Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on what I would view as the Victim Compensation Depriving and Deterrence Weakening Product Liability Report. I do not oppose this bill in the belief that American law on product liability is perfect. But like many other Members of this body, I found that my efforts, in committee and on the floor, to moderate the excesses of this legislation, and in so doing, to articulate the sorts of reforms I can support, were entirely shut out by a majority hell- bent on moving an industry agenda at the expense of American consumers. Nor is it the notion of uniform Federal law on the subject of product liability which I oppose, even though this subject has traditionally been viewed as a matter for State law. States' rights is not my watchword, though I thought it was the operating principle for my colleagues in the majority, a principle they seem to set aside when expedience dictates. But what we find in this conference report is not uniformity. Instead, what we have is Federal standards except where a State's law is worse in terms of consumer protection. So let there be no mistake about what this legislation is about. Uniform national standards? Hogwash. This is lowest common denominator justice for consumers. I also want to express my very strong support for solving the problems faced by biomaterials suppliers. I am dismayed that their interests have been sacrificed to advance an extreme agenda I cannot support. If this bill is indeed vetoed, and that veto is sustained, I hope that we can move the biomaterials access reforms to solve that particular industry's problems for the benefit of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support legislation that deprives injured victims of fair compensation, and eliminates important deterrents to the design and manufacture of unsafe products in the first place. I oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. So this will be 5 minutes in addition to the remaining time on the Pombo amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I strongly support his amendment. This amendment should have been allowed in the rules. We should have been able to debate this on the floor. I just want to take 15 seconds of my time to indicate that in this bill, which is coming up for final passage, is what I believe to be an unconstitutional and just horrible on public policy amendment with respect to children and public schools. I am going to support this bill because it is so much better than it was through this House. If this amendment does not come out in conference committee, I will oppose the bill on the floor when it comes back from conference with every ounce of my energy.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if we had a verification system in this bill that went into effect immediately, I think the gentleman's request would be incredibly reasonable. We have the most voluntary and ephemeral verification system left in this bill now. Do we think tomorrow there are not going to be any more undocumented workers employed in agriculture? They are not vanishing. There is no system for them to vanish. There is no meaningful verification in this bill. The gentleman tried to get it but he lost, and I voted with him. We both lost. So when you do that verification, come back to me and I will talk to you about a good transition guest worker program.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Our real difference is you say 17,000 guest workers, half a million illegal immigrants working in our fields. Got to do something. I say we legalized 1.1 million agricultural workers in 1986. We have double-digit unemployment in almost every rural county in America, astronomical unemployment in the areas that most want this, Western agriculture, and what we need to do is the government working with agriculture, welfare reform, going back to the people who left the fields and who know how to pick. This is honorable work. There are Americans who will do this work if they do not have alternatives, and if there is decent pay and good working conditions. This should be our focus, not trying to figure out how to do this guest worker thing where they really do not go back. I mean, huge numbers we lose. That is the problem. I think that should be our focus.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have a guest worker program. It is now called the H-2A program, it used to be called the H-2 program. It has certain conditions. This year, 17,000 agricultural workers came in under those requirements. The difference between 17,000 and it shooting up in the case of your amendment to the 100,000 cap is the balance and retention between the potential for domestic workers. The moment you cut off the requirement to hire 20 days before the season starts, in every situation what you will find is the department saying, ``Since I can't promise them X number of workers when that season starts, I'm going to have to grant his petition. The only thing that keeps this process honest is the requirement to continue to recruit, to prioritize and hire U.S. workers if they show up, and to hire them at any point 50 percent through the season. Fifty percent through the season was done for the benefit of the growers. Once the guy had been there for 50 percent of the time, do not displace him because somebody now showed up. Let them finish the entire season. You are taking what was done for the benefit of the growers and you are totally repealing it, and that is the big problem I have with your amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be very quick. What do you do? All right, you have made a recruitment, you do not think you have workers available, it has been certified by the Government. As you are approaching your harvest season, 150 U.S. workers coming from