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

94–556 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–509

EVALUATING A TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER

PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 12, 2004

Serial No. J–108–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

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 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JOE JACQUOT, Majority Chief Counsel 

JAMES FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 9

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 7

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................ 4

prepared statement and attachments ............................................................. 114

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 142

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 12

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 31

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 159

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 27

WITNESSES 

Aguirre, Eduardo, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. .......................................... 15

Birkman, Richard R., President, Texas Roofing Company, Austin, Texas ......... 39

Briggs, Vernon, Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York ......................................................................................... 44

Cervantes, Charles, General Counsel, U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 42

Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ......................... 3

Hutchinson, Asa, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. ................ 17

Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ..... 13

McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona ........................... 1

Papademetriou, Demetrios, Co-Director, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 40

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Richard R. Birkman to questions submitted by Senators 

Chambliss, and Sessions ..................................................................................... 52

Responses of Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., to questions submitted by Senator 

Chambliss ............................................................................................................. 55

Responses of Asa Hutchinson to questions submitted by Senators Grassley, 

Sessions, Cornyn, Kennedy and Feinstein ......................................................... 59

Responses of Demetrios G. Papademetriou to questions submitted by Senator 

Feinstein ............................................................................................................... 76

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Aguirre, Eduardo, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

U.S.Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 82

Associated Landscape Contractors of America, Debra Holder, Executive Director and Professional Lawn Care Association of America, Gary Clayton, 

Executive Vice President, prepared statement .................................................. 90

Birkman, Richard R., President, Texas Roofing Company, Austin, Texas, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 93

Briggs, Vernon, Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, prepared statement ...................................................... 99

Page

IV

Cervantes, Charles, General Counsel, U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 109

Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 140

Hutchinson, Asa, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security 

Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ................................................................................................... 145

Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, 

D.C., prepared statement .................................................................................... 151

Legal Times, Points of View, Feb. 2, 2004, article ................................................ 161

Papademetriou, Demetrios, Co-Director, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....................................................................... 162

(1)

EVALUATING A TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER 

PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND

CITIZENSHIP, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m. in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss, Kyl, Sessions, Craig, Cornyn, and 

Kennedy. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. This hearing will come to order. 

Let me welcome all of you here today to discuss not only a very 

important issue but a very sensitive issue to all Americans, and obviously, with the size of the crowd and the enthusiasm that we feel 

out there, we know that there is tremendous interest in this issue. 

I want to start off with four of our colleagues before Senator Kennedy or I, either one, make any comments on this issue and give 

you four gentlemen an opportunity to make some comments about 

your thoughts, your ideas, and if you want to, your pieces of legislation that certainly are going to be considered by this Subcommittee. 

And I want to move right into that, because I know all of you 

have very, very busy schedules. 

Senator Hagel, we are going to start with you, and John, we will 

come right down the row. Yes, sir. 

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, I understand Senator McCain 

has a pending amendment that he is going to address, and if it is 

okay with the Committee, I would be very pleased— 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Senator HAGEL. —to follow in behind Senator McCain. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. All right; Senator McCain, we will start 

with you, and then, we will come back to Senator Hagel and go to 

Senator Craig and Senator Cornyn. And welcome. 

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

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy. I will be very brief. 

I would like to just begin by reading from a February 12, 12:00 

a.m., the Arizona Republic, story by David Gonzalez. This is today, 

today. Law enforcement officials Wednesday apprehended 158 undocumented immigrants who were being held by armed smugglers 

2

in a rented house in North Phoenix in filthy conditions without 

food or water. A Federal immigration official said he believes this 

is the highest number of people ever discovered in one location in 

the Phoenix area, which, in recent years, has become the nation’s 

main transportation hub for illegal immigration. 

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said Wednesday’s discovery underscores the need for Federal immigration reform, pointing out that 

although police can stop criminal activity, they can do little to stem 

the flow of undocumented immigrants into the city. Quote, it is a 

mandate that affects all of us, Gordon said, and we need an immigration policy that works, and we need to secure our borders. The 

Federal Government has to do something about these issues. 

The story concludes, Mr. Chairman: The migrants had been living and sleeping and the floor in the rented four-bedroom house 

with no furniture and backed-up toilets overflowing with human 

feces. A backed-up drain in the back yard overflowed with human 

waste, Lundberg said. Several of the migrants told Federal investigators they had not eaten in 3 days. Investigators also discovered 

two weapons in a back bedroom of the house, an AK–47 assault 

rifle and a 9-millimeter semiautomatic rifle. Smugglers typically 

use guns to prevent immigrants from escaping without paying 

smuggling fees and to protect themselves from being robbed by 

gangsters who try to steal immigrants from smugglers. 

We recently had a shootout on the Interstate south of Phoenix 

between different gangs. I point that out to you, today’s paper, Mr. 

Chairman; that is why this Committee and the Congress of the 

United States needs to act. Do you know what the conventional 

wisdom is? We are going to talk about it; we are going to debate 

it; we are going to discuss it, and nothing is going to happen this 

year, because the issue is too hot politically, too hot politically. 

Mr. Chairman, there are between 8 and 15 million people living 

here illegally. The size of that estimate shows us how little we 

know. We know that people are going to go where there are jobs. 

We know where there is a supply, there is going to be a demand. 

We know that because we have not won the war on drugs. The cost 

of an ounce of cocaine in the streets of Phoenix is less today than 

it was 10 years ago. 

And the other aspect of this that we seem not to be concerned 

about as some would think is that hundreds are dying on the border as they are trying to get across, because they want to feed 

themselves and their families. And I would urge the Chairman, 

and I would welcome the Senator from Massachusetts back to Arizona. He was recently there on a political trip. We were pleased at 

your economic input, Senator Kennedy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. And to come and see our border. Our border is 

not secure. If we are going to assure the American people that we 

are going to win the war on terror, we have to have a secure border. 

Last month, 34,000 people were apprehended just in the Tucson 

area of the Arizona–Mexico border. That is up 20 percent from last 

year. Our borders are not secure, and we are not going to secure 

our borders until we supply willing workers with willing employers 

3

who will then stem this flow of people coming across our border illegally. 

Mr. Chairman, there are about as many proposals as there are 

members of the United States Senate. It is time we all got together 

and sat down and came up with a common proposal and acted before we go out in the August recess, or we will not act in an election year, and hundreds more will die; thousands more will be in 

houses in Phoenix living in human waste and being killed and mistreated. 

So the issue is of incredible urgency. I hope we can act. I believe 

we should act, and I believe we will not. And I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for allowing me to be here today. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator McCain. And I assure 

you, Senator Kennedy and I share your passion. 

Senator Hagel? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you; Senator Kennedy, 

thank you. Senator Kennedy, you have been engaged, involved for 

many years on this issue, and we are grateful for your continued 

leadership. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Senator Daschle and myself, we appreciate an opportunity to address this Committee on this critical 

issue of immigration reform, an issue, as Senator McCain noted, 

that Congress cannot defer any longer. Last month, Senator 

Daschle and I introduced S.2010, the Immigration Reform Act of 

2004. Our legislation is a bipartisan, comprehensive proposal that 

addresses the complicated and difficult issues related to U.S. immigration law, and again, I wish to thank Senator Kennedy and his 

staff for their input. 

Our bill would, very briefly, first, strengthen national security by 

identifying undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., tracking 

foreign workers entering our borders and increasing funds for border security; second, fix the current system for immigrants who follow the law by reducing visa processing backlogs, reuniting families and remedying current inequities under the current law; and 

third, improve economic stability by establishing an enforceable 

program to bring needed foreign workers into the U.S. for jobs that 

would otherwise go unfilled. 

Let me briefly address each of those points, Mr. Chairman. National security: to track and identify immigrants living within and 

entering U.S. borders for work, our bill requires immigrants to undergo criminal and national security background checks prior to 

authorization. Participants in the bill’s worker program would be 

required to maintain counterfeit-resistant authorization cards 

issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Individuals who 

continue to break immigration laws would be barred from all of 

these programs. Fees associated with our bill would be designated 

for border security. 

Fixing the current system: our legislation reduces the existing 

backlog of applications for family-sponsored visas to ensure that 

immigrants will be allowed to reunite with their U.S. citizen and 

4

legal resident family members. The bill provides designated funding to implement these changes. 

Economic stability: to provide foreign workers for jobs that would 

otherwise go unfilled, our bill admits a limited number of workers 

through a willing worker program. Employers seeking to hire a foreign worker must first demonstrate that no qualified U.S. worker 

exists and that they will provide the same wage levels and benefits 

and working conditions as provided for U.S. workers. Workers will 

be admitted for a limited period of time and will be allowed to 

change employers. Visa renewals would be available on a conditional basis. Qualified workers and their families would be provided an opportunity to adjust their immigration status. 

Last point I would make, Mr. Chairman: opportunity to become 

a stakeholder. Our legislation provides an opportunity for undocumented workers and families currently living in the U.S. to become 

invested stakeholders in the country, this country, the United 

States, if they can demonstrate that they have met all of the following requirements: pass national security and criminal background checks; resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years preceding 

the date of introduction; worked a minimum of 4 years in the U.S., 

one of which must occur post-enactment; paid all Federal taxes; 

demonstrated knowledge of the English language and American 

civics requirements and paid a $1,000 fine in addition to required 

application fees. Individuals who qualify for this program will submit an application to the Department of Homeland Security. Upon 

approval, DHS may adjust the immigration status of qualified applicants. 

Senator Daschle and I look forward to working with your Committee, our colleagues here at this table and our colleagues in the 

Congress and the Bush administration on this important issue. 

And I would restate what Senator McCain said; you both have 

noted as well and obviously agree with your interest in this and 

holding hearings, that it is important this year that the Congress 

act on bipartisan legislation that addresses this very important 

issue. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you; Senator Kennedy. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Senator Hagel, and 

again, your leadership on this is critically important. And I am familiar with your bill, and you and Senator Daschle have done an 

awful lot of background, an awful lot of homework. So thank you 

for being here today. 

Senator Craig? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy 

of allowing those of us who are before you now to testify at this 

time in this most important hearing. I am pleased to see Senator 

Kennedy here, who has clearly been a leader on this issue. 

A decade before our President came to office, this Nation began 

a period of open denial of the reality that our immigration laws 

were broken, Mr. Chairman, and that we chose not to control our 

5

borders. I believe that to be a fact. It has to be a fact, if today we 

are to suggest that there are between 8 to 12 to 15 million undocumented foreign nationals in this country. 9/11 was a reality. It was 

a wakeup call. It did not solve the problem, nor when we closed our 

borders post–9/11, did we solve a problem; we created two problems. 

And it is about that that I would like to visit with you today and 

also talk about the legislation that Senator Kennedy and I have introduced. Secretary Ridge and the administration and an awful lot 

of well-meaning people at this point are working overtime trying to 

gain control of our borders, both our land and water ports of entry. 

And I wish them well; the American taxpayer is investing a phenomenal amount of money at this time in trying to resolve this 

issue. 

But where there is a dynamic force, there will be a dynamic will. 

And what I think that we fail to recognize that post–9/11 border 

closure created a new problem. It locked a large number of people 

in our country at a time when we were trying to keep people out 

of our country. Those who had flowed back and forth across our 

border on an annual basis to work in our economy all of a sudden 

found that it was nearly impossible to get home, and once they got 

home, it was nearly impossible to get back to where they may have 

worked for 3 to 5 years prior to border closures. 

So while we were working to solve a problem, we were aggressively creating a problem. And I think that is a reality that we are 

currently experiencing today and one that we must openly deal 

with. The only way to solve our border problem is not to hire another 10,000 Border Patrolmen; it does not work, or what John 

McCain just said would not have happened in Phoenix, Arizona. 

We have put not just 3,000 on the border; between 1965 and 

now, we have increased that number from 3,000 to 10,000, and yet, 

this past year, we arrested, detained and deported over 800,000 

foreign nationals. So just locking up our borders, an impossible 

task; just hiring more people will not solve it. Control our borders, 

we must. That is step number one, and we are well on our way to 

trying to do it. 

Step number two is obviously to create a problem that is dynamic, that recognizes the needs of our country and the needs and 

responsibility we have towards foreign nationals who would choose 

to come and work here in the economy. I say this only as a side 

note, but it is a note of reality. I chair a Committee that has nothing to do with immigration. It is called the Special Committee on 

Aging. But I asked Alan Greenspan a year ago to come before that 

Committee not to talk about prime rate but to talk about the demographics of aging. 

Japan, a decade ago, flattened its economy; it stopped growing; 

it started dying. Why? Because there were more people leaving the 

work force than were entering the work force of Japan. It has a 

closed culture of its style, and no longer was it allowing the kind 

of immigrants into the country to work that it had in the past. 

Why? Korea’s economy was doing well. It moved from the Korean 

to the Indonesian; the Indonesian economy was doing well. No 

one—or fewer were entering the work force; not no one. 

6

If we were to follow that pattern, we would be in the same demographic situation by about 2020. But because we do not follow that 

pattern, because we clearly allow those who want to work and are 

eligible to work to come into our country and work when those jobs 

cannot be filled by U.S. citizens, we will be able to sustain the dynamics of economic growth. 

My point here, Mr. Chairman, is that a good immigration policy 

is critical for this country if we are to sustain a dynamic economy. 

We must allow documented workers to come here to work and, 

hopefully, in almost all instances, to return to their homeland. 

That is the reality of part of what we are trying to deal with. 

The third arm of, I believe, the whole issue is law enforcement 

and being able to make sure that those who are undocumented can 

be detained and deported and handled responsibly and fairly. But 

we cannot do that before we solve the problem of those who are 

currently in our country, and clearly, that is what we set about to 

do. I believe it is not just a single approach, but it is a multiple 

of three, and clearly, the Subcommittee that you chair and the full 

Committee of Judiciary has the unique responsibility of fashioning 

dynamic immigration law that will work. 

Last year, in one of my counties only, in the State of Idaho, and 

it is certainly not a border state, local law enforcement detained 

and worked with the national immigration service to deport over 

1,100 people. That is the reality of the situation. And yet, many of 

those people had been in that county for several years working. 

They were a necessary and needed part of our work force. 

Now, what have I done to solve this? What has Senator Kennedy 

done? We introduced a bill that dealt with agriculture alone. But 

we believe it is a model piece of legislation that can be broadly approached to the whole economy. We call it AgJobs. Here in the Senate, it is 1645. It is, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the lead legislation. We have now 52 cosponsors, equally Democrat and Republican. Why? Because the Senator and I have worked to get it there. 

But it is a work in progress that has been over 5 years in the 

designing of, and it recognizes the need to identify the current 

work force that is here; to cause them to be documented; to do 

background checks; and to cause those who do not fit to be removed. At the same time, it respects the humane treatment of 

those citizens and recognizes that once documented, they move 

from the back streets of our country and the alleys and the shadows to the front streets, where they can get the kind of care or they 

can be treated as they should be treated, fairly and responsibly by 

all, and therefore deny the risk of being exploited by an employer 

who might choose to employ them in an unscrupulous way. 

That is the reality of what we are dealing with. We are also dealing with something else. Mr. Chairman, in certain economies, and 

the agricultural economy is a unique one, it is now estimated that 

as much of 75 percent of the ag economy in this country’s work 

force is a foreign national work force, because the average American citizen just does not care to work in that kind of employment. 

