S. HRG. 112–180 

AMERICA’S AGRICULTURAL LABOR CRISIS: 

ENACTING A PRACTICAL SOLUTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 4, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

AMERICA’S AGRICULTURAL LABOR CRISIS: ENACTING A PRACTICAL 

SOLUTION 

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

71–756 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–180 

AMERICA’S AGRICULTURAL LABOR CRISIS: 

ENACTING A PRACTICAL SOLUTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 4, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATT JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 3 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 5 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 186 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 266 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 321 

WITNESSES 

Black, Gary W., Commissioner, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta, 

Georgia .................................................................................................................. 8 

Horner, Connie, President, Horner Farms Inc, Homerville, Georgia .................. 27 

Knutson, Ronald D., Professor Emeritus, Texas A&M University, College 

Station, Texas ....................................................................................................... 13 

Nassif, Tom, President and Chief Executive Officer, Western Growers Association, Irvine, California .................................................................................... 9 

Rodriguez, Arturo S., President, United Farm Workers of America, Keene, 

California .............................................................................................................. 25 

Ruark, Eric A., Director of Research, Federation for American Immigration 

Reform, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 28 

Smith, Robert A., Senior Vice President, Farm Credit East, Cobleskill, New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 11 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Gary W. Black to questions submitted by Senators Grassley 

and Sessions ......................................................................................................... 39 

Responses of Connie Horner to questions submitted by Senators Grassley 

and Sessions ......................................................................................................... 47 

Responses of Ronald D. Knutson to questions submitted by Senators Grassley, 

Cornyn and Sessions ............................................................................................ 54 

Responses of Tom Nassif to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and 

Sessions ................................................................................................................. 63 

Responses of Arturo S. Rodriguez to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Sessions ................................................................................................... 72 

Responses of Eric Ruark to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and 

Sessions ................................................................................................................. 88 

Responses of Robert A. Smith to questions submitted by Senators Cornyn, 

Grassley and Sessions ......................................................................................... 98 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Black, Gary W., Commissioner, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Atlanta, 

Georgia, statement ............................................................................................... 103 

Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Syracuse, New York, October 2011, letter ................ 106 

Department of Labor, Washington, DC, follow-up response and chart ............... 108 

Dothaneagle. Com, September 30, 2011, article ................................................... 110 

Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, March 21, 2011, briefing .............. 112 

Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC: 

October 11, 2011, letter .................................................................................... 131 

Report ................................................................................................................ 133 

Page

IV 

Foremost Farms USA, Cooperative, Baraboo, Wisconsin, statement .................. 177 

Goldstein, Bruce, President, Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 179 

Horner, Connie, Homerville, Georgia, statement .................................................. 188 

Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Inc., Bob Naerebout, Executive Director, Twin 

Falls, Idaho ........................................................................................................... 191 

Knutson, Ronald D., Professor Emeritus, Texas A&M University, College 

Station, Texas ....................................................................................................... 194 

Knutson, Ronald D., Professor Emeritus, and Dennis U. Fisher, Professor 

Emeritus, Texas A&M University, July 2011, study ........................................ 200 

Nassif, Tom, President and Chief Executive Officer, Western Growers Association, Irvine, California .................................................................................... 268 

National Council of Agricultural Employers, Washington, DC: 

Carol House, statement .................................................................................... 279 

Elizabeth (Libby) Whitley, statement ............................................................. 284 

National Milk Producers Federation, Jerry Kozak, President and Chief Executive Officer, Randy Mooney, Chairman, Arlingon, Virginia, October 4, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 300 

Northeast Dairy Producers Association, Inc., (NEDPA), Fabius, New York: 

Fact Sheet ......................................................................................................... 305 

October 6, 2011, letter ...................................................................................... 306 

Northwest Farm Credit Services, Tom Tracy, Legislative Affairs Officer, Spokane, Washington, statement .............................................................................. 307 

Reuters, New York, New York, September 29, 2011, article ............................... 309 

Rodriguez, Arturo S., President, United Farm Workers of America, Keene, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 311 

Ruark, Eric A., Director of Research, Federation for American Immigration 

Reform, Washington, DC, statement .................................................................. 315 

St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc., Leon Berthiaume, General Manager, 

St. Albans, Vermont, October 5, 2011, letter ..................................................... 324 

