tv Immigration Legislation Markup Day Two - Part 1 CSPAN October 28, 2017 2:07pm-4:46pm EDT
market a new drug in the u.k. during transition would do so by the european medicine vacancy or a new system as of yet undefin undefined. >> the intention of the implementation time is to ensure that people are able to operate on the same basis as they do on the moment as they put in place the changes leading up to the partnership. that which is not going to be looked at will be part of future negotiations. >> i agree with exiting the european union but is in the best interest of both sides if we can conduct this apparel with those with the relationship. does she agree further any
flexibility on the payment must be linked to flexibility and other areas to be negotiated? >> we have been very clear the question of that financial settlement cannot be finally settled until we know what the future partnership will be. we will not sign up for a bill and then negotiate so it will be the case that once the negotiations have started will continue to be negotiation on issues. >> since the brexit vote there's been a 96% drop in e.u. nurses registering to work here. with vacancy of 86000 and rising, just how much bigger does it need to get before we
stop using medics as a bargaining chip in to make sure that their doctors and nurses available. >> in my statement i've made a number of occasions that we value the contribution it have made we want them to stay. she talks about nurses and there's more nurses than there were in 2010 we've taken out the number of nurses who can be in training. the 52000 and training. >> degree the progress achieved at the council meeting demonstrates logic on both sides lends itself to deal being done. every ounce of effort will be marshaled across members of the government to achieve that a. >> i agree that this is in both
our interest in government as a whole collectively is putting the effort necessary into this and looking at what legislation to bring forward in preparing for all eventualities. >> the prime minister raise expectation of the situation between northern ireland and the republic and no infrastructure must be welcomed by all parties. is it conceivable that that can be filled with real negotiations and is it really possible that we can talk about no deal in that scenario? >> it's not that expectations are being raised.
[inaudible] as i said earlier, of course ensuring we get the solution to that will require us to work not just with european commission and the e.u. 27, but work hard with the public government as well. >> your right not to roll out and no deal scenario. it would be utterly naïve. when it comes to implementation, what assurances can she give that it will be time-limited? >> the key issues it's about the time necessary to make the practical changes necessary to move to the future partnership. no changes will have a time limit to them. then i said this would be around two years in terms of
practicality, >> today, hillary clinton, jeff bezos and billie jean king will be attending the human rights campaign's annual dinner in washington, d.c. live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. weekend,smakers this our guest is derrick johnson, the new president and ceo of the naacp. he talks about the organization's future and the role of other civil rights movements, like black lives matter. sunday at 10 a clock a.m. and six click p.m. eastern on c-span. -- 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. --this weekend on q&a >> they were shoving and jostling.
their target was charles murray. i was behind him. it kind of intensified, it looked like he was going to fall to the ground. he was a 74-year-old man. i did what any decent human being would do. torabbed him by the arm make sure he wouldn't fall. i was really fearful of being separated from them and being left behind. i took his arm and that's when it all turned on me. somebody body slammed me from the other direction. >> allison stanger discusses the protest following a talk with charles murray. >> c-span's "washington journal"
live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. sunday morning, the heritage foundation fellow and -- discussed the budget deal and what it means for fiscal reform. behind thecuss with continuing stock market rally and how the business community is reacting to the trump administration's economic agenda. watch "washington journal" live in some :00 eastern -- live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. >> the house judiciary committee continued its markup of two immigration policy bills. this included amendments to the agricultural guestworker act. it is 2.5 hours. >> good morning.
the committee will reconvene. when the committee recessed yesterday, we were considering amendments to hr 4092 and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, has an amendment on the floor under consideration. >> i would like to work with the chairman further on defining that's of the safeguards will be in place once this bill becomes law. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time. >> without objection, it is withdrawn. i would be happy to work with him in supporting that legislation to ensure that
american agriculture has the workers it needs to continue to thrive in the united states and not diminish because they can go elsewhere to find and produce agricultural products elsewhere in the world. i'm happy to work with the gentleman in that regard. are there further amendments to hr 4902? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> leclerc will report commitment. -- the clerk will report the amendment. 16 and all that follows following insert the workers prohibited each employer.
>> if you read the language on page 16, it is the reverse of what you should be doing. we need to protect the american workforce. if you take a look at the language on page 17, specifically over rules and the ,ecision that prohibits essentially, deducting recruiting fees, immigration fees, transportation fees and of h2ke from the wages employees, this amendment would reverse that. why is that necessary? the bill appears to provide wage floors for htc workers. hour, or $10.88
for meat and poultry workers. these wage floors are not real ll changesis bi current law to specifically allow employers to deduct charges from the base pay, thereby allowing the waste to be significantly lower and provided for in the bill. under the fair labor standards act, any cost primarily benefiting the employer rather than the worker cannot be deducted from the worker's wages. that is the case i mentioned earlier. workers,t american immigration statutes and regulations also prohibit deducting such costs from workers wages, even if the
resulting pay would remain above the minimum wage. this bill is bad enough in that it allows employers to deduct these costs from workers wages. what's even worse is that it expressly authorizes employers to do so even if the resulting wage would fall below the minimum wage. under this bill, employers can pay workers nothing if they can creatively come up with these fees to charge the worker, including for housing, food and other items. that is wrong, unfair to the immigrant workers and unfair to american workers. what this would provide is a tool -- ifn dollar workers can be paid less than the minimum wage to come in and compete with people who already work here.
this, as i to mentioned yesterday, the deduction of 10% withholding and the requirement to purchase health care coverage makes the wage even more problematic. these wage reductions would affect domestic workers in a range of sectors, including farming, dairy, raising of livestock, food processing, for three services -- 4th street forestry -- 4t services. mentioned yesterday -- i am known as someone who believes immigration is good for america. i do very much. the general premise is very different increasing a program
of vast exploitable indentured servants coming into the country to undercut the american workforce. that's not what we should be doing. if you do enough deductions so that your pay is below the federal minimum wage approaching nothing, why would someone come to do that? one can with conditions in their home country are so miserable it still looks good to them. it is a right to the u.s. that is cheaper than paying a coyote to smuggle you into the u.s.. i highly recommend we adopt this
amendment on a bipartisan basis. i yield back, mr. chairman. thanks ther -- to required employers to reimburse workers for in bound transportation costs before their workers even substantially comply with their contractual obligations. if a worker does not like the terms he or she is offered, the worker does not need to agree to work for the employer. i oppose this amendment. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would like to note that the bill would allow for the
deduction of a whole variety of charges to these low paid workers. it would not be limited to transportation costs. i would also like to note that the working economist blog billd an analysis of this that i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record. the title of it is the legal workforce and agricultural guestworker act would push down wages and labor standards for americans and immigrants alike. -- this is nott a pro-immigrant, immigration source. they are economists. they basically point out that the bill would undercut the wages of americans.
this amendment would help resolve that . in addition to the deductions, the health care provisions would further drive down the provisions, the wages. the bill would actually provide visas equal to 1.25% of the entire u.s. workforce. that is a pretty amazing analysis to bring in people who could be paid less than the minimum wage. i think this amendment is an important one. i hope we can adopt it. i think the gentleman from michigan for yielding and yield back. what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek -- >> i rise in strong support of this very sensible amendment to a very bad bill.
