U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

46–017 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 109–1031 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 26, 2005 

Serial No. J–109–34 

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 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ....................... 12 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 8 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 10 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 118 

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

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 6 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 157 

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

WITNESSES 

Daub, Hal, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Health Care 

Association (AHCA) and National Center for Assisted Living (NCAL), on 

behalf of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, D.C. ..... 15 

Endelman, Gary, Immigration Counsel, B.P. America, Houston, Texas ............ 19 

Jacoby, Tamar, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York, New York ...... 17 

McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona ........................... 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions submitted to Mr. Hal Daub and Mr. Gary Endelman by Senator 

Cornyn (Note: Responses to written questions were not available at time 

of printing.) ........................................................................................................... 28 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Immigration Lawyers Association, Washington, D.C., letter ............. 29 

American Jewish Committee, New York, New York, letter ................................. 30 

Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Hannan Deep, 

Dearborn, Michigan, letter .................................................................................. 31 

Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Arizona: 

May 15, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 32 

July 10, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 34 

July 20, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 37 

Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Arizona: 

May 13, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 39 

July 21, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 41 

Arizona Interfaith Network, Dick White, Phoenix, Arizona, letter ..................... 43 

Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, Arkansas: 

May 24, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 44 

June 17, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 46 

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, (ACORN), Allison 

Conyers, Brooklyn, New York, letter .................................................................. 48 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia, May 22, 2005, editorial .......... 49 

Austin American-Statesman, Austin, Texas, May 17, 2005, editorial ................ 51 

Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, May 17, 2005, editorial ............................ 52 

Barnes, Most Reverend Gerald R., Chairman, United States Conference of 

Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, Washington, D.C., prepared 

statement and attachments ................................................................................. 53 

Page

IV 

Boston Globe, Boston Massachusetts: 

May 21, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 69 

July 26, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 70 

Business Week, July 8, 2005, editorial .................................................................. 74 

Center for American Progress, Rajeev Goyle and David A. Jaeger, Washington, D.C., statement ........................................................................................ 76 

Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, May 17, 2005, editorial ................................ 77 

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Alvaro Huerta, statement ...................................................................................................................... 78 

Concord Monitor, Concord, New Hampshire, May 15, 2005, editorial ................ 79 

Conservatives and business representatives, joint statement ............................. 81 

Daily Journal, Tupelo, Mississippi, May 17, 2005, editorial ................................ 83 

Dallas Morning News, Dallas, Texas, June 16, 2005, editorial ........................... 85 

Daub, Hal, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Health Care 

Association (AHCA) and National Center for Assisted Living (NCAL), on 

behalf of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 86 

Denver Post, Denver, Colorado, June 12, 2005, editorial ..................................... 91 

East Valley Tribune, Mesa/Scottsdale, Arizona, May 13, 2005, editorial ........... 93 

The Economist, London, United Kingdom, May 21, 2005, editorial .................... 94 

El Diario/La Prensa, New York City, New York: 

June 15, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 96 

June 15, 2005, editorial (in Spanish) .............................................................. 96 

El Paso Times, El Paso, Texas, July 5, 2005, editorial ........................................ 98 

Embassy of Honduras, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ........................... 99 

Endelman, Gary, Immigration Counsel, BP America, Houston, Texas .............. 107 

Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, D.C., letter and attachment ...................................................................................................................... 113 

Fair Immigration Reform Movement, Washington, D.C., letter .......................... 115 

Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 1, 2005, editorial .............. 122 

Greeley Tribune, Greeley, Colorado, June 2, 2005, editorial ............................... 124 

Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights/Midwest Immigrant 

& Human Rights Center, Chicago, Illinois, letter ............................................. 126 

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, New York, New York, letter ............................. 127 

Hola Hoy, (LA, Chicago, New York City), May 27, 2005, article (in Spanish) ... 129 

Houston Chronicle, Houston, Texas: 

July 10, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 130 

May 29, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 131 

Idaho Community Action Network, Boise, Idaho, press release .......................... 132 

Idaho Mountain Express, Sun Valley, Idaho, June 3, 2005, editorial ................. 133 

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Chicago, Illinois, letter ... 134 

Immigrant Rights Network of Iowa and Nebraska, Des Moines, Iowa, letter ... 135 

Immigration Equality, New York, New York, prepared statement ..................... 136 

International Franchise Association, Washington, D.C., press release .............. 141 

Jacoby, Tamar, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New 

York, New York, prepared statement ................................................................. 142 

Jesuit Conference Office of Social and International Ministries and Jesuit 

Refugee Service USA, Washington, D.C., statement ........................................ 149 

Laborers’ International Union of North America, Washington, D.C., press 

release ................................................................................................................... 151 

La Noticia, July 12, 2005, editorial ........................................................................ 153 

La Opinion: 

May 13, 2005, editorial (in Spanish) ............................................................... 155 

June 6, 2005, editiorial .................................................................................... 156 

League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington, D.C., press release ... 159 

Lebanon Daily News, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, June 15, 2005, editorial ............ 160 

Long Beach Press Telegram, Long Beach, California, May 14, 2005, editorial . 161 

Longmont Daily Times-Call, Longmont, Colorado, May 29, 2005, editorial ....... 162 

Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, July 24, 2005, editorial ................. 163 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Baltimore, Maryland, news release ....................................................................................................................... 164 

Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Boston, Massachusetts, press statement .......................................................................................... 166 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California, statement .................................................................................................. 168 

Miami Herald, Miami, Florida, May 23, 2005, editorial ...................................... 170 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 15, 2005, editorial .. 171 

Page

V 

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Washington, D.C., press 

release ................................................................................................................... 172 

National Council of La Raza, Janet Murguia, President and CEO, Washington, D.C., statement and attachment ............................................................ 174 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, D.C., press release .......................... 188 

National Immigration Law Center, Washington, D.C., statement ...................... 190 

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, Inc., Los Angeles, California, press statement .......................................................................... 192 

National Restaurant Association, Washington, D.C., news release .................... 194 

New American Opportunity Campaign , Los Angeles, California: 

May 17, 2005 letter .......................................................................................... 196 

May 19, 2005 letter .......................................................................................... 198 

June 1, 2005 letter ........................................................................................... 200 

July 19, 2005 letter .......................................................................................... 201 

News-Times, Danbury, Connecticut, June 17, 2005, editorial ............................. 202 

New York Daily News, New York, New York: 

May 15, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 204 

June 13, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 205 

New York Immigration Coalition, New York, New York, press statement ........ 206 

New York Sun, New York, New York, June 6, 2005, editorial ............................ 207 

New York Times, New York, New York, May 20, 2005, editorial ....................... 208 

Palm Beach Post, Palm Beach, Florida, May 28, 2005, editorial ........................ 209 

Pasadena Star-News, Pasadena, California, May 22, 2005, editorial ................. 210 

People for the American Way, Washington, D.C., press release ......................... 212 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 1, 2005, editorial ..... 213 

Raleigh News & Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, May 31, 2005, editorial ... 214 

The Republican, Springfield, Massachusetts, May 16, 2005, editorial ................ 216 

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, May 23, 2005, 

editorial ................................................................................................................. 217 

San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, California, May 19, 2005, editorial ............. 218 

Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO, Washington, D.C., press 

release ................................................................................................................... 219 

Sierra Vista Herald, Sierra Vista, Arizona, May 16, 2005, editorial .................. 220 

The Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee, May 24, 2005, editorial ........................ 222 

El Tiempo Latino, Washington, D.C., May 20, 2005, editorial (in Spanish) ....... 223 

The Times of Trenton, Trenton, New Jersey, May 21, 2005, editorial ................ 224 

Toledo Blade, Toledo, Ohio, June 9, 2005, editorial ............................................. 225 

Tucson Citizen, Tucson, Arizona: 

May 17, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 226 

May 27, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 227 

June 7, 2005, editorial ...................................................................................... 228 

July 6, 2005, editorial ...................................................................................... 229 

United Farm Workers of America, AFL–CIO, Keene, California, letter ............. 230 

United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., statement ................. 231 

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Washington, D.C., letter .......... 232 

Unite Here International Union, Washington, D.C., letter .................................. 234 

Victoria Advocate, Victoria, Texas, July 10, 2005, editorial ................................ 235 

La Voz, Phoenix, Arizona, May 25, 2005, editorial (in Spanish) ......................... 237 

Wall Street Journal, New York, New York, July 20, 2005, editorial .................. 238 

Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: 

May 14, 2005, editorial .................................................................................... 240 

July 26, 2005, article ........................................................................................ 241 

West Hawaii Today, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, May 17, 2005, editorial ................... 243 

(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, 

Kennedy, and Feingold. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

hour of 9:30 having arrived, the Judiciary Committee will now proceed with this hearing scheduled on comprehensive immigration reform. We will be joined today by four of our distinguished colleagues: Senator Kennedy, then Senator McCain, who have introduced Senate bill 1033 on the subject; and Senator Kyl and Senator 

Cornyn, who have introduced Senate bill 1438 on the subject. 

We will be proceeding with Senator Kennedy doing double duty 

both as a witness at the start and also acting as Ranking Member, 

so Senator Leahy will not be with us, at least at the outset of this 

hearing. 

The issue of immigration is one of the major problems facing the 

United States today, as it is well known. It was addressed by the 

President in a major speech on January 7th of 2004, and it has 

continued to be a matter of enormous importance. 

