Desk. Clerk will read the amendment. We will find it here, hang on. We are waiting. We shall return momentarily. While we are waiting on the gentleman from texas, we will go to the gentleman from rhode island. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. Eliminating tax incentives for foreign guest workers for seasonal jobs, as well as yearround jobs for u. S. Workers. The agricultural guestworker act is enacted, disappointed of cap Cultural Workers is all but guaranteed given the outrageously low levels of outrageously low wages and a bill. U. S. Workers will also lose jobs outside of the traditional Agricultural Sector because this bill cuts wages in for street and locking, poultry and meat forestry and logging, poultry and meat processing. These workers will face huge wage cuts. This act rewards some employers tha with tax break. Guestworkers are currently exempt from paying the current Social Security taxes. By employing a guest worker intent of a u. S. Worker, and employer will unfairly avoid paying 10 of the tax obligations. This Tax Exemption creates a huge monetary incentive to hire such foreign Seasonal Workers over u. S. Workers. This Tax Exemption creates a huge monetary incentive to hire higher such foreign Seasonal Workers over u. S. Workers. This act takes a step by requiring employers to save into a trust fund for the administration and enforcement of the newly created h2c program. The requirement to pay into the trust fund does not apply to temporary or seasonal jobs, nor does it apply to employers hiring guestworkers for yearround jobs in cheap hurting and goat herding. Herding and goat herding. Employers should not receive an unfair advantage for certain h2c workers, that would also displace u. S. Workers. My amendment would remove this tax intensive this text incentive. As the Ranking Member sent, there is no question this bill allows employers to bring in millions of new guestworkers without real wage protections, labor protections, or even the minimal protections found in Worker Programs. It will certainly disadvantage u. S. Workers and displays many. And displace many. At the very least we should not create a tax incentive to achieve those terrible objectives. With that, i yield back. Employers payment of one to certain texas designed to ensure that employers only higher guestworkers to fulfill yearround jobs as a last resort. Alternately there is no dispute that a significant later shortage exists. This would be a significant burden for employers in those industries. Under the status quo in california, farms are facing employee shortages. The California Farm Bureau announced the results of the survey, showing 69 of those surveyed experiencing labor shortfalls. Despite the efforts of california farmers to hire on their operations, they cannot find enough willing qualified employees. The California Farm Bureau president said farmworkers have been offered more yearround jobs. They have tried to mechanize operations. Employee shortages persist. The labor status quo is unsustainable for american agriculture, and this amendment would continue to do harm to that. The gentlelady from california. Rep. Lofgren i think this is a reasonable approach, and cost of ofsince the administering this program is not addressed directly in the legislation. There is no additional fees that i can see provided for in the bill. It does provide a further disincentive to hire americans. Cicilline pointed out, it would not solve all the other but its in the bill, does something useful and provides funds for an administration that would be hopeful and useful. With but it does something that, unless mr. E wants additional time, i would be happy to yield. I want to respond to the comments made in opposition to the amendment. While the labor shortages interesting, this amendment is to simplyded intended to invent to subsidize the loss of american jobs and incentivize the hiring of temporary workers. Rep. Lofgren reclaiming my time, as the chair of the California Democratic convention, and someone who meets with the california ag wi th great frequency, there is a labor shortage in the Agricultural Industry in california. This bill is not the way to fix it. Endmentrez am that was voted down on partyline vote would be a more sensible approach. I think if this bill gets out of committee, will never become law. I am hopeful we can revisit the ag jobs bill. The bipartisan effort has always been bipartisan. The issue is real in the ag sector. Cicilline wants additional time, i would be happy to yield back. Anyone seeking further time . All those in favor say aye. The nos have it. Recorded vote is requested. Lerk mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Smith. Mr. Savitz votes no. Mr. Gomert. Mr. Poe. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Gates. Mr. Johnson of louisiana votes no. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Conyers . Nadler votes aye. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Gutierrez. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Aye. Chneider votes and the chairman votes no. Lerk mr. Goodlett mr goodlatte votes no. Mr. Conyers votes aye. Mr. Lambert were votes no. No. R. Labrador votes clerk will report. Clerk nine members voted aye, 13 members voted no. Rep. Goodlatte for a purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition . Clerk will report the amendment. H242. A substitute to rep. Goodlatte the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for five amendments. This recognizes the fundamental difference between meatpacking jobs and agricultural fill workers. It is a most regularly recognized that field labor is performed by illegal aliens, with some estimates exceeding 80 . Yet there are Many American workers and refugees and other legal immigrants who work in meatpacking. These jobs have been historically high paying. I will make sure that nothing in the bill can give employers an incentive to hire guestworkers over domestic meatpackers, or dissuade americans from seeking these times. This amendment makes sure for those area of the country where meatpackers are and above the state and federal minimum wage, employers seeking h2c meatpackers must pay them no less than the prevailing minimum wage. In idaho, the meatpacking wages over 30,000. An experienced skilled meatpacker has an average ways of over average wage of over 36,000. This wage standard is not appropriate for the different field of unskilled seasonal fieldworkers. It is inappropriate for meatpacking jobs. This amendment provides only entrylevel meatpacking jobs are eligible for the h2c program. The killing of livestock and the breaking down of their carcasses. This amendment will close the program to more skilled meatpacking work, providing those jobs for American Workers. This amendment provides if there is not enough demand each year to reached the 40,000 cap on the number of meatpackers that can be granted h2c status, the cap for next year can fall below 40,000. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect american meatpackers and their highly paid jobs. I think this is a good amendment, and i support it. Will the gentleman yield . The amendment also looks good to me. I am curious whether he would support making the exact same provisions applicable across the board in the legislation. Rep. Farenthold the shortage of workers is most of these in the seasonal most obvious and seasonal agriCultural Workers. This includes meatpackers, which isnt the same situation. Would you support application of the same protections that you want for meat and poultry processing for loggers . Rep. Farenthold i am trying to keep this as narrow as possible. If that is something you are interested in doing, that is your purview. Highyield to the gentlelady from california. Looking at this, it appears we are playing the state and local minimum wage. Really the only thing that is different than the underlying bill is the prevailing wage level for the occupational classification of employment, which would essentially be level one salary data under the existing immigration nationality act. Would that be correct . Rep. Farenthold i believe so. As i read this, it does not deal with the underlying problem, which is that the fair labor standards act has been suspended, and you can deduct as find toenses as you can lower the wage below these levels. Rep. Farenthold reclaiming my time, the difference is these meatpacking jobs had a fixed location, typically in a more urban area than say agriCultural Workers that move around from farm to farm in far more rural areas. Rep. Lofgren i understand that. If i could continue, for example , in victoria, texas, a metropolitan area, level one wage is nine dollars and . 28 hour. 23 an these travel to the United States, uniforms, and equipment which you can legally do under this bill, you can get well below the fair labor standards, the federal minimum wage. Rep. Farenthold reclaiming my time. I represent victoria, texas. The meatpackers have told us this is not going to affect how they work within the fair labor standards act. I see i am already 10 seconds over. Rep. Lofgren then i will ask for time. I would like to strike the last word. As i mentioned, and i take this out because it is the authors district, this is from the department of labor, office of foreign labor certification. 9. 28 anel one wage is hour. 15 of the federal wage is 8. 34 an hour, so it is not that much if you go to level one. If you take a look at what can be deducted, it is not just the issue, if that is an but it is the tools and the notion of trimmers under the regulation. To provideand tools regular cutting of meat and seafood. The tools can be offset against the wage. Es and transportation to the unitedes and transportationo the United States can be offset against the fees, to bring it below the federal minimum wage. If i could finish, i would be happy to do so. I understand the gentleman wants , butotect the meat cutters this amendment doesnt actually do it. I therefore think it should not be supported. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from maryland. That was precisely my question. If i get the import of what youre saying, the seven is saying that a prevailing wage the newve to be paid to agricultural guestworkers brought under this program. In reality, because there can be these deductions and expenses made for things like tools, and andpment, transportation to from the source country, in fact they will be paying a lot less because those will be deducted from American Workers. The purpose is to create within the limited category of meat and youltry processing, parit between the new guestworkers and American Workers. It doesnt accomplish that and it is completely illusory. Rep. Lofgren that is my point. I would like to note also there is no prohibition in this bill for firing people who have these jobs now. Atif you have someone who is level three or four wage, they are earning 26,000 a year. You could fire them, and you could replace them with a h2c an hourho earns 9. 28 less. Hour, less the tools and uniforms. You could be firing 26,000 a year people, and replacing them with five dollar an hour people, and there is no protection against that, even with was to amendment. Even with this amendment. Therefore if we really want to create parity within the meat and poultry processing labor sector, we would like to nullify the subsection from the fair labor standards act so those deductions could not be made. Rep. Lofgren we had an amendment to do that earlier which was defeated on a partyline vote. I would be happy to yield. Typically in these first stage meat processing, the employer provides the uniform. There is a fair amount of cleaning and sanitation associated with that. The requirement to buy a uniform just doesnt fit. There are typically these deductions within this industry. It is wellestablished deductions from pay can bring people below minimum wage. Health insurance costs bring people below minimum wage. Rep. Lofgren that is not correct. The fair labor standards act protects people against falling below the minimum wage. I would also note that just because there has been a past practice in an industry does not mean when you change the law, that practice continues. Im going to assume you have talked to wonderful employers in your district who have no intention of abusing their employers. We all know people like that in our districts. They are going to be competing with people who are willing to do things that they are do. Lling to so in the end, this will be a race to the bottom. Even the good employers will have to change their practices if they want to remain competitive. Do. I appreciate the interest in this bill. I understand the intent of this amendment. I wish we will continue to look ahead at the issues being faced by these industries. The chair man has done good work here. I will support him in this, but i also believe there is a need to look at this as we go further, not just limiting this to a certain segment. Gentlemanshe concerns, but i also think this has been carefully vetted. I want to respond to a couple things alleged on the other side. First of all, the employers could fire workers and higher people under this program. That is a violation of current law, and a violation of the law under the new h2c program, where the employer has to certify that they cannot find u. S. Citizens to fill the job. That is not correct. Secondly, these are jobs that above theerably minimum wage. They still cant find workers for these two positions, by the way this amendment narrows to t hose two positions working on the kill floor, and the separation of the carcasses. Just the description of those jobs indicates how hard it would be to find workers to fill those positions. The pay is going to be substantially higher. These numbers that the gentle included ares has the minimum. The prevailing wage will be well above the minimum wage in almost circumstance. Even if it costs the worker to travel here, these are jobs that are basically all circumstance. Even if it year long. They will have to touch back in their home country periodically, but that is not something that is going to drive these wages anywhere near the minimum wage. I think the gentleman for the amendment because i think it is in the right spirit. I support it, but i will also work with the gentleman from georgia to make sure this bill accomplishes its goal, witches we make sure we have these workers in the United States. These industries employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions of americans. Not only on these facilities and farms, but also in all of the further processing plants. You make Chicken Nuggets