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

30–254 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–607

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: EXAMINING THE NEED FOR A GUEST WORKER

PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 5, 2006

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Serial No. J–109–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 2

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

WITNESSES 

Barletta, Hon. Louis, Mayor, Hazelton, Pennsylvania ......................................... 11

Bird, Ronald, Chief Economist and Director, Office of Economic Policy and 

Analysis, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 19

Bloomberg, Hon. Michael R., Mayor, City of New York, New York, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 4

Connelly, Eileen, Executive Director, SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 30

Cortes, Reverend Luis, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, Esperanza 

USA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ....................................................................... 28

Eichenlaub, Dan, President, Eichenlaub, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania .......... 25

Hershey, Hon. Arthur, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 13th Legislative District, Chester County, Pennsylvania ..................................................... 20

Johnson, Sylvester M., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 9

Rossi, Carol, Corporate Director of Human Resources, Harrisburg Hotel Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ................................................................... 23

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Barletta, Hon. Louis, Mayor, Hazelton, Pennsylvania, statement ...................... 40

Bird, Ronald, Chief Economist and Director, Office of Economic Policy and 

Analysis, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., statement ........................ 45

Bloomberg, Hon. Michael R., Mayor, City of New York, New York, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 51

Boston Globe, June 24, 2006, article ...................................................................... 62

Connelly, Eileen, Executive Director, SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, statement ....................................................................... 66

Cortes, Reverend Luis, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, Esperanza 

USA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .................................................... 70

Eichenlaub, Dan, President, Eichenlaub, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 78

Hershey, Hon. Arthur, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 13th Legislative District, Chester County, Pennsylvania, statement .................................. 80

Johnson, Sylvester M., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ....................................................................... 83

Rossi, Carol, Corporate Director of Human Resources, Harrisburg Hotel Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, statement ................................................ 86

Simcox, Chris, Founder and President, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, 

Scottsdale, Arizona, statement ............................................................................ 91

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: EXAMINING THE NEED FOR A GUEST WORKER 

PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in 

Kirby Auditorium, National Constitution Center, 525 Arch Street, 

Independence Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed with our 

hearing on immigration reform. 

We thank the National Constitution Center and its distinguished 

president, Joe Torsella, for opening up this beautiful, historic museum to the Judiciary Committee to hold this hearing this morning. 

There could not be a more fitting place to have a hearing on immigration, considering that we are a Nation of immigrants. Across 

the green in Independence Hall, this country was founded. On September 17, 1787, the drafters of the Constitution signed the Constitution. 

We have, in an adjacent room, bronze replicas of the signers of 

the Constitution. George Washington presides there, as does Benjamin Franklin, seated with all delegates from all the States, especially Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and a few from Virginia as 

well. 

Our C–SPAN audience is cordially invited to come to the Constitution Center to see the exhibits which have made this Nation 

so great. 

One of the exhibits features a famous song writer by the name 

if Irving Berlin. He is pictured in an Army uniform of the Dough 

Boys in World War I. He came to this country shortly after the 

turn of the 20th century, as did my father, Harry Specter, who also 

was a Dough Boy, fought in World War I, and was wounded in action in the Argonne Forest. 

Irving Berlin wrote a song, which was not recognized until Kate 

Smith sang it on Armistice Day of 1938, a song called ‘‘God Bless 

America,’’ which is just one of the contributions of the immigrants 

2

to this country, immigrants which have made this country the 

great Nation which it is today. 

We are working on immigration reform in both the U.S. House 

of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. The House has passed 

legislation which focuses on border control, and the Senate has 

passed legislation which is comprehensive in nature, taking into account border patrol and employer verification to see to it that those 

who are employed are here legally, but also dealing with a guest 

worker program, a program which is necessary for the American 

economy, a program which has been endorsed by President Bush 

and by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis 

Hastert. 

The Senate bill also has a program to deal with the 11 million 

undocumented immigrants. It is the view of the Senate that you 

cannot sensibly create an under-class of fugitives who pose problems for national security, who also pose problems for law enforcement and crime control. 

We are dead set against amnesty. Amnesty is for forgiving a 

prior wrong. That is not what the Senate bill does. In order to qualify to stay in the United States and to ultimately qualify for citizenship, those undocumented immigrants must pay their back 

taxes, must go through a criminal check to be sure they are lawabiding citizens, must hold English, must hold a job for a protracted period of time, and must contribute. 

We have a series of witnesses today who will testify about these 

people who are doing so much today for our country, and a way to 

deal with them in a sound, comprehensive, humane way, recognizing that we are a Nation of immigrants. 

As you see, I am joined by my distinguished colleague, Senator 

Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts, who has been a leader in so 

many, many ways in the Senate, on civil rights, on matters of 

health and education, and on matters of immigration reform. 

Senator Kennedy is in his forty-fourth year in the U.S. Senate. 

He came to the Senate in November 1962 and has been in this field 

a long time. We welcome him to Philadelphia. He followed the 

same path as Benjamin Franklin. 

[Applause] 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. I, first of all, want to thank Senator Specter, the Chairman of our Judiciary Committee, for having 

this hearing, and having it here in Philadelphia, really the home 

of so many of our rights and liberties. All those that were a part 

of the Declaration of Independence and all those that were a part 

of the Constitution came from other lands made an extraordinary 

contribution to the greatest documents of freedom and democracy 

in the world. All of us have benefited from them here in these 

United States and in countries throughout the world. 

We know that today our system of immigration is broken, and we 

know that there are simplistic answers to try to deal with it. But 

Senator Specter and I agree, President Bush agrees, Republicans 

and Democrats in the U.S. Senate agreed, that what we really need 

is a comprehensive approach to deal with this issue. 

3

There are those that have a more simplified approach to this 

issue that say that we just need enforcement only, but all we have 

to do is look over the last 10 years of what happened with just enforcement only. 

We increased our border guards in the southern border by over 

300 percent. We spent more than $20 billion. Yet, the numbers 

that have been coming across our southern border has increased by 

300 or 400 percent. Enforcement only is not going to solve our 

problem. 

We cannot solve the issue of our broken immigration laws by 

simply building more fences at the border and demonizing the 12 

million undocumented immigrants, declaring them, the priests, and 

the Good Samaritans who help them to be criminals and naively 

hoping that the 12 million will just go on back to their country. 

So we are working together. We are having this hearing today 

because we believe in a comprehensive approach. 

We talked earlier, Senator Specter and I, about the contribution 

of immigrants. I read this morning in the newspaper, coming down 

here from Boston, about the 76 troops on duty in Iraq that, yesterday, took the oath of citizenship over at the main hall of Saddam 

Hussein’s old hunting palace. 

The article quoted Ricardo Cortes who flew into Camp Victory 

from Rimadi, one of the most hotly contested cities in Iraq, where 

he spent the last few weeks clearing roads: ‘‘I love my job. It is 

dangerous. There are always things being blown up. We have lost 

a couple of vehicles, but we make sure other people can drive safely.’’ 

The article described Jose DeLeon from Guatemala, who talked 

about, the pledge to bear arms in the United States which is included in the oath to become a naturalized citizen. He said, ‘‘I 

thought about those words,’’ DeLeon said. ‘‘It is my second time of 

serving the country, but my country has given me so much. I am 

grateful for it, and that is why I serve.’’ 

Senator Specter and I, and our bipartisan group in the Senate, 

want to welcome those that have something to contribute to the 

country and keep out those that do not want to help make America 

a better and stronger land. 

[Applause] 

Senator KENNEDY. Today’s hearing focuses on a number of the 

important issues included in the legislation. 

Finally, we have been asked repeatedly whether there is really 

time enough to take action in the Senate and to get a real bill 

passed. Senator Specter and I remember the times that this country came together, and we have the opportunity to come together. 

We have the leaders of the great faiths in our country that believe this is a moral issue. We have representatives of the business 

community that understand the importance of a growing, expanding, and thriving economy. 

There are those that represent the worker community that want 

to make sure we are not going to continue to have the exploitation 

of the undocumented, as they are at this time, with substandard 

wages and conditions. They know that the protections that we have 

in this legislation will protect workers from it. 

4

We have a movement that Americans have seen across the country, of people that spontaneously came out. These people work 

hard, play by the rules, are devoted to their families, devoted to 

their faith, and want to make America a better country. So we 

ought to be able to find ways to do that. That is what this hearing 

is about. 

I thank, again, Senator Specter for having this hearing, and I 

particularly welcome Mayor Bloomberg, who has been so concerned 

about this issue. I know Senator Specter will introduce the other 

witnesses and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. 

Our practice at a Senate hearing is not to applaud, even when 

you hear words you like, such as those just uttered by Senator 

Kennedy. So, just a word of our rules. 

We lead with the distinguished mayor of New York City, Mayor 

Michael Bloomberg, a graduate of Johns Hopkins in Engineering in 

1964, and an MBA from Harvard. He had a distinguished career 

on Wall Street until, his resume says, he was fired in 1980, leading 

him to organize his own company, which is worldwide, employing 

8,000 people. 

Elected as mayor of New York City in 2001 and reelected as 

mayor of New York City in 2005, he has brought a sense of dynamism, a sense of achievement, and a sense of spirit, the secondtoughest job in the United States—maybe the toughest job in the 

United States. 

He came down this morning in a helicopter. He is reputed to fly 

his own helicopter. He is right on time, and we are really honored 

to have him with us. 

We have a 5-minute rule on opening statements, leaving the 

maximum amount of time for questions and answers. 

Mayor Bloomberg, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, MAYOR, CITY 

OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mayor BLOOMBERG. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman Specter and Senator Kennedy. Thank you for having me and 

for calling this hearing. 

Immigration reform is really one of the most important issues 

that Congress faces. I think no city would be more affected by the 

outcome of that debate than New York City. 

To begin with, let me just say how appropriate I think it is that 

this hearing is held here in Philadelphia. Two hundred and thirty 

years ago yesterday, just around the corner from here, our Founding Fathers adopted the greatest statement on the right to self-government ever written, and among those who signed the Declaration 

of Independence were nine immigrants. 

It is also true at every other critical stage of American history. 

From ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, to the industrial revolution, to the computer age, immigrants have propelled 

America to greatness. 

Today, we really remain a Nation of immigrants. People from 

around the world continue to come here, seeking opportunity, and 

5

they continue to make America the most dynamic Nation in the 

world. 

But it is clear that we also have a fundamental problem on our 

hands. Our immigration laws are broken. It is as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of Communism could not, 

defeat the natural forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human instinct for freedom and opportunity. You might as 

well sit on the beach and tell the tide not to come in! 

As long as America remains a Nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, endowed by the Creator with 

certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and 

the pursuit of happiness, people from near and far will continue to 

see entry into our country. 

New York City alone is home to more than 3 million immigrations, who make up nearly 40 percent of our entire population, and 

about half a million came to our city, and continue to come, illegally. Let us be honest. They arrive for a very good reason: they 

want a better life for themselves and their families, and our businesses need them and hire them. 

Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders or 

over-staying their visas and our businesses broke the law by employing them, our city’s economy would be a shell of itself had they 

not, and it would collapse if they were deported. The same holds 

true for our Nation. 

For our children to have a bright future, two things are true: a 

strong America needs a constant source of new immigrants, and in 

a post-9/11 world, a secure America needs to make sure that these 

immigrants arrive here legally. 

We have a right and a duty to encourage people to come, and at 

the same time to ensure that no one who is on a terrorist watch 

list sneaks into our country. Right now, we neither invite those we 

want, nor keep out those we do not. 

If we are going to both strengthen our National security and 

keep our economy growing, you, our elected legislators, must devise 

a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. 

