Transcripts For CSPAN3 Immigration Legislation Markup Day Tw

Has an amendment on the floor under consideration. Would the gentleman yield . The chair recognizes himself and is happy to yield. Thank you, mr. Chairman. After reviewing the bill, i believe that at least for the foreseeable future the 410,000 plus 10 escalator is probably sufficient. I would like to work with the chairman further on defining that so that the safeguards be in place once this bill becomes law but i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. Without objection, it is withdrawn. And let me just say to the gentleman, id be happy to work with him. Its important that purpose of the legislation is to assure 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 laborers and produce Agricultural Products elsewhere in the world so im happy to work with the gentleman in that regard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Are there further amendments to hr 4902 . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 4092 offered by california. Page 16, strike line 16 and all that follows through employer online 17. Insert the following workers prohibited each employer. Page 17, strike lines 1 through 22. The gentle woman is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. Mr. Chairman, if you read the language on page 16, it actually is reverse of what you should be doing. We need to protect the American Workforce and if you take a look at the language on page 17 it specifically overrules a decision in arriaya versus Florida Pacific Farms prohibits essentially a deducting rekroouting fees, immigration fees, transportation fees and the like from the wages of h2an employees. This amendment would reverse that. Now, why is that necessary . The bill appears to provide wage floors for h2c workers at 8. 34 an hour or 115 of the federal minimum wage or 10. 88 per hour. Its 150 of federal minimum wage for meat and poultry workers but the wage floors are not real because this bill changes current law to specifically allow employers to deduct numerous charges from the base pay. That thereby allowing the real wage rate to be significantly lower and then provided for in the bill. Now, federal courts have held under the fair labor standard act any costs primarily benefiting the employer rather than the worker cannot be deducted from the workers wages. Thats the case i mentioned earlier. Now, to protect American Workers immigration statutes and regulations also prohibit deducting such costs in wages even if the pay is above the minimum wage. This bill is bad enough in that it allows employers to deduct the costs from workers wages but whats 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 effectively pay workers nothing if they can creatively come up with fees to charge the worker including for housing, food and other items. I think that that is wrong. Its unfair to the immigrant workers and its unfair to American Workers because what this would provide is a multimillion dollar pool potentially of workers paid less than the federal minimum wage to come in and compete with people who are already working here. In addition to this, as has been mentioned yesterday, the deduction of 10 withholding and the requirement to Purchase Health Care Coverage makes the wage even more problematic. Now, these wage reductions would affect Domestic Workers in a range of sectors including farming, dairy, raising of livestock, Food Processing, forestry services. Millions of u. S. Workers across these industries would be displaced by millions of underpaid and exploitable guest workers would come in through the h2c program. I have mentioned yesterday and im someone who i am i am known as someone who believes immigration is good for america. I do very much. But that general premise is very different than creating a program of vast exploitable indentured servants coming in to the country to undercut the American Workforce. That is not what we should be doing and i just thinking about this. If you do enough deductions so that your pay is below the federal minimum wage approaching nothing why would someone come to do that . Two things, one, their conditions in the home country so miserable it still looks good to them. Or two, its a ride to the u. S. Thats cheaper than paying a coyote to smuggle you in to the u. S. So, this is a reckless bill. It would actually increase undocumented immigration. Im shocked that the majority is supporting this bill. This amendment would make improvements in it. It wouldnt fix everything but it would fix some of the worst things in this bill and i highly recommend that the we adopt this amendment on a bipartisan basis and i see that my time expired so i yield back, mr. Chairman. Chair thanks the gentleman. Recognize himself in opposition to the amendment. The effect of the decision was to require employers to reimburse workers for inbound transportation costs before their workers even substantially comply with their contractual obligations. Under the ag act, if the worker does not like the terms offered, the worker does not need to agree to work for the employer. I oppose the amendment. Question occurs on the amendment. The gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i yield to the gentle lady from california. I would like to note and i thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 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 working, the Economic Policy institute, posted an analysis of this bill that id like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record and the title of it is the legal workforce and agricultural guest worker acts would push down wages and labor standards for americans and immigrants alike. I think that we ought to this is not a, you know, pro immigrant. It is not an immigration source. Theyre economists and they basically point out that the bill would undercut the wages of americans. This amendment would help resolve that. And that in addition to the deductions, the Health Care Provisions would further drive down the provisions, the wages, and that the bill would actually provide visas equal to 1. 25 of the entire u. S. Workforce. Thats a Pretty Amazing analysis to bring in people who could be paid less than the minimum wage. So i think this amendment is an important one. I hope that we can adopt it and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding and yield back. Mr. Chairman . I yield back, mr. Chairman. For purposes the gentleman from washington seek recognition. Seek to strike the last word. I rise in support of the sensible amendment to a very, very, very bad bill. Ms. Love gren mentioned the epi excuse me, the Economic Policy Institute Study entered into the record. And i just want to point out that the number of people that we are talking about in this bill is not 450,000. I dont think anybody should be fooled by thinking we are talking about 450,000 people. And if you dont believe me, then i would just quote frank gasparini, the leader of one of the largest ag employer coalitions, a direct quote today. He says we are looking at replacing ultimately a million and a half or 2 million workers with a Guest Worker Program that currently is proposed to be capped at about half a million. That half a million might work depending on how the wording is. So in other words, what hes saying is the way it is written, and i guess you wrote it very well, mr. Chairman, because it says 450,000 here but we have the actual proof that thats thats an annual figure that would start at 450,000 and the cap could increase depending on employer demand. And so, this is really were talking about a massive number of people as ms. Lofgren said equal to roughly 1. 5 of the workforce and thats in addition to the 1 of the workforce of guest workers with limited workplace rights and i think 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. And i think we have to be very clear that this is not a democratic or a republican issue. There is bipartisan there are going to be bipartisan effects in states like louisiana and georgia and numerous states across the country where American Workers will suffer as a result of this bill. And so, i again, could just emphasize the comments i made yesterday in this committee that if we really wanted to address this issue there has been a very carefully crafted compromise on the agriculture industry to address the issues we face of immigrant workforce that doesnt have where we dont have sufficient labor, where we dont have sufficient right fwhaus bill is not the bill were looking at and commenting on today. This bill does a tremendous disservice to the American Workforce and, frankly, to the farm industry in creating this sub standard, sub paid workforce that will displace American Workers. I yield back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from california all those respond by saying aye. Those opposed no. The nos have it. Can we have a recorded vote . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Goodlatte . No. Mr. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Smith . No. Mr. Shabat . Mr. Issa . Mr. King . Mr. Franks. No. Mr. Gohmert . No. Mr. Jordan . No. Mr. Pogh . Mr. Mori that . No. Mr. Gowdy . Mr. Labrador . Mr. Fern that will . No. Mr. Collins . No mr. Desan tis . No. Mr. Buck . No. Mr. Radcliffe . No. Mr. Robi . Mr. Gates . No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . No. Mr. Biggs . No. Mr. Rutherford . No. Ms. Hand snl. No. Mr. Conyers . No. Yes. Mr. Nadler . Aye. Ms. Lofgren . Aye. Mr. Jackson lee . Mr. Johnson of georgia . Aye. Mr. Deutsch . Mr. Gutierrez . Ms. Bass . Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Swalwell . No. Mr. Lu . Aye. Mr. Ras kin . Mr. Schneider . Aye. Am i recorded . The gentleman from texas . No. Mr. Pogh . No. Mr. Labrador votes no. Has every member voted that wishes to vote . Mr. Chairman . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, eight members voted aye, 18 members voted no. And the amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentle lady of california sec recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 4092 offered by ms. Love lofgren. Recognized for five minutes on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of argument and discussion about the impact of this bill. This amendment is simple. Basically says notwithstanding the provision that is allow for deductions, that i think are improper as i discussed earlier, the employer may not deduct so many costs that the workers wages would go below the federal minimum wage. Now, if people are suggesting that the fair labor standards act exemption really is unimportant, that we wouldnt actually have wages that fall below the federal minimum wage, they should vote yes on this amendment because its very clear and its very simple. I do think that the idea that we would bring in millions of individuals paid below the minimum wage to compete with workers who are already here is wrong. Its frankly shocking to me that we are, in fact, considering doing that. This amendment would at least preclude that opportunity, that potential outcome that workers wages would go below the federal minimum wage. For that reason i hope that we can all approve it. And with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Chair recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. This question is debatable. The worker and employer relationship is beneficial. Farmers get the labor they need. Guest workers earn wage that is outpace what they can earn in their home countries. And the fact of the matter is that because this allows workers to move from crop to crop and farm to farm more easily in the United States will enhance their earning capability compared to the current hrta program so i think workers and farmers come out better but the fact of the matter is workers dont work for what they dont want to earn and, therefore, you will usually see much higher than the minimum wage paid and this law requires the minimum wage plus 15 in most instances. For those reasons i oppose this amendment. Strike last word. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, its well and good that workers may earn here more than they would at home. Thats nice. But if its below the federal minimum wage, thats wrong as n matter of morality and as a matter of law. It also bids down american wages and the fact that you say it will rarely happen, most of the time people will get even with these deductions more than minimum wage, well, if thats true then you should accept the amendment because the amendment only says the amendment is mild amendment. It only says that you cant deduct these business costs if it brings the net wage below the federal minimum wage. This should never be a net wage below the federal minimum wage. And in fact, this whole program is flawed as i talked about yesterday. A number of us did yesterday because it is primarily i wont say designed. Maybe that is the case. I dont know. But certainly one of the its major affects is to say that were going to have very low wages, that American Workers wont accept. And it is true that if we paid higher wages you might get American Workers to do this. Were importing a workforce to subvert american wages and not bad enough so were going to put various conditions on the on the foreign workforce to make them have no leverage, work for sub minimum wage and this is an example of that so this amendment which simply says you cant deduct the business expenses if it brings it below minimum wage. The chairman said it wont bring it below minimum wage then why not accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If you take a look at page 17 of the managers amendment, it basically says that the Court Decisions that were more or less fine tuned about what activities benefited the employee versus employer are out the window. We are instructed that every interpretation and determination shall find that whatever these costs are, they mutually benefit such workers and they principally benefit neither the employer or employee which means that legally they can all be charged against the employee. Now, that could be a very large amount of money. The idea that we would countenance this is really what voting for this against this amendment says srks that were going to say its all right to bring in foreign competitors at below minimum wage, millions of them, to compete in forestry, in Food Processing, with people who are already here doing those jobs. Thats not right. And the way to remedy it is to vote for this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. And i thank the gentle lady for observations and for her amendment. This amendment is crucial. The bill is crucial but the amendment is crucial because the amendment in effect allows all these deductions to create sub minimum wages which is wrong to pay people sub min maum wages, even if theyre foreigners and certainly wrong to subject American Workers to competition from people earning sub minimum wages. Just a huge subsidy to the industry and its saying to American Workers go to hell. So i urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back. Mr. Chairman . First the gentleman first of all, i want to thank the gentle lady from california for her thoughtfulness and ensuring that this very important amendment and message was associated with the substitute and nature of the amendment in nature of a substitute to hr 4092 which is already a flawed bill because it emphasizes, again, the noncompetitive or the position that American Workers could be placed in. But it also illustrates the harshness of this legislation when you begin to assess to the employee recruiting fees, filing fees, application fees, transportation to the United States, required transportation to and from the work site, required tools and Safety Equipment and required uniforms, thereby, diminishing the cost or the ultimate compensation to that employee. Let me try to extrapolate or to connect, if you will, the ordinary scene of an American Worker. The ordinary scene of an American Worker and the ordinary examp worker, for example, corporations pay those recruiting forms so that they can have the best talent and they can go outside the per view of their jurisdiction if theyre located in los angeles, located in new york, houston, jackson, mississippi, atlanta, rural areas and beyond, they would seek a renowned recruiting firm or local recruiting firm. Just think if that innocent worker with all of his or her talents accepts the job and he receives a bill, she receives a bill, when they go into their pristine new office or sit at the new desk with all of their excitement and they get maybe a bill for 10,000. That is your charge for the Recruitment Company that we hired to look for you as a talented worker. And then, of course, if, for example, you had to relocate and Many Companies provide relocation for at least their management level, maybe others, and all of a sudden you got a multithousand dollar bill on your desk because you had to move your family to this new location. That begins to diminish whatever plus of the salary that you thought you were going to have. Then, of course, you need computers and paper and pens and paper or you may need United States<\/a> and not diminish because they can go elsewhere to find laborers and produce Agricultural Products<\/a> elsewhere in the world so im happy to work with the gentleman in that regard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Are there further amendments to hr 4902 . