U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–996 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–154 

THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR ENACTING 

IMMIGRATION REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 26, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATT JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 125 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 162 

Schumer, Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Arora, Puneet S., M.D., Los Angeles, California on behalf of Immigration 

Voice ...................................................................................................................... 14 

Bridges, Paul, Mayor, Uvalda, Georgia ................................................................. 30 

Gilbert, Laurent F., Mayor, Lewiston, Maine ....................................................... 35 

Greifeld, Robert, Chief Executive Officer and President, NASDAQ OMX 

Group, New York, New York ............................................................................... 8 

Hira, Ronil, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York ............................................................................... 16 

Roefaro, David R., Mayor, Utica, New York .......................................................... 32 

Skorton, David, President, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, on behalf 

of Association of American Universities ............................................................. 10 

Smith, Brad, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington ......................... 12 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Ron Hira to questions submitted by Senator Grassley .................. 42 

Responses of David J. Skorton to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ..... 50 

Responses of Brad Smith to questions submitted by Senator Grassley .............. 56 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Subcontractors Association, Inc., Franklin L. Davis, Director of 

Government Relations, Alexandria, Virginia, August 2, 2011, letter .............. 68 

American Engineering Association Inc., Richard F. Tax, President, Nashville, 

Tennessee, statement ........................................................................................... 70 

Arora, Puneet S., M.D., Los Angeles, California on behalf of Immigration 

Voice, statement ................................................................................................... 74 

Beck, Edward, Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, statement ........................................... 85 

Brawn to Brains, article .......................................................................................... 87 

Bridges, Paul, Mayor, Uvalda, Georgia, statement .............................................. 101 

Bruey, Jacqueline, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, statement .................................. 104 

Conroy, Donna, Director, Bright Future Jobs, Chicago, Illinois, statement ....... 105 

DallasNews.Com, August 22, 2008, article ............................................................ 108 

Fink, Steven, statement .......................................................................................... 110 

Foster, Lynn, Austin, Texas, statement ................................................................. 111 

Freise, Steven, Massapequa Park, New York, statement .................................... 112 

Gilbert, Laurent F., Mayor, Lewiston, Maine, statement .................................... 114 

Gittelson, Robert, Co-Founder, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration 

Reform, statement ................................................................................................ 122 

Greifeld, Robert, Chief Executive Officer and President, NASDAQ OMX 

Group, New York, New York, statement ........................................................... 135 

Heath, Robert, statement ........................................................................................ 140 

Page

IV 

Hira, Ronil, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, statement ........................................................... 142 

Huber, David, statement ......................................................................................... 154 

IIUSA, Peter D. Joseph, Exective Director, Chicago, Illinois, statement ........... 158 

Intel Corporation, Peter M. Cleveland, Washington, DC, statement .................. 160 

LA-MAG.com, July/August 2011, article ............................................................... 164 

Kavanaugh, Brendan, Miami, Florida, statement ................................................ 171 

Kritzer, Steven, statement ...................................................................................... 173 

Marr, Ray L., Austin, Texas, statement ................................................................ 177 

McDonald, James, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ............................................. 179 

Miller, Christine L., Baltimore, Maryland, statement ......................................... 180 

Moustakas, Leonard, Lynbrook, New York, statement ........................................ 183 

Nelson, Gene A., Unemployed American Citizen Radiation Biophysicist, statement and attachments ......................................................................................... 184 

Ochs, Larry, Oceanside, California, statement ..................................................... 204 

Otto, John G., Tallahassee, Florida, statement .................................................... 206 

Palmer, Jack (Jay) B., Jr., Lowndes County, Alabama, statement ..................... 213 

Partnership for a New American Economy, memorandum and attachments .... 223 

Picot, Harrison, Database Administrator, Haymarket, Virginia, statement ...... 233 

Popescu, John, San Francisco, California, statement ........................................... 235 

Scott, Damon, Professor of Mathematics, Florence, South Carolina, statement 236 

Skorton, David, President, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, on behalf 

of Association of American Universities, statement .......................................... 238 

Smith, Brad, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, statement ...... 251 

Stein, Dan, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 262 

United Agribusiness League, Richard G. Schmidt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Irvine, California, July 21, 2011, letter ......................................... 265 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, 

Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits, and Amy M. Nice, Executive 

Director, Immigration Policy, Washington, DC, July 26, 2011, joint letter .... 268 

Valek, Brian, Ortonville, Minnesota, statement ................................................... 276 

(1) 

THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE FOR ENACTING 

IMMIGRATION REFORM 

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

REFUGEES, AND BORDER SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Franken, Blumenthal, Cornyn, 

Grassley, Hatch, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good morning, everybody, and our hearing 

will come to order. Senator Cornyn and I will make an opening 

statement, and then we will go right to the witnesses, and Senator 

Grassley has asked to make an opening statement as well, and so 

please do. 

Okay. Anyway, today’s hearing is on the economic imperative for 

enacting immigration reform. I am often asked why I am so adamant about passing immigration reform. My answer is always that 

I believe there are two issues that will determine America’s global 

competitiveness for the 21st century, and this is in the long term: 

Education and immigration. 

Our economic supremacy arose because our schools successfully 

developed America’s best minds, and our immigration successfully 

attracted the world’s best minds. But now the world is far more 

competitive. Students in countries around the world are outperforming U.S. students in math and science. At the same time, our 

competitors are enacting immigration policies that offer scientists 

and engineers from around the world up to $250,000 to emigrate 

in order to deploy their talents and skills for the good of our competitors’ economies. If we do not enact an immigration policy that 

continues to attract the world’s best minds, we will cease to be the 

world’s economic leader. Not only will our economy be at grave 

risk; eventually our National security will as well. 

Unfortunately, our broken immigration system actually discourages the world’s best and brightest minds from coming to America 

to create jobs. Here is the problem: Every year, according to the Institute of International Education, there are about 250,000 foreign 

students enrolled in our American universities to study science, 

2 

technology, engineering, and math. That is known as ‘‘STEM’’ subjects. Foreign students represent the majority of our degree recipients in these subjects. So what happens to these students after 

they graduate from our colleges? Are we putting them to work to 

invent new technologies that would employ American workers? No, 

we are not. Instead, we are telling these folks to return to their 

home countries to compete for a limited number of temporary visas 

known as H–1Bs. 

Even if you are lucky enough to obtain one of these visas, the 

visa is temporary, does not allow your spouse to work in the country, and does not permit you to earn a promotion or switch jobs unless the Immigration Service approves a lengthy second application 

filed by your employer. 

If you are a smart student at the top of your class and in demand 

globally, would you want to stay in America under these circumstances? Unfortunately, the answer is often no. It is time for 

our immigration policy to reward hard work and to foster job creation rather than discourage it. 

The immigration proposal that we are working on will ensure 

that the best and brightest students from around the world in 

science and engineering, technology and math, who study in our 

universities can stay here after getting degrees. And, by the way, 

it is good news that the brightest students still want to come to our 

higher education. They do. And we get many more applicants than 

we have people who can be admitted. But then we send them 

home. It just does not make any sense if we want to stay the greatest economic power in the world. 

So how do we do this? Well, after they study in our universities, 

they will stay here after getting their degrees. We will do this by 

virtually stapling a green card to their diploma. The green card 

will allow those students to start new companies, change jobs if a 

better opportunity exists, and allow their spouses to work in the 

country. But as this hearing will make clear today, fixing our broken immigration system is not just about attracting highly skilled 

immigrants to the country. Study after study is showing that even 

the immigrant who comes here with little or nothing in order to 

make a better life for his or her family, just as many of us or our 

ancestors did, is also critical to making America a more vibrant 

and economically successful country. 

As some of our local mayors will discuss here today, immigrants 

are renewing many of our Rust Belt communities that were once 

seen as having no hope for the future. The Federal Reserve Bank 

of Boston recently released a report which said that in the top ten 

‘‘resurgent cities’’ in the Nation, defined as Rust Belt cities that 

have made substantial progress in improving living standards for 

their residents, the immigration population in those cities increased from 4.5 percent in 1980 to 15 percent, more than 15 percent today. 

And a recent study from the Kauffman Foundation showed that 

immigrant-owned businesses jumped from 13.4 percent of all new 

businesses in 1996 to 29.5 percent of all new businesses in 2010. 

Just listen to that. Immigrant-owned businesses, new immigrantowned businesses, jumped from 13.4 percent to 29.5 percent between 1996 and 2010. And these are not big businesses. They may 

3 

be a restaurant. They may be a drycleaner. But they employ people 

and create economic vitality as immigrants for generations of 

America have done. 

So unlike those who attempt to fear-monger the issue of immigration, I am not at all concerned that people want to come to 

America. I am much more worried about a day they no longer find 

America attractive. 

I am confident that our distinguished panelists today will help 

us better understand the urgent need we face to reform our immigration system in a manner that will grow our economy by attracting those who want to come here to start a business or to contribute their innovative skills and talents to keep America’s economy strong. 

The purpose of this hearing: Immigration is a job creator. That 

is the key. And it is vital that we reform our immigration system 

to keep America the greatest job engine in the world. 

I would now like to call on Senator Cornyn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. I think it is a very important, and I agree with much 

of what you said in your opening remarks. 

It may seem a little strange, though, to people listening to be 

talking about immigration reform, bringing foreign nationals to the 

United States at a time when our unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. But as we all know, there is a scarcity of qualified people for 

many jobs, particularly high-tech, those requiring special skills, 

and those, of course, are the target—should be the target of the H– 

1B program. But we should assure every American and all Americans that we will never hire, never allow to be hired a foreign national under an H–1B program where there is a qualified American 

ready, willing, and able to do that job. And, in fact, that is illegal. 

But we are going to hear today—and I know Senator Grassley has 

taken a particular interest in trying to root out some of the fraud 

associated with this program, and we need to make sure that happens. 

But it is hard to ignore the benefits to our Nation of attracting 

high-skilled talent. For example, in Texas, one study reports that 

one out of every five technology companies was founded by an immigrant. We all know the success stories of Intel, eBay, Yahoo, and 

Google—American companies founded, in part or in whole, by immigrants, which, of course, now employ thousands of workers. 

It is a fact that America’s lack of a sensible and coherent highskilled immigration policy is causing our Nation to lose too many 

entrepreneurs and job creators to our competitors abroad who are 

more than happy to take advantage of our failure to compete effectively for this talent. 

It is also a fact that in order to remain competitive in today’s 

global marketplace, U.S. companies must have access to a highskilled temporary labor pool from abroad, which includes top foreign graduates who are educated at American universities. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently summed it up this 

way. They said, ‘‘The future of U.S. prosperity depends on having 

4 

a skilled workforce. This requires educating the native-born population and continuing to attract the world’s best and brightest to 

the United States. For decades, the Nation has been the world 

leader in attracting skilled immigrants who, until recently, had few 

good alternatives. Today other destination countries increasingly 

recognize the economic benefits of these workers and are designing 

policies to attract them, even as immigrants’ nations of origin seek 

ways to entice them to return home.’’ 

The Dallas Fed has also noted that the U.S. immigration system 

has not kept up with global competition, that piecemeal fixes have 

turned the current law into a web of outmoded, contradictory, and 

inefficient quotas, rules and regulations. 

In one example, the number of high-skilled immigrant workers 

admitted on a temporary visa has doubled since 1996, but the number of employment-based permanent residence visas, or green 

cards, has remained roughly the same. As a result, the wait for employment-based green cards extends now to more than a decade. 

‘‘It is not known how many high-skilled immigrants are turned 

away by the broken system,’’ the Federal Reserve says, ‘‘but the 

U.S. risks falling behind in the global race for talent if immigration 

laws are not reformed.’’ 

The economists aptly called this America’s policy of national selfsabotage. I put forward several proposals in the past to try and 

remedy this problem, including the skill bill in 2007 and the Global 

Competitive Act in 2008. These include modest but sensible increases to H–1B temporary worker visas, recapture of unused temporary and permanent visas, and increased access to green cards 

for high-skilled immigrants. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on their own ideas for addressing this problem. 

In 2006, almost 5 years ago, I chaired a hearing of this Subcommittee when my party was in the majority and I was Chairman 

and not Ranking Member. The title of that hearing was—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. Hope to return someday. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. The hearing of that Subcommittee then was 

called ‘‘U.S. Visa Policy: Competition for International Scholars, 

Scientists, and Skilled Workers.’’ It took place in Richardson, 

Texas, on the campus of the University of Texas at Dallas. 

The University of Texas at Dallas continues to be one of the Nation’s leaders in producing top-notch science, technology, engineering, and math graduates. Its graduates include STEM students 

who are U.S. born and a sizable percentage of foreign students who 

are visa holders. Eighty-two percent of all UTD graduates earn degrees in science, engineering, business, math, and the key disciplines that the region needs to compete in the global economy. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent to place a few items in the 

record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator CORNYN. First, a report by the Dallas Federal Reserve 

that I cited earlier; second, an op-ed piece by Geoff Wurzel in the 

San Antonio Express New titled, ‘‘Highly skilled immigrants should 

be part of debate;’’ and an editorial from the Dallas Morning News 

5 

entitled, ‘‘Exporting jobs; green card hassles drive our brightest 

overseas.’’ 

