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

81–635 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–44 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Staff Director 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104 

WITNESSES 

Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, President, American Action Forum, Washington, DC .... 7 

Kirsanow, Peter, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnott, and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Cleveland, Ohio ........................ 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Douglas Holtz-Eakin to questions submitted by Senators Sessions and Lee ........................................................................................................ 32 

Responses of Peter Kirsanow to questions submitted by Senator Lee ................ 42 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Acer, Eleanor, Director, Refugee Protection Program, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 47 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Abed A. Ayoub, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 50 

American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statements ..................................................................................................................... 54 

American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 57 

Arab American Institute, Maya Berry, Executive Director, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 58 

APIAHF Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 60 

Bennet, Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 68 

Business Coalition for the Uniting American Families Act, Washington, DC, 

March 1, 2013, letter ........................................................................................... 71 

Centro De Los Derechos Del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), Baltimore, Maryland, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 72 

Cicerani, Nikki, Imprint, www.imprintproject.org, statement ............................. 76 

Connecticut General Assembly’s Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, 

Werner Oyanadel, Acting Executive Director, and Isasias T. Diaz, Chairman, Hartford, Connecticut, March 18, 2013, letter ......................................... 79 

Foltin, Richard T., Director of National and Legislative Affairs, Government 

and International Affairs, American Jewish Committee, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 80 

Franciscan Action Network, Washington, DC, statement .................................... 83 

HIAS, New York, New York, statement ................................................................ 84 

Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, President, American Action Forum, Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 85 

Interfaith Worker Justice, Chicago, Illinois, statement ....................................... 97 

Kirsanow, Peter, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnott, and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Cleveland, Ohio, statement ..... 98 

Leyva, Blas Burboa, Translated statement ........................................................... 106 

Leyva, Blas Burboa, statement .............................................................................. 108 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Baltimore, Maryland, statement . 110 

Muslim Public Affairs Council, Washington, DC, statement ............................... 112 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

Napolitano, Janet, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 113 

National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy K. Kaufman, Chief Exective Officer, Washington, DC, statement ......................................................................... 121 

National Domestic Workers Alliance, New York, New York, statement ............ 122 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, statement ................................ 126 

National Immigration Law Center, Washington, DC, statement ........................ 130 

National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights and We Belong Together, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 132 

Network a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 142 

National Employment Law Project (NELP), Christine Owens, Executive Director, New York, New York, statement ............................................................ 143 

Office of Immigration Issues, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Gradye Parsons, 

Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Louisville, Kentucky, statement ....... 145 

Praeli, Lorella, Director of Advocacy and Policy, United We Dream, Los 

Angeles, California, statement ............................................................................ 147 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, DC, statement ......... 151 

Schori, Reverend Katharine Jefferts, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the 

Episcopal Church, New York, New York, statement ........................................ 152 

Sisters of Mercy, Silver Spring, Maryland, statement ......................................... 154 

U.S. Jesuit Conference, Washington, DC, statement ........................................... 155 

Vargas, Arturo, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected 

and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Washington, DC, statement ...................... 156 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM 

LEGISLATION 

FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

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

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Hirono, Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Lee, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. If the Committee could come to order, please. 

I apologize for the delay. 

As you know, there is a great deal going on in Massachusetts. 

I hope everybody can well understand why Secretary Napolitano 

will not be here, and we will reschedule her testimony. 

Also, I was just talking—and I hope Senator Feinstein will not 

mind me mentioning this, but she was saying, and I totally agree, 

how proud we are of the way law enforcement has responded. I am 

distressed to hear of an officer being killed and another critically 

wounded, just as we are about all the people who were injured or 

killed from the Marathon. I see at least one person who runs marathons in the audience, and others, as my daughter and youngest 

son do. So what should have been a joyous, joyous occasion, as 

most marathons are for spectators and participants, was otherwise. 

But I do want to thank Mr. Holtz-Eakin and Mr. Kirsanow for 

being here, and we will go forward. 

The bipartisan proposal we have establishes a path to citizenship 

for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. It addresses the lengthy backlogs in our current immigration system— 

backlogs that have kept families apart really for decades. It grants 

a faster track to the ‘‘dreamers’’ brought to this country as children 

through no fault of their own and to agricultural workers who are 

an essential part of our communities and work so hard to provide 

our Nation’s food supply. It makes important changes to the visas 

used by dairy farmers and the tourism industry and by immigrant 

investors who are making investments in our communities. It addresses the needs of our law enforcement community, which requires the help of immigrants who witness crime or are victims of 

domestic violence, some of whom are now afraid to come forward 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

because of their status. It improves the treatment of refugees and 

asylum seekers so that the United States will remain the beacon 

to the world, as it was to my maternal grandparents and my paternal great-grandparents. 

And I appreciate the fact that we have four members of this 

Committee who have worked with others in forming a bipartisan 

consensus, and I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin and 

Senator Graham and Senator Flake for that—and, of course, Senator Feinstein, who has taught me more about immigration than 

I ever would have learned otherwise. 

The bill includes what some are calling ‘‘triggers’’ that I am concerned could long delay green cards for those who we want to make 

full and contributing participants in our society. I do not want people to move out of the shadows but then be stuck in some 

underclass. Just as we should not fault ‘‘dreamers’’ who were 

brought here as children, we should not make people’s fates and future status depend on border enforcement conditions over which 

they have no control. And I am disappointed that we are not treating all families equally. I believe that we have to end the discrimination that gay and lesbian families face in our immigration system. I am also concerned about changes to the visa system for siblings and the lack of clarity about how the new point-based visa 

system will work in practice. These are all things we can discuss 

in the markup. And I cannot help but question whether spending 

billions more on a fence between the United States and Mexico is 

really the best use of our taxpayer dollars. 

But I do know that each one of us could write what we want and 

each one of us may have a different bill. We have a bill that is a 

product of compromise, very difficult concessions by all involved. I 

mentioned Senators Schumer, Durbin, Graham, and Flake, but also 

Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain, Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, Senator Bennet, who all worked on this. 

So now we are bringing it to the public. This immigration hearing is the fourth we have had this year, and we will hold hearings 

on Monday. We will find the time for Secretary Napolitano to come 

before the Committee. I have already discussed that with Senator 

Grassley. And so I hope these will give the public an opportunity 

to learn about it. 

Certainly every one of us, unless we want to say we do not know 

how to read, every one of us will have plenty of time to analyze 

this bill before we actually start marking it up in May. 

But just remember, immigration has been an ongoing source of 

renewal of our spirit, our creativity, but also our economic strength. 

From the young students brought to this country by their loving 

parents seeking a better life, to the hard-working men and women 

who play vital roles supporting our farmers, innovating for our 

technology companies, or creating businesses of their own, our Nation continues to benefit from immigrants, as it did when my wife’s 

parents came here. We need to uphold the fundamental values of 

family, hard work, and fairness. 

In Vermont, immigration has promoted cultural richness through 

refugee resettlement and student exchange, economic development 

through the EB–5 Regional Center program, and tourism and trade 

with our friends in that wonderful country of Canada. Foreign agriVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

cultural workers support Vermont’s farmers and growers, many of 

whom have become a part of farm families that are woven into the 

fabric of Vermont’s agricultural community, as they have in the agricultural community of so many other States. 

Now, the dysfunction in the system affects all of us. Now is the 

time to fix it. This is our opportunity to do it. We can act deliberately, but we have to act. We can talk about it, but eventually 

we have to vote. Millions of people—millions of Americans—are depending upon us. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. On this side, Mr. Chairman, we understand 

why the Secretary cannot be here, and we feel that she is doing exactly what she should be doing. And we will have an opportunity, 

when things settle down, to question her. 

And we also appreciate the opportunity to talk about immigration, particularly in light of all that is happening in Massachusetts 

right now and over the last week. I know that the people of Boston 

and Watertown are in everybody’s thoughts this morning. We are 

here trying to understand why these events have occurred. It is 

hard to understand that there are people in this world that want 

to do Americans harm, so this hearing is an opportunity to refocus 

on the issues at hand and the importance of remaining vigilant and 

secure in our homeland. 

We appreciate that exactly 30 years ago today, April 19, 1983, 

this Committee held a hearing to discuss the Immigration Reform 

and Control Act. Senator Simpson, the author of that bill, opened 

the meeting by presenting the bill and stating its purpose: ‘‘Its purpose, a very simple one: to control illegal immigration in the United 

States and to control legal immigration without limiting immediate 

family reunification.’’ 

But he further stated: ‘‘The first duty of a sovereign nation is to 

control its borders. We do not do that.’’ And I suppose that is still 

the situation today. 

The bill we debated that day would provide legalization of millions of people already in the United States. On that day, Senator 

Simpson stated further: ‘‘We are attempting to assure that this is 

a one-time-only program.’’ The bill we are considering today, according to the bipartisan group of eight Senators who crafted it, 

will ‘‘ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not be revisited.’’ 

Now, 30 years have passed, and we are saying the same thing, 

facing the same problems. We are proposing the same remedies 

and asking the American people to trust that we will get serious 

about enforcing our immigration laws. 

So let me be clear. I have to applaud, like other people have, the 

group of eight Senators for their commitment to reforming our broken immigration system. Time will tell if this bill solves that problem the way that their statement did to ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system so that we 

will not have to revisit it. So I quoted that twice now. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Throughout the debate of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic 

Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, I will be asking 

whether this bill avoids the same mistakes and truly fixes our immigration system for the generation to come, because we thought 

when that bill passed in 1986 that is what we did. We did everything in good faith, shutting off the magnet to bring people to this 

country by making it illegal to hire illegal undocumented people for 

the first time. But we did not look far enough ahead, and we did 

not do it right, as we all know now. 