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 4092 offered by california. Page 16, strike line 16 and all that follows through employer online 17. Insert the following workers prohibited each employer. Page 17, strike lines 1 through 22. The gentle woman is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. Mr. Chairman, if you read the language on page 16, it actually is reverse of what you should be doing. We need to protect the American Workforce<\/a> and if you take a look at the language on page 17 it specifically overrules a decision in arriaya versus Florida Pacific Farms<\/a> prohibits essentially a deducting rekroouting fees, immigration fees, transportation fees and the like from the wages of h2an employees. This amendment would reverse that. Now, why is that necessary . The bill appears to provide wage floors for h2c workers at 8. 34 an hour or 115 of the federal minimum wage or 10. 88 per hour. Its 150 of federal minimum wage for meat and poultry workers but the wage floors are not real because this bill changes current law to specifically allow employers to deduct numerous charges from the base pay. That thereby allowing the real wage rate to be significantly lower and then provided for in the bill. Now, federal courts have held under the fair labor standard act any costs primarily benefiting the employer rather than the worker cannot be deducted from the workers wages. Thats the case i mentioned earlier. Now, to protect American Workers<\/a> immigration statutes and regulations also prohibit deducting such costs in wages even if the pay is above the minimum wage. This bill is bad enough in that it allows employers to deduct the costs from workers wages but whats 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 effectively pay workers nothing if they can creatively come up with fees to charge the worker including for housing, food and other items. I think that that is wrong. Its unfair to the immigrant workers and its unfair to American Workers<\/a> because what this would provide is a multimillion dollar pool potentially of workers paid less than the federal minimum wage to come in and compete with people who are already working here. In addition to this, as has been mentioned yesterday, the deduction of 10 withholding and the requirement to Purchase Health<\/a> Care Coverage<\/a> makes the wage even more problematic. Now, these wage reductions would affect Domestic Workers<\/a> in a range of sectors including farming, dairy, raising of livestock, Food Processing<\/a>, forestry services. Millions of u. S. Workers across these industries would be displaced by millions of underpaid and exploitable guest workers would come in through the h2c program. I have mentioned yesterday and im someone who i am i am known as someone who believes immigration is good for america. I do very much. But that general premise is very different than creating a program of vast exploitable indentured servants coming in to the country to undercut the American Workforce<\/a>. That is not what we should be doing and i just thinking about this. If you do enough deductions so that your pay is below the federal minimum wage approaching nothing why would someone come to do that . Two things, one, their conditions in the home country so miserable it still looks good to them. Or two, its a ride to the u. S. Thats cheaper than paying a coyote to smuggle you in to the u. S. So, this is a reckless bill. It would actually increase undocumented immigration. Im shocked that the majority is supporting this bill. This amendment would make improvements in it. It wouldnt fix everything but it would fix some of the worst things in this bill and i highly recommend that the we adopt this amendment on a bipartisan basis and i see that my time expired so i yield back, mr. Chairman. Chair thanks the gentleman. Recognize himself in opposition to the amendment. The effect of the decision was to require employers to reimburse workers for inbound transportation costs before their workers even substantially comply with their contractual obligations. Under the ag act, if the worker does not like the terms offered, the worker does not need to agree to work for the employer. I oppose the amendment. Question occurs on the amendment. The gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i yield to the gentle lady from california. I would like to note and i thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 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 working, the Economic Policy<\/a> institute, posted an analysis of this bill that id like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record and the title of it is the legal workforce and agricultural guest worker acts would push down wages and labor standards for americans and immigrants alike. I think that we ought to this is not a, you know, pro immigrant. It is not an immigration source. Theyre economists and they basically point out that the bill would undercut the wages of americans. This amendment would help resolve that. And that in addition to the deductions, the Health Care Provisions<\/a> would further drive down the provisions, the wages, and that the bill would actually provide visas equal to 1. 25 of the entire u. S. Workforce. Thats a Pretty Amazing<\/a> analysis to bring in people who could be paid less than the minimum wage. So i think this amendment is an important one. I hope that we can adopt it and i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding and yield back. Mr. Chairman . I yield back, mr. Chairman. For purposes the gentleman from washington seek recognition. Seek to strike the last word. I rise in support of the sensible amendment to a very, very, very bad bill. Ms. Love gren mentioned the epi excuse me, the Economic Policy<\/a> Institute Study<\/a> entered into the record. And i just want to point out that the number of people that we are talking about in this bill is not 450,000. I dont think anybody should be fooled by thinking we are talking about 450,000 people. And if you dont believe me, then i would just quote frank gasparini, the leader of one of the largest ag employer coalitions, a direct quote today. He says we are looking at replacing ultimately a million and a half or 2 million workers with a Guest Worker Program<\/a> that currently is proposed to be capped at about half a million. That half a million might work depending on how the wording is. So in other words, what hes saying is the way it is written, and i guess you wrote it very well, mr. Chairman, because it says 450,000 here but we have the actual proof that thats thats an annual figure that would start at 450,000 and the cap could increase depending on employer demand. And so, this is really were talking about a massive number of people as ms. Lofgren said equal to roughly 1. 5 of the workforce and thats in addition to the 1 of the workforce of guest workers with limited workplace rights and i think we should be very clear about what this bill seeks to do. What this bill seeks to do is drive out American Workers<\/a> 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<\/a> in this country. And i think we have to be very clear that this is not a democratic or a republican issue. There is bipartisan there are going to be bipartisan effects in states like louisiana and georgia and numerous states across the country where American Workers<\/a> will suffer as a result of this bill. And so, i again, could just emphasize the comments i made yesterday in this committee that if we really wanted to address this issue there has been a very carefully crafted compromise on the agriculture industry to address the issues we face of immigrant workforce that doesnt have where we dont have sufficient labor, where we dont have sufficient right fwhaus bill is not the bill were looking at and commenting on today. This bill does a tremendous disservice to the American Workforce<\/a> and, frankly, to the farm industry in creating this sub standard, sub paid workforce that will displace American Workers<\/a>. I yield back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from california all those respond by saying aye. Those opposed no. The nos have it. Can we have a recorded vote . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Goodlatte . No. Mr. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Smith . No. Mr. Shabat . Mr. Issa . Mr. King . Mr. Franks. No. Mr. Gohmert . No. Mr. Jordan . No. Mr. Pogh . Mr. Mori that . No. Mr. Gowdy . Mr. Labrador . Mr. Fern that will . No. Mr. Collins . No mr. Desan tis . No. Mr. Buck . No. Mr. Radcliffe . No. Mr. Robi . Mr. Gates . No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . No. Mr. Biggs . No. Mr. Rutherford . No. Ms. Hand snl. No. Mr. Conyers . No. Yes. Mr. Nadler . Aye. Ms. Lofgren . Aye. Mr. Jackson lee . Mr. Johnson of georgia . Aye. Mr. Deutsch . Mr. Gutierrez . Ms. Bass . Mr. Richmond . No. Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Swalwell . No. Mr. Lu . Aye. Mr. Ras kin . Mr. Schneider . Aye. Am i recorded . The gentleman from texas . No. Mr. Pogh . No. Mr. Labrador votes no. Has every member voted that wishes to vote . Mr. Chairman . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, eight members voted aye, 18 members voted no. And the amendment is not agreed to. For what purpose does the gentle lady of california sec recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 4092 offered by ms. Love lofgren. Recognized for five minutes on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of argument and discussion about the impact of this bill. This amendment is simple. Basically says notwithstanding the provision that is allow for deductions, that i think are improper as i discussed earlier, the employer may not deduct so many costs that the workers wages would go below the federal minimum wage. Now, if people are suggesting that the fair labor standards act exemption really is unimportant, that we wouldnt actually have wages that fall below the federal minimum wage, they should vote yes on this amendment because its very clear and its very simple. I do think that the idea that we would bring in millions of individuals paid below the minimum wage to compete with workers who are already here is wrong. Its frankly shocking to me that we are, in fact, considering doing that. This amendment would at least preclude that opportunity, that potential outcome that workers wages would go below the federal minimum wage. For that reason i hope that we can all approve it. And with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Chair recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. This question is debatable. The worker and employer relationship is beneficial. Farmers get the labor they need. Guest workers earn wage that is outpace what they can earn in their home countries. And the fact of the matter is that because this allows workers to move from crop to crop and farm to farm more easily in the United States<\/a> will enhance their earning capability compared to the current hrta program so i think workers and farmers come out better but the fact of the matter is workers dont work for what they dont want to earn and, therefore, you will usually see much higher than the minimum wage paid and this law requires the minimum wage plus 15 in most instances. For those reasons i oppose this amendment. Strike last word. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, its well and good that workers may earn here more than they would at home. Thats nice. But if its below the federal minimum wage, thats wrong as n matter of morality and as a matter of law. It also bids down american wages and the fact that you say it will rarely happen, most of the time people will get even with these deductions more than minimum wage, well, if thats true then you should accept the amendment because the amendment only says the amendment is mild amendment. It only says that you cant deduct these business costs if it brings the net wage below the federal minimum wage. This should never be a net wage below the federal minimum wage. And in fact, this whole program is flawed as i talked about yesterday. A number of us did yesterday because it is primarily i wont say designed. Maybe that is the case. I dont know. But certainly one of the its major affects is to say that were going to have very low wages, that American Workers<\/a> wont accept. And it is true that if we paid higher wages you might get American Workers<\/a> to do this. Were importing a workforce to subvert american wages and not bad enough so were going to put various conditions on the on the foreign workforce to make them have no leverage, work for sub minimum wage and this is an example of that so this amendment which simply says you cant deduct the business expenses if it brings it below minimum wage. The chairman said it wont bring it below minimum wage then why not accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If you take a look at page 17 of the managers amendment, it basically says that the Court Decisions<\/a> that were more or less fine tuned about what activities benefited the employee versus employer are out the window. We are instructed that every interpretation and determination shall find that whatever these costs are, they mutually benefit such workers and they principally benefit neither the employer or employee which means that legally they can all be charged against the employee. Now, that could be a very large amount of money. The idea that we would countenance this is really what voting for this against this amendment says srks that were going to say its all right to bring in foreign competitors at below minimum wage, millions of them, to compete in forestry, in Food Processing<\/a>, with people who are already here doing those jobs. Thats not right. And the way to remedy it is to vote for this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. And i thank the gentle lady for observations and for her amendment. This amendment is crucial. The bill is crucial but the amendment is crucial because the amendment in effect allows all these deductions to create sub minimum wages which is wrong to pay people sub min maum wages, even if theyre foreigners and certainly wrong to subject American Workers<\/a> to competition from people earning sub minimum wages. Just a huge subsidy to the industry and its saying to American Workers<\/a> go to hell. So i urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back. Mr. Chairman . First the gentleman first of all, i want to thank the gentle lady from california for her thoughtfulness and ensuring that this very important amendment and message was associated with the substitute and nature of the amendment in nature of a substitute to hr 4092 which is already a flawed bill because it emphasizes, again, the noncompetitive or the position that American Workers<\/a> could be placed in. But it