If we do not develop a viable program for agriculture, we run the 

risk in many instances of some of our farms shutting down. It is 

an issue of food supply; it is an issue of quality food supply; it is 

an issue of harvest. 

7

Our bill is ready to go. I believe our bill has stood the test. It 

is a bipartisan, well thought-out, well-based bill, and what I am entering into the record today, Mr. Chairman, is something that no 

one else can do. I am entering the names of over 400 organizations 

across this country that have endorsed the Craig–Kennedy bill. 

Why? Because we have worked on it and built it in that way. And 

I am talking about the Farm Bureau on one side and the AFL–CIO 

on the other. I am talking about United Farm Workers. I am talking about a huge cross-section of the economy of our country that 

is associated with agriculture and numerous organizations from 

your State who also recognize, as they do from mine and others, 

that this is an issue whose time has come. 

And I would suggest that if the bigger bite at the apple that our 

President is proposing—and I am proud that he has been willing 

to lead on this issue—is a bite too big to chew this year, that you 

really ought to look at AgJobs, because we are talking about entering this issue in a way and creating a pilot program that we think 

has all of the dynamics necessary to identify the undocumented, to 

get them documented, to treat them fairly, to do the background 

checks, and to create a system by which they may gain permanent 

status for working in this country. And you and I both know how 

critical it is to the particular segment of the economy that we are 

talking about that this bill specifically address this. 

Thank you so much for your willingness to hear this. We will 

work overtime in the next few months to get that cosponsorship up 

to 60, and we think that this is the bill that ought to be introduced 

out of the Judiciary Committee this year; can be passed in the Senate; and I believe could be passed in the House. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Craig, and thanks for 

your leadership on the issue. You and I have had many, many discussions about this and about your bill, and your vision, your insight, and your hard work on this is critically important as we go 

through this process, so we thank you. 

Senator Cornyn? 

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

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Chairman Chambliss, Senator Kennedy, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to talk just a few minutes about 

the legislation that I have filed about 8 months ago, now, in this 

important area. I look forward, after concluding my remarks, to 

joining you up there as a member of the Subcommittee, because I 

am interested in hearing what all of the witnesses have to say on 

this important topic. 

But I think the fact that Chairman Chambliss, you have seen fit 

to convene this hearing demonstrates one important consensus in 

an area where it is hard to find very much agreement, and that 

is that the status quo, when it comes to immigration policy in this 

country, is simply unacceptable. It is broken, and it needs to be reformed. 

I, too, think the President has spoken courageously on this subject when he outlined the immigration principles that he did last 

month, and I believe that the President’s basic principles are emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

bodied in the bill that I will describe. In particular, the President’s 

fourth principle of immigration reform as outlined in his speech is 

to provide incentives for temporary workers to return to their home 

country. 

I believe this is a crucial component of comprehensive immigration reform, and it is one that among all of the options before you 

today is embodied only in my bill. We must provide incentives for 

risk takers to return to their home country with the capital and the 

skills they have acquired as temporary workers in the United 

States if we are going to begin to address the root causes of illegal 

immigration in the first place. 

In meetings I have had with officials of the Mexican Government, both in Mexico City and here in Washington, I am repeatedly 

told that these officials, these leaders of Mexico, our neighbor, want 

their workers to return home, to return home with capital and 

skills. They need those small business owners, those entrepreneurs, 

to strengthen a weakened middle class that produces too few jobs 

now, which is really the reason people come to this country in the 

first place. 

But our current immigration policy fails to give undocumented 

immigrants any incentive to make such a return. My bill would include a provision that would create an individual savings account 

from payroll taxes of temporary workers that they can only access 

when they return to their home country. The fact is there will be 

no end to illegal immigration across our southern border without 

economic recovery south of our border, in Mexico and Central 

America and beyond. And that will not happen unless workers return and build the economies in their home countries. Those of us 

here in America cannot afford for our southern border to remain 

a one-way street. 

I know so often in this debate, there are those who say we are 

not interested in talking about immigration reform unless we are 

talking about amnesty. Well, I am not there; neither do I believe 

that the majority of the Congress. Conversely, there are those who 

say I am not interested in talking about immigration reform unless 

you are talking about building a wall between our southern border 

and the rest of the countries south of that border or, perhaps, deploying the military along our border. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think you could build a wall high 

enough or wide enough to keep people out of this country who have 

no hope and no opportunity where they live. In fact, this is a term 

I wish I could claim credit for, but I was talking to one of my constituents today who will be a witness here later on, and he said 

what we have now is de facto amnesty. 

And, you know, I think he is exactly right. We have a system 

now where we do not have the political will and have not had the 

political will, unfortunately, to enforce the laws that we have on 

the books. And I believe that has created a condition that is intolerable in a nation that values the rule of law. It has contributed 

to, I believe, general disrespect for the law and particularly those 

laws that govern immigration. 

I believe that if we acknowledge the vital role of hardworking immigrants in our economy and create a comprehensive program, 

that it will be an important step toward reestablishing respect for 

9

our laws and restoring safe working conditions for immigrants who 

work here. It will enhance America’s homeland security, facilitate 

enforcement of our immigration and labor laws and protect millions 

who labor outside of the protection of those laws today. 

My proposal will encourage undocumented immigrants to come 

out of the shadows, get on the tax rolls and to work within the law 

and then return to their homes and families with the pay and 

skills that they acquire as guest workers in the United States. I, 

too, agree with Senator Craig and Senator McCain and Senator 

Hagel that we must act now. 

9/11 has created a condition where if we are going to have the 

homeland security that we need and that America demands, if we 

are going to have the border security that America needs and demands, we must have the immigration reform to go along with it. 

It is simply the other side of that same coin. 

We must strengthen the security of our borders and reform our 

immigration policies for those who want to work within a legal 

framework to support themselves and their families, and I urge 

Congress to act without delay and to follow our President’s lead 

and pass meaningful immigration reform. Our economy and our 

homeland security simply depend on it. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Cornyn, thank you very much. 

You come from a State that has a problem in this area that is certainly more critical than most every other State in the country, and 

we appreciate your insight and once again your leadership, and we 

look forward to working with you. 

At this time, I want to ask our first panel to move forward: Hon. 

Asa Hutchinson, who is becoming a regular around here, Asa, the 

Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Directorate for the Department of Homeland Security; Hon. Eduardo 

Aguirre, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security; and Hon. Steven Law, Deputy Secretary, Department of Labor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. I appreciate very much the Senators who 

have just spoken as well as our witnesses that we have here today 

for our hearing on Evaluating a Temporary Guest Worker Proposal. 

President Bush has outlined his principles in a speech last 

month, and we have an administration panel that will explain and 

clarify the President’s principles. This is the first hearing since the 

President’s speech, and we expect to hold a series of guest worker 

hearings as we move forward in the legislative process. 

Since September 11, 2001, the administration has continued 

making strides to strengthen our homeland security. Over 1,000 

new Border Patrol agents have been added. The Department of 

Homeland Security has consolidated Customs Service agents and 

immigration personnel to enhance and streamline our border security. The entry-exit system, US–VISIT is now collecting biometric 

information for aliens traveling to the U.S. on a visa. 

Even with our best efforts, illegal immigration remains a vast 

problem that is getting more and more out of control. Most estiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
10

mates, as Senator McCain mentioned in his comments, say there 

are 8 to 10 million or possibly more, and it is in the millions, and 

we have no idea exactly what that number is, and that is part of 

the problem. 

Of those, it is estimated that 60 percent entered the United 

States without inspection, which is a criminal offense. Such a large 

number of illegal aliens creates a financial drain due to nonreimbursed medical and educational services, burdens on our judicial system and allows criminal acts to go unchecked. 

Most illegal aliens come to the United States seeking jobs, the 

majority of them from Mexico. The U.S. per capita income is 

$32,000, while Mexico’s per capita income is $3,700. Most of these 

folks are not security threats but are hardworking individuals who 

seek a better quality of life for them and their families. However, 

illegal entry into the United States is a security breach that we 

must address. It is also, unfortunately, a growing business for socalled coyotes, or human smugglers, who pack trucks full of workers and cross the border, sometimes with very, very tragic results. 

Many U.S. employers of aliens have difficulties in finding Americans to fill jobs performed by illegal aliens. These jobs range from 

agriculture to construction to the carpet industry in my home state. 

Employers also have difficulty in determining who is legal and who 

is illegal, due to the lack of verifiable documentation in the hiring 

process. This wink and nod cycle contributing to hiring illegal 

aliens must stop, while still providing a method for U.S. employers 

to access the workers they need. 

Finally, we must respect the rule of law when it comes to immigration reform. Along with any process for the employment of foreign workers, there needs to be enforcement against those who remain here illegally, outside the legal system. We have a serious 

lack of interior immigration agents, and we need to rethink our 

methods for how to conduct more vigorous enforcement actions 

against illegal aliens. 

We need a total overhaul of our immigration policies. This overhaul should meet our National security needs and our economic interests and be a manageable policy for how many people we admit 

to the United States. The logical place to start is with reform of 

the H–2A Agricultural Worker Program, as stated by Senator 

Craig. 

Based on the testimony and discussion of today’s hearing, I plan 

to work with my colleagues and introduce an H–2A bill that will 

be a starting point for total immigration reform and is going to incorporate a lot of the provisions that are in bills that are already 

out there, which have already been well-thought through. 

Farmers in my home State of Georgia who use the H–2A program tell me it is too burdensome and uncompetitive to use. Too 

often, farmers are not able to get through the bureaucratic channels in time to harvest their crops. The arcane, adverse effect wage 

rate and the labor regulations can make it more cost-effective to 

hire illegal workers rather than hire legal ones. And farmers who 

use the legal program are often the subject of frivolous lawsuits. 

These are some of the problems that we must avoid as we reform 

and improve our immigration policies. 

11

Now, the President has laid out his principles for guest worker 

legislation, and we are going to hear from some administration officials today. As I told the President recently, I applaud him for taking on this issue. This is an issue that we have been giving a wink 

and a nod to, and it is time we quit doing that, we laid it on the 

table, and we addressed the issue. 

I think, very honestly, the communication coming out of the 

White House that has gotten into the media relative to the principles laid out by the President have been misconstrued, and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today to confirm or not confirm that, but I know with what he has told me, it does not coincide with a lot of what I have read in the media. 

Interestingly enough, Senator Kennedy and I discussed this issue 

months ago between ourselves, as we looked forward to what we 

were going to be doing within this Subcommittee. And while he and 

I will disagree on some of the ways that we fix the problem, it is 

the great benefit that we have in this country that we can disagree 

over issues that are so sensitive and so critically important as this 

issue is. But the good news in that is that he and I agree that it 

is a problem, just as the President agrees it is a problem. So I look 

forward to moving through the process and building on that framework that the President has set forth as Congress begins the legislative process towards reform. 

Now, there are certain concepts that I think are critically important, just like the President, just like every member who has testified, and there will be many more put forward. But I want to delineate several of these: first of all, to control illegal immigration, we 

must first control our borders. We, as members of the United 

States Senate as well as the other members of Congress on the 

other side of this great Capitol must commit to sufficient funding 

for our border security agencies, including the Border Patrol and 

our immigration enforcement agencies. 

Secondly, we must treat those who are here illegally as exactly 

that. Under a guest worker program, they should be allowed work 

visas but not green cards. They should not be given advantages 

over those who are attempting to come to the United States 

through the legal process, which any guest worker program should 

continue to encourage. 

Thirdly, foreign workers in a guest worker program must be temporary workers. Next, guest worker participants must have a job 

before they are given a guest worker status, and we must ensure 

that American workers are not displaced. 

Guest worker legislation should make use of current program aspects that do work well. There are a lot of provisions in H–2A that 

work. There are a lot of provisions in H–1B that work. And we 

need to look at those programs and incorporate the aspects of those 

programs that do work. 

We must dedicate resources for interior enforcement and 

strengthen the penalties against aliens in the United States who 

are not guest workers and who continue in their illegal status. Employers must share the burden to facilitate a workable program 

and to stop the hiring of illegal aliens. And lastly, no one in the 

United States illegally should have the privileges associated with 

those who are here legally. 

12

Now, I understand that many of you in this room have been involved for a long time in figuring out workable immigration reforms. A lot of you have good ideas, and you are more of an expert 

than any of us are. So I appreciate your efforts, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as we move to reform the immigration policies of this country and make our situation much, 

much more workable. 

I will now turn to my friend, my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for any comments he wishes to make. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having these hearings. And I join you in welcoming our colleagues who 

testified before us and who have given us a good deal of material 

to think about with their own programs. We thank them. And we 

look forward to our witnesses here today. 

In announcing his proposal, President Bush recognized America’s 

proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, and he acknowledged the 

central role that immigrants have played in our Nation’s life, and 

he rightfully paid tribute to immigrants in our armed forces who 

have given their lives to defend our freedom and ideals. Much of 

our Nation’s success can be traced to the hard work and contribution of new generations of immigrants, and many industries, particularly the farming and service sectors, depend overwhelmingly 

on immigrant labor. And these workers benefit the nation and improve the quality of our lives. 

Yet, many are undocumented, and they live in constant fear of 

deportation and are easy targets of abuse and also unscrupulous 

employers. The status quo, as all of our colleagues have mentioned 

today, is unacceptable. We need sound immigration policies that 

provide a manageable, orderly immigration system. It is not 

enough just to bring the law into line with current economic realities. Reforms must also reflect the basic values of family unity and 

fundamental fairness and opportunity that is the heart of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. 

These are complex issues, but they also demand immediate attention. And I believe the White House proposal falls short of the 

serious reforms needed. It creates a temporary worker program 

similar to the ones of the past that treated immigrant workers as 

second-class citizens. It does little to provide permanent legal status for the millions of hardworking, undocumented men and 

women in our communities. 

The administration claims that these workers will come out of 

the shadows and sign up for a temporary worker program. But that 

result will never happen when the vast majority realize that they 

will be deported after their temporary status expires. Registering 

for work now only to be deported tomorrow is unfair and will not 

work. 

That fundamental flaw in the President’s plan can be easily corrected by a reform plan that includes a genuine earned legalization 

program for undocumented workers, a revised temporary worker 

program with protections for both U.S. and foreign workers and a 

13

realistic path to citizenship for all deserving immigrants and a way 

to reunite immigrant families. 

Obviously, as the terrorist attacks of September 11 made clear, 

our immigration policy also has to protect and control our borders, 

and the current enforcement policies are not effective. Others have 

said we have to reduce the size of the haystack to better identify 

those who intend to do us harm. Legalizing the flow at our borders 

will strengthen our security and reduce the threat from terrorists. 

The problems in security are terrorists, not immigrants. 

We may not be able to enact all of these reforms this year, but 

we ought to try. We could get off to a good start by moving ahead 

on two long-stalled bills that have broad support. The first is the 

Agricultural Jobs bill that Senator Craig has mentioned. Last year, 

I had the opportunity to work with him and also Representative 

Cannon and Berman in introducing the AgJobs bill with the support of both the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry, two diametrically-opposed groups who have not spoken to each 

other or, if they had, used words that we would not be mentioning 

here at this hearing; but nonetheless have been able to work out 

a process and a recommendation which I join with Senator Craig 

in believing that we should move ahead. 

