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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–507 PDF 2006

HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IMPACTS CONSTITUENCIES: PERSPECTIVES FROM MEMBERS OF

CONGRESS (PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–76

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Counsel 

ALLISON BEACH, Counsel 

LUKE BELLOCCHI, Full Committee Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 10, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Linda Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, 

and Claims ............................................................................................................ 28

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Mexico 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

The Honorable Henry Bonilla, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22

The Honorable Luis Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Abner Culberson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ........................................................... 55

Editorials Supporting Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Secure 

America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, submitted by the Honorable 

Luis V. Gutierrez ................................................................................................. 59

(1)

HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IMPACTS CONSTITUENCIES: PERSPECTIVES FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (PART I) 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John N. 

Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. As a result of the necessity to accommodate schedules for members of the 

panel that will be leaving, we’ll start at this time. 

This hearing is the first in a series of hearings concerning the 

impact of illegal immigration on local constituencies, and who better to explain what is going on around the country than Members 

of Congress from impacted areas. 

Today, we have three Members whose districts are actually on or 

near the border with Mexico and New Mexico and Texas, and we 

also have our colleague from Chicago. 

It is appropriate to begin this hearing series with an examination 

mainly of those border districts because they bear the brunt of 

much illegal alien traffic, even for illegal aliens who settle elsewhere. 

Next week, we plan to have Members from North Carolina, California, and New York, Georgia, and other parts of the country. 

Each of these Members and their districts have been heavily impacted by the flow and settlement of illegal aliens. Cities and towns 

around the country are negatively impacted by the heavy toll on infrastructure, the costs of emergency and non-emergency health 

care, primary and secondary education, and, of course, the loss of 

jobs to our American population. 

In addition, there is social impact in the form of additional crime, 

high populations, and damage to the environment. 

We should also not forget the national security danger to the 

country of having an estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the 

country, when no one knows who they are and what their intent 

is. 

Surely, for most of them, they intend to work and perhaps settle 

here. But a small handful of undocumented illegal aliens may pose 

the danger of terrorists attacking our country once again. 

2

If there is something Members of Congress can agree on, it is 

perhaps that illegal alien situations should be brought under control. 

Before Congress decides on legislation to gain control over those 

illegal aliens who are here to work, we must look at the overall impact to our constituents so that any problems can be addressed in 

that legislation and not be ignored. 

Do illegal aliens lower wages for Americans? We examined this 

at a hearing on this issue earlier this year. If they arguably provide 

cheaper goods for consumers, is the cost of their work here worth 

the benefit? Will the taxes collected from illegal workers cover the 

cost in public subsidies and benefits that American taxpayers have 

been paying? What is the cost for infrastructure? What is the cost 

for emergency care for illegal aliens? What is the cost of increased 

crime and population? Do counties that border Mexico bear the 

lion’s share of these costs? 

For the border States, the cost of even legal traffic on infrastructure is enormous. Please look at the chart on the wall to my left, 

your right, and you will see that last year 121 million passenger 

vehicles and 11 million trucks legally crossed land borders with 326 

million passengers. 

The Department of Transportation reported in 2003 that the 

number of persons entering the U.S. legally was 33.7 million at the 

Arizona border; 90.5 million at the California border; 1.8 million at 

the New Mexico border; and 119.9 million at the Texas border. 

In FY 2000, Border Patrol agents apprehended almost 1.7 million 

persons for illegally entering the country. 

Last year, the Border Patrol apprehended 1.16 million. The Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector alone apprehended 230,000 illegal 

aliens in 2004. 

The cost of emergency care is likewise enormous for border 

States as well. The U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition estimates that more than $200 million in 2000 was spent by border 

counties for undocumented alien health care. 

And for the Members of the Committee, a chart showing those 

counties affected is to our right. 

The American Hospital Association reported that Southwest border hospitals reported uncompensated care totaling nearly $832 

million in the year 2000. 

Any increased crime rates due to illegal immigration is both a social and an economic cost. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas conducted a study in March of 2003 entitled ‘‘The Impact of Illegal Immigration and Enforcement on Border Crime Rates.’’

As you can see from these projected charts, it found that border 

enforcement is significantly negatively correlated to violent crime 

rates and poverty crime rates in Southwest border counties. My 

chart to the right shows. 

Instead of going over many statistics myself, let me allow the 

witness Members to tell the story of their own districts in their 

own words since they know the local conditions better. 

At this time, I yield now to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You’re 

very kind, and I thank the witnesses, my colleagues, for their presVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111005\24507.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24507
3

ence. I notice that Texas is quite well represented this morning— or this afternoon. Let me thank them and let me also thank Mr. 

Gutierrez for his time. He serves in a very important capacity, and 

we welcome his insight on this very important issue. 

I want us to discern the truth, and I hope as my colleagues make 

their presentation in the backdrop of their minds will be the longstanding principle that we are a nation of laws, and we are a nation of immigrants. 

I can’t imagine that anyone could testify to their absolute presence in the United States, short of Native Americans. And so as we 

proceed on the question of how illegal immigration impacts constituencies, let us walk gingerly, because I’m reminded of the 

1800’s and the early 1900’s, when large migration of immigrants 

came to the United States—and I would venture to challenge my 

Chairman and my colleagues to be able to document that every single one of those individuals came here in legal status. 

But what we do know is that those individuals provided—were 

provided an opportunity to access legalization, and ultimately provided the contributions necessary to build a great and powerful and 

wonderful America. 

It’s important to maintain a proper perspective on this subject. 

We must not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about people, 

although some undocumented immigrants come to the United 

States for untoward purposes, illegal immigration consists primarily of people who are coming to the United States to seek a better life. 

As I make that comment, let me say that I join my colleagues 

in accepting the responsibility and the challenge of border security. 

It must be done in a manner that shows the American people that 

we mean business, and that we are working with our allies and 

neighbors to mean business. 

And so, strengthening our Border Patrol agents, providing them 

with the equipment that they need, ensuring that their necessary 

resources—detention beds—to protect the Nation in the instance of 

OTMs that come and do not then meet their requirements in terms 

of going to their court appointment is an absolute imperative. 

But at the same time, we must find a way to reach America so 

that they can understand the balance, the prosperity, and the generosity that has occurred in the United States because of immigrants. 

This point is illustrated by an observation that Stanley Mailman 

and Steve Yaylov made recently on the term ‘‘illegal alien.’’ They 

said an undocumented alien performing construction work is not an 

outlaw engaged in illegal activity such as bookmaking or burglary. 

Rather, the work is lawful and legitimate. It simply happens to be 

work for which the alien is ineligible or disqualified. 

That is cited in undocumented workers seeking personal injury 

compensation. 

America was founded by immigrants seeking freedom and opportunity. It created new jobs by establishing new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes, 

and raising the productivity of the United States businesses. 

Throughout American history, immigrants have helped build 

American cities, towns, farms, businesses, and cultural institutions. 

4

Unfortunately, the presence of millions of undocumented workers 

in our communities also has had in the past negative consequences. 

Our failed immigration policies have encouraged employers who 

use foreign workers to lower labor standards and working conditions for all who labor in the United States—citizens and lawful 

permanent of the United States, as well as undocumented workers. 

We need an increase in the minimum wage. We need to ensure 

that the prevailing wages are paid. We also need to find out how 

we can fix our broken health system, and I can assure you that 

there are immigrants in my community, some undocumented, who 

are willing to pay for their health care. We’ve just got to put a system in place. 

Our current legal framework also makes it nearly impossible for 

many immigrant workers, particularly the undocumented to exercise their legal rights. Fear of deportation, fear of losing their livelihoods is enough to silence workers. This encourages such unscrupulous employers to hire and exploit undocumented workers instead of hiring American workers. 

We must reinforce the value of American workers, and we must 

break the cartels’ backs who bring in unsuspecting and victimized 

individuals who are attempting to cross the border utilized by 

mules and others who are bringing them in in dangerous conditions. We must stop the devastation of Victoria, Texas. It must not 

happen again. 

We must also recognize the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that the poultry industry, nearly half of which consists of 

immigrant workers, has been as much as 100 percent out of compliance with Federal wage and hour laws. Also the Labor Department 

estimates that more than half of the country’s garment factories 

violate wage and hour laws and more than 75 percent have violated health and safety laws. 

Workplaces that are dangerous for immigrant workers are equally dangerous for those in the United States. 

Let me also say that collectively we recognize this problem. Mr. 

Chairman, I am hoping that, as we listen to the testimony, it will 

be balanced. 

I am gratified for the teamwork that many of us have engaged 

with our other colleagues, particularly, for example, in the area of 

Katrina, when we saw that there were some conflicts between 

American workers and undocumented, it was the combination of 

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus to come to work together to ensure that the laws are not broken and that we address those issues and that American workers 

are protected. 

We can work together, but we cannot work together in a manner 

that scapegoats us and does not, if you will, Mr. Chairman, balance 

the good and the bad and the call to the United States to address 

the question of comprehensive immigration reform. 

With that I yield back, and welcome the panelists this afternoon. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. Without objection, all 

Members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. We 

generally have opening statements by Members of the Subcommittee, but given the time constraints of our panel members, 

we will move into introduction of the panel members. 

5

First of all, Congressman Henry Bonilla represents the 23rd District of Texas, which spans close to 800 miles of the international 

border with Mexico. 

Congressman Bonilla was elected to Congress in 1992, which 

marked the first time a Hispanic Republican was elected to Congress from Texas. As Member of the House Appropriations Committee, he chairs the Subcommittee on Agriculture, and sits on the 

Subcommittees on Foreign Operations and Defense. 

Prior to his election to Congress, most of the Congressman’s career was in television news. He started as a reporter in San Antonio, Texas, and then became a producer for several stations 

throughout the country. Most recently, he was executive producer 

for public affairs at KENS in San Antonio. 

Congressman Bonilla earned a bachelor of journalism degree 

from the University of Texas at Austin. 

Congressman John Culberson has represented the Seventh District of Texas since 2000. Congressman Culberson serves on the 

House Appropriations Committee. He is a Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and the Subcommittee on Science, 

State, Justice, and NASA. He is also a part of the Republican Whip 

Team. 

Prior to his election to Congress, John Culberson served in the 

Texas House of Representatives for 14 years. He was elected to the 

legislature while he was a law student. During that period, he 

practiced law as a civil defense attorney. He has worked in political 

consulting and advertising. 

Congressman Culberson earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in 

history from Southern Methodist University, and his J.D. degree 

from South Texas College of Law in Houston. 

Congressman Stevan Pearce is serving his second term in Congress, representing the Second District of New Mexico. He serves 

on the Homeland Security, Financial Services, and Resources Committees. 

Formerly, Congressman Pearce was elected to the New Mexico 

House of Representatives in 1996, and reelected in 1998. 

While in the legislature, he served as Republican Caucus Chairman. He and his wife owned and operated Lee Fishing Tools, an 

oilfield services firm. They were honored by the Association of 

Commerce and Industry with an award for outstanding business in 

New Mexico. Additionally, the Congressman served as a pilot in 

the United States Air Force, where he received the Distinguished 

Flying Cross and Air Medal. 

Congressman Pearce graduated from New Mexico State University with a B.B.A. degree in Economics, where he was also elected 

student body president. He holds an M.B.A. from Eastern New 

Mexico University as well. 

Congressman Luis Gutierrez has represented the Fourth District 

of Illinois since 1992. He currently serves on the Veterans Affairs 

Committee and the Financial Services Committee, where he is the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. During his time in Congress, Congressman Gutierrez has focused his efforts on immigration issues, and he is Chairman of the 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Immigration. 

6

Prior to being elected to Congress, the Congressman worked as 

a teacher, social worker, community activist, and city official. 

He was elected in 1986 as Alderman for Chicago’s 26th Ward. 

Congressman Gutierrez graduated from Northeastern Illinois University. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time today. I know—

I understand that a couple of you will have to be leaving early and 

so as a result of that, Congressman Pearce if you would give your 

opening statement. Without objection, your written statement will 

be a part of the record. 

We have 5-minute lights, as you are all aware, sitting generally 

on this side of the dais, and if you could stick to those as nearly 

as possible, I’d appreciate it. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking 

Member Jackson Lee. 

I really feel the need to convey this idea that Jackson Lee suggested that we walk gingerly in this area. I represent a border district, 47 percent Hispanic, that recognizes the need for immigration. But we also have to recognize that immigration discussions 

must be broken into two halves—legal immigration and illegal immigration. 

The legal immigration we all know creates vitality, vibrancy, and 

brings us new ideas and new entrepreneurships. 

In August, I conducted 18 town hall meetings in my district on 

immigration. Where possible, I allowed the Hispano Chambers to 

moderate those discussions, to host the discussions, and we had 

very productive talks about what must be done. 

There is great consensus among all cultures that we should increase border security, but we also need to recognize that coming 

across to better one’s life should not be a crime. 

Mr. Chairman, the entire U.S. border with Mexico in the State 

of New Mexico is in my congressional district. It’s about 180 miles 

long. There are three counties providing almost 10,000 square 

miles for circumventing Border Patrol authorities, with 80 agents 

per shift. There’s only one agent per 25 square miles in my district. 

To compound the problem, we had the Border Patrol reissue and 

reassign agents away from our district into Arizona and California, 

and it has caused then a funneling of activity to the southern border of New Mexico, with increases in detentions growing from 

61,000 to over 76,000. 

The graphic that is up on slide two, if we get that up, shows the 

yellow school bus right there, which routinely brings people right 

to the border and then drops them off for staging to cross the border at night. We took the Homeland Security Department Committee to see this section of the border, and we watched that bus 

in operation bringing people in to deliver them for the illegal crossings. 

The Border Patrol has a lack of necessary surveillance capabilities, but unfortunately they also squandered, the Border Patrol has 

7

squandered apparently $239 million designated for the Integrated 

Surveillance Intelligence System, the ISIS system. 

The problem is four-fold. Basically, we have a problem with constituents. One of my constituents living in a border area recently 

was quoted, before you didn’t call and report illegal immigrants on 

a property. You simply made them a sandwich, gave them a jug of 

water, and sent them on their way. But you did not fear for you 

life. 

Now, when they knock, you don’t dare answer the door. The residents who live right on the border, in the area of that yellow bus, 

they have built their own fences. There’s the one barricade—if we 

move back one slide—there’s the one barricade, but then that won’t 

stop the cattle and so our ranchers have built their own barbed 

wire fences on Government easement property and still they—the 

properties have—or the people on the other side of the border have 

stolen that fence. It’s impossible for the ranchers to rebuild. The 

Border Patrol simply says you should stay away from your fence; 

that it’s that dangerous, and, yet, they’re then faced with losing 

their livestock. 

