U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

35–858 PDF 2007

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM:

BUSINESS COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 6, 2007

Serial No. 110–41

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 6, 2007

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3

WITNESSES 

Mr. Laszlo Bock, Vice President, People Operations, Google, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. Jerry Mixon, Jr., Partner, Mixon Family Farms 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16

Mr. John F. Gay, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs and Public 

Policy, National Restaurant Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Mr. William R. Hawkins, Senior Fellow, U.S. Business and Industry Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 2

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ....... 5

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from Laszlo Bock, Vice President, People Operations, Google, Inc. 

to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 52

Letter from William B. Spencer, Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), Inc. to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 

Chairwoman, and the Honorable Steve King, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 

International Law ................................................................................................ 54

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: 

BUSINESS COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

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

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Berman, Jackson Lee, Waters, 

Davis, Ellison, King, Gallegly, and Gohmert. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel; R. Blake 

Chisam, Majority Counsel; George Fishman, Minority Counsel; and 

Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member. 

Ms. LOFGREN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, and members of the public who are here today 

for the Subcommittee’s 14th hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

Our series of hearings on comprehensive immigration reform 

began at Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure our borders, to address economic 

and demographic concerns, and there we reviewed our Nation’s rich 

immigrant history. 

We have studied immigration reform from 1986 and 1996 in an 

effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We have considered the 

problems with and proposed solutions for our current employment 

and work site verification system. And in light of the recent Senate 

immigration agreement to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace those priorities with a completely new and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants 

to America and the various immigration point systems used around 

the world. We have explored the cost of immigration on our States 

and localities, the importance of immigrant integration, and the future of undocumented immigrant students in the United States. 

A few weeks ago, we heard from the faith-based and immigrant 

communities, and labor unions who represent both U.S. workers 

and immigrants around the country. 

Today we turn our attention to perspectives from the business 

community. 

2

Looking back to our first hearing on comprehensive immigration 

reform at Ellis Island, economist Dan Siciliano noted, ‘‘The evidence continues to mount in favor of the conclusion that immigration is good for the economy, good for jobs, and a critical part of 

our Nation’s future prosperity.’’

This statement is not only true in one or two sectors of the American economy, it is true in several sectors, including high-tech, agriculture, and service industries. 

The world, as Thomas Friedman puts it, is now flat. To compete 

in such an economy, American high-tech businesses need access to 

the global talent pool. Without consistent, simple access to the best 

and brightest minds in the world, America will likely face stiffer 

competition from abroad in what may be the key economic sector 

of the 21st century. 

Like the high-tech industry, the service industry recognizes the 

urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform. From restaurant workers and landscapers to housekeepers and, most importantly, people who care for our most vulnerable, including children 

and elderly parents, our current immigration system is failing to 

fill the needs of our aging U.S. workforce. 

Nowhere is the lack of U.S. workers more obvious than in the agriculture sector. In California alone, last season’s pear crop was 

lost due to a lack of workers to pick the fruit. Farmers around the 

country will testify that no matter how much they can realistically 

pay workers, they can’t seem to find U.S. workers to tend the field. 

It is time for Congress to recognize an urgent need. It is time for 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

I want to thank you again, to our distinguished witnesses, for 

being here today to help us sort through what is a complex and 

very important issue. 

And I would now recognize our Ranking minority Member, Congressman Steve King, for his opening statement. 

[The opening statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Immigration Subcommittee Members, our witnesses, 

and members of the public to the Subcommittee’s fourteenth hearing on comprehensive immigration reform. 

Our series of hearings on comprehensive immigration reform began at Ellis Island, where we examined the need for comprehensive immigration reform to secure 

our borders, to address economic and demographic concerns, and there we reviewed 

our nation’s rich immigrant history. We have studied immigration reform from 1986 

and 1996 in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past. We’ve considered the problems with and proposed solutions for our current employment and worksite 

verification system. In light of the recent Senate immigration agreement to eliminate family priorities in immigration and replace those priorities with a completely 

new and untested point system, we studied the contributions of family immigrants 

to America and various immigration point systems used around the world. We have 

explored the costs of immigration on our states and localities, the importance of immigrant integration, and the future of undocumented immigrant students in the 

United States. A few weeks ago, we heard from the faith based and immigrant communities and labor unions who represent both U.S. workers and immigrants around 

the country. 

Today we turn our attention to perspectives from the business community. Looking back to our first hearing on comprehensive immigration reform at Ellis Island, 

economist Dan Siciliano noted: ‘‘The evidence continues to mount in favor of the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:37 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607A\35858.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35858
3

clusion that immigration is good for economy, good for jobs, and a critical part of 

our nation’s future prosperity.’’

This statement is not only true in one or two sectors of the American economy, 

it is true in several sectors, including the high-tech, agriculture, and service industries. 

The world, as Thomas Friedman puts it, is now flat. To compete in such an economy, American high-tech businesses need access to the global talent pool. Without 

consistent, simple access to the best and brightest minds in the world, America will 

likely face stiffer competition from abroad in what may be the key economic sector 

of the 21st century. 

Like the high-tech industry, the service industry recognizes the urgent need for 

comprehensive immigration reform. From restaurant workers and landscapers to 

housekeepers and, most importantly, people who care for our most vulnerable, including children and elderly parents, our current immigration system is failing to 

fill the needs of our aging U.S. workforce. 

Nowhere is the lack of U.S. workers more obvious than in the agriculture sector. 

In California alone, last season’s pear crop was lost due to a lack of workers to pick 

the fruit. Farmers around the country will testify that no matter how much they 

can realistically pay workers, they can’t seem to find U.S. workers to tend the fields. 

It is time for Congress to recognize an urgent need. It’s time for comprehensive 

immigration reform.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for holding this 

hearing. And thanks for all of the hearings that we have had. 

We have had a lot of witnesses before us, and I appreciate you 

all being here as a service to America. We thank you for that. 

But I don’t think the public realizes how much sacrifice there is 

on your part, of your time and treasure, to come here and contribute to the public record and dialogue that hopefully will move 

us toward a rational immigration policy. 

But as the Senate engages in debate on the fragile deal before 

it, the media is full of comments from lawmakers and stakeholders 

expressing their sentiment that the deal is not perfect, but it is the 

best we can do. 

But it is far from perfect, and it is not the best we can do, and 

we should never commit the destiny of America to that kind of sentiment. 

So as we seek to cure our Nation’s immigration ills, we should 

be mindful of the Hippocratic principle that the treatment for any 

illness is first do no harm. 

We tried a broad amnesty as the treatment for illegal immigration in 1986. That was a comprehensive immigration reform plan. 

And I would be interested in anybody who could define the distinctions between the two except in the order of magnitude, and 

this one is a 12 to 20 multiplier of that 1986 comprehensive immigration reform plan. 

It not only failed to cure the problem, it made it worse. A million 

illegal immigrants quickly became 3 million. And now we have 12 

million to 20 million or more, yet the Senate bill proposes administering the same cure that made the illness worse before. 

Proponents of the Senate deal claim that it is not an amnesty because illegal aliens will be required to undergo a background check, 

pay back taxes and pay a fine before they will be given permanent 

status. 

They gloss over the fact that none of these things needs to be accomplished before an illegal alien is given the very objective of his 

crime, which is immediate authorization to work in the United 

States or stay in the United States, along with the protection from 

removal for as long as they would like to renew their status. 

4

Even the background check is not a precondition to a grant of 

probationary status. If the background check cannot be completed 

by the close of business on the day following the filing of an application for probationary status, the illegal alien immediately gets 

legal status, work authorization and protection from removal anyway. 

Many advocates of the deal rationalize that at least this will 

bring illegal aliens out of the shadows, enhancing our security. 

But granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million people who 

have already demonstrated by their very presence a willingness to 

break our laws does absolutely nothing to make our country safer 

and gives me no confidence that those who are willing to break our 

laws will come out of the shadows. 

This drastic step is being proposed under the pretext that our 

economy will collapse without legalizing millions of cheap, unskilled workers. 

First, there is no widespread labor shortage that would justify 

this approach. There are 69 million Americans of working age who 

are simply not in the workforce. 

And I had no witness come forward and tell me why we are not 

trying to recruit one out of 10 of those to replace the 6.9 million 

working illegals in America. 

Many of these Americans dropped out of the workforce because 

they were discouraged by the depressed wages being offered as a 

result of the widespread availability of cheap labor. 

Supply and demand does work with labor as well as any other 

commodity, and an oversupply drives down the value of that labor. 

The second, as Mr. Hawkins of the U.S. Business and Industry 

Council points out, creating a large underclass of uneducated, impoverished toilers is a business model that looks backward, not forward. 

It does not expand the middle-class market that most businesses 

need to reach to sell their goods and services. Businessmen stand 

to lose more in the long run from the increased tax and regulatory 

burdens that an alienated proletarian voting bloc will support than 

from the deceptive short-term gains from low labor costs. 

America’s historical response to a tight labor market has been 

advancements in technology and improvements in productivity, resulting in so many Americans achieving the American dream. 

Finally, the claim that illegal immigrants are doing work that 

Americans won’t do is false and an insult to the American workforce. Americans have historically done every kind of work, and 

they continue to do so now in virtually every field. 

Many more Americans would be willing to do the jobs that proponents of amnesty consider undesirable if they were paid a decent 

wage. 

And then as I listened to the testimony of Dr. Siciliano, the economist from Stanford University, his testimony said that illegal—or 

immigration would—he didn’t draw a distinction between legal and 

illegal—would increase and improve the economy because those 

who didn’t agree didn’t take into account the ripple effect of the 

jobs that are created by the consumption of those immigrant workers, legal or illegal. 

5

But he also said that he didn’t know where the dividing line was, 

where the point of diminishing returns was. He had not done the 

calculation. He simply concluded that it always paid, and so ‘‘I 

don’t know’’ was his answer to that question, ‘‘Where are the diminishing returns?’’

I have not heard empirical data that supports these conclusions. 

I have heard anecdotes. And I happen to also hear—I am going to 

hear more and more anecdotes here. 

But I am going to ask you witnesses, present us, please, with 

some empirical data that is a broad objective across this overall society, economy and culture. If we legislate on anecdotes, we could 

drive America down into the depths of the third world if we don’t 

make a bright decision here. 

Let’s let it be an informed decision, not an anecdotal decision 

that fits someone’s political agenda. And I look forward to the testimony. 

And I would yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will reserve time for the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. 

Conyers, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, should he come, for 

their opening statements. 

And other Members of the Committee are invited to submit their 

statements for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Today we continue these series of hearings dealing with comprehensive immigration reform. This subcommittee previously dealt with the shortfalls of the 1986 and 

1996 immigration reforms, the difficulties employers face with employment 

verification and ways to improve the employment verification system. On Tuesday 

May 1, 2007 we explored the point system that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand utilize, and on May 3, 2007 the focus of the discussion was 

on the U.S. economy, U.S. workers and immigration reform. Last week we took a 

look at another controversial aspect of the immigration debate, family based immigration. Today we continue the vital task of eliminating the myths and seeking the 

truth. Last Wednesday’s hearing dealt with probably the most crucial aspect underlying the immigration debate, an immigrant’s ability to integrate, and assimilate 

into American society. Last Thursday we tackled another pressing topic, the practical issue of the impact of immigration on States and Localities. On Friday May 

18, 2007 we discussed the issue of the ‘‘Future of Undocumented Immigrant Students,’’ and on May 24, 2007 we examined the ‘‘Labor Movement Perspective’’ on 

comprehensive immigration reform. Today we will examine the perspectives of the 

business community. 

I want to begin by thanking the Chairwoman, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for 

her leadership on this crucial issue, and her wisdom in calling these hearings. These 

hearings have afforded us the opportunity to hear from the players who are most 

impacted by comprehensive immigration reform. Regardless of where you stand on 

this issue, the one thing that Members on both sides of the aisle can agree on is 

the need to fix a system that is broken. This will include tougher enforcement of 

immigration laws, but only after a meaningful effort has been made to provide our 

border patrolman with the resources they need to do their job effectively. Although 

I may not be a proponent of building a fence, I do realize the need to secure our 

borders so I would advocate for more border patrolmen; better radio’s so these patrolmen and patrolwomen can communicate effectively; vehicles that can navigate 

the water and the tough terrains of the southern border; aircraft that will give our 

border patrolmen an enhanced presence and improved visibility; and a virtual fence 

that utilizes the latest technology. My legislation the ‘‘Save America Comprehensive 

Immigration Reform Act’’ of 2007 provides for all of these necessities. 

6

In addition to securing our borders we must simultaneously protect our economy 

and protect all workers from exploitation. The title of this hearing is ‘‘Business 

Community Perspectives,’’ and I am almost confident that the witnesses will repeat 

much of what we have already learned over the past couple of months and that is 

the fact that comprehensive immigration reform is essential to the survival of our 

nation’s economy. We live in a highly educated society where our high school graduates expect to earn a college degree and a significant number of those individuals 

move on to earn advanced degrees so they can work in high-skill positions. However, 

there are jobs that need to be filled in the low-skilled sector because our economy 

continues to grow, the American worker is spending longer hours at the office, and 

the demand for essential products like groceries is not going to cease to exist. Therefore the undocumented population continues to provide an essential service that our 

economy needs. I will reiterate the fact that immigration actually benefits our national economy and we have heard this fact from numerous witnesses who have testified before this subcommittee in the past. Immigration will benefit social security, 

and immigration helps create small businesses that generate tax revenue for local 

municipalities across the nation. 

I note that one of today’s witnesses is John Gay who represents the National Restaurant Association. I am confident that his remarks will echo the sentiments of 

those who represent the construction and agricultural industry. Quite frankly there 

is a labor shortage in these various industries, and these industries continue to 

grow at a rapid pace. In light of these facts I am puzzled by Senator Bingaman’s 

amendment to the Senate immigration bill which passed and cut the guest worker 

program in half to 200,000. This is not feasible in light of all the studies that suggest we have an increasing labor shortage; certainly the anecdotal evidence is there 

when you pass a construction project that has not been completed, or you pass a 

field that is being tended to by just a handful of laborers. 

We will also hear testimony from Laszlo Bock of the Google Corporation. He can 

also testify to the virtues and numerous contributions that foreign born entrepreneurs have made to U.S. technology companies like Google, Intel, and Yahoo. In 

fact it was a Russian born immigrant named Sergey Brin who helped start Google. 

Another foreign born entrepreneur Jerry Yang co-founded Yahoo. 

