[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H-2B PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY,
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-796 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,
Border Security, and International Law
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ELTON GALLEGLY, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Chief Counsel
George Fishman, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 16, 2008
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, and Chairwoman,........................... 1
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 3
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 5
WITNESSES
The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
The Honorable Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Mr. R. Daniel Musser, III, President, Grand Hotel
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 33
Ms. Mary Bauer, Director, Immigrant Justice Project
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
Mr. William Zammer, President, Cape Cod Restaurants, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 52
Prepared Statement............................................. 52
Mr. Ross Eisenbrey, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 58
Prepared Statement............................................. 61
Mr. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for
Immigration Studies
Oral Testimony................................................. 69
Prepared Statement............................................. 70
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 93
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 84
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law................................ 95
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a
Representative in Congress from Guam........................... 96
Prepared Statement of the Honorable James E. Clyburn, a
Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina.... 97
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ron Klein, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Florida.......................... 97
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Carol Shea-Porter, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire..... 98
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles W. Boustany, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana......... 99
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tim Murphy, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania..................... 100
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative
in Congress from the State of South Carolina................... 101
Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Miller, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 103
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael N. Castle, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Delaware.......... 106
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barbara Cubin, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming........... 107
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dennis Moore, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas............ 108
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Paul Hodes, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New Hampshire.................... 110
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charlie Melancon, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana......... 115
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thelma D. Drake, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia.......... 118
Prepared Statement of the Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland.......... 135
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado......................... 136
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert J. Wittman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia.......... 140
Letter from the Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, to the
Honorable Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.. 147
Legal Complaint submitted by Mary Bauer, Director, Immigrant
Justice Project................................................ 156
OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record but not Printed
The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law received many letters of support
for the H-2B Nonagricultural Temporary Worker Program. Because of
the voluminous amount of this correspondence, all of the letters
received are not printed in this hearing but are on file at the
Subcommittee.
H-2B PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship,
Refugees, Border Security, and International Law
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe
Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Delahunt,
Gutierrez, King, Goodlatte, and Gohmert.
Also present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, and Smith.
Staff present: David Shahoulian, Majority Counsel; Ur
Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Chief Counsel; Andres Jimenez,
Majority Professional Staff Member; and George Fishman,
Minority Counsel.
Ms. Lofgren. We are going to ask that the hearing come to
order, and I understand that the Ranking Member is on his way.
This is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law,
and without objection the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the hearing at any time.
I want to welcome everyone to our first in a new series of
hearings on issues related to immigration. These hearings are
being held by this Committee in conjunction with other House
Committees to examine a number of immigration-related issues
that require our attention, as well as to clear up certain
misconceptions.
There are a number of misconceptions being promoted in the
halls of Congress and in the press. Some have stated that
Congress has done nothing to secure our borders, yet nothing
could be further from the truth. Last year alone, this Congress
appropriated $3 billion in additional emergency funding for
border security, more than has ever been appropriated for such
purposes.
This Congress also passed legislation adding 370 additional
miles of border fencing, 3,000 more border patrol agents, 29
more ICE fugitive operation teams, and 4,500 additional
detention beds. There were new criminal divisions for alien
smuggling and trafficking, funding increases to strengthen
programs to check employment eligibility, track on visitors,
and identify incarcerated non-citizens, as well as numerous
other measures to secure our borders.
This Congress has done more to secure our border than any
of its predecessors, and as the Department of Homeland Security
itself admits, we have demanded more progress on the border
than the agency can actually keep up with. I bring this up not
simply to take stock of what we have accomplished, but to
reflect on the fact that this Congress has acted quite a bit on
border security and interior immigration enforcement, but has
not yet acted much in the area of addressing immigration
problems and fixes.
For those who seek an enforcement for its policy on
immigration, let there be no doubt, this Congress has not shied
away from many proposals to significantly increase border
security and immigration enforcement. But as this new series of
hearings will demonstrate, there are still many pressing
immigration issues beyond enforcement only that require our
attention.
Today we focus on one of those issues: the H-2B
Nonagricultural Temporary Worker Program. This program is used
by certain industries to secure workers for seasonal or other
temporary needs, and it is primarily used in the landscaping,
construction, forestry, tourism, hotel, and fishing industries.
The program is capped at 66,000 workers per year, but over
the last several years, a returning worker exemption in the law
allowed returning H-2B workers to come to the United States
outside the cap so long as they had counted against the cap in
one of the preceding 3 years. At the program's height, this
exemption basically doubled the size of the program, allowing
some 120,000 H-2B workers to temporarily work in the United
States.
This exemption expired at the end of 2007, again capping
the H-2B program at 66,000. Since then, most of us can attest
to the outcry we have heard from businesses all over the
country. Every Member in this room can speak to the screams of
H-2B employers that have coursed through these halls over the
last few months on behalf of the returning worker exemption.
Today, we will hear from Members of Congress and H-2B
employers about the resulting lack of H-2B workers and the
effect this has had on certain industries. We will hear about
the harm to businesses that rely on H-2B workers, as well as
the harm to U.S. workers who rely on the viability and
robustness of those businesses. According to them,
reauthorizing the returning worker exemption is essential.
But we will also hear about how a lack of protection in the
H-2B program has allowed some businesses to exploit and abuse
H-2B workers. Members, human rights advocates, and labor
advocates will tell us that a lack of enforcement and
insufficient protection in the law for H-2B workers have
permitted some unscrupulous employers and labor recruiters to
abuse the program.
Due to such concern, they believe that any reauthorization
of the returning worker exemption should be accompanied by new
safeguards to ensure that H-2B workers are protected from
exploitation, and that such exploitation does not undermine the
working conditions of U.S. workers. Due to time limitations, we
only have time to hear from eight witnesses today at our
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from them.
However, there are many others who have been important
voices in the H-2B issue, and without objection their
statements and letters will be placed in the record. They
include Congressman George Miller, who was scheduled to be a
witness today but who is actually in a markup in another
Committee right now, so we will put his statement in the
record. Also, statements from Congressman Ron Klein,
Congresswoman Shea-Porter, Congressman Dennis Moore,
Congressman Mark Udall, Congressman Bobby Scott, John Sweeney,
the President of AFL-CIO, the H-2B Workforce Coalition, Hank
Lavery, the President of Save Small Business, the American
Hotel and Lodging Association, the Chesapeake Bay Seafood
Industry Association, the National Ski Areas Association, the
California Ski Industry Association, the International
Association of Fairs and Expositions, Robert Johnson, the
President of the Outdoor Amusement Business Association, the
National Independent Confessionaries Association, and numerous
other associations and businesses. We appreciate all their
statements and letters.
Now, we are obviously going to have to go for four votes,
but before we do, perhaps we can get the Ranking Member's
opening statement in, and then we will return immediately after
our votes for the hearing.
I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
H-2B visas are temporary work visas that are generally used
for low-skilled work. The unique feature of the H-2B visa is
that the existence of the job itself must be temporary. A job
must cease to exist within about a year, or must be seasonal.
The annual quota of H-2B visas is 66,000. In recent years,
the cap started to be reached. Almost immediately, the
restaurant, tourism, landscaping and construction and other
similar industries began lobbying for an increase in the cap.
Members of Congress are currently under heavy pressure from
these industries to increase the number of H-2B visas. Unlike
such businesses, Members of Congress owe a duty to Americans to
protect their jobs and wages, and not merely to provide a
source of cheap labor for industry.
The number of immigrants, legal and illegal, living in the
U.S. is growing at an unprecedented rate. The U.S. Census
Bureau data indicates that 1.6 million legal and illegal aliens
settle in the country every year.
There are roughly 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens
currently residing in the United States. It is significant in
our discussion today to note that almost half of all illegal
immigration results from visa overstay.
Poor, low-skilled American workers have borne the heaviest
impact of immigration through reduced wages. The National
Academy of Science has estimated that 40 to 50 percent of wage
loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of
low-skilled workers. Hourly wages for men with less than a high
school education grew just 1.9 percent--not adjusted for
inflation--between 2000 and 2007, and hourly wages for men with
only a high school education declined by 0.2 percent between
that same period of time.
The magnitude of the number of immigrants with relatively
little education also reduces job prospects for low-skilled
Americans. Between the year 2000 and 2005, the number of
jobless natives with no education beyond a high school degree
increased by over 2 million, to 23 million, according to the
current population survey. And during the same period, the
number of less-educated immigrants--legal and illegal--holding
a job grew by 1.5 million.
Native-born African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are
particularly hit hardest by immigration. Harvard professor Dr.
George Borjas reported that by increasing the supply of labor,
immigration between 1980 and 2000 caused a 4.5 to 5 percent
wage reduction for African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, as
compared with the 3.5 percent wage loss felt by native-born
White Americans.
For these reasons, the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform, Chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, concluded that
present immigration numbers are a source of economic injustice
in our society. Since 1970, immigration has increased the
number of unskilled job applicants faster than the number of
skilled job applicants.
First-year economics predicts that increasing the relative
number of unskilled workers will depress their wages, because
employers will not need to raise wages to attract applicants
for unskilled jobs. Nonetheless, those who favor an expansive
immigration policy often deny that the increase in the number
of unskilled job applicants depresses wages for unskilled work,
arguing that unskilled immigrants take jobs that natives do not
want.
This is sometimes true, but we still have to ask why
natives don't want these jobs. The reason is not that natives
reject demeaning or dangerous work. Almost every job that
immigrants do in Los Angeles or New York is done by natives in
Detroit and Philadelphia.
When natives turn down such jobs in New York or Los
Angeles, the reason is that by local standards, the wages are
abysmal. Far from proving that immigrants have no impact on
natives, the fact that American-born workers sometimes reject
jobs that immigrants accept reinforces the claim that
immigration has depressed wages for unskilled work.
Not only do low--and an example would be a doctor driving a
taxicab in Havana. Not only do low-skilled workers--Americans--
suffer because of higher levels of low-skilled immigration, we
all do. Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the
government and receive back a wide variety of services and
benefits.
Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, reported that in
fiscal year 2004, the average low-skilled household--that is a
household headed by persons with a high school degree--received
$32,138 per household in immediate benefits and services from
Federal, State, and local governments; however, the low-skilled
household paid $9,689 in taxes. They do pay taxes, but the net
average loss per household is $22,449. That burden falls on the
rest of society.
So while the annual costs to each low household are high,
the costs over the lifetime of each household are far higher.
The average net lifetime cost--benefit minus taxes--is to the
taxpayer of household headed by persons with a high school
degree, that would be $1.1 million over the lifetime of that
household.
Immigrants represent a substantial share of poorly educated
persons in the U.S. While 9 percent of native-born adults lack
a high school degree, the figure is 34 percent for legal
immigrants, and roughly 60 percent for illegal aliens.
Nearly a third of all immigrant households are headed by
persons without a high school degree. Policies that would
substantially increase the number of low-skilled immigrants
entering the U.S. would significantly raise costs on the U.S.
taxpayer.
Because of all these reasons and the fact that there are
currently 69 million working-age Americans currently not
working in the United States--they are simply not in the
workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics--I
oppose expanding H-2B visa programs. Speaker Pelosi and many
Democrats are advocating extending unemployment benefits
because the job market is so bad.
How can Democrats argue at the same time that Americans
don't have enough jobs, but that we need more foreign workers?
I am looking forward to the answers to these questions during
our hearing today, along with the testimony of the witnesses.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of
my remaining time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
I understand that the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Conyers, has an opening statement which we will hear, and the
Ranking Member of the full Committee is going to waive his
opening statement. Then we will go to votes and then return.
Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I begin our discussion today by commending you for breaking
the logjam and getting us started. And I always listen to our
Ranking Member very carefully because he wants us to; he leaves
a few questions that he is waiting to find the answers to, and
I want to find the answers with him, just so that we all move
down this path with as much agreement on the fact portion as we
can.
It is agreed that foreign workers should not displace U.S.
workers. But that may not be the question in this instance
here, H-2B. The question is, how can we design a program to
fill business needs while protecting American workers at the
same time?
And I come to this hearing and I make--this is a
declaration of my good broker bona fide: I am not on the
Schuler bill, the Stupak bill, the Clyburn bill, the Gutierrez
bill, and I don't have a bill. So let's begin this with as much
dispassionate conviction as we can.
I have not been thrilled by the fact that--my report says
that labor hasn't negotiated and won't negotiate. That is
difficult in a legislative body like this. We can toss rhetoric
around until the cows come home, but I agree with the
Chairwoman. Let's start moving this ball down the line.
I am thrilled by the fact that some are still talking about
a comprehensive reform. If I can figure out how that is going
to happen before we start breaking this thing down, I will be a
devout and dedicated student to whoever is really still arguing
that. We are focusing on H-2B, and so there is a shortage,
there are big problems.
I think that there may be a way with this Committee, which
is now pretty well known for its ability to cooperate and work
out difficult questions--Judiciary Committee doesn't have too
many easy questions anyway. So let's put our best feelings, and
let's attack this problem as professionally and as
scientifically as we can. If we do that, there is a solution
that will bring us all together.
And I just want you to know, Madam Chairwoman, that that is
my attitude as we begin these very important hearings. I thank
you so much.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have 3 minutes left on the votes, so the Members will go
over and vote with apologies to everyone who is here to hear
the hearing. We will come back directly after the last vote; we
have four votes, so that will be in about 20 minutes, for
people who might want to go get a cup of coffee.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The hearing is back in session. Let me
apologize to all of you. It seems to never fail that whenever
we start a hearing the bells go off, votes are called, and we
are stuck on the floor for always a longer time than we expect.
So I do appreciate the patience of our next panel of
witnesses and all of the members of the public who are here to
participate in this hearing. I know that other Members are on
their way over, but in view of the extended period of time and
in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses, I would ask
that other Members submit their opening statements for the
record.
We have with us one of the Members who is going to testify,
and I think maybe what we could do is begin in the hopes that
the other two Members of Congress will soon be here. We have
two distinguished panels of witnesses, and the first, of
course, is Members of Congress.
As noted earlier, Chairman George Miller was scheduled to
testify, but he is unable to make it. In fact, he is on the
floor right now managing another matter.
We also are pleased to have Congressman Bart Stupak, who
has represented the first congressional district of Michigan
since 1993. Representative Stupak worked to create the H-2B
program's returning worker exemption in 2005, and has
introduced bipartisan legislation this Congress to make the
exemption permanent. He also serves as Co-Chairman of the
Congressional Northern Border and Law Enforcement caucuses, and
is a valued Member of our Congress.
Our next witness, Mr. Bishop, who I hope is on his way
over, has represented New York's first congressional district
since 2003. Congressman Bishop was born and raised in South
Hampton, NY. He studied history at Holy Cross College in
Worcester, MA, and earned a master's degree in public
administration at Long Island University.
He later went on to serve South Hampton College for 29
years, leaving the position of provost in 2002 to run for
Congress. Representative Bishop has been working closely with
Representative Stupak to extend the returning worker exemption.
And finally, we have Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, who has
represented the first congressional district of Maryland since
1991. Representative Gilchrest serves as senior Member of the
Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Born in Rahway, New Jersey, he served as a Marine in the
Vietnam War and was decorated with a Purple Heart, Bronze Star,
and Navy Commendation Medal. Prior to joining Congress, he also
taught American history, government, and civics in New Jersey,
Vermont, and Kent County High School on the eastern shore of
Maryland, where he lives today.
As you know, colleagues, your full statement will be made
part of the written record, and we would invite you now to
deliver your testimony to us so that we may have some
questions.
And we will start with you, Congressman Stupak.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
King, for allowing me to testify before the Subcommittee on the
importance of the H-2B program. My legislation, Save Our Small
and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2007, was referred to this
Subcommittee on April 20, 2007. That was nearly a year ago.
After 3 successful years, the H-2B returning worker program
expired on September 30, 2007. This program, with the
grandfather clause, was authored by Mr. Gilchrest, myself, and
others. The delay in acting on my legislation has hurt small
and seasonal businesses in Michigan and throughout our Nation.
Without the returning worker program, thousands of small
businesses with seasonal needs were locked out of the visa
process. In my district, restaurants, hotels, and resorts in
Mackinaw City, on Mackinaw Island, and in the surrounding
areas, use H-2B workers to help supplement their fulltime and
seasonal American workers.
This year, without the benefit of the returning worker
program, the majority of the seasonal businesses in my district
did not obtain the H-2B workers they will need this summer. Of
the more than 70 businesses in northern Michigan, only one
business in Mackinaw City and two on Mackinaw Island received
H-2B visas this year.
I thank the Subcommittee for inviting Mr. Dan Musser of the
Grand Hotel, which has employed foreign workers for the last 35
years when they could not find enough American workers to fill
all the jobs available, to share his story with this Committee.
These foreign workers offer short-term temporary help. H-2B
workers cannot and do not stay in the United States.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult for employers to
recruit American workers who are willing to work a temporary
fulltime job for only 5 or 6 months out of the year. As a
result of Congress' inaction, small and seasonal businesses are
facing significant labor shortages this year that will result
in forced downsizing, decreased services, economic hardship,
and even bankruptcy. Many businesses have already scaled back
their operations and laid off U.S. workers.
By not extending the H-2B returning worker program,
Congress is endangering U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs that
depend on these returning workers. I urge the Subcommittee to
act on my legislation, the Save Our Small and Seasonal
Businesses Act, H.R. 1843, or approve an extension of the H-2B
visa returning worker program as soon as possible to preserve
small businesses' access to seasonal workers.
I ask unanimous consent that along with my statement I have
the following attachment: my full statement, first district
business testimonials--the Save Our Small Business Testimony--
as part of my full statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be made a part of
the record.
Mr. Stupak. All right. I will yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Congressman Stupak.
We turn now to Congressman Bishop.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify----
Ms. Lofgren. I don't think your microphone is on. There,
much better.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you on the matter of H-2B visas, an important
issue affecting my district. I particularly want to thank my
colleague from Michigan, Congressman Stupak, for introducing
H.R. 1843, and for all of his work and dedication in finding a
solution for our small businesses.
I represent New York's first congressional district, which
encompasses the eastern half of Long Island, a set of coastal
communities collectively referred to as the Hamptons, that
experience an enormous seasonal influx of summer vacationers
and second-home residents. Businesses in my district rely on H-
2B visas to keep them afloat during the busy summer season.
For many businesses, their actual season begins as early as
March and ends well after Labor Day, even into October. This
means that hiring a student under the J1 visa program is not an
option, as the work period lasts much longer than a traditional
summer.
These small businesses welcome the same seasonal workers
back year after year; in fact, some have had the same workers
return for the past 15 years. The vast majority of these
trusted and well-trained workers faithfully return to their
home country after their visa expires, and then return the
following season.
Employers who benefit from the H-2B visa program range from
hotels and restaurants to employers such as landscapers, retail
shops, sports and recreation facilities, transportation
services, and estate management. In fact, most jobs in my
district relating to the summer industry involve H-2B visas.
On just the second day in 2008, the annual cap on H-2B
immigration visas for migrant and seasonal workers was reached.
Consequently, many family-owned small businesses that depend on
such employees will be without the workforce they need to stay
in business. Small businesses in my district are now
exploring--but largely unsuccessfully--every possible option to
cope with the shortage of summer labor that they are now
presented with.
While the lack of H-2B visas directly affects the small
businesses that receive these workers, it also affects the
local economy where these businesses reside. Year-round
employees also suffer because their employers are forced to
scale back their hours and wages due to the lack of workers to
keep their businesses running properly.
Without a returning worker exemption this year, many
businesses in my district will be forced to dramatically scale
back their activity, and as a result our communities will
suffer. Like many of my colleagues who recognize the importance
of H-2B visas to our economy, I support raising the cap
permanently and incorporating this change into broader
comprehensive immigration reform.
Regrettably, partisanship and political obstacles to
broaden reform were made evident when the Senate debated it
last year. Therefore, in my view, we must resolve to enact
those smaller-scale remedies we can agree upon today in order
to alleviate the burden our broken immigration system imposes
upon our businesses as we continue to address the security,
economic, and political challenges required to enact broader
reform.
While we seek such a consensus, I respectfully ask that
this Committee join Mr. Stupak, myself, and nearly 150 co-
sponsors of his bill, H.R. 1843. We can all agree upon the
merits of this legislation, that we must find a solution to the
crisis affecting our small businesses. We cannot allow their
interests and livelihood to be held captive to the continuing
impasse over immigration reform.
We can also agree that helping small businesses retain
their temporary workforces can alleviate one major strain on
our economy. Stimulating growth and returning our economy to
prosperity cannot occur without delivering such relief to
America's small businesses.
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you again for the opportunity to
speak today about this important issue, and I would be happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New York
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H-2B visas, an important issue affecting
my district. I also want to thank my colleague from Michigan,
Representative Stupak for introducing H.R.1843, the ``Save our Small
Businesses Act,'' and for all of his work and dedication to finding a
solution for our small businesses.
I represent New York's First Congressional district, which
encompasses the eastern half of Long Island--a coastal community that
experiences an enormous seasonal influx of summer vacationers and
second home residents.
Businesses in my district rely on H-2B visas to keep them afloat
during the busy summer season. For many businesses, their actual
``season'' begins as early as March and ends well after Labor Day--even
into October. This means that hiring a student under the J-1 Visa
Program is not an option, as the work period lasts much longer than a
traditional summer. These small businesses welcome the same seasonal
workers back year after year. In fact, some have had the same workers
return for the past 15 years. The vast majority of these trusted and
well-trained workers faithfully return to their home country after
their visa expires and come back the following season.
Employers who benefit from the H-2B visa program range from hotels
and restaurants to less obvious employers like landscapers, retail
shops, sports and recreation, transportation services and ground
keepers. In fact, most jobs having to do with the summer industry
involve H-2B visas in my district.
On just the second day of 2008, the annual cap on H-2B immigration
visas for migrant and seasonal workers was reached. Consequently, many
family-owned small businesses that depend on such employees will be
without the workforce they need to stay in business. Small businesses
in my district have exhausted every possible option to cope with the
shortage of summer labor that the H-2B program has created.
While the lack of H-2B visas directly affects the small businesses
that receive these workers, it also affects the local economy where
these businesses reside. Year-round employees also suffer because their
employers are forced to close or dramatically scale back their hours
and wages due to the lack of workers to keep their businesses running
properly.