also illustrates the harshness of this legislation when you begin to assess to the employee recruiting fees, filing fees, application fees, transportation to the United States<\/a>, required transportation to and from the work site, required tools and Safety Equipment<\/a> and required uniforms, thereby, diminishing the cost or the ultimate compensation to that employee. Let me try to extrapolate or to connect, if you will, the ordinary scene of an American Worker<\/a>. The ordinary scene of an American Worker<\/a> and the ordinary examp worker, for example, corporations pay those recruiting forms so that they can have the best talent and they can go outside the per view of their jurisdiction if theyre located in los angeles, located in new york, houston, jackson, mississippi, atlanta, rural areas and beyond, they would seek a renowned recruiting firm or local recruiting firm. Just think if that innocent worker with all of his or her talents accepts the job and he receives a bill, she receives a bill, when they go into their pristine new office or sit at the new desk with all of their excitement and they get maybe a bill for 10,000. That is your charge for the Recruitment Company<\/a> that we hired to look for you as a talented worker. And then, of course, if, for example, you had to relocate and Many Companies<\/a> provide relocation for at least their management level, maybe others, and all of a sudden you got a multithousand dollar bill on your desk because you had to move your family to this new location. That begins to diminish whatever plus of the salary that you thought you were going to have. Then, of course, you need computers and paper and pens and paper or you may need Construction Equipment<\/a> or engineering tools. And then, you, mr. American worker, we put a bill on your desk for tools and Safety Equipment<\/a>. So the maybe three figure salary or maybe the 80,000 or 90,000 that you might be fortunate enough to receive puts you minimally in the middle class in some areas. You would have to deduct that and therefore your take home pay would be somewhere below even the reality that you would be expecting. Required uniforms. This is obviously a new approach maybe to some aspects of working duties that the undocumented or h2c workers would have and there is a question about whether that should be attributed in light of the less than stellar hourly wage theyre receiving. Now, these may not be degreed persons but theyre skilled persons. Theyre skilled for the Necessary Industries<\/a> or the industries necessities. You take all of that or what they have to deduct from their minimal compensation and it results in a salary less than the minimum wage. The gentle ladys accurate in her thinking and this amendment that it should not go below the federal minimum wage where an employer continues to deduct their business costs for someone that they will have working for a period of time and generating income for their business. And i really support particularly the Agricultural Farm<\/a> industry that has to provide the food of america, the food of the world. But to now have a situation where the employers can deduct all of this from an already challenged worker as it relates to income and maybe an American Worker<\/a> as relates to income seems to be sad, upsetting and patently unfair. So i rise to support the gentle ladys simple amendment, fair amendment and i cant imagine why anyone would vote against this fair amendment. This makes a bad bill at least in some instances tollerible. To the point of compensating individuals who work very, very, very, very, very hard. I yield back. Support the gentle ladys amendment. The question occurs on the amendment by the gentle woman from california, all this in favor respond by saying aye. Those no. The nos have it. May we have a recorded vote . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Goodlatte . No. Mr. Sensenbrenner . Mr. Smith . No. Mr. Issa . Mr. King . Mr. Franks . Mr. Gohmert . No. Mr. Jordan . No. Mr. Pogh . No. Mr. Morina . No. Mr. Gowdy . Mr. Labrador . Mr. Farenthal . Mr. Collins . Mr. Desantis . No. Mr. Buck . Mr. Radcliffe . No. Ms. Robi . Mr. Gates . No. Mr. Johnson of louisiana . No. Mr. Biggs . No. Mr. Rutherford . No. Ms. Handle . No. Mr. Conyers . Aye. Mr. Nadler . Aye. Ms. Lofgren . Aye. Ms. Jackson lee . Aye. Mr. Coen . Mr. Johnson of virginia . Aye. Mr. Deutsch . Mr. Gutierrez . Ms. Bass . Mr. Richmond . Mr. Jeffries . Aye. Mr. Sicilyny . Aye. Mr. Swalwell . Aye. Mr. Lieu . Aye. Mr. Raskin . Mrs. Jayapal . Aye. Mr. Schneider . Aye. Mr. Franks . No. Mr. Farenthal . No. Mr. Collins . No. Gentleman from colorado . Mr. Buck. No. Gentleman from idaho . Mr. Labrador. No. Has every member voted who wishes to vote . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 11 members voted aye, 18 members voted no. Amendment is not agreed to. What purpose does the gentle lady of georgia seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. Handle. On page 10, line without objection, the saemt considered as read and the gentle woman is recognized for five minutes on the amendment. Thank you. This amendment accomplishes two important things in the bill. First, additional protections for American Work<\/a> earls strengthening enforce of the job posting requirement. Verifying with the state work force agencies that employers posted the jobs for American Workers<\/a> first. This program is designed to supplement the American Workforce<\/a>, not replace it so this amendment strengthens the protections for American Workers<\/a> to ensure that americans get the first shot at these positions. Additionally, my amendment will ensure that those present in the United States<\/a> illegally are prohibited from receiving an h2c visa until that individual returns to the home country. Once in their home country, the individual can begin the application process that will allow them to enter the United States<\/a> in a lawful matter thereby ensuring that the individuals in the program on a legal footing from the inception. Mr. Chairman, section two of the amendment correctly asserts that this program is designed to supplement the American Work<\/a> force with guest workers who will not abandon the home country and only seek to come to be temporarily in the american to perform services. My amendment will ensure that the spirit of the bill is upheld in practice. With my amendment, this bill establishes a Guest Worker Program<\/a> with workers who enter the program and the country legally. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate staffs help in working through this and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Yield . Yield back. If the gentle woman would yield, this if you would yield. I yielded back i want you to yield back. Always. Only for the purpose of telling you you have an excellent amendment and support it. Thank you, sir. What purpose does the gentle woman of california seek recognition . To strike the last word. Recognized for five minutes. Part of the amendment makes this bill marginally better by requiring that the act station actually include a search for an American Worker<\/a> to do the job. That is a good thing. However, the second part of it is completely unrealistic. As i mentioned in my Opening Statement<\/a> yesterday, a majority of those who are undocumented and working in farm labor have been here a very long time. Many of them, a majority, have family who is are here. They have spouses. They have children. In some cases they have grandchildren. So the idea that someone, that a majority of these farm workers have been here picking the lettuce that we eat in our salads for the last 15 years or more are going to come forward, leave the country, abandon their families, with the possibility that they might get a temporary visa, thats not going to happen. Thats not going to happen. So, what this does is actually further drive underground the undocumented workforce. In fact, we need to come to grips with the situation as it is and then move forward. I remember a hearing that we had a number of years ago and the witness was the president of the Southern Baptist<\/a> convention. And his testimony was this. That for years and years we had had two signs at the southern border. The first sign said, no trespassing. And the second sign said, help wanted. And people responded to the help wanted sign. There were 5,000 permanent resident visas a here allocated to socalled unskilled workers. There was minimal at that time border enforcement. And so, Market Forces<\/a> went to work and we who eat salads and vegetables have benefited ever since 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 future flow of immigrant workers into the country for ag and for other necessary parts of our economy in a way that protects the wages, hours and working conditions of the American Workers<\/a>. This amendment falls short of that and so i do not intend to support it. And i thank the chairman for yielding to me and i yield back. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle woman of georgia. All those in favor respond by saying aye. All those opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Further amendments . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentle woman by texas. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute to hr 4092 by jackson lee of texas. Page 45 without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentle woman is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and members. Ly take a brief moment to explain by amendment and its a common sense amendment for the bill. My amendment provides that h2c workers with status under the provision are not ineligible to receive Legal Services<\/a> from the Legal Services<\/a> corporation or any of its grantees if they otherwise meet the legal aids Office Eligibility<\/a> criteria relating to income, place of residence, type of legal matter. The amendment is needed to create a level playing field. Section 4 and 6 of the legislation requires that any dispute arising between an h2c worker and employer. These are legal form that s tha render legal decisions. They require a certain level of expertise. The employer will be represented by experienced attorneys specializing in the field of employment law. It is wholly i think unrealistic and unfair to expect that an h2c worker status as they are would be able to participate in a mediation or arbitration proceedings without any assistance at all. We know that legal aid lawyers have compassion and understanding in representing many people that are in particular low income. My amendment will make it possible for such work earls to have the assistance of a legal aid lawyer. I believe its the fair thing to do. It is really warranted because of our adherence in this committee to the highest standards of due process. We know that that is the fair path to take and i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment in fairness to a system that should work for all persons including those who come to the country under h2c status and would, in fact, possibly be subject to provisions in this bill. This does not add any extra cost to this bill. And it does not undermine aspects of the bill that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support. So i ask support for the jacksonlee amendment. The chair recognized himself in opposition to the amendment. While i certainly do not begrudge any temporary agricultural worker access to justice i do not endorse the continued use of taxpayer dollars to support attorneys who have shown a propensity for using these funds to harass farmers and harass h2a employers and disrupt the employers between these employers and their workers. This practice needs to end under the h2c program created about i this bill. There are Legal Service<\/a> providers who operate on a pro bono basis or with funds provided by sources other than american taxpayers. I wholeheartedly endorse the efforts of these attorneys to aid h2c workers whenever it is necessary. Farmers who voluntarily sign up to have their temporary nonim grant workforces heavily regulated by the federal government and who pay a fair wage rate should not be unfairly targeted and harassed by taxpayer funded organizations with ideological agendas. As a reminder the Legal Services<\/a> Corporation Statute<\/a> itself requires lse grantees to refrain from engaging in political activism. Lsc grantees have shown a propensity for unfair targeted of guest workers and their efforts have been a significant factor in the decisions of many farmers to avoid using the crept Guest Worker Program<\/a> at all. There are numerous examples ranging from North Carolina<\/a> to colorado to washington and georgia just to name a few and for these reasons i urge the defeat of this amendment. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, the jeptel person from georgia. Move to strike the first word. I yield to the gentle lady from texas. Mr. Chairman, i know of your good values and belief in justice, but im appalled at that response that people who have status under the hr 2 c h2c would not have the rights under arbitration and mediation. This amendment has nothing to do with harassing farmers or the industry. It simply says when this bill throws them into mediation, arbitration, they have the right to have counsel. It doesnt say that they are allowed to secure legal Aid Assistance<\/a> to stand as a harasser of the of their employer. It simply argues to the bill. The bill says that their matters will be resolved by arbitration mediation. Who is going to be sitting across from the h2c worker . More than likely less the farmer more his or her lawyer. While would it not have a legal aid component . I didnt have massive law street law firms or washington major prominent law firms, i said legal aid who have been working with poor people, these individuals are by all standards probably poor and, therefore, would warrant some kind of response and so to be able to deal with the structure that you put in place. Thats what were asking. Just a structure that you have put in place through this bill if it ever sees the light of day and gets to be signed into law which i think it would be enormously unfortunate if it did because right now were passing a bill that completely extinguishes due process and takes a match to the constitution and im disappointed that we characterize rights of h2c workers in a forced mediation arbitration as harassing and not needing or not warranting to have some sort of legal representation. I know these are apples and oranges. I mean, were getting ready to open up investigations into a number of people from comey to an individual thats not president of the United States<\/a>, is no threat to the United States<\/a>, this Judiciary Committee<\/a> with the Oversight Committee<\/a> is getting ready to open up past investigations regarding the former secretary of state, nowhere are we doing any investigations regarding the president or seeking to understand the distinction between the separation of powers, but anybody thats going to be involved in the investigations that were going to be engaged in, they are going to be, im sure, lawyered up. My amendment is simply an amendment to indicate the need for that kind of decency and fairness for a person engaged in the arbitration and mediation process. So i ask my colleagues to support the jacksonlee amendment and with that i yield back. And with that i yield back. Question thank you, gentlemen. Question occurs on the amendment offered from the gentlewoman in texas all those in favor respond by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed. No. No. Recorded vote is requested and the clerk will call the role. Mr. God lat. No. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Smith. No. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Sighs is a. Mr. King, mr. King votes no. Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert votes no. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan votes no. Mr. Poe. Mr. Marino. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Farrenthold votes no. Mr. Desantis votes no. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Miss roby, mr. Gates, mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle votes no. Mr. Conyers. Aye. Mr. Conyers votes aye. Miss jacksonlee. Aye. Mr. Cohen, mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Aye. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Gutierrez. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffries. Aye. Mr. Jeffries votes aye. Mr. Cicilliny. Mr. Swaul well, mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Lieu votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Schneider votes aye. Are there any other members who wish to vote and if not, the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 12 members voted aye, 15 members voted no. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments . Okay. The gentleman from georgia is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I cannot support this bill the clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. Johnson of. Without objection the amendment is the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from georgia is recognized to explain his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment would strike two portions of the bill, section 4 and section 6. Section 4 prevents workers from bringing civil actions for damages without attempting to mediate the request for 90 days prior. Section 6 of the bill allows employers to require h2c workers to arbitrate any grievances relating to the Employment Relationship<\/a> including claims related to withheld wages or other contractual violations. Combine the provisions would effectively bar workers from bringing any claims in court against their employers. Section 4 and 6 are very onerous, they add insult to injury to a very bad bill to begin with and this amendment would help to make that just a little bit better. Put another way, forced arbitration provisions of section 6 as well as the mediation provisions of section 4 are a blatant attempt to deny nonimmigrant workers access to the legal system and it expressly permits employers to force workers into this arbitration process, and this is wrong, its wrong for americans, its wrong for workers who are immigrants from other countries who are attracted to this country for these jobs, only to find out that what they were promised is which was wages, they are not going to get. So this this legislation sets up just a horrible circumstance, it legally ties the hands of immigrants to have fairness and to assert their rights in court and for that reason i ask that this body approve this amendment and with that i yield back. Thank you, mr. Johnson. I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The ag act does not preclude an h2c worker from bringing a civil action, it simply requires an attempt to settle the dispute by mediation first. H2a employers have been the target of harassing lawsuits for years. The provision that the amendment would strike would encourage the parties to settle disputes before resorting to litigation. Is there anyone else who seeks to be heard on this amendment . The gentlewoman from california, ms. Laugh rent is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i think this amendment is thoughtfully offered and an important one. The arbitration costs under the bill would be split equally between the employee and the employer. Now, as weve discussed in prior amendments, were talking about a class of immigrant workers who are going to be paid less than the federal minimum wage. What we have here are arbitrations and we all, you know, know arbiters and have friends who serve as arbiters, i know i do back in california. You know, usually the fees are, you know, substantial. The hourly charges are going to be at least 200 to 300 an hour and so the overall fee is going to be usually thousands of dollars. How is half of that going to be paid for by an immigrant worker who is earning less than the minimum wage . Thats not reasonable. I think this is really an opportunity to take this group of indentured workers and make sure that no matter what happens to them they have no opportunity to be treated fairly. How can we be considering that here in the house of representatives . How can we hold our heads high and be considering that proposition . Its really pretty outrageous. So i thank mr. Johnson for his amendment. I think that its an important one and i would be very disappointed if we did not approve it and with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield well, i would yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for yielding and i want to associate myself very much with the remarks of the gentle lady from california and to endorse this amendment which establishes something that should be basic, intuitive, obvious and supported by everyone which is that people who have come to the United States<\/a> and are working here for the benefit of our economy should have the right to legal representation, especially these people because under the system of 21st century indentured servitude thats been devised under this law these people are coming here at a subminimum wage, without any guarantee of housing, without family, spouses or children and they are exposed to the most extreme kind of control by their employers. You know, when america started the great tom payne said that here in democracy the law is king and in the authoritarian societies in the monarchies the king is law. Now were setting up a system where the boss is the law and as the gentle lady from california describes, the workers who have who are being cheated out of the meager wages that are being set up under this law will now have to pay for expensive mediation and corporate Arbitration Services<\/a> that theyve been forced into under this regime. It just adds insult to injury. Mr. Johnsons amendment is a modest amendment which will at least say for the tiny shred of rights that have been left for these people who have been brought in to undercut American Workers<\/a>, they should have the opportunity to sue in court and not be channeled into all of these other services that are going to be controlled by their employer. So i think this is something that everybody on the committee should be able to support and i yield back. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Louf rent. The question is on the gentleman from georgias amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opened, nay. In the opinion of the chair of nays still have it. Mr. Chairman, id have for a recorded vote. Recorded vote has been requested. Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Goodlatte quotes no. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Cha bot. Mr. Ice is a votes no. Mr. King, mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert votes no. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Poe. Mr. Marino. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Labrador. No. Mr. Labrador votes no. Mr. Farrentholdfarenthold. Mr. Collins. Mr. Desantis. No. Mr. Desantis votes no. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Ms. Roby. Mr. Gates. No. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. No. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle votes no. Mr. Conyers. Mr. Conyers votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Ms. Laugh rent. Aye. Miss louf rent votes a. Miss jackson lee. Miss jackson lee votes a. Mr. Cohen votes a. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Toouch votes aye. Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez votes yes. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffries. Aye. Mr. Jeffries votes eye. Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Swal well. Mr. Swal well votes aye. Mr. Lieu votes aye. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Ms. Jayapal votes aye. Mr. Schneider votes aye. Are there any other members who wish to be recorded . The gentleman from pennsylvania . Gentleman from iowa. Mr. King votes no. Gentleman from new york. Aye. Mr. Nadler votes aye. The clerk will report. Did you get my no . Mr. Marino votes no. The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 14 members voted aye, 15 members voted no. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments . The gentlewoman from washington is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentle lady is recogn e recognized to explain her amendment. I spoke in my last comments about the fact that the way that this bill is structured were actually adding almost up to 2 million potentially 2 million workers because of the caps and the way the caps are structured. So this amendment would limit the number of new foreign guest workers who could have active h2c status as any one time, not including undocumented workers to a total of 450,000. So let me just explain what this does because i hope that reasonable people on the other side of the aisle who dont want to flood the country with 2 million low paid workers would support this amendment. At first blush you might read this bill and come to the conclusion that no more than 450,000 new workers can come in on h2c status in any one year but that is not accurate. Why is it not accurate . Because, first, the bill contains an escalator provision that allows the 410,000 cap for farm and other workers and the 40,000 cap for meat and powell tree workers to grow by up to 10 every year if all the visas are used. Because there is no cap on how large the program can grow over time the yearly allotment of visas could grow exponentially and indefinitely eventually reaching into the millions. Second, h2c visas are good for up to three years for perm ept be work and 18 months for temporary or seasonal work. Workers are all but insured to stator at least 18 months given that the bill allows Employer Association<\/a> toss petition for workers as opposed to limiting the use of the program to single employers. This means that many of the 450,000 h2c workers that are admitted in year one will still be here working when another 450,000 or 495,000 due to the 10 increase are admitted in year 2. And because the visas are good for up to three years many of the year one workers will still be here when another 450,000 or by year three 544,000 workers come in year three. And these numbers dont even account for the several classes of workers that can qualify for h2c visas without counting against the cap, including those who are previously here on h2a or h 2 b visas which could add another 200,000 or more total visas. So in all thats where the number that i mentioned earlier, the 2 million workers it really to be 1, 2 or 3 million h2c workers could be working in the United States<\/a> at the same time. And so this program would be a massive program authorized by the bill that would have a sweeping impact on both u. S. And immigrant workers in the country. And considering the low wages and lack of protections in the bill, it would effectively authorize employers to replace u. S. Workers in large swaths of the American Economy<\/a> and because there are no Worker Protections<\/a> in this program the cap is critically important to preventing job losses from growing. Under the bill, mr. Chairman, its no longer necessary for a job to be temporary or seasonal that might be hard to fill with an American Worker<\/a> because as ms. Laugh rent had an amendment on this yesterday in the h2c program full time yearround workers in forestry and logging from wisconsin to georgia would be forced out of their jobs and the same is true with those who process fish or shellfish from alaskan can reese to Louisiana Fish<\/a> houses as well as meat and poll friday processing and packing from iowa to texas. They would see new competition for their jobs unless they agree to work at the same rate as the h2c programs low wages which is essentially is 8. 34 per hour or 150 of the federal for meat and poultry processing. If workers wont work for those low wages the bill allows the employer to declare a worker shortage. This would be, lets be clear, one of the largest transfers of wealth from working people to employers in decades and it would hurt American Workers<\/a> across the country. And so as i mentioned i quoted frank gas preeny in my last comments with the National Conference<\/a> of employers and i think we can agree that some employers are getting what they want but i dont think its right for American Workers<\/a> and i dont think its right for the immigrants that live here and deserve more than being treated as temporary workers after theyve been feeding us for years. This amendment would assure that the program is limited in size to what it purports to promise, a cap of 450,000. Thats already a massive program, particularly troubling begin the programs lack of protections for both guest workers and u. S. Workers, but at least it makes the size of the program transparent and i would just ask that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle consider this amendment because i do believe that there is bipartisan concern about what this bill would do to the American Workforce<\/a> across the country. And this amendment would clarify that it really is whatever the number is thats established for that year all of the visas in that category would be subject to that cap. Not an ever increasing supply that has essentially no cap whatsoever. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. I will recognize myself in opposition. Every other temporary Worker Program<\/a> in the ina with a numerical limitation bases the limit on the almost of aliens granted visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status in a fiscal year and this is no different from the other programs. Does the gentleman from maryland wish to be recognized . Yes, mr. Chairman, thank you. If so the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. And i appreciate your telepath i can skills. I wanted to rise in favor very much of congresswomans jayapals amendment and wanted to thank her for clearing up confusion because yesterday when we were debating this i thought we were talking about 400,000 or 450,000 and then i was sent this article this morning from breitbart saying democrats claim American Workers<\/a> first is gop bill outsources Food Industry<\/a> jobs and the first sentence said democratic legislators were able to champion American Workers<\/a> because gop leaders were pushing the outsourcing bill which would allow Food Industry<\/a> companies to fire a million Foreign Workers<\/a>. I thought that was fake news. I thought i think this bill is only for 450,000 not for a million and congresswoman jayapal explains its cumulative. We are talking about creating a million and a half or up to 2 million indentured servants brought her to undercut American Labor<\/a> and live under conditions that none of us would accept for our constituents or i believe in our family. I want to speak very strongly in favor. Would the gentleman yield . Yes, by all means. I yield to the gentle lady from texas. I was moved by both the amendment and your commentary and forgive me for suggesting that this seems to be a fresh meat concept. That is hard working American Workers<\/a> year after year get replaced by victims. I dont even want to call them workers because remember they are not guaranteed the minimum wage, they have got a huge bill, they will to pay for their transportation, their uniforms and they are expendable. I believe that this amendment is a vital clarifying amendment on what were really doing and so i would just add my support to this amendment because it looks like its a rotating door, rotate American Workers<\/a> out, rotate others in, but those others that come they are not going to stay long, either, under the circumstances that were dealing with. Would the gentleman yield . I will yield to the gentle lady from california. Id just like to note and read something in the bill thats people ought to focus on. Page 16 line 17. Each employer seeking to hire u. S. Workers for the job the h2c workers will perform shall offer such United States<\/a> worker not less than the same benefits, wages and working conditions that the employer will provide to h2c workers. No job offer may impose on u. S. Workers any restrictions or