In a recent study by the National Venture Capital Association they discovered 

that over the past 15 years, immigrants founded one of every four venture-backed 

startups that became publicly traded companies. The study also showed that immigrant-founded public companies today employ about 220,000 people in the United 

States alone, and represent a total market value of more than $500 billion. Therefore, the value of H-1B visas can not be overstated. The contribution that these individuals make to our country economically is quantifiable, and culturally undeniable. 

However, Mr. Bock and others from the tech industry are also suffering from a 

shortage in the labor supply. Since the 9/11 attacks the number of H-1B visas granted to U.S. employers has dropped to 65,000 a year, from 195,000 year annually in 

2000 and 2001. Senator Gregg has offered an amendment to the Senate Immigration bill that would increase the number of H-1B visas to 150,000 for fiscal year 

2008, and 215,000 a year thereafter. This amendment offered by Senator Gragg is 

the type of thoughtful approach that we need to make as we craft a new immigration bill, a bill that will hopefully be practical but meets our national security and 

economic needs. 

In conclusion I will say that the current immigration system has failed the business community. Employers can not verify the status of potential employees, resulting in scenarios that we saw played out in New Bedford Massachusetts, or at the 

Swift Meat Packing Company in Colorado. Likewise, leaders of the agricultural, 

service, and construction industries continue to make pleas for an effective guest 

worker program, or a path to legalization for the millions of undocumented folks 

that are here. A solution must be found. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, Madam chair I yield back my 

time.

Ms. LOFGREN. I am pleased to introduce the witnesses. 

I would like to start with an introduction to Jerry Mixon, Jr., a 

partner alongside his brothers at Mixon Family Farms, Inc. Producing blueberries; raspberries and blackberries. Mixon Family 

Farms employs between 500 and 600 people during harvest season. 

He served for 4 years as president of the Florida Blueberry Growers Association and currently sits on two standing committees of 

the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, as well as the board 

7

of directors for the Polk County Farm Bureau in Florida. He 

earned his bachelor’s degree at the University of Central Florida 

and has completed his master’s degree course work at the University of Florida. 

I am pleased to introduce also John Gay, who is the senior vice 

president for government affairs and public policy at the National 

Restaurant Association. Mr. Gay co-founded and continues to cochair the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition and chairs the 

board of the National Immigration Forum. Prior to his post at the 

National Restaurant Association, he worked for the American Hotel 

and Lodging Association and the International Franchise Association. He also worked on the legislative staff of the former Republican Senator from Georgia, Mack Mattingly. 

I would like to welcome our minority party witness, William 

Hawkins, the senior fellow for National Security Studies at the 

U.S. Business and Industry Council. Before joining the staff of the 

Business and Industry Council, Mr. Hawkins served as a Senior 

Research Analyst to Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, 

the former Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Holding 

degrees in both economics and history, he is the author of two 

books, Importing Revolution and The Open Borders Lobby.

And finally, I would like to welcome Laszlo Bock, the vice president of People Operations at Google. Mr. Bock came to Google after 

a distinguished tenure at the General Electric Company and 

McKinsey & Company. Mr. Bock and his family left Romania in 

July 1974, staying first at a refugee camp in Austria, where his 

mother Susan remembers receiving care packages signed, ‘‘These 

are gifts from the people of the United States of America.’’ They arrived in the U.S. in November 1974 as political asylees, settling 

outside of Los Angeles, in Claremont, California, where Mr. Bock’s 

mother, father and brother each started their own businesses. His 

father established an engineering firm that grew to employ 15 engineers. His mother founded a business consulting firm. And his 

brother created an Internet service firm. Mr. Bock received his 

bachelor’s degree from Pomona College and his MBA from Yale 

University. And I am proud to have someone from Google, which 

is from my neck of the woods in California, here to testify. 

And I did want to note that Mr. Bock’s mother is here with us 

today. And would you stand, Mrs. Bock, so we could recognize you? 

[Applause.] 

It is always wonderful when the mom can be here to see the testimony. 

I would first like to start with Mr. Bock. 

And I will note to all of the witnesses that your full statements 

will be in the record. We have these little machines on the table. 

You have 5 minutes to summarize your statement. And when you 

have got about a minute left, the yellow light goes on. It always 

goes faster than you think. 

And then when the red light goes on, it means that your time 

is up, and we don’t have a heavy hand on the gavel, but we would 

ask that you summarize when the red light goes on so that we can 

hear all of the witnesses and get to our questions. 

So, Mr. Bock, would you begin? 

8

TESTIMONY OF LASZLO BOCK, VICE PRESIDENT,

PEOPLE OPERATIONS, GOOGLE, INC. 

Mr. BOCK. Madam Chair, Ranking Member King, Members of 

the Committee, it is a great pleasure to be with you this morning 

to talk about the impact of immigration policies on Google and the 

technology industry as a whole. 

My name is Laszlo Bock, and I am the Vice President of People 

Operations at Google. I am responsible for Google’s global efforts 

to attract, develop, and retain the most talented employees wherever we may find them. 

I am pleased to appear before you to help the Committee better 

understand the practical impact that our immigration system has 

on Google. 

Google’s positive experience with American immigration policy 

dates back to our very inception. Our search engine began as a 

shared idea in the minds of our company’s founders, Sergey Brin 

and Larry Page. 

Sergey’s own parents, and he himself, fled the Soviet Union in 

1979 when he was 6. A first-generation American, he is now one 

of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world. 

In fact, Google is just the most recent success story for immigrants in Silicon Valley. Intel, eBay, Yahoo!, Sun and many other 

companies were all founded by immigrants who were welcomed by 

America. 

And within Google, there are countless examples of immigrants 

and non-immigrant foreign workers playing a vital role in our company. H-1B visa holders have helped lead the development of 

Google News and Orkut, our social networking site. 

Immigrants from countries like Canada, Iran, and Switzerland 

now lead our business operations, our global marketing, our global 

business development, and our data infrastructure operations. 

Without these talented employees and others, Google, and the 

high-tech industry as a whole, would not be the success it is today. 

I would like to note that I, too, am an immigrant to America. My 

parents came here when they fled Communist Romania when I was 

a child. My mother is here with me today. I cannot begin to tell 

you what a proud moment this is for her and a humbling one for 

me. 

In my testimony this morning, I would like to make three points: 

First, Google’s success absolutely depends on attracting the best 

and brightest employees. Second, hiring and retaining the most talented employees regardless of national origin is essential to the 

United States’ ability to compete globally. And third, companies 

like Google would benefit from improving our policies toward nonU.S. workers, including in the area of H-1B visas, so we can continue innovating and growing. 

First I will talk about the role that our employees play at Google. 

People are our most vital competitive asset and the single most important ingredient to ensuring our future growth and success. 

Our strategy is simple. We hire great people and we encourage 

them to make their dreams a reality. In the knowledge-based economy, companies large and small depend primarily on their employees for success. 

9

America’s edge depends on the ability of U.S. companies to innovate and create the next generation of must-have products and 

services. And that ability to innovate and create in turn depends 

on having the best and brightest workers. 

Today approximately 8 percent of Google’s employees in the U.S. 

are here on 6-year H-1B visas. These Googlers currently span 80 

different countries of origin. 

So while nine out of 10 of our employees are citizens or permanent residents, our need to find the specialized skills required to 

run our business successfully requires that we look at candidates 

from around the globe. 

It is no stretch to say that without these employees we might not 

be able to develop future revolutionary products, like the next 

Gmail or the next Google Earth. 

And let me share two examples. Orkut Buyukkokten was born in 

Turkey. He joined Google through the H-1B visa program and was 

responsible for developing our social networking service, which is 

called—you guessed it—Orkut. 

Krishna Bharat, a native of India who joined Google in 1999 

through the H-1B program, was one of the chief creators of Google 

News and is now our principal scientist. 

Without Orkut and Krishna and many other employees, Google 

would not be able to offer innovative and useful new products to 

our users. 

Now let me turn to the issue of how our immigration system affects our ability to compete with the rest of the world. 

We believe that it is in the best interest of the United States to 

welcome into our workforce talented individuals who happen to 

have been born elsewhere, rather than send them back to their 

countries of origin. 

But this doesn’t mean we don’t recruit here in the U.S. or that 

American workers are being left behind. On the contrary, we are 

creating jobs here in the U.S. every day. 

But we are not the only ones recruiting talented engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. We are in a fierce, worldwide competition for top talent unlike ever before. 

As companies in India, China, and other countries step up efforts 

to attract highly skilled employees, the U.S. must continue to focus 

on attracting and retaining these great minds. 

So what does my day-to-day experience as Google’s People Operations leader teach me about what our country should do to retain 

the best and brightest? 

First and most importantly, each and every day we find ourselves unable to pursue highly qualified candidates because there 

are not enough H-1B visas. 

We would encourage Congress to significantly increase the annual cap of 65,000 H-1B visas to a figure more reflective of the 

growth rate of our technology-driven economy. 

Over the past year alone, the artificially low cap on H-1B visas 

has prevented more than 70 Google candidates from receiving H1B visas. 

Beyond increasing the H-1B visa cap, we also believe that Congress should address the significant backlog in employment-based 

green cards for highly skilled workers. 

10

In conclusion, as Congress considers the various immigration 

proposals before you, we hope you will consider Google’s experience 

as well as the important role that our immigration policies play in 

ensuring that the U.S. remains the world’s high-tech leader. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bock follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LASZLO BOCK


Bock-1.eps
11


Bock-2.eps
12


Bock-3.eps
13


Bock-4.eps
14


Bock-5.eps
15

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bock. And you yield 

back your time. 

Mr. Mixon, we are pleased to hear from you now. 

TESTIMONY OF JERRY MIXON, JR., PARTNER,

MIXON FAMILY FARMS 

Mr. MIXON. The May 28, 2007, issue of Newsweek magazine recalled one of President Ronald Reagan’s radio addresses. In 1977, 

he observed that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. He was quoted as 

saying, ‘‘Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of our 

illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing 

work our own people won’t do?’’

Good morning, Chair Lofgren and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Jerry Mixon, and I am here appearing before you on 

behalf of my corporation, Mixon Family Farms, Sunny Ridge Farm, 

the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the Florida and 

Georgia Blueberry Growers Association. 

Sunny Ridge Farm is a second-generation agricultural producer 

and marketer of fresh blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, and 

citrus. 

To date, we have farms, packing facilities, and offices in Florida, 

Georgia, Mexico, and Chile, employing up to 1,500 employees during our peak harvest season, with an annual payroll of over $7 million. 

From our beginnings 15 years ago, we have committed ourselves 

to the values of honesty and hard work, with the goal of providing 

our customers with the highest quality berries possible. 

A key challenge to achieving our goal of high quality from our 

fields to the consumer’s table lies in the highly perishable nature 

of our products. Our berries must be harvested on a 4-day to 5-day 

picking rotation and then promptly delivered to the market so that 

the consumer can enjoy a great quality product. 

The products we grow are primarily hand harvested due to their 

delicate nature. The importance of labor availability cannot be understated. 

The volume of goods and services we purchase has a significant 

impact on other businesses and industries in our local and surrounding communities. 

In 2006, Sunny Ridge Farm purchased in excess of $41 million 

of goods and services related to maintaining our business. 

In 2004 and 2005, Florida had a value of production for the 

seven major vegetable crops—potatoes, berries and watermelons—

of more than $1.8 billion on harvested acres of over 219,000. 

The economic impact generated by these agricultural entities 

reaches beyond our local communities to our States and even into 

our Nation. 

If growers are unable to find the labor to harvest these crops, 

and their farms go out of business, the upstream and downstream 

businesses will be adversely affected. 

Growers would be forced to develop more farms offshore. Subsequently, goods and services needed by these farms would be purchased offshore. 

16

Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform this year 

which contains provisions that address the unique needs of agriculture for a reliable and legal workforce. 

The unique agricultural provisions must contain these basic components: a program to allow the current experienced agricultural 

workforce to earn a legal working status—this could be earned by 

working in agricultural employment for several years into the future—in addition to the payment of fines and a demonstration of 

law-abiding conduct while in the U.S. 

Secondly, the reform needs to include changes to the current employment verification system. Employers need to be given clear 

standards on how to comply with their hiring obligations without 

discrimination and with confidence that the workers they hire have 

proper work documents. 

Thirdly, the H-2A agricultural guest worker program must be 

streamlined to avoid bureaucratic delays that could potentially 

cause a grower to lose his crop because of a workforce showing up 

too late. 

The reformed H-2A program should also require a wage rate for 

foreign and U.S. workers that is fair and accurately reflects the 

market. The current H-2A adverse effect wage rate does not do so. 

And in many cases, growers cannot afford to pay the required wage 

and make a profit. 

Included in this reform should be the option of providing a housing allowance in lieu of actual housing. This would allow agricultural producers located in rural or remote areas more access to use 

the H-2A program. 

Currently the bill being debated in the Senate effectively addresses these key concerns. The resolution of these issues will be 

the success of not only my family’s business but the businesses of 

many others who have chosen agriculture as a way of life. 

It is our sincere hope that the Congress will expediently pass a 

comprehensive bill which will meet the needs of agricultural businesses throughout America and allow us to continue being a world 

leader in safe, great-tasting agricultural products. 

The President Ronald Reagan quote that I began with ended 

with him saying, ‘‘One thing is certain in this hungry world. No 

regulation or law should be allowed if it results in the crops rotting 

in the fields for lack of harvesters.’’

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and those of 

the FFVA on this critical issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mixon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY MIXON, JR. 

The May 28, 2007 issue of Newsweek magazine recalled one of President Ronald 

Reagan’s radio addresses. In 1977, he observed that apples were rotting on trees in 

New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. He is quoted as saying: ‘‘It makes one wonder about the illegal-alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal-alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do?’’ Reagan continued. ‘‘One thing is certain 

in this hungry world: no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops 

rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.’’

Good morning Chair Lofgren and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Jerry Mixon and I am appearing before you on behalf of my corporation, 

SunnyRidge Farm, the Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the Florida and Georgia Blueberry Growers Associations. 

17

SunnyRidge Farm is a second generation agricultural grower and marketer of 

fresh blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, and citrus. My brothers and I began fifteen years ago, under the direction of our father, Gerald Mixon, Sr., with 200 acres 

of citrus, and have grown to encompass 1000 acres of blueberries, raspberries, and 

blackberries with 100 acres remaining in citrus production. We have established a 

marketing division at SunnyRidge Farm which has grown from servicing a niche 

market of Florida blueberries for 6 weeks of the year, to currently servicing a customer base spanning from Japan to England, from Canada to South America, 365 

days a year, 7 days a week. To date, we have farms, packing facilities, and offices 

in Florida, Georgia, Mexico, and Chile. From our beginnings fifteen years ago, we 

have committed ourselves to the values of honesty, hard work, and the goal of providing our customers with the highest quality berries. We constantly strive to find 

the most effective and efficient ways to bring fresh, healthy, delicious product to our 

world market every day of the year. 