at your plant, you cant hrie these workers you cant hire these workers because that is further processing. It has clearly narrowed the area of offering these jobs where there is the greatest shortage of finding workers. Reclaiming my time. Im going to support this amendment, although with some concern. There is concern on what is considered stage one and stage two in the poultry business and carcass separation. I am making sure we dont have something that would flow under what would be considered a different section. With that, i yield back. I will have that carefully considered. I moved to strike the last word. I strongly oppose the amendment for the very eloquent arguments advanced by the gentlelady from california and gentlemen from maryland. Yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from california. Rep. Lofgren i dont need five minutes. I will point out, if you take a look at page three of the managers amendment, definitions line 4, of the term displaced means to lay off the United States workers from a job, for w hich h2c workers are sought. Job applies to the same responsibilities and held by workers with substantially equivalent qualifications and experience. The point i was making earlier was level four wages are 26,000 a year. You could under this bill fire the level four wage employees and replace them with level one h2c employees. And because of the other provisions, when you offset the cost, you end up with a sub minimum wage for an employee replacing the level four wage earner. I dont think that is what we should be doing. This amendment would not solve that problem, which has been embedded in the bill itself. I turn my time toward mr. Cicilline. Me. Ks to his yielding to i yield back. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. I want to recognize i think mr. Farenthold is making sure we protect workers in this industry. Amendment that i am not sure i will offer, because none of our amendment ever seem to get votes from the other side even if they are reasonable. Poultryeat and processing industry, even though you have addressed this a little much if you look at how these workers are making, miscellaneous Food Processing 14. 86 an hour, going up to 20 an hour in some places, you are still going to undercut those jobs dramatically. 14. 86 anmy amendment would says exempt the meat and poultry industry workers from this bill so we can make sure in those industries we dont see a decrease in wages. I want to echo the labor shortage argument that ms. Lofg making, which is all you have to do to recruit u. S. Workers employers just have to recruit u. S. Workers at this deflated rate, which through your amendment is a little bit higher than before, but still significantly below. Otherwise you could artificially declare a labor shortage if u. S. Workers failed to apply for the lower rate. That would empower employers to bring in dozens of workers to replace those American Workers at those artificially low wages. Because i am so thrilled there is an amendment that is trying to respond to some of the issues in the bill, i want to say thank you for offering it. I dont think it does what you wanted to do. I will ask for your support in protecting those workers in these different industries. According to the bureau of labor statistics, to point out some of the workers in states alabama, florida, and texas that has some of the largest numbers of those employed in the meat and poultry industry. 13,850georgians, 90 georgians. Nd 148 gainesville, georgia has the highest concentration of workers oultryed in the mealt, p industry with his constituents working in this field. Yield . The gentlelady i would. We also have a chronic shortage of workers in our poultry processing. We have had individuals that have worked there for many years. If workers have to slow down the plant or they cant process, they are not working. I appreciate you bringing it out. This is why we are supporting the amendment. This is why we are dealing with this. It is about issuing these jobs and getting workers into these points. If we had everybody filling these jobs, than this bill would not be necessary. It is not necessary because we do not. Reclaiming my time, there is a way to address this that allows for workers to come in without depressing though wages depressing the wages of existing workers. It is not whether or not we need workers. The u. S. Economy requires the labor of immigrant workers, and we should provide an appropriate way for those workers to come into the country to be here legally, and to get the rights that they deserve. We dont disagree. In fact, we are thrilled to hear you say we need these workers. Have been trying to say that for a long time. Lets not bring them and and in anded the them depress the wages of these workers. That is why this bill is attempting to set a slightly higher wage, although it does not achieve the result it seeks to achieve. That is illuminating. I would like to ask you this question. It is so difficult to get people to do these jobs, and there are labor shortages, why are we cutting the minimum wage . Why are we reducing benefits in order for them to take the jobs . That is an excellent question. Nadler spoke to the idea of a free market. I would like to yield as much time as i may consume to my friend from georgia, mr. Collins. Wages wills because we be there, are not going to lose workers. We dont have many people trying to take these jobs away. We have been talking about this for a while as well. Because we are not going to lose workers. We dontat this point i would je on. Gentleman is recognized for the next five minutes. Farenthold for this legislation. Debate, the other slavery,talked about indentured servants, and even the word was mentioned about sharecropper. My grandmother when she was a child, her family were sharecroppers. They did not own the land, their payment was usually the food. My grandmother and her family going through that process even before the depression started. And peoplehanged, were able to get off of that type of living. I somewhat resent the connotation that those working for your people that worship people thatnferior worked in the United States. We believe in Strong Border security, but we understand the reality of workers. I have told some of my friends who continue to say americans will take jobs, that is not true. There are some jobs americans wont do. I will give you one example. I live in houston, texas. I doubt if there is a person in this room who would work on a 100,000. Gust, for a lot of reasons for that. One, i dont think anyone here is qualified to do roofing. And second, they just wont do it. A lot of reasons for that. They will find some other way to support their family. I dont know what that says about people in the United States. That is just a truism. Nobody is forcing people to take these jobs. This is not slavery. People dont have to take the jobs we are talking about today. They can turn them down. Mention that. To i support the legislation. Farenthold for. Bringing it up in his original bill. Chairman, it was said earlier that this bill had considerable support. I am not aware of many groups that do support it. I dont think it has much industry support either. Having made that observation, i yield to the gentlelady from california. Rep. Lofgren i dont always agree with mr. Poe, the