[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6637-S6639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we continue to see that special interest 
groups remain undaunted in their efforts to ram through an immigration 
bill that will do real damage to the wages and job prospects of working 
Americans. That is just a plain fact. Consider the economic situation 
we find ourselves in now. Inflation-adjusted wages--that is the way to 
compare wages correctly over time--are lower today than they were in 
1999. This is a steady decline. Actually, new numbers indicate they are 
lower than they have been since 1995. Working Americans are not having 
their wages go up. Their wages are going down. Median household income 
is lower today--median income, which is the best way to account for how 
families are doing--than it has been every single year since 1989. The 
size of the workforce today has shrunk to a 35-year low. We have the 
lowest workplace participation since 1975, and a record number of 
Americans are on welfare, including almost one in six on food stamps.
  But we still have this determination, it seems, by our masters of the 
universe--people who know so much better--that what we really need in 
America is more workers. I would contend it is quite plain--with high 
unemployment and low job prospects, declining workplace participation, 
and declining wages--that what we have a shortage of is not workers, 
but we have a shortage of jobs, and we need to put our people in those 
jobs. That is a very simple concept, and I think it is undisputable.
  That is why I care about this issue, and I think we have to talk 
about it. What we are talking about, remember now, is not the end of 
immigration. We are not talking about anything like that. We are 
talking about maintaining the greatest immigration flow of any nation 
in the world--maybe in the history of the world--with 1.1 million a 
year, plus a very generous guest worker program, where people come in 
just to work. And we can support that, but this bill that passed the 
Senate would have doubled the number of guest workers and increased by 
at least 50 percent--over 1.5 million a year--those coming permanently, 
in addition to legalizing 11 million who entered unlawfully. I truly 
believe that cannot be sustained and that this is good for the vast 
majority of the American people.
  What we are seeing routinely is the one interest that is being 
omitted in all of the debate is the interest of the average working 
American--the average citizen of this country who goes to work every 
day. Everybody else has their interest represented. Everybody else is 
raising money, putting ads on the television, spinning this and 
spinning that, but the average guy is getting hammered by this. It just 
is so.
  Let me cite some of the things that are going on, and I will run 
through this because I think it is important for us to know. Here in 
Politico, September 17, it starts off saying:

       Nancy Pelosi is huddling with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, 
     top labor leaders and former AOL leader Steve Case in 
     separate meetings this week as supporters of immigration 
     reform try to revive the issue.

  After they got so badly hammered by the American people when it 
passed through the Senate, it is now dead on arrival in the House and 
they are trying to revive it.
  The article goes on to state:

       House Republicans bristled when a group of Senators met 
     with outside groups supporting immigration reform and 
     formulated a campaign-style strategy to target more than 100 
     House Republicans over the August recess.

  To try to pound them into submission, I guess.

       Despite the blowback, Schumer, the so-called leader of the 
     Gang of Eight--

  The leader of the Gang of 8, to be frank

     continued to work the phones over the August recess with a 
     clear message: Please get active on immigration and back 
     reform in the Republican-led House.

  The article says he reached out to all his allies to tell them to go 
forward. He said:

       We had a very good August. But I don't think it's dead by 
     any stretch of the imagination.

  Well, I think he does not want it dead and I think he is working hard 
to keep it alive, but somebody needs to make it clear to the American 
people that it is not dead and it could be revived. There are special 
interests out there, traditional Republican allies as well as strong 
Democratic and liberal activists who are pushing for this legislation.
  Our friends say they want comprehensive immigration reform, but what 
does this phrase really mean? What does it really mean? Isn't that what 
we should ask? They want a large increase in future low-skilled 
immigration combined with immediate amnesty for those here illegally 
and a promise of enforcement in the future. And that promise was proven 
to be worthless.
  The first legislation, which stayed on the floor for weeks and went 
through the committee, would only have reduced the illegal flow by 
about 25 percent. They promised it was the toughest bill in history, 
but the Congressional Budget Office--our independent analysis--proved 
it would have only minor impact on the illegality while doubling the 
number of guest workers, increasing substantially the number in terms 
of annual flow of immigrants who want to be here permanently, plus 
amnesty for the 11 million. Instead of what we would normally expect to 
legalize over 10 years--10 million--we would legalize 30 million under 
this bill. That is what they proposed here in the Senate. Well, I don't 
think this is good for America, and I don't think the American people 
want that to happen.
  Notice that the one group not represented in all of this is U.S. 
citizens--the American people. In a recent interview, the President of 
the U.S. Chamber of Congress, Mr. Tom Donohue--a great American, and I 
know him and respect him--said this about what is going on, and people 
who are concerned about this issue need to pay attention because he is 
one of the driving forces. He is meeting with La Raza and meeting with 
the Democrats and Senator Schumer and meeting with others. He wants 
more workers, apparently.

