macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the first amendment is an Agriculture Committee amendment to reduce the paperwork requirements under the employer sanction provisions of H.R. - 1510. Many of the same workers return to the same farm or employer for the harvest of several different crops each year. and year after year. Accordingly. it was the view of the committee that it was burdensome. as well as unnecessary. to require the employer to complete the verification paperwork required under the new subsection (b) of section 274A. as added by the Judiciary Committee. each. time the same worker returned to the same farm during the same year. or year after yearparticularly in the case of U.S. citizens and nationals and permanent residents. Specifically. under the committee amendment verification would be required: First. every 5year period for a citizen or national of the United States. second. every 3year period for an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. third. each period (not to exceed 3 years) as the Attorney General may establish for an alien other than nonimmigrant. and fourth. each period (not to exceed 1 year) as the Attorney General may establish for a nonimmigrant alien. The Agriculture Committee amendment eliminates the requirement for duplicative paperwork as to worker status. but still provides the necessary protections regarding nonimmigrants entering the United States. Mr. Chairman. I yield at this point to the author of the amendment. the gentleman from Washington .
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for his excellent explanation and would urge the Members to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balar.ce of my time.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. yes. there is. This is an attempt to not have to do one. two or three times a year the same thing when it is the same individual. same employer. same employee.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the fact is that. one. we cannot educate this House at this point as to the respective intricacies of certain business endeavors such as manufacturing. agriculture. retailer. or whatever. The fact is that this bill. as it is written. imposes a burden on an agricultural worker because a farmer. for example. would hire an individual in this field for a period of time. Then that work terminates. Then he has to rehire him when he moves to the next field or next crop 1 week or 2 weeks hence. Under this legislation. he would have to the paperwork every 2 weeks or 3 weeks for the same worker. Agriculture is not asking for special privileges. This admendment is simply aimed at streamlining the verification process so that we do not burden an employer with the onus of unnecessary. repetitive verification of the same employee to satisfy the technical requirement of the law. This process in no way affects employer sanctions. It changes nothing except that it reduces the paper work for the farmer and for the identification process for the prospective employee.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would appreciate it very much. If this legislation passes without this amendment. we are burdening the employer and we are burdening the employee. We are burdening those whom the gentleman wants to protect from burdens and impositions. under his philosophical reservation. It is not special privilege nor is it treating someone differently. It merely follows an established legislative goal of reducing cumbersome bureaucratic paperwork. something the gentleman supports. That is all it is.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is reading correctly. It is a 1year span for a nonimmigrant and the Attorney General would set a period not to exceed 3 years for another nonimmigrant alien category.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

As long as he Is not classified as a nonimmigrant. the Attorney General can establish a period of time not to exceed 3 years from the Initial verification.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is not correct. Employer sanctions will prevail without distinction. This amendment does not change anything except to eliminate an unnecessary repetitive. paperwork verification process of the same employee within and short span of harvest breaks.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Has the gentleman seen the application form that the members of the committee have? You can be computerized to the nth degree. but you still have to fill out an application form. a form which the gentleman and I object to in our philosophical agreement. But. here the gentleman is incorrect about agricultural workers. because all this says is that you do not have to fill the same blank every 2 weeks.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I cannot seem to dispel the misconception of my colleague. This is denied in part for the protection of the group that my colleague wishes to protect.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much and I do not want to prolong the discussion. I would like to remind my distinguislied colleague from California that he helped write something called Farm Labor Contractors and the scenario he is bringing before us is almost an impossibility under that other legislaiton that is on the books already. I
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the third Agriculture Committee amendment amends the civil penalties in the employer sanction provisions of the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee to substitute for the fixed penalty of $1.000 a range between $100 and $1.000 and for the fixed penalty of $2.000 a range between $500 and $2.000. The committee was of the view that flexibility was needed as respects employer sanctions. taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the violation. The Agriculture Committee amendment accomplishes this objective by providing discretion in the imposition of fines under the bill. In only rare instances does any statute impose a fixed penaltycriminal and civil penalties generally are set in terms of maximums that can be adjusted to meet the nature of the offenses. taking account of any equities that may be present. We think this is particularly important In resprct to the employer sanction provisions of this bill. Mr. Chairman. this amendment represents the efforts of Mr. MoRaIsoN. the gentleman from Washington. and
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. before I conclude. let me state that this is across the board. and amends H.R. 1510 so that it is applicable to everyone. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I move to strike the last word and I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlemans amendment. Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. I think the House Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration labored very hard to bring a fair. equitable. and balanced bill before this Chamber. 115"613 I think that ia what we have. Part of the genius and beauty. I think. of H.R. 1510 is that it applies to everyone in approximately the same situation. And what we found in our long delibcrations over basically 3V2 years was that fixed fines rather than flexible fines. first of all. would be the firm stat.ement on the part of an assembly like ours that employer sanctions was meant to work. it was meant to hurt those people who would knowingly hire undocumented aliens. Once you have the range. anywhere from $100. which is fairly low. to $1.000. and from $500 to $2.000. the low end of the range is really just a cost of doing business. it is just like. in effect. a license fee. It really will not hurt and it would pay an employer of great numbers to just pay this because it is cheaper than not hiring undocumented workers. So first off. our idea of fixed fines of a stern dimension was for simplicity in administration and for firmness of resolve. The Judiciary Committee and your subcommittee also felt that. looking around the world to the nations which have employer sanctions laws on the books. we found that where those laws have not worked. they have not worked because the fines are too low. they were sporadically enforced. and that is why they did not work. But where they were sternly enforced and where fixed fines were imposed. and the criminal penalties were imposed with resolve. then. of course. employer sanctions worked and flow of undocumented aliens was curtailed. So here we think. at least I think on behalf of the committee. that a range of penalties would weaken employer sanctions. the low range of these penalties is so low as to simply constitute a cost of doing business and would not be a deterrent to the hiring knowingly of undocumented workers. I add that the administration is against this amendment. The administration feels that fixed penalties of a high level which hurt is the way to go. So I would respectfully request of my colleagues a "no" vote on this amendment.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. chairman. if the gentleman will wait for just a few minutes for about the third amendment that is coming up. I will solve that problem for the gentleman. because I have a telephone amendment that says exactly what the gentleman is saying. that if you go to a prospective employer seeking work. you give to that employer your social security card and that employer. using also his employer number which we all have. makes a telephone call on an 800 number. just like you do today when you buy something on one of your courtesy cards. You go to the store and they call in to see if your number is good. Inside of 20 seconds. you will get back on the phone a notice that that card is good or it is not good. If it is a good card. a transaction code will be established under your number and if you hire that person. you have an absolute defense in the future.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