A key challenge to achieving our goals of high quality from our fields to the consumer’s table lies in the highly perishable nature of our products. Our berries must 

be harvested on a 4–5 day rotation schedule and then promptly delivered to the 

market so that the consumer can enjoy quality product. The products we grow are 

primarily hand-harvested due to their delicate nature. The importance of labor 

availability cannot be understated. We, at SunnyRidge Farm, currently employ a 

full time staff of 64 people. At the peak of our harvest season, we employ over 1500 

in our field operations and packing facilities. Wages paid for the 2006 calendar year 

were $7.5 million. Because of the aforementioned perishable nature of agricultural 

products, any delay in the essential workforce would be detrimental and even destructive to production, as well as the livelihood of the grower. 

The volume of goods and services we purchase has a significant impact on other 

businesses and industries in the local and surrounding communities. In 2006, 

SunnyRidge Farm purchased:

• $4 million packing and shipping materials produced in local factories

• $3.2 million transportation

• $800,000 fertilizers and other supplies for farms

• $33 million domestically grown product purchased from other local farmers

• $300,000 travel

These items total $41 million in economic impact to our state and nation. 

If agricultural growers are unable to find labor to harvest our crops and our farms 

subsequently go out of business, these upstream and downstream businesses will 

also be adversely affected. We will no longer require the use of these goods and services. As a result, these businesses will be forced to downsize their labor force. The 

$7.5 million in wages paid by SunnyRidge Farm would not be recirculated in the 

communities, causing a multiplier effect of losses to all consumer goods, retailers, 

services and housing. If we lose the ability to have an adequate labor supply, we 

will be forced to develop more farms offshore for production on foreign soil. With 

the offshore farms, all the goods and services would also be produced by foreign entities. 

Today, I also am testifying on behalf of the FFVA, which represents numerous 

labor-intensive farmers in Florida whose businesses and continued success depends 

on a reliable labor force. In 2005, Florida had 42,500 commercial farms using a total 

of 10,000,000 acres. There were 6300 farms with sales exceeding $100,000. The average farm size was just less than 235 acres. The number of farms in Florida has 

remained fairly stable over the past ten years. 

In 2004–2005, the value of production for the seven major vegetable crops, potatoes, berries and watermelons totaled $1,893,183,000 with a harvested acreage of 

219,900. 

In 2005, Florida ranked first in the U.S. for sales of snap beans, fresh market 

tomatoes, cucumbers for fresh market, cucumbers for pickles, bell peppers, squash 

and watermelons. Florida also ranked first in the U.S. in the value of production 

of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and sugarcane for sugar and seed. Without a reliable labor force, Florida agriculture is at risk and the multiplier effect of job and 

production loss that the figures mentioned above show that our company would experience would be replicated throughout the state’s economy. 

We, who have the great privilege and responsibility of providing safe, healthy and 

delicious produce, come to you today in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Congress must pass comprehensive immigration reform this year which contains provisions that address the unique needs of agriculture for a reliable and legal 

workforce. The unique agricultural provisions must contain three basic components:

18

• A program to allow the current experienced agricultural workforce to earn 

legal working status as part of comprehensive reform

• A reform of the H-2A agricultural guest worker reform

• Reform of the current employment verification system so that employers are 

given clear standards on how to comply with their hiring obligations without 

discrimination, and can be confident that the workers they are hiring have 

proper work authorization documents.

A program for general business will not meet the unique needs of agricultural 

business. 

Those experienced agricultural laborers in undocumented status, who can prove 

substantial agricultural experience, should be allowed to earn legal working status. 

Legal status could be earned by working in agricultural employment for several 

years in the future, in addition to the payment of fines, and the demonstration of 

law-abiding conduct while in the U.S. This will provide an important bridge to the 

expanded use of the reformed H-2A program. 

To make the H-2A guest worker program workable, it first must be streamlined 

to avoid bureaucratic delays that result in applications being approved by the Department of Labor in an untimely manner. This results in a grower potentially losing his crop due to a workforce arriving too late. Secondly, the program should require a wage rate for foreign and U.S workers that is fair and accurately reflects 

the market. The current H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rate does not do so, and in 

many cases growers can not afford to pay the required wage and make a profit. 

Thirdly, the program is currently a litigation nightmare because of its complexity. 

It must be simplified. Mandatory mediation also must be part of the federal right 

of action, in order to avoid needless litigation costs and disruptions. Further, because agricultural products are grown primarily in rural areas, housing is not always available. The inclusion of a reform providing the option of a housing allowance, in lieu of housing, would benefit the agricultural businesses located in rural 

or remote areas by facilitating their use of the program. 

Currently, the bill being debated in the Senate addresses these key concerns. The 

resolution of these issues is essential to the success of not only my family’s business, 

but the businesses of many others who have chosen agriculture as their livelihood. 

Research demonstrates that unskilled immigrants compliment rather than replace 

native-born Americans in the labor force, doing jobs that native-born Americans will 

not do. 

The facts speak for themselves. The six states that receive the largest in-flow of 

illegal immigrants—New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and Arizona—

have unusually low unemployment rates. In fact, with the exception of California 

and Illinois, they are already lower than the already low national average of 4.5 percent recorded in April of 2007. 

FFVA and other state, regional, and national agricultural organizations have been 

in the forefront for the call for immigration reform for over a decade. In spite of 

repeated efforts by our industry and the development of a bipartisan proposal that 

has united workers and growers, Congress has repeatedly failed to act. Given actual 

shortages of legal workers and increasing enforcement activity, it is imperative that 

Congress pass a comprehensive bill that addresses agriculture’s unique challenges 

this year. The consequences will be economic disruption in many agricultural communities and the exporting of our labor-driven agricultural production to foreign 

countries, along with all the upstream and downstream jobs. 

It is our sincere hope that Congress will expediently pass a comprehensive bill 

which will meet the needs of agricultural businesses throughout America and allow 

us to continue being a world leader in the production of agricultural products. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and those of the FFVA on this 

critical issue.

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Mixon. 

And we will turn now to Mr. Gay. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. GAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL 

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GAY. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

King. Thank you for allowing me to testify at this important hearing on behalf of the National Restaurant Association and the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition. 

19

I will cut to the chase. We have a serious demographic problem 

in the United States. Without an overhaul to our dysfunctional immigration system, we are in danger of not having the workers we 

need to grow our economy. 

Roughly speaking, the native-born population is at replacement 

level. That is, we are having enough babies to replace ourselves. 

But the demand for workers keeps going. My industry is a good example. 

Over the next 10 years, we estimate we are going to add 200,000 

jobs per year, 2 million jobs over 10 years. But the Government estimates that the U.S. workforce is only going to grow 10 percent. 

We are adding 15 percent to the number of jobs alone, and the 

Government estimates the workforce is growing at 10 percent. The 

16- to 24-year-olds that make up half of our workforce—that group 

of people is not growing at all over the next 10 years, according to 

the Government. 

And the restaurant industry is not alone. Other industries that 

traditionally provide employment to younger, lesser-skilled workers 

are creating jobs as well. 

Of the Government list of the top 30 fastest-growing occupations, 

22 of them require just on-the-job training. Only six require a bachelor’s degree. The Nation needs an immigration policy that addresses the demand in all high-growth jobs. Right now, it doesn’t. 

The legal channels available to employers are grossly insufficient. The number of green cards available for lesser-skilled and 

unskilled workers, employment-based green cards, is 5,000 per 

year. 

Is it any wonder, with a growing economy, there are 400,000 to 

500,000 people net coming illegally and staying in this country 

each year? 

Another problem is the worker verification system that satisfies 

no one. It doesn’t satisfy workers. It doesn’t satisfy employers. It 

doesn’t satisfy you all. It doesn’t satisfy others who are charged 

with enforcing our law. It is a mess, too. 

A system this dysfunctional requires comprehensive immigration 

reform. And from the perspective of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, we seek reform that is workable in several key elements. 

And I urge that you keep that concept of workability in mind as 

legislation moves through the process. 

Compromise is the lifeblood of policy-making, but the final result 

must be something that is workable for all stakeholders, workable 

for those who have to implement the new law, who have to enforce 

the new law, for U.S. workers, for employers and for foreign workers. 

We seek workable reform that addresses these elements: One, 

the undocumented. An estimated 5 percent of the U.S. workforce 

is undocumented. That fact of life alone should dictate that we seek 

some way for that group to earn permanent legal status. 

Number two, sufficient channels for new workers. The flow of the 

undocumented into this country has been readily absorbed by a 

growing economy that now stands with an unemployment rate of 

4.5 percent. This gives us an idea of the numbers of illegal flow 

that should be replaced by safe, orderly and legal flow. 

20

New workers should come to the U.S. only after American workers are given first chance at the job. They should come in with the 

same pay and protections as U.S. workers, including the right to 

organize. 

And workable immigration reform overall should come as a complement to the U.S. workforce, not at the expense of the U.S. workforce. 

Number three, an employment verification system and enforcement. We need a system that functions efficiently for small business and large business. 

We need bright lines so businesses know the rules they have to 

follow. We need safe harbors for employers that do the right thing. 

And we need penalties that deter without being unreasonable. 

And finally, number four, border security. We must control our 

borders. Creating a legal way for the economy to get the workers 

it needs would be the best single thing we could do to decrease 

pressure at the border, but it is not the only thing that needs to 

be done. More steps must be taken. 

However, we must be careful in structuring a system that requires certain border—a bill that requires certain border security 

measures to be in place before new worker programs or legalization 

programs are in effect. 

We must be careful that those triggers are reasonable, attainable, and not subject to future legislative mischief. 

Business can’t tell you how many border patrol agents should be 

on the border, how many miles of fencing that we need, but we do 

understand that if there are triggers set where worker programs 

don’t start before triggers are met, we don’t get anything if those 

triggers are not attainable. 

In conclusion, what is needed and the challenge you face as legislators is creating an immigration system that addresses the needs 

of the economy. 

If we want the economy to grow, we—and by we, I mean you—

need to figure out how many workers it needs to grow—high-tech 

workers, lesser-skilled, unskilled workers, agricultural workers—

how many workers are needed to grow, and design an immigration 

policy that meets that need. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gay follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GAY

Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, thank you for allowing me to testify 

at this important hearing on the impact of immigration policy on business. I will 

be testifying on behalf of the National Restaurant Association and the Essential 

Worker Immigration Coalition, which I co-chair. 

Founded in 1919, the National Restaurant Association is the leading business association for the restaurant industry. The Association’s mission is to represent, educate and promote a rapidly growing industry that is comprised of 935,000 restaurant 

and foodservice outlets employing 12.8 million people. 

Created in 1999, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC.org) is a coalition of more than 50 trade associations, businesses and other organizations from 

across the industry spectrum concerned with the shortage of lesser-skilled and unskilled (‘‘essential worker’’) labor. 

I’ll cut to the chase: We have a serious demographic problem in the United States. 

Without an overhaul to our dysfunctional immigration system, we are in danger of 

not having the workers we need to grow our economy. 

21

Roughly speaking, the native born U.S. population is virtually at replacement 

level—we are having enough babies only to replace ourselves. But the demand for 

workers grows. 

The restaurant industry, for example, is the nation’s second-largest private sector 

employer, and we have been a job creation machine. The U.S. economy added 8 million net new jobs in the last 45 months. More than one in eight of those jobs were 

in the restaurant and foodservice sector. And our industry supports an estimated 

7 million other jobs in industries such as manufacturing, agriculture and construction. We estimate that every dollar spent by consumers in restaurants generates an 

additional $2.34 spent in out nation’s economy. 

Our industry is proud to give almost one third of Americans their first job. In 

many ways, we are America’s job training program, teaching those born here and 

those from abroad skills necessary to succeed. And our industry provides those with 

drive and ability a path to higher success—management or ownership. Four in five 

salaried restaurant managers began their careers as hourly employees. 

That job-creation machine needs to keep going. At the National Restaurant Association, we estimate that our sector will add 2 million jobs over the next decade, 

a 15 percent increase in our workforce. Over the same period, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics estimates that the U.S. labor force will grow only 10 percent. And the 

number of 16- to 24-year-olds—a group that makes up about half of the restaurant 

industry’s workforce today—will not grow at all. 

The restaurant industry is not alone. The BLS estimates that employment of janitors and cleaners, for example, will grow by 440,000 jobs over the next decade. Employment for home health aides will grow by 350,000. 

Industries that traditionally provide large numbers of jobs to younger, lesserskilled workers will have more and more trouble finding employees. These are essential jobs for our economy and essential in moving people up the job ladder. These 

industries are also creating significant job growth. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the 30 fastest-growing occupations between 

2004 and 2014. Twenty-two of those 30 occupations require just on-the-job training. 

Half of the 30 require only short-term on-the-job training. Just six require a bachelor’s degree or higher education. The nation needs an immigration policy that reflects the growing demand in these jobs. 

Long-term economic forecasts may be a topic for debate, but our nation’s demographic picture and challenges are very clear. If we know how many eight-year-olds 

are in the country today, we have a very good idea how many 18-year-olds will be 

entering the workforce in a decade. It is said that demographics are destiny. We 

ignore these facts at our economic peril. 

Some say, ‘‘Just pay more and you’ll get workers.’’ It is not that simple. We face 

a shortage of workers that is being felt not just at the low end of the wage scale. 

Construction jobs, for example, average over $21 an hour and are going unfilled. 

If America is not producing enough workers to sustain our growth, where are we 

getting people to fill the jobs? From abroad. The problem is that the legal channels 

available to employers are grossly insufficient. The number of green cards available 

for lesser-skilled workers is 5,000 per year. There is not even a non-immigrant visa 

program to bring in such workers for longer than one year. Is it any wonder that 

there are an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 undocumented immigrants coming into 

the United States, and staying here, each year? 

Another major problem is a worker verification system that satisfies no one—not 

employers, not workers, not the government. 

Against their will, employers were drafted into the nation’s immigration police 

force in 1986. And for the last 20 years, we have been dealing with an employee 

verification system that makes the employer walk a fine line between potentially 

forged documents on one side and risk of discrimination action on the other. 

