U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–249 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–117

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION

REFORM: SERVING OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER 

SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 26, 2005

Serial No. J–109–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND CITIZENSHIP

JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JAMES HO, Majority Chief Counsel 

JIM FLUG, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 51

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 64

WITNESSES 

Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. ......................................................................... 13

Griswold, Daniel, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 15

Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 4

Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey ........................................................................... 17

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................................... 32

Former Commissioners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, joint 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 44

Griswold, Daniel, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 46

Law, Steven J., Deputy Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ....................................................................... 56

Massey, Douglas S., Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, prepared statement ........................................ 65

United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Albert Zapanta, President and 

Chief Executive Officer, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................. 67

(1)

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM: SERVING OUR NATIONAL 

ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY AND

CITIZENSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:49 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cornyn and Kyl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Chairman CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will come to order. 

We appreciate your understanding as we finished the markup on 

the asbestos bill, and we were delayed slightly while we reorganized the chairs and got our thoughts together. 

I want to thank Senator Specter for scheduling today’s hearing, 

as well as Senator Kennedy, my Ranking Member, for working 

with us to help make this hearing possible. This Subcommittee has 

held a number of significant immigration hearings this year, and 

I appreciate all of our colleagues—Senator Kyl, whose Subcommittee sat with us in each of these hearings, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein, our Ranking Members—working with 

us to make them productive. 

Today, we continue our review of the immigration system. Our 

immigration and border security system is, I think the evidence is 

clear, badly broken. In a post-9/11 world, we simply do not have 

the luxury of accepting the status quo any longer. National security 

demands a comprehensive solution to our immigration system, and 

that means both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of 

our immigration laws. We must solve this problem, and we must 

solve it now. 

First, we must recognize that in the past we simply have not devoted the funds, resources, and manpower to enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. That must change, and that will 

change. As history amply demonstrates, reform without enforcement is doomed to failure. No discussion of comprehensive immigration reform is possible without a clear commitment to and a 

2

substantial and dramatic escalation of our efforts to enforce the 

law. 

That is why Senator Kyl and I have embarked on a series of 

hearings, as I mentioned, devoted exclusively to the topic of 

strengthening enforcement throughout our Nation’s immigration 

system—at the border, between the ports of entry, and within the 

interior of our Nation. These enforcement hearings have shown 

that our border inspection and security system at the ports of entry 

is full of holes, our deployment of manpower and use of technology 

to secure the border between the ports of entry is deficient, and our 

deportation process is over-litigated and under-equipped. 

So, it is clear we need stronger enforcement. But, it is also clear 

that enforcement alone will not get the job done, nor will our job 

be done by merely throwing money at the problem. Our laws must 

be reformed as well as enforced. 

Any reform proposal must serve both our national security and 

our national economy. It must be both capable of securing our 

country and compatible with the demands of a growing economy. 

Our current broken system provides badly needed sources of labor, 

but through illegal channels—posing a substantial and unacceptable risk to our national security. Yet, simply closing our borders 

to secure our Nation would only destroy our economy. Any comprehensive solution must address both our security needs as well 

as the needs of our national economy. 

Accordingly, just last week, we began a series of hearings examining the benefit that comprehensive immigration reform would 

provide. Noted experts testified that national security would be bolstered if we properly reformed our system. Specifically, they testified that any reform should be designed to allow the government 

to focus its efforts on those who mean to do us harm as opposed 

to expending those resources on people who merely want to work. 

Reform along these lines would allow law enforcement to target its 

limited resources where they belong on high priorities like smugglers, drug dealers, and terrorists. 

Today, we shift our focus to explore the importance of immigration reform to our national economy. 

Our current economic system provides the necessary sources of 

labor crucial to many areas of commerce, but as I said, through illegal channels. Commissioner Bonner has previously testified before this Subcommittee that the vast majority of those the Border 

Patrol apprehends are migrant workers simply coming here to 

work. He said ‘‘...the Border Patrol is still dealing with a literal 

flood of people on a daily basis...most of whom are attempting to 

enter this country in order to work.’’

While the situation Commissioner Bonner faces at the borders 

represents a substantial and unacceptable risk to our national security, it also demonstrates why we cannot simply close our borders 

or round up and remove the approximately 10 million people who 

live outside our law. We do not have the resources, we do not have 

the facilities, we do not have the ability to identify, locate, and apprehend 10 to 12 million undocumented workers. Securing our Nation’s borders at the expense of weakening our economy by choking 

off or removing needed sources of labor is not an acceptable alternative. 

3

But, even if we were equipped to do so, our economy would suffer 

if we stripped millions of workers from our national workforce, just 

as it would suffer if we eliminated entire stocks of natural resources from our national inventory. On the other hand, our economy would be strengthened if all workers could simply come out of 

the shadows, register, pay taxes, and fully participate in our economy. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing will help us to better understand the benefits that would accrue to our national economy 

should we properly reform our immigration system. Some have expressed concerns about the impact of reforming the immigration 

system on the American worker. Today’s hearing will examine that 

question. 

To be sure, America is a welcoming Nation. The hard work and 

strength of our immigrants have made our Nation prosperous. And, 

many immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants have 

joined the military to help safeguard the liberty of America, advance scientific discoveries, and otherwise lead our Nation at various times. Nevertheless, we must craft a fair and consistent system that reforms our Nation’s immigration laws without harming 

the economic security of American citizens. 

I want to end by noting that a bipartisan group of former INS 

Commissioners wrote to me recently, calling for a comprehensive 

immigration solution that both protects our national security and 

serves our national economy. The desire of these dedicated public 

servants to see that the immigration system is enforced and reformed transcends political ideology and is formed by years in the 

trenches. We would do well to heed their call. 

Without objection, I will make that a part of the record at the 

end of my comments. 

I am confident that Americans, working together, will rise to this 

challenge and find a solution that serves the best interests of our 

country. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. With that, I will turn to Senator Kyl, who 

has worked so closely with me and I with him on this issue for, 

lo, these many months, and as border State Senators, I think we 

understand perhaps as well as anybody about not only the reasons 

why we need to address the security issue, but also the necessity 

of addressing equally the economic issues associated with this phenomenon. So, Senator Kyl, I will turn the floor over to you for any 

statement. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, because we want to 

hear from the witnesses—we have a very distinguished panel of 

witnesses, and I appreciate all of you being here today. Our good 

friend, Steve Law, is going to lead off. Therefore, I am simply going 

to apologize in advance for having to leave in about half an hour. 

But to the extent that I do not hear somebody, I will read your testimony and look forward to visiting with you in any event. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CORNYN. We are pleased today to have Deputy Secretary of Labor Steven Law appear here. Deputy Secretary Law 

serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Department of Labor, 

4

a 17,000-employee agency with an annual budget of more than $50 

billion. Mr. Law was confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Labor 

by the Senate in 2003. 

While at the Department of Labor, Mr. Law has worked to update overtime regulations, provide transparency reforms for labor 

unions to protect rank-and-file union workers, and develop initiatives on, among other things, immigration reform. 

We are pleased to have you here today, and we would be pleased 

to hear your statement, Mr. Law. I can only think, as I am introducing you, how we are going to add to your burdens by creating 

an asbestos trust fund. But, that is another subject for another—

something Senator Kyl and I have been working on along with the 

entire Judiciary Committee. 

If you would please remember to turn your microphone on, and 

I ask that you initially limit your statement to about 5 minutes, 

and then we would like to engage in a conversation with you. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. LAW, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 

LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. I would like to offer an extensive statement 

into the record on the asbestos legislation, but I will not do that 

at this time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAW. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, thank you very much for 

this opportunity to testify on the role of immigrant labor in our 

21st century economy. The Department of Labor has long played 

an important role in immigration policy. In fact, in the early 1900s, 

85 percent of the Department’s 2,000 employees worked in its Bureau of Immigration before it was transferred over to another department. The first two Secretaries of Labor were both immigrants, 

from Scotland and South Wales, respectively. Our current Secretary of Labor, Secretary Chao, is also an immigrant. And my own 

grandfather came from Norway to San Francisco in 1906. You may 

remember that was the same year as the great San Francisco 

earthquake, which only goes to show that we Norwegians have no 

sense of timing at all. 

Over the centuries, immigrants have helped the American economy prosper, literally helped build the country, fought its wars to 

defend our liberties, and enriched our culture in countless ways. 