The legislation recognizes the importance of immigrant farm 

workers and respects and rewards their work. It will improve the 

wages and working conditions of all farm workers; give foreignborn workers a way to become permanent residents. Growers will 

have a reliable work force at harvest time without sudden immigration raids. No one benefits when crops rot in the fields because 

no farm workers are available. 

The bill has over 52 sponsors, an equal number of Republicans 

and Democrats, and as Senator Craig pointed out, the support of 

more than 400 organizations. And with a nod from the administration, it would be enacted immediately. 

The second bill is the DREAM Act, a bipartisan compromise 

reached by Senator Hatch and Senator Durbin to help undocumented children obtain legal status, go on to college, eventually to 

become U.S. citizens. Our Committee approved it last year, and it 

is ready for consideration on the floor. And we await the administration support for that program as well. 

I hope we can work together to do as much as we can this year. 

The need is great. Some real bipartisan ground work has been laid. 

Let us build on it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Mr. Law, we are going to start with you. We will move down this 

way. Again, we welcome all three of you here today. We look forward to your presentation and look forward to working with you 

as we go through this process. 

Mr. Law? 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. LAW, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LAW. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you 

very much for convening today’s hearing on the President’s proposal for a temporary worker program. As your colleagues so eloVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

quently testified just a few minutes ago, this is an issue of pressing 

and urgent concern that impacts our economy, our work force, and 

our values as a nation. 

These Senators and others have put forward proposals of their 

own that are bold and thoughtful. Many of them echo some though 

not all of the principles articulated by the President just last 

month, and we look forward to working with Congress to enact legislation that meets the President’s standards for a vibrant temporary worker program that puts American workers first while 

dealing equitably with the millions of foreign workers who currently live and work in the shadows of American society. 

All over the country, in rural areas and cities, in a wide range 

of fields and occupations, undocumented workers supply labor for 

jobs that are vital to our economy and where American workers are 

often unavailable. The President’s proposal for a new temporary 

worker program responds to this economic need by allowing immigrant workers to be hired when there are no willing and available 

Americans to fill the job. 

It would also bring millions of undocumented workers out of the 

shadows and into the mainstream economy, where they could work, 

invest, establish credit, and pay taxes. And by giving these workers 

temporary legal status, we will make them far less vulnerable to 

illegal exploitation, which drives down working conditions not only 

for undocumented foreign workers but also for American workers 

in the same fields and occupations. 

And as I said, the President articulated several guiding principles for the design of such a temporary worker program. First, we 

must protect the homeland by controlling our borders. This new 

program should support our border control efforts through agreements with countries whose nationals participate in the program, 

and it must be consistent with ongoing efforts to promote and 

strengthen homeland security. 

Second, the program needs to serve our economy by matching 

willing workers with willing employers. When no American worker 

is available and willing to fill the job, we need a streamlined and 

efficient program to connect willing foreign workers and American 

employers. 

Third, this program should reflect compassion by extending temporary worker status to undocumented foreign workers who currently have a job. These workers would enjoy the full protection of 

U.S. labor laws and be permitted to travel in and out of the country without fear of being denied reentry. 

At the same time, the program should also provide incentives for 

these workers to return home after their period of work has ended. 

The legal status granted by this program would last 3 years, with 

the possibility of renewal. Temporary workers should be able to return home with something saved up, for example, through special 

tax-deferred savings accounts or by receiving credit for working 

here in their home country’s retirement system. They would also 

bring home their work experience, useful skills and an appreciation 

for American freedoms and labor standards, all of which will improve the economy and working conditions within their own countries. That helps foreign workers, but in the long run, it helps us 

as well. 

15

And finally, the program needs to protect the rights of legal immigrants. The President has made it clear that we must not reward those who break America’s laws with a preferred path toward 

citizenship. Undocumented workers cannot be given an advantage 

over those who have followed the rules, and although our proposal 

would allow undocumented workers to pay a fee and apply for a 

green card, they would have to take their place in line like everyone else. 

The President’s principles outline a new approach to some very 

difficult and pressing issues: the need for workers in a variety of 

sectors in our economy and a shadow labor market that needs to 

be brought out into the sunlight. Many important facets of the 

President’s proposal will be administered by the Department of 

Homeland Security, and my colleagues will speak to those in a moment. It will be the Department of Labor’s responsibility to ensure 

that American workers come first. 

Employers will need to show that they have taken every reasonable step to find a worker from the U.S. before they are allowed 

to hire a temporary foreign worker. We will also develop userfriendly, streamlined mechanisms for employers to locate willing 

and available workers, first from the U.S. and, if none can be 

found, then, from elsewhere. 

It is also our job to protect the rights of workers, whether they 

are U.S. citizens or temporary foreign workers. That includes the 

right to fair pay, protection from discrimination and retaliation and 

safe and healthy workplaces. And finally, it is the Department of 

Labor’s mission to help train American workers so they can be first 

in line to claim the new jobs and opportunities that our dynamic 

economy will create in the decades ahead. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have about 

the Department of Labor’s role in this proposed program, and now, 

I will turn it over to my colleagues. 

Thank you. 

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

the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Aguirre, welcome back. We are glad to have you today. 

STATEMENT OF EDUARDO AGUIRRE, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Senators, of course, my own Senator Cornyn. 

My name is Eduardo Aguirre, and I have the honor of serving 

the administration and our great nation as the first Director of the 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, within the Department of Homeland Security. This is my first opportunity to return to this Committee since my confirmation hearing on June 6 

last year. 

Eight short months later, it is indeed a privilege to appear before 

you today on this panel to discuss the President’s recent proposal 

for immigration reform. On the occasion of my confirmation hearing, I shared with you my story of having arrived as a 15-year-old 

unaccompanied minor from Cuba. My parents sent me to escape a 

16

repressive regime and to experience freedom and opportunities 

found only in America. That was, of course, the legal immigration 

track, the very system that I am now charged with fundamentally 

transforming into a more efficient and effective operation. 

Upon creation of the USCIS, my team of 15,000 and I embrace 

a simple but imperative mission: making certain that the right applicant receives the right benefit in the right amount of time and 

preventing the wrong applicant from accessing America’s immigration benefits. 

We established three priorities, which guide every aspect of our 

work: eliminating the immigration benefits backlog while enhancing national security and improving customer service. Today actually marks our 349th day in existence, and I am particularly 

pleased with the progress that we have made. To date, we have initiated online features that allow customers to file electronically our 

commonly-used applications. We have established the Office of Citizenship. We have reduced lines. We have created a backlog reduction team and much more. 

At the same time, we take national security very seriously. We 

conduct background checks on the front and back end on nearly 

every application for an immigration benefit. That means that 35 

million IBIS checks were taking place last year. We make no apologies for our commitment to the integrity of the immigration system, 

and we will not cut a single corner if it means compromising security to process an application more quickly. We are making America safer against security and criminal threats, one background 

check at a time. 

However, we will not declare victory on backlog reduction until 

we achieve the President’s objective of universal 6-month processing by the end of fiscal year 2006. We will not declare victory 

on customer service until every legal immigrant is greeted with 

open arms and not endless lines, and we will not stop until we 

have restored public confidence in the integrity of America’s immigration system. 

On January 7th, President Bush courageously confronted a broken system, one that has been ignored for too long. From the East 

Room of the White House, he called to Congress to deliver true reform and a new temporary worker program that facilitates economic growth, enhances national security, and promotes compassion. 

Deputy Secretary Law has already described the President’s 

principles for a temporary worker program. I would like to quickly 

raise five points to complement my reflections on the process: first, 

this is not an amnesty program, which would otherwise join the illegal track with the legal one by facilitating green card status and 

potential naturalization. Rather, the President proposes a one-time, 

regulated opportunity for undocumented workers already here, as 

of the date of his announcement, to legitimize their presence and 

participate more fully in our economy for a finite period before returning home. 

Second, enforcement is paramount to the temporary worker program. While Under Secretary Hutchinson will elaborate on the 

point as it relates to border and work site enforcement, I must add 

that in the context of processing benefit applications, security and 

17

fraud prevention are synonymous with enforcement and must also 

be a priority. 

Third, the program will require incentives. These incentives include enforcement as well as economic and social incentives. The 

temporary worker should be able to travel, knowing that he or she 

can go and return freely to the country of origin for celebrations, 

funerals or vacation and maintaining important ties that will aid 

the worker in his or her eventual, yet certain, return. 

Since many of the individuals already present in the United 

States who would register to participate in this program would 

have accrued sufficient unlawful presence to be subject to the 3- 

and 10-year bars for reentry, any legislation to create this program 

would necessarily need to address those bars for individuals who 

register. 

Fourth, the program should be fair and not come at the expense 

of legal immigrants, who have respected our laws and earned their 

place in line. If the temporary worker seeks existing paths to permanent residency, it is the President’s belief that he or she should 

take their spot at the back of the line. Recognizing, however, that 

the current annual limitations may be insufficient, the President 

calls for a reasonable annual increase in legal immigrants. 

Fifth, the program must be one that can effectively be administered. The present proposal calls for aliens present in the United 

States as of April 7, 2004, to pay a fee upon registration in the program. In addition, USCIS would anticipate recovering the full cost 

of processing the applications through collection of processing fees, 

as is done currently with most of our applications today. 

President Bush has set high expectations for what new citizens 

should know about our history and government. He has charged 

my Bureau with examining the standards of knowledge in the current citizenship test to ensure that new citizens know not only the 

facts of our history but also the details that shaped our history. We 

are not looking for the test to be harder; we are not looking to 

make it easier, either. We just want it to be more meaningful. 

In his announcement, President Bush noted that we should have 

immigration laws that make us proud. We need a system that is 

compassionate, that serves the economy and fulfills security. That 

is the American way. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I look forward to 

the opportunity to respond to your questions. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, and it is always a 

pleasure to have my long-time good friend, my former colleague in 

the House and now Secretary Asa Hutchinson. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ASA HUTCHINSON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senators it is good to be before your Committee, and I would express my gratitude for your work on an issue that always does not 

18

bring you the greatest accolades in your respective States but is 

very important for our country. 

The President’s leadership has brought to America’s attention a 

long-neglected security problem for our Nation, that is, the 8 million undocumented immigrants who live outside the law and in the 

shadows of fear. The President’s first principle that he articulated 

is that America must control our borders. This proposal gives the 

promise of strengthening our control over U.S. borders and, in 

turn, improving homeland security. 

Because we know that illegal entry across our borders makes 

more difficult the urgent task of securing the homeland, we must 

be able to better account for those individuals who enter our country illegally. But I also remind this Committee that we are tempted 

simply to think about those who enter illegally across our land border, but it is a fact that almost 40 percent of the 8 million are estimated to be visa overstays, and therefore, we have to concentrate 

upon tightening our land borders, but also, the work that the Department has done through US–VISIT in biometrically checking 

and determining visa overstays is a very important part of the 

President’s principle of controlling our own borders. 

With a temporary worker program in place, law enforcement will 

be aided, because we will face fewer problems with unlawful workers and will be better able to focus on other threats to our Nation 

from criminals and terrorists. I would emphasize that this program 

is intended for those are here and working, as per the President’s 

announcement on January 7th. There was no intent to encourage 

further illegal entries or to benefit those who enter illegally after 

the President’s announcement. Accordingly, we would respectfully 

suggest that Congress carefully consider the effective date of any 

legislation. 

Another important security feature of this initiative is that the 

temporary workers would be permitted to travel legally and freely 

across the border, resulting in more efficient management of our 

borders. Giving the aliens the ability and the incentive to travel 

through our ports of entry is a tremendous advantage, and when 

our US–VISIT program is fully implemented, we will also know 

when aliens enter and exit the United States to verify that participants are complying with the terms of the worker program, making 

it easier to enforce. 

I take the rule of law seriously. For that reason, border enforcement will be critical to this process, and the Department of Homeland Security has set the stage for an effective border. Since September 11, the Border Patrol has increased the number of agents, 

as the Chairman indicated, from 9,700 to 10,800, as of December 

1st of last year. On the northern border, we have tripled the number of Border Patrol agents. In addition, we are continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders, along with air surveillance assets. We are looking for new technological solutions as well 

as the investment of human resources. 

We believe that this program should link efforts to control our 

border in addition with international agreements with countries 

whose nationals will benefit from the program. We are currently 

negotiating interior repatriation agreements with Mexico that 

would help break the cycle of alien smuggling by returning aliens 

19

closer to their home, in the interior of the country. Cooperation 

from the Mexican Government is very important in a number of 

other border security areas. 

Let me assure you that a temporary worker program will not 

change our mission. We will still be engaged in enforcement, and 

unauthorized entry into the United States will still be illegal. And 

we will gain greater control over our borders by more effective deployment of technology, by coordinated law enforcement efforts and 

by increased manpower at our border hot spots. 

The President’s proposal for the temporary worker program also 

requires the return of temporary workers to their home country 

after their period of work has concluded. Requiring workers to return home at the conclusion of the work and not permitting the 

work under the program to be a basis to obtain lawful permanent 

residence status are important distinctions from other proposals. 

The President’s plan provides a disincentive to immigrate illegally 

to the United States when this type of program is the beginning 

of a path to return home and not a path to permanent residency 

or citizenship. 

Finally, workplace enforcement is a very important part of this 

initiative and our responsibilities. A temporary worker program 

would also require workplace enforcement. Employers should report to the Government the temporary workers they hire and who 

leave their employ so that we can keep track of people in the program and better enforce immigration laws. There are a number of 

existing systems that could serve as useful models for this new system. 

Our work site enforcement mission is now located in Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement. ICE will continue to coordinate its employer sanctions and work site enforcement activities with other 

agencies such as the Department of Labor that Steven Law well 

represents at this table. 

The President’s proposal complements the Department’s immigration enforcement initiatives as outlined in the 2005 budget. The 

budget outlines more funds for work site enforcement, detention 

and removal, fugitive operations programs. All of this is important 

to the first principle of securing our borders. Passing this temporary worker program will bring a benefit to the American economy, but it will also bring integrity to our immigration system. It 

is a reasonable goal for us all to pursue. We stand ready to work 

with you, and again, we are grateful for your strong efforts in this 

arena. 

Thank you. 

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

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, and 

gentlemen, unfortunately, we are going to be interrupted by a vote. 

We will be back as soon as we can, convening again after that vote. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. If we could have our witnesses back at the 

table, please. 

Mr. Law, a critical component for any guest worker program is 

having a labor test to ensure that we do not displace American 

workers. You addressed that in your comments, which I greatly apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
20

preciate. We have a labor certification process currently for our H–

2A. We also have a labor attestation process for our H–1B. What 

test would you recommend for new workers, new guest workers, 

under the President’s principles? 

Mr. LAW. The President’s proposal envisions something akin to 

an attestation-based program. You are right. There are a variety 

of labor-based visa programs that the Department of Labor administers labor certification processes for. Some of them are supervised 

recruitment, and, as you note, the H–1B program is very much of 

a de minimis attestation program. 