When an employee is hired, the employer must verify that person’s authorization 

to work in the United States by filling out an I-9 form. The rules are complicated 

and, at times, contradictory. 

New employees are asked to produce documentation verifying identity and work 

authorization. They have 25 documents to choose from. The dizzying array includes 

school identification cards, U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner cards, and Native 

American tribal documents. These are divided into three columns. An employee can 

produce one from Column A—which lists the documents that prove both identity 

and work authorization. Or, the employee can produce one each from Column B—

which proves identity and one from Column C—which proves work authorization. 

If the document looks facially valid, the employer must accept it. 

Suppose you are an employer that wants to go the extra mile to make sure the 

employee is work authorized? Should you ask for a specific document from the list, 

one you are more familiar with than, say, a U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner 

22

card? That’s against the rules. Should you ask for an extra document, just to be 

sure? That’s against the rules too. 

An immigration system this dysfunctional requires a comprehensive overhaul. 

There are few subjects as far-reaching as immigration. From national security to 

humanitarian concerns to economics: there are many issues, many voices, many 

stakeholders. 

From the perspective of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, we seek 

comprehensive immigration reform that encompasses several key elements. Each of 

these elements must be workable. I urge you to keep that key concept—workability—in mind as this legislation moves through the political process. Compromise 

is the lifeblood of policymaking, but it must produce a new immigration system that 

is workable—for those who must implement it, for those who must enforce it, for 

employers, for U.S. workers and for foreign workers. 

We seek workable reform that addresses the following key elements: 

THE UNDOCUMENTED

An estimated 5 percent of the U.S. workforce is undocumented. That economic 

fact of life should dictate that reform include 

a path for a great many to earn legal status—after paying a penalty and after 

meeting significant requirements such as learning English and going through security screening. 

We believe that fair reform requires the undocumented to start at the back of the 

line for permanent residency. That process will take years. We believe workable reform should allow them to stay on the job and with their families while waiting for 

the process to move forward. 

The program also must provide sufficient certainty to the undocumented worker 

that it is in his or her interest to come out of the shadows. It is in everyone’s interest to maximize the number of undocumented individuals who participate in this 

process. The best way to do that is with the carrot, not the stick. 

There has been quite a battle over the definition of the word amnesty. The American Heritage Dictionary defines amnesty as ‘‘a general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.’’

Levying a fine, requiring background checks, requiring back payment of taxes, requiring continued work, requiring people to learn English, and requiring them to 

meet these obligations over a number of years in order to earn a green card doesn’t 

sound like a ‘‘general pardon.’’ It sounds a lot more like a tough plea agreement followed by lengthy parole. 

The immigration reform bill President Reagan signed in 1986 was amnesty. The 

current proposal is different: It includes penalties and a series of substantive obligations before people have a shot at applying for legal status. This is very different 

than what happened in 1986. 

SUFFICIENT LEGAL CHANNELS FOR NEW WORKERS

As I mentioned earlier, the net flow of undocumented individuals into the United 

States has been estimated at somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 per year. 

This flow has been readily absorbed by a U.S. economy with low unemployment, 

presently around 4.5 per cent. This gives us an idea of the illegal flow that should 

be replaced by a safe, orderly, legal flow though workable, comprehensive immigration reform. 

New workers should come into the United States only after American workers are 

given first chance at any job opening. These workers should come in with the same 

pay and protections as U.S. workers, including the same ability to organize in 

unions. Workable immigration reform should come as a complement to the U.S. 

workforce, not at the expense of the U.S. workforce. 

Workable immigration reform should also provide a sufficient channel for seasonal 

and temporary workers to meet ongoing shortages. The current H-2B program has 

proven inadequate to address the need. 

EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM/ENFORCEMENT

We need a workable system for employment verification that functions for both 

small and large businesses. We need bright lines so businesses know the rules. We 

need safe harbors for employers who do the right thing, and we need penalties that 

deter without being unreasonable. 

At a more basic level, the verification system itself must work. The Basic Pilot 

system is not an encouraging model. With approximately 15,000 employers participating, the error rate remains a concern despite significant efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to bring it down. 

23

What would happen if millions of American employers were required to run 140 

million workers through a government system that was not ready? We believe that 

any verification system should be brought on line in stages, bringing one group of 

employers at a time into the system and allowing for tests of accuracy and efficiency 

before the next group of employers follows. 

BORDER SECURITY

We must control our borders. The public demands this and they are right. Creating a legal way for workers to come into the United States will do more than any 

other single step to take the pressure off the border, but it is not enough. More steps 

will need to be taken. 

However, we must be careful in structuring a system that requires certain bordersecurity measures to be in place before worker or legalization programs get started. 

Any such ‘‘triggers’’ must be reasonable, attainable and not subject to legislative 

mischief. 

SMALL BUSINESS

Small business deserves careful consideration in crafting workable immigration 

reform. The nation’s small businesses are the engine of our economy. We must be 

wary of complex paperwork or document-retention requirements, high fees and 

fines, and intricate rules. A new immigration system will be hard enough for employers with full-time human-resources staff. Please keep in mind employers whose 

HR director also is the cook and dishwasher, and whose ‘‘office’’ may be an empty 

restaurant table. 

THE ALTERNATIVE TO REFORM

For business, the stakes are high. If Congress and the Administration fail to enact 

comprehensive immigration reform, the alternative for business is not the status 

quo. Employers face an escalating array of enforcement actions against them at the 

federal, state and local levels. 

Understandably frustrated by the lack of action at the federal level, states and 

localities have stepped in. At the National Restaurant Association, we count more 

than 1,150 immigration bills introduced in state legislatures this year, twice as 

many as last year. There are almost 100 additional proposals at the city and county 

level. Several states and localities have already enacted laws or ordinances directed 

at businesses, the undocumented, or both. Legislation signed into law in Oklahoma 

last month is the most recent example. 

The federal government also has escalated its enforcement activities and expanded their scope. The raid on Swift that made headlines recently was not an immigration-law action, but a raid targeting identity theft. 

The federal government also is considering stricter regulations on businesses. The 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security 

has drafted regulations regarding the legal obligations of employers upon receiving 

so-called ‘‘no match’’ letters from the Social Security Administration. This proposal 

will lead to the dismissal of many workers. Additional proposals are sure to come. 

Finally, we are concerned about Congress taking a piecemeal approach to reform 

if they cannot pass comprehensive reform. For example, during its recent minimum 

wage debate, the Senate passed an amendment that would have barred companies 

from federal contracts even for a single paperwork violation of immigration law. 

That amendment passed 94–0 with very little discussion. Thankfully, the provision 

was stripped out before final enactment, but it illustrates the danger. 

Employers should not have to deal with a patchwork of confusing and sometimes 

conflicting state and local immigration laws, overlaid with more enforcement and 

more rules at the federal level. None of these get to the underlying problem—a dysfunctional U.S. immigration system that does not match economic need. 

CONCLUSION

What is needed, and the challenge you face as legislators, is an immigration system that reflects the needs of the economy. 

Picking an arbitrary number of immigrants to be allowed into the United States 

sets up a choice that is not in the U.S. national interest: allowing some industries 

the workers needed at the expense of other industries. It also sets up a conflict between family-based immigration and work-based immigration. 

Approximately 1 million people become permanent residents of the United States 

each year. That’s about one-third of 1 percent of the U.S.’s population of 301 million. 

If legal immigration rose to 1.5 million per year—a number that more accurately 

24

reflects the economic need—that would still be less than one-half of 1 percent of our 

total population. 

If we want the economy to grow, we will need workers. We urge policymakers to 

start there. Decide how much economic growth is desired, figure out how many 

workers of all kinds it will take to produce that growth, and set the immigration 

policy accordingly. 

Immigration is a complex, complicated problem. It deserves more than piecemeal 

solutions, more than a patchwork of regulation at various levels of government. It 

deserves a comprehensive solution from the people who have true responsibility for 

immigration law: Congress and the President. 

Thank you. 

ATTACHMENT

EWIC PRINCIPLES FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

• Reform should be comprehensive: addressing both future economic needs for future workers and undocumented workers already in the United States.

• Reform should strengthen national security by providing for the screening of foreign workers and creating a disincentive for illegal immigration.

• Reform should strengthen the rule of law by establishing clear, sensible immigration laws that are efficiently and vigorously enforced.

• Reform should create an immigration system that functions efficiently for employers, workers, and government agencies.

• Reform should create a program that allows hard working, tax paying undocumented workers to earn legal status.

• Reform should ensure that U.S. workers are not displaced by foreign workers.

• Reform should ensure that all workers enjoy the same labor law protections. 

EWIC IMMIGRATION POLICY OUTLINE

A. New Non-Immigrant Programs Based on Economic Needs

• A short-term program for industries that have short-term needs for one year 

or less.

• A long-term program that could be renewed if there are continuing needs. 

B. New Immigrant Visa (Permanent Residence) Program Based Upon Economic 

Needs

• Available to participants in either short-term or long-term non-immigrant 

programs.

• Based upon petition by either Employer or Employee through a test of the 

U.S. labor market.

• With sufficient numbers of immigrant visas.

• New employment-based permanent visas should not come at the expense of 

other immigration categories. 

C. Mechanism for Undocumented Workers in the U.S. to Earn Legal Status

• Establish a mechanism to allow undocumented, taxpaying and otherwise admissible workers in the U.S. to earn a legal status.

• Define clear requirements and obligations for eligible and qualified participants.

• Conversion to lawful status should be based upon employability, although not 

necessarily a particular employer. 

D. Workable Immigration Enforcement System

• Enforcement of immigration laws is critical for economic, national security 

and for successful comprehensive immigration reform.

• Pairing enforcement with an updated legal immigration system to reduce undocumented immigration will result in adequate screening of the workforce, 

more control over undocumented workforce, and a shift in focus to the very 

small percentage of bad actors who seek to abuse the system.

• Enforcement reform should clearly define requirements and obligations for all 

parties.

25

• New enforcement regimes must not penalize employers for their past inability 

to comply with a broken system. 

E. Funding for Immigration programs

• Dedicate resources to fund continuing program initiatives.

• Provide start-up funding for structuring and implementing new program. 

EWIC ESSENTIAL WORKER IMMIGRATION COALITION

Membership List 

American Health Care Association 

American Hotel & Lodging Association 

American Immigration Lawyers Association 

American Meat Institute 

American Nursery & Landscape Association 

American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

American Staffing Association 

American Subcontractors Association, Inc. 

Associated Builders and Contractors 

Associated General Contractors 

Building Service Contractors Association International 

California Landscape Contractors Association 

California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors (CALPASC) 

Carlson Hotels Worldwide and Radisson 

Carlson Restaurants Worldwide and TGI Friday’s 

Farm Equipment Wholesalers Association 

Federation of Employers & Workers of America 

First Data 

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America 

Harborside Healthcare Corporation 

Ingersoll-Rand 

International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions 

International Franchise Association 

Marriott International, Inc. 

Nath Companies 

National Association for Home Care 

National Association of Chain Drug Stores 

National Association of Home Builders 

National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds 

National Chicken Council 

National Club Association 

National Council of Chain Restaurants 

National Restaurant Association 

National Retail Federation 

National Roofing Contractors Association 

National Tooling & Machining Association 

National Wooden Pallet and Container Association 

Outdoor Amusement Business Association 

Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation 

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors—National Association 

Professional Landcare Network 

Retail Industry Leaders Association 

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 

Society of American Florists 

The Brickman Group, Ltd. 

Travel Business Roundtable 

Travel Industry Association of America 

Tree Care Industry Association 

Truckload Carriers Association 

Tyson Foods, Inc. 

United Fresh Produce Association 

US Chamber of Commerce

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Gay. 

And all three witnesses have stopped when the yellow light was 

on. That is pretty impressive. 

26

I am going to turn now to Mr. Hawkins, and we would love to 

hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. HAWKINS, SENIOR FELLOW,

U.S. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COUNCIL 

Mr. HAWKINS. I claim their excess time—no. I am William Hawkins. I am here representing the U.S. Business and Industry Council. We are a group of businesses who are primarily small-and medium-sized manufacturers. 

And our view is a little different on this. I notice that according 

to the Census Bureau, 14 percent of illegal immigrants, which is 

the focus of the main reform here that is pending in the Senate, 

are in manufacturing. 

And this is very odd to us, because manufacturing has lost 3 million jobs over the last decade. There is no labor shortage in manufacturing. 

There are millions of displaced workers who would love to get a 

job back in their factory, because they have not been able to find 

jobs that are comparable to what they have lost. Yet there is still 

this influx of illegal workers in manufacturing. 

In fact, this is a problem, I think, generally. There may be specific segments—maybe agriculture is one—but as a former economics professor who taught labor for years, the characteristics that we 

see in the low end of the labor pool do not indicate that there is 

a shortage; just the opposite. It indicates there is a surplus. 

Unemployment rates are higher in this segment than they are 

for the average economy. Wages are not going up. If there is a 

shortage in any market, the effect is to push the prices up or wages 

up in that market. Wages are falling at the low end of the labor 

pool. 

In fact, you had a fellow from the Congressional Budget Office 

testify before you last month, and he tried to make light of the fact 

that well, you know, it is only falling somewhat, maybe 10 percent. 

But in a growing economy, it should not be falling at all. It 

should be rising. Demand should be pushing up wages if there is 

anything like a shortage. 

What we see instead really is an attempt to maintain a surplus 

to push wages down. And this is troubling to us for a couple of reasons, or several reasons, actually. 

One is it puts our business owners in a quandary. It is a very 

competitive market in manufacturing, a lot of it mainly from foreign competition. 

But if you are a manufacturer and your rival is using illegal immigrants and paying them less, less in benefits, less in pay, how 

do you respond? 

Do you meet the competition and go illegal yourself? If you are 

an honest businessman, do you want to be forced into doing that? 

We don’t want to. 

It hasn’t grown quite as high in manufacturing as in other areas, 

but the logic is still there. And you should not have a system that 

puts pressure on honest businessmen to become dishonest, which 

is what we have been doing. 

27

Next, there is a cost element here. There is no such thing as 

cheap labor for society, for us as a general population, because we 

are an advanced society. 

If people do not make a living wage—and most of the people we 

are talking about in the illegal, low-wage, low-educated, low-skilled 

area do not—we supplement that. 

We have welfare programs. We have income supplement programs. We have a variety of public goods, education, emergency 

medical care, et cetera, which these people do not pay the taxes to 

support. Their income isn’t high enough to qualify as taxpayers. 