And yet our attitude toward immigration has run hot and cold 

through the years, and that has been exacerbated by an immigration system that is increasingly torn between the needs of our economy and our security and between the rule of law and gritty realities. 

Last year, President Bush proposed dramatic reforms to that system to better control our borders, to ensure long-term economic 

growth, and to deal equitably and responsibly with the millions of 

undocumented workers who currently live in the shadows of American life. 

The President’s proposal for a new temporary worker program 

recognizes that many sectors of our economy rely on foreign-born 

workers to fill jobs where there simply are not willing U.S. workers 

available. The President’s proposal also recognizes that the current 

5

system for bringing in temporary workers is complex and cumbersome, and we would streamline that process so that willing 

workers can be matched efficiently with employers while always 

putting American workers first. And, finally, the President’s plan 

recognizes that America’s vast underground labor economy needs to 

be brought into the daylight for the benefit of all. We would do this 

compassionately but without conferring amnesty, without creating 

an entitlement to citizenship, and without putting those who have 

ignored our laws in front of those who have obeyed them and waited patiently for their turn. 

Now, the focus of this hearing is the intersection of the economy 

and our need for foreign-born workers. Our labor market today is 

healthy and robust. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.2 

percent, which is below the monthly average of the last 50 years. 

In April, the economy created 274,000 new jobs, and that is part 

of the 3.5 million jobs that have been added since June 2003. At 

the end of March, there were 3.6 million unfilled job openings in 

the United States. 

At the same time, a quiet revolution has been taking place in the 

composition of our workforce. Over the last 15 years, the number 

of foreign-born workers in America has swelled 50 percent to a 

total of 21.4 million workers in 2004. And yet this rapid growth in 

the foreign-born labor force has not come at the expense of American workers. For example, just between 2002 and 2004, just a 2-

year gap, about 1.2 million foreign workers were added to our labor 

force, at the same time that the unemployment rate for American 

workers went from 5.7 percent to 5.5 percent. 

In the future, demographic trends will make the steady influx of 

foreign-born workers not only sustainable but ultimately economically necessary. And yet today, the need for foreign-born workers 

is being felt acutely in many sectors of the U.S. economy, from construction and agriculture to health care and high-tech. 

At the Department of Labor, we watch for gaps between wage 

rates and employment levels. If wages are climbing much more 

rapidly than employment levels in particular occupations, this suggests a tightening labor market and a pent-up demand for more 

workers. For example, between 2002 and 2003, wages for pharmacists increased 44 times faster than employment. Wages for dispensing opticians grew more than 18 times faster than employment. 

Of course, these are just numbers on a page. The importance of 

foreign workers to our economy is presented to you every day 

through your constituents. The Department of Labor receives 

scores of letters from Members of Congress every year making requests about the status of visa petitions that are filed by employers 

who are in desperate need for workers to harvest crops, to cut 

trees, to provide rural health care, and to write software. In all 

these areas we find that very typically there is a connection between the jobs that need to be filled by foreign workers and supporting jobs that are currently filled by Americans. 

This intersection of immigration and the needs of our economy 

is a crucial issue for our Nation, and we look forward to working 

with this Subcommittee and Congress to achieve immigration reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Oct 31, 2005 Jkt 023249 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23249.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

forms that respond to our economy’s needs, that reflects America’s 

character, and that guard our Nation’s security. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Law. We 

will proceed with a round of questions. 

First of all, I think, as I said in my opening statement, many 

people in America today are frustrated by our inability to control 

our borders. It is an issue that, from a national security perspective, after 9/11, has taken on a new sense of urgency and concern. 

The real national security deficit and the frustration that many 

people feel about the Federal Government’s not living up to its responsibilities is something that, as I said, Senator Kyl and I address with Title I of our comprehensive immigration reform bill. 

At the same time, the Congressional Research Service has estimated as recently as last year that we have approximately 10 million undocumented immigrants, people who have come in outside 

of the laws currently residing in the United States, approximately 

6 million of those in the workforce, is the number Congressional 

Research Service uses. I have heard different estimates. 

What studies or reports has the Department of Labor undertaken 

to identify the types of jobs that immigrants currently perform, if 

any? Or what kinds of sectors of the U.S. economy will continue to 

need migrant labor in the future? 

Mr. LAW. There are a variety of different external reports, not 

Department of Labor-specific reports but external reports, that 

have documented the extent of immigrant employment in various 

sectors of the economy. There is, just for example today—and this 

is purely anecdotal, but it is confirmed much more broadly—an article in the Washington Post that describes the influx of Hispanic 

workers, mostly foreign-born, in the construction industry just 

around this particular area. Again, that is an anecdotal answer, 

but it is replicated by numerous reports and studies around the 

country that the construction industry has become an area where 

immigrant labor is increasingly needed as the employment in the 

construction sector is now at an all-time high and continuing to increase every single month. 

In addition to that, immigrants have become increasingly important to the agricultural sector, particularly in rural areas where it 

is very difficult to get surge capacity employment from the domestic labor force so that there is increased reliance on migrant farm 

workers, which are largely foreign-born immigrants. 

In addition to that, there is an increasing need for typically immigrant labor in the health care sector, and lastly, also in the area 

of highly skilled workers, in particular the software industry, the 

computer hardware engineering industry. These are areas where 

there simply is a much greater need for additional workers than 

the current domestic labor supply can keep the pace with. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Law, some Members of Congress have 

proposed—and I am thinking about, in particular, the ag jobs bill 

that was introduced earlier, or taken up even during the course of 

our debate about the supplemental appropriation bill earlier this 

year—that we deal with this on a sector-by-sector basis; in other 

words, that we deal just with the ag industry and farm workers. 

7

My own question about that is: Is there any good reason, from 

your perspective, why we would deal with this on an industry-specific basis as opposed to creating a system which would allow people to match willing workers with willing employers, once they 

have determined an American is not able to fill that job? Is there 

any good reason why we would limit the kinds of jobs that these 

people, once screened and once qualified, could perform in our economy? 

Mr. LAW. Well, probably the best answer to that question is that 

today, as my previous answer suggested, immigrant workers, foreign-born workers, occupy a very, very broad array of occupations 

and sectors of the economy. A fix in one area obviously would not 

address the need for workers in significant other areas. 

There is undoubtedly an acute need for a steady and predictable 

supply of foreign-born workers in the agricultural sector, but simply dealing with that problem alone will not deal with the equally 

acute and deeply felt need for immigrant and foreign-born workers 

in the high-tech sector, for example, or in health care or in construction. 

And so very clearly the benefit, I guess I would say, of a comprehensive approach is that all of the different economic needs we 

have would be addressed by a comprehensive approach, and in addition to that fact, we would also be reaching all of the workers 

who currently live and work here who are undocumented who are 

in this broad array of different industries and occupations. 

Chairman CORNYN. What kind of assurances could be provided 

to assure the American people that any immigration reform that 

would allow immigrants to work here on a temporary basis would 

not be displacing American workers? How would you see that we 

would best address that? 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. That is a very important question, and one 

of the central principles of the President’s approach which he announced last year was that American workers need to come first. 

We need to protect their rights to get access to jobs that are available above all else. 

We administer a number of worker visa programs, and a key feature of several of them is a labor market test which requires us 

and employers to go through reasonable, verifiable efforts to test 

the market to see whether there are available and willing American workers. We would expect that such a feature would be part 

of whatever ultimate temporary worker program were designed 

and implemented by Congress. And that is something that we 

would want to ensure, which is that employers working together 

with the Government put American workers first and make sure 

that we are not giving jobs away to foreign-born workers that an 

American is available to fill. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I had noted to Secretary 

Law that his name is a good intro for one of the things that we 

are trying to accomplish here, and I know he will agree with the 

statement. The Department, I am sure, agrees with Senator 

Cornyn and I that the key here is for us to develop a system in 

8

which everybody can work within the rule of law. Would that be 

a fair summary principle? 

Mr. LAW. I think that is a very important principle, yes. 

Senator KYL. Clearly, we have employer needs for workers in our 

country, but I think all of us would agree that they need to be satisfied within a legal framework. 

Among the principles that you testified to were that the undocumented workers who are here today but for whom some legal status is urged, nevertheless should not gain an advantage over those 

who have followed the rules. Let me just flesh that out just a little 

bit. 

That would not preclude in your view, would it, allowing people 

who are illegal immigrants today from participating right alongside 

legal immigrants in a new temporary worker program? In other 

words, if we create a new temporary worker program for people to 

be here temporarily, both people who are coming from another 

country and these people who came here illegally today would be 

able to participate in such a program? 