she mentioned the economic policy institute study. which has been entered into the record . the number of people we are talking about in this bill is not 450,000. i don't think anybody should be pulled by thinking -- a full day into thinking we are talking about 450,000 people. -- i don't think anybody should be fooled into thinking we are talking about 450,000 people. -- hes a direct quote says "we are looking at replacing ultimately 1.5 million or 2 million workers with a guestworker program that currently is proposed to be capped at half a million. that might work depending on how the wording is." , it's has is written
450,000 here, but we have actual proof that is an annual figure that would start at 450,000 in the cap could increase depending on employer demand. this is a massive number of 1.25%, equal to roughly of the entire u.s. labor force, and that is in addition to the 1% of the workforce that is already made up of guest workers with limited workplace rights. we should be very clear about what this bill seeks to do. what this bill seeks to do is drive out american workers who are earning more than would be required in this bill, drive down wages for any of those that remain, and dramatically upend the farm agricultural industry in this country. we have to be very clear that this is not a democratic or
republican issue. -- therebipartisan will be bipartisan fx in states like louisiana and georgia, numerous states across the country where american workers will suffer as a result of this bill. i would again emphasized the comments i made yesterday in this committee, if we really wanted to address this issue, there has been a carefully crafted compromise on agricultural -- the agricultural industry to address the issues where we don't have sufficient labor, don't have sufficient rights, but that bill is not the bill we are proposing, looking at and commenting on today. this bill does a tremendous disturbance to the american workforce and frankly to the farm industry in creating this substandard must of the paid workforce that will displace
it says is not withstanding, the provision that allows for deductions that i think are improper. the employer may not deduct 70 costs that they workers wages would not go below the minimum wage. if people are suggesting it is not important and that we should have wages that fall below the minimum wage, they should vote yes on this amendment. it is very clear. i think that the idea we would bring in millions of individuals paid below the minimum wage to continue with workers that are already here is wrong. rep. lofgren: it is vaguely areking to me that we
considering that. this amendment would preclude that opportunity, that potential wagese that worker's would go below the federal minimum wage. i hope we can all approve it. with that, i will yield back. chair recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. the question of which cost-benefit the worker. it is mutually beneficial. farmers get the help and workers
get a wage that outpaces what they could earn in their own country. this outpaces workers to move from crop to crop and farm to farm more easily in the united they will enhance their earning capability compared to the current h2a program. workers and farmers will come out better. people are not going to work for what they do not want to earn d nd therefore you will see usually higher than the minimum wage paid. this law requires the minimum wage plus 15%. reasons, i opposes amendment. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes.
rep. nadler: it is good that they will earn more than they should.home but they his amendment says you cannot do this unless it brings it below the minimum wage. it should never be below the minimum wage area this program is flawed because it is primarily -- i will not say design, maybe that is the case, that's one of its major effects is we're going to very low wages
that american workers will not accept. it is true. wages, youhigher might get american workers to do this. but we are importing a loweringe that is american wages. we're going to pay conditions on the foreign workforce to make them have no leverage and work the sub minimum wage. this is an example of that. fifth amendment says you cannot the. these business -- cannot deduct these businesses and left it is below the minimum wage. >> if you take a look at the page from the amendment, it says that court decisions that were activitiesabout what benefited the employee versus
the employer is out the window. every interpretation and determination shall find that whatever the costs are, they principally benefit neither employer or employee, which links that legally they can all be charged against the employee. that could be a very large amount of money. wouldea that we countenance, we are going to say it is all right to bring in foreign competitors have below minimum wage. inlions of them to compete for a street, food processing, with people already doing those jobs. that is not right. the way to remedy it is to vote
for this amendment. >> this amendment is crucial. the bill is crucial but the amendment is crucial because it allows all of these deductions to create sub minimum wages. people sub to pay minimum wages even if they are foreigners. to the huge subsidy industry and it is saying to american workers, go to hell. i urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back. rep. goodlatte: the gentleman from texas is recognized.
>> i would like to thank the gentlelady from california. this bill emphasizes the thatmpetitive position american workers could be placed in and it also illustrates the harshness of this legislation then you begin to assess 2cployee recruiting fees h application filing fees, required transportation to and requiredwork site and tools and safety equipment, therefore diminishing the ultimate compensation to that employee. rep. jackson lee: let me connect
>> had to relocate and many companies provide relocation for and others.ment, you have a multimillion dollar bill on your desk because you had to move your family to this location. this diminishes any plus of a salary you are going to have. you may need a computer or construction tools and you, mr. american worker, we that a bill on your desk for tools and safety equipment. you are00 or 90,000
fortunate enough to receive puts you into the middle class in some areas. you would have to deduct that and your take on -- take home the reality below you were expecting. uniforms. h2c workersthing would have. there is question about whether that should be attributed in light of the less than stellar hourly wage they are receiving. these are skilled persons for the industry's necessities. whatake all of that and they have to deduct from their
minimal compensation, it results in a salary less than the minimum wage. this amendment of that it should not go below an federal minimum wage, and employer continues into deduct their business costs from a person generating income for their business. i support the agricultural farm industry that provides the food for america and the feed for the world but there is a situation where employers can deduct all alreadyfrom an challenged worker as it relates to income and maybe an american worker as it relates to income seems to be a sad, setting and patently unfair -- upsetting and
patently unfair. i support the lady's fair amendment. leastakes a bad bill at ight ofle to the pl compensating individuals who work very, very hard. i yield back to support the gentlelady seven. all those ine: favor respond by saying aye. the no's have it. sec. mattis: -- clerk: mr. king. mr. franks. mr. gomer. mr. gomer votes than.
mr. gutierrez. miss bass. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries votes aye. mr. lou. aye.ou votes mr. raskin. votes aye. mr. franks votes no. the gentleman from texas votes no. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> mr. buck votes no. mr. labrador votes no. >> has every member voted who wishes to vote? clerk will report.
clerk: mr. chairman, 11 members no.d aye, 18 members voted amendment inthe the nature of substitute offered by the gentleman from virginia. >> the amendment is considered as read. this amendment will accomplish several things in the bill. under my amendment, dhs will be required to verify with the state workforce agency that employers did post jobs for american workers first. this guest worker program is designed to supplement the american workforce, not replace it.