gentleman from texas, but we Work Together on a lot of things. I think he knows i like him and i respect him. Inkmade me feel bad to th there was any kind of insult to his family or a class of people. That was definitely not the case. I felt it was important to say that. I have ancestors that were economically,ly d that is what they had to go through. They did the best they could come and i admire what they want through. I want to make sure people in America Today get a better shake than my grandfather did. That is not a negative about my grandfather. Iire him in augus admire him enormously. Rep. D that is what they had to o through. Poe i appreciate you for saying that. Rep. Lofgren i thought it was important to say that. I yield back. Treated unfairly in a recropping system certainly they were treated unfairly. In no way can it relate to how black folks were treated in terms of american sharecropping after slavery was ended, and crow, the period of jim after reconstruction. Sharecropping was a legacy of a racist slavery system, and slavery was about black folks being subhuman. Were neverfolks treated as subhuman been a sharecropping system, but black folks in sharecropping were, which is what i can relate to, how we are going to cheat going to treat the sharecroppers coming to the u. S. Under this new legislation, which deprives them of the rights of being a thisn working here in country. They may not be citizens, but you put them in a second class status. It is almost dehumanizing what happens to them. , you give them the opportunity to come here but you dont give them a pathway towards any future. And you lay the groundwork for a system in which they might be barred from leaving. With that, i will yield back. I think we can take judicial fact that there was nothing worse than slavery in american history. I dont think we need to have an argument about that at all. Statusoned indentured because people who were brought over into this program would have the chance to disappear into the woodwork. If they stayed, they would be paid almost nothing. They could barely live. I have strong disagreements with this bill for the reasons we have outlined at great length. Andi did want to make sure, i accept mr. Poes comment that no one is trying to insult anybodys family. I field back. I yield back. I want to make one observation in seconding what ms. Lofgren and mr. Johnson said. We spent much of the day bill,ng an aspect of this bidh in our opinion would down wages of workers, and use Foreign Workers to the great to degrade the wages of americans. The status of the people brought bid down wages of workers, andhere s or fourth class without a permanent opportunity to be citizens, having to go back, and always be in a position of economic servitude. It is a terrible thing to do human eyes people from another country, mexico in this case most of the time, as well as to use them to pit one class of exploited people, to make them agents of exploitation of another class, mainly American Workers. I want to advise members of planning for the rest of the day, at about 10 minutes of 4 00, we will have a bill on the floor of the house. Therefore, the committee will stand in resource until after that bill is considered and voted upon. Then we will return to the billommittee to complete this the everyfiy bill. We will go as late tonight as necessary to complete both of those bills. Gentleman fsk the rom california. The e in addition to a short statement i would like to enter in addition to a short statement i would like to enter into a colloquy with you to get an understanding. There have been so many things that have been said that are either wrong or need clarification. First of all, this bill is substantially retracing substantially is replacing the h2a, isnt it . The h2a is a nonpermanent visa program. In no way the people that choose to come here as guestworkers are not choosing an immigration path, but to come here as guestworkers. Isnt that true . That is true. Rep. Issa there are provisions i have researched on that deal with limitations on the fair labor act. One of them specifically says for we are waiving the act purposes of holding back 10 of the wages until the person leaves the country. It was necessary to waive that, because otherwise that would not be allowed under the law. That is a reasonable waiver i hope both sides would understand. You do create an incentive for them to return. Additionally there is some language about health care deductions, which he was citizens also would which u. S. Citizens also would have. Lets say there is 20 i have to pay to have it, that could be deducted. It could drop you below minimum wage. You are taxed on or above minimum wage, but there is a deduction for health care, which happens in the ordinary course for all americans. Is and that true . That is correct. Yes. I would suggest to the in no way havee to waive that provision for health care because we are treating as far as i can tell with the exception of the 10 hold back in every way, shape, and form him exactly as the u. S. Citizen who maybe working beside them is treated. I think that is true with regard to the health care, thats not necessarily going to be it has to be provided by the worker. The employer chooses to provide that. The worker could arrange a number of different ways. It is not the same as the mandate under obamacare, but you are correct that american citizens have that mandate. And the employer as i understand would have to provide workers comp. And other insurances that other workers have. This is the Health Care Mandate under the Affordable Care act, correct . Correct. The assurance i would like to receive from the chairman for any other technical provisions that the majority or others may discover that you would work with all of us to make sure before the bill goes to the floor that it would be fair to say, with the exception of those provisions, that we would be waving any treatment that wouldnt be the same, lets say, for darrell issa from california coming to work in North Carolina for that person, that the only things that would be deductible would be things which would be contractually deductible with any person seeking a job. I would be willing to work with the gentleman, but there are things that u. S. Workers are entitled to that a guestworker may not be entitled to, for example, the earned income tax credit. I understand the spirit of what the gentleman is intending, but i wouldnt want to give an encompassing answer to that other than to say it would work with you to try to address the interest you have in that aspect of the bill. Rep. Issa i believe the spirit of what we are trying to achieve is in fact to in no way allow for any unfair treatment of these workers and to the greatest extent possible, with the exception of the obvious differences someone coming from and is you said some and not being eligible for the earned income tax credit, that we would treat these people with the same normal rights that any other worker would have because i think the minority has made a point, and i would like to have us carefully make sure that in all cases, we provide no secondclass citizen i know they are not citizens but i think we can achieve it. Ms. Lofgren, you wanted me to yield . I wanted to make two points on this. First, it is true that americans may get health care