Smith, Robert A., Senior Vice President, Farm Credit East, Cobleskill, New 

York, statement .................................................................................................... 325 

United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division, 

September 29, 2011, case .................................................................................... 334 

Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc., Timothy R. Harner, General Counsel, 

Buffalo, New York, October 3, 2011, letter ........................................................ 346 

Wolf, Daniel J., Maple Lawn Farms Inc., Lyons, New York, October 3, 2011, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 349 

(1) 

AMERICA’S AGRICULTURAL LABOR CRISIS: 

ENACTING A PRACTICAL SOLUTION 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Franken, Blumenthal, 

Cornyn, Grassley, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. I will make 

an opening statement; Senator Cornyn will; Senator Feinstein, because of the huge interest in California on this issue, will also 

make an opening statement. And if one other Republican comes, 

whoever you choose, they may. And that will be it in opening statements, and then we will get to our witnesses. 

Well, I thank everybody for coming. Today’s hearing is on the 

current American agricultural labor crisis and the existential 

threat American agriculture faces from efforts in the House to pass 

mandatory e-verify laws without addressing the immigration status 

of the current agricultural labor force. 

Agriculture is an important industry, we know for all America— 

many people do not realize because New York City is so large—but 

also for New York State. We have 35,000 farms. They account for 

$5 billion in sales. They use nearly one-quarter of New York’s total 

land area. We are first or second or third in a lot of things, like 

dairy and apples and cherries and lots of nice good things, lettuce, 

I think. Sauerkraut we are No. 1. Bet you did not know that. That 

is a special kind of cabbage. I have been there. 

Anyway, we put it on the hot dogs at the Yankee games. After 

last night, I am a little reluctant to bring that up. 

Given the amount of jobs and economic activity that are at stake, 

we must do everything we can to give our producers the tools they 

need to succeed. 

But whether it is apple farmers in western New York, strawberry growers in the Mohawk Valley, tomato farmers in the Hudson Valley, dairy producers in northern New York, or nurseries on 

Long Island, everywhere I go in my State—and I think it is similar 

2 

in other States—folks tell me that the long-term viability of their 

farms is threatened because they cannot find the workers they 

need to remain competitive in the global market. 

Some might ask, in these times of double-digit unemployment, 

Why can’t farms hire American workers? It is a logical question if 

you are not familiar with agriculture. 

Well, every farmer I have met in my travels in New York has 

aggressively tried to hire Americans to work in nurseries, farms, 

and vineyards. And I will tell a little story. I met a young lady 

about 10 or 12 years ago—15 or 20 years ago. Her father was a big 

real estate developer in New York. She loved flowers, and so she 

opened nurseries on Long Island. She was a very idealistic, progressive liberal person, and she had this idea: Why don’t I hire the 

people in the South Bronx who are unemployed? She put up signs 

in the South Bronx. She said, ‘‘We will pay you $8 an hour.’’ The 

minimum wage was then $4 or something, so double. She built a 

little church, a little school, little buildings on her property so they 

would come out 40 miles. And she said, ‘‘If you want this job, $8 

an hour, meet at the bus at 6 a.m., and we will drive you out there 

to Suffolk County.’’ The buses filled up, but after 1 day the people 

quit. Americans do not do this work. It is back-breaking, it is hard, 

and for whatever reason, we can tell our farmers to hire Americans, but it just does not work. 

My friends in the Long Island Farm Bureau can tell you that 

many of their members pay more than $12 to $15 per hour per 

worker, so it is a good salary, and they actively seek to hire American workers, arrange for transportation and drop-off, as I said. 

But what they find—even in this difficult economy and even if 

they offer Americans twice or sometimes three times the minimum 

wage and provide benefits—American workers simply will not stay 

in these jobs for more than a few days. 

This is not an indictment of either the agricultural industry or 

the American worker. It is simply a statement of fact that the average American will not engage in seasonal agricultural work that requires them to move several times a year throughout the country 

and work 7 days per week in extreme heat and cold. 

So who is stepping in to take these jobs, these difficult seasonal 

agricultural jobs? Whether it is California or Texas or New York 

or anywhere else in the country, immigrants who need these jobs 

to support their families they left behind in their native country 

are the ones who do it. 