this ensures americans get the first shot at these positions. my amendment will ensure that those currently present in the united states a illegally are forbidden from receiving a h2b visa until they returned to their home country. after that, the person will continue the process of entering the country in a legal manner. of chairman, section two your amendment correctly asserts this program is designed to supplement the american workforce with guest workers who have no intention of abandoning their home country and only seek to be in the united states temporarily to perform agricultural labor and services. billmy amendment, this establishes the guest worker with workers who enter
legally. i asked my colleagues to support this amendment. and the gentlewoman would yield. i am yielding to you. what a person--what purposes with the gentleman from california have before? --rep.ckson lee: this lofgren: having the search for an american worker to do the job is a good thing. the second part is unrealistic. as i mentioned in my opening statements yesterday, and
majority of those who are undocumented and working in foreign labor have been here a very long time. majority, have families who are here. they have spouses, they have children and in some cases the cap grandchildren. -- and athat someone majority of these farmworkers have been here taking the lead as we eat in our salads for the last 15 years or more are going to come down and leave the country, abandon their families with the possibility that they might get a temporary visa. that is not going to happen. what this does is further drive underground the undocumented workforce. to come to need
grips with the situation as it is and move forward. i remember when we had a number of years ago, the witness was the president of the southern baptist convention and his testimony was this -- for years signs had tow s -- two at the southern border. the first said no trespassing and the second said help-wanted. people responded to the help-wanted sign. there were 5000 permanent resident pieces a year allocated 000 resident visas a year allocated. benefited by the hard
work of this undocumented group. we need to find a way to get this group right with the law. then we need to develop a program that provides for a workerslow of immigrant into the country for agriculture and other necessary parts of our economy in a way that protects the wages, hours and working conditions as the american workers --of the american workers. in the fall short of this. i do not intend to support it. --this amendment falls short. i do not intend to support it. aye.l those in favor say all those opposed say no. have it.es
amendment,t in the page 45. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. rep. jackson lee: i will take a brief moment to explain my amendment. it is a commonsense amendment. my amendment provides that htc h2c workers are not ineligible to receive legal services if they meet the legal aid offices eligibility criteria relating to income, place of residence -- the amendment is needed to create a level playing field. section 4 and six of the legislation says that --
these are legal forums that render decisions with legal consequences. they require a certain level of expertise. the employer will be represented by an experienced attorney specializing in the field of employment law. it is unrealistic that an h2c worker would be able to participate in arbitration proceedings without assistance at all. lawyers have compassion and understanding in representing many people who are in particular low income. my amendment would make it so workers can have the assistance of a legal aid lawyer. it is really warned his -- warranted by the standards of this committee. that is the fair process.
i asked my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. it should work for all persons, including those who come to the country under the h2c status. this is not at any cost to this bill and it is not undermine aspect of the bill that my colleagues on the other side of the isle support. rep. goodlatte: while i do not regret to any temporary agriculture worker's right to justice, i do not support using taxpayer dollars to pay attorneys that have continued to harass farmers and obstruct the relationship between employers and their workers.
there are legal service providers who operate on a pro funds supported by sources other than american taxpayers. farmers who voluntarily sign-up to have their temporary, nonimmigrant workforces regulated by the federal government should not be unfairly targeted by taxpayer funded organizations with etiological agendas. the statute itself requires lsc not engage in political activism. their efforts have been a significant factor in the decisions of many farmers to avoid using the current agricultural guestworker program at all. there are numerous examples ranging from colorado,
washington and georgia and for these reasons i urge the defeat of this amendment. the question occurs on the amendment. the different from georgia is recognized. >> ideal to the gentlelady from texas. chairman, ite: mr. know you're good values and suggesting -- i am appalled by that response. that they would not have the rights of remediation. this has nothing to do with harassing farmers in the industry. this bill says that when they are ran into remediation arbitration, they are allowed counsel. this is not think that they can stand as legal aid assistance to
help harass their employer. the bill says they will help resolve remediation of arbitration. who will be sitting across from the h2c worker? less the farmer and more his or her lawyer. why would they not have a legal aid component? i did not say a major washington law firm. i said legal aid that has been working with poor people. these individuals are probably poor and therefore would warrant some kind of response. to be able to deal with the structure you put in place. that is what we are asking. this the structure that is being bill iflace with this it gets signed into law.
right now we're passing a bill that completely extinguishes due process and takes a match to the constitution. i'm disappointed that we characterize rights of h2c forced in a mediation arbitration as harassing and not needing legal representation. these are apples and oranges. we are getting ready to open up investigations into a number of people from comey to an individual who is not president of the united states --this oversight committee is getting ready to open up past investigations regarding the secretary of state --the former secretary of state. we are not trying to understand
the distinction between separation of powers but anyone involved in investigations we are engaged in, they're going to be sure to lawyer up. my amendment is to indicate the need for that kind of decency and fairness for a person engaged in the arbitration and mediation process. i asked my colleagues to some or the amendment and with that best--i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. rep. goodlatte: all those in favor of the amendment say aye. roll.erk will call the no.k: mr. smith says king. mr. king votes no.
rep. goodlatte: are there any other members who wish to vote. if not, the clerk will report. voted aye, 15 voted no. rep. goodlatte: the amendment is not adopted. cannot -- clerk: a substitute offered by mr. johnson of georgia. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. strike twoent would sections of the bill. section four and sections six. section four prevents workers from bringing civil damages.
section six allows employers to arbitratec workers to agreements related to the employment relationship including claims relating to withheld wages and other contractual obligations. workers from bringing any claims in court against their employers. 6 are verynd onerous. they add insult to injury to a very bad bill to begin with. this amendment would help to make that a little bit better. , forcedher way arbitration provisions of section 6 as the remediation provisions --as the mediation provisions are a blatant attempt to deny nonimmigrant workers
--deny immigrant workers the right to the legal system. this is wrong for americans and wrong for workers who are immigrants from other countries and are attracted to this country for these jobs. only to find out what they were promised, which was wages, they are not going to get. p as legislation sets u horrible circumstance. oflegally ties the hands airnessnts to have fiar and assert their rights in court. i ask that this body approved this amendment. i will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. the ag act does not preclude a
h2c from bringing a civil action. it just requires that it try to settle first. the provision of the amendment would encourage parties to settle disputes before litigation. rep. smith: -- rep. goodlatte: i think this amendment is thoughtfully offered and an important one. the arbitration clause under the bill would be split equally between the employee and the employer. as we have discussed in prior amendment,, we are talking about a class of immigrant workers are going to be paid less than the federal minimum wage.
what we have here are arbitration and we all know arbiters and have friends who serve as arbiters. usually the fees are substantial. the hourly charges are going to an hour. $300 how is half of that going to be paid for by an immigrant worker earning less than minimum wage. that is not reasonable. this is an opportunity to take this group of indentured workers that no matter what happens to them, they have no opportunity to be treated
fairly. have you may be considering that in the house of representatives? e hold our heads high and the considering that -- how can we and ber heads high considering that. i think mr. johnson for his amendment. i think i would be disappointed it.e do not approve i would yield to the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much for yielding. i would like to endorse this amendment which establishes something they should be basic, intuitive, obvious and supported by everyone. people who come to the united states and are working here for the benefit of our economy have the right to legal representation.
under the system of 21st century indentured servitude that has been devised under this law, these people are coming here at a sub minimum wage without any guarantee of housing. -- rep. raskin: without family, spouses or children. they are exposed to the most extreme kind of control by their employers. started, the great tom paine said that here, in democracy, the law is king and in the authoritarian society the king is law. we're setting up a system where the boss is law. as the gentlelady from california describes, workers being cheated by the meager laws being set up by this will have to pay for expensive mediation and corporate
arbitration services they have been forced into under the regime. mr. johnson's amendment is a amendment that will only save a tiny shred of right for these people to sue in court. --i think this is something that everybody on the committee should be able to support. i yield back. rep. goodlatte: the question is on the gentleman from georgia's amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. in the opinion of the chair, the nays still have it. clerk: mr. goodlatte/ .
no. votes no., mr. smith bot mr. king? mr. gomer? mr. jordan? po. mr. marino? mr. gowdy? ? mr. labrador? mr. labrador votes no. mr. farenthold. mr. collins. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes no. no.buck, mr. buck votes mr. radcliffe. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. johnson votes no.