[The information referred appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying I 

could not help but notice that President Obama spoke again to La 

Raza, where he used that forum to criticize Congress for lack of action on immigration reform. Indeed, it was in July 2008 when thenCandidate Obama, before he was President, said that, if elected, he 

would make immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform a top priority. 

Well, I think it is clear, at least to me, that he has not done so, 

and we need to find a way to try to work together to solve this particular aspect of our broken immigration system. But I am committed once again to working with you to fix the entire system, 

which does not serve the best interests of the United States of 

America. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

We are joined not only by a member of the Subcommittee, but 

he is the Ranking Member of the full Committee, and so out of respect for him in that position, we are going to let Senator Grassley 

to an opening statement. And then we will get right to the panel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

also I will have some inserts and a short statement I am going to 

give, but I have a longer statement as well, and I would like to insert that. And because I do have other responsibilities, I may not 

be back here to ask questions. If I do not get back to do it, I would 

submit questions for answer in writing. And I am very glad to be 

here not only to thank you for holding this hearing, but also to recognize President Skorton, who is a friend of mine, and who was for 

25 or 30 years at the University of Iowa, including a presidency 

there, before he moved to New York. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, Iowa’s loss is New York’s gain. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If there is any way we can get him back, we 

will take him back. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Keep sending the money to Cornell now. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Anyway, without objection, Senator Grassley’s entire statement will be read into the record, and the inserts 

that he mentioned. 

[The prepared statement and inserts of Senator Grassley appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. For years, our country has struggled to find 

a way forward on immigration reform. Americans are out of work, 

families are being foreclosed on, and businesses are suffering. And 

I agree we must do all we can to improve our economic situation. 

However, I have concerns with the notion that increasing immigration levels and enacting legalization programs is an answer to the 

current economic downturn. 

We know it is unlikely that this administration will push immigration reform at least in the next year and half. However, it is my 

6 

firm belief that we can find agreement on reforms for high-skilled 

workers, and this hearing is a good first step in that discussion. 

I have spent a lot of time and effort in rooting out fraud and 

abuse in our visa programs, specifically the H–1B and L visa programs. I have always said these programs could and should serve 

as a benefit to our country, our economy, and our U.S. employers. 

However, it is clear they are not working as intended, and the programs are having a detrimental effect on American workers. For 

this reason, and for many years, Senator Durbin of Illinois and I 

have worked in a bipartisan way on legislation to close the loopholes in the programs. 

Among other things, the H–1B and L–1 Visa Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act would ensure American workers are afforded the 

first chance to obtain the available high-paying and high-skilled 

jobs. The bill would strengthen the wage requirements, ridding the 

incentives for companies to hire cheap, foreign labor. Our bill 

would also require companies to attest that they have tried to hire 

an American worker before they hire a foreign worker. 

The attention that Senator Durbin, I, and others have put on the 

H–1B program has had an impact already without the legislation 

passing. Our efforts have increased scrutiny and forced bad actors 

to find other ways to enter, live, and work in the United States 

under false pretenses. The increased oversight of the H–1B program, for instance, has caused businesses to ‘‘think creatively’’ to 

get around the program, using both the L and B–1 visa to bypass 

the requirements and protections under the H–1B visa program. 

Recently, this scenario came to light when an employee of Infosys 

filed a complaint alleging that his employer was ‘‘sending lowerlevel and unskilled foreigners to the United States to work in fulltime positions at . . . customer sites in direct violation of immigration laws.’’ The complaint further states, ‘‘Infosys was paying these 

employees in India for full-time work in the United States without 

withholding Federal or State income taxes.’’ Infosys, one of the top 

ten H–1B petitioning companies, has worked to ‘‘creatively’’ get 

around the H–1B program by using the B–1 business visitor visa 

in order to bring in low-skilled and low-wage workers. That plaintiff, Jay Palmer, has written a statement, and I ask unanimous 

consent to put that in the record. The courts will decide if the activities of Infosys were illegal. But I can definitely say that their 

actions do not comport with the spirit of the law. 

Also troubling to me is the Optional Practical Training program, 

often called OPT. This is a program that was created solely 

through regulation. OPT allows foreign students the ability to further their knowledge by working in the United States for an extra 

12 to 29 months before returning to their home country. There is 

no limit on how many can apply for OPT, and more importantly, 

it is the schools and universities that principally administer the 

program. There are very few checks and balances, resulting in the 

potential national security risk. We had 95,259 OPT petitions approved in fiscal year 2010. More scrutiny must be placed on this 

program. 

Finally, I would like to address the idea being pushed by many 

immigration advocates and some members in the House of Representatives. As part of the solution to America’s immigration probVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 070996 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70996.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7 

lem, some policymakers have proposed the idea of giving foreign 

students a green card upon graduation. In their opinion, this would 

prevent the loss of the resources put into these students. Now, who 

can argue with that point of view? While it is important to keep 

the best and the brightest, getting a degree from U.S. institutions 

and universities should not equate to a fast track to citizenship for 

all. Should this happen, the demand for enrollment in U.S. universities by international students would only increase and further 

erode the opportunities for American students. Universities would, 

in essence, become visa mills. 

I will continue to push for more reforms in our immigration system to ensure Americans are the No. 1 priority and the students 

are afforded every opportunity that they deserve. And I also would 

further say that part of my unanimous consent request was statements of American workers from across the country who have written to me on this subject. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Grassley. The comprehensive bill we are continuing to work on would deal with H– 

1B reform in a very significant way. I could not agree with you 

more that there are companies that abuse it. It is one of the reasons in the bill protecting the border last year we paid for part of 

that with an increased fee on those companies. They did not like 

it, but I thought it was appropriate. 

Okay. We will now go to our witnesses, distinguished panels, 

both of them. I am going to introduce all five and then ask each 

of them to speak for no more than 5 minutes, and we will put your 

entire statements into the record. 

So from my left to my right, Robert Greifeld is the chief executive 

officer of NASDAQ OMX Group, a position he has held since 2003. 

NASDAQ is the world’s largest exchange company with trading, 

technology, and public company service capability spanning six continents. It is headquartered in New York City, has nearly 2,500 

employees, and serves as the marketplace for many of the world’s 

largest and most successful technology companies and advocates for 

those companies. 

David Skorton, former president of the University of Iowa, is now 

president of Cornell University, one of the greatest universities in 

the world. He has been president since 2006—not to the University 

of Iowa is not, by the way. He was a faculty member at Iowa before 

being president for 26 years, and he is past chair of the Business 

Higher Education Forum, an independent, nonprofit organization 

comprised of Fortune 500 and other CEOs, leaders of colleges and 

universities and foundation executives. 

Brad Smith is Microsoft’s general counsel and leads the company’s Department of Legal and Corporate Affairs. He plays a central role in ensuring that Microsoft fulfills it corporate responsibilities and is responsible for the company’s legal work, its intellectual property portfolio, patent licensing, and its Government affairs 

and philanthropic work. 

Dr. Puneet Arora is the clinical research medical director at 

Amgen. In this capacity, he works on development of new medicines for the treatment of osteoporosis and is responsible for planning and execution of large multinational clinical trials. He has 

8 

completed 15 years in the United States and is still awaiting his 

green card. 

Dr. Ronil Hira is an associate professor of public policy at RIT, 

the Rochester Institute of Technology, another one of the greatest 

universities in the world, where he teaches courses on technological 

innovation, communications, and public policy. He is a licensed professional engineer, a research associate with the Economic Policy 

Institute, and a co-author of a book entitled ‘‘Outsourcing America.’’ 

Gentlemen, all your statements, your entire statements, will be 

read into the record, and we will now start with Dr. Greifeld. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREIFELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, NASDAQ OMX GROUP, NEW YORK, 

NEW YORK 

Mr. Greifeld. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn, for the invitation to speak to you this morning. 

In May of 2008, my frustration with the state of affairs on our 

immigration policy led me to write an editorial that holds true 

today. It bothers me dearly that Lady Liberty’s message of welcome 

no longer resonates and we place quotas, inexhaustible red tape, 

and, in many cases, deportation in the path of the best and the 

brightest who are anxious to contribute to our free market economy. 

Since 2008, when I wrote that editorial, three June classes have 

graduated from school, and too many talented people have left or 

been forced to leave this country. Out of about 50,000 advanced 

math and science students, those who have a long tradition of activities that create jobs, we lose about one-third, about 17,000 each 

and every year. 

I fervently believe to help our country Congress should: 

One, see immigration reform as a pressing jobs issue. The current legal immigration regime is inadequate and its cost is robbing 

America of the next generation of great companies. A sobering fact 

is that Google, Yahoo, and eBay—-many of the job drivers of the 

last 20 years—would likely not be founded in America today under 

the current system. 

Two, we need to debate legal immigration on its own merits. Do 

not link it to reform of illegal immigration laws. Americans are losing jobs and opportunity while we let one issue drag down the 

other. I understand and agree that we need to reform the entire 

immigration system, but given the urgency of our economic situation, we cannot afford to continue to wait for a grand plan that 

may not be achievable. 

Three, we need to enact a more flexible and stable regime for 

legal immigration. Reform must convey economic priorities about 

job growth and global competitiveness. Increasing H–1B visas is 

simply not enough. We need to admit and keep entrepreneurs here 

so that the creative dynamic of our economy is enhanced by the 

very best skills and minds. The default should be ‘‘yes,’’ not ‘‘no.’’ 

This is an issue I am passionate about because I know that as 

a CEO, NASDAQ relies on one critical raw material for its economic vitality—entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs take ideas and turn 

them into companies, and those companies ‘‘grow up’’ to become 

9 

listed on NASDAQ. Existing NASDAQ companies hire brilliant 

people who solve problems, invent and improve their company, 

making them stronger and its employment base grow. 

Our economy and NASDAQ itself have directly benefited from 

the contributions of foreign-born talent. Among Fortune 500 companies, we have found that at least 14 NASDAQ companies have foreign-born founders. These companies have created over $522 billion 

in market capitalization and employ almost 500,000 workers. 

Markets, including human capital markets, work best when 

there is certainty. Uncertainty always creates distortions, whether 

it is in the derivatives market waiting on the rules of the road from 

regulators, the equity markets waiting for Congress and the President to agree on fiscal policy, or labor market participants that look 

to our restrictive, sometimes arbitrary, and unwelcoming immigration system as they decide where and where not to take their talents. 

In countries like India and China, they actively recruit graduates 

and qualified researchers for their expertise and abilities, paying 

top salaries and other benefits to get graduates to return home to 

help their economies grow. The competition for smart, capable 

math and science graduates is a global one. 

Let me take the job-stealing issue head-on. Opponents of enhanced legal immigration argue that when a foreign—born, highly 

skilled immigrant gets a job, American graduates are the losers. 

But my research and experience tell me quite a different story. For 

example, the National Federation for American Policy says that for 

every H–1B worker requested, U.S. technology companies increase 

their overall employment by five workers. I was in Silicon Valley 

last week, and virtually every company I met said they had more 

engineering jobs than qualified applicants. These are jobs that are, 

in fact, advertised, including a website, StartUpHire.com, which caters to venture capital-backed companies. They have over 13,000 

job openings posted right now. In this week’s San Jose Business 

Journal, I read that the State of California released a June employment report that noted in just the San Jose metro region Apple had 

listed 868 jobs, eBay 617, Google 582, and Yahoo 571 jobs that are 

not going filled. 

When we keep the best and brightest graduates here, they help 

employment here. Brookings reports that as a result of immigration, 90 percent of native-born Americans with at least a high 

school diploma have seen wage increases. 

Companies have little choice about the skill they need to hire, 

but the immigration system can, in fact, determine where they locate their employees. Isn’t it better for all of us if they build their 

research and development centers here? Many companies can, if 

needed, locate people in Canada, Europe, India, or any country that 

wants those jobs and the benefits they bring. Whether in Silicon 

Valley, Austin, Chicago, or anywhere else in the United States, I 

hear from CEOs that the H–1B visa system is inadequate for today’s human capital marketplace and the backlog for green cards, 

and what they mean to the quality and the uncertainty of the lives 

of these foreign-born employees is a legitimate threat to their businesses. 

10 

Employers no longer have to locate jobs and workers because of 

physical capital to support those jobs. Human capital is highly mobile, and STEM and other high-tech workers are just a plane ticket 

or Internet connection away. 

I know I am over time here, so what I want to speak to at the 

end is just that we certainly recognize that we need to improve the 

education system. We certainly recognize that we need to ensure 

that these programs are properly policed and adequately run. But 

we have to implore you to find a legislative solution to make improvements in this area. Making our legal immigration system 

work for us will raise revenue, increase our productivity, create 

very good jobs, and make us more competitive. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greifeld appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Greifeld. 

Mr. Skorton. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SKORTON, PRESIDENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK, ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION 

OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES 

Mr. SKORTON. Good morning, Chairman Schumer, Senator Cornyn, and members of the Subcommittee, and I thank Senator 

Grassley for his leadership, friendship, and kind remarks. 

Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, with campuses 

or programs in New York City; Geneva, New York; Appledore Island, Maine; France; England; Italy; Singapore; India; China; Tanzania; Qatar and elsewhere, is the largest and most comprehensive 

school in the Ivy League and is the land-grant university for New 

York State. Our enrollment is approximately 20,000, with students 

from every State in the Union and more than 120 countries studying under an internationally renowned faculty. 

The Association of American Universities, for which I am proud 

to also be speaking, is a nonprofit association of 59 leading U.S. 

public and private research universities and two Canadian universities. AAU’s 59 U.S. members perform 54 percent of federally 

funded university-based research and award more than half of all 

doctoral degrees earned in our country. 

We all want to thank Chairman Schumer for calling this important hearing, and I thank you for inviting me to share my perspective. 

I have the privilege, Senator, of being a member of the National 

Security Higher Education Advisory Board, a group of some 20 university presidents and chancellors, appointed by the Director of the 

FBI to meet with senior officials of the Bureau and other agencies 

to discuss issues of national security related to higher education, 

prominent among which are issues related to immigration policies 

and procedures. Through this board I have gained an appreciation 

of the importance of ceaseless vigilance to maintain national security. But I have also learned of the need for balance in our approach to this volatile set of issues, and I applaud you for seeking 

that balance. 

The issue is a personal one for me. I am a first—generation 

American, the son of immigrants. And my father took it for granted 

11 

that through hard work, adherence to the law, and an earnest desire to become an American citizen, he would create a better life 

for himself and his children. My own life and those of countless 

other first-generation Americans have proven him right. 

But the recent debate, however, suggests that many Americans 

have stopped seeing immigration as an integral part of the American dream. We cannot afford to close off the United States from 

the rest of the world, and we must reach a consensus on comprehensive immigration reform that balances our physical and economic security with the realities of our growing immigrant population and our changing national workforce. 

American colleges and universities are educating a record number of international students. According to the IIE, there were 

690,000 international students in the U.S. in 2009–10, a 3-percent 

increase, and at Cornell currently, 18 percent of our student body 

are international students. 

In the 21st century, the American relationship with international 

students has, of course, become more complex as national security 

concerns have risen. There is a real cause for concern, however, if 

the U.S. does not remain the top choice for students from around 

the world who want to apply to graduate studies in science and engineering. 

Contrary to concern expressed by some critics, there are not 

enough qualified or interested American students to fill all the 

slots in STEM undergraduate and graduate programs, nor in the 

workplace. 

The most difficult immigration issues, as you have heard, arise 

when international students graduate and want to enter the U.S. 

workforce. While some students always intend to return home, others may want to stay here—to work, to invent, to innovate, to start 

companies, to create jobs, and thereby to contribute to the economic 

growth of our country. 

We know from our career placement offices and alumni associations that U.S. companies want to hire Cornell’s international graduates—not surprising, as you have heard, when foreign-born inventors are responsible for a large share of companies and startups, 

and I want to give a quote from a colleague of mine, Bill Swanson, 

Chairman and CEO of Raytheon: ‘‘Raytheon, like the Nation, depends upon highly educated and experienced STEM graduates, 

many at the doctoral level. Foreign nationals with these qualifications, with appropriate immigration status, are critical to our country’s competitiveness.’’ 

The Partnership for a New American Economy—a national bipartisan group founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg 

that includes more than 300 mayors and business leaders—has 

compiled some impressive statistics, including that more than 40 

percent of the current Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children and more than a quarter of all technology and engineering businesses launched between 1995 and 

2005 had an immigrant founder. 

Immigrant STEM graduates help fill projected job shortages. 

McKinsey Global Institute projects that as many as 190,000 positions for data analytics experts such as industrial engineers and 

mathematicians will go unfilled in the U.S. by 2018. 

12 

Our immigration policy is right now causing us to lose international graduates and other highly motivated individuals to countries including England, Australia, and Canada—countries that encourage and promote immigrant entrepreneurs with streamlined 

visa application processes, more flexible pathways to permanent 

residence or citizenship. 

To sum up, I believe Congress that should pursue four imperatives, and I support the administration’s and specifically Senator 

Schumer’s efforts in this regard. 

Number one, we should create a streamlined green card process 

for international students who graduate with STEM degrees from 

U.S. universities. 

Number two, we should reduce the backlog of skilled immigrants 

waiting to become permanent residents by increasing the number 

of employment-based visas. 

Number three, we should enact policies and procedures that 

allow families to stay together and allow for reasonable visits back 

home without too much red tape upon return. 

And, number four, I believe we should pass the DREAM Act. 

Even though the DREAM Act is not the subject of this hearing, it 

is vitally important that undocumented children who are in the 

U.S. through no fault of their own be given the chance to earn citizenship through hard work, either in college or military service. 

Chairman Schumer, I thank you again for your work and for the 

opportunity to testify, and at the right time I am more than 

pleased to answer questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skorton appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Skorton. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD SMITH, GENERAL COUNSEL AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEGAL AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, REDMOND, WASHINGTON 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn. It is a pleasure for me to be here. We have long 

worked on comprehensive immigration legislation, and we welcome 

the opportunity to talk again this morning about the issues relating to high-skilled immigration. 

Microsoft has subsidiaries in about 120 countries around the 

world. We are one of the most global companies on the planet, and 

if there is one thing we see every day, it is this: The world economy 

has changed. It used to be that people would move in search of the 

right jobs. But, increasingly, jobs move in search of the right people. If a country wants to create jobs, it has to skill up its people. 

This was underscored by a recent study at Georgetown University. It showed that in 1973 only 28 percent of the jobs in the 

United States required a postsecondary education. But by 2008 

that had risen to 59 percent, and the study estimates that by 2018 

a full 63 percent of all jobs in the United States will require a postsecondary education. We need to skill up as a Nation. 

And yet we are falling short today. Senator Cornyn, as you mentioned, we have a 9.2-percent unemployment rate in the country, 

13 

but in many ways what is even more interesting is this: According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month, the unemployment 

rate for individuals who have only a high school diploma is 10.0 

percent. The unemployment rate for Americans that have a college 

degree or more is less than half of that. It is 4.4 percent. So, in 

short, we not only have a jobs problem in this country; we have a 

skills problem. And the fundamental question for the country is 

how to address this skills gap. 

Senator Schumer, I think you put it right on the nose. What we 

need to do is two things: we need to invest in education, and we 

need to address immigration. We wholeheartedly agree that our top 

priority should be education. That is why we as a company and 

many other companies in our industry are investing our own dollars in helping to improve education in the country. That is why 

Microsoft alone over the last year has announced new investments 

on the order of roughly $100 million to support scholarships, to 

support schools, and to support students. 

And yet, unfortunately, we also see that while education is a 

long-term goal, it is also a long-term process. It is going to take a 

long time to get where we need to go. We need immigration, and 

we need immigration reform in the interim. 

Certainly we as a company see the benefits that come when we 

can create world-leading R&D centers in the United States where 

we employ a large majority of Americans, but bring these leading 

American employees together with some of the best and brightest 

talent from the rest of the world as well. 

As a company, we employ 54,000 people in the United States, 

and they create jobs not only for themselves, but for others in the 

economy as well. Last year, the University of Washington estimated that with a 5.81 multiplier effect, the 54,000 employees of 

Microsoft create 267,000 jobs elsewhere in the U.S. economy. It is 

the type of thing we can do solely because we can bring people of 

talent together and enable them to work in one place. 

If we are going to continue to create these jobs, we need highskilled immigration reform, and in particular, we think it is important for this reform to focus on three things: 

First and foremost, addressing the green card backlog that you 

have heard about this morning; 

Second, we think it is important to address and modernize, as 

you have heard, the visa system for students so that they have 

greater ability and greater incentive to stay in the United States; 

And, third, we need to ensure that our temporary visa programs 

remain healthy, that we address fraud, that we prevent abuse, but 

that we also ensure that demand and supply move forward together. 

Ultimately, we want to create more jobs in this country. Microsoft spends more money on research and development than any 

other company in the world—$9.6 billion. Today we spend 83 percent of that money to create jobs in one country—the United 

States. We want to continue to create jobs in this country. We need 

the help of this Congress to do so. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

14 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Dr. Arora. 

STATEMENT OF PUNEET S. ARORA, M.D., LOS ANGELES, 

CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRATION VOICE 

Dr. ARORA. Distinguished Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member 

Cornyn, and distinguished members of the Committee, it is a moment of great privilege for me and a moment of great education for 

me to be here in front of this august panel on behalf of Immigration Voice and really on behalf of highly skilled workers and their 

families that are patiently awaiting permanent resident status in 

the United States. 

Immigration Voice is a grassroots organization of highly skilled 

immigrant workers that have come together to advocate for change 

in the current system. I thank you deeply for this opportunity to 

present my views. 

I would like to address with you the problems faced by 1 million 

highly skilled immigrant workers and their families who live and 

work in America, who see themselves as future Americans, and 

have been gainfully employed for a decade or more, but find themselves in lines for green cards. Our community has invested in 

America with diligence, innovation, productivity, with our assets 

and with our future—our children who were born in the United 

States. 

In 1996, I began a medical residency program at the Southern 

Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield, Illinois. This 

was followed by a fellowship in endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at the New York University School of Medicine, thus moving 

me to one of the greatest cities in the world. 

This was followed by a fellowship in advanced diabetes at the 

Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the greatest center for endocrinology in the world and a dream come true for me. I was awarded a master’s of biomedical science degree in clinical research by 

the Mayo Graduate School in 2005. 

In the year 2003 I joined clinical practice with the 

HealthPartners medical group in St. Paul, Minnesota, and took up 

significant teaching responsibilities and was appointed assistant 

professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical 

School. My practice in a medically underserved area with a substantial population of indigent patients qualified me for a National 

Interest Waiver. However, a harsh interpretation of the statute by 

USCIS prevented me from this until the year 2007, when it took 

a lawsuit to finally overturn the immigration agency’s position. 

In late 2008, I was offered the position of clinical research medical director at Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology company. 

I was able to accept this offer only because of a small window of 

relief offered in July of 2007 that allowed me to take work authorization. Without this, it is likely that I would not have made it to 

California. Many of my colleagues at Immigration Voice were not 

so fortunate, and to this day they lack this kind of job mobility. 

In June this year, I celebrated 15 years of life in America. My 

green card application meanwhile is gathering dust somewhere. 

Let me take a moment to tell you why that is so. 

15 

Congress has allotted 140,000 employment-based green cards for 

immigrant workers and for their families every year, but no country can receive more than 7 percent, which makes less than 5,000 

in a year across all skill categories regardless of size, population, 

and ability to provide skilled workers. As a result, those in our 

community with entrepreneurial ambitions are held back, and their 

energies are dissipated. I, therefore, respectfully recommend that 

this panel consider the removal of per country caps in the employment-based system. 

An independent task force on immigration policy for the Council 

for Foreign Relations has specifically recommended eliminating the 

nationality quotas for skilled workers. The benefit of this measure 

would accrue to only one Nation in the world—the United States 

of America. 

I would like to respectfully ask this panel to consider the recapture of unused green cards that number over 300,000 across the 

family and employment-based categories. Many of you—and Senator Cornyn and Senator Schumer, both of you—have proposed innovative solutions which I wholeheartedly support, including exemptions for U.S. STEM advanced degree graduates, exemptions 

for family members, from numerical quotas. Senator Conrad has 

proposed a bill that would exempt physicians that provide service 

in medically underserved areas, which is in the national interest. 

Frustration with the U.S. immigration system sent Wharton 

graduate Kunal Bahl back home in 2007 when he went and founded snapdeal.com. This is a rapidly growing company with over $20 

million in annual revenue, over 400 workers, and growing at the 

rate of 70 workers a month. This, India’s equivalent of Groupon, 

has major U.S. venture capitalists like Vinod Dham, the father of 

the Intel chip, investing significantly in it. Reports from India and 

China suggest that this is not an isolated example; this is a growing trend. 

We often hear concerns that foreign-born workers are taking jobs 

and are stalling the economic recovery. Instead, I am here to represent a community that has held steady employment for years 

now in areas with widely documented workforce needs, as in my 

case. A study conducted by Duke University concluded that between 1995 and 2005, 25 percent of startups in Silicon Valley had 

at least one immigrant founder and generated more than $52 billion in sales in 2005 and created just under 450,000 jobs. 

It is clear that highly skilled immigrants are net job creators, 

and they add more jobs to this economy than the jobs they occupy. 

We have tied our futures to the U.S. economy and our children’s 

futures as well. Therefore, the growth of America’s economy and 

the availability of jobs in America is of great significance to all of 

us. We want nothing more than to see America prosper and grow 

while remaining the most welcoming Nation on the face of the 

Earth. 

On behalf of Immigration Voice, again, my sincere gratitude for 

this opportunity and for the patient hearing you have given me 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Arora appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Dr. Arora. 

16 

Now, finally, last but not least, Dr. Hira. 

STATEMENT OF RONIL HIRA, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR 

OF PUBLIC POLICY, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 

Dr. HIRA. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn, and the members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to testify here today. I have been studying high-skill immigration policy 

for more than a decade, so it is a great opportunity for me to share 

some of my thoughts on its impact, our current policy, its impact 

on the American economy, American workforce, and competitiveness and innovation policy, which I study also. 

