Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as a Committee on Agriculture member, I too have heard the concerns of agriculture employers who call the current H-2A guest worker program unworkable and thus understand that my colleagues want to give the growers a program that works. I agree that growers need some relief and must be able to depend on a reliable source of foreign workers. But the Pombo-Chambliss amendment takes the completely wrong approach. We should not create an entirely new, untested, massive guest worker program when we have a program already. Let us fix the H-2A program instead. The Pombo-Chambliss amendment creates an institutionalized program which could bring up to 250,000 aliens into our country per year. The Goodlatte compromise amendment is based on hearings held on the H-2A program in both the Committee on Agriculture and Committee on the Judiciary. It will cap the number of visas available for H-2A workers at 100,000. Seventeen thousand guest workers are currently coming into the United States under the H-2A program. That allows for a very substantial increase. It pays for workers' way home, it protects American workers by making sure that guest workers do not adversely affect wages and working conditions of American workers, and it will also require that growers actively recruit for U.S. workers before they can get guest workers. It lifts the burdensome regulations on growers, such as the 50 percent rule and the 3-4 guarantee, and cuts 33 percent off the application processing time for the H-2A certification. Take a lesson from the history books. The Bracero Program was the beginning of our illegal immigration problem we are attempting to curb in H.R. 2202. Hundreds of thousands of braceros became accustomed to the American standard of living and wages. Once the Bracero Program ended, many braceros resorted to coming to this country illegally. That trend continues today. Supporters of the Pombo-Chambliss amendment claim unless we create a massive new guest worker bureaucracy, the illegal immigration patterns begun with the Bracero Program will simply grow. How can it get any worse? National organizations representing the growers have on the record stated that at any given time, at least 50 percent of their work force is comprised of illegal aliens. If we enact the H-2B program in the Pombo-Chambliss amendment, we will simply take the inroad we have made in H.R. 2202 to cut illegal immigration and throw them away. This program will let in 250,000 unskilled foreign workers a year. That is four times the number of skilled workers we are going to admit. We are limiting the number of visas for family reunification. What is the point if we create this new program? This flies in the fact of evidence that there is now a great surplus of domestic farm workers. In the agriculture counties of California, there has been a 10 to 20 percent unemployment rate even in the summer months of peak demand by growers. The research director of the U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers, which was evenly balanced with grower representatives, stated that there is and has been for many years an overall agricultural labor surplus in the United States and there will not be a labor shortage in the future. H.R. 2202's employment verification system is voluntary. Agriculture employers do not have to use it unless they choose to. Even if the 25 percent of the seasonal labor force which is presently illegal were to magically disappear, there will still be no shortage. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by the late Barbara Jordan, recently found that if the supply of illegal farm workers dried up tomorrow or if growers chose to stop hiring illegal workers, the supply of work-authorized farm workers is ample, even in peak harvest months. Let me talk about some of the specific problems with the Pombo- Chambliss H-2B program. This program would gut protections for guest workers and U.S. workers. It is an attestation program. The current H- 2A system is a certification program. Under a certification procedure, an employer has to prove to the Secretary of Labor that it has met certain conditions before the Secretary will permit the entry of an alien worker. With an attestation program, such as the one set up by Pombo- Chambliss, there are no controls on the number of foreign workers a grower brings in until after the growing season is over. The Secretary will permit the entry of an alien worker based on the employer promising it will meet certain conditions in the future. Only if an interested party, such as a union, complains to the Secretary that the employer is not fulfilling an attestation, will the Secretary initiate an investigation. This type of program invites abuse. It has no practical provision for enforcement. In addition, no mechanism for enforcement exists for its recordkeeping and other requirements. Guest workers cannot be expected to leave the United States and return home when their work contracts end. The program that currently exists, that previously existed, has taught us that lesson. The lure of American jobs at much higher pay than available back home is just too great. Once settled and plugged into their job networks, they will then encourage their families and friends to come illegally and join them. We must stop this trend from continuing. Let us fix the H-2A program, not create an immigration nightmare. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pombo-Chambliss amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as he noted, I did practice immigration law, am proud of the fact I helped people from more than 70 countries immigrate to the United States during my career as an immigration lawyer, all law- abiding citizens and hard working. Many people here have noted how important it is that we maintain our Nation as a nation of immigrants. Most of us can go back just a few generations and find family members who immigrated to this country, my grandfather, my wife's parents. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that with this bill, we are going to continue to do that, continue to be the most generous nation on earth in terms of our immigration policy. But if this amendment is passed, it does not simply split legal immigration reforms, which are needed, both to help the immigration process and to limit it from illegal immigration, it will kill it outright. We have got to defeat this amendment because of the fact that our legal immigration process needs to be reformed. We need to help immediate family members be reunified more quickly. Young married couples with young children, they need to be able to come here more quickly when one member qualifies for a visa than to have that separation taking place for years, as it does now. How do we pay for that? By breaking immigration chains that have very remote connections. Now, my colleagues say, how can a brother or sister be a remote connection? The fact of the matter is it takes 20 years now for a member of a family to come to this country and go through the process it takes to petition for another member to come. So we are not talking about a situation where the family member got left behind last year and we want to bring them to this country. It is a matter of having to reform this process to be fair to everybody and fair to everyone in this country. This chart shows the problem. First, the highest line shows the immigration trend over the next 55 years under current law. The second line shows the trend with the reforms in this bill. Forty million people is the difference involved there. My colleagues, we need reasonable immigration reform. We will still be very generous. Oppose this amendment and support the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan has the right to close, I yield myself such time as I may consume to conclude. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my good friend from Michigan that I am disappointed, because it seems to me that we have lost all opportunity here to find a middle ground, to try to work together to improve a program that we both agree is a bad program. We worked together to make sure that we did not have an out of control program that allowed 250,000 new workers in the country, but now here we have an opportunity to make the program work a little better so that growers have the opportunity to meet their needs when they truly can justify them, when they can have an independent certification by a Government agency that the need exists and in exchange we put a cap on the program of 100,000 workers. It seems to me that is fair to everybody involved, and that is what I strove to do. In fact, my offering this amendment I think was very careful in making the case that the other amendment was not needed. So it disappoints me that the gentleman would attack these modest reforms we are making, including one that simply says for both the worker and the grower, hey, why have a specific grower tell the worker where they have got to live? That is crazy. If there is adequate housing in the area, allow the worker to choose their own housing by giving them a housing allowance. It does not eliminate the requirement to give them free housing. It simply says when it is done, they both can have a little flexibility in the process. So I think these modifications are needed by our agricultural industry in this country. I think these modifications are very reasonable and workable, and I think that this is a vast improvement over the current program. I would urge the Members of the House to support it. Let us not both defeat the amendment and leave a failed non-workable program out there. Let us do the reasonable thing in the middle, which is to take the current program, reform it, and make it better. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from Michigan if he has any other speakers?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with anything the gentleman says. The fact of the matter is, though, the difference between 500,000 and 100,000 is 400,000 people. There is plenty of room there to work on welfare reform and improving opportunities for U.S. citizens, and we certainly want to do that. The problem is, and you have acknowledged earlier that the current H- 2A program does not work well and, as a result, reforms are needed. We disagree on exactly what those reforms should be, but if we have a program and it only utilizes 17,000 people but there are a half a million out there working illegally, it seems to me that some reform of that program is in order. I would appreciate the gentleman working with us on making the program work a little better, and in return I am giving you something that I would hope that you would want, and that is a cap on the program. There is no cap on the H-2A program right now. If Government works with agriculture to make this program work better without these amendments, we would have a program that had no limit on it. Let us have a good compromise that puts a cap on it but makes it more workable.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, as the gentleman well knows, we put a cap on this program to make sure that there was a limitation because of the fact that with only 17,000 using it right now, we know that there are far more people than that out there who would utilize it, who are utilizing illegal immigrants right now. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that we had every encouragement on growers to have every effort made to recruit U.S. workers. And they are going to have to make every effort to recruit U.S. workers if, as they say, they use a half a million illegal immigrants right now. So the 100,000 cap is, I think, a very, very stringent cap, but also we have to make the program usable within that cap. Obviously, with 17,000 legal workers and a half a million illegal workers, we do not have a reasonable program right now. So let us modify the program, make some improvements, and still protect U.S. workers.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I respect that, but, reclaiming my time, let me say two things. First of all, given the fact, as we have heard all day here, that there is a need for workers, those workers are going to find employment. Second, if you have already entered into a contractual relation with somebody to have somebody come and do some work because you have established that you could not find a U.S. worker, what are you going to do when those people arrive? That is the bottom line. You have got to have an arrangement in advance. You have got to give U.S. workers the maximum opportunity to have an opportunity to apply for the job. But then once they apply and you hire them, and you still have a need for additional workers and you enter into a contractual relationship, you have got to be able to enter into that contract and have a reasonable amount of time to get that processed before they come. That is all we are asking with that amendment. It is eminently fair, both to the U.S. workers who can also enter into contracts and get the priority, but if they do not, then the farmer has the opportunity to get the work in a timely fashion, so that they get it and get the crop harvested. That is all we are asking for. It is eminently reasonable and I would think the gentleman would accept it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman 100 percent that U.S. workers should have the priority in every instance. But the fact of the matter is that while we still require them to actively recruit and we should require them to actively recruit U.S. workers, it has to be done in such a fashion that once that recruitment period is over, there is a reasonable amount of time to get the paperwork processed and get workers there when they have actively recruited and have not been able to get those workers. My amendment simply requires that they have a little more time, 20 more days, to get that paperwork processed and get the workers there. We have had many instances, in fact some of the people on the other side of the last amendment spoke about the fact that they go through the process, by the time all the work is done they are halfway through the harvest season and they do not get the opportunity to get the workers when they need them.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the difference between the current H-2A program and the Pombo amendment is that the H-2A program requires an independent third party to certify whether there is a need for the workers. That is the big objection to the earlier legislation that we just defeated. The difference here is that we have to have an independent party, the U.S. Government, certify that workers are needed. If they certify they do not have them, what difference does it make whether or not there is a 50-percent rule? It is unfair, if an independent party says there are not sufficient workers available, to tell a grower that they cannot use more than 50 percent labor.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, many of the Members from agricultural areas noted problems with the H-2A agricultural worker program that currently exists. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment to the current guest worker program, the H-2A program. My amendment will significantly improve it. I have listened to the concerns of the growers who have come to speak to me and have streamlined the guest worker program that now exists to make it more grower-friendly. Unlike the changes proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] to the guest worker program, my amendment does not create a new program. It fixes the current one. In addition, it works within the spirit of the bill by fixing the number of aliens allowed into the country at 100,000. Why do we have a 100,000 cap? Because even though only 17,000 workers used this program last year, we are making significant improvements to the program, and want to make sure that we do not have an unreasonable number of people utilizing this program from outside of the country. In recent years, about 17,000 farm workers have been granted visas each year under the H-2A guest worker program. The Goodlatte amendment provides for an increase to 100,000 workers. This will more than meet any needs of fruit and vegetable growers that are not being met by domestic farm workers. Many fruit and vegetable growers assert that the big problem with the H-2A program is that the Department of Labor administers in bad faith, intending to make it unworkable and unattractive to growers. My amendment transfers the certification process from the Department of Labor to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This move will ensure that the fundamentally sound H-2A program is administered fairly. Growers also complain that it takes too long to get workers under the current H-2A program. They must file applications at least 60 days before the date of employment. My amendment slashes this period by 33 percent and creates a 40-day application period. it will ensure growers the workers they need when they need them. The Goodlatte H-2A guest worker compromise amendment modifies the three-quarter guarantee to answer the concerns of growers. Under the current H-2A guest worker program, growers must pay guest workers for 75 percent of the agreed work contract period, and under 20 CFR section 655, they must pay an average of at least 8 hours of work a day for that 75 percent period, even if the harvest is cut short by weather or pests. A copy of this three-quarter guarantee regulation is available to those who would like to see it, because there has been a suggestion that we make the three-quarter requirement more onerous. Actually, we make it better. The Goodlatte amendment requires that the grower pay his guest workers for three-quarters of the time the harvest actually takes. This ensures that growers hit by setbacks are not further burdened. Under Goodlatte, they will still have to pay for 8-hour workdays, just as they do now, but for a fewer number of days if their harvest period is shortened. The Goodlatte amendment will prevent growers from having to pay guest workers for days that they do not work if the contract period is cut short. My amendment repeals the unfair 50-percent rule. Fruit and vegetable growers have told me that the H-2A program's 50-percent rule is patently unfair. The rule requires a grower to hire any domestic farm workers who apply for work under the H-2A guest worker program, as long as they have completed half their work contract period, even if the grower already has all the workers needed. My amendment repeals this rule. My amendment also allows growers to pay a housing allowance. Fruit and vegetable growers want to be allowed to pay actual housing. The Goodlatte amendment permits housing allowances. If housing is reasonably available in the area, guest workers will not be forced into homelessness. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment. It addresses the concerns of the agriculture community, but does not allow our borders to open for one segment of the economy. The Goodlatte amendment controls illegal immigration while providing our fruit and vegetable growers with the labor they need to harvest their produce. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the important thing to note here is that only in places where housing is widely available do we allow a grower to issue a housing allowance instead of to provide the housing itself. That is only a matter of flexibility, not only for the grower but also for the worker. Because if you are providing them with an allowance, they then have the opportunity to choose the housing they want rather than the place that the grower might choose for them and assign to them. I think it makes far more sense to give that kind of flexibility for the benefit of both the worker and the grower.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would be very anxious to work with the gentleman on making this amendment better, but I would encourage him to support the amendment, and then we can work together to improve it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, one would think that we would not need an amendment like this in this bill. One would think that the law would already provide that if somebody is illegally in this country, they would not be entitled to receive Government benefits; that they would, instead, once known, be required to depart from the country. Unfortunately, we have a court decision that makes it necessary to enact this amendment to make very clear the will of the Congress that when someone is unlawfully in the United States, they are not entitled to Government benefits except under certain emergency circumstances that this bill provides for; for example, with regard to emergency medical care. Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where we have already put into this bill a very fine amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] that enables local law enforcement authorities to be designated by the Attorney General of the United States to assist in the apprehension and the deportation process of removing people who have entered this country illegally, or have entered this country legally and have overstayed their legal admission period, and therefore are not entitled to be in the country any longer. That authority, giving to local governments the ability to remove people who are in the country improperly, would contradict an amendment that says that nonetheless, if they are here illegally, they would be entitled to free public education. We need to have local government working hand in hand with the Federal Government, and we need to make sure that we do not have magnets that draw people to this country, and free public education, free health care, other welfare benefits, are exactly the kinds of things that attract people to the country and cause them to violate our laws in entering the country. So I strongly support the position offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], regarding this issue, and I thank him for his efforts.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment and in favor of the employer verification system. In fact, I support making the system mandatory and will be supporting the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] later on. But it is important to make it very clear that this is simply a voluntary system that everybody can participate in if they choose to. Those who have chosen to participate in this system thus far in the pilot program in Los Angeles have found it to be an excellent system; 220 employers participated, and they found a 99.9 percent accuracy rate on the employment verification checks that were done under that system. Why do we need this system? Because the current system, the bureaucratic I-9 system, which would hope this would be the first step toward evolving a system that would work very effectively and efficiently and get employers away from the intrusive bureaucratic ineffective I-9 system, does not work. We have a magnet that draws people to this country, jobs. Who can blame anybody for wanting to come to this country for that opportunity? But we have already taken the step of making it illegal to employ people. Now we have got to give employers the means to effectively screen those people out. Fraudulent documents are a massive problem: Just a few days ago in Los Angeles, a major raid on a factory manufacturing illegal green cards, Social Security cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, all manner of fraudulent documents that cannot be properly screened out by employers. All we do here is say match the Social Security number that they bridge in with the Social Security number in the file. No new data base, no ID card. Simply give the opportunity for employers to get a real verification. Employees ought to love it, too. If you go in and you get a job and they have the wrong Social Security number for you and that money that your employer and you pay in in taxes to the Social Security System does not get credited to your account, you have lost out in your retirement days. So you are going to know right when you go in that your Social Security number is matched up with the one that is on file with the Social Security Administration. This is a system that is simple, it is a simple system that is fair, it is a system that will work, it is a system that is voluntary, and I urge every Member of this body to support a voluntary employer verification system.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gallegly amendment.