insurance, but they also get subsidies and tax credits with tax credits which these people are not eligible for. I want to draw your attention to page 17. The lead case basically says you stuffcharge employees or unless the stuff benefits them. What we have done in this bill is make a determination that anything is equal, and therefore you can charge. That is very different. Rep. Goodlatte i share rep. Issa i share with the gentlelady that the language of the bill needs to be refined to ensure that what is reasonable for the employer to pay, the employer pays. For example, from the time i get to the job site to the time i get to the field, those are for the benefit of the employer, theres a lot of case law there. I would share with the gentlelady that when looking over the accommodation of regulations by the last two administrations and these court cases, i would say that notwithstanding the guestworker, it is a fairly muddy area of the law that i think the gentlelady rightfully so would make the point that probably we and other committees of the congress should clarify. I think the important thing here is that which is in the employers best interest clearly , and limited, for example, a meet worker who comes to a plant that has to put a uniform on at the plant and then take it off when they leave, that is clearly to the employers benefit. I certainly want to make sure this is a good bill, but it could be a better bill is it clarifies those areas. Rep. Lofgren is the gentleman would further yield, the bill does clarify that. If you look on page 17, it says and that case that the determination is that such matters mutually benefit the workers and employers, and therefore can be charged against the worker. It clears up the ambiguity, but in a way i think its quite unreasonable. Rep. Issa i agree with the gentlelady that those statements, although intended to deal with some ambiguity, create the additional ambiguity that if i am at a slaughterhouse and put a uniform on to work and take it off when i leave, that is not the same as something i can wear a home, and therefore it clearly would in that case benefit only the employer. I fully agree that those things which are substantially to the benefit of the employer, such as taking me from the side of the road to the worksite and so on. I will work with the gentlelady both now and afterwards, and with the chairman because i do think we want to make that clearer, and i yield back. Rep. Goodlatte think you german thank you gentlemen. And inow we are ending just want to indicate that as some comment has been, that this is a better bill or structure, i want to counter that and find this bill particularly disturbing. In a number of the amendments we , for and to place improvement of the bill and the one in particular the a simple access to legal aid, which certainly is not catastrophic. The question of how workers will be replaced and really the crux of the bill that indicates that the guest workers would not only come to work on farms. This is the debate we are having about American Workers who are in Meatpacking Industries and poultry processing. We know them very well. We engage with them very well. In many areas, and the south and beyond. These people are hardworking. It is a brutal business. They suffer injuries, but they are American Workers. Just as i know it is hot in houston, and i know there are probably a lot of americans that wouldnt want to be on a hot , without ahen again detailed survey, we probably would find some americans on that roof only to provide for their families. This bill in particular has that impacts, and is not any orderliness to it. New and uses a extremely broad definition of agriculture, which again includes the meat and poultry and in particular may currently be found in the new program to cover yearround work. I want to conclude on this note. I think we could have answered the call of the farmers. We could have dealt with these workers, providing them the decent benefits and respect for the work that they do, reducing food is vital work producing food is vital work. I think we should be treating those, no matter whether they are americans or undocumented individuals under a particular visa program, with decency. Your . He gentlewoman will the gentlewoman yield . Rep. Lee i would be happy to yield. Something has been bugging me since a series of arguments was made regarding the free market. It is hard for people to do roofing in 100 degree weather in the hills of texas or dallas or houston already have you. But the market as a solution for that, which is that you pay people more. You go out there and do it. Is certaindnt have industries saying we dont want to pay American Workers more, we want to import guest labor at sub minimum wages with sub minimum standards. What does that have to do with the free market . In other places we say if youre having a hard time getting someone being a were for for 20, you pay the 50 or 75. Thats how you do it. It is not about the free market. Then we were invited to believe by mr. Issa that the legislation says that except for the 10 withholding, the holdback, we are treating them and i think i got this verbatim exactly the same way as the American Workers next to them. But in fact that runs contrary to the whole purpose of the legislation, which is to create a different sub minimum wage to allow for the withholding of all kinds of expenses that could never be withheld against American Workers, to deny people access legal aid and lawyers, to permit them to forbid them to go to court, to force them into mediation and corporate arbitration. It is exactly the reverse. Subclass, subg a cast of guest workers who come in who have none of the rights of American Workers get. The fairot just say labor standards act applies . Sayas passed in 1938 to that all American Workers should be able to make a decent wage, a minimum wage, be paid time and a half for overtime. Why would we do this to our own American Workers, undermine their living standards, their working standards, exert downward pressure on their wages, and create this new class of people you are basically without any rights at all . I am very happy to stand by the characterization of this as indentured servitude, except and injured servants were giving housing were given housing. And these people are being thrown to the curb or the rv or what have you. Ideal back. Rep. Lee i want to conclude i yield back. Rep. Lee i want to conclude we could name the bill a number of things in our history that are unpleasant, from indentured butitude to sharecroppers, we are hoping that we can find common ground. I know the senate will be looking at legislation. We hope we can get to the point where rework for the industry, for providing food to the world and america, and we hope that we can have a place for American Workers and others. Rep. Goodlatte the time for the gentlewoman has expired. This system, the speech to h2cbest this this system is what the system it replaces in that it is not it does not offer permanency to those who replace it. This legislation takes it to be next level. It creates a system where the individual who is attracted to america would be forced to return to their homeland in either 18 or 36 months, whatever the particular case might be. But during that 18 or 36 months while the person is here, this thatss does