The impact on law enforcement officers is the second thing. 

Many times our local law enforcement officers have supplemented 

Border Patrol agencies, but I will tell you that many of our departments are two and three people, and Border Patrol has their expressed desire of driving the illegals away from the major thoroughfares onto the country roads and to be interdicted in rural 

areas, and that is putting an extreme strain on our particular sheriff’s departments and police departments. 

The criminal activity that is being conducted by the illegal immigrants is also straining to capacity our ability to respond. The detention costs are left to the local providers. Fifty dollars per day. 

One county applied last year for over $60,000 in alien assistance 

program funding. Drug smuggling counter intelligence is so sophisticated the stakes have become so high for smugglers that they find 

out who the sheriffs are and who the deputies are, and they tell 

them simply if you get in our way, we’re going to kill you first, and 

then we’re going to kill your families. So we’ve had young people 

who are in the law enforcement business in this area who’ve 

packed up and left, and they’ve gone somewhere else to be in law 

enforcement. 

The—another impact that we face in the district is the extraordinary cost of Federal mandates to provide emergency care to illegal immigrants. Each year, thousands of immigrants require care 

for heat exhaustion and for the different problems that they’ve experienced, so we find those to be severely impacting us. Crushing 

caseloads for our judgeships. Three hundred and sixty-six cases per 

judgeship is what we experienced in our district; 89 is the national 

average. 

We have an additional problem that affects us—the inability to 

search into—to look at the long stretches of the border. 

Eventually, we must also, in addition to border security, Mr. 

Chairman, we must address the desire and reasons for people coming here. That tells us that we, at some point, are going to have 

to have a common sense guest worker program to deal with both 

the needs of workers, but also the reasons that people come here. 

8

Our policies have been somewhat hypocritical, indicating that we 

need you to come and work, but we’re going to make it as difficult 

for you to do so as possible. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I also speak for a balanced comprehensive 

reform legislation, but also the need to reform immigration, where 

we have some commonsense guest worker program. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN E. PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO


SEP0001.eps
9


SEP0002.eps
10


SEP0003.eps
11


SEP0004.eps
12


SEP0005.eps
13


SEP0006.eps
14


SEP0007.eps
15


SEP0008.eps
16

ATTACHMENT


SEP0009.eps
17


SEP0010.eps
18


SEP0011.eps
19


SEP0012.eps
20

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Pearce. 

Congressman Bonilla? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE HENRY BONILLA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BONILLA. Thank you, Chairman. As you pointed out in your 

introduction, Chairman, no Member of Congress represents a 

longer portion of the Mexican border than I do. 

It spans over 700 miles, and, Chairman, there is an invasion 

going on as we speak of OTMs, which is the primary concern that 

we have now. As you know, the Border Patrol categorizes other 

than Mexicans, OTMs, in a different category as they do Mexican 

illegals that come across the border. And while the Mexican illegal 

immigrant is a separate issue, and one that’s been with us for a 

long time, the new invasion, of OTMs, is something that every 

American needs to be alarmed about. 

So far this year, almost 150,000 OTMs have come across the 

Southwest border. They come from the Mideast. They come from 

Asia. They come from South and Central America, which is where 

a lot of the gang problems are rooted now in our country. And in 

many cases, Mr. Chairman, the culture is such now because of the 

catch and release program that the Department of Homeland Security has undertaken where they come across the border, and they’re 

given court papers, and it’s a joke. They’re asked to appear, and 

everyone has documented now that between 85 and 90 percent 

never show up in court; and they use that as a free ticket to go 

into whatever city they need to go. 

And the culture now is pathetic, Mr. Chairman, with the fact 

that these OTMs, now the cultural message out there is that they 

come across the border looking for the Border Patrol agents. They 

don’t even run from them anymore. We have this documented on 

photographs. In the last several months, we have actually had people out there with cameras, where they come across the Rio 

Grande, and they look for the Border Patrol; throw their hands up, 

knowing full well they’re going to get a meal. They’re going to get 

a place to sleep. They’re going to get medical care. They’re going 

to get asked a couple of questions. In many cases, they do not have 

the manpower to debrief any of these people, and then they set 

them free with court papers, claiming that they don’t have the detention space. 

Now, there are lot of issues involved that present a danger to 

communities, and again let me also emphasize that that this is not 

an Hispanic issue or an Anglo issue or a Republican or Democrat 

issue. My colleague, Mr. Culberson, for example, who was just here 

a moment ago, has had many one-on-one conversations with border 

sheriffs, many of which are Members of the other party. They are 

members of the Latino ethnic groups, county commissioners and 

mayors. My mayor of Eagle Pass, for example, is right on the border, which is a 95 percent plus Hispanic community, they’re outraged at what our country is now allowing in terms of the OTM 

invasion in this country. And it’s embarrassing as a federally elected representative to go down there and ride in a car with my sheriff in a border county or the mayor of a border town that look at 

us and say, ‘‘why is our policy now allowing this to happen, and 

21

you’re watching the OTMs walking down the street? And they’re 

headed who knows where?’’ That’s why this is not just an issue for those of us right on the 

border, it’s an issue for Americans who live in New York and Colorado and California, because they’ve seen this incredible influx of 

OTMs now with the catch and release program. 

I’ve told every word of this to Secretary Chertoff on a couple of 

occasions, one in an official hearing in another Committee just a 

couple of weeks ago, and I asked him point blank: ‘‘If I’m not mistaken, Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, who used to be a Border Patrol chief in El Paso once used tents to properly shut down the border in that community of El Paso. And he was a hero when he did 

that.’’ And again, my—our understanding is that he used temporary 

tents to humanely house illegals that were coming across the border, and it had an incredible impact not just on the influx of 

illegals at the time, but it also did several other things that helped 

the morale of the Border Patrol. It also—the cultural word on the 

street started to reverse itself, and the illegal immigration rate 

dramatically dropped, and it just worked all the way around. 

And I’m suggesting to Secretary Chertoff and I’m suggesting to 

any Member of Congress who has any say in this that we need to 

look at temporarily housing OTMs in tents, humanely. 

We’re not talking about treating anybody inhumanely. But and 

quite frankly, if they had to spend some time in these tents, it 

would be probably better, a better facility than they would have 

slept in for the weeks on end that they spent coming across those 

dangerous mountainous and desert terrains that they had to traverse. 

So we’re talking about doing this the right way, and also forcing, 

using the State Department, to try to force some of these countries 

who are not cooperative. You know a lot of people in this country 

talk about how we’re not sensitive enough to illegal aliens. 

You know how inhumane and how much the Mexican Government tries to shut down illegal immigration on its southern border. 

It’s an embarrassment. And then sometimes for these consuls to 

come across the border and say, hey, you’re not doing enough to 

pander to illegal aliens. It is an absolute outrage. 

So anyone who researches the immigration policy of Mexico, for 

example—how do you think they’re getting in here in the first 

place? They’re coming from their southern border and coming up 

through our border. And they put absolutely no priority into stopping the flow of illegal aliens or in trying to help us get them back 

to their original countries where they come from. 

So, again, it’s a complicated issue, and if we’re able to do something to provide more detention beds, detention space, and more 

beds to house these OTMs, then we’re going to have to talk about 

the legal system because that’s overly taxed right now as well. And 

so we’re going to be able to process them. So we’re trying to be creative in looking at ways to do this. 

And as I have said in letters to the President, in letters to former 

Secretary Ridge, to people like that, if this was the—if the OTMs 

were being released in your neighborhood, you’d be doing something about it now. If they were walking through your neighborVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111005\24507.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24507
22

hood, you don’t know what they’re up to. The background checks 

are shallow at best, and to watch them come through, I just don’t 

know how to put it more clearly, Mr. Chairman. It is an absolute 

outrage. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonilla follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY BONILLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

I represent more than 700 miles of the Texas/Mexico border. A few years ago the 

only people worried about border security were those living on the border. Times 

have changed. If you live in America and you’re not worried about border security, 

you should be. 

It takes only one terrorist to slip into our country and increase the risk of a terrorist catastrophe. The threat is real. Hundreds of illegal aliens invade our border 

communities each day. Recent intelligence gives frightening insight into terrorist 

plans on the U.S./Mexico border. The Washington Post reported this month that 

Abu Ali, a man indicted in a plot to assassinate President George W. Bush, admitted his plan to bring members of an al Qaeda cell into the U.S. through Mexico. 

Just this spring U.S. officials revealed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of 

several Iraq terrorist attacks, may be planning U.S. attacks and entering through 

the southern border. As long as our nation’s borders are porous, we have an increased chance of terrorism on our own soil. Known terrorists, ruthless members of 

drug cartels and free loaders from around the world now use the southwest border 

as a revolving door. 

While many crossing the border are seeking work and a new life, many are also 

bringing violent crime and drugs into these small towns that are ill equipped to deal 

with the problem. Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Texas’ illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per 

year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to 

more than $3.7 billion per year.

• Approximately 11.9% of children in the Texas public school system are illegal 

aliens.

• Texan taxpayers pay approximately $520 million a year for health care of illegal aliens.

• Finally, the uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas state 

and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year. This figure does 

not include local jail detention costs, related law enforcement and judicial expenditures, nor the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration in the first place.

The problem is very immediate and personal to border communities. My proximity 

to the border gives me a first-hand appreciation of the problem. My border communities are small and rely on cross border commerce. Some of my constituents have 

family and friends on both sides of the border. Efficient LEGAL border crossings are 

essential to this region, but illegal border crossing have become an excessive burden. 

As of last month, an estimated 146,000 Non-Mexican Illegal Aliens 

(NMIAs) illegally crossed the US-Mexico border so far this year. Gangs and 

drug traffickers can easily overwhelm small, local law enforcement departments. Increased crime rates require the diversion of limited local funds from other important 

local needs impacting these communities economically and overburdening other social services. Imagine if this was happening in your town. You might feel under 

siege. 

I recognize there is no quick-fix. The issue must be addressed from several angles. 

That’s exactly what I have been championing for years, and is the basis for a series 

of legislative initiatives that I been rolling out over the summer and this fall. 

The first step toward a safer, more secure border is basic preparedness. You can’t 

secure a border without man-power, equipment and facilities. We’ve made great advances in this arena. Over the last year our Congress has added 1500 Border Patrol 

agents and 568 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the force. 

We’ve also funded $61 million for border security technology, including surveillance 

and unmanned aerial vehicles. I can’t deny that these are fantastic advances, but 

we cannot stop here. 

One of the border’s largest pitfalls has been the amount of detention bed space. 

Border Patrol agents are doing their job by capturing illegal immigrants. But once 

23

captured they are almost immediately set free because there is not room for detention. Additional bed space allows our immigration system to do its job by keeping 

illegal immigrants behind bars and holding them until they can be properly deported. A major accomplishment occurred this past year when Congress funded 3870 

detention beds for the U.S./Mexico border. This is a tremendous step toward filling 

a gaping hole in our system. 

However, 3,870 new detention beds will not fix the problem, and we need help 

now. Until your expedited removal program is fully implemented, DHS could erect 

temporary detention facilities using tents, and stop releasing illegal NIMAs immediately. This is not an untested idea either. Tents were used for temporary detention facilities in the mid-1980’s in Southern Texas (McAllen Sector) and it was a 

huge success. Three things happened as soon as the tents went up.

1) The morale of the Border Patrol officers improved.

2) Assurance of detention had a dramatic deterrent effect and attempted illegal border crossings went way down.

3) There was a resulting back-up of NIMAs on the Mexican side of the border 

which caused the government of Mexico to take action to reduce the number of NIMAs that they allowed into their country. The bottom line is that 

the number of illegal NIMAs reduced so much that the temporary detention 

facilities could be removed in just over a year.

Once the enforcement infrastructure is in place, the next step is reducing the 

backlog of illegal immigrants awaiting trial. This will be accomplished by streamlining the justice system for adjudication and removal of the illegal immigrants. 

Part of my legislative package will include funding for additional immigration trial 

attorneys and judges. The shortage of attorneys and judges is appalling. By filling 

these slots and making more available we can expedite the adjudication process and 

eliminate a log jam that has existed for years. 

The final phase of my border security proposal is to facilitate the deportation of 

illegal immigrants. Secretary Chertoff has pledged to implement an expedited removal program in all Border Patrol sectors. Expedited removal would allow the vast 

majority of illegal immigrants to be repatriated within days, rather than months 

and reduce judicial back-log. Although an expedited removal system was authorized 

last year, only three Border Patrol sectors have been approved by DHS to use the 

program so far. This simply is not enough. The Department of Homeland Security 

must make it a priority to implement an expedited removal program in every sector. 

Additionally, Secretary Chertoff recently wrote me a letter expressing concern over 

what he calls, ‘‘an overstuffed removal pipeline.’’ Delays in country clearances and 

related repatriation issues must be fixed to ensure the success of the expedited removal programs. 

The bottom line is that we live in an age where a porous border is a danger not 

only to border states, but to our entire nation. Every day that our border security 

is ignored, gangs, criminals and terrorists are finding new ways to exploit the weaknesses of our security systems. Terrorists are no longer playing by the same rules 

and neither should we. 

Ignoring this problem is like ignoring the war against terrorism. Those of us who 

live near the border cannot fight this war on our own. We must stand together as 

a nation to regain control of our border.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Bonilla. 

Congressman Gutierrez. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LUIS GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members of the Committee. It’s a 

pleasure to be here this afternoon. 

I hope to use my time to try to debunk some of the myths and 

misinformation about the issue of our broken immigration system. 

I’ll start with the following quote: ‘‘Foreign immigration, which, 

in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to the Nation, as the asylum of the 

oppressed of all nations should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.’’

24

I couldn’t agree more. Where did I read that? Was it in some policy papers produced by some progressive think tank? No. 

Was it in the editorial pages of a liberal leaning newspaper? No. 

Actually, those eloquent and forward looking words were the Republican platform of 1864, and I think we would be wise to pay 

close attention to that vision. 

While much has changed, the fundamental point of that statement rings true today. But if you want a more modern quote on 

the subject, Grover Norquist said just yesterday: ‘‘Immigration 

bashing is not a vote winner.’’ Look, I’m the first to agree that the immigration system in this 

nation is badly broken, but how did we get there? Is the answer 

that we deport 8 to 11 million undocumented individuals who are 

working and contributing to their communities? How much would 

that cost? 

According to a recent study for the Center for American Progress, it would cost more than $41 billion a year, and would exceed the 

entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal 

year 2006 to begin to deport 10 to 12 million people. 

But don’t trust my numbers or the numbers of that institution. 