So we are subsidizing this labor. It is not cheap labor. It is subsidized labor. 

And our business owners, our employees, our customers, people 

in general who do pay taxes—and in the case of our business owners, substantial taxes—are having to make up this difference and 

subsidize—in some cases, subsidize their competitors who are using 

illegals. So that has to be changed. 

And one of the problems with this reform is it is not really a reform. It simply codifies, regularizes the failures of the past. 

And it is not just an amnesty for the illegal workers. It is an amnesty for those companies who have been employing the illegal 

workers and have been violating the law themselves. And that rubs 

our members who are honest and who have been following the law 

the wrong way. 

If we step back a little further and look at the economy in general, there is a basic principle in economics, labor-capital substitution. They are factors of production. They are substitutes. 

If you have a large pool of cheap labor at the firm level, that can 

retard technological progress, retard the adoption of new labor-saving devices, because that is what technology is. It is labor-saving 

devices. 

And it is chosen because labor is expensive. Labor has always 

been expensive in the United States. And it has been a propellant 

for innovation and technological progress. 

In my written testimony, I mention some studies that have been 

done on this, most notably one from the Federal Reserve Bank of 

Philadelphia, which concluded that in manufacturing, an influx of 

large, low-skill, low-wage immigrant labor not only retarded the 

adoption of new technology——

Ms. LOFGREN. If you could summarize——

Mr. HAWKINS [continuing]. It even led to the de-adoption of technology, which is absolutely contrary to progress. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. If you could 

summarize, and your full statement is part of the written record. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Okay. Well, it is just that we are moving——

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t want to cut you off mid-sentence. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Right. Okay. The summation is that we need to 

move our labor policies in the opposite direction than we have been 

doing in immigration. 

We need high-end, high-skilled, high-wage work, not this low-end 

labor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:]

28

1George J. Borjas, Heavens Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton, 

N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 27. 2 Bruce H. Webster Jr and Alemayehu Bishaw, Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data From the 

2005 American Community Survey, Bureau of the Census, August 2006. Pp. 10, 13. http://

www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html 3 Available at http://www.smith.umd.edu/lbpp/faculty/morici.htm. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. HAWKINS

Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to present a business perspective on the immigration 

issue. 

I am William Hawkins, Senior Fellow at the United States Business and Industry 

Council. The USBIC is an association of approximately 1,500 small and medium 

sized U.S. companies engaged in a wide variety of manufacturing and services. Our 

member business owners and CEOs consider themselves first and foremost to be 

citizens of the United States. As such, they are concerned with the long-term security and prosperity of the United States, both of which are factors in the current 

debate over immigration policy and border security. 

America has benefitted from immigration, indeed, it is a country of immigrants 

who founded colonies on the Atlantic coast and then advanced across the continent. 

But immigration policy must keep in focus the needs of the country. Current policy 

has failed to do this. The acceptance of an open southern border has allowed foreigners to set de facto policy in contradiction to the de jure policy of the U.S. government. The result has been a flood of low-skilled illegal immigrants who can contribute little to the real economic progress of the United States. For example, in 

1960, recent immigrants were no more likely than were non-immigrants to lack a 

high school degree. By 1998, recent immigrants were almost four times more likely 

to lack a high school degree than were non-immigrants, and the situation has only 

worsened as the wave of illegal immigration has risen higher since 2000. 1

The Senate proposal (S. 1348) would ratify and codify this broken system, not correct it. The new Z visa category, which will be issued only to illegal immigrants, 

will allow them to legally live and work in the United States while their cases are 

being reviewed. It is clearly an ‘‘amnesty’’ both for the illegal immigrants and for 

the firms that illegally hired them. Another provision would confer permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien (and the spouse and children 

of such alien) who has been in the United States for five years and employed for 

specified periods of time. It thus locks in place a largely impoverished class of people 

as the legacy of past failed policy. 

Even with the economy now adding jobs, the number of Americans who fell into 

poverty stabilized at 12. 6 percent in 2005 after 4 years of consecutive increases—

higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 (according to Census Bureau figures). The Census Bureau also shows that in 2005, the most recent year 

data is available, Hispanic men had median earnings of only $27,380 compared to 

$48,693 for Asian; $46,807 for White; and $34,433 for Black men. The median income for Hispanic men was not much above the median for men with less than a 

high school education ($22,138). Median income for all men with a high school degree was $31,683. 2

These statistics indicate that even after 22 straight quarters of economic growth 

(albeit the revised first quarter of 2007 was only 0.6 percent of GDP), the kind of 

jobs that are created, and the education and skills of workers available, make a difference as to whether living standards are being raised and whether the country is 

really moving forward. The May household survey of employment, which includes 

the self employed, indicates another 52,000 adults left the labor force, as the ranks 

of discouraged workers continue to swell. According to Peter Morici, Economics Professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, ‘‘Low 

wages are discouraging many adults, who prefer to draw down assets or rely on incomes of spouses rather than accept substandard employment at poor wages and 

with few benefits. The unemployment statistics do not reflect this reality, though 

it is importantly responsible for lackluster GDP growth, terrible U.S. savings performance, Americans borrowing from foreigners at a pace of $50 billion per month, 

and a U.S. debt to foreigners now topping $6 trillion.’’ 3

One of the factors which is encouraging some business firms to hire is the availability of so-called ‘‘cheap’’ labor, much of it from illegal immigrants. According to 

an article in the November/December 2003 issue of Southwest Economy published 

by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, ‘‘Immigrants overwhelmingly filled blue-collar jobs (operators, fabricators and laborers) but also accounted for as much as half 

the growth in categories such as administrative support and services. . . . It also 

29

4 ‘‘U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold’’ Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, November/December 2003. pp. 1–7. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/index.html 5 Robert J. Samuelson, ‘‘We Don’t Need Guest Workers’’ The Washington Post, March 22, 2006, 

p. A21. 6 Ethan Lewis, ‘‘Immigration, Skill Mix, and the Choice of Technique’’ Working Paper 05–8, 

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, May 2005, p. 3

means that as immigrants entered these occupations, native workers exited.’’ 4 This 

was particularly true in the blue collar category where immigrants accounted for 

nearly 700% of the new jobs! That means they pushed tens of thousands of Americans out of those jobs, by underbidding their wages. 

Has this process enriched the country? Has it improved living standards? No, it 

has clearly not. In the words of economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson, ‘‘Since 

1980 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government’s poverty line 

(about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same 

period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent. What we have now—and would with guest workers—is 

a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico. By and large, this is a bad bargain for the United States.’’ 5

The great success story of the United States is that it raised the working class 

into the middle class, the real path to higher standards of living for the population 

as a whole. But there are those in the business community who seem to think the 

American achievement has been overdone. In their view, we need more poverty, not 

less. 

To many businessmen, cutting labor costs by reducing wage levels seems expedient. And in an economy where the laws against illegal immigration have collapsed, there is even competitive pressure on firms to match what rivals may be 

doing, even if otherwise law-abiding owners and managers may personally find the 

practice troubling. Firms that hire illegal workers for lower wages, fewer (if any) 

benefits, and sometimes off the books entirely, do so to gain a competitive advantage 

against firms that obey the laws and only hire within the legal labor market. Honest business owners are placed in the difficult position of having to choose between 

emulating the unlawful behavior of rivals or risking the survival of their own companies. No one should condone a system that creates this kind of ethical dilemma. 

The proper way to cut labor costs per unit of output is to increase productivity, 

a process that boosts workers incomes and company profits at the same time, and 

which is the only way to elevate the living standards of an entire society. The unregulated availability of cheap labor leads away from innovation. Technological 

progress is promoted by the pursuit of ‘‘labor saving’’ methods in markets where 

labor supplies are tight and expensive. 

A research report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia looked at whether the availability of cheap, unskilled workers with limited educations slowed the 

adoption of new technology. The paper entitled ‘‘Immigration, Skill Mix, and the 

Choice of Technique’’ by FRB economist Ethan Lewis, concluded, ‘‘Using detailed 

plant-level data from the 1988 and 1993 Surveys of Manufacturing Technology, we 

found in both 1988 and 1993, in markets with a higher relative availability of less 

skilled labor, comparable plants—even plants in the same narrow (4-digit SIC) industries—used systematically less automation. Moreover, between 1988 and 1993 

plants in areas experiencing faster less-skilled relative labor supply growth adopted 

automation technology more slowly, both overall and relative to expectations, and 

even de-adoption was not uncommon.’’ 6 De-adoption! There is no positive spin for 

a retreat from technological progress. 

Dr. Lewis continued, ‘‘Manufacturing automation is particularly suited to evaluating the impact of immigration because less-skilled workers in SMT-covered industries, especially immigrants, are concentrated in labor-intensive assembly, welding, 

and other tasks that these technologies replace. . . . The combined data show that, 

in two separate cross sections, the higher the relative number of workers who were 

high school dropouts in a metropolitan area, the less automated the plants in the 

area were. In addition, between 1988 and 1993, plants’ use of technology grew more 

slowly, both overall and relative to forecasts, where the relative number of dropouts 

in the local work force grew more quickly.’’

This is not just a problem for manufacturing, but for agriculture as well. Philip 

Martin, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California-Davis, has argued, ‘‘Once a guest worker program is in place, farmers invest 

in lobbying to maintain the program, not in labor-saving and productivity-increasing 

30

7Philip Martin, ‘‘Guestworker Programs for the 21st Century’’ Center for Immigration Studies, April 2000. http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back400.html 8 Robert Rector, ‘‘Amnesty and Continued Low Skill Immigration Will Substantially Raise 

Welfare Costs and Poverty’’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1936, May 12, 2006. http://

www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg1936.cfm 9 Robert E. Rector and Christine Kim, ‘‘The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. 

Taxpayer’’ Heritage Foundation, Special Report #14, May 22, 2007. http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14.cfm#lftn22

alternatives.’’ 7 Cheap labor may look like the easy solution, but it is not the best 

solution for a society that wants to progress. And for most businesses, a high-income 

economy is a much better market for their goods and services. 

Though some business firms lust after cheap labor, in an advanced society such 

as ours, there is no such thing. There is only subsidized labor. When workers cannot 

earn a living wage, society steps in to make up the difference through a variety of 

transfer payments administrated by governments at all levels and paid for by taxpayers. Society also provides a wide variety of ‘‘public goods’’ to all residents. That 

means our business owners, their employees and their customers—all of whom are 

substantial tax payers, are subsidizing those firms that are using ‘‘cheap’’ labor either to fatten their bottom lines or gain an edge over more responsible firms. 

The higher costs for health, education, and welfare, not to mention crime control, 

that result from such a large increase in the number of people living in poverty is 

substantial. This financial pressure is already undermining state and local governments, school systems, and hospitals. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has 

concluded that the Senate bill ‘‘would be the largest expansion of the welfare state 

in 35 years.’’ His research shows ‘‘the U.S. has imported poverty through immigration policies that permitted and encouraged the entry and residence of millions of 

low-skill immigrants.’’ 8 His latest calculation concludes, ‘‘There are currently 4.5 

million low-skill immigrant households in the U.S., containing 15.9 million persons, 

roughly 5 percent of the U.S. population. At each age level, low-skill immigrant 

households receive substantially more in government benefits than they pay in 

taxes. Overall, low-skill immigrant households impose a net cost of $89 billion per 

year on U.S. taxpayers.’’ 9

Society advances by alleviating poverty, not by importing more of it. 

If one looks around the world at those countries with the worst living standards, 

their problem is clearly not a lack of cheap labor. Indeed, their problem is that 

cheap labor is all they have. What they need is capital investment in advanced 

methods. Economic theory, however, argues that managers will use the least-cost 

method of production, and when labor is the abundant factor, labor-intensive methods will be chosen over capital-intensive methods that use relatively expensive technology. This can restructure an entire economy in the wrong direction. America’s 

shift from a manufacturing economy where scientific progress is most fruitful, to a 

service economy dominated by cheap labor fits the model of a country in long-term 

decline. 

The United States needs to choose which path it wants to follow. America has historically been an economy short on labor. Until the frontier closed a century ago, 

there were never enough people to utilize all the land, resources, and business opportunities available. The emphasis was thus on boosting productivity, substituting 

capital for labor in both field and factory, to make the best use of the working population. 

The one exception was the pre-Civil War South, which used slave labor. The 

slave-owners prospered on their plantations, but the South as a whole stagnated. 

To defend their reactionary system, their political leaders even tried to undermine 

the policies that promoted the much more productive development of Northern industry and Midwest agriculture. The Civil War was as much a contest of economic 

systems as soldiers, and the Confederacy lost that ‘‘audit’’ in decisive fashion. 

A guest worker program where applicants would have to qualify under a point 

system that places a priority on advanced skills, education, English proficiency, and 

experience in high-demand occupations would be a great improvement over past 

policies that simply rewarded people for their ability to cross an open border. However, the guest worker proposal is also being billed as a substitute for current illegal 

immigration, which means it would still be oriented mainly towards the low end of 

the labor pool. It would thus further extend into the future the failed policies of the 

past, only with government approval. 

Certainly, the argument that a robust guest worker program would end illegal immigration is untenable. The Wall Street Journal’s claim in a May 30 editorial that 

the ‘‘vote last week to halve the size of a guest-worker program for low-skilled workers is a big step in the wrong direction; skimping on visas will only lead to more 

31

illicit border crossings’’ implies that there should be a program large enough to soak 

up all the low-skilled foreigners who want to come to the United States. But even 

the original proposal for 400,000 guest workers per year would not accomplish that. 

And if the program was really ‘‘reformed’’ to favor higher-skilled workers’ as it 

should be, then the millions of unskilled foreigners who still want to come here 

would not qualify. They would still seek to cross into the country illegally. 

No system, regardless of its specific provisions, will work if it is still possible to 

come to America and operate outside the system. Thus a prerequisite for any program must be border security and interior enforcement. The border must be made 

as impenetrable as fencing, technology and patrolling can make it, and this must 

be the first priority of any immigration policy proposal. These steps are also vital 

to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, the latter being closely intertwined with 

people smuggling. But no static defense is perfect, so there must be rigorous enforcement inside the country as well, especially against business firms that hire or assist 

illegal aliens in maintaining themselves in the United States outside the law. Honest businessmen should welcome a crackdown on those rival firms that flaunt the 

law to gain an unfair competitive advantage. And the American public will not consider any immigration policy to be credible until they see actual results on the border. 