If you could bear with me for a little more than the 5 minutes, 

I would like to enumerate what those are. I believe such an approach embodies four key principles: 1) reducing incentives to 

come; 2) creating more lawful opportunity; 3) reducing illegal access; and 4) accepting reality. 

Let me, briefly, outline each one of them. First, we must reduce 

the incentive to come here illegally. As a business owner, I know 

the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well. 

Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants, 

but not to do anything more than just eyeball their documents. 

In fact, hypocritically, the Federal law that Congress wrote, 

under that, employers are not even permitted to ask probing questions. As a result, fake green cards are a dime a dozen; you can 

buy one for $50 to $100. Fake Social Security cards are also available. For maybe $125, you can get both cards: such a deal. 

As most members of the U.S. Senate recognize, we absolutely 

must have a Federal data base that will allow employers to verify 

the status of all job applicants. But for this data base to have any 

6

value, we must also ensure that the documentation job applicants 

present is incorruptible. 

That means we need to create a biometric employment card containing unique information, fingerprints or DNA, for example. 

Every current job holder or applicant should be required to obtain 

a card, and every business should be required to check its validity 

against the Federal data base. 

In theory, we already have such a card. It is called your Social 

Security card. But being a government product, naturally, its technology is way behind the times. By taking advantage of current 

technology, we can provide the Federal Government with the tools 

necessary to enforce our immigration laws and protect workers 

from exploitive and abusive conditions. 

I want to be clear that this is not a national identity card, as 

some have suggested. This is simply a Social Security card for the 

21st century. If you do not work, you do not need a card. But everyone who works would need to have an employment card, and everybody that works here legally already has one. 

There must also be stiff penalties for businesses that fail to conduct checks or ignore their results. Holding businesses accountable 

is the crucial step because it is the only way to reduce the incentive 

to come here illegally. 

Requiring employers to verify citizenship status was the promise 

of the 1986 immigration bill, but it was an empty promise, never 

enforced by the Federal Government. The failure to enforce the law 

was largely in response to pressure from businesses, which is understandable, because businesses needed access to a larger labor 

supply than Federal immigration laws allowed. 

Apparently fixing that problem by increasing legal immigration 

as opposed to looking the other way on illegal immigration was 

never seriously considered by Congress or the administration until 

very recently. 

Instead, by winking at businesses that hired illegal immigrants, 

the Federal Government sent a clear signal to those in other countries: if you can make it into our country, you will have no trouble 

qualifying for employment. 

So it is no surprise. People have been coming at such high levels 

that our border controls simply cannot stop them. Unless we reduce 

the incentive to come here illegally, increasing our Border Patrol 

will have little impact on the number of people who enter legally. 

We will waste the money spent, jeopardize lives, and deceive the 

public with a false promise of security that everyone knows we cannot deliver. 

Second, we must increase lawful opportunity to overseas workers. Science, medicine, education, and modern industries today are 

growing faster overseas than here in the United States, reversing 

a centuries-long advantage that we have enjoyed. 

Baby boomers are starting to retire. America’s birth rate continues to slow and we do not have enough workers to pay for our 

retirement benefits. The economics are very simple: we need more 

workers than we have. That means we must increase the number 

of visas for overseas manual workers who help provide the essential muscle and elbow grease we need to keep our economy running. 

7

It also means we must increase the number of visas for immigrant engineers, doctors, scientists, and other professionally 

trained workers, the innovators of tomorrow’s economy, and we 

must give all of them, as well as foreign students, the opportunity 

to earn permanent status so they can put their knowledge and entrepreneurial spirit to use for our country. 

Why should we not reap the benefits of the skills foreign students have obtained here? If we do not allow them in, or if we force 

them to go home, we will be sending the future of science and the 

jobs of tomorrow with them. 

Recent studies put lie to the old argument that immigrants take 

jobs away from native-born Americans and significantly depress 

wages. Quite the contrary. They are what makes our economy 

work. In most cases, those here illegally are filling low-wage, lowskilled jobs that Americans just simply do not want. 

Global economic forces are responsible for the declines in the real 

wages of unskilled workers and occur regardless of whether immigrants are present in a community. 

Moreover, the total economic effect of any slight wage increased 

produced by immigration is more than offset by substantial increases in productivity. To keep businesses and people investing in 

America, we need to ensure that we have workers for all types of 

jobs. 

Third, we must reduce illegal access to our borders, which, as I 

have said, is a matter of national urgent security. As President 

Bush recognizes, in some areas, particularly in border towns, additional fencing may be required; in open desert areas, a virtual wall 

created through sensors or cameras would be far more effective. 

However, even after we double the number of border agents, they 

will remain overwhelmed by the flood of people attempting to enter 

illegally. Only by embracing the first two principles, reducing incentives and increasing lawful opportunity, will border security become a manageable task. 

Members of the House of Representatives want to control the 

borders. So do we all. But by believing that increasing Border Patrol alone will achieve that goal is either naive and short-sighted, 

or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of 

thousands of people each year. 

Fourth, and finally, we need to get real about the people who are 

now living in this country illegally, in many cases raising families 

and paying taxes. The idea of deporting 11 or 12 million people, 

about as many as live in the entire State of Pennsylvania, is pure 

fantasy. 

Even if we wanted to, it would be physically impossible to carry 

out. If we attempted it, it would be perhaps the largest round-up 

and deportation in world history. The social and economic consequences would be devastating to this country. 

Let me ask you, do you really want to spend billions of dollars 

on a round-up and deportation program that would split families 

in two, only to have the very same people, and millions more, illegally enter our country again? Of course not. America is better 

than that, and smarter than that. 

8

That is why I do not believe that the American people will support the short-sighted approach to this issue taken by the House 

which would make felons of illegal immigrants. 

The Senate approach, the tiered approach, I think is flawed as 

well. Requiring some people to report to deport through guest 

worker programs, while leaving their spouses, children, and mortgages behind is no less naive than thinking we can deport all 12 

million people. What incentive would people have to show up? 

In fact, this approach would just create an enormous incentive 

for fraud, and there can be little doubt that the black market for 

false documentation would remain strong and real enforcement impossible. 

There is only one practical solution, and it is a solution that respects the history of our Nation: offer those already here the opportunity to earn permanent status and keep their families together. 

For decades, the Federal Government has tacitly welcomed them 

into the work force, collecting their income and Social Security 

taxes, which about two-thirds of undocumented workers pay, and 

benefited immeasurably from their contributions to our country. 

Now, instead of pointing fingers about the past, let us accept the 

present for what it is by bringing people out of the shadows and 

focus on the future of casting those shadows aside permanently. 

As the debate continues between the House and the Senate, I 

urge Members of Congress to move past the superficial debate over 

the definition of amnesty. Buzz words and polls should not dictate 

national policies. We need Congress to lead from the front, not the 

back. 

That means adopting a solution that is enforceable, sustainable, 

and compassionate, and that enables the American economy to 

thrive in the 21st century. Perhaps now, more than ever, it is time 

to vote our future rather than pander to rabble rousers and parochial fears. 

Only by embracing all four of these principles I have outlined 

today can we achieve these goals. If one principle is abandoned, we 

will be no better off than we were after the passage of the law in 

1986. 

A successful solution to our border problems cannot rest on a 

wall alone. It must be built on a foundation strong enough to support it, and to support our continued economic growth and prosperity. 

Before I close, let me add just one more thing, Mr. Chairman, if 

I may. There is one more crucially important issue that should be 

raised about our policies toward those that are here illegally. 

Members of the House of Representatives have recently attached 

an amendment to the appropriations bill that would deny all immigrant Homeland Security and Department of Justice funding to 

any city or State deemed in violation of the 1996 Federal law. 

That law prohibits restrictions on any local and State employee 

from contacting the Federal Government about someone’s immigration status. New York City cooperates fully with the Federal Government when an illegal immigrant commits a criminal act, but 

our city’s social services’ health and education policies are not designed to facilitate the deportation of otherwise law- abiding residents. 

9

Our general policy in this area protects the confidentiality of lawabiding immigrants, regardless of their status, when they report a 

crime or visit a hospital or send their children to school. Without 

those protections, all of our residents would be less safe and more 

likely to be at risk for disease. 

Do we really want people who could have information about 

criminals, including potential terrorists, to be afraid to go to the 

police? Do we really want people with contagious diseases not to 

seek medical treatment? Do we really want people not to get vaccinated against communicable diseases? 

Our policy is carefully crafted to comply with the 1996 law, but 

some Members of Congress just do not like it. They have asked the 

Department of Justice to review all local and State policies concerning this issue. We believe the review will validate our approach. 

But whatever the findings, let me be perfectly clear: the way to 

deal with this issue is not by reducing the safety and security of 

our Nation. There is already much, too much politics in Homeland 

Security funding, which is one reason why New York City has consistently been short-changed of the money we need to protect our 

city, but this one would really take the cake. 

If Congress attempts to cutoff all of our Homeland Security funding, not to mention Department of Justice funding for many other 

essential programs, I promise you, you will have one heck of a battle on your hands. 

We are not going to let Congress cut and run from New York 

City, nor can our Nation afford to do it. New York City remains 

the top terrorist target, and if Congress passes this amendment no 

one will cheer louder than Al- Qaeda. 

Let me close by thanking you, along with the President, for taking this issue of immigration up. I really do urge all the members 

of your Committee to reject the false promises of easy answers and 

have the courage to do something that really is necessary and that 

will work, even if it means to standing up to businesses and those 

with nativist impulses to ensure our Nation’s security and our Nation’s prosperity. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mayor Bloomberg. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Bloomberg appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. We now turn to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, a 41-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department. He joined law enforcement while I was District 

Attorney of Philadelphia a few years back, and has been Commissioner since January 4, 2002. He is the recipient of many distinguished awards for valor and competency. He was a key member 

of the hostage negotiating team. 

Thank you very much for joining us, Commissioner, and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SYLVESTER JOHNSON, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, PHILADELPHIA, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Thank you very much Senator. 

10

First, I would like to say I agree with everything that Mayor 

Bloomberg said. In addition to that, I just have a couple more 

things to add. 

Good morning, Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy. Thank you 

for inviting me here to speak today. 

Illegal immigration is a serious problem. However, local law enforcement is not in a position to successfully enforce immigration 

laws and should not be compelled to be the primary enforcer of 

these Federal regulations. 

The Philadelphia Police Department’s first concern is public safety. The police need the community’s trust and cooperation to fight 

crime, and want to keep a good relationship with all members of 

the immigrant community. If an undocumented person is a victim 

or a witness of a crime, we want them to come forward. We don’t 

want them to avoid local police for fear of deportation. 

Of course, we will investigate anyone involved in the commission 

of a crime, regardless of immigration status. We enjoy a good relationship with the Federal agency that enforces immigration laws, 

and that is one way to ensure that illegal immigrants involved in 

criminal activity do not slip through either system. 

Additionally, we do not have the resources needed to enforce immigration laws. Overall, crime is down slightly. However, like 

many cities, we are dealing with an increase in shootings and murders, and a substantial decrease in Federal and other funding. 

Mandatory immigration enforcement would overwhelm police resources and that of other city agencies. No city should be punished 

for not enforcing immigration laws. By reducing funds, we will be 

affecting the public safety functions of all city agencies. 

There are also a number of legal aspects to consider. Local police 

primarily enforce the criminal provisions of State law. States laws, 

and sometimes local ordinances, mandate our responsibilities and 

limit our conduct. In States with more restrictive laws, local police 

may be limited in their action against illegal immigrants. In these 

cases, Federal enforcement would be more effective. 