I have concluded that our high-skill immigration policy, as currently administered and designed, does more harm than good. To 

meet the needs of both the U.S. economy and American workers, 

the H–1B and L–1 visa programs need immediate and substantial 

overhaul. 

The goal of these programs is to bring in foreign workers who 

complement the American workforce. Instead, loopholes have made 

it too easy to bring in cheaper foreign workers, with ordinary 

skills—these are not specialized skills, these are not the best and 

brightest; these are ordinary skills—who directly substitute for 

rather than complement American workers. The programs are 

clearly displacing and denying opportunities to American workers. 

The H–1B and L–1 have serious design flaws, and legislation is 

needed to fix them. Administrative changes alone, such as steppedup enforcement, while necessary, are simply not sufficient to correct the problems. I will just briefly highlight a few of these design 

flaws that we have in the programs. 

First, the programs allow employers to legally bring in foreign 

workers at below-market wages, so you can legally bring in cheaper 

workers to substitute for American workers. How do we know this? 

Well, employers have told the GAO that in some cases they do 

that, so they have been explicit about this. And 54 percent of the 

H–1B applications were for the lowest wage level, the 17th percentile. So if you think about that on a scale, that is hardly the 

best and brightest being paid the 17th percentile. 

In the case of the L–1 program, it has no wage floor at all. There 

are no wage requirements. By far, the largest sending country for 

L–1 workers is India, where typical wages for engineers is a mere 

$10,000 per year. So you can pay home-country wages and bring 

in L–1 workers instead of hiring American workers. So if you think 

about the differential between an $80,000 a year American engineer versus a $10,000 a year engineer from India, you can imagine 

the kind of arbitrage opportunities and also why these companies 

that are exploiting these loopholes are extraordinarily profitable— 

much more profitable than companies that are hiring American 

workers. 

Second, the programs allow employers to bypass qualified American workers and even outright replace American workers with H– 

1Bs and L–1s. News reports indicate that American workers are 

being replaced by H–1B visa workers in companies such as 

Wachovia, A.C. Nielsen, and Pfizer. This is at a time when the unemployment rates for STEM fields remain very high, and so conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 070996 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70996.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

trary to some of the discussion here this morning, in fact, the 

STEM job market is mired in a jobs recession like the rest of the 

country. The unemployment rates are twice to three times what we 

would expect at full employment, so instead of 2 percent or 2.5 percent, they are more like 5 percent, 4.5 to 5 percent. So they are 

mired in a jobs recession just like the rest of the country. 

According to the IEEE–USA’s analysis of Labor Department 

data, there are more than 300,000 unemployed engineers and computer scientists. Given the poor job market for STEM fields, being 

forced to train your foreign replacement is particularly egregious at 

this time. 

The third flaw I would point out is that because the employer 

rather than the worker holds the visa, an H–1B or L–1 worker’s 

bargaining power is limited, and they can easily be exploited by 

employers. One consequence of all of these issues is that it provides 

an unfair competitive advantage to companies specializing in offshore outsourcing, speeding up the process of shipping high-wage 

high-tech jobs overseas. It has disadvantaged companies that primarily hire American workers, forcing those firms to accelerate 

their own offshoring. For the past 5 years, the top H–1B and L– 

1 employers are using the programs to offshore tens of thousands 

of high-wage, high-skilled American jobs. Using the H–1B program 

to offshore is so common, it has been dubbed ‘‘the outsourcing visa’’ 

by India’s former Commerce Minister. 

Simply put, the U.S. Government is subsidizing offshoring 

through the current H–1B and L–1 regimes. As former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who was the architect of the H–1B program, 

put it, ‘‘There is no reason why the Government should have a 

thumb on the scale to actually speed up the process of outsourcing 

these jobs.’’ 

Even more disturbing is that many American high-tech workers 

and students believe the program and Government policy purposely 

undercuts their careers. The program has lost legitimacy amongst 

these critical workers. American tech workers are leaving the field 

and telling students to stay away. This threatens the country’s capacity to innovate and create jobs for the economy. 

In conclusion, let me say that I believe the United States benefits 

enormously from high-skilled permanent immigration. We can and 

should encourage the best and brightest to come to the United 

States and settle here permanently. But our high-skill immigration 

policy is failing on both accounts. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hira appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Dr. Hira, and I want to thank 

all the witnesses for their testimony. We will limit the questioning 

period to 5 minutes, so I will ask the witnesses to try to limit their 

answers. 

First, to Dr. Greifeld, just tell us some of the types of jobs at 

NASDAQ that have been done by high-skilled immigrants where 

they have made a really important contribution to your company 

that you would not have gotten from other sources. 

Mr. GREIFELD. Speaking for NASDAQ ourselves as an employer, 

we take great pride in our technology where we are basically beVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 070996 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70996.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

yond the limits, what is known is commercial computing capability. 

We have the ability to process over a million transactions a second, 

in about 50 milliseconds. And when we look at our development 

team that is responsible for that core activity, it is about 60 people 

of which 20 of them are foreign born, and those people are certainly 

critical. And we certainly cast a wide net to find that unique set 

of talent to allow us to build these systems which are deployed 

globally. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

To Dr. Skorton, there has been an argument that immigrant students in our schools are taking slots from other capable American 

students. Can you address that? I think Senator Grassley alluded 

to that. Can you address that argument? 

Mr. SKORTON. Yes, and thank you, Senator. It is a complex issue, 

but my impression after 30 years in higher education at multiple 

institutions is that that just is not true overall in the high-skill 

areas that we are talking about. But I also want to take advantage 

of the question to make a couple of points about additional advantages that international students bring to our campuses in favor of 

the positive effects on American students who are their classmates. 

Students from other countries contribute enormously to the cultural diversity of the campus, and in an age, as you have heard, 

where globalization has actually affected the way companies work, 

not just a catch phrase but actually a way of living, our students 

need to have cultural competencies that go far beyond America’s 

borders, and international students add to that cultural competency. 

They also add an alternative perspective on many, many issues 

that I think broadens debates and puts our own students in a better position to go forward with their own international leadership. 

And, finally, we do have a challenge in the pipeline for not only 

STEM graduates but for other high-tech areas in the American K– 

12 system. 

And even though it has not been the immediate focus of this 

panel today, I think it is important to say that one of the other 

areas that needs to go hand in hand with immigration reform is 

continued work on the STEM pipeline in K–12 so that there will 

be a better balance of available and qualified American students 

for these jobs and so we will not have the structural unemployment 

that was mentioned by the last speaker. 

I also want to take advantage and just a quick commentary to 

resolve what I think might be apparently to the panel a conflict between the first speaker and the last speaker about whether or not 

there actually are jobs going unfilled because of lack of skills. I believe there are, and I believe an unemployment rate, a raw unemployment rate, is too gross a measure to answer the question: Do 

we have the right skill match with the jobs that are going unfilled? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, in your region we have three great 

engineering schools, two of which are represented here—Cornell 

and RIT; there is RPI where I believe one of the witnesses attended—turning out engineers, and Lockheed Martin needs engineers in Syracuse, and they cannot get all the engineers they need 

right in that area. 

19 

Mr. Smith, let us say we were no longer—let us say we did not 

change our immigration policy. How would it affect jobs at Microsoft, both here and abroad? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, right now we at the company have over 4,500 

jobs that are open. Over 2,600 of those jobs are in the computer 

science and engineering fields. I think if we do not have immigration reform, you know, what we are going to see is a continuing 

pressure by technology leaders, especially in our industry, to put 

more jobs in R&D centers in other places. 

Chairman SCHUMER. You mean overseas. 

Mr. SMITH. Overseas, outside the United States. We opened a development center in Vancouver, British Columbia, a few years ago 

precisely because we could not get sufficient visas for the people we 

had hired. And when we did that, the premier of British Columbia, 

the equivalent of their Governor, looked at us and said this: ‘‘You 

all have a problem. Your Government does not like your foreign 

employees. But I do. Bring your jobs here.’’ 

Chairman SCHUMER. Say no more. 

Dr. Arora, first, how long would it take you, waiting in line because the Indian percentage is only 7 percent, to get your green 

card? How many years more at present rates? 

Dr. ARORA. Senator, I have to say that this is one of the most— 

this is the $64 million question. There are many thousands of people ahead of me in the line today. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We estimate about 8 more years. 

Dr. ARORA. That could well be possible. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That just makes no sense. 

Dr. ARORA. It is 2,800 a year, including—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. No sense. Okay. You make a very good 

point. And do you have any estimates on the number of people that 

would open their own companies here in the U.S. but cannot because of the broken immigration system we have? 

Dr. ARORA. Senator, I think there are many people in our community who have entrepreneurial ambitions. I have run across 

many examples of these on a daily basis. I have a colleague who 

was a few years ahead of me in medical school, a few years ahead 

of me at Mayo, and then joined Amgen a few years ahead of me. 

I almost feel like I am following him around the world. He has now 

opened up his own small biotech venture in Thousand Oaks and 

lives near me, employs people, and is doing the most innovative 

work. 

I know that at Immigration Voice we hear every day that there 

are many who would like to open small businesses and simply cannot because of this status in limbo. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. Okay. I have exceeded my time 

by a little bit, so I will stop my questions now. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

About 85 percent of U.S. green cards go to family members of 

U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents, people seeking humanitarian refuge and diversity immigrants who come from countries 

with low rates of immigration. So that leaves us with 15 percent 

of the visas going to people based on their work, and indeed, half 

20 

of the 15 percent, roughly only about 7 percent, go to principal 

workers, with the vast majority of those highly skilled workers. 

As the Dallas Fed report says, ‘‘No other major developed economy gives such a low priority to employment—based immigration.’’ 

So my question for the panel is: Do you think we ought to give, 

in the interest of energizing our economy, more emphasis to employment-based permanent immigration? Or should we maintain 

the status quo? Maybe, Mr. Greifeld, do you have a view about 

that? 

Mr. GREIFELD. I certainly do. Certainly when you look at the situation, we had H–1B first at 195,000, and we would advocate for 

going back to that limit. With respect to the employment-based 

visas, to me, reading through it, there are just too many categories, 

and we need to simplify that and look at it as a number that certainly should not include the families that come along with the person who is working. And we have to recognize when somebody is 

working and contributing to this economy, that is a good thing and 

should be a faster path for them to have permanent status in this 

country. 

Senator CORNYN. I suspect I will get similar answers from others 

on the panel, so let me just move on to another topic. 

The Economist said there was a time when ambitious foreigners 

had little choice but to put up with America’s restrictive ways. Europe was sclerotic, and India and China were poor and highly restrictive, but these days the rest of the world—and I am paraphrasing—is opening up and competing with the United States for 

these highly skilled workers. 

Mr. Smith, maybe you would be a good candidate for this question. What exactly are nations like Canada—you mentioned your 

Vancouver facility, but I would include New Zealand, Australia, the 

U.K.—what are they doing differently than the United States is to 

attract these best and brightest foreign workers? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, ironically, I think the single thing that has happened the most often is this: The rest of the world sort of figured 

out what was working in the United States, and they replicated it 

even as we perhaps stepped away. So, in fact, we see wages going 

up quite quickly in our industry for engineers around the world. 

We see cities, States, and countries doing more to make development centers attractive, putting incentives in place to attract companies. We see some Governments really changing their visa policies to make it easier for students to continue to stay and get a job, 

making it easier for spouses to work sooner in the process, to accelerate the path to the equivalent of a green card and eliminate or 

reduce the kind of legal uncertainty that we increasingly feel here. 

So things have become much more competitive. 

Senator CORNYN. Dr. Hira, you talked about the problems that 

we have with current administration of the H–1B program. I cannot think of anything that would sabotage our desire to try to fix 

this broken system and to do what is in the best interests of the 

United States and certainly our economy than examples of people 

gaming the system, which you have talked about. Do you feel like 

Congress has the capacity and ability through new legislation to fix 

the broken parts of the system that allow people to game it while 

21 

preserving the benefits of attracting these best and brightest workers? 

Dr. HIRA. Yes, absolutely. I think there are definitely proposals 

that have been introduced, in fact, in the last Congress by Senators 

Grassley and Durbin, who are both members of this Subcommittee, 

S. 887, which would go a long ways to actually fixing many of the— 

closing many of the loopholes that I mentioned earlier. 

Let me also just address the U.K. Interestingly enough, the U.K. 

has actually tightened up their work visa program quite significantly with the new coalition government, and when I met with the 

Migration Advisory Committee, which is an arm of the government 

that advises the government on immigration issues, they were 

shocked that our L–1 program, our intra-company transfer, multinational transfer program does not have a wage floor. They were 

just flabbergasted. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that 

we might want to consider in working together on legislation here 

is sort of a rheostat or way to power up or power down the system 

in times of a booming American economy and times when our economy is not doing as well. But I dare say that between you and me 

and the members of this Committee, if we were agreed to deal with 

this problem, we could fix this. We could fix this. I am not sure 

what the prospects are for comprehensive immigration reform because of the credibility problem that Congress has when it comes 

to various aspects of it. But this is an area I think we could fix 

working together. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I certainly think the area has to be fixed. 