We would envision something that would be attestation-based; in 

other words, it would allow employers to initiate recruitment of 

American workers prior to contacting us, prior to expressing a need 

for foreign temporary workers but that would have some rigor to 

it in terms of making sure that employers have taken every reasonable step to try to reach and recruit American workers before they 

then turn to the temporary worker program to find people to fill 

the job. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Now, we are talking about more than a 

90-day period or a 120-day period; we may be talking about workers staying in this country and being employed for maybe 2 years, 

maybe 3 years; I do not know what the period may be that ultimately comes out of any legislation. But I think it is safe to say 

we have talked in those parameters. Do you envision any tests 

being updated at any point in time, during whatever longevity period or legalized period there is for those folks to be here? 

Mr. LAW. That is an issue that we want to work out with Congress. There are obviously incentives in different directions, depending on how complicated you make the system. If it becomes 

very repetitive and burdensome at some point, employers may not 

want to use the program at all. But clearly, we want to put forward 

a program that during the period of time that we are at least at 

the point at which employers want to find workers that the initial 

test, at the very least, makes it certain that the employer has 

taken every reasonable step to identify willing and available American workers before they avail themselves of the temporary worker 

program. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Aguirre, you mentioned in your testimony that the administration would plan to address the problem 

of the 3-year and the 10-year bars currently in place for those applicants to a guest worker program. Would you like to elaborate on 

that for a minute, please? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it will be imperative 

that that particular element be addressed in legislation and in such 

a way that if the violation of the law is restricted to the crossing 

of the border illegally or being in this country illegally, it needs to 

be taken into account so that it evaporates, if you will, under the 

new law, once someone registers. 

But we need to make sure that if the criminality is related to 

something much more serious than that, perhaps people that are 

participating in smuggling rings or child molestation or rape or 

DWI or anything like that, that would be a separate type of a component. But if it is just the crossing portion, I would suggest that 

that ought to be waived. 

21

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Okay; again, in your testimony, you mentioned a word that I do not use anymore, and it is the word called 

amnesty. It has such a negative connotation to it and maybe rightfully so, because this is one Senator who is not going to support 

a reform of an immigration system where we grant amnesty to 

folks who are here illegally. 

I understand the President’s plan to be absolutely opposed to 

that also; that he is firmly opposed to granting so-called amnesty 

to anybody who is here illegally. But I think it has come out in the 

media in a different form from that. You mentioned it in your comments, but I would like to give you an opportunity to again elaborate on that particular aspect of the President’s principles. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, Mr. Chairman; as I said in my testimony, the 

President’s proposal is not amnesty. Now, let us define amnesty. 

The last time that amnesty was dealt with in this fashion was during President Reagan’s term, and it allowed for these type of illegal 

immigrants to get on the track towards citizenship and certainly 

permanent residency. 

This is exactly not that. This puts the individual in a temporary 

worker program, and it does not lead to permanent residency or, 

of course, to citizenship. Nothing prevents the individual from trying to get on that track through normal, legal means and, of 

course, putting them at the back of the line. So I think we are talking about apples and oranges here, and amnesty is not what the 

President is proposing. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Okay; also, in your testimony, I wrote 

down a phrase you used which—in referencing those folks who are 

now here illegally who would be legitimized in some way. You said 

we would legitimize their presence. Now, under the President’s 

principles, would there be any way for any individual who is here 

illegally today to have their presence legitimized if they are unemployed? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. No, sir, the proposal here is a temporary worker 

permit. Now, let me correct that for a minute. It could apply to the 

families of individuals who are working here. But in terms of an 

adult, if they are not working, this program does not cover that 

particular situation. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Secretary Hutchinson, is there any way, 

from a practical standpoint, to enforce the current laws on the 

books relative to sending back these 8, 10, 12 million people who 

are here illegally? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, it is illegal for them to be here, and it 

is our responsibility to enforce the law. But obviously, the 8 million 

undocumented workers in the country at the present time, we do 

not know exactly where they are. We do not have the capability to 

change that circumstance unless they come in contact with the 

criminal justice system, and that is generally the way in which we 

carry out our responsibility to remove those who are illegally in the 

country, by prioritizing those cases, investigations, based upon 

leads. 

But clearly, they are here. We do not know where a majority of 

them are. They live in the shadows, and that is what poses the security risk. 

22

Chairman CHAMBLISS. All right; now, let us take that a step further and assume that we move ahead with legislation that legitimizes the presence of those persons who are here and are employed. There are still going to be some people who probably are 

not going to fit within that category who are here now illegally. 

How do we intend to enforce any new law that might come out of 

Congress and hit the President’s desk relative to those folks who 

remain here illegally? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, first of all, by not creating the economic 

incentives for people to come here illegally, and giving them a legal 

path to be a temporary worker will be a huge boon to our enforcement efforts, because our enforcement efforts can then be targeted 

upon those fewer that still try to circumvent, come across illegally 

or remain illegally or the employers who still try to hire illegals. 

And so, we are able to concentrate our enforcement efforts. 

Secondly, it is very important to have an enforcement feature in 

whatever legislation that the Senate, the Congress, puts forth. And 

reporting requirements for the employers, tougher sanctions when 

necessary, greater ability of the employers to know that they are 

hiring individuals with a legal status in this country; these are important features of it. 

We are enhancing our compliance efforts. The President, as part 

of the 1905 budget, has more than doubled the amount for work 

site enforcement; detention and removal space; even on the legal 

side, Senator Cornyn I know is interested in, that the immigration 

judges have more resources. So that is all a part of our ability to 

do this in the future. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. It seems as though the criminal community has been a step ahead of us under current law. When we said 

you have got to have a green card to be here, they immediately 

counterfeited green cards and give them to anybody who will pay 

for them. We went a step further and said you have got to have 

a Social Security card. They now counterfeit those and give them 

to anybody who will pay for them. 

Are you confident that we are going to be able to craft a document that someone who fits within this program will be able to 

have in their possession that is going to identify them as being the 

person they say they are, plus, we are going to be able to create 

a document that will not be able to be counterfeited by the criminal 

underworld? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I do have that confidence. Of course, it is contingent upon the right legislation being passed, but I think it is an 

important part of a temporary worker card that we use a biometric 

identifier; that we build in these type of features to it from the very 

outset, so that we know, and we can confirm, the validity of the 

worker card and that the person who possesses it is the same identify of the person it has been issued to. 

It needs to be tied into our US–VISIT program, so that when 

they do go back and forth across the border, we can biometrically 

confirm that they did not give it to somebody else to come back in, 

but it is the same person who actually received this card. So if we 

have those tools, yes, I am confident that we can secure the system. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Okay; thank you. 

Senator Craig? 

23

Senator CRAIG. Well, gentlemen, thank you all very much for 

your testimony and, I think, for clarifying the President’s position 

as it relates to his speech and thoughts of several months ago. I 

felt very privileged being at the White House during that time and 

watching this President lead on this issue, because it is an issue 

that is demanding leadership at this moment. 

Having said that, yesterday, Asa, Eduardo, I engaged your ultimate boss. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. My wife? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. No, no, not your wife. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Pardon the interruption. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. That boy has learned something since he 

got to America. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. Yes, he sure has. 

We talked about law enforcement, because you, as we, all agree, 

recognize that what is needed is a three-pronged approach: border 

control, a program of identification and legitimacy that treats all 

parties well but has structure and has integrity, and thirdly, law 

enforcement at the local level. 

In one county, I mentioned in my opening statement, last year 

in Idaho, about 1,100 to 1,200 apprehensions of undocumented 

workers—not by the national immigration service but by the local 

county sheriff and deputy corps. It was the local taxpayer that 

withstood that expense. It was the local taxpayer that paid for the 

space in the jail. They were picked up and deported. 

I do not understand why, in the budget that I heard yesterday, 

that there is a substantial proposal to increase the hiring of and 

the training of Federal enforcers; there is little to no contact, training and/or resource deployment to the local level, where the rubber 

truly meets the road. You just said most are identified through 

some form of action, some of them criminal, and they are identified 

as being undocumented at that time at the local level. That is how 

it happens. 

I really would suggest—my counties are crying out for it—for 

some resource, some support and some training. If you want effective law enforcement—now, I know there are bias, and there are 

all those types of things, but I would think that training and an 

appropriate relationship could change some of that to the extent 

that once we have created a program that has responsibility in it 

and stability, that law enforcement does start at that level. 

It is a substantial expense at the local level right now, one that 

they find burdensome at best. And we ought to try to see how we 

might resolve that. Jeff Sessions has legislation here; there is legislation in the House that is looking at something like that. And I 

think that truly, we have got to do that, because the totality of it 

is an important approach. 

Now, the frustration I have with the President’s proposal is quite 

simply this: if we are to suggest that the 8 to 12 million that are 

here only arrived yesterday, and they are going to be willing to go 

home, because they have not married, and they do not have children here, is to suggest that we do not know what we are talking 

24

about when it comes to the range of types of people who are out 

there. 

That is why, in my legislation, I do not do that. I do require that 

they show proof of 12 months here to identify; they have got to 

have been here 12 months. We do not obviously want to rush in, 

and we clearly have to understand that. We give them the right to 

earn, and they do not have to leave, unless their background check 

shows—that is what you explained, Eduardo. 

I do not think that we are effectively recognizing the population 

we are dealing with, and if we want the largest number possible, 

Asa, of identified people out there that are brought forward and 

carded in the appropriate fashion to give them integrity and to give 

your effort integrity, then, we have got to go after the larger number. And the only way I believe you go after the larger number is 

if you recognize the character of the population. 

Is a father going to come forward, only knowing that he will have 

to leave the country if he has children in this country who are, by 

definition, citizens if they were born here? I would doubt that. 

Would a mother do that? I would doubt that. That is the reality 

of a large chunk of that population. 

Could you react to that comment? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, Senator, my reaction is that I think you have 

in your power, as you craft this legislation, the opportunity for, 

one, to extend for a significant period of time the renewal process 

here. The President has indicated that the initial temporary permit 

ought to be 3 years, but he indicated it should have the option of 

renewal. He did not have a cap on that. 

And so, I think it is certainly within your power to do that. I also 

do not think that the President intends for individuals who are trying to apply for green cards, to force them to get out of the country 

to make that application. Once again, I think it is in your power 

to provide for a feature for those who, as you indicated, have an 

interest in staying here to go ahead and apply for the green card 

and get on a parallel track while they continue to be temporary 

workers, to progress through the queue and see when they get to 

that. 

I think neither one of those are at all inconsistent with the President’s attempt. The President is not interested in separating families, of course. On the contrary, I think we are bringing some significant compassion to the forefront here with this proposal that 

the President has. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that, because 

obviously, at least it is obvious to me, and I have spent a good deal 

of time on this issue over the last 5 years, that there has got to 

be flexibility within the character of what we do; at the same time, 

we have got to have integrity. 

Let me go—my last question, so my other colleagues have ample 

time to ask, as it relates to identifying U.S. citizen domestic workers in this country before and the character, at least, in agriculture 

of the kind of work that we are dealing with. I propose a U.S. citizen registration system that the employer can go to. If there are 

not those on the system who have registered who are willing to 

work in that type of work, then, they can immediately activate the 

system of going after foreign nationals to meet that requirement. 

25

If we are not careful, the 300-plus pages of the H–2A program 

are exactly what we are going to have again. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. And shame on us for being that silly. Now, last 

year, it identified by those who became good at making the system 

of H–2A work 40,000-plus employees for agriculture. But we know 

there were about 1.5 million out there. Do the math. Shame on us 

for creating a monster bureaucracy that does not work at all very 

well and is not timely to either a migrant population—and sometimes, in agriculture, migration is necessary based on seasonal harvest—versus a stationary population, which is also necessary, and 

it is all those combination of things that we ought to be smart 

enough to deal with. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. And my fear is if we try to fall back and tweak 

the old system, we will only add more layers of bureaucracy to it 

and create a greater nonfunctional environment and invite in the 

very illegality that exists today, because we cannot build it high 

enough; we cannot string the wires sharp enough; and we ought to 

be able to create something that has great fluidity in it and integrity. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being 

here, and each of you have my tremendous admiration for the task 

that lies before all of us and the task that you perform daily in 

dealing with some of the most complex problems we have in this 

country. 

One of the things that intrigued me about the President’s principles when I heard him talk about it was the concept, what we 

have come to call in my office the concept of work and return. And 

Mr. Aguirre, Senator Craig talked about those who are already 

here and who have families and the difficulty of addressing that 

population, but, of course, any temporary worker program would 

not just address those who are already here but those who want 

to come here and work in the future. 

And one of the unexpected results of our increase in border security is it has made it more difficult for people who want to go home 

and come back to do so. And indeed, as I alluded to in my comments earlier, what I have learned about this issue over the last 

6 or 8 months has been that our friends in Mexico and other countries want their citizens to come home, to be able to come home 

and to do so, to cross the border back and forth legally and not to 

be trapped, in a sense, in sort of a counterintuitive way, in this 

country and have to subject themselves to the coyotes and others, 

the human smugglers who care nothing for them but only for the 

money that they pay to bring them back illegally. 

But I was also intrigued after President Bush talked about this 

concept, which I will call work and return, that President Fox, 

Vicente Fox, also endorsed this concept. And here again, the notion 

that if Mexico, for example, one country that might be affected, is 

going to improve the quality of life and opportunity for its own people, it needs to have the hardworking risk takers able to come back 

26

to visit family, to, hopefully, come back with the skills and the savings that they have been able to accumulate while temporarily 

away in this country, but then, they would be able to come back 

to buy a home, create a small business, and create jobs which ultimately, I think, are the long-term solution or at least part of the 

answer to our immigration problems. 

Why does the administration think that it is so important to encourage return to home country? And could you talk about the financial incentives? Is that a part of what the President’s proposal 

contemplates, that there be a financial incentive to return as well? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, Senator, let me see if I can touch on the ones 

that you mentioned. One, from the financial incentive standpoint, 

I think the President has proposed that we will work with foreign 

governments so that, as individuals return to their country, they 

are given credit for work they have performed so that, as they take 

advantage of their own retirement or Social Security system, whatever it may be called, they are not penalized for having been absent from this country. 

I know your bill has a feature which, of course, allows for an escrow to be placed and for that escrow to somehow be returned to 

the individual as they depart the country. I think we have got to 

recognize that if we are talking about 8 million people, there are 

about 8 million stories out there. Each one of them has their own 

individual needs and wants. 

And to assume that all of them want to stay in this country is 

certainly a fallacy. I recognize that some will. But I think there is 

a significant percent of that universe that has no interest in staying here. They came here for economic reasons, not for any other 

reason. And I think they would very much welcome the opportunity 

to go back to their homes with a little capital in their pockets and 

the opportunity to stay amongst their family and the land that 

they know and love of their birth. 

We are going to have to find a bill that addresses the majority 

of the universe if not necessarily the entirety of the universe. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Hutchinson, obviously, when I was talking 

about the tough job you have, you have got one of the toughest, trying to enforce the laws that we currently have on the books, when, 

unfortunately, my opinion is, and I think it has already been expressed, that we have lacked the political will. Certainly, we have 

lacked the will to provide the resources to law enforcement authorities to enforce our current laws. 

But it seems to me that one of the benefits of a temporary worker program would be to differentiate between those who want to 

come here to work and to provide for themselves and their families 

and then return home, to differentiate between that population and 

those who want to come here to harm us, either the terrorists or 

the drug smugglers or other outright criminals. 

I know one figure that I have seen that there are as many as 

80,000 criminal alien absconders currently in our country now. 