Immigration law is complex. The civil and criminal aspects are 

often difficult to distinguish. A tremendous amount of time would 

be needed to train officers about this area. Keeping officers off the 

streets for long periods of time for training, when violence is increasing could be disastrous. As I have often said, we will not 

break the law to enforce the law. 

As an officer, I promised to uphold the Constitution, and will 

keep my oath. Civil suits have already been brought against local 

police in the United States that had assisted in enforcing immigration laws. Federal and State authority to enforce such laws would 

need to be clarified. 

The Major City Chiefs, an organization consisting of fifty-seven 

chiefs of police, researched this issue and suggested several possible solutions. These include securing our borders, enforcing existing laws, prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants, consulting 

and sharing intelligence with local police, having local law enforcement continue to commit resources against all criminal violators, 

clarification of authority allowing local police to enforce immigration law, limited liability for such, removing civil immigration detainees from the NCIC system, and incentive-based system of full 

11

Federal funding instead of reductions or a shifting approach would 

also be beneficial. 

Local law enforcement is the first line of defense in protecting 

our communities. Atrocities can occur when people put nationality, 

race, and ethnicity before humanity. The Philadelphia Police Department will do everything within our authority to protect and 

serve anyone who enters our city. 

Illegal immigration is a serious problem. It is in everyone’s interests to allow those with the expertise, experience, and resources to 

concentrate on the legal issues. We all benefit when local law enforcement can maintain a good relationship with the immigrant 

community, allowing us to protect and serve the populace. 

In addition to that, law enforcement, by itself, will never change 

the quality of life. We will never arrest the way out of the problem. 

International terrorism is a shame, but domestic terrorism is just 

as bad. Last year, we lost 380 people in the city of Philadelphia. 

We need our resources to combine in an effort to decrease crime. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Johnson appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Our next witness is Mayor Louis Barletta, 

from Hazelton, Pennsylvania. He is marked as one of the 10 outstanding mayors in the State. He was elected to the position in the 

year 2000, after having served on Hazelton’s city council, and was 

reelected in 2004. 

Thank you very much for joining us, Mayor Barletta. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS BARLETTA, MAYOR, CITY OF 

HAZELTON, HAZELTON, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mayor BARLETTA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you for your invitation to be here today 

so I can address an extremely important issue facing our city: illegal immigration. 

Late on the night of May 10, 2006, a 29-year-old Hazelton resident, Derrick Kishline, was standing near his truck a few blocks 

from the heart of our downtown. Two men approached him and 

shot him in the face from about a foot away. Kishline fell to the 

pavement and died. 

The next day, a 14-year-old boy took out a gun and started firing 

shots in a crowded city playground, a place I consider sacred 

ground. Both of these shocking incidents forced Hazelton Police Department detectives and offers to work more than 36 straight hours 

to solve these crimes. 

Four were arrested in the murder case; all four are illegal immigrants. The teenaged gunman was caught and taken into custody 

while he was carrying 10 bags of crack cocaine. He was also an illegal immigrant. 

A few days later, we had a Federal drug bust in Hazelton. Some 

of those arrested were also illegal immigrants. We have seen a dramatic increase in gang- style graffiti, some of which has included 

threats to kill police officers. 

12

This graffiti has marred an award-winning redevelopment project 

that replaced vacant factories with family homes. Those homes and 

families are threatened by hoodlums who do not respect people or 

their property. As the mayor, I have had enough. 

Hazelton is a small city, an all-American city. We are in the 

heart of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal region, so we have gone 

through hard times in the past. 

As for our population, our city has exploded from about 23,000 

people in the last Census to just over 31,000, according to recent 

estimates. This is more than a 30 percent increase in just a few 

years. We have struggled to increase our services to cope with that 

growth. Our annual budget is just $7 million. 

For decades, we might have had a murder once every 7 years, 

then people would spend the next 6 years talking about it. But the 

shocking death of Derrick Kishline was the second murder in the 

city within eight months. Hazelton’s residents have been shaken by 

these, and other high-profile crimes. 

The 31 officers of our police department have been stretched to 

the limit. They have spent hundreds of hours, and the city has 

spent thousands of dollars, investigating crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a drain on Hazelton’s limited resources. 

Every domestic incident, every traffic accident, every noise complaint, each time we send our police department, fire department, 

or Code Enforcement Office to respond, it costs taxpayer dollars. 

Every minute spent by a police officer, fire fighter, or city official 

in tackling a problem created by an illegal immigrant is a minute 

they are not serving the legal population of my city. 

We are taking action. I proposed, and the city council tentatively 

approved, the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. This act has three 

components. One would punish companies that hire illegal immigrants by denying them permits, making it harder for them to 

renew permits and forcing the loss of city business. 

The second component would hold landlords accountable. Landlords who knowingly rent to illegal immigrants may be fined $1,000 

for every illegal immigrant occupying their properties. A final part 

of the ordinance makes English the language of official city business in Hazelton. 

Let me be clear. This ordinance is intended to make Hazelton 

one of the most difficult places in the United States for illegal immigrants. Only legal immigrants are welcome in Hazelton. Illegal 

immigrants are not welcome because they are draining our limited 

resources. My city has taken the first step in securing our future, 

but we need help. 

One of the men who allegedly killed Derrick Kishline had been 

arrested eight times before. He spent more than a year and a half 

in jail on various charges, and then he came to Hazelton. What is 

particularly troubling is that he, as an illegal immigrant, should 

never have been in the country in the first place, let alone in 

Hazelton, Pennsylvania. 

If others had done their jobs by keeping this murderous thug and 

his cohorts out of the country, out of Hazelton, Derrick Kishline 

may still be alive today and Hazelton might not have been forced 

13

to take the dramatic steps we are taking now. We deal with illegal 

immigration every single day. 

In Hazelton is not some abstract debate about walls and amnesty, but it is a tangible, very real problem. This is an issue that 

will affect every city, borough, and township in Pennsylvania, and 

the United States, if it does not already. Based on the response we 

have received in Hazelton, I believe it has. 

Chairman Specter, if I may have just a few more seconds. 

Chairman SPECTER. Proceed, Mayor Barletta. 

Mayor BARLETTA. Since I proposed this measure in mid-June, we 

have been inundated with more than 7,000 e- mails from people 

across the country. We have received, overwhelmingly, positive 

feedback from literally every State, from Alaska and Hawaii, to 

Maine, our southern border States, and even from our soldiers 

fighting for our freedom overseas. 

We have also sent copies of our ordinance to municipalities 

around the country. Several townships and boroughs around 

Hazelton have already begun implementing their own versions. 

Communities are crying out for relief. Like every other elected official in the Nation, I took an oath of office to protect my citizens. 

The measure I proposed seeks to protect the people of Hazelton. 

Cities like Hazelton are the lifeblood of America. We are buckling 

under the strain of illegal immigration, and we need help. If we 

cannot get it from outside our borders, then we must, and we will, 

take steps from within to secure our future. 

Thank you for your time. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mayor Barletta. 

We now move to the portion of our hearing will there will be 

questions from Senator Kennedy and myself. We will limit our 

questioning rounds to 5 minutes; we have a very large second 

panel. 

Mayor Bloomberg, you heard Mayor Barletta describe the problems of crime in his city. Obviously, in New York City you could 

testify to many, many more such incidents in a city the size of New 

York. It is understandable, as you have testified, about not wanting 

to report crime victims who may not be here legally, or people who 

are securing indispensable medical help. 

But what balance is there, and what role do you see, if any, for 

New York public officials, the police department, when finding immigrants who are the criminal element, charged with serious 

crimes, with substantial evidence? What role do you see, if any, for 

reporting them to the immigration officials for deportation? 

Mayor BLOOMBERG. Well, I do not know what Hazelton, Pennsylvania’s experience has been. Our experience in New York is, 

when you look at who commits crimes, yes, some crimes are committed by illegal immigrants and lots of crimes are committed by 

people who are third- or fourth-generation Americans. That is just 

the truth of the matter. 

I am sympathetic to Mayor Barletta, but I think that the only 

way we are going to solve the problem is to have the ID card that 

is non-forgeable, to do exactly what he is doing in his city, hold employers meaningfully accountable so that they do not go and—— 

Chairman SPECTER. But when you apprehend someone who is 

charged with a crime, with substantial evidence—— 

14

Mayor BLOOMBERG. If you are arrested in New York City for a 

crime, we check your immigration status and do followup with the 

INS. What we do not do, is we do not check your immigration status if you show up at a hospital needing help, if you send your kid 

to school. 

The truth of the matter is, in New York City—and I think it is 

true nationally—75 percent of all of the undocumented pay taxes, 

pay Social Security, and do not take any of the benefits. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mayor Bloomberg, let me move back to 

Mayor BARLETTA. There is a limited amount of time here. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mayor Barletta, you talk about holding landlords responsible. Is that going to turn us into a Nation of informants? How far should you go in identifying undocumented immigrants if they are seeking something which is lawful or, as Mayor 

Bloomberg points out, getting medical care? 

Mayor BARLETTA. In the city of Hazelton, the greatest asset we 

have, Senator Specter, is the quality of life. We are small-town 

USA. People that live in Hazelton live there because they want 

their children to be able to play on the playgrounds. 

They do not want to be terrified by some of the high- profile 

crimes that we have seen in our city, mainly by people who do not 

belong in the country. We are going to relieve the burden from the 

landlords and take it upon the city to help them with the documentation. I believe this is what cities such as Hazelton have to 

do. 

The debate that I have been following, both in the Senate and 

the House, addresses mainly our southern border and guest worker 

programs. I can assure you, the individuals I talked about today 

are not working anywhere and they are not entering, I believe, 

through the southern border. 

Chairman SPECTER. Commissioner Johnson, what about the 

Philadelphia Police Department, where you find someone who is 

charged with a crime with substantial evidence, do you turn them 

over to INS where they are undocumented immigrants? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. Yes. We do the same thing that New 

York does. Our concern is for people who are a victim of a crime, 

people who are witnesses to a crime. Some of our best intelligence 

comes from people in the immigrant community. I think that once 

we start enforcing laws to the point that the first thing we ask a 

person who has been victim is, show me your green card, before 

they share the fact that they have been victimized we will cause 

more harm than good. The Major City Chiefs discussed these 

points, fifty-six police chiefs throughout the entire Nation. In order 

to become a Major City Chief, you have to have a population of 

500,000. We debated this constantly and we came to the conclusion 

that law enforcement took years and years to form relationships 

with the immigrant community. Here in the city of Philadelphia, 

we have the Asian Commissioners Advisory Council, the African 

American Advisory Council, and other groups. 

Once we start enforcing immigration law, then we are going to 

lose that contact. We are going to lose that response from the immigrant community because they are not going to contact us. Nor 

will they contact us if they have information about other people, 

15

about other violence-type issues, or even with national security. So 

we are very concerned about that. 

Our other concern was that if we did not follow this as Majority 

City Chiefs, then our entire city would be punished, from the 

health department to others. You know, law enforcement, by itself, 

is never going to change the quality of life. It really has to be a 

holistic-type approach with the health department and other agencies in this city. It is about public security, public health. 

So again, as far as law enforcement is concerned, I said, again, 

we had 380 homicides last year. We also had 1,800 shootings here 

in the city of Philadelphia. I can tell you, less than 1 percent were 

illegal immigrants. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

One final question, after my red light is on. Mayor Bloomberg, 

if you did not have undocumented immigrants working in New 

York City in the hotels, restaurants, and hospitals as domestics, 

what would the impact be on your city’s economy? 