I have made it clear that this bill needs to go through the Committee process, and it will. I have argued that this bill must be 

open to amendments during consideration in Committee and on the 

floor, and we have been told that it will be. Every Member of the 

Senate must have an opportunity to read, analyze, and improve the 

bill, and the schedule will permit that. 

Unfortunately, I think that we are kind of off to a rough start 

from the standpoint that the majority is rushing to read and analyze the bill. It is just under 900 pages and tackles some very important issues. There are some new concepts. Most members and 

staff on the Committee have not read the bill in its entirety before 

this hearing. Certainly we should be afforded enough time to understand and debate the bill, and we have been assured that we 

will. 

In 1983, before the Judiciary Committee met on that day, the 

Subcommittee on Immigration held four hearings before it reported 

the bill to the full Committee. This year before—the year before 

that, the Committee held 16 hearings and five consultations. Prior 

to the May 1982 markup of the same bill, the Committee had 100 

hours of hearings and 300 witnesses. 

We have experts that need to be heard on this bill. We need to 

hear from people who live and work along the border. We need to 

understand how changes in our visa program will affect businesses 

and American workers. We need to know how new concepts will be 

put into practice. And, most importantly, we need to hear from the 

Congressional Budget Office about the impact the bill will have on 

the taxpayers. 

This is not something to be rushed. We have to get it right, like 

we thought we got it right in 1986; otherwise, the goals of the bipartisan group to solve the problem once and for all will not be 

met. 

And given the events of this week, it is important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. While 

we do not yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it 

will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system. How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How 

can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the 

United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us 

harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us? 

We have a long road ahead of us to pass legislation to reform our 

immigration system. We cannot tolerate anything less than a 

transparent and deliberative process to improve the bill, because 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

we thought we were doing that exactly that way in 1986, but we 

screwed up, and we cannot afford to screw up again. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. And with that, which is why we are going to 

make sure we will not even be voting on this until sometime next 

month, and we will have it open, and like all our deliberations, it 

will be streamed on our website. And I understand from our IT 

people that there are an awful lot of people watching. 

We will begin with Mr. Kirsanow, who is a partner at the Cleveland, Ohio, law firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Arnoff. 

Please go ahead. Is your microphone on? 

STATEMENT OF PETER KIRSANOW, PARTNER, BENESCH, 

FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARNOFF, AND COMMISSIONER, 

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, CLEVELAND, OHIO 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, 

members of the Committee. As you indicated, I am a member of 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and a partner in the labor 

and employment practice group of Benesch, Friedlander. I am here 

in my personal capacity. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established pursuant 

to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to, among other things, examine matters related to denials of equal protection and race discrimination. 

And because immigration often implicates matters pertaining to 

national origin and discrimination, the Commission over the years 

has regularly conducted hearings on aspects of immigration, including illegal immigration. The most recent such hearing occurred 

dealing with the specific issue of the effect of illegal immigration 

on the wage and employment levels of low-skilled Americans, specifically black Americans, and the evidence adduced at that hearing 

showed that illegal immigration has a disproportionately negative 

effect on the employment and wage levels of low-skilled Americans, 

specifically black American. 

Now, it is important—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, we are still having a little 

hard time hearing. If you can get that a little closer. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. I appreciate it. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. It is important to remember or keep in mind that 

the witnesses at the hearing were experts on immigration who 

spanned the ideological spectrum. Despite differences as to policy, 

every single witness agreed that illegal immigration had a demonstrably negative effect on employment opportunities and wage levels of low-skilled Americans, specifically black Americans. And the 

evidence as to why this impacts black Americans is quite basic. 

Black Americans, specifically black males, are disproportionately 

concentrated in the low-skill labor market, disproportionately more 

likely to have only a high school diploma; likewise, illegal immigrants, disproportionately concentrated in the low-skill labor market, disproportionately likely to have low levels of educational 

achievement; and these two groups compete against one another in 

the low-skill labor market. That competition is often most fierce in 

those areas of the economy where blacks have historically been 

highly concentrated. And blacks frequently lose out on that comVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

petition, crowded out by illegal immigrants who employers for various reasons prefer, as shown by Professor Vernon Briggs of the 

Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations, not because black 

Americans or low-skilled Americans are unwilling to work; it is 

that they are unwilling to work at sometimes the cut-rate wages 

and substandard benefits tendered to illegal immigrants—a cohort 

unlikely, highly unlikely to complain to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the EEOC, or OSHA. 

Much of the competition is concentrated in major metropolitan 

areas such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, but also in rural 

areas now, and in Southeast States such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

The impact of illegal immigration on low-skilled workers is especially severe in today’s stagnant economy. When the Commission 

conducted its investigation originally, the unemployment rate for 

blacks without a high school diploma was 12 percent. Today it is 

more than double, to 24.6 percent. 

Now, that clearly shows that we have an oversupply of lowskilled labor relative to demand, and that bodes ill for all workers 

in such class, particularly black Americans, because research 

shows that 40 percent of the 18-point percentage decline in the employment rates of black males is attributable to illegal immigration. 

That is hundreds of thousands of blacks without jobs. It translates 

to hundreds of thousands who cannot pay taxes, who do not support their families on their own dime. 

The evidence also indicated that, in addition to depressing employment levels, illegal immigration drove down wage levels. Studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, for example, showed 

that illegal immigration and the spike in illegal immigration was 

attributable to the nearly $960 per year decrease in the wage levels 

of documented Georgians. In the leisure and hospitality industries, 

it was $1,520. 

Now, for doctors and lawyers, $960 may not be a whole lot, but 

as President Obama observed in the extension of the payroll tax 

cut, $80 per month is significant for most families. It goes toward 

groceries, rent, gasoline. 

Recent history shows that grant of lawful status further increases the influx of illegal immigrants, further forcing out lowskilled laborers and thereby depressing the wage and employment 

levels of those Americans. 

In addition to that, that necessarily inexorably leads to more 

Americans depending upon the Government for subsistence. It 

swells the ranks of black unemployed and drives down the wages 

of those blacks who do have jobs. 

It is respectfully submitted, Mr. Chairman, that, before the Federal Government grants lawful status, due deliberation be given to 

the effect of that grant on the wage and employment levels of lowskilled Americans, because the evidence before the Commission is 

that grant of such status is not without profound and substantial 

costs to the American worker. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

As with all witnesses, your full statement will be made part of 

the record. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin is the president of the American Action Forum. 

He was formerly the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

under George W. Bush from 2003 to 2005. I believe that is when 

we first met, back at that time. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. That is correct, Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. It is good to have you here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN ACTION FORUM, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the Committee. It is a privilege to 

be here today. I have submitted a written statement for the record. 

Let me briefly make three points, and then I look forward to answering your questions. 

The first point is simply that the immigration reform bill before 

you has many aspects. There are important security considerations. 

There are sectoral economic impacts. There are legal issues which 

have to be resolved. But at its core, immigration reform represents 

an economic policy opportunity. It is an opportunity for the United 

States to dictate the evolution of its future population, and as I emphasize in my testimony, in the absence of immigration, low fertility rates mean that the U.S. population declines, and that the future growth of the U.S. is dictated by immigration choices. 

It will dictate the labor force participation and the effort exerted 

in our economy. It will have strong influences on entrepreneurship 

and small business creation. The evidence is that new immigrants 

to the United States both work more, their labor force participation 

rates are higher, and have small businesses at a higher rate. As 

a result, it will increase the productivity growth in the U.S. economy, the fundamental building block of higher standards of living, 

and generate larger economic growth numbers than we have seen 

in recent years. 

I have done some estimates that for benchmark reforms suggest 

you could have as much as nearly a full percentage point faster 

growth over 10 years, and associated with that would be something 

that I think every member of this Committee would be quite 

pleased to see, and that is, less budgetary pressure, faster growth 

reduces, using CBO rules of thumb, deficits by about $2.5 trillion 

over 10 years. And that is clearly a benefit that we ought to think 

about when we think about immigration reform and not rely on 

those efforts which ignore economic growth. 

I think that the U.S. is out of step with its economic competitors 

in that it does not use immigration policy as a tool of economic policy. Under 10 percent of immigration into the U.S. is for economic 

purposes. This bill makes important changes to the visa system, 

basing them more on economic considerations, and represents a 

step toward using a policy mix that is closer to other industrialized 

countries. 

A legitimate concern in all of this is what will happen to the Federal budget. It is a concern that I have been close to for a long, long 

time. And I think a good way to think about the budgetary implicaVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

tions is to start with the last piece of comprehensive immigration 

reform legislation that Congress looked at in 2007. The CBO did 

have the opportunity at that time to put out a score. That score indicated that if you looked at the balance between spending and revenues, it would over 10 years increase deficits by about $18 billion. 

And $18 billion does not sound like a lot now in the context of trillion dollar deficits year after year. But I think that there are two 

things to remember about that $18 billion. 

Since that time, many of the things that were policy objectives— 

border security, an E-Verify system, and other pieces of the immigration infrastructure—there has been spending on that. About 

half of what the CBO expected would be needed has happened, so 

those comparable policy objectives now may be cheaper and generate less in the way of spending. 