Would you address the issue of how you think the President’s principles, creation of a temporary worker program, would allow you to 

focus your resources on the people who want to harm us? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It would from a number of ways. Right now, 

anecdotally, you have increased cross-border trafficking during the 

27

holiday season. You have illegal immigrants that are wanting to go 

back home, so they go back through the port of entry. Then, after 

the holidays, they come back to their place of employment. They 

have to sneak across the land border to do that. 

Obviously, our Border Patrol agents are engaged in reapprehensions. You have multiple apprehensions of the same individual who 

is simply going back and forth because of economic and family reasons. You take off that layer of enforcement requirements, and 

then, you are able to concentrate upon those who, as you said, are 

trying to cross to do us harm or that are trying to circumvent a 

system that is in place that would accommodate those economic 

workers in a legal way. 

And so, from that standpoint, it helps us on the borders. Secondly, in terms of the employer systems, that it diminishes the 

draw of the illegals across the border. You set up a system that will 

diminish the incentives, and you allow us to concentrate in the 

workplace not on the 8 million that are here working but are in 

the shadows, that we do not know about; they will be given a temporary worker permit, those who accept that. We can concentrate 

our work site enforcement efforts, to a greater extent, on those who 

are circumventing the law or who might want to do us harm. 

So I think there are significant advantages from an enforcement 

standpoint. It addresses what I consider a very significant security 

issue when these people are living in the shadows; are afraid to 

call the police in the event that they are abused or they see a 

crime. 

Senator CORNYN. I know I was interested to hear your comment 

that 40 percent of the illegal population in this country is here; 

they are people who came to the country legally but have simply 

stayed and melted into the woodwork, and we do not know, really, 

where they are. Do you think a temporary worker program, requiring people to literally come out of the shadows, get on the tax rolls 

and identify themselves in a way that we could know where they 

are and know when they are, perhaps their temporary visa would 

expire, and so, we could enforce the laws that are on the books, 

would this temporary worker program help the Department of 

Homeland Security do that job better, along with the biometric 

technology that you have alluded to earlier? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It would. It takes, again, some of the economic 

pressures away from individuals trying to find some legal visa that 

they can come in on and then overstay the visa. It takes off some 

of those economic pressures. Ultimately, I believe that we are going 

to be able to effectively address that whenever we implement fully 

the US–VISIT system, but as you know, Senator Kyl knows, the 

land border represents a huge challenge in this area. And if we can 

take off some of that pressure through this type of a temporary 

worker program, then, that is a step in the right direction. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Sessions? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28

There is just no doubt about it; this is a big deal. It involves a 

great deal of public policy considerations, and we have got to take 

our time and think through it. I have not supported to date the 

President’s policies. I know you have not put out the details yet. 

But I am uneasy about it, and I have not done so. 

I do think he deserves credit for confronting one of the biggest 

difficulties this country faces, and we might as well put it on the 

table. We might as well be honest with one another and talk about 

it. What I think is frustrating, people, is that the policy makers in 

this country are not listening to the American people. They have 

a good heart about it. They have good instincts about the matter. 

And I think they are saying we want to have an immigration policy 

that is generous; we want to be welcoming to people who come 

here. We want them to be a part of our economy and be successful 

at it and prosper and do those kinds of things, and we expect you 

politicians to figure out how to do it. And then, we expect you to 

make it work. 

Well, we have not been making it work, and we know that. So 

I am reluctant to support any proposal that provides a major 

change in our immigration law if we do not first demonstrate a 

commitment to a system that will actually work to make the system legal. That is just the way I feel about it. 

Senator Zell Miller and I have introduced a bill called the Homeland Security Act, and Mr. Ridge talked about it favorably, I think, 

the day before yesterday. Senator Craig asked about it and is a cosponsor of that bill. This bill would make it clear that local law enforcement could participate and be a responsible partner in this effort. We have, for example, 2,000 INS agents not on the border, in 

the homeland, as I understand it, for the whole 49 states. 

There are 650,000 State and local officers. They have gotten the 

message one way or another that they are not really wanted in this 

effort, so they do not participate. I learned in Alabama from my police that if they apprehend illegals not to bother to call INS. Mr. 

Hutchinson and I have talked about it before. I think he got us 

from one to three agents in Alabama. We have got 4 million people. 

So this is not feasible. We are either going to have to have a massive increase in Federal law enforcement, or we have got to figure 

out a way to partner with State and local law enforcement to bring 

some integrity to this system. 

One of the things I learned as a prosecutor for many years was 

the power, Mr. Hutchinson, of the NCIC, how magnificently effective that is to identify and capture fugitives and people who are on 

the loose. We have about 400,000, as I understand it, absconders. 

Those are people who, through one form or another, have been ordered deported—80,000, I believe, felon absconders. 

What I learned and was shocked to learn is that that is not in 

the National Crime Information Center, and that means that a police officer, if they apprehend somebody who is suspicious, and they 

query that system, it will not come back that they are an absconder 

or even a felon there. So I guess—and I know you are making 

progress on it, and I wrote you about that recently. But I notice 

your letter indicated that you are putting in about 200 a day. That 

is going to be a long time to do 400,000. 

29

One person, it seems to me, should be able to get 200 a day in 

the system. Can you tell me where we are on that? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly, and first of all, I support your effort 

to make more information available to local law enforcement. Alabama should be applauded by their investment in this initiative 

that would help train some local law enforcement with our MOU. 

You all have done great. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes; you worked hard at that, and we have 

trained a number of state troopers. But it was a pretty cumbersome process, and we need to make that more practical nationwide, I think. But thank you for breaking through the difficulties 

we face to make that a reality. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And we are trying to do it in other places. We 

are trying to make that work, and we appreciate your partnership 

and leadership on it. Also, in terms of entering the information into 

NCIC, I agree completely that we are not satisfied with the pace 

of entering the information. I have pushed and will continue to 

push to get that done. 

There were some understandable, practical reasons at the outset. 

You have got to get the approval of the NCIC to set the pattern 

for that. And then, you ask— 

Senator SESSIONS. Who are they? Who is NCIC? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well— 

Senator SESSIONS. Who do we have to get approval of? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Actually, there is a board that governs— 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that right? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. —the entry of records into NCIC that is not 

exclusively Federal law enforcement. It also includes private partners in there who have reluctance of putting some categories in. 

But we have reached an agreement with them certainly on the 

alien absconders to put that information in. There is not any hurdle now to put the alien absconder information in when we have 

a final order of removal. 

You ask why we are only doing 200 a day. One, we are trying 

to increase that. We need to put more resources and capability, but 

the fact is you cannot put just simply a name in NCIC. And it is 

not a matter of just data entry. You have got to research every file 

to determine the accurate information that can be put in there so 

that whenever a law enforcement officer comes across an individual 

by that name, it is not a confusingly similar name that we arrest. 

And so, the requirements are that accurate information. So we 

have got to go through all of the files; determine which ones can 

be put in, meets that criteria, so it is not just a matter of data 

entry. But you are fundamentally right. We have got to do better. 

We are pushing hard on that and hope to get some more results. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, on that question, have you formulated 

a system so that as of today and in the future, that when an order 

of deportation, removal gets entered that that immediately goes in 

the NCIC? It surely would be valid at the time that it is entered. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We are addressing it on the front end, and I 

need to get back and answer that question specifically. I hope the 

answer is yes. 

But in terms of the front end, we are trying to minimize the 

number of people who we do not have the right information on or 

30

the right guarantee that they are going to show up. So we are trying to increase our detention and removal capability, our bond requirements, the information flow, alternatives to detention, so that 

when we get that final order, they will actually show up in court 

to be removed rather than us having to go out and look for them. 

So we are trying to address it on that front end. 

Senator SESSIONS. And, Mr. Hutchinson, you would not dispute, 

would you, that if local law enforcement calls about one or two individuals that they think may be in violation of Federal immigration law, that there are not sufficient Federal agents to come and 

get them or spaces to house them. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is a correct statement. 

Senator SESSIONS. So we have got a real problem there, and we 

just got to be honest what the problem is and begin to work on it. 

But I need, and I think the people want to see, a commitment from 

our Government that you are working through the problems so we 

can get to a point that we can have integrity in it. Do you agree 

with that? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I agree 100 percent, and if I leave here without 

having taken the steps necessary to put that integrity in the system, then, I have failed in my job. 

I should add that the President did the right thing by asking in 

the 1905 budget for a doubling of our work site enforcement but 

also the detention and removal facilities. We have pushed for this. 

The President put it in there so that we do have greater capacity 

in that area. But we are working through it both from a policy 

standpoint and a resource that needs to be devoted to it. 

Senator SESSIONS. You talk about detention. We have got 20,000 

beds now, I understand. Do you know how many you will be able 

to increase with this budget? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Substantially, but also, it is a budget that allows for alternatives to detention. We are also trying to work on 

a policy change that helps us to expedite removal in certain circumstances rather than having to house them, so a number of 

things we are looking at in addition to the additional money that 

has been devoted. 

Senator SESSIONS. I agree that that would be a very, very important thing, Mr. Chairman, that having been a Federal prosecutor, 

one of the things that drives you crazy, an open and shut matter 

that should not be in dispute takes inordinately long to accomplish. 

If you could make sure that people get a fair hearing and then 

eliminate the time and delays in it, I think this system would work 

a lot better and save a lot of money, free up money. 

I would just conclude that, you know, I am worried that while 

we are not looking at some sort of retrospective amnesty, as occurred last time, we are talking about a prospective amnesty that 

could be even larger than the numbers we have had in the past unless we know what we are doing here and move with great care. 

Thank you for opening it all up so we can talk about it openly 

as good Americans and welcome people who want to come here legally and make sure that those who attempt to come illegally are 

not successful. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Sessions. And you 

have been a very strong voice and a very forceful leader on this 

31

issue, and we look forward to working with you as we move the legislation relative to your particular bill down the road, too. 

Senator Kyl? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by commending you for holding this hearing. It is 

important. I think the President should be commended for suggesting that we begin this conversation by laying out some principles of his own. It is time. He recognized that, and consistent 

with the leadership that he usually exercises, he took the bullet in 

his teeth and said let us start talking about it, and I think what 

Senator Sessions said about that is correct. 

We are not all going to agree with every part of this proposal, 

perhaps, but I think it is great that the administration’s spokesmen can be here to help provide further explanations about how 

the President will approach this and how, therefore, we might approach the issue as well. 

I wanted to make a couple of preliminary comments about what 

I see happening back in Arizona, which I know that the panelists 

are generally aware of, but I think it sets the backdrop. I know 

Secretary Hutchinson has been there, for example, and I know he 

has seen it first hand. But I think my colleague John McCain referred to a newspaper article in the Arizona Republic this morning, 

which just helps to further demonstrate the nature of the problem. 

In Arizona, probably half or more of the illegal immigrants entering the country come right through Arizona, probably through 

Cochise County, Arizona, if you want to know exactly where. It 

stresses our systems enormously. And the article that I referred to 

earlier here this morning or yesterday, I guess, 156 illegal immigrants were found in a home in Phoenix. Much of what the police 

found was similar to what they find almost every day: filthy conditions, illegal immigrants being held against their will by the 

coyotes or the smugglers with weapons, extracting further payment 

from the people’s families, usually in Mexico but sometimes in 

other places in Central America. 

This article, fortunately, did not refer to assault, battery, rape, 

but that frequently occurs with regard to the people who are being 

held. They said that the thing that was so interesting about this 

was that it was in a very nice part of town, whereas, most of these 

incidents have occurred in a relatively well-known part of town, 

where this happens every day. 

Sometimes, the Phoenix Police get a call that there is a domestic 

disturbance or something like that. They show up, and there was 

no domestic disturbance. The coyote put in the call to get the police 

to come to clean out the safe house, because he has got a new load 

coming in that night, and he needs to make room for them. And 

the way the people are treated is abominable. Our police cannot 

take care of them, and if they do pick them up, the INS does not 

have anybody to take care of them, and so, they end up being put 

out on the street, and the system of lawlessness with respect to 

this continues. 

32

My constituents are upset about it. The Mayor of Phoenix called 

on the Federal Government, rightly, to begin to do something about 

this. Our hospitals are having to take care of people who cannot 

pay their bills. As a result, they do not provide the care to the rest 

of us that we should be able to expect, because they cannot afford 

to pay for the doctors and nurses that they need in the emergency 

rooms. 

We are having to take care of illegal immigrants in our prisons. 

As a result, they are overflowing, and we do not begin to get compensated under the so-called SCAP program of the Federal Government. Environmentally, there was a story in the paper yesterday 

that confirms—and I know Secretary Hutchinson saw this, too—

there are some very sensitive areas along the border, wilderness 

areas and wildlife preserves and pristine forests, and the environment is being destroyed by virtue of the huge numbers of people 

who cross every day and the kind of trash they leave behind and 

so on. 

So the effects are devastating to a place like my State. And while 

it is also true that people hire illegal immigrants, and frankly, a 

lot of it is well-known, and they do perform work that is valuable 

to our society, the taxpayers end up subsidizing the businesses that 

do the hiring, because the taxpayers are the ones who have to pick 

up all of these expenses that result from the kind of conduct that 

I discussed before. 

I just would finally note in November, there was an incident that 

occurred that shows how violent and dangerous this is becoming: 

rival smuggling gangs. Smuggling illegal immigrants is now almost 

as remunerative as smuggling other contraband and drugs. But 

these two rival gangs shot it out right on the freeway between Tucson and Phoenix. Four people were killed, and two were wounded 

in the shooting when one gang kidnapped the other gang’s illegal 

immigrants. Twenty-seven people were arrested in connection with 

that. 

This is getting out of hand. And you have cities in Arizona that 

spend taxpayer money to set up shelters so that illegal immigrants 

can congregate to be hired illegally. Everybody just winks at the 

law. The Federal Government demands that documents of identification be confirmed before a person is hired, a driver’s license and 

a Social Security card, both of which can be counterfeited for—I am 

not sure what the going price is now, maybe $65 or something like 

that. 

So the Government pretends to have standards and criteria that 

everybody knows are violated. If this is a country of law, we have 

to begin to have a sensible law and enforce the law and everybody 

be committed to it. Now, I would like to say two things about that: 

what troubles so many Americans and Arizonans is that for a long 

time, governments at all levels, including the Federal Government, 

have not been very committed to enforcing the laws that are on the 

books. 

The people know that. They see it every day. And they see that 

local law enforcement does not want to, either. So what does that 

tell them about laws? That some laws can be violated with impunity. That is the beginning of the end of society. It reminds me of 

the old Soviet thing: we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay. 

33

We cannot let that happen here in the United States. And so, I 

want to commend the President for saying it is time that we begin 

to seriously discuss that, and I want to commend the three of you 

and in particular, because I know of his work, Secretary Hutchinson for ensuring that the administration has begun to put things 

in the budget that will help us enhance our enforcement, because 

I will guarantee you that people will not have an open mind about 

a reform until they believe we are committed to enforcing the law. 

And I have had people ask me: why would we think a new law 

will be enforced if there does not seem to be any commitment to 

enforce the old law? So I applaud the administration for beginning 

to make the effort to show people that we mean business, we are 

going to enforce the law. And I am going to ask all of you what 

kind of further commentary you would like to make about that. I 

regret you perhaps did that earlier; if so, do not necessarily repeat 

yourself. I am sorry I could not be here at the very beginning. 