Mr. LAW. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator KYL. That would be consistent with the principle. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Senator KYL. I gather an example of something that would not 

be consistent with that principle would be, however, to allow those 

illegal immigrants to gain legal permanent residency while someone who is seeking to do so legally from their home country—well, 

obviously, would be doing it in a totally different way, the way it 

is currently done. 

Mr. LAW. Right. In fact, that was one feature that has been 

somewhat criticized and regretted about the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which did exactly as you said, and one of the 

principles that has been enunciated in this temporary worker program is that this should not be an occasion for someone who is 

here illegally to get in front of the line of people who have waited 

outside patiently and obeyed our laws. 

Senator KYL. Right. Now, I don’t know if you have read some of 

the other testimony, but I read Tom Donohue’s testimony, and as 

always, he has got a lot of good meat in his statement. On page 

8 he said something that I really want to emphasize here and get 

your reaction to it. He said, ‘‘Some ask whether the high level of 

employment means’’—and this is of people who are not documented—‘‘that employers are violating the law. No, it does not.’’ 

‘‘Necessarily,’’ I guess I would add. ‘‘It should be emphasized that 

employers are required to, and do, verify that each employee is eligible to work in the United States, but by law employees get to 

choose which documents from [DHS’] approved list (set out on the 

‘I–9)’ . . . ’’ And he goes on to say, ‘‘These documents look valid on 

their face and many times they are in fact legitimate documents 

belonging to relatives or friends who are authorized . . . ’’ and so 

on. ‘‘By law, the employer must accept these documents.’’

And, of course, that goes on to illustrate why this is very difficult 

for employers, because employers cannot go behind the documents 

and say, ‘‘Well, you don’t look right to me, I am going to demand 

something else of you.’’ They will get hit with EEOC complaints in 

that event. 

9

So we have put a real tough burden on the employers not to hire 

illegal immigrants but, by the way, not to ask too many questions, 

and we have given them the documents they can choose from, 

which everybody knows can be and in many cases are counterfeited. 

Would it be the Department’s view that critical to the success of 

a new program of comprehensive immigration reform would be a 

system for hiring that is simple, relatively inexpensive, easy for 

employers to use, and would have absolute verification requirements that would, if enforced and if applied properly, ensure that 

no more would illegal immigrants be hired? 

Mr. LAW. Certainly employers are put between a rock and a hard 

place in the current system. Many of them do have very compelling 

needs for foreign-born workers to fill jobs for which there are simply no willing Americans available. And the current system is cumbersome. The current system, in many cases we are trying to make 

it simpler. But the current labor market tests in some cases are 

very, very complicated. And so I think any effort to simplify and 

clarify what the employers’ responsibilities are and to ensure that 

those requirements actually do what they are intended to do I 

think would make the program work better and, therefore, encourage both employers and those who are undocumented to participate 

in it. 

Senator KYL. The bottom line is that everybody working within 

the rule of law is better for society. The employers are protected 

and know that they have legal employees. The legal employees 

know that they have protections. And society at large knows that 

both the employers and the Government are sticking with the rule 

of law, which we really need in a society if we are going to have 

trust in the Government and trust in the rule of law. You would 

agree with that? 

Mr. LAW. As you pointed out at the outset, that is my last name, 

Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Law, in your statement, you talk about 

the need for foreign workers and how that relates to the aging of 

current American workers. Could you expand on that a little bit so 

we could understand that better? Why aren’t there enough younger 

Americans coming along to fill those jobs being vacated by those of 

us as we get older and reach retirement age? 

Mr. LAW. Well, in large measure, this is a long-term demographic 

trend that is having an impact on a wide variety of issues in our 

country, including the Social Security debate, which we have been 

talking about in other settings. But as I think all of us know, the 

baby-boom generation, of which I am the tail end, is moving within 

range of retirement, and this is a very, very large cohort of people. 

In fact, the number of people who will be entering into the retirement years in the next few years is 50 percent larger than the 

same group that went through 10 years past. So it is a very, very 

large group of people who will be heading into retirement and leaving the productive workforce. 

Meanwhile, the generation of people who are coming behind 

them, those who are, say, between 16 and 25 years old, has reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Oct 31, 2005 Jkt 023249 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23249.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
10

mained essentially flat over the last several years. And so what we 

are seeing is a large number of people who will be outside the 

workforce, a somewhat smaller group of people who will be in their 

productive years in the years ahead, and that will create substantial pressure, is, in fact, already creating substantial pressure on 

labor markets. And it goes to the issue that I mentioned a little bit 

earlier where we look at what is happening to wage rates in key 

professions and comparing it to the employment levels. If wage 

rates are climbing dramatically in particular professions vis-a-vis 

how many new jobs are being filled, that suggests some pent-up demand for laborers. 

One of the examples I did not get a chance to talk about was 

computer hardware engineers. We have heard a great deal, for example, about the dotcom bust, and so a lot of people assume there 

are no opportunities left in the high-tech industry. Well, anyone 

who is from that industry will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, 

true. We have heard about the dotcom bust, and yet despite that 

and despite the fact that that particular occupation of computer 

hardware engineer has been steadily filled with foreign-born workers through the H1–B visa program, and also despite the fact that 

these are traditionally very, very highly compensated positions, the 

wages of computer hardware programmers increased nearly 2 

times faster than employment levels for that particular occupation 

between 2003 and 2004. 

So we see a lot of examples all across the economy of greater 

need for workers in these particular occupations than the domestic 

labor supply can provide, and as you pointed out at the outset of 

your question, that will only get more substantial as the baby-boom 

generation retires, and the next generation, which is much smaller, 

will be there to fill those jobs. 

Chairman CORNYN. I have found out during the time that I have 

spent focusing on immigration issues that one reason that our law 

appears to be so badly fragmented and not comprehensive in any 

real sense of the term is because it is controversial. So, people tend 

to favor rifle-shot solutions perhaps that do not get a lot of attention, but yet relieve a little bit of the problem here or there—for 

example, caps on H1–B workers and the like. 

But, I wonder what your perspective would be on whether the 

caps that we have on legal immigration or perhaps the administrative burdens on legal immigration and legally working in the 

United States, do those provide an incentive for some people to 

simply avoid a legal way of coming into the country or working 

here because the burdens are just too high, the caps are too low? 

Mr. LAW. Well, certainly if you look at the past history of our 

capped temporary work visa programs, in the past these visa program caps were not always met. Today, increasingly, they are 

being met and frequently being met very early in the program 

year. And so as a result of that, those programs become impossible 

to use for large numbers of employers who are concerned about 

using them. 

The Senate recently passed an amendment offered by Senator 

Mikulski to at least reserve some of the H2–B visas for the latter 

part of the year, where some seasonal workers in her State and in 

11

other States are needed for various food-processing tasks and that 

sort of thing. 

So there is a lot of pressure on the current system with its current restrictions and caps and requirements, and I think that all 

argues for the kind of comprehensive approach that the President 

has talked about and that is being talked about here, where we 

deal with all of these different pressures on the system and different concerns, such as the ones that Senator Kyl talked about 

earlier and you talked about earlier, which is also ensuring the 

rule of law while at the same time meeting the economic needs 

that our country has. 

Chairman CORNYN. It struck me as ironic that, as we have heard 

during the course of our hearings, the Border Patrol detains about 

1.1 million people a year. These are relatively uneducated, low-skill 

workers who are coming across in that way. Of course, we are also 

told that they probably detain one out of every four or so. And, of 

course, they detain them, many of them, most of them, and then 

release them on their own recognizance pending a hearing on deportation for which most of them do not show up. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Chairman CORNYN. But, my point is we have put caps on some 

of the best educated and the best trained people, and yet we have 

virtually uncontrolled illegal immigration for unskilled workers. 

That seems backwards to me. 

Mr. LAW. Well, certainly one of the issues that has been raised 

that needs to be looked at is just the role of high-skilled immigration in this country, and people have increasingly been talking 

about that. There has been some recent analysis done about the 

tremendous contribution that high-skilled foreign-born workers 

make to our economy, to our standard of living, and the degree to 

which they really contribute to our economy’s competitiveness and 

vitality. 

So, once again, I think it argues for looking at the entire picture, 

what each temporary worker or foreign-born worker contributes to 

the economy, as well as these other issues that you have raised 

earlier in this hearing. 

