the visas have been used up by this chain migration
process, which makes no sense and needs to be altered.
Also, we need to consider the impact on the Federal Treasury. Even as
a green card holder and as a citizen, you are entitled to an earned
income tax credit. Most of the people legalized or coming in under this
bill would be lower wage workers, and the earned income tax credit for
those who qualify amounts to a tax refund to a lower wage worker on
average of $2,400 per worker, per year. So they would qualify for the
earned income tax credit, their parents would qualify for SSI health
care, Social Security benefits as we have in this bill, welfare
benefits, education, and health care. The bill calls for instate
tuition for illegal immigrants. That is still in here via the DREAM
Act. Those kinds of things are in this bill.
So we have had a week of some productivity, but we have much more to
do in creating a bill that is fundamentally worthy of this Senate and
that will deal in an effective way with where we are heading in the
future.
Mr. President, I see my colleague from Washington, Senator Wyden. I
don't know how long he wants to speak. I have some more to go. If he is
not going to be particularly long, I would--
Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield just briefly for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was going to talk for about 15 minutes or
so. I would be happy to wait for my friend from Alabama, if he would
like to finish. How much longer do you intend to speak?
Mr. SESSIONS. Probably longer than that. A good bit; probably 30 or
so minutes more. So I would be pleased to yield to the Senator if he is
ready and pick up after that. I think I am going to be closing out the
Senate when we finish up, anyway.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would be ready in just a couple of
minutes to start. If my colleague would like to go on for a couple of
additional minutes, and then I will speak, and then he could return.
Mr. SESSIONS. Sounds great.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank him for his courtesy.
Mr. SESSIONS. So one of the most significant issues facing America
today is how many immigrants will be allowed to enter the United States
and become citizens. I am not sure we have given any thought to that.
As I said, when we announced at the beginning of this week that the
numbers could be as high as 200 million people allowed into the
country, I don't think most Senators had any idea that was so. My staff
worked that up at about the same time the Heritage Foundation did their
own independent analysis, and they were very close in numbers to ours.
I hope that played a role in our ability
[[Page S4826]]
to pass a bill the next night that did bring those numbers down. As I
say, we are now looking at about 73 million to 93 million more people
legally coming into our country in the next 20 years.
I wish to emphasize this: Don't think those are small numbers. We are
a 300 million-person country right now, and I am talking about 4 times
the legal immigration rate presently existing in our country. Under the
current law, we would have 19 million come in over 20 years. Under this
bill, we would have 73 million to 93 million coming in by a short 20
years from now.
I asked the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on April 19 to
examine the full impact of the legislation and what we could do about
it. I asked that we examine what the estimated numerical impact is of
the immigration proposal and how does the future chain migration of
family members impact the total immigration numbers under the proposal.
I asked that we have hearings on what will be the legislation's
estimated fiscal impact on the Federal Treasury as well as State and
local governments; how will the entitlement programs such as Medicaid,
TANF, and food stamps be affected; what level of immigration in the
future is in our best national, economic, social, and cultural
interests; and what categories of immigrants in terms of skills and
education should compose the overall level of annual immigration. I
stated that we need to have a national discussion on this issue. The
American people need to be involved.
We had one committee hearing, and it lasted about 2 to 3 hours and
three or four Senators came. The individual provisions of the bill have
never been examined by any committee. Let me state that again. The
individual provisions of the bill on the Senate floor have never been
examined by any committee. But every witness who came to that one
hearing acknowledged that high-skilled immigrants are good for the
economy and that low-skilled immigrants are a net drain on the
economy--on average, not every single one. Many of them turn out to be
productive and go on and be productive. But on average, from an
economist point of view, based on the data we have, they tend to take
out more in taxes than they pay in taxes.
I sent a second letter asking for further committee hearings. I
wanted to examine the numerical figures in the bill, the fiscal impact,
but we never had any hearings on that.
So we did our studies on the legislation, and we came out with these
numbers. We did our calculations, and we believe the numbers would run
from 80 million or more people coming in over 20 years to perhaps 200
million people. Two hundred million would be two-thirds of the current
population of the United States of America.