The Judiciary Committee has moved the subject matter to its 

agenda in advance of the August recess so that we could try to 

move ahead with the markup on a bill with a view to having legislation enacted this year. That, of course, is dependent upon what 

the House does and what the Majority Leader schedules, but this 

Committee is going to focus on it because of its enormous importance. 

The foreign-born population of the United States is currently estimated to be in excess of 33 million people, equal to more than 11 

percent of the United States population. The United States Census 

Bureau now estimates that there are some 20 million foreign-born 

workers in the labor force, which accounts for some 14 percent of 

the more than 144 million workers in America. There are varying 

statistics as to how many illegal immigrants there are in the 

United States, with the figures running from 10.3 million, accordVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Jan 26, 2009 Jkt 045140 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\46017.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
2 

ing to the Pew Hispanic Center, to in excess of 13 million, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. 

There is a concern that there will be a shortage of workers, both 

skilled and unskilled. In the immediate future, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics estimates that by the year 2008 the United States will 

have 154 million workers for 161 million jobs, and by 2010, they 

estimate that the United States will experience a 10-million-person 

labor shortage. 

There have been repeated efforts to modify the entry requirements for highly skilled immigrants. There is a general consensus 

that amnesty is the wrong answer and that we ought not to reward 

people who are here illegally and put them ahead in any way of 

those who have gone through the normal processes of legal entry 

and the complex applications for citizenship. 

The subject of immigration is a very personal one for me. Both 

of my parents were immigrants. My father came to the United 

States at the age of 18 from Russia, in 1911, served in World War 

I, made a contribution to this country. My mother came at the age 

of 6 with her parents from Russia in 1906. We are a Nation of immigrants. But there are limitations as to what can be undertaken, 

and it ought to be done in a lawful way. And we are indebted to 

the Senators who are here this morning for the leadership which 

they have shown. The Subcommittee has had a series of hearings, 

and we are in a position to move forward. 

I am going to yield back the balance of 53 seconds because I 

would like to maintain the timely hearing pace. As you doubtless 

know, we have five stacked votes at 10:15, so we are going to have 

to manage how we will take the hearings, but I am sure we will 

have sufficient time to hear from our distinguished opening panelists. 

Senator Kennedy, it would take too long to present your resume, 

so I will just call on the senior Senator from Massachusetts. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to say how grateful I am to have had the opportunity to work with 

my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, on this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, and we welcome—first of all, we thank you for 

having the hearing this morning on this extremely important legislation. It is an issue that is not going to go away. It is going to 

grow in its dimension, and we feel that we have a constructive approach to try and deal with it. 

We are disappointed that the administration is not here this 

morning. We commend the President for raising this issue. We 

have many areas in which we are in harmony with the administration. We have some areas that are very, very important that are 

different. But, nonetheless, I think the President deserves credit for 

challenging us in the Congress to come up with ways of trying to 

address it in a bipartisan way. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Kennedy, let me join you in the regrets that we do not have the administration officials here. We 

were notified late on Friday that Secretary of Labor Chao would 

not be here and Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff would not 

3 

be here. But we decided to go ahead with the hearing. We are 

going to do our work, and when the administration wants to chime 

in, we will be ready to listen. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, thank you, and we appreciate your moving ahead and we will look forward to having their ideas. 

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the immigration system needs to be fixed. The evidence is all around us: exploited 

workers, divided families, deaths in the desert fake documents, 

criminal smugglers, community tensions, and public frustration. 

The American people are demanding we mend this broken system 

once and for all, and we now have the best opportunity to do it in 

many years. 

For too long, the debate was mired in the past. We need to deal 

with the growing complexity of the immigration challenge in this 

new century. The past debate has long been polarized between 

those who want more enforcement and those who want more visas. 

But to repair what is broken we need to combine increased enforcement and increased legality. Better border control and better treatment of immigrants are not inconsistent. They are the two sides to 

the same coin. 

The past debate pits national security against immigration reform as if they were inconsistent, but the best way for us to know 

who is here and who is coming here is to combine strict enforcement with realistic reforms in admission. 

The past debate pits immigrant workers against native-born 

workers. Today we recognize the best way to help all workers is to 

eliminate the culture of illegality that undermines the wages and 

working conditions of all Americans. 

The past debate was over whether illegal workers should all be 

deported or all be legalized. The new debate recognizes the importance of assisting those who want to return to their home country 

while also recognizing that many immigrants want to settle in 

America and become full members of the Nation’s family. We are 

both a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws. That is not inconsistent. 

Senator McCain and I, along with Senators Brownback, 

Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and 

Gutierrez have introduced bicameral, bipartisan legislation that offers practical solutions to deal with the basic problems we face. It 

combines tough, targeted enforcement with adequate legal channels 

and proper screening for workers and family members crossing the 

border. Its goals are clear: to bring immigrants out of the shadows 

and shut down the black markets, restore the rule of law to our 

borders and our workplaces and in our communities. 

Today, an estimated 11 million authorized immigrants have lived 

in the United States for many years. They care for our children 

and our elderly parents. They harvest our crops as farmers. They 

help build and clean America’s homes and buildings. As the recent 

Wall Street Journal editorial stated, ‘More enforcement’ is a slogan, 

not a solution. We have tried more enforcement, and it did not 

work. We do not have the resources to deport those who are here. 

According to a report issued today by the Center for American 

Progress, to do so would cost at least $206 billion over the next 5 

4 

years—$41 billion a year, more than the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006. 

Our plan offers a realistic alternative, not an amnesty. There is 

no free pass, no automatic pardon, no trip to the front of the line, 

but we do provide a sensible plan that will persuade people to come 

forward to receive work permits and earn legal status. They will 

pay a substantial fine and go through rigorous security and criminal background. Those who want a permanent residence must pay 

all their back taxes, learn English, maintain a strong record, stay 

out of trouble, and wait their turn. 

A bipartisan effort is essential to get this done. Senator McCain 

has provided the leadership, and I look forward to working with 

him and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact responsible, long overdue reform to solve this difficult problem. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. 

The practice of the Committee and I think generally is to proceed 

along lines of seniority. Your resume is not quite as long as Senator Kennedy’s, but it is very long, Senator McCain, so we will call 

on the senior Senator from Arizona. 

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

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Senator. I know that I look considerably younger as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I have been very pleased to work with Senator Kennedy 

on this issue along with Senator Brownback, who is here, Senators 

Lieberman and Salazar, and Congressmen from both sides of the 

aisle on the other side of the Capitol. 

Illegal immigration represents a threat to our National security, 

to our economy, to our health care system, and to State and local 

government budgets. We all know that. We all know that it is a 

rising and terrible crisis in America, particularly in certain parts 

of it. It is a humanitarian issue as well. Mr. Chairman, I would 

just mention a few statistics. 

Last year, more than 300 people died trying to cross our Southern border, and more than 200 of them occurred in Arizona’s 

desert. This year’s numbers are expected to increase. An estimated 

3,000 people enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico every single day. 

Every single day 3,000 people, and last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol. 

Several weeks ago, in Phoenix, Mr. Chairman, 79 people were 

found in a Phoenix alley crammed into a commercial horse trailer. 

The heat was over 100 degrees, and they had been there for several 

days. Of the 79, 11 were children, including a 4-month-old baby. At 

the beginning of this summer, when the temperature in the desert 

rose unexpectedly, 12 people died crossing into Arizona in one 

weekend. 

Enforcement is obviously the key, Mr. Chairman, and as Senator 

Kennedy pointed out, we lead with enforcement. We have to have 

better enforcement. We have to use high tech. We have to do a lot 

5 

of things, including get cooperation from Mexico and our Central 

American neighbors. Recognizing our bill requires the implementation of a mandatory employment verification system, using a tamper-resistant, biometric, machine-readable identification, employers 

will have concrete confirmation that the individual they hire is authorized to work or is not. 

What they will no longer have is an excuse to break the law. The 

bill doubles the fines. We expects billions of dollars to be gained 

that could be used for a variety of reasons, including border enforcement as well as other border activities, and in the Department 

of Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, and Social Security Administration. 

Now, there remains a key issue, Mr. Chairman, that must be addressed: the current undocumented. Today there is an estimated 11 

million people living illegally in our country. One analysis by Bear, 

Stearns argues the number could be as high as 20 million. Regardless where you are on the political spectrum, the fact that 11 million or more people are living and working in this country without 

proper documentation would be a concern to all of us. The question 

is: What are we going to do about it? 

The reality is 11 million people are not going to voluntarily come 

out of the shadows just to be shipped home. Report to deport is not 

a reality, and it is not workable. Systematically rounding up every 

person living here illegally and sending them home is not a viable 

option either. It is neither practically possible nor economically feasible. 

We are not proposing amnesty. We are not proposing an amnesty 

bill. We tried amnesty in this country in 1986 and it did not work, 

and it will not work in 2005 either. We cannot reward lawbreakers, 

but we also have to deal with the reality of our enormous undocumented population. We have a national interest in identifying these 

individuals, providing them with incentives to come out of the 

shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, 

pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. 

This can be accomplished, and I believe that this is a key item 

of the discussion that we should have. What about the 11 or 12 or 

20 million people? To think that they are going to come out of the 

shadows and say, ‘‘Send me back to Guatemala, I have been living 

in Phoenix for 50 years,’’ borders on fantasy. 