Chairman CORNYN. Well, one last point in that same vein. Senator Lugar, Senator Alexander, Senator Coleman, and I have begun 

to have a series of roundtables on the decrease in the number of 

foreign students who come and study in the United States due to 

heightened security procedures and scrutiny given to these foreign 

students, many of whom, because of the difficulty of getting into 

the United States to study, are going to study in Europe. Unfortunate, from my standpoint, not only do we lose some of the brain 

power that might ultimately inure to the benefit of the United 

States, a lot of the public diplomacy that occurs when foreign students come to the United States and study and then return to their 

home countries is lost. 

Mr. LAW. Right. 

Chairman CORNYN. Because, it seems to me that there is probably no better person to communicate the positive attributes about 

our country than a student who comes from another country, who 

studies here, and then returns to their home country, and then is 

able to their fellow countrymen what America is really like as opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Oct 31, 2005 Jkt 023249 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23249.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

posed to what they read in the newspapers, in some newspapers, 

and watch on some TV screens. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAW. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I am going to have 

to go, but just again, relating to the Department of Labor’s desire 

to serve both employer and employee here with a sensible system, 

and Tom Donohue’s observation in his testimony, I was reminded 

of that old saying that was kind of the cynical humor of the Soviet 

Union era when the workers would say, ‘‘Well, the government pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.’’

It was a cynical reflection on the fact that there was no rule of 

law there. The government was breaking the law and everybody 

knew it, and so the workers felt no obligation to try any harder 

than the government. 

We have a Government that sets out a standard that everybody 

knows does not work. The employers are required to comply with 

it. They and certainly the employees who are hired illegally know 

that it is all a sham. And yet we allow it to continue. The employers do not want it to continue that way. The Government certainly 

should not want it to continue that way. The employees would obviously like to be legal. 

We have got to get a handle on this and create a system where 

people in the future will have respect for the system, the rule of 

law, and will say now we have got something where people can legally be employed in a relatively easy way by employers who want 

to comply with the law and are now doing so, and the Government 

that cares about enforcing the law. If we can get to that point, I 

think Senator Cornyn and I will have succeeded. But since you are 

always available, I am not going to take any more time to question 

you. I will just talk to you later. Thank you. 

Mr. LAW. Absolutely. I would be glad to do so, Senator. Thanks. 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much. We will now go to our 

second panel. Thank you for being with us. 

Mr. LAW. Thank you very much, Senator. Glad to be here. 

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

the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. While our panel is taking their seat, let me 

just say that we have a very distinguished second panel in addition 

today. 

Our first witness is Thomas J. Donohue, the President and CEO 

of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Donohue leads the 

world’s largest business federation representing 3 million companies, State and local chambers, and American Chambers of Commerce abroad. Mr. Donohue brings important perspectives on a variety of issues being considered by Congress including intellectual 

property issues, corporate governance, and today’s topic, immigration reform. Thank you for being here with us today. 

Joining Mr. Donohue on our second panel is Dan Griswold. Mr. 

Griswold is Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy 

Studies, and has authored or co-authored studies on, among other 

subjects, globalization, the World Trade Organization, trade and 

manufacturing, immigration and trade in democracy. Mr. Griswold 

has been published extensively and has appeared in numerous TV 

13

and radio news and talk shows. Welcome, Mr. Griswold, to the 

Committee. 

Finally, I would like to welcome Douglas S. Massey. Dr. Massey 

is Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. 

Dr. Massey is also published extensively on Mexican immigration, 

including co-authoring Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, which discusses 

U.S. immigration and the economic integration of migrant workers. 

Thank you as well, Dr. Massey, for being with us. 

We are privileged to have such a distinguished panel of witnesses to bring a broad base of practical experience to these issues, 

and we would be pleased at this point to hear your statements. 

Mr. Donohue.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Senator, thank you very much, and thank you for 

inviting me here to speak on this critical issue. It is important to 

the well-being of our country immigration reform. 

I last testified on this subject before Congress on September the 

7th, 2001. At that time you will recall our Nation was moving towards major reform. John Sweeney and I had testified together 

with some common thoughts. 

President Bush and President Vicente Fox appeared also to be 

heading towards a mutual set of agreements. 

Just four days later after we testified the tragedy of September 

11th occurred, and the Nation, understandably, focused all of its 

attention on security. Immigration reform fell by the wayside. 

But nearly four years later the need for immigration reform is 

greater than ever. Our immigration system is broken and will stay 

broken until we fix it. 

Allow me, Senator, to add just a personal note before I carry on 

with my testimony. I travel around the country talking about immigration, and its importance to this Nation, and I am somewhat 

turned off by the very often vicious reaction of sensible people to 

the need to add immigrants to our workforce. I always ask how 

many American Indians are in the room. There are not too many. 

I remind the others that they are all them, those people. That is 

where we came from. But at the same time I am not worried about 

the result because this long discussion about this complicated subject is going to still be going on when the problem becomes so severe that the Congress, the States and our fellow citizens are going 

to deal with it. 

If you look at all the people that are unemployed in the United 

States now, there are about 1.6 million of them that are ready, 

willing and able to go to work. If you look at all of the immigrants 

that are undocumented and here working, and the Pew study said, 

what, 10.3 million? That suggests if we send them home or we do 

not make them employable, we have got a national crisis now. If 

you listen to Steve Law’s comments about what happens in the 

coming years in retirements, we have an even more serious crisis. 

So I think we are dealing with two issues here, basically the 

need to fix the system, and second, the reality that no matter how 

14

prejudiced or emotional or understandably angry our fellow citizens 

are, they are going to be ready to solve it long before they are going 

to change their attitudes. 

Let me suggest that there are three things we can do to change 

this system. First is some type of targeted earned adjustment to 

take care of the status of undocumented workers who are here, 

many of them paying taxes, and certainly working in a lot of our 

very important industries. Some like to use the word ‘‘amnesty.’’ I 

do not. We support legislation that would provide a step-by-step 

process in which an undocumented worker could qualify for permanent legal status. 

I know that some people, as I said, are uncomfortable with providing these workers with legal status, but the alternative solutions are not only indefensible, they are not workable. We are not 

going to adopt a massive deportation program, and if we did, we 

could not make it work. Our economy would grind to a halt if we 

tried to round up and deport the estimated 10 plus million undocumented workers, and maintaining the status quo is equally wrong. 

A shadow society of undocumented workers and a booming fraudulent document industry—which by the way, gets more effective 

every year because the technology is better—protects criminals and 

terrorists and it makes it easy for people to exploit undocumented 

workers. 

Creating a pathway for earned legal status in this country would 

rightfully recognize those upon whom our economy depends and 

would enable our law enforcement officials to do their job more effectively. 

I second think that immigration reform should allow employers 

to hire foreign workers under a temporary worker system. By the 

way, these would not all be low-end jobs. Our problems on the 

higher end are moving in a negative way faster than on the lower 

end. A temporary worker program is absolutely essential for us to 

address these needs of an expanding economy, a declining working 

age population, a lower birth rate and an impending retirement of 

much of the workforce. By the way, we have done this five or six 

times since the founding of our country with major thrusts of immigration. We might want to try it again. It has produced some pretty 

good people. 

My written testimony gives you all the demographic data, but 

rather than go into that, I would like to just report one line from 

a workforce expert who says the ‘‘most inescapable challenge facing 

the American workforce in the coming 20 years’’, the next 20 years, 

‘‘we will not have enough people to fill’’ the jobs. 

When we did our outsource study we got a result that said by 

2010—that is 5 years from now—that we would have between 6 

and 10 million jobs in this country with no one to fill them. That 

is why I have a sense we will move forward. 

I do not want to bleed on your time anymore. I would simply say 

that we need skilled and unskilled, moderately skilled workers. 

You look at the numbers on housing starts, at an all-time high. 

Who do you think are building these houses? You look at what is 

going on in our expanded agricultural business in your own State, 

with massive exports of agriculture products and coming to a better—who do you think is working these industries? A sizeable 

15

chunk of our economy requires these immigrants, and we need 

their help. 

Finally, we recognize that stronger enforcement of our immigration and border security laws are important, and people have to 

have a law that has credibility in it, and we have seen all the reports about violence and people dying unnecessarily. We certainly 

do not want to have that happen. I do remember a lot of Irish people that got on boats and came here through terrible storms, and 

a lot of them died. They were not only leaving a famine. They were 

coming to a great time of opportunity, and this country has not got 

the facility to lock those borders. 