rep. goodlatte: are they any other members who want to be recorded? the gentleman from pennsylvania? the gentleman from iowa? k: mr. king beds n -- mr. king votes no. rep. goodlatte: the clerk will report. marino votes no. mr. chairman, 14 members voted no. 15 members votes the gentleman: from washington is recognized for an event.
clerk: amendment and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. she is recognized. >> i spoke in my last comment isut the way this bill structured, we are adding almost 2 million workers because of the cap at the way the cap are structured. amendment would limit the number of foreign guest workers who could have h2c status to a total of 450,000. let me explain what this does. i hope that reasonable people on the other side of the aisle to do not want to flood the country with 2 million located workers would support this amendment. you may 1 read this bill and come to the conclusion that only
four and 50,000 workers can come in on h2c status in one year. that is not accurate. the bill contains an escalator provision that allows the workers andfor farm the 40,000 cap for farm and poultry workers to grow. there is no cap on how the program can grow, so the number of visas could grow exponentially. --workers are allowed to stay given the bill allows employers to petition for workers. many of the 450,000 h2 c workers
will still be here working with another 495,000, due to the 2% increase, part admitted in -- increase, 10 percent are admitted in year two. this is not account for the several classes of workers who visas,alify for h2c including those who are here on h2b visas.- and two million workers, they could be 1, 2 or 3 million workers could be working in the united states at the same time. this could be a massive program authorized by the bill they could have a sweeping impact on
u.s. and immigrant workers in the country. considering the low wage protections in the bill, it would authorize employers to replace u.s. workers in large parts of the u.s. economy and so the cap is important to growing.ob losses from hard for a job to be temporary or seasonal that will be hard to fill with an american worker. full-time, year-round workers in 4th street and walking from wisconsin --workers in for a -- they- forestry from see new competition
exploitable guestworkers and left they agree to work at the same rate as the h2c's programs low wages. it is a dollars and $.32 an hour $8.32 an hour. if workers will not work for those low wages, the u.s. can declare a worker shortage and import more workers to do the same job. this could be one of the largest transfers of wealth to employers in decade and it would hurt american workers across the country. as i mentioned, i quoted frank in my last comments with the national council of agricultural employers and i think we can agree that some employers are getting what they want but i do not think it is right for american workers and i do not think it is right for the
immigrants who live here and deserve more than being treated like temporary workers when they have been feeding us for years. this is a nimble ensure the program is limited and i at a - this amendment will ensure the program is limited in size. at least it makes the size of the program transparent and i would ask that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle consider this amendment. i believe there is bipartisan concern about what this bill would do to the american workforce across the country. this amendment would clarify that it really is, whatever the number is established for that year, all of the visas in that category would be subject to the cap, not an ever-increasing supply that has no cap
whatsoever. rep. goodlatte: i recognize myself in opposition. every other temporary worker program in the ina faces the limit on the number of aliens granted visas or otherwise presented nonimmigrant status. -- rep. smith: does the gentleman from maryland once the recognized? rep. goodlatte: the chairman is recognized for five minutes. >> i wanted to write in favor of congresswoman amendment. i wanted to thank her for clearing up the confusion. all day yesterday, i felt we were talking about 450,000 and i was sent this article from democrats claim america's workers first as gop
outsources jobs. were pushingeaders the outsourcing bill, which would allow the food industry to higher 11000 and wage foreign workers. wage foreignmum workers. the congresswoman said it is cumulative. we are creating 2 million indentured servant brought here to undercut american labor and these are other -- and these are under conditions that we would not accept for any of our family members. ideal to be gentlelady from texas. i was moved bye: both the amendment and your commentary. forgive me for suggesting this
need to be a fresh me concept. hard-working american workers get replaced by victims. i do not want to call them workers. they are not guaranteed the minimum wage. they have a huge bill. they have to pay for their transportation and uniforms. they are expendable. i believe this amendment is a vital clarifying amendment on what we are really doing. i would add my support to this amendment because it looks like it is a rotating door. rotate american workers out and people willt those not stay under the circumstances either. i would like to note and read something in the bill people should focus on. employerline 17, each looking to hire u.s. workers for the job h2c workers will perform
not offer the u.s. worker the than the conditions employer will provide for h2c workers. no restrictions or obligations will be imposed on the h2c workers. oft is the complete opposite what we do to protect american workers. program, you have to make sure you're not offering le ss to the immigrant workers than the american workers. we want to make sure american wages are driven down. bwant to talk about the h2 program. agreemente bipartisan that there needed to be some
program.he h2 b several years ago we had carnivals and services that -- hadivals and circuses who specialized workers who can to work in the carnival. inhad crab sugarshuckers maryland who wanted to do the seasonal work. we had a returning worker exemption. we did not reduce the protection for those h2 b workers. we did not eviscerate the wage scale for the protections they had. bill says you can move
concerned about this. >> amendments have consequences. what i find a little bit frightening about this amendment naivete of the young lady from washington. 2 millionalize these guestworkers better here, she toposes we get that down 450,000 total. representing the largest agricultural state in the union, i find that scary to say the least and certainly not conducive to a fix but conducive to chain illegal migration. the gentlelady from san jose, if this amendment were applo
b, many would go away. --e high-tech community wi they would lose -- we have to be careful going down a road that provide less than the people currently involved in a skill set --a nonimmigrant skill set. i find it easy to vote against this. basis but also if we apply the same concept to immigration. forf the h-1b program allow paidlion coders to be three dollars an hour, i would suggest we put limitations --
replanning my time for a moment. right now we have a bipartisan h-1b bill that sets a high level for the workers. even the highest level we are trying to get would be less than the prevailing wage i would interpret for the highest skills we are trying to attract. the challenge is to get the number right against those who would want to lower the number. in the case of unskilled labor, we want to do that. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i hope if i am in a chamber as long as the distinguished gentleman from california, that i would learn to read the amendment to the one we already said no to. sidesite said no -- your said no to an amendment that would allow the undocumented immigrants to be part of the cap
as well. we're talking about having new visa entries. your statement is not correct because the current workforce of undocumented immigrants and --immigrants are not counted against this cap. c's leave, you2 would end up with only 40 50,000 slots. 450,000 ehen those h2 c's leave, ther goes the slot. this temporary workers would return to wherever there is home program.ould cap this
--this entire reason for the 410,000 is the h will eventually leave, and i think that is the challenge we face, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. issa. the german from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to strike the last. stateed up naivete, the or quality of being inexperienced, unsophisticated, artless or uncritical. i think the gentlelady is everything but that.
know, it'son't outrageous. know what it's naive? for anybody to come to my office, come and talk to me, and think this is serious, what we're doing here today. for all of you naive enough to ise here and think congress doing something productive and meaningful, that's naive, not what the gentlelady from washington proposes, and not what those of us who are proposing change for farmworkers in our country who keep our country so strong. i no longer have any use for the remainder of my time. >> thank you. question on the table is from the gentleman from washington.
mr. collins? uck.k -- boo mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliffe votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. big bets no. mr. rutherford votes no. mishandle votes no. mr. conyers votes i. the soccer and votes yes. this jackson lee votes yes. mr. cohen votes yes. mr. johnson votes yes. mr. deutsch protest. mr. gutierrez vote yes. -- mr. deutsche post yes.
mr. gutierrez votes yes. mr. cicilline? mr. swallow vote yes. mr. lee votes yes. u votes yes. mr. schneider vote yes. other members who wish to be recorded? the gentleman from florida, the gentleman from idaho, the chairman from virginia, the gentleman from pennsylvania, the .entleman from florida >> mr. collins votes no. >> the clerk will report.