The second thing that has happened has been that CBO did not 

use dynamic scoring. It did not take into account the potential economic growth effects, and that would change the impacts entirely. 

The last piece of what has happened, and something I am sure 

we will have a chance to talk about, is since that score, the Congress has passed and the President signed the Affordable Care Act, 

a large new entitlement program in the United States. And my 

reading of this legislation is there is a bipartisan commitment that 

those who would become registered provisional immigrants, those 

who are here legally and enter the RPI program, would not be eligible for benefits, certainly not for 10 years, probably realistically 

not for 15, and so there will not be a budgetary impact over that 

horizon. 

Over the longer term, I think there is something that the Congress should keep an eye on in terms of the budgetary outlook, and 

I would be happy to discuss with you the impact of this bill in that 

regard. But as I said before, I think the primary objective should 

be to make sure that, when the many policy objectives are put on 

the table, economics does not get lost in the shuffle. This is a central tool of economic policy. This is an opportunity for us to improve on our growth record, which has not been good, and I look 

forward to the chance to answer the questions you might have 

about that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtz-Eakin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. You know, on the 

economics, when we hear about low-wage people may be hurt by 

this, my experience is that you have places where there is a large 

number of immigrants or undocumented that companies will show 

up and say, ‘‘Here, we are going to pay you a flat rate for work for 

the day. You cannot complain about it. You are not going to get any 

benefits. We are also not going to do any withholding to the Government.’’ Doesn’t that pretty well undercut hiring somebody, even 

somebody at minimum wage, by doing it illegally? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think the impact of immigration on low-skill 

employment and wages is a really important issue, and I am glad 

it was raised in the opening statements. Let me separate it into 

two pieces. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

The first is illegal immigrants in the United States. There I 

think if you look at the bill, there are two features that are important to think about. 

One, it would put those workers on a level legal playing field 

with U.S. workers, same workplace protections, same wage laws, 

thus changing that dynamic considerably. 

Second is this is intended to cutoff future illegal immigration. 

Border security, E-Verify, entry-exit visa triggers are all designed 

to do that. So, you know, that changes whatever you may think the 

prevailing wisdom is on that. 

The other thing is for immigration in general. Mr. Chairman, I 

want to just make sure that people understand. The evidence is not 

as it was characterized. I mean, there is good reason to believe that 

immigration raises the wages of American workers, that they are 

complements to American workers, and I would emphasize two 

things: 

Number one, if we are worried about the ability of low-skill 

Americans to earn a wage, we should fix the low-skill problem. 

That is the problem. It is not immigration. It is low skills. And if 

you think the competition begins when someone arrives in the 

United States, you are mistaken. We are competing with those 

workers now wherever they may be. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, it is interesting. In your testimony 

you mention that ‘‘immigration policy is economic policy.’’ 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. You talked about the entrepreneurial vigor. I 

cannot help but think, because I visited these companies, I know 

the founders, most of them, and 25 percent of our highest-growth 

companies between 1990 and 2005, including Intel, Google, Yahoo, 

eBay, employ hundreds of thousands of people here in the United 

States, usually at pretty good wages, they were begun by immigrants. In fact, 40 percent of the companies in the 2010 Fortune 

500 were started by immigrants or their children. Isn’t that something we should be thinking about? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I would hope so. The evidence is quite clear 

on the capacity of immigration to bring entrepreneurship and businesses to the U.S. 

Chairman LEAHY. In the time I have got remaining here, would 

you—you released this analysis that concluded that immigration 

reform, like the proposal here, could boost the American economy 

by as much as 1 percentage point every year over the coming decade and reduce the deficit by as much as $2.5 trillion. Obviously, 

every one of us who wrestle with budgets and deficits kind of perks 

up—grabs our attention. Do you want to elaborate on that a little 

bit? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I guess I would say a couple things. 

First, arriving at that estimate is a matter of arithmetic, not particular ingenuity. Economic growth comes from growth in people 

and their productivity, and immigration controls both the size of 

the labor force and, since immigrants tend to work more and participate at higher rates than the native-born, you get labor force 

growth. As you have mentioned, we often get small businesses and 

entrepreneurs, which raises the productivity of those workers, and 

there are benefits to faster overall economic growth in spreading 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

innovation through the income and thus raising productivity further. 

My estimates simply look at increases in immigration and follow 

the research literature and rules of thumb for the impacts on GDP 

and on the budget. It is not magic. It is just arithmetic. 

I will say that it is important to recognize I did not tailor that 

estimate to 2013, 2014, 2015. This bill looks like it will take some 

time to pass and implement, and that is fair. So you want to think 

of that as once you get up and running, what will the next 10 years 

look like? 

Chairman LEAHY. In fact, in your testimony you referenced immigration legislation considered back in 2007. Many of us were 

here at that time. Some were concerned by the cost. But you say, 

‘‘It is not 2007 anymore. It is important to consider what has happened since then to get a sense of how the relevant budgetary 

effects... may have changed.’’ 

Can you elaborate on that, sir? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. As I said, I think the key spending aspects 

have changed in two ways. On the discretionary side, many of the 

policy objectives of that legislation—border security, everification—there has been expenditure on those systems, and so 

not all of the spending needs to be done, so it should be relatively 

cheaper. And on the mandatory spending side, as I mentioned, the 

key change has been the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The 

drafters of the legislation in front of us have, it looks to me, taken 

great bipartisan care to ensure that for the next 10 to 15 years that 

does not impinge on the budgetary costs of this legislation. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, thanks to both of you as witnesses. 

The first question to both of you: Since we have a very generous 

immigration system, even though it has problems, I have always 

argued that we must enhance and expand legal avenues for people 

who wish to live and work here. This bill makes many changes in 

those legal programs and increases work permits and green cards. 

So my question to both of you is: Do either of you have an estimate 

on how the legal immigration levels will increase if we pass this 

bill? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Well, I do not have an estimate myself, but I will 

say this: Responding to something Doug said—and I respect his 

opinion on these issues—there is a significant problem with respect 

to regularization. Whether or not the Senate wants to do so or not, 

it is not going to help the employment levels of Americans currently. I think E-Verify is a good idea, outstanding. Making sure 

that all workers are subject to the same legal requirements, outstanding idea. 

The problem then is when you regularize 11 million people, the 

tiny advantage that current Americans have in such competition 

evaporates. If everyone is subject to the same set of rules, then formerly illegal immigrants will be on the same playing field. It is not 

going to advantage low-skilled workers who are currently here. 

We have a labor participation rate in this country that is at historic lows, only 62 percent. In the black community, in certain demographics, one out of two men is working. And despite what some 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

may say that illegal immigration or immigration period does not 

have any impact, I will resort back to one of my other incarnations 

as a member of the National Labor Relations Board and three decades of practicing labor law. It is palpable, the competition that is 

driven out by illegal immigration. You talk to minority contractors, 

businessmen, and they will tell you, ‘‘We cannot compete.’’ And if 

these individuals are now regularized in one fell swoop, the small 

advantage disappears. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you have any number for me, Mr. HoltzEakin? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Not a precise number. We have read the bill 

as carefully as we can under the time constraints, and it looks to 

be somewhere around 250,000, maybe north of that depending on 

some of the expansions. But I would be happy to get back to you 

with a more precise estimate as we become more comfortable with 

it. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I am going to ask you, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, a 

question that deals with dynamic scoring, your use of it. I know 

you believe in it. I believe in it. But CBO only scores static scoring. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And we also had a vote on the budget bill 

where 48 Democrats in the Senate voted against dynamic scoring. 

So your projection regarding the economic benefits of immigration 

reform are based on that scoring. As former CBO Director, do CBO 

scores include dynamic economic impact for policy changes? And 

would they use dynamic scoring in the case of elaborating on this 

bill? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It is good to have this topic of discussion with 

you again, Senator. I have lots of scars from the previous incarnations. No, CBO does not. I have been yelled at many times over 

that. My point is simply that when you get a CBO score, which will 

not include those effects, recognize it is incomplete in that regard 

and know that there are benefits being uncounted in the impact of 

the legislation. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If dynamic scoring should be used to measure 

economic benefits of immigration reform, surely also measure dynamic economic benefits of lower rates of taxation as well? You 

would surely agree with that. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I do, sir. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But I am trying to point out here that you 

cannot have it both ways. Maybe they are going to show that this 

is very positive from the standpoint of the economy, if you use dynamic scoring. But if you use static scoring, it is not going to come 

out so well. 

I have a question for the other witness. You said this in your 

statement, so it is just a case of elaboration: ‘‘The obvious question 

is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market 

for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants. The answer is 

no.’’ 

Mr. KIRSANOW. And that is exactly right. As I indicated just previously, when we have a labor participation rate that has historic 

lows, we have an abundant supply of low-skilled labor waiting for 

jobs. And it appears as if what we will do by regularizing a significant cohort, millions of individuals, is leapfrogging those individVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

uals. We have got millions upon millions of Americans, not just 

black Americans but millions upon millions who do not have a job 

right now. And I think it is a good idea to reform the immigration 

system, but due regard must be given to the fact that we have an 

overabundance of people who are not working today. 