But I also, in that same vein, would like to ask Mr. Aguirre, you, 

I know, talked a little bit about the backlog reduction team. You 

are familiar with the CRS report that says there is a backlog of 

over 6 million visa applications. Two questions for you: could you 

enlighten us a little bit about what the nature of those visa applications is? And secondly, how much it will cost for us to reduce—

well, to eliminate that backlog and keep it eliminated? And I am 

not even going to ask you the next question, which is and how 

much more it will cost to implement a system which will, in one 

way or another, legalize the status of perhaps 10 or 12 million people who are here illegally today and implement a more liberal 

guest worker program for those who would come and go performing 

work here legally in the future. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Nothing like a simple question, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KYL. Sorry. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Well, our Bureau is almost a year old, and we have 

been working very hard at trying to resolve the problems that have 

built up over the years. And indeed, we have a tremendous backlog, a backlog in almost every category. We have eliminated one, 

which is the foreign adoptions certificates, but we keep on going. 

The backlog reduction for us has taken on just about a laser 

focus approach. We have a task force, and we are looking at specific initiatives that can bring not only a reengineering of process, 

which is so important, but moreso, bringing technology into the 

forefront that, for one reason or another, was not part of our Bureau or part of the old INS. We are bringing applications online so 

that people can better apply for some of the benefits, relieving 

some of the pressure of our Bureau to input some of the data that 

the client can do directly online. 

We are bringing technology to reduce lines outside of our offices 

and so many other things, Senator. I would be happy to get back 

to you on the specifics of your question. I do not have that data 

with me. But because we take the President’s initiative seriously, 

we have begun to look at what are some of the possible issues that 

we will deal with when and if the Congress acts on the President’s 

initiative? And we would be happy to work with the Congress, certainly with the Senate and the House, on identifying practical rules 

34

and regulations that would be the adjunct of any legislation that 

you pass. 

And we intend to put a dollar value on that so that fees would 

be assigned to these temporary worker applications that would ultimately pay for the process and everything that goes with the background checks and things of that nature. 

The President has promised that we will have our applications 

processed within 6 months by September of the year 2006. The 

President has given us, over a 5-year period of time, $500 million, 

$100 million at a time. And I feel comfortable that the budget that 

we have just crafted for the administration and that is being 

brought to the Congress will allow for that. 

We have actually had to increase our fees, and we have announced and put for public comment an increase of the fees so that 

we can actually recoup the money that is being lost today. Until 

those fees are increased, we are losing $1 million a day, because 

some of these applications that go back several years are just now 

being processes, and the cost that was assigned then is not at all 

related to the cost that is today. 

So we are working very hard on that, but I am very confident 

that what the President is proposing will not add undue wait on 

what we are doing. I think we will create new processes; we will 

not have to deal with old processes. 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, since I have a red light, let me just 

summarize, then, what I think I heard. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Let me just say, Senator, you were not 

here to start with. I know you wanted to make an opening statement, and you have some leeway. 

Senator KYL. I guess I kind of did that in the preamble to my 

question. 

So you will, then, as soon as you can, submit to the Committee 

here, because I think this would be very helpful for our deliberations, a breakdown on the 6 million visa applications pending; how 

you intend to get those resolved; and by when, to the extent you 

can estimate that, how much money that will require; whether that 

means any additional funding from the Congress beyond what has 

been asked for; and the estimates that you talked about about how 

to deal with the future program that the President has recommended and that Congress might implement in some notional 

way. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes. 

Senator KYL. And I understand that is not precise. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KYL. In that regard, let me just note that I appreciated 

in your testimony that there needs to be for enforcement—I forgot 

which one of you said it, but it is obviously very true—that there 

needs to be some kind of fraud-proof identification document for 

people, I would suggest for everybody who is seeking employment 

here, so as not to discriminate against everyone. 

That, by the way, would be enormously helpful for ID theft, to 

avoid ID theft, because these fraudulent Social Security cards and 

driver’s licenses are today used, and that is a crime out of control. 

35

In any event, just to note, the laser visa for Mexican citizens, for 

those who want to come across for a 3-day, 50-mile visa, which we 

very much encourage, that was not inexpensive, but the Mexicans—I forgot, now, how many acquired that visa, because it was 

useful for them; it certainly is useful to us. We have made it as 

cheap as possible, and it is basically like a card that you swipe 

through. 

The technology is here. We can do that. We need to make it as 

inexpensive as possible to encourage the use of something like that. 

But the other question that I had asked, and if any of you would 

like, then, to respond to this, please do: it goes to the efforts that 

you might want to tell us about, just examples of some of the 

things that we are now doing to demonstrate this commitment to 

enforcing the law, both right now and prospectively. If you would 

like to make any comments in that regard, perhaps beginning with 

Secretary Hutchinson. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I would welcome that opportunity, and 

I was struck by your comment, Senator Kyl, that some of the citizens observe that we are not very committed to enforcing the laws. 

And I would not dispute that perception that is out there, particularly in some areas of the country, and I think that undermines the 

reforms that we need to undertake, because it all hinges upon our 

ability to enforce the existing and the future immigration laws that 

we might have. 

I am very committed to making that perception change. If you 

look at Arizona, we have added additional Border Patrol agents 

substantially, as a result of our visits there and what you have 

educated us to as to some of the unique problems. ICE has instituted Operation ICE Storm there in the Phoenix area. They have 

added a greater response and enforcement capability. I know your 

chief; I think it is Chief Hurt there in Phoenix indicated that this 

resulted in a drop in some of the violent crime and residential 

crime that took place, a very substantial drop. 

So we are investing and trying to make a difference in—your 

arena is a hot spot in terms of border crossing problems and illegality that we need to get a handle on. 

You raise the issue of the Social Security, the fraudulent documents. From a policy standpoint, we are looking at that very aggressively, trying to enhance the integrity of that. Some of those, 

not Social Security cards but some of the other ID cards are dependent upon State action, and we are trying to set best practices 

for the States to respond to to give more integrity to those type of 

documents. 

So a lot, we are doing; much more needs to be done, and we are 

not resting upon what we have done in your arena of the world, 

but we are going to enhance that even more. 

The Department of the Interior was mentioned, which has a 

large strip of your border area there. I talked to their enforcement 

folks, Larry Parkinson, and we hope to be adding some of their capabilities to our enforcement efforts as well. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Senator, although our Bureau is charged with administering and servicing the immigration laws, we take the security component of what we do very seriously. We coordinate very 

closely with the groups that are under the responsibility of SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
36

retary Hutchinson, ICE and others. But we also recognize, over the 

years, that sometimes, we identify intuitively potential fraud. And 

it has turned out to be an impossibility to refer intuitively to the 

law enforcement side of our immigration set some of these wild 

goose chases. 

So what we have also implemented here is an anti-fraud unit 

that, as soon as we identify a potential problem, our team goes and 

identifies it. And in the cases where there is something there, then, 

we turn it over to Secretary Hutchinson’s team, and they have a 

better case to pursue. We, ourselves, are not in the law enforcement element, but we prepare a package for them. 

Biometrics, of course, is at the core of the future of anything that 

we do. And it is our responsibility, in our Bureau, to create the 

cards, the green cards, the employment authorization cards, et 

cetera. And we have been working very closely with new technology 

to make sure that it matches up with what Secretary Hutchinson 

is doing and that our cards—one can never say that they are fraudproof, but we will try to stay ahead of the criminals in making our 

cards as difficult to replicate as possible and that they are tied into 

a biometric function so that we have a secure environment. 

Mr. LAW. Our job at the Department of Labor is to make sure 

that American workers come first when it comes to temporary 

worker programs. And we are working to refine our existing labor 

certification efforts to make sure that the system is more accurate, 

efficient, timely and preventive of fraud as possible. 

I would just make one more observation from the labor market 

point of view to the issue that you raised earlier about the very sobering circumstances in your State and many other States about 

what is underlying that. That is that there are severe pressures 

and realities that impact labor markets right now that even the 

most committed, well-funded, pervasive law enforcement efforts 

can only make so much progress to address. 

And if I can just briefly mention three of them, the first of them 

is this: as was said earlier, there are millions of undocumented 

workers currently holding jobs. Some of them have families; they 

are in their communities, and they exist in our country. Some have 

said 8; some have said 10; some have said 12; we do not even have 

a completely accurate count of how many there are, let alone exactly where they live or who they work for or what they are doing. 

And most of them lead lives of quiet desperation in the shadows, 

hoping never to be discovered. 

Second, there are many, many American businesses that are simply desperate to find workers, even in this economy, where they 

cannot find American workers who are willing and available to 

take the jobs. If they do not fill those jobs, the service does not get 

done; the product does not get delivered, and there is desperation 

on that end as well. 

And, then, of course, obviously, and it has been remarked many 

times before, outside of the borders of this country, there are many, 

many more people who, because of economic conditions at home or 

the promise of better things, are desperate to come to this country. 

This amalgam of different forces that really are in many ways 

different labor market forces put tremendous pressure on the system, such that the President’s proposal is not an enforcement beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:11 Jul 06, 2004 Jkt 094566 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94556.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
37

fore a new program; it is both working together to alleviate pressures on the system so that Secretary Hutchinson and others can 

devote their time and focus them on— 

Senator KYL. Let me just interrupt you, because I do not think 

that you want to say that. We have existing laws. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Senator KYL. We do not have to pass new laws. We have existing 

laws that need to be enforced. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Senator KYL. And I know that the President is not saying we are 

going to wait until we have a new program and then, coincidentally 

with that, begin enforcing the law. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely not. 

Senator KYL. Secretary Hutchinson has been very clear in all of 

the efforts that he and I have talked about, about the need to enforce existing laws. And my point is this: people are not going to 

be open to a program that is very necessary, a point I agree with 

you and certainly agree with the President on. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. 

Senator KYL. But they are not going to be open minded to consider that kind of a program unless they believe that we are committed to enforcing the law in this country. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. 

Senator KYL. So we should be sure to talk about enforcing existing law today and tomorrow. 

You know, just, Mr. Chairman, please indulge me: the Phoenix 

Police Department estimates that two-thirds of the over 200 homicides in the Phoenix area last year involved illegal immigrants. 

This is not something that we can afford to wait to do until there 

is a new program. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. 

Senator KYL. But nobody is saying that enforcement of the existing law has to get to a perfect state before we begin implementing 

a new program. That would be impossible. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Senator KYL. But I hope that we all will begin to speak about 

this in a way that will begin to convince our citizens that their 

Government is serious about enforcing the law, so that when Congress considers a new law, they will be receptive and open minded 

to the changes that we are going to have to make, that frankly, a 

lot of them really do not want to accept the fact that we are going 

to have to accept a lot of illegal immigrants in this country. 

They are going to do that, I think, reluctantly, grudgingly, perhaps, but I think they will do it if they know that we are committed to enforcing the new law that we pass. And that comes with 

a commitment to enforcing existing laws such as the commitment 

that the President has already begun through his budget submission and the good work that you all are doing. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely, and that is why the first principle of the 

President’s proposal is to protect our borders first. 

Thanks. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Senator Kyl. And you are absolutely right. We talked about this a little bit earlier with Secretary Hutchinson, and there are two points that you and I have 

38

talked about outside of here. One is that we have got to have a law 

that we can enforce. Otherwise, the next generation is going to face 

the same problem we are facing. If we do not fix it now to where 

it works in the future, we have not done anything. 

Second thing that I mentioned earlier that you and I had talked 

about is that I do not care what law we pass; if we as a Congress 

are not willing to commit the resources to it, it is just not going 

to work. And I think all three of you gentlemen would agree that 

you are going to have to have more tools to work with, which 

means you are going to have more money to make sure this program works. 

I just have one question, additional question. Mr. Aguirre, how 

does the administration envision somebody being legitimized under 

this program? What are we going to do with the families of those 

individuals? They are going to be here, potentially for years. If they 

stay employed, and they renew their temporary status, they could 

be here years. Their families are going to grow up. What is going 

to happen to those kids when they reach age 18, let us say, and 

move into the market? What are we going to do with them? 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman; I think what the President 

is trying to do is to allow for those who are working here who can 

support their families to provide for a colegitimization of the members of the family that are here. Of course, these individuals, in 

many cases, the kids are already in school. The mother may be 

working or not working. And we intend to maintain the family unit 

when the family is present. 

Some of these people are not married. They are single and working hard, maybe two or three jobs a day. And that is certainly not 

within the scope of your question. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Craig, any followup? 

Senator CRAIG. I do not. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. I think we all are beginning 

to grasp the scope of the problem and the realities of some of what 

we have got to do to get our arms around it and to give it the credibility that I think Senator Kyl speaks to so that the American public can see it, understand it and accept what we do here as the 

right direction, ultimately. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Sadly, I must say that we are further away 

from where we need to be than most of us want to admit. I mean, 

this is a big problem on enforcement. The steps that have been 

taken in recent years under President Bush’s leadership are greater than, I think, we have probably taken in 20 years. I do not 

know, or at least a number of years, but we have got a long way 

to go. This thing, when you do not have local police participating; 

there is no place to put them; people are being released on bail, 

just immediately run off again instead of being deported; the system, NCIC is not identifying those who need to be identifying 

them. 

We are way away. That is the problem, I think. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Kyl, anything further? 

Senator KYL. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

39

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, gentlemen, I think Senator Craig 

expressed the sentiment of all of us that you have a huge job out 

there, and we appreciate the great work that you are doing. 

This is going to be a very, very difficult issue to get our arms 

around, particularly in the short-term. But we are taking the President’s principles as a base. Whether we agree with all of them or 

not, again, I just have great respect for a leader who is willing to 

step forward and say this is a problem, and by golly, it is time to 

start addressing it, and let us figure out what the answers ought 

to be. 

So, we look forward to working in a bipartisan way to build on 

those principles and incorporate the ideas of all members of the 

Senate to make sure that we do give you a law that is a workable 

law and that is a law that also will go hand in hand with the tools 

and the resources that we give you to, at some point in the very 

near future, alleviate what is a real problem today and if we do not 

not fix it, is going to be a bigger problem for the next generation. 

Thank you for the great work that you do, and Senator Kennedy 

got held up. I know there are other members on the other side and 

probably on our side that will have questions, so the record will remain open. We will submit written questions, and we hope you will 

get those answers back to us very quickly. 

Mr. AGUIRRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. To our other panel, I am sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Gentlemen, let me apologize. I got so 

wrapped up in what they were saying right at the tail end; we certainly did not mean to slight you or forget you. You all came a long 

way to be here, and we want you to know that we appreciate you. 

Because of our time constraints, we welcome all of you to submit 

a written statement, but I would ask that you limit your oral statement to 5 minutes or less. 

And, Mr. Birkman, we appreciate very much you being here from 

Texas and giving us your insight. We look forward to hearing from 

you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. BIRKMAN, PRESIDENT, TEXAS 

ROOFING COMPANY, AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Mr. BIRKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Rick Birkman. I own Texas Roofing Company in 

Austin, Texas. I am here representing the National Roofing Contractors Association and the Essential Workers Immigration Coalition. My grandfather started Texas Roofing Company in 1935. As 

a third-generation roofing contractor, I have a personal interest in 

this issue, as it affects my business, my industry and my country. 