not mandate workers covered under workers. Omp. Protection it leaves it up to state law. I would say that most states do not provide workers comp. Protection for agricultural tokers, so i dont want that be something that is mischaracterized about this legislation that we are considering. I would say that as far as the leave ine to other words, we are going to withhold 10 of your gross pay, and from that growth a you are also going to debt the cost of going to deduct the cost of sometimes housing, transportation, food, health are setting and you up a situation where at the end of the pay period theres not going to be any money owed to the worker. And that, the worker willow the worker will owe to the company or to the association or to the farmer, the worker will actually owe money. With the requirement that that worker have to leave within 18 or 36 months, if their bill is not cleared up by that worker within that time, that worker could be prosecuted for theft of some type, and under the 13th where you can be , you cant be held in indentured servitude, but you certainly can be held to work off your debt. This bill is opening up a drastic scenario of possibilities. Im not saying that it will happen, but i am saying you are opening the door for bad things to happen to people who dont have rights, who cant go to court according to this legislation to sue, who have no voice, and they are in a prime situation to be mistreated and abused. We should not be walking down this road in america in 2017. And with that, i will yield back. Rep. Issa all those rep. Goodlatte all those in favor, respond by saying aye. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments . Florida. German from i have an amendment at the desk. A minute offered by mr. Desantis. The goodlatte objection, limit is considered red. , thisr the Years Committee has consider the importance of linking any type of Agriculture Worker Program with a mandatory verify. A lot of members and constituents have a concern that if you do something but then somehow we verify that somehow the verify just seems to disappear into the ether and the American People never get the system they deserve. This ties the initiatives together. The provisions of the act would not go into effect until a mandatory everify requirement such as contained in the legislation, which this committee will consider later today, is actually enacted, signed into law by the president. Such an amended is prudent to ensure all employers are on a level Playing Field with regard to their workforce, and obviously the American People after years and years of tolerating a lot of illegal employment, they want a legal workforce. This is the way to do it. Id you back the balance of my time that i yield back the balance of my time i yield back the balance of my time. I think it is an excellent amendment and it encompasses something i think is a reality anyway, and that is that the fact of the matter is we have to have an electronic verification of employment system to make a guest Worker Program and every other area of employment protects American Workers. At the same time, when we do that, history has shown that theres going to be a shortage of workers in agriculture, therefore we need this ag act. I think the german for tying the two together in a conclusive way that i think makes sure one doesnt happen without the other. Ideal to back. Rep. Goodlatte joe woman is recognized for five minutes. Rep. Lee i opposed the amendment, and i will tell you why. Doubling down to enforce this immigration system is not going i work rep. Lofgren opposed the amendment, and i will tell you why. Doubling down to enforce this immigration system is not going to work. Licking that already inadequate linking that already inadequate bill everify, it is not just ag where we have a problem. Go to the restaurant industry, take a look at the busboys. Go and check out the nannies who are unauthorized. If you do mandatory everify before we have actually reformed Immigration Law so we could meet the actual Economic Needs of the United States, it will just be chaos. I would like to Say Something else since you have referenced the bill coming up next. The mandatory everify bill we will markup later today does not have meaningful due process protections for authorized workers who lose their jobs because of errors in the system. To the socialedit security administration. It is a barrel of terry it is a voluntary program and they are worked hard to reduce the error rates, and have in fact reduced the error rate in the everify system. But there is still evidence that an estimated. 3 of authorized workers, and that includes United States citizens, received mr. Chairman, could i ask for order in the committee . Rep. Goodlatte the gentleman is correct. The meeting will be in order the gentlewoman is correct. The meeting will be in order. 3 of authorized workers receive tentative authorization and the system and must followup up with the Social Security administration to avoid losing the job. 3 error rate doesnt sound like very much, but when you take a look at mandating this system on all the new hires, roughly 54 Million People a year in the United States, permitting everify case in permitting reverification of all current workers, the pointer percent error rate would place between 162,000 to,000 465,000 workers to potentially lose the job. These errors are often because they havent been notified, they are poor and dont have the capacity to go, they dont have due process protections. We have the possibility of american citizens losing their job and not being able to correct the error. I know that is not something that the author of the amendment would want any more than i would, but the absence of consequences for an employer who fails to provide the required notice to a worker renders the notice requirement completely toothless. The new version of the bill really doesnt correct the bills most important flaws the bills most important flaws, primarily a reform of the system so it actually meets the Economic Needs of the United States, a system that is easy to , butnear to 100 accuracy primarily a due process system that is enforceable and reliable so americans dont get dinged and lose their jobs and fairly. Their jobs unfairly. So i cannot accept this a moment. I will say this enclosing this amendment. I will say this in closing. Those republicans who have worked with us to try and find common ground, know that there has been agreement that once you get a workable system, it should be enforced, including everify. I dont object to the everify system, but i do object to enforcing a system that is dysfunctional at this point, so i would urge that we oppose the amendment. I yield back. Rep. Goodlatte the german from texas. Poe i think this is a great solution, and certainly will address the concerns of those who were worried we might enact a guest Worker Program without everify, and by joining the two this goes a long way. I think you are reassuring anybody who had any of those types of concerns. I would also respond briefly to the general the gentleman from california. Anyone takes a look at the legislation and the actual lego to the legislation will recognize there is ample due process for the very small miniscule fraction of those who might be wrongfully denied employment verification. This is a program that is over 99 accurate. I dont know of any other Government Entity or agency anywhere that has that kind of accuracy. Furthermore, as i say there is ample due process. We will discuss that further. The everify bill is very simple and straightforward. If you want to put the interest of American Workers first, if you want to put the interest of in legal termss first, you obviously would like the everify system. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, youre going to like the everify system, which happens to be the most popular Immigration Reform component that is most popular with the American People. It has over 80 approval. The objection i think is in the single digits. Those who dont want to put the interest of American Workers and legal immigrants first, who want to put the interests of Illegal Immigrants first, they are entitled to do that. That is just not why we were elected, and that is certainly not the point of the legislation. I appreciate but the german from florida offering the cement. I will yield this amendment. I will yield to mr. Johnson. All those in favor respond by saying aye. The ayes have it and the imminent is agreed to. Are there further amended to hr 4092 . I have an amendment at the decks at the desk. Rep. Goodlatte report the imminent the amendment. Begin on page 27 objection, the amendment is considered as read. I have them it would remove the mediterranean induction of form workers under the program. Withholding 10 of farm workers under the program. Withholding 10 makes them even more vulnerable to exploitation. Guest workers by their very nature are already vulnerable because they are dependent on their employers to maintain their employment and ability to remain in the United States. Increasing the vulnerability of these workers by withholding 10 of their wages is a form of bonding is unacceptable. As we have discussed through the market, the bill would already result in significant wage cuts, bringing wages down to extremely low levels of 8. 34 an hour, a wage cut of always four dollars an hour. Cutting an additional 10 for someone who makes eight dollars 34 cents an hour, only about ,000 a year, is just wrong an hour, only 17,000 a year, is just wrong. They already faced tremendous challenges feeding and clothing their families, locating safe housing, and affording secure transportation on the wages they currently earn. Compounded by the 10 wage withholding will make it that much more difficult for these families to survive. Further, guest workers faced severe Financial Burdens when they travel to the United States, making them a vulnerable to that bondage and trafficking vulnerable to debt bondage and trafficking. There is no measure in the bill recruitment fees or trafficking, and as we have discussed, with the requirement to pay for their own transportation and housing, these workers are really going to be in a terrible economic situation. Reducing wages by 10 on top of all of this would place them in i think really horrendous situation. We do have a long history, tragic history, of wage deduction of uses. The than 50 years after program ended, there was still litigation about the withheld wages of mexican guest workers who worked on americas farms. While that litigation has now ended, there is still former workers trying to recruit former workers trying to recoup lost wages. They had actions taken out of their paychecks supposedly for Health Insurance and savings. The difficulties that workers have imitating in obtaining Health Insurance and their savings led to years of litigation and investigation. Workers should not have to pay money to obtain wages they have already earned, requiring guest workers to file applications with dhs, then travel to the consulate to retrieve those wages, is costly and extremely burdensome. Most farmworkers are from rural areas, and traveling to cities where there are u. S. Consulates costs money they cannot afford to spend. Moreover, some workers will be in the United States for three years, would receive their hardearned wages until years after they have earned them. Workers should receive their wages when they are not. Further, the requirement that workers prove that they complied with Program Requirements will lead to abuses. Unscrupulous employers and labor recruiters could threaten to report guestworkers for violating Program Requirements when they attacked have not, forcing them to accept substandard wages and working conditions. The last iteration of the bill was unacceptable, and this think unfathomably cruel. This is just a small amount it to try and make sure we dont further undercut the wages of these vulnerable workers. With that idea back. I yieldh with that back. Rep. Goodlatte the question occurs on the amended offered by the gentlewoman from washington. All those in favor say aye. All posed no. All opposed no. Habit and the nos the imminent is not agreed to announcer and the have it to. Ndment is not agreed [calling role] rep. Goodlatte a a has every member voted who wishes to vote . Mr. Chairman i think there is a member in the hallway. Rep. Goodlatte how is the gentleman from georgia recorded . Yes. Mr. Chairman. Rep. Goodlatte we are waiting. You dont need to ask. [laughter] rep. Goodlatte we will only wait but so long. You got to actually be in the quarter. [indiscernible] yeah. German from california gentleman from california. No. Rep. Goodlatte clerical report. 17embers voted members voted aye, 16 voted no. Rep. Goodlatte the bill is reported favorably to the house as a single a minute in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments, as staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. 3711 forl up hr purposes of markup and move that the Committee Report the bill favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. The immigration and nationality act to make mandatory impermanent requirements related to use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system and for other purposes. Rep. Goodlatte the bill is open for a moment at any time. I begin run by i begin i recognize myself in opening statement. The American People want our Immigration Laws to be enforced. In the past they were promised tougher informant tougher enforcement, but administrations never kept these promises. Today we are left with a broken immigration system. One way to make sure we discourage illegal immigration in the future is to prevent unlawful immigrants from getting jobs in the United States, requiring the use of everify by all employers across the country to help do just that. Ways a reliable and fast for employers to electronically check the work eligibility of newly hired employees. 