[[Page S6638]]

  Reading from BusinessReport.com:

       An agreement between the national business lobby and the 
     AFL-CIO was crucial to passing immigration reform in the 
     Senate, says U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas 
     Donohue, who spoke today at a breakfast by BRAC. Unions are 
     looking for new members, Donahue says, while businesses 
     need both laborers and highly skilled workers.

  This is a frank statement. I give Mr. Donahue credit. He lays it 
right out there. If you want to know the forces at work here, unions 
believe that if we legalize and bring in more people, they will have a 
better chance of adding union members.

       Unions are looking for new members, Donahue says--

  That is their interest. They have forgotten the interests of their 
workers, the ones who were working and whose average wages have 
declined and who are being laid off--

     while businesses need both laborers and highly skilled 
     workers.

  We can bring in new workers under the current guest worker 
immigration program, and we can deal compassionately with people who 
have been here a long time. We can do that but not with the legislation 
that came out of the Senate.
  Listen to this:

       Donahue says the House doesn't need to pass a 
     ``comprehensive reform,'' suggesting problems could be fixed 
     with smaller bills. ``Take the whole thing, go to conference 
     with the Senate, and we'll build a bill.''

  Those of us who care about how legislation is crafted can feel the 
hair rise on the back of our necks when we hear this because this is 
exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They want the House to pass 
a bill or two to look like it is tough on enforcement, then go to 
conference and take the Senate bill, which is a total disaster, and 
build a bill that he likes, bring it back to the floor of both Chambers 
where no amendments can be offered, and ram it through, to some degree 
like the massive health care bill was rammed through. That is what they 
want to do.
  I think the House needs to be careful about this. Once you go to 
conference, once you start meeting with these special groups--the 
Democrats want votes, union members want members, businesses want cheap 
labor, immigrant groups want to bring more and more. Where are the 
American people in this? Who is paying for these ads they run on 
television? Not the average guy. I don't know any average guy sending 
them money to run these ads. It is people who have a special interest 
in it.
  Just a few days ago, a remarkable event happened. The human resource 
managers for some of the Nation's largest businesses groups--that is, 
the people in charge of hiring--sent a letter to House leaders 
claiming:

       Many of our companies continue to have difficulty finding 
     sufficient American workers to fill certain lesser-skilled 
     positions. Thus, in addition to addressing the need for more 
     highly skilled immigrants, we strongly support efforts to 
     bolster the availability of a workforce at all skill levels. 
     . . .

  They originally tried to say this bill was designed to bring in more 
high-skilled workers and reduce the numbers of low-skilled workers 
because of our unemployment problems and other reasons, but they openly 
say they want all skills.
  The question is, Are these businesses really suffering from a labor 
shortage? Byron York, an excellent writer--writing, I believe, in the 
Washington Examiner--looked at that question. This is what he found:

       . . . at the same time the corporate officers seek higher 
     numbers of immigrants, both low-skill and high-skill, many of 
     their companies are laying off thousands of workers.

  Isn't that something? Could that be true? Well, let's look at his 
article. Pretty damning, it seems to me. Remember, this letter I just 
read saying that they have to have more low-skilled workers from the 
human resource officials was analyzed by Mr. Byron York. He finds this:

       The officials represent companies with a vast array of 
     business interests: General Electric, The Walt Disney 
     Company, Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt 
     Hotels Corporation, McDonald's Corporation, The Wendy's 
     Company, Coca-Cola, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & 
     Johnson, Verizon Communications, Hewlett-Packard, General 
     Mills, and many more. All want to see increases in 
     immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill 
     workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the 
     millions of immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.

  Well, what did Mr. York discover?

       Of course, the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.3 percent, 
     with millions of American workers at all skill levels out of 
     work, and millions more so discouraged that they have left 
     the work force altogether. In addition, at the same time the 
     corporate officers seek higher numbers of immigrants, both 
     low-skill and high-skill, many of their companies are laying 
     off thousands of workers.

  They say they need more workers. How can it be they are laying off 
workers?