Mayor BLOOMBERG. It would be devastating for our city. We estimate there are 500,000 undocumented living in a city of 8.1 million 

people. A lot of them provide the elbow grease to make the traditional industries you have talked about, whether it is the tourismrelated industries of transportation, food and beverage, it is home 

health care, or it is providing a lot of the cleaning services and 

driving taxicabs and those kinds of things, but the truth of the 

matter is, our undocumented go all the way up the ladder to senior 

people in lots of different institutions. 

It is just, without them, the city could not survive in the ways 

it is. We would not have the tax base for those that need services 

and we would not have the compassionate kinds of government 

that I think we have provided. 

I was listening to Mayor Barletta talk about the size of Hazelton. 

It reminded me that New York City may have 8.1 million people, 

but we have communities, hundreds of them, of the same size that 

Hazelton, Pennsylvania is, and our people want to be able to go out 

in their local communities, to parks, to schools, and on the streets 

and be safe. In fact, they are safe, and we have been able to do 

that. 

The reason we have done it, is we have the world’s greatest police department—no offense intended. 

[Laughter.] 

You can have the second. 

[Laughter.] 

But that is where the tax base comes from to provide that. The 

immigrant community in New York City has helped us, it has not 

hurt us. It is New York City’s great strength rather than being a 

weakness. 

Chairman SPECTER. I notice Mayor Barletta raising his hand. No 

question to you, Mayor Barletta, but if you want to comment, even 

though I am over time, you may. 

Mayor BARLETTA. Thank you. The point I want to make today is 

the opposite point of view, such as big cities, how they are dealing 

with it. In small-town America, we have very limited resources to 

provide services to people, a very small amount of money. 

16

And when I see those resources being used where they should 

not be, it is concerning and it does affect the quality of life. Our 

budget, as I said, is minuscule. We are spending the little amount 

that I do have chasing illegal immigrants around the city of 

Hazelton. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mayor Barletta. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mayor Barletta, you agreed that we, the Federal Government, 

have some responsibility about those bad actors as well whether 

they come and settle in your community or they settle in New 

York. Would you agree with that? 

Mayor BARLETTA. Absolutely. 

Senator KENNEDY. And we really have not done all the things 

that we should have done. Would you not agree with that? 

Mayor BARLETTA. I am dealing with it today. 

Senator KENNEDY. So what happens is, if we have a broken system, which I think all of us understand, then people are left to try 

and deal with it in whatever way they feel they have to deal with 

it. You stated your views about how to deal with this for your own 

community. 

Would you not agree that if we were able to stop the bad actors 

from coming in here, that that would be useful in terms of your 

own community? If we were able to do this in a national way, in 

a way that could be meaningful—it may take some time—would 

that not help small towns and communities as well? 

Mayor BARLETTA. Yes, Senator Kennedy, if we secured all ports 

of entry in the United States, not just the southern border. The actors that I am talking about are not working in factories or in 

plants or looking for a better life, they are dealing drugs and terrorizing good people in our community. 

Senator KENNEDY. It is also not just the borders, is it, though? 

Mayor BARLETTA. No. 

Senator KENNEDY. Because 40 percent of those that are here undocumented just overstayed their visas, coming here legitimately, 

becoming lost and getting into the community. 

So we have to do something about those individuals that come 

here legally and then just become a part of the undocumented, and 

those that come across the border illegally. We also have to deal 

with this in a comprehensive way, would you say, or not? 

Mayor BARLETTA. I agree. I also believe that it will take local 

municipalities to deal with it. I know the debate is whether this 

is a Federal issue or a local issue. I believe it is a local issue, because we do deal with it every day. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, it certainly would be a local issue because you get the impact of bad actors coming in there. But, it is 

perhaps something needed at the Federal level, because we have 

the responsibility of securing our borders and enacting immigration 

reform. 

I think that if we were able to get that done, and have it done 

right and done well, then many of the smaller communities might 

not have the problem that you have. We all understand we have 

a problem. 

17

Mayor Bloomberg, your testimony, and also the Commissioner’s 

testimony, is enormously important and significant. You are the 

mayor of the city that has been targeted by terrorists, and I think 

most would agree that it is a city that is targeted repeatedly. It can 

be New York City, or its subway, or maybe the large cities in Pennsylvania or my city of Boston. 

So there really is this National debate about what local law enforcement officials ought to do in this situation, and it is a hotly 

contested issue and question. Senator Specter and I saw it on the 

mark-up of our committee, which was divided, and we saw it on the 

floor of the U.S. Senate. 

So you and the Commissioner expressed your view with clarity 

and passion, that the most effective way of dealing with the issues 

of enforcement in terms of national security, is by intelligence gathering. This is very significant and if you can just talk about this 

for a minute. 

Let me just mention one thing. If States want to train people on 

the enforcement of civil immigration laws, the Federal Government 

provides some training for that. 

The State of Alabama has done that training, and we have the 

results. At least one story shows that they found that of all the 

drivers that were pulled over in the State of Alabama, 50 percent 

of them were Latinos, in a State that only has 5 percent Latino 

population. 

They drew the conclusion, at least in this article that it lent itself 

to sort of racial profiling. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that this 

June 24th, 2006 Boston Globe article be made a part of the 

record—

That aside, how do you respond, as a person that has the prime 

responsibility, obviously with the Department of Homeland Security, for the security of your community? 

In terms of intelligence gathering, as the mayor, what have you 

found are the advantages or the disadvantages of being able to 

work with the community in order to provide more security for the 

city of New York, or for Philadelphia? From your perspective, don’t 

you think law enforcement ought to be looking for criminals rather 

than immigration violators? 

Mayor BLOOMBERG. Well, Senator, at least in terms of New York 

City, I was looking around this audience and I do not see anybody 

that I do not think looks like an immigrant, including up here on 

this stage. We all look like immigrants, and that is one of the problems. You do not know who to go after. 

So, you have to have a policy that does not profile, because it 

would not work and it is also wrong, and you have to have something that will allow companies and the mayor of Hazelton to know 

with certainty who is here legally and who is not. 

We talk about security. I have talked to some of the 1,000 police 

officers that we have dedicated to intelligence and counter-terrorism in New York City, and a number of them think that if AlQaeda was going to send somebody here, they are more likely to 

come across our northern border than our southern border. 

So when you talk about securing borders, I am never sure what 

you are really talking about. We have coastlines of a couple thousand miles, both on the East Coast and the West Coast. 

18

If you are going to build a real fence around this country, the 

order of magnitude of funds and troops that you would need is 

something that, if anybody stopped to think about it, they would 

realize, that is just not possible. 

The good news is that we found, in New York City, if you enforce 

the laws fairly, you have exactly the same problem with documented and undocumented, with people that have been here forever and people who have just arrived. There are lots of reasons 

why people commit crimes. Where they come from does not happen 

to appear to be one of them. 

Senator KENNEDY. My time is up. 

Commissioner, would you say just a brief word? 

Commissioner JOHNSON. I have my lieutenant in charge, one of 

our Intelligence people, right here today. We talked prior to coming 

here. The intelligence that is coming from the immigrant community is very, very important. 

The other thing is if a person is victimized, we do not want them 

to worry that we are going to profile them and question them about 

their green card. We need their help. 

I look around the room also. I said I have an Asian Advisory 

Council, and there are about 40 of them sitting in this room today, 

or at least there is a large number of them here today. It took us 

years to build that type of relationship. I think once we start enforcing immigration laws, we are going to lose that relationship 

within a matter of weeks. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel 

very much. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. 

Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Barletta, and Commissioner Johnson. We very much appreciate your coming in. 

We now turn to our second panel. Mr. Ronald Bird, Representative Art Hershey, Ms. Eileen Connelly, Reverend Louis Cortes, Mr. 

Eichenlaub, and Ms. Rossi. 

Would you all please step forward while we thank our departing 

panelists? 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the Committee was recessed and resumed back on the record at 11:22 a.m.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Our hearing will resume. Our first witness 

is a representative from the U.S. Department of Labor, Mr. Ronald 

Bird, who we thank the Secretary of Labor, the distinguished Secretary Elaine Chao, for sending you here, Mr. Bird. 

He is the Chief Economist and Director of the Office of Economic 

Policy and Analysis. His work includes market data and preparation of materials in support for briefings on employment status and 

general economic conditions. 

He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of North Carolina, and has a Bachelor’s degree from Huntington College, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Bird. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

19

STATEMENT OF RONALD BIRD, CHIEF ECONOMIST AND DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BIRD. Thank you, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy. I am 

pleased to be here and to provide you with some information about 

the demographics of the labor force, and recent trends. 

I have prepared a statement with tables and charts which has 

been provided to you, and I will briefly summarize what I brought 

with me. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

The American labor force is large. At 151 million in May of 2006, 

the U.S. labor force was the third-largest among the nations of the 

world, second behind only China and India. 

The U.S. labor force is diverse. The American labor force provides opportunity to people from a wider array of races, ethnic 

backgrounds, and cultures than any other nation. 

The U.S. labor market is strong. Unemployment in May of 2006 

was a low 4.6 percent, the lowest since July of 2001. We have enjoyed 33 consecutive months of job growth, with payroll employment growing by over 5.3 million since the post-recession turnaround in 2003. 

Unemployment today is below historical averages. Since 1948, 

the unemployment rate has averaged 5.6 percent, compared to today’s 4.6 percent. Today’s low unemployment rate is an important 

factor to consider and it is real. 

Unemployment is not low because potential workers are sitting 

on the sidelines. Discouraged workers and others at the labor force 

margins, those not actively looking for work, are also low. 

We are facing both the challenge and the opportunity of a tight 

labor market. Employers are challenged to find the workers they 

need, and those who want to work enjoy the opportunity to find 

good jobs. 

The U.S. labor force grew significantly over the past half century. 

Between 1948 and 2005, the labor force increased from 60.6 million 

to 149.3 million, a 146 percent increase that saw 88.7 million new 

workers absorbed into the economy. 

The 1.1 percent average annual labor force growth rate of the 

1950’s increased in the 1960’s to 1.7 percent, then to 2.7 percent 

per year labor force growth in the 1970’s. 

This remarkable increase in the annual rate of labor force growth 

in the 1970’s reflected two major components: native population 

growth, as the baby boom generation—my generation—matured 

and entered the labor force, and also increased labor force participation by women. 

The annual average labor force growth rate then began slowing 

in the 1980’s to 1.7 percent per year as population growth slowed, 

but still maintained a fairly high rate of growth, at 1.7 percent, because the labor force participation of women was still continuing to 

rise. 

Since 1995, labor force growth has averaged even lower, 1.2 percent, and BLS projections for 2006 through 2014 forecast continuing declines in the rate of labor force growth, 1.1 percent in 

2006, down to 0.8 percent in 2014. 

Slower labor force growth means a tighter labor market, fewer 

new workers to fill new jobs and vacancies. This will be a good 

20

labor market for job seekers and a challenge for employers seeking 

to fill new job openings and to fill vacancies as baby boomers retire. 

I might mention, in the latest data on job openings from the BLS 

Job Opening Survey, at the end of April, there were 4.1 million unfilled vacancies in the United States. 

The increase in the labor force participation of women over the 

past half century is a particularly noteworthy fact. If the female 

labor force participation rate had remained at the 1948 level over 

the past half century, the labor force today would be 31 million less 

than it actually is. 

It is a sign of the strength, I think, of our economy that we absorbed the influx of 31 million new workers with relative ease. Indeed, I think we are stronger and more productive because of increased labor force participation of women. 