Secretary Chertoff recently testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that it would cost ‘‘billions and billions and billions,’’ adding 

that it would not be a feasible idea. 

More importantly, what would happen to our workforce and to 

our economy? In the factories of Chicago, immigrants today make 

up more than one out of every four workers. And without their 

labor, these factories might need to move elsewhere to find available workers, even overseas. 

And similar trends across our country’s industries exist. 

Mexican immigrants today fill almost half of the blue collar, 

service-related and unskilled jobs in my city. It is not an exaggeration to say that our cities would grind to a halt without these workers. 

In fact, the Department of Labor, our own Department of Labor, 

President Bush’s Department of Labor, estimates that the total 

number of jobs requiring short-term training will increase from 53 

million in 2000 to 60 million in 2010, a net increase of 7.7 million 

jobs—low-skilled, very little training, low paying jobs. We’re going 

to create 7.7 million. 

And the fact is Americans are simply unwilling to do these jobs. 

I don’t blame them. Who would want these arduous, back breaking, 

dead end, low-paying jobs? I think President Reagan probably 

summed the issue up best when he described apples rotting on a 

tree. 

President Reagan said: ‘‘It makes one wonder about the illegal 

alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of 

the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually 

working, doing work that our own people won’t do? One thing is 

certain in this hungry world. No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in our country, in our fields, for 

lack of harvesters.’’

And that’s President Reagan, describing rotting apples on a tree. 

It is probably important to note today that more than 80 percent 

of the apple pickers in Washington State are immigrants, and half 

25

of them, according to our Justice and Labor Departments, are illegally in the United States. 

Look at other industries, and you’ll arrive at the same conclusion. 

Today, there are more than 700,000 undocumented restaurant 

workers; more than 250,000 undocumented household employees, 

and one million undocumented farm workers. 

So what should we do to ensure that we create an immigration 

policy that, as President Bush said, ‘‘match willing foreign workers 

with willing employers when no American can be found to fill the 

job.’’ I think the answer is comprehensive immigration reform, because our current policies are simply not working. 

A recent study by Princeton Professor Douglas Massey on the 

U.S. Border Patrol budget shows that its budget, the Border Patrol 

budget, has increased 10-fold since 1986. But as we all know, the 

number of illegal immigrants to the United States continues to increase. 

So I think we need to do more than simply throw money at the 

problem. We need to look more comprehensively and more strategically about this issue, because building a giant fence or sending 

more unfunded mandates to our States will not solve this problem. 

And the hard reality is these policies will only drive millions of undocumented workers further into our nation’s underground. 

If we want to solve the challenges of immigrant health care and 

education, we need to bring these people out of the shadows so that 

they can be fully functioning and fully taxed members of our society, paying their fair share. 

I believe the solution lies in the fact that we must stop targeting 

Windex-wielding cleaning ladies, and start focusing our limited resources on targeting real terrorists and criminals. 

However, none of this will be successful unless we deal directly 

with the 8 to 11 million undocumented workers who are already 

here, living and working and contributing. 

And let me be clear here. These people should be penalized, but 

the punishment should fit the crime. They should be fined. They 

should be fingerprinted, and they should be thoroughly vetted so 

that we can have a more secure America. 

In terms of health care, a recent Harvard-Columbia University 

study showed that health care expenditures are substantially lower 

for immigrants than it is for U.S.-born persons. Just as undocumented workers—and I want to make this clear; these are not 

my—specifically, these are Social Security Department statistics. 

Just as undocumented workers help sustain our Social Security 

System with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year, these individuals are also helping to subsidize our nation’s health care system through taxes they pay. 

Since the late 1980’s, more than $189 billion in wages ended up 

recorded in the Social Security Administration’s earnings suspense 

file. This file has grown by more than $50 billion a year in the current decade, generating more than $6 to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. 

In addition to these taxes, no storekeeper in Chicago has ever 

said, oh, you’re undocumented. You don’t have to pay a sales tax 

on your purchase. You don’t have to pay gas tax, cigarette tax, 

26

property tax. They pay each and every one of these taxes, and I 

think that we as a Congress would be wise to take these factors 

into consideration as we carefully consider proposals such as those 

of Representative Jackson Lee and the one I introduced with Representatives Kolbe, Flake, and Senators McCain and Kennedy. 

And I would like to just wind up, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, by having to introduce to the record 153 editorials supporting comprehensive immigration reform, and the Secure America Orderly Immigration Act in 74 publications in 31 States. 

The country is ready for comprehensive immigration reform. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement Mr. Gutierrez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and 

members of the committee. 

It is with great pleasure that I appear before this subcommittee today to share 

my views on how our immigrant community impacts the City of Chicago, where my 

Congressional District resides. 

I hope to use my time to try to debunk some of the myths and misinformation 

about the issue of immigration and to explain why we desperately need to reform 

our broken immigration system. 

I thought I’d start today by quoting something I recently read. 

And I quote . . . ‘‘[F]oreign immigration, which in the past has added so much 

to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the 

asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.’’

I could not agree more. 

But where did I read that? Was it in the policy papers produced by some progressive think tank? No. Was it in the editorial pages of a liberal-leaning newspaper? 

No. 

Actually, those eloquent and forward-looking words were from the Republican 

Party Platform in 1864 and I think we would be wise to pay close attention to those 

sentiments. 

But if you want a more modern, timely quote on the subject, Grover Norquist said 

yesterday, ‘‘immigrant bashing is not a vote winner.’’

Look, I am the first to agree that our immigration system in this nation is badly 

broken and fixing it must be a top priority of Congress. 

But how do we get there? 

Is the answer that we deport the 8 to 11 million undocumented individuals in this 

nation who are working and contributing to their communities? What would a mass 

deportation even look like? How much would it cost? 

According to a recent study by the Center for American Progress, it would cost 

more than 41 billion dollars a year—and would exceed the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2006. And if you don’t trust those 

numbers, Secretary Chertoff recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that it 

would cost ‘‘billions and billions and billions,’’ adding that it would not be a feasible 

idea. 

And what if we were to spend these billions and billions of dollars, what would 

happen to our workforce and to our economy? 

In the factories of Chicago, immigrants today make up more than one out of every 

four workers, and without their labor these factories might need to move elsewhere 

to find available workers. 

And similar trends cut across various industries. Mexican immigrants today fill 

almost half of the blue-collar, service-related and unskilled jobs in our city. It is not 

an exaggeration to say that our city would grind to a halt without these workers. 

In fact, the Labor Department estimates that the total number of jobs requiring 

only short-term training will increase from 53.2 million in 2000 to 60.9 million by 

2010, a net increase of 7.7 million jobs. 

And the fact is Americans are simply unwilling to do these jobs. I don’t blame 

them. It is truly arduous labor. But these jobs need to get done to keep our economy 

growing and our communities thriving. 

27

I think President Reagan probably summed this issue up best back in 1977, when 

he saw apples rotting on a tree because there were no local workers to pick them. 

He said, ‘‘It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of 

our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do? One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in 

the fields for lack of harvesters.’’

It is probably important to note that today more than 80 percent of all apple pickers in Washington State are immigrant farm workers and over half of them are undocumented. 

So what should we do to ensure that we create an immigration system that, as 

President Bush said, can ‘‘match willing foreign workers with willing employers 

when no Americans can be found to fill the job?’’

I think the answer is comprehensive immigration reform. 

I know there is a lot of talk about enforcement and border security provisions. 

And—don’t get me wrong—it is extremely important, but it is only one part of the 

immigration equation. 

A recent study by Princeton Professor Douglas Massey on the U.S. Border Patrol 

Budget shows that its budget has increased tenfold since 1986. And, as you know, 

this rapidly rising budget has done very little to stem the rapid rise in undocumented immigration. 

So I think we need to do more than simply throw more money at the problem. 

We need to abandon the same old, tired, narrow and failed policies of the past. And 

we need to think more comprehensively and more strategically about the issue—because building a giant fence or sending more unfunded mandates to our states will 

not solve this problem. And the hard reality is that these policies would only drive 

millions of undocumented workers further into our nation’s shadows. And all the 

challenges that my colleagues talk about—from health care costs to other factors—

will remain if we have millions of people operating in the shadows. 

I believe the solution lies in the fact that we must stop targeting Windex-wielding 

cleaning ladies and start focusing our limited resources on better targeting the real 

terrorists and criminals and smugglers who wish to do our nation harm. 

And I think that goal is achievable if we combine smart enforcement with a sensible and pragmatic path for new workers to come to this country—in a legal, safe 

and humane way—to fill shortfalls in our workforce. 

However, none of this will be successful unless we deal directly with the 8 to 11 

million undocumented workers who are already here—living and working and contributing to a better, more dynamic America. 

And let me be clear here: I believe that these people should be penalized. But the 

punishment should fit the crime. They should be fined and fingerprinted and thoroughly vetted. But they should not have their families destroyed for decades because 

they came here to support them. They should be allowed to be full and productive 

members of our society. So they can pay all their taxes and not have to rely on costly emergency medical care. 

But just attacking them will not solve the problem—we need real solutions. 

When I recently asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan about immigration, he stated: 

‘‘As I’ve said before, I’m always supportive of expanding our immigration policies. 

I think that immigration has been very important to the success of this country. 

And I fully support it.’’

And personally I think expanding our policies should be along the lines of President Reagan’s views of immigrants to our country as people who ‘‘posses a determination that with hard work and freedom, they would live a better life and their 

children even more so.’’

Or President Bush who stated: ‘‘they’re willing to walk across miles of desert to 

do work that some Americans won’t do. And we’ve got to respect that, it seems like 

to me, and treat those people with respect.’’

So I think that it is important that we as a Congress and, in particular the work 

of this committee, focus on creating an immigration system that takes into account 

the important contributions immigration make—and will continue to make—if we 

encourage them to come out of the shadows. 

I know many blame immigrants for all of our nation’s ills, but the statistics I see 

and the people I meet in Chicago and across the nation reflect an entirely different 

perspective. And it seems to me that these individuals who scapegoat our immigrant 

community ignore the very obvious, documented and specific benefits of immigration 

to the U.S. economy and society. 

28

In terms of health care, a recent Harvard/Columbia University study showed that 

health care expenditures are substantially lower for immigrants than for U.S.-born 

persons. 

Similar to how undocumented workers help sustain our Social Security System 

with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year, these individuals are also helping 

to subsidize our nation’s health care system through the taxes they pay. 

Immigrants also pay billion of dollars a year in taxes. One study showed that the 

undocumented in New York pay more than one billion dollars a year in taxes. 

Whether that is sales tax, payroll tax, cigarette tax, they are making enormous contributions. 

And they are helping ensure the flow of the most important type of capital—

human capital—back into our cities. 

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, ‘‘Immigrants are moving into and bringing 

new life to many blue-collar areas of Chicago that had previously been losing population. These new residents contributed to the city’s net gain in population during 

the 1990s.’’

And I think that we, as a Congress, would be wise to take these factors into account. 

And that is why I believe it is so urgent for Congress to tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. And why I think it is important to hard look at legislative proposals like Rep. Jackson Lee’s and the one I introduced with Representatives Kolbe and Flake and Senators McCain and Kennedy. 

Because each day that goes by with silence and inaction means the potential for 

another dead body turning up in the desert, another child separated from her parent, another worker exploited and another dream denied. 

Thank you again, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, for 

giving me this great opportunity to be here today. I welcome any questions you and 

the other members may have.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection, the gentleman’s editorials 

will be—the material will be entered into the record. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Hostettler. 

[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. At this time, I’d like to turn to the gentlelady 

from California for purposes of an opening statement. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking 

Member Jackson Lee for conducting this oversight hearing. 

Throughout American history, immigrants have helped build 

America’s cities, towns, farms, businesses, economies, and civic and 

cultural institutions. 

Now, I don’t know about where everybody else lives, but I know 

first hand the benefits that immigrants contribute to my local community in the 39th Congressional District. 

Immigrants are a vital part of my community, and by immigrants, I mean immigrants of every ethnic makeup. They are the 

very same people who take care of our children and the elderly, 

educate our youth, clean our hotel rooms, pick and cook the food 

that we eat. They revitalize blighted areas and are successful entrepreneurs who pay taxes. 

If we deported every single immigrant in the country, I am told 

it would mean removing 12 to 15 million individuals. This is approximately the same as removing everybody from the States of 

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and give or take 

all of Kentucky. 

What do you suppose the economic and social implications would 

be of removing this many people? I frankly find the debate very 

disingenuous; that the very same people who oppose any realistic 

solution to the immigration problem are the same people who are 

29

enjoying the benefits of immigrants and immigrant labor in this 

country. 

People need to wake up, and people need to get real and drop the 

rhetoric. 

This weekend, for example, I was walking around the Capitol 

grounds, and I saw immigrants washing the windows of a certain 

political party’s office building. This is the same theme that I see 

every day in my district and all around Washington, D.C. repeated 

over and over and over again. 

Now, just for the record, I want to get one thing straight here: 

I don’t disagree with some of my colleagues who testified that our 

immigration system is broken and that we need to get a better grip 

on our borders. But while enhanced enforcement is an integral part 

of improving our nation’s security, enforcement alone, without 

other reforms, simply will not achieve the control that the American people want and quite frankly deserve. 

The past decade has taught us a hard lesson. The border build 

up doesn’t stop the flow. It merely shifts it to more dangerous 

areas, where apprehensions are more difficult, and death is more 

likely. 

So it’s my hope that any immigration reform proposal that this 

Committee reviews is a comprehensive solution that doesn’t just 

focus on trying to enforce our broken system. 

And I might remind my colleague that in the Book of Matthew, 

Jesus tells us for whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, 

you do unto me. And I would yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for the purposes of an 

opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What I’d like to do is use my time to comment on some of the 

things that Congressman Gutierrez has just mentioned because I 

do think he, in his opening statement, touched a number of issues 

that do need to be addressed. 

First of all, I’d like to thank him for quoting from the 1864 Republican Platform. That was when President Lincoln was renominated, and the quote, to mention it again, was, ‘‘Foreign immigration, which, in the past, has added so much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to the Nation’’ and so 

forth. 

And I just want to say I don’t know that there’s anyone who 

would disagree with that statement or with that platform today. 

And, in fact, as long as I’ve been in Congress, the Republican National Platform has included words that are very similar to that. 

But, of course, we make a distinction between legal immigration 

and illegal immigration. And we recognize that our country is great 

today because of the contributions of legal immigrants, who have 

been coming for generations. And we know that we would not have 

the inventions. We would not have the strong economy that we’re 

enjoying today, and many of the other benefits that we taken for 

granted, were it not for generations of immigrants in the past. 