One of the problems we have seen in the past—we will see if it remains in the future—is when you do not do comprehensive reform, 

the people who are not included say, ‘‘I am not going to let a bill 

go forward unless I am included.’’ So that has been the old dilemma. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Thank you 

for holding this hearing and for your leadership, longstanding leadership in this area, and thank you to the witnesses who have come 

here today on this critically important topic. We hear about it every 

day. Connecticut has a number of companies which, like Microsoft, 

have openings but are looking for folks with the skills to fill those 

openings—United Technologies and General Electric and all of the 

great companies located in Connecticut—which leads me to my first 

question. 

Mr. Smith, you know, your observation that jobs follow the talent 

reminds me of the National Venture Capital Association which 

commissioned a study entitled ‘‘American Made: The Impact of Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Professionals on U.S. Competitiveness,’’ a study that indicated that immigrant-founded companies 

have generated more than half of the employment by United States 

public venture-backed high-tech manufacturers. So entrepreneurs 

coming to this country are the source of employment, new jobs that 

are created when they create new companies. 

I wonder if you could talk about the two or three revisions in immigration law that you think would enable us to attract more enVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 070996 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70996.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22 

trepreneurs as well as individuals to fill those 4,000 openings that 

you mentioned at Microsoft. 

Mr. SMITH. Certainly. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I think 

the real key today is to focus on green cards, and, in fact, I think 

that might be something that most or all of us even share on this 

panel. We have such a backlog of green cards, and as you have 

heard, the fact that we have a per country cap is a real problem. 

We have a huge backlog in the country today, especially for people from a country like India, and that is discouraging them from 

staying here. It means their spouses cannot work. It is creating incentive for them to return home, create companies, and create jobs 

in other places. So I would say priority No. 1 really should be to 

address the current green card backlog. 

Then the other point I would make is, as you have heard, there 

is a huge amount of benefit that would come from putting graduates of American universities, especially in high-demand fields, 

the so-called STEM fields, for example, on a path to green cards. 

That would give them the incentive to put down roots here. It addresses a lot of the issues that people have been expressing concern 

about with respect to temporary visas. It would strengthen the 

country’s economy. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I gather from your testimony, Dr. 

Skorton, that you would agree on a number of those points. 

Mr. SKORTON. Yes, Senator Blumenthal, I would definitely agree 

with the points, and I want to say again, at the risk of redundancy, 

that the beauty of what you are talking about is that it is comprehensive. And I believe that, as Dr. Hira has mentioned, it is 

very important to deal with inadequacies and rooms for loopholes 

in the current system. It is very, very important to do a better job 

of matching skills needs with skills production. 

And, third, I think as Senator Cornyn mentioned, it is very important to make the system inherently flexible enough to deal with 

different industries and different eras. And just because I have garnered the floor briefly, I will say again that even though it is not 

necessarily in the purview of this particular Committee, it is important that we all, all Americans, work toward improving the STEM 

pipeline in K–12 education so that our successors in years to come 

will not be dealing with this very frustrating problem. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I appreciated your mention of that 

point and also of the DREAM act, even though it is not directly on 

point today. 

Mr. Greifeld, from your experience would lifting the caps, the per 

country caps, also be something that we should do? 

Mr. GREIFELD. Definitely. As I mentioned in my testimony, I was 

in the Valley last week, and I met during my time there about 24 

or 25 different CEOs of high—technology companies. And these are 

companies with active job searches, active job openings for obviously highly qualified engineering talent, and this talent is fundamental to their growth. And in terms of the ripple effect in terms 

of employment, it is real. The openings are real, the ripple effect 

is real, and we have to respond to that as soon as we can and allow 

them to hire these people, create the ripple effect, and, you know, 

obviously address in some way our economic issues that we face 

today. So we need to move beyond that. And these numbers are obVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:21 Dec 06, 2011 Jkt 070996 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70996.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23 

viously artificial. There has to be some way, as I think Senator 

Cornyn mentioned a rheostat, where it is geared to actual demand 

here. So we cannot have an arbitrary number. We have to respond 

to the real-life situation on the ground. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, again, my time has expired, but I 

want to thank all of you for being here, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. Again, I appreciate Senator Schumer’s 

leadership in this area. It has been great. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all 

the panelists. I am sorry I missed your testimony, but obviously we 

have it in writing. 

I have some questions. I will start with Dr. Hira. In your testimony you described how the loopholes in the high—skilled guest 

worker program have eased the way for companies to bring in 

cheap foreign labor who directly substitute rather than complement 

workers already in the United States. So my first question is for 

you to rebut the assertion that some, including your co-panelist 

Brad Smith, have made that the U.S. does not, in fact, have 

enough highly skilled workers. 

Dr. HIRA. Well, the data just does not support that assertion by 

Mr. Smith. The unemployment rates, as I mentioned earlier, are 

very high. In fact, they are higher for STEM graduates than they 

are for all college graduates. So unless you are going to argue that 

liberal arts majors are somehow in short supply, it is hard to argue 

this. The unemployment rates are twice to three times what we 

would expect. Now, some of this is a cyclic phenomenon. It is part 

of the jobs recession that the whole country is facing right now. 

There are always cases where there are shortages of very narrow 

occupations, and let me give you a very good example of this: petroleum engineering. What we saw was the market worked. Wages 

went up from about $60,000 to $86,000, and what happened? Well, 

enrollments went way up within universities in petroleum engineering, filled mostly, almost exclusively, by Americans into those 

programs. So markets work when you let them work. 

By using these H–1B and L–1 programs, what you are really 

doing is intervening in the normal functioning of the labor market, 

and with that privilege should come some accountability. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Again, Dr. Hira, we have seen trends in large 

corporations where they are finding ways to circumvent H–1Bs besides using and L and B visa. What other ways are companies obtaining foreign workers? And is this something that deserves more 

scrutiny? 

Dr. HIRA. One of the things that is interesting about this in the 

way the regulations work—and I do not know enough about it because I do not think it has been studied. But many of the temporary workers come in and do not work directly for the clients. 

They may not work for Microsoft or for one of the large American 

companies. What they do is they work for contractors, and by doing 

that, through that process of outsourcing, they are able to then circumvent some of the non-displacement and other regulations. At 

least this is my speculation. I do not know of anybody who has actually studied it within the Government or outside the Government 

24 

to see how this process works. But definitely there are problems 

there, and that is something that needs to be scrutinized. 

So one has to not just look at the direct workforces of, let us say, 

Microsoft but also the people that they contract with. For example, 

Infosys does all of their tech support and services. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Smith, Microsoft is a real employment 

machine, so we have obviously got to be cognizant of what you say 

about it, but I have some questions in regard to H–1B. An issue 

that has been raised about H–1B and L–1 visa programs is employers are not required to demonstrate that qualified American workers are, in fact, available. And, of course, I know through visiting 

with you and other people that work for you that you and other 

companies oppose Grassley-Durbin because it requires attestation 

that an employer recruit qualified Americans first. 

Why is it so much to ask for your company and others to look 

for American workers first and foremost? And a second question: 

Would Microsoft support a requirement for companies to first attest 

and actively recruit American workers before they resort to foreign 

labor? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Senator Grassley, we appreciate the opportunity to have an ongoing conversation. As you know, there are a 

number of steps in the immigration process where one has to have 

certain attestations, one has to jump through certain hoops, one 

has to post information on the Department of Labor’s website. We 

would not think it would be helpful to inject into the labor market 

yet more bureaucratic hurdles that make it harder to hire employees. We do not pay foreign nationals any differently from the way 

we pay U.S. nationals, and our wages are not cheap. We and other 

leaders in our industry today are hiring in the computer science 

and engineering fields right out of college, and people who get a diploma 1 day are able to start work the next day with a salary and 

a stock grant in excess of $100,000. I think there are a number of 

us who might not have gone to law school if we had realized that 

future. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am done, but I did have a question for Dr. 

Skorton that I will give—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection, any member of this 

panel, those here or not here, can submit questions in writing, and 

there will be a week to return those. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Arora, thank you for being here and thank you for your clinical work in Minnesota. You have made a difference in the lives of 

countless poor Minnesotans without reliable access to medical care. 

First, can you give me a rough estimate of how many Minnesotans you have served as a physician in the course of your career? 

Dr. ARORA. Just to be clear, you are asking me about my practice 

as a physician, Senator? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 

Dr. ARORA. I started practice as a physician—well, we should go 

back a little bit. I was a medical resident for 3 years where I practiced as a physician, but as a resident physician. I did another 2 

25 

years at NYU at Bellevue Hospital and the Manhattan Veterans 

Affairs Medical Center. Following this, I was in Rochester, Minnesota, at the Mayo Clinic for 2 years doing a fellowship in advanced diabetes, although I have to say that a rather good section 

of those 2 years was really spent doing clinical research. That was 

a lot of my research training. 

I then spent time from July of 2003 until December of 2008 with 

a full-time practice at Regions Hospital and its affiliated clinics 

with the Health Partners Medical Group. 

In December of—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I was just at Regions this weekend—at a Regions, yes. 

Dr. ARORA. And in December of 2008 I moved to a clinical research position at Amgen, so I have had a 21⁄2 year hiatus, but as 

we speak, I am actually preparing to go back to work at a local volunteer clinic. I feel the need to get back a little bit to my practice 

roots. 

Senator FRANKEN. And I know your path to a green card has 

been frustrating and is still not complete. Can you describe the 

challenges you face and how having to deal with those challenges 

has affected your ability to focus on your clinical work? 

Dr. ARORA. Senator, there are a number of things that do not 

occur to one intuitively when you think of what happens when you 

are in the state where you do not have a green card but you are 

waiting for one. I have been through a number of different phases. 

I was on a J–1 exchange visitor visa for many years when I was 

training. That visa would run out every year, even though I was 

in a 3-year program or a 2-year program. Every time I traveled 

home, I would spend—out of the 8 days I would get after traveling 

the long distance, I would spend 2 days preparing and going to the 

embassy to get visa stamp. I never knew when they would decide, 

as they do very commonly these days, to just put me in some kind 

of administrative processing and hold me for 3 months, maybe getting me to lose my position. I would get a stamp, but because my 

academic year was finishing in July and I visited in February, it 

would expire in July. 

There were all kinds of hurdles there, but that is not the least 

of it. These days my driver’s license expires every so often. I find 

that I am either applying for a driver’s license which is expiring 

or for work authorization which keeps expiring or for an advance 

parole so that I will be able to travel to work or home on a near 

continuous basis because something or the other always seems to 

be going away because I do not have a green card. 

I applied for a mortgage to buy a home, which I was fortunate 

to be able to do eventually, and had to pass some serious hurdles 

because I had employment authorization and the statute—and I 

understand exactly why—said you had to have either a valid visa 

or a green card, and nobody quite understands the state of limbo 

that many of us exist in. It seems to be a vacuum. 

I have tried to buy disability insurance just to make sure if 

something unfortunate were to happen my family and I would be 

cared for, and I have been told that if I am not a permanent resident I cannot do that. 

26 

I have friends who have wanted to adopt children and could not 

because they do not have permanent residence. 

So there are a number of issues like this where we are held back, 

and, you know, we spend a lot of time and energy as a community 

dealing with these little things in daily life which seem so natural 

to everyone else, and I think they do take away from our efforts 

at practice and other work. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I know that if you worked at Regions and at Mayo, you are a very, very fine doctor and clinician. 

Mr. Skorton, you point out that nearly half of all recent graduate 

degrees awarded by U.S. universities in science, technology, engineering, and math were awarded to foreign nationals, and this 

means that international students who receive their education in 

Minnesota, for example, often must travel to another country to 

make use of that knowledge instead of contributing to the economy 

of the State that educated them. 

I think it would be good to keep those folks in Minnesota where 

they are able to contribute to our economy. How would States that 

educated international students benefit economically from national 

immigration reform? 

Mr. SKORTON. Thank you, Mr. Franken. I would like to first of 

all say that, as a long-time Iowan, I have great respect for the wonderful work done in the great State of Minnesota, one of the only 

places that we could think about that was even colder than the 

State of Iowa. 

Senator FRANKEN. And we have great respect for the State of 

Iowa. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let the record show he is from upstate New 

York. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SKORTON. This is a very, very important point that you have 

raised, and I think that earlier comments I made but also those of 

others on the panel have indicated the importance of utilizing the 

mechanism that you talked about to improve the economy locally 

based not only on the ability to fill those jobs but to start companies and also to invent things that others can use to start a company or that established companies can use to move farther down 

the line. So by all these mechanisms, I think they are very, very 

important, and I think that the objective is clear. And it is easy for 

us on this side of the table to say what we would like to see happen. I do not envy you and the other Senators the jobs that you 

have to do to figure out how to make it happen. But I think the 

goal that you have laid out is the right goal. The question is how 

to get there. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you for letting me join you, Mr. Chairman. 

During the debate over immigration reform, which I was active 

in and felt the comprehensive bill was not a good piece of legislation, the American people agreed with that and it failed, and we 

are not going to see a comprehensive piece of legislation like the 

one last time. If it comes back, it will not be like that one. 