And if you take a look at the various U-rates—U–3, U–C employment population ratios—we are at rates we have not seen in 80 

years, 75 years. It is astonishing. If we have a regularization of a 

greater pool of individuals who compete on a one-by-one basis with 

Americans here today, those individuals are not going to be seeing 

a job. They do not have the resources, skill sets to compete on the 

same level. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Since my time is up, I would just simply 

make a statement about E-Verify, because I am the author of EVerify, and they said they put my provisions in this bill. I have not 

checked that closely yet. But I think it takes—it gives 5 years to 

put it into effect, and I hope that somebody on the panel will be 

able to say if that is soon enough or if it can be done sooner. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I am glad to see so many here, and 

we are going to, as I tried to do, keep on schedule. 

I will yield now to Senator Feinstein. I have to take a phone call 

out back, but I will also hand her the gavel, and I should be back 

in just a few minutes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to use my time to briefly speak about the part of the 

bill that I had something to do with. 

First of all, I want to congratulate Senator Schumer and others 

that worked on crafting the big bill. But I want to point out to everyone—and this is the first time I have had a chance to do this— 

that agriculture in this Nation is a huge industry, and it is in the 

main served by undocumented immigrants, people who become 

very skilled at the work that they do do. 

One of the things that has happened is that agriculture has been 

inclined to—a lot of it has gone outside of the country. Some of it 

has had to curtail their activities because they have not been able 

to attract an American work force. 

I want particularly to thank Senator Hatch and his staffer, Matt 

Sandgren, who worked on this; along with Senator Rubio and his 

staffer, Enrique Gonzales, who was super; and Senator Bennet, 

who sat through a great many of these negotiating sessions. We negotiated with literally a multiplicity of farm organizations represented by specific groups as well as the Farm Workers Union. 

The employers wanted wage specificity, and they wanted out of 

a BLS statistical gathering, which they believe skewed wages. The 

farm workers wanted decent wages and also worker protections. I 

believe we have achieved both. 

The program has what is called a ‘‘blue card program’’ for workers that are in this country, have been working ag for a period of 

time, will be committed to continue to work ag, will pay a fine, will 

get a blue card, and that will lead to a green card. 

Second, it creates two additional visa programs. It does away 

with H–2A, creates a new contract program, and also an at-will 

portable visa program. They have a cap on visas of 112,000 visas 

a year for both programs, 300,000 over 3 years. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

The jurisdiction of the program is placed under the Department 

of Agriculture. Secretary of Agriculture—we discussed it with 

him—he is willing and he will make available his Farm Service 

Agencies, which exist in every county of our Nation, to aid farmers 

as they do the necessary filings, and also farm workers as well. 

I believe it is a good solution. My understanding is that both 

sides have held press conferences to indicate their support. There 

are a couple of edits that we need to make in the bill, Senator 

Schumer, but, by and large, it is a good, strong program. I believe 

it will result in a consistent supply of agricultural workers for our 

farmers. 

So I thank you and yield the floor and recognize Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

I am appreciative of both of you and your testimony here today. 

The area of high-skilled immigration is very important to me. I 

want to support this bill if I can. I have some questions about it, 

but let me just make a couple of points here. 

As you might know, for several years I have served as Chairman 

of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, and in January, 

Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons and I introduced the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Isquared bill.’’ 

To date, I-squared has a total of 26 bipartisan cosponsors, five 

of whom are on the Judiciary Committee. It has been endorsed by 

countless companies and organizations. And if you have not already, I hope you will take a look at that bill. 

The I-squared Act addresses the immediate short-term need to 

provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled 

workers. It also addresses a long-term need to invest in America’s 

STEM education. This two-step approach will enable our country to 

thrive and help us to compete in today’s global economy. 

I took a careful look at the high-skilled visa provisions of the recently introduced comprehensive bill to see how they compared 

with the I-squared bill. And I want to list for you some of the areas 

that I think need to change in these provisions. 

Most people do not realize that this bill requires the Government 

to micromanage compliant American companies and how they and 

their customers choose to interact in the marketplace. Unlike Isquared, this bill creates burdensome displacement and pre-recruitment obligations. Thus, these provisions inhibit companies from effectively operating in a global economy where employee mobility is 

really critical. 

In the introduced comprehensive immigration bill, an increase in 

the H–1B cap is only allowed for the following, not current, fiscal 

year and may only be raised after satisfying a complex formula. 

Therefore, the proposed market adjustment mechanism will not effectively respond to real-time needs. 

The proposed STEM education and training language would fund 

federally prescribed priorities instead of directing grant money to 

the States. The States should have the capability to set and pursue 

their individual STEM education needs. 

On a related matter, though, I am very pleased to have worked 

with Senators Feinstein, Rubio, and Bennet in crafting the new agriculture visa program in this bill. And throughout the negotiaVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

tions, I cannot tell you how many times I heard complaints about 

the existing H–2A visa category and why we needed to craft a new 

guest worker program to meet the demands of the agriculture industry. 

The existing program is underutilized due to how arduous and 

bureaucratic the agricultural employers find the visa program, and 

that is why in this bill we sunset the H–2A program. 

And I tell you all this because, as the H–1B and L–1 provisions 

currently stand, the bill could be rendered unworkable for many 

U.S. employers, and these visa categories could follow the same 

fate as the soon-to-sunset H–2A program. 

Let me just ask you, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, you have recently written 

that immigration reform can have positive effects on economic 

growth, as you have testified here today, possibly raising per capita 

gross domestic product by over $1,500. Of course, many effects of 

fresh waves of legal immigrants would be felt in decades to come 

and not necessarily in the immediate term. But we could also see 

near-term effects. Legal workers pay into the Social Security Trust 

Funds and eventually collect benefits. Of course, if they become disabled, they also collect disability insurance from a program with a 

trust fund which will be exhausted by 2016. 

Have you personally thought about what might be near-term and 

longer-term effects on the Social Security programs if there were 

to be a significant increase in legal immigration? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, I have thought about that a little bit. I 

think timing is important. I certainly think that, you know, concerns about current high levels of unemployment and the absence 

of inflows into the trust fund that come with that are legitimate. 

It does not look to me that this bill would have significant impacts for anything under 5 years, mostly 10, before we see significant inflows. And so I would hope—and I am sure you share this— 

that we are not looking at over 7.5 percent unemployment 5 years 

from now and, God forbid, a U–6 unemployment at 14 percent. 

So if you think of this as entering into an economy that is working much better, we will see inflows of immigrants who will pay 

taxes up front that will help fund current retirees and who will ultimately qualify for benefits, and there the issue, I think, is about 

the future of the Social Security system. And that is a question 

about Social Security reform, not really about immigration reform. 

I think we do need Social Security reform. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I thank you for your work in this area and 

appreciate both of you being here today. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Senator Feinstein. First, let 

me thank you and Senator Hatch for your great work on agriculture. I would also want to thank Chairman Leahy for having 

this hearing. His leadership on the issue of immigration has been 

amazing, and those of us in our little group cannot thank him 

enough for considering our bill and agreeing to mark up the bill in 

the Judiciary Committee. 

I would also note, before I get started with my friend Senator 

Hatch, about 85, 90 percent of what is in his bill is in our bill. It 

is very friendly to high-tech. I know he will want to make some 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

changes, but overall it is very positive from the high-tech point of 

view. 

Senator HATCH. I would like you to really look that over. 

Senator SCHUMER. I will. I will. 

Senator HATCH. Because it deserves more consideration. 

Senator SCHUMER. You bet. 

OK. Before I get to the bill, I would like to ask that all of us not 

jump to conclusions regarding the events in Boston or try to 

conflate those events with this legislation. In general, we are a 

safer country when law enforcement knows who is here, has their 

fingerprints, photos, et cetera, has conducted background checks, 

and no longer needs to look at needles through haystacks. 

In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program 

have been significantly strengthened in the past 5 years such that 

we are much more careful about screening people and determining 

who should and should not be coming into the country. And if there 

are any changes that our homeland security experts tell us need 

to be made, I am committed to making them as Chairman of the 

Immigration Subcommittee and would work with others on this 

Committee to happen. 

And, finally, 2 days ago, as you may recall, there were widespread erroneous reports of arrests being made. This just emphasizes how important it is to allow the actual facts to come out before jumping to any conclusions about Boston. 

Now, on the bill, I believe this is the most balanced piece of immigration legislation that has ever been produced. The American 

people and all of our colleagues should read this bill over the next 

few weeks, and they will have ample time to look at every page 

and every paragraph before we go to markup in Committee. 

What they will find is a bill that secures our borders, combats 

visa overstays, cracks down on employers who hire unauthorized 

workers, unleashes the potential of our legal immigration to create 

robust economic growth, provides a tremendous jolt to our business 

and leisure travel industries—and I want to thank Senator Hirono 

for her help with that—and deals with the status of undocumented 

individuals in a tough, fair, and practical way. 

So I believe one of the words that most signifies this bill is ‘‘balance.’’ That is why we were able to get eight people of very diverse 

views to agree to a bill, and I think the American people will find 

it the same. 

Now, for questions. First, to Peter Kirsanow, I know you are for 

deporting all the 11 million who are here illegally for the reasons 

you stated. But assume that cannot happen, which you do not assume but most people do, even those who are not happy about illegal immigration. Isn’t it better to have those who are here illegally 

able to work legally because they will be able—they will then be 

paid a higher wage and wage rates for everybody else will go up? 