3711, the legal workforce act, builds on everifys success and embolism one part of the strong enforcement promised to the American People many years ago. The legal workforce act does not simply leave enforcement up to the federal government. In fact, it actually empowers states to help enforce the everify requirement, ensuring we do not continue the mistakes of the past where a president can turn off federal enforcement efforts unilaterally. Over 740,000 employers are currently signed up to use everify. It is easy for employers to use and effective. In fact, everify quickly confirms work eligible employees nearly 99 of the time. But the Current System is not perfect. For instance, in cases of Identity Theft when an individuals of the stolen identity documents and information, everify may confirm the work eligibility of that individual. This happens because everify uses a Social Security number and certain other corresponding identifying information such as the name and date of birth of an individual to determine if a person submitting the Social Security number is work eligible. Thus of an individual uses a stolen Social Security number and the real name corresponding with that Social Security number , a false positive can occur. Legal workforce at addresses Identity Theft in several ways. First it requires notification to the Rightful Owner of a Social Security number whenever that number is submitted to everify in a manner indicating a pattern of unusual will use. The Rightful Owner unusual multiple use. The Rightful Owner will know that it may have been compromised. Ofe they confirm this out the department of Homeland Security and Social SecurityAdministration Must lock that Social Security number so no one else can use it for employment eligibility purposes. Among other things, the bill also creates a program through which parents or legal guardians can lock the Social Security numbers of their minor children for work eligibility purposes. This is to combat the rise in the number of thefts of childrens identities. The bill begins in six months and megans sixmonth increments, allows employers to use everify prior to the date they hire an employee, and provides meaningful safe harbors for employers who use the system in good faith. I understand that some in the Agricultural Industry have concerns about the impact of mandatory everify on the agricultural work horse. That is why the legal workforce. Legal workforce unfortunately, past president s have tied our hands by refusing to enforce Immigration Laws. The Current Administration has done the opposite. We must provide this president with the additional legislative tools he needs in order to effectively control illegal immigration. At the same time we must prevent any subsequent administration from again stopping Immigration Enforcement mechanisms, requiring all u. S. Employers to use everify one way to do so. Hr 3711 balances the needs of the American People regarding Immigration Enforcement with the needs of the Business Community regarding a fair and workable electronic employment verification system. I urge my colleagues to support the bill today and yield back the balance of my time. It is now might pleasure to welcome the ranking major Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for his statement. Almost allof us know our nations almost all of us know our nations immigration system is broken. This requires real legislative solutions, but the approach that the committee is taking this week, i am sorry to say, falls short of what we need. 3711 would make everify and existing Electronic System for voluntarily verifying employment eligibility mandatory for all employers. Weve considered this bill only three times before, and i have previously said that everify is an important tool. But the truth is we cannot require all employers to use adoptfy if we do not also comprehensive reforms to our nations broken immigration system and reform everify itself. We are very likely to hear today that everify will help American Workers because every time an undocumented immigrant is denied a job, and unemployed americans can get hired. Unfortunately that is not quite how it works. Immigrants fill major gaps in our workforce. This is particularly evident in moreulture, where half or of the on the field farm workers lack immigration status. If we mandated the use of everify without also providing a fair and meaningful opportunity for those experienced undocumented farmworkers to obtain legal status, heres what we would see. One, farms across the nation would be forced out of business. Americans would further be forced to rely on foreign markets to import our fruits and vegetables. Millions of upstream and downstream american jobs supported by agriculture would be lost. In recognition of this problem, the majority has chosen to move this bill along with a bill from the chairman to reform our temporary agricultural Worker Programs. But as we will see shortly, when we mark up the bill or as we just solemnly marked up that bill isthe chairmans not, i am sorry to say, a workable solution to our Agricultural Labor needs. Ensuretion we must also that any everify legislation sufficiently protects american citizens and other authorized workers of they are not inappropriately prohibited from working. It is true that this bill contains several requirements intended to protect such workers. For example, employers must inform workers when the system issues a tentative nonconfirmation of eligibility. Also, employers cannot resend offers or fire workers until they get a chance to fix any errors. , the bill lacks any penalties for failing to follow these guidelines, and we know that employers who currently use the system frequently dont comply with current requirements. Why should this be any different if everify is made mandatory . Finally, the bill offers no real protections for american citizens and other work authorized persons who are incorrectly identified as unauthorized to work. Under this bill, such workers will be fired, and there only remedy is through a federal court claims act. Yet we all know how many procedural hurdles are involved in pursuing a claim under this law. How many of us can afford to be out of work for six months while waiting for a decision on their administrative claim . How many will bring a lawsuit after that administrative claim goes unanswered for six months . How many will actually be bypensated for lost wages proving that the erroneous nonconfirmation resulted from a negligent or wrongful act of admission active omission by any employee of the government . I dont think any of us want to bar an american citizen from working because congress failed to provide due process while mandating the use of everify by all employers. Thatosing, let me note there is broad bipartisan agreement that our nations immigration system is nearly broken or really broken. But legislation that focuses on enforcement without adequately reforming the Current System is not the solution. I thank you mr. Chairman. Rep. Goodlatte thank you gentlemen. The chair would advise the committee that we have a bill on the floor imminently, and therefore the committee will have to stand in recess until after that bill is debated and voted on, and so sometime after 6 30 we will reconvene the committee to consider this bill. The committee will recess. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] announcer today, hillary clinton, amazon ceo jeff bezos, and Billie Jean King will attend the Human Rights Campaign annual dinner in washington dc. Coverage begins at 7 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Come a topy officials from twitter, facebook, and google will testify on russias use of social media and its influence in the 2016 elections. They will testify before to separate committees, First Atlantic lock a. M. Eastern before the Senate Intelligence committee, and later at 2 00 p. M. Eastern before the house intelligence committee. You can watch live on cspan3. Now that the house passed to the gop budget,