The kind of economic progress that leads to higher living standards needs to be 

the objective of U.S. policy. To keep on that upward path, the flood of unskilled and 

impoverished aliens needs to be halted before they further drag down American living standards. National legislation, and its enforcement, must overrule the shortsighted inclinations of some in the business community who would push off on others the true cost of their operations. Maximizing output per worker, rather than 

merely the number of workers, is the right way to advance American civilization.

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And we appreciate the testimony of all of the witnesses. 

We now will go to questions from the Members of the Subcommittee, each of us staying within a 5-minute time frame, and 

I will begin. 

I am going to ask you, Mr. Bock, about Google. And I know, although not everyone maybe knows as I do, because I live in Santa 

Clara County—and actually, my son is currently an undergraduate 

at Stanford, and my daughter was a recent grad. I think Google 

must hire half the graduating class at Stanford. So I know the kind 

of job growth that Google has fueled. 

You focused on the H-1B program, and in reading your testimony, I note that Orkut, who did your terrific new development on 

the 20 percent time, and Krishna, who is your principal scientist—

I mean, these are really pretty impressive people. Both got their 

degrees from American universities, but they went on the H-1B 

program. They wanted to stay, obviously, because they are still 

here. 

Would it be true that if the permanent visa system had enough 

visas and was simplified that you might use that instead of the H1B program? I mean, it looks like you are using it because the H1B program, when there are visas available, actually is pretty 

quick, and then people transition into their permanent visas. 

And if we could just cut to the chase and get people their permanent visas without a tremendous delay, would that work well for 

Google? 

Mr. BOCK. I think there are a couple of components. I think we 

would welcome more opportunities to recruit more of the top talent 

from around the world from U.S. universities. 

The majority of candidates for math, computer science, and other 

science-related degrees come from outside the U.S. 

32

And we would be tremendously excited about the opportunity to 

bring more of those on board, not just for ourselves but for the 

technology industry in general. 

I am not familiar enough with the nuance of the differences between the H-1B visa and——

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. BOCK [continuing]. The permanent visa program, but we can 

get back to you with a more thoughtful response. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be fair. And if you know the answer 

to this question—if you don’t, if you could get back to me on this. 

I have been asking Silicon Valley companies what percentage of 

their H-1B visa holders are graduates of American universities as 

compared to graduates of universities from another country. Do you 

happen to know the answer for Google? 

It is about 80 percent for most of the Valley companies. 

Mr. BOCK. I don’t know the precise answer. I expect our number 

would be roughly comparable to that. 

The bulk of our recruiting for our campus graduates and even experienced engineers is focused on people who have gone to U.S. 

universities, which is often how we find them. So it is very roughly 

about 75 percent. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay, so it is in keeping with the rest of Silicon 

Valley. 

Now, I don’t know if you have had a chance to take a look at this 

point system that the Senate is looking at. We all had the Memorial Day recess. I spent it in Silicon Valley getting an earful from 

CEOs in technology companies. 

Would sole reliance on a point system as currently exists in the 

Senate bill—would that work for Google, in your judgment? Or if 

you can’t answer that today, tell me so and you can come back to 

us on that. 

Mr. BOCK. I think our perspective on that question of whether 

the currently proposed point system would work is that it has some 

intriguing elements to it, but the dynamism of the technology business is such that it would be very difficult to say, ‘‘Yes, the system 

works today, and it will work for the following 8 years.’’

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. BOCK. If you think back 9 years ago, Google did not exist. 

Internet search was a nascent industry. And Larry and Sergey, 

when they had 50 people in the year 1998, would have been hardpressed to specify exactly what combination of skills they would be 

looking for. 

So I think it would be a bit of a challenge. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate that feedback. 

Now, I am intrigued, Mr. Gay, by your testimony. The phrase is, 

‘‘Demographics is destiny.’’ And you have just taken a look at the 

birthrate and the projected—putting immigration to one side, and 

the projected job rates, and come up with a shortfall. 

Could you elaborate on our understanding of that? And I know 

you are just speaking for the restaurant industry, but have you, as 

part of your Essential Worker Coalition, taken a look at other industries in that demographic issue? 

Mr. GAY. Well, Madam Chair, as I mentioned, there are other industries, not just restaurants, that are in this category of ones that 

33

traditionally hire or have historically hired those lesser-skilled or 

unskilled. 

In our case, we give one-third of those people in the U.S. their 

first job. But we are looking ahead as we grow, and we see that 

the U.S. population is not keeping up with that growth. 

If we look at Europe and at Japan, they are facing the same 

thing, but they are doing it much more poorly than we are, because 

they have a lot more trouble with immigration than we do. 

We don’t want to get to that situation where we restrict immigration so much that we either stagnate or end up shrinking as an industry or as an economy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you are really saying that our—if I could put 

words in your mouth, our benefit is we have got a demographic 

problem, Europe has too, Japan does, but we can—part of why we 

are successful is people come here to become Americans, and do become Americans, and that has not been the pattern in some other 

parts of the world. 

Mr. GAY. Right. But we have been solving it for the last few decades in large part illegally. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. GAY. And that flow has been helpful to our economy to grow 

and should be made legal, regular and orderly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But it prevents them from fully becoming Americans. 

Mr. GAY. Right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is very interesting testimony. 

I call now on the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First, I would direct my attention to Mr. Bock, and I do appreciate you being here today and appreciate you being an American. 

And I can understand why your mother had to wipe her eyes 

when you testified before this Congress. And I am glad to see that. 

I will remember that image for a long time. 

You must be a very young man, judging from your mother, and 

you have been here for some 30 some years, and so a lot of you 

is a product of this country, too. 

And the difficulty that Google has is we have such a massive 

amount of illegal immigration that we can’t get to the legitimate 

debate about what we ought to have for the global recruitment that 

you testified to that you need to keep the technological advancement going. 

But I think it is interesting that you have named so many companies that have done well in this country, and there are reasons 

for that, and some of the foundations of American exceptionalism 

we have talked about before in this Committee, and the rule of law 

being one of those. 

But I want to let you know that I am for a point system. I am 

for scoring this in a fashion that we can recruit the cream off the 

top, which we have historically done in this country, and devising 

that system so that it is not subsidized labor by the taxpayers, as 

Mr. Hawkins testified. 

And so I would ask you, could Google produce some software that 

would identify for us the very top 1 million people on the globe who 

would apply and want to come to the United States who would give 

34

the best economic enhancement to our country here? Could Google 

devise that software? 

Mr. BOCK. It is an interesting question. I am sure we have lots 

of people who would love to tackle that problem in their 20 percent 

time. 

I think that kind of demographic question is a bit outside our expertise. Ours is more in searching and serving our users by coming 

up with products rather than ranking and prioritizing people. 

Mr. KING. You are a smart guy, Mr. Bock, but you do affiliate 

with some people and companies that would have that capability. 

And would you agree that that would be the first question you 

would ask if you were going to put a point system together, what 

would be the utopian version, the perfect model that we could 

produce? 

Wouldn’t that be the first thing we would do before we would 

ratchet it down and consider things like familial associations? 

Mr. BOCK. Well, it is interesting. The closest analogy I can have 

is how we look at recruiting talent internally. And we actually have 

a very human, labor-intensive process of evaluating candidates. 

We look at resumes. We conduct a lot of interviews. And then we 

have groups of people that sit down and discuss those candidates. 

And then each of those candidates are then reviewed by our executive management group and even by our founders before we extend——

Mr. KING. In the interest of time—and I would love to sit down 

and talk to you more, but we don’t disagree on this, but my point 

is the illegal immigration is the barrier that keeps us from getting 

to your discussion. 

And I would like, if I could, to turn to Mr. Gay, and as I listened 

to the Chair’s comment—demographics is destiny is, I believe, how 

she put that. And I agree with that. 

But you know, let me just say that we are a country here that 

has a replacement birthrate of about 2.13 per woman, and replacement is about 2.1, so we are right in there real close. 

How much would we have to increase that birthrate in order to 

replace the labor supply that you seek, Mr. Gay? 

Mr. GAY. I have never had that question before. I don’t know the 

answer. I will say, though, I had to Google ‘‘demographics is destiny’’ and ‘‘demographics are destiny’’, and it came up with about 

the same number of hits, so I went with ‘‘are.’’

Mr. KING. I thought it was ‘‘are,’’ but I was quoting the Chair, 

so—anyway, it is interesting that you did that. 

Mr. GAY. That would be an alternative way to address our labor 

shortage needs. It would be a longer-term——

Mr. KING. But wouldn’t that be the first question, Mr. Gay, really? 

Mr. GAY. It would take 18 years, but it would be an alternative. 

Mr. KING. Envision this, then. If we were a continent unto ourselves, isolated like maybe Australia, and we didn’t have an easy—

let the borders be open and let people flow across, wouldn’t we look 

at this from another perspective? 

Wouldn’t we ask the question, what is the ‘‘grow your own’’ plan? 

Mr. GAY. Yes. 

35

Mr. KING. And then wouldn’t that be the kind that would be 

automatically assimilated into the American culture? We wouldn’t 

have to ask that question of how many can we assimilate. 

Mr. GAY. If we were on an island, yes. 

Mr. KING. And so why hasn’t anybody even asked the question 

of how many more babies do we have to have to solve this problem? 

Doesn’t that seem a little odd that there—with a short-term interest of ‘‘let’s have these workers now’’, and then who is going to 

pay for their retirement when they get ready to retire? We can’t 

ask that question either, because this whole comprehensive strategy collapses around that question. 

Mr. GAY. That should be addressed. I think for us, our shortterm interest is keeping the doors open on restaurants, and so——

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. GAY [continuing]. I mean, that is really a long-term solution 

that should be looked at. 

Mr. KING. And I want to tell you that I understand your shortterm problem, but my responsibility is the long-term destiny of 

America. And so if we have a disagreement, it will be there, and 

I thank you. 

And then, Mr. Mixon, you have been able to harvest these crops, 

for the most part, and so you are finding a way to solve the problem. 

But you know, sometimes we are in this situation where we confuse our national security with the need to harvest a crop, President Reagan’s quote notwithstanding. 

And so I would ask you, is there such a thing as an essential 

crop that America has to have in order to survive and be healthy? 

Mr. MIXON. That is a good question. I think the discussions on 

produce for better health indicate that Americans do need to eat 

healthier. Now, do we want to farm it all out overseas? 

Mr. KING. But any specific crop, any individual one we can’t get 

along without? 

Mr. MIXON. Oh, I am very preferable to blueberries. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. I will let it settle with that one and yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We turn now to the author of the AgJOBS bill, 

Congressman Howard Berman, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And you have demography is destiny. That is the way to get 

around the right verb. 

And then you have the Karl Marx-Hawkins perspective about the 

reserve army of unemployed pressing down wages. Mr. Hawkins, I 

am sure, is right many more times than Karl Marx was, but in this 

case, I think they both touch on something, and Mr. King did in 

his comments. I will get back to that in a second. 

My first question is really to Mr. Bock and to Mr. Gay. We have 

got a Senate bill in its current form, as of 9 o’clock this morning—

Mr. Bock, to what extent is that bill better than the current situation for a company like Google? 

And in that, put a little finer point on your concerns about the 

point system. I didn’t understand the point system to be distributed based on whether you wanted to work in search engines or 

someplace else. 

36

I thought of it as dealing with degrees and training in certain 

areas from which people could work in a number of areas based on 

the economy and where innovation was taking us. 

And, Mr. Gay, also, the Senate bill versus the current situation 

and its deficiencies as we come to grips with how we in the House 

are going to deal with this. 

Those would be the questions I would like both of you to answer. 

And should I just ask my last question also? I would like to hear 

how any of you deal with the point Mr. Hawkins made in the context of there is something that at least concerns me about the notion of the supply of new foreign workers primarily as a depressant 

on the wages of U.S. workers. 

Yes, you go to the U.S. worker who is willing to work at the minimum wage first, but before you think about paying $2 more than 

the minimum wage, or $5 more than the minimum wage, you seek 

the foreign worker. Those are my questions. 

Mr. BOCK. Thank you. On the first question—and I will caveat 

it by saying my expertise in the currently proposed bill extends primarily to what I have read in the newspapers. I am not our policy 

expert. 

But from what I have picked up, we feel strongly that the dynamism of the business is important, and it is difficult to predict 

what we need. 

So for example, if I recall correctly, one of the terms in the point 

system is that years’ experience is a factor, and the more years of 

work experience you have, the more points you get. 

Many of the people we hire come right out of school. And a Ph.D. 

program in computer science can consume somebody’s life until 

they are in their late 20’s or later—no professional experience, and 

yet a fabulously, tremendously qualified person who can move not 

just to our company but the entire country, entire business—oh, 

absolutely, but as I understand it, the preference comes from sort 

of the more points you get, the better, and that would mean they 

are——

Mr. BERMAN. In a weird way, you may want that Ph.D. who isn’t 

polluted by a lot of work experience. 

Mr. BOCK. Well, we actually look for people who will kind of 

come to things with a fresh perspective, in fact. 

Mr. BERMAN. Okay. 

Mr. BOCK. On the second question, I think it echoes Congressman King’s point about short-and long-term perspectives. 

You could just as easily—and again, I am not an economist, but 

you could just as easily make the argument that wage pressure 

outside the United States would force us to innovate more in technology, and there is a short-term and long-term solution for how 

we manage immigration that is supported by that. 

Mr. GAY. Mr. Berman, the Senate bill is better than the status 

quo, first and foremost, because there is a bipartisan group of people in Congress that are actually trying to fix this problem. 

I am tremendously encouraged by that, because absent Federal 

action, States and localities are stepping in, and that is a patchwork of laws and regulation business doesn’t want to face. 

37

It could stabilize, if it is as written, the current undocumented 

workforce in large part. Seven million of the 12 million are estimated to be workers. 

One problem with it in its current form is it doesn’t quite address 

the future needs. There are certain amendments that brought the 

number down. It doesn’t meet the needs of future workers coming 

to the country. 

If that can be fixed, then this bill would be—to Mr. King’s original question, the biggest difference between the 1986 amnesty and 

this bill is that 1986 didn’t do anything about the future needs for 

workers in the economy. 

This one is trying to. I don’t think it is quite there, but that 

would be the biggest difference between that and the status quo. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Gallegly of California? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome to our witnesses. 

Mr. Mixon, I have a district in California that is largely agricultural. We like to pride ourselves on being the strawberry capital of 

the world—larger, prettier, and sweeter strawberries. 

So I am somewhat familiar with the issue of perishable rope 

crops and how labor-intensive they are, and you mentioned in your 

testimony that during the peak season you may have as many as 

1,500 people in the field. 