Senator, let me just say we need more workers. We need enhanced security. We need a document system we can trust, and obviously many details have to be worked out. The Chamber is a 

leader in the Essential Worker Coalition. We are going to work 

very hard on that. We are going to work with you and your colleagues, but let us try and get something done before reality overtakes us, and it is breathing hard down our necks. 

Thank you very much. 

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

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Mr. Donohue, for your 

statement. 

Mr. Griswold, we would be glad to hear yours. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL GRISWOLD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

TRADE POLICY STUDIES, THE CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator Cornyn, thank you very much for inviting the Cato Institute to speak today on immigration and the U.S. 

economy. 

Our research at Cato has consistently shown that immigrants 

plan an important part in the success of our free enterprise economy. Immigrants work willingly to fill important segments of the 

labor market. They gravitate to occupations where the supply of 

workers tends to fall short of demand, typically among higherskilled workers and lower-skilled occupations. That hour-glass 

shape of the immigrant labor pool compliments the native-born 

workforce, where most workers fall into the middle range in terms 

of skills and education. As a result, immigrants do not compete directly with the vast majority of American workers. 

Lower-skilled immigrants benefit the U.S. economy by filling jobs 

for which the large majority of Americans are simply over qualified. Important sectors of the U.S. economy, hotels and motels, restaurants, agriculture, construction, light manufacturing, health 

care, retailing and other services depend on low-skilled immigrant 

workers to remain competitive. 

Even in our high-tech economy demand for less skilled labor will 

continue to grow in the years ahead. According to the Department 

of Labor, the largest absolute growth in jobs during the next decade will be concentrated in categories that require only short-term 

on-the-job training. Of the 20 job categories with the largest expected growth in employment between 2002 and 2012, 14 of them 

require only short-term training. These occupations include retail 

16

sales, food preparation, grounds keeping, janitors, waiters and 

waitresses. The net employment growth in those categories alone 

is expected to be 4.9 million. 

Meanwhile, the pool of American workers willing and happy to 

fill such jobs continues to shrink. We are getting older as a Nation 

and we are getting better educated. I am also one of those aging 

baby-boomers. Between 1982 and 2012, according to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the median age of workers in the U.S. labor force 

will increase from 34.6 to 41.6 years. That is the highest level ever 

in American history, and the pool of workers between 16 and 24, 

the share is dropping by a third. At the same time workers in the 

U.S. labor force are more educated than ever. In the past four decades the share of adults 25 and older who have not completed high 

school has plunged from more than half in 1964 to less than 15 

percent today, and if you look at adult native men in the workforce, 

it is below 10 percent and dropping. 

Immigrants provide a ready and willing source of labor to fill 

that growing gap between demand and supply on the lower rungs 

of the ladder. Yet here is the rub. Our current immigration system 

offers no legal channel for peaceful, hard-working immigrants from 

Mexico and other countries to come into the United States and fill 

these jobs that the vast majority of Americans do not want. The result is large-scale illegal immigration. Our current dysfunctional 

immigration system is colliding with reality, demographic and economic, and as usual, reality is prevailing. 

Since 1986 the U.S. Government has dramatically increased 

spending on border enforcement. For the first time in our history 

we have imposed fines on companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Yet the number of illegal immigrants continues to 

grow by several hundred thousand a year to an estimated 10 million today. 

The only realistic answer is comprehensive immigration reform. 

Such reform should grant temporary but also renewable visas that 

would allow foreign-born workers to fill those jobs where labor is 

most needed. Such visas should allow multiple reentries for as long 

as the visa is valid, complete mobility between employers and sectors, and full protection of U.S. law. 

Comprehensive reform should also legalize the millions of workers who are currently in the United States without documentation. 

Many of these workers have lived and worked in the United States 

for several years. They are valuable participants in their workplace 

and their communities. They should be allowed and encouraged to 

come forward and be legalized and documented. 

Legalization does not mean amnesty. Newly legalized workers 

can be assessed a fine. They should be required to get in line with 

everybody else to apply for permanent status. Whatever way we 

achieve legalization, it would be far preferable to the status quo of 

millions of people living in a social and economic twilight zone outside the rule and protection of law. 

Reform is not about opening the door to millions of additional 

foreign workers. It is about legalizing the millions already here and 

the hundreds of thousands who are coming in each year already. 

According to research, legalization would raise their wages, benefits and working conditions by giving them more bargaining power 

17

in the marketplace. They could more easily change jobs to improve 

their pay and working conditions. They would be more likely to 

qualify for health insurance and to invest in their job and language 

skills. They could put their savings in the bank. Legalization would 

replace an underground supply of illegal workers with a safe, orderly and documented population of legal workers. 

In conclusion, we need to recognize reality, adopt comprehensive 

reform, and fix America’s flawed immigration system so that it conforms to the realities and the ideals of a free society. 

Thank you. 

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

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Mr. Griswold. 

Dr. Massey, we would be glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, 

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. MASSEY. Mr. Chairman, since 1982 I have co-directed a large 

research project studying Mexican migration to the United States 

with my colleague Jorge Durand at the University of Chicago. 

The Mexico Migration Project, which is funded by NICHD and 

the Hewlett Foundation, offers the most comprehensive and reliable source of data available on documented and undocumented migration from Mexico. The project won a merit award from the National Institutes of Health, and based partly on its success, Jorge 

and I have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. 

Two decades of intensive research using these data reveal a fundamental contradiction at the heart of U.S. relations with Mexico. 

On the one hand, we have joined with that country to create an integrated North American market characterized by relatively free, 

cross-border movements of capital, goods, services and information. 

As a result, since 1986 total trade with Mexico has increased by 

a factor of 8. On the other hand, we have also sought to block the 

cross-border movement of workers. The United States criminalized 

undocumented hiring in 1986, and over the next 15 years tripled 

the size of the Border Patrol while increasing its budget tenfold. 

The escalation of border enforcement was not connected to any 

change in the rate of undocumented migration from Mexico. Rather, U.S. policymakers appeared somehow to have hoped to finesse 

a contradiction, integrating all markets in North America except 

one, that for labor. This contradictory stance has led to continued 

migration under terms that are harmful to the United States, disadvantageous for Mexico, injurious to American workers, and inhumane to the migrants themselves. 

Rather than increasing the likelihood of apprehension, the militarization of the Mexico-U.S. border has reduced it to a 40-year 

low. Before 1975 the odds of getting caught on any given attempt 

at entry were about 33 percent. Today they are around 10 percent, 

and this is because militarization channels migrants to more remote sectors where the chance of getting caught is actually smaller. 

In these relatively unguarded sectors, however, the risk of death is 

greater. Mortality among migrants has tripled, bringing about the 

needless death of 300 to 400 persons per year. 

18

Although U.S. efforts to increase the costs and risks of border 

crossing did not discourage undocumented migrants from coming, 

they had the perverse effect of deterring them from going home. 

Once in the United States migrants are reluctant to face again the 

gauntlet at the border, so they stay put and they send for their 

family members. The end results has been an unprecedented increase in the size and growth rate of the undocumented population. 

The hardening of the border in San Diego and El Paso also pushed 

migrants away from traditional destinations towards new receiving 

areas. 

In the end, during the 1990s, what had been a circular flow of 

able-bodied workers into three States became a settled population 

of families across all 50 States, significantly increasing the cost of 

migration to U.S. taxpayers. The economic costs were likewise exacerbated by the criminalization of undocumented hiring in 1986, 

which was an effort to eliminate the magnet of U.S. jobs. This action, however, only encouraged U.S. employers to shift from direct 

hiring to labor subcontracting. Rather than dealing directly with 

migrants, employers began increasingly to work through intermediaries to escape the burdens of paperwork and the risks of 

prosecution. In return, subcontractors pocketed a portion of the 

wage bill that formerly went to migrants, thereby lowering their 

wages. 

Unfortunately, the ultimate effect was not to eliminated undocumented hiring, but to undermine wages and working conditions in 

the United States, not so much for undocumented migrants who 

had always earned meager wages, but for authorized workers who 

formerly had been able to improve their earnings over time. In the 

new regime everyone had to work through a subcontractor regardless of legal status, and the advantaged bargaining position once 

enjoyed by citizens and legal resident aliens was nullified. 

