[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.
____________________