27 

And I just have to say to my high-tech friends, you guys made 

a mistake. You endorsed a bill that did little for high-tech workers, 

but basically would have undermined the lawfulness of our immigration system. And I pleaded with a number of you folks, why 

don’t you come forward with a real plan to help us focus on higherskilled workers? And, Mr. Smith, you made comments about the 

United States and said that we do not like foreign workers. I am 

quoting the Canadian who was saying that, certainly. But I have 

consistently endorsed the Canadian plan of immigration. I would 

take it immediately. 

Have you thought about that, proposing that for the United 

States? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think we would be best served as a country, 

Senator Sessions, if we took what we have today, took what works, 

and then make it better rather than try the Canadian one. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is what I thought. So this is a political deal. I know how it worked out. The Canadian system gives 

points. They give points for education. They give points for skills. 

They give points for youth. They give points for people who speak 

English or French. And that is how they allow people into the 

country, and jobs that they need. Would that be a good plan for the 

United States? Would that favor the high-tech industry? Would it 

help get us more high-skilled workers or not? 

Mr. SMITH. Probably not the French part, but the rest, if you look 

at it, I think we would welcome a discussion on any option, but—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would have thought you would support 

that. 

Mr. SMITH. No. This is why—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. Why? 

Mr. SMITH. This is why: What we really want is labor markets 

that can adapt to changing economic circumstances, and the challenge, in our view, with any point system is it basically puts the 

Government in a position where it is trying to determine, you 

know, what, in fact, is going to best meet needs in the marketplace. 

In fact, if you take the U.S. system—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you could use that system to do that, 

could you not? Couldn’t you alter the points to emphasize the skill 

needs that the country has and not emphasize more workers in 

areas where there is high unemployment? 

Mr. SMITH. I am not saying it does not have some virtues. The 

challenge is that basically it asks a Government commission or 

Committee to basically try to manage or even micromanage a labor 

market in a way that takes stock of changes in the market itself. 

And our experience would suggest that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you would rather be able to do that 

yourself. You would like to be able to handle it. I can understand 

that. I am not sure you are empowered to select what workers 

come into the country. I think that is a governmental function, 

frankly. 

What about the 50,000-person lottery deal? We let hundreds of 

thousands of people apply to be selected as—to be in the lottery, 

and their names are drawn at random. It does not have an age factor. It does not have an education factor. I think I have talked with 

Senator Schumer about it. What about converting that to a real 

28 

high-skill, high—tech entry mechanism? Would that be something 

you could support? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think there is a basis to have a conversation 

about ways to give a higher priority to certain fields where there 

is a clear shortage, and the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math clearly rise very high on that. And then one can discuss, you know: Is a lottery the best way? Is there an alternative 

approach? 

But I would agree that there is absolutely a kernel of something 

that is worth pursuing. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the INS report a few years ago said that 

H–1B employees are paid a median salary 25 percent less than the 

national median for their field. A 2001 National Research Council 

report found that, ‘‘H–1B workers requiring lower levels of hightech skill received lower wages.’’ The Independent Computer Consultants Association in 2003 reported the use of cheaper foreign 

labor has forced down the hourly rates of U.S. consultants by as 

much as 10 to 40 percent. 

So I think there are other studies that agree with Dr. Hira. I 

think he is fundamentally right. I mean, I know you have different 

views, and you would like to be able to pick and choose around the 

world, Microsoft would, whoever they would like to bring in to help. 

But we have to set a national policy, and we have to decide, first 

of all, how many can be allowed, and this cannot be an unlimited 

number. And if that is the case, we have to choose, and so I 

thought the Canadian system is a good program. It seems to be focused on how to serve the Canadian national interest. 

Mr. SMITH. I think you raise a really interesting point, but I do 

not think we should obscure the fact that there is something in 

common in what all five of us are saying. 

The principal reason that some people believe that employees on 

an H–1B visa have a disadvantage in negotiating for salaries with 

their employer is their difficulty of taking another job. And the 

principal difficulty they have in taking another job is they go to the 

very back of the green card queue and have to start over when 

their next employer gets the visa extension. 

We are advocating reform that would address and eliminate that 

problem. That will be good for employees. Obviously, we think it 

will be good for employers as well. It will be good for employment 

more than anything else. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That may be 

something that we could all work on, and I look forward to—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Look, I think there are lots of things we can 

work on on this. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Obviously, I prefer comprehensive and I am 

still working that way. 

I am going to take the prerogative of the Chair to ask an off-topic 

question and take advantage of Mr. Greifeld being here, and that 

is this: You know Congress is debating two possible solutions to 

raise the debt limit. There is one offered by Speaker Boehner—cannot get away from this. 

[Laughter.] 

29 

Chairman SCHUMER. There is one offered by Speaker Boehner in 

the House that would raise the debt limit for 5 to 6 months; one 

offered by Leader Reid that would take the prospect of default off 

the table at least until 2013. Would you prefer a longer-term solution or a short-term patch? Specifically not you personally, but do 

you think the markets would react better to a longer-term solution 

that at least takes the prospect of default off the table for a period 

of time? 

Mr. GREIFELD. Can I say I prefer not to answer the question? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GREIFELD. No, but I would say this, and I did reference it 

in my testimony. Markets certainly want to feel certainty, and to 

the extent there is greater certainty and there is a time duration 

to that certainty, that is more beneficial to the markets. So in a 

general philosophical sense, the longer the deal that Congress 

makes, an agreement with the President, the better markets will 

feel about it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. I appreciate that, and that 

would mean that the Reid deal is preferable to the Boehner deal. 

But you do not have to say that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I am drawing that conclusion myself. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You have the right to remain silent. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, with the direct corollary that it is 

longer. Okay. I want to thank the witnesses. This was excellent 

testimony. This is an issue that America aches for reform—we do— 

in this area in particular, because I think there is general agreement, even Dr. Hira would say, in certain places there is a need 

to fill skills and get people around the world. So it has been very 

elucidating, and I want to thank the witnesses, all of them, for 

being here—particularly my fellow New Yorkers, but no affront to 

anybody else. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now the second panel will please come forward. I want to thank our second panel for being here. We are 

going to try to finish by 12:15 because that is when a vote has been 

called. 

As I mentioned, immigration is an economic engine, certainly 

with highly skilled people who come here and learn and want to 

stay here and create companies and jobs. But people forget that 

even lower-skilled immigrants who come are job creators, and our 

three witnesses today are witness to that because in each of the 

communities they represent, immigration has really been a shot in 

the arm. So I would like to introduce all three, and then we will 

ask them each to speak for 5 minutes and open it up to questions. 

We will go from right to left this time, not to show any political 

preference. 

First, Paul Bridges is the mayor of Uvalda, Georgia. That is a 

town in Montgomery County. He is an educator and a farmer in 

his community. He has served as mayor since 2010. About 53 percent of the land in Uvalda is farmland, and Uvalda is one of America’s most productive farming communities. Maybe in your testimony you can tell us what grows there. Peanuts? I do not know. 

30 

Second is my good friend, David Roefaro. He is the mayor of 

Utica, New York. He is a lifelong resident of Utica, where my father was raised, so I have special affection for the town. And he 

has been a member of the Utica City School District Board of Education and a Common Council representative for the city. He serves 

at Utica’s 75th mayor, and I might say serves very able as Utica’s 

75th mayor, a seat he won in November of 2007. 

And Laurent—Gilbert? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ah, very good. I remember the hockey player Rod Gilbert, so I know how to say it. He is the mayor of Lewiston, Maine. Before that, he served 25 years on the Lewiston Police 

Department rising through the ranks to chief of police, a position 

he held for 5 years before retiring to accept an appointment at the 

United States Marshal for the District of Maine. He is a graduate 

of the FBI Academy and has been appointed so several State criminal justice commissions. 

We will put your entire statements in the record, gentlemen, and 

ask you each to speak for 5 minutes and then be available for questions. So we will first start with Mayor Bridges. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL BRIDGES, MAYOR, UVALDA, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. BRIDGES. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and Subcommittee 

members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

My name is Paul Bridges, and I am mayor of a small town, 

Uvalda, Georgia, which is an agricultural community in southeast 

Georgia. I am also a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Georgia’s 

new anti-immigration law. I am here today to speak about this new 

law and how it is affecting us in south Georgia. 

Uvalda’s story is a microcosm of the national debate about immigration. Like other States, Georgia passed a law that would supposedly address illegal immigration. Among other things, it gave 

local police the power to question residents about their immigration 

status during a traffic stop. It also made it a crime to give a ride 

to an undocumented immigrant if you commit another crime as innocuous as having a burnt-out headlight or failure to use a turn 

signal or even to invite an undocumented immigrant to stay in 

your home. 

The reality is this law will not solve the immigration problem in 

the State. It will only devastate local economies. It will burden our 

communities with the cost of enforcing a law designed to create a 

climate of fear. Even though parts of the law were blocked by a 

Federal court, its impact can already be seen in my community and 

other farming communities around Georgia. And we have no assurance that that block will hold. 

Uvalda is a small town of about 600 people, but more people call 

themselves Uvaldans because the address reaches into adjoining 

Toombs County. Throughout the Uvalda addresses, there are 

neighborhoods of Latino immigrants. Many of them work on the 

farms. We grow many different crops, Senator Schumer, throughout the year, including the Vidalia onions. These crops are harvested by skilled migrant laborers who have harvesting down to a 

fine art. The Georgia peaches, strawberries, blueberries, and many 

31 

other fruits and vegetables that they harvest ends up on America’s 

dinner tables. We also have a multi-million—dollar pine straw industry. These workers who do those jobs are a critical part of Georgia’s economy. Their work helps agriculture to inject $6.85 billion 

into Georgia’s economy. 

These workers also contribute to local economies as consumers. 

Every time they buy a good or service, they pay the same taxes 

that I pay. Many of them own their own homes and pay property 

taxes. Their taxes are commingled with my taxes, and they are 

used to pay for schools and public services. The loss of their tax 

revenue will be felt in Georgia. 

Many also file income tax returns on April the 15th, just like I 

do, using a TIN, or a tax identification number issued by the IRS. 

In addition to the economic problems this law creates, it also 

puts the workers, as well as anyone associated with those workers, 

directly into the crosshairs. Anyone who looks foreign will be under 

suspicion. Immigrant workers, regardless of immigration status, 

have already left the State rather than deal with the racial 

profiling that this law will encourage. They do not want to live 

with the fear that their family will be torn apart because a family 

member cannot produce the proper papers during a traffic stop. 

Now that migrant workers are fleeing Georgia, perfectly healthy 

crops have been rotting in the fields. The Georgia Agribusiness 

Council has already reported that farms have lost over $300 million due to the lack of workers. The economic toll could reach $1 

billion. 

This hits home for many small farms around Uvalda. When crops 

are left in the fields, farmers do not get paid. Some fear the inability to repay their loans, even Federal loans. They are unable to 

meet their families’ needs, and when they have this fear, they also 

stop contributing to the area’s economy by buying goods and services. The farms produce less, which means that the consumers at 

the supermarket pay a little bit more when the produce actually 

reaches the marketplace. 

This misguided law hurts Uvalda in another way. It imposes a 

significant burden on our area’s resources. It forces local law enforcement agencies, with officers untrained in immigration, to use 

its resources to enforce immigration laws. It distracts officers from 

their real mission of protecting residents. No family with an undocumented member will dial 911 in the event of an emergency or 

need for medical services. 

Also, when officers arrest people for alleged immigration violations, they have to house these detainees. They have to house the 

ones who have associated and be arrested with those detainees 

somewhere. Uvalda does not have a jail, nor does Montgomery 

County. We will have to rent space in the jail in an adjoining 

town—another drain on my town’s resources. The bottom line is 

that Uvalda, like so many towns dealing with these anti-immigration laws, will take a major economic hit and will no doubt be less 

safe as a result. 

There are so many wonderful things about the town of Uvalda. 

It is a friendly place and our residents know each other. If a person 

needs a ride to the grocery store, to the church, or to the doctor, 

I give them a ride. And I do not ask for their papers first. 

32 

In the past, when people needed a place to stay, I opened my 

home to them, regardless of their immigration status. I know that 

I am not alone. Other people do the same thing in my area. But 

under this new law, Good Samaritans face fines and jail time. 

Grandparents who have undocumented in-laws become criminals if 

they allow their undocumented in-laws stay overnight. Spouses 

who are citizens become criminals if their spouse is undocumented. 

Citizen children who drive their parents to the grocery store become criminals if their parent is undocumented. This law threatens 

the very fabric of my little town. 

Many folks have been surprised that a conservative Republican 

like me is involved in a lawsuit against my beloved State. It is 

shocking. But it should not be a surprise. This law is not immigration reform. This law is Government intrusion of the worst kind. 

It threatens our economy. It threatens our way of life. And it simply makes no sense. Famous Republicans like Presidents Reagan 

and Bush understood immigration. Our former Governor, Sonny 

Purdue, warned incoming Republicans to not give in to the ‘‘gangtype mentality that could be harmful to those who want the American dream.’’ And then after the law passed, Governor Purdue also 

said, ‘‘The GOP needs to ensure that people of color and people who 

are not U.S.-born feel welcome.’’ I am one Republican who is in 

good company. 

The Assistant Georgia Attorney General defending this law before Judge Thrash in the hearing to determine if the law should 

be blocked said that this law may be unkind, it may be unfair. She 

acknowledged that an 18-year-old citizen driving his undocumented 

mother to the grocery store could be arrested. 