At this point all we have to show for two decades of contradictory 

policies towards Mexico is a negligible deterrent effect, a growing 

pile of corpses, record low probabilities of apprehension at the border, falling rates of return migration, accelerating undocumented 

population growth, and downward pressure on wages and working 

conditions in the United States. These outcomes are not simply my 

opinion, but scientific facts that can be reproduced by anyone else, 

using the data that is publicly available from the Mexican Migration Project on the Web. 

The situation is thus ripe for reform. Rather than undertaking 

repressive actions to block migratory flows that are a natural consequence of Mexico’s economic transformation and its growing integration with the United States, a more salutary approach would be 

to bring flows above board and manage them in ways that are beneficial to both nations. 

The steps that I believe that are needed to accomplish this reform include, but are not limited to: (1) the creation of a temporary 

visa program that gives migrants rights in the United States and 

allows them to exercise their natural inclination to return home; 

(2) expand the quota for legal immigration from Mexico, a country 

with $1 trillion economy and 105 million people to whom we are 

bound by history, geography and a well-functioning trade agreement, and yet it has the same quota as Botswana and Nepal; (3) 

19

offering amnesty to children of undocumented migrants who entered as minors and have stayed out of trouble—these children who 

came here as minors are guilty of no sin other than obeying their 

parents and they should be offered immediate amnesty; (4) finally, 

establishing an earned legalization program for those who entered 

the United States in unauthorized status as adults. 

These actions, along with others I could enumerate, go a long 

way to resolving the current mess. They would enable the United 

States to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of a migration that will likely occur in any event. The approach of management, rather than repression, will better protect American workers 

and allow Mexico to develop more quickly to the point where forces 

now promoting large-scale migration ultimately disappear. The legislation submitted to Congress by Senators Kennedy and McCain 

moves the agenda of immigration reform substantially in this direction, and for this reason I support it. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman CORNYN. Thank you very much, Dr. Massey. 

Let me start, if I may, with you, and you paint a rather grim picture of the consequences of our policy since 1986. You have given 

us some ideas about how it is we might address some of those. How 

would your proposed reforms deal with the threat of international 

terrorism where people who want to come here and hurt us can use 

the same means that people who want to merely come here and 

work currently use in order to come into our country and then simply melt into the landscape? How would the proposals that you 

suggest help us deal with that challenge? 

Mr. MASSEY. Well, in two ways. First, when you have got 10 to 

12 million people in undocumented status who are afraid of the 

law, that provides a big sea for terrorists to swim in without being 

detected. The way to detect terrorists who are out to harm Americans and their interests, is to bring all these people above board 

and document them. Then the undocumented will stand out and 

can be more easily identified and apprehended. 

Second, I think the evidence shows that our militarization of the 

border with Mexico has not bought us any additional security. 

None of the terrorists came through that border. And why would 

a terrorist attempt to come through the Mexico-U.S. border, which 

is heavily policed, when they can waltz across the Canadian-U.S. 

border without being bothered. So I think what we need to do if 

we want to enhance our security is not try unilateral police actions 

at the border, but engage in cooperative law enforcement activities 

with our two close neighbors in North America, and get the Mexicans and Canadians to work with us in deterring people even before they get to Mexico or Canada. 

Chairman CORNYN. We have had previous witnesses, Dr. Massey, 

who said that the two things that Mexico could do to help the most 

in terms of international terrorism and the threat of danger to 

American citizens would be to, No. 1, to protect their southern border, and No. 2, to deal more effectively with OTMs, as we have 

heard the phrase, other-than-Mexicans who transit through that 

country, through their airports or across their roads to come into 

the United States. Do you agree with that? 

20

Mr. MASSEY. Yes. A model here is what the European Union is 

doing with Poland. They are providing the Polish Government with 

technical assistance to enforce its eastern border from other countries in the former Soviet Union, and in return, they have admitted 

Poland into the European Union. It is not complete labor mobility 

yet, but they have a very generous temporary visa program to 

allow Polish workers in, and it seems to have been relatively successful. 

I will note that the southern border of Mexico is much shorter 

than the Mexico-U.S. border, which is about 2,000 miles, and if we 

were to work with Mexico and provide technical assistance in patrolling that border, I think it would be much to our benefit. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Donohue, let me ask you about what 

Congress could expect, Congress should expect from American employers that you represent, that the Chamber represents, if we provide the means for employers to determine the status of prospective 

employees? Should we be able to expect that they will avail themselves of that ability to determine whether the person they are 

looking at as a prospective employee is in fact authorized to work 

in the United States? 

Mr. DONOHUE. I assume, Senator, you would like a very candid 

response to that, so I will give you one. 

Chairman CORNYN. I would expect nothing less from you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. First of all, a great majority of American companies want to abide by the law, not only because they may be caught 

and pay a penalty of some sort, but because they are Americans. 

There are some people in any organization, whether it is Government or church or associations or companies, who will not play by 

the law, so you can write that percentage off. 

But there is a fundamental reality when you stop and think that 

some 92 percent of the adults who came in who are undocumented 

workers, are all employed in this country. When you add their families to it, you know, it is even a greater number, and they are 

available to work. 

Now, if you go back to Texas and you decide to run a small company, a small manufacturing company, a small printing company, 

a small hotel, and you cannot find workers, you are going to keep 

your business going. The better question would be, if we make it 

possible for these companies to get the workers they need to keep 

providing the service to their customers and therefore stay in business and keep their people employed, the rest of the people employed, they will respond to that aggressively. 

I am asked all the time when I am in Europe, ‘‘How come the 

United States economy is so strong, 3.68 percent, 4 percent last 

quarter of last year, and we cannot get off a dime?’’ I say, ‘‘It is 

very simple. We have got 20 million small companies in our country, and they are honorable, thoughtful people. They just do not 

pay too much attention to Government.’’

Government is running behind this issue. The only way to get in 

front of it is to deal with the challenge and the problem, and that 

is we do not have enough workers, and we like to tell everybody 

there are all sorts of American workers. The unions tell me all the 

time, there are all kinds of American workers ready. Just pay them 

enough money. There is not enough money in the world to pay peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Oct 31, 2005 Jkt 023249 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23249.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
21

ple that do not exist. The demographics of this society should be 

a required study before members of the Congress, members of the 

Senate, the administration and the press, decide to take this issue 

apart. If you were not born 21 years ago, you are not here today 

ready to go to work. 

Chairman CORNYN. You indicate in your written testimony that 

the application process for some of our visas, for example, the H2–

B process, is too bureaucratic, too burdensome, that it causes many 

employers simply to avoid that process in the first place. What sort 

of impediments do you see to the way that our immigration system 

is currently being administered that make it unworkable to the average American employer, if there is such a thing? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, first of all, if you go back to Texas and find 

a guy who is building small homes or adding rooms to homes or 

doing refurbishments and all that sort of thing, and he hired wallboard guys on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, and he gets a 

plumber to come in some other days, and he has a tile guy coming 

in, first of all, he is running the whole company out of his left 

breast pocket. All his tools and everything are in his pickup truck. 

He knows who to hire. He hires the people that work hard, do not 

steal his stuff, he can trust to come into homes, and the word is 

out in the industry, they know who is going to produce. I am not 

sure they are much into doing the paperwork required to figure out 

this visa business. Have you ever looked at it? 

Chairman CORNYN. I have not tried to hire anybody, no. 

Mr. DONOHUE. My son is a builder, our middle son, you know, 

middle sons are cool. My son is a builder in Colorado. He is my 

resident expert on this subject and I regularly consult with him on 

the difficulties of running a small business. His brother, the lawyer, has advised him that if he takes care to deal with the IRS and 

the Colorado IRS, he is 95 percent of the way there. 

Chairman CORNYN. I take it that you mean that American employers need workers, and presumably if we were able to create a 

legal framework for immigrant labor to work in this country in a 

way that was less bureaucratic, less burdensome on the employer, 

less paperwork, that it would be—and we were able to provide a 

means for that employer to determine whether this prospective employee could legally work here—would it be reasonable for Congress to expect that that would be a program that could be, at least 

in theory, implemented and usable? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Of course it would. If we make the system simpler, the paperwork simpler. You heard Dr. Massey tell you we 

have added of people, a bureaucracy of high significance, and we 

have gone from a third interdiction to 10 percent, and obviously we 

are making progress. 