Unfortunately, many of these immigrants that work in agriculture are in illegal status, giving our family farmers the Hobson’s 

choice of hiring workers in illegal status or going out of business. 

This conundrum is about to reach a dangerous boiling point, as 

mandatory e-verify laws like those already passed in Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia—as well as those proposed in the House and the 

Senate—now pose a potentially fatal threat to the livelihood of 

American farmers. 

At this point I would like to introduce two articles into the 

record, if there is a no objection, so without objection, they are introduced. 

[The articles appears as a submission for the record.] 

3 

Chairman SCHUMER. One is a September 30th article from the 

Dothan Eagle in Alabama where John McMillan—the Republican 

Commissioner of Agriculture elected just last year—indicated that 

the Alabama immigration law, which includes mandatory e-verify, 

would ‘‘have an adverse impact on the farm economy in the State 

of Alabama.’’ 

A September 29, 2011, article from Reuters where Commissioner 

McMillan also reported ‘‘crops rotting in fields as a result of day 

laborers leaving the State ahead of the law taking effect’’ in Alabama. 

As the witnesses will testify today, if Congress passes mandatory 

e-verify laws without providing growers a way to keep their current 

workforce, it will be issuing a death sentence to many, many farmers and family farms throughout America. 

Let me just give you a few statistics that one of our witnesses, 

Bob Smith, will tell us about today: 

In the Northeast, mandatory e-verify threatens the existence of 

1,700 family farmers that are already on the brink because of the 

labor shortage. 

Nearly 50,000 agricultural jobs in the Northeast alone would be 

eliminated if mandatory e-verify is passed. 

If those Northeast agricultural jobs are lost, 55,000 off-farm jobs 

in agriculturally related businesses could also be lost. That is 

100,000 jobs. Many of these jobs are held by American citizens in 

agricultural marketing and processing, farm suppliers, and farm 

service businesses. 

So it is time for Congress to pass a practical solution to this 

problem, such as add jobs, which Senator Feinstein has worked 

long and hard on, and stop the ideological rhetoric that does not 

match the reality on the ground. We need a solution that severely 

penalizes farmers who hire illegal immigrants and exploit their 

workers. But we also need a solution that provides farmers with 

the ability to transform their current workforce into a tax-paying, 

English-speaking, legal workforce. 

The current situation is untenable. Every day American farms 

are closing. America has to import more and more food from abroad 

because it is far cheaper to buy foreign food than it is to produce 

food here. Failing to act is both a food security threat and an economic security hazard. 

I am confident our distinguished panel today will help us better 

understand these problems and guide us toward the best solution 

for reforming our agricultural immigration system. 

I now turn to Senator Cornyn for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your calling this hearing, and I appreciate all the witnesses 

being here today. I do want to give a special recognition to Dr. 

Knutson, who is going to be on this first panel, who is a professor 

emeritus at Texas A&M University in College Station. Aggies know 

something about agriculture, and we are glad you are here to share 

some of your expertise with us. 

4 

Also in the audience I know we have Ray Pruitt, who we worked 

with very closely, representing a lot of the agriculture interests in 

South Texas that is a huge breadbasket really for the rest of the 

State and, indeed, the country. 

Since 1975, Dr. Knutson has been on the faculty at Texas A&M 

Department of Agricultural Economics. He is the author of more 

than 600 publications on agriculture policy and marketing, including a July 2011 study with Dr. Dennis Fisher entitled ‘‘Impacts of 

Immigration Reform Proposals on the Agriculture Sector,’’ obviously a timely topic for today’s hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent that that report be made 

part of the hearing record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The report appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Also while we are doing it, without objection, the statement of Chairman Leahy will be entered into the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Our topic today is a familiar one to those of us 

who have worked many years on immigration reform, but that familiarity makes the problem no less confounding. We cannot sugarcoat the facts. We should not sugarcoat the fact. Between 50 and 

70 percent of the Nation’s nearly 2 million farm laborers are in this 

country without legal authorization—50 to 70 percent. That fact 

alone shouts loudly that our immigration system is simply broken. 