Immigrants are also a significant and growing component of the 

U.S. labor force. In 2005, the 22 million foreign-born workers comprised 14.8 percent of the U.S. labor force. 

The demographic characteristics of the foreign-born labor force 

differ in many respects from the native born: they are more likely 

to be men, they are younger, they are more likely to be Hispanic 

or Asian, and they are less educated, on average, than the nativeborn labor force. 

The foreign-born labor force has increased by 1.8 million since 

2002. Foreign-born workers accounted for almost 40 percent of the 

4.5 million increase in the labor force from 2000 to 2005. 

The projected 1 percent labor force growth over the next 10 years 

will be below the average labor force growth of the 1950’s, and well 

below the 2.7 percent average annual labor force growth of the 

1970’s, even including this large component of projected foreignborn workers in that total. 

At 40 percent almost of labor force growth since 2002, immigrants certainly comprise an important component of overall labor 

force growth, and of our capacity to maintain growing national output. 

I hope this is helpful, and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bird. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bird appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Our next witness is State Representative 

Art Hershey. He represents Chester County. He was first elected 

to the House of Representatives in 1982, and is Chairman of the 

Pennsylvania House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. 

He has hands-on experience in dairy operation in Cockerville, 

Pennsylvania. He has an extensive educational background from 

Penn State. 

Thank you very much for being with us today,Representative 

Hershey. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR HERSHEY, PENNSYLVANIA 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 13th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT, 

CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Representative HERSHEY. Chairman Specter, Senator Kennedy, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

21

Would you all please step forward while we thank our My name 

is Art Hershey and I represent historic Chester County in the 

Pennsylvania House of Representatives. I am also the Chairman of 

our House Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee. 

Labor-intense agriculture and value-added industries, like food 

processing, are very important to Pennsylvania. Growing industries, like mushrooms, fruit, vegetables, nursery and greenhouse, 

and dairy require large work forces. In fact, Pennsylvania ranks 

tenth in the Nation in the size of our hired farm worker payroll. 

Our specialty, agriculture, is much more reliant on labor than 

the national average. In the end, we are talking about more than 

just the jobs of farm workers. These industries create thousands of 

good-paying jobs for Pennsylvanians that would cease to exist if we 

did not have labor on our farms. 

I am talking about jobs providing inputs and supplies, equipment, marketing, packaging, processing, transportation, lending 

and insurance. Economists tell us there are three to four such jobs 

created for every single farm worker. 

As Agriculture Committee Chairman, I know and care about all 

these industries in the Commonwealth. My own background is in 

the dairy industry. Even highly mechanized dairies have a significant need for labor and rely heavily on the immigrant labor force. 

We need workers year-round. Dairy falls through the cracks of all 

the existing programs which are for seasonal workers only, or for 

non-agricultural workers. 

Who makes up our farm labor force? In 2002, Pennsylvania farmers employed 67,672 hired laborers; 26,066 were employed 150 days 

or longer, with the rest in more seasonal jobs. 

In 1998, a Department of Labor survey showed that 52 percent 

of farm workers self-admitted they lacked work authorization. In a 

regional northeast breakout including Pennsylvania, 65 percent admitted they lacked work authorization. 

Also, in 1998, an astounding 99 percent of new entrants into the 

farm labor force lacked proper status. This clearly shows we lack 

domestic labor seeking work on our farms. 

Private estimates suggest that the overall percentage of farm 

workers who lack immigration status is approaching 75 percent. It 

is crucial that we solve the agricultural labor crisis calmly and 

wisely. 

The average farm worker wage in Pennsylvania last year was 

$9.76 per hour. This is not a problem of minimum wage work. 

Without immigrant workers, we would not have a labor force. It is 

that simple. 

The industry I really want to talk about today is the mushroom 

industry. Seventy percent of our Nation’s commercial mushroom 

farms are in Chester County, in my District. More than 500 million 

pounds are grown in the Stat, 60 percent of all mushrooms grown 

in the U.S. Every single one is picked by hand. 

The crop has an annual value of more than 400 million. They are 

estimated to be over 5,000 mushroom farm workers in Pennsylvania, most are year-round. The mushroom industry, and in fact all 

the Pennsylvania agricultural industries I have mentioned here 

today, need three things out of immigration reform. 

22

For the long term, they need a guest worker program that allows 

for seasonal and year-round workers. In the near term, they need 

a transition that allows industry to retain its trained and experienced work force. 

Finally, employers need to be assured that the responsibility of 

the ultimate verification of a worker’s legal status lies with the 

Federal Government, not with the employers, and certainly not 

with the State government, as some of my well-meaning colleagues 

in Harrisburg have recently proposed. 

Chairman Specter, the bill that you guided to passage in the 

Senate contains these essential provisions. First, the S. 2611 overhauls the H2A program. While it does extend it to year-round dairy 

workers, it is a very important provision for Pennsylvania. 

It does not extend to year-round mushroom or nursery workers. 

We would prefer that it does. However, we believe that these, and 

other, industries could use the new H2C program for positions that 

do not qualify for H2A. 

On the issue of transition, the bill provides for earned legalization for qualifying farm workers willing to pay a fine and meet 

tough conditions. This is not automatic citizenship, which some call 

amnesty. Adjustment of status is crucial to the mushroom industry, 

not to mention other Pennsylvania agriculture sectors. 

Some say that we tried legalization for agriculture in 1986, and 

they say it failed. The failure of the Reagan-era legislation was not 

the legalization program. Many of the mushroom workers who legalized are now the owners, operators, and managers of our mushroom farms and many other business today. 

Rather, the failure of IRCA was the lack of a long- term solution 

for our farm labor needs. This time, Chairman Specter, the Senate 

bill does it right. The Agriculture Jobs provision of the bill addresses both the long term and the need for transition. 

In closing, I know Pennsylvania agriculture will lose if Congress 

fails to enact the right reforms in the right way. I urge Pennsylvania’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives to tone down 

their rhetoric and come to the negotiating table and produce a final 

bill that contains these critical reforms. Time is, indeed, of essence. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Representative Hershey. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Hershey appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. We now turn to Ms. Carol Rossi, Corporate 

Director of Human Resources for Harristown Development Corporation, the parent company of The Harrisburg Hotel Corporation. 

She has been in the hospitality industry in Pennsylvania since 

1991. She has a Bachelor’s from Florida State, and has more than 

575 employees in six locations under her direction. 

We appreciate your being with us, Ms. Rossi, and we look forward to your testimony. 

23

STATEMENT OF CAROL ROSSI, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF 

HUMAN RESOURCES, THE HARRISBURG HOTEL CORPORATION, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. ROSSI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Kennedy. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. 

My name is Carol Rossi. I am the Corporate Director of Human 

Resources for Harrisburg Hotel Corporation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and I am testifying on behalf of the Pennsylvania Tourism and Lodging Association, and the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association. Both are State- wide associations that represent lodging 

and restaurants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

I am responsible for all aspects of human resource functions for 

my company’s four locations, which include a Four-Diamond Hilton 

in downtown Harrisburg, the Hilton Garden Inn in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a brand-new restaurant in downtown Harrisburg with 

160 seats, and Central Penn Business School’s Conference Center 

and student restaurant. 

The majority of my staff’s time in human resources, their efforts, 

and most of our budget, is spent directly on the recruitment and 

hiring process to fill approximately 45 job postings for our various 

operations on a weekly basis. 

Our largest operation, the Hilton Harrisburg, currently has 320 

employees and has an average of 25 of those 40 openings on its list. 

This week, as of June 30, we had 36 openings to fill. The result 

of that is, when an employee comes to work, they know that they 

are going to be under-staffed by 10 to 12 percent, on average, and 

it is incredibly frustrating for both them and for us as the employer. 

For both of us, it means a lot more work, longer hours, increased 

workplace injuries, increased guest complaints, and the list goes 

on. Overtime may be the only welcome benefit that that employee 

may receive, although they would much prefer a 40-hour work 

week, more time with their family, and a more predictable workload. 

To respond to these demands, we are constantly in the recruitment mode. We attend an average of 25 job fairs annually, many 

of which we host ourselves. We spend, at the Hilton Harrisburg 

alone, over $8,000 a year in classified newspaper ads and recruitment sources to fill most of our openings. 

On many of our recruitment trips, we go to colleges, universities, 

trade schools, and agencies throughout the course of a year, but a 

lot of those dollars that we spend do not give us the desired results. 

Recently, as an example, we hosted a job fair this January to 

staff our new restaurant that we opened in downtown Harrisburg. 

We had attractive and costly ads that we placed in the local Harrisburg Patriot News to draw in many candidates. But, disappointingly, we only saw 20 candidates show up to that job fair, 3 of 

which were qualified to fill the 45 openings at our new restaurant. 

Immigrants are fundamental to the success of both the hotel and 

restaurant industries: 1.6 million restaurant workers are immigrants; one-quarter of food service managers in 2003 were foreignborn, making our industry an industry of opportunity, and one that 

employs one of the most diverse cross-sections of people from different cultures and backgrounds. 

24

We have utilized organizations, such as the CETUSA and CIEE 

to assist us in bringing in seasonal workers to fill our numerous 

openings. Although it is only a short-term fix, it allows us the ability to continue to search for more permanent solutions in the 

meanwhile. We have hired foreigners with J1 visas; the H2B category has been avoided due to complications, cost, and the restrictive numbers that are allowed. 

The process for that H2B worker is very complex. A company 

must engage in extensive recruiting of possible U.S. workers, be 

unable to identify an adequate number of U.S. citizens to do the 

work, obtain certification from the Department of Labor that we 

have attempted to recruit American workers without success, then 

obtain certification from the U.S. Department of Labor of the need 

for workers, then receive approval from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security to identify qualified foreign workers to obtain 

the approval for the H2B visa from the U.S. State Department. As 

you can see, that is incredibly complex, lengthy, costly, and very 

frustrating. 

What is apparent, is we cannot fill our positions with the work 

force that currently exists. Jobs are growing in the hospitality industry and the work force is shrinking. Add to that our declining 

birth rates in the United States and it becomes apparent that the 

math just does not work to allow us to move successfully into the 

future. 

Additionally, our work force is an aging one. Many of these jobs 

are very labor-intensive and physically demanding. Many of these 

jobs are not attractive to American workers. 

As an employer, one of the most absolutely critical tasks we handle on a regular basis is verification of identification for all new 

hires to prove eligibility to work legally in the United States. 

On numerous occasions we have had to discharge an employee 

after completing the entire employment process because of their inability to provide valid ID when they arrived for orientation. 

While this is incredibly frustrating, as we have just finished 

spending numerous hours and dollars to get the person to this 

point in the process, we still follow the law to a fault: the employee 

is terminated and the dollars and time we merely write off to costs 

of doing business. 

We are hopeful that an improved system will be put into place 

to effectively assist us with this task. We support and understand 

severe penalties against those who knowingly hire undocumented 

workers, and also support a safe harbor for good-faith errors, particularly if we are relying on an error-ridden government-provided 

verification system. 

In regards to wages and benefits of our employees, regardless of 

their classification or nationality, they are hired at the pay rates 

linked to a particular position, so a housekeeper would receive the 

same amount of pay whether they are a U.S. citizen or whether 

they are a foreigner legally allowed to work here. 

That upholds the same for the benefits that we provide to our 

employees. We have a very attractive benefit policy and it is very 

affordable for our employees and it is very competitive with the 

manufacturing and retail lines, as well as within the hospitality industry. 