So we worked hard on those numbers. I don't think they were ever
seriously challenged. This is the way it ran. Under current levels of
legal immigration, there would be 18.9 million people coming into the
country. If we had passed this legislation as it originally was when it
hit the floor, we would have had 78.7 million at a minimum coming in--4
times the current level of immigration--and it could have hit the
maximum of 217 million, according to our calculations--about 11 times
the current level of immigration. So those are huge numbers. I think
they caused great concern.
After the amendment Senator Bingaman offered was passed and it took
out that 20-percent-per-year escalator clause on the 325,000-person
guest worker program per year--under this new program, if you hit that
325,000 one year, automatically the next year's limit was 20 percent
more, automatically the next year would be 20 percent more, and
automatically the next year would be 20 percent more. I think that
would have sent a clear signal to the entire world that the United
States was going to accept huge numbers of immigrants, and I believe we
would have had applications flooding in and it would have been a very
serious problem. We did pare that back to 200,000 per year without any
20 percent increase over 20 years, and that made the huge difference I
just mentioned. So now about 73 million to 93 million will come in over
20 years, 4 to 5 times the current rate.
I submit that is still far too large a number. We have had no real
serious national discussion about what impact that would have on
working Americans, what impact it would have on our welfare and our
cultural ability to assimilate and welcome foreign visitors and workers
who come to our country, and I think it would cause us great
difficulty. So we still need to talk about that.
I ask my colleagues and those in the media, how much have you heard
this discussed? How many people in the Senate have actually discussed
and debated and acknowledged how huge a change this is and whether it
is the kind of change we should carry out? Has it even been discussed?
Oh, but they say, we have to pass something. We just have to pass
something and get it off our plate. You know, the Senate has a lot to
do. We are busy. Let's just move on it. Let's just show courage. Let's
just move it on and get something to the House.
Oddly, some of the people who have been making the most fun and
complaining about the House of Representatives for their enforcement
approach are now justifying and asking us to pass the bill on the basis
of, well, it will get better after we go over to the House. They tell
me to not be so worried about all of these provisions because the House
Members will never agree to it and we might make the bill better in
conference.
That is kind of an odd argument to make. If you are so holy and so
righteous, why don't you come down here and defend these numbers they
tried to slip by 3 weeks ago without a single amendment being
considered by the Senate. They tried to move that through here.
Finally, it blew up and Senator Frist pulled the bill down, insisting
that at least there be some amendments considered as we move this piece
of legislation forward.
So, Mr. President, in a few minutes I will share a few more remarks
on some of the specific concerns I have involving this philosophy of
the bill in a few moments. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Wyden are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I yielded the floor to Senator Wyden a
few moments ago, and I wish to complete some thoughts.
I documented without any real dispute that the provisions in the bill
before the Senate today will increase legal immigration into our
country by an extraordinary amount, by four to five times the current
levels. That is a huge increase.
At the same time, we have done the research on it, and I will not go
into the details, but the programs that allow most of the people to
come into our country favor low-skilled workers. We think from 70 to
90, maybe 92 percent of the workers who will come in under the
provisions of the bill in the Senate today will come in as low-skilled
workers. That is very significant because it is quite clear from every
professional, independent, pro-immigration economist who has analyzed
it that low-skilled workers do not tend to pay as much in taxes as they
take out. They become a net drain on the Treasury of the United States.
That is an important issue. If we are going to do comprehensive reform,
why haven't we discussed this issue? I ask my colleagues and those who
promoted the legislation before the Senate today, has that been
discussed with the American people? Have we had extensive hearings in
committees on this question? The answer is no.
In fact, if you read the bill, you will discover there has been a
studied and carefully carried out plan to conceal how many people will
come in under the temporary guest worker programs when, in fact, what
they mislabel as a
[[Page S4827]]
temporary program is in fact a permanent worker program that leads on a
direct path to citizenship in fairly short order. I am talking about
the future immigration programs in the bill here. I am not talking
about the other 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who may claim amnesty
under this bill.
If we are going to do a comprehensive plan, why don't we think first
and foremost about what our Nation needs, what the implications are for
immigration, how it has enriched us in so many ways in the past, how
many wonderful, decent people come here. But we also need to ask
ourselves, what are the limits of immigration? What are the aspects of
it that could be better handled? We need to think these things through
in a careful, legitimate way, focusing on the legitimate national
interests of the United States of America, because it is not our policy
and cannot be the policy of any nation to allow immigrants into their
nation solely on the basis that it is good for the immigrant.