What the proposal that Senator Kennedy and I have is that they 

pay a hefty fine, they get in line. It could take as long as 11 years 

to obtain citizenship, and that is the key to this. Pay fines. They 

came to this country illegally and they deserve to be punished for 

doing so. No one should be rewarded for doing so. But we propose 

a regularized system that people can pay fines, as much as $2,000; 

they can apply to work; they can work for as long as 6 years, then 

get eligibility for a green card and get behind everybody else. We 

think that is a fair and equitable way to address this system. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have to address this issue. We cannot 

wait. We cannot wait. The problem worsens every single day. 

Today somebody will die in the desert in Arizona, probably more 

than one. And today somebody will be hired illegally and be exploited in a broad variety of ways because when people have no 

6 

protections of our laws, they are subject to exploitation and brutality. And, third of all, obviously, it is a matter of national security. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

We have the entire Arizona senatorial delegation here today. 

Senator Kyl, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and you 

are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would note that 

I certainly share the passion of my colleague from Arizona. We 

have spent a lot of time on the border together, and the description 

of the situation in our home State is exactly as Senator McCain 

has described it. 

I do appreciate your scheduling this hearing so that we can get 

an early start on this immigration reform because, as Senator 

McCain noted, we have got to get this issue resolved as soon as we 

can. 

Last week, Senator Cornyn and I introduced what we call the 

Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005. 

The two of us both chair Subcommittees of this Committee, one 

covering immigration and the other, terrorism and homeland security issues. We have held seven separate hearings jointly with our 

two Subcommittees on national security and border control, interior 

enforcement, the national economic consequences, the role of foreign governments in the immigration area—a whole variety of subjects designed to try to help us understand how best to craft this 

legislation. And I think we did our homework, and we have certainly taken our time in crafting our bill. 

A lot of my constituents have basically asked the question: Why 

would we think that any new bill will work and be enforced if we 

have not been willing to enforce the current law? And it is a fair 

question for any proposal that claims to resolve this crisis. 

The primary reason I believe our bill represents a genuine solution is that it contains tough and overlapping measures to enforce 

the law at our borders, in the interior, and at the workplace. And 

it provides the resources necessary to enforce those measures, adding thousands of new Border Patrol agents, investigators to combat 

smuggling, fraud, and workplace violations, adding $5 billion over 

5 years to acquire and improve the technology and infrastructure 

needed to gain operational control of the border, and adding 10,000 

new detention beds to ensure that immigration violators are held 

until their removal from the United States. 

We believe that this layered approach to immigration enforcement will yield significant benefits, giving the United States operational control over its borders, ensuring that our proposed temporary worker program is free of fraud and abuse, and dealing with 

employers and illegal aliens who refuse to comply with the law. 

The legislation will benefit employers who seek to legally hire 

foreign workers for a temporary period. It requires that a Social Security-based worker verification system be implemented within a 

7 

year of enactment and that employers electronically verify the Social Security numbers of everyone who applies for a job here in the 

United States. 

Within that same year, the Social Security Administration will 

identify the sources of false, incorrect, or expired Social Security 

numbers and eliminate them. With most bad numbers removed 

from the system, only those individuals with valid Social Security 

numbers will be approved for hire. 

The Social Security Administration will improve the integrity of 

the employment verification system by providing machine-readable, 

highly tamper-resistant Social Security cards within 1 year. By 

2008, which is the effective date of the REAL ID Act, job candidates will be cleared for employment only after confirmation that 

their Social Security cards are authentic. And by 2008, the only 

documents that may be presented to establish identity will be federally issued identification documents or State driver’s licenses or 

identification cards that comply with the REAL ID Act. 

In addition to the Social Security-based employment verification 

system, an alien must produce a biometric identifying card to the 

employer. The employer will verify the work authorization through 

the employment verification system and must scan the card to 

verify the employment status with the Department of Homeland 

Security. So all of the workers will have passed a background check 

with DHS before they are issued their card. 

Mr. Chairman, there are a variety of other tools that help to 

make the worker verification system more secure, including minimum standards for birth certificates. In addition to that, we authorize funding for 10,000 DHS work site investigators over a period of 10 years who are needed to combat the hiring of illegal 

aliens who do not qualify for a job, and that is necessary to support 

the integrity of the program. We have tough new penalties, and the 

bottom line is that we think that this verification system will actually result in enforcement of the law. 

A final point. Our law does not offer amnesty to illegal aliens. 

There are incentives for them to eventually return to their home 

country. Those presently present in the U.S. pay increasing fees for 

each year that they do not depart, and they are required to return 

home after a period of 5 years. But let me make it very clear. 

There is nothing in our bill that deports these illegal immigrants. 

There is nothing in our bill that deports these illegal immigrants. 

Those who seek permanent residence and eventual citizenship will 

have to return home and apply from their home countries, but that 

is the time-honored and legal method of doing so today. 

In conclusion, our bill aims to resolve the crisis of illegal immigration with a combination of improved enforcement and new, easier-to-use guest worker programs. We have tried to strike the right 

balance, and maybe we have succeeded because I know we have 

been criticized from both sides. But the bottom line is and our hope 

is that we will get the border under control; we will have the opportunity to examine and clear every worker gaining entrance to 

our country; we will no longer read with alarm and sorrow about 

aliens being abused by smugglers or dying in the desert; and we 

will have created opportunities for foreign workers to participate 

8 

legally in our economy, which will benefit those workers, their employers, and the American public. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. 

We turn now to Senator John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn is the 

Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of Judiciary and, as 

noted, he and Senator Kyl have worked on a series of joint hearings. Thank you for your leadership on this issue, Senator Cornyn, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

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

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling 

this important hearing during the otherwise crowded work schedule of the Judiciary Committee. As you have noted, I have worked 

closely with Senator Kyl on the bill that Senator Kyl has begun to 

describe, but I also want to acknowledge and express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy and McCain for their leadership and the 

contribution of good ideas that they have come up with. We happen 

to think that ours has the edge, but we recognize that no single 

person, no single group has a claim to all the good ideas. So we 

look forward to working together. 

But we do recognize, as we have all stated here today, that our 

immigration system is broken. The number of illegal aliens in the 

United States has risen dramatically since 9/11 and has grown approximately by 30 percent since the year 2000. There is a financial 

burden on local hospitals and governments each year, and we know 

that terrorists are aware of the cracks in our system and are looking into ways to exploit them. And so it is simply imperative, as 

a matter of national security, that we deal with this as well as, as 

you have noted, and others, restoring our reputation as a Nation 

of laws in addition to our well-deserved reputation as a Nation of 

immigrants. 

We believe that our bill will restore America’s faith in immigration and meet the needs of the country both from a security perspective and from an economic perspective. The bill we have introduced is based on principles shared by all of us: the rule of law and 

equal treatment of all immigrants. 

I believe that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in 

this country are here for reasons that we all would understand. 

They simply want to provide for their families, and they have no 

hope and no opportunity where they live. So they come here. I also 

believe that a vast majority of them would be willing to go through 

the normal legal immigration process if given a chance. 

Yet a proposal that transitions that population back into a legal 

status will only work if the solution is fair and does not create an 

incentive for others to violate the law. Our proposal requires undocumented workers in the United States to register and go 

through the normal immigration process. It is true that they must 

depart the United States temporarily, but they may then, if they 

qualify, re-enter the country in a legal status. They can return in 

any legal status—as a temporary worker or, if eligible, for a green 

card—so long as it is legal. And we do not foreclose or restrict their 

9 

path to permanent citizenship or residency. All we ask is that they 

achieve those rights in the same way as all other immigrants. 

Now, there have been broad claims that I have read about those 

who say a system will or will not work, and I guess we all have 

strong opinions. But I think it is important that they be informed 

by the research. And to that point, a recent Pew Hispanic Center 

study shows that the vast majority, by a ratio of 4 to 1, of undocumented workers would come forward to participate in a program 

that would allow them to work temporarily in the United States on 

the condition that they ultimately return home to their home country. Interestingly, that same survey of almost 5,000 undocumented 

immigrants who are applying for their matricular consular card 

here in the United States revealed that the percentage of migrants 

who said they would come forward and participate did not increase 

when the proposal included a direct path to a green card from 

within the United States. 

But we must also be realistic about how long it will take for the 

10 million people, approximately, who are in our country to return 

in a legal status, and it is essential that that transition be humane 

and orderly. Our proposal, therefore, allows undocumented workers 

up to 5 years to accomplish this process, and while they are in the 

United States during that 5-year period, they may still work and 

travel, but out of the shadows and out in the open with the full 

protection of our laws. 

It is not my intent to strand workers outside of the United 

States. It is to find a way to transition undocumented workers back 

into the legal immigration process without disrupting our economy. 

I would say one of the key features of our bill, from my way of 

thinking, and our temporary worker program is that it embodies 

what I call the work and return principle, not a work and stay 

principle. It is truly a temporary program, which is important to 

meet the labor needs of the United States because these workers, 

as noted, do contribute mightily to our economy. But it is also important to countries like Mexico, for example, which has seen a 

mass exodus of some of their youngest, brightest, hardest-working 

citizens to the United States, never to return. President Fox and 

Foreign Secretary Derbez have noted that it is Mexico’s goal, just 

to mention one country, to try to develop opportunities for their 

own people in their own country. But what nation’s economy could 

possibly prosper when its young, hardest-working, potential entrepreneurs leave permanently? So we believe it is in our interest as 

well as in the interest of countries like Mexico to build on the circular migration pattern which has historically existed between our 

countries, but to do so within a legal framework. 