I would like to follow up—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Bridges, if you could wrap up. 

Mr. BRIDGES. Real quick. I would like to follow up on what happens to the two children also in the seats, buckled, in a 10-yearold and 5-year-old, if their older brother is arrested and sent to jail 

for a year and their mother deported. 

I want real immigration reform. We want immigration reform 

now, and we want immigration reform that holds American values 

and fairness and equality. The truth is immigration reform is an 

economic necessity. It is crucial to our National security, and our 

National leaders from both sides of the aisle know it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridges appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

And now my good friend, who does an outstanding job in Utica, 

Mayor Roefaro. I see he is accompanied by his cousin, Angelo, who 

does a good job for me, a great job for me in central New York. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID R. ROEFARO, MAYOR, UTICA, NEW 

YORK 

Mr. ROEFARO. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for having me 

here today. I was hoping I did not get this chair. Mr. Smith from 

Microsoft, he did not have a sheet of paper, and he was 5 minutes 

to the second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

33 

Mr. ROEFARO. So I figured that Microsoft must have implanted 

a chip in him. I would like to thank you for inviting me here today, 

Senator Schumer and Ranking Member Cornyn, for inviting me to 

speak before this Committee today. I would also like to thank the 

members of the Subcommittee for their hard work and commitment 

to fixing and reforming our Nation’s immigration policy. The work 

in front of this Subcommittee has the potential to leave a lasting 

legacy for our country. 

Many years ago, my family lived in Italy. They struggled for jobs 

and economic opportunity. Seeking a better life, they came to 

America, where the streets were paved with gold and there was a 

chicken in every pot. 

When they came to our country, my family sought a community 

that would give them those opportunities. They chose the beautiful 

city of Utica, New York. After coming to Utica, they laid roots, 

raised a family, established a small business, and became an active 

part of the city. They had the opportunity to live the American 

dream. 

Today that simple dream is threatened. The dream of so many 

to come to America and find the streets paved with gold has become vulnerable to fear. In times of economic downturn, like our 

country now faces, we begin to fear that 

which we do not know. And many choose to point the blame for 

our economic problems on immigrants. But to deny those who want 

to come to America and create a new life for themselves would be 

to deny our own history. Our country was built on the backs of immigrants. From the young Irishmen who built the Erie Canal 

across New York to the Bosnian families seeking political refuge 

and starting small businesses in Utica today, immigrants have 

been the key to our past success and will serve as a catalyst to both 

Utica’s and certainly our Nation’s future. 

But do not mistake my words: While immigration is crucial to 

the social and economic fabric of our country, we need to work 

harder to ensure it is done legally. We need to make sure our borders are secure. We need to make sure our communities are safe 

and criminals are off the streets. 

As the mayor of Utica, I have spent the last 4 years trying to 

make life better for those who live in my city. One of my top priorities has been to help refugees assimilate, offer them a stake in our 

city, and show them how they can assist us in growing our local 

economy and creating jobs—all things I have worked to accomplish. 

We have benefited from the recently welcomed immigrants from 

Bosnia, Belarus, Russia, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and 

Vietnam. Groups like this enjoy assistance from our local refugee 

center, a center that has helped transition so many. In my city, 

there are 42 languages spoken in our Utica school district, and centers like the Mohawk Valley Refugee Center help connect the dots 

for immigrants. So no matter how you say it, ‘‘We’re in this together’’ is the motto everyone lives by. 

Yes, our economic growth is tied directly to how we as Nation 

utilize the talent of immigrants, and there are statistics to back 

those words up. Nationwide, cities with growing immigrant populations have the fastest economic growth. Immigrants, by making 

our economy more productive, contribute over $37 billion to the 

34 

wages and output of native-born Americans. And we have already 

heard that between 1995 and 2005, 25 percent of all high-tech 

startups were founded by immigrants. These new Americans paid 

over $162 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes, proving their 

worth to our communities. 

In Utica, economic success stories mirror national ones. Take 

Zaim Dedic, for example. Zaim came to Utica at the age of 14 from 

Mrkonjic Grand, a small town in the Serb Republic. Today, at 31, 

he has built himself a successful business. He is the founder and 

owner of Multilingual Interpretation Services, a translation firm 

that helps new immigrants navigate hospitals, the courtroom, practically anywhere, as they learn English for themselves. Zaim boasts 

eight independently contracted employees, but that is not all. Aside 

from his translation business, Zaim has worked to revitalize an important downtown block called Bleeker Street. He has invested 

thousands into a high-end nightclub there. He employs staff and 

contributes to the revitalization of a block my administration made 

priority No. 1. 

Then there are the ever increasing immigrants from the Dominican Republic who are opening and expanding businesses in my city. 

For example, Joel’s Spanish Restaurant has been a huge success 

for 5 years and keeps on growing strong, and they are going to be 

moving to our West End very shortly in our city. That means more 

great food and more jobs. 

Moving forward, it is important that we all work together to create an innovative solution to immigration reform. For those who 

are here in our country illegally, we must create a path for them 

to become citizens. Through a tough but fair process including security checks, payment of back taxes, and an educational requirement to learn English, we can begin to assimilate now-illegal immigrants into our country and cultivate their economic potential. 

Moreover, my experience as a mayor working on national issues 

has showed me how this issue, this debate, is likely one of the most 

important facing our Nation. I proudly profess our immigrant populations have added to the vibrancy of the city of Utica. Their presence has been vital to our housing stock, our culture, our regional 

economy, and even our local agriculture. Certainly, their presence 

remains crucial to the development and growth in every part of upstate New York. The national importance of this issue is why I am 

a proud member of the Partnership for a New American Economy, 

joining my mayors right here and representatives from Microsoft 

and NASDAQ on this morning’s previous panel and over 300 other 

mayors and business leaders from across the country who know 

that smarter immigration will generate economic growth and create new American jobs. 

As we go forward in this process and create a new immigration 

policy for our country, we need to remember our heritage—the reason we all sit here today. We are a Nation of immigrants, and we 

must preserve this legacy into our future. When my own family 

came to America, they came in search of a better tomorrow. It is 

my hope that we can ensure another generation of immigrants 

come to this country accepted, assisted, and empowered to dream 

the never impossible dream. 

35 

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today, and I will 

gladly answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Senators. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roefaro appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mayor Roefaro. Your chip was 

not quite as good as the person who sat in the seat before you, but 

not bad. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mayor Gilbert. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAURENT F. GILBERT, MAYOR, 

LEWISTON, MAINE 

Mr. Gilbert. Chairman Schumer, Senator Blumenthal, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak with you today on the benefits of immigration reform for renewing America’s communities. I am currently serving as the mayor of the All-America city of Lewiston, 

Maine, a designation awarded in 2007 by the National Civic 

League for our civic engagement. As my biography will attest, my 

lifelong career has been in law enforcement until my election as 

mayor in 2007. 

I am a first-generation American and son of French Canadian 

immigrants. My first language was French. At the age of 10, our 

family moved to southern California. While in school, I had a great 

many Mexican American friends. As a son of immigrants, I could 

relate to my Mexican American classmates. I would at times trade 

my sandwich with a Mexican American student for his burrito— 

something I continue to love to this day. 

Somali refugees started arriving in Lewiston in 2001 to seek a 

quality of life they could not find or afford in major larger cities. 

Word of mouth to friends and relatives outside of Maine led more 

secondary migrants to Lewiston, a city and State that are statistically one of the safest in the country and where these families 

and their children can receive a good education. 

As the refugee population started to grow in Lewiston, a number 

of opinions about the new refugee arrivals were expressed both privately and publicly as fear, and in many cases prejudice fueled the 

public and sometimes political discussion about Lewiston’s ‘‘new 

Mainers.’’ 

An open letter to the Somalis requesting that they reduce their 

numbers coming into the city was picked up by the national and 

international media, whose coverage also caught the attention of a 

national hate group. Those this hate group attracted few supporters to their event, the group’s arrival in Lewiston was met by 

some 5,000 demonstrators who supported our new refugee immigrants. 

Though there was measurably more public, State, nonprofit, academic support for refugees following the Lewiston rally, rumors 

and misguided myths about refugee funding, cultural and religious 

customs, and employment persisted. 

Concerns about refugee employment were driven by observations 

that more refugees were not seen in the local workforce. In the recently published book, ‘‘Somalis in Maine: Crossing Cultural Currents,’’ Deputy City Administrator Phil Nadeau’s research showed 

36 

that refugee employment levels had been steadily declining since 

2006. Nadeau postulated that the combination of higher levels of 

overall unemployment and the significant underfunding of workforce training for many limited-English-speaking adults will continue to fuel refugee unemployment until current Federal refugee 

policy addresses workforce readiness. Our city’s opinion of the inadequacy of the existing refugee resettlement program in the U.S. 

was recently echoed in a July 21, 2010, report to the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Foreign relations entitled ‘‘Abandoned Upon Arrival: 

Implications for Refugee and Local Communities Burdened by a 

U.S. Resettlement System That Is Not Working.’’ 

In my opinion, though we have grave concerns regarding refugee 

resettlement programs, there are signs that our immigrant population is having a positive impact on the social fabric of our community and our local economy. They purchase groceries, clothing, 

cars, along with a number of other goods and services. They keep 

the dollars circulating locally and are beginning to weave themselves to a great degree into the community. 

Most exciting is the energy of our immigrant entrepreneurs who 

are bringing new life to our downtown. Over a dozen immigrantowned businesses occupy formerly vacant storefronts over a twoblock area. The businesses include general merchandise markets, 

specialty foods and good, restaurants, coffee shops, tax preparation 

services, translation services, and clothing stores, as well as starting up cab companies. 

The road to full assimilation into American culture and economic 

self-sufficiency is not easy, but with perseverance and support it 

will continue to happen. The question is whether we choose to let 

this be a process requiring several generations to occur or do all 

that we can to move the process forward more quickly. 

As mayor of my city, my work with the League of United Latin 

American Citizens in support of the DREAM act and the Partnership for a New American Economy has convinced me that sensible 

immigration and refugee resettlement reform today will spur the 

economy, the economic growth, and independence that every American can support. 

In conclusion, I appreciate the interest of the Chairman and Mr. 

Blumenthal and members of the Committee who will receive this 

report to share Lewiston’s newest chapter in our ongoing immigrant story. I believe that the Committee’s and Congress’s continued involvement with immigration reform and the need for significant refugee resettlement reform is critical to the future success of 

a refugee resettlement program whose primary mission is economic 

self-sufficiency. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I certainly remember Rod Gilbert, No. 7 for the New York Rangers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And you are as good in what 

you do as he was in what he did, so thank you for being here. 

I am going to call on Mr. Blumenthal first—I will excuse myself 

for a brief minute—to ask questions; then I will come back and ask 

questions. Senator Blumenthal? 

37 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Schumer, and thank you all for your very moving and inspiring testimony here today. It has been really very instructive to hear your 

firsthand experiences, and I want to thank each of you for your 

public service in your communities, your longstanding public service even before you became mayor in each of your towns and cities. 

And thank you, Mayor Gilbert, most especially for your career in 

law enforcement and your service to the United States in the 

United States Army. And let me begin with a question to you, if 

I may. 

Have you noticed a change in attitude in Lewiston since the time 

when there was that outpouring of opposition based on stereotypes 

and misapprehension? 

Mr. GILBERT. I certainly have, Senator. You know, the dust has 

really settled over the 10-year period. More and more people are 

interacting. The children are now in the schools. They are playing 

on sports teams. They are visiting each other’s families, and they 

are seeing that what people feared initially was really myths that 

were being perpetuated and so on. 

We always have a tendency as immigrants that once I am in, I 

shut the door behind me. And it has been that way in Lewiston. 

Before that it was the Irish who first arrived, and their first Catholic Church was burned. The Ku Klux Klan was in Maine as well 

and were opposed to Catholics. Certainly when the French Canadians arrived, the Irish tended to want to shut the door behind 

them. And now the Franco-Americans are the same way. 

But I think time has a way of healing any abrasions that people 

may have at newcomers, and now, if I may, I would like to introduce into the record this Lewiston Auburn Magazine, the current 

issue, and it says, ‘‘Dreaming with Deco: The growing and thriving 

Somali business. Business community helps renew our Lisbon 

Street.’’ And, also, a story that appeared, to answer your question, 

Senator, on the ‘‘CBS Evening News,’’ a clip dated April 11, 2009, 

on the Somali assimilation in Lewiston. And then, last, a senior 

project by a student from the College of the Atlantic called ‘‘Newcomers.’’ I have submitted that, four copies. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Without objection, we will allow all those 

exhibits to be in the record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me turn to Mayor Roefaro, if I may, 

and thank you for your leadership in Utica, not only in public service but as a member of the Funeral Directors Association, I know 

of your longstanding involvement in the community. I wonder what 

you have done as mayor, as a community leader, to educate about 

the advantages of immigration, about the impact on the fabric and 

economy of your community and in favor of the reforms that you 

have suggested this morning. 