13 members voted aye, 18 voted no. nays have it. the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment offered by esther nadler. -- mr. nadler. >> explain the amendment. -- thank you. >> i reserve a point of order. >> point of order has been by the gentleman from iowa. >> the bill provides that htc workers shall be afforded wages that are at least as great as
minimumicable state wage or 150% of the federal minimum wage, or 100 for some -- 150% of the federal minimum wage for people who do meat and poultry processing, and either the higher of the state or federal for everybody else. my amendment adds to that and the highest applicable state or federal minimum wage the following line bridge, or the wage paid to other services performing the same services in same geographical area and area of employment. in other words, the prevailing wage. we are told we need this bill because we cannot get american workers to do this kind of labor
, and we are told these wages will not undercut american wages. wages way below the prevailing wage for american workers in that area, then we are, by definition, bidding down labor, hauling in foreign workers to do work below the prevailing wage for american workers and lowering the wages american workers will get. this amendment simply says you the greater workers of the state or local minimum wage or the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor services in the same occupation classification and geographic area of employment. if people are working for minimum wage, that will be the prevailing wage. if people are working for much higher than that, then we should not want to reduce the wages american workers are earning. let me give you some statistics.
the minimum wage in agriculture is $8.34 an hour. when we are talking about meat is poultry processing, which under the purview of this bill, butchersge wage for and meat cutters is $15.26, for slaughters and meatpackers is $13, for fish cutters and trimmers is $12.27, and all .thers is $12.40 those who earn between could bed $15.26 undercut by $8.34. the average wage for equipment operators is $18.39. workers, $15.on
for all other logging workers, $19 50 cents. we are now saying people who earn $19.50 an hour will be facing competition from labor earning $8.34 an hour. why would we want to do this? if we have, as we are told, work in this country that needs to be done, which american workers will not do, ok, maybe we need an agricultural guestworker program. but we should not bring in forcultural guest workers work american workers will do and do do, and permit payment of wages much lower than what americans are paid because then we are placing american workers -- withign workers foreign workers making much lower wages or forcing american
workers to work for lower wages. people brought in should be paid the applicable state and local saysum wage, what the bill , or the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor services in the same occupational classification and geographic area of performance, whatever people are already being paid. foreignay that wage to workers and still find the necessity of bringing in foreign workers because american workers won't do it, fine. but if american workers will do work for this amount work for f money, then you shouldn't bring in foreign workers to do the work for less money. let me also ask unanimous consent to amend the amendment with the word the. >> without objection, the
amendment will include the words he at the appropriate place. at the appropriate place. i recognize myself to object to the amendment. bill requires that workers be paid 115% of the federal minimum wage or the statement of my wage, or the actual wage paid to workers in the same job, whichever is greatest, so they are protected. are there other members who wish to be heard? >> mr. chairman. isthe gentleman from iowa recognized. >> i withdraw my point of order. examine this. as i understand the bill, if there is a standard wage that under this bill, you
would still have to pay $15 and thege an hour, and gentleman from new york disagrees with me, but i wanted to pose the question to him, and i wanted to ask you also if the gentle men would yield to a question, where do you determine how is that determined, the prevailing wage in meatpacking plants, for example? , onf you look at the bill provisions provides to guarantee the market wage. but look at the language from line 20 forum page 17 through line 13 on page 18. i will read it to you. it says each employer petitioning for htc workers under this subsection will offer the htc workers wages that are at least the greatest of one,
the applicable state or local minimum wage, 2, 100 15% of the federal minimum wage, or 150% in the case of those who work in , or or poultry processing the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals on the job. --are adding, the average actual wage level paid by the employer, not necessarily the prevailing wage or the market wage. we are clarifying that in the amendment by saying the average wage paid to other individuals performing laborers or services in the same occupational classification and geographic area of employment. this bill may have made an attempt to say that. it says the actual wage level paid by the employer, the particular employer. >> reclaiming my time.
the determination of this scale, according to urine and men, would be made how, by what agency -- according to your amendment, would be made how and by what agency? >> the statistics i read and the , wherenation generally the statistics come from, are made by the bureau of labor statistics based on information supplied by the employers. not by one employer, but by a whole group. zone,region, by state, by how? >> by region, by metropolitan statistical area. the amendment says geographic area, which would be the same thing. >> i thank the gentleman for his response. it's my understanding the bill does attempt to do that. it's a bit of a detail here. positionant to take a
on this amendment, but i want clarification from the author of the amendment. i appreciate the attention and i yield back the balance of my time. is recognized. >> move to strike. in favor of the gentleman from new york's, which does not only what is right but what a lot of members thought the bill already did. the american labor movement does not oppose immigration. it opposes immigration on unfair terms where the workforces to try to from abroad undercut the wages, benefits, and working conditions of american employees. so the commitment of the american labor movement has always been to say that people working in america should not be used to drag down other people's wages and benefits, but should have the same rights as american
workers do. bill is a this monstrosity from the standpoint of the rights to wages and thefits of workers, but at very least, we have to pass this amendment because his amendment is targeting the effort to use this legislation precisely to undercut the wages of american workers. wages we don't have the for the new indentured servant class meet the prevailing wage in the industry in the metropolitan area we are talking about, it will exert that profound downward drag on the wages of american workers. i think this is why these hearings have attracted the notice of right part, which i never read before, but people itbart,en sending -- bre which i have never read before, but people have been sending to me.
they have no interest in the conditions of people brought in, but they have an interest in the american workers conditions. >> mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the mmn -- amendment and yield to the gentleman from new york. >> thank you for yielding. to clarify for the general men from iowa. -- gentleman from iowa. why the language in the bill does not do the job. even if the going wage for a an area in an area, the employer can recruit workers at a much lower rate if he currently employs no one at
all or has one or two workers at the lower rate. this would allow unscrupulous employers to drive down wages for all because it does not say the area.ling wage in this effectively allows an employer to avoid the wage requirement if he seeks to bring in guest level workers. for example, a logging company would be able to recruit an experienced loggers at $8.34 an loggersn if experienced were making $20 an hour. he could bring in an inexperienced logger and keep these people on it $8.34. ist we do in the amendment
what the intent, i assume, of the inadequate light which of the bill does. we say -- language of the bill does. we say you have to pay what the bill mentions or the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor services in the same occupational classification and geographical area of employment. that covers it and i think it covers the intent or may of been the intent -- i don't know if it's just not properly drafted, or if it was the intent to look good but not be real. >> with the general and yield? >> yes. i make a note that this is a very good amendment and you can equivalent at an type of situation in the h-1b program, where you have an actual wage provision that is never enforced because you can never find out, or you can
create a situation where, say this job is job next, unlike job why. y.unlike jonb the surveys work because it's a multi employer survey. it's transparent. there are options, either the department of labor decided wage or the survey decided wage. actually, i think the employer survey is more transparent and the department of labor figure, but you can see it and enforce it. the provisions -- again, i don't know what the motive was. there's no point speculating. would it be your position that under the base language in the bill that we have today that there could be a meat processing plant that starts at $15 an hour
. you could shut that plant down, do a remodeling, bring it back on line at $8.34 if they could find the employees? >> yes, and i would go further. under the language of the bill, they would not have to shut the plant down. they could just bring in new workers at $8.34 and fire the $20 workers. >> i am not convinced on that analysis, but on the first one, it seems the language is open to that. >> if the intent is that you don't want to import foreign workers to undercut existing , then whether or not the existing language of the bill is adequate, my amendment does the fromnd is unobjectionable any other point of year. if the gentleman from iowa will look at page 16 line 17, basically, you are saying you
don't have to pay your american workers anymore than you would pay an hc worker. meatpacking example you have given, you create position a that is different than all the other meatpacker positions. offery i am going to americans the same amount i am workers,the h2 c federal minimum wage minus the deductions. then you could layoff off the other workers. you are not prohibited from doing that in this bill. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. all in favor? a post? -- opposed? in the opinion of the chair, the
.r. snyder votes aye >> are there other members who wish to be recorded? the gentleman from wisconsin? the gentleman from south carolina? >> mr. gary votes no. >> -- gowdy votes no. mr. ratcliffe votes no. mr. king votes aye. not recorded. votes aye. mr. deutsch votes aye. >> the clerk will report. are there other members who wish to be recorded? >> mr. good love votes no.