Finally, let me just say that our bill does provide for obligations 

of participating countries. This is not a free lunch. There are reciprocal obligations, and countries whose citizens will qualify under 

this program must agree, for example, to accept the return of people who are deported from the country having entered illegally, and 

our bill does provide that our hospital systems and health care providers that struggle financially because so few aliens have health 

coverage, that there will be a basic level of health insurance provided for participation in the program, which I believe will relieve 

a lot of the pressure that local taxpayers and local health care proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:38 Jan 26, 2009 Jkt 045140 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\46017.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
10 

viders feel around the country as well as relieve some of the pressure on hospital emergency rooms, which sometimes are the only 

outlet for undocumented immigrants to get the care that they need. 

So, in conclusion, let me say how much I appreciate your willingness to let us have this hearing today and the support that you 

have lent for this process going forward. I think it is important 

that this Committee lead, and I appreciate your willingness to be 

at the head of that leadership. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. I do 

intend to take the initiative. Again, the absence of the administration officials is not going to slow us down. In due course, they will 

have their input, but we are going to proceed to move ahead with 

legislation, as it has been emphasized how important it is that it 

be done as promptly as possible, sensibly and done right but done 

promptly. 

Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SPECTER. Does anybody have any question or comment 

they would like to direct to the witnesses? Senator Feingold? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would just like to 

thank the witnesses and make a brief comment about these pieces 

of legislation. 

I am very pleased that the Committee through recent related 

Subcommittee hearings and this hearing is taking up this critical 

issue. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my full statement be 

included in the record. 

Chairman SPECTER. Without objection, it will be made a part of 

the record. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I strongly support efforts to curb illegal immigration and to prevent terrorists from entering our country to do 

harm. But as we work to protect our Nation from future terrorist 

attacks, I have been and will continue to be vigilant to ensure that 

the Federal Government is successful in securing our borders while 

respecting the need for foreign workers, family members, students, 

business people, visitors, refugees, and others who wish to come to 

our Nation legally. 

Today, millions of undocumented workers live in and contribute 

to our communities and economy in Wisconsin and across the country. But while they work hard and contribute in many ways, these 

immigrants often live in fear each and every day of deportation and 

often of exploitation by some unscrupulous employers. 

Both for our Nation’s security and to be true to basic American 

values of fairness and justice, we should bring these workers out 

of the shadows. We will all be better off if we create a realistic immigration system that recognizes that we need these workers, that 

allows them to come to the United States legally, and that ensures 

that the Government knows who is entering the country. If we permit these workers to enter the country legally, border agents can 

then focus their efforts on terrorists and others who pose a genuine 

serious threat to the Nation. 

11 

We also need to recognize that foreign workers who have paid 

their dues should be treated fairly and deserve the same protections as other workers. All workers will be better off if guest workers are paid fair wages and are covered by adequate workplace protections. This is an issue that affects not only these workers but, 

of course, American employers as well. The law should acknowledge the reality that American businesses need access to foreign 

workers for jobs that they sometimes cannot fill with American 

workers. In Wisconsin, I have heard from many business owners 

about the need for Congress to fix the broken immigration system. 

These hard-working Americans actually want to play by the rules 

and cannot fathom why the Congress has dragged its feet on this 

issue for so long. 

So whether we are talking about agriculture or tourism or landscaping or any one of a number of industries where foreign workers 

make valuable contributions, businesses will suffer more than they 

already have if we fail to enact meaningful, comprehensive, longterm immigration reform. 

It is time for Congress to act, so I would like to take a moment 

to recognize the hard work of my colleagues Senator Kennedy and 

Senator McCain. They have introduced legislation that I believe 

would address many of the issues plaguing the current system. The 

Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act would vastly improve 

border security and would bring meaningful reform to our immigration system in a way that actually reflects economic reality and the 

value of keeping families together. I commend them for their efforts, and I intend to support their bill when it comes before the 

Committee, which I hope will be soon. 

I am aware that there are other proposals on this issue that have 

been introduced in the Senate. I think it is important to note, however, that in order to be successful, we need an approach that will 

encourage undocumented workers who are already here to come 

out of the shadows, that will provide American employers a stable 

workforce that ensures that immigrant workers are treated fairly 

and that promotes family reunification. 

There is a bipartisan consensus in this country that our immigration policies need to be updated. Although we may not all agree 

about how to get there, I think we can all agree that this is a serious issue and one that the Committee should address. And I commend my colleagues for their efforts, and I look forward to working 

with them and urge the President to work with the Congress to 

enact comprehensive, sensible immigration reform. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Feingold. 

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

Senator DeWine, do you have an opening statement? 

Senator DEWINE. No. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Brownback, do you care to make 

some comments? 

12 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. I do, but mostly I just have a question, if 

I could. And I have got a written statement I would like to submit 

for the record. 

Chairman SPECTER. Without objection, it will be made a part of 

the record. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

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

Senator BROWNBACK. I want to thank you, Chairman, for taking 

up this topic. I think this is really one of the pressing top issues 

that we have in front of the country. I would like to see us address 

it this year and get it through, even though I recognize the tentacles associated with dealing with immigration are really difficult to 

do. But it is such a pressing issue. It is on the top of most people’s 

minds. As I am out, this is one that they are commenting about. 

Senator Kyl, I wanted to ask you on this, because you addressed 

it at the very outset. You said most people are cynical about us 

being able to get this right, that we have not been able to, to date 

yet, or I don’t know quite how you put that, but they said we are 

not enforcing the current laws, what makes you think you are 

going to do any more on new laws? 

If you look back and you study this issue—and you have been 

around it a long period of time—do you see a period of time when 

we did get it right, where it was working? Or is the current situation just so much different and the scale of it that there is really 

not a comparable period you can look at? 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Brownback, I think that 

comparisons with the past probably are not helpful here. The one 

that you hear is the old bracero program. It is so different in terms 

of the times. Agriculture really represents a relatively small segment of the illegal employment in the United States today. And I 

think we would not have workers work under the same kind of conditions that existed then. So that while that program was relatively 

successful for the time, it is probably not apposite to today. And 

other than that, I don’t know of a time when the system really has 

worked very well. A combination of circumstances have come together for what some might call the perfect storm where you have 

just enormous numbers of illegal immigrants, which now represent 

a source of income for smugglers, which means that the same kind 

of tactics that have attended the drug cartels are now being applied 

to the smuggling of humans, to the detriment primarily of the illegal immigrants who are being smuggled across. You heard the 

numbers about their deaths in the desert and so on. 

So while employers are benefiting today and, to some extent, consumers from this illegal immigration, I think there is no question 

that we have got to stop an illegal system and create a legal framework in which this process of employment can occur. And for the 

last to be enforced I think requires two things that we do not have 

right now. The first is the will and resources to enforce the law at 

the border in the workplace and in the interior and secondly is a 

workable law. If you have a law that is easy to use, as Senator 

Cornyn and I have tried to develop so that employers would have 

13 

really no incentive to work outside the law, they get everything 

they need in terms of good employees within the law, and you have 

a commitment to secure the border, which pertains to more than 

just illegal immigration for job purposes—there are a lot of criminals coming across, the potential for terrorism, the smuggling of 

contraband and all of the rest. So you have got to have both of 

those at work. 

Whether we have struck the right balance will be for everyone 

to decide, but I think everybody who has offered legislation appreciates the fact that there does have to be that balance, and that 

is what we have tried to do. 

Senator BROWNBACK. If I could, Chairman, before my time is up, 

that is what everybody I have talked to—those are the two features 

of it, and it seems like that in your ability to drive and push this 

Committee to get major legislation through, we know the outlines, 

we know where we have got to get to, to try to create something. 

You have got both features of it. You have got to get an enforcement feature, and you have got to have a reasonable worker program that is fairly easy to access. 

So I would really think with the brilliant minds around and in 

this room that we ought to be able to capture that and put something forward that actually does drive that number of 

undocumenteds substantially down, different features in these two 

bills and in other bills, but I do think this is actually a solvable 

issue for us to be able to truly address. 

I thought really we did have some outlines in past programs that 

worked in the sense that the bracero program did make a relatively 

simple system for workers to get into, and the number of 

undocumenteds went down during that period of time. 

Now, I agree that the style of the worker today is not the nature 

of the worker in the 1950s. That is obvious on its face. But, still, 

you did see what happens when you have a reasonable working 

program and people can reasonably get into a documented system. 

So I think we can do this, and with your driving energy that you 

have shown to push this Committee to do so much, I think maybe 

you can put a judge, like you did on the asbestos bill, and get a 

special master, if you will, and we could drive right on forward on 

this thing to push it forward. 

Senator KENNEDY. Could I just mention a quick response to Senator Brownback’s other question? I think if you look at it historically, you will find out that basically it was sort of the militarization of the border in the wake of the 1996 Act. If you remember, 

we passed one bill 93–1 or 93–2, and it went into the conference 

and came out as an amendment on the Budget Act and it was an 

entirely different piece of legislation. And it had the aspects of militarization. Instead of people being able to go back and forth, they 

found out once they got here they better stay here. And what happened is they started getting their families here, and it really 

began the whole opening of the dramatic increase, I think you 

would find out historically, of the illegal kind of pathway. Prior to 

that time, there was much more flexibility there. There were still 

people that were coming in here that were illegal, but people were 

going back and forth. 