Can you give us any idea of what percentage of crops, if any, that 

you have lost in the last 5 years that is directly a result of lack 

of labor that has caused the perishables to rot on the vine? 

Mr. MIXON. Fortunately, Congressman, we have been very 

blessed to not have lost anything. The closest we came to losing 

crops was last May when this very discussion became resonant in 

our State where we were having different places raided because of 

purported illegal immigrants. 

The rumor of that spread through my county, and even though 

they weren’t within 10 miles, 15 miles of my place, I went from 150 

people in the field to about 15. 

Now, that surprises me, because they all show what looked to be 

regular documents, legal documents, by the I-9 standards, so that 

was kind of surprising to me. 

But that is the closest I have come. But the organizations I represent have had people where they have lost 25 percent of naval 

crops in the past. I have had berry growers in Georgia—because of 

lack of people, they lose crops, as much as 25 percent. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So based on your assessment of what happened 

at that particular point in time, it is probably safe to say that 90 

percent of the people working in your fields are illegally in the 

United States. 

Mr. MIXON. I would say the numbers are between 75 percent and 

90 percent, yes. And I would say poorly documented, not necessarily illegal. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, they may be illegally documented. You 

know, it is a felony to use a counterfeit document. But again, you 

are not supposed to be the police officer. 

Mr. MIXON. Right. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And I appreciate that. 

38

Mr. Gay, what percentage of people working in the restaurant 

business today would you say are illegally in the United States? 

Mr. GAY. We don’t know, and we have never tried to poll that. 

It is not something where you can get a good response. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you really want to know? 

Mr. GAY. We are the number one employer of foreign-born workers in the U.S., so we figure we must have our share. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. 

Mr. Hawkins, you were talking about the importation of cheap 

labor and the effect it has on our economy. Has the influx of illegal 

immigrants affected low-income workers in the United States? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, the evidence indicates from the Census Bureau, Department of Labor, that there has been a depressing effect 

on wages from this and a lot of people exiting from the workforce. 

Just this last month, the Census Bureau reported 51,000 people 

exited from the labor force. 

And of course, there are a variety of reasons that could happen, 

but we have always thought in the economics profession that the 

discouraged worker phenomenon was a major part of that, that 

people leave the workforce because they have simply given up trying to find an acceptable job. 

So this, again, is a sign this is not a shortage labor economy, at 

least not in the low-skill, low-wage area, and as I said, in manufacturing we have had this tremendous displacement of manufacturing workers in the United States who are looking for work. So 

I don’t see an economy-wide problem that we have a shortage here. 

The demographic thing I thought was interesting, because you 

mentioned Japan. There is a reason why Japan leads the world in 

robotics and automated factories: labor-saving devices. 

Yes, they do have a slow population growth, and that spurs them 

to adopt technology faster, develop technology faster to make up for 

that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. And in your studies, very quickly, can you 

tell me if you have done a study that shows what percentage of the 

undocumenteds that are coming in have less than a high school diploma? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, somewhere around 50 percent. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. So you think 50 percent of the illegals coming in 

have got a high school diploma or equivalency? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, over that, yes, maybe 40 percent, 45 percent. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is interesting. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The Congressional Budget Office estimate was, on 

the other hand, that 36 percent of immigrants from Mexico——

Mr. GALLEGLY. I see my yellow light is on, so forgive me. But I 

just want to go back to Mr. Mixon and also see if Mr. Gay can give 

us an educated guess, if you will, an informed guess. 

Mr. Mixon has testified that he believes as many as 90 percent 

of the people working for him during peak season are illegally in 

the country. 

Would you say that that is probably a fairly consistent number 

with the people that are working in the restaurant business? 

Mr. GAY. As I say, I don’t know, because we have never tested 

this, and I haven’t seen anybody else that has tested that——

Mr. GALLEGLY. It is not something you would rule out. 

39

Mr. GAY. That sounds awfully high to me. We have always 

known that agriculture has had the highest percentage. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you for this important marathon of 

hearings. I want to pay tribute to Chairwoman Lofgren, because if 

you are working with her or have worked with her, you recognize 

the value of H-1B visas. 

But also, from my own research and study, one understands that 

H-1B visas can, in fact, generate work for others. 

But let me take a line of questioning that I think and hope that 

the witnesses that I am going to query will be empathetic, because 

you have heard the refrain—you have heard the song and the refrain—as we proceed in an approach to comprehensive immigration 

reform, you have heard the response that, ‘‘Yes, I would take that 

job,’’ and the controversy has many aspects. 

Certainly, it is close the border first before you begin to talk 

about immigration. What you gentlemen are talking about partly 

is, of course, what has been going on as it relates to legal immigration, particularly the H-1B visas. 

The reform bill has a number of subset visas which create other 

opportunities for individuals to come in. 

But whenever I am engaged in a discussion with constituents, 

and whether or not it is in my state of Texas or around the Nation—and I think rightly so—there is a sense that they are taking 

our jobs. 

And to be honest with you, the business community has not been 

helpful in that debate. You have not been helpful in, if you will, 

providing the response—a credible response that suggests that is 

not the case, or that we are here and ready to hire you, or to accept 

you. 

One of the aspects that I believe—a theme that will run through 

this bill, and has run through a number of legislative initiatives, 

is the attestation and the responsibility to indicate that you have, 

in fact, reached out to others and to provide them with the opportunities. 

For us to get to the end of the road, the light at the end of the 

tunnel, I think that for all of us who have a sense that comprehensive immigration reform is, in fact, the best and right direction to 

take in spite of the heightened tensions that are now being created 

and the divide that is being created and the pitching of one group 

against the other, we are going to have to have you work with us. 

So I would like to ask Mr. Bock, if I can, do you see the value 

in promoting and encouraging American workers for your profession and your industry? 

Mr. BOCK. Thank you. I absolutely do, and Google absolutely 

does. 

Two broad points. One is that the $1,500 fee that is required on 

the filing of H-1Bs today is used to train and educate American 

workers. In the 8 years that has been in effect, $1 billion has been 

collected and spent, providing 40,000 scholarships to Americans 

40

and training 82,000 U.S. workers. The more H-1B people we allow, 

the higher that number will grow. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me just say that—I am glad you answered that. Probably you were instructed to do so if I asked the 

question. 

But I believe that there needs to be more. And frankly, I believe 

there needs to be a specific vehicle in the comprehensive immigration reform, and many of my colleagues and many of my constituents are not necessarily here in this—here in my own State but believe that we should have a fixed training component that is really 

more orderly than H-1B funding, because we really can’t find that 

funding. 

Those numbers sound good, but they really don’t reach some of 

the underserved areas. And so let me just say this. Do you have 

a history—and I would like you to give it to me in writing—of recruiting at African-American—historically Black colleges? 

I would like you to give me all of the colleges, and I would like 

if there is an association, that association reports to me what you 

all have done. 

What do you do with respect to, in this instance, whether it be 

Hispanic who happen to be here in this country already, or AfricanAmerican engineers who have indicated in this very room that they 

are not received well in terms of hiring in your industry? Do you 

specifically recruit? 

And let me get in my last question to Mr. Gay so that as the 

light goes out he can answer it as well. You are in the restaurant 

business, and we have restaurants in Houston, and I know your organization, and you have worked real hard, and I thank you. 

But what are you doing—these jobs include management and 

otherwise as well—to ensure that Americans who need the work 

are getting the work? 

Mr. Bock, if you would? 

Mr. BOCK. Yes. So keeping the comments brief, we actually view 

it as our obligation to reach out to underrepresented communities 

in our industry, particularly women in engineering, particularly African-Americans, and particularly the Hispanic communities. 

We have a number of scholarship programs with the United 

Negro College Fund. We have started a Hispanic college fund. We, 

this past year, went to Morehouse. We went to Spellman. We went 

to Clark. We went to a number of historically Black colleges, and 

we have a very strong internal Black Googler network, as we call 

it. We have those around a variety of groups. 

We also believe it is important to get to people early, so we get 

very involved in K through 12 education with another organization 

called the LEAD Program. 

We also have a partnership with Teach for America, because we 

think it is important to send great teachers into impoverished or 

disadvantaged communities. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I know I won’t get all the answer. Would 

you complete your answer for me in writing with the list of colleges, please? 

Mr. BOCK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Gay? 

41

And I thank the Chairwoman. 

Mr. GAY. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee. As I think you know from working with restaurateurs from Houston, they recruit intensively in 

their areas to try to fill these jobs. 

And we would like to point out that getting into the restaurant 

industry is a path to management and is a path to ownership. 

And I will get you the exact number, but if I recall correctly, African-American ownership in the restaurant industry is growing 

faster than any other segment, faster than the average, over 70 

percent. 

So I think it is a sign that that is working, that more AfricanAmericans are coming in and moving up within the restaurant industry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, you see my need for advocacy. 

And I thank you, Madam Chair. 

Well, you see what we are trying to—we are trying to both get 

at the end of the tunnel. And I would like to work with you, and 

I would like to be able to hear back in writing specifically about 

your outreach and hiring American workers. 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate you all being here, and I appreciate the questions 

from my friend from Texas. Those are good questions. And the concern some of us have is that we get to the end of the tunnel she 

referred to, and we meet an oncoming train. 

And, Mr. Bock, I think it is delightful your mom is here. Speaking with her briefly, she seems like a delightful person. But it reminds me of some of the best advice I have ever seen in print. 

It was a quote from the Mayflower Madam several years ago, 

who had her phones wiretapped and lots of tapes at her trial. 

But she made the recommendation to people that never say anything that you wouldn’t mind having played back at your trial in 

front of your mother. And I think that is good advice for all of us. 

You have your mother here personally. 

But I am curious, anecdotally, for each of you, for those who have 

hired persons with H-1B visas, anecdotally, in your situation, what 

happened long-term with those people who had H-1Bs? What did 

they do? 

Mr. BOCK. At Google, as of today, about 10 percent to 15 percent 

of those people have become permanent green card holders or citizens. 

A large portion of them have become either green card holders 

or permanent citizens. A lot of the hiring has been in the last couple years. We don’t have a deep history yet, but that has been our 

experience. 

The other thing we found is that——

Mr. GOHMERT. What happens to the rest of them——

Mr. BOCK. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. The 85 percent? 

Mr. BOCK. They are still within the 6-year H-1B window——

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, Okay. 

42

Mr. BOCK. And to be honest, the biggest question becomes 

around what happens with their wives, can their wives work, 

things like that. 

The other thing we found——

Mr. GOHMERT. And what is the answer? 

Mr. BOCK. Well, hopefully they can get visas, too, and pursue the 

path to citizenship. The other thing we have found——

Mr. GOHMERT. Has that happened in the cases in which you deal, 

your employees? 

Mr. BOCK. It has in some cases. There is a couple challenges. The 

green card backlog is a real challenge for us. 

We have had people have to wait as long as 2 years, and what 

happens in some of those cases is people say, ‘‘I can’t live with this 

ambiguity anymore, I am going to return to my home country,’’ and 

sometimes go work for another employer. 

The other thing we have found is that each person we do hire 

on an H-1B—generally, our engineers create our products. They are 

the source of creativity in our company. 

Anecdotally, if I go back to the example of Orkut, the multiplier 

in terms of jobs that have been created is 10 times to 50 times that 

one person. So we have created essentially a small company around 

his idea. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Mixon, do you have any H-1Bs? I know you 

have——

Mr. MIXON. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You don’t? 

Mr. MIXON. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. No? All right. 

Mr. Hawkins, do you have any information yourself? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, I can’t say for sure whether all of our or any 

of our companies use H-1Bs per se. 

But I am concerned about the related issue that is in the pending 

legislation coming out of the Senate which has been brought up 

about the guest workers program and this point system for skills 

and education. 

I think that would constitute a reform, which is, I suppose, what 

we are running about, reforming the immigration system here. 

If it does push us in the direction of bringing in more high-end 

workers and in place of the failed policy we have had of—that has 

been focused on regularizing now the uneducated, unskilled—but I 

am not sure that is what is happening. 

This, I think, has to be looked at very carefully, not only in the 

Senate but when and if the bill comes over here, because the Wall 

Street Journal May 30 editorial was complaining about how the 

Senate had cut the guest workers program from 400,000 a year to 

200,000, which is very large numbers, called the guest worker program a guest worker program for low-skilled workers. 

That is how they interpret what the Senate is doing, and that 

is not—we can’t go down that road. That would not be reform. That 

would be the continuation of the failed policy that we have gotten 

by—de facto failed policy——

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I am curious, quickly—because I was curious about the H-1Bs. 

43

But for those who hire labor who are immigrants that are documented, supposedly, whether it is illegal documents or not, do you 

hire them as contract labor, as employees, or both? 

Mr. MIXON. If I can speak to that, we hire strictly as employees. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Strictly employees, no contract labor. 

Mr. MIXON. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. All right. 

Mr. GAY. I think for the most part in the restaurant industry, 

it would be employees. 

Mr. GOHMERT. For the most part, but there are some hired——

Mr. GAY. We have 12.8 million workers in our industry, so I hesitate to make absolute statements, but I think for the most part the 

model is they would come in as employees like any other employee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, I see I have the red light. Let me just 

comment. One of the things that I heard about the Senate bill, that 

once the triggers occur and people who are here illegally are authorized to be here legally, and it turns out they haven’t paid taxes, 

they can just pay their $5,000 fee. 

And, Madam Chairwoman, I have had some people inquire, 

American citizens, how they could apply to be illegal so they could 

pay $5,000 instead of their taxes. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The gentleman, Mr. Davis, from Alabama? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. King, I think, raised the national security issue about 10 

minutes or 15 minutes ago, and I wanted to perhaps raise the national security issue from a totally different perspective. 

There was a column in Newsweek this week from someone—and 

I apologize if I am butchering his name, but Fareed Zakaria, who 

a lot of people have seen on the Stephanopoulos program every 

Sunday. He is a very eloquent writer who writes a piece in Newsweek every week, and he has written a number of pieces about the 

direction of American foreign policy. 

And it was a very interesting story. He mentions that he came 

to the United States on a student visa in 1982, and he mentions 

that when he came here, he had, frankly, soaked up a lot of what 

the left in India had to say about American culture. 

He came here with a particular perspective on this country and 

its policies and its values, and he was prepared to not like our 

country very much. And a lot of his friends back in India didn’t like 

our country very much based on what the left in his country was 

saying. 