25

Our company’s goal is to employ workers that are committed to 

serving people. The hospitality business is an admirable business, 

and because our company holds a strong belief in professionalism 

in our industry we are focused on encouraging our management to 

achieve those certifications. Currently, 35 of our employees have 

their professional certifications from the Educational Institute of 

the Hotel and Lodging Association. 

While many people come to us without advanced education, EI 

allows us to help them grow during their employment and advance 

in their specific fields with the hospitality business. 

Many of our foreign workers have taken advantage of this training and it gives them the confidence to succeed and to continue to 

grow their careers, while advancing their knowledge base and job 

skills. 

Chairman SPECTER. How much more time will you need, Ms. 

Rossi? 

Ms. ROSSI. Just one moment. 

In conclusion—thank you, Mr. Chairman—to succeed, our economy desperately needs workers at both ends of the spectrum, 

young and less-skilled as well as more educated and highly skilled. 

Without the flow of immigrant labor, our work force will fall short. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Rossi. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rossi appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Our next witness is Mr. Dan Eichenlaub, 

who has a large, full-scale landscape contracting service in western 

Pennsylvania, and has been there since 1974. He has an Engineering degree from Penn State and an Entrepreneurial Leadership 

certificate from the Temper School of Business at Carnegie-Mellon. 

Thank you for traveling to Philadelphia today, Mr. Eichenlaub. 

We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAN EICHENLAUB, PRESIDENT, EICHENLAUB, 

INC., PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. EICHENLAUB. It is always a joy to come across the State, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you. 

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Also, Senator Kennedy, I am glad to be here 

today and to speak to all those in attendance. 

Again, my name is Dan Eichenlaub, and my brothers and I started Eichenlaub, Incorporated, a landscape contracting company 

based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania back in 1974, and a business 

that we have tried to grow ever since. 

I am part of a Pennsylvania green industry that includes landscape contractors, nurseries, and garden centers that represent the 

fastest-growing segment of Pennsylvania agriculture, and has 

about a $5.6 billion impact on the Commonwealth’s economy. Nationally, this industry has about a $150 billion impact for the country. 

My association, the Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association, and our Federal partner, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, have worked hard to find comprehensive soluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Oct 12, 2006 Jkt 030255 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\30254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
26

tions to our Nation’s immigration crisis. This crisis includes problems with the H2B visas/seasonal guest worker labor program. 

For 5 years, I have been using the H2B visa program to obtain 

guest workers for positions with my company for which I have been 

unable to find local workers. The H2B program was designated for 

seasonal industries. 

Remember, not just my company and my industry participate in 

the H2B program. Minor league baseball players and hockey players come here on H2B visas. So do seafood workers in Maryland 

and Virginia, salmon processors in Alaska, shrimp and crawfishers 

in the Gulf. 

Resorts, from Hilton Head and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to 

Nantucket, Cape Cod, Branson, Mackinaw Island, and our ski communities, from Vermont to California, all have to turn to the H2B 

program to stay in operation. 

America’s most beautiful treasures, including the Grand Canyon, 

Sequoia, and Yosemite National Parks need H2B workers in order 

to serve visitors from the U.S. and around the world. Stone quarries from New Hampshire to Utah rely on the H2B visa workers 

as well, and H2B visa workers save lives along our coasts every 

day, and put out forest fires. 

The program represents a critical component in the success of my 

company and provides workers that I cannot find in my region of 

the State. I can tell you without hesitation that there are not 

enough native-born available American workers to fully staff and 

grow my business. 

This is hot, physically demanding seasonal work. Entry-level agriculture and manual jobs are, quite frankly, not the ambition of 

most young Americans. 

If you are unconvinced from myself and my colleagues, witness 

the requirements of the H2B visa program: I must advertise in the 

Pittsburgh papers to attempt to fill an open position with an American worker. 

If I cannot find an American worker to do the job, I can apply 

for an H2B visa, at a substantial expense, and with the direction 

of four separate government agencies. The H2B program requires 

me to pay a federally mandated rate that is higher than the minimum wage to both my American and my seasonal guest workers. 

These workers must go home every year, and I must go through 

this process again each year as proof that an American worker has 

not become available for my positions. 

Due to program limitations, especially the artificial cap on allowable visas, I risk investing time and money in finding a guest worker who may not obtain authorization to return the next season. If 

the cap is left artificially low, a black market of unauthorized workers is unintentionally encouraged. 

Even with these limitations, the H2B program at least presents 

an opportunity, maybe the only opportunity for thousands of communities with seasonal employment needs, to obtain an adequate 

work force. An adequate work force allows me to create and maintain year-round jobs for Pennsylvanians in landscape design, sales, 

and management. 

My Jamaican H2B workers—and I like to point out Jamaican, 

because I think immigration in my industry is way beyond the 

27

Latinos and Hispanics—do excellent work: they are motivated, they 

are more than physically competent, and they have a strong work 

ethic. 

Many of my H2B workers have been coming back for several 

years. These workers are like family to me and my colleagues. 

They like the program, which allows them to earn a good living 

and spend their winters with their families back in their homeland. 

We like the program, which ensures a dedicated, satisfied work 

force year after year. 

However, the program is flawed. It is capped at 66,000 workers 

per year. Two years ago, the cap hit before my workers’ paperwork 

had been fully processed. That season, I lost my workers and I lost 

a half a million dollars in potential business revenue as a result. 

In 2005, Congress passed the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act legislation that greatly extended the program by exempting many returning workers from the cap. However, this was simply a 1-year program extension. The return worker exemption 

should be made permanent and the cap should be altered to allow 

the program to realistically expand based on the needs of the 

American economy. 

The Senate has offered some relief. The 3-year extension of the 

Returning Worker Exemption is a crucial part of this comprehensive immigration reform bill that you passed in May. 

The Senate also provided needed solutions and reforms to the 

landscape and nursery industry, including time- tested and bipartisan provisions for agriculture and the H2A program. 

As we heard earlier from Representative Hershey, agriculture is 

the largest industry in Pennsylvania. Our nurseries, our farms, 

and our agri-businesses need staffing solutions. We need to keep 

our workers and we need to fix the broken visa programs, thus 

matching willing documented workers with willing employers. 

Those of us who use and understand these programs know that 

they create needed legal channels for temporary workers to enter 

the U.S. safely and legally. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Eichenlaub, how much more time do you 

need? 

Mr. EICHENLAUB. About one more second. 

They contribute to our economy and return home at the proper 

time. We all support secure borders. It is ludicrous to think that 

we can secure our borders without creating workable legal channels like H2B and the proposed new H2C program. 

On behalf of the landscape and nursery industry, and of many 

small businesses across our country, I call upon the House to come 

to the table to work with the Senate to pass comprehensive immigration reform and fix the H2B program and help grow our small 

and seasonal businesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Eichenlaub. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eichenlaub appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Our next witness is Reverend Louis Cortes, 

Jr., President and CEO of Esperanza USA, the largest Hispanic 

faith-based community development corporation in the country. He 

served as Vice Chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board of 

28

Pittsburgh, and in January of 2005, was featured as one of Time 

Magazine’s 25 most influential evangelicals. 

He has a Master’s degree in divinity from the Union Theological 

Seminary and a Master of Science in Economic Development from 

New Hampshire College. 

We appreciate your being here, Reverend Cortes. The floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND LUIS CORTES, JR., PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, ESPERANZA USA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Reverend CORTES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Senator Kennedy. 

Immigration is the number-one issue of concern to 40 million 

Hispanic American citizens in this country. For us, immigration is 

about family: grandparents, parents, uncles, sisters, and brothers 

who have undocumented status. It is about family values, about 

work, and living productive lives as contributing members of our 

community. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked I address concerns about State and 

local law enforcement having authorities and responsibilities to enforce Federal immigration law. 

Enforcement of Federal immigration statutes must remain a Federal responsibility. It is especially critical that emergency 911 first 

responders have no enforcement or reporting responsibilities whatsoever. 

Giving State and local law enforcement authorities even partial 

reporting responsibilities for Federal immigration law enforcement 

would, quite simply, endanger the health and safety of Hispanic 

and non-Hispanic ommunities and would reverse and disintegrate 

years of progress in community programs, and transform what is 

today a close, cooperative, and productive relationship between 

clergy and State and local law enforcement into an adversarial one. 

There is some good news. Today, clergy—not just Hispanic clergy, but all clergy—work with State and local law enforcement. We 

are often the first to be called when youth get into trouble. 

Truancies, runaways, and even gang violence are areas where we 

partner with police. We partner in matters of domestic violence, 

drug interdiction and enforcement, and police-community relations. 

Today, communities are safer, healthier places thanks to years of 

close collaboration between local law enforcement and clergy. Our 

charter high school, Nueva Esperanza Academy, participates in the 

Safe Street Corridors program, where a police squad, working with 

parent volunteers, create safe passage for children to go to and 

from school. 

Hundreds of programs like these depend on relationships of trust 

between State and local law enforcement and the faith community. 

To deputize local police is to break the trust that we have worked 

so hard to build. 

There is, Mr. Chairman, a dark side to this immigration reform. 

Over 50 million people can no longer call the police to defend and 

protect them. That is the 12 million undocumented, the 3 million 

American citizen children of those undocumented, and their 30 to 

40 million citizen family members. We would create a second class, 

29

with no access to protection, one that is constantly at risk and vulnerable to the most heinous individuals. 

Lifelong criminals would now have easy prey. Violent criminals 

would have more rights than hardworking members of communities whose only infraction was the misdemeanor offense of entering our country looking for work, or citizens who can no longer 

count on local police protection because of an undocumented family 

member. 

Take the Safe Corridors program I just mentioned our charter 

school participates in. Does the same police officer who, today is 

creating safe passage, now pick up a citizen child to capture the 

undocumented parent? 

Would religious and public after-school programs become sites 

where police could find undocumented parents as they pick up 

their children? Hundreds of programs like these would have to shut 

down. 

A separate, but very real, issue for clergy is how to handle police 

officers who attend our churches. Would we need to create churches 

solely for our officers? By far the darkest of all new realities would 

be the many ways criminals would take advantage of law enforcement’s role in immigration enforcement to enhance their criminal 

enterprises. 

All undocumented immigrants instantly become targets. Hardworking American citizens who have an undocumented family 

member in the home becomes susceptible to the blackmailer, making them into victims of crime, or even recruiting them for criminal 

activity. 

Undocumented mothers or their daughters become instant targets for unreported rape and abuse. The rapist will mockingly hand 

over the phone and dare them to call 911. Unscrupulous police officers will use their new authority to their advantage, forcing the undocumented to bend to their will. 

Racial profiling will become standard. Will those of Hispanic descent have to constantly prove our citizenship while others do not? 

Will I have to have proof of my citizenship even when I sit in my 

own home? Many will say this will not happen here, but this has 

happened before, which is why our clergy and I fear this as a very 

real problem. 

During World War II, neighbors turned in their Japanese-American neighbors. Even though we were at war with Japan, today we 

acknowledge the injustice of the internment camps and of racially 

profiling all of a particular ethnic descent. 

In the 1930’s, tens of thousands—possibly more than 400,000—

Mexican and Mexican-American citizens were forced to leave our 

country. Many of those citizens were children who were extradited 

without due process. 

These issues are not limited to Hispanic communities, but would 

be replicated in Russian-Jewish communities, African-Ethiopian, 

Asian, and Irish immigrant communities as well. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, I am afraid of 

the tenor of this immigration dialog, especially by those in our 

House of Representatives. House Resolution 4437 will make me 

and thousands of clergy in this country felons for feeding the hungry and taking care of the stranger. 