I don't want to be harsh about this. I am not being unkind. We want
to have immigration. I will support an increase in legal immigration
over the current levels if it is a reasonable increase focused in the
right direction and promotes the interests of the United States. We
will have more coming in, but we need to ask the question of how we
should do it, who should be allowed to take advantage of the limited
number of slots we can legitimately bestow on those who come here.
It cannot be their choice, but there seems to be talk here that
reminds me of entitlement talks, rights talks, that someone in a
foreign nation around the world has some sort of right to come to
America, an entitlement to come to America, that we cannot deny them.
Where did that come from? That is not true in any other nation in the
world. It is an example of muddled thinking.
It is Mr. Barone who wrote a book called ``Hard America, Soft
America.'' Sometimes we need to just have clear thinking. Some things
you just need to make a decision about. One of those is the number of
people who can come into our country is limited. A great nation, a wise
nation, wants to make sure the people who come into the country best
suit and best foster that nation's progress. How simple is that?
Let's talk about the national impact of low-skilled workers versus
high-skilled workers. I asked for a series of hearings. We got one
hearing. It went 2 or 3 hours. We had good professors, but only three
or four Senators showed up. I have some of the testimony from that
hearing and some other information relevant to that important question
that I will read from in a minute. Shouldn't we be talking about those
things? We are talking about a lot of issues that may be hot buttons
and of concern, and I am pleased we have a fence at the border, but at
the same time, the great Senate of the United States needs to think
about the future.
This is what we learned. The economic experts who testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2006, at the immigration
economic impacts hearing agreed that low-skilled immigrants unavoidably
depress the wages of American workers in low-skilled job categories.
They held, it is fair to say, a common consensus. Some are pro-
immigration, and they argue benefits and other things, but they all
held a common consensus that high-skilled immigrants are better for the
economy than low-skilled workers. Low-skilled workers are an overall
net drain on the economy.
Professor Richard Freeman, the Herbert S. Ascherman professor of
economics at Harvard University, testified, among other things:
One of the concerns of when immigrants come into the
country is that they may take some jobs from Americans or
drive down the wages of some Americans. Obviously, if there
are a large number of immigrants coming in, and if they are
coming in at a bad economic time, that's very likely to
happen.
He went on to talk about the impact of high-skilled workers. He
noted:
I think America makes a huge gain, and much of the gains
are to us. Some of the gains are to the immigrants, of
course.
You will notice he says that more than once. He talks about who
actually gains from immigration. For low skilled workers who come here,
it is a gain to them because they are coming to a better and freer and
more prosperous country. But the real question our Nation should ask
is, How does it benefit us? He says:
There are gains to us from high-skilled workers and to the
immigrants.
He goes on to say:
Having a lot of immigrants coming in at the top, it does
make it more difficult for some young Americans to advance in
those fields, but we can recompense the young Americans with
other policies.
He goes on to note:
It's very important to understand that the biggest
beneficiaries from immigration tend to be the immigrants,
particularly if you are a low-skilled immigrant.
He adds this:
If you are a poor immigrant, your income in the United
States will be six to eight times what it is in Mexico.
Professor Dan Siciliano, director of the program in law, economics,
and business at the Stanford Law School, a pretty good law school, is a
pretty strong advocate in favor of immigration, but he talked about the
question of the cost of low-skilled immigrants. He said:
If you look at the fiscal/economic impact, which is the
Government's coffers impact, it might be true that lower-
skilled workers, just like all of us, have a negative impact
on the fiscal bottom line. And so we may have a modest net
negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United
States, not just immigrants. This is not unique to
immigrants, documented or undocumented.
What he was saying is that low-skilled American workers who are not
trained, not skilled, and not educated, will draw more from the Federal
Treasury than they put into it. That is one of the reasons we work so
hard to train and provide skills to American workers, so they can rise
and be successful and reach their highest possible aspirations. But
when that does not occur, it does have a cost to the economy. Why would
you want to import large numbers who don't have skills when there are
large numbers of people with skills who want to come here?