Without a returning worker exemption this year, businesses in my
district will be forced to close and my community will suffer. Like
many of my colleagues who recognize the importance of H-2B visas to our
economy, I support raising the cap permanently and incorporating this
change into broader immigration reform. Regrettably, partisanship and
political obstacles to broader reform were made evident when the Senate
debated it last year.
Therefore, we must resolve to enact those smaller-scale remedies we
can agree upon today--in order to alleviate the burden our broken
immigration system imposes upon our businesses--as we continue
addressing the security and economic challenges required to enact
broader reform.
In the absence of such a consensus, I respectfully ask this
committee to join Mr. Stupak, myself and nearly 150 cosponsors of his
bill, H.R. 1843, the ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act.'' We
can all agree upon the merits of this legislation and that we must find
a solution to the crisis affecting our small businesses. We cannot
allow their interests and livelihoods to be held captive to the
continuing impasse over immigration reform.
We can also agree that helping small businesses retain their
temporary workforces can alleviate one major strain on our economy.
Stimulating growth and returning our economy to prosperity cannot occur
without delivering such relief to America's small businesses. Raising
the cap on H-2B visas and adding stability to this important program
will help us achieve those goals. We cannot leave small businesses who
want to do the right thing with the unacceptable choice of going out of
business or hiring illegal workers.
Madame Chairwoman, thank you again for the opportunity to speak
today about this important issue and I am happy to answer any
questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Congressman.
And our last witness is Congressman Gilchrest.
Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
And I want to thank Mr. Stupak and Mr. Bishop for their
work over the last many months to deal with this issue
essentially as a separate entity, a separate piece of
legislation, a separate, very important, vital issue for the
Nation's small businesses, seafood industry, tourism industry,
agriculture. This is a slice of the pie that has its own niche,
unfortunately, in a broader, more comprehensive immigration
legislation that is tied up in any one of a number of ways.
But this particular issue has been successful for many,
many decades, and across the Nation. Especially, you see--and I
know I am a border State, so I am not up north like the two
gentlemen to my right--but as Mr. Bishop said, the cap of
66,000 H-2B workers was reached January 2. Well, there is no
harvest to be--there are no crops to be harvested in
agriculture in any one of our States in January, or February,
or March, or April.
And the seafood processing industry, the tourism industry--
this starts months and months later, and in years past, the
Congress always found a way to appropriately vote for an
exemption for those workers who were here the previous year.
And that has not been done, because this whole issue is tied up
with the broader, more comprehensive issue of immigration as a
whole.
Now, I would just like to make a couple of points, and I
would like to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be
submitted for the record.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, it will be----
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Gilchrest. And I am going to be a little colloquial
here. I come from a district that is still carpeted with farms
and dotted with fishing villages. It is a beautiful place, and
people love to go there and look at the cornfields, and see the
crab boats, and see the fishing boats, and see how they are
still put from the fishing boats to the dock in baskets, or in
some other way that has been done for 100 or more years.
These industries still wake up at 3 o'clock in the
morning--whether it is the tourist industry, the seafood
industry, the agriculture industry--the families, for
generations, would get up at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. But
the landscape has slowly changed over the decades, especially
the last 50 years.
In mid-19th century, when they began to process seafood in
a new and fascinating way, everybody on the Delmarva Peninsula
had a job in that seasonal workforce. The agriculture industry
was the same way. Both those industries faced changes, though,
especially in the last 50 years.
In the last 50 years there were more permanent jobs across
the Delmarva Peninsula, so people didn't rely on these seasonal
jobs, first working for a seafood processor, then working for a
vegetable company that canned vegetables--and by the way,
canning came in in the early part of the 20th century, and one
agricultural processing plant in my district, called Reels,
right on Route 50--60 or 70 years ago, they had 1,000 people
working for them; then, as new technology came in, they are
down to about 200. And out of that 200 people workforce, only
60 are H-2B, but they can't find other workers to take their
place.
Another example is, my sister-in-law, when she got out of
high school, went and picked crabs for a living. There is no
way that my sister-in-law wants her daughter, who is now nearly
30, to have done the same kind of thing. There are more
permanent jobs; there are other opportunities.
So the H-2Bs is filling a niche--a vital niche--of economic
viability in rural America. This has nothing to do with illegal
aliens. These provisions, these workers, come within a
structure that is easily seen, easily identifiable.
Now, the other issue I want to bring up here is, H-2Bs do
not take away from American jobs, because the seafood industry,
the agriculture industry, the tourism industry, they still go
through the following things: they work with the State's
unemployment agency to find workers on a regular basis, they
recruit local and regional people from the State detention
centers--from State and local prisons--to come work as seasonal
workers, they increasingly advertise in paper, they now hire
mentally and physically disabled people to do the work that
they can do, they work with private industry councils, they
send daily buses from the eastern shore--in some cases a 3-hour
drive--to Baltimore City to get people to work in these
seasonal places that otherwise would not have jobs, they work
with all kinds of religious organizations to locate people,
they run the gamut to get their families to work in the
business, to get local people to work in the business. This is
not replacing any local employment. And they pay good wages.
The point is that you don't find too many people with
college degrees, who are thinking they want to go to college,
that are going to spend too much time in a chicken house from
12 o'clock at night to 5 o'clock in the morning picking up, by
hand, 40,000 chickens. You are just not going to find it. Or 8
or 12 hours a day picking crab meat, or canning vegetables.
So, while still a good portion of the local population
works in these facilities, not enough do it to make it
economically viable. And the H-2B program, which is a
successful program, needs a little fine-tuning right here to
keep the rural landscape in place, in the Delmarva Peninsula--
my district--so that we can continue to have this place
carpeted with farms and dotted with fishing villages.
And Madam Chairman, thank you very much for the time.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest.
[Applause.]
We are going to allow that applause for Mr. Gilchrest, but
we do ask that displays of emotion be kept under control in the
hearing.
This is a time now where we have, as a Committee, an
opportunity to pose questions. And I understand that we are
delayed, so if any of you have another obligation that you have
to attend to we would understand that, but we hope that you
could stay for a few questions at least. And I see no one is
leaving, so I am going to begin.
I am sure that you have all seen the newspaper articles
about allegations of abuse of H-2B visa-holders where there was
a serious concern raised. Do you believe that if we were to
move forward on some resolution on this returning worker issue,
that putting in some protections to avoid unscrupulous
employers doing something that is harmful to employees should
be included?
Mr. Stupak. Madam Chair, as you know, we have adopted many
of those in the piece of legislation we worked on very closely
over the last few months. But I would suggest that it may not
necessarily be the employers that are the unscrupulous people
here, but some of the agents----
Ms. Lofgren. The recruiters.
Mr. Stupak [continuing]. From other countries, the
recruiters, that make false hopes and mislead people. So again,
we don't disagree there may have been some problems down in the
Gulf after Hurricane Katrina, but don't destroy the whole
program because of a few bad apples. This program has been
going on for a long, long time, and Wayne has pointed out how
important it is to his district; it is just as important to my
district.
We have businesses not opening. Now, is that what we want,
especially in a time of tough economic times, that businesses
do not open because we deny a program that works, where people
come in legally and leave?
It doesn't make a lot of sense. Don't paint everybody with
a broad brush. There are some problems; let's work on them.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Mr. Bishop. I certainly would support protection for
employees, and I am happy to say that in my district, if there
are abuses they are very much the exception----
Ms. Lofgren. I have not heard of any in any of your
districts.
Mr. Bishop. I am not aware of any, and I absolutely would
support employee protection.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. I would be in favor to make sure that the
unscrupulous element in this program be apprehended and duly
punished. We do see those things in an array of foreign workers
coming into this country. I think the program, as it now sits,
with the proper oversight, as the way it now exists and
functions in our districts--I know that where I live there is
oversight. They look at people that are unscrupulous; they look
for fraud; they look for some type of organized illegal
activity.
So the program as it now is situated, I think, functions
quite well. What will happen though, and what we want to avoid
is, a lot of these businesses do not want to go out of work;
they do not want to go out of business.
So a lack of fine-tuning this H-2B program, you are going
to see as a matter of human nature, as a matter of the way it
works in this world, you are going to see more criminal
activity; you will see more coyotes; you will see more people
bringing in workers that aren't documented, that are brought in
illegally, that have false documents. We have tracked it years
ago from Guatemala--a certain village in Guatemala--to a
certain place in Texas, to a certain place in North Carolina
where they got their papers, right up to our district.
We cleaned it up. We ensured that people were appropriately
brought into this country. And if this H-2B problem is not
solved, we are going to exacerbate the problem of illegal
activity.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask one final question to each of the
three of you. As you are aware, I think, I was very much a
supporter--and still am--of comprehensive immigration reform,
and I was very disappointed when the Senate was unable to
proceed, and I still have very strong hope that we will be able
to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
Some are concerned that if we take action on elements of
what would be in comprehensive immigration reform, that we
would impair the ability to actually achieve a broader solution
to the problem. What is your answer to that? I mean, would you
work on comprehensive immigration reform if there were a
resolution made to this----
Mr. Stupak. Well, as the Chair knows, Mr. Gutierrez and Mr.
Delahunt and a number of us have been working for the last
several months to actually take the first step toward
comprehensive reform on all aspects of immigration, legal and
illegal. And we were within a few votes of it until the rug got
pulled out just before Easter. Otherwise, this would have been
resolved.
Those discussions, I think, have set a basis in this House
of Representatives, where real discussion can occur, and
hopefully we can keep the politics out and get those last 14 to
15 votes we need to do a comprehensive reform that makes sense,
that is legal, that secures our border, that secures our jobs,
and secures our future in this country.
Mr. Bishop. I very much support comprehensive reform. In
fact, I am a co-sponsor of Mr. Gutierrez's bill, and I also
worked closely with and supported the efforts of Mr. Gutierrez
and Mr. Stupak to come up with sort of a somewhat truncated
version of comprehensive reform that we thought we might be
able to use to move H-2B visa. And I, too, am sorry that it
didn't work.
But I believe that the H-2B visa problem that we currently
have is an example of why comprehensive reform is such a
requirement, and I certainly understand the efforts to use H-2B
as the means to move us closer to comprehensive reform, and I
support it.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. I am in favor of comprehensive reform.
However, at this point comprehensive reform--I will make a
statement even though I am a part-time Methodist since the Pope
is in town--comprehensive reform, to this Congress, is a Hail
Mary. And it is just not something that we think--to me, that
means a long pass; I don't know what it means to the Catholic
Church. [Laughter.]
To me it means a long pass.
Mr. Gilchrest. But anyway, I think the short pass, right
here, is going to set us up for the goal line. And I think H-2B
sets a positive precedent that people can get around, separated
from all the other complicated issues of comprehensive
immigration reform.
This is a vital, urgent piece of legislation that is
positive; we can all get behind it. And I think this positive
gesture--passing--will ease the angst and the anxiety and the
apprehension out there in the small business world, and we can
move forward with comprehensive reform after this pass.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
My time is expired, so I turn now to the Ranking Member for
his questions.
Mr. King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony, and I can't help
but reflect back upon an event that I recall taking place, many
of them in the White House in fairly intense discussions about
how to put together the comprehensive immigration reform. And
it lists you quite a list of organizations, many of which are
supporting this H-2B bill, that signed onto that in promoting
the comprehensive immigration reform
And the pact, as I understand it, was that everyone who
wanted to make an amendment to their particular visa category,
whether it is H-2Bs, 1Bs, H-2As, J1s, whatever they might be,
that it would stick together and follow one comprehensive plan,
and not break from the herd, so to speak, and go ask for a
single amendment to a particular category, in which case we are
talking H-2Bs here.
I saw that coalition stick together all the way through the
debacle in the Senate when the switchboards got shut down
twice. And I want to make sure that the record reflects my view
on that, and that is that although I appreciate the arguments
of all the parties involved, when you put it together
comprehensively, the bargain was this: the bargain was that
enforcement of our existing laws was not going to come unless
this policy, which I will call a hostage to enforcement, was
comprehensive immigration reform. In other words, a right to
enforcement was held hostage to an ultimatum that we would pass
comprehensive immigration reform.
Now, that coalition apparently has broken up, and I am
seeing entity after entity come here on this Hill and ask for
their piece of immigration reform. I see this as one of those
pieces; I just lay that backdrop for my questions which I
expect to ask.
And then I would turn first to Mr. Gilchrest, whom I met a
lady on a plane the other day that said she had never voted
before, but she voted for you because she liked your name. So I
will pass that along in the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. I didn't hear you.
Mr. King. I met a lady on the airplane the other day, way
into the Midwest, that said she had never voted in her
lifetime--she was in her mid-50's--but she had just voted in
the past primary because she liked your name. So that is my
compliment, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was she Scottish?
Mr. King. I am not sure what she was; I didn't profile her.
But in any case, she voted for you and was quite proud to do
so, and I remarked how unusual that would be to meet somebody
in the Midwest in that fashion. So that is my pat on the back
to my friend from Maryland, and I appreciate your testimony.
A gentleman sat in that same Chair as you some months back
and testified that the recruitment lines for employment into
the Delmarva Peninsula were stronger to Poland than they are to
the Potomac. In other words, there is a fairly high degree of
unemployment and people who are not in the workforce here,
especially in the district, and the short ride that it is up
the coastline to go to work in those facilities that you
mentioned seems to not be where the recruiting helped. The
recruiting helped from Poland rather than the Potomac River.
And so my question is, do you agree or disagree with Mr.
Roy Beck, who made that statement and supported that statement
statistically?
Mr. Gilchrest. Who made the statement?
Mr. King. Roy Beck, the----
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to see Roy Beck's statistics. I
know there are some Polish people that work in Ocean City, if
you find a Greek diner or some gang on the boardwalk in Ocean
City or some other places, but I can tell you, Mr. King, that I
have never seen--and it is fine. If someone from Poland wants
to work in a crab house or pick up chickens----
Mr. King. If they are legal, I am fine.
Mr. Gilchrest [continuing]. Or work picking tomatoes to put
in a can, that is fine, if that local business cannot find that
help.
Mr. King. I think that I--my clock is ticking, and I----
Mr. Gilchrest. But I am not sure where he got his
statistics from, but I sure would like to see them----
Mr. King. They are part of the record, and I will see to it
that you do get those statistics, and I appreciate your
viewpoint.
I would just like to ask a broader question, and first, I
think my time is going to be such that I am going to be more
specific instead, and turn to Mr. Stupak, and ask you, this
bill proposes an increase of 66,000 a year for the duration of
the authorization, which theoretically could take us to
462,000. Now, I understand that there are assurances that there
aren't American workers that are being displaced, but there is
policy out there in existing visa programs that allows for an
American worker to show up on the job if they are qualified,
and the employer then, as they have certified that they tried
to hire Americans as required in the first half of the
contract, to hire Americans.
Would you entertain such a policy to allow American workers
to be able to step up on the jobsites and take a job that they
claim they may be displaced from?
Mr. Stupak. The legislation that I have written does not
increase the cap; it stays at 66,000. We grandfather in those
who have worked in previous years to go back to that same
employer. So we do not increase the cap in our legislation; it
remains at 66,000. As far as the----
Mr. King. Is it not cumulative?
Mr. Stupak. Pardon?
Mr. King. Isn't your bill cumulative?
Mr. Stupak. Pardon?
Mr. King. Isn't your bill drafted so that it is cumulative:
an additional 66,000 each year unless it is not met?
Mr. Stupak. Sixty-six thousand each year, period. What we
have is a grandfather. If I worked 1 of 3 years at the Grand
Hotel at Mackinaw Island, I can go back to the Grand Hotel at
Mackinaw Island and my employment in the next year does not
count toward the 66,000 cap.
Mr. King. Then would you, into the record, let us know what
is the maximum number that might be----
Mr. Stupak. I believe the most ever is right around
130,000.
Mr. King. But under your bill, what would be the largest
number we could have?
Mr. Stupak. The most ever is 66,000. Then you have to
figure out how many are grandfathered in.
Mr. King. How many would you expect? Have you calculated
that?
Mr. Stupak. Again, the most we have ever had has been, with
the 66,000, you had about another 60,000. So it is about
130,000 is the most we have ever had.
Mr. King. So I guess what you are saying is that your bill
just refreshes previous policy with regard to H-2B numbers.
Mr. Stupak. Yes. It is an extension of the Gilchrest bill
that Mr. Gilchrest and I wrote back in 2005 to afford problems
he pointed out were livid then. We put it in then; it worked
out very well for 3 years.
Mr. King. I will take another look at that language, and I
just ask in deference for an additional question, and that is
that, as in my statement with regard to my questions, I noted
that there are a number of things that the growth of our legal
immigration--it is about 1.3 million a year. And would you
entertain finding offsets for this proposal so that we could
reduce another visa category in proportion to the increase for
H-2Bs so we don't end up with 2 million or 3 million legal
immigrants in the country in a year?
I mean, is the priority high enough to do that? And I would
suggest, perhaps, the 50,000 visa lottery program is just
simply a grab-bag lottery without any merit base.
Mr. Stupak. Well I hope, Mr. King, that when the other
witnesses, especially the employers who come forward and
testify after us, you listen to their stories. It is not simply
a matter of finding someone to replace a job. You train them,
you do all this, and you like to have them come back year after
year. Like at the Grand Hotel, some of them come back with 20,
25, 30 years.
How do you replace an employee, whether it is an American
employee or an employee who is a foreign worker who has been
there for 20, 25 years, knows your business, knows your
customers, gives you that extra little sense? I don't think we
should require every employer to every year have to retrain new
employees for a new job.
Mr. King. Mr. Stupak, with full respect, though, the
question on offsets--would you look and see if this expansion
to perhaps 123,000, that number of 63,000 or 66,000 additional,
would you be willing to look and see if you could find some way
to offset those numbers, perhaps from another visa category, so
we didn't increase the overall total? Would you be in favor of
that?
Mr. Stupak. I am willing to look at anything to help out
legal immigration. If there is an offset that has to be taking
place, I am willing to take a look at it. But this bill has
been the same ever since this program has been created at
66,000.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired and we have
gone over, and we have, for some reason, a motion that the
Committee rise. So I would suggest maybe we can get in a few
more questions before we rush over on that pressing matter.
I recognize, now, Mr. Gutierrez for his questions.
Mr. Gutierrez. I thank the gentlelady very much.
First I want to say to Bart Stupak and Tim Bishop, it is
wonderful working with both of you.
And I want to say to my good friend Wayne Gilchrest, it is
good to see you. We see each other frequently very early in the
morning; maybe not as much during working hours. We should do
more to get together during working hours.
And to say to the gentlemen that there is absolutely no
doubt in my mind that we need to renew guest worker programs in
the United States of America, and that H-2B--I mean, it is my
position it is going to be approved by the Congress of the
United States, there is going to be an extension of it in the
Congress of the United States. That truly is not the question
that we have before us.
The true question that I think we have before us is, what
are we going to do about the larger, most exploitive guest
worker program we have in the United States of America? And
that is the 12 million, the 14 million undocumented workers
that each and every day work in the most exploitive conditions
here in this country.
And if the Congress of the United States is going to
respond to a well organized, well financed industry sections of
this country, or is it going to respond to those that don't
have as well organized and as well financed advocates here in
the Congress of the United States--the undocumented worker that
works so hard here in this country?
I think the real question for us is, as we build a
coalition to get and to make sure that industries which need
immigrant labor in order to be sustained, to survive, and
indeed to prosper, whether or not we are going to make sure
that Eduardo and Mildred Gonzalez--American citizen Eduardo,
petty officer, white, in Iraq, whose wife, Mildred, is being
deported from the United States--are we going to have the same
energy and applause and passion to make sure that Petty Officer
Gonzalez, within our broken immigration system, is going to be
asked to come back after his third term in Iraq defending this
Nation to his wife and to his children?
And not only Petty Officer Gonzalez, but we have Angel and
Adair Rodriguez. We have a U.S. sailor from Massachusetts
asking, ``Don't deport my wife.'' We have a widow whose husband
died in Iraq, who is being deported and being asked to leave
the United States of America. We have a father of a U.S.-born
soldier killed in Iraq who is being deported after his son died
in the Iraq defense, being deported from the United States of
America.
You know, we have these situations going on each and every
day. We have an Arkansas woman, left in a cell for 4 days with
no food and no water by ICE agents, because we are rapidly
expanding our deportation and targeting, and saying what is I
think a very racist symbol, ``Return to sender.'' It is
dehumanizing, as though they were a parcel, something that
isn't human of flesh and blood, with a soul.
Four days, being held in a detention center in Arkansas,
the rapid death--we are doing a great job in the United States
of America, Madam Chairwoman. And we are proud that this
Congress, this democratic Congress, has done more to do
enforcement.
To do enforcement? The fact is that workers are getting
killed less, being hurt less in the job force, unless your last
name happens to be Gonzalez or Rodriguez. That is just the
facts.
And if you are undocumented, you are twice as likely to be
Latino and to die. Last year alone, 632 immigrants died
working. Three hundred and five--not one of them should have
died.
But the fact is, we know that this exploited class of
undocumented worker, the largest, I suggest to everybody, guest
worker program that we already have to contend with, must be
responded by the Congress of the United States of America. The
true question before us isn't whether H-1B or H-2B, or whether,
you know, Microsoft or Bill Gates are going to be tickled pink,
or whether the lawns in front of the house that I live at are
going to be nice and green this spring and this summer; that is
going to get done.
That is going to get done. I think we all know that. Let's
not fool ourselves about what the true debate is really about
here in the Congress of the United States. And it is whether or
not this Congress is going to have the courage to not only
resolve the very necessary issues that the gentlemen have
brought before us, which I think are necessary issues that we
need to embrace and to make sure, but whether or not those
workers under the H-2B program are going to be fully protected.
I have got to say in closing, Madam Chairwoman, that I have
to take a step back when we begin these hearings by chastising
the AFL-CIO, and when we begin by giving ourselves a stamp of
approval and a stamp of pride by saying, ``We have done more to
enforce the laws than any Republican Congress.'' I thought we
were elected here to do comprehensive immigration reform and to
protect workers here; that is certainly going to be my focus.
In ending, I would just like to say, yes, we need to pass
the ball. We need to get a touchdown, too.
You know, when women were fighting for the right to vote in
this country, I don't think they wanted a pass; they wanted a
touchdown. They wanted to be able to vote. They didn't want
some more pots and pans and another, you know, apron to be sent
back to the kitchen.
When Black people in this country protested for their civil
rights, they didn't want a pass; they wanted a touchdown. They
didn't want just a new bus for the Black people and, you know,
separate but equal. They wanted to be integrated fully into our
society and our economy.
When workers wanted a 40-hour work, and they wanted minimum
wage, and they wanted certain standards, they didn't want you
to say, ``Okay, you get Sunday every other week, but you are
still going to get hurt, and you are still going to be
underpaid.''
We can do more as a country. Those immigrant workers that
have been testified about here today in the H-2B are critical
and essential to our economy. Let's begin to deal with this in
a much more comprehensive manner so that we can all really feel
that we have done our duty and our job.
Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Gutierrez. And I thank the gentlelady and the
Chairwoman for indulging me, because I know the clock ran out
about 60 seconds ago.
Ms. Lofgren. That is all right.
We will turn now to Mr. Delahunt for his 5 minutes, more or
less.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, I will thank the Chair, and I do hope
that the gentleman from Illinois' prediction that the H-2B
program will be extended actually materializes into a reality.
I can assure him--and I think I speak for the three gentlemen
at the desk--that we share the outrage that he has passionately
articulated, particularly when we have members of our armed
forces who are out demonstrating their commitment to this
country and return home to find that their family members are
subject to deportation.
I think you know that, Mr. Gutierrez, that we stand with
you on that. And I can also assure you that protection of
workers is a priority for myself, and I know for Messrs. Stupak
and Bishop and Gilchrest. I am proud of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the statutory scheme of labor protection it
does provide, because we would never countenance the kind of
abuses that appear to have been, or allegedly have been,
perpetrated elsewhere.
But at the same time, we want to ensure that those foreign
workers that come to my district, Cape Cod and the islands, not
only are well protected, but are there to contribute to our
regional economy and also to ensure that jobs for American
citizens are not eliminated, because that is what we are
looking at on the Cape and the islands. I can assure you that
story after story that come to me and to my office that speaks
about this issue, that says that without the H-2B visa
extension, I am going to have to close my business, that this
is not an issue of displacement of American workers.
If this occurs, this will develop into the elimination of
jobs for Americans. It is really that simple.
You know, on the Cape and the islands, we need, because of
the spike in the season, somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 H-2B
workers. This year, 15. That was the number according to the
Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, and a friend of mine, Bill
Zammer, is here to testify about that.
And this translates, by the way, into a real high-risk
issue for us, because our communities are impacted. The tourism
business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts generates local
and State revenues in about almost $1 billion.
And you are right about protecting workers. We face a
fiscal crisis in Massachusetts, and this kind of damage to our
retail economy can mean layoffs for teachers, and firefighters,
and police officers, and other members of organized labor. So
that is why we are here fighting for hard.
I appreciate the great work that you have all done, and I
appreciate the prediction of my good friend from Illinois.
Mr. Gutierrez. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt. I yield, of course.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Number one, I thank the gentleman for his help, his
support, and his commitment. And I know what Massachusetts
represents in terms of the entire delegation, and the gentleman
specifically.
And now, I would like to ask a unanimous consent request of
the----
I yield back to the----
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Are the three of you able to return
after this one vote?
Mr. Stupak. I am in a markup; I might have to run back and
forth, but I will return.
Mr. Gutierrez. Madam Chairwoman? Madam Chairwoman?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes?
Mr. Gutierrez. May I ask for unanimous consent that ``Close
to Slavery, Guestworker Programs in the United States,'' a
report by the Southern Poverty Law Center,\1\ be included in
the record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report by the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled Close to
Slavery, submitted by Mr. Gutierrez is not reprinted in this hearing
but is on file at the Subcommittee and can be accessed at
www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLCguestworker.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lofgren. Of course. Without objection.
Mr. Gohmert. Madam Chair?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes?
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. Mike Conaway has a constituent who had
offered to come up here and testify. He asked if I would offer
his testimony in writing for the record----
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection, that will be included in
the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chair, may I just make--I have to
be--on the floor; I will not be able to return. May I just make
one or two statements in my----
Ms. Lofgren. If you could very quickly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will. I will.
Let me first recognize the Members and thank them very much
for this thoughtful legislation. I will not be able to ask
questions, but I do think the telling point is to ensure that
we are protecting American jobs while we are balancing the
business interests.
And just for the record, Madam Chair, I just want to
indicate that in my district today, ICE raided a Shipley's
Donut place, and of course took undocumented individuals in, at
least allegedly so. Picketing is going on in front of my
Federal building.
I would just suggest that we have a crisis and we cannot do
immigration reform through ICE raids of individuals who may or
may not be undocumented, but may have a Spanish surname. I
frankly hope that the President and this Congress, with your
leadership--and you have been a leader--that we can work
together for what is right: comprehensive immigration reform,
protecting American jobs, and doing it the right way.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
We have--actually, only 131 members have voted. I wonder,
Mr. Scott, would you like to say something now and then these
members won't have to come back?
Mr. Scott. Well, Madam Chair, I am not a Member of the
Committee, but I did--I think you had--by unanimous consent you
entered letters from my governor----
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Seafood Council, and other
businesses pointing to the urgency of action as soon as
possible, and I thank you for the opportunity to----
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Those into the record.
Ms. Lofgren. They will be. Without objection, they will be
added to the record.
And I think, then, we can excuse this panel and come back
to the second panel at the conclusion of these votes, which I
hope will be a lot quicker than the last set. We are in recess
until after the votes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The Subcommittee hearing will resume, at least
temporarily, until we have our next set of votes. We will now
hear from our second panel of distinguished witnesses, and I
would ask that as we transition that our guests take their
seats. I see they have.
I am pleased to welcome Daniel Musser, III, President of
the Grand Hotel, a historic 385-room hotel built in 1887 on
Michigan's Mackinac Island.
Mr. Musser represents the third generation of Mussers who
have owned and operated the Grand Hotel. Active in the hotel
industry, he was appointed to the Michigan Travel Commission in
1988 and is a former alderman for the city of Mackinac Island.
He has a bachelor's degree from Albion College in Albion,
Michigan. He lives on Mackinac Island during the season, and in
Petoskey, Michigan, during the remainder of the year with his
wife and three children.
Next, I would like to introduce Mary Bauer, director of the
Immigrant Justice Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in
Montgomery, Alabama. She has a bachelor's degree from the
College of William and Mary, and graduated from the University
of Virginia School of Law in 1990.
As an attorney, she has spent her career representing low-
wage immigrant workers in employment and civil rights cases.
Prior to joining the Southern Poverty Law Center, she was the
legal director of the Virginia Justice Center for Farm and
Immigrant Workers and the legal director of the Virginia ACLU.
Our next witness is William Zammer, who operates four high-
volume restaurants in Cape Cod, Massachusetts: the
Coonamesset--I may be mispronouncing it--Inn, The Flying Bridge
restaurant, the Tugboats restaurant, and the Pine Hills Golf
Course. He also operates the Cape Cod Catering Company.
Heavily involved in education and workforce issues in the
region, he sits on the executive board of the Cape Cod Chamber
of Commerce, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, and the
Workforce Investment Board of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. He is also presently on the advisory board of
directors for Johnson and Wales University, Cape Cod Community
College, and the Upper Cape Regional Technical High School. He
has received numerous awards for his generosity to the
community, and enjoys time with his six grandchildren.
Our next witness is Ross Eisenbrey, Vice President at the
Economic Policy Institute, where he focuses on labor and
employment law. He is an attorney and former commissioner of
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Prior to joining the Economic Policy Institute in 2002, he
worked for many years as a staff attorney in the House of
Representatives, as legislator director for Representative
William Ford, and as Committee Council for the U.S. Senate. He
also served as policy director of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration from 1999 until 2001. He has a bachelor's
degree from Middlebury College, and a law degree from the
University of Michigan Law School.
And our final witness is Steven A. Camarota, director of
research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington,
D.C. He has published articles on a variety of immigration
issues at the Center for Immigration Studies, and he frequently
appears on television news shows. He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Virginia in public policy analysis, and a
master's degree in political science from the University of
Pennsylvania.
As you have heard from the bells, we have been called for
another vote on the floor, but I wonder if we might at least
get Mr. Musser's testimony given, and then we will have to go
and vote and come back. And I do, once again, apologize for the
disruptive nature of this voting, but that is the nature of
Congress.
So Mr. Musser, if you could give us your oral statement of
about 5 minutes, and for the record, your full written
testimony will be made part of the record of this hearing.
So, Mr. Musser?
TESTIMONY OF R. DANIEL MUSSER, III, PRESIDENT,
GRAND HOTEL
Mr. Musser. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate your invitation today to testify
about the critical need for foreign, temporary, seasonal H-2B
workers for the Grand Hotel and other seasonal businesses
throughout the U.S.
My name is Dan Musser. I am the President of the Grand
Hotel on Mackinaw Island, MI. I am the third generation in my
family to own and operate this historic, seasonal, 385 summer
resort.
We are known nationally and internationally as the world's
largest summer hotel. We are known for the beauty of our
location, our dramatic 660-foot front porch, but more
importantly and most importantly, it is for our friendly and
unique hospitality.
Our exceptional service is widely recognized by many
national rating guides. For example, the April edition of
National Geographic Traveler selected us as one of 150
properties in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
region with location-inspired architecture, ambience, and the
amenities and eco-stewardship, and an ethic of giving back to
the community.
The Grand Hotel is the largest employer of U.S. workers on
Mackinaw Island; for many decades, the Grand Hotel's entire
staff was U.S. workers. However, increasing opportunities for
year-round hospitality workers has made it impossible to fill
all of our positions with ready, willing, and able American
workers.
Without the H-2B seasonal and temporary workers, we
eventually would not be in business. We are only open 6 months
a year. We are in an isolated location, 300 miles north of
Detroit. Operating year-round is not an option.
As Chairman Conyers and also Representative Stupak can tell
you, there is no good way to get to our island in the winter,
and very little to do there if you are able to get across the
frozen lake. We are and always have been committed to staffing
the Grand Hotel with U.S. workers.
Each year, we take a number of steps to recruit U.S.
workers to the Grand Hotel, including running ads in major
papers in Michigan, the Great Lakes region, advertising in
seasonal resort areas that dovetail with ours, attending many
job fairs, and visiting culinary institutions around the
country. We are able to hire some college students, but
increased numbers of enrichment opportunities and the extended
school year of many colleges preclude them from remaining with
us for the entire season.
We have tried, also, several innovative programs, including
a service academy, for which we worked with the State of
Michigan and the Educational Institute of American Hotel and
Lodging Association, where we hired unemployed Michigan
citizens, guaranteed them a job the next summer, provided them
college-level hospitality courses throughout the summer.
We found that after helping them find jobs at resorts in
another part of the country in the winter, they did not return.
While these programs have not provided us the workforce we
need, we will continue and do everything in our power to find,
recruit, and maintain an American labor force.
About 35 years ago, the Grand Hotel began to look to
foreign workers to fill these positions that we were finding no
U.S. citizens were available for. Many of our H-2B workers, for
example those from Jamaica, hold seasonal hospitality jobs in
their home country. Some return year after year to the Grand
Hotel because of the pay and working conditions we offer to all
of our staff.
Most of the subsidized housing we provide to all of our
staff are single rooms. We are proud of the condition of our
employee housing. We have, this year alone, spent an excess of
$300,000 in improvements.
We are one of 70 northern Michigan resorts and hotels that
utilize temporary, seasonal, foreign workers on the H-2B visa
for specific jobs. Our workforce during the summer is made of
approximately 600 employees--250 American citizens, and 300 H-
2B workers. Our American jobs depend on our H-2B workers. It
would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to
continue and to operate successfully without these H-2B
workers; they are the lifeblood of our seasonal business.
Clearly, our H-2B workers do not wish to immigrate to the
U.S., or they would not have returned home each year at the end
of our season. Clearly they feel they are treated well, because
most of them return to us year after year. Clearly they are not
a security risk. Clearly they are a critical part of what makes
the Grand Hotel so successful.
The potential closure of the Grand Hotel would have a
devastating impact on Mackinaw Island and northern Michigan,
and the tourism industry in general. For example, in the past
15 years we have spent $75 million on capital and general
repairs that have created jobs for hundreds of Michigan
workers.
The Grand Hotel is not so much different from thousands of
small and seasonal businesses throughout the U.S. who have been
forced to turn to the H-2B program as a result of a lack of
available Americans that are willing and able to do these
temporary seasonal jobs. We need you to act immediately to
extend the returning worker exemption from the annual cap on H-
2B visas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Musser follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Daniel Musser, III.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
At this point, we are going to recess. Mr. King and I will
run over to vote; we have a little more than 5 minutes left on
the clock. And we have another vote right after that, so we
will be back, I hope, in about 10 to 15 minutes at the maximum.
And so we are in recess until that time.
[Recess.]
Ms. Lofgren. The Committee will come back into order.
Luckily, those were our last votes of the day, so we will not
be interrupted again. And before turning to Ms. Bauer, I would
like to recognize, briefly, Mr. Delahunt because I know he has
another obligation and wants to say something.
Mr. Delahunt. Yes. I am going to be very brief, and I am
not going to hold up the testimony except, obviously, my
opening statement, which was in the form of a question to our
colleagues. I think it expresses not just my concern and my
position, but that of both workers and employers on the Cape
and the islands.
Now, I know many across the country see Cape Cod and
Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as the home of the affluent.
Well, let me assure you that is not the case, and that those
who visit us during the tourist season tend to be affluent, and
we hope that they continue to come and enjoy the pristine
beauty of my district and that of Massachusetts.
I also want to note that Bill Zammer is here. He is a
friend; he is a small business entrepreneur on the Cape. What
he says reflects my opinion along with that of the rest of the
Massachusetts delegation, and the need to have H-2B extension
authorized.
And with that, I yield back. I have to Chair another
Committee in another place, and I am sure this is very
revealing to some of our witnesses who are not accustomed to
being here in Washington. But I can assure you, we are working.
And I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
We will turn now to Ms. Bauer.
TESTIMONY OF MARY BAUER, DIRECTOR,
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT
Ms. Bauer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Members of this
Committee, for inviting me to speak about what we have seen in
the H-2B program.
I work for the Southern Poverty Law Center. I have
personally spoken with thousands of H-2B workers over the
course of my legal career, which has been the last couple
decades. The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently
representing H-2B workers in six class-action lawsuits in a
variety of States. We also published a report last year about
the H-2 program entitled ``Close to Slavery,'' which is based
upon our interviews with thousands of workers.
What we have seen in this program in the real world is that
it is highly abusive; workers have few rights, and those rights
are rarely enforced. The abuses of these programs are too
common to blame on a few bad apple employers. They are the
foreseeable outcome of a system that treats foreign workers as
commodities to be imported without affording them legal
safeguards.
It is the very structure of this program, as it exists,
that lends itself to abuse. I am not saying that the employers
here or that every employer in the program is bad. Instead,
what I am saying is that the program is structurally flawed.
The abuses that workers experience often start long before
they get to the United States, and continue through and even
after their employment. When they are recruited to work in
their home countries, workers are often forced to pay enormous
sums of money--we have seen up to $20,000--borrowed at very
high interest rates to obtain the right to be employed at a
low-wage, short-term job.
Because most workers are indigents, they have to borrow
that money from loan sharks in their home countries, and then
they have to make payments on those loans while they are in the
United States. Many workers we have talked to are required to
leave collateral--often the deed to their home--in exchange for
the chance to obtain an H-2 visa.
H-2 workers lack the most basic rights that workers in the
United States have: the right to walk away. H-2 workers can
work only for the employer who petitioned for them.
The employer decides if he can come, the employer decides
how long he can stay, and the employer holds all of the power
over the most important aspects of the worker's life. If the
worker finds that the employment situation is not what he
expected or is less than ideal, he cannot work elsewhere, and
he likely cannot go home because he is desperately in debt.
We receive calls from H-2B workers in my office routinely,
and here is what we see in this program in the real world: we
see rampant violations of the prevailing wage rates, and
sometimes, often, even the Federal minimum wage. We see rampant
violation of the contractual rights of workers.
Workers are brought in too early and then provided no work
at all. Because they cannot work elsewhere and they likely have
this substantial debt, the failure to work can be devastating.
We have seen squalid housing, often at exorbitant prices.
The most common complaint we receive is that an employer or
a recruiter has taken a worker's identity document--their
passport or other document--so that the worker cannot leave. We
also have received calls that employers have threatened to call
immigration and customs enforcement if the worker does not
somehow comply with the contract.
Increasingly, we see a problem with subcontractors and
middlemen who are obtaining certification, although they lack
jobs in any real sense, and they essentially, then, sell or
rent the workers to other companies, which exacerbates abuses.
Under this system, workers lack the ability to combat this
exploitation.
The DOL does very few investigations of H-2 employers, and
workers have very few chances of enforcing those rights on
their own. The DOL even contends that it lacks the authority to
enforce the prevailing wage rates, as to H-2B workers.
None of the significant protections that exist, at least on
paper, for H-2A workers exist in the context of H-2B workers.
DOL has never promulgated substantive labor protection for
these workers.
There is no requirement for free housing; there is no
requirement that the housing be inspected; there is no
requirement that the housing even be decent. When they are
abused on the job, H-2B workers are not even eligible for
federally funded legal services.
So what can be done? In our written comments, we have laid
out specific suggestions for reforms that could be taken to
make this program less abusive in practice. And we certainly
hope that as this Committee discusses expanding this program,
essentially, by allowing returning workers, that is discusses
seriously the very compelling need for labor protections in
this program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Bauer
--------
The report by the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled Close to
Slavery, submitted by this witness is not reprinted in this hearing but
is on file at the Subcommittee and can be accessed at
www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLCguestworker.pdf. See Appendix for
additional material submitted by this witness.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
Mr. Zammer, we would be pleased to hear from you.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ZAMMER, PRESIDENT,
CAPE COD RESTAURANTS, INC.
Mr. Zammer. Madam Chair, Mr. King, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is William Zammer.
First of all, I would just like to say that Congressman
Gutierrez, my heart goes out to you. I absolutely agree with
many of the statements you made, and I wish I could be of more
help, but Bill won't let me run for Congress.
I have the privilege of living and working on Cape Cod in
Massachusetts, one of the Nation's premier visitor
destinations. And thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Committee today on the importance of the H-2B visa
program as well as the extension of the H-2R program.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and
thank one of your key Members, my Congressman, Bill Delahunt,
who has labored long and hard on behalf of his district to
secure a strong and stable economy. I ask that my full written
statement be submitted for the record, and be permitted to
summarize at this time, whatever that means.
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zammer follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Zammer
introduction
I am Bill Zammer, owner of Cape Cod Restaurants on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts for the past twenty years. We operate four high volume
restaurants employing 100 year round employees and 200 seasonal
employees, half of whom work under the H-2B visa program. We have
utilized the H-2B visa for at least eight years, as a response to the
documented lack of temporary, seasonal workers on Cape Cod. My
experience is common to most Cape Cod employers and I am here today to
urge you, better yet beg you, to continue the H-2B/H-2R program as it
has existed for the past twenty years. While the program may need
refinement, it is still the best program we have for small businesses
to fill the needs of seasonal employers in this country.
On Cape Cod, our cost of living, housing prices and significantly
older resident population lead to the scarcity of seasonal workers.
Since colonial settlement, Cape Cod has survived by entrepreneurial
pursuits. From farming and fishing we transitioned to tourism as a way
to make a living nearly 100 years ago. At one time Cape Codders would
take seasonal jobs and survive on unemployment insurance to carry them
through the winter. This is no longer the case--the high cost of living
makes it impossible. With virtually full employment on Cape Cod and in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, our year round residents have found
work in jobs that pay 12-month wages. This works against us when trying
to fill the peak seasonal need generated by our 4 million visitors each
year. In the highest point of the season our year round population of
230,000 swells to nearly 750,000.
We have a much-studied mismatch between jobs available for the
highly educated, well-skilled resident of Massachusetts and our
seasonal needs as a world class tourism destination. As a member of the
Massachusetts Workforce Investment Board, I've joined in the work to
improve the mix of jobs for the residents of Massachusetts. But we are
here to talk about seasonal employment jobs--the types of jobs that H-
2B visa workers fill that are not a match with our more skilled
residents.
conditions that have led to an inadequate workforce on cape cod
We began to see real evidence of a seasonal workforce shortage in
2000. Our regional planning and regulatory agency, the Cape Cod
Commission, issued a report researched by The Center for Policy
Analysis at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth entitled ``Help
Wanted! Cape Cod's Seasonal Workforce.'' The conclusion was that the
hospitality industry still continued to experience peaks and valleys,
even in the face of aggressive means to build the shoulder seasons.
What was once a two-month peak visitor cycle has now grown to an active
season from Easter to Thanksgiving. Known for our beautiful coastline
and beaches, it is understandable that we are highly appealing in the
warm weather months. But the cold winter months continue to challenge
our Cape Cod Chamber & Convention & Visitors' Bureau as a time to
attract leisure travelers, business meetings or weddings to the Cape.
Small businesses serving visitors, retirees and second homeowners
comprise \2/3\ of our economy, generating in excess of $1.3 billion in
direct spending on Cape Cod. And the bulk of this spending takes place
in a nine month period--not evenly throughout the year.
Cape Cod has been experiencing a labor shortage for the peak
visitor season, when our economy employs an additional 23,800 workers,
for the past eight years. At a meeting in January, 2008 with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Employment & Training's
chief economist, it was confirmed that at least 23,800 additional
workers are added to our year round employment base of 91,000 for a
total peak summer employment of 114,800. Other demographers estimate
even higher counts. H-2B workers have typically made up an estimated
5,000 of that peak season employment number. Aside from a robust
tourism economy, our shortages are being increased by population
shifts. Cape Cod is the oldest county in New England.
Here are the issues we face as a region that have helped to create
a shortage. The following demographic information is from Peter
Francese, Director Demographic Forecasts for the New England Economic
Partnership:
1. Growth in year-round Cape Cod residents (2600 from 2000-06)
has virtually ceased.
2. More year-round residents are now moving away from Cape Cod
than to here.
3. Cape Cod has high negative natural increase: 5,000 more
deaths than births 2000-06.
4. This is a big change from when Cape towns (all but 3) grew
over 1% per year.
5. Cape Cod is losing working age adults 35-44 and their
children PLUS early retirees.
6. Nearly 1 in 4 residents are age 65+
7. The Cape median age is 45.7 (men: 44 women: 47) one of the
highest in the nation.
8. The Cape is losing children at a faster rate than elsewhere
in Massachusetts.
Cape Cod's housing prices, which are ironically stable compared to
off-Cape areas even in today's falling real estate market, have been
driven higher by the ability of those who earn their livings elsewhere
to invest in a second home or investment property. This has placed
housing out of the reach of the average Cape Cod wage earner. And just
recently our newspapers reported that Cape Cod has the highest
electricity rates in the continental U.S. These are part of the facts
behind our population drain.
The ``graying'' of Cape Cod has been well documented. Frankly, many
of our retirees choose not to work. However many do and they are
actively recruited. Unfortunately many are not seeking the type of jobs
filled by the H-2B workers, which involve physical aspects such as
lifting heavy trays or spending hours on their feet.
Our hard work to expand our season beyond just the summer months,
combined with the changing schedules of the nation's colleges, make
dependence on college students for many of the jobs impossible. They
leave at the height of our season.
While I can only speak to Cape Cod's experience, I understand that
other parts of the country, where business is derived from cold skiing
conditions or warm beach weather, are also experiencing shortages in
the types of positions that H2B workers fill.
our efforts to recruit and retain an adequate workforce.
Here on Cape Cod, we do not wring our hands over our labor
scarcity. We roll up our sleeves and get to work. I am a board member
of our active Cape & Islands Workforce Investment Board, Vice Chair of
the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and recent chair of the Chamber's
Workforce Training and Development Committee. Many small employers,
including myself, have provided safe, decent housing with costs
typically subsidized. Some offer daily transportation to work from
urban centers. We have scoured culinary schools for employees. I
personally have traveled to Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire New
York & Vermont seeking employees and I know many other employers have
as well. We have asked the state to help promote job fairs and have
participated in events held this month on Cape Cod and in neighboring
counties, targeting areas of higher unemployment. We have worked with
ministers in urban poverty areas. We continually advertise in
newspapers, on the internet and with employment agencies in Boston.
In 2004, I led a contingent of Cape employers along with our
Congressional representative William Delahunt to investigate joint
training and employment programs with the U.S. Virgin Islands & U.S.
Department of Labor Region One. We were not able to generate enthusiasm
in the Islands for sending employees up. We have worked to develop
partnerships with opposite-season resorts in Florida and ski resorts.
Our regional Chamber and local Workforce Investment Board have
instituted a 55+ employment program, educating business owners on the
benefits of older workers and how to accommodate their needs. This
program is being heavily marketed this spring.
I have worked with local schools (including Cape Cod Community
College, Johnson & Wales University, Upper Cape Cod Technical High
School, and Cape Cod Technical High School) to develop training
curriculum for restaurant and hospitality positions, which will have a
future payoff but not fill immediate needs. College students are
utilized, but again, they typically head back to school in early or mid
August, when our season is at its zenith.
I have served as President of the Massachusetts Restaurant
Educational Foundation raising funds to train thousands of
Massachusetts high school students in Pro-Start. Some High school
students are hired, but child labor laws restrict youth working in
certain restaurant positions or at certain parts of the day. They also
return to school before our peak season concludes.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina refugees were housed at Massachusetts
Military Reservation on Cape Cod and we worked to secure employment for
these people while in transition. My wife, Linda Zammer, has served as
President of the Mashpee High School Fund creating and distributing
scholarships in the hospitality industry. She has volunteered in
Falmouth public schools working on hospitality programs. I sit on the
hospitality advisory board for Cape Cod Community College and have
funded the establishment of the Hospitality Institute at Cape Cod
Community College with $250,000 in my own direct donations as well as
solicited additional donors for the program. Many of these programs are
targeted to putting American workers in year round supervisory
positions in the industry.
Through the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce and in partnership with
the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, we have hosted annual
workshops featuring Matthew Lee, a nationally recognized immigration
lawyer and former INS prosecutor, along with enforcement officials from
the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division and Massachusetts'
Attorney General's office, to keep local businesses up-to-date on
compliance issues. Additionally, along with Cape Cod Healthcare, our
regional health care provider, the Chamber has researched and promoted
health insurance products (known as S.H.I.P.) for temporary seasonal
workers which many employers have utilized. We work hard as a community
to keep our seasonal workers healthy, happy, and productive. They are,
in fact, the face of our businesses. They are critical to our success,
and therefore we treat them with dignity.
effects of an inadequate workforce on my business & the community:
Without strong peak season business local companies like mine
cannot sustain year round employees. Only those who can do an adequate
business from Easter to Thanksgiving will make it through the winter
months, with revenue to support year round jobs for our year round US
residents. Many small seasonal businesses struggle to generate enough
revenue to cover the mortgage, rent or utilities in the winter, let
alone the wages and benefits of year round employees. Removing a viable
seasonal workforce source from them will make this struggle even
greater.
For my company, we need an adequate number of staff to properly
host the weddings, meetings and golf outings that comprise our core
business. Fewer employees mean fewer groups can be served. Just one
less wedding has a trickle down effect to the hairdresser, the wedding
cake baker, the photographer, the tuxedo shop, the dressmaker and
tailor, the florist, the limo company, the printer, the musicians, even
the news stand selling guests papers. Just one less wedding means a
decline in the number of charitable events we host at heavily
discounted rates for charities such as Falmouth Hospital, Boys & Girls
Club, the Heart Association and scores of other groups doing good work
in our community. Just one less wedding reduces the amount of cash
donations. A labor shortage doesn't affect only my business; it has a
domino effect on the local economy and American jobs.
myths
Myth: The H2B program is a way for employers to pay workers less
money.
I exceed prevailing wage rates that are set by the
Federal & state government for my workers.
My average temporary seasonal worker will earn
approximately $25,000 to $30,000 in 9 months. From these wages
are paid Social Security Taxes, Federal Income Tax, State
income tax, Unemployment insurance, workers' compensation
insurance.
I pay my H-2B visa workers air fare, their visa
application ($200 per person). It is expensive for me to use
this program due to legal fees, government application fees,
visa fees.
I don't rely on third-party recruiters. We travel to
Jamaica ourselves to interview candidates when needed. Workers
are also referred by current H-2B employees, who certainly
wouldn't recruit their neighbors if they were being mistreated.
I have purchased and rehabbed housing for 125 workers
and subsidize the cost of this housing for them.
We provide travelers insurance to cover their
healthcare costs while in the U.S.
Myth: The workers are mistreated.
We treat our H-2B workers no differently than our
American workers. They are our front-line ambassadors to our
customers and their level of job satisfaction is reflected to
our customers. When employees are happy, customers are happy.
My H-2B workers come back because of how we care for
them. Recently we paid for a worker to return home mid-season
to tend to an ill family member.
My workers have a good relationship with our country
because of their experiences here and with our company.
My workers are worried about losing their jobs here
this year and that they may not find a job in another country.
The money they earn supports them and their family at a middle
class level in their home country.
Myth: This is an immigration issue:
This is a jobs issue, especially for tourism
destinations dependant upon seasonal characteristics like
weather.
The jobs my H-2B workers fill are only available 6 to
9 months. My workers are happy to return home to their families
when the work is over.
Myth: These workers take American jobs.
The residents here are seeking 12-month jobs.
We advertise all year 'round for local candidates
before we fill positions with any H-2B worker.
We will and do hire any American.
Myth: These workers contribute to wage suppression for American
workers.
The Cape & Islands Workforce Investment Board and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Workforce Investment Board
commissioned a recent study on our wages in certain positions
as compared to other parts of our state, and found that Cape
Cod is paying higher wages than Boston--a major U.S.
Metropolitan Statistical Area--due to the scarcity of labor on
Cape Cod. We have to pay more to attract all our workers,
Americans as well as H2B workers.
In my view, the 2007 Southern Poverty Law Center report on foreign
workers in the US seriously misrepresents worker protection and wage
protections contained in the H-2B temporary seasonal nonimmigrant
worker program.
Good Actor/Bad Actor--The report cites some anecdotal
accounts, ironically mostly from Forest Service employees, but
does not present any evidence that there is ``chronic'' abuse
within the system aside from a few examples. This report
ignores that most of the small employers using the H-2B program
are good actor employers that follow the rules and are trying
their best to comply with immigration laws and hire legal
workers.
Enforce Current Law--Clear violations such as those
in the report need to be addressed through existing enforcement
authority. Under current law, the Secretary of Homeland
Security may impose fines and penalties and US Department of
Labor, Wage and Hour, investigates wage abuses for H2B workers
as they do for US workers.
Excessive Regulation Renders Program Worthless--We
welcome any new regulation that makes the program more user
friendly for small business as well as those that protect both
the US and H2-B worker.
Legal Recourse--While SPLC claims there is no legal
recourse for workers, there is actually extensive legal
recourse--as exemplified by the court cases in which SPLC were
involved. Some of their cases were settled or won, proving that
there is some mechanism in place for redress against abuse. In
any event, enforcement by DOL of its authority in this area
will provide redress for the great majority of issues related
to worker protection.
Rate of Return to Employer--An estimated 80% of H-2B
workers willingly returned to work for their previous employer
during 2006. This incredibly high rate of return indicates that
most workers do not experience chronic abuses, and in fact like
using the program. I can't speak to the workers who might be
unhappy returning to their farm that the report talks about. I
can say that an unhappy worker in the tourism industry directly
impacts on business. I keep my workers happy, and they come
back year after year.
Dependent Spouses and Children--Spouses and
dependents are permitted to come with H-2 workers under an H-4
visa, despite SPLC claims that H-2B workers are forced to be
separated from their families while they come to the US to
work. Further, the choice to work in the US is voluntary, and
presents clear economic advantages. The fact that many of these
workers have families in their home countries is often a
motivating factor in them returning home after the completion
of their seasonal work. Again, this is not an immigration
issue.
Portability--All nonimmigrant worker programs admit
workers for very specific job opportunities. H-2B workers are
currently able to transfer to work for another employer under
the H-2B program so long as the second employer's petition has
been approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This step is important in assuring that the new employer has
met the dual test of offering wages and working conditions
approved by DOL and has preferentially hired US workers who
want the job first. H-2B workers have substantially the same
rights as any US worker: if they are unhappy with their current
position, they can transfer to another approved H-2B employer,
or they can return home.
Workers' Compensation--US workers and H-2B workers
already have the same access to workers' compensation, and this
is how it should remain. The SPLC report says that guest
workers do not have access to workers' compensation, but
virtually every state requires employers to provide workers'
compensation for all of their employees, including H-2B
temporary non-agricultural workers.
Reporting and Retention Requirements--Congress should
not impose extra burdens on an employer using the H-2B program,
such as reporting requirements, retaining paperwork for long
periods of time, etc. The program is currently a big success.
It provides significant safeguards to ensure that H-2B
temporary workers do not displace American workers. The more
regulatory hurdles that are placed on the program, the more
small US employers will go out of business, and small business
is the backbone of our economy.
Withholding Documents--The SPLC report claims that
some employers unlawfully seize H-2B workers' documents. This
is already illegal under current law. Current law provides for
enforcement against these types of violations. Remember, the
report talks about some employers. Should all employers be cast
in the same light? I don't do this, my colleagues in
Massachusetts don't do this, again, we are looking at some bad
actors.
conclusion:
The H-2B program works for the hospitality industry on Cape Cod and
in this country. The anecdotal information from the Southern Poverty
Law Center does not apply on Cape Cod. We would be fools to abuse these
employees who have become the mainstay of our business and our
communities. We support the need for comprehensive immigration reform,
but in the process, do not want to destroy the H-2B program which has
successfully filled the needs of seasonal businesses across the country
for decades.
Mr. Zammer. I come before you today as the owner of a group
of Cape Cod restaurants for the past 20 years. I am Vice
Chairman of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, Vice
Chairman of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, and an active
member of a number of State and local and workforce development
boards.
My story is similar to those of many businesses on Cape
Cod. It is a story about genuine economic needs in our region,
about vital jobs, and how the visiting workers help our small
businesses.
My message to you is very simple: Please retain the H-2B
program and extend the H-2R program returning worker exemption.
They are essential to the needs of the seasonal employers
across Cape Cod and the country. Fix what needs fixing, but
please don't discard it.
If these programs are eliminated, it will force small
businesses out of business, laying off fulltime American
workers. American workers will not be able to survive if the
seasonal businesses aren't able to make their profits
throughout the summer in order to stay open in the winter,
which is the case on Cape Cod and other geographically
challenged areas.
On Cape Cod, the scarcity of workers is due to the high
housing prices, and significantly older resident population. We
simply do not have enough workers without migration of young
people.
In mid-summer, when our population triples, there are
simply not enough people to cook, serve meals, make the beds,
and drive the buses. To say we are geographically challenged is
putting it mildly.
I own a restaurant in Boston, for example, which is 75
miles from Cape Cod. I don't have any problems in Boston. There
are people living there, whether it is the college students who
go to school there or the people living there that may come to
work, and it is not a problem. But it is also a fulltime job.
Cape Cod employers need an additional 23,800 workers
between Easter and Thanksgiving. We hire approximately 5,000 H-
2B workers or H-2R returning workers to fill our needs. It is
not easy to find 23,000 workers.
We advertise nationally. We offer paid housing and
transportation. We host job fairs. We have partnered with
church leaders in urban poverty areas to attract workers, and
reached out as far as the U.S. Virgin Islands, St. Croix.
Delahunt led a delegation there with myself and other leaders
of the Cape, as well as the leaders of the congressional
Congress--the congresswoman from there as well as the governor
of the islands. We couldn't find folks who wanted to move up
with us.
On my own accord, I have organized and initiated and
financed a culinary hospitality training school at the local
community college, since I happen to believe in--to build a
workforce for the future. But I don't want to depend on doing
what we have been doing; I am trying to do something about it.
I have spent a $250,000 of my own money training workers
for my industry. I am not looking for pats on the back; I am
just telling you what I did. I have heard stories about the H-
2B program abuses. Nothing is perfect.
But we do not pay workers lower wages. In fact, all my
workers earn better than the government-mandated prevailing
wage. On average, a seasonal worker in my company will earn
$25,000 to $30,000 over 9 months. They pay their fair share of
taxes, Social Security and insurance fees. We have offered them
health insurance.
This program does not displace American workers. It keeps
my American workers working year-round because I carry them
through the winter, even though I lose money, and keeps small
business viable. And many employers on the Cape do that,
particularly the retailers.
We do not mistreat H-2B workers as was stated. In fact, the
reason our visiting workers return every year is because they
love us. Year after year they come back, and we treat them with
dignity and respect, and they are able to support their
families on the 9 months of wages they make here and back in
their own countries. And unlike other countries, the people of
Jamaica speak highly of America.
But this is not an immigration issue. It is about seasonal
jobs and the survival of thousands of small businesses that
make their living in tourism. Our workers go home at the end of
the season; they do not want to be here illegally.
Would you rather live in New England in the winter, or
would you rather go back to Jamaica for 3 months, January,
February, March? [Laughter.]
I mean, think about it. We have dramatically improved their
standard of living.
In conclusion, please hear my message. The H-2B and H-2R
programs work for the hospitality industry on Cape Cod and
elsewhere in these geographically challenged parts of the
country. We would be foolish to take advantage of employees,
both American or visiting workers.
I belong to many national associations, chambers of
commerce, that are on your side of the immigration reform. We
are your friends. Please do not hurt the businesses that are
the backbone of our Nation, and do not destroy the H-2B, H-2
job programs that have worked so well across the country for
decades. We are not taking jobs from American workers.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Zammer.
Mr. Eisenbrey?
TESTIMONY OF ROSS EISENBREY, VICE PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC POLICY
INSTITUTE
Mr. Eisenbrey. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Can you hear me?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Eisenbrey. I would like to begin by acknowledging the
help of Art Read, who is the general counsel of Friends of
Farmworkers, in preparing my testimony. He was very helpful in
helping me understand how this program works in practice, as
opposed to what, for example, the statute says--and I recommend
him to you, as someone who has worked on this program for about
20 years, if you are looking for additional advice.
I have four main points. The first is that the program
hurts U.S. workers by driving down wages, and that this is
especially problematic at a time when the economy is slowing
rapidly, we are losing large numbers of jobs, and we have
experienced 7 years of downward pressure on wages that leaves
the median wage lower than it was in 2000.
The entire premise of the H-2B program--that local labor
shortage is defined as an inability to easily find willing
workers at a locally prevailing wage--that shortages should be
answered with the importation of foreign workers, who have no
right to change jobs or bargain for better wages, is harmful
for U.S. workers, and especially for those without a college
education. There is no shortage of U.S. workers; 70 percent of
the U.S. workforce does not have a college education. And
insofar as there are local shortages, extraordinary efforts
including higher than normal wages, like Mr. Zammer has said he
pays, ought to be offered.
The program, as run by DOL, is a catch-22 for U.S. workers,
designed to exclude them from job opportunities. It sets the
prevailing wage too low, and it permits such minimal recruiting
as to be almost a joke. In particular, denying job
opportunities to U.S. workers because they do not reply to an
add that runs for 3 days, 4 to 6 months before the job begins,
is unfair and makes no sense. That is not real recruitment.
There are sensible reforms that could be made to the
program that would make it less harmful. To expand a little
bit, just so you are perfectly clear, the economy is crashing
right now. The labor market is crashing.
Payrolls have been cut by 230,000 people in the last 3
months; unemployment by the end of this year will be at 6
percent in all likelihood, and next year it will rise to about
6.5 percent. Nine million people will be unemployed in addition
to the millions of people who are already underemployed. Wages,
as I say, have been stagnant for 7 years; they are declining in
these occupations that are most used by H-2Bs.
As my testimony points out, in the ones that are most
subject to H-2B, wages have fallen, they are behind the economy
as a whole, and unemployment in those occupations is higher
than in the economy as a whole. Given that wages have not gone
up for the median, Congress should be looking for ways to
improve their wages, not to help hold them down.
Yet, the effect of the H-2B program is to short-circuit the
normal labor market mechanism for obtaining higher wages. When
an employer can't find a worker at $8 an hour, the market
should compel him to offer more, even if that is the locally
prevailing wage, the wage that other employers have decided to
offer. It is obviously not enough, and a greater inducement is
needed before we resort to workers abroad, which is what the H-
2B permits.
It is far too easy to establish a labor shortage and resort
to H-2B. U.S. DOL requires a 10-day job listing with the State
workforce agency, and a 3-day advertisement--that is it--months
and months before the job begins. That is a crazy way to
recruit U.S. workers. The people who need the job are the
people who are unemployed 3 weeks, a month before the job is
open.
So in summary, I have a few recommendations. One is that
workers must be recruited beyond the local area and beyond the
local State.
There should be requirements for listing on Internet sites,
on the National Job Bank. Much more should be required than is.
And a U.S. worker who comes to answer a job ad and comes to an
employer who is looking for H-2B workers should have a right to
that job up to the point at which--at least at which--an
enforceable contract has been entered into with a foreign
worker, and that worker has left.
Finally, the labor market test really has to include a
higher than prevailing wage, as determined under our current
mechanisms. You have heard from Mr. Zammer; he offers a higher
wage. That is laudable; that is not required by the law now.
Senator Bernie Sanders' bill, S. 2094, has a requirement for
the 67th percentile of the OEF. I think that is better.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenbrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ross Eisenbrey
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Your time is expired. We appreciate
your testimony.
And now we will turn to Mr. Camarota.
TESTIMONY OF STEVEN A. CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER
FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Camarota. First I would like to thank the Subcommittee
for inviting me to testify on the H-2B visa program.
Now, seasonal work of the kind done mostly by H-2B workers
is generally done either by adults with a high school degree or
less. Sometimes, also, by college students, and sometimes by
high school students. But these groups have generally not fared
well in the labor market, indicating that this type of labor is
not in short supply. If there was, wages, benefits, and
employment rates should all be increasing fast; but the
opposite has actually been happening.
Consider wages. Hourly wages for men with less than a high
school education grew less than 2 percent, in real terms, in
the last 7 years. Hourly wages for men who have only a high
school degree and no additional schooling actually declined in
the last 7 years.
The share of adult natives, say 18 to 64, without a high
school degree, holding a job at any one time has been declining
in the last 7 years. The share of natives with only a high
school degree has also declined. The share of teenagers, 15 to
17, holding a job has also fallen in the last 7 years.
Declining employment rates and stagnant or declining wages
are entirely inconsistent with the argument, ``Workers are in
short supply.'' And these figures are before the downturn began
in 2007.
Now, if these type of workers were in short supply, wages,
benefits, and employment rates should all be increasing fast,
as employers try desperately to attract and retain the
relatively few workers available. But this is not what has been
happening. There is now a huge supply of potential less-
educated workers.
In 2007, there were more than 22 million native-born
Americans, 18 to 64, with no education beyond high school, who
were either unemployed or told the survey that they weren't
even looking for work; so they don't show up in unemployment.
There are another 10 million teenagers, 15 to 17, who are
either unemployed or not in the labor market. There is an
additional 4 million college students unemployed or not in the
labor market.
Of course, not every person without a job wishes to work.
But the huge pool of potential workers indicates there are
plenty of people who could do seasonal work if wages, working
conditions, and recruitment methods were improved.
It is simply incorrect to say that Americans don't do the
kinds of work covered by the H-2B visa program. The
overwhelming majority of maids, housekeepers, construction
laborers, groundskeepers, landscapers, food service and food
processing workers in America are U.S.-born. Usually,
typically, two-thirds to three-fourths are U.S.-born.
