lofgren: that is my point. i would like to note also there is no prohibition in this bill for firing people who have these jobs now. atif you have someone who is level three or four wage, they are earning $26,000 a year. you could fire them, and you could replace them with a h2c an hourho earns $9.28 less. hour, less the tools and uniforms. you could be firing $26,000 a year people, and replacing them with five dollar an hour people, and there is no protection against that, even with was to amendment. -- even with this amendment. >> therefore if we really want to create parity within the meat and poultry processing labor sector, we would like to nullify the subsection from the fair labor standards act so those deductions could not be made. rep. lofgren: we had an amendment to do that earlier which was defeated on a partyline vote. i would be happy to yield. >> typically in these first stage meat processing, the employer provides the uniform. there is a fair amount of cleaning and sanitation associated with that

lofgren: mr. chairman, may i be granted to grant unanimous consent statements from the hebrue international sorkt, the u.s. catholic conference of bishops, truth world services, the episcopal church and letter and directorretary lloyd and over 100 organizations including the california women's law center, catholics for choice, the american rabbis' human rights campaign and others. mr. labrador: without objection. today we have a distinguished panel. the witnesses' statements will be entered into the record. i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. i would like you to stand and be worn in. [witnesses sworn in] at the department of state since july 15, 2017. mr. henshaw previously served as director of affairs in the state department's bu

love lofgren. >> recognized for five minutes on the amendment. >> mr. chairman, there is a lot of argument and discussion about the impact of this bill. this amendment is simple. basically says notwithstanding the provision that is allow for deductions, that i think are improper as i discussed earlier, the employer may not deduct so many costs that the worker's wages would go below the federal minimum wage. now, if people are suggesting that the fair labor standards act exemption really is unimportant, that we wouldn't actually have wages that fall below the federal minimum wage, they should vote yes on this amendment because it's very clear and it's very simple. i do think that the idea that we would bring in millions of individuals paid below the minimum wage to compete with workers who are already here is wrong. it's frankly shocking to me that we are, in fact, considering doing that. this amendment would at least preclude that opportunity, that potential outcome that worker's wages would go below the federal minimum wage. for that reason i hope that

lofgren: you are constantly right.the other provisions of the bill allow for deductions for transportation and housing. you could charge what you have been previously required to provide, absolutely. when you are talking about ag, these are generally remote areas. situation you described i think tends to be more in urban areas where you have workers. the foodtalk about industry, oftentimes that is close to an urban area, and you would have the phenomena that you described. i think the amendment that you offered is the right thing to do. it is the status quo. it may be that we can improve this. years ago there was funding for farmworker housing that did help. california stepped up to that. everybody is better off -- not only the farmers, the farmworkers, honestly the neighbors of these forms don't want homeless farmworkers sleeping by the side of the road either. and finally the consumer wants healthy products because there is adequate sanitation. it is a good amendment. i hope to vote for it and i thank you for offerin

chairman, this is the lofgren/giapole act. it increases penalties for immigration employment practices. it bill before us increases penalties for unlawful employment but does not similarly raise penalties for unfair immigration-related employment practices found in section 274-b of the immigration and nationality act. this amendment makes sure that both sets of penalties are increased equally so that discrimination based on national origin and citizenship and other forms of intimidation and harassment are sufficiently penalized. why should the penalties on 274-a of the immigration and nationality act go up but 274-b of the act be ignored. the amendment would help ensure that the fight discrimination against foreign-born citizens and legal immigrants. you know, the current e verify users are disproportionately large businesses and federal contractors relatively sophisticated employers that voluntarily enroll in the system. there are some small businesses as well, but the current users are more likely to use the system properly

let me pick up on the questions of our ranking member of the subcommittee, miss lofgren. mr. lloyd, do you believe that a woman's constitutional right to abortion depends on her immigration status? >> i think the -- any enter into the united states -- >> it's a yes or no, question, mr. lloyd. do you believe that a woman's constitutional right to abortion depends on her immigration status, yes or no? >> a number of rights -- >> that is not a yes or no answer, mr. lloyd. >> my answer is that any number of rights depend on the -- where they stand in terms of our immigration system. >> i do not understand that answer. is that a yes or a no? i'll take that as a no. so do you believe that immigrants have constitutional rights? >> once again, um, ma'am, if somebody wants to come into the united states and -- >> i'll take that as a no. mr. lloyd, do you have medical training of any kind? >> i, um, if i need advice regarding any medical situation regarding any of the populations i serve i consult the medical -- >> so the answer is no you don't have medical training. >> no. >> are you