obligations which will not be imposed on h2c workers. That is the complete opposite of what we do to protect American Workers<\/a>. On the h1b program you have to make sure that you are not offering less to the immigrant worker than the American Worker<\/a>. So weve set this up so were going to make sure that american wages are driven down. I want to talk a little bit about the h 2 b program because we had some bipartisan agreement, not everyone agreed, but some bipartisan agreement that there needed to be some give in the h 2 b program several years ago we had carnivals and circuses who had specialized workers who came every year to work in their in the carnival. We had crab shuckers out in maryland that, you know, needed knew how to do it, who wanted to do it, it was seasonal work. And so we did a returning worker exemption that was relatively modest to accommodate legitimate issues in the American Economy<\/a> and i would note that we didnt reduce the protections for those h 2 b workers. We didnt eviscerate the wage scale, we didnt eviscerate the protections they had, it was merely to recognize an economic condition. What this bill does is it says you can move all those h 2 b visa holders into this h2c status and not counting against the cap. And when you move them into the h2c visa category their rights are eviscerated. They no longer have protections for even a minimum wage or for a cost that might be assessed to them. So i recall that when we did that fairly modest h 2 b meas e measure, fair, numbers u. S. A. Went berserk that we were opening the door, that thousands of, you know, the unwashed were coming in even though they had the protections. How could the same group that cared about that dust up think that this is appropriate . Its astonishing. So thank you for offering this amendment which i strongly support. The gentleman from marylands time has expired. Any other members who wish to be heard on the amendment . The gentleman from california mr. Ice is a is recognized. Amendments have consequences and what i find a little bit frightening about this amendment is the naive day of the gentle lady from washington. I know she is a new member, but if i understand correctly as we normalize at least 2 million guest workers that are already here she proposes that we ratchet that down to 450,000 total in a short period of time. Representing the largest agricultural state in the union i find that scary to say the least and certainly not conducive to a fix but rather conducive to chain illegal migration again, something were trying to fix here. What i really find interesting is the gentle lady from san jose. If this amendment were applied to h1bs, 80 of h1bs would go away. The High Tech Community<\/a> would lose one of the most valuable nonimmigrant visa programs it has because essentially what youd say is, well, were not going to worry about year offer year were going to have an absolute cap. I think we have to be very careful going down a road that clearly would provide less than the amount of people currently involved in a skill set, a nonimmigrant skill set. So i find it easy to vote against this. Would the gentleman yield . I will in a second. On its policy basis but also on if we applied this same sort of concept to the rest of immigration and i yield to my friend from san jose. I would note that if the h1b program allowed for a million coders to be paid 3 an hour i would indeed suggest that we put limitations on such a program. In reclaiming my time. Would the gentleman yield . Reclaiming my time for a moment, you know, right now we have a bipartisan h1b bill that actually tries to set a very high level for these high skilled workers, but i will say that even the highest level were trying to get would be less than the prevailing wage that i would interpret for the highest skills that we would like to attract. So this is always one of the challenges is to get the number right against those who would like to lower the number and i think in the case of unskilled labor were worked hard to do that. Somebody else wanted into he to yield. Yes, maam. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope that if im in this chamber for as long as the distinguished gentleman from california that i would learn to read the amendments that weve already said no so because you just said no, your side just said no to an amendment that would have allowed for the undocumented immigrants to be a part of this cap as well. You disregard that number. So we are talking about capping new visa en threes. So were not were talking about saying that its 450,000 capped at whatever the number is that it goes up to by whatever increases in your bill, but your statement is just not correct because the current workforce of undocumented immigrants are not counted against this cap. Reclaiming my time the gentle lady is right that the current or not but this is a changing workforce and as h2cs leave, this absolute cap would get to where over time you would end up with over 450,000 slots. You would find yourself with the 2 million plus people now, when those h2cs leave, there goes that slot. So the reality is over a period of a relatively short period of time those temporary workers would return to mexico, costa rica, wherever is their home and youve capped the total number this this problem. Thats one of the challenges with this amendment, it certainly would have the same devastating effect in that sense. So we are dealing with the this entire reason for the 410,000 is for the fact that the h 2 the h2cs will eventually leave and i think thats a challenge we face and i yield back. Thank you, mr. Issa. The question is on gentlewoman from washington the gentleman from illinois is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I ask to strike the last. So i looked up naivety, it says the state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated especially in being artless or uncritical. The artless uncritical statement or act. I think the gentle lady from sorry if im upset is everything but that. I think she comes naup na[ inaudible ]. I just feel i dont know, its outrageous. Whats naive is for anybody to come to my office and talk to me and think this is serious what were doing today. All of you thinking congress is going to do something productive and meaningful thats naive, not what the gentle lady from washington proposes and not for those of us who have come here in a serious state of wishing to bring change and fundamental change to farmworkers in this country who do incredibly hard work and keep our economy so strong. I no longer have any use for the remainder of my time. Thank you, mr. Gutierrez and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. Opinion of the chair the nays have it. Recorded vote, mr. Chairman. A roll call vote has been requested and the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Smith. No. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Chabott. Mr. Issa. Mr. King. No. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Poe. Mr. Marino. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Gowdy votes no. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Farenthold votes no. Mr. Collins. Mr. Desantis. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Mr. Radcliffe votes no. Ms. Roby. Mr. Gates. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs. No. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss lock rent votes aye. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch votes aye. Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez votes aye. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Please note i didnt mr. Jeffries. Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Swalwell votes aye. Mr. Lieu. Aye. Mr. Lieu votes aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Ms. Jay pallet votes aye. Mr. Snyder votes a. Are there other members who wish to be recorded . The gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Gentleman from florida. No. Mr. Gates votes no. Gentleman from idaho. The chairman from virginia. No. Mr. Goodlatte votes no. Ja from pennsylvania. Mr. Marino votes no. Gentleman from florida i mean, georgia. Mr. Collins votes no. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 13 members voted aye, 18 members voted no. The nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there in i other amendments . The gentleman from new york is recognized. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr 4092 offered by mr. Nadler. The amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from new york is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentleman from iowa. I reserve a point of order. Point of order has been reserved from the gentleman from iowa and the gentleman from new york will explain the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The bill provides that h2c workers shall be afforded wages that are at least the greatest of the applicable state or local minimum wage or 115 of the federal minimum wage or 150 of the federal minimum wage in the case of people who do meat or poultry processing. So its 150 of the federal minimum wage for people who do meat and poultry processing and either the higher of the state or local state or federal minimum wage for everybody else. My amendment adds to that and would say in effect the applicable the highest the applicable state or local minimum wage what i just read, et cetera, and would add the following language, or the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor or services in the same occupational classification and Geographic Area<\/a> of employment. In other words, the prevailing wage. We are told that we need this bill because we cant get American Workers<\/a> to do this kind of labor and we are told that paying these wages will not undercut american wages. Well, if were paying wages way below the prevailing wage for American Workers<\/a> in that area, then we are by definition bidding down the wages, we are by definition hauling in Foreign Workers<\/a> to do work below the prevailing wage for American Workers<\/a> and we are lowering the wages American Workers<\/a> can get. So this amendment says if youre going to pay h2c workers under this bill you have to pay the greater of the state or local minimum wage or the average page paid to other individuals performing Labor Services<\/a> in the same occupational classification and Geographic Area<\/a> of employment. Now, if people are working for minimum wage then that will be the prevailing wage, but if people are working for much higher than that then we should not want to reduce the wages the American Workers<\/a> are earning. Let me give you some statistics, the minimum wage in agriculture is 8. 34 an hour. 8. 34 an hour. When we are talking about meat and poultry processing which is brought under the purview of this bill the average wage for butchers and meat cutters is 15. 26. The average wait for slaughterers and meat packers is 13. The average wage for meat, poultry and fish cutters and shimmers is 12. 27 the average wage for all other Food Processing<\/a> workers is 12. 40. People who earned between 12. 40 and 15. 36 should earn 8. 34 or be faced with competition of foreign labor we are bringing in to earn 8. 34. Now, logging which is also under this bill the average wage for logging Equipment Operators<\/a> is 18. 69, for log greaters and scalers 18. 34, for all other for forest and conservation workers 15 all other logging workers 19. 50. Were saying people who now earn 18. 69 or 19. 50 an hour should be faced with competition by foreign labor bringing in at 8. 34 an hour. Why would we want to do this . If we have as we are told work this this country that needs to be done, which American Workers<\/a> will not do, then, okay, maybe we need an agricultural Guest Worker Program<\/a>, but we shouldnt bring in agricultural guest workers for wages im sorry, for work that American Workers<\/a> will do and do do and then permit the payment of wages much below from the americans are paid because then we are replacing American Workers<\/a> with Foreign Workers<\/a> at much lower wages or were forcing the American Workers<\/a> to accept much lower wages and thats not presumably what we want to do. So i urge adoption of the amendment which simply says, again, that the people brought in from the foreign country from mexico presumably should be paid the applicable state or local minimum wage of 115 of the if he had wall minimum wage is what the bill says or the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor or services in the same occupational classification and Geographic Area<\/a> of employment. In other words, the wage that people are already being paid, whichever is the highest, that should be paid and if you pay that wage to Foreign Workers<\/a> and you still find the necessity of bringing in Foreign Workers<\/a> because American Workers<\/a> wont do at the wages they are accustomed to the paid, assuming that were the case, fine, but if American Workers<\/a> will do the work for this amount of money, then you shouldnt bring in Foreign Workers<\/a> to do the work for much less money. And let me also ask unanimous consent to emd a the amendment by putting in the word the in front of the word same. Without objection the amendment will be amended to include the word the at the appropriate place. Does the gentleman yield yeed back i. Yield back. I will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The ag act does protect ag workers. It replaces the adverse effect wage rate paid under the h2a program with a more marketbased wage standard. The bill radio irs that workers be paid 115 of the federal minimum wage or of the state minimum 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 on the amendment . If not the question is mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from iowa is recognized. I would withdraw my point of order but ask to be recognized to describing the last word. Without objection the point of order is withdrawn and the gentleman continues to be recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to just examine this as i understood the base bill, too, that it guarantees that if there is a standard wage that exists there, say 15 and change an hour but under this bill you would still have to pay 15 and change an hour and the gentleman from new york disagrees with me, but i wanted to pose that question to him and i wanted to ask you also if the gentleman would yield to a question, where do you determine the wages, how does that determine the prevailing wage within meat packing plants, for example . Please, and i would yield to the gentleman from new york. If you look at the bill on page 18 that provides the provisions that you thought guarantee the market wage, but just look at the language from line 24 on page 17 through line 13 on page 18. And i will read it to you. It says each employer petitioning for h2c workers nd this subsection will offer the h2c workers during the period of authorized employment as h2c workers wages that are at least the greatest of, one, the applicable state or local minimum wage, two, 115 of the federal minimum wage or 150 of the federal m. In the case of h2c workers who performing a cultural labor or services that consist in meat and poultry processing or the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals in the job and we are adding the average wage the actual wage level paid by the employer. Its not necessarily prevailing wage or the market wage. Were clarifying that in the amendment by saying the average wage paid to other individuals performing labor or services in the same occupational classification and Geographic Area<\/a> of employment. So were saying the market wage. The bill may have made an attempt to say that. It says the actual wage level paid by the employer. The particular employer. Other individuals in the job. Reclaim my time, then. The determination of this scale according to your amendment would be made how and by what agency and what data would be gathered together for this to be something that could be acted upon and implemented . And i would yield to the gentleman from new york. Thank you. The statistics i read and the determination generally which is where these statistics come from are made by the bureau of labor and statistics based on information supplied by the employers. Not by one employer, by, you know, a whole group of employers. And its averaged by region, by state, by zone . How . By region. By the metropolitan statistical area. Msa. All right. I thank the gentleman from new york for his response and i think Geographic Area<\/a> which would be the same thing. I thank the gentleman for his response and its my understanding the bill does attempt to do that. But it doesnt. Its a bit of a detail here. I dont want to take a position on this emd ament but i want ad clarification from the author of the amendment. I appreciate the attention and i yield back the plans of my time. Other members who wish to be heard. The gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin, is recognized. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Move to strike the last word. I want to rise in favor of the gentleman from new yorks amendment which i think does not only whats right but does what a lot of members thought the bill already did, so its certainly something we all can agree on. You know, the American Labor<\/a> movement does not oppose immigration, it opposes immigration on unfair terms where a workforce is brought in from abroad to try to undercut the wages and the benefits and the working conditions of american employees. And so the commitment of the American Labor<\/a> movement has always been to say that people who are working in america should not be used to drag down other peoples wages and their benefits and instead should have the same rights as American Workers<\/a> do. Now, obviously this bill is a mon rossity from the standpoint of the rights, the wages and the benefits of workers, but at the very least we have to pass the amendment that mr. Nadler is talking about because his amendment is targeting the effort to use this legislation precisely to undercut the wages of American Workers<\/a> and if we dont have the wages for the new indentured servant class meet those of the prevailing wage in the industry in the metropolitan area that were talking about then it will exert that profound downward drag on the wages of American Workers<\/a>. So i think this is why this legislation and these hearings have attracted the notice of breitbart which i never read before but people have been sending it to me because they obviously dont have much interest in the condition of the workers who are brought in, but they have a real interest apparently in the wages and the benefits of American Workers<\/a> who live in the communities. So i just want to speak in very strong favor of this amendment and i yield back. Thank you, mr. Raskin. The gentleman from michigan. Mr. Chairman, i rise in strong support of the amendment and yield to the gentleman from new york. Thank you. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Id like to clarify more, especially for mr. The gentleman from iowa. Why the language in the bill that you must pay the actual wage of a paid by the employer to other individuals in the job does not do the job. Does not require prevailing wages or the market wages. First, that provision only requires the employer to consider the wages of its own employees, which i said before. So even if the going wage for a logger is, lets say, 20 an hour in an area, the employer can recruit h2c workers at a far lower rate if he currently employs no such workers at all, or if it employs one or two workers at that lower one or more workers at that lower rate. So as worded here the program would allow unscrupulous employers to drive down wages for all. It doesnt say the prevailing wage in the area, it says the wage for that employer who may have no employees and thus have no standard or may have only a couple and be underpaying them. Secondly, the provision requires employers only to consider workers with similar skills and experience. This effectively allows an employer to avoid the wage requirement when it seeks to bring this entry level guest workers to display more experienced u. S. Workers. For example, a logging company would be able to recruit unexperienced loggers at 8. 34 an hour even if the more experienced workers are making 20 an hour, you could bring in inexperienced loggers from 8. 34 from mexico, fire his 20 American Workers<\/a> and keep these people on at 8. 34. So those are two of the reasons. And again so what we do in the amendment is what the purported intent i assume of that inadequate language in the bill does and we say that youve got to pay the higher of these other things the higher of the various minimum wagebased stuff that the bill mentions or the average wage paid to other individuals performing Labor Services<\/a> in the same occupational classification and Geographic Area<\/a> of employment. That covers it. And it covers what i think was the intent or may have been the intent or maybe it was i dont know if this is just not properly drafted or if it was the intent to look good but not be real, but in any event this fixes it. Would the gentleman yield . Yes. Id make a note that this is a very good amendment and you can take a look at a i mean, an equivalent type of situation in the h1b 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 you say this job is job x, unlike job y its a single shot, im paying this and it doesnt work. The surveys actually do work because its a multiEmployer Survey<\/a>, its transparent, i mean, theres an option, its either the department of labor decided wage or the survey decided wage. Actually, i think the Employer Survey<\/a> is more transparent than the dol figure, but you can see it and you can enforce it and the provision, again, i dont know what the motive was, there is no point speculating on it, it will not protect American Workers<\/a>. Would the gentle lady or gentleman yield . Its the gentlemans time. I thank the gentleman from new york from yielding. Would it be your position that under the base language in the bill that we have today that there could be, say, a Meat Processing<\/a> plant that starts them out at, say, 15 an hour they could shut that plant down, do a remodeling, bring it back online at 8. 34 if they could find the employees . Yes, in fact, id be further. Id say under the language of the bill they wouldnt have to shut the plant down they could simply bring in new workers and fire the 20 workers. Im not convinced on that particular analysis, but the first one it seems to me that the lang wj is open to that. I thank the gentleman. I would also point out that if the intent is that you dont want to import mexican or other Foreign Workers<\/a> to undercut existing wages, then whether or not the existing language in the bill is adequate my amendment certainly does the job and is unobjectionable from any other point of view. Would the gentleman further yield . Sure. If the gentleman from iowa will look at page 16 line 17, basically youre saying you dont have to pay your American Workers<\/a> any more than you would pay an hc worker. So if you in the meat packing example that youve given, you create meat packer position a, thats different than all the meat packer positions. You say im going to offer that american the same amount im offering the h2c workers to wit a federal minimum wage plus 15 minus the deductions then you could lay off the American Workers<\/a>. Youre not prohibited interest doing that in this bill and fill it up. I return my time. Gentleman yield back . I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Opinion of the chair the nays have it. What . Roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Smith. No. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Chabatt. Mr. Isaa votes no. Mr. King. Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Poe. Mr. Marino. No. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Labrador votes no. Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Farenthold votes no. Mr. Collins, mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Desantis. Mr. Buck. No. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Radcliffe. Miss roby. Miss roby votes no. Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle. Ms. Handle votes no. Mr. Conyers. Aye. Mr. Conyers votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss lofgren votes aye. Ms. Aye. Mr. Jackson lee. Mr. Cohen, mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Deutsche. Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez votes yes. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Swalwall votes aye. Mr. Lew. Mr. Raskin. Aye. Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Schneider, mr. Schneider votes aye. Are there other members wish to be recorded . Gentleman from south carolina. Mr. Gowdy votes no. Gentleman from texas. Mr. Ratcliff votes no. Gentleman from iowa. Mr. King votes aye. Not recorded. Mr. Lew votes aye. Gentleman from florida. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. The clipper report. Are there other members who wish to be recorded . Oh, the chairman from virginia. Mr. Goodlatte votes no. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 12 members voted aye 18 members voted no. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments . Mr. Chairman . The gentleman from illinois is recognized for purpose of reporting an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. Substitute to hr4092 the amendment is considered. The gentleman from illinois is recognized to explain his amendment. Mr. Chairman gentleman from georgia raises a point of order against the amendment. Mr. Chairman. And the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I offer my amendment as a substitute to the bill not being considered before the committee so it is replaced with the text of hr2690 the agricultural Worker Program<\/a> act, which i introduced in may of this year and has 69 of my colleagues have joined as cosponsors. Ive had the honor of meeting with farm workers all across this country during the last 20 years. And i know firsthand of their work. I know its back breaking and hot and Hazardous Conditions<\/a> in many instances and vital always to nourishing americans everywhere. They literally make eating food possible and we should appreciate that every single day. And they do it knowing that they and their families are at risk of arrest and deportation because we dont have a Legal Immigration<\/a> system that provides legal avenues to them to come to this country to work in this very vital industry. It would be shameful to past legislation to fail these reliable workers that values their contribution. In the National Support<\/a> for offering hard document on pop way to earn citizen and fully integrate into our society. The republican proposal is based on the old model of guest workers that has not worked well for employers and especially not for the workers. Under the republican proposal the workers are not people, families or potential americans. The way immigration has happened in the u. S. For the past two centuries. Rather they are disposable because the h 2 c program is only temporary Worker Program<\/a>, our nations current skilled agricultural work with years of ties to their communities and many with u. S. Citizen members would have no stability and no chance to become a member of the society they feel and wish to help and feed. The chairmans bill would tear families apart as it fails to provide any opportunity mr. Chairman, apparently, somebody wants to offer comment. Mr. Chairman, the committee is not in order. If the gentleman yield back. No, theres somebody else speaking simultaneously. The committee will be in order. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Many with u. S. Citizen family members would have no stability and no chance to become a member of the society they help to feed. The chairmans bill will tear families apart as it fails to provide any opportunity for the farm workers spouses and children to obtain immigration status. This bill is harsh and runs contrary to the testimony we have received here in this committee in july where we invited homeowners farm owners described their Seasonal Workers<\/a> who return to work for their farms year after year as, quote, farmers and as family. And the workers who come under this program will have absolutely no rights as working men and women. Their presence in this country will be totally at the discretion of their employers. They will have zero ability to stand up for themselves as they 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<\/a> either. This is the worst kind of churn and burn Guest Worker Program<\/a> we could think of from a workers point of view. Which is why some growers who want replaceable workers are starting to get onboard. Look, when immigrants are under attack, we have to find a way to offer them safety and security and legality. Not just for them and their families, although that is important, but also for their coworkers. For the supply chain, for the american Food Industry<\/a> and to hold employers accountable to our laws. Hr2690, the amendment i am offering is the choice for Legal Immigration<\/a> and for a functioning visa program so that our working men and women are protected by our labor laws and employers on full compliance and accountable. But we have chosen a nation what we have chosen unfortunately as a nation not to do that. We know that foreign hands will touch our food and the question for america is whether we want those foreign hands to grow our food in this country or in another country. The choice for america is whether we want our food grown and produced under our laws for food safety and Workplace Safety<\/a> or someone elses. I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership in introducing the Agricultural Program<\/a> act and offering it as an amendment to this bill. You know, i had an opportunity to meet with some growers about the bill before us. And i had a chance to ask them what do they think of this bill. Actually, they like this bill. This would solve the problems facing the sector, except that weve got a terrible bill instead that were considering that would not actually solve the problem. So i thank the gentleman for yielding and i commend him for the amendment. Thank you so much. Gentleman yields back mr. Chairman one more. Chair thanks the gentleman and recognize himself in opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from illinois. This is very, very similar to previous proposals that have had various names including ag jobs and there are a number of problems with this amendment. And i wont take you through all of them, but the critical one is that because this offers amnesty for people who are not lawfully present in the United States<\/a> and provides them with a pathway to citizenship, the net effect of this 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 work anywhere and do anything that is lawful in the United States<\/a> for which you have a job offer or start your own business. And it does not address the own problem we have and that is a lack of sufficient number of American Workers<\/a> on american farms. And therefore i must strongly oppose this amendment. The gentleman from California Strike<\/a> the last word. Gentleman recognized for five minutes. I want to talk about why this bill would actually solve the problem compared to the bill that the committee is marking up. You know, the ag industry current relies on more than a million undocumented farm workers, more than half of the crop workers and farm laborers in the country. Now, this has been a situation that is accumulated over time. Its really a product of a need that went unmet by our immigration system coupled with previous although not current weak enforcement of immigration at the border. Undocumented workers came to the u. S. To meet an economic end without their papers because there was no way to do it with papers, so we now have a Million People<\/a> who have worked here in some cases for decades. The surveys we have indicate majority of these individuals have been here more than 15 years. They have families. They have spouses. They have children. Some of them have grandchildren. They live here. When i go out, i mean, my district is primarily urban area, i have a little bit of ag, but i take the time to go out and meet with farmers, with strawberry growers out in the Central Valley<\/a> with the people who cut and dry apricots, down in salinas, one thing those farmers always tell me is who they really want is their current workforce. Because their current workforce knows how to do the job. This is not its socalled unskilled, but i couldnt go in and do this right off the street. Nor could any member of this committee. It is a skilled job. And the people who are doing it know how to do it. So what this bill does is recognize reality. Then it recognizes we will have a flow, a future need for farm workers and provides for that as well. So that is a rational workable solution that this committee should look at. It would not as the chairman suggests 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 cant imagine why someone who was offered a below minimum wage would come to the u. S. Unless the real reason was just to come to the u. S. And disappear into the woodwork. Cheaper than paying a so i think this amendment is entirely pragmatic. It solves the problem unlike the underlying bill. And i would just like to note that the touchback provisions that are in the underlying bill are completely unworkable because if youre here undocumented and you have children and you have grandchildren, youre not going to step forward, ditch your family, go to another country you havent been to for a couple of decades with the chance that you might get a temporary visa. Thats not going to happen. So youre going to stay undocumented because youre not going to abandon your family. So this bill that were marking up does nothing about that. Its a very disstressing circumstance we are talking about that is being proposed by this underlying bill. And i thank the gentleman from illinois for providing a rational alternative for our consideration. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. What purpose move to strike the last word. Gentleman recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I also want to commend my colleague from illinois for his work on putting together this bill and for offering it as an amendment. It would have been great to have a hearing on the bill thats before us so we could talk about all the ways in which it does not solve the problem. Weve been having to bring those up through our amendments. And i suppose its naive to imagine that we would have a hearing on a major bill that affects an incredibly big part of our industry Agricultural Industry<\/a> across the country. Mr. Chairman, i want to ask for unanimous consent to introduce into the record an oped that i wrote with representative marshall, Roger Marshall<\/a> 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. Theres very Little People<\/a> might see we have in common between kansas, kansass First District<\/a> and washingtons seventh district, but i wanted to read a piece on kansas. And kansas immigrants make the dairy industry run, strengthen the farms that provide the food on kitchen tables across the world and help the kansas Agricultural Industry<\/a> become the International Powerhouse<\/a> that it is today. Our farms, local economy and groceries you buy depend on immigrant labor. Calling this work in the dairies of kansas or the fields of washington lowskilled is a misnomer. If you were to tour farms throughout kansas or the apple orchards of washington you would witness labor that is physically demanding and requires a talent that is only perfected over years of practice. And i think that this goes to the point that miss lofgren was making. Theres another paragraph in here i would like to read for the benefit of our agent members of the committee. As new members of congress we came to washington, d. C. To do what is right for our districts. We are not immune to the politics that exist, but we are closer than most to the needs of our communities and families. We want that closeness to our districts to translate into pragmatic action and to remind us that regardless of party we must tell the truth about our stories and our districts. In the end in our respective roles as a physician from rural kansas and a National Immigrant<\/a> rights advocate, we saw the same thing. Immigrants are a vital part of americas past and our future. And without the help of these folks our economies and our communities would not make it. Mr. Gutierrezs amendment recognizes the truth of that. And instead of proposing a system this it essentially would lead to indentured servitude, it envisions a system that recognizes the value of yearround skilled Agricultural Labor<\/a> that our states, red and blue, across the country would benefit from. And those of you who are in this industry should know well that what we are doing with this bill is destroying the American Workforce<\/a> and ensuring that we have a second class permanent second class of citizens across the country. Sometimes that might earn wages at 8. 34 subtracting all of the expenses might end up even earning a dollar, two dollars. How is that possible for people on both sides of the aisle to even vote for or contemplate . I really dont understand that. And if that is naive as my distinguished colleague from california suggests, then perhaps we should all go back to being naive and actually 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. Would the gentle lady yield. Id be happy to yield. Thank you. I dont know for sure that the definition of naive is as broad or narrow as i would have made it, but one thing i would like the gentle lady to maybe answer for me, your side of the aisle continues to talk about wages below minimum wage and surf and so on, is there anything you know of under u. S. Law that would be any different than whats in this bill . In other words, if i go to a job to work as lets say in a field as a u. S. Citizen, theres nothing that stops me from having to pay my own costs of getting to that job. And thats where i keep not understanding why that provision the gentleman yield keeps getting referred to as its going to cause below minimum wage. An employer doesnt have to pay for me to get to the job and yet that provision seems to be in question. If in fact were talking about on the actual from your reporting place to the field, for example, if thats not understood to be an employer responsibility, im certainly happy to make sure that this bill would ensure that it would be. But getting to your initial place, showing up where the bus is at the field my understanding is the u. S. Citizens that show up there today or the undocumented workers who show up here today, they do that at their own expense. Would the gentleman yield . I would be happy to yield to the gentle lady from this bill exempts the h2c workers from the protection of the fair labor standards act. And if youre an American Worker<\/a>, you cannot have required health care, transportation costs, uniform, equipment deducted from your salary so it goes below the minimum wage. Under this bill you could do that to immigrant workers. So theres a very profound difference in the way workers would be treated. I thank the gentlewoman. Let me say we had an opportunity for your side to vote for an amendment that would not reduce the wages below the federal minimum wage. And your side turned that amendment down. So by that i can only assume that you do want to in fact change the standards that we have for all other workers in this country by exempting these workers. If you didnt want to change those standards, then you should have voted for that amendment and maybe we should bring that up again so you can vote for the amendment. Because right now you are asking for a change to the current standards that we have. You are asking for an exemption to that. I want to be clear thats what the bill does. Our amendments have consistently tried to put forward ways to make this bill a little bit better, and your side has consistently turned those amendments down. I yield back. Amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, all those in favor respond by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. In the chair the noes have it. Clerk will call the role. Goodlatte. No. Votes no. Mr. Smith, mr. Shabt, mr. Issa votes no. Mr. King, mr. King votes no. Mr. Franks. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Po. Mr. Marino. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. D votes no. Ms. Robi, ms. Roby votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana, mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Bigs. Mr. Bigs votes no. Mr. Rutherford, mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle, ms. Handle votes no. Mr. Nad ler votes aye. Mislof gren votes aye. Mr. Jackson lee, mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Deutsche. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez votes yes. Mr. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffreys, mr. Sicilini. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lew. Aye. Mr. Jay poll votes aye. Mr. Schneider, mr. Schneider votes aye. The gentleman from texas, mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes no. From arizona. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Farenthold votes no. Gentleman from south carolina. Mr. Gowdy votes no. Mr. Ratcliff. Votes no. Gentleman from idaho. Votes no. Any member who wishes to vote . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, 10 members voted aye, 20 members voted no. Are there any other amendments agreed to. Gentleman from california seek recognition. I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr4092 offered by ms. Lofgren. Without objection the amendment is considered read and gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the amendment offered by my friend from new york, mr. Nadler. But it is targeted to a specific industry that is forestry or logging occupations. Now, i was a strong supporter of mr. Nadlers broader amendment, but i want to bring the matter to issue as it relates to logging. Here are the facts. The median pay for logging workers last year was 37,590 a year. An average of 18. 07 an hour. Typical education at entry level is High School Diploma<\/a> or equivalent. But heres the other thing thats interesting. The job outlook is a 7 decline and the employment change is predicted to be on the downside 3800 decline from the current roughly 55,000 jobs in the United States<\/a> which causes me to wonder quite a bit about the provisions in this bill that go from a temporary Seasonal Program<\/a> agricultural to a year round Permanent Program<\/a> more than agriculture including logging, manufacturing, Food Processing<\/a> and the like. These logging jobs, when i talk to some of the members who represent logging areas, what theyre saying is they dont have a shortage of loggers, they have a shortage of logs for their loggers to log. So we are actually in this bill making it easy to pay a very low amount per hour to Foreign Workers<\/a> to come in and displace American Workers<\/a> in an area where theres not a shortage, where the pay is such that you can achieve or aspire a middle class lifestyle based on your logging job. Its one of those jobs where you have to work hard with a High School Diploma<\/a> you can support yourself and your family. Why we would want to bring in who knows how many hundreds of thousands potentially of workers to displace americans is beyond me. Now, as was mentioned earlier in the discussion on mr. Nadlers amendment, the provisions and the protections in the bill dont actually work. Say the actual wage level paid by the employer on page 18, well, let me pose this scenario. Youve got logging company x in texas. They have no employees because they were really set up as a cell to go higher h2c workers higher to go 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. Or you create logger job a in the scale of a through c. And you have one employee and youve paid that employee pursuant to the provision where you have to offer the employee on page 16 bha youre offering u. S. H2c workers to wit 8. 36 an hour. Thats certainly quite a lot less than the 18. 69 an hour by logging Equipment Operators<\/a> or the forest and conservation workers at 15 an hour or the log graders and scalers at 18. 34 an hour. So i just dont think what were doing here is right. I think that the loggers of america are going to dislike being treated. And this amendment will prevent that from happening. I strongly urge its adoption and seeing that my time is expired yield back the balance of my time. The chair thanks the gentlewoman and recognize himself in opposition to the amendment. The ag act restores the forces of the free market to the agricultural guest worker system in the United States<\/a> 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 inquiring that they actually do fulfill the promises they offer to guest workers. Workers especially ones no longer living in the shadows will be drawn to the employers offering most favorable wages, benefits and working conditions. We do not need to go back to a system that is similar to the adverse wage rate that exists under current h2a program. Gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i just listened carefully to what you just said and in effect you just said you want to give employers the ability to hire Foreign Workers<\/a> at a mutually agreeable wage rate. Mutually agreeable to the Foreign Workers<\/a> and to the employer. What you did not say was that we did not want to have those wages undercut american exemplary wages. Those wages mutually desperate people and employers who want to pay sub minimum wages and being clooes the minimum wage requirement minus deductions may very well and will often be in this case certainly will be much lower than the wages that the employers are paying American Workers<\/a> now. So this provision in the absence of ms. Lofgrens amendment seems specifically designed to undercut american wages and to reduce those wages so that ut cutters now getting 15 an hour will now get 8. 34 an hour and that may be mutually agreeable. And the fact is mutually agreeable between desperate people being brought in from a foreign country can only earn 3 in a foreign country but can undercut American Workers<\/a> now earning 15 or 16 or 17 is frankly an obnoxious result. And we should not be designing a bill to undercut the wages of existing workers. And to undercut american wages. And my amendment earlier, ms. Lofgrens amendment similarly limited in scope to loggers here would simply say that you cant pay workers less than the rate of pay youre already paying, not you particularly, but that is being paid in the area to American Workers<\/a>. If were not seeing that then youre saying this is really a bill designed to undercut american wages for the benefit of employers who want to pay lower wages. If the gentle ladys amendment is not picked and if my amendment was not passed, then this bill is simply a bill to among other things subvert american wages, reduce american wages to something close to or below the minimum wage because the only reference in the bill is with reference to minimum wage is not to the prevailing wage in the area. I yield back. I should encourage on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california all those in favor respond by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no, the chair nos have it. Clerk will call the role. No. Mr. Goodlatte votes no. Mr. Since brener, votes no. Mr. Smith. Mr. Shabbot. Mr. Shabbot votes no. Mr. Issa. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. King. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Po. Mr. Marino. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Farenthold. Mr. Farenthold votes no. Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Ratcliff. Mr. Ratcliff votes no. Ms. Ro by, ms. Ro by votes no. Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates votes no. Mr. Johnson of louisiana, mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Bigs, mr. Bigs votes no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Handle, ms. Handle votes no. Mr. Conyers. Mr. Conyers votes aye. Mr. Nadler. Mr. Nad ler votes aye. Mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Deutsche. Mr. Deutsche votes aye. Mr. Gutierrez. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Sicilini. Votes aye. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lew. Mr. Lew votes aye. Mr. Jay poll, ms. Jie poll votes aye. The gentleman from texas, mr. Po. Mr. Po votes no. Gentleman from florida, mr. Gates. The gentleman from south carolina. Mr. Gowdy votes no. From idaho. Mr. Labrador votes no. Has every member voted who wishes to vote . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman 9 members voted aye, 19 members voted no. And the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further agreements for hr1492. Mr. Chairman, i have a naive amendment at the desk. Clerk will report naive amendment. Offered by mr. Raskin, page 21 after line 17 insert the follow sglg without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. Thank you very much. I think that the naive from colleague from washington who is experienced Community Organizers<\/a> and political leader may be spreading and even give my amendment a name. Id like to call it the no room at the inn amendment to the beasts of burden act which we are considering today. My amendment i suppose is naive because i had thought that there were some values that still unified us as americans across party lines. And one of them was that if were going to bring in an immigrant workforce of effectively 21st century endentured servants who will act like beasts of burden for the rest of us and were going to pay them a sub minimum wage before you start deducting with abandon for the cost of their equipment, the cost of their tools, the costs of their uniforms, the cost of their Health Insurance<\/a> and so on, at the very least you should give them a bed to sleep in. And one of the few limited protections for workers built into the program is that employers provide housing to agricultural guest workers who are laboring on their farms. This protection is extremely important given the conditions of unsanitary, and foreign migrant face housing in Rural Communities<\/a> with limited or no bank access to credit to Language Skills<\/a> to transportation and under this bill even to family to spouses, children and other family members who are banned from coming along. Many farm workers will end up in terrible substandard conditions or even homeless. But certainly living in squalor under the explicit terms of this legislation. The commissions in which farm workers live in case we dont really care about the farmers themselves have implications not only for their health but also for our food safety. Farm workers who do not have basic access to sanitation needs such as clean water, showers, bathing and laundry facilities cannot report to work with clean clothing and clean hands. Many farm workers will report to work sick with Communicable Diseases<\/a> given the substandard conditions they will be forced into. Mr. Sherman, all my amendment does naively is to propose that the current protections that are in the h2a program for workers is the requirement that employers provide housing for agricultural guest workers laboring on their farms be carried over and applied. We would restore the room at the inn for the workers who have come here for no other reason, no other purpose than to come and work on the farms to pick the strawberries and to pick the vegetables and fruits that we depend on. If were going to have cheap labor immigration, lets not push the joke too far, lets at least give these people a place to sleep in. With that i yield back. Chairman recognizes the gentleman and recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. This is a problem with the current h2a program that adds tremendous cost to this issue because if you have a Seasonal Worker<\/a> going through one area, that farmer has to provide housing to the workers, then we move onto another area, that farmer has to provide housing. Thats why you get into this over regulation by the department of labor because they cant afford to maintain very effective housing for just a few weeks out of a year that somebodys going to be occupying it. It seems to me this is much better addressed through the free market. The laborers will be able to demand wages that they that will allow them to find the housing that they want thats affordable. And i think that is much better than this requirement. Some of them as they move place to place may have a Motor Vehicle<\/a> that, an rv or something they live in. Theres lots of different ways people meet their needs for housing. And for the government to be prescribing this as discouraged millions of people from having the opportunity to participate in a Workable Program<\/a> like the h2c program that mandates this therefore workers finding housing illegally, i think its much better they work under an h2c program and therefore i must oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman. First the gentlewoman from texas california. Strike the last word. Gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. 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 and youll come to grips with the fact that oftentimes especially in rural areas rental housing is not always very abundant nor is it affordable. Usually landlords are going to want a longterm commitment rather than some kind of shortterm twoweek seasonal period. And so you end up with farm workers who are sleeping in the fields, sleeping by the side of the road without sanitation. Its not a healthy situation. The current law requires the provision of housing to h2a and h2b proponents. Ive heard about this as well i think we would be well advised to take a look at how we could make this work better. If you take a look at the associations that exist under this h2c program, if it ever becomes law, the associations will be able to hire these people, youre talking about workers with no housing. But to say that the market is going to work is just not the case. Were talking about people earning below the federal minimum wage. I think this is a good amendment because it keeps us where we are today without creating the problems that would exist. And they are real. I mean, we all know about the listeria withdrawal of vegetables that were facing right now. I remember it wasnt from lack of housing because california has a very aggressive housing program. But if the fields are contaminated, you end up with contamination in the product. And ill tell you the recall will cost a lot maybe more than having some housing. Now, the housing ive seen when ive gone out to farms, its not ritz. I remember going to corn fields in new york and there was a basically a bunk for men and another bunk for women. When i visited the Strawberry Fields<\/a> in california they were mobile homes that were used for farm workers. When it comes to the h2b program, entertainment theres usually trailers. The employers are also in trailers. I mean, youre going city to city every third day would the gentle lady yield. I would be happy to yield. Let me ask since you are such an expert on this subject, if we are invited to believe that the free market will take care of it and these workers will find their way either in the local Housing Market<\/a> or in on rv or car or whatever it might be, two questions, one, does that put real burdens on the Housing Market<\/a> . I know there have been complaints in lots of jurisdictions including ones in my district about the way that poor immigrants are being loaded up in apartment buildings or many being packed in because theyre paying for the right to come home and fall asleep and spend the rest of the day working. So thats one problem, but the other is it occurs to me if some of the housing already exists and were going to undercut one of the few that exists is there anything from stopping an employer from saying weve got this makeshift rustic bunk we put up here. Weve had to give it to people for free before. Is there anything under the legislation that would stop them saying well rent you this space and well make a further deduction from your con standpointly shrinking wage . Youre exactly right because the other provisions of the bill allow for deductions not only for transportation but for housing. So you could charge for what you have previously been required to provide. Absolutely. But when youre talking about ag, these are generally remote areas and so the situation youve described, you know, i think tend to be more in urban areas. Although when you talk about the Food Processing<\/a> industry oftentimes that is close to an urban area and you would have the phenomena that you describe. I think that the amendment youve offered is the right thing to do. It is the status quo. And it may be that we could improve this. I know years ago there were funding for farm worker housing that actually did help and california stepped up to that. Really everybody is better off not only the farmers, the farm workers, the neighbors, honestly, the neighbors of these farms dont want homeless farm workers sleeping by the side of the road either. And finally, the consumer who wants Healthy Products<\/a> because theres adequate sanitation. So its a good amendment. I endorse it. I hope to vote for it. And i thank you for offering it. And i yield back, mr. Chairman. Question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. All those in favor respond by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The chair the nos have it. Could we have a recorded vote . Recorded vote is requested. Mr. Goodlatte. Votes no. Mr. Sensenbrener, mr. Smith, mr. Shabbot. Mr. Issa. Mr. King. Mr. King votes no. Mr. Franks. Mr. Franks votes no. Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Po. Mr. Marino. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Gowdy votes no. Mr. Labrador. Mr. Labrador votes no. Mr. Farenthold, mr. Farenthold votes no. Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins votes no. Mr. Dissan tis, mr. Buck. Mr. Buck votes no. Mr. Ratcliff, mr. Ratcliff votes no. Ms. Ro by votes no let me interrupt the clerk, before members leave i would advice them immediately after this vote series well return to continue to markup. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford votes no. Ms. Hand el, ms. Hand el votes no. Mr. Conyers, votes aye. Lofgren votes aye. Jackson lee, mr. Cohen, mr. Johnson of georgia. Mr. Deutsche. Mr. Gutierrez. Ms. Bass. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Jeffreys. Mr. Sicilini. Aye. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Lew. Mr. Lew votes aye. Mr. Raskin, votes aye. Mr. Schneider. Aye. Mr. Schneider votes aye. The gentleman from california. No. Mr. Issa votes no. Mr. Issa votes no. Gentleman from texas. Mr. Po votes no. Has every member voted who wishes to vote . Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman 8 members voted aye, 17 members voted no. And the amendment is not agreed to. The committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. The house approved 2018 budget resolution which allows lawmakers to begin work on tax reform. House ways and Means Committee<\/a> chair kevin brady released the committees work schedule. The bill will be introduced on november 1st and the committee will begin the markup process november 6th with action on the floor expected before the thanksgiving break. On the senate side, the Senate Finance<\/a> committee is expected to take action on tax reform legislation later this fall. We have the budget resolution and the associated tax reform language posted on our website cspan. Org, just click on the congress tab. Today marks 50 years since senator john mccains capture in vietnam and the beginning of his time as a p. O. W. Cspan talked to him about his service, his imprisonment and the legacy of the vietnam war. You can watch the interview at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org or using the free cspan radio app. This weekend on American History<\/a> tv on cspan3, saturday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on lectures in history, university of california san diego professor luiz alvarez on the 1943 Los Angeles Zoot<\/a> suit riots and how they were used to challenge conventional gender and racial identities. Zoot suitors, Mexican American<\/a> zoot suitors in particular were viewed as public enemy. If not number one, number two or number oneb. They were seen as unamerican. Sunday at 6 00 p. M. On american artifacts, exploring the Green Hill Plantation<\/a>. So this site Green Hill Plantation<\/a> has the original slave owner here was very active in the slave trade, so one of the things he decided to put in his yard is a slave Auction Block<\/a> and auctioneer stand. You can definitely feel the power of this place. I think that Auction Block<\/a> standing where it is right now is a huge part of why the site is so powerful. I mean, this would have been really the last place men, women, children would have been with their families. And, you know, in this place they would have been scattered all over the United States<\/a>. So this is really kind of ground zero for all that experience here. And at 8 00 an interview with historian william seal on the stone masons who built the outer walls of the white house. It was a 14foot swagger fis tune over the front door, which is carved with lilies and flowers and griffins and acorns and everything you can think of. Its very lush over the front door. Probably the finest example of carving in america for a hundred years. American history tv all weekend every weekend only on cspan3. This weekend on book tv on cspan2, writer and book publisher 70th Anniversary Party<\/a> in washington, d. C. All the fun things sunday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern nbc news correspondent katy tur reflects on the Trump Campaign<\/a> and the 2016 president ial election in her book unbelievable, my front row seat to the Craziest Campaign<\/a> in American History<\/a>. Its no secret that politicians dont like reporters, generally. Nixon had a fraught relationship with his press corps. There are legendary stories about ron ziegler, his press person getting into it with reporters. What was unusual about this was the very public nature of it, the way he would go after reporters, myself included, from the stage of rallies and have the crowd, encourage the crowd to essentially turn on us and boo us. And at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on after words journalist and former host of cbss face the nation Bob Schieffer<\/a> on the impact of changing technology in journalism in his book overload finding the truth in todays deluge of news. Mr. Schieffers interviewed by politico susan glasser. The first thing we have to keep doing is doing what were doing and that is trying to sort out the truth from the false. And thats an overwhelming job now. Its a bigger responsibility than weve ever had because were dealing with so much more information. We now have access to more information than any people in the history of the world. But were running a little short on cue raters right now. Were getting so much information that we really cant process it. For more of this weekends schedule go to booktv. Org. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service<\/a> by americas Cable Television<\/a> companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Officials from the u. S. And myanmar testified on relations with myanmar and how the u. S. And its allies are trying to help civilian government officials take a stronger approach with the military, which has been accused of killing thousands","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia804602.us.archive.org\/19\/items\/CSPAN3_20171026_170900_Immigration_Legislation_Markup_Day_Two_-_Part_1\/CSPAN3_20171026_170900_Immigration_Legislation_Markup_Day_Two_-_Part_1.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20171026_170900_Immigration_Legislation_Markup_Day_Two_-_Part_1_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240629T12:35:10+00:00"}