Dr. Barry Chiswick, head of and research professor at the Department
of Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said this:
What about the impact on low-skilled American workers? How
does a large amount of new labor into the country impact
American workers of low skill?
He was blunt. He told it like it was. He said:
There is a competition in the labor market, and the large
increase in low-skilled immigration that we have seen over
the last 20 years has had a substantial negative effect on
the employment and earnings opportunities of low-skilled
American workers.
He goes on to add:
The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the
effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities
of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the
United States.
We have some Members on the other side who want to bring in five
times as many low-skilled workers as we bring in today. Do they want to
dispute the professor from Chicago?
He goes on to say:
The last amnesty [in 1986] actually encouraged additional
low-skilled immigration in anticipation of further amnesties.
I went back and saw the summary of the debate in 1986. People who
opposed that amnesty predicted that we were going to be driven
inevitably to future amnesties and we should stand on principle and fix
the system in 1986. This professor clearly agreed that their prediction
has come true.
He goes on to add:
Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high-
skilled workers have risen substantially. The real earnings
of low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased
somewhat.
That is a sad statement. It is a sad event, if it is true, because
people are doing well today. The economy is booming. But as I will
point out to my colleagues in further remarks, the wages for low-
skilled workers are not increasing. They are not sharing in the
benefits of the progress and prosperity this Nation is enjoying at this
point. We have an agreement here struck between the Chamber of Commerce
and some political activist groups to move this bill through, and they
are not concerned sufficiently about the interests of decent American
citizens who may not have the highest skills. These Americans, however,
are entitled to a decent wage and their wages should be going up in
this time of prosperity.
Dr. Chiswick goes on to say:
We need to provide greater assistance to low-skilled
Americans in their quest for better jobs and higher wages,
and one of the
[[Page S4828]]
ways we can help them in this regard is by reducing the very
substantial competition that they're facing from this very
large and uncontrolled low-skilled immigration that is the
result of both our legal immigration system and the absence
of enforcement of immigration law.
I lay this on the table, like I have done before. If people want to
disagree with Professor Chiswick, let's have them down here and explain
that. Professor Samuelson and a lot of others agree with him, and the
numbers tend to confirm that. When you have a shortage of labor, a
laboring man's value goes up because he can demand a high wage. When
you have a large amount of low-wage people willing to go out and take a
job, it can drive down wages an American worker can expect to get when
they go out and seek a job. I don't believe we are going to repeal the
law of economics for labor. It has always been there, and it always
will be.
Dr. Chiswick also shared with us his thoughts about the cost of low-
skilled immigrants, and he notes:
Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government
benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes.
I am not condemning anybody. We should not condemn anybody. We have a
nation that is generous and wants to help people who have difficulties
getting by in life. We are always going to do that.
But he says:
Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government
benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes. So in terms of
the public coffers, they serve as a net drain. Whereas high-
skilled immigrants have the opposite effect. And the
consequences of low-skilled immigration are pretty much the
same whether they are in legal status or illegal status,
although the net effect on the public coffers is actually
more negative for legal immigrants who are low-skilled
immigrants.
Did you hear that? Once they become legal and get a green card or
become a citizen, they are entitled to more benefits than when they are
illegal. But in fact, both of them turn out to be net drains on the
coffers of the United States, according to Professor Chiswick.
He goes on to say:
And if you do the analysis separately for high-skilled and
low-skilled immigrants, what you would find is that even in a
period of surplus, low-skilled immigrants would be paying
less in taxes than the burdens that they would be putting on
government expenditures.
Mr. Siciliano, who is more pro-immigrant and sees it in a more
positive light, interjected and said:
Truthfully, just like low-skilled U.S. workers.
And Professor Chiswick responded:
Just like low-skilled natives, yes.
Mr. Siciliano responds:
Yes, in no different way than low-skilled U.S. workers.
And Mr. Chiswick replied:
But low skilled natives are here. And low-skilled
immigrants, do we want them in?
In unlimited numbers, I would add. What about high-skilled
immigrants? What did Mr. Chiswick say about that?
Two-thirds of the immigrants coming into the United States
annually come in under kinship criteria.
That is chain migration.
Only about 7 percent are skill tested. For only about 7
percent do we really ask the question what will you
contribute to the American economy?
