macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I only ask for the time so that we may know the figures relating to the H2s that we will be dealing with in the amendment. if the gentleman would oblige me. The Department of Labor informs us that. for fiscal year 1976. there were a total of 29.778 H2s. I asked abi.ut Mexico. Mexico had 761 for that year. In the year 1977. the total was 27.760. and from Mexico there were In the fiscal year 1978 the total was 22.832. and from Mexico there were 1.189. In the year 1979 the total was 15.487. from Mexico. 950. They do not have the data for 1980. Something happened to the computer. In 1981 they do not have a breakdown for H2 but the sum total of all the Hs. including H1. H2. and H3. was 44.770. And then for 1982 and 1933 they do not have any figures. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to put the numbers in the RECORD that we will be talking about as we deal with H2s.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the fifth Agriculture Committee amendment relates to the calculation of the adverse effect wage that is used in the administration of the H2 and Transitional Nontinmigrant Agricultural Workers Programs. The amendment would make two changes in these provisions. I would like to preface my remarks by explaining that in the administration of the wage provisions of the H2 and transitional programs. the Department of Labor makes a determination of the wage that must be paid for the particular job in an area so that the wages of domestic workers would not be adversely affected. This wage is referred to as the adverse effect wage. The Agriculture Committee amendment would. first. prohibit the Secretary of Labor from making retroactive adjustments in the wages of H2 and transitional agricultural workers. The reason for this is that in the past. on occasion. after the H2 workers have been paid and have returned to their country of origin. the Labor Department has recomputed the adverse effect wage and required higher wages to be paid retroactively. This has caused hardship to the employers. particularly when the employees are no longer in the area of employment and can only be located with difficulty. if at all. The second change that would be made by the amendment relates to the vwage surveys that are used in the determination of the adverse effect wage. In the past. the Department of Agriculture made quarterly wage surveys that were used in the calculation of wage rates for agricultural workers under the 112 program. Unfortunately. this has been discontinued. and the Department now makes only an annual survey. The change that would be made by the committee amendment would be to require the Secretary of Labor under certain conditions to provide for a redetermination of the prevailing wage rates in an area based upon a new survey of the wages prevailing in the area and occupation concerned. The use of annual survey information under current practice could well result in distortion of wage computations The effect of the committee anmier mt is merely to require that the must recent and uptodate wage information be used in appropriate cases. In order to avoid unnecessary requests for redetermination. the committee amendment limits the change to cases where the increase in wage rates computed by the Department of Labor is more than 5 percentage polu1ts above the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers during the given period.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for that explanation. and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California .
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we thank both the gentleman from California and the distinguished subcommittee chairman. the gentleman from Kentucky for their generous cooperation.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman is eminently correct. because the wage scale study is done by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman. with the assurances and the cooperation of the two distinguished gentlemen. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the sixth Agriculture Committee amendment is a simple one and. I hope. noncontroversial. It merely authorizes appropriations commencing in fiscal year 1984 to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out his responsibilities under the bill. Added responsibilities have been given to the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] under the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and the amendments of the Agriculture Committee. These include responsibilities in the administration of the H2 and transitional agricultural labor provisions and the Special P Program for seasonal agricultural workers. However. no funding has been authorized for the Department of Agriculture for this purpose. although both the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice have been authorized additional funding under the bill.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the seventh Agriculture Committee amendment is one that would preempt State law that may regulate the admissibility of nonimmigrant workers under the H2 and transitional nonimmigrant agriculture worker programs. The amendment was prompted by questions raised by legislation pending in a State providing different standards for admissibility of nonimmigrant workers. It was the position of the Agriculture Committee that these programs that are traditionally and necessarily Federal in nature not be restricted or otherwise affected by State laws or local regulations or ordinances. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MORRISON of Washington was responsible for this amendment in the Committee on Agriculture. and I would like to yield to him at this time.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I would like to engage the author of the amendment in one or two questions. if I might.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am concerned about language on page 231 dealing with the gentlemans amendment. I notice on page 230 of the committee print that the Secretary of Labor shall require an application to be filed 80 days before the employer requires labor or services and then there will be a 60day recruitment period in which the person tries to find if there might be available workers to do this work without going into the nonimmigrant area. Now. over on page 231. of the print you bring in the fact that we have an association that will be dealing on II 1830 behalf of the farmers or users. It states on line 13: "(B) A petition to import an alien as an nonimmigrant described in section 101(axl15)H)(iixa). and an application for a labor certification with respect to such an alien. may be filed by an association representing agricultural producers which use agricultural labor or services. Now. here is the part that bothers me: The filing of such a petition or application on a members or users behalf does not relieve the member or user of any liability under this section unless the association"(I) is the sole employer of all such aliena and all similarly employed United States agricultural labor of all the members or users it reprn-. EJ 140o As I understand it. the association represents the farmers who are also designated as users. I assume that more or less applies to both. Suppose the application is filed by the association on behalf of these people and something is done iproperly by the association. and something is done which may cause liability to the member. because it says on line 18 and 19. "The filing of such a petition on a member or users behalf does not relieve the member or user of any 11ability." My question to the gentleman is what type of liability is the farmer or user still caught under if the association does something Improperly?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman would further follow me. as I read line 21 on page 231. it says that the liability will be on the member or user unless that association is the sole employer.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM H. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Of all such aliens. Of all such aliens and all similarly.employed U.S. agricultural labor of all of the members or users it represents.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would further ask the gentleman. it appears to me in the context of this reading. that the association could be a group of persons who make a contract to go out and find workers for these users or farmers. Is that not correct?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. but I understand you are not saying that the farmers or users could be one and the same as the association. are you?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

As I read this. this only covers where the asrociation is working on behalf of the farmers or users in trying to get people to come in and work. Is that a correct statement?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If they are working. if they have employed an association to do this work for them on some sort of a contractuial basis. fve basis or whatever. and the association in trying to aequire luople to work for these frners or users does sonething that is niot proper. as I read it Ihose farmers and users are still. trnder some sort of liabilit y. unleI the association is the sole einployer of all aliens. What area dots it cover. that they are the sole emtnployer of all nliens If that part of Ilie country or throughout the United States. or what?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM D. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Int if (he gentleman would futher respond. that. does not. relieve the mneniber or urser of liability under this section uiless the association. No. 1. is the sole employer. that. is the association we are talking about now. not ile farmers or users. unless the association is the sole tmployrr of all such aliens.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HAIL (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. sir. That is not the point I am trying to make. The point I an trying to make is that unless this association i. the sole employer of all such aliens and all similarly employed U.S. agricultural labor of all the members or users it represents. Now let us stop there for a moment. If this association does not come under that exception that is listed on line 20. page 231 of the print then your farmers or users are going to be subjected to some kind of liability. My question is what is that liability that the farmers or users will be subjected to?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would like to just request that the Members in their offices who are getting ready to come over here to vote on this amendment go to page 231 and page 232 and read this amendment. Now. I would like to address one additional question to the author of this amendment. if he is here.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Addressing my inquiry to the gentleman from California. the author of this amendment. we have already discussed what problems I have on a preceding page. Now. as I understand it. on page 232. it says. on line 15: If the employer asserts that any eligible individuals who have been referred are not qualified or available. the burden of proof is on the employer to establish that the Individuals referred are not actually available or are not qualified because of employmentrelated reasons as shown by their job performance. My question is this: If the association furnishes raen to these farmers to work and the farmers say. "We dont think these people are qualified to do this type of work." as I read the gentlemans amendment. the burden of proof is on that farmer or entity to prove that the person is not able to work. First. let me ask the gentleman this: Who does the farmer have to contact to show that this person is or is not qualified to work?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the farmer says that this person is not qualified and the association is the one who is paying the labor. can the assoclation compel the farmer to take that person to work if the farmer says that that person is not qualified to do the work?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is not the question I am asking the gentleman. I am talking about when the association has sent people to the farmers to work.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Why would the burden of proof be placed on that farmer or user to prove to somebody that he does not want these people if you cannot make him take it in the last sequenc?
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well you have not given the answer that I think ought to be given. I suggest that this amendment be voted down. It is a bad amendment any way you cut it.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. first. let me commend the gentleman for the excellent and fair manner in which he has managed the bill to this point. Oni behalf of the Committee on Agriculture. our involvement. except for individual Members. would finish today.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. With reference to amendment No. 45and I have already mentioned to the gentleman I was not going to offer that. and I have told all sides. but when the gentleman mentioned the numbers a moment ago. he omitted that--I would like at the proper time to be able to make a certain pronouncement about that and make some entry into the REcoRD.