14 

I would just mention one other thing I know the Senator is interested in, and that is the immigrants in underserved areas, and we, 

as you know, have addressed that issue. We have special provisions 

to have people that can go into underserved areas, a lot of the 

heartlands of this country, too, which I know is an area that the 

Senator was interested in. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I think we 

better move ahead to our witnesses because we are going to be interrupted by five votes. 

Senator Cornyn, did you seek recognition? 

Senator CORNYN. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to be responsive as well to Senator Brownback’s inquiry just by this brief 

comment. Senator Kyl and I represent two States that are most directly affected by this issue just because of our proximity to the 

border. And in talking to my constituents and traveling around the 

State, the nature of the migration we have seen across the border 

has changed. And we have seen more and more people coming 

through Mexico from other countries and being detained in a category that the Department of Homeland Security calls OTMs, people from countries other than Mexico. 

And so Mexico has become a transit point for international 

human smuggling, literally from anywhere in the world, which in 

a post-9/11 era causes all of us concern about terrorists exploiting 

those same avenues into the country. So I do believe that is much 

different from any other situation we have confronted in the past, 

and I do agree with Senator Kennedy that if we could find a way 

to restore through a legal process the circular migration and allow 

people through a legal way to go back and forth across the border, 

people who are no threat to any of us but who need to come out 

of the shadows, then I think we could correct a lot of the lopsidedness of the current system. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Thank you, 

Senator Brownback, for your comments. I think this Committee is 

up to the task. We have a good track record so far, and we are 

tackling this issue early. And I think that the objective of concluding legislation this year is within our reach. 

We will now turn to our panel of witnesses: Mr. Hal Daub, Jr, 

Ms. Tamar Jacoby, and Mr. Gary Endelman. 

Our first witness, Hal Daub, is president and CEO of the American Health Care Association and is testifying on behalf of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition. He has quite an extensive 

background in public service, was the Mayor of Omaha, was in the 

House of Representatives for 8 years. President Bush the Elder appointed him to a 4-year term as Chairman of the Social Security 

Advisory Board—that is—current President George Bush, the current President; and President George H.W. Bush, the Elder, appointed Mr. Daub to the National Advisory Commission on Public 

Service. 

We are going to be looking at a vote here at 10:15, but we have 

a little lead time, so it is my hope that we can pursue and complete 

the opening statements of the three witnesses, and then we will 

15 

schedule a time where the Committee will reconvene after the 

votes. 

Thank you for joining us, Congressman Daub, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HAL DAUB, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION 

(AHCA) AND NATIONAL CENTER FOR ASSISTED LIVING 

(NCAL), ON BEHALF OF THE ESSENTIAL WORKER IMMIGRATION COALITION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DAUB. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the Committee. It is an honor and a privilege to testify before 

you today on comprehensive immigration reform. 

I am president and CEO not only of the American Health Care 

Association but the National Center for Assisted Living, our Nation’s largest trade association representing long-term care providers. AHCA represents more than 10,000 members, including 

not-for-profit and proprietary skilled nursing facilities, assisted living communities, and facilities for those who are developmentally 

disabled. Our facilities employ more than 1.5 million nursing staff 

and care for 1.7 million of our Nation’s frail, elderly, and disabled. 

I am also here today, as the Chairman pointed out, on behalf of 

the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a broad-based coalition of businesses, trade associations, and others who are concerned with the shortage of both skilled labor and lesser skilled or 

‘‘essential workers.’’ This organization supports policies that facilitate the employment of essential workers by U.S. companies and 

organizations and reform of U.S. immigration policy to facilitate a 

sustainable workforce for the American economy while still ensuring our National security and our prosperity. 

AHCA and EWIC thank you, Senator Specter, for bringing the 

immigration reform debate to the forefront during what is obviously a very busy time for this Committee. And we thank Senators 

McCain, Kyl, Cornyn, and Kennedy for their commitment to resolving this onerous problem in a straightforward and bipartisan fashion. We also want to recognize Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and 

Dianne Feinstein for their efforts to authorize 50,000 unused employment-based visas for foreign nurses. 

All of us agree America is a stronger and better Nation because 

of the hard work, faith, and entrepreneurial spirit of our immigrant 

ancestors and those who are arriving on our shores daily. 

Reform must begin by recognizing that many jobs being created 

today are jobs that American citizens are not and indeed no one is 

filling. Our laws, therefore, should be organized to allow willing 

workers to enter the country and to fill this void. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 98 percent of employment growth from 2002 until 2012 will be in the service industries, with 80 percent in education and health services, professional 

and business services, State and local governments, leisure and 

hospitality services, and the retail trade. They project employment 

in all occupations to increase from 144 million to 165 million. 

Changing demographics and retirement and turnover will leave 56 

million job openings during that decade. That is an average of 2.6 

jobs for each net additional job. 

16 

The shortage of caregivers for our rapidly aging society is affecting America’s health care system. In long-term care, Mr. Chairman, we are all ready, willing, and able to offer tens of thousands 

of good-paying jobs that, if filled, will help boost the quality of seniors’ care in nursing facilities and other long-term care across 

America. 

A recent HHS and Department of Labor study estimates that the 

U.S. will need 5.7 to 6.5 million nurses, nurse’s aides, home health, 

and personal care workers by the year 2050 to care for the 27 million Americans who will then require long-term care—a 100-percent increase from the base year of 2000. 

Our own AHCA workforce reports 100,000 nursing vacancies 

right now and about 52,000 vacancies right now for certified nursing assistants. Those are immediate needs that belie our ability to 

deliver the quality care that America expects. 

Current temporary and permanent visa programs are insufficient 

to accommodate our Nation’s needs for these essential workers. 

Comprehensive immigration reform should be guided by three 

basic principles. 

First, America must retain absolute control of its borders and 

know who lives within them. On this point, there is no debate. 

Second, new immigration laws should serve the needs of the U.S. 

economy. If an American employer is offering a job that American 

citizens are not willing or able to take, we ought to welcome essential immigrant workers willing to fill that job, especially when filling that job can improve the health and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens. 

And, third, the undocumented worker who pays taxes will help 

to ameliorate our Nation’s workforce shortages and should be offered an opportunity to earn their legal status. We do not want to 

reward illegal activity or disadvantage those who came here lawfully. But we must acknowledge the contributions of our Nation’s 

undocumented workers. 

The path to permanent status, and eventually U.S. citizenship, 

is especially important to our Nation’s long-term care profession. 

With a turnover rate for CNAs and personal care workers in some 

of our skilled nursing facilities and assisted living residences close 

to 100 percent, we find it illogical that an administrator must send 

his or her most senior qualified aide home after 2 or 3 years simply 

because they were born in a foreign country. 

That key caregiver should be offered the opportunity to extend 

his or her stay and continue to contribute both to the U.S. economy 

and to the care of our frail, elderly, and disabled. 

I have a great deal more I would like to say. I want to give deference to my other colleagues on this panel, and in recognition of 

the shortage of time before the votes, Mr. Chairman, if my remaining statement could be made a part of the record, and then perhaps 

in questions and answers later on I can make some other point. 

Chairman SPECTER. Congressman Daub, your full statement will 

be made a part of the record, and there will be an opportunity to 

amplify during the Q&A session. 

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

for the record.] 

17 

Chairman SPECTER. We now turn to Ms. Tamar Jacoby, senior 

fellow at the Manhattan Institute, written extensively on immigration. Her most recent book in February of 2004 was entitled ‘‘Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means 

to Be American.’’ She has an extensive record, working for the New 

York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek, New York Review of Books. A graduate of Yale University, 

taught at Yale, Cooper Union, and the New School University. 

Thank you for joining us today, Ms. Jacoby, and we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TAMAR JACOBY, SENIOR FELLOW, 

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. JACOBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

address this Committee. 

I am here today as a conservative to make the conservative case 

for immigration reform. Americans are frustrated—we all know 

that—by the illegality, the security risks, the disruptions in their 

communities, and we in Washington have to address this. But that 

need not mean closing our borders. We can have the immigrants 

we need to keep the economy growing and the rule of law, too, if 

we make the right adjustments. 

I think policymakers as diverse as President Bush and Senator 

Kennedy understand any workable remedy has to include three elements, the three pillars of reform. Pillar number one, we must create new legal channels so that the foreign workers we need to keep 

our country growing can enter the country in an orderly, legal 

manner. All of today’s programs do that with a temporary worker 

program, and the most important test of those programs is that 

they be realistic—first and foremost, realistic in size. If the channels are too small, if they do not accommodate the workers we 

need, we are still going to face the lawlessness that we face today 

because there will still be a spillover, the workers we need exceeding the channels. 

But that is not the end of the realism that is required because 

any new visa program must also be based on a realistic understanding of the people coming to the U.S. to work. Some come for 

a short stint and then go home, and then later perhaps come back 

again for another stint. But after a while, the most able and successful start to put down roots, and they did so even before we 

started hardening the border. This is inevitable and it is not a bad 

thing. By definition, these are the foreigners most likely to do well 

here in the United States. They have put down roots instead of 

going home precisely because they are succeeding here and fitting 

in as Americans. And the fact that they want to stay also makes 

them more valuable workers. After all, few American employers 

want to replace their workforce every year or two. 

So the second criteria for any new legal channels or any temporary worker program is that the program must allow for choice. 

Yes, let’s encourage many of the immigrants who come here to 

work to go home when their stint is done. But I believe we must 

also allow those who wish to stay, to stay and settle. We should 

encourage them to become citizens. We should have incentives for 

return, but also incentives for citizenship. 