He goes on to say:
We need to alter our immigration policies to increase the
focus on attracting high ability, high-skilled immigrants.
What we want to do is attract those immigrants who would have
the largest positive contribution to the American economy,
and they will be highly skilled immigrants, immigrants with
high skills in literacy, numeracy, scientific knowledge,
technical training. Current immigration law pays very, very
little attention to the skills that immigrants bring to the
United States.
That is his statement. It is something we need to think about as we
pass a bill that pretends to be comprehensive.
Professor Harry Holder, also testifying at our hearing, who was
associate dean and professor of public policy at Georgetown University,
another pretty good university, said this about the impact of low-
skilled American workers:
There are jobs in industries like construction that I think
are more appealing to native born workers. And many native
born, low-income men might be interested in more of those
jobs, although employers often prefer the immigrants,
especially in residential construction. Now, absent the
immigrants, employers might need to raise those wages and
improve those conditions of work to entice native born
workers into those construction, agriculture, janitorial,
food preparation jobs.
I believe that when immigrants are illegal, they do more to
undercut the wages of native born workers because the playing
field isn't level and the employers don't have to pay them
market wages.
He was then asked about future immigration policy, and he said:
I agree with Professor Chiswick. We are not ready to open
the floodgates of immigration. We will continue to have
controls on immigration. And we need to find cost-effective
and humane ways to limit those immigrants.
So we didn't get five hearings. We didn't get a national dialog. We
had one hearing for a few hours and a number of professors, pretty much
those professors who consider themselves pro-immigrant, and that is
what they told us.
Let me share a few more points on that subject from another
individual. The Washington Times, on May 8, published a column by Alan
Tomlinson. He is an official with the U.S. Business and Industry
Council Educational Foundation. He went back and did some studies and
dealt with this allegation that without ever increasing flows of
immigrants, representatives of numerous industries have warned their
sectors will literally run out of workers and the economy will
collapse. He was not so impressed after he did some studies. He said:
Most statistics available show conclusively that far from
easing shortages, illegal immigrants are adding to labor
gluts in America.
Think about that. He says that we don't have a shortage, we have a
glut.
Specifically, wages in sectors highly dependent on
illegals, when adjusted for inflation, are either stagnant or
have actually fallen. When labor is genuinely scarce and too
many employers are chasing too few workers, businesses
typically bid wages up in the competition to fill jobs. When
too many workers are chasing too few jobs, employers
typically are able to cut wages, confident that beggars can't
be choosers.
Then he checked the Department of Labor statistics. He says this:
The Labor Department data revealed that the wage-cutting
scenario is exactly what has unfolded recently throughout the
economy's illegal immigrant heavy sectors.
Then he talked about restaurants. We hear there are not enough people
to work in restaurants. Illegal immigrants comprise 17 percent of the
food preparation workers, 20 percent of cooks, and 23 percent of
dishwashers. What did he find?
According to the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, through inflation-adjusted wages for the broad
food services and drinking categories, wages fell in real
terms 1.65 percent between 2000 and 2005.
If there is a crisis to get cooks and dishwashers, how are they able
to cut salaries? How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that
salaries went down? This is one of the areas where we have the most
numbers of illegal immigrants.
He then goes on to talk about the hospitality industry, which
includes hotels. They say we have to have a person who puts that
chocolate on your bed every night and makes up your bed and comes in
and puts your toiletries in a line for you, whether you want that or
not. You have to have them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data,
according to him, who studied them, show that inflation-adjusted wages
fell nearly 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2005. So hotels are booming, and
they are building new hotels, and they say they cannot get workers.
Why are wages not going up? Perhaps if they pay a little more money
to decent American citizens, they might be able to get more to work.
They may have to charge $180 instead of $170 a night for a room. Is
that going to destroy the American economy? I think not. Maybe the
average American worker would be better able to participate in the
prosperity that is going on.
He talked about the construction industry. He says that,
interestingly, from 1993 to 2005, wages in that sector only increased 3
percent. That is 12 years. The wages, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in the construction industry area only increased 3 percent
in 12 years. From 2000 through 2005, at the height of the housing boom,
inflation-adjusted wages actually fell 1.59 percent. So we have this
crisis in workers, and wages are falling.