In my neighborhood, in Brooklyn—and I think this is true throughout America—as I ride my bicycle through Brooklyn early in the 

morning and I see on street corners people who are waiting, day 

laborers who are waiting to be picked up—and I guarantee you the 

construction workers who are picking them up are not saying, ‘‘I 

will pay you $2 above minimum wage and give you an hour off for 

lunch.’’ Oh, no. They says, ‘‘Here’s 20 bucks for the day.’’ And these 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

folks, because they are living in the shadows and desperately need 

money, some of which they want to send home, take it. 

So my question for you is very simple: Assume we cannot deport 

the 11 million people. Isn’t it better to have a system, as in our bill, 

where people can work, legally work, as opposed to work here illegally, which pulls down wage rates even more? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thanks, Senator Schumer. Two things. 

First, I do not think I testified at all that I am in favor of deporting 11 million people. Whether it is 11 million, 10 million, or 40 

million, I do not think we even know how many are here. But I 

am not in favor of deporting them. I am an immigrant son. I support immigration. I am fully in favor of immigration. 

I am here to tell you today that even if you regularize and legalize across the board everyone who works, they are going to be subject to the same standards, Fair Labor Standards Act, EEO, and 

everything else. The construction workers you are talking about 

are still going to exist. We are still going to have a sizable cohort 

of individuals who are going to take advantage of people regardless 

of—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Isn’t it harder for them to take advantage if 

they are legalized than if they are illegal? That is very logical. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Yes, Senator, on the margins. But, you know, I 

live in this world. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I do this kind of work. I see it on a regular basis, 

and I think we are living in a fantasy land if we think that by a 

stroke of the pen, because we have something on paper, all of a 

sudden people are not going to take advantage of economic opportunities. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, it is not going to be perfect, and people 

always take advantage, but even you admit that it will get better. 

You just say marginally. Some of us think a lot more than that. 

What do you think, Mr. Holtz-Eakin? And then I will yield my 

time. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. This strikes me as a question of enforcement. 

This is an issue of whether the provisions as written in this reform 

will be enforced effectively. This Committee, the Congress in general, has great powers of oversight. It has powers of the purse 

strings to ensure that enforcement takes place as written. And only 

those on the other side of this table can assure us that it will, but 

you have the authorities. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the 

witnesses. 

It is one thing to read the bill. As you said, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, it 

is another thing to see it enforced. We have got laws today that are 

utterly ignored, not being followed, and I have no confidence that 

this administration, based on what we have seen, will ever enforce 

any law that makes any real difference in this situation. That is 

just the way it is. And we do have a big problem there, and we will 

have to ask, as Senator Grassley pointed out, are we going to be 

like 1986 again when there were promises then that we would have 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

effective enforcement? We promised a number of things that have 

not happened, and I could go into them and list them. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, one thing I think we tend to agree on is that 

the Nation would be better served for more higher-skilled workers 

in areas where there is less competition than lower-skilled workers 

in terms of improving productivity and GDP growth. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I certainly think that at the core, moving to 

an immigration system that rewards skills is a good piece of economic policy. 

Senator SESSIONS. One thing I would note is I understand your 

piece that you have written about the increased growth, it is based 

on the assumption there will be no immigration as compared to an 

immigration flow. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Not quite, but I am counting on a substantial 

increase in the number and quality of immigrants. 

Senator SESSIONS. It appeared to me that basically—well, I 

would just say this: We are not against immigration. We are going 

to have immigration. The question is: Will it be lawful and will it 

serve the national interest? And I think Mr. Kirsanow would agree 

with that. 

Mr. Kirsanow, I think that we need to talk more about the issue 

you are raising. There are people out there hurting today. There 

are young men, particularly, and others, who need to be working 

today that cannot find work. And the jobs and the work they get 

needs to be at a decent wage. They need to have another particular 

for some sort of retirement, maybe a vacation, maybe a health care 

plan that they can operate on. 

And you are correct that we are not providing that today, and 

there is a real social danger happening in America from that unemployment. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Senator, I think that the question is: Qui bono? 

Who benefits? And I am not sure—I mean, I would like to take my 

own time in going through the 900-page bill. It would be irresponsible for me to comment on any discrete item. There are a lot of 

working parts. I think it would take me months to absorb even a 

tenth of what is going on there. This is a major restructuring of 

our country. 

I live in inner-city Cleveland. It is devastated there, not just from 

the standpoint of unemployment but the downstream effects of unemployment. In our hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, we 

focused on the effect of immigration on blacks and other low-skilled 

workers. It dealt with employment. But there was a cascade effect 

that went into incarceration rates, marriageability rates, singlefamily rates, and all of the other pathologies that flow from all of 

those issues. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think you are exactly correct. Professor 

Borjas at Harvard has written about the connection with incarceration rates and higher unemployment rates and poverty. We think 

that is true. 

Mr. Kirsanow, let us consider this situation. A job opens up— 

well, first, let me note that in the last month, according to the 

labor statistics, 88,000 Americans only found a job; 486,000 

dropped out of the labor market; only one-fifth of those retired; 

four-fifths of those dropped out because they had given up. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

There is a job that opens up. It pays a decent wage for a lowskilled worker, and who should get that job if there is a choice? 

Would it be better for the economy and America if an unemployed 

American drawing unemployment insurance, perhaps on welfare or 

food stamps and other benefits, would it be better for America if 

the American unemployed citizen got that job rather than bringing 

in a laborer from abroad to take that job? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Senator, the question answers itself. We have 90 

million people in the civilian population that are not working right 

now that could work. And we are thinking about expanding the 

labor supply. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is madness. 

We have too few jobs for way too many people. 

Senator SESSIONS. Colleagues, this is indisputable. We have more 

low-skilled labor than we can find jobs for today. This bill does not 

reduce the flow of low-skilled labor into America. It does not confront that problem. And it is the fundamental reason—and my 

Democratic colleagues complained when President Bush was in office; they do not do so much now—that the average wage of working Americans has been declining relative to inflation for maybe 15 

or more years. 

Chairman LEAHY [presiding]. OK. We—— 

Senator SESSIONS. And I just worry about it, and I think this is 

not considered properly in this bill, which was written too often by 

big business, big agriculture interests, rather than the public interest. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would note that I was a strong supporter of 

President George W. Bush’s efforts to have comprehensive immigration policy. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Senator SESSIONS. I opposed it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is not the first hearing we have had in the Judiciary Committee on immigration, and I want to refer back to a Subcommittee 

hearing that I think Senator Schumer chaired in 2009 of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security. And one 

of the witnesses that Chairman Schumer called was Dr. Alan 

Greenspan. I think Dr. Greenspan has mixed reviews among different folks as to his credibility, but certainly he has a considerable 

number of adherents, shall we put it that way. So for the sake of 

those who are his adherents, I would like to relate some of the testimony that he provided in that hearing. 

He said, ‘‘There is little doubt that unauthorized—that is, illegal—immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth 

of our economy. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our work force, often a safety valve when demand is 

pressing, and among the first to be discharged when the economy 

falters. Some evidence,’’ to Mr. Kirsanow’s point, ‘‘suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants marginally suppress wage levels.’’ 

But then he goes on to say, ‘‘However, the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this work force as significantly outweighing the costs.’’ The benefits of this work force as 

significantly outweighing the costs. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Now, he is saying that about a work force that at that point is 

in a status of being illegal, to use his word, ‘‘unauthorized.’’ Do you 

agree with that point? You are an economist, Mr. Holtz-Eakin. And 

would it be affected by bringing them, as Senator Schumer said, 

into the daylight? And what effect would that have? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I agree with the basic point. I think that the 

impact of bringing them into the legal labor force would be twofold. 

The first is that it would, from the perspective of the worker, eliminate the capacity for exploitation and bad work conditions and the 

like. And from the employer standpoint, it would allow them to 

flexibly manage their labor force without fear of legal repercussions, which every employer would like to be able to do. And so I 

concur with the basic point. 

I guess the thing that I find frustrating about the debate is that 

there are two aspects to the economics that I think have just 

emerged as utterly clear over the past several years. 

Number one, the presence of competition that is a real issue for 

our low-skill Americans is not about immigration. It is about being 

in a global economy where there is a great abundance of low-skill 

labor and the geographic location has very little to do with it. So 

the bill does not change that. That is a reality, and we cannot 

change it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The offshoring of American jobs has as 

much to do with it as immigration. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It has as much to do with a skilled worker or 

an unskilled worker being paid half the wage in another country 

and coming here and being paid twice the wage. It is competition 

regardless. And I guess for me, I would hope our aspirations would 

be greater than protecting low-skill Americans in perpetuity from 

competition they cannot avoid and instead building their skills. 

That should be the objective. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So just to summarize, if Mr. Greenspan is 

correct, then even as illegal and unauthorized workers, this community made ‘‘a significant contribution to the growth of our economy,’’ and that contribution only goes up when they become legal 

and authorized. Correct? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Mr. Kirsanow, I just want to clear up one thing. I am looking at 

your Wikipedia page. Your Wikipedia page says that you oppose— 

and this is put in quotations—‘‘those in the racial grievance industry who talk incessantly about the slightest of radical disparities, 

whether real or imagined.’’ 

Is that a quote of yours, or is that a quote of somebody else that 

is being put into that article? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is infallible, so 

I—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is why I am asking you. 

Mr. KIRSANOW [continuing]. Suspect that it must have been—no. 