State laws have tried to fill the gaps where the Federal Government has failed, but it strikes me as bizarre that we find ourselves 

in the situation where the Congress that has passed our immigration laws is somehow concerned that the House may pass a bill 

that will actually require those laws to be enforced, although I do 

agree with the Chairman that it is important to provide a legal 

workforce for our agricultural sector. We neither effectively enforce 

the laws on the books, nor do we have an adequate legal system 

for agricultural employers to retain immigrant labor. 

The Chairman has mentioned Chairman Smith of the House Judiciary Committee who is leading an effort in the other chamber 

to, I believe, address both problems: No. 1, to find a way to effectively enforce our immigration laws through a mandatory e-verify 

program, but—and this is an important ‘‘but’’—to craft also a solution for agricultural employers so they can access legal immigrant 

labor when employers are unable to find Americans to work the 

fields. 

Federal legislation mandating the use of e-verify is being 

spurred, at least in part, by the actions of 18 States that have required the use of e-verify for employers in those States. And, again, 

the States are acting because they look to Washington and see inaction and failure so far when it comes to reforming our immigration system. And they are, of course, experiencing the costs associated with education, law enforcement, and health care for a huge 

immigrant population in a disproportionate sort of way and one 

that Washington refuses to or is incapable of stepping up and indemnifying them for. 

5 

I believe that mandating the use of e-verify on a nationwide scale 

is an important credibility-building measure. The Federal Government does not have credibility in this area, and we have got to regain it. So we have to convince the American people that Congress 

is serious about fixing our broken system, but we must also be 

mindful of the current economic climate and take care that we are 

not causing major disruptions to or burdens on our employers who 

are trying to do the right thing. 

As we will hear from Dr. Knutson, major disruptions in the agricultural labor supply will have real consequences for U.S. farm exports and cause an immediate and a substantial rise in food prices. 

In other words, we must tread very carefully here. 

I hope this hearing will help us explore ways to dramatically increase utilization of the existing agricultural guest worker program, known as H–2A. H–2A’s problems are well documented, and 

I expect we will hear more about those problems today. But if H– 

2A cannot be improved, we should scrap it in favor of a broader 

guest worker program that really works. 

Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to work with you and with agricultural employers in Texas and across the country and with anyone 

else who is attempting in good faith to solve these difficult problems. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

worked for 10 years now trying to come up with a solution to the 

diminution of agricultural labor in this country, and during that 

period of time, what I have seen is the outsourcing of American agriculture to other countries. What I have seen is a diminution in 

the amount of value of the American agricultural crop. I will give 

you an example. 

California is the largest farm State in America. In 2008, it was 

a $39 billion plus industry. In 2009, it dropped to $34.5 billion. We 

have 81,500 farms, and people cannot get consistent and stable 

labor. It is a killer, ladies and gentlemen, an absolute killer, and 

it has been going on for years. 

I am announcing my intent to introduce next week a 5-year 

emergency AgJOBS bill. There will be no amnesty. There will be 

no citizenship. But what it will provide is a blue card to an agricultural worker who has met certain criteria to be able to remain in 

the country with his family provided that individual works agriculture a certain number of days a year. It will have a phase-in everify, and it will have the reformed H–2A program as part of it. 

And by the reform program, I mean the program that was negotiated between the growers and the farm workers. 

Let me give you a few examples of what is happening. Steve 

Scaroni of Scaroni Ranches was in the lettuce and broccoli industry 

for over three decades. He moved more than 2,000 acres and 500 

jobs from his $50 million operation in Heber, California, to Guadalajara, Mexico, as a result of the labor crisis. He explains: ‘‘I have 

6 

no choice but to offshore my operation.’’ Today he exports 2 million 

pounds of lettuce per week to the United States. 

Mel-Delin Dairy, a 250-acre farm with 900 cows in Turlock. The 

family farm has been employing migrant labor for 20 years. Ray 

Sousa, owner of Mel-Delin Dairy, states, ‘‘I have not had a non-Hispanic want to do this work in 10 years. Once Americans get the 

job description, they lose interest real quick.’’ 

Phil Martin, an agricultural economist at the University of California-David, reiterates this point. He says, and I quote, ‘‘A whole 

lot of 18-year-olds prefer to work at McDonald’s for minimum wage 

rather than milk cows.’’ And that is despite the dairy industry’s average wage of $11.38 an hour. That tells you something, ladies and 

gentlemen. 