18 

Pillar number two, the second sine qua non, every bit as important as legal channels, is a raft of robust enforcement measures so 

that the immigrant workers use these new legal channels and no 

others. These two elements go together, as many have said here 

today. They are two pillars of a single house, and one without the 

other will solve nothing. We must replace the old nudge, nudge, 

wink, wink system, channels that are too small and laws we do not 

enforce, with a new bargain: realistic laws, realistic quotas, enforced to the letter. 

The key to the successful enforcement is indeed a layered approach on the border and the interior through agreements with 

sending countries and more credible punishments. Most important, 

the crown jewel of any enforcement package, we must remove the 

incentive for foreign workers to enter the country illegally by making it impossible to work once they get here. And the key to that 

is giving employers the tools they need to determine who is authorized to work and who is not—an electronic employment verification 

system modeled on credit card verification, combined with tough 

new sanctions for businesses that violate the law. 

Pillar number three—and, of course, this is the hardest—we 

must find an answer for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the country. And the point here from the 

conservative point of view, we cannot create a sound new system, 

a sound new legal system on top of an illegal foundation. We cannot deliver the control and legality we need unless we eliminate 

the underground economy, unless we figure out a way for these 

people to come forward. For our sake, in order to reassert the rule 

of law and for reasons of national security, we must come up with 

an answer to this problem. 

Yes, it is a difficult moral issue, and it is easy to say just send 

them home. But the truth is Americans are not going to stand by 

as we deport them, and after many years in this country, many of 

them have put down roots, buying homes and businesses, giving 

birth to children who are U.S. citizens. And the punitive demands 

that they go home, unrealistic demands, will only drive them further underground. 

So the bottom line and the central unappreciated point here, I 

think, is that most of these people are here to stay, and it is in our 

interest as much as theirs to find a way for them to do so legally. 

There is simply no realistic alternative to finding a way for them 

to stay. The only question before us is how to structure that transition. 

So, in closing, I would like to look very briefly at the two proposals on the table. They are a wealth of good ideas, and the question is how do we combine the best of both in one workable package. If the criteria for a temporary worker program is that it has 

to be big enough and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of 

immigrants who are going to make different choices, I believe that 

of the two proposals on the table, only the McCain-Kennedy bill 

meets this second requirement, that it is flexible enough to allow 

workers to make a choice at the end of their work stint. 

When it comes to enforcement, I believe that the Cornyn-Kyl legislation is the stronger of the two—more comprehensive, more muscular, more reassuring to voters who feel that they have been 

19 

promised enforcement before, only to see it fail for lack of resources. Some elements of the Cornyn-Kyl bill’s enforcement package may need to be tempered, but I think policymakers could do 

worse than to start by combining the McCain-Kennedy temporary 

worker program with the enforcement title of the Cornyn-Kyl bill. 

The most difficult question before us, of course, is how to structure the solution for the 11 million. Both pairs of reformers have 

plainly anguished over the issue. Both have spoken encouragingly 

about the need for a program that will entice people to come forward. But of the bills before us, I believe that only the McCainKennedy approach comes close to being practical. It is not the perfect solution, and even its fines and conditions and 6-year waiting 

period may strike some Americans as too generous, and perhaps 

there is a better answer out there waiting in the wings that we 

have not talked about yet. Still, sometimes the perfect is the enemy 

of the good, and on the matter of the 11 million, I believe the 

McCain-Kennedy proposal is the best proposal on the table so far. 

In closing, I will step back from these particulars. Critical as 

they are, difficult as they are, if I make any impression today, it 

would be to urge Congress to go forward on this. We must fix our 

system, not for the immigrants’ sake but for ours, our economic interest, our security interest, and our commitment to the rule of law 

demands it. We must created an orderly, legal way for the workers 

we need to enter the country so that we can remain a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. 

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

for the record.] 

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

Our final witness on this panel is Mr. Gary Endelman, in-house 

immigration counsel at BP America, although he is not testifying 

on behalf of BP. Written extensively on the immigration subject, including Interpreter Releases, Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, Immigration Briefing, and Immigration Business and News Comments. 

An outstanding academic record, Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Virginia, B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from the University of Delaware, and J.D., summa cum laude, from the University of Houston. 

That is quite a resume, Mr. Endelman. Thank you for joining us, 

and the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF GARY ENDELMAN, AUTHOR AND 

IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONER, HOUSTON, TEXAS 

Mr. ENDELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of 

addressing this Committee. My purpose here today is to suggest 

ways in which our legal immigration system can be changed to 

strengthen the Nation. 

First, let me sketch out some broad themes. Number one, immigration is necessary for the United States to compete in a global 

economy and maintain the scientific and technological supremacy 

on which our economy is based. To do that, I think, as Senator 

Kennedy rightly noted, we need both tougher enforcement and 

more immigration. The purpose of immigration, in my view, should 

be to strengthen the Nation, and not to help the immigrant. Immigration should be enlightened national self-interest. It should not 

be social outreach, it should not be social work. 

20 

I think we have to end chain migration. The vast majority of 

visas, in my view, should be employment based. The reality is that, 

for most family categories, family migration has become an unregulated jobs program. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, to protect 

U.S. workers through increasing restrictions on employment when 

the reality is that most immigrants who work in the United States 

come under the family preference without any labor controls. 

I think we have to deregulate our immigration system. We have 

to allow market forces to guide its principles and its operation. 

Mass migration and micromanagement, which is what we have 

today, are not compatible, in my view. I think we have to give 

aliens control over their own visas, we have to give them the occupational mobility that will best protect U.S. workers. I think we 

have to have an active, not a passive, approach to immigration policy. We have to think strategically. We have to think how immigration can help our economy become more competitive. It should be 

harder, in my view, to come to the United States, but much easier 

to stay. And I think we have to recognize that all visas are not created equal. Our economy does not need them equally, and the 

terms and conditions of their issuance should not be equal. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, for a few specific proposals in the time I 

have left. First of all, I think it is unconscionable that the families 

of permanent residents are divided for years on end. In my view, 

we need to abolish all limits on family second preference migration 

and I think we should abolish all other family categories, with the 

numbers shifted over to the employment side. 

Second, I would abolish the diversity visa lottery. It has no economic justification. In my view, once again, I would shift these 

numbers over to the employment side of the ledger and I would 

propose that the numbers be given to the States to create a system 

of immigration visa credits that can be traded or purchased. No one 

knows what America needs better than the people who live in our 

communities. 

Third, I would replace the current system of employer sponsorship with a point system. 

Fourth, I would allocate immigrant visas not by country of birth 

but by occupation, which can be revised periodically. I would create 

a list of occupations most in need by the American economy and 

I would make that the hallmark of visa issuance. Once again, it 

can be revised periodically, and this can be applied both to permanent as well as temporary visas. I would allow visas to rise or fall 

in response to changes in demand and economic need. I would suggest that Congress create a 3-year visa projection plan, not an annual one, followed by a market-based auction subject to prevailing 

wage oversight and random audits. This would allow more visas to 

be released in times of sudden or unexpected need. 

With specific reference to the most commonly used temporary 

work visa, the H–1B, I would remove all limits on the H–1B, but 

I would make it valid only for 3 years, with no extensions. I would 

allow the alien workers themselves to petition, freeing them from 

the need for employer sponsorship, and I would have as my guiding 

theme that we need more permanent visas and less temporary 

ones. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

21 

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

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

The vote has been moved back to 10:45, which gives us a little 

more room. It may be moved back again, so we will just take whatever time we can now. 

We now move to the period on the hearing where there are 5- 

minute rounds for each of the members. 

Beginning with you, Mr. Daub, if there were a requirement that 

the illegal immigrant return to his/her home country for a period 

perhaps as long as a year, how undesirably, if at all, would that 

impact on American business? 

Mr. DAUB. In the long-term care world, we employ about 3.3 million people total, so the employment base post-acute, post-hospital, 

is 3.3 million. That is about almost 3 percent of America’s workforce. And we have critical labor shortage. This is not about money 

or wages; this is about very serious care delivery in America. And 

to give a broader perspective of our particular interest in this subject, we are interested in people who already speak English, who 

already have training as a more professional contributor to care delivery and to our economy. And so if they had to be sent back for 

a year or two or three, that lack of stability in the workforce, as 

well as the shortages in the workforce and the continuing training 

that goes on all the time inside a facility, would be very disruptive 

to the delivery of quality care. It would actually, I think, cause a 

deterioration in the quality of that care. 

Chairman SPECTER. Ms. Jacoby, you have written about getting 

beyond the A word—the ‘‘asylum’’ word, if anybody is watching on 

C–SPAN. 

Ms. JACOBY. ‘‘Amnesty.’’ 

Chairman SPECTER. Do you suggest a compromise approach akin 

to probation? How would you handle that, and would you include 

in your answer what Representative Daub has had to say about his 

view on the undesirability of sending people back because of the 

disruptive impact on business? 

Ms. JACOBY. Well, I think you put it very well in the opening, 

Senator. The consensus is amnesty is a non-starter. We all understand that we do not want to reward people who have broken the 

law and we do not want to encourage future law-breaking. But the 

reality is that these people are here, they are part of our economy, 

many of them have deep roots. They are not just people—the 

younger ones are people who have come and could potentially be 

encouraged to go home, the 18-year-olds, the 21-year-olds. But 

many of them have lived here 15, 20 years, have, as I say, U.S.- 

born citizen children. They are not going to go home. 

