Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 - Continued -

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006--CONTINUED -- (Senate - May 24, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I see my good friend from New Hampshire coming to the floor to offer his amendment. I must rise in opposition to the soon to be pending amendment, which would essentially do away with the original purpose of the diversity visa program.

As a Member of the House, I helped create this program, which my colleague, Senator Kennedy, created in the Senate in 1990. It had a very simple purpose, and that was this. Our immigration laws were based on family reunification and certain other qualifications, so there were whole ranges of countries from which people could not get visas. They tended to be European and African, even though the vast majority of Americans are descendents of Europeans and Africans. But because for several generations no people had come from those countries--the people were either third cousins or unrelated to people here--the family unification, a very noble purpose, took predominance and the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia. This diversity program was a small program, and it was intended to allow some from other countries to come. In fact, my city of New York has dramatically benefited from this program, and diverse countries such as Ireland, Poland, and Nigeria have had large numbers of immigrants to be able to come, set roots, and help the diversity of New York and of America.

So this is an excellent program. Nobody has said it has done a bad job. It is small. There are only about 50,000 visas a year. It is really based on the idea of new seed. I believe every immigrant is special because they, or all of us who descend from them, come from a special group of people who had the guts and the gumption to get off their butts and basically come to America. They said: I don't want to lead this disease-ridden, impoverished life. I am willing to come here and take a risk. That is one of the reasons America is a special place--the idea of bringing new seed to this country, people who are willing to risk everything, is great.

I have one example. I met a man named Napoleon Barragan, who probably would not qualify under this program. He founded 1-800-Mattress. It employs about a thousand people in Queens. I went to his office and saw this picture in which there were grass huts with kids playing in the front. He said: That is the village in which I was born in Ecuador. He said: Of all those kids, only one had the gumption, the guts to leave that impoverished, disease-ridden life and come to America. He said: Do you know who that was? I said no, but I had an idea. He said: Me. He went on to found a company that employs a thousand people.

My friend from New Hampshire and colleague from Washington say let's have more visas for highly educated people. I am all for that. But this bill puts a whole lot of visas in for that, and that is why groups as diverse not only as the NAACP and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and I am even told that Microsoft opposes this amendment because they are very happy with the much needed increase in people who have certain skills and certain education. I think America should admit many more of those people but not at the expense of this small, successful program that guarantees that other countries, such as the Irelands, the Polands, and the Nigerias that are unable to have immigrants come in for family reasons, can get people to come into this country. So why can't we have both?

If you believe that immigrants are good for America, as I do, and you believe both highly educated people and new seed people are good for America, why do we have to rob Peter to pay Paul? As I said, Microsoft, which has led the charge for more highly educated people, such as engineers and scientists, to be allowed into this country, is not asking that this program be changed. These companies recognize, as Senator Kennedy did in the Senate and as I did in the House a long time ago, that this country is better served by bringing immigrants from all over the world at all levels. We certainly need more scientists and engineers, but we also need new immigrants like Napoleon Barragan--ambitious people without money and a family connection--to come here and start new businesses.

The great thing about America is when you work hard, you benefit yourself, your family and, in that way, you benefit America. My own ancestors were immigrants. They didn't come here with advanced degrees. My father was an exterminator. I am a U.S. Senator. That says something great about America. But one of the things great about

America is, again, we allow people from all over the world to come here.

So I plead with my colleagues, keep the diversity visa program. It is small, 50,000 a year. From all the groups that want more educated immigrants to come to America, we do not hear any need to take away from this program to add more. They are very happy with what Senator Specter has done in the bill, as am I, which is increase the numbers of H-1Bs and other visas for these folks. We can have both. We do not have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

As I ride my bike around New York City on the weekends, I see what immigrants do for America. This program has dramatically helped. Neighborhoods such as Woodlawn and Greenpoint have been revitalized by new Irish and Polish immigrants. Neighborhoods such as East Flatbush and Harlem have been revitalized by West African immigrants. We don't have to stop this program.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on a well-intentioned but misguided amendment and preserve the diversity program as well as other parts of the bill that allow more educated immigrants to come to this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov