U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–796 PDF 2008

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

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 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III)

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

Page

IV

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. 

(1)

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 

2

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 H2B 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 H2B program has allowed some businesses to exploit and abuse H2B 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 

3

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 

4

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 

5

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. 

6

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. 

7

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. 

8

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


BS-1.eps
9


BS-2.eps
10


BS-3.eps
11


BS-4.eps
12

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 welltrained 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 

13

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. Yearround 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 

14

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:]

15

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND


WTG-1.eps
16


WTG-2.eps
17


WTG-3.eps
18


WTG-4.eps
19

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 

20

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? 

21

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 H2B visa. And I, too, am sorry that it didn’t work. 

22

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 H2B 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 

23

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. 

24

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. 

25

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 immigraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
26

tion 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 

27

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 

28

1The 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. 

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? 

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 

29

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 direcVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
30

tor 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. 

31

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 yearround 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. 

32

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:]

33

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. DANIEL MUSSER, III.


RDM-1.eps
34


RDM-2.eps
35


RDM-3.eps
36


RDM-4.eps
37


RDM-5.eps
38


RDM-6.eps
39


RDM-7.eps
40

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. 

41

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 

42

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:]

43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY BAUER


MB-1.eps
44


MB-2.eps
45


MB-3.eps
46


MB-4.eps
47


MB-5.eps
48


MB-6.eps
49


MB-7.eps
50


MB-8.eps
51

————

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.


MB-9.eps
52

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 H2B 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 

53

in the face of aggressive means to build the shoulder seasons. What was once a twomonth 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 

54

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 ProStart. 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 upto-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. 

55

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 DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
56

partment 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 H2B program which has successfully filled the needs of seasonal businesses across the 

country for decades.

57

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 

58

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 probVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
59

lematic 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 H2B. 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. 

60

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:]

61

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSS EISENBREY


RE-1.eps
62


RE-2.eps
63


RE-3.eps
64


RE-4.eps
65


RE-5.eps
66


RE-6.eps
67


RE-7.eps
68


RE-8.eps
69

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
70

vest 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.

71

1Foreign Labor Certification: International Talent Helping Meet Employer Demand. Performance Report, March 28, 2005-September 30, 2006. US Department of Labor. Employment and 

Training Administration. 

• 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. 

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 

72

2These figures were provided to me by Jared Bernstein an economist at the Economic Policy 

Institute in Washington DC. 3These figures come from my analysis of the March 2000 and 2007 Current Population Survey. 4Most research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants respond to Census Bureau surveys. Thus the foreign-born shares reported here included illegal immigrants. 5These 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. 

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. 

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 lesseducated 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

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 nativeborn 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

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 nativeborn 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 

73

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 nativeborn 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 

74

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 lesseducated 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 

75

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-yearold 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. 

76

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 

77

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. 

78

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. 

79

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 bettereducated, 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. 

80

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-yearold—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? 

81

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 busiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
82

ness 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. 

83

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 

84

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 critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\041608\41796.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41796
85

ical 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 

86

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. 

87

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 

88

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, wellorganized 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 

89

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——

90

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 

91

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 

92

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.] 

(93)

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 

94

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

fJOHN 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. 

f95

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMI- GRATION, 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 

96

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

fHONORABLE 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 H2B 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. 

f97

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

fHONORABLE 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-inhand. 

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, 

98

1Department of Labor, ‘‘H-2B FAQs—Round II,’’ December 17, 2007,

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/h2blfaqslround2.pdf., (accessed April, 15 2008) 

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

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

fCAROL 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. 

99

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

fHONORABLE 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 

100

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 naı ̈ve 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 H

fONORABLE 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 

101

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 H

fONORABLE 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 

102

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. 

f

103

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


Miller-1.eps
104


Miller-2.eps
105

f


Miller-3.eps
106

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL N. CASTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

f


B.eps
107

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

f


C.eps
108

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS


D-1.eps
109

f


D-2.eps
110

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL HODES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


E-1.eps
111


E-2.eps
112


E-3.eps
113


E-4.eps
114

f


E-5.eps
115

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA


G-1.eps
116


G-2.eps
117

f


G-3.eps
118

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THELMA D. DRAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA


H-1.eps
119


H-2.eps
120


H-3.eps
121


H-4.eps
122


H-5.eps
123


H-6.eps
124


H-7.eps
125


H-8.eps
126


H-9.eps
127


H-10.eps
128


H-11.eps
129


H-12.eps
130


H-13.eps
131


H-14.eps
132


H-15.eps
133


H-16.eps
134

f


H-17.eps
135

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

f


J.eps
136

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO


N-1.eps
137


N-2.eps
138


N-3.eps
139

f


N-4.eps
140

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA


P-1.eps
141


P-2.eps
142


P-3.eps
143


P-4.eps
144


P-5.eps
145


P-6.eps
146

f


P-7.eps
147

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


Q-1.eps
148


Q-2.eps
149


Q-3.eps
150


Q-4.eps
151


Q-5.eps
152


Q-6.eps
153


Q-7.eps
154


Q-8.eps
155

f


Q-9.eps
156

LEGAL COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MARY BAUER, DIRECTOR,

IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT


MB-10.eps
157


MB-11.eps
158


MB-12.eps
159


MB-13.eps
160


MB-14.eps
161


MB-15.eps
162


MB-16.eps
163


MB-17.eps
164


MB-18.eps
165


MB-19.eps
166


MB-20.eps
167


MB-21.eps
168


MB-22.eps
169


MB-23.eps
170


MB-24.eps
171


MB-25.eps
172


MB-26.eps
173


MB-27.eps
174


MB-28.eps
175


MB-29.eps
176


MB-30.eps
177


MB-31.eps
178


MB-32.eps
179


MB-33.eps
180


MB-34.eps
181


MB-35.eps
182


MB-36.eps
183


MB-37.eps
184


MB-38.eps
185


MB-39.eps
186


MB-40.eps
187


MB-41.eps
188


MB-42.eps
189


MB-43.eps
190


MB-44.eps
191


MB-45.eps
192


MB-46.eps
193


MB-47.eps
194


MB-48.eps
195


MB-49.eps
196


MB-50.eps
197


MB-51.eps
198


MB-52.eps
199


MB-53.eps
200


MB-54.eps
201


MB-55.eps
202


MB-56.eps
203


MB-57.eps
204


MB-58.eps
205


MB-59.eps
206


MB-60.eps
207


MB-61.eps
208


MB-62.eps
209


MB-63.eps
210


MB-64.eps
211


MB-65.eps
212


MB-66.eps
213


MB-67.eps
214


MB-68.eps
215


MB-69.eps
216


MB-70.eps
217


MB-71.eps
218


MB-72.eps
219


MB-73.eps
220


MB-74.eps
221


MB-75.eps
222


MB-76.eps
223


MB-77.eps
224


MB-78.eps
225


MB-79.eps
226


MB-80.eps
227


MB-81.eps
228


MB-82.eps
229


MB-83.eps
230


MB-84.eps
231


MB-85.eps
232


MB-86.eps
233


MB-87.eps
234


MB-88.eps
235


MB-89.eps
236


MB-90.eps
237

Æ


MB-91.eps