So the question is how to structure a transition that can meet 

the American people’s concern that we not have it be an amnesty 

and we not reward law-breakers, and that people go through normal channels and yet take care of these people. There is no question that it is a moral dilemma. But I do believe the McCain-Kennedy approach offers a realistic, practical solution. 

You can say that there are two criteria, really, for the solution. 

One is that it can work, meaning that people will come forward 

and take advantage of it; the other is that it will pass, meaning 

22 

that it will not strike the public as an amnesty. And the question 

is threading that needle, walking that fine line. I think, of the proposals on the table, McCain-Kennedy does thread that needle, or 

holds the promise of threading that needle. We do not know if it 

can pass, but it holds the promise of threading that needle because 

it does require people to make good on their past—pay a fine, pay 

their— 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Endelman—I want to move on, Ms. 

Jacoby. I want to give Mr. Endelman a chance to respond to a 

question during my 5 minutes. 

You have written that immigration should not be a noble exercise in international social work—and have testified here today— 

but a clear-eyed expression of enlightened national self-interest. 

Permit me to engage you in just a little dialogue on that subject 

because I disagree with you. Although it may be possible to promote our views of enlightened self-interest and still be a beacon of 

hope to people around the world, but around the world there is a 

dream of coming to the United States. And I think that dream is 

as real today as it was a century ago when my father walked 

across Europe, barely a ruble in his pocket, to come to the United 

States, steerage, bottom of the boat, proud to be in the American 

army and raise a family. And my mother came with her family 

when she was 6 years old, with her younger brother. And they 

were very productive citizens. I do not think anybody knew at the 

outset how productive they would be or their progeny would be. 

But is there not an element that ought to be considered as the 

United States being a beacon of hope to attract people and to make 

them work hard and to want to come here? What do you think? 

Mr. ENDELMAN. I certainly agree with that, Senator, and I think 

we do have common ground. I think we must retain and nurture 

our core commitment to family migration, to asylum, to a generous 

and human refugee policy. We cannot have an enlightened immigration policy without a compassionate country. But at the same 

time, I think we have to begin to think of immigration as an asset 

to be maximized, not as a problem to be controlled. And I think the 

focus should be on what is good for the Nation, not what is good 

for the immigrant. And that should be, in my view, the theme for 

more employment immigration, which I think should predominate. 

But there is no question that we must have a balanced, humane, 

and generous approach to all aspects of immigration. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Endelman. 

Senator Kennedy? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. I thank all of our panelists. We are looking at something that is going to be workable. 

I think all of you have emphasized that. And Ms. Jacoby, you 

talked about the numbers that come in here. We have set the figure at about 400,000, with some flexibility, because that is the best 

estimate that we have been able to have. Along with that, we have 

the enforcement provisions, which we welcome the opportunity to 

review so that we can get more effect. But part of it is if you have 

this system set up, then those employers that are here, if the individual that comes and knocks on their door has not got that card, 

they have a responsibility now to check, not just to give a waiver 

and say fine, you can come here and work, but to check with the 

23 

Department of Homeland Security. We have the real opportunity 

for enforcement here at home. 

And I would be interested if you would comment on that, because 

we have tried to take the different elements of it. One, the realistic 

aspects of it in terms of the pressure to come here, so you have legality on that; secondly, you have legality, hopefully, on the borders 

with the kinds of enforcement provisions. But then you have legality in terms of the enforcement here as well, and try and take the 

totality. I think we would welcome the fact. Others have talked 

about what is going to be necessary with Mexico and the other 

countries, all of which is important. 

But could you comment just on that, what a difference that that 

could make here at home in terms of ensuring that we were going 

to have a system that was going to be—employers would have some 

responsibility and, hopefully, have a system that, really, here at 

home would work for the first time? 

Ms. JACOBY. I think you have zeroed in on the key element of 

an enforcement regime. Because as is, most employers in the 

United States would rather be on the right side of the law. Sure, 

there are some bottom fishers, but big companies, companies with 

consumers, companies that want a stable workforce would rather 

be on the right side of the law. The problem is now they have really no tools to do that. My analogy of what the hiring process is like 

now, it is as if you went into a store to buy a shirt and you showed 

them your Mastercard, and the merchant had to eyeball the 

Mastercard and say, well, it looks good to me. And then he was responsible if it turned out that it was not. That is the way it is now. 

Employers have to eyeball documents and they are responsible if 

they made a mistake. 

Let’s give them a system that they can use. In effect it has to 

be a mandatory system so that it is voluntary compliance, so that 

people have a way to comply with the law if they are indeed willing, as I believe most employers will. And it is about, I think, a 

simple swipe system. It is about cards and a swipe system that will 

become part of the hiring process. And it need not be Draconian or 

Orwellian or a national I.D. We can structure it in a different way. 

And it is really just about the expense and the political will to 

make the databases work at the Social Security Administration 

and the DHS. And, you know, it will take some doing, but certainly 

not beyond us. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think that is particularly important 

that we have each aspect of it. And that is what we have tried to 

do on that, to be both enforceable and effective. 

Let me come to—we have restrained from commenting adversely 

about each other’s different proposals here. I am interested in one 

aspect and I would be interested in Mr. Daub’s reaction to it from 

a business point of view, the sense under one of the proposals that 

you return to your country—it does not indicate the amount of 

time, I think I am correct, in the Kyl-Cornyn—and then you can 

come here, but you can come here for 2 years; you go back, you 

come here for two more years, and that is it. And your family can 

visit you for 30 days during that period, but limited to 30 days. 

How does this sort of fit in with what, in this case, the effective 

business demand would be, I mean in terms of employment, both 

24 

in terms of—I am interested in the individual, what kind of 

progress they are going to be able to make if they know at the end 

of that they are going to just have to return. When they sign up 

for that proposal, they know they have to leave the country. They 

can come back here on two occasions, but then they are out. And 

what does that mean both to the employer and, do you think, in 

terms of the mind of the employee? 

Mr. DAUB. I really, Senator, do appreciate Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn’s bill in many respects and I am glad they are in the 

debate, because I think they are headed down a common path with 

solving the problem. About the only troubling feature in it, sincerely, is the disruptive circumstance in our particular world of a 

more talented, more highly trained, more educated kind of workforce where that CNA, less skilled to start, may have come here in 

an undocumented status, but by the time they are in their second 

or third year will start that career ladder and move to be a certified nurse assistant, then to an LPN, then maybe even the potential to go on to nursing school. So it is a disruptive circumstance. 

I have practiced immigration law, Senator, and I was on the 

American Immigration Law Reform Institute’s board of directors 

years ago and active in the Simpson-Mazzoli debate when privileged to be a member, and I went through the SAW program and 

all these other kinds of efforts. And this is a time when we can 

solve a workforce issue and a family unification issue. My colleague, Mr. Endelman, talked about the legal immigration, and 

then by consanguineous affinity, by brother-sister-mother-fatherand offspring thereof, we have a chain migration of 1 times 7 on 

the legal side. And it is disproportionate to what is in the workforce. 

So from a business point of view, one of the nuts to crack in the 

Committee, Mr. Chairman, is this disruptive nature of how to solve 

the problem. And I would think in this case that is the one—I like 

their border enforcement and the resources, the health care provisions in their bill. There ought to be a way here to solve that problem of the disruptive nature in the workforce that is a piece of the 

problem, honestly. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. We may have an opportunity to conclude the 

hearing if one round will be sufficient. Because the vote has not yet 

started, so we have a period of grace here. 

Senator CORNYN. Great. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask Mr. Daub and Ms. Jacoby, I understand your concerns about disruption, particularly of the 10 or however many million who have been here, perhaps for a long time. Although I note 

that the Pew Hispanic Survey says that only about one-third of the 

undocumented population has been here for more than 10 years. 

But the problem is, we do not really know. But we—I think it is 

probably reasonable to suspect that they meet all sorts of different 

descriptions in terms of their family circumstances, how long they 

have been here, and the like. 

25 

But let me ask you, first, Ms. Jacoby, I think you have expressed—I know you have expressed concerns about if there is any 

requirement that people who are undocumented are required to return, even if it is over a period of 5 years on a temporary basis, 

to their home, that you are skeptical whether people would participate. But let me ask you, if workers knew before they left that they 

would be eligible to return, would that address some of the concerns, perhaps their concern that they would be trapped outside of 

the country? But if they knew that they were going to be able to 

come back when they left, would that help some of your concerns? 

Ms. JACOBY. I think it might. I think there are a number of conditions, if one was going to ask people to return in order to be processed and come back. One would certainly want to be able to start 

the processing here so that they would go back to finish, perhaps, 

the last stages of the processing at their home country. 

Senator CORNYN. Let me ask you some more about that, though, 

since I think you answered that question. If the processing times 

of Government agencies were such that the trip abroad did not disrupt employment, do you think that would be— 

Ms. JACOBY. I think that would certainly be better for them and 

for the employers, needless to say. 

Senator CORNYN. And finally, if workers who are eligible for a 

green card knew that they would not have to wait for a visa, that 

there would not be a backlog and that they could return on a green 

card instead of on a short-term visa, would that likely increase the 

participation? 

Ms. JACOBY. I think, obviously, too. I mean, the key here, the 

number of green cards, I think, is what you are getting at. If there 

either enough exemptions in green cards so people can work it that 

way, or the number of green cards increases enough so that people, 

if they leave, can leave with confidence that they can come back 

legally and with the kind of visa that they are seeking, certainly 

that would increase participation. 