California garlic and pepper farmer Tim Ciala says that the local 

labor supply has been tight and the production of California peppers has largely transferred to Mexico. The Cialas are third-generation California farmers. Mr. Ciala says, and I quote, ‘‘Labor is always an issue. We might have all the people we need to harvest 

the crop 1 week and then not the next. Unfortunately, even in 

tough economic times, there are not a lot of people who want to do 

this work. It is hard work.’’ 

The produce grown on Mr. Ciala’s family farm is distributed to 

companies nationally for use in sauces, soups, pasta sauces, and 

other consumer goods. However, Mr. Ciala observed that the industry is changing due to the labor shortage. Smaller fruits and vegetables and anything labor intensive is going away and does not get 

planted anymore. 

Asparagus plantings in California’s Imperial Valley have declined from 786 acres in 2006 to 373 acres in 2008, a reduction of 

over 50 percent. Ayron Moiola of the Imperial Valley Vegetable 

Growers Association predicts that California’s asparagus crops will 

disappear completely in the Imperial Valley if the demand for specialized asparagus planters and harvesters is not met. According to 

Ms. Moiola, asparagus in the Imperial Valley is an indicator as to 

what happens with crops that are labor intensive and what happens when labor becomes unfeasible economically and also just 

hard to find. 

The United States Department of Agriculture data show that 

over 9,000 acres of U.S. garlic crops have gone out of production 

in the last 11 years, and the supply of American grown garlic has 

been reduced by 94 million pounds. China—big surprise—has surpassed the United States as the lead supplier of garlic consumed 

by Americans. We are giving away our industry. 

John Reelhorn runs the Belmont Nursery in Fresno, California, 

a family run company founded in 1942. California’s nursery and 

floral crop industry is valued at about $4 billion, making California 

the top producer of nursery greenhouse plants and trees in the 

United States. Despite the recession, Mr. Reelhorn has not seen 

American workers pursuing jobs on California farms. He states, 

and I quote, ‘‘A lack of timely and thoughtful resolution of the farm 

labor crisis will hasten the offshoring of our specialty crop and livestock agriculture.’’ 

And it goes on and on and on. I have assembled a book that looks 

like this. We have copies. And throughout this whole book are stoVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7 

ries from other States of the demise of American agriculture, 

which, while we fiddle and sit here, agriculture goes offshore. And 

the good produce that my State used to perform, superior to virtually anything, is no longer around. It is wrong. It is just plain 

wrong. 

I do not understand why people in this body cannot come together. All right? People do not want amnesty. They do not want 

to provide citizenship. So there is an alternative. The alternative 

is a 5-year bill allowing people who have been working to continue 

to work-60 seconds—so that we can begin to restore our agricultural industry in the United States of America. If we fail to do 

that, for shame, we really do not belong in this office. And I feel 

that to the depths of me. Of course, it has been 10 years of trying, 

and my frustration is a little high at the moment, but thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for your heartfelt and outstanding testimony and, even more importantly, for your leadership on this issue where hopefully we can make some progress. 

Let me now introduce our first panel and thank all of them for 

coming. Gary Black is the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Agriculture, a position he was elected to in 2010. He first 

began his career with the Georgia Farm Bureau in 1980, was field 

rep, later served as coordinator for the State Young Farmer Program. In 1989, leaders of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, a 

Chamber of Commerce-like organization for farmers and ag business owners tapped Mr. Black to serve as president, a position he 

held for 21 years before being elected agriculture commissioner. 

Tom Nassif is president and chief executive officer of the Western Growers Association, an agricultural trade association whose 

members from Arizona and California pack, grow, and ship 90 percent of the fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in California 

and 75 percent of the commodities in Arizona. Under President 

Reagan, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Near East 

and South Asian Affairs and as Ambassador to the King of Morocco. 

Bob Smith is senior vice president of at Farm Credit East, the 

largest agricultural lender to agriculture in New York State, with 

$2.2 billion in loans to capitalize farms and farm-related businesses. In addition to providing credit, Farm Credit East also provides other financial services and benchmarking to help farmers 

succeed. 

And Dr. Ronald Knutson is a professor at the Agricultural and 

Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University. He is the author of 

over 600 publications on agricultural policy and marketing, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Farm Foundation, and boards 

of the American Economic Association and Foundation. 

Gentlemen, each of your statements will be read into the record. 