30

Old and New Testament mandates clergy of many faiths to perform this, regardless of your colleagues’ law- making. I have heard 

members of the House of Representatives say, ‘‘Choking off the jobs 

of illegals will cause them to starve and force them to leave our 

country.’’ 

I stand with hundreds of thousands of my ministerial colleagues 

who will go to jail if necessary rather than to starve 12 million people and their 3 million American citizen children. Members of Congress should be ashamed of speaking in that manner. 

Fortunately, I know there are millions of Americans that will not 

tolerate the starving of innocent children or of undocumented people in our country. I know this is not the America you have worked 

so hard to build and protect. I urge you to share with your colleagues in the House and in the Senate the very real dangers contained in the policies that are now being debated. 

I thank you again for this opportunity, Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Reverend Cortes. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Cortes appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. We now turn to Ms. Eileen Connelly, who is 

the Executive Director of the State Council of Service Employees 

International Union in Pennsylvania. 

Ms. Connelly began her career as a medical lab technician in 

Hazelton St. Joseph Hospital. In the interim, since 1984, she has 

negotiated many hospital contracts and many of the nursing home 

contracts. 

We appreciate your being here, Ms. Connelly, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF EILEEN CONNELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SEIU PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. CONNELLY. Thank you, Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy. 

SEIU is the largest and fastest-growing union in North America. 

We currently represent about 1.8 million workers nationally, and 

we have 60,000 here in Pennsylvania that we represent, mainly in 

health care, in property services, and in public service employment 

of State, county, and municipal workers. 

We also represent, among them, thousands of immigrants, working as janitors, nursing home assistants, and home health care 

aides. 

SEIU supports comprehensive immigration reform. We believe 

that the problem is not immigration, but rather a broken immigration system that fails to provide orderly legal channels to come to 

work in this country within the industries that need workers the 

most. 

It fuels an underground economy where workers have little protection and are forced to work for bad pay and in hazardous conditions, which undermines the standards of all workers. 

Our union is working in Pennsylvania, and around the country, 

to get Congress to pass a ‘‘Break the Mold’’ solution that includes 

tough, effective work site enforcement, a realistic program to bring 

31

undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and into the legal 

work force, and a new worker program that channels future immigrants through a controlled, orderly process. 

Without comprehensive immigration reform, critical industries in 

our country, like long-term nursing care and janitorial services, 

face critical worker shortages. It is estimated that 5 million directcare workers will be needed by the year 2030 to take care of people, 

and we do not have enough native-born workers to fill our needs. 

Some employers use undocumented immigrant status as a weapon against them, threatening deportation when workers seek to 

join unions or if they complain about illegal working conditions. 

The bottom line is, exploitation of undocumented immigrants 

drives down wages for all working Americans, and the only solution 

is for Congress to pass real, comprehensive reform. 

First, put simply, an enforcement-only approach will not work. 

We know that employers have substantial demand for immigrant 

labor. If we do not create legal channels for workers to come to this 

country, they will continue to come illegally. 

The heart of real immigration reform must be a combination of 

tough work site enforcement and ample legal flows so that employers have enough workers, and all workers have workplace protections, regardless of their immigration status. 

Second, work site enforcement of immigration rules will never 

succeed as long as millions of existing workers lack legal status, 

and real reform must move these workers out of the shadows and 

into the formal economy. 

If employers start with millions of undocumented workers already on their payrolls, it is unrealistic to think we can create an 

effective employer-sanctioned regime. 

Third, it is essential that future legal immigrants enjoy the full 

protection of our labor laws and that any new temporary worker 

program include strong protections so that temporary workers do 

not undermine U.S. wages. 

Our experience with flawed temporary worker programs offer important lessons for a new worker program to avoid driving down 

U.S. wages. A new temporary worker program must have strong 

prevailing wage protections, must regulate the role of foreign labor 

contractors, must give immigrants the right to join U.S. unions and 

protect workers during union organizing campaigns. 

Every effort must be made to recruit U.S. workers, first. Workers 

must have portability. They must be able to vote with their feet by 

changing jobs to avoid employer exploitation and ensure that wages 

are competitive. 

All workers must be able to participate in their neighborhoods, 

their cities, and communities, which means they must have a path 

to citizenship. All these protections must be backed by vigorous 

work site enforcement by State and Federal Department of Labor 

and other enforcement agents, not by the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

The Senate-passed bill is a good start, but we believe needs improvement both on labor protections and the Title II criminalization and due process provisions, which continue to be very troubling. We continue to hope the bipartisan work demonstrated by 

the Senate will carry over to the U.S. House of Representatives. 

32

My union knows first-hand the value that immigrants provide to 

our economy and our union. Hundreds of thousands of our members are immigrants. Unfortunately, too many are undocumented, 

but they are hard-working and paying taxes, and have lived in the 

United States for many years. That is why I am here representing 

them, and representing SEIU. 

SEIU continues supporting comprehensive immigration reform, 

securing our borders both north and south, treating undocumented 

immigrants firmly, but fairly, by requiring them to undergo background checks, pay a fine, and learn English in exchange for getting on a path to citizenship, and addressing the need in our economy for future workers who have full protection of labor law and 

enforcement. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Connelly. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Connelly appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. We will now proceed to questioning by Senator Kennedy myself. In light of the fact that we have six witnesses, we are going to each have a 10-minute round. 

Ms. Connelly, picking up on your testimony, and in line with 

what Mr. Eichenlaub said about the way of assure that Americans 

are not available for jobs before immigrants are hired, and looking 

to avoid an underground economy, which you have testified about, 

Mr. Bird, of the Department of Labor, has noted that there are 4.1 

million jobs which need people at the present time, trying to address the issue of not having others take jobs where Americans can 

fill them or depressing wages. 

What do you think about the adequacy of the provisions of the 

Senate bill which would require that there be an effort to find U.S. 

people to fill a job before an immigrant is hired, and the provisions 

of the amendment offered by Senator Obama from Illinois to have 

Davis-Bacon as the prevailing wage to make sure that we maintain 

current standards? 

Ms. CONNELLY. I think it is all right to try to hire native-born, 

American-born people first for jobs. I think that part of what happens, is that those conditions are put on employers and they have 

to go too far, then jobs are not filled. We know, and it has been 

testified today, that there are enough American-born folks to fill 

the jobs that need to be filled. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, are you concerned that there will be 

jobs taken by immigrants which could be filled by Americans? 

Ms. CONNELLY. Not in the industries that SEIU represents. That 

has not been a concern. 

Chairman SPECTER. I talked to a couple of members of the building trades, construction workers, and there is concern there. 

Ms. CONNELLY. Yes. 

Chairman SPECTER. What we are trying to do, is regulate the influx. Right now, there are complaints that immigrants are taking 

jobs which American could fulfill. What we are trying to structure 

is a system where, if the jobs could be filled by Americans, they 

will be. 

But where you hear the testimony from Representative Hershey 

about farm workers, or you hear Ms. Rossi, about hospitality and 

33

hotel workers, or Mr. Eichenlaub about landscapers, we have a 

shortage. 

Mr. Bird, from the overall point of view of the Department of 

Labor, what would the impact be on our economy if we did not 

have many jobs held by undocumented immigrants and if we did 

not have a guest worker program? 

Mr. BIRD. Well, first of all, Senator, we cannot really address the 

question of undocumented versus documented. The data that is 

available tells us who is foreign-born, who is a naturalized citizen, 

versus a non- citizen resident. But other than that, the data that 

is available does not speak to the documentation status. 

Chairman SPECTER. If you have native-born, you know they are 

citizens. 

Mr. BIRD. Right. 

Chairman SPECTER. Wait for the question. If you have foreignborn, does the evidentiary base, the statistical base give us any 

substantial basis for estimating the number of undocumented immigrants? 

Mr. BIRD. I have seen estimates that have been made by others 

based on a pyramid of assumptions. The fundamental data that I 

see, such as the Current Population Survey data, and so forth, 

merely asks where you were born. 

Chairman SPECTER. Can you give us a professional judgment as 

to what the status of the economy would be if you did not have immigrants in the work force? 

Mr. BIRD. I think, if we did not have immigrants, if we did not 

have foreign-born workers in the work force, we would have a big 

hole in our economy. They amount to 14 percent of the labor force, 

and that would be a hard hole to fill. 

Chairman SPECTER. Representative Hershey, what will the impact be on the foreign population, based upon your experience as 

Chairman of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Farm and 

Rural Area Committee? 

Representative HERSHEY. If they could not get foreign workers? 

Chairman SPECTER. If you could not get immigrant workers. 

Representative HERSHEY. Some of the operations would collapse, 

literally collapse. We advertise in the paper for workers, and local 

people used to come around the farm when we look for help, but 

now they do not. So, it went to the immigrant labor. They are very 

good workers, and if we could not have them, the large operations 

would collapse. 

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Rossi, how about in your field, in the 

hospitality line, hotels, restaurants? 

Ms. ROSSI. I would estimate that 15 to 20 percent of our work 

force are foreign workers, so it would have a deadly impact on us. 

I think that is what gives us, restaurants and hotels, the character 

of who we are and what we are. You walk down any street and see 

all the different types of restaurants, it is very much infiltrated 

with foreign workers. 

Chairman SPECTER. How about the landscapers, Mr. Eichenlaub? 

Mr. EICHENLAUB. Well, I wholly support it. I do not we have a 

problem with running the ads that I do every year to make sure 

there are no American workers available. 

34

I think the challenge that we run up against, just like I did when 

I could not get American workers and I started through the process 

to get foreign workers, I spent a ton of money and a lot of time, 

only to miss the deadline and not get the visas. So, I put the effort 

in and I did not get them. 

But my company specifically would be tremendously hurt. As you 

heard 2 years ago, when I did not get my guest workers, it cost me 

about a half a million dollars in revenue that I could not earn because I did not have the work force to do it. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Eichenlaub, you say there is $5.6 billion in the Pennsylvania economy. You say, nationally, there is $150 

billion in landscaping. 

Mr. Bird, this may be an unanswerable question, but occasionally 

we ask questions like that. 

[Laughter.] 

Could you project what the figure would be nationally if you did not have an immigrant work force if you have $4.5 billion from 

landscapers alone? 

Mr. BIRD. I could look at that and get something back to you, 

perhaps. 

Chairman SPECTER. All right. That would be fine, if you would 

take a look at it. 

Mr. BIRD. Rather than try to make calculations here. 

Chairman SPECTER. And report back? 

Mr. BIRD. I would be happy to do that, sir. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Reverend Cortes, in your testimony you expressed concerns regarding the alien smuggling provisions of the 

House bill, saying that the term would assist, and the criminal 

smuggling penalties would ‘‘instantly transform all Hispanic clergy 

and many non- Hispanic clergy from community leaders to Federal 

criminals.’’ 

You also testified today that you are prepared to go to jail. 

Reverend CORTES. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, we do not want that to happen. How 

much assistance is given on a humanitarian basis by the clergy to 

immigrants, would you say? Could you quantify? 

Reverend CORTES. I can answer this way. Most of the undocumented in the Latino community that come to this country end up 

in our churches, whether they be Catholic or Protestant. So while 

we do not do a head count, we know, of the 8 million Hispanic undocumented, a significant portion of them are in our congregations. 

We feed people, we work with people, we counsel people. 

The way that legislation is written, anyone who aids and abets 

a person who is undocumented, it would create a felony if 4437 

would continue, which would make it what we call the Clergy 

Criminalization Act, because in essence, all clergy, not just Hispanic ministers, but anyone who works with a person who comes 

to their congregation, would be guilty of breaking that particular 

law, as it is written. 