While the data does not support the idea that we are short
of workers, some employers remain convinced there are no
Americans for these jobs. Now, part of the reason I have
already mentioned. Employers have become accustomed to paying
very low wages, and they structure their businesses
accordingly, sometimes failing to invest in new labor-saving
devices and techniques. Some employers even have convinced
themselves that wages don't matter when recruiting.
But there are other issues as well, that go beyond simply
paying more or the failure of employers to adopt the latest
technology. The increasing reliance on foreign workers, legal
and illegal, has caused the social network and recruitment
practices once used to attract native-born workers to atrophy,
creating the impression on employers that there are no workers.
One of the primary ways by which people have traditionally
found jobs, especially lower-skilled seasonal and entry-level
jobs, is through friends and family. As employers have come to
rely more and more on immigrant workers for some of these types
of jobs, it occurs to native-born Americans in some parts of
the country less and less that this is a job they should apply
for.
For Americans in some parts of the country, it is often the
case that no one they know has ever worked at a particular job
in what is now an immigrant-heavy occupation. There is also no
friend or family member to make them aware of the job opening,
or to put a good word in with the person doing the hiring.
These facts, coupled with low and stagnant wages, make it
extremely unlikely that a native-born American would think in
terms of doing some of these jobs no matter how many ads are
placed in the local newspaper or listed at the unemployment
office.
Now, if there was less immigration coming into the United
States, there is every reason to believe that over time the old
social networks would reemerge. Of course, there would be some
painful transitions for employers. But drawing more less-
educated Americans who are young into the labor force would be
very good for the country.
It is as a young person that we learn the values necessary
to function in the world of work. Research shows that if you
are only intermittently attached to the labor market as a young
person, that trend, unfortunately, follows you throughout the
rest of your life.
In short, if properly paid, treated, and recruited, there
is an enormous pool of potential workers from which to replace
workers currently brought in under the H-2B visa program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven A. Camarota
overview:
There is no evidence of a labor shortage, especially at the
bottom end of the labor market. If there was, wages, benefits, and
employment should all be increasing fast, the opposite of what has been
happening.
Seasonal work is generally done either by adults (18 to 64)
with a high school degree or less, or by college and high school
students. These groups have generally not fared well in the labor
market, indicating this type of labor is not in short supply.
Data shows stagnation or a decline in wages.
Hourly wages for men with less than a high school education
grew just 1.9 percent between 2000 and 2007.
Hourly wages for men with only a high school degree
actually declined by 0.2 percent between 2000 and 2007.
The share of employers providing health insurance has also
declined.
The share of adult natives (18 to 64) without a high school
degree holding a job fell from 53 to 48 percent between 2000 and 2007.
For those with only a high school education, it fell from 74 to 71
percent. The share of teenagers (15 to 17) holding a job feel from 25
percent to 18 percent.
There is a huge supply of potential less-educated native
workers:
22 million adult natives (18 to 64) with a high school
degree or less are unemployed or not in the labor force.
10 million teenagers (15 to 17) are unemployed or not in
the labor force.
4 million college students are unemployed or not in the
labor force.
Of course, not every person without a job wishes to work. But
the huge pool of potential workers indicates there are plenty of people
who could do seasonal work if wages, working conditions and recruitment
methods were improved.
There is a good deal of research showing that immigration has
contributed to the decline in employment and wages for less-educated
natives.
Possible explanations why employers still feel there are not
enough workers:
Employers become accustomed to paying low wages and
structure their businesses accordingly. Raising wages seems out of the
question, even convincing themselves that wages actually don't matter
when recruiting.
The increasing reliance on foreign workers (legal and
illegal) has caused the social networks and recruitment practices once
used to attract native-born Americans to atrophy creating the
impression there are no workers.
Immigration lowers the social status of a job, making it
less attractive.
As in the past, immigration has sparked an intense debate over the
costs and benefits admitting such a large number of people. A review of
all the costs and benefits of immigration would, of course, fill
volumes. I will devote my testimony only to the less-educated labor
market and the perceived need for more workers to be allowed into the
country through the H-2B visa program to fill seasonal jobs. The first
part of my testimony will show that the available data provides no
evidence that workers of this kind are in short supply. The second part
of my testimony will report that a large share of workers who do this
kind of work are native-born Americans and there is little evidence
that these are jobs only ones that immigrants do. The third part of my
testimony will focus on why, despite so much data to the contrary,
employers sincerely perceive a labor shortage.
It is very common to hear those who own or operate a business argue
that there are not enough workers to fill all the positions they have.
Although I will focus my comments on seasonal employment, the perceived
need for workers is a common view among businesses that employ computer
programmers to those that hire mostly workers with very little
education. Seasonal employers are not alone in feeling there is a
worker shortage. But is this perception correct?
Most H-2B visa workers can be found in such jobs as food
processing, hospitality, construction, landscaping and building and
maintenance occupations.\1\ In general, non-supervisory workers who do
these kinds of jobs are overwhelmingly men and women who have either
only a high school degree and no additional education or they are
individuals who failed to graduate high school. College and high school
students also sometimes do this kind of work as well. If these types of
workers were in short supply workers, wages, benefits, and employment
should all be increasing fast as employers try desperately to attract
and retain the relatively few workers available. But, in general these
types of workers have not fared well in the labor market. Wages have
stagnated or declined and the share holding a job has fallen. This is
an indication that the number of workers is at least adequate and there
may in fact be an oversupply of these kinds of workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Foreign Labor Certification: International Talent Helping Meet
Employer Demand. Performance Report, March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006.
US Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wage trends
Consider recent trends in wages. Hourly wages for men with less
than a high school education grew just 1.9 percent in real terms
between 2000 and 2007. This is far less than half a percent a year on
average and not the kind of growth we would expect if such workers were
scarce. The long-term trend is much worse. Real hourly wages for men
without a high school education are 22 percent lower today than in
1979. If we look at male workers with only a high school degree their
real wages have actually declined 0.2 percent since 2000. Since 1979,
men with only a high school degree have seen their hourly wages decline
10 percent.\2\ The share of employers providing health insurance has
also declined. No doubt there are employers who pay less-educated
workers much more than they used to, but the overall trend in wages and
benefits, which has to be the basis of a public policy such as
immigration, do not support the argument that there is a shortage of
less-educated workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These figures were provided to me by Jared Bernstein an
economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
employment trends
Employment data look as bad or even worse than wage data. The share
of adult natives (18 to 64) without a high school degree holding a job
fell from 53 to 48 percent between 2000 and 2007. For those with only a
high school education, the share holding a job it fell from 74 to 71
percent. The share of teenagers (15 to 17) holding a job fell from 25
percent to 18 percent. Again, this is actually the opposite of the
trend we would expect if there was a tight labor market. The pool of
potential less-educated native-born workers is now enormous. There are
22 million adult natives (18 to 64) with a high school degree or less
who are unemployed or not in the labor force. In addition, there are 10
million native-born teenagers (15 to 17) and 4 million college students
who are unemployed or not in the labor force.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These figures come from my analysis of the March 2000 and 2007
Current Population Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, not every person without a job wishes to work. Aggregate
figures of this kind do not make such a distinction. But given these
numbers, it would seem clear that if wages and working conditions are
improved, and if businesses adopted better recruitment methods, they
could meet their need for workers. The cap on the H2-B visa program is
currently 65,000, though with the exceptions it is double or triple
with amount. The millions of adult native-born Americans with
relatively little education who are not working, along with college and
high school students, would seem to provide sufficient pool of
potential workers to fill seasonal jobs.
jobs americans don't do?
There is some difficulty matching the job descriptions of persons
given H-2B visas with the job categories used by the Census Bureau.
Nonetheless, it is possible to examine the immigrant share of
occupations that use H-2B visas.\4\ In this way, we can test the idea
that immigrants only do jobs that Americans do not want. There should
be jobs that are mostly or entirely filled by immigrants if this is the
case. Detailed Census Bureau data collected in 2003-2004 for the kinds
of jobs for which most H-2B visa are given out shows the following:
there were 1.2 million native-born persons who were ``maids and
housekeepers'' and they comprised 62 percent of persons in this job
category; there were 1.1 million native-born Americans who were
``grounds maintenance workers,'' and they comprised 71 percent of all
persons in this occupation; there were 1.3 million native-born
Americans employed as ``construction laborers'' and they comprised 70
percent of workers doing this type of job. There were nearly 300,000
native born Americans in food processing occupations such as ``food
batch makers,'' ``cooking machine operators'' and ``butchers and other
meat and poultry workers'' between 69 and 75 percent of workers were
native-born. The jobs ``food preparation worker'' and ``cook'' employed
2.5 million native-born Americans and they comprised about three-
fourths of all workers in these jobs. These figures are based on a
detailed analysis of all 473 jobs as defined by the Census Bureau.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Most research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal
immigrants respond to Census Bureau surveys. Thus the foreign-born
shares reported here included illegal immigrants.
\5\ These figures are based on a combined sample of the 2003 and
2004 American Community Survey and can be found in Table D of Dropping
Out: Immigrant Entry and Native Exit from the Labor Market, 2000-2005
published by the Center for Immigration Studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are virtually no occupations that majority immigrant, let
alone jobs that are entirely immigrant. It is simply incorrect to say
there are jobs Americans do not do, when the overwhelming majority of
almost any job one can name is done by native-born Americans. This is
clearly true for the kinds of jobs which H-2B visa holders do.
why can't employers find workers?
While the economic data shows no labor shortage, a significant
number of employers remain convinced that finding workers in other
countries is the only way they can secure an adequate labor supply. So
why does this perception that is so out of line with all the data the
government collects continue to exist.
Given the low pay and lack of significant wage growth among less-
educated workers, it seems clear that part of the problem for employers
looking for workers could be solved by raising pay, benefits and even
working conditions. Because immigration continually increases the
supply of workers, some employers have become so accustomed to paying
low wages, that raising wages seems out of the question, even
convincing themselves that wages actually don't matter when recruiting.
They have also structured their businesses to use labor intensive
methods rather than capital intensive methods. So for example, rather
than investing in machines and other new technologies that would reduce
the need for workers, some employers lobby for more foreign workers.
Put simply, higher pay and increased productivity could solve some of
recruiting problems of employers. There are other issues as well that
go beyond simply paying more or adopting the latest technology.
The increasing reliance on foreign workers (legal and illegal) has
caused the social networks and recruitment practices that were once
used to attract native-born Americans to atrophy, creating the
impression there are no workers. One of the primary means by which
people have traditionally found jobs, especially lower-skilled,
seasonal and entry-level jobs, is through friends and family. As
employers have come to rely more and more on immigrants for types of
jobs, it occurs to native-born Americans less and less that this is a
job they should apply for. For an American in some parts of the country
it is often the case that no one they know works at or has ever done
what is now an immigrant heavy occupation. There is no one to make them
aware of a job opening or to put a good word in the with the person
doing the hiring. If most everyone doing a particular job is immigrant,
it also tends to lower the social status of the occupation in the eyes
of native-born Americans, making it even less desirable regardless of
the pay or working conditions. These facts coupled with the low pay and
lack of wage growth means many of these jobs are simply not on the
radar screen of American workers, regardless of how the job is
advertised by an employer.
Although I seldom use anecdotes in my research, my own experience
with seasonal agricultural work may be illustrative. When I did
seasonal work on a farm one summer in New Jersey as a teenager, I heard
about the job from a fellow football player who was doing the same
work. It paid $7.50, which would be roughly $17.00 a hour today,
adjusted for inflation. This was great money for a high school kid who
was big enough and strong enough to do that kind of work. But the two
key points is that I only heard about the job through a friend who was
doing the job himself and the pay made it desirable. Today many fewer
high school kids do this type of work. Jobs of this kind pay less and a
very large share of those who now do this work are foreign. This makes
it extremely unlikely that a native-born American would even think in
terms of doing the job, no matter how many ads are placed in the local
newspaper or listed at the unemployment office.
This does not mean natives would never do this relatively difficult
job. Rather it means that looking for workers through the unemployment
office is not going to yield many good and reliable workers. As
discussed above, these jobs were generally not filled this way in the
past. They were often filled through personal relationships and the
perception that the job was something a worker should consider doing.
The same is true today, except that the social networks in some parts
of the country are mostly comprised foreign-born workers because of a
permissive immigration policy. Employers have learned to navigate the
bureaucracy so they can get their H-2B workers and the ways they used
to reach native-born American workers has atrophied. They have come to
rely on immigrant social networks to find workers, whereas at one time
employers were in touch with clergymen, youth leaders, teachers and a
host of others who they used to help them find good seasonal workers.
The workers recruited in this way would also feel some obligation to do
a good job because they had been recommended by a friend of the family
or other respected individuals. Immigration has curtailed recruitment
practices of this kind. If there was less immigration there is every
reason to believe that over time these practices would reemerge.
The recruitment of workers for seasonal work has always been
characterized by informal processes dominated by personal
relationships. Employers have grown used to the idea of looking abroad
for workers and relying on immigrant social networks. This will
continue to be true until immigration policy is changed and they begin
to use domestic workers. This will take some effort on their part. It
will not happen overnight and there will be some painful transitions
for some employers. But drawing more young native-born Americans and
those who do not have a lot of education into the labor force would be
good for the country. It is as a young person that we learn the skills
necessary to function in the world of work, such as showing up on time,
and following directions from a boss we may not like. There is a lot of
sociological evidence indicating that those who are only intermittingly
attached to the labor market at a young age often exhibit this problem
through their lives. High levels of immigration, of which the H-2B visa
program is a small part, is contributing to significantly social
problems such as low wages at the bottom of the labor market and the
raise of non-work.
conclusion
The available data does not support the argument that there are not
enough people to fill seasonal jobs done primarily by less-educated
workers. The share of less-educated adults, as well as teenagers,
holding a job has declined significant in recent years. Their wages
have also stagnated or declined. If such workers were in short supply
wages and employment rates should all be rising, but they are not.
The perception of a labor shortage by employers in some parts of
the country is partly do to the fact that many have become accustomed
to paying low wages and they structure their businesses accordingly.
Rather than investing in new technologies that would reduce the need
for workers, they employ labor intensive means and clamor for more
foreign workers. The increasing reliance on foreign workers (legal and
illegal) has caused the social networks and recruitment practices that
were once used to attract native-born Americans to atrophy,
contributing to the impression there are no workers. Also as
occupations have become increasingly immigrant dominated in some cities
and towns, it tends to lower the job's social status, making it even
less attractive to natives. If immigration was reduced and programs
like the H-2B visa program were eliminated, wages would rise, working
conditions would improve, new labor saving devices would be adopted,
and better recruitment practices would again emerge. Markets work, we
just have to allow them to do so. Currently, 22 million native-born
American adults with no education beyond high school are not working,
another 10 million teenagers are not working and 4 million college
students do not work. If properly paid, treated and recruited, there is
an enormous pool of workers from which to replace the 65,000 seasonal
workers currently allowed into the country under the H-2B program.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Camarota.
Now is the time when we are having an opportunity to ask
questions, each of us, and I will begin. Mr. Zammer just heard
the comments made by Mr. Camarota and Mr. Eisenbrey, and I am
wondering if you can tell us whether the suggestion to
structure your business so it is less labor-intensive would
solve the worker shortage that you face.
Mr. Zammer. Madam Chairman, let me just state, if
unemployment goes that high--and you were talking about 6.5
percent unemployment--we are not going to need as many visiting
workers because in fact, as we advertise, they will be coming
in.
And the second part, Mr. Eisenbrey, you said that the--you
are assuming that the other employees don't have the
opportunity to come do the job. The fact is, we are not hiring
all of our staff; I still have 200 other people to find. So I
am trying to just fill a portion of the gap to do that.
In answer to your question, Madam Chairman, the labor-
saving devices that I know if in a restaurant business are--you
know, we have tried to automate, but you still need people. I
really don't know--we have got little computers running around,
and we have done that--there are no robots changing beds that I
know of.
But it is really a situation--I don't know what I could do;
I wish there were other things. We have attempted to do things,
but I think that if----
The other point: the 15 to 17-year-olds are--Mr. Eisenbrey
and I were discussing this prior to--that young person, because
of the child labor laws today, it is very difficult for hotels
or restaurants to hire the individual. They can't touch liquor
glasses, and most of the machinery they can't touch, there are
numerous restrictions on the hours they are allowed to work. I
was 12 when I started working. But now days, particularly in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the child labor laws are
very strictly enforced----
Ms. Lofgren. If I may, as a parent I wouldn't allow my 15-
year-old to go off to some strange place for the summer to
work--but let me ask Ms. Bauer a question.
The testimony you have given is very important, as well as
the reports that you have delivered, and I want to ask about
the enforcement issues. The Department of Labor, I think, has
really dropped the ball completely, and one of the suggestions
made is, if we do anything here--and we don't know whether we
will or not--that if there were reforms made in this program,
there has to be some other mechanism for enforcement in
addition to the oversight.
One of the suggestions is that H-2B visa holders should
have access to legal aid so that they might enforce their own
rights. Do you think that is a good idea?
Ms. Bauer. That is one of the specific suggestions that we
made, that not only should workers have the ability to enforce
their own rights because they can't rely on DOL, we think it is
very important that labor protections include a private right
of action to enforce that contract and to make it clear that
workers have a real ability to enforce their rights. The
situation we have right now is that, you know, workers are
theoretically entitled to a prevailing wage, but really no
recourse if that wage is not paid.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask Mr. Musser: One of the things that
has become apparent in the testimony is that there may be
abuses, not necessarily by employers, but by labor recruiters
who go out and make various commitments and are treating H--I
am not suggesting that has happened in your case, or any of the
witnesses cases, but I think it has happened, certainly, in
Mississippi and maybe other parts of the country.
Do you use labor recruiters? How do you select them? And
would it relieve your mind to know that there was some
regulatory system to make sure that the labor recruiters were
honest and fair?
Mr. Musser. Well, I think that is a great question, and
the--yes. I mean, obviously it would. We do not use foreign
labor recruiters. We think that the $150 we pay per petition
should be used--that goes to DOL--should be used to enforce all
types of--any of these grievous things that have happened. I
mean, you know--but I think it is important to note on this
whole issue is that, you know, our goal is to have all American
workers.
And short of that, what we are talking about here is a very
small part of it, and they are the returning workers. In our
case, we had 100 with us last season that had been with us for
more than 10 years. Now, those people are not security risks.
They are not the problem in any way. So I hope that we
don't lose sight of the overall picture here, that this is a
very special group of people that are not part of all that.
Ms. Lofgren. My time is expired, so I will turn now to
other Members. I don't know whether Mr. Conyers wishes to ask
questions at this point.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
We have got on the H-2B, we have got a Stupak bill, Thelma
Drake bill, Tim Bishop, anybody else?
Ms. Lofgren. I don't think on the House side there is any
other bill.
Mr. Conyers. So we could have, you know, four or five
hearings on this, but who is for or against any one of these
three bills? Yes, sir?
Mr. Eisenbrey. I am opposed to any of these bills that
doesn't deal with these structural problems in recruitment that
allows, in Michigan, as the Detroit Free Press reported, one
landscape service to hire people at the minimum wage, to bring
people from overseas at the minimum wage, even though the
national average wage for landscape workers is--I have it
here--is $11 an hour. I mean, that is completely unacceptable,
that instead of recruiting either locally or throughout the
State at $11 or more--$12, $13, $14 an hour--that that
landscape company is allowed to bring somebody in at minimum
wage.
If the bills don't deal with that, if they don't require
real recruitment, if they don't provide the right to legal
services for these workers, then the program shouldn't be
expanded. People got along until 1997 with 20,000 H-2B visas.
Suddenly 130,000 is needed or we are in a crisis.
I don't believe it. I think that----
Mr. Conyers. Well, what if----
Mr. Eisenbrey [continuing]. The appetite has grown for this
program.
Mr. Conyers. I see. So what if Musser goes out of business
following your theory?
Mr. Eisenbrey. I don't believe he will go out of business.
Mr. Conyers. Okay.
Mr. Eisenbrey. I believe that he is doing the kind of
recruiting that I am talking about--you have two panelists who
are far different from the average person who is using this
program, or wages wouldn't be declining.
Ms. Lofgren. We are going to have order in the hearing
room, please.
Mr. Conyers. What two people you have mentioned?
Mr. Eisenbrey. The two witnesses here today have----
Mr. Conyers. Which ones?
Mr. Eisenbrey [continuing]. Mr. Musser and Mr. Zammer have
made extraordinary efforts and paid wages that are higher than
the prevailing wage.
Mr. Conyers. Which ones?
Mr. Eisenbrey. I am sorry. Mr. Musser and Mr. Zammer.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. Is that right?
Mr. Musser. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You know, we--but I don't
agree with your premise that we are not representative of other
operators around the country. I mean, the Broadmoor in Colorado
Springs, the Breakers in Palm Beach, there are some other--many
other resorts that do similar efforts that we do and continue
to do and will continue to do.
And so I just fully--I realize there are some problems with
the system, but again, to get back to my point, and certainly
we are all for correcting these problems with proper resources
to the DOL or however it is done. But, you know, we are talking
about, in our case, these 100 workers that have been with us
more than 10 years, that obviously if we weren't paying good
wages, didn't have good housing, wouldn't be coming back, that
aren't a threat to our national security anyway.
Mr. Conyers. Are you saying, Mr. Eisenbrey, that both of
these gentlemen, the two witnesses, they could stay in business
without us doing anything or creating a bill that adds on these
important additional increments that you suggest?
Mr. Eisenbrey. I am saying that if you add these
increments, they are in no danger of going out of business
because they claim to be doing these things already.
Mr. Musser. And we will continue to do them, but they don't
provide the numbers that we need. Our newest program this year
was the Gerald R. Ford Job Corps in Grand Rapids; it has
produced 10 young individuals who seem great, and we are
hopeful that they make the season, that we might even be able
to expand that problem. But we need 600 jobs, not 10.
And our program with Michigan citizens with limited
physical and mental disabilities has been a wonderful program,
but, you know, we have five individuals that fit under that
program. And we are going to keep trying all these things, but
they do not fill our need, nor do they fill the need of the
other people in our industries.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Zammer? Can you make it, as is suggested
by the person sitting to your left?