We would respectfully ask you to limit your statements here to 5 

minutes each, and then we will do questions. Thank you all for 

being here. 

Mr. Black, you may proceed, and we will move across the panel 

from your right to left. 

8 

STATEMENT OF GARY W. BLACK, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cornyn, 

members of the Committee, and ladies and gentlemen. It is a genuine honor for me to be here before you Committee today. I am not, 

however, clever enough to offer a sound-bite solution to the important topic under consideration. My purpose is to tell you that the 

need for a stable, legal supply of agricultural workers is real and 

that it impacts our economy and the safety of the food that your 

families and all Americans put on the table every day. 

I am sure that you all know that the Georgia General Assembly 

passed an immigration reform bill during the past legislative session. The law requires the Georgia Department of Agriculture to 

conduct a study of the conditions, needs, issues, and problems associated with the agricultural labor situation in Georgia and to recommend any actions or legislation that the department deems necessary or appropriate. This charge includes recommendations for 

H–2A reform and the evaluation of a potential for a State-run 

guest worker program. 

I am not at liberty today to report on the details of the study at 

this time, but we will be happy to share our findings with the Committee when it is complete in January 2012. However, I can provide you with a snapshot of what is happening with ag labor in 

Georgia today. 

Due to the reports of labor shortages for the spring harvest, Governor Deal asked my department to help evaluate the labor situation in early June. We took a brief, unscientific snapshot of the 

labor situation at that time by conducting a survey of Georgia’s agricultural employers. The survey suggested that there were unmet 

labor needs during the 2011 spring harvest season. Specifically, the 

survey revealed significant concerns among blueberry and fresh 

vegetable producers. However, we must consider additional variables for this past growing season, including unusually high heat 

and lack of rain, which caused an unexpected rush in harvest. But 

the bottom line is that the pool of 230 respondents reported on 

June 10, 2011, that they were not able to fill 11,080 agricultural 

jobs. 

Also in June, at the urging of one of his board members from the 

Vidalia region, I contacted Brian Owens, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, to see if there was anything he 

could do short term to help meet the labor needs of producers. He 

offered to organize a pilot program where farmers could use probationer details to meet their labor needs. Two farmers participated 

in the pilot program and voiced mixed results. Both stated that the 

program could fill niche needs, but should not be relied upon as a 

primary source for field employees. 

The pilot program drew criticism. I do have a unique perspective 

on this issue. I went undercover at a crew on July 6th and picked 

yellow squash for 6 hours, and survived. If the Committee has 

questions about this experience, I would be pleased to answer them 

following the testimony. 

I believe the only viable solution lies in developing a guest worker program for the 21st century. I have listened to farmers for 6 

months. Here is a brief summary of what they are telling me: 

9 

We desire and must have a legal workforce. The H–2A program 

is flawed. I need workers year round. Do Americans want their 

farm products produced here or abroad? I would love to have local 

workers who were drug-free, sober, reliable, and skilled at this 

work. Tell me where I can find them. And the litigious climate fostered by legal services is a burden too heavy to bear. 

Senator Chambliss’ HARVEST Act addresses some of these concerns, and there are other pieces of legislation with good components. Some believe H–2A can be reformed; others believe that the 

brand is damaged and deserves a new logo. What I know is that 

in the near future we must design a program that works for all 

producers, one that is cost-effective and is administered in a way 

more conducive for success. 

Regretfully, a large number of illegal immigrants are working in 

agriculture today. A penalty-based work authorization permit 

should be considered for offenders. Such a measure could require 

substantial monetary fines, an annually renewed biometric permit 

supported by fees that is restricted for agriculture, and then strict 

employer enforcement after implementation. 

The proposal to move guest worker administration to USDA has 

promise. I urge consideration of allowing States to work under 

MOUs for administration of any new program at the State level. 

These relationships work well for FDA, EPA, and USDA in other 

arenas. Why not let Georgians help Georgians when it comes to administering guest workers so long as the State meets requirements 

established and monitored by Federal authorities. 