If you would allow me, I would like to submit my written testimony for the record and talk today about several misconceptions 

that always arise when the subject of immigration comes up. 

What I consider a myth, the first myth, is undocumented workers take jobs from Americans. We teach our young men and women 

that college is the only option for success in America; that working 

40

with your hands, learning a trade or other service work is beneath 

them. Roofing, as with other trades, is tough, physically demanding 

work. In this technological age, hard manual labor and service 

work does not hold much attraction for today’s generation. 

But fortunately, the Hispanic community has always prided itself 

on trade work, close family ties, a strong faith, and strong work 

ethic that is the backbone of the Hispanic community. When we advertise for workers, we do not care who walks in the door. We do 

not say Hispanics apply only. But 99 percent of our applicants are 

Hispanic. 

We have a labor crisis in our industry. We cannot fill the jobs 

we have now. If you could magically remove the millions of undocumented workers from the labor pool, it would cripple our economy. 

The second myth is these workers are paid a couple of dollars a 

day and are mistreated by employers. Now, while I am sure that 

some of this occurs, it is the exception and not the rule. Walk in 

the door at Texas Roofing Company with no experience, and we 

will start you at $7.50 to $8.00 per hour. Walk in with experience 

in roofing, we will start you at $11.00 to $14.00 per hour. And we 

have foremen making up to $21.00 per hour. It is not uncommon 

for a journeyman roofer to make $40,000 to $55,000 a year with 

overtime. 

Now, that is not a bad wage for Austin, Texas. Obviously, wages 

vary in other parts of the country, but this is typical with my peers 

in the roofing industry. These workers pay taxes and Social Security, a benefit that undocumented workers will never realize. 

Have you ever wondered what happens to the billions of dollars 

that is paid into the Social Security Trust Fund by these undocumented workers? These men and women pay taxes, raise families 

and own homes, all in the pursuit of the American dream. They 

service the engine that keeps this country running, dirty work that 

few Americans are willing to do. 

In closing, we have a security crisis in America that must be 

dealt with immediately. A guest worker program is a good first 

step toward regaining control of our borders. I would like to commend Senator Cornyn, my Senator from the great State of Texas, 

for introducing the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 

2003. We also commend President Bush for his courage and leadership in presenting this bold proposal. 

The immigration system that is in place today serves neither 

America’s economic security nor its national security. We urge Congress to act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this time. 

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

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Birkman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Papademetriou, who is co-director of the Migration Policy Institute here in Washington; we welcome you, and we look forward 

to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF DEMETRIOS PAPADEMETRIOU, CO–DIRECTOR, 

MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I will try to be 

very brief, given the time. 

41

It seems to me that the President’s announcement and his ideas, 

as elaborated by the previous panel, are on the right track. But 

they are incomplete. They are trying to give a single answer to a 

problem that is far more complicated than simply adding some additional visas, temporary or otherwise, to our immigration system. 

Temporary workers, significantly large numbers of temporary 

workers, because I think that is what the administration is talking 

about, is indeed a migration management tool of the first order. 

But again, it is not enough. 

It seems to me that in order for us to have immigration reform 

legislation that will be worthy of the name and will be worthy of 

the pain that this Committee and the Congress will have to endure 

in order to put a package together will have to get it right, more 

right than we have ever gotten it in the past. And getting it right 

requires that we think in terms of a three-legged stool. Some of my 

colleagues call it the three Es of immigration reform. 

The first thing is that we have to do something about the 10 million people who are already here. I hear numbers 8 to 12, 15. I believe that the number is around 9 point something, and I think we 

have to be practical about it. I think it is imperative that we offer 

some sort of a means through which these people can earn legal 

status and a pathway to legal permanent status for those who meet 

whatever requirements all of us, this Committee, the U.S. Congress, chooses to require of them. We have to ask people to earn 

their new status through an earned regularization system. Reasonable people, in this room and elsewhere, can come up with what 

those criteria must be. 

And in order to avoid the mistakes of the past and learn from 

the 1986 legalization program, we have to push the requirements 

forward. Ask people to prove after they have passed the security 

test that indeed, they can meet the necessary requirements in 

order to get legal permanent status. Those who do will actually 

continue to make enormous contributions to our country; those who 

do not then can be targeted for enforcement and removal. 

The second part of this three-legged stool approach to immigration reform is dealing smartly with demand. Back in 1986, when 

we spent an awful lot of time, from 1981 to 1986 before we actually 

passed comprehensive immigration reform, we pretended that 

somehow, there was no real demand for these people; that somehow, the U.S. Congress could act, put together some sort of an enforcement package and some sort of a legalization, a partial legalization program, and somehow, people would just either disappear 

or obey the law. 

But in reality, we forgot to take into account the market, so this 

next time around, let us make sure that we actually take into account the market, what my colleague here mentioned about demand for workers. 

And that demand has to be met with a combination of visas. 

Some of them will have to be temporary work visas. Some of them 

will have to be permanent work visas, and reasonable people can 

actually tell the distinction. You will have to come up with legislation that will draw the line as to who should qualify for the one 

and who will qualify for the other. 

42

But we will also have to do something about family visas. It is 

not only the delays in the system that Mr. Aguirre has talked 

about. It is also the reality that when we ask people not to be reunited or not to be united with their immediate families—and here, 

we can have a big discussion about, you know, what do I mean by 

family? What you may mean by family, Mr. Chairman, or what 

others may do. And that discussion is worth having. But if you 

split families and continue to expect people not to reunify with 

their spouses or with their children, that part of the legislation, of 

the law, will not be enforceable. 

Finally, and I know that this next word is probably almost as 

much of an anathema as the amnesty word appears to be for some, 

we are going to have to really do enforcement. And this time 

around, at least, we are almost there in terms of the border enforcement. More will have to be done. We are going to have to be 

smarter; more resources will have to be put there. 

But more importantly, we are going to have to rethink our interior enforcement. I know that it is important that we enforce the 

laws, but if we do not have laws that make sense, if we have laws 

that go against the market and against human nature, if we have 

laws, on the one hand, and then, through another act of Congress, 

we basically take away the power to enforce those laws, then, we 

do not have laws at all. 

Employer sanctions is an idea that has failed to get roots in the 

United States, and, sir, if you will allow me, not because we do not 

have enough resources but because it happens to be a bad idea. It 

happens to be contrary to what we often hear, something that most 

Americans, once they have explained to them what the legislation 

really tries to do, really do not buy into it. It is a foreign idea. It 

was introduced in Europe. Europe, on a proportionate basis, invests 

10 to 20 times as many resources in the enforcement of employer 

sanctions. It has developed special courts that penalize employers 

and send them to jail because regular courts were not doing that. 

And guess what? The added net illegal population in Europe now 

stands at roughly the same level as it is in the United States, 

about half a million new illegals every year. 

We should consider why. Thank you very much, sir. 

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

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Thank you, sir. 

And Mr. Cervantes, I know we called on you at the last minute 

to replace Mr. Zevanta, and I am sorry he had this family emergency, but we appreciate having you here. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CERVANTES, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

U.S.–MEXICO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. CERVANTES. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to be here, 

and Senator Craig and the other Senators who gave their good 

time, and frankly, very perceptive and educational information to 

me at this point. 

The United States–Mexico Chamber of Commerce was formed 30 

years ago to provide private sector input to the governmental activities of both countries. We have about 1,200 members on both 

sides of the border. We have the unique perspective of companies 

43

on the Mexican side who are also buying and using this same labor 

pool. And so, we take that into account as we look at servicing our 

membership. 

I am just going to highlight some of the areas that have been 

touched upon. Certainly, we are in favor of the President’s proposal 

and want to help create a system that not only involves the employers but the employees and government. It is obviously an essential part here. We also want a system that will provide some 

sort of legal redress for predatory employers, those people who violate the human rights or civil rights of those persons who are in 

this country. 

We agree also—I believe it was mentioned earlier—that the labor 

certification process as it exists today is archaic. It, in some cases, 

takes 3, 4, 5 years. We are looking at something that is more rapid 

fire, something that will address the needs of an employer when 

there is no willing American citizen to take the job and match it 

up very quickly. Five years is too long to make that match. That 

may be part of the problem. 

Today, certainly, in the Chamber, we have promoted training 

programs not only for our small U.S. companies but also for Mexican companies to be able to use electronic commerce as a rapid way 

to communicate and also the use of biometrics. So perhaps the laws 

that have been on the books for 20, 25 years have not kept up with 

the technological capabilities which we have and which were mentioned by Secretary Hutchinson and also by Commissioner Aguirre. 

The Mexicans have initiated, and we have worked with the Mexicans, the businesses and the Government in a number of areas, 

perhaps a tool that may be useful if the United States had a similar tool, and that is their Matricula Consular. I was fortunate to 

be one of the observers in the 2000 election. We went to 22 polling 

places. And the card that they used does have a biometric. It has 

got the thumbprint, an indelible thumbprint that cannot be removed and a photograph. 

I mean, they have not gone as far as retinal scans, but certainly, 

we know that the FBI today is capable of processing and reading 

fingerprints with a rapidity similar to that which you can card scan 

those international product codes at the grocery store. 

So we encourage continued coordination, and I think you need 

that coordination from the sending country so that they can provide some help on that end, particularly Mexico, if some of these 

workers are going to leave and go back. We have heard all of the 

different scenarios. But I think that to do it on one leg is not going 

to be sufficient. There has to be some coordination, particularly 

with this type of advanced technology that may not be foolproof, 

but you may get very close to eliminating fraudulent replication. 

So the Chamber and its members, who are employees, employers, 

welcome the initiative by the White House, and we remain confident that this effort—and certainly, from what I have heard 

today, I think it is going to happen and hopefully on a bipartisan 

basis—that this will address the reality that we have all agreed 

today exists. We cannot look the other way. And coming up with 

a system, procedures and the use of technology such as biometrics 

that I think this body may be able to come up, craft a very good 

piece of legislation that will serve us all well, and we welcome it. 

44

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Again, thank you, Mr. Cervantes, for 

being here on short notice. 

Mr. Vernon Briggs, professor of industrial and labor relations at 

Cornell University, we are pleased to have you. We look forward 

to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF VERNON BRIGGS, PROFESSOR OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, 

ITHACA, NEW YORK 

Mr. BRIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with some of my conclusions, since I am last here 

and I now sort of see why. We have actual experience with guest 

worker programs, and that experience has been awful. We have 

had recommendations by highest commissions that have studied 

these programs: the Jordan Commission, the Hessberg Commission, the Voss Commission, others. All have said, as I mention in 

this testimony, do not do this, unequivocally, unequivocally. 

The wise counsel of distinguished Americans who have served on 

a host of national commissions cited in the testimony have intensely studied this issue and, in the starkest terms, have warned 

do not pursue this type of policy. In fact, I want to say right from 

the beginning of my testimony: I know of no other element of immigration policy, and I have been writing and teaching in it for 40 

years, in which the message not to do something is so unequivocal. 

One has to have an enormous amount of gall to stand up against, 

I think, the evidence of the past—not me, and I have cited, because 

I have testified before, all of these groups of the past. I am not 

going to use my words. I am going to use their words on what experience has been. 

And I am not going to go through—I will just mention that historically, guest worker programs started in World War I. In World 

War II, we had them; the Korean War; they were temporary 

things. And during wartime, we do a lot of things that are temporary in the national interest: wage and price controls, confiscatory taxes on profits, waiving antitrust laws. Guest worker programs were introduced in that. And they are understandable in periods of national peril. You do exceptional, extraordinary things. 

When those wars ended, all of those other policies quickly ended. 

For some reason, this one, one of the histories has been, once employers get addicted to these programs, they do not want to let go. 

And the experience of all of those programs from the wartime periods was that they were continued. I cited it all for you. I will not 

go through it. You are welcome to read it: the British West Indies 

program, the rest of it. 

We started some nontraditional programs, that is, peacetime 

uses, with the H–2 program. Most of that experience has been unsatisfactory, too, and I could cite you where it has actually been 

used in the Virgin Islands and Guam with disastrous consequences, 

documented by the staff of this Committee, the publications of this 

Committee, if you look at where I cite. 

But let me turn now to this other idea of using it to combat illegal immigration. This is not a new idea. It has been around for 30 

years. I have argued against it for 30 years, and it still comes back. 

It is a bad idea that just will not go away. 

45

President Jimmy Carter requested, in 1978, that the National 

Commission on Manpower Policy study whether the H–2 program 

should be expanded as an alternative for illegal immigration as 

part of his initial package to deal with illegal immigration. That 

Commission, chaired by Professor Eli Ginsburg, a bipartisan commission of leading manpower experts, strongly recommended 

against expanding the H–2 program, because the evidence was that 

it would distort labor markets. It would make a self-fulfilling 

prophecy before long that you cannot find citizens to do the work. 

During that same period, the Hessberg Commission was formed, 

the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the 

first commission to study this issue of immigration in a comprehensive way. Father Hessberg, as I quote here, says, this idea of temporary workers was tremendously attractive. These are his words. 

Perhaps I should say seductive. There is a superficial plausibility 

to this argument. And the Commission gave serious consideration 

for a year and a half. I can recall being very much entranced by 

it when I first joined the Commission. In the end, we were persuaded, after much study, that, quote, it would make—all this is 

a quote—it would be a mistake to launch such a program. And he 

lists six reasons—I will not go through them for limited time right 

now—explicitly saying why do not do this. The evidence and the 

testimony and their experience has been do not do it. 

The final conclusion, after looking at those six reasons, quote, we 

do not think it wise to propose a program with potentially harmful 

consequences to the United States as a whole. This is bad policy 

for the whole country. It is not just bad immigration; it is an awful 

policy to even to begin to suggest. That is Father Hessberg, one of 

the most knowledgeable and sensitive men ever to write on immigration. And I welcome the opportunity I have had today to go back 

and reread all of that again. That was his testimony before this 

Committee that is cited here. Do not do this. That is his recommendation. 

The Reagan administration proposed a guest worker program. 

Simpson and Mazzoli rejected it. They did not include it in their 

proposal. We know the SAW program came along by Congressman 

Schumer at the time. That proposal was very extremely controversial, sort of an earned amnesty, as we would say today. That program was a disaster. The New York Times called it, quote, one of 

the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated on the 

U.S. Government, because of the document fraud. The estimate 

was that 200,000 people were going to come forth. 1.2 million came 

forth, and almost all of them got approved, because the documents, 

those documents to justify employment can be counterfeited, too. 

And I list this other testimony, just asking employers—those documents can all be fraudulently made, too, to justify whatever you try 

to set if you set up this type of program. 

IRCA required that the Voss Commission be set up, the Voss 

Commission to study the effect of IRCA, the SAW program. The 

Voss Commission was an employer-dominated council, employerdominated. Voss was director of the Department of Food and Agriculture. 

After 6 years of study, they concluded that the SAW program 

was a disaster, and they recommended—and this ought to be to 

46

those who support the AgJobs bill that is pending up here in Congress, and this is the exact quote from their final report: workerspecific and industry-specific legalization programs as contained in 

IRCA should not be the basis of future immigration policy, unquote. That ought to kill AgJobs. This cannot be said any clearer 

than that. Now, you go back and read the hearings on that, why 

they came to that conclusion. 