Mr. ROEFARO. Well, in our community, like my fellow mayor 

here, change is always difficult and acceptance is difficult. And we 

actually tried to change that perception, and we have done that 

over the last 31⁄2 years that I have been mayor. And I find that the 

immigrant population that has come really does not ask you for 

anything. They just want to be accepted. I will give you an example. 

38 

The Bosnian community, they needed a place of worship, and we 

had an old church behind our City Hall, and we had somehow 

ended up with that church. And before I became mayor, they were 

going to tear down this church to the tune of about $1 million. We 

ended up selling this church to the Bosnian community for $1,000, 

and the day that we closed on that, they had probably 75 to 80 

workers stripping the roof, doing all kinds of work, and this church 

was 4 feet underwater. They wanted a place of worship, and they 

made it their mosque. Today it is one of the leading mosques in the 

whole area between, you know, Syracuse and Albany and Rochester. And all they wanted was a place of worship. 

When it was first going up, there was talk, you know, and people 

would really say, ‘‘What is it?’’ They did not understand it. They 

did not understand the Muslim faith. They just thought that they 

would stereotype it. 

Well, these people have been so integrated into our system now 

that they have become prominent people in our administration. I 

have my deputy engineer who is a Bosnian. I have a fellow that 

runs our urban interagency that is a Bosnian fellow. We have so 

many that are now opening businesses and that are really becoming really part of the community because we welcomed them into 

this community, and they showed what they are all about, instead 

of just being in the background. 

So we are bringing it to the light, and, you know, we have a Buddhist temple there, also. So I go to them. I do not wait for them 

to come to me. I go to them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That is a very powerful story, and I want 

to thank you and Mayor Bridges as well for your leadership by 

opening your home. I do not know how many times you have done 

that, but that is truly impressive, and thank you very much for 

being here as well. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

I would like to first just follow up with Mayor Roefaro. The Bosnian community, as I understand it, has 6,000 people or so in 

Utica. They have revitalized the downtown. The economy is better. 

Job creation numbers in Utica are considerably better than in 

many of the other areas because of immigrants, and the Bosnian 

community being the largest. Tell us, how did the Bosnian—just 

give us a little more. You mentioned one immigrant from that community and now the church. But give us a little more history. How 

did they come? How has the community grown? Give us some context and texture as to how the Bosnian community did for your city 

what the Somalian community did for Mr. Gilbert’s city? 

Mr. ROEFARO. Right. Well, the first Bosnian I think came about 

20 years ago, and they came to the refugee center in Utica. We 

have a very big refugee center in the city of Utica. And the Bosnian 

population has really—they are probably the oldest immigrant population that has come in most recent years to Utica. They have 

really assimilated into our city very well. They came into—you 

know, they are contractors. They are craftsmen. They have become 

part of the fabric of Utica. So many have opened businesses—restaurants. There is a restaurant probably on every corner, and they 

are all busy. They have great food. They actually have become part 

39 

of our system where I say that they will become the leaders of tomorrow. You will have a mayor that will be Bosnian eventually in 

the city of Utica. You will have leaders—and we are trying to get— 

there are some running for our Common Council right now. So we 

are trying to integrate them into our system to make them part of 

our system because they are like my ancestors when my father 

came over. My father was born in Italy. When they came over, they 

needed someone to show them the way. But once they were shown 

the way—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. What made them choose Utica? 

Mr. ROEFARO. Well, the Srebrenica massacre, which I spoke 

about a year ago in Syracuse, New York, the exodus of the 

Srebrenica massacre for the Bosnian population, they—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. What made them choose Utica as opposed 

to another place? 

Mr. ROEFARO. You know, there is only one other city—and I do 

not know whether it is Minneapolis or—I cannot remember where 

it is, but I think it is the refugee center how they got here. That 

was long before my time. But I did a little bit of history, and our 

refugee center really brought most of them in. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And what are the other large immigrant 

communities in the city of Utica? 

Mr. ROEFARO. We have Somali, Vietnamese, Dominican Republic. 

We really are a melting pot. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And have the people who have lived in 

Utica a long time who are not immigrants seen this as an economic 

shot in the arm for the city? 

Mr. ROEFARO. Absolutely. When I talk to people out in the community, they actually are thankful that the Bosnian community 

came and all the other communities come because we had—like the 

Lower East End of our city of Utica, the Bosnian community has 

come in, and they do not just buy one house. Their families come, 

and they buy blocks at a time, and they have really restructured 

those blocks, and they have redone the houses that were falling 

apart. They have taken them, put them back on the tax rolls, and 

they have made them beautiful. 

They have this technique that they use, it is like a stucco, and 

so everything that they do is beautiful. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now Reader’s Digest, didn’t they call Utica 

the ‘‘Second Chance City’’ because of this? 

Mr. ROEFARO. Yes, they did. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And let me ask you, Mayor Gilbert, the 

same thing? Do the people who have lived in Lewiston for generations see the Somalian community as an economic shot in the arm, 

as a real help to the community? 

Mr. GILBERT. Certainly. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How many Somalians are there in Lewiston? 

Mr. GILBERT. About 4,000, and the population of the entire is 

about 37,000. Then across the river we have our twin city of Auburn with about 1,000 Somalis. 

You know, this is an old textile city where the mills were 

emptied and so on. And so consequently. the downtown, there were 

empty storefronts, and now they are occupying a couple of city 

40 

blocks of Somali businesses, and they are doing well. They are 

starting to buy homes and providing various services. So they are 

adding to the economic well—being of the community because we 

had all of this housing, available housing, from the people who 

used to work in our mills and so on and have moved elsewhere or 

have died off. And so we had this available housing. Now they are 

filling these apartments, these four- or five-story tenement buildings where, if they were not there, I wonder where we would be. 

And certainly landlords benefit, car dealers benefit, and so on. 

I think they are seeing the benefit of that, and any differences 

that there were, these things are settling down. And so I see it as 

positive. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And, finally, to Mr. Bridges, Mayor Bridges, 

you have mentioned how the farmers really depend on immigrants 

and crops are not getting picked, et cetera. What does the community think? And the city represents the surrounding area for people 

who are not farmers, the tradesmen and teachers and cops and 

firefighters, do they see the economic harm that is happening because of Georgia’s law? Do they join you in opposing the law? Is 

that true in many of the agricultural regions of Georgia as well? 

Mr. BRIDGES. It is true throughout Georgia. From everyone I 

have spoken with—and I have spoken with several mayors as 

well—we are recognizing the detriment that this law is causing 

throughout the States. Teachers do not have any problems at all 

teaching migrant children. In fact, it is a challenge that many of 

them embrace. The entire State of Georgia welcomes the immigrants and their contribution economically and socially. 

There are some people who are anti-immigrant who are very loud 

in what they have to say, but we do embrace the immigrants, and 

we recognize their contribution and their hard work that they do 

to provide the vegetables and the fruits for our tables. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. Well, I want to thank all three of our 

witnesses here. They have shown there are different sides to immigration. We need high-tech workers. Microsoft needs them, Lockheed Martin in Syracuse needs high-tech workers, cannot find 

them. But we also have immigrants who come who do not have the 

high skills. In both cases, in Bosnian and Somalian, they came because they were refugees, because of war that tore their countries 

apart. And yet they produce real economic growth and real economic activity as your two cities exemplify, and, of course, we all 

know the economic dependence our farmers have. Throughout upstate New York, our farmers are always telling me how much they 

depend—they cannot get native-born Americans to pick the crops 

and do the farm work, and they depend on immigrants. 

So the point we are making here today, hopefully, is that immigration is an economic engine and we need immigration. And, you 

know, Senator Cornyn mentioned high unemployment. There is 

high unemployment, and certainly we do not want our immigration 

laws to have immigrants displace or take away jobs from Americans. That tends to happen more in illegal immigration than in 

legal immigration. And what we are trying to do with comprehensive reform is stop the flow of illegal immigration, rationalize the 

policy of legal immigration so that we can benefit in terms of jobs 

41 

up and down the line. And I think all eight witnesses today at our 

hearing have shown that. 

I very much appreciate, gentlemen, your time and effort, and so 

the hearing is now concluded. Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses. I want to ask unanimous consent to put the statements in 

the record of Chairman Leahy, who is very supportive of our hearing, as well as the following groups that are supporting basically 

our thrust to get immigration reform: the Chamber of Commerce, 

Compete America, Intel, the American Council on International 

Personnel, the Partnership for a New American Economy, the 

United Agribusiness League, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, IIUSA, Third Way, Lutheran Immigration and 

Refugee Service, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. 

They have all submitted statements, and I am going to ask unanimous consent that their statements be added to the record. 

[The statements appears as a submissions for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without further ado, again, thanking our 

witnesses, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

42 


70996.001
43 


70996.002
44 


70996.003
45 


70996.004
46 


70996.005
47 


70996.006
48 


70996.007
49 


70996.008
50 


70996.009
51 


70996.010
52 


70996.011
53 


70996.012
54 


70996.013
55 


70996.014
56 


70996.015
57 


70996.016
58 


70996.017
59 


70996.018
60 


70996.019
61 


70996.020
62 


70996.021
63 


70996.022
64 


70996.023
65 


70996.024
66 


70996.025
67 


70996.026
68 


70996.027
69 


70996.028
70 


70996.029
71 


70996.030
72 


70996.031
73 


70996.032
74 


70996.033
75 


70996.034
76 


70996.035
77 


70996.036
78 


70996.037
79 


70996.038
80 


70996.039
81 


70996.040
82 


70996.041
83 


70996.042
84 


70996.043
85 


70996.044
86 


70996.045
87 


70996.046
88 


70996.047
89 


70996.048
90 


70996.049
91 


70996.050
92 


70996.051
93 


70996.052
94 


70996.053
95 


70996.054
96 


70996.055
97 


70996.056
98 


70996.057
99 


70996.058
100 


70996.059
101 


70996.060
102 


70996.061
103 


70996.062
104 


70996.063
105 


70996.064
106 


70996.065
107 


70996.066
108 


70996.067
109 


70996.068
110 


70996.069
111 


70996.070
112 


70996.071
113 


70996.072
114 


70996.073
115 


70996.074
116 


70996.075
117 


70996.076
118 


70996.077
119 


70996.078
120 


70996.079
121 


70996.080
122 


70996.081
123 


70996.082
124 


70996.083
125 


70996.084
126 


70996.085
127 


70996.086
128 


70996.087
129 


70996.088
130 


70996.089
131 


70996.090
132 


70996.091
133 


70996.092
134 


70996.093
135 


70996.094
136 


70996.095
137 


70996.096
138 


70996.097
139 


70996.098
140 


70996.099
141 


70996.100
142 


70996.101
143 


70996.102
144 


70996.103
145 


70996.104
146 


70996.105
147 


70996.106
148 


70996.107
149 


70996.108
150 


70996.109
151 


70996.110
152 


70996.111
153 


70996.112
154 


70996.113
155 


70996.114
156 


70996.115
157 


70996.116
158 


70996.117
159 


70996.118
160 


70996.119
161 


70996.120
162 


70996.121
163 


70996.122
164 


70996.123
165 


70996.124
166 


70996.125
167 


70996.126
168 


70996.127
169 


70996.128
170 


70996.129
171 


70996.130
172 


70996.131
173 


70996.132
174 


70996.133
175 


70996.134
176 


70996.135
177 


70996.136
178 


70996.137
179 


70996.138
180 


70996.139
181 


70996.140
182 


70996.141
183 


70996.142
184 


70996.143
185 


70996.144
186 


70996.145
187 


70996.146
188 


70996.147
189 


70996.148
190 


70996.149
191 


70996.150
192 


70996.151
193 


70996.152
194 


70996.153
195 


70996.154
196 


70996.155
197 


70996.156
198 


70996.157
199 


70996.158
200 


70996.160
201 


70996.161
202 


70996.162
203 


70996.163
204 


70996.164
205 


70996.165
206 


70996.166
207 


70996.167
208 


70996.168
209 


70996.169
210 


70996.170
211 


70996.171
212 


70996.172
213 


70996.173
214 


70996.174
215 


70996.175
216 


70996.176
217 


70996.177
218 


70996.178
219 


70996.179
220 


70996.180
221 


70996.181
222 


70996.182
223 


70996.183
224 


70996.184
225 


70996.185
226 


70996.186
227 


70996.187
228 


70996.188
229 


70996.189
230 


70996.190
231 


70996.191
232 


70996.192
233 


70996.193
234 


70996.194
235 


70996.195
236 


70996.196
237 


70996.197
238 


70996.198
239 


70996.199
240 


70996.200
241 


70996.201
242 


70996.202
243 


70996.203
244 


70996.204
245 


70996.205
246 


70996.206
247 


70996.207
248 


70996.208
249 


70996.209
250 


70996.210
251 


70996.211
252 


70996.212
253 


70996.213
254 


70996.214
255 


70996.215
256 


70996.216
257 


70996.217
258 


70996.218
259 


70996.219
260 


70996.220
261 


70996.221
262 


70996.222
263 


70996.223
264 


70996.224
265 


70996.225
266 


70996.226
267 


70996.227
268 


70996.228
269 


70996.229
270 


70996.230
271 


70996.231
272 


70996.232
273 


70996.233
274 


70996.234
275 


70996.235
276 


70996.236
277 

Æ 


70996.237