But the issue that is fundamental here is, first of all, any company of size, any company that has a personnel department, a 

human resources department, any company that has sufficient size 

to be held responsible, is going to jump at that opportunity, and by 

the way, they do not only need low-end workers. We are in a major 

crisis on high-end workers. They all used to like to study here and 

then get an H1–B visa. They are going home to India and China 

to make their fortune. We have got an up end. But do not let us 

kid ourselves about the 20 million really small companies that are 

22

in certain kinds of businesses in this country that use temporary 

workers, that use seasonal workers, that use workers that have 

skills that are needed only part of the time. What we need is a system that is going to encourage them to be as reasonable as we can, 

but I am not going to sit here and tell you that this Government 

has any facility to stop entrepreneurs of great energy and courage 

and ambition from getting the wallboard put up on Tuesday. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Griswold, one of the frustrations that I 

hear expressed by people who are concerned about our inability to 

control the influx of illegal immigrants across our borders relates 

specifically to the cost imposed on two particular sectors of local 

communities by the Federal Government. For example, in the 

health care field, Federal law mandates that anyone who shows up 

at an emergency room in a hospital, regardless of their legal status, 

regardless of their ability to pay, must be seen and must be treated. We can all understand from a human compassion standpoint 

why that is important; however, it does impose a substantial financial burden on local communities. 

The other example relates to public education. From my own 

standpoint, it is better if people are going to be here that they be 

educated and be productive rather than the converse. Nevertheless, 

we see that in places around the country where the immigrant population is exploding that the burden put on local schools and on 

local taxpayers is increasing mightily, and there is frustration associated with that. Could you comment on how you believe that Congress could and should address those two issues? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. And I think these are legitimate concerns that 

need to be taken seriously. The National Academy of Science just 

did a very thorough of immigration in about 1997, and they came 

to the conclusion that the typical immigrant and their descendants 

paid more in taxes than they take from the Government. So immigrants over their lifetime and their children—the big payoff is their 

children, who tend to be overachievers. So immigration is not an 

overall burden on taxpayers, but low-skilled immigrants of course 

do incur more costs, they pay fewer taxes. And the costs tend to 

be focused on the State and local level where these sorts of services 

are delivered. They are great for the Federal Government, the Social Security system, that sort of thing. They pay in and do not collect. 

One, I think we need to look at reforms within those sectors, and 

I am not about to offer any advice on reforming health care of education, but those need to be tampered with. We have got systems 

there that—

Chairman CORNYN. Feel free if you have any ideas. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRISWOLD. My colleagues at Cato have lots of advice, 

Cato.org. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRISWOLD. But I think one thing Congress could do is some 

kind of revenue sharing. The Federal Government tends to make 

a lot of money off of immigrants, whereas the costs are concentrated in the short term at the State and local level, some kind 

of cost sharing in terms of offsetting that. 

23

You know, frankly, these problems are not an immigrant problem, they have to do with low-income people, and they cause these 

sorts of burdens wherever they are, whether they are immigrants 

or not, and the ultimate answer is to help people get educated, get 

the skills they need to raise their income and their productivity, 

and be less of a burden to taxpayers. 

Chairman CORNYN. I appreciate your answer. I would just tell 

you that the Federal Government’s track record in this area is 

abysmal. Coming from a border State where the costs of health 

care are borne by local communities—25 percent of the population 

in Texas is uninsured, and a large number of those are undocumented immigrants. So, the challenges are real and I hear what 

you are saying. It remains a big problem. 

Let me ask you, Professor Massey, we have heard from time to 

time a discussion of circularity of immigration patterns, and you 

have noted that by enhancing border security, assuming you would 

agree that that is what we have done, we have probably compounded the problem and forced people to stay in the United States 

who could be expected to return at least on a periodic basis to their 

country of origin. Could you address that and how you believe we 

could best respond to that phenomenon? 

Mr. MASSEY. That dovetails with your last question about the social costs of immigration. Of course there are inevitably some costs 

because you are not just bringing in labor, you are bringing in people. The problem is when it is underground there is nobody to pay 

and it usually falls heavily on State and especially local governments. 

The advantage of bringing it above board is that you can tax people and you can charge them a fee. We know the migrants are willing to pay now an average of $1,200 to get smuggled into the 

United States. So the Federal Government can undercut the 

coyotes and charge them $600. Over several hundred thousand people creates millions of dollars in revenue that you can use to create 

an insurance pool to pay for the services provided to temporary migrants when they get injured or sick and end up in an emergency 

room. And they will not be uninsured and the burden will not fall 

on the local hospitals. 

Second thing is, yes, by militarizing the border, the paradoxical 

effect is we really did not have very much of an effect in the inflow, 

but we had a huge effect on the outflow, and dramatically decreased the rate of return migration. So if you keep the inflow the 

same and you decrease the outflow, demographically only one outcome is possible, you are going to get a big population increase, and 

that is what has happened. 

But as people stay longer, what had been a flow of single men, 

as people stay longer, as the men stay longer, they naturally get 

lonesome and send for their family, and so it has also transformed 

it from a population of male workers into a settled population of 

families. That drives up the social and economic costs. You pay 

more for education. 

So by legalizing the people that are already here, and especially 

the children who really are an ongoing human tragedy in the 

United States, but legalizing those, putting their revenues into the 

tax pool, bringing it all above board, I think you will provide greatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:31 Oct 31, 2005 Jkt 023249 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\23249.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
24

er revenues for educating the second generation, and by creating 

a temporary worker program and demilitarizing the border a bit, 

you actually get higher rates of return migration so fewer people 

are going to settle here, and more people will go home. 

By militarizing the border we actually frustrate the desire of 

most Mexicans to return to Mexico and people who would otherwise 

work here a couple seasons and go back, repatriate their money, 

self-finance the construction of their house or start a business in 

Mexico, they end up here and then their kids come here, and then 

once your kid is here, you know, you start to build roots on this 

side of the border and it becomes a much more costly enterprise. 

So I think if we just try to manage it more rationally and reasonably, Mexico would be better off, we would be better off, the American workers would be better off, and the State and local governments would be better off. 

Chairman CORNYN. You mentioned people of course returning 

back to Mexico after working here, assuming they could under 

some legal framework. It always struck me as being in the best interest both of the United States and of, for example, Mexico, not 

to have Mexico’s workforce permanently leave that country and 

hollow it out in terms of the labor they need in order to develop 

their economy and provide opportunity there. 

But it also struck me as being in our best interest, even if we 

need a temporary workforce, or one that can go back and forth 

across the border, to encourage workers to return to their country 

of origin with the savings and the skills that they acquire in the 

United States to help develop their own country. This is one of the 

reasons I believe in trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, 

which is coming up, as one gentleman told me in Guatemala recently, he said, ‘‘We want to export goods and services, not people.’’ 

What I understood him to say is we would love to be able to create 

jobs and work in our home countries and export those goods and 

sell those elsewhere, rather than export our human capital and 

make ourselves poorer and less able to support ourselves. 

Mr. Donohue, you had a comment? 

Mr. DONOHUE. First of all, I associate myself with your analysis 

there, except for one thing. We are going to need a very significant 

permanent workforce. If you look across the border in Mexico and 

look at the extraordinary number of workers below 27, and you 

look across the border into the United States and see an aging 

workforce, this thing fits together in an extraordinary way. 

It is hard for some people to swallow. We certainly need a temporary workforce that is seasonal, but this country needs permanent workers all up and down the daisy chain because we are running out of them and it is very hard for the unions to stomach, it 

is very hard for people to look at this and say, you know, why did 

this happen? We have done this again and again and again in our 

country, which has given us the greatest gene pool in the history 

of the world, and it is important for everybody to understand we 

do not have a choice. 

Chairman CORNYN. One of the concerns that many have expressed about a system which would allow any worker to come here 

and qualify to work in a temporary worker program and then have 

a path permanent residency and perhaps citizenship, that that 

25

would create a virtual magnet for illegal immigration. Many point 

to the amnesty provisions of 1986 as an inducement to illegal immigration. People thought that if they get here, if they wait long 

enough, ultimately the Government would wave its magic wand 

and they would receive an amnesty and, thus, their illegal activity 

was rewarded. I would like to hear your comment. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I am not at all suggesting an open border. I 

mean, to say that anybody who wants to come here from anywhere 

in the world can come here tomorrow is not a practical or thoughtful solution. I think we need a clearer understanding of what kind 

of workers we need and how many we need, and we should start 

with the ones that are here and working and established roots and 

figure out a way under the various bills that are being discussed 

here to resolve that problem. 