I will tell you this: I do disagree with those who count on the basis 

of race instead of being colorblind. However, my testimony here—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But this is not a quote of yours? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I do not recall if it is. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. It does not sound like me. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am sorry, Chairman. My time is up. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

hearing, and I appreciate all my colleagues who have different 

views, and this is something America needs to work through. But 

let us talk about where as a Nation we are going. 

In 1983, I was a young captain in the Air Force. In 2013, I am, 

by South Carolina standards, a middle-aged Senator. 

In 2043, I will be 87, if I live that long, and if I can follow the 

Senator Thurmond model, I will have two terms left in the Senate, 

and I am going to miss most of you all. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. So I might be around, but the rest of you, I will 

talk to your families about how we are doing. 

Senator SCHUMER. Going to have kids, Lindsey, when you are 

about 75? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. But for those who are around in 2043, here is 

what I want you to look at. If nothing changes, by 2043 Medicare 

and Medicaid, Doug, are going to take what percentage of GDP to 

fund? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Oh, at current trajectories, we are going to be 

close to half. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is 18 percent of GDP. All right? How 

much do we collect in revenue today? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. About—well, in—— 

Senator GRAHAM. About 16 percent. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Normally, we would get to 18, if we are lucky. 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. So here is the deal: In 2043, if we do not 

do something about Medicare and Medicaid, it is going to take all 

the money we collect in taxes today plus 2 percent just to pay for 

those programs. How can that be? Ten thousand baby boomers a 

day are retiring. In 1950, there were 16.5 workers for every Social 

Security recipient. In 2030, there are going to be 2.1. I think your 

point, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, is that unless we have a massive baby 

boom, the numbers are going the wrong direction. Is that what you 

are telling us? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. So how do you supplement—when I was born 

in 1955, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today there is basically three. In 20 years or less, there are going to be two. Where 

does the work force come from to keep the American economy 

going? Would you agree with me, Peter, it comes from immigration? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. To a certain extent, it comes from immigration. 

But I also think this is a matter of entitlement reform. We have 

to look at the entitlement system. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, it is a matter of entitlement reform. It is 

a matter of a workforce, too. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. That is true, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Two people cannot do what 16 people used to 

do. It is going in the wrong direction. So you are dead right. We 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

need entitlement reform. But if we also do not do immigration reform to access legal labor, we cannot get to where we want to go 

as a Nation in terms of economic growth. 

Displacing an American worker. Here is the one thing I agree 

with Senator Sessions about. I do not want a foreign worker coming in under the H–1B program, you name the program, low- or 

high-skill guest worker program, to displace an American worker 

who is willing to do the job. So in this bill, we have a requirement 

to advertise the job at a competitive wage, and we had a knockdown, drag-out about what that was. 

Doug, are you familiar with the agricultural industry? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I am not an expert, but I do know something. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I think Senator Feinstein is. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. She is. 

Senator GRAHAM. Why is it, Peter, that most people in the agricultural industry are Hispanic? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I think it is because Hispanics are illegal immigrants, for example, are working in the agricultural industry at 

substandard wages. 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. Let us assume that for a moment. If we 

made them all legal, they would receive the benefits of wage and 

hour laws. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Many of them would. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you believe there is a dynamic in America 

that no matter how much you advertise a job, there are certain 

areas of the economy you are not going to find an American worker? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I do not know that. I would not necessarily—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I can tell you I do. I can tell you I do, 

living in South Carolina. When you go to the meat packing plants, 

it is no accident that everybody in that plant is Hispanic. And 

when you go to the peach farms, it is no accident that everybody 

there is from somewhere else. I am not saying that people in South 

Carolina are lazy. I am saying that there are certain parts of this 

economy you are not going to find an American worker no matter 

what you do, no matter how much you advertise, unless you want 

to just put yourself out of business. And that is a reality that is 

uncomfortable to hear, but it is the God’s truth. 

Having said that, in the future I want to test my proposition by 

making sure that all these jobs in agriculture, all these jobs in 

meat packing—and you go down the list of jobs that are really 

tough—they are going to be advertised at a higher wage than they 

are today, and we will see who is right or who is wrong. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, do you believe it is possible for a country to 

have a welfare program that suppresses labor participation because 

when you add up all the benefits, you make more not working than 

you do working? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you agree with that, Peter? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I absolutely do. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think we are there. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. All right. Thank you. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Incidentally, I know that a lot of Senators on both sides of the 

aisle had to rearrange schedules to be here today, and I want to 

thank all my colleagues, again, both sides of the aisle, for being 

here. 

But I would also note the two witnesses were supposed to be 

here this afternoon, and on about 20 minutes notice rearranged 

their schedule, and that means a lot to the Committee. And, again, 

one of the reasons we stream this live, as we have all the other 

hearings we have had on immigration, is so that as many people 

as possible can see it. And as the e-mail traffic is coming through, 

people are watching. Americans are concerned about this, even in 

a week when there is horrible, terrible tragic news that seems to 

be overriding everything else. 

Senator GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would note that Senator Cornyn had to go to Texas for that explosion. He intended to be here. 

There are demands that we all have. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I understand, and there are some that are 

just inescapable, and I know Senator Cornyn is concerned about 

that. That is one of the terrible things I talked about that crowds 

us out, and if I was Senator Cornyn, I would be doing precisely 

what he is doing. I do not think anybody faults him on that. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, my focus here today is on the economic consequences of immigration reform. Senator Hatch already mentioned 

the bill that we did together, along with a number of other people 

on this Committee, called I-squared, which makes it easier to bring 

in a number of professional employees for jobs that are open now, 

but also there is, as you know, a number of economic studies that 

show how that adds more American jobs, that when you bring over 

an inventor or you bring over someone who has special skills, the 

history of this country is that they have invented things and come 

up with new ideas that employ literally hundreds of thousands of 

people, and that is our focus. 

So my first comment is just a question. What do you see as the 

two or three biggest benefits, the economic benefits of immigration 

reform, even beyond the issue I just raised? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think at the core, you know, the bill is imperfect as it is written. I think everyone would acknowledge that. 

But it makes the fundamental decision to move away from a system that is driven by family reunification, asylum refugee considerations, toward an economically based merit system. That is, I 

think, a very healthy development for a country that needs to have 

a larger population in the future, have a skilled labor force, compete globally. I think that is the overwhelming benefit of the bill. 

Inside that, I think the emphasis on some of the STEM provisions, making them more responsive to the economic conditions is 

a good thing. Having an agricultural title that provides a genuine 

entry-exit security system as well as meeting the economic conditions I think is a good thing. 

So there are a variety of economic benefits in this legislation that 

I think on balance come out ahead. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. As you acknowledged in the beginning of 

your testimony, we are in a global economy, and I want America 

to win. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Me, too. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And that is why I am so strongly behind 

this reform. 

You talked about how the U.S. is not using immigration policy 

effectively, as many as countries, to improve economic growth. Can 

you expand on that? And what countries do you see as doing a good 

job? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, I think, you know, if you look at the 

numbers—and, again, it is in my written testimony—under 10 percent of the core visas granted are for economic reasons at the moment. And given the paramount need for economic growth that cuts 

across our ability to deal with all of our policy challenges, in crime, 

in education, in entitlements, you name it, those will all be easier 

with faster economic growth. I think focusing more on them makes 

sense. 

Other countries—again, we have got charts in the written testimony—have a higher percentage devoted to economics. Other countries have made reforms recently, including competitors like the 

United Kingdom, looking to do this. And I think if you look at the 

countries that are struggling right now and likely to fail—Japan, 

no immigration, shrinking population. Look at a lot of Europe, 

same considerations. What is the exception in Europe? Germany, 

which has undertaken a vigorous use of, in particular, Turkish 

labor. 

We have to recognize the economic reality and adjust our policies 

to fit it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I see that this is going simultaneously 

with training our own workers and having more and more kids 

going to science, engineering, technology, and math, which has not 

been going at the pace it should. And we cannot just do one thing 

without the other. 

One of the details of our I-squared bill that is included in the 

Gang of Eight proposal is providing work authorization to the 

spouses of high-skilled workers. And I also see this as a women’s 

issue—not only a women’s issue, but predominantly a women’s 

issue—and also an economic issue, because many of these spouses 

can make great contributions to our economy. 

Can you comment on this provision? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. If you look at the past several decades, one of 

the overriding impacts in the U.S. has been the entry of women 

into the labor force. That has been one of the sources of increased 

growth in the United States, probably the most important. This 

adds to simply the gross flows of immigration by adding that second kick of both genders participating. I think that would be a benefit that allows us to really continue something we have seen for 

the past decades. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Good. I head up the Tourism Caucus in the 

Senate. We have worked very hard to increase visa times for tourism visas. We have done some really good work with the State Department as well as finally advertising our country. In this bill, in 

the Gang of Eight proposal, is the JOLT Act that I worked on with 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

Senator Schumer and others that would modernize and expand the 

Visa Waiver Program and reduce visa wait times even more. In 

2012, international visitors added more than $130 billion to the 

U.S. economy, and I would note that since 9/11 we have lost 16 

percent of the international tourism business. And for every point 

we have lost, it is 167,000 jobs right in America. 

Can you talk about the economic benefit of increasing the number of tourists who come to visit and why this is important to also 

include this? It is not the first thing that comes to people’s mind 

when they think about immigration since this is just tourist visas. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, I think your question answered it. Post 

9/11, the need to have an enhanced security regime had big impacts on travel and tourism, and we lost a lot of the economic benefits. And you can go to the destination cities and see the impacts. 