But there is a distinction between those who come to our country 

legally and play by the rules and come in the right way and indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111005\24507.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24507
30

viduals who cut to the front of the line, who disregard the rules 

and laws, and who come in the wrong way. 

And that is a distinction we ought not to forget. I want to mention that the we had a law that we passed overwhelmingly in Congress back in 1996 that included an entry-exit system, which I 

think is the key to any reasonable determination of who’s in the 

country legally and illegally. And what this entry-exit system simply did was to say we’re going to find out who’s coming into the 

country, why they’re coming into the country, how long they’re 

going to stay if they’re coming temporarily, and whether they leave 

the country or not. 

You simply have to know that if you’re going to protect our 

homeland security. 

And unfortunately, a lot of people coming into the country illegally are coming in for the wrong reason, and one absolutely astounding figure that demonstrates that is the fact that now today 

over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants— over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. 

Clearly, not everyone is coming into the country for the right reasons. 

Furthermore, I think most of us also know that at least 40 percent of the millions who are in the country illegally actually came 

in on short-term tourist visas or business visas and overstayed 

those visas, and then simply failed to return home. 

So it wasn’t a situation where individuals came into the country 

illegally. They came into the country and then overstayed their 

visas, which puts them in illegal status, and, of course, makes 

them violators of our immigration laws. 

But those are the individuals who, along with those who blatantly cross our borders illegally, we ought to be able to determine 

who they are and encourage them or help them return to their 

home countries if necessary. 

A couple of other issues that were mentioned, and I’ve heard it 

at least twice today, is that the only thing that those of us who believe in border security failure is the immediate deportation of 8 to 

11 or more million illegal immigrants. I don’t know of a single 

Member of Congress who today would deport the 10 or 20 million 

illegal immigrants who are in the country today en masse, which 

is the implication of what we’ve heard. 

What we do think ought to be done is to enforce our current immigration laws. If we were to do just that alone, there would be 

enough disincentive for people that come to the country illegally, 

and there would be enough incentive for those who are already 

here illegally to return home to dramatically reduce the number of 

illegal immigrants who are in the country. 

So the other thing is when it comes to jobs, again to make blanket statements that all of certain types of occupations are occupied 

by illegal immigrants is simply not accurate. Every occupation that 

we can think of has many times illegal, but most often legal immigrants who are working those jobs. And we ought to put American 

workers first. If we need, in my judgment, to increase the minimum wage, maybe we should do that. If we retrain American citizens and legal immigrants who are, in fact, here for the right reason and legally, we ought to do that. 

31

There are a lot of things that we can do to try to fill those jobs 

that are now being filled by illegal immigrants, including mechanizing the growing of crops, for example. But let’s put Americans 

first when it comes to the scarce jobs that we have in America. 

Another subject that is often brought up is that the current system is not working. We’re throwing a lot of money at the problem. 

Well, the reason the current system is not working is because we’re 

not enforcing current laws. If we, for example, were to enforce laws 

that say you cannot hire someone who’s in the country illegally, 

that would be the kind of disincentive that I was talking about a 

few minutes ago to even arrive in America at the beginning. But 

we are not enforcing current laws, and so we shouldn’t be surprised 

that we’re not having as much success as we should be having in 

reducing illegal immigration. 

Also today, the Social Security system was mentioned. Is there 

somehow illegal aliens paying into the Social Security system are 

going to save it or help it? At the wages that the typical illegal immigrant makes, the Social Security system is actually going to pay 

that individual $100,000 or more over their lifetimes than they 

ever put into the system. 

So for their participation in the Social Security system, the result 

is simply do you make the Social Security system bankrupt sooner. 

It’s not going to help it or save it. 

Finally, and I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I will stop. 

I would ask those who speak so eloquently in favor of various immigration reform programs, what specific border security measures 

they support, because that’s really what we need to learn if we’re 

going to try to help our immigration system and reduce the number 

of illegal immigrants in the country today. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and I’ll yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire through the 

Chair, if there’s not going to be any questions, then might I leave? 

I’ll be happy to stay, but if there are not going to be any questions—— Mr. ISSA. There’s only one more opening statement? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, one more opening statement. And we will 

have questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Oh, okay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And, of course, you’ll be the target of those 

questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. As I said again, I don’t want to leave. You know 

I’ll stay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. We expect a Member or two to return. The Appropriations Committee is doing some work. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It’s important. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from California for purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And perhaps I can move the process of opening a dialogue along. 

I have to tell you, I believe that much of what you said was absolutely right. I also believe that all of what Chairman Smith said 

was absolutely right. 

32

The challenge we have is in the Chairman’s very question or very 

statement is what are we going to do about it. We do have a challenge and that is that, and I know that one of the representatives 

of Border Patrol is here. The border today, the border enforcement 

policy is like the French Maginot Line. 

Now, for those who didn’t study the failure of the French to win 

a war—except perhaps the French Revolution—ever, I’ll switch it 

to baseball. 

Imagine a baseball game in which the players, the outfielders, 

the short stop and each of the basemen must stand in one position 

and may not move. And if a ball happens to come to them, they 

can catch it. But they can’t move. And they certainly cannot run 

over to another base to cover somebody. 

That’s our present border situation. 

The Border Patrol—and I am within the Border Patrol envelope 

in my district, my entire district—what you discover is it’s a silly 

game. It’s a game of can you get over the border, and sure, you 

don’t get over the border every time. But you don’t have to. As 

Chairman Smith said, 40 percent of the people that are here illegally are overstays. 

More importantly, if you don’t get caught the first time, or if you 

get caught the first time, there’s no penalty. Do it again. Do it 

again. Do it again. 

In my district, we don’t even have the ability to prosecute criminal alien coyotes, people who repeatedly bring over and sometimes 

lead to the death of people trying to come here illegally, albeit. But 

the people, the human traffickers that do it, aren’t even being prosecuted. 

I’ve called for a zero tolerance on coyotes. It doesn’t seem like a 

big request. Guess what? It’s left unanswered by this Administration, by the Justice Department, by the U.S. Attorney. 

And repeatedly, we’ve had to call on county sheriffs to hold a repeat offender, a criminal alien who’s come back yet again, because 

the Border Patrol is having to release them because the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute somebody who has committed crimes, been 

deported, and is back in the country. 

So do we have problems? Absolutely. 

But as Chairman Smith said, we must begin enforcing the border 

or all of us, including Chairman Smith, who do believe that a guest 

worker program similar to Bracero, some real guest worker, something where you’re a guest, is not simply another name for permanent immigration is in order. 

But the only way we’re going to get it is if we have the cooperation of this Administration, if we have enforcement of laws. 

That’s a problem on both sides. 

So for all of those who want to move the immigration issue along, 

absolutely we need to have a discussion on how we’re going to deal 

with our need for labor and, Luis as you said, in all the sectors. 

It’s not just about crops being picked in Imperial County or in San 

Diego County or in Riverside County, where I represent. It’s about 

all these jobs. 

However, for all of us represented, and I represent an approaching half Hispanic District, we have to recognize that we are doing 

no favors for all of our citizens, all the people who vote for us, all 

33

the people who pay taxes, all the people who played by the rules 

to get here, if we do not protect them from simply having their job 

taken by the next person willing to work for less; and as you said, 

sometimes for minimum wage or less. 

So I hope that from these hearings will come a cooperation on 

a bipartisan basis. From these hearings, I hope that your bill, 

which is often known as the McCain bill or the Flake bill, my bill, 

other people’s bills will be rolled together. But at the same time, 

on behalf of the American people, we all have to insist that there 

be prosecution of criminal aliens, rounding up of gangs terrorizing 

our cities, zero tolerance for people who return who’ve been previously deported, zero tolerance for coyotes. 

Only with that kind of enforcement are we going to get the kind 

of support by our constituents for a broad bipartisan overhaul of 

the system and some fairness, both for people who want to come 

here legally and work, and that’s all they want to do, and for my 

constituents who are tired of the crime rates, tired of all of the negative sides that really do exist aligned with criminal alien and illegal aliens coming to this country. 

So hopefully, from this hearing and from your statement and the 

other Members’, we can recognize every one of you was right substantially on what you were saying, but we have to quit talking 

past each other. We have to talk about agreeing to the common solutions that are allowing us to move the legislation along, but also, 

on behalf of the Border Patrol, which operates literally in my district, we have to make it very clear that they have to be unshackled and allowed to do their job. It is insane to have them standing 

at first base hoping the ball comes to them and being able to do 

nothing if it doesn’t. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will now entertain questions from Members of the 

Subcommittee, and, Mr. Gutierrez, we appreciate your being here. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And staying. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. That’s right. 

The subject of the meeting is the impact of illegal immigration 

on congressional districts, on our constituencies. 

Do you believe that illegal immigration has had a negative impact on America with regard to crime, and especially with regard 

to crime that is committed on immigrant populations, and especially illegal immigrant populations, as a result of the concentration of, in some cases, illegal immigrant populations and the fact 

that many of these illegal aliens do not wish to interact with law 

enforcement. And so, the minority of illegal aliens that come to do 

ill in America, not necessarily ill to American citizens, but do ill to 

immigrant populations that ultimately has a spillover effect, do you 

believe that illegal immigration has led to an increase in violent 

crime as a result of the explosion in illegal immigration? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I bet that you and I, Mr. Hostettler, can find statistics and actual reality of illegal immigrants being part of crime 

in our neighborhoods, as we can find that among any other sector 

of our population in the human race unfortunately. 

What I have called for, Mr. Chairman, is to fingerprint, to bring 

those out of the darkness and out of the shadows and say we want 

34

your fingerprints. You’re going to pay to have your fingerprints. 

And if you’ve violated any law, we want an expedited, immediate 

removal from the United States of America of those elements. 

So in that sense, it would make the broader community. But 

what we have, Mr. Hostettler, is no system in place for, as Mr. 

Chertoff said, it would cost billions upon billions, upon billions of 

dollars to deport them all, and it would be an unfeasible thing to 

do. So if that’s true, where is the political will, and where are the 

requisite resources to deport them all so that we can challenge 

those criminal elements within our community that live among the 

millions and millions of hard-working undocumented workers in 

our country, because I think we could both agree that, as we go to 

the vineyards of California or the apple orchards of Washington 

State, or the orange growers in Florida, what we find is hard-working immigrants, many of whom, hundreds of thousands of whom in 

the agricultural industry, a million of whom work really hard in 

pesticide-ridden, with no bathrooms, no educational system, very 

poor housing, doing work that I don’t know I could find anyone in 

my district would challenge me and say, Congressman, how could 

you let those people do that work? Yet, we eat their apples. Eat 

their oranges. Eat their grapes. Drink the wine that’s derived from 

them. And we benefit from their work. 

So I want to see us clean up our security system—the criminal 

element, the terrorist element. 

And I think the best way we could do that—one of the ways, not 

the best way—one of the ways we could do that is by offering them 

an opportunity. 

And I’ll end with this. You know President Reagan, in 1984, I’ve 

talked about Abraham Lincoln, in 1864, but in 1984, President 

Reagan, when running for reelection, debated the Democratic nominee, Mondale, and he was for immigration reform and for having 

a new system of legalization. 

Indeed, they did that in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. And my point is if you look at the 3 million people that 

took advantage of that legalization program in 1986, they’re better 

educated today. They have better salaries today. They’re more productive today, and the vast majority of them speak English, and 

have sworn to the Constitution of the United States of America by 

becoming citizens of this country. So it worked. 

Let’s see if we can’t revisit that future immigrants to the United 

States of America that want to come here to work, I would say they 

would come here to work. Their visa has expired. They would go 

back to their country. 

We have to figure out a way—what we do with the 10 to 12 million that are already here. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. You bring up an excellent point about visas 

that expire. 

I believe three of the 19 9/11 hijackers had visas that expired, 

and, according to the 9/11 Commission, two of those individuals, 

Mr. Alghamdi and Mr. Almihdhar, would have—the very—I think 

the 9/11 Commission said they could have been picked up on immigration violations. 

But just as today, back then we did not enforce the immigration 

laws, so we didn’t pick them up. And the 9/11 Commission said as 

35

a result of their detention, the 9/11 plan could have been derailed. 

Those are the 9/11 Commission’s conclusions. 

Without objection, I will allow myself an additional minute for an 

additional question. 

And so what I guess what I’m hearing you say is—and this will 

only require a yes or no—there’s no contribution of violent crime 

disproportionate to the numbers of illegal aliens to the demographic addition to the country? You do not believe so? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I don’t believe so. I believe that there is a criminal element, as there are in all sectors of our society, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Second—my other question for the minute 

would be, earlier this year we held a hearing where representatives 

from the Center for Labor Market Studies of Northeastern University testified before this Subcommittee that between 2000 and 

2004, there was a loss of jobs held by native-born American citizens 

of over 500,000, meaning that in 2004, there were 500,000, over 

500,000, fewer jobs held by native-born Americans than there were 

in 2000. 

However, they went on to testify that there were actually 2.3 

million foreign-born workers, more foreign-born workers, employed 

than there were in 2000, for a net increase of about $1.7 million 

to $1.8 million (sic). 

They went on to conclude that there is little empirical evidence 

to substantiate the notion, and I’m paraphrasing what they said, 

there is little empirical evidence to substantiate the notion that immigrants are doing large numbers of jobs that Americans will not 

do. 

Do you believe that—do you believe that—and they went on to 

say something I’ll ask you a question regarding their conclusion—

do you believe that large numbers of native-born American citizens 

are being displaced by foreign-born workers, at least half of which 

we know are here illegally? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I guess you and I would have to have a conversation about if we’re talking about legal immigrants to the United 

States displacing American-born citizens or undocumented workers 

displacing American citizens. 

I do know that as you—foreign-born American citizens——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. No. No. 

And that’s—they were actually immigrants, foreign-born—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Americans. Yeah, but foreign-born legal permanent residents and citizens——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Well, not citizens—they weren’t citizens. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, they could be either—well, foreign——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. According to these statistics, they weren’t. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Legally in the United States? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Legally in the United States. Here’s what I do 

know about——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. No. No. Let me just say there were 1.7— the net that—one hundred percent of the net increase in jobs between 2000 and 2004 was contributed by foreign-born workers—immigrants—— Mr. GUTIERREZ. Legally in the United States? 

36

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Immigrants, illegal aliens—the folks don’t say 

on here illegally when they do the census necessarily. 

But they’re not born in America. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So there are 500,000 fewer Americans, and, for 

example, between that 2000–2004, there are more—millions more 

of foreign-born workers, not all of them—most of them aren’t citizens. Some of them are legal immigrants, but over half of them, according to the testimony, were here illegally. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me try, Mr. Chairman. And I’d love to have 

a conversation, a broader conversation. 