Mr. Zammer. I think, in all due respect to Mr. Eisenbrey,
the great economist, my problem is, I have two restaurants
which are seasonal; the other two are year-round. I bring, when
these two seasonal restaurants close, I bring my American
workers back into the other ones to keep them working. This
kind of a bill--I can't bring people back.
This year, for example--this instant--I am opening the
restaurants now. I may have to close them early, I have
contracted the size of our menus, I am going to have to reduce
the amount of people I bring in on a daily basis, which is
going to reduce the amount of money that I earn.
I am not hurting myself, but it will cause me to look at
the fact that I do keep a number of American workers working
year-round. I am going to look at that at the end of the year
and say, ``I have got 100 people I am trying to keep fed and
take care of their families.'' That is because I am a nice guy.
But the fact is, at some point I stop doing that.
So I understand your confusion--not your confusion; that is
not the right word. I don't represent these people behind me,
but I don't think I am the exception by any stretch of the
imagination. We do not abuse employees----
I heard this thing in Mississippi. It is heartbreaking. And
those people ought to be shot. But the fact of the matter is
that the majority of employers that I know of--in the
Massachusetts Restaurant Association, the National Restaurant
Association, the very large hotels--we are not abusing
employees.
Mr. Conyers. Could I get a little more time?
Ms. Lofgren. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. Let me just ask you, have you seen Ms. Bauer's
document? Have you seen the document?
Mr. Zammer. Yes. And it is an insult to me to have--to use
that word ``slavery'' to me or my fellow employers.
Mr. Conyers. Do you think it is inaccurate?
Mr. Zammer. It may be true; I don't have firsthand
knowledge of it. But I know the majority of employers I have
talked to are not abusing employees. It may have happened; I
don't have firsthand knowledge of it.
But if I may go back to your point, yes, the Stupak bill,
which allows the visiting worker to return, is very important.
The ability to police this should be put in place. We pay a
fee--to the government for enforcement of the laws they are
talking about.
I don't make the laws. I follow them. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, by the way----
Mr. Conyers. Well, you are helping us make them this
evening, sir.
Mr. Zammer. I am sorry?
Mr. Conyers. You are helping us make the laws. That is what
we are doing here.
Mr. Zammer. I hope so.
Mr. Conyers. Let me ask you, Mr. Camarota, we have been
looking at some of your statements. Slightly astounding in
other contexts. But what is your solution? We have got three
bills before us that I know of, and we say we need more
protection built in. What do you think about all this? What are
we to do besides meet here in the evening?
Mr. Camarota. Yes. The problem I have is, why can't we find
any evidence of a labor shortage with all the government data
they collect? They spend all this money looking at wage rates,
employment rates, share of employees offered benefits, all of
it at the bottom end of the labor market for things like
landscapers, nannies, maids, busboys, food processing workers.
All of it shows very little or zero wage growth. It just
doesn't support the contention that we have a labor shortage in
the United States.
I guess what I would say is, let's let wages rise for a few
years. Let's let the poorest American workers make some more
money, and then come back and talk to me about, you know,
increasing the supply of workers through immigration.
Mr. Conyers. Ms. Bauer, would you help us out here in this
discussion?
Ms. Bauer. Well, I think that it would be fair to say that
based on our fairly extensive experience, that the efforts
described by the two employers here today are fairly
extraordinary. We do not see employers routinely paying more
than the prevailing wage rate.
We routinely see workers receiving substantially less than
the prevailing wage rate, and then having really very little
recourse when that happens. We are not getting a call once or
twice a year; we are getting calls every week.
And it is not just about this terrible situation in
Mississippi, which is, you know, a case we are involved in. It
is cases in many, many States. We are currently involved in six
class-action lawsuits; we could be involved in dozens more,
frankly, if we had the staff.
Ms. Lofgren. Could you say what States?
Ms. Bauer. The cases are filed in Georgia, Tennessee,
several in Louisiana, Arkansas, and one other State that I----
Ms. Lofgren. All southern States.
Ms. Bauer. Our States are the South. We work in the South.
I do not think the circumstances that we describe are limited
specifically to situations in the South.
I mean, we get calls across industries and across our
region, and it really--they are very similar stories. They are
people cheated out of wages who have their identity documents
confiscated, people who have paid enormous sums of money.
So we are seeing the same kinds of abuses over and over and
over again across industries, and that says to us that it is a
product of the structure of this program. And that is what we
are really calling upon for change.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
We turn now to our colleague, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Yes. I thank all of the panel this--and I
think you really can't have a conversation about this outside
of the context of comprehensive immigration reform. And I think
that, I think, causes--because, you see, Ms. Bauer and Mr.
Eisenbrey are absolutely correct; we need to make changes.
We need to make changes in the program where abuses exist.
And then we have very great, elegant gentlemen that have come
here today who run fine industries. The problem is that they
both need to be fixed. They need the workers.
I hear Mr. Camarota say, ``Well, there is no evidence that
we need workers.'' A recent report said most Americans want to
retire by the age of 64. Well, if we actually do that, that
means in 20 years--no, wait a minute, 19 years--over half of
our workforce will either be retired or want to be retired.
Half of our workforce that we have today.
You know, they passed laws in Arizona--very stringent laws
against immigrants in Arizona--and the next thing out of the
government offices in Arizona is, we want a guest worker
program for Arizona to bring workers in. They passed stringent
laws in Colorado. What is the very next thing they do in
Colorado? They go to jail cells, to inmates, and say, ``Can't
you please come out and fix our crops?''
What evidence more do we need than that? We have failing
industries in America, which are failing because they do not
have. Everybody talks about economics.
The fact is, when I was born only 4 out of 10 workers in
the United States of America had a high school diploma. Today,
9 out of 10 of them have a high school diploma. We are creating
a better-educated, better-trained workforce which is demanding
higher wages and has higher expectations than the generation
before.
The U.S. Department of Labor tells us, Mr. Camarota, that
every year we create over 350,000 low-skilled, low-wage jobs.
But we have 5,000 visas for low-skilled, low-wage workers.
Look, there is common ground here, because absolutely the
workers need to be protected, their wages need to be protected,
their right to organize into unions needs to be protected.
But I am going to tell you something. You know, what is
happening today is certainly not--my dad didn't send me when I
was 15 years old to go work at Golden Nugget, but it was bad.
It was bad. When they told me I was going to make $75 a week--
this is great. I mean, this is 1969--$75 a week.
They didn't tell me it was 90 hours a week. You know, they
didn't tell me that I was going to have to wash the dishes and
do just about every other job over at the nice Golden Nugget
restaurant. But you know what? That is all that was afforded to
me when I was 15 years old, so I went and I did it.
And I learned a few things about the culinary industry, but
it wasn't right to put me, that 15-year-old--or any other 15-
year-old--in that kind of situation. So the abuses do continue.
I go and--you know, I know it is anecdotal information--but
I go, and I decided that I am going to plant a--I love planting
trees--and I go back, and I go back to the same landscaping
company--not company, but where they have all the trees, the
nursery--and just about everybody that works there, you know,
Gonzalez, Martinez--the reality--and I go there, and I always
like it because they treat me so well--treat me so well.
And they always get the best tree, the healthiest tree, and
they tell me what--how to plant it and everything, and I just
go home and I plant it. I was so surprised, because I have seen
these workers year in and year out, when the last time I
visited them last summer when I went to go back I said, ``How
is everything going in the Congress of the United States? Are
you guys moving on comprehensive immigration reform? Our
families really need it.''
I said, ``Well, I am going to help those--.'' They said,
``No, no. We need it.'' They are so interwoven into the fabric
of our society that we cannot distinguish between those that
are here undocumented and documented; except they know it.
They live in that fear. And their employers many times
exploit--with all deference to the ones that we have here
today--exploit that very fear that they have. We need to fix
this, as I said earlier.
We have the largest, already, guest worker program the
United States has ever seen. There are 12 million to 14 million
of them.
The Department of Agriculture says, and the Department of
Labor says over two-thirds of our agricultural workers are
undocumented. The Federal Government knows it, and they are not
going to deport them because it would cause a collapse of the
agricultural industry in the United States of America. And
there are many industries that would collapse.
So let's just face it: You have a problem. I suggest--
400,000 visas with worker protection--with worker protection.
That if you come to the United States that visa is portable to
other employers so that they can come and do this job.
And you know something? I want to continue the fine great
American tradition, that people that come here who work hard,
who sweat, and who toil, whether they come under a guest worker
program or any other program, if they are good for our economy,
if we welcome them here and they are good workers--and I know
the employers want good workers to stay--why don't we allow
them the opportunity to stay in America and build the kinds of
roots?
It is the very fabric and foundation of our country that we
are talking about here, in terms of how we debate this issue.
So I would say--you know, I hear things from the panelists
today, and I thank the work that you are doing down in the
South, Ms. Bauer; I thank Mr. Eisenbrey for what he does.
And I commend Mr. Zammer, because I know employers just
like you and Mr. Musser who treat their workers very well, who
indeed have come to my office and with the--I had the CEO of
Barnes and Noble come to my office from New Jersey because he
got no match letter for his employee.
Now, Barnes and Noble's never been on the record as being
an exploiter of workers, and he says, ``Luis, I don't want to
have to fire them. Can we find a solution? I have got these
notes--their Social Security numbers--and I have to take action
against them.''
We found a solution for him. But you want to know
something? There are employers who want to keep their immigrant
workers; there are also employers that we have to keep in check
because they will exploit those very vulnerable workers at the
end of the day.
So let's have a conversation about how we deal with this. I
think we need to keep programs so that our industries are
strong. But I also say to Mr. Zammer and to Mr. Musser, please
help us. Please help us in the totality of the problem.
When I go back home to my district, it is not in Michigan;
you know, it is not in Cape Cod. And I have a constituency of
people who I want to respect me, and I want to earn and deserve
their respect. And if I don't speak for those most vulnerable
among us, I don't think I should return to the Congress of the
United States.
So I thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Conyers. Madam Chairman?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Conyers. Can I be recognized to continue the discussion
started by the distinguished gentleman of Illinois?
Ms. Lofgren. Of course.
Mr. Conyers. You see, we are dealing with a couple of
problems here that maybe this panel can help us untangle. We
have got Musser and I think Zammer talking about an immediate
problem. We have got the distinguished gentleman from Illinois
talking about a comprehensive reform problem.
Now, the Strive Act had a hearing here in the Committee;
the Strive Act had hearings in the Senate. Me, I want the
Strive Act, and I want to help the gentlemen that are before
me. And what is clear is that since the Strive Act has failed
in both bodies--and I support the Strive Act--and we have got
an immediate crisis here with the H-2B.
What has one got to do with the other? I mean, what are
we--we are not magicians. You have got to get some action, I
presume, right away. Am I right?
Mr. Zammer? [Applause.]
Mr. Zammer. And you know, Mr. Chairman, you graciously
identify the two of use, but there are also 300 other employers
here that pay prevailing or better wages--or above prevailing
wages--that follow the rules, that are, you know, honest,
honorable business people that are in the risk of losing their
businesses because of this. We need your help.
And again, this is help of bringing back these workers that
have demonstrated they are not a threat in any way to our
security. You know, they are not--if all of us weren't treating
them well, paying them good wages, they would not be returning
for so long.
Mr. Conyers. Sure. Well, now, I want to take Mr.
Eisenbrey's recommendation and Ms. Bauer's very effective study
and build up a bill and get this thing on the road, but I know
the problems we have with the makeup of the House and the
Senate. I know what is going to happen to the Strive Act. I
mean, and I am undiminished in my commitment and faith that we
can get it through.
But, I mean, that is not going to go down very well since
we want to help people in an immediately precarious situation.
Why--and I will throw in Mr. Camarota and Eisenbrey and Bauer--
let's bring to this Committee the things that we can build into
the one measure that might be able to get through here. Of
course, nobody predicts what will happen in the other body, but
we have got to do what we can do.
I wish Bart Stupak were here because that is how we move. I
mean, the legislative process is a matter of us bargaining and
compromising and getting advice from experts like yourselves to
guide us in what we do.
Ms. Bauer. I will respond to that if that is appropriate.
We have made a list of very specific recommendations about what
should be done to this program in our view to make it less
abusive in practice. And, you know, I could certainly go
through those. I mean, number one--the number one
recommendation that we made was to have some system where a
worker is not legally tied to only one employer, because that--
--
Mr. Zammer. Excuse me, your honor. That is not true. An H-
2B person coming into this country has portability with anyone
else who has a labor cert under H-2B. That person working for
me, doesn't like what they are doing, they can walk down the
street to another person who happens to have an H-2B
certification. And they all know that.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Zammer---- [Applause.]
Ms. Lofgren. There is portability, but there also needs to
be the labor action proceeding, so that is----
Ms. Bauer. I differ with the characterization of this as a
program which is portable, but putting that aside for a moment,
the other sort of ongoing theme of the, you know, complaints
that we get relates to the enormous sums of money that people
pay in their home countries and the abuses that go on there.
And what we see in practice is employers who really deny
any association with that process. And so we have said it is--a
regulation can't just be some proposal that we, you know,
regulate people in Mexico. There has to be an employer----
Ms. Lofgren. Can I interrupt? Because, Mr. Chairman, we put
together a labor recruitment recruiter reform package as part
of the Wilberforce Anti-Human Trafficking measure that I think
is pretty tough. Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Bauer. I am not familiar with those particular
provisions.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Ms. Bauer. I am familiar with the provisions of the Miller
bill that had been introduced, the Indentured Servitude
Abolition Act of 2007, and that certainly--a lot of that is in
the bill now. That hasn't passed through the Senate. But, you
know, I think there was general consensus in the human rights
activist community that that measure went, you know, probably
would get the job done in terms of curbing abusive practices. I
thank the Chairman for allowing me to interrupt.
Mr. Gutierrez. Madam Chairman, may I have a second turn
then?
Ms. Lofgren. When the Chairman is through.
Mr. Gutierrez. I am sorry. I thought he was through.
Mr. Conyers. No, I am through for now.
Mr. Gutierrez. Forgive me.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, that is okay. I am through for now.
Mr. Gutierrez. I know I am already putting in jeopardy
being able to come back to this Committee next year in the next
Congress, that is, if I get reelected. I thought maybe today I
would still get a chance to speak again.
Let me just suggest the following, and that is that I thank
the Chairman and the gentleman from Michigan for his support on
comprehensive immigration reform. I have been here, not this
year nor last year, nor 5 years nor 6 years ago, but indeed 12
years ago, introducing comprehensive immigration reform
language to fix the kinds of problems.
And indeed, we have been responsive to what the H-2B
industry wanted not yesterday, but many years ago, indeed, a
decade ago. And had people not said, ``We can't do it''--they
have been telling me for 10 years they can't do it, and we hear
again this year, ``We can't do it.''
So the question then becomes, when can we do it? Because
the crisis that you are confronting is not a new crisis; it is,
indeed, an old crisis which continues to come and haunt the
Congress of the United States.
So all I am saying is the following: Let's get it done, and
let's get it done right. I am not trying to hold anybody
hostage. I want to make it absolutely clear to everybody, there
are millions of people in Houston, in L.A., in Chicago, in
Detroit, in New York, and across this Nation--million of
people--who march for comprehensive immigration reform.
The Congress and the new majority, which I am a Member of,
the democratic Congress, has a set of principles to guide us--
democratic Congress--set of principles on immigration. And they
said one of those principles was comprehensive immigration
reform as defined by unifying families and keeping them
together, reforming the very program we are discussing here
today, making sure that the long waits that families suffer,
making sure that those that are serving in our armed forces
don't have their husbands and spouses deported while they are
serving in our Nation, and bringing out----
I had a--it felt like such a great moment when I watched
the Kodak Theater and I saw history being made because I saw a
woman and an African-American, and I said, ``One of those two
is going to be the nominee of the democratic party, and may
indeed be the next President of the United States.'' And they
both stated, unlike any other debate that I have ever heard
since I arrived in Congress in 1993, ``We are going to have
comprehensive immigration reform under our Administration that
brings the undocumented out of the shadows of darkness, allows
them the pathway to citizenship, we secure our borders.'' I
want to do all of those things.
I represent a community of people that marched and made a
claim, and said, ``I don't believe that the halls of justice in
Washington, D.C. are empty and bankrupt.'' And they are coming
here with a check. And they want that check honored.
They are working hard; they are sweating and they are
toiling. And they expect this Congress to respond in a manner
which is filled with justice for their work--hard work--and
their honest claims to fairness in our immigration system. So
that is what I am trying to do.
So when I raise the issue, I raise the issue because if not
I, no one else will. No one else will, within the debate.
I started earlier by stating to everybody, and I think
given the Chairman's words earlier, that I said, ``H-2B? Oh,
that has the votes here. The Congress is working on that
mightily.'' I know that everywhere I go, whether it is senators
or congressmen, or different people, and they have told me,
``Luis, we can only do a little bit; maybe just a little bit
for the undocumented. We can only bring just a little; just a
little justice for those veterans that are out there fighting.
We can only do a little bit for the 5 million--5 million--
American citizen children whose parents are under threat of
deportation.''
Fifteen thousand, we read reports of last month, babies are
taken away from its very mother. Babies--American citizen's
child, baby taken away from its mother, and only think about
what the trauma. That trauma is occurring day in and day out.
So while I feel sympathetic and understand the plight of H-
2B, I always look at it in the context of a greater context, of
our immigrant community. I may be chastised for looking at it
that way; people may be critical of me for looking at it that
way, but that is the way I look at it. And I think it is a very
fair and appropriate avenue to take.
We should build alliances that allow you--as I say to you
today, I understand your problem. That is, the industry's
problem. And I expect to share with you my issues so that we
can build the kind of coalition which will, in the end, allow
us to have the political power, strength, currency to bring
justice for all immigrants.
I don't think any of the panelists want anything less. I
don't think anybody in America wants anything less. So that is
what I am trying to arrive at.
So I am not Johnny Come Lately to the issue. I remember
when I introduced the Strive Act, there were people who came to
me in positions of authority in this Congress, and said to me,
``Luis, that doesn't go far enough.''
Now they are telling me we can't even reach that. So I am
sorry if I feel like I am in a quandary in my democratic party,
when in the beginning they said it didn't go far enough and
they were critical of it, and today they say it goes too far.
Those are the quandaries that we find ourselves here in the
Congress; that is politics.
But I will tell you, I want to support it, but I cannot
support the H-2B program or its continuation unless it has
changes in its labor standards and labor protections, and
unless we do something for the most vulnerable of immigrants,
and that is the undocumented, the soldiers, the children who
are losing their parents. That is my only point, and forgive me
for raising it if it seems unduly welcome or somehow not
specific to the case that we are discussing here today.
Ms. Lofgren. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chairman
will have the last word----
Mr. Conyers. Will the gentlelady yield?
You are talking and sitting next to a Member that supports
the Strive Act and is a co-sponsor of the Strive Act. The
people that are here today are trying to get one part of the
bill ready, dealing with this H-2B problem, and all I see is,
how do we accommodate both?
I mean, I am for working the Strive Act. I authorized the
Chairperson to hold hearings on the Strive Act. So I have
always admired and supported the work that you have done.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. Your experiences are unique in this area that
cannot be compared with anybody. So we will close down this
hearing saying, ``Sorry, all you folks with H-2B problems.''
And we have gotten some good recommendations how to
probably make this part of immigration law very much improved,
but we are saying, ``I hope you can hang on until next year
after we get a new Administration, because I think we can go
back up the Hill.'' You and I notwithstanding, our strongest
efforts were able to save the Strive Act in the other body.
That doesn't mean we have given up on it. It took me 15
years to pass the Martin Luther King Holiday bill, Congress
after Congress after Congress. I don't think we need to wait 15
years for this problem, but what I am saying is, I don't--and I
would like to get some comments from the five of you before we
close down--I don't think we need to wait until we figure out
to pass the Strive Act in both bodies and get it before a
President whose hostility to intelligent immigration reform is
well-known.
So the question is, what do we do tonight? We have had a
great hearing, the witnesses have been complimented, everything
is great, but what?
The fact still remains that the intransigent other body in
the Congress and the legislative process doesn't have a Luis
Gutierrez over there. And what do we do now?
Ms. Bauer?
Ms. Bauer. Our office certainly supports comprehensive
immigration reform. We think that is, I mean--Mr. Gutierrez,
you know, I am moved by all of what you said. But when it comes
to this program, we feel very strongly that this should not be
a model for either immigration reform, and that it should not
be expanded as it currently exists.
We hear the employers sitting here saying that there is a
crisis, but the workers who call our office every week, who
feel like they can't leave an employer because the employer has
taken their passport, and they are being held effectively
hostage--for them, that is a crisis, too. And so I urge you to
look at that. They are not here with us today----
Ms. Lofgren. You are speaking for them.
Ms. Bauer. I am doing my best. But we get calls each and
every week from workers who perceive their own sort of crisis.
Mr. Conyers. You are telling me what not to do. What do we
do?
Ms. Bauer. I wouldn't extend this program. I mean, if you
are asking me what I would do, I would not extend this program.
Mr. Conyers. The question isn't what we shouldn't do. The
question is, what is it that we do? I mean, we are holding
hearings not to agree on what not to do.
If you don't like this, what do you suggest we do tonight?
Tomorrow is Thursday, April 17. So what do we do? We wake up in
the morning and we have had a great, candid discussion. Now
what?
Ms. Bauer. Well, in answer to that question, I would pass
significant labor protections for this program, call for real
enforcement, and see if this program can exist in a way that is
not abusive when it really is subject to serious inquiry. But I
think it is not sufficient to have employers who come and say,
``This is a great program; people are really happy.''
That is not really a serious inquiry about whether, in
fact, the program, in practice, is really working well. I think
that any kind of inquiry in terms of talking to workers in the
field would lead to the conclusion that it is not working well.
Mr. Zammer. Mr. Conyers, I agree with Mr. Gutierrez.
Something needs to be done--you are out there sending--and I am
going to be very blunt--you are out there sending stimulus
checks out for the economy. I have got employers behind me
about to go bankrupt.
They are not going to make it--you are hurting the same
people we all want to help. By the way, we are the folks, in my
industry, we are probably hiring the folks you are talking
about.