And he makes a very interesting point. He says that in the 

course of being here as a student and absorbing American values 

in real-time, totally changed his impression of this country. 

And he makes the observation that in a world where obviously 

a lot of people don’t like American values and culture now, and 

that poses a threat to us, that there is itself a value in bringing 

people here, letting them see what it means to be an American in 

practice, even letting them see how we treat people who aren’t 

Americans. 

And, Mr. Bock, perhaps you could comment on that perspective, 

the foreign policy angle and what I think is a national security 

44

angle that an immigration policy, if it works, can actually be a vehicle for shoring up American credibility in the world. 

Can you briefly comment on that? 

Mr. BOCK. I think that is very true. Speaking from my own personal experience, the idea of America, of what America stood for—

freedom, and capitalism, and the right to not be afraid of the secret 

police, and the right to be able to trust your neighbors and your 

friends—the idea that you could actually come and build a business 

and make it on your own, not look for a handout but actually just 

have a fair chance, was pretty unique. 

It was absolutely unique in Romania at the time, and it is still 

fairly unique in the world. And it is something precious and treasured. And I think giving more people exposure to that is a tremendous value. 

And even just having the option, the opportunity, that lets people 

know that that is out there has a huge, huge potential impact on 

the rest of the world. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would agree with that, Mr. Bock, and I suspect that 

growing up in Romania you did not necessarily receive the most favorable impression of the United States either. 

And I think that is a point worth this Committee considering, 

that if we are concerned about shoring up American credibility, 

there are multiple ways to do it, and H-1B visas can be one of 

them. 

Let me turn to you, Mr. Hawkins. I stayed up late last night 

watching the Republican presidential debate, and I found it interesting on several notes. 

A number of the individuals—I guess everyone except John 

McCain, frankly—over and over I would hear this refrain. They 

would say, ‘‘We love immigration. It has made our country better. 

It has made our country stronger. We just don’t like the illegal aspect of it.’’

And that was the particular rhetorical device that was used last 

night to explain their positions. It is what Governor Romney said, 

what Mayor Giuliani said. 

Mr. Hawkins, it seems that you are in a little bit of a different 

place from where those guys are. 

If I understand your economic analysis, you would have just as 

much of a problem with low-skilled legal workers, frankly, coming 

in this country as you would low-skilled illegal workers, wouldn’t 

you? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, it would continue to move the economy in 

the wrong direction. 

Mr. DAVIS. But I am just asking if you would agree with me that 

you don’t really draw a distinction between legal and illegal, do 

you? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, in a sense——

Mr. DAVIS. You are just as troubled by the legal ones. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, if by legalization we mean we simply take 

the pattern of illegal——

Mr. DAVIS. No, no. Well, because my time is limited, let me press 

the point, because my yellow light is on. 

It seems to me that all of your economic theories about low wage 

depression would be absolutely applicable to individuals who were 

45

low-wage who came here through a perfectly legal process, because 

your concern is the wages they make and their penetration into the 

economy, and whether they are legal or illegal doesn’t seem to 

make an economic difference, unless I am misunderstanding. 

Mr. HAWKINS. From an economic point of view, that is true. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Now, so let me take that as your answer. My 

time is limited. I wish we had 15 minutes. I didn’t make the rules 

here, Mr. Hawkins. 

Let me close with this observation. I do think Mr. Hawkins is 

right about one very important observation. The Senate bill 2 years 

ago, I think, was a little bit shrewder, frankly, than the bill before 

the Senate right now in one major aspect. 

If I can just finish my point very briefly, Madam Chairwoman. 

The Z visa for all of the 12 million undocumenteds in effect 

treats all the undocumenteds the same. It kind of wraps them in 

one policy. 

And I fear, as someone who, frankly, was very much an opponent 

of the House bill 2 years ago and someone who is a supporter of 

comprehensive reform—I am a little bit concerned that the Z visa 

approach, by wrapping all 12 million together, may play into the 

hands of people who raise arguments about amnesty, and that it 

may play into the hands of people who raise those issues. 

The bill 2 years ago, as you recall, drew distinctions. People who 

had been here for a longer period of time, who were rooted in the 

community, got treated one way. Those who had been here for less 

time and weren’t as rooted got treated another way. 

And I wonder if that might not be the shrewder approach. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Ellison is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair and members of the panel, thank 

you all. I was doing double duty in Committees, so I hope I don’t 

ask you any questions you have already answered. But thank you 

if I do happen to do some duplication. 

Would you identify, if you would, Mr. Bock—would you regard as 

the area in which reform is most pressing, where we need to legislate? If we can’t do everything, what must we do in this to suit the 

needs of business in this next round of immigration reform? 

Mr. BOCK. From the Google perspective, and more broadly for the 

technology industry, the two biggest areas to focus are, one, increasing the number of H-1B visas permitted per year, and, two, 

decreasing the lag it takes in working through the backlog on processing of green cards. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Backlog and H-1B. I thought you might say 

that. And one of the things—and I want to just put the cards on 

the table. I agree with you. 

But as some folks from a different perspective jump into the debate—you know, I have been wondering about what you thought 

about the business sector, particularly the technology sector, as 

people like me support the position you were taking—increase H1B visas and increase workers so we can deal with the backlog. 

Would you all support a strong, robust, targeted program to really help educate some American-born workers as we go about that? 

46

I mean, could you see yourself supporting a program targeted—

say, like historically Black colleges—to try to get some of these students into the field? 

Because quite frankly, from a political standpoint, if I support 

your position, which I am prepared to do, I am going to get some 

blowback from other sectors that I also represent. 

And it would be nice to be able to say, ‘‘Well, you know, Mr. Bock 

supports, you know, making sure that American workers and 

young people are trained and have a real chance in the technology 

field, too.’’

Mr. BOCK. Well, according to the National Science Foundation, 3 

percent to 6 percent of computer science students are AfricanAmerican today. That is far lower than the percentage of AfricanAmericans in the U.S. population. 

And it is something that we as a company invest in growing 

through our K through 12 interventions, through our Teach for 

America programs, through scholarships, through a number of activities we are involved in that I could provide significant detail on. 

But we absolutely think that is an area that is worth investing 

in. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, and just to say—you know, I think that a lot 

of—I think personally, you know, a lot of the dialogue around immigration, I find it just personally divisive, and it is done for political reasons that have nothing to do with helping anybody, just one 

party trying to get advantage over another one. 

But I do think that we could blunt a whole lot of that noise, criticism, if the technology community said, ‘‘Hey, we are going to deal 

with the challenges of the inner city, too.’’

Do you have any thoughts on this, Mr. Mixon? 

Mr. MIXON. I am from the ag department, so technology is something we deal with on a much lower level than the Google group, 

but it is still technology, so I really——

Mr. ELLISON. Oh, I don’t mean just technology. I know you come 

from the agricultural sector, but agriculture employs a lot of people. 

Mr. MIXON. It does. 

Mr. ELLISON. And I guess the question I am asking about not 

as—what about technology. I am saying that, you know, as we go—

first of all, what do you view as the most important reform measures for comprehensive immigration? 

As we tackle this problem, what do you think is the most critical 

issue? 

Mr. MIXON. In my opinion, the most important thing is some 

kind of transition. I think we all agree that border security is important. I think there is common ground there. 

I think there is also common ground that there is a recognition 

that there is a large percentage of folks that are poorly documented 

and documented incorrectly. 

I think our biggest concern from the ag department, from the ag 

division, of all this is a transition to where we, as employers, can 

truly have a legal, verifiable, documented workforce. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you for that, which gets me back to the 

point I was trying to get at. Since I think we do have a pool of peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:37 Sep 26, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\060607A\35858.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35858
47

ple who we could employ in the United States, but we also often 

find ourselves needing foreign workers as well. 

What do you think about the idea of trying to develop some native-born American workers to work in the ag sector? 

Mr. MIXON. I think the Ag group is doing some of that currently. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could you talk about it? 

Mr. MIXON. Yes, I could. I have been told from my group behind 

me, my brain trust—because I am focused in Florida, for the most 

part. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. 

Mr. MIXON. But in North Carolina, the farm bureau up there set 

up a hotline, a statewide media blitz. They said North Carolina 

needs 100,000 workers. They got two answers. 

And in Washington State, last August the apple industry 

partnered with their State workforce agencies to hold a series of recruitment and orientation sessions in order to find domestic workers. 

They needed 1,700 workers. And according to what I have been 

told, they received 40. So there is a misperception, or some kind 

of lacking here that American workers aren’t in the ag business for 

some reason, ag communities. 

I don’t know what the disconnect is. The wages are good. 

Mr. ELLISON. I will tell you, because here is an interesting thing. 

You know, my mother is from Louisiana. My father is from Georgia. Both of them worked in agriculture growing up. That is what 

they did before they came to the big city of Detroit where I was 

born. 

It is hard for me to believe that there is not a lot of folks in the 

United States who go back generations on the farm who might just 

be in the inner city now, but families go way back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ELLISON. It is a matter of recruitment, a matter of trying to 

draw people in. I mean, if we are going to spend money on a guest 

worker program or whatever else, I mean, I think we could probably go to the urban centers in North Carolina to try to get some 

folks to do ag work. 

Mr. MIXON. I would agree. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I turn now to the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairlady. Let me 

just again thank you for the great work that you are doing on this 

immigration issue. You are working us to death, but you are really 

getting us to engage in ways that perhaps few of us have done before on this issue. 

As we watch the debate unfold, it is much more complicated than 

many people ever thought it would be. 

But let me just gear in on where Mr. Ellison started to engage 

our panelists, by surfacing this argument that is coming from 

many communities in the country about displacement, worker displacement. 

We hear constantly that we have constituents who don’t want us 

to support the visas, the H-1B visas. They say, ‘‘Why don’t we look 

in this country first and see what we could do about improving job 

training and placement?’’

48

And there is this constant argument about what are we doing to 

employ people right here in this country, to recruit, train, develop, 

et cetera. 

So what can you tell me about your outreach and your efforts to 

make sure that you are employing people in Silicon Valley that 

come from Oakland, California, who come from areas nearby where 

the unemployment rates are high? 

Mr. BOCK. We do a number of things. One of the misconceptions 

about Google is that we only hire software engineers and computer 

scientists, where, unfortunately, there is a shortage of people of 

certain ethnicities and from certain communities. 

We also hire sales people. We look for outstanding finance people, outstanding attorneys. Our general counsel and chief legal officer, David Drummond, is himself a son of a Tuskegee airman——

Ms. WATERS. How many employees do you have? 

Mr. BOCK. We have, at the close of the last quarter, 12,200 employees. 

Ms. WATERS. How many are African-American? 

Mr. BOCK. I don’t actually have that data at my fingertips. I 

apologize. 

Ms. WATERS. All right. 

Mr. BOCK. But regardless of what it is, it is a number that we 

would like to get higher, and we invest a tremendous amount in 

trying to get that number higher. 

Ms. WATERS. How do you do it? How do you invest? 

Mr. BOCK. We partner with a number of organizations to do outreach early in people’s lives, K through 12. We provide scholarships 

to people so that they can go to college. 

We actually also go to a lot of campuses and do what we call tech 

talks, where people just have a chance to interact——

Ms. WATERS. Have you been to the Black colleges and universities? 

Mr. BOCK. We have. 

Ms. WATERS. That is what Mr. Ellison was talking about. Have 

you been to Morehouse and Spellman, for example? 

Mr. BOCK. We have. We have been to Morehouse, Spellman, 

Clark. I don’t have the entire list in front of me. 

Ms. WATERS. How well have you done going to Morehouse? That 

is where my grandson goes. 

Mr. BOCK. We are actually still not done with extending all the 

offers for campus hires, so I don’t know what the final answer will 

be. 

But actually, we are investing more and more in those schools 

in particular, in historically Black universities, because there, we 

believe, is, for technology and for us, an untapped talent pool that 

we want to get to. 

But we also want to get more students ready for companies like 

Google and help increase the capability of people in those programs 

as well. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I think that as we wrestle with some of these 

very complicated issues, it would bode well for your industry to 

talk with some of us who have to have a vote on this stuff about 

how we can answer the question of why can’t we get jobs rather 

than having you support a vote to bring people from India. 

49

So I would like to engage with you on that and look at what your 

programs are for outreach, and perhaps we could have some suggestions for you that would help us in answering these questions. 

Mr. BOCK. I would welcome that. What I would add is that for 

Google, fortunately, our situation is it is never either/or. We would 

love to do both. 

And as we are growing and because of the value created by some 

of these exceptional people, our ideal answer, when we find two exceptional candidates, is let’s get both of them. So that is our focus. 

But we would welcome the conversation. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, thank you. 

Let me just say that based on what I know about many of the 

businesses that are relying on undocumented workers or immigrant workers, it appears that—not perhaps with your industry, 

but with some of the other industries—they are relying on cheap 

labor. 

Some of that labor is exploited. And people have nowhere to turn, 

actually, or they are afraid. They are a little bit intimidated. And 

we are not going to sweep these issues under the rug as we try and 

deal with how to come up with a good immigration policy. 

I am not interested in the support of industry for low paid workers, no health benefits, no pension plans, and that it is all right to 

do it with immigrant workers, rather than have to deal with organized labor and educated workers who would demand more from 

the workplace. 

So I just put that out there for you to understand, because many 

of us are quite progressive in wanting to have a good policy that 

would have somewhat of a path to legalization. 

But we are going to gear right in on guest workers, and we are 

going to look at these industries and see what they are doing, and 

see how we can make good sense out of it. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

And, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional written questions to you, which we will forward and ask that you answer as promptly as you can so it can 

be made part of the record. 

And, without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any other additional materials. 

I think this hearing today has helped to illuminate many of the 

issues relative to our immigration system and the business community. 

I would like to extend an invitation to everyone here today to attend the next hearing on comprehensive immigration reform that 

will be held at 2 o’clock today in this very room. We will hear from 

Federal Government agencies on numbers and data that hopefully 

will inform our decision-making process. 

But this panel today has been enormously interesting. And, you 

know, a lot of people in the public don’t realize you are here as volunteers to help us with your expertise, and we certainly do appreciate it. And thanks to each and every one of you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

50

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

52

LETTER FROM LASZLO BOCK, VICE PRESIDENT, PEOPLE OPERATIONS, GOOGLE, INC. TO

THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, 

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW


3-1.eps
53


3-2.eps
54

LETTER FROM WILLIAM B. SPENCER, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS (ABC), INC. TO THE HONORABLE ZOE

LOFGREN, CHAIRWOMAN, AND THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Æ


4X.eps