the earlier crop show up. Are these people turned down because 10 days from now they will be getting some foreign guest workers? Do they turn these U.S. workers down and say, ``No, no job available for you because I've already gotten approval to bring in 100 foreign guest workers?'' It is all how you want to balance this thing. When you are dealing with people who make on an average of $5,000 a year, they are our lowest paid workers, I think we have been tilting so heavily on the side of agribusiness that this is one little protection they have. Do not eviscerate that. That is my problem with your amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time that I so generously yielded the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, the way the gentleman has written this amendment, first of all, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right; one major difference is that that was a self-attest anticipation. ``Grower, say certain things, get workers.'' This requires an independent, no longer Department of Labor, if I recall correctly, but an independent Government certification. But the gentleman cuts off the growers' obligation to recruit U.S. workers 20 days before the season even begins. When you are dealing with migrant workers, they know the patterns of labor in this area. They come into an area to get hired just as you get into the peak harvest season. By eliminating the obligation to hire U.S. workers 20 days before the start of the growing season, and we do not need to be doing that, we are wiping out, in effect, the priority for U.S. workers. That is the problem I have. Under the existing situation, that priority still exists. The Department of Labor certifies whether or not there will be a need, but if U.S. workers show up, U.S. workers have priority. I think U.S. workers should have priority in these kinds of programs. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the fundamental change the gentleman is making, right now they have to provide housing for farmworkers. By giving this allowance, the gentleman knocks out the housing requirement. He makes an assumption there will be housing available.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the ranking member did not ask me that question, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], the sponsor of this amendment, was eloquent and effective in his opposition to the Pombo amendment, and I am very grateful for this. Mr. Chairman, the problem with his amendment here, because I know it was well-intentioned, because I know how he wants to handle these issues, but the problem is that it fundamentally erodes and existing requirement in the H-2A program that U.S. workers have priority. We can debate whether that makes sense or not, but to me, when we get rid of the 50-percent rule, we get rid of the requirement that a U.S. worker who comes for a job gets priority over the guest worker coming from the foreign country.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we just heard in this Chamber are the same arguments that were given to justify slavery before the Civil War. If we could find American, or in that case, free people, to do the work, we would not need to rely on slaves. Let me tell you, this is the most audacious amendment I could imagine on this bill, because this is an amendment that in the name and in the context of trying to do something meaningful about illegal immigration, creates a program which is going to result in the most massive entry of guest workers who every economist in agriculture will tell you are one- way immigrants. The overstay rate, even in the highly, tightly regulated H-2A program is six times as high, six times as high, as the overstay rate for tourists, students or people here on other nonimmigrant visas. You are opening up a blatant, massive loophole in a serious effort to try and do something about illegal immigration. And what for? Rather than figuring out the ways to the reform of the welfare system, through the utilization of the 1.1 million agricultural workers legalized in 1987, through the recruitment, the training, the effort, private and public, to help agriculture get more U.S. workers doing this particular work. The unemployment rates in these counties are astoundingly high. There is a massive surplus. The Department of Labor says at any given time, 190,000 agricultural workers are unemployed, 12 percent unemployment rates at the peak season in agriculture. Please defeat the Pombo amendment. Do not undermine this bill like that. Do not destroy American jobs like that.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I simply would point out that in San Joaquin County, the home county of my friend from California, the author of the amendment, unemployment is 12.2 percent. In the counties of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], who just spoke, rural unemployment is 19.3 percent, 11.9 percent, 10.4 percent, and 10.3 percent. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute 45 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], from the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that there is no time left in opposition to the Condit amendment?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], a member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I yield I might just point out that in Kern County, the base county of the gentleman from California who just spoke, I wonder what the 13.6 percent unemployed people in that county will say about this effort to go. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to call for a rollcall vote on this amendment. It is the Pombo amendment, with or without the Condit amendment, that I seek to defeat. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres]. (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)