And I know the National Restaurant Association--I can speak
a bit for them--are really working to help you out any way we
can. We want enforcement. I don't want to have--if I saw one of
my neighbors doing something wrong--businesses--I want to stop
them. I am not going to let it happen.
But I think, to answer your question, Congressman Conyers,
we need relief now, the H-2R passed. Let us go clear--this is
an election year; there is nobody going to (INAUDIBLE)
immigration.
No one is going to touch anything between now and the end
of the Presidential election. Give us the ability now to just
pass--get another year under our belts. We are not going to do
anything to hurt anyone.
Ms. Bauer, they have abuses. I could go to the department
of labor in any State and find abuses. I mean, every State has
abuses, because there are some bad employers out there. But I
don't think you should blame this on just H-2B or H-2R
employers.
So my response is, please pass that bill. Give us the year,
Mr. Gutierrez. We will work with you in any way we possibly can
to help you--I happen to belong to (INAUDIBLE). We are working
for you. You are hurting your friends right now.
Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir, I will. Let me just ask you this,
though. Suppose we take Bauer and Eisenbrey's recommendations,
we really get this H-2B thing together, now, will you help us
pass the Strive Act immediately thereafter? The comprehensive
reform that Chairman Gutierrez has talked about?
Mr. Musser. Yes.
Mr. Conyers. Now, this isn't the, ``I promise you, Honey,
but tomorrow I may not know your name''---- [Laughter.]
Well, we have been around here a little while, here. How do
we know--how can he go home confidently and say, ``Well, this
is it. I have got tens of thousands of people working with me
on comprehensive reform. They promised to get this H-2B
through, and they will be with us forever.''
You know what would happen to him in Chicago if he went
back and reported that everything is okay and then----
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield? Because I think
what--and I am not taking a position on what we should do, but
I would note that what is being suggested is a 1-year
extension, so this group of individuals is going to be right
back here should the Congress do that--and we don't know if
they will--next year with a problem that is persistent.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Gutierrez. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Number one, I think it would be, well, just not factual to
say that I haven't been working with the H-2B industry on
resolving this issue. That is just unfactual. I have been
speaking for Mr. Stupak now for 2 months, and we have been in
intensive negotiations during those 2 months.
In every legislative process, there is a give and take to
those legislation processes. There is something that Mr. Stupak
wants, there is an industry that he represents that is very
well represented by Mr. Bishop and others also. And so we are
talking. And to say otherwise, I just don't think it is
factual.
Now, there are things we want; things that we are demanding
in exchange for our support. That is the legislative process
that we have here. I understand that we have many friends and
allies out in this room who aren't here today petitioning.
And I--as I shared with Mr. Stupak, I said, ``You know, I
wish we would have all organized together the first round. We
might have been more successful in the Senate.''
The fact is that, from a historical point of view, we have
a President that wants comprehensive immigration reform, but
has absolutely no political capital to bring it about. We have
a Congress where 85 percent of the Democrats want comprehensive
immigration reform, and we can't build a partnership with 20
percent of the minority to get it done. Those are just
realities that we are dealing with.
So do I know we need to build a bipartisan effort to get
comprehensive immigration reform? Well, I would not be faithful
to my cause if I did not realize how it is to get 218 votes.
Absolutely. We need to build a bipartisan approach.
My only point, Mr. Chairman, and I will end with this, is--
and I thank the Chairman for his support, for his unwavering
support on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform and
the specific Strive Act bill, which the last Congress, Nancy
Pelosi was--speaker. You know, we have grown. When I got here,
there weren't many people for comprehensive anything when it
came to immigrants. We are growing. We are getting closer
there; so I understand we are getting closer there.
My only point is, I think we can do better. I think we can
do better. And I know that I would be remiss if I didn't try to
do better than simply dealing with this, because I really
believe that the Congress of the United States is willing to do
more than H-2B. I believe that.
If I don't test those waters, if I don't test that market,
then I don't believe I am fulfilling my responsibility in terms
of what I believe, and where it is. I believe the democratic
party and the democratic caucus of the Congress of the United
States can garner votes that will both give you a sense of, you
know, your 1-year, your 2-year extension, but at the same time
respond to a greater community of people that is out there.
That is just my belief.
I also believe, as I said at the very beginning, the H-2B--
how would I say?--interests in the Congress of the United
States are very well taken care of. They have strong, forceful,
energetic, well-organized and well-financed advocates for it. I
am just trying to be an advocate for those that aren't as well
organized, and not as well--and try to build a coalition with
you.
So I thank you all, and I thank the Chairman of the
Subcommittee and Chairman Conyers for allowing me----
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Goodlatte has arrived.
Ms. Lofgren. And we would turn to him----
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. For his 5 minutes of question.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I very much
appreciate your holding this hearing, and I very much
appreciate the comments of the Chairman of the full Committee,
Mr. Conyers, as well.
Chairman Lofgren will confirm that I have been advocating
for a long time that while comprehensive immigration reform is
an important goal, it is encountered very serious difficulties.
The stumble that it took in the United States Senate was a
major stumble. The Senate received more communications from
people opposed to that legislation than any other bill in the
history of the United States Senate, and that is a pretty
dramatic thing.
So there is a long pathway that I think has to go, and I am
not sure a change of Administration--this Administration was
advocating for that legislation. I am not sure that simply that
will cover it. I have very strong concern about the amnesty
provisions that were in that bill; a lot of other people do as
well.
I definitely think there are a lot of things that need to
be done in immigration reform, and I have advocated that we can
accomplish a lot of things, certainly not limited to H-2B
workers, but a lot of things--if we will take them up in
pieces. And that includes not only this, but what the fate of
people who are illegally in the country is, and the issue of
border security and interior enforcement.
All of those things do not have to be rolled into one large
bill. There is the opportunity to address many pieces of them,
and I think there would be bipartisan support for addressing
many pieces of them.
There is certainly strong bipartisan support for addressing
the problem with H-2B workers. We have recognized that for a
long time, due to the fact that we had a provision--the H-2R
workers who had previously been here and wanted to return to
the same employer--and I think it was unfortunate that that
expired in December, and we need to get that back on track.
So however we do that, I think it is well worth
undertaking. And I also want to say that employers who take the
time to comply with the rules of the legal H-2B program must
compete against other employers who blatantly circumvent U.S.
law by hiring those who are not legally---- [Applause.]
And it is not right for Congress to abandon the employers
who play by the rules. Unfortunately, that is exactly what
Congress did when it refused to extend the exemption for
returning H-2B workers this past year.
So I support efforts to ensure that employers who have
relied on H-2B workers in the past continue to have access to
willing returning workers in the future, so that they are no
worse off in the future. Otherwise, we are placing legitimate
employers in the very tough position of being forced to find a
way to compete legally with other companies who take the cheap
and illegal way out. I believe we must rigorously enforce our
current immigration laws against lawbreakers while protecting
those who play by the rules.
So in that regard, if I might, Madam Chairman, I would like
to ask a couple of questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Mr. Goodlatte. To Ms. Bauer, in your testimony--and I am
aware of your booklet as well--you mentioned that H-2B workers
cannot switch employers if one employer is abusive. Can they
switch employers between authorized work periods?
Ms. Bauer. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, if they come into the United States
for a period of time and then they come back again next time,
if they qualify for an H-2B visa with another employer, they
can do that, can they not?
Ms. Bauer. They can come back and work for another
employer, yes----
Mr. Goodlatte. Correct.
Ms. Bauer [continuing]. If they locate an employer--if they
are able to locate an employer and secure that employment
arrangement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure. Well, in the current environment, it
doesn't seem that that would be too difficult if the visas were
available.
Is there a high rate of return to the same employers?
Ms. Bauer. Well, I think it is interesting what data the
Department of Labor is keeping. I mean, we have some data from
the, you know, period when the H-2R program was--when the H-2R
workers were coming as H-2Rs, but there is very little data,
frankly, that the Department of Labor is keeping in general
about this.
So we certainly know that there are workers who are
returning. What I think----
Mr. Goodlatte. In fact, the genesis of this hearing is that
there are workers who want to return but cannot, because the
program that allowed them to be grandfathered in has expired as
of December. Is that not right?
Ms. Bauer. That is correct.
Mr. Goodlatte. I think the point I want to make here is,
why would foreign workers return to employers who abuse or
mistreat them if they have the opportunity to switch to another
employer with similar labor needs? [Applause.]
Madam Chairman, I would say to those in the audience, I
appreciate the response, but it is not appropriate.
Ms. Lofgren. The audience has been cautioned in the past to
not engage in displays.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The other question that I have, and I would direct it to
Mr. Zammer, it sounds like the biggest contributors to the
problem that Ms. Bauer has mentioned in her testimony are the
opportunistic labor recruiters in foreign countries who extract
money and collateral in exchange for awarding H-2B work. Would
you say that is correct?
Mr. Zammer. I believe there are some brokers out there who
probably are doing something like that. I don't deal with them;
I know Dan doesn't, and I know most of the folks on Cape Cod
don't.
It is a ridiculous expense, because they are charging the
employer or the employee, and we have all done away with it
because with the returning workers, we don't need a broker
because they simply come back to you. And they are referring
their friends back. Those folks are actually going out of
business.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I wonder--and this is directed to
those of you who are working with this--I wonder if we might
address that somehow by requiring more transparency in the
foreign recruiting process, or asking U.S. employers to be more
directly involved in the process. I think that would----
Mr. Zammer. It should be employee to employer.
Mr. Goodlatte. I think that would address some of the
concerns that Ms. Bauer has had, because that disconnect, I
think, creates some circumstances where there is not that same
need to treat employees in such a way that they want to come
back next year. I think there are plenty of employees who are
treated well by their employers and who do want to come back;
they are well represented here today. And that is my vision of
how the H-2B worker program should work.
But if we were to, I think, create a greater connection
there between the employer and the employee, we would be
starting to weed out employers who didn't treat them well and
who today can take advantage of a recruitment process where
they don't have to have their reputation on the line because
they are not the ones directly recruiting the employees.
I know Mr. Eisenbrey had a comment about that.
Mr. Eisenbrey. There is so much concern here about the
employers who have workers, they have had them in the past,
they want them to return. I just don't understand, at the most
basic level, why we need additional visas then. If that is the
crisis that people want to address, why do we need a program
that has built an expansion?
The Stupak bill would lead to, you know, pretty quickly, a
couple of hundred thousand visas. We have never had that many
before. This is a program where a few years back we only had
20,000 visas.
So, I mean, if there is a crisis--and I don't believe that
there is--but if there is a crisis for these employers, why is
any solution being proposed that would expand this program
beyond the employers who have returning people now?
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank you for that comment, because I
share that concern. We need to make sure that we are getting
the workers that we need, and we are getting the return workers
that we need, but we also need to make sure that we are not
doing something that will put the United States citizens in a
situation where they are competing with a growing workforce--
particularly right now, where unemployment rates are rising--so
that we have a rapidly expanding number.
I, quite frankly, believe that these things should be much
more tailored to receding economic conditions; there should be
a more close monitoring of how many workers we need, and maybe
even have a way to review that on a year-to-year basis and
relate it to actual need, rather than an arbitrarily expanding
program. So, I am not a co-sponsor of that particular piece of
legislation, but I am a strong advocate for fixing the problems
we have with H-2Bs, including making sure that people who have
had good, reliable workers in the past can get them back again.
Madam Chairman, I know I have used more time than----
Ms. Lofgren. No.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Is ordinarily allowed, and I
thank you very much for that.
Ms. Lofgren. That is fine.
I would just note that Mr. Goodlatte and I are, to my
knowledge, the only former immigration lawyers currently
serving in the House of Representatives, so we do get down in
the weeds on some of the details of these laws.
I think at this point we have had a very good hearing. I
would just note that although we don't know what our next step
is, you know, there is a parable about describing the elephant
while blindfolded, and some people think it is all ears, and
some people think it is all tail.
And I think every witness here gave us their best
information from where they sit, and I certainly--Ms. Bauer,
you are hearing people that have been abused. And I don't doubt
that that is happening. Mr. Zammer is not abusing his
employees, so he feels, you know, he is seeing a different
thing, just the same as Mr. Musser and other employers.
I am just mindful that to the extent there are abuses going
on--and clearly there are some parts of the country and some
industries where that is happening. If we don't do anything--
there are 66,000 visas a year, and if there are unscrupulous
employers that are proceeding, I think we have an obligation to
do some kind of reform here. That is my personal view, and I am
hopeful that we can come to some consensus so that we can make
progress not only in this area, but in a whole variety of areas
where the immigration law really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Mr. Gutierrez mentioned the situation of soldiers'
families; it is just outrageous that, you know, if you are an
American citizen and you apply for your spouse, who was born in
another country, and then you get sent to Iraq and you get
killed, your widow is deportable. Now, that is not what we want
in this country.
So I think we can make some progress if we work together in
a collaborative spirit, and I really do appreciate your being
here and being so patient. A lot of people don't realize that
the witnesses who come here are volunteers, helping us to
become better informed so that we can do a better job building
the laws and making the changes that are necessary. So, your
service here today is enormously important, and we appreciate
it very much.
I would like to thank you all, and without objection note
that Members have 5 legislative days to submit additional
written questions for you. Now, if we get additional questions
we will forward them to you, and we ask that you respond
promptly if you are able so that we can make your answers part
of the written record. And without objection, the record will
remain open for 5 legislative days for the submission of any
other additional material.
And again, thank you very, very much. And this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International
Law
Welcome everyone to our first in a new series of hearings on issues
related to immigration. These hearings are being held, by this
committee in conjunction with other House committees, to examine a
number of immigration-related issues that require our attention, as
well as to clear up certain misconceptions.
There are a number of misconceptions being promoted in the halls of
Congress and in the press. Some have stated that the Congress has done
nothing to secure our borders. Yet nothing could be further from the
truth.
Last year alone this Congress appropriated $3 billion--that's
billion with a b--in additional emergency funding for border security,
more than has ever been appropriated for such purposes. This Congress
also passed legislation adding:
370 additional miles of border fencing;
3,000 more Border Patrol Agents;
29 more ICE Fugitive Operations Teams;
4,500 additional detention beds;
new criminal provisions for alien smuggling and
trafficking;
funding increases to strengthen programs to check
employment eligibility, track foreign visitors, and identify
incarcerated non-citizens;
as well as numerous other measures to secure our
border.
This Congress has done more to secure our border than any of its
predecessors. As the Department of Homeland Security itself admits, we
have demanded more progress on the border than the agency can actually
keep up with.
I bring this up not simply to take stock of what we've
accomplished, but to reflect on the fact that this Congress has acted
quite a bit on border security and interior immigration enforcement,
but has not yet acted much in the area of addressing immigration policy
fixes.
For those who seek an ``enforcement-first'' policy on immigration,
let there be no doubt that this Congress has not shied away from many
proposals to significantly increase border security and immigration
enforcement, in many cases stretching the capacity of the Department of
Homeland Security to actually implement what we have legislated.
As this new series of hearings will demonstrate, there are still
many pressing immigration issues beyond ``enforcement-only'' that
require our attention.
Today, we focus on one of those issues--the H-2B non-agricultural
temporary worker program. The program is used by certain industries to
secure workers for seasonal or other temporary needs, and it is
primarily used in the landscaping, construction, forestry, tourism,
hotel, and fishing industries.
The program is capped at 66,000 workers per year. But over the last
several years, a ``returning worker exemption'' in the law allowed
returning H-2B workers to come to the U.S. outside the cap, so long as
they had counted against the cap in one of the preceding 3 years. At
the program's height, this exemption basically doubled the size of the
program--allowing some 120,000 H-2B workers to temporarily work in the
U.S.
This exemption expired at the end of FY 2007, again capping the H-
2B program at 66,000. Since then, most of us can attest to the outcry
we have heard from businesses from all over the country. Every Member
in this room can speak to the streams of H-2B employers that have
coursed through these halls over the last few months on behalf of the
returning worker exemption.
Today, we will hear from Members of Congress and H-2B employers
about the resulting lack of H-2B workers and the effect this has had on
certain industries. We will hear about the harm to businesses that rely
on H-2B workers, as well as the harm to U.S. workers who rely on the
viability and robustness of those businesses. According to them,
reauthorizing the returning worker exemption is essential.
We will also hear how a lack of protections in the H-2B program has
allowed some businesses to exploit and abuse H-2B workers. Members,
human rights advocates, and labor advocates will tell us that a lack of
enforcement and insufficient protections in the law for H-2B workers
have permitted unscrupulous employers and labor recruiters to abuse the
program.
Due to such concerns, they believe that any reauthorization of the
returning worker exemption should be accompanied by new safeguards to
ensure that H-2B workers are protected from exploitation and that such
exploitation does not undermine the working conditions of U.S. workers.
Due to time limitations, we only have time to hear from nine
witnesses today at our hearing, and I look forward to hearing from
them. However, there are others who have been important voices in the
H-2B issue and without objection their statements will be placed in the
record.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
There seem to be a lot of controversy about immigration these days,
with claims of amnesty being used to justify inaction. I propose that
we all agree on the fact that America deserves an immigration system
that is controlled, orderly, and fair.
We need a system that puts an end to worker exploitation and
does not drive down wages. That unites families and meets the
needs of legitimate businesses. A system where border crossings
are orderly and enforcement is vigorous, yet fair and humane.
It is my hope that as a result of today's hearing and others that
Congress will hold in the coming weeks, we will be able to break some
of the logjams on immigration and move toward attainable goals that can
assist real people in the real world.
Today we're focusing on the long-established H2B program.
It allows employers to bring in temporary workers for certain
jobs in many seasonal industries, including in the landscaping,
construction, hotel, tourism, restaurant, forestry, crabbing,
and fishing industries, if qualified unemployed U.S. workers
cannot be found.
The H2B program has had a positive economic effect on
communities around the country, as the industries that use
seasonal workers are often business incubators in their areas.
But there is now a shortage of visas for legitimate businesses who
try to fill their seasonal work through legal means instead of turning
to the underground economy of illegal immigration. The ``returning
worker'' provision expired last fall without being renewed. This has
hurt businesses and the year-round American workers who they support.
We need to get that problem resolved.
One business owner who has seen the consequences of a
gridlocked immigration system is my friend Dan Musser, the
president of the one of Michigan's national historic
landmarks--the Grand Hotel.
We should not lose sight of the fact that workers have rights,
no matter where they come from. If there are areas in which
labor protections could be improved, we need to hear about
them.
Of particular note is the work of the Southern Poverty Law
Center.
Many of us know them as a familiar voice against racial
violence and police brutality. It is good to see them engaging
against slavery and worker exploitation.
Their recent report calls for meaningful protections against
worker exploitation, including mistreatment that can rise even
to the level of involuntary servitude.
Again, I welcome the panelists, and look forward to today's
discussion.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Chairwoman Lofgren, and ranking member King, thank you for
convening today's very important hearing on the ``H-2B Program.'' The
hearing will explore several issues related to the H-2B program,
including concerns that the program fails to meet the needs of U.S.
employers and lacks effective labor protections. The hearing will
specifically analyze the need to reauthorize the ``returning worker
exemption,'' which expired at the end of FY2007 and has decreased the
number of H-2B workers available to U.S. businesses. The hearing will
also investigate the abuses of H-2B worker and the issue of adding
labor protections to existing H-2B legislation. I welcome today's
distinguished panelists and I look forward to hearing their insightful
testimony.
The debate surrounding a guest worker program is not a new one. The
issue of a guest worker program has resurfaced since many businesses
are presently in dire need of employees.
To get a clear understanding of the issues presented before us
today, we need to examine it in its historical context. In 1986, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act divided the H-2 temporary or guest
worker program into the H2-A agricultural program and the H-2B non-
agricultural program. These are the two principal programs for
temporarily importing low-skilled workers into the United States.
The H2-A program allows for the temporary admission of foreign
workers to perform agricultural work of a seasonal or temporary nature.
The H2-B program covers foreign workers performing temporary non-
agricultural work. It is the H2-B program that is the subject of this
hearing.
Simply put, the H-2B program provides for the admission of guest
workers to perform temporary non-agricultural work, if unemployed U.S.
workers cannot be found. The program is used for seasonal,
intermittent, one-time, and peak-load needs in various industries, like
landscaping, construction, hotel, tourism, restaurant, forestry,
crabbing, and fishing industries. An H-2B visa is valid for an initial
period of up to one year. An individual's total period of stay,
however, cannot exceed three consecutive months.
The H-2B program is subject to a statutory limit of 66,000 guest
workers. H-2B employers can petition for current H-2B workers to extend
their stay, change their terms of employment, or change or add
employers without affecting this cap. Recently, foreign workers reached
the limit early in the fiscal year. As a consequence many workers were
prevented from coming to the United States under this program and many
industries and companies suffered.
This returning worker provision has been renewed several times;
however, it has finally expired without renewal on September 30, 2007.
Many industries have suffered harm because they relied upon the workers
in their businesses.
In April 2007, Representative Bart Stupak introduced a bill, H.R.
1843 the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2007, which would
permanently reauthorize the guest worker exemption. Bills to extend the
provision temporarily have also been offered. This hearing allows us to
hear from the experts in the field so we can make recommendations to
the proposal which are currently being formulated.
I would like to note that our top priority should be legalization
of undocumented workers. Bringing more workers into the United States
is only a temporary solution to our current problem. This is no real
solution. Permanent reauthorization without more comprehensive
immigration reform would not address labor rights abuses and foreign
worker safety concerns. There would be no assurance that employers
would not exploit these guest workers or that these workers would be
guaranteed basic labor rights.
As I have advocated in the past, what we should be focusing upon is
legalizing the undocumented population and making legality the
prevailing norm.
Legalization will address the abuse by the employer and the
employees. Legalization will make people feel safe to work.
Legalization measures will allow employers to enjoy a more stable
workforce. Families will remain united and individuals will be able to
secure social protections such as the ability to join a labor union,
have access to a driver's license, obtain a social security number,
etc. Legalization will allow immigrants to fully incorporate into and
participate in their communities.
After instituting a legalization program, if it is then determined
that there is a need for guest workers, we would not oppose a short
term guest worker program. Any guest worker program which is instituted
should allow for a decrease in the amount of time it takes to process
an application, portability, full worker protections which can be
enforced, extension of work authorization to spouses, access to social
and health protections, and reasonable mechanisms for securing
permanent residence for migrants who qualify for it and choose to do
so.