Chairman SPECTER. Reverend Cortes, if immigration reform did 

not deal with the 11 million undocumented immigrants—and I 

would be interested in the response from anybody else in the panel 

who cares to answer—so that we create an underground economy, 

35

so we create a fugitive class, people who are on the run who may 

commit crimes—you do not have to be an immigrant to commit a 

crime, that is clear. But we do have that problem, or the potential 

for terrorism. 

What will we do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants? 

Reverend CORTES. What I heard some of our leaders in the 

House say, is that we need to cut them off from jobs, and if they 

have no jobs, they cannot have a livelihood. If they have no livelihood, they cannot eat, and if they cannot eat, they will go home. 

Senator, there is no way people can go home, because many of 

the undocumented have no home to go back to. When they speak 

this way, they are speaking of starving out 12 million undocumented. 

To me, I have difficulty thinking, or even understanding, how a 

Congressperson could say that, understanding that those 12 million 

undocumented people have 3 million American citizen children. 

So what we would, in essence, do, is create an under class of people who would be susceptible to criminals and who would have to 

figure out how they are going to survive, especially if they have nowhere to go home to, which is the vast majority of them. 

Chairman SPECTER. So we would starve out 11 million undocumented immigrants and we would send to jail the humanitarian 

clergy of America. 

Reverend CORTES. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, all. It has been a very worthwhile 

panel. 

I would like to start with Reverend Cortes. Why is this such a 

moral issue? We had a good hearing with our earlier panel, and 

with this panel here. We have talked about the problems of enforcement, we have talked about issues on the temporary worker 

program, we have talked about the complexity dealing with the 

challenges of immigration reform. 

Why do you say that this is a moral issue for our country? I 

know you are reluctant, perhaps, to speak for others in the religious community, but if you would, why do they feel so strongly 

about the importance of this issue? If they do, why do they favor 

a more comprehensive approach? 

Reverend CORTES. If you are Jewish, Muslim or Christian, you 

believe in the Old Testament, and Christians believe in the New 

Testament. The Old Testament, in Leviticus, the 25th chapter, it 

talks about how we treat the stranger in our midst. 

Senator KENNEDY. Matthew chapter twenty-five? 

Reverend CORTES. And in Matthew chapter 25, we talk about the 

same. For us, a country is judged by how it treats the least of 

these. For clergy, regardless of their faith, humanitarian issues become more important, even than economic ones. 

For people of faith in this country, it is a step backward. We 

move away from our democratic underpinnings when we shut down 

borders in a manner that is inappropriate. No clergy has a problem 

that I know of with protecting the border. 

That has never been an issue among clergy. Every nation has a 

sovereign right. Even Mexico has troops in its southern border; it 

36

is not discussed much, but they do, to protect their southern border. 

So the issue really is what do we do as a Nation with 12 million 

people who came here, most of whom came here because we asked 

them to directly, or indirectly by economic means. 

For the clergy in this country, comprehensive immigration reform would include a guest worker program and provisions for the 

12 million undocumented people. It would also need for the House 

of Representatives and members of the Senate to understand the 

word ‘‘amnesty,’’ because we are running a public relations program that has used the word ‘‘amnesty’’ in an incorrect manner. 

So for us as clergy, when we see this, we see members of Congress literally lying about what amnesty and what different provisions that have come forth from the Senate mean. 

So we back the Kennedy-McCain bill, we back the Specter bill, 

we backed Hagel-Martinez. For us, the issue was, what do we do 

with 12 million undocumented people? Do we become a Nation that 

hunts people down and creates a fear element within it or do we 

become a Nation that is strong and continues to foster its heritage? 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I wonder, just continuing along that 

line, most of us, as you have pointed out, understand that those 

who come here, work hard, play by the rules, want to provide for 

their families, and are devoted to their religion. 

As we mentioned earlier, 76 individuals in the Armed Forces 

were naturalized on the Fourth of July in Iraq. More than 70,000 

immigrants have served in the Armed Forces. 

But let me ask you this. Why is this a family issue? I have listened to you talk with great eloquence about why this is a family 

issue. I think it is important that we have in the record why we 

understand that this is both a moral issue and a family issue, and 

not just provisions in the legislation. 

I think you have spoken about why it is a fairness issue. We take 

great pride in this country about valuing family. I am interested 

in why you believe that this particular issue is a family issue. 

Reverend CORTES. Of the 12 million undocumented, 8 million are 

Hispanic. Those 8 million, just about all of those 8 million, are related to 40 million Americans who happen to also be Hispanic. It 

is never discussed, but we have families that sit at the dinner table 

where you have three or four different statuses. 

Many of our people come into this country legally, but they 

would have to leave after four, six, or eight years because their paperwork cannot get moved, so they choose to stay with family. So 

it is a family values issue. It is about family, because the vast majority of the folks who are undocumented are, in fact, family members of American citizens. 

Senator KENNEDY. I just have a final question for you. I know 

you are familiar with Cardinal Mahoney, a Catholic Cardinal from 

Los Angeles. He talked about the House legislation, that not only 

criminalizes the undocumented but criminalizes individuals that 

help the undocumented or organizations that help the undocumented. Cardinal Mahoney asked, what am I supposed to tell a 

mother who is faced with the choice of remaining here in violation 

of immigration laws or staying with her sick child? He said, I 

would fall under the provision that criminalizes. 

37

Do you feel, and do members of your community, the religious 

community, feel the same way on the criminalization provisions? 

Reverend CORTES. I would answer in two ways. Hispanic ministers have already stated that they will, in fact, become civilly disobedient. I also know, I was at a meeting where the President of 

the United States was present, where the head of the Salvation 

Army said to him that he would march all his people directly to 

prison. 

Senator KENNEDY. I thank you for your response. I only have a 

few minutes left. 

The one point that is worthwhile to understand, is that the legislation has real enforcement provisions. Reverend Cortes, I was 

there in 1986. That was amnesty. There were no requirements, 

there were no penalties, there was no review of the work record, 

there was no requirement of learning English. We had no going to 

the back of the line. 

And when I listened on the floor of the Senate as people talked 

about it, those were the circumstances. We never had adequate enforcement provisions. This is the big and very important difference, 

as Senator Specter has pointed out, and Senator McCain and others have pointed out. 

There are very important enforcement provisions. We add the 

7,000 Department of Homeland Security investigators. We add 

2,000 Department of Labor investigators. Currently, there are only 

60 or 70 investigators in the Labor Department. 

Three cases have been brought by the Labor Department in this 

last year in terms of the undocumented. So we have what we believe is a balanced program, and a comprehensive one. 

I just have a couple of minutes left, and I want to just take those 

2 minutes to once again thank Senator Specter for this hearing. We 

were asked at the press conference before coming in, do you think 

you are going to hear anything really new? Senator Specter and I 

have been through comprehensive hearings. The basic structure of 

the legislation is probably two and a half, three years old. We have 

had day after day, hour after hour mark-ups, and hours of debate. 

But today we did learn, or at least I did, and it has been very helpful. 

I want to thank Senator Specter for having this hearing, and I 

want to thank our panelists. This is a complex issue. It takes the 

best judgment, the cooperation, the good common sense of all 

Americans to try to get this done. These very important statements 

and comments we heard today have been extremely constructive 

and helpful, certainly to this Senator. 

The best way that we can really demonstrate our appreciation for 

your time and effort more importantly to our country, is to pass 

real, comprehensive immigration reform that is going to protect our 

borders and provide security. It should also recognize that we have 

valuable immigrants that have come here. And under the appropriate circumstances we have described, it should give them the opportunity to be part of this American family. We need real enforcement that will reflect our own humanitarian history and tradition. 

We need to do what is right for this country and also demonstrate 

to the rest of the world our values by passing a fair, just, and 

tough-minded immigration policy. 

38

I thank the Senator. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, Senator Kennedy, thank you very 

much for participating today, and for your leadership. We are moving ahead on this legislation. We will be having further hearings 

during the recess period in August, nationally. 

The House of Representatives is having a hearing today in San 

Diego, California. There are differences between the House bill and 

the Senate bill. Last Thursday, a group of members from both the 

Senate and the House met to talk about ways of coming together. 

The President is providing leadership to try to bring the Houses 

together. It is our job as legislatures to find accommodations. We 

have a bicameral system. We cannot legislate in the House alone 

or in the Senate alone, we have to come to an agreement. But that 

is our responsibility. 

So there is no doubt there is a problem, and our job is to find 

the best answer to the problem. We will work at that, and I believe 

we can meet that responsibility. That is what we were elected to 

do, and we will proceed to do it. 

We thank the panel for being here today. Mr. Bird, Representative Hershey, Ms. Rossi, Mr. Eichenlaub, Reverend Cortes, and Ms. 

Connelly, thank you for your testimony. We have learned more and 

we will continue to learn more, and we are open to suggestions. 

Ms. Connelly has ideas as to how to improve the Senate bill. We 

are open. We are not in concrete. We do not have all the answers. 

We come to people in the field who know what the problems are 

to help us provide the answers. 

We turn to Reverend Cortes for an understanding as to what the 

clergy have to say, and what the Hispanic community has to say. 

Fundamentally, we are a Nation of immigrants. 

When I went through the Constitution Center earlier today, it is 

worth mentioning again, and saw Irving Berlin in a World War I 

outfit, I thought of my father, who wore the same kind of an outfit. 

My father came to this country in 1911 at the age of 18. The 

Czar wanted to send him to Siberia, and as I said before, he wanted to go to Kansas. It was a close call, but he ended up in Kansas. 

[Laughter.] 

My mother came as a child of six with her parents, also from 

Ukraine, and settled in the Midwest. I think my brother, two sisters, and I have contributed to this country. Senator Kennedy has 

proud Irish roots. Everybody wearing the tee shirt, ‘‘Legalize the 

Irish,’’ are now permitted to applaud. 

[Laughter.] 

[Applause.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, just as Senator Specter has told the 

story, I can look out of my office window in the JFK Building in 

Boston and see the dock, where eight of my great-great grandparents arrived, got off the boat, and then they walked up what 

they called the Golden Stairs in East Boston. Those docks are still 

there and those stairs are still there, and it is a constant reminder. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, it is nice to have applause from those 

wearing the ‘‘Legalize the Irish’’ tee shirts. You did not need the 

Chairman’s permission to applaud. You applauded during the 

course of the proceeding. There is a little placard in every hearing 

39

room in Washington, ‘‘If there is any demonstration, bang the gavel 

and have the room cleared.’’ 

Well, we did not have that little document here so I could not 

remember what to do. 

[Laughter.] 

But I believe there needs to be some flexibility in enforcement of 

the rules for audiences, as well as from immigrants. 

That concludes our hearing. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

40


30254.001
41


30254.002
42


30254.003
43


30254.004
44


30254.005
45


30254.006
46


30254.007
47


30254.008
48


30254.009
49


30254.010
50


30254.011
51


30254.012
52


30254.013
53


30254.014
54


30254.015
55


30254.016
56


30254.017
57


30254.018
58


30254.019
59


30254.020
60


30254.021
61


30254.022
62


30254.023
63


30254.024
64


30254.025
65


30254.026
66


30254.027
67


30254.028
68


30254.029
69


30254.030
70


30254.031
71


30254.032
72


30254.033
73


30254.034
74


30254.035
75


30254.036
76


30254.037
77


30254.038
78


30254.039
79


30254.040
80


30254.041
81


30254.042
82


30254.043
83


30254.044
84


30254.045
85


30254.046
86


30254.047
87


30254.048
88


30254.049
89


30254.050
90


30254.051
91


30254.052
92


30254.053
93

Æ


30254.054