>> clerk will report. >> 12 voted aye. 18 voted no. have it.ys the gentleman for illinois is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. report theill amendment. >> substitute to the amendment offered by mr. gutierrez. >> considered red. >> point of order. >> point of order against the amendment.
>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i offer my amendment as a substitute to the bill now being considered before the committee so that it is replaced with the agricultural, the worker act which identities in may and which 69 of my colleagues have joined as cosponsors. i have had the honor of meeting farmworkers across this country for the last 20 years. i know their work. i know they have backbreaking conditions in many instances and is vital to americans everywhere. they literally make eating food possible and we should appreciate that every single day. they do it knowing they in their family are at risk of arrest and deportation because we do not have the legal system that provides avenues to them to come to this country to work. it would be shameful to pass legislation that fails to
provide these workers a reliable immigration status. this flies in the face of offering hard-working undocumented immigrants away to fully integrate -- integrate into our society. the republican rules are based on the old model of guest workers that have not worked well for employers and especially not for the workers. under zero public and proposal, the workers are not people, families, or potentially americans. -- under the republican proposal, the workers are not people, families, or potentially americans. rather, they are disposable. because it is a temporary worker program, workers with years of ties to their communities would have no stability and no chance to become a member of the society they feel and wish to help. and feed. the chairman's bill would tear families apart as it fails to provide any opportunity -- >> apparently somebody wishes to
offer a comment. >> the committee is not in order. >> the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. many with u.s. citizen family members would have no stability and no chance to become a part of the society they help to feed . this bill fails to provide any opportunity to obtain immigration status. harsh andrticularly runs contrary to the testimony we received in this committee in july when we invited farm owners to describe their seasonal workers who return year after year as farmers and his family. and the workers who come under this program will have no rights men and women. their presence will be at the discretion of their employers. they will have zero ability to
stand up for themselves and would be 100% disposable and replaceable. this is not good for the individuals in the program, obviously, but it is not good for anyone else working in the agricultural sector either. this is the worst kind of turn and burn guestworker program we could think of from a workers .oint of view those who want docile, replaceable workers are starting to get on board. when immigrants are under attack, we have to find a way to offer them safety, security, and legality, not just for them and their families, although that is important, but for their coworkers, their supply chain, the american food industry, and employers who are held accountable to our laws. the amendment i am offering is the choice for illegal immigration and a functioning visa program so that our working men and women are protected by employerslaws and our
are in full compliance. we have chosen as a nation not to do that. we know that foreign hands will touch our food. the question for america is whether we want those foreign this to grow our food in country or another country. the choice is whether we want our food grown and produced under our laws for food safety and workplace safety or someone else's. >> i want to commend the gentleman for his leadership in introducing the agricultural worker program act and offering it as an amendment to this bill. i had an opportunity to meet about the billrs a chance tond i had ask them what they think of this bill. they likes bill --
this bill. this would solve problems that face the agriculture sector, except that we have a terrible bill instead that we are considering that would not solve the problem. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i commend him for the amendment. >> thank you so much. >> this is offered in substitute to the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. this is similar to various proposals that have had various names including adding jobs. jobs. because this offers amnesty for
people who are not lawfully present in the united states and provides them with a pathway to citizenship, the net effect is to do what has happened in the past when amnesty has been granted, and that is to take huge numbers of workers away from american agriculture, because once you have a green card, you can go anywhere and do thehing that is lawful in united states, any job offer, even start your own business. it is not address the problem of a lack of sufficient number of american workers on american farms. therefore, i must strongly oppose this amendment. >> i want to talk about why this solve the actually problem the committee is marking up.
the agricultural industry relies on more than a million undocumented farmworkers, more than half of the crop workers in the country. this has been a situation that has accumulated over time. it is the product of a need that our immigration system, coupled with previous -- although not current -- we can force meant of immigration at the border. undocumented workers came to the u.s. to meet an economic demand without their papers because there was no way to do it with papers, so we now have a million people who have worked here, in .ome cases for decades the surveys we have indicate that a majority of individuals have been here for more than 15 years, have families, have
spouses, have children, some have grandchildren. they live here. mean, my out, i district is primarily urban, a little bit agriculture, but i take the time to meet with farmers, with strawberry growers , with people in the central valley who cut and dry apricots, down in salinas with people who .row crops one thing farmers always tell me is who they want as their workforce, beat -- is their current workforce, because their current workforce knows how to do the job. i couldn't do this right off the street. of thisd any member committee. it is a skilled job and the people who are doing it know how to do it. what this bill does is recognize people, make sure the
who are here undocumented have a chance to get right with the law, not be exploited, to be paid and protected by the laws of the united states. then it recognizes that we will have a future flow, a future need for farmworkers, and it .rovides for that as well that is a rational, workable solution this committee should look at. it would not, as the chairman , encourage undocumented immigration. in fact, the bill before us will, should it ever become law, which i doubt, would be a pathway for undocumented into the country. for the life of me, i can't imagine why someone who is offered a below minimum wage would come to the u.s. and less ess the real reason was
just a come to the u.s. and disappear into the woodwork, cheaper than paying a coyote. i think the amendment is pragmatic. it solves the problem, unlike the underlying bill. i would just like to note that the provisions in the underlying bill are completely unworkable. if you are here undocumented and you have children, grandchildren , you are not going to step , ditch your family, and go to another country you might not of been to for a couple of decades with the chance you might get a temporary visa. you are going to stay undocumented. this bill we are marking up does nothing about that. it is really a very distressing circumstance that we would be the kind oft
serfdom being imposed by the underlying bill, and i thank the gentleman for a -- from illinois a rationalng alternative for our consideration. i yield back. >> i also want to commend my colleague from illinois for his work on putting together this bill and for offering it as an amendment. be great to have a hearing on the bill before us so we could talk about all the ways it does not solve the problem. we have been having to bring that up through our amendments. i suppose it is naive to imagine we would be having a hearing on affects anl that
incredibly big part of our agricultural industry across the country. i wanted to ask for unanimous consent to introduce into the record and op-ed i wrote with representative marshall from kansas called working across the aisle to solve problems with our broken immigration system. thank you. i would like to quote from that article. there is very little people might see we have in common from kansas's first district and washington's seventh district, but i wanted to read a piece on kansas. we want to help the kansas agricultural -- you buys and groceries depend on immigrant labor. calling this work in kansas or washington low skilled is a misnomer. if you were to tour farms throughout kansas or washington,
you would witness labor that is physically demanding and requires a talent that is only perfected over years of practice. i think this goes to the point this locker and was making. krin was making. as new members, we came to washington to do what is right for our neighbors. we are not a me into politics, but we are closer than most to the needs of our dish we are not we are not immune to politics, but we are closer than most of the needs of our districts. we must tell the truth. in the end, we saw the same thing. immigrants are a vital part of america's past and our future, and without the help of these folks, our economies and our communities would not make it. mr. gutierrez's amendment recognizes the truth of that.