He then talks about food manufacturing. They make up a big part of
that. Let me point out that even in the construction industry, the
illegal immigrants make up only 12 percent of
[[Page S4829]]
the workforce. So this argument that you cannot get anybody who is
native-born to work in construction is bogus. The one thing that hurts
me the most when I hear President Bush say it is when he says these are
jobs Americans won't do. I reject that. He should never say that. These
are good jobs, honorable jobs, filled by honorable American people. In
the construction area, almost 90 percent are American workers, and
there is nothing they won't do. They may not do something because they
don't get enough pay or benefits or retirement, but the jobs themselves
are noble contributions to America. They go out and build something--a
wall, drywall, a roof on a house--and that is a lot better than some of
these lawyers and other people who contribute very little, I submit, to
the net economy.
They talked about the 14 percent of the workers in food
manufacturing, including animal processing. That includes chicken
plants, slaughterhouses, and beef-processing plants. You have heard
that we cannot get workers there. Pew Research says that illegals make
up 27 percent of workers in that category. That is the highest sector,
it looks like, according to this. What happened to their wages from
2000 to 2005? They say they cannot get people to work in the chicken
plants. That is what they say in Alabama--they cannot get workers and
we might have a real problem without the illegal workers. If so, how
did adjusted wages fall 1.4 percent during that period of time?
He goes on to note that examining more closely the pattern within the
2000 to 2005 period provides compelling evidence that illegal
immigrants have been used deliberately to force down wages. In most
industries that used illegal immigrants heavily, inflation-adjusted
wages rose modestly during the first years of the current decade. Yet,
soon after, they dropped significantly.
What about the guy who wrote the textbook on economics, Robert
Samuelson? I think he would be considered a liberal. Robert Samuelson
produced an op-ed on May 17, 2006, this year. He deals directly with
the question of immigration. This is what he said:
The central problem is not illegal immigration, it is
undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants,
whether legal or illegal. Immigrants are not all the same. An
engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the
American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On
average, an engineer will assimilate easily.
He quotes favorably Professor Chiswick, and I just quoted from his
testimony before the hearing. This guy has written books on economics.
He quotes the same quote I just gave, I believe. I will not repeat
that. He quotes Mr. Chiswick's comments concerning the fact that low-
skilled immigrants tend to pay less in taxes. They receive more
benefits, such as income transfers, the earned-income tax credit, food
stamps, public schooling, and publicly provided medical services. He
quotes this from Mr. Chiswick, too: While low-skilled immigrant workers
may raise the profit of their employers, they tend to have a negative
impact on the well-being of the low-skilled, native-born population and
on the native economy as a whole.
Mr. Samuelson adds this:
Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. It is
politically inexpedient to do so. We can be a lawful society
and a welcoming society simultaneously, to use the
President's phrase, but we cannot be a welcoming society for
a limitless number of Latin America's poor, without seriously
compromising our own future and indeed the future of the many
Latinos already here. Yet, that is precisely what the
President and many Senators, Democrat and Republican, support
by enforcing large guestworker programs and an expansion of
today's legal system of visas. And in practice these
proposals would result in substantial increases in low-
skilled immigrants.
What are other countries doing? I will wrap up with these thoughts.
What are other nations around the world doing as they consider their
immigration policies?
In Australia, immigrant applications are considered under either the
general migration program, which includes skilled or migrant spouses
and those sponsored by family members already settled in Australia, or
the humanitarian refugee program. For fiscal 2004-2005, the Australian
Government set a goal of 120,000 migrants, far less than our number;
42,000 places for family members; 72,000 for skilled business migrants;
and 13,000 for the humanitarian and refugee program--though actual
arrivals were just over 123,000.
Under the skilled migration program in Australia, applicants are
given points for different criteria. In the fiscal year 2004, the pass
mark for general skilled migration was 120 points. So they have a
points based system. As it turned out that year, you had to have 120 or
more or you were not approved. Points were awarded for age--lower age
tends to be better--skill, English language ability, specialized
skills, job offers in demand fields, or completion of an Australian
university degree. If a foreign student comes here and finishes at the
top of their class at Georgetown or the University of Alabama, they
have to leave for at least 2 years. Somebody can come in here for a
low-skilled job and get a green card the first day they come in. How
silly is that? But that is what Australia does. They give 5 additional
points for a capital investment in Australia of at least $100,000.