Senator CORNYN. I appreciate your answers and your testimony, 

Mr. Daub and Mr. Endelman, but I would submit that if the concerns that people have about the Cornyn-Kyl bill with regard to the 

population that is here, the 10 million or so, is about disruption 

and about stranding people outside of the country who are qualified 

to come back and work within a legal framework, that is clearly 

something that we intend to address with the Committee and with 

the Congress to try to avoid. It is certainly not our goal to create 

a disruption of the workforce or family life or to separate families, 

but rather, not to create a new path for people who have come here 

outside of our laws, which by any definition, I think, would be 

problematic to a lot of people; but rather, to create a way for them 

not to break in line, but rather to come back in through legal processes. 

I realize that part of our problem with our immigration system 

in this country is that we make legal immigration hard by unrealistic caps, by excessive processing times because of administrative 

backlogs and the like. And my goal, and I think it is fair to say, 

Senator Kyl’s goal, since we have been working most closely together, I will venture that for him as well, but I think our goal 

should be to try to find a way to provide these people who currently 

26 

operate in the shadows, who are subject to exploitation, to are left 

to die by human smugglers trying to come in illegally, people who 

cannot go to law enforcement because they are afraid of being deported, we ought to find a way for them to re-enter through a legal 

system that does not provide them any preference, but does provide 

them an opportunity. And certainly I am committed to that goal 

and look forward to working together with my colleagues in order 

to accomplish it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Brownback? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A 

couple of quick questions, if I could. 

We talked quite a bit, Ms. Jacoby, about the Social Security issue 

and the Kyl-Cornyn really attempts to address that. Does anybody 

on the panel or do you know the amount of money that is currently 

in Social Security that has been paid by undocumented workers, 

and what happens to that money? 

Mr. DAUB. Yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK. What is that? 

Mr. DAUB. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Social Security Advisory Board and you or your staff can go to ssab.gov. 

That information is there. Basically, I think there is an unclaimed 

property account, as it is called, within the Social Security budget 

line item. It is about $527 billion, I believe. It is a big, big number. 

Now, you have to decide how valuable you think that number is. 

But if I were an employer in Idaho and I had 200 seasonal workers 

and the Social Security numbers were entered, 000–00–0000, the 

employer is legal, he has withheld against 200 perhaps nondocumented workers with illegal cards. The money and the match is deposited, but of course, obviously, never claimed by that individual 

because they had a false card. It is a huge amount of money. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And it just sits there? 

Mr. DAUB. It just sits there and accumulates. And it is cleaned 

out periodically. There are about 57 different computer programs 

that try to scrub it and match and match and match. Ultimately, 

if someone becomes legal, there is a process they can go through 

to prove those contributions to their account, but it is very difficult 

to do. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So there is a trust fund? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAUB. Actually, Senator Byrd could verify that the certificates of indebtedness are held in the Bureau of Public Debt in West 

Virginia. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Endelman, I want to ask you before we 

have to go vote, we have in the McCain-Kennedy bill a proposal 

that allows counties that have lost population to access a certain 

quantity of visas. Is that along the lines of what you are talking 

about? You have talked about States, but not about local units of 

Government being able to access visas. 

Mr. ENDELMAN. Yes, Senator. I would propose to abolish the diversity visa lottery and give the numbers to States, localities to allocate as they see fit. There are many parts of the country where 

they are having great difficulty. There is depopulation. They have 

27 

difficulty attracting workers to hospitals, to industries, as you 

know in your State, other States. I see no reason why immigration 

cannot be a tool to do that. It can be just as powerful a magnet 

as interest rates, tax abatements, things like that. That is exactly 

what I mean when I say we should use immigration in a strategic 

sense. We have to use immigration, we can use immigration to create the kind of society we want and solve the problems we have. 

I think we can and should do that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I would note, in the chairman’s home State 

that he has a fifth of the counties would be medically underserved 

if it were not for foreign-born doctors. 

Mr. DAUB. Exactly. That is the kind of thing that can happen if 

we have an active strategic approach, which I think we can and 

should have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Just one question, Senator Brownback, when 

you talk about my home State, are you referring to Kansas? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. I should say your native State. The State 

that sponsored and helped your parents so much and where they 

first—I guess they first came and resided, or at least they spent 

much of their adult time period there. 

Chairman SPECTER. They spent a lot of time in Wichita and Russell. 

Mr. DAUB. Mr. Chairman, may I make the membership of EWIC 

a matter of record, the 35 organizations that support— 

Chairman SPECTER. They will be made a part of the record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. At Senator Kennedy’s request, we will include a group of editorials and also a statement by Senator Leahy 

and a group of documents, all to be made a part of the record. And 

a statement, without objection, by Senator Grassley will be made 

a part of the record. 

We thank you, Congressman Daub, Ms. Jacoby, Mr. Endelman, 

for coming in. Your testimony has been very helpful. The Committee will be pursuing this subject. We are looking forward to inputs from the Administration, and it is our hope, perhaps even expectation, that we can have a bill this year. 

That concludes the hearing. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

28 


46017.001
29 


46017.002
30 


46017.003
31 


46017.004
32 


46017.005
33 


46017.006
34 


46017.007
35 


46017.008
36 


46017.009
37 


46017.010
38 


46017.011
39 


46017.012
40 


46017.013
41 


46017.014
42 


46017.015
43 


46017.016
44 


46017.017
45 


46017.018
46 


46017.019
47 


46017.020
48 


46017.021
49 


46017.022
50 


46017.023
51 


46017.024
52 


46017.025
53 


46017.026
54 


46017.027
55 


46017.028
56 


46017.029
57 


46017.030
58 


46017.031
59 


46017.032
60 


46017.033
61 


46017.034
62 


46017.035
63 


46017.036
64 


46017.037
65 


46017.038
66 


46017.039
67 


46017.040
68 


46017.041
69 


46017.042
70 


46017.043
71 


46017.044
72 


46017.045
73 


46017.046
74 


46017.047
75 


46017.048
76 


46017.049
77 


46017.050
78 


46017.051
79 


46017.052
80 


46017.053
81 


46017.054
82 


46017.055
83 


46017.056
84 


46017.057
85 


46017.058
86 


46017.059
87 


46017.060
88 


46017.061
89 


46017.062
90 


46017.063
91 


46017.064
92 


46017.065
93 


46017.066
94 


46017.067
95 


46017.068
96 


46017.069
97 


46017.070
98 


46017.071
99 


46017.072
100 


46017.073
101 


46017.074
102 


46017.075
103 


46017.076
104 


46017.077
105 


46017.078
106 


46017.079
107 


46017.080
108 


46017.081
109 


46017.082
110 


46017.083
111 


46017.084
112 


46017.085
113 


46017.086
114 


46017.087
115 


46017.088
116 


46017.089
117 


46017.090
118 


46017.091
119 


46017.092
120 


46017.093
121 


46017.094
122 


46017.095
123 


46017.096
124 


46017.097
125 


46017.098
126 


46017.099
127 


46017.100
128 


46017.101
129 


46017.102
130 


46017.103
131 


46017.104
132 


46017.105
133 


46017.106
134 


46017.107
135 


46017.108
136 


46017.109
137 


46017.110
138 


46017.111
139 


46017.112
140 


46017.113
141 


46017.114
142 


46017.115
143 


46017.116
144 


46017.117
145 


46017.118
146 


46017.119
147 


46017.120
148 


46017.121
149 


46017.122
150 


46017.123
151 


46017.124
152 


46017.125
153 


46017.126
154 


46017.127
155 


46017.128
156 


46017.129
157 


46017.130
158 


46017.131
159 


46017.132
160 


46017.133
161 


46017.134
162 


46017.135
163 


46017.136
164 


46017.137
165 


46017.138
166 


46017.139
167 


46017.140
168 


46017.141
169 


46017.142
170 


46017.143
171 


46017.144
172 


46017.145
173 


46017.146
174 


46017.147
175 


46017.148
176 


46017.149
177 


46017.150
178 


46017.151
179 


46017.152
180 


46017.153
181 


46017.154
182 


46017.155
183 


46017.156
184 


46017.157
185 


46017.158
186 


46017.159
187 


46017.160
188 


46017.161
189 


46017.162
190 


46017.163
191 


46017.164
192 


46017.165
193 


46017.166
194 


46017.167
195 


46017.168
196 


46017.169
197 


46017.170
198 


46017.171
199 


46017.172
200 


46017.173
201 


46017.174
202 


46017.175
203 


46017.176
204 


46017.177
205 


46017.178
206 


46017.179
207 


46017.180
208 


46017.181
209 


46017.182
210 


46017.183
211 


46017.184
212 


46017.185
213 


46017.186
214 


46017.187
215 


46017.188
216 


46017.189
217 


46017.190
218 


46017.191
219 


46017.192
220 


46017.193
221 


46017.194
222 


46017.195
223 


46017.196
224 


46017.197
225 


46017.198
226 


46017.199
227 


46017.200
228 


46017.201
229 


46017.202
230 


46017.203
231 


46017.204
232 


46017.205
233 


46017.206
234 


46017.207
235 


46017.208
236 


46017.209
237 


46017.210
238 


46017.211
239 


46017.212
240 


46017.213
241 


46017.214
242 


46017.215
243 

Æ 


46017.216