If they didn’t define who they were, here’s how I can answer the 

question truthfully. 

I do know that those that are here legally tend to have a higher 

education, get paid more, go to school, participate in our electoral 

system; that is, Americans—those of us that are here, not born in 

the United States, foreign-born, and——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I guess my question, Mr. Gutierrez, is——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. —I understand the immigration, but it is——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. —I have—well, let me ask you a question. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I probably need to make this very clear. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I have constituents that come up to me in 

Southwestern Indiana, and they say, Congressman, I can take you 

to a job site today, where there are illegal aliens working for my 

boss’s competitor, and they are being paid wages lower than I am 

being paid. My boss’s company cannot compete; therefore, my job 

is in peril. That’s what they say. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And indeed—and so my question is, do you 

think that those people are——

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And, again, I—then I’ll try to answer your question in 15 seconds. Americans said that about the Irish as they 

were arriving, about Italians as they were arriving, about the Polish as they were arriving, about every immigrant group as they 

were arriving if you were here ahead of them, number one. 

But number two, if they’re here illegally, if they’re here undocumented, then let’s figure out a way that we define what jobs they 

can be in so that they do not compete in a market with Americans. 

I will be the first to join you in putting American citizens and those 

that are legally here and born in this country ahead of any foreigner coming here. 

I believe that foreigners coming here should fill the jobs that no 

one else wants, and should work their way up the system as past 

immigrants have done in this nation. 

And I will join you in making sure that those abuses are ended. 

Let’s figure out a way to get that done. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m 

sorry that our colleague, Mr. Issa, had to step out for a moment, 

but I do want to associate myself with his call. 

37

Mr. Pearce, you were not here when he said that we needed to 

combine all of the issues dealing with immigration and really sit 

down breaching the partisanship and do it in a bipartisan manner. 

Might I just simply say to my Chairman, we have talked on 

many occasions, but frankly the agenda of this Congress is set by 

your leadership, and we will not get to where you would like to go. 

As you well know, I joined you in your State, with your constituents, and saw the—visually, the realism and the descriptions of 

what you have just said here today, and associated myself not only 

with you during that time, but also with your constituents. 

Frankly, I believe that Mr. Issa has an idea that many of us 

have already spoken to, and that is a working session that looks 

to the Secure America legislation, and might I say I have the Save 

America Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that specifically 

speaks to the issue of ensuring that employers make a substantial 

effort to hire American workers before turning to foreign workers. 

And then, at the same time, in being moved by the visit to the 

border in your region have authored the Rapid Response Border 

Protection Act, which I think must go hand in hand. It deals with 

not ignoring the Border Patrol agents and agency, but it deals with 

giving them every single skill and equipment piece that they need, 

from night goggles to computers, to helicopters, to speed boats, to 

training, to scholarships, to improving their health benefits, and 

improving their personnel status among others. And it responds to 

the issue of detention beds. 

I only say this to follow up with both you and Mr. Gutierrez on 

the question that the Chairman has asked. And I’m going to go 

back to this citation dealing with the 500,000 jobs and 2.3 million 

and look at it in a different perspective. 

He is saying all foreign workers. So first of all, let us look to how 

many of those are in corporate entities, how many fall under the 

H-1B, where the numbers are going up and up and up, which results in some of the overstays. And these are people who are educated and primarily they are overstays or they are undocumented 

because and the H-1Bs, of course, require you to be employed, and 

they don’t want to leave. 

So you have this gap of educated individuals who fall into this 

sort of, if you will, ever ending hole. And they fall into the lack of 

a comprehensive reform, because there’s no place to put those individuals as well. 

So we talk about the numbers. Let us make sure that we look 

at—that these are foreign workers and the last time I heard Governor Schwarzenegger was a foreign worker. I assume that he is 

documented as the Governor of the State of California. 

But that is all of the individuals who may be foreign workers fall 

under this particular category. 

Mr. Gutierrez, we come at it from a different perspective, but let 

me ask you this: Is there value to the idea of allowing people to 

earn access to legalization, whether they do it, as I have offered—

a 5-year period, community service vetting, or to guest work and 

then transition. Doesn’t that go to the question of the Chairman’s 

that when you have people documented—and documented individuals can be hired and fired; that it means they won’t be deported 

out of the country. Documented individuals can be paid the wages 

38

of the private company that decides to pay them that. To add to 

the solution, I would also suggest that we all support prevailing 

wages, so no one will under compete in American companies. 

But do you see the value in that some vehicle called earned access to legalization as opposed to what you have just indicated to 

us would be a long journey of deportation? And when you answer 

that question, would you provide that number for me again. You 

cited two—the billions and billions, but you also cited another number of how costly it would be for deportation. 

Might I ask, Mr. Pearce, as well to answer the question, could 

you look comprehensively at immigration reform that would include, since you have so eloquently noted that your constituency is 

diverse, that would include strong border enforcement and resources that would empower our Border Patrol agents, because, as 

we stood at that border line, we heard the tale of woe—if I could 

only have resources; if I could only have 25,000 more Border Patrol 

agents. I happen to—and we may agree and disagree—two panelists may agree and disagree on that—but I believe that training 

professionals versus volunteers or Minutemen—and that’s a conversation that I’m not really asking you to pursue as much as I am 

talking about the importance of reinforcing our resources at the 

border that helps to stem the tide somewhat of illegal immigration, 

because, as you well know, people fighting for economic survival 

sometimes are much more mightier than we might be. 

But, Mr. Gutierrez, can you speak to the issue of the value of 

earned access to legalization and the whole concept of working on 

a comprehensive reform package? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Sure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And without objection, the gentleman will have 

a minute to answer the question. 

The subject of the hearing is not about a guest worker program, 

earned access, so the Chair will show great latitude in allowing the 

answers to questions that have no basis in the meeting for the 

hearing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But if the Chairman would yield, I would suggest that in the question of impact, we might be weaving into a 

cure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The law is the law. Reclaiming my time. The 

law is the law today with regard to illegal aliens and their presence 

in the United States. It is the law today. That is the subject of this 

hearing. We will have hearings on changing the law, to repealing 

the law or whatever in the future, but really the subject of the 

hearing today is the impact of illegal immigration as the law today 

defines illegal immigration on particular districts. And so but, 

given that, still, without objection, you can answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We thank you for your latitude and the ability 

of the witnesses to answer. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Sure. Thank you. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It has worked. In 1986, a Republican President, 

Ronald Reagan, signed the last legalization, earned legalization 

bill, the 1986 Immigration Reform Control Act. 

It was a bipartisan bill. There was a majority of Republicans in 

the Senate; a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. 

39

Today, there are 3 million people who successfully went through 

that process. They’re better educated. They’re more productive. The 

vast majority of them are American citizens, and, as we see, they 

have a higher participation rate in our electoral system than those 

of us who were born in the United States. They strengthen our nation. So it has worked. 

I think bringing people out of the shadows and the darkness 

today is the only way. Mr. Chertoff said it would cost billions and 

billions and billions of dollars, and an estimate by a study made 

by a private think tank said it would cost $42 billion a year for 5 

years to attempt to deport the $10 to $12 billion. So it’s unfeasible. 

So you need to incentivize them to come out of the darkness, as we 

did in 1986, and make people Americans, permanent residents of 

the United States and give them the ability to do that; and I think, 

Madam Jackson Lee, Congresswoman, I think the way we do it is 

we penalize them. Let’s fine them a thousand five hundred bucks. 

Let’s figure out what the fine is. Let’s talk about their contributions to Social Security, and whether they’re entitled to them, because they were here undocumented while they were working. We 

can figure it out. Let’s put them into a program for 7 years and 

say, well, you don’t get anything for 7 years unless you work, you 

pay taxes, you follow all the laws. Let’s put them into indentured 

servitude programs, but let’s give them hope at the end of the day 

that after they’ve proven to us, they already are hard-working, 

committed people to America, that we say at the end of the day, 

okay, you’ve earned it. You get to join the rest of us, as our history 

has always allowed us to do in our immigration policy. 

So I join the Congresswoman in seeking that earned legalization. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. Mr. Chair and Madam Jackson Lee, your question is right on point. 

We have a very diverse population. We’re a majority minority 

State, and I will tell you that at our 18 town hall meetings, there 

was unanimous consent that we should enforce the border strictly. 

It should be done fairly. It should not be done heavily handed 

against those people who’ve come illegally, but it should be strict. 

There is also consensus that it should be done by the trained professionals. I think you’re exactly right on that. 

But two comments really stood out in the comments by the Hispanic community and many of the illegals come through our district. One was a young Hispanic gentleman in Dona Ana County, 

the southernmost county up against the border, saying that we 

should not go at this piecemeal like we’ve done it before; that we 

need this time to fix all the parameters in one fashion. That’s the 

comprehensive bill. 

The other one, her, she lived up in the northern part of the district, in fact, in the southern part of Heather Wilson’s district, and 

she, her father had come over as an illegal, had become legalized. 

But he had been here less than 20 years, and he was beginning to 

say we must stop the flow of illegals into this country, and he’s in 

a predominantly Latino area in Southern Albuquerque, and she 

was coming up saying please we must begin to address this question of illegal immigration. 

40

I think that in the end, the consensus also was deeply among 

Hispanics, African Americans, Anglos, whoever, the consensus was 

do not give these illegals, even if you let them work, don’t give 

them amnesty. Don’t let them become citizens, because most of 

them have friends and family on the other side of the border who 

are trying to come here legally, and we’ve had testimony that it has 

taken up to 20 years to get the right to come here and get a green 

card, permanent status, then citizenship. And they’re saying you 

should have a different pipeline for guest workers; that they should 

not get de facto citizenship, should not get ahead of those people 

who have been willing to wait and follow the law. 

And that was a very strong stand on the part of the Hispanics: 

please don’t compromise our standards. Let those people chose to 

go back and get in line if they want to come here and become citizens or let them chose to stay here and be guest workers, but don’t 

give them citizenship ahead of those people who have been willing 

to stand in their country’s in line and do it legally. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If I could just quickly. Our proposal says they 

have to go to the end of the line. We don’t put anybody in the middle of the line, and, true, in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control bill, they did move to the head of the line. We do not propose 

that. 

We simply propose that they get in line, but while they’re in line, 

they continue to work. They continue to raise their families. They 

continue to contribute, and maybe they don’t move to citizenship; 

maybe they don’t move to bring their relatives to this country 

ahead of the others that are already in line from all different countries of the world until that other line that exists is already exhausted. 

So we’ll put them at the end of the line. I agree with you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Congresswoman Jackson Lee. 

We had some discussions just yesterday, where I said to Congresswoman Jackson that I think the Members of Congress either 

we were talking in the Black Caucus, and I think all of the Members of Congress really need what she refers to as a tutorial. You 

know people are all over the place, and they understand this issue 

differently. 

I think that there are real concerns about people who work for 

lesser wages and the question really becomes whether or not 

they’re undermining other people’s ability to work or whether they 

are doing jobs that others don’t want to do. 

And I think these issues are not understood, because I don’t 

think the proper study has gone into these issues, and I know this. 

I mean people are coming to this country and looking for opportunity, looking for a chance to have a decent quality of life. I support having close—I mean having strong border controls, and I 

don’t support people coming across the border, illegal immigration. 

I don’t support any of that. 

But I do support some kind of effort to provide for people the opportunity to have citizenship, particularly people who have been in 

this country for long periods of time. I’ve got people in my district 

41

who have been there for 30 and 40 and 50 years. They don’t have 

anyplace to go back to. This is their country. 

And I think that that has to be recognized. There are some people that I would like to see deported. I’d like to see them deported 

whether they’re Latino, Black, or anything else. They’re wreaking 

havoc, and the gangs and that kind of thing, and I’ve said this 

once, and I’ll say it again: The gang members really bother me. I’m 

very upset about all gang members—Black, Latino, what have you. 

But I’m concerned that there are gang members who come across 

the border, and they commit crimes or get involved with some of 

this violence, and then they slip back. And I understand that there 

are some that are coming back and forth. 

And I think, you know, I can be very, very comfortable with dealing with that as an issue that, you know, I understand very well. 

The issues that I don’t understand very well are these: I hear 

some of our more conservative Members talking about this problem 

and talking about, you know, deportation, but what I don’t really 

hear is an honest discussion about the division among the conservatives in this Congress, where I think the Chamber of Commerce 

and those who are very much interested in labor are willing to take 

some very, very big steps in order to maintain this workforce. 

As a matter of fact, the last time I was in Palm Springs, California, it was very clear to me. If you deport folks in Palm Springs, 

that closes the city down. I mean it would just close down. All of 

the work is being done by a combination of legal and illegal immigrants in Palm Springs, and I have to tell you the hotels and the 

chambers of commerce, et cetera, are not willing to give that up. 

And they’re not going to give it up. I mean we could fight all day 

and talk all day about deportation and whether or not, you know, 

we’re going to have a guest worker program or whether we’re going 

to have some kind of earned legalization, what you have. But I am 

convinced—and I feel pretty comfortable that the moneyed interests of America, the real capitalists, the major corporations of 

America will see to it that there will be no massive deportation of 

the people who are making them rich. I’m convinced of that. 

I mean I—we can just sit back, and we can watch it happen, because that is the truth of the matter. 

So having said all of that, I do there’s room for the tutorials or 

the education, the information sharing, the real facts about all of 

this that we need to have in this Congress, and not just in the caucuses where we’re talking about them. 

I think that the—I would really like to see my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and the more conservative voices have a real 

discussion among themselves about this issue, because, for the 

most part, the—well, there are those who are really, really, really 

supporting border patrols and talking about deportation, et cetera, 

et cetera, but in that same caucus, we have the voices that are 

emerging in a very strong way about preserving the workforce, because it’s—if the workforce is not preserved, then the country won’t 

be able to operate. It just won’t be able to carry out many of the 

services that are being provided, and that discussion has not really 

taken place yet. 

So I am looking forward to that. 

42

Having said all of that, I’m interested in Sheila Jackson Lee’s 

earned program—what do you call it? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Earned Access to Legalization. 

Ms. WATERS. Yeah. Earned Access to Legalization program. I’m 

interested in how we can honor some of the people who have been 

here for many, many years, and deportation is not realistic, and it’s 

not going to happen, and again the only people I’m interested in 

deporting are the gang members who cause me problems in my district. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. We’re going to go to a 

second round of questions, and I want to ask—and I want to assure 

the gentlelady from California that I can speak from fairly good experience that conservatives are talking about this, and it is an interesting dialogue, an interesting discussion. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman? I need to—I’d like to be excused. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. I hope you have a good day. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Pearce. Thank you, Members of——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I will—I had a question, but I would just make 

a statement. A lot of discussion is being had today about this idea 

of mass deportation, like that’s necessary if we’re going to enforce 

the immigration laws. 