       For example, Hewlett-Packard, whose Executive Vice 
     President for Human Resources Tracy Keogh signed the letter, 
     laid off 29,000 employees in 2012.

  So they want more foreign workers and they just laid off 29,000 
Americans? Oh, boy. That is a stunning number.
  It goes on.

       In August of this year, Cisco Systems, whose Senior Vice 
     President and Chief Human Resources Officer Kathleen Weslock 
     signed the letter, announced plans to lay off 4,000--in 
     addition to the 8,000 cut in the last two years.

  So they have laid off 12,000 people, and now they can't find people 
willing to work.

       United Technologies, whose Senior Vice President of Human 
     Resources and Organization Elizabeth B. Amato signed the 
     letter, announced layoffs of 3,000 this year. American 
     Express, whose Chief Human Resources Officer L. Kevin Cox 
     signed the letter, cut 5,400 jobs this year.

  Maybe they ought to try to give some of those jobs to people they 
laid off, many of whom probably worked for them for 20 years or more.

       Proctor & Gamble, whose Chief Human Resources Officer Mark 
     F. Biegger signed the letter, announced plans to cut 5,700 
     jobs in 2012.

  This is really offensive to me, as I think it should be to all 
Americans. This is the kind of leadership we have in corporate America. 
They come in here and say they have to have workers, totally ignoring 
the fact that they are laying them off by the thousands. Maybe they 
find some who work cheaper. Maybe that is what the interest is.

       Those are just a few of the layoffs at companies whose 
     officials signed the letter. A few more: T-Mobile announced 
     2,250 layoffs in 2012. Archer-Daniels-Midland laid off 1,200. 
     Texas Instruments, [laid off] nearly 2,000. Cigna, 1,300. 
     Verizon sought to cut 1,700 jobs by buyouts and layoffs. 
     Marriott announced ``hundreds'' of layoffs this year. 
     International Paper has closed plants and laid off dozens.

  I will note parenthetically that last week it was announced in 
Alabama that International Paper was closing a plant, and 1,100 people 
who had worked there 25 and 30 years will be out of work. The plant 
shuttered. But they signed the bill saying they need more workers.

       And General Mills, in what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune 
     called a ``rare mass layoff,'' laid off 850 people last year.
       There are more still. . . . According to a recent Reuters 
     report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 
     34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from 
     August 2012.

  ``It is difficult to understand how these companies can feel 
justified in demanding'' that we ram through an immigration bill 
doubling the number of workers, increasing dramatically the number of 
people who would be permanent residents of the United States, claiming 
they need workers, while these very same companies all signed letters. 
We are laying off thousands of workers. We have to be realistic.
  Senator Schumer is meeting with business groups to pressure 
Republicans to join him in conference. But what do conservative 
thinkers have to say about Senator Schumer's plan? I will share a few 
comments--and there are many more--from intellectuals and writers, some 
conservative, some maybe not conservative.
  The National Review wrote this:

       By more than doubling the number of so-called guest workers 
     admitted each year, the bill would help create a permanent 
     underclass of foreign workers. . . . The creation of a large 
     population of second-class workers is undesirable from the 
     point of view of the American national interest, which should 
     be our guiding force in this matter. . . . The United States 
     is a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation.

  Bill Kristol of Fox News, the editor of the Weekly Standard, joined 
with Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, in an unusual joint 
editorial and went on to lay out deep concerns about the passage of 
this.

       Passing any version of the Gang of Eight's bill would be 
     worse public policy than passing nothing. House Republicans 
     can do the country a service by putting a stake through its 
     heart.


[[Page S6639]]


  Victor Davis Hanson, who has written a book on immigration, is an 
excellent columnist in California.

       The United States may be suffering the most persistent 
     unemployment since the Great Depression. There may be an 
     unemployment rate of over 15 percent in many small towns in 
     the American Southwest.

  American businesses may be flush with record amounts of cash, and 
farm prices may be at record levels. But we are still lectured that 
without cheap labor from south of the border, businesses simply cannot 
profit.
  Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who 
has dealt with these issues for years and has had hearings on and tried 
to analyze the meaning and impact of these immigration flows, wrote 
this:

       Recent history shows that a grant of legal status to 
     illegal immigrants results in a further influx of illegal 
     immigrants who will crowd out low-skilled workers from the 
     workforce. . . . Before the federal government grants legal 
     status to illegal immigrants, serious deliberations must be 
     given to the effect such grant will have on the employment 
     and earnings prospects of low-skilled Americans. History 
     shows that granting such legal status is not without profound 
     and substantial costs to American workers. Does Congress 
     care?