Date: 1984-06-14
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I will not offer my amendment that would have required foreign engineers compliance with the same foreign residence requirements mandated for all other foreign students: namely. upon completion of their studies. they will have to leave the United States for 2 years. I do this with reservation as I question the wisdom of a policy that grants unlimited access of foreign engineering students to the U.S. job market. The question continues to arise in my mind as to how many American graduates will be displaced as the result of the unlimited waiver position included in section 212 of this bill. Too. the unlimited access of foreign engineering students to the U.S. Job market serves to inhibit the typically American process of upward social mobility on the part of Americas poor. Equality of opportunity is a keystone of Federal education and employment policy. The problems facing minorities and the handicapped in science and engineering can only be compounded by the easy access of foreign students to our job market. as is provided in H.R. 1510. Though the United States has traditionally accommodated immigrants of exceptional merit and ability in their professions. H.R. 1510 establishes no restrictions on the numbers of foreign students studying in the exempted fields who. upon graduation. will be allowed to take jobs and residency in the United States. It is one thing to reserve a numerically small category for persons of exceptional professional or scientific merit. renowned in their fields. and offering signficant contribution to the national interest if they immigrate to the United States. It is something altogether different to create a significant channel for immigration of trained professionals into the United States of a magnitude that will depdve developing countries of the highly skilled persons they need. and threaten the employment prospects of American students graduating from our engineering schools. The Attorney General. if he deems it to be in the public interest. may waive the 2year residency requirement for 1.500 individuals a year who have been offered a teaching position at a college or university teaching in his field in the natural sciences. mathematics. computer sciences. or engineering. An additional 4.500 individuals a year with terminal degrees in the natural sciences. mathematics. computer sciences. or engineering may receive a waiver from the Attorney General to accept a research or technical position from a U.S. employer in his degree field. Finally. Mr. Chairman. it is my hope that the Congress will work to correct flaws in the systems of labor certification administered by the Department of Labor. This system. which was instituted as a protective device for American workers. has not served to prevent aliens from being hired under conditions in contradiction to immigration law and under conditions which adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American employees. The intent of the system is beyond reproach. the realities of the system are beyond belief.
Date: 1984-06-18
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill granting the consent of Congress to an amendment to the Wheeling Creek watershed protection and flood prevention district compact entered into by the States of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Date: 1984-06-18
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill H.R. 5177 grants congressional approval of an amendment to the Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention District compact. entered into by the States of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention District compact was entered into by the States of West Virginia and Pennsylvania in 1967 to establish a governing body to carry out the purposes of the Wheeling Creek Watershed projects. Congressional consent was given that compact that year with the enactment of Public law 90181. The Wheeling Creek Watershed Commission was created by the original compact and acts as the governing body to carry out the Wheeling Creek Watershed project. In 1978. it was discovered that the commission did not have the power to sell or dispose of property it acquired. Pennsylvanias State Legislature rectified the problem on October 5. 1978. when it approved an amendment to the Wheeling Creek Watershed compact permitting the commission to sell. exchange. or lease real or personal property. The State of West Virginia also amended its Wheeling Creek Watershed compact. chapter 29. article 1 F. of the official Code of Wiat Virginia. 1931. l3t h State amendmrinents are Identical to t lip anveniau of 1I.R. 5177. IhIe bill 11.1R. 5177 gives tIli riequired coiigreul.ional ratification to0 the aindriient. The rved for congressionil action was recognizAd earlier this year when the commission was exploring the possibility of conveying land in tli flood pool of dam PA 648. the Iinal atriucture of t1if Whlieehin Creek i I arsIed project. toa i conisrvat ion nirfney for management of I he unique. natural land. Attorneys explorinig this lrian:action informed the executive director of the Wheeling Creck Water!hfd Commission. that even thoul.h Ihe legislatures of bot West Virginia and elnn.ylvatia had amiended the oritinal compact to allow for flhr dispotal of pronerty. Congriess had not yit ratified the St ates ac(lion. The Subconimittee on Adininistralive Law and Governmental Relations conducted a hearing on the bill. II.R. 177. on April 11. 1984. and there was no opposition expres:sd during the hearing nor during tie full commitI es considration. le (committee is of tlhe opinion that this bill does not impact on interest or jurisdiction of tIhe United States. The granting of congressional consent to tlis amendment is consistent with i the intIrest and purpose of the Wheeling Creek watershed project. It is recominended that the bill be considered favorably. Mr. Speaker. I might state that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. MoitoiAN]. has beon very active in ftils matter. le is a prime sponsor of this bill. H.R. 5177. Mr. Speaker. at t his time I yield 3 iniliutes to the gentleman froi West Virginia [Mr. Mou.oIIANI.
Date: 1984-06-18
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.
Date: 1984-06-18
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. at this time I would like to state that the gentleman from Ohio . the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. has been of great help in working toward the passage of this bill. and I appreciate his efforts and I appreciate him for being an outstanding member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Also I would like to state the administration supports the enament of H.R. 5365. in addition to those that I mentioned previously. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1984-06-18
Speaker: SAM B. RALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Ja.. Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. reported that that Committee. having had under consideration the bill. H.R. 3678. to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources and the improvement and rehabilitation of the Nations* water resources infrastructure. had come to no resolution thereon.
Date: 1984-06-19
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. today. in the New York Times. under the byline of one David Burnham. much is said about the work identification system amendment which passed the House this past week. He says he has been told that the Hall amendment would cost $1.5 billion within 5 years. There is absolutely no evidence that that is a true statement. There are statements in this article that I do not think can be borne out by the facts. I would urge those who read the New York Times to read this article with reservation.
Date: 1984-06-19
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill granting the consent of the Congress to an interstate compact for the preparation of a feastbility study for the development of a system of highspeed intercity rail passenger service.