What this will do. it will take care of an employer. it will give some degree of protection to an employer. assuming this bill is passed. He has an absolute defense in the future.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

It will take several months to establish this. They will come back and tell the employer that it is a void number or that it is a fraudulent number an that it is a nonusable number. That is an absolute defense for that employer if he has hired that person.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

The situation that I am talking about is this. in all of these other measures the employer is the one who must keep the records. If I understand this bill correctly. if the employer keeps his paperwork and the employer says he has done these things and has looked at the birth records and all of those mat- Ackerman ters that are on that board behind Addabbo you. then. the employer has an affirm. Akaka ative defense. Albosta Alexandur But those things can change. Under Andrews<NC) my amendment you have the U.S. Andrew. TX) Annunzio Government verifying what you say Anthony you have done by the existence of a A.spin transaction code. You can go back and AuCoin refer to that code if it is necessary. Barnant If someone comes to you in the Barnes future and shows that you have hired Bateman a person who is illegal. all you have to BdelI do is say that on a certain date I made Belenson this 800 number call and there is a Bereuter transaction code which says that the Berman Bethune number was good. The burden of proof Bein is then on the Government to prove Blan the contrary. Blileyrt I think it is foolproof and handles Boggs the matter that the gentleman is talk. Boland ing about. Bonor
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to ask the gentleman a couple of questions. One is that employers of three or less. would the gentleman unII15615 derstand this to include a housewife. for example?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

So a housewife. or a pries:t at the local church hires a follow to do his yard. or the Methodist preacier---
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me ask the gentleman further: On the other side. the gentleman knows of my position. how obnoxious it is to me that a citizen would have to identify himself. Would this not then give the fellow who works as a yardman or a father and son. it would exempt thom from having to identify themselves without the norm? Would the gentleman consider that as a fact?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

So we would have saved at least a few from the onerous task of having to identify themselves beyond the norm in an unconstitutional manner?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mi-. SAM B. HALL. JR.)
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would like to say. with reference to what the gentleman from Texas just said. the report language states that casual hire is not to be covered by this bill. But there is no definition of "casual hire." As the gentleman from Kentucky said a moment ago. under the amendment of the gentleman from California adopted earlier. there are no paperwork requirements for people who have three miployees or under. There is going to be a void here if they do not. have to kee > paperwork and they hire people under the situation that the gentleman Just mentioned. if the priest hires somebody to work in the yard or if the wi ow woman hires somcone to do the windows. whatever menial work it might Le. it is going to leave a void in one respect. but in another respect it is putting those people under the throes of this bill. and I do not think that is what this bill is meant to do. I think if we are going to have any uncertainty in it we should not have the uncertainty where you have somebody hiring three people or less.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

But do you still impose on the seeker of employment the onerous duty of having to identify besides the norm. even though he be a citizen?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is a shame. that is a terrible shame. But let me ask the gentleman another question: There is a permit called a border cross. ing card.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Now. on the border crossing card. it says that "you are allowed to come for x purposes but not for employment." Now. does your employer sanction cover the border crossing card or only a person who is illegal altogether? With the border crossing card. if I might remind the gentleman. you are legally in this country for x purposes but not for employment.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