Going forward, I think the idea on a temporary basis, as Dr. 

Massey indicated, of having a revolving system where people could 

come here seasonally and go home makes sense. The real challenge 

we have is to get from the idea to the practice, but we have to get 

there with a full understanding that we need a serious number of 

permanent workers and an ever-changing number of temporary 

workers. It is very, very hard for government writers of legislation 

and rules to deal with that, but we are going to have to find a way 

to do it. 

I am with those people that say we should not open up the borders and let every—you know, there are 1.3 billion people in China. 

I don’t think we want to see 300 million of them show up here tomorrow. And there are ways we can do that. But in the Americas, 

where we are trying to—where we have one economy and we are 

trying now—we should at least try and do some of the things they 

were able to do in Europe. 

I think that there is a need for a dose of truth and then a way 

to sit down and try and figure out how to make this happen. And 

we will do anything we can to help you. The demand for people is 

going to be greater than the demand for energy. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Griswold? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Senator, could I just add that there were two 

mistakes made, I think, in the 1986 amnesty legalization. One was 

that it was an amnesty: You have been here before 1982, here is 

your green card. And they did jump ahead of the line. That sent 

the wrong signal. The other mistake was we did nothing about the 

flow coming in. There was no liberalization to allow people to come 

in legally. 

I don’t think there is any Mexican worker—certainly the vast 

majority of them—who wouldn’t prefer to come in legally to illegally. If you would give them this legal channel to come in, they 

will come in legally, and they will respond to demand. It is very 

expensive for a Mexican worker to come to the United States and 

be unemployed. Their lifetime savings disappear very rapidly trying to live here in the United States. So they tend to respond to 

demand. We are not going to get 10 million Mexicans coming in. 

They come in because they know there is a job. Often you have 

communities where the word gets out that there are jobs in Dalton, 

Georgia, or Laredo, Texas, or wherever, and they go there. 

26

So I don’t think we need to fear that massive numbers are going 

to come in. We don’t need to fear that they come in illegally if we 

have a legal way for them to come in. There is one historical precedent that I think we can learn from. We had the bracero program 

in the 1950s, and there are some lessons we can learn from that, 

too. That was a guest worker program. Workers were tied too closely to the employer. That gave the employer too much leverage. 

There was some abuse there. But we had illegal immigration in the 

early 1950s. The Eisenhower administration, in cooperation with 

Congress, significantly increased the number of visas available, 

and illegal immigration dropped dramatically because they could 

come in legally. And I think we can learn from that. 

Chairman CORNYN. On a related point, you mentioned this during your opening statement, Mr. Griswold. I know some of my colleagues, as a matter of fact, maybe all of my colleagues, are concerned that the immigrant labor pool will drive down the wages of 

people who are legally here in the country and working. Can you 

explain? I believe you say the immigrant labor pool is shaped like 

an hourglass and complements the native-born workforce rather 

than directly competes against it. Could you expand on that for a 

moment? 

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes, immigrants disproportionately tend to be 

concentrated on the higher end—you know, think a college physics 

professor—and on the lower end—a construction worker, a hotel 

worker; whereas, the American workforce skill spectrum tends to 

be bulging in the middle. And so, therefore, immigrants don’t compete directly with the vast majority of Americans. In fact, the same 

National Academy of Sciences study I mentioned found there were 

only two groups that had downward pressure on their wages from 

immigration. One was other recent immigrants, which makes 

sense. They are similar to immigrants coming in. And the other 

were Americans without a high school degree. 

Now, if you are an adult in the U.S. workforce trying to get by 

in life, you are getting it from all sides if you do not have a high 

school degree—changing technology, an information economy. The 

answer is not to choke off the influx of immigration. It is to give 

those people the skills they need to be productive members of the 

workforce. 

Again, one thing we learned from history, when we had a large 

influx of immigrants 100 years ago, during the great migration, 

that also put downward pressure on lower-skilled wages. What that 

helped to start was the high school movement. It, in effect, raises 

the premium of having a high school degree, gives American kids 

one more reason to stay in school and get a high school degree. 

That is what we should be emphasizing. 

Chairman CORNYN. Dr. Massey, I think—well, I think it was Mr. 

Griswold, maybe I will ask him first, and then ask you to comment 

on this. You have referred a couple of times to mobility between 

labor sectors, and this is important to me because we have heard 

some proposals that deal just with, let’s say, the ag industry. You 

mentioned the bracero program and one of the abuses being that 

it tied the workers too closely to the employers in a particular sector. Could you explain a little bit more about what you mean? 

27

Mr. GRISWOLD. Yes, and I think you are on to something there, 

Senator. If a visa is tied to a particular employer, it gives that employer a lot of leverage. If that worker does not like their working 

conditions, they may face deportation. They lose their right to work 

if they do not work for that particular company. 

The best worker protection, I believe, is the ability to go across 

the street or out of State and get another job. You don’t like the 

conditions, you don’t like the pay, you find another job someplace, 

and that makes employers compete for labor. That is the best protection. So, one, I think for the individual worker, it is best to have 

mobility; but, second, for the U.S. economy. I don’t want bureaucrats here in Washington deciding, you know, we need 100,000 

workers for this sector, we need 200,000 workers for this sector. I 

think if we let workers come in responding to demand, as the economy changes and evolves, I would like those workers to have the 

freedom to move to other sectors. Maybe agriculture will not need 

as many workers as we think, but light manufacturing or the tourism industry will need more. So I think flexibility is the key, both 

for the individual worker and the U.S. economy. 

Chairman CORNYN. Professor Massey, do you have a different 

view, or the same? 

Mr. MASSEY. No, I agree completely. We have a mechanism for 

allocating people to jobs, and they are called labor markets. And if 

you believe that markets work, then you should set up a labor market so that it very efficiently allocates people to places they are 

needed. And you do not need a bureaucratic intermediary doing 

studies to figure out where the jobs are because that will take too 

long, it sucks up a lot of resources in between, it is inefficient. By 

the time you get the approval for the labor visa, conditions have 

probably changed, anyway. 

If you believe in markets, then you set up the markets and let 

them work. And you would do this by giving the migrants the visa 

and let them go to wherever the demand takes them. And they 

would not come here if there were no jobs. As Dan pointed out, it 

is very expensive to come to the United States. And they cannot 

stay very long unless they have a job. So it is more or less selfregulating. 

Chairman CORNYN. Mr. Donohue, I know you believe in markets. 

Do you have a different view, or the same? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Not at all. I share those views, but I would point 

out one in addition. Under the current system, employers spend a 

good deal of time trying to recruit workers, particularly those with 

legitimate visas, and, therefore, expect some period of time that the 

worker would stay with them. And we have to figure that out. I 

mean, if that leads to abuse, then that ought to be changed. But 

Dr. Massey just indicated, if the visa goes to you, sir, and you can 

go on the free market and find your work, then no one has a claim 

on you of any type. 

So if we could get from here to there, count me in. 

Chairman CORNYN. Well, very good. Thank you all for being 

here. We could continue this conversation, and no doubt will, for 

some time in the future. 

28

I know that we have a number of statements from some of our 

colleagues, those of Senator Kennedy and Senator Leahy, which 

will be made part of the record, without objection. 

We also have a letter from the United States-Mexico Chamber of 

Commerce that is supporting the efforts to deal with comprehensive immigration reform as others are. The letter will also be made 

part of the record, without objection. 

Thank you very much for your participation. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you and to seek your advice. There are a 

lot of different ideas pending even in the Senate, and everyone in 

the Senate is going to be contributing to this process. But on behalf 

of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank all of the witnesses. 

We will leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, 

June the 2nd, for members to submit any additional documents 

into the record or to ask questions in writing of any of the panelists. 

With that, our hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

29


23249.001
30


23249.002
31


23249.003
32


23249.004
33


23249.005
34


23249.006
35


23249.007
36


23249.008
37


23249.009
38


23249.010
39


23249.011
40


23249.012
41


23249.013
42


23249.014
43


23249.015
44


23249.016
45


23249.017
46


23249.018
47


23249.019
48


23249.020
49


23249.021
50


23249.022
51


23249.023
52


23249.024
53


23249.025
54


23249.026
55


23249.027
56


23249.028
57


23249.029
58


23249.030
59


23249.031
60


23249.032
61


23249.033
62


23249.034
63


23249.035
64


23249.036
65


23249.037
66


23249.038
67

Æ


23249.039