The question going forward is: Can we marry solid economics in 

that area with a secure entry-exit visa system? And that has not 

happened and is something that I would hope could happen. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly, and I think the point here is that 

other countries, including some of the ones you mentioned, have 

good security measures, as we do, for these kinds of tourist visas. 

But it is how can we do it more efficiently with not changing any 

of the security screens. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to both of 

our witnesses for joining us today. 

Virtually everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken 

and that it needs to be reformed. For far too long, we have made 

it comparatively easy for people to cross our borders and stay here 

illegally, and comparatively hard for those who seek to immigrate 

to our country through the established legal channels. 

But solving our immigration woes is not something that is simple 

or straightforward. We do not face just one big immigration challenge. It is a complex puzzle with dozens of interconnected pieces. 

And just like the puzzles that we all put together as children, some 

of the pieces cannot be incorporated until others are already in 

place. 

Given this unavoidable reality, it is clear that we are not going 

to be able to fix our entire immigration system overnight, nor could 

we hope to analyze and discuss even a small fraction of the most 

critical issues in one or two hearings before this Committee. The 

process of reform will have to be considered and implemented in 

stages over the course of many years. 

Clearly, the challenges we face are hard and will take time to address. So it is all the more important that we begin this process 

immediately. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who have 

worked hard to develop the proposal that is before us today. Theirs 

has been an enormous undertaking, and I appreciate their dedication to making progress toward this kind of lasting reform that we 

need. 

Today I look forward to discussing a few key issues that are part 

of the enormous immigration puzzle. I have introduced several 

pieces of immigration reform legislation, at least one of which, the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

JOLT Act, which has been mentioned several times today, has been 

incorporated into this bill. But at the outset, I must express two 

primary concerns with the current bill and with the Committee’s 

current path. 

First, like many Americans, I am wary of trying to do this all in 

one fell swoop. Good policy rarely flows from massive bills that 

seek to fix every problem in a single sweeping piece of legislation. 

Few legislators, and perhaps fewer citizens, actually understand 

everything in such bills, and no one can even pretend to comprehend all the moving pieces and likely outcomes and results. 

Such wide-ranging legislation inevitably produces unforeseen effects and unintended consequences. 

Especially when it comes to our immigration system. Some reforms are necessary prerequisites for other subsequent reforms. It 

makes little sense to make decisions about later stages before the 

essential foundations are even in place. And it is like trying to put 

the roof on a new house before raising the walls that will hold it 

up. 

In particular, this bill seeks to address the 11 million before 

other preconditions are actually satisfied, so it treats the 11 million 

as if they are a single monolithic group, all here for the same reasons and under the same circumstances, which, of course, they are 

not. 

Trying to resolve every issue all at once is also politically problematic. There is broad consensus on some necessary reforms, but 

others are highly controversial. We ought not hijack common sense 

and essential measures by linking them to unavoidably contentious 

ones. 

My second concern is with the Committee’s process thus far. Reforms of this magnitude and importance deserve more than a couple of hastily scheduled hearings. This bill was not even made 

available until Wednesday morning. It totals 844 pages of complicated legislative text with dozens of component parts. Given the 

unusually and unnecessarily compressed schedule, there has been 

no real opportunity for Senators, staff, or hearing witnesses to read 

let alone understand and digest the entire substance of the bill. 

There is no way that we as a Committee could possibly be prepared this morning to debate more than a fraction of this massive 

bill. It would be impossible to have a meaningful discussion with 

rigorous analysis under such circumstances. Witnesses were asked 

to submit written testimony before they could have conceivably 

read the entire bill. And even with the help of committed Committee staff, who have worked through the night in preparation, 

none of us can honestly say that we understand each provision and 

how all the pieces fit together. Not even close. 

That is why I favor a sensible incremental approach. Republicans 

and Democrats share much in common and agree on a lot of common ground on many of the most immediate issues. On essential 

elements like border security, employment verification, visa reform, 

guest worker programs, and high-skilled immigration to meet 

America’s economic needs, we are largely in agreement and could 

enact significant reforms in these areas. We should not delay 

meaningful progress in these areas just because we have differences in a few others. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

Still, each of these issues is complex and we should have robust 

and substantive debate over the best way to structure each such 

reform. I look forward to beginning that discussion today, and 

thank you for your participation in that. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [presiding]. And I thank you, Senator Lee. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am really sorry 

that Secretary Napolitano could not be here today, but I want to 

thank her and I want to thank the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the ATF, the Boston Police Department, and all the 

professionals who are working on this tragedy in Boston. 

My wife and I met almost 44 years ago—it is hard to believe— 

at a freshman mixer in Copley Square. So our hearts, all Minnesotans’ hearts, are with the people in Boston. 

Turning to the subject of our hearing, I really want to thank the 

Senators on this Committee for their work—Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, Senator Flake, Senator Feinstein, 

Senator Hatch. 

You know, I think that actually we need a comprehensive approach to this. I do not think you can do this piecemeal. I think 

everything is complex and interrelated, and that is why you have 

to do—to fix this deeply broken system, you need a comprehensive 

approach. And I think it will—we have had a broken system. I 

think it has been a drag on our economy. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, thank 

you for your testimony. And I think this is going to help Minnesota 

businesses and families alike. So I want to thank the Senators who 

have worked on this, getting us as far as we have gotten. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, one of the things that I am most pleased about 

in this bill is what it does for agriculture, particularly in Minnesota, our dairy industry. Minnesota is one of the biggest dairy 

producers in our Nation. Yet for years dairy farmers have not been 

able to access the work force they need. The H–2A program, the 

one program that allows farmers to get guest workers, is open only 

to seasonal workers, and you cannot milk cows seasonally. You 

could, but you would get very, very uncomfortable cows. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I have been calling for this—— 

Chairman LEAHY. And a lot of noise. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. Anyway, enough said. 

Chairman LEAHY. I used to be Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. You are bringing me back to my roots. 

Go ahead. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, Vermont has a very great dairy producing culture. 

So I have been calling for this to be fixed for years, and I am 

glad that the Gang of Eight, as they are called, felt the same way. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, your testimony touches on the issue of productivity. It seems to me that having access to a stable, dependable, 

legal workforce has got to be a boom for various parts of our agricultural industry. What do you think? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, I think it certainly helps in managerial 

efficiencies, which are going to help overall productivity. I think it 

is important to recognize that what I think of as skills or other peoVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:14 Jul 19, 2013 Jkt 229006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\81635.XXX 81635

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

ple may think of when they look on a piece of paper does not matter so much as how the market determines skills. What are the capabilities that people bring to the market? 

We have learned in this country, for example, that people who 

can run welders, skilled tradesmen, are in short supply. That 

might not look great on that form, but it is a highly skilled, valuable profession. And so the more we have in immigration reform 

that reflects the economic reality and is responsive to it, I think the 

better off our work force will be the higher our productivity will be. 

Senator FRANKEN. As I said, I just believe that our broken system has been a drag on the economy, and Senator Graham illustrated it very well, the interesting demographic arguments that 

you make in your testimony. And we do have—a lot of us boomers 

are about to retire or some have retired, so I just wanted to underscore that point. 

I want to ask about the economic impact of treating same-sex 

couples differently under immigration laws. Two large companies 

headquartered in Minnesota, Carlson and Medtronic, say that current law hurts their ability to recruit and retain top talent. They 

are part of a coalition supporting the Uniting American Families 

Act, the Chairman’s bill that I am proud to support. The bill would 

give committed same-sex couples the same immigration opportunities as other couples. 

I was recently told of another Minnesota company, a smaller 

company—it is a small business—that will likely have to shut 

down because the owners, a same-sex couple, will not be able to 

stay in the country. 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to enter 

into the record a letter from the 30 companies that comprise this 

coalition. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to enter a letter from 30 companies in support of your bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Under those circumstances, it is quite all 

right. And, of course, we will be delighted to have it. I know everybody will want to read it before the day is out. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to finish this point and maybe ask 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin to speak to it. 

Don’t we miss an opportunity to strengthen our economy by not 

allowing LGBT citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in 

this country? Isn’t it a matter of fairness and also an economic 

positive? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. From an economics point of view, productivity 

is productivity, and you want to take advantage of all opportunities 

to bring that productivity into the marketplace. I mean, that is 

pretty simple. The provisions of the bill, I am going to confess, I 

am not familiar with, and the magnitudes involved I could not 

guess at. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Well, thank you. And thank you both for 

your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, when the Congress took this issue up in 2006, 

the Heritage Foundation came out with a study with a kind of sensational headline that this would cost the taxpayers $2.6 trillion 

over some period of time. That study has now been discounted by 

quite a number of organizations—the Wall Street Journal, the Cato 

Institute, and others. 

I know that you have looked at that. What are your feelings on 

a study like that that purports these kind of costs to the taxpayers? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I will resist the temptation to turn this into 

a graduate seminar in research design, but I think the top line is 

that I have some reservations about that particular Heritage study. 

The Heritage Foundation has done a lot of good work, but in terms 

of the design of that exercise, first and foremost, it leaves out the 

things that I think are most important, the dynamic effects that 

are in my testimony and the study I did. Heritage certainly has the 

capability of doing that kind of analysis, and I would hope that 

they would bring something like that out if the opportunity arose. 