instead of proposing a system that essentially would lead to , itntured servitude envisions a system that recognizes the value of year-round skilled agricultural red andat our states, blue, across the country would benefit from, and those of you who are in this industry should are doingthat what we with this bill is destroying the american workforce and ensuring that we have a second class permanent second-class of citizens across the country. sometimes that might earn wages , butght dollars and $.34 tracking all of the expenses, might earn one dollar or two dollars. how is that possible for people on both sides of the aisle to even vote for or contemplate? i really don't understand that. if that is naive, as my
distinguished colleague from california suggests, then perhaps we should all go back to being naive and fight for our constituents and fight for the rights that make this country great. that is not what is in this bill, and i thank the gentleman from illinois for his amendment and i strongly support it. >> with the gentlewoman yield? wrecks i would be happy to. >> thank you. i don't know that the definition of naive is as broad or as narrow as i would have made it, but one thing i would like the gentlelady to answer for me, your side of the out continues to talk about wages below minimum wage, serfdom, and so on, but is or anything you know of under u.s. law that would be different than what sin this ill? in other words -- what is in this bill? in other words, if i go to a job in a field as a u.s. citizen, there is nothing that stops me from having to pay the cost of getting to that job. i don't understand why that
provision keeps getting referred to as if it is going to cause below minimum wage. an employer doesn't have to pay butme to get to the job that revision seems to be in question. -- provision seems to be in question. from the reporting place to the field, if that is not understood to be an employer responsibility, i am happy to ensure this bill would insure it would be. but getting to your original place, showing up where the bus is on the field, my understanding is the u.s. up therethat show today and the undocumented workers that show up there today do that at their own expense. exempts the h2 c workers from the protection of .he fair labor standards act
if you are an american worker, you cannot have your required health care, transportation costs, uniform, equipment, deducted from your salary so that it goes below minimum wage. bill, you could do that to immigrant workers. there is a very profound difference in how workers would be treated. i think the gentlelady for yielding. >> thank the gentlewoman. let me just say that we had an opportunity for your side to vote for an amendment that would wages below federal minimum wage in your side turned that amendment down. by that, i can only assume you do want to in fact to change the standards we have for all other workers in this country by exempting these workers. if you didn't want to change those standards, you should have voted for that amendment. maybe we should bring it up again so you can vote for the amendment. right now, you are asking for a
standards.he current i want to be clear that that is what the bill does. our amendments have consistently put forward ways to make the bill a little bit better and your side has consistently turned him down. i yield back. >> the gentleman from illinois. all those in favor? those opposed? the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. roll call is requested. [roll call] mr. issa votes no. mr. king votes no. mr. jordan.
mr. po. mr. marino. mr. marino votes no. mr. dowdy. -- gowdy. mr. labrador. mr. farenthold. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. ovy votes no. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. rutherford votes no. miss handle votes no. mr. conyers votes aye. ms. jackson lee. mr. cohen. mr. johnson of georgia. votes aye.
voted no.ye, 20 >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the amendment in the nature .f a substitute >> the amendment is considered as read. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment is similar to the amendment offered by my friend from new nadler, but it is targeted to a specific industry, logging. supporter of mr.
nadler's amendment. i want to bring attention to the specific issue of logging. the median pay for logging workers last year was $37,590 a of $18.07 anage hour. typical education at entry level is a high school diploma or equivalent. inre is a 7% decline from thet predicted current roughly 55,000 jobs in the united states. quite as me to wonder
bit about the provisions in this bill that go from a temporary, seasonal program in agriculture to a year-round permanent more thanat includes agriculture, including logging, manufacturing, food processing, and the like. these logging jobs are, you know, when i talk to some of the members who represent logging areas, what they are saying is they don't have a shortage of loggers, they have a shortage of .ogs for their loggers to log so we are actually, in this to pay aing it easy very low amount per hour to foreign workers to come in and displace american workers in an area where there is not a suchage, where the pay is
that you can achieve or aspire a middle-class lifestyle based on your logging job, one of those jobs where you have to work hard , with a high school diploma, you can support yourself and your family. why we would one to -- want to bring in who knows how many hundreds of thousands workers to displace americans is be on me. in, as was mentioned earlier the discussion on mr. now blurs amendment, the provisions -- mr. amendment, the provisions and protections in the bill don't actually work. let me pose this scenario. x inave logging company texas. they have no employees because they were really set up as a hire h2 c workers at
five dollars an hour to log in washington state. that would be quite easy to do under this bill, so good luck to the american loggers in washington when that happens. create logger job a in a , and you have one employee, and you have played that employee pursuant to the provision where you have to offer the employee -- paid that employee, pursuant to the provision where you have to offer the employee what you pay $8.34 aners, to wit, hour. that certainly a lot less than $18 an hour for a quick
operators and conservation equipment operators, and conservation workers at $15 an hour. i don't think what we are doing here is right. i think the loggers of america will take great offense at being by underpaid, poorly treated, really, oppressed workers from other parts of the world, and this amendment will prevent that from happening. i strongly urge its adoption and, seeing the my time has expired, yield back the balance of my time. >> i recognize myself in opposition. the act restores the forces of the free market to the guestworker system in the united states. having a legal and mobile workforce in the agriculture industry means employers will have to compete to attract the most reliable and skilled labor.
the bill intentionally gives farmers and ranchers freedom to set the terms of employment on their operations while requiring that they do for fill the promises they offered to guest workers. the shadows will be drawn to the most favorable benefits and working conditions. a do not need to go back to system that is similar to the so-called adverse effect wage rate that exist under current h2 a program. for that reason, i oppose the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i just listened carefully to what you just said, and the second you said you want to give employers the ability to hire foreign workers at a mutually agreeable wage rate. agreeable to the foreign workers and to the employer. but you did say that we don't to have those wages
undercut american existing wages , because those wages, though mutually agreeable to desperate people coming in from mexico and employers who want to pay sub minimum wages, and meeting at least the minimum wage requirement minus deductions, may very well, and will often be, and in this case certainly will become, much lower than payinge employers are american workers. so, this provision, in the amendment, seems tocifically designed undercut american wages and to reduce those wages so that cutters who are now getting $18 anhour will now get $8.34 hour, and that may be mutually agreeable. , mutually agreeable between desperate people being brought into a foreign country who can only earn three dollars
in a foreign country that can undercut american workers now running 16 dollars or 17 -- now earning $16 or $17 is frankly and him noxious result. -- an obnoxious result. by amendment earlier, this similarly, limited in scope to loggers here, would simply say that you cannot pay workers less than the rate of pay you already pay -- not you, particularly -- but that is tong paid in the area american workers. if you're not saying that, you are really saying this is a bill designed to undercut american wages for the benefit of growers who want to pay sub standard wages. that's in a noxious result. -- and him noxious result.
result.noxious this bill is simply a bill to, among other things, subvert and reduce american wages, because theonly reference to minimum wage in the bill is the wage in the area. >> those in favor? opposed? the nose have it. roll call is requested. >> mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. smith. mr. shabbat votes no. mr. issa votes no. votes no. mr. frank's votes no. mr. gomer. mr. jordan. mr. po. mr. marino.
mr. gowdy. mr. labrador. mr. farenthold votes no. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliffe votes no. rovey five to know. mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson votes no. mr. biggs votes no. mr. rutherford votes no. mr. conyers votes yes. mr. nadler votes yes. ms. offering votes yes. miss jackson lee. mr. cohen. mr. johnson of georgia. mr. deutsch. mr. gutierrez.