In 1986, workforce enforcement became the law. That’s the law 

of the land. It is illegal in the United States of America to hire and 

employ an illegal alien. That is the law, just as it is the law in the 

United States of America to pay Federal income tax. 

Now, my question would be, Mr. Gutierrez, and it might be for 

Mr. Pearce, that if we had the IRS in place, and there was no possibility—the purpose for the Internal Revenue Code is to acquire 

revenues for the operation of the Federal Government. 

If the IRS was in place, and everyone that made out a 1040 form 

that supposedly paid taxes realized there was never ever any possibility of being audited at all, my question is, what would happen 

to revenue levels? 

I would say they would probably drop off. And, therefore, the law 

would be moot. The law would not be enforced. 

Likewise, if there’s not ever a chance of enforcing the immigration law with regard to worksite compliance, then you’re going to 

have the law flouted, and you’re going to have illegal aliens flood 

across the border and be employed in America. 

But going back to the IRS, the knowledge that there is going to 

be an audit causes most of us to be pretty honest. I’m a 100 percent 

honest with our taxes. 

Likewise, the knowledge that you are going to be investigated 

with regard to violating Federal law and Federal immigration law, 

will cause a lot of people to aggressively adhere to the law. That 

would potentially remove what Barbara Jordan referred to in her 

commission as the jobs magnet. If you eliminate the jobs magnet, 

and there are no jobs, theoretically at an extreme for illegal aliens 

in America, the question hypothetically, rhetorically, how many, 

then, do you have to deport? 

And so that is the question. 

43

And the question that I have—and so, the discussion of deportation is really a red herring. If the worksite enforcement laws are 

enforced by the Administration, as article II of the Constitution requires them to do, then we have the same situation with the adherence to the immigration law that we do with the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Now, a lot of discussion, Mr. Pearce, has been had on this idea 

of earned access, and I’ll couch it in these terms: First of all, the 

people violate the law by their presence, their coming into the 

country. When they step across that border, for better or for worse, 

a Democratically-controlled Congress in 1986 said that if they are 

also hired, they’re violating Federal law, as well, not only their 

presence here, but if they’re violating the Federal law. 

The discussion was had that we will fine them. We will send 

them back to the back of the line. We will do this to them. We will 

do all these things to them. That’s going to require oddly enough, 

enforcement of an immigration law, and not only that but the Border Patrol is going to allow these people to come through because 

they’re coming through legally to work in our districts and work on 

border districts. But if the past experience informs of us anything, 

they’re going to come to Southwestern Indiana, among other places, 

and they’re going to come and acquire work and do other things not 

necessarily as virtuous as work, and impact our communities. 

And so my question, Mr. Pearce, is this: Why should our constituents believe you or me when we say if you give us a guest 

worker program, we’re going to enforce the law, when, in fact, history indicates that we have the tools today; for example, for worksite enforcement, for a lot of the expedited removal to fill in the 

blank. All these tools are—and the Department of Homeland Security has decided recently to actually to begin to enforce these laws 

that are already in place. 

Why should they trust us this second time to say this time we’re 

going to actually enforce the immigration law? 

Mr. PEARCE. Sure. It’s a great question, Mr. Chairman, and there 

are two elements to an answer that need to be discussed in my 

opinion. The first is as process I don’t think that when we set up 

the original law, that there was a very good process to distinguish 

between who had a legitimate presence here as a legal alien and 

who didn’t. 

So I’ve got employers in my district telling me in my hometown 

that they’re going to shut down their second business. They’ve 

got—this Hispanic lady has two restaurants. She can oversee one 

personally, and has to hire a manager. She said, I can’t tell by myself which green cards are green enough, and which are not green 

enough. 

So there’s that process of enforcement that never was set up. 

And it puts people in an extremely awkward position trying to find 

the work. 

But the second, more compelling answer I think that applies exactly to what you’re talking about is the imbalance between needed 

workers and available workers. 

I will tell you everywhere I go in the country, I’m always talking 

to employers because I myself had to go out and find employees, 

and we had to find qualified employees. We generally pad in the 

44

$30,000 to $80,000 range, so it wasn’t like we’re feeding off of people here with no skills. 

And I will tell you that always the answer among employers—

and it’s what I found to be true: that we just need two things in 

employees. We need employees that can pass a drug screen and 

that will show up for work tomorrow. If they don’t know English, 

we’ll teach it to them. 

Right now, you have a tremendous imbalance without available 

workers, and that imbalance is going to accelerate in the next 

years. If we have a guest worker program—and the imbalance is 

going to accelerate, because 40 million Baby Boomers are reaching 

retirement age, so the pressure is even going to be greater. 

Now, what I would tell anyone who’s asking why should we believe you is that that imbalance is going to be cured. It’s either 

going to be cured legally or illegally. 

And in partial answer to Maxine’s question that is it exploitation. 

These are not exploitation wages. I will tell you over the weekend 

that one dairyman has put in $250,000 of houses because the law 

says if you bring them here to work as immigrants, you got to provide housing and utilities. So $250,000 to where he can bring people in. It says he also has to pay at least a wage above minimum 

wage of $7.78 or he can’t bring them here. He’s paying over $10, 

plus $10 for the housing and utilities. So he’s now at twenty something dollars. 

That’s in the dairy industry. The imbalance is so great that people will either come here illegally or legally because they’re going 

to get paid better than they can at home. 

Now, in the oil industry, which I made my living in, right now 

jobs as a driller—drilling rigs are kind of the basic of the oil industry—a driller is making over $100,000, with no high school education, no college education generally, and people are making—that 

are working on that crew anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 annually. 

So these are not exploitation wages. 

It’s that the labor supply is so short, and the employer so desperate that right now we don’t have a way for these people to come 

into the country. 

I testified earlier that it’s a 20-year wait sometimes to get here 

legally, so people are scooting away from the borders and coming 

through illegally to satisfy this need for employees that’s going to 

be satisfied or we’re going to send the jobs out to where they are. 

We’re either going to bring workers in or send the jobs out. 

So if we have a guest worker program to where people come 

through—and I suggested on my tours, and everybody thought it 

was a good idea—all cultures thought it was a good idea, a biometric scan. You have a retina, fingerprint, and then your picture 

comes up. Your employer, the potential employer looks and says 

that’s you. Here is your Social Security number, so they take out 

Social Security pay. You pay taxes. 

Those things would take that pressure off the illegal part and 

allow it to become legal, with that credit card looking—just like our 

voting card here in Congress—that voting card giving you access to 

come into the country. You go to your job. If you don’t report within 

45

2 weeks that you’re working, now you go into illegal status, and 

there’s a far smaller pool. 

So we take the pressure off the border. Our agents, then, have 

more access and more resources to direct into those unmonitored 

uses of the border, because you take so much pressure off if you 

give legal status and legal entry to the people who are just coming 

here to make a better way for their family and in addition satisfying a great need for employees that we in the country have. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Would your competitor hire a $100,000 a year legal driller if he knew that he could hire a $20,000 a year illegal 

driller, and he would never face any consequences, as is the case 

today. 

Mr. PEARCE. I will tell you that you can’t answer for every single 

person. 

I will tell you that there are people out there who will beat any 

system, but the dairyman that I talked to, a long-time acquaintance, go to Sunday school together, and he could be hiring illegals 

right now. I guarantee that the people are there and available. But 

he’s trying to follow the law. He’s trying to find—follow the letter 

of the law, so he’s out $250,000 in order to go get these legal immigrants who are allowed to come in under the Agricultural Work 

Program. He can only hire them for 10 months, and so that is a 

piece that we should attend to. 

But I think his answer is that, no, he wouldn’t hire that $4 an 

hour cash employee. If he would do that, he wouldn’t have put in 

the $250,000 set up to put people into housing, which the law requires. 

I think that most businesses would jump at the chance to operate 

legally. There are some who would not frankly if we were to give 

legal recourse to the employers who will do things right, I will 

guarantee you, the market itself will begin to discriminate against 

those people who are law breakers and who would exploit. 

I just think most people just want to be out of the shadows operating correctly. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As I listen to the discourse between you and the distinguished 

gentleman from New Mexico and I listen to my colleague, the distinguished gentlelady from California, mention I think a very now 

evident concept that were discussing, a tutorial, and the reason 

why I say that is because I think if we are realistic, we know that 

leadership is talking about potentially post the Christmas holiday 

for serious consideration some of these very important issues. 

I would be surprised if we were pre-holiday that this would 

occur, but surprises do happen. 

The reason why I say that, Steven, is because as I listen to you 

in New Mexico, what the Chairman is saying is that he will have 

a Midwesterner, if I might say the Rust Belt, look in great frustration and consternation about the job loss. You, on the other hand, 

can live with strong border security and the recognition that you 

have substantial industries, businesses that really would welcome 

that population. 

Now, let me wear another hat. I confront in urban population 

with African Americans, who will raise the question that even if we 

46

are discussing the issue of immigration, that they may be impacted 

negatively. 

What is the basis of that? Unemployment. Poverty. The lack of 

jobs. Our social societal ills that we have not responded to. Job creation. 

So I would say to my Chairman, he’s discussing the issues that 

I would be discussing. He’s discussing the lack of job opportunity, 

poverty, the lack of an economic engine, alongside of employer 

sanctions. The difficulty with employer sanction is, of course, we’re 

talking about them now. They’ve been in place. But we have been—

and I would admit I’m not the enforcer. I wasn’t in Congress as 

these laws were started, but I can certainly look back and say, yep, 

they have not been enforced. 

So I think the challenge that we have is that we will not move 

past first base if we cannot convince the Chairman that the answer 

to his constituents’ question may not be totally, if you will, infused, 

invested in the immigration issue. It may be partly so, but it may 

be a variety of economic issues. And maybe we can have a consensus around employer sanctions, but I don’t think we can get 

away from the comprehensive immigration reform. 

With respect to the African American community, I think it’s important for me to say to them, I support increasing the minimum 

wage, and this is I saying it, and those will join in increasing the 

minimum wage. I think that would impact the constituents of the 

Chairman in Indiana. I support the idea of prevailing wages. I support employer sanctions, and might I say, though this hearing does 

not relate to trade bills. I certainly oppose the lifting of American 

jobs and sending them elsewhere, which has been a decided—has 

a decided impact on our economy. 

I say this because Barbara Jordan was a predecessor—one of the 

predecessors of the office that I hold. Now deceased, I know that 

the climate was very different when she wrote this report. There 

were elements in it that we could agree with and some not. I think 

we failed in not pursuing at least the question of employer sanctions. But on the other hand, you’ll speak to the Chamber of Commerce, and they will be—abhor employer sanctions because they 

will say to you what do you expect people to do. 

So my question to you is—it looks like I’m doing a tutorial or a 

philosophical dialogue or discourse, but my frustration is that if 

we—and these are good hearings, Mr. Chairman, by the way—but 

it does evidence the frustration that we have and probably the divide of ever coming to sit down and try to iron out what we need 

to do, supporting the Border Patrol on illegal immigration, if we 

keep that terminology in that they would help us on that, providing 

the workforce, but, yet, saying to the American worker—and, by 

the way, legislation that I have works to recruit American workers, 

protect American jobs, does outreach in minority communities, 

trains minorities who may not have jobs—but the point is what 

you’ve seen from your town hall meetings, can we get away with 

the horse being out of the barn, the chicken and egg concept? Are 

we not going to have to look at this comprehensively, because the 

Southern border States we can get together. We might even be able 

to get together, Dems and Republicans, because we’re facing the 

47

same issue, short of my unique issue dealing with the African 

American population, which I think we need to address. 

But where are we going to get that consensus from our Rust 

Belt—I don’t know if you would include the Western States—to be 

able to understand that we cannot go without doing anything. We 

cannot go with only dealing with border security, which I think we 

have some meeting of the minds. Mr. Pearce, would you? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, and I always appreciate the gentlelady’s 

approach. It makes me realize that we are much closer to consensus in the Congress and in the country than what many of ourselves believe. As the Chairman mentioned, we have been having 

deep discussions on the conservative side talking about enforcement and the guest worker program, and I think that there is such 

significant movement among our conference and I suspect the same 

is true in the Democrats’ side that the people are realizing we must 

do something. 

I think Americans across the country agree that it should not be 

the same sort of illegal act to come here and try to make a better 

way for your family. In other words, that should not be as illegal 

as importing drugs or humans—sex trafficking. The—back to your 

point about the problems in the African American country and—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Community. 

Mr. PEARCE. —communities in the large cities. It breaks my 

heart. We’re about 5 percent unemployment, and I will tell you as 

an employer who has tried to hire people, at 5 percent, you’re not 

getting people who will walk through the door that really have the 

skill sets to really work. And my wife and I committed early on 

that we’re going to reach out into the community that does not get 

hired much, and we’re going to work ourselves, and we’re going to 

just solve one or two cases. With 50 employees, you’re not going to 

solve. 

We had one guy that was working for us when I had sold the 

company after coming here. He was forty-something years old. He 

was tattooed from head to toe, and on every part of himself. We 

hired him, and he was the first—it was the first full-time job he 

ever had. 

Now, he has stuck, but so many didn’t. We hired one young man 

that was about 5 years younger than myself. I knew his family—

well respected; had been in prison most of his life for doing drugs. 

We hired him. I got—I called to the penitentiary and said if you 

let him out, I’ll hire him. We brought him in and said, we’ll get you 

counseling, whatever we can do. It did not take in his case, and in 

many cases it did not take. 

We have arrived at such a point that many of the people who are 

not working today don’t have the skill sets and the discipline, and 

that is up to us as a nation to solve that problem. My wife and I 

right now are—we have a small effort to try to provide mentors for 

people in the State, because if we don’t catch this next population, 

this group of junior high and high school students that are just 

wondering if they can be a productive part of society, if we don’t 

provide the help to bridge them back in and literally take that 

mantra that has grown offensive to some of not leaving any child 

behind, if we don’t solve that, this country has such deep problems 

exactly from the part that you’re talking about, we—I see almost 

48

unanimous consent that once we begin to solve in some way the 

availability of workers in a legal fashion, that sanctions to those 

people or those employers who will break the law and go out and 

hire people and keep them under the shadows, keep them off the 

tax rolls, and keep them away from the protection of the labor departments, those people need sanctions, and I would find unanimous consent among my Mexican constituents as saying yes, once 

we help them solve their problem, then there’s no going back. 