You know this discussion here in the last 2 or 3 minutes points out the fact that you are going to have so much indecision as to whether or not a person is or is not covered. Now it is not known with any degree of certainty whether or not a border crossing is covered by this or not. We have already stricken out all of the paperwork for these same people. These same people that you are talking about and the people that I am talking about. Why still have them subject to criminal and civil contempt violations? We do not know whether they are going to be covered or whether they are not going to be covered. This amendment takes all of the guesswork out of it and still does not affect over 5 percent of the work force of the United States.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think the gentleman is correct about the indecision. There is another part of the bill that allows local constables and policemen to work. You are going to have a local constable running around in circles knowing what to do and so on. and breaking into houses. and chasing the widow woman around the lawn there to find out if she has her paperwork or has a legal illegal or somewhere in between with a border crossing card.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

There is no definition whoever has the time. so far as I know there is no definition in the bill of casual hire. It is in the report language. But I do not think that it should be in the report. I think it should be statutory language as to what is or what is not covered under certain circumstances. The only way I know how to do that is to spell it out.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well that is my concern that if there is no definition of casual labor. you are going to allow a local constable or a local chief of police to have to do the identifying factor. I wonder if the gentleman from Kentucky would at least if he opposes this amendment. would he give us what the legislative intent is as to what casual labor would be? I yield to the gentleman.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Oh. the gentleman has confused me more. I was hoping to get some clear legislative intent. That is going to confuse the local constables more.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me ask the gentleman now. since this is getting wierder. I live here in the suburbs of Washington. in Virginia. and we hire this kid to come do the lawn. Do I have to fill out one of those blanks?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

And I have to get this kid from Virginia to fill out and show me the license number. the drivers license. and all of that?
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I again state what I said a moment ago that this discussion in the last 3. 4. or 5 minutes indicates the point that we have got so much indecision in this matter and the way it is now written. that it would be criminal. literally criminal. not to take out from under the purview of this act people who would be acting in the same position as the gentleman from Texas and the other gentleman from Texas stated. It would put these people in a terrible light trying to decide whether or not they are hiring somebody on a casual basis or whether they are hiring somebody on a contractual basis.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

We do no damage to the intent to curtail illegal immigration on vast ranches and growers. and this does not involve itself in that.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. the people that I am talking about hire less than 5 percent of the work force of America. I say the amendment should be adopted.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the gentleman just mentioned something that strikes at the core of this. He can be my next door neighbor and I could know him since he was born. I still have to fill out that crazy little piece of paper.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. If the gentleman will notice this amendment. it says paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to a person or entity. and then in parentheses it says (other than a farm labor contractor as defined in section 3.7 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act). That explicitly excludes what the gentleman from California is talking about. It would not cover a contractor. a farm labor contractor. in any way.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman would yield further. the parenthetical in this amendment is for the purpose of retaining existing law. that is. section 106 of this act. that prohibits a farm labor contractor from recruiting. hiring. employing or using with knowledge the services of any individual who is an alien not lawfully admitted for Permanent residence. or who has been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. I am reading. more or less. from section 7 of article 3 of this act. It would not allow the situation to happen as the gentleman from California stated it.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I am getting terribly concerned by this obsession in the House or in the committee about farmers. who give us the best quality food for the lowest amount of disposable income. There is an obsession here beyond the norm. Should the statue on top of the dome ever become pregnant. you will probably blame a farmer for it. This is an obsession beyond the norm. that everything has an insidious. hidden motive for some farmer to bring in illegal workers. and I am getting concerned that we are getting away from the thrust of the legislation or away from the thrust of those who oppose It. with this obsession that behind every amendment there is a dark motive for some farmer to bring in something illegal. That is not the norm. The average farmer is a lawabiding citizen and respects the law. and again we are making it look like everything that is done is illegal in the agricultural sector. That is not where the majority of the illegals are. They are in the factories. in the restaurants. in the hotels. and in the cleaning establishments. they are in Los Angeles and in San Francisco. in Chicago. Cleveland. New York. and so on. Mr. Chairman. there is an obsession that somehow this bill is geared to Hispanics and to farmers who abuse the law. and I am getting a little concerned that we are heading in the wrong direction.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. that Is all well and good. but it has not a thing in the world to do with this amendment. This amendment says one thing: "Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a person or entity . . . which employs three or fewer employees." That is all it says. We have a specific exclusion that is not covered by this because it is parenthesized in this amendment. We say: "(other than a farm labor contractor . . .)" That Is a separate law altogether. and that is what the gentleman has reference to. I do not argue with that provision that he states at all. I just point out that my amendment just says what It says. that It shall not apply to a person or entity which employs three or fewer employees. That is all it says.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I have not made reference in here to a person or entity that might be in an area where there is an absence of telephones. In the part of the country where I come from. we have more telephones than we have houses. I do not think that is going to prove to be any problem in the enforcement of this telephone verification. The people that I have talked with. who are interested in this sort of thing. have not raised that question and I have talked to a multitude of people. both in and out of industry. So. I think with the portable telephones we have today I do not see that as any problem at all.
Date: 1984-06-12
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think that when the Secretary of Labor and the Social Security people get together. I am sure that they can work out something that will solve the problem. I do not see it as a problem myself.