Again, I look forward to hearing our distinguished group of
panelists. I yield the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a
Representative in Congress from Guam
Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, thank you for this
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on the variety of
issues surrounding the H-2B visa program. The United States Congress
has established an annual numerical cap of 66,000 workers. As you know,
the intent of the H-2B visa program was initially developed to address
worker shortages during times of war. Since the 1950s the program has
expanded to provide temporary services. H-2B visa workers have become a
critical component to our economy and future legislation should be able
to realize this changing paradigm of their contributions to our
economy.
The current numerical cap of 66,000 workers annually has placed
considerable strain on many small businesses particularly in the
construction and tourism trades. In fact, the numerical cap which is
set twice annually at 33,000 is normally reached within days of
applications being made available. The current demand for H-2B visa
workers exceeds the current supply and legislative relief is needed to
increase the cap.
The H-2B visa cap is particularly important for employers on Guam.
Guam is preparing to receive upwards of 30,000 additional personnel as
a result of major military realignments in the Asia-Pacific region. The
realignment of military forces is the by-product of renewed bilateral
agreements with the Government of Japan. The agreement with the
Japanese calls for all military realignments to be completed by 2014.
The most prominent of these realignments is the moving of 8,000 Marines
and 9,000 of their family members from Okinawa, Japan to Guam. The
Department of Defense anticipates spending over $10 billion dollars
through 2014 to accommodate this realignment.
The current capacity on Guam for construction work is estimated at
$400 million dollars. The historical highest capacity on Guam, which
was reached in the 1980s during the hotel construction boom, is
approximately $800 million of construction spending per year. To put
this into perspective, the Department of Defense anticipates nearly
$2.5 billion alone in Fiscal Year 2010. In order to meet the demands of
a compressed timeline the Department of Defense anticipates significant
construction spending over the next five years.
Moreover, relief from the numerical cap is needed for the
corresponding civilian construction projects on Guam and which will
parallel the military construction. Considerable work needs to be
performed on Guam's infrastructure including its wastewater,
electrical, water and transportation networks. This considerable
civilian commitment will also need access to H-2B visa workers. Without
relief from the cap it is likely that the military construction
projects would take precedence over the civilian infrastructure
projects which are necessary to support the increase in personnel
coming to Guam, including contractors and military dependants. In order
to meet this timeline goal and to facilitate greater construction
capacity on Guam, relief from the numerical H-2B limitations is a
priority.
However, even if Guam was to receive relief from the H-2B visa
numerical limitations it is important to provide these workers with
appropriate benefits such as housing and transportation. I also want to
ensure the employers provide H-2B visa workers with health care.
Moreover, I strongly believe that H-2B visa workers should be paid
prevailing wage rates for the geographic location where they are
working. I fundamentally believe that these are basic rights that
should be extended to all workers across this country including H-2B
visa workers. I hope that Congress will address these issues as we
consider national legislation to reform the H-2B program.
I want to thank Representative Bart Stupak from Michigan for his
continued leadership on issues surrounding H-2B visa workers. And, I
thank you Madam Chairwoman for your efforts to oversee the H-2B visa
worker program and hope that there will be a renewed effort to look
into relief of the numerical caps all the while requiring H-2B
employers to provide health insurance and pay a prevailing wage.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable James E. Clyburn, a Representative
in Congress from the State of South Carolina
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and Members of
the Immigration Subcommittee, for holding this hearing today and for
all the hard work you have done throughout the 110th Congress to
examine the important and complicated issues surrounding immigration.
Last year, newly elected Democratic majorities in the House and
Senate were committed to working with the President and Republicans to
find a comprehensive solution to the immigration problems plaguing our
nation. Regrettably, partisan politics and anti-immigrant rhetoric
overshadowed this effort and Senate Republicans blocked action on a
comprehensive reform package. The American people are now paying a
terrible price. The Democratic Congress remains committed to addressing
this issue. In the coming months, various House committees will work
together to hold a comprehensive series of hearings to examine
immigration concerns and legislation.
I am grateful to the Subcommittee for holding the first in this new
series of hearings on the H-2B visa program, an issue of vital
importance to my home state of South Carolina. The H-2B visa program
allows employers to secure workers to perform short-term non-
agricultural work, if qualified unemployed American workers cannot be
found. Seasonal workers are important to the economy in South Carolina,
where tourism ranks as the number one industry. Many resorts, hotels,
restaurants, and businesses in the coastal regions of South Carolina
use the H-2B program to supplement their year-round domestic workforce
during the peak summer season. Without these workers, many of these
local industries will not have the resources they need to serve the
many tourists and visitors coming into our state.
While the H-2B program is capped at 66,000 workers per year,
Congress established a ``returning worker exemption'' to help meet the
additional labor needs of seasonal businesses across the country. The
exemption allowed returning H-2B workers to come to the U.S. outside
the cap, as long as they had counted against the cap in one of the
preceding 3 years. In 2006, Congress included a one year extension of
this exemption in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007
(P.L. 109-364). The H-2B returning worker exemption expired on
September 30, 2007, and to date has not been extended. Without the
exemption in place, the 66,000-visa cap on the program does not allow
for a sufficient number of seasonal employees to sustain the many
industries that rely on this source of labor.
While I support a temporary extension of the returning worker
exemption to provide immediate relief in this time of economic
instability, I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis towards a
comprehensive solution. Our immigration system needs to honor the
promise of America and recognize the enormous contributions that
immigrants make to our nation. But it must do so in a way that makes
our nation safer, protects all workers, and respects the rule of law.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ron Klein, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, for holding
this important hearing on the H-2B visa program, and for the
distinguished Members of this subcommittee for your continued interest
in the many challenges facing America's immigration system.
My concern with the H-2B visa program and my support for Mr.
Stupak's bill, H.R. 1843, the ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses
Act of 2007,'' stems directly from my conversations with small business
owners in Florida who rely on foreign workers with H-2B visas to
supplant the jobs that local U.S. workers cannot fill.
In my Congressional district, which encompasses over seventy-five
miles of coastline in South Florida, we rely heavily on dollars brought
in through travel, tourism, and recreational activities. And the 22nd
Congressional District is not alone in this regard. In 2006, nearly 84
million people visited Florida from all over the world, generating $65
billion in economic activity, and helping to employ nearly one million
workers. Whether it's the southernmost point in the Florida Keys or the
beautiful beaches and resort towns along the panhandle, Florida and
tourism go hand-in-hand.
Paramount to sustaining Florida's economy is the help that H-2B
workers provide to Florida businesses during the peak winter and spring
months. Unfortunately, this legal stream of temporary, nonagricultural
foreign workers has become ensnared in the broader immigration debate.
Madame Chairwoman, reasonable people can disagree over the ways to
deal with the millions of illegal aliens currently in this country or
coming over the border. Personally, I have joined many of my colleagues
from both sides of the aisles by supporting legislation that makes
securing the border a priority. But I recognize that other colleagues
could reasonably argue for the need to stabilize the Mexican economy so
that the forces that ``push'' illegal immigrants over the border can be
alleviated.
The H-2B visa program, however, should not be included in this
broader immigration debate because it involves temporary, legal,
nonimmigrant workers. That is, these foreign workers have followed the
rules, waited patiently in line, and have come to this country without
the intention of staying. After their visas have expired, they will
return to their home countries. If they want to return the next year,
they must begin the process anew.
Moreover, prospective H-2B employers must demonstrate to the
Department of Labor (DOL) that no American workers are willing to take
the job. For example, according to the DOL, employers are required to
``advertise the job opportunity in a newspaper of general circulation
or in a readily available professional, trade or ethnic publication,
whichever the State Workforce Agency (SWA) determines is the most
appropriate for the occupation and most likely to bring responses from
U.S. workers.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Labor, ``H-2B FAQs--Round II,'' December 17,
2007,
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/h2b_faqs_round2.pdf.,
(accessed April, 15 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in essence, the H-2B visa program isn't about immigration at
all; rather, it's about our economic sustainability for industries like
tourism, seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, and pool companies
that rely on these workers during peak or seasonal periods. As we inch
ever closer toward recession, I strongly believe that we in Congress
must do what is necessary to help stimulate these businesses by
allowing for certain exemptions for returning H-2B workers. Otherwise,
they may be forced to lose contracts, scale back operations, or shut
down, which would ultimately hurt full-time, American workers.
This is not an academic argument. I have heard from countless
restaurant, hotel, and business owners throughout my district who have
told me that their businesses are suffering because they cannot obtain
enough workers to meet customer demand. As I mentioned before, my
district and Florida as a whole rely heavily on the revenue that these
businesses generate, and the ripple effect from their losses will be
felt in other businesses sectors and in the wallets of regular
Floridians.
These business owners would not have these problems, however, if
the exemption for returning workers had not expired on September 30,
2007. As the subcommittee well knows, the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief included a two-year pilot program, exempting returning H-2B
workers from the annual cap if they had been counted previously during
any one of the three prior fiscal years. The John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 extended this exemption until
September 30, 2007. Unfortunately, the Congress failed to act again on
this issue, and the exemption expired, leaving small and seasonal
business owners without an important economic relief.
The 110th Congress could act to save seasonal and small businesses
by passing H.R. 1843, a bill introduced by Mr. Stupak of Michigan that
would permanently extend the pilot program for returning H-2B workers.
As a cosponsor, I support this legislation and urge the Judiciary
Committee to report the bill to the full House as soon as possible.
Thank you again, Chairwoman Lofgren and Ranking Member King, for
holding this hearing and for allowing me the opportunity to address
this distinguished subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Carol Shea-Porter, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and Members of
the Subcommittee for holding this hearing today. As a Member of the
Committee on Education and Labor and as the Representative of the First
District of New Hampshire, I am pleased to submit this statement on
behalf of my constituents and the small businesses that I represent.
In our Seacoast towns, northern mountain resorts, and across the
state, the tourism industry thrives in New Hampshire. Because of the
seasonal nature of our businesses such as ski resorts, summer
landscaping, restaurants and hotels, many employers have trouble
filling vital staff positions. This is due partly to the temporary
nature of the work, the long commutes that may be required and, in some
cases, the lack of a labor pool. The H-2B program plays a large part in
providing the workforce that sustains these businesses. That is why it
is vitally important that this hearing be held today and that we work
quickly to relieve the current strains that small businesses, like many
in New Hampshire, are enduring.
It is also important that, as we consider the H-2B program, we take
into consideration some of the testimony that we received on the
Education and Labor Committee in a June 7, 2007 hearing on the H-2
programs entitled, ``Protecting U.S. and Guest Workers: the Recruitment
and Employment of Temporary Foreign Labor.'' During that hearing, we
heard about a March 12, 2007 report from the Southern Poverty Law
Center, criticizing the program for reported abuses of guest workers,
accusing employers of abuse and exploitation.
While these accounts must be considered and the well-being of
workers enrolled in these programs protected, I have met and spoken
with many of the business owners in New Hampshire who use the H-2B
program to find seasonal workers. They are good employers who care
about their staff. I have also heard from guest workers, who have only
good things to say about their employers and their work experiences.
So, as the larger issue of immigration reform is debated, it is
important that we extend the exemptions to the cap on the H-2B program.
Without the exemption in place, the 66,000-visa cap on the program
does not allow for a sufficient number of seasonal employees to sustain
the many industries that rely on this source of labor. In New Hampshire
alone, we see over 1,000 applicants a year for H-2B workers. For 2008,
we have already had 640 applicants. Last year, with the exemption in
place, an additional 69,000 workers were granted permits to work in
this country. Without similar relief this year, many businesses may be
forced to have their year-round, full-time staff take on additional
responsibilities, putting extra strain on employees and distracting
them from essential duties. In short, our small seasonal businesses
will suffer. Some may have to scale back the services they offer to
guests and customers, and some may even have to close their doors.
It is incredibly important to the New Hampshire economy that we act
quickly to resolve this issue. Thank you again for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to working with all of you on this issue.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana
Madam Chairwoman, today thousands of small businesses around the
country are at risk. Our small seasonal businesses lack the seasonal
workforce they have come to depend on year after year. Without these
temporary workers, seasonal businesses are unable to meet the peak
demand they must to survive. Without these temporary workers, permanent
American jobs are at risk as these businesses are forced to close their
doors.
Today, this subcommittee will hear testimony about immigration and
labor concerns, but the ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act''
is about promoting American jobs and local economies with the
necessary, temporary, legal workforce that has been available
previously. The stubbornness of a small group of my colleagues stands
in the way of this important legislation and our local small
businesses. Around south Louisiana, sugar cane is not being processed,
rice crops can't be sorted or bagged, and crawfish and crabs are being
turned away by processors who simply don't have the workers to clean
and pick the fishermen's catch. In my remarks, I will outline the
safeguards currently in place to protect American jobs and temporary,
seasonal workers as well as address the dire need to reauthorize this
important program to keep our economy from stalling.
Louisiana's sugar cane mills have long-standing relations with
Central and South American personnel whose unique expertise is crucial
to the sugar crystallization process. Those with this skill save the
mills a great deal of time and money by ensuring the crystallization is
done properly. Failure to manage the crystallization process properly
requires the whole process be started all over again, wasting valuable
man hours and increasing costs during the hectic grinding season. No
advanced degree is offered for this expertise, otherwise these workers
could utilize ``highly skilled'' provisions similar to software
companies and others, but these professionals are just as valuable, in
their niche, as tech-industry workers with graduate degrees. Typically,
these experts travel from their home countries, where they perform this
function for their local mills and to the US to fill the same niche in
the U.S. sugarcane industry. Because our mills need the H-2B workers in
place immediately prior to grinding season in the late summer and early
fall, the arbitrary quota is typically filled long before our mills can
begin the process. Similar problems are being reported by my District's
rice mills. With this year's shortage of H-2B visas, these mills don't
have the necessary, seasonal workers to bag and process this year's
crop efficiently.
The Louisiana alligator industry also depends heavily on seasonal
workers. Each September my state conducts an intensive annual harvest
of over 30,000 wild alligators and during the early summer alligator
farmers collect 300,000-500,000 wild alligator eggs. Overall, Louisiana
alligator farmers harvest over 250,000 alligators from July through
February, but the exact timing of each farm's harvest varies depending
on their production strategy. In general, alligator farmers use H-2A
workers to the extent possible for egg harvesting and crop production
and harvesting. However, anyone in the industry that processes
alligator skins or meat that do not come from their own farm must use
H-2B workers. This includes processors, dealers, trappers and farmers
processing alligators produced on farms or from the wild harvest.
Alligator meat production alone contributes approximately $6 million
annually to the $60 million alligator industry in Louisiana.
My office receives calls daily from struggling crawfish and seafood
processors. We are now in the peak of crawfish season. While Congress
plays politics with the workers these businesses need, these local
businesses are forced to close. Businesses they support, rice farmers,
restaurants, and local grocery stores will also suffer. There will be a
loss of 75% of the normal peeling capacity of Louisiana crawfish
processors due to the lack of H-2B legal returning labor. If there is
no peeling, the ponds will over populate, and the crawfish destined for
the live market will be stunted. These ponds will then take several
years to recover their productivity. We also expect aggressive action
by the Chinese crawfish industry, Americas largest competitor, to step
in to meet demand. While these competitors without regulation look for
opportunities to invade the American crawfish market, we are dropping
our businesses in their laps.
Some of our colleagues raise specific concerns about the intentions
of these employers. Many insist the H-2B program is a way for employers
to exploit cheap labor. I have spoken with numerous employers who pay
well above the minimum wage, pay overtime for any hours over 40 per
week, provide housing for their workers and provide transportation at
no cost to their workers. To say these employers are merely exploiting
cheap labor is both naive and unfair to these hardworking business
owners who endure extra costs to run their businesses.
Many will also share their concern that the problem lies in
ensuring these workers are returning to their country after the visa
has expired. Fortunately, the returning worker provision offers a
critical incentive for each worker to return home. Without returning
home, the worker cannot apply for the cap extension. The returning
worker program allows America's businesses to regulate the need for
temporary workers, providing an essential safeguard against under-
employment. We are offering a benefit to those workers who choose to
follow the rules and abide by the terms of their visas as well as their
employers.
Louisiana is only one of many states affected by this crisis,
whether ski resorts in the west, tourist destinations on the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan or Cape Cod, or seafood processing in Virginia
and Maryland, thousands of communities around the nation are struggling
to stay afloat. As Americans talk about economic crisis and Congress
prepares multiple packages for economic stimulus, we must look at what
drives our economy--our nation's small businesses. While the government
pumps economic stimulus money into our economy, Americans are losing
jobs and closing businesses they worked their entire lives to support.
With a simple, legal, and responsible provision proven to work, we can
support these small businesses. I encourage my colleagues to carefully
look at the H-2B program and understand the great responsibility we
have to these American small business owners.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tim Murphy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Today thousands of small businesses around the country are at risk.
Our small seasonal businesses lack the seasonal workforce they have
come to depend on year after year. Without these temporary workers,
seasonal businesses are unable to meet the peak demand they must to
survive. Without these temporary workers, permanent American jobs are
at risk as these businesses are forced to close their doors.
The ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act'' focuses on
promoting American jobs and local economies with the necessary,
temporary, legal workforce that has been available previously. In
Southwestern Pennsylvania many local businesses, specifically
landscapers and nursery owners rely on a temporary workforce for their
businesses to thrive. At a time when our economy is already declining,
there is a dire need to include the returning worker exemption in the
H-2B visa program.
My office receives calls on a regular basis from struggling
landscaping, nursery and other business owners. Some of the businesses
affected in the Pittsburgh area are the following:
Valley Brook Country Club, of McMurray, PA
The Landscape Center, Inc., of Bethel Park, PA
Justin Beall's Landscape Service, of Pittsburgh, PA
Butler Landscaping, of Pittsburgh, PA
Evanovich Landscaping, of Pittsburgh, PA
The Club at Nevillewood, of Nevillewood, PA
Inches Nursery, of Moon Township PA
Friendship Farms, of Pleasant Unity, PA
PSH & Associates, of McKees Rocks, PA
Eichenlaub Inc, of Pittsburgh, PA
Mike's Landscaping, of Sewickley, PA
Schmidt Landscaping Inc., of McDonald, PA
Englert Nursery, Bethel Park, PA
Kasper Landscaping, Bethel Park, PA
Hess Landscape Nursery, Clairton, PA
Ed Bayer Landscapes, of North Hills, PA
Federouch Landscape Supplies, of McMurray, PA
Jerry's Lawn Care, of Penn Hills, PA
Sugar Run Nursery, of McMurray, PA
A&S Landscaping, of Cannonsburg, PA
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of
Advocacy, about half of all private sector employees are employed by
small businesses and ninety night point nine percent of all U.S.
businesses have fewer than 500 employees. Over the last decade, this
group of entrepreneurs has created roughly sixty percent of the new
jobs in our economy. These are the same businesses that are now being
threatened by the cap on H-2B visas for returning workers. While the
government pumps economic stimulus money into our economy, Americans
are losing jobs and closing businesses they worked their entire lives
to support.
With a simple, legal, and responsible provision proven to work,
Congress can support these small businesses. I support the extension of
the returning worker provision for the H-2B visa program and understand
the great responsibility I have to these American small business
owners.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Joe Wilson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Carolina
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for holding this
hearing. I think it is fair to say that this is a topic that has a
number of different consequences--all of which should be addressed at
the Federal and State level.
Congress has been debating immigration reform for quite some time
now, and the debate has been contentious. There are individuals of good
faith on every side of this issue. So, it is not with precipitous haste
that we should make any final decision regarding the overall reform of
our immigration policy in this country.
There are areas, however, that should be addressed in the immediate
future. In particular, I am referring to the topic of today's hearing:
the H-2B visa program. This is a program that has been very successful
in boosting the tourism, restaurant, and hotel industries in the state
of South Carolina and in communities all around the country. It is a
lawful and orderly way to provide a temporary workforce. So, with many
communities relying heavily on these types of industries, we should
reauthorize the returning-worker provision of the H-2B visa program, a
legislative fix previously passed by Congress, even while we debate
larger reforms to our nation's immigration policy.
Despite what some have said, an extension of the returning-worker
provision is not an unchecked expansion of our immigration policy nor
is it a reckless opening of the flood gates for greater and greater
numbers of immigrants. It is not a new program. This is an extension of
an existing program which expired a few months ago. It is not an
amnesty program. It is, in fact, exactly the type of immigration reform
we should be focusing on: a lawful and fair framework for those seeking
to work temporarily within the United States on a mutually beneficial
basis within our communities. The users of these visas work seasonal
jobs, complementing a full-time workforce, and must return to their
home countries every year. These users and their employers must follow
careful procedures ensuring they do not take jobs away from Americans
and must follow strict immigration laws that are currently in place.
It has become clear that the temporary extensions authorized in
years past will force us to have this same debate each year. Meanwhile,
a program such as this that has a proven record of positive, legal
support to our economy will be constantly in jeopardy. Small businesses
that benefit immensely from the H-2B program will be unable to rely on
or plan for their seasonal employment. That is why I and several of my
colleagues have called for a permanent extension of the returning-
worker provision. American small businesses, the foundation of our
nation's economy, benefit most when they can plan for their future.
When they are successful, our nation's economy grows stronger.
I have actively worked with my colleagues in Congress to bring a
clean extension of the H-2B returning-worker provision to a vote. I am
troubled that this extension has been held up. The tourism, restaurant,
and hotel industries in South Carolina--particularly in the
Lowcountry--benefit immensely from a temporary and legal workforce that
these visas provide. To let the extension provision stay expired
without action ignores the needs of our nation's business community,
its employees, and damages our economy.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable George Miller, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael N. Castle, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Delaware
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Barbara Cubin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wyoming
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dennis Moore, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Paul Hodes, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charlie Melancon, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Louisiana
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thelma D. Drake, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia
Prepared Statement of the Honorable C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert J. Wittman, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia
Letter from the Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia, to the Honorable Zoe Lofgren,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border
Security, and International Law
Legal Complaint submitted by Mary Bauer, Director,
Immigrant Justice Project