We then get the Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by 

Barbara Jordan. They go through it, clearly reject it. Their conclusion was, quote, a guest worker program would be a grievous mistake, a grievous mistake. That is their words, unquote. They give 

you the six reasons, five reasons in this case. 

I would say unequivocally, we do not have to listen to professors. 

Look at experience. Look at what the commissions have said. These 

are bipartisan commissions, almost overwhelmingly unanimous in 

what that literature has shown. And this proposal ought to die 

today. 

We do need to get on with the illegal immigration. This is the 

12th time I have testified before Congress. I have been arguing 

against illegal immigration for a long time. Let us get on with the 

real issues: making employer sanctions really work. Let us stand 

up behind them. Let us enforce them and let us make clear that 

there are not going to be any amnesties. There are not going to be 

any guest worker programs. We are going to have an immigration 

system that is going to work. 

And I point out to you in closing that we have 34 million low 

wage workers in the United States, one quarter of the United 

States labor force. And that is this betrayal. It is awful to sit here 

and listen to people say I cannot find people who are going to work. 

We have got 34 million low wage workers, making less than $8.70 

an hour. In this particular study, it cites it. The problem is we 

have got an oversupply of 9 to 12 million illegal immigrants who 

are competing to keep their wages down, driving them down. 

Getting illegal immigrants out of the labor force should be the 

first order of business. Then, we will talk about some other things. 

Let us be sure that we can enforce the immigration systems, as a 

couple of Senators have said here. Then, talk about amnesties or 

something else along this line later. But let us find out if we can 

stop illegal immigration first, because those other experiences have 

been that you cannot stop illegal immigration with guest worker 

programs. They generate illegal immigration. And that is the experience with every one of them, and every one of these commissions 

has said this. 

There is no answer to illegal immigration by guest worker programs. All you do is legalize the ones that are here. That does not 

stop more from coming. You have got to prove that you can actually 

enforce the system first, and we can do it. But we cannot do it with 

a guest worker program or any prospect of amnesty, any prospect 

whatsoever. And hopefully, you will read the more reasoned arguments in the paper than my emotional argument during the testimony. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

47

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Briggs. 

My logical question to you is if the guest worker is not going to 

work, and, as you state, that anybody can falsify documents and 

bring them in to Mr. Birkman and show him a green card and a 

Social Security card or any other kind of card that we require, at 

least at this point in time, is proved to be counterfeitable, what 

does he do? How do we sanction him for hiring somebody who 

walks in with a legitimate Social Security card, a green card, or 

any other document that appears legitimate on its face? 

Mr. BRIGGS. I would say go back and say what Father Hessberg 

said on that commission. And he was for national identification 

cards. I know that is a no-no politically. But we are getting close 

to the time in which we are going to have to address these issues, 

not because of immigration reform but because of all of the other 

security issues we have got. 

I have got, in about a half an hour from now, to show my driver’s 

license to get on the airplane to go home tonight. Well, a driver’s 

license can be fraudulently—what is the point of this, going 

through this? In fact, it is going to be checked three times tonight, 

showing this piece of thing. And does anybody believe that is protecting this Nation? It is just a harassment. We have got to address 

the issue of—we have got to come up with what is being suggested 

with some of these other—biometric identification cards. It is part 

of this world which we live in today. That is the sad part. 

I do not say that because I want it to happen. Father Hessberg 

did not say it because he wanted it to happen. He said it has got 

to happen; it has got to happen. That is the age we live in. We are 

going to have to have some sort of identification, not that you have 

to carry around; not like a national ID that you have got to carry 

around all the time. But those few times, when you go in to look 

for a job, the most valuable thing this economy has to offer, a job, 

the most important thing of all, that you have to show a card that 

identifies who, in fact, you are. 

And that means it is going to cost money to get to some sort of—

these biometric cards that actually can show your data, who you 

actually are, not just a picture of you or a piece of paper. And we 

are going to have to bite that bullet. And all of these other documents can be easily counterfeited, and they are being. 

And until that time, as Father Hessberg said, this is nothing 

about Big Brother-dom and all the rest of it. It is the reality of the 

world we live in. 

Now, of course, his recommendations were left out of IRCA, and 

that is what made IRCA a failure. We knew it was not going to 

work without the ID. Employer sanctions will never work without 

a better ID system. We have got that deal with the fraudulent documents. All of those commissions say that. It is a bullet someone 

is going to have to bite if you really want to get this issue solved. 

And I think it is in the national interest, it is the national interest, 

to see this done—again, not an ID that you have to carry around, 

and a policeman can stop you on the corner, where is it, but in 

those cases where you want to get Social Security, or you want to 

get on an airplane, or you want to get a job, you are going to have 

to show it and be able to find out who it is. 

48

Now, there are better people than me who know how to do those 

things, but I am told that they know how to do it, and apparently, 

they are doing it on some of the Border Crossing Cards already. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Mr. Papademetriou, let me ask you, you 

probably heard my question to Mr. Aguirre relative to this family 

issue that you addressed, and that is whatever program we go to 

is going to create problems in and of itself, and one of them is these 

families of a legal worker here. How would you suggest we approach that with respect to somebody who is here legally under a 

guest worker program, that might legitimate them? What is going 

to happen to their wife? What is going to happen to their children 

from the standpoint of how we should address them? 

Mr. PAPADEMETRIOU. Well, Mr. Chairman, it all depends on how 

many times you actually offer people a 3-year temporary, in quotes, 

visa. In other words, if you do that two or three times, I suspect 

several of those children who are American-born children will have 

reached the age of majority per the immigration rules, and they 

will be able to sponsor their parents. And then, you will have to 

have the choice of separating parents and children one more time 

or passing a different sort of legislation. 

If I might, and I know I am being presumptuous, if I might, I 

would like us, if we are going to do it, to do it sort of right this 

time. They keep passing legislation for a specific period of time. 

There are not enough jobs; let us increase the visas. And they stay 

there permanently. There are too many jobs. Let us try to decrease 

the visas. And they stay low permanently. 

This time, perhaps, we can try to pass legislation for all seasons 

rather than just for the next year or two. And it seems to me that 

in order to do that, we are going to have to get down and dirty and 

do something about all three things that we need to do. And there 

is no other way to do that, sir, no other way. I have studied this 

phenomenon for over 30 years. I have written about 180 different 

pieces on this, and I have advised many governments, and contrary 

to what my very good friend Vernon Briggs—we have even written 

together—says, let me just give you a very simple example, just 

about the national ID card. 

There are countries in Europe that go beyond a national ID, and 

they have something that is called a population registry. That is 

not just a national ID. It is the requirement to actually go to the 

police and tell them that you have changed a job, that you have 

changed your location where you basically live, that you have 

changed whatever that is material about it. And the underground 

economy, fed primarily through illegal immigration in these very 

same countries, keeps increasing by 5 to 7 percent per year. 

Sir, if there was an easy way to do this, we would have done it. 

An awful lot of people, Ted Hessberg and everybody else, and 

Vernon Briggs and others, have really thought very hard about 

this. It comes to a point where you basically have to say let us try 

to follow, perhaps, a zero-based policy review. Instead of building 

on bad ideas, perhaps we ought to start anew with some of these 

ideas. 

I am saying this with the utmost respect, sir. For many reasons, 

including the fact that so many of these programs simply have too 

much baggage that really weigh them down, they have too much 

49

history, and we really have to start thinking differently, recognizing that for better or worse, there is an extraordinary and increasing demand for the type of labor that Mexicans and others 

bring and contribute to this economy, for better or for worse, and 

trying to manage that flow is more, it is smarter, makes more 

sense, than either denying it, which is what my friend Mr. Briggs 

is doing, or Ted Hessberg or anybody else, or simply saying let us 

live with illegal immigration. 

Just a small calculation, just to show you, back of the envelope 

completely, if you will allow me: some of your colleagues had a conversation with Mr. Hutchinson earlier, and he talked about enforcement dollars. Let me give you a simple calculation: we have 

about 10 million people who are here illegally. Suppose that about 

60 percent of them actually play by whatever new rules this Congress devises. Forty percent of them, 4 million people, will not. 

These people are either going to be the nucleus of an ever-expanding additional illegal work force and illegal immigration force, if 

you will, or we are going to have to do something about them, such 

as pick them up and remove them. 

The math is as follows: there are, let us say, 400 days—I do not 

want to make it difficult, 365—400 days in a year. Suppose that 

Mr. Hutchinson, with many more dollars, is able to pick up 500 of 

them each year. It will take him 20 years to remove these people. 

And this assumes there have been no new additions to the undocumented force in the United States. 

So, picking them up, packing them over and throwing them over- board is not going to do it. You think of resources? About $100 a 

day to keep somebody in jail. That does not include investigative 

resources; it does not include the resources that it takes in order 

to really give their claim to perhaps that they should stay in the 

country, because they have some equities, or what have you. Removing an individual from the United States, even if you basically 

make it terribly, terribly, easy, and the 1996 legislation, three 

pieces of them, have made it relatively easy, relative to what it 

used to be before, is an issue that costs tens if not hundreds of 

thousands of dollars. We do not have the resources for that. 

And if we are going to take the President’s underlying assumption that part of the reason that we should be doing this is for security, domestic security reasons, in order for us to be more reassured that somehow, 35 or 1 or 500 among these 10 million of unknown people in the United States do not really wish us harm, we 

are going to have nearly 100 percent participation through any program that we devise, because that is the buy-in in order for them 

to pass through these security screens. There has got to be some 

buy-in. And that is an expectation that something is at the other 

side for them. 

Some of them, I am convinced, many people disagree with me, 

some of them will actually choose to go back and forth. Ten or 15 

years ago, the rule of thumb about Mexican migration to the 

United States was that it was something that we used to call circular: they come, they stay, they work in agriculture, they put together, you know, a bit of money, they go back, they try it, they 

open up a shop, buy some sort of a taxi, what have you; they succeed, perfect. They do not succeed, they come back here. 

50

What the President’s—in a sense, the genius part of the President’s recommendations or principles is that reintroducing the possibility of a circularity, or, for that matter, Mr. Craig’s bill, Mr. 

Kennedy’s bill, reintroducing circularity, bringing the program 

more in harmony with reality, makes sense. But we must not forget that the other things will also have to be fixed. 

This is about integrating our responses. If you only do one of 

them, you might as well not do it at all. The only reason that Mr. 

Kennedy’s and Mr. Craig’s legislation makes sense to do independently of anything else, because the circumstances in the agricultural labor market are so unique that they actually create an opportunity for us to do something unique to that particular sector. 

Everything else will bleed into everything else. So it seems to me 

that it is important that we do that. And if we engage this conversation, we will have to think about worker standards. I do not 

think any reasonable American, I do not think that Vernon Briggs 

disagrees that we have to have worker protections and worker 

standards, and we have to make them meaningful. That means not 

only good laws but good enforcement methodology and resources to 

actually apply this enforcement methodology. 

And we are not bereft of ideas, sir. Many of us can talk to your 

staff, as we talked with the staff of many of your colleagues, and 

we can come up with ideas. But it takes willingness on the part 

of the Congress to break the mold. 

I am sorry, sir. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. We welcome your comments. 

Senator Craig, do you have any— 

Senator CRAIG. I will be brief, because the hour is growing late, 

but I thank all of you for your testimony, and Mr. Papademetriou, 

you have mentioned a portion of our bill. There is one element in 

it that we think brings people forward, and that is a nonpunitive 

ability to earn something. It is that pass-through with something 

on the other side. And we, therefore, stabilize a work force. We 

identify a work force. They identify themselves. They are not limited to stay in agriculture. They can work elsewhere in the economy, as long as, over a period of time, they earn that 360-day status within it to gain permanency. 

The stick in this case has not worked. It will not work. It shoves 

them into the alleys and shoves them into the shadows, and then, 

they become victims of the system once again. Thank you for your 

testimony. You know, in my effort to try to understand this, and 

I nowhere near grasp the scope of it as you have with the work 

that both you and Mr. Briggs have done over the years. But the 

uniqueness of something has changed here, Mr. Briggs, I do believe, and I do not disagree with you that a lot of what we have 

tried in the past has not worked. 

I am now beginning to read history and looking at the movement 

and the failures and the efforts. When organized labor, who once 

was quite hostile, is now recognizing the need to solve a problem 

and to create legitimacy and fluidity in approach, it helps us 

change the dynamics. The bias that is, in large part, built within 

all of the past laws that was dramatically placed there by an organized labor effort in this country that wanted to deny, because it 

51

thought they were replacing, has changed significantly, I do believe. 

That gives us an added resource in working collectively together 

to solve this problem, and I think that might make a modicum of 

difference that may dispel the ability for us to fail once again, because it is inherent within the current process. 

Gentlemen, thank you all. 

Chairman CHAMBLISS. Again, let me express my appreciation to 

you. Thanks for sitting through the first part of this hearing and 

for staying around. Your testimony has been very valuable. We will 

enter your complete statements into the record, and I assure you 

they will be studied. 

Thank you very much. This time around, our record will remain 

open for 7 days. There may be some questions, gentlemen, that 

may be submitted to you in writing. We would appreciate you addressing those in short order and getting your answers back to us. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

52


94556.001
53


94556.002
54


94556.003
55


94556.004
56


94556.005
57


94556.006
58


94556.007
59


94556.008
60


94556.009
61


94556.010
62


94556.011
63


94556.012
64


94556.013
65


94556.014
66


94556.015
67


94556.016
68


94556.017
69


94556.018
70


94556.019
71


94556.020
72


94556.021
73


94556.022
74


94556.023
75


94556.024
76


94556.025
77


94556.026
78


94556.027
79


94556.028
80


94556.029
81


94556.030
82


94556.031
83


94556.032
84


94556.033
85


94556.034
86


94556.035
87


94556.036
88


94556.037
89


94556.038
90


94556.039
91


94556.040
92


94556.041
93


94556.042
94


94556.043
95


94556.044
96


94556.045
97


94556.046
98


94556.047
99


94556.048
100


94556.049
101


94556.050
102


94556.051
103


94556.052
104


94556.053
105


94556.054
106


94556.055
107


94556.056
108


94556.057
109


94556.058
110


94556.059
111


94556.060
112


94556.061
113


94556.062
114


94556.063
115


94556.064
116


94556.065
117


94556.066
118


94556.067
119


94556.068
120


94556.069
121


94556.070
122


94556.071
123


94556.072
124


94556.073
125


94556.074
126


94556.075
127


94556.076
128


94556.077
129


94556.078
130


94556.079
131


94556.080
132


94556.081
133


94556.082
134


94556.083
135


94556.084
136


94556.085
137


94556.086
138


94556.087
139


94556.088
140


94556.089
141


94556.090
142


94556.091
143


94556.092
144


94556.093
145


94556.094
146


94556.095
147


94556.096
148


94556.097
149


94556.098
150


94556.099
151


94556.100
152


94556.101
153


94556.102
154


94556.103
155


94556.104
156


94556.105
157


94556.106
158


94556.107
159


94556.108
160


94556.109
161


94556.110
162


94556.111
163


94556.112
164


94556.113
165


94556.114
166


94556.115
167


94556.116
168


94556.117
169


94556.118
170


94556.119
171

Æ


94556.120