>> the amendment is not agreed to. >> i have a naive amendment at the desk. page amendment to hr 4092, 21 after line 17, insert the following. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. >> thank you very much. of myk the naivete colleagues from the state of washington, who is a experienced community organizer, maybe spreading. i'd even give my amendment a name. i would like to call it the "no room at the inn" amendment, through the beasts of burden act we are considering today. my amendment i suppose is naive
because i thought there were some values that still unify us as americans across party lines. one of the letter -- one of them is if we're going to bring in an immigrant workforce, effectively 21st century indenturedis if w'g servants, and we are going to pay them a sub minimum wage, before you start deducting with abandon for the cost of their equipment and tools, uniforms and health insurance and so on, at the very least you should give them a bed to sleep in. one of the few limited workers is the requirement that employers housing to agricultural
guestworkers who are laboring on their farms. this protection is extremely importantskills, and transportad under this bill, even to spouses and children. many farmworkers will end up in substandard conditions, or even homeless, but certainly living in squalor under the explicit terms of this legislation. the conditions in which farmworkers live -- in case you don't really care about the farmworkers themselves -- have implications not only for their health, but our food safety. farmworkers that do not have basic access to sanitation needs, such as clean waters, showers, bathing, and laundry facilities, cannot report to work with clean clothing and clean hands.
many farmworkers will report to work sick with communicable diseases given the substandard conditions they will be forced into. mr.many farmworkers will reporto work sick with communicable chairman, only amendment -- all my amendment does natively is to ensure that the protections in the program for workers, the requirement that employers provide housing for agricultural guestworkers laboring on their farms, be carried over and applied. we will restore the room at the inn for workers that come here for no other purpose than to come and work on the funds, to take the strawberries and pick the vegetables and fruits that we depend on. if we going to have cheap labor immigration, let's not push a good joke too far. peoplet least give these a place to sleep in.
>> gentleman recognizes himself in a position to the amendment. this is a problem with the current>> h2a program that adds tremendous cost to this issue because you have seasons workers going through one area. that former has to provide housing to the workers. they moved to another, that farmer has to provide housing. they can't provide effective housing for a few weeks out of a year. it seems to me this is much better addressed through the free market. the laborers will be able to demand wages that will allow them to find the housing that affordable,at is
and i think that is much better than this requirement. some of them moved from place to place. affordable, and i think that is much better than this requirement. some of them moved from place to place. some of them have a motor vehicle, an rv or something that they live in. there are lots of different ways people meet their needs for housing, and for the government itbe prescribing this as affordable, and i think that is much bettere from having the opportunity to participate in a workable program like the h2 program will be, because the overwhelming majority of agriculture today does not use the h2 program. therefore those workers find housing. i think it is much better that they work in this country legally under the program, and that is why i opposed this amendment. >> first the gentlewoman of california. >> i would like to speak in favor of this amendment. if you take a look, just think back to the rural areas in your
state, and think about how much rental housing is available in those rural areas. people come to grips with the fact that often times, especially in rural areas, rental housing is not always abundant, nor is it affordable. usually landlords are going to want a long-term commitment rather than some kind of short-term two-week seasonal period. you end up with farmworkers that are sleeping in the field, sleeping by the side of the road without sanitation. it is not a healthy situation. requires theaw provision of housing to h2a and h2b proponents. i have sometimes heard complaints about this as well. advisedwe would be well
to take a look at how we can make this work better. if you look at the associations that exist under this h2c program, if it ever becomes law, associations will be able to hire these people to keep them continuously employed. you are talking about permanent workers with no housing. it may be that we could provide a role for those associations in the provision of housing. to say that the market is going to work is just not the case. these are people that are learning below the federal minimum -- earning below the federal minimum wage, to go out and pay a premium for a short-term rental. that is not going to happen. i think this is a good amendment, because it keeps us where we are today without creating the problems that would exist. they are real.
we all know about the listeria withdrawal of vegetables we are facing right now. from lack it wasn't of housing, because california has an aggressive housing program. it was a field that was contaminated. you end up with contamination in the product. the recall will cost the grower a lot more than having some housing. the housing i have seen, when i have gone out to farms, it is not the ritz. dsremember going to corn fiel in new york, and there was basically a bunk for men, another bunkin new for women. when i visited the strawberry fields in california, there were
mobile homes used for farmworkers. when it comes to the h2b program, there are usually trailers. and the employees are also in trailers. you are going city to city every third day. i would be happy to guilt. -- happy to yield. >> let me ask you a question. if we are invited to believe that the free market will take care of it and that these workers will find their way in the local housing market or in a car, whatever it might be -- two questions. one, does that put real burdens on the housing market? there have been complaints in lots of jurisdictions, including myone, does that put real distrr immigrants are being loaded up in apartment buildings. many being packed in because they are paying for the right to fall asleep, and spend the rest
of the day working. if some of the house and already exists, and we will undercut that protection, is there anything to stop an employer from saying, we have this makeshift rustic bunk -- is there anything that would stop them from saying, we will rent you this space and make a deduction from your constantly shrinking wage? rep. lofgren: you are constantly right. the other provisions of the bill allow for deductions for transportation and housing. you could charge what you have been previously required to provide, absolutely. when you are talking about ag, these are generally remote areas. situation you described i think tends to be more in urban areas where you have workers. the foodtalk about industry, oftentimes
that is close to an urban area, and you would have the phenomena that you described. i think the amendment that you offered is the right thing to do. it is the status quo. it may be that we can improve this. years ago there was funding for farmworker housing that did help. california stepped up to that. everybody is better off -- not only the farmers, the farmworkers, honestly the neighbors of these forms don't want homeless farmworkers sleeping by the side of the road either. and finally the consumer wants healthy products because there is adequate sanitation. it is a good amendment. i hope to vote for it and i thank you for offering it. i yield back. >> question occurs on the amendment offered by maryland. responded by saying aye. the amendment is not agreed to.
recorded vote is requested. votes no.tte mr. issa. mr. king votes no. jordan? no.marino votes mr. gowdy votes no. mr. labrador votes no. mr. collins votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana -- >> before members leave, after this vote series, we will continue to mark up. >> mr. johnson votes no.
>> has every member voted that wishes to vote? clerk will report. voted aye, 17rs voted no. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. >> the house judiciary committee continued its markup hearing of two immigration policy bills. in this portion, members offer amendments to the agricultural guestworker act. >>