  Thomas Sowell, the great African-American writer, says this:

       ``Jobs that Americans will not do'' are in fact jobs at 
     which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate 
     that some employers are offering. This is not an uncommon 
     situation. That is why labor ``shortages'' lead to higher 
     wage rates. . . . Virtually every kind of work Americans will 
     not do is, in fact, work that Americans have done for 
     generations.

  Look, salaries do make a difference.
  David Frum:

       The United States is entering its sixth year of 
     extraordinarily high unemployment. Twelve million Americans 
     who want work cannot find it. Millions more have quit 
     searching. Slack labor markets have depressed wages 
     throughout the economy. . . . Yet however little workers 
     earn, there is always somebody who wishes they earned less. 
     And for those somebodies, the solution is: Import more cheap 
     labor. But not just any cheap labor--cheap labor that cannot 
     quit, that cannot accept a better offer, that cannot 
     complain.

  There is too much truth in that. I am concerned about it and I think 
Americans should be concerned about it. This is a bill that is 
antiworker.
  President Obama has said recently that Republicans want to accelerate 
the gap, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. That is not so. 
But his own White House has been the central entity driving--behind the 
scenes as much as they possibly can be because they do not want their 
fingerprints on it or they do not want it to be identified with the 
White House--but they have been the central entity pushing the bill. It 
will have a direct impact on the wages and employment status of 
millions of Americans, particularly low-income Americans who are the 
ones who had their wages decline the most.
  Professor Borjas, at Harvard, himself a refugee, is the leading 
expert on wages. It has been documented. We have had a significant 
decline in wages over the last 30 years and a significant portion of 
that decline is directly related to the large flow of immigrant labor 
into America.
  Of course, it has been accelerated by the illegality that is 
occurring in our country. I think we could sustain something like the 
current legal flow, but we need to end the present illegality, and we 
should not pass legislation that doubles the number that will be coming 
in.
  Polls show overwhelmingly that the American people do not support a 
large increase in guest workers or low-skilled immigration. For 
instance, by a 3-to-1 margin, Americans earning under $30,000 support a 
decrease in legal immigration, not an increase, not a doubling of it. I 
am sure most do not have any idea that Congress is about to pass a law 
that would double the amount.
  But the one group that has not been represented in this conversation 
has been the hard-working people of this country. All Americans, 
immigrants, millions who have come to our country, and the native-born 
alike will be hurt by an immigration plan that is guaranteed to reduce 
wages and permits even more lawlessness in the future.
  What makes America unique is the special reverence we place in the 
rule of law and the special faith we place in the everyday citizen. 
Let's stay fast to those principles. Let's stand firm for those 
principles.
  Let me say one more time: The heart of the American people on the 
question of immigration is good and decent. They have been misportrayed 
as opposing all immigration and that is not so. But they are concerned 
about the lawlessness. They believe a great nation, their nation, 
should have a lawful system of immigration and people ought not, by the 
millions, violate those laws. Congress and the Presidents have failed 
to respond to their legitimate requests, year after year, decade after 
decade.
  It is time for that to end. We need a lawful system of immigration 
that serves our national interests that we can be proud of, that allows 
a number of people to come to this country, as many as we can. But we 
have to know they have a chance to get a good job, their children will 
have a chance to get a good job, and we are not displacing American 
workers who need jobs and a bit higher wage instead of a falling wage.
  That is what this country ought to be about. It was not part of the 
bill that passed this Senate that is now waiting to go to the House. 
The House needs to be very careful when they move forward, if they move 
forward, with any legislation, that they do not go to a secret 
conference committee and include all kinds of provisions driven by the 
AFL-CIO and by the chamber of commerce and by La Raza and by Democratic 
politicians who wanted votes. They have to be sure that is not who is 
writing this bill because that is who has been writing it so far. It 
ought not to happen.
  The openness with which the advocates of this bill have discussed 
what they are trying to do is rather remarkable. I hope it is a signal 
to our House Members to be alert, to do the right thing as they go 
forward in trying to move a bill that ends the illegality, that 
identifies what the right flow of immigrants into America is and 
creates a system that will actually work in a practical way in the 
future and will deal compassionately with people who have been here a 
long time and who have tried to otherwise be good citizens and do the 
right thing.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________