Again, that would answer some of Chairman Hostettler’s question—how should the American people believe us. And your points 

are very, very well made and, I just think that the future of our 

country is at stake, because the international competition now is 

such that when I grew up, it was those cheap Japanese imports 

that were threatening to take our jobs. I have been to China, and 

I will tell you they are not cheap imitations. These are great, great 

replacements, knock offs of the intellectual property that we 

worked here to create, and they steal. North Face jackets—$150 

bucks in the stores here—$13, and they’re exact replicas, maybe 

even better. And when we allow our intellectual properties to be 

counterfeited and stolen like that, we’re at the risk of losing our 

entire economic base. 

But India is providing really strong competition in the technology 

sectors. We must in this country be aware of the threats to our 

overall economy and the hope and opportunity for all of us. 

But I appreciate your reminder about those people who we’d 

have difficulty discussing this in that constituency, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlelady and the 

Chairman just indulge me for 1 minute. I know there’s a second 

round to the gentlelady. I just wanted to thank Mr. Pearce for the 

charitable approach that he has taken with respect to the constituents in a State that has probably a very low African American population, and, therefore, some of the ills that face society are magnified. 

But I do want to just get for the record that when we talk about 

this problem, that’s why the Chambers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be engaged because they are very supportive, as the 

gentlelady has said, of this question of reform. 

She had mentioned that Palm Springs would close down, and I’m 

sure there’s some diversity there, but included in my points, of 

course, were the future college graduates of historically Black colleges and other institutions—engineers who are unemployed, which 

I think tracks the Chairman’s point of his constituency that may 

be an Anglo, may be a White population saying they don’t have 

jobs, but we have populations trained that don’t have jobs for us 

to realistically be able to answer the question of the impact of illicit 

immigration, but also the impact of it on certain segments. We 

need to deal with being able to say to these individuals you will 

have work, too, and tell them that the reform of the immigration 

system will enhance them getting work—we have to make it 

work—and at the same time be true to our words that they will 

have work, because I’m talking about college graduates and others 

who still suffer unemployment, and it happened to be in this inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111005\24507.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24507
49

stance African American, and though I don’t step away from immigration reform, they complain, rightly so that they’re without work. 

Mr. PEARCE. The gentlelady is correct, and I will tell that rather 

than finding less competition of that sort, an amazing thing happened back before the dot com collapse and that is that we pretty 

well put fiber optics all the way across India. Now, India is the 

source of many of our very highest caliber scientists and mathematicians in this country. They are such a small percent of the 

U.S. population, but the Indians who have come here and lived as 

citizens are less than 1 percent of the population, yet they provide 

10 percent of the graduates every year from the Ivy League 

schools. 

But now, then, with India being wired with fiber optics, those 

scientists and those great brains can stay at home and do the same 

thing over the Internet. I think that we have a challenge to come 

together as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents and look at 

the challenges that face us, to gird our loins and to fight the fight 

to preserve what we have in this nation. Any guest worker program I think should always recognize that Americans, if they will 

fill the jobs, should get the first job at it. And I think we’re all seeing the same specter and the same thing that we should be afraid 

of, and the same really things that we should solve, and I appreciate the viewpoint. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I’d like to ask a little bit more about the guest worker program 

that you described somewhat or alluded to where you have an identification card, and if you’re working, you’re gainfully employed, 

you may be in this country. How does it work? I mean are you here 

forever if you work forever? Do you get citizenship if you work for 

10 years, 20 years? How does your idea of a guest worker program 

work? 

Mr. PEARCE. The difficulty if we allow the guest worker to gain 

citizenship while they’re here is that we don’t take any of the pressure off the border, and you have to understand that the only—I 

think the only solution to our border problem is to take the pressure off of those untended portions. My district is 180 miles. And 

if you put enough pressure at the point of entry, they’re simply 

going to scoot over. And we can build that fence that someone has 

suggested, but until we put an agent every mile along that fence, 

they’re going to come through. 

So my impression of a guest worker program is that people really 

will have to determine if they want to come here for citizenship or 

if they’re simply satisfied to come here as workers. And I will you 

that we had illegals show up at our town hall meetings saying, I 

don’t ever want to be a citizen. I just want to come here and make 

enough so that I can go home and be self sufficient. 

And we have people who have lived here 40 years legally, working and saying, you ask them where they’re from. I’m from Chihuahua. I’ll go home when I retire. 

And so there is a mentality that says we love coming here. It’s 

the same mentality that you and I have. I was——

Ms. WATERS. So the guest worker would be free to travel back 

and forth across the border? 

50

Mr. PEARCE. Free travel back and forth—just access. 

And these same people said if you give us that access, we’re probably not going to bring our families, because they want their kids 

to grow up in the same high school where they graduated, the 

same as I wanted my daughter to graduate where I did. 

The said if we leave our families, then we don’t have so much 

pressure on the social systems. We’ll go back and forth. That’s pretty much how it used to work in the Bracero Program, and I have 

a lot of Hispanics who were here as Braceros and said, why did we 

stop that program? It seemed to work pretty well. 

And I think that it’s up to all of us to determine what we 

want—— Ms. WATERS. So you’re talking about the possibility of a guest 

worker program with strong employer enforcement? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mm hmm. 

Ms. WATERS. That would eliminate the possibility of employers 

having illegal immigrants without the documentation, without the 

paying into the system, all of that—that’s what you are describing? 

Mr. PEARCE. Absolutely. And, again, right now, we require enforcement by the employer. That one Hispanic lady says I got to 

shut down a restaurant, because I can’t—the people I hire can’t tell 

if those green cards are green enough. Those were her words. 

Ms. WATERS. So you would couple this with strong enforcement 

on the border, and for those people who are in the system standing 

line in their correct places to apply for citizenship? That would be 

kind of your general program? 

Now, let me—I like the idea that you understand the need for 

education and training. And you talk about, you know, those individuals, be they Black or what have you, who are underemployed 

or don’t have skill sets, et cetera, and this country appears to ignore that, while we are chasing people from other places to fill 

these jobs like the citizens of India who have become very popular 

in Silicon Valley and other places where they were providing the 

skill sets and like you said, because of fiber optics they are doing 

more and more because they can do those jobs from wherever they 

are. 

Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if we could convince the Congress 

of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to really invest 

in human potential, and invest in job training, invest in getting 

people trained for jobs that are otherwise going to India or other 

places? It costs money, and I’ve not seen a willingness on the other 

side of the aisle to do that. I can recall a job training program that 

I just had a good fight on the floor, and some years ago, following 

the problems of South Los Angeles and trying to encourage this 

Congress to do a job training program for what I called 17- to 30-

year-olds with what I consider supports the training while they’re 

in training, et cetera, et cetera, and you kind of mentioned people 

who are coming out of penal institutions and on and on and on. 

Well, I like your idea that we should be supportive of that. It 

costs money to do this. It costs money to train, but I’m prepared 

to do tax breaks and to give tax incentives to businesses that are 

willing to do some real training. I don’t want the paper training. 

I don’t want what happened with the Private Industry Councils 

and other kinds of so-called training programs. But I do want real 

51

training by industry, and I’m prepared to do—support tax incentives—all of that. 

But I guess the big question is, do you think that your side of 

the aisle would be prepared to couple kind of your idea with job 

training that costs money, because I tell you if you come up with 

something like that, and there may be a lot of people who would 

be willing to look closer at your guest worker program. 

Right now, I’m not there on the guest worker program, because 

I still think we’ll get—and I could be dated on this—but I still 

think of it as kind of exploitation. Let them come and work, but 

don’t try to stay here. We want you—and I still think of it as cheap 

labor. I’m very impressed with your industry and the amount of 

money you pay, but that’s not most of our undocumenteds. It’s not 

most of those who come across the border seeking better opportunity. You know, I’m just a, if I may, I’m just outraged by what’s 

happening in New Orleans and on the Gulf where major contractors are exploiting workers from Guatemala and places. 

There was one story that it has brought tears to my eyes where 

Guatemalans were sleeping on the ground. They had inadequate 

clothing. Not only were they employed to do some of the work that 

these big contractors who got no bid contracts to do this work, 

some of the exploited workers were thrown off the job and they 

didn’t even pay them for what they worked for. 

So I mean it’s great to hear about hundred dollar an hour jobs 

or whatever, but the fact of the matter is most are in low-wage 

jobs, the very low-wage jobs. 

However, having said all of that, if there was a real willingness 

to invest in job training so that we eliminate the argument about 

people who feel that the—the undocumenteds who are taking jobs 

and but people feel that they don’t have the opportunity to get 

trained for jobs so they can get the skill sets. They’ll never get the 

experience without the training or somebody taking a chance, as 

you described. 

If we could figure some of that out, and couple that with a guest 

worker program, I may—you know I may not only be supportive of 

some that, but would encourage some other people to be supportive 

of it. 

So what do you think about some real investment in human potential for job training and for people who have been kind of 

dropped off of America’s agenda, some of them who dropped out of 

school that shouldn’t have, but, you know, we could find their way 

back in with some support. What about supporting people while 

they’re in job training. If you have to be in job training for 6 

months, you got to eat. You got to have transportation. You’ve got 

to, you know, be able to stay there to be trained. 

What about that kind of support? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. At this point, job training is a fantastically 

stimulating issue. It just doesn’t happen to be the prerogative of 

this Committee. And in the future, we will be taking up the issue 

of guest worker programs and earned access and every other discussion of allowing more people into the country to work from outside the country. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. But at this point——

52

Ms. WATERS. Will the Chairman yield? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I will yield. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thought this was about the impact 

on our districts today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Of illegal aliens. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Of undocumented. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Are you going to be training illegal aliens in 

your job training bill? 

Ms. WATERS. No. The question becomes, yes, we have 

undocumenteds in my district, many of whom are working in very 

low paying jobs, being exploited, and we have people, African 

Americans and others, in the same district who complain about the 

undocumenteds, but they wish to be able to have access to jobs, 

which would require job training. 

So I think it fits your subject matter. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yielding——

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. —regaining my time. 

Ms. WATERS. Sure. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And so my question to the gentlelady is so it 

is your experience that illegal aliens are displacing significant 

numbers in the workforce of your constituents? 

Ms. WATERS. No, that is not my experience. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Reclaiming my time—— Ms. WATERS. My experience—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Then who needs job retraining? 

Ms. WATERS. I think that there is a need for job training if there 

were no illegals or undocumented—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Okay. Very good. But that being the case, that 

isn’t the subject of——

Ms. WATERS. And—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. —this hearing. In fact, we will now return to 

the subject of the hearing, which was the impact of illegal immigration. 

I appreciate the gentlelady’s insight. We will be taking up a bill 

that does—I mean we will be taking up hearings that do discuss 

this issue, and in that context, but the gentlelady’s statement is 

that illegal aliens are not displacing constituents in—— Ms. WATERS. No, I didn’t say that either. So you keep saying 

what the gentlelady said, but you’re not framing it correctly. I 

think I first started out by saying you don’t know and I don’t know, 

because we don’t have the information. We don’t have the studies 

that have been done. People are—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. And the answer is——

Ms. WATERS. —alluding to it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. —the gentlelady does not know about these. 

Ms. WATERS. No. The answer is that the Chairman does not 

know. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. I know. 

Ms. WATERS. Along with the gentlelady. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. I know wholeheartedly. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. I yield—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Come on back to my district——

Ms. WATERS. Okay. All right. 

53

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Tonight. 

Ms. WATERS. Thanks for the time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So at this point, I want to thank the gentleman 

from New Mexico for his input in this very important subject. All 

Members will have 5 legislative days to make additions to the 

record. The business before the Subcommittee being completed—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. And may I, Mr. Chairman—if I would add my 

appreciation for the sticktoitness of the gentleman from New Mexico, and certainly appreciate the other Members that you have 

stuck it out. And we appreciate your testimony. It will be valued 

in this process, and we’re going to get some jobs for the people that 

Congressman Waters and myself are talking about and the jobs for 

the Chairman and comprehensive immigration reform. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection, we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN ABNER CULBERSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Ms. Jackson Lee, and 

members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the problem of illegal immigration and its effect on my congressional district and the State of Texas. 

I represent the 7th District of Texas, an area roughly 200 square miles that covers suburban west and northwest Houston. The problems that my district and Texas 

face are not unique to border States, but they are unique compared with other parts 

of the country. Roughly 1.5 million illegal immigrants live in Texas. These illegal 

immigrants work in Texas, their children attend our schools, they use our public 

hospitals, and if they commit crimes—they are detained in our jails. 

What makes Texas unique to the rest of the country is the size of our border with 

Mexico; Texas borders Mexico for 1,240 miles along the Rio Grande. The length of 

the border presents unique challenges for communities and law enforcement along 

the border. In the past year, the numbers of Mexicans and OTMs has surged along 

with substantial increases in the quantity of drugs being moved across our southern 

border. The increases in human and drug trafficking are due, in part, to the fact 

that organized gangs and cartels now control the movement of people and drugs into 

the U.S. We have an obligation to address the problem now before the violence on 

the other side of the border spills over into our country, and irreparably damages 

the special relationship that Texas and Mexico have enjoyed for over a century. Congress must work to ensure that legislation is passed to secure our borders. 

I became particularly concerned with the issue of illegal immigration after a town 

hall meeting was held on April 25, 2004 by CIS and ICE officials in Houston to assure illegal immigrants that federal immigration laws would not be enforced. Hearing law enforcement officers assuage law breakers that our laws would not be enforced is completely unacceptable. After this meeting was held, I voiced my serious 

concerns to the Bush Administration, the leadership in Congress, and the committees of jurisdiction. Broadcasting the fact that Houston is a safe haven for illegal 

immigrants only encourages more illegals to come to Houston. 

The following month I visited the Houston CIS office and was shocked to find the 

policies and procedures employed in that office were contrary to the intent of immigration laws passed by Congress. I discovered that adjudicators do not have the 

tools needed to conduct background checks on immigration benefit applicants. I 

learned that not one adjudicator had been trained to detect a potential terrorist. I 

learned that adjudicators were granted time off and other incentives for rapidly 

processing applicants instead of being rewarded for conducting thorough background 

checks on applicants. I learned that marriage fraud was rampant. In general, I 

found that immigrants applying for legal status were treated as customers. The 

American taxpayer was not the customer, and in fact, the taxpayer was not even 

considered by CIS officials. Awarding the greatest privilege in the history of the 

world—American citizenship—without proper vetting and background checks cheapens that privilege. Therefore, I included report language in the FY2005 Homeland 

Security Appropriations Bill that sought to correct these policies: 

IMPLEMENTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

The Committee is concerned that agencies of the Department are not complying with Congressional intent, particularly in carrying out homeland security missions and priorities. The Committee directs that neither the Secretary nor any other employee of the Department prescribe any policy, proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:48 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\111005\24507.000 HJUD1 PsN: 24507
56

cedure or regulation that would be contrary to or frustrate the intent of 

Congress as expressed in law. 