Australian work experience, fluency in the Australian community
language, and skilled occupations are given various points.
What about Canada? They accept six major categories of immigrants:
skilled and independent workers, business immigrants, provincial
nominees, family class, international adoptions, and Quebec-sponsored
immigrants. Refugees are also counted in immigration statistics. They
do not have a country-based or worldwide quota, but they establish
annual targets. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 236,000 people were
accepted for permanent residence in Canada; 113,000 were skilled,
62,000 family, 10,000 business, 6,000 provincial nominees, and 32,000
refugees. There is a pretty good mix there. Far higher--over half of
that number clearly are people with high skills, high education, and
business capability.
The strictest preference system is used in Canada for skilled workers
and is based on a point system. Under the current system, applicants
must obtain at least 67 out of 100 points and have at least 1 year of
work experience within the past 10 years in a management occupation or
in an occupation normally requiring university or technical training,
as identified by the Canadian occupational classification system.
Points are awarded for education, languages, employment experience,
age, employment, and adaptability. So they have standards. In our
system, people come in basically under entitlements. If you meet this
standard, you get to come in regardless of your skill.
What about France? Two days ago, France's lower House of Parliament
approved a new immigration bill supported by one of the top Cabinet
members. The Parliament approved a bill that would allow the country to
selectively choose which foreigners can live and work in that country
and would require that immigrants learn the French language. You know,
they care about that French language. We need to care a little more
about the English language.
I remember when Chirac walked out of the European Union conference
because a Frenchman, in speaking to the delegation, spoke to them in
English. He was so offended that a Frenchman would speak English at an
international conference, he left. That is a little bit much, I think,
but I don't think there is anything wrong with a nation that is proud
of its language and wanting to preserve it.
So this French bill could make it easier for the country to screen
out poorly educated immigrants in favor of highly skilled workers.
It would tighten restrictions under which immigrant workers can bring
their families to France. That is chain migration. You get to bring
your family no matter what skills they bring to the Nation. It would
abolish the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency papers
after living in France for 2 years. So in a way, it abolishes amnesty.
It abolishes the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency
papers, even after they have lived in the country for 10 years. The
bill passed by 367 to 164 and will be debated in the French Senate next
month.
An article I happened to catch on the airplane the other day in the
Economist, a London-based newspaper, said Americans are nativists, not
internationalists. Why don't we talk about some of these EU countries
that are supposed to be so progressive? This is
[[Page S4830]]
what the Economist wrote on May 6 describing the background of France's
immigration policy and the reason for their legislation:
Until the mid-seventies, immigrants to France came to work. Since the
law was tightened in 1974, the inflows have changed. Today, only 7,000
permanent workers arrive each year, down from over 107,000 in the late
sixties. Three-quarters of legal immigrants to France are family
related. Not skill related, family related.
France has a low proportion of skilled immigrants. France's
Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, argues ``that under the
pretext of protecting jobs at home, France has created a
system that let's in only those who have neither a job nor
any useful skills.''
How about that?
The Economist article goes on to describe an immigration bill that
Mr. Sarkozy has put before the French Parliament this week, which
addresses that very problem.
Mr. Sarkozy's proposal, in many ways, simply follows the
practice of other countries, notably Australia, Canada,
Switzerland, as well as Britain and the Netherlands. In each
case, the policy is based on a recognition that there is no
such thing as zero immigration, and that a managed, skill-
based immigration policy will not only control inflows, but
will also bring benefits to those countries.
Madam President, we have focused on a lot of hot button issues, some
of which are very important, but we have not given serious thought to
the fundamentals of what we are doing here, and what impact it will
have on our country. We are not giving any thought to what the
Netherlands, what France, what Britain, what Canada, and what Australia
are doing. We are not in any way following their model. In fact, we are
ignoring the testimony of some of our Nation's most prestigious
economists on those issues.
As a result, we have a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation on
the floor of the Senate. It should never ever become law, and it is a
sad day when those who are supporting this legislation are reduced to
quietly going around and suggesting: Don't worry about it being so bad,
we just have to do something and maybe the House of Representatives
will save us.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________