The second thing that I have worried about in that study is the 

basic design does not shed any light on immigration reform. There 

is nothing about that study that says what happens as a result of 

passing legislation, so it does not inform the decision that any Congress might face, and I would like to see studies designed about 

looking before and after reform. 

And then the last—and I will not belabor it—is simply that the 

comparisons in that study are between very low-skilled immigrants, sub-high school educations, and all of Americans, including, 

by implication, Bill Gates, myself, you—whatever. I think that is 

not a particularly meaningful comparison, and you can anticipate 

the outcome of that kind of a comparison without doing any detailed analysis. You know the answer by the way the study is constructed. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. Certain assumptions, I understand, were 

made about the number of immigrants who come in who are regularized, who would then take welfare benefits and whatnot. Can 

you speak to that at all? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Again, it was not tied to a particular reform 

exercise, and I think you have to be very careful about the assumptions you make. We know that the labor force participation of firstgeneration immigrants is higher than the native born. If you go to 

the second generation, where people often worry about take-up of 

public programs, there are more college degrees in second-generation immigrants than in the native born. There are more advanced 

degrees, graduate degrees. There are higher rates of labor force 

participation among those. 

So it is not the case that program participation is higher than 

in the native-born population on the whole. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Kirsanow, you mentioned that you believe that the number 

of illegal immigrants currently here exerted downward pressure on 

wages. Is that accurate? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. That is correct. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Senator FLAKE. And you say that regularizing that population 

would still have some downward pressure on wages. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. That is correct. 

Senator FLAKE. But is it accurate to say that—I mean, the alternative would be to continue in the current path of allowing these 

illegal immigrants to work in the workforce, exerting that downward pressure, or have some plan to deport them somehow or take 

them out of the workforce. Do you see that as a reasonable measure to somehow remove them from the workforce short of some 

kind of reform like this? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Senator, respectfully, I do not think those are the 

alternatives. I think there are a whole host of alternatives. I do not 

think it is a question between deportation and regularization. 

There are a lot of intermediate steps that I think the Committee 

may want to take a look at. 

One of the things I do think—and, again, I have not looked at 

all 900 pages, but taking steps to ensure that it is difficult for 

rogue employers to employ illegal immigrants or employ anybody 

outside the framework of existing law would be very salutary. We 

can do that. There are a number of gradations we can employ far 

short of deportation. But if we do that, I think that we will get far 

along the process of making sure that everybody in America is paid 

the way they are supposed to be paid, that they are not working 

under substandard conditions. 

Senator FLAKE. You are aware of testimony from groups like a 

group that you used to represent, the National Association of Manufacturers, saying that they simply cannot find the skilled labor 

they need among our workforce now, and that the economy would 

benefit with some kind of program to allow others to come in. 

Do you concede any economic benefits, like Mr. Holtz-Eakin does, 

to this kind of reform? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I would yield to Doug on a number of issues related to economic benefits. However, there is a significant downward pressure on a whole host of occupational categories by regularization, and I think that is unequivocal. I think that we have 

had at least two hearings before the Civil Rights Commission 

where there was almost near unanimity that that is the case. 

Now, I do think that we should have some type of immigration 

reform, and I think deliberation must be had with respect to how 

to do that in a considered fashion so that there is a group of people, 

and especially low-skilled Americans, who are not thrown under 

the bus. 

I hear a lot of discussion about the benefit to the United States 

economy, but low-skilled Americans are a significant part of that 

economy, and I think they are being completely excluded from this 

discussion. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Flake, and like all of you, 

I appreciate the time that the eight of you spent with me in the 

briefings before we set up these hearings. I know a lot of you had 

to juggle your schedules around to do that, but I thought it was a 

productive meeting. And I was struck by the—with four key Democrats and four key Republicans, I was struck by the complete absence of partisanship in that meeting. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased that the Gang of Eight has reached an agreement 

and produced a bill that will overhaul the current immigration system in ways that will provide help to millions of individuals and 

their families. And, in fact, three of the Gang of Eight members are 

members of this Committee, and I thank them—Senators Schumer, 

Durbin, and Flake. And, of course, Chairman Leahy, so many other 

members—Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Graham, Klobuchar—have 

had tremendous input into this bill, and we will all continue to discuss this bill as we go forward. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, there are economic considerations that are attended to throughout this bill. In fact, there is very much support 

for economic considerations in this bill. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend some time and focus on 

families in my remarks, and I start by saying that family unity is 

very much a part of economic success for immigrants. So family 

unity issues, economic success, economic vitality, these are not either/or propositions. Those two should go together, in my view. 

So this bill will help some families to reunite, but for others, especially from Asian countries, it will dramatically restrict the ability of families to reunite with certain loved ones, which has been 

the basis of our immigration system since 1965. And while I understand that compromises had to be made, I believe that in some 

areas this bill is more restrictive than necessary, and, of course, I 

will join my colleagues in continuing to improve this bill. 

Specifically, S. 744 eliminates the sibling category and restricts 

the adult married children category and replaces it with a meritbased point system. I believe that the new merit-based visa system 

could exclude many immigrant family members from reuniting 

with their U.S. citizen siblings. This is troubling because siblings 

are an integral part of family structure. They support and help 

each other find jobs, provide both emotional and financial support, 

and care for each other’s families. 

In addition, many times a sibling may be your only family member. For example, I recently met a woman named Nadine whose 

brother is her only remaining family member. They are extremely 

close and have been separated for many years. I am concerned that 

cases like Nadine’s will no longer have a meaningful opportunity 

to petition for their sibling. 

I would also like to see improvements to the family system to include LGBT families, brought up by my colleague Senator Franken, 

and the children of Filipino World War II veterans. And I know 

that we are joined at this hearing by some of our Filipino World 

War II veterans who have been separated from their children for 

decades. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing discussions and 

an opportunity to improve this legislation. There have already been 

comments on improving the Visitor Visa Program, which I very 

much support, and I yield the remainder of my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I thank everybody who 

has been here. I think this has been a good hearing. We are in the 

process of arranging the time for Secretary Napolitano to be here. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

I think all of us realize with what is going on why the Secretary 

of Homeland Security is at Homeland Security, even as I have received ongoing briefings of the circumstances there, and should be. 

But I thank everybody for taking the time, and we will have another hearing on Monday. We are arranging then another day for 

Secretary Napolitano. 

I thank the two witnesses who came here, who rearranged their 

own schedules on very short notice. I appreciate it. That is what 

makes the Committee work. 

I would also note for the record that, as you go back over your 

notes and want to add to any of your answers, of course I will keep 

the record open for that. We are not playing a game of ‘‘gotcha.’’ 

We are just trying to have the best possible record. 

And, again, I thank all the Senators of both parties for being 

here. 

We stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record.] 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 81635.001
33 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 81635.002
34 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 81635.003
35 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 81635.004
36 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 81635.005
37 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 81635.006
38 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 81635.007
39 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 81635.008
40 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 81635.009
41 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 81635.010
42 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 81635.011
43 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 81635.012
44 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 81635.013
45 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 81635.014
46 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 81635.015
47 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 81635.016
48 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 81635.017
49 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 81635.018
50 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 81635.021
51 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 81635.022
52 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 81635.023
53 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 81635.024
54 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 81635.025
55 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 81635.026
56 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 81635.027
57 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 81635.028
58 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 81635.019
59 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 81635.020
60 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 81635.029
61 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 81635.030
62 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 81635.031
63 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 81635.032
64 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 81635.033
65 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 81635.034
66 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 81635.035
67 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 81635.036
68 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 81635.037
69 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 81635.038
70 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 81635.039
71 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 81635.040
72 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 81635.041
73 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 81635.042
74 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 81635.043
75 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 81635.044
76 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 81635.045
77 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 81635.046
78 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 81635.047
79 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 81635.048
80 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 81635.049
81 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 81635.050
82 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 81635.051
83 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 81635.052
84 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 81635.053
85 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 81635.054
86 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 81635.055
87 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 81635.056
88 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 81635.057
89 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 81635.058
90 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 81635.059
91 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 81635.060
92 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 81635.061
93 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 81635.062
94 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 81635.063
95 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 81635.064
96 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 81635.065
97 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 81635.066
98 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 81635.067
99 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 81635.068
100 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 81635.069
101 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 81635.070
102 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 81635.071
103 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 81635.072
104 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 81635.073
105 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 81635.074
106 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 81635.075
107 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 81635.076
108 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 81635.077
109 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 81635.078
110 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 81635.079
111 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 81635.080
112 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 81635.081
113 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 81635.082
114 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 81635.083
115 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 81635.084
116 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 81635.085
117 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 81635.086
118 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 81635.087
119 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 81635.088
120 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 81635.089
121 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 81635.090
122 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 81635.091
123 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 81635.092
124 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 81635.093
125 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 81635.094
126 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 81635.095
127 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 81635.096
128 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 81635.097
129 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 81635.098
130 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 81635.099
131 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 81635.100
132 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 81635.101
133 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 81635.102
134 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 81635.103
135 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 81635.104
136 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 81635.105
137 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 81635.106
138 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 81635.107
139 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 81635.108
140 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 81635.109
141 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 81635.110
142 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 81635.111
143 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 81635.112
144 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 81635.113
145 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 81635.114
146 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 81635.115
147 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 81635.116
148 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 81635.117
149 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 81635.118
150 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 81635.119
151 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 81635.120
152 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 81635.121
153 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 81635.122
154 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 81635.123
155 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 81635.124
156 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 81635.125
157 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 81635.126