HOMELAND SECURITY MISSION PRIORITY

The Committee is concerned that DHS agencies are not placing top priority 

on their homeland security missions set forth in the Homeland Security 

Act, but are in some cases giving more weight to less urgent, legacy activities. It is the duty of each officer and employee of each element of the Department to protect the homeland of the United States, including by ensuring that potential terrorist and criminal aliens do not enter the United 

States. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary to ensure that the 

policies and procedures of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, of 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and every other element of 

the Department of Homeland Security are consistent with this duty, and 

that such requirements are made clear to each officer and employee of the 

Department.

After my visit to the Houston CIS office, I posed questions to the Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin. He began an investigation into the policies 

and procedures in the Houston office, but I have been unable to obtain a copy of 

the report. The two officials in Houston CIS and ICE who participated in the townhall meeting have been replaced. My goal is to continue working with federal immigration officials in Houston to fix the obvious security risks that are exacerbated by 

lax enforcement policies. 

Border Security: 

Since the April town hall meeting, I have learned that Special Interest Aliens 

(SIAs)—aliens from countries where al-Qaeda is known to operate—have entered 

the United States illegally. I am particularly concerned that aliens from countries 

such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Indonesia, and the Sudan are entering our country illegally. On March 8, 2005 I questioned FBI Director Robert Mueller during a hearing 

before the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee 

about SIAs entering the United States across the southern border and he testified 

under oath that this was in fact occurring. Specifically, he stated that ‘‘[t]he FBI 

has received reports that individuals from countries with known al-Qaeda connections have attempted to enter the U.S. illegally using alien smuggling rings and assuming Hispanic appearances. An FBI investigation into these reports continues.’’

SIAs are changing their Arabic surnames to Hispanic surnames to elude detection 

and blend into the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border. 

I am convinced that our porous borders present the most serious national security 

threat that America faces. 

To gain a better understanding of the problems for communities and law enforcement on the border, I visited several cities along the Texas-Mexico border in October 

2005. During my visit, I met with a number of sheriffs from the counties along the 

border. They briefed me in detail on several cases involving terrorist activity, narcoterrorist activity, violent gangs such as MS–13, and the increased violence in their 

counties. I was very concerned to learn about the growing influence of drug cartels 

in Mexico and their hired guns, the Zetas. I also learned about the violence that 

is spilling over into U.S. cities like Laredo, Texas. In the last year, more than 40 

American citizens have been killed or kidnapped in Laredo. In early 2005, Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza issued a travel warning for all Americans visiting or 

working in Mexican border towns. This warning demonstrates the need for an increased number of Border Patrol agents and local law enforcement officers on the 

southern border. The presence and constant activity of narco-terrorists and human 

smugglers are directly related to the kidnappings and the travel warning, and they 

signify the lawlessness along the border. 

During my visit I also learned about the special status given to OTMs who enter 

the United States illegally. The number of OTMs apprehended along the Texas border has doubled in the last year and tripled since three years ago. Along the entire 

U.S.-Mexico border, the number of OTMs apprehended has increased 175 percent 

in the last year. The OTM problem is compounded by current policies that allow 

them to walk free after being detained and processed by the Border Patrol. OTMs 

are released because there is not enough jail space to detain them. Last week, Secretary Chertoff announced his intention to detain and deport every OTM apprehended at the border. Congress must ensure that DHS has adequate detention 

space and manpower to accomplish this task. The OTM problem can be fixed, but 

it will take additional resources, policy changes, and effective deterrence. 

57

Since returning to Washington from my trip to the border, I have spoken with 

many Members of Congress and shared the stories and pictures from my trip. I was 

not surprised to hear that many of them said they felt safer during trips to Iraq 

than they would have in a pickup truck on our southern border. The increased violence in towns such as Laredo is frightening. Business centers are closing down, 

tourism is declining, and the general population is demoralized by the level of lawlessness. I am now convinced that you do not need to go to Baghdad to see the war 

on terror—you can go to Laredo. 

Costs of Illegal Immigration: 

According to a Federation for American Immigration Reform report issued earlier 

this year, illegal immigrants in Texas cost the State’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. The annual fiscal burden 

amounts to roughly $725 per Texas household. 

Texas public schools, like many schools around the country are overcrowded. After 

Hurricane Katrina, the citizens of Houston opened their doors to our neighbors in 

New Orleans. School districts in Harris County have taken in 14,000 students who 

were displaced because of the storm. Our schools are simply drowning in the number of students, and the burden on teachers and administrators is overwhelming. 

There are currently an estimated 319,000 children of illegal immigrants in Texas 

schools. This figure represents 10 percent of the total K–12 public school enrollment 

in Texas and the costs of educating these children has increased every year over 

the last ten years. In 1994 the Urban Institute estimated the per student cost of 

a K–12 education in Texas was $4,461. A 2000 report by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) estimated that the cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants was $6,288 per child. Since public school outlays have increased at 

least 10 percent since 2000, using the NCES data, it is reasonable to assume that 

the cost of educating a child of an illegal immigrant is $7,450 for this year. Education is paid for by property taxes in Texas. These taxes have reached an artificially high level and the Texas Legislature is looking for a solution to lower property 

taxes while continuing to provide public education that meets the standards set by 

No Child Left Behind. A solution can be found to the education crisis in Texas, but 

we cannot continue to bear the burden of educating the children of illegal immigrants. 

In March 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that ‘‘Over the past 10 years, the 

[Harris county hospital] district has provided $510 million in unreimbursed care to 

illegal immigrants.’’ In the last three years alone, the Harris County hospital district has spent $330 million on care to illegal immigrants. Providing these services 

places a huge and unnecessary strain on taxpayers and creates an incentive for illegal aliens to come to this country and take advantage of the world’s best hospitals. 

These costs are staggering and are only going to increase. In order to remove the 

burden from local taxpayers, Congress must continue to reimburse hospitals for this 

care, but to receive reimbursement for illegal immigrant care—hospitals must prove 

they have treated these aliens. In contrast to their unwillingness to provide information to federal immigration officials about illegal aliens for immigration purposes, 

states and localities have been willing to provide that information when seeking reimbursement from the federal government for the cost of medical care to illegal immigrants. Since hospitals are already asking the citizenship status of patients when 

they receive care, it seems reasonable that they contact federal immigration officials 

to alert them to the presence of these aliens. A program can easily be implemented 

that places no undue burden on hospitals and only requires cooperation with federal 

officials to be eligible for reimbursement. 

I am also concerned that ‘‘sanctuary’’ policies implemented by local law enforcement that harbors criminals and makes immigrant communities much more susceptible to violence and crime. The City of Houston has such a policy: 

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER 500–05

Officers shall not make inquires as the citizenship status of any person, nor 

will officers detain or arrest persons solely on the belief that they are in 

this country illegally. Officers will contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding a person only if that person is arrested on a separate 

criminal charge other than a class C misdemeanor and the officer knows 

the prisoner is an illegal alien.

General Order 500–05 provides a safe haven for criminals to hide among immigrants. In 1998, Dr. Claudia Benton was beaten, raped, and fatally stabbed in Houston by Angel Maturion Resendiz. Resendiz, also known as the Railway Killer, entered the U.S. illegally at least seven times in 1998 and had been deported seven 

58

times prior to the murder. On January 26, 2004, 18 year old Virginia Garcia was 

raped and murdered by David Diaz Morales in Austin, which has a police policy 

similar to the one in Houston. Morales, an illegal immigrant, had been previously 

arrested for child molestation. Many who support sanctuary policies claim that immigrants would be unwilling to contact local police if they were the victims of a 

crime out of fear that they themselves would be deported. That fear is nothing compared to the fear and resentment the families of Dr. Benton and Ms. Garcia have 

knowing that the murders of their loved ones could have been prevented simply by 

removing another barrier of communication between local and Federal law enforcement. Every community would benefit from taking criminals off the streets, and immigrant communities would benefit from not having criminals hiding among them. 

If Houston, or any other city, continues to receive Federal money for detaining illegal aliens, they should also be required to report illegal immigrants to DHS. 

I have heard an overwhelming plea from my constituents demanding that the federal government secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. My constituents 

feel the pressures of illegal immigration on their pocketbooks. They are tired of paying high property taxes to fund the education of illegal immigrants’ children. They 

are tired of increased county taxes to provide health care to people who are not in 

this country legally. They are tired of criminals wandering their streets with no fear 

of prosecution because of policies established by police that allow them to hide 

among the population. Fortunately, my constituents have not experienced the level 

of violence that I witnessed in Laredo. The southern border is truly the frontlines 

of the war on terror because of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and criminal organizations. Mr. Chairman, with your help and the help of this Subcommittee, I hope that 

we can find a solution that will protect our borders and provide reasonable reimbursements to communities that are suffocating from the costs associated with illegal immigration. 

Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer any questions.

59

EDITORIALS SUPPORTING COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND THE SECURE

AMERICA AND ORDERLY IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2005, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ


ED10001.eps
60


ED10002.eps
61


ED10003.eps
62


ED10004.eps
63


ED10005.eps
64


ED10006.eps
65


ED10007.eps
66


ED10008.eps
67


ED10009.eps
68


ED10010.eps
69


ED10011.eps
70


ED10012.eps
71


ED10013.eps
72


ED10014.eps
73


ED10015.eps
74


ED10016.eps
75


ED10017.eps
76


ED10018.eps
77


ED10019.eps
78


ED10020.eps
79


ED10021.eps
80


ED10022.eps
81


ED10023.eps
82


ED10024.eps
83


ED10025.eps
84


ED10026.eps
85


ED10027.eps
86


ED10028.eps
87


ED10029.eps
88


ED10030.eps
89


ED10031.eps
90


ED10032.eps
91


ED10033.eps
92


ED10034.eps
93


ED10035.eps
94


ED10036.eps
95


ED10037.eps
96


ED10038.eps
97


ED10039.eps
98


ED10040.eps
99


ED10041.eps
100


ED10042.eps
101


ED10043.eps
102


ED10044.eps
103


ED10045.eps
104


ED10046.eps
105


ED10047.eps
106


ED10048.eps
107


ED10049.eps
108


ED10050.eps
109


ED10051.eps
110


ED20001.eps
111


ED20002.eps
112


ED20003.eps
113


ED20004.eps
114


ED20005.eps
115


ED20006.eps
116


ED20007.eps
117


ED20008.eps
118


ED20009.eps
119


ED20010.eps
120


ED20011.eps
121


ED20012.eps
122


ED20013.eps
123


ED20014.eps
124


ED20015.eps
125


ED20016.eps
126


ED20017.eps
127


ED20018.eps
128


ED20019.eps
129


ED20020.eps
130


ED20021.eps
131


ED20022.eps
132


ED20023.eps
133


ED20024.eps
134


ED20025.eps
135


ED20026.eps
136


ED20027.eps
137


ED20028.eps
138


ED20029.eps
139


ED20030.eps
140


ED20031.eps
141


ED20032.eps
142


ED20033.eps
143


ED20034.eps
144


ED20035.eps
145


ED20036.eps
146


ED20037.eps
147


ED20038.eps
148


ED20039.eps
149


ED20040.eps
150


ED20041.eps
151


ED20042.eps
152


ED20043.eps
153


ED20044.eps
154


ED20045.eps
155


ED20046.eps
156


ED20047.eps
157


ED20048.eps
158


ED20049.eps
159


ED20050.eps
160


ED30001.eps
161


ED30002.eps
162


ED30003.eps
163


ED30004.eps
164


ED30005.eps
165


ED30006.eps
166


ED30007.eps
167


ED30008.eps
168


ED30009.eps
169


ED30010.eps
170


ED30011.eps
171


ED30012.eps
172


ED30013.eps
173


ED30014.eps
174


ED30015.eps
175


ED30016.eps
176


ED30017.eps
177


ED30018.eps
178


ED30019.eps
179


ED30020.eps
180


ED30021.eps
181


ED30022.eps
182


ED30023.eps
183


ED30024.eps
184


ED30025.eps
185


ED30026.eps
186


ED30027.eps
187


ED30028.eps
188


ED30029.eps
189


ED30030.eps
190


ED30031.eps
191


ED30032.eps
192


ED30033.eps
193


ED30034.eps
194


ED30035.eps
195


ED30036.eps
196


ED30037.eps
197


ED30038.eps
198


ED30039.eps
199


ED30040.eps
200


ED30041.eps
201


ED30042.eps
202


ED30043.eps
203


ED30044.eps
204


ED30045.eps
205


ED30046.eps
206


ED30047.eps
207


ED30048.eps
208


ED30049.eps
209


ED30050.eps
210


ED40001.eps
211


ED40002.eps
212


ED40003.eps
213


ED40004.eps
214


ED40005.eps
215


ED40006.eps
216


ED40007.eps
217


ED40008.eps
218


ED40009.eps
219


ED40010.eps
220


ED40011.eps
221


ED40012.eps
222


ED40013.eps
223


ED40014.eps
224


ED40015.eps
225


ED40016.eps
226


ED40017.eps
227


ED40018.eps
228


ED40019.eps
229


ED40020.eps
230


ED40021.eps
231


ED40022.eps
232


ED40023.eps
233


ED40024.eps
234


ED40025.eps
235


ED40026.eps
236


ED40027.eps
237


ED40028.eps
238


ED40029.eps
239


ED40030.eps
240


ED40031.eps
241


ED40032.eps
242


ED40033.eps
243


ED40034.eps
244


ED40035.eps
245


ED40036.eps
246


ED40037.eps
247


ED40038.eps
248


ED40039.eps
249


ED40040.eps
250


ED40041.eps
251


ED40042.eps
252


ED40043.eps
253


ED40044.eps
254


ED40045.eps
255


ED40046.eps
256


ED40047.eps
257


ED40048.eps
258


ED40049.eps
259


ED40050.eps
260


ED50001.eps
261


ED50002.eps
262


ED50003.eps
263


ED50004.eps
264


ED50005.eps
265


ED50006.eps
266


ED50007.eps
267


ED50008.eps
268


ED50009.eps
269


ED50010.eps
270


ED50011.eps
271


ED50012.eps
272


ED50013.eps
273


ED50014.eps
274


ED50015.eps
275


ED50016.eps
276


ED50017.eps
277

Æ


ED50018.eps