Sunday evening on Baltimore’s gridiron the choices were simple: 

the Ravens or the Jets, one or the other. Sunday afternoon fans 

cheered 43 veterans and rookies at Dover’s Monster Mile. Herein 

lies a parallel to this debate. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that 

the NASCAR approach to developing a 21st century guest worker 

program for American agriculture is what we need. It will take a 

multitude of fresh ideas to solve this problem while keeping our 

National defense and food security interests in sharp focus. We can 

continue to go around and around for a while, but my hope is that 

we can soon take a victory lap together. We cannot put off addressing this critical issue any longer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Black. 

Mr. Nassif. 

STATEMENT OF TOM NASSIF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, IRVINE, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NASSIF. Chairman Schumer, good morning, Ranking Member 

Cornyn and members of the Committee. A special thank you to 

Senator Feinstein, with whom I have had the pleasure of working 

over the last 10 years on immigration reform, for her tremendous 

efforts to bring bipartisan solutions and bringing employers and 

labor unions together to try and find a solution. Western Growers 

represents California and Arizona fresh produce. It is about half of 

all the produce grown in the United States. 

10 

Studies conducted by the University of California-Davis demonstrate that every California agricultural job creates two nonfarms jobs in our economy, and every farm dollar generates $1.27 

for the California economy. Nationwide, the Department of Labor 

reported that 24 million jobs, a full 14 percent of all people employed in the United States, are supported by the U.S. food and 

fiber industry. 

Today I am here to talk about a labor crisis. This is not a new 

challenge for agriculture. We have been working to secure a legal 

workforce for more than 15 years. But without immigration reform 

and with a diminishing labor supply and threats due to I–9 audits 

and ICE raids, coupled with e-verify legislation at the State and 

Federal levels, it is clear that U.S. agriculture will be decimated 

without a workable mechanism to provide the workers we need. 

Even before the challenge of e-verify legislation, the need for a 

workable agriculture labor program, especially for our current experienced workforce, could not have been clearer. 

In California, a State with no e-verify legislation pending, and 

across the country, agricultural employers are facing an increasingly difficult time finding a sufficient legal workforce. Western 

Growers recently polled our members: 62 percent said they are experiencing labor shortages today. 

The existing challenges we face in securing a stable workforce 

will pale in comparison to the devastating impact of e-verify legislation in the absence of a workable labor program. 

The trends in California are startling. Our members and other 

specialty crop producers across the country are looking to foreign 

countries as they make plans to expand their businesses and will 

create additional jobs abroad, stimulating their economies. 

In the absence of a workable ag labor program for those presently employed in our industry, e-verify not only promotes the 

movement offshore of what was once U.S. production, it is a jobs 

killer for rural America. 

Right now, the only program available to secure a legal workforce is the H–2A program. H–2A is presently used by only 2 to 3 

percent of agriculture, and even then, the just released nationwide 

study of H–2A users commissioned by the National Council of Agricultural Employers that was presented to the House Subcommittee 

on Workforce Protections last month reports that 72 percent of 

workers arrived late, on average, 22 days after the date of need. 

Crops must be harvested when they are ready to pick, not when 

they are ready to wilt. 

In order to move us closer to a solution to meet our labor needs, 

we must consider a new approach to an employee visa program. 

The number of visas would be determined by the number of employer requests for workers on a monthly or annual basis and could 

vary year to year based on market conditions. 

Senator Feinstein has come up with many solutions, and I am 

anxious to see what her new legislation looks like because her past 

legislation has looked very good to our industry. 

A workable program would also provide farm workers with the 

same protections, no more, no less, than U.S. workers with respect 

to all employment-related laws and employment taxes. There 

11 

would be no reason for an employer to prefer a temporary foreign 

worker over a U.S. worker. 

It is also imperative that this program address not only the need 

for future employees, but also the need to retain our experienced 

employees, the people who are already here. They are highly 

skilled employees we depend upon to keep us competitive by maximizing efficiencies through their experience and their training. 

If there are indeed 1.2 million or more falsely documented workers in agriculture and they were no longer able to work, then the 

two non-farm jobs that support them would also be lost. This is a 

potential loss of 3.6 million jobs in agriculture, most of which will 

be done and are being done today by citizens of the United States. 

With less domestic production, more food will have to be imported, 

compromising the safety and security of our food supply since only 

1 to 2 percent of imported food is inspected. 

There is not a person in the country that is not connected to this 

problem. If you eat fresh produce, drink milk, grill steaks, or purchase plants for your yard, you are benefiting from the hard work 

of a foreign agricultural worker. 

On behalf of Western Growers and the produce industry across 

the Nation, I am appreciative of this Committee’s willingness to examine the labor crisis facing U.S. agriculture. We look forward to 

rewriting immigration policy for agriculture with you. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nassif appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Nassif. 

And now my fellow New Yorker, Mr. Smith, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SMITH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

FARM CREDIT EAST, COBLESKILL, NEW YORK 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Schumer and 

members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on agricultural labor-related issues. My name is Robert A. 

Smith; I am senior vice president with Farm Credit East. 

While there are many significant risks that family farms face, 

the concern with maintaining a stable labor supply is a risk factor 

with which our farmer members are most concerned. Many successful, forward-looking operations that have positioned themselves for 

decades for growth opportunities that could create more American 

jobs are holding back over concern with immigration enforcement 

actions and the possibility of mandatory e-verify. 

The reality is that over the past two decades, farmers have come 

to rely on immigrant workers who present the necessary identity 

and work authorization documents and are then employed under 

the same Federal and State terms as other workers. 

We believe this is a jobs and food security issue. If as a country 

we fail to find a workable solution to enable labor-intensive agriculture to maintain the necessary workforce, we will see another 

part of our economy move offshore where barriers to entry for new 

agricultural enterprises are minimal. To some degree we need to 

ask ourselves, Do we prefer to have our food produced domestically 

with the use of some foreign labor or in other countries with foreign labor for all of the jobs? 

12 

To better understand this issue, we prepared a vulnerability assessment to estimate the economic impact of the loss of alien workers on farms in our six-State area, based upon the assumption that 

an estimated 70 percent or more of them provide work authorization documents that appear to be but are not legitimate. 

Our analysis indicates that a labor shortage as a result of effective immigration enforcement actions without improved agricultural worker programs would have the following impact: 

Approximately 1,732 Northeast farms are highly vulnerable to 

going out of business or being forced to severely cut back their operations. 

These highly vulnerable farms are some of the most productive 

in the region; their total sales of farm product are estimated to exceed $2.4 billion, or 36 percent of the value of the region’s agricultural output. 

Next, 20,212 full-time and 29,894 seasonal positions on farms 

would be eliminated if those highly vulnerable farms go out of business. The reduction in the farm payrolls is estimated to be $528 

million annually. This means significantly less spending and economic activity in local communities as funds generated do not 

churn through the economy as they currently do. 

The highly vulnerable farms operate over 1.1 million acres. If 

these farms were to cease operations, some of the acreage might 

switch into less intensive agriculture, but thousands of acres would 

potentially be converted to non-agricultural uses. 

The economic impact of the loss of 1,700 farms goes well beyond 

the farm gate. We estimate that 55,311 off-farm jobs in agriculturally related businesses in the Northeast could be impacted. Many, 

if not most, of these positions are full-time jobs held by local citizens. These are positions with agricultural marketing and processing businesses, farm suppliers, and farm service businesses. 

As noted in our analysis, some of the farms that we consider 

highly vulnerable will survive in agriculture, but shift to less labor 

intensive farm operations. Clearly one of the great attributes of 

American agriculture is our production diversity. With this shift 

away from labor-intensive crops will come significantly reduced employment and payroll. 

Census data analysis indicates that the labor expense to grow 

1,000 acres of grain is $31,980, the labor cost for 1,000 acres of 

vegetables is $355,000, and the labor cost for 1,000 acres of fruit 

is $922,000. These are at-risk payrolls that impact on local economic activity. 

An enhanced enforcement-only approach without an effective 

alien worker program to provide a legal workforce for agriculture 

is counterproductive to efforts to reduce unemployment. It will 

mean that American citizens involved in the food chain will be unemployed and more consumer dollars will flow out of the United 

States to purchase products that could have been grown in the 

United States. 

In closing, we all support efforts to secure our Nation’s borders 

and control entry of alien workers on America’s terms. A critical 

part of that solution must be a workable program for agriculture 

that meets those objectives while providing America’s farms with 

a reliable source of experienced farm labor. 

13 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Knutson. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD D. KNUTSON, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

EMERITUS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION, 

TEXAS 

Mr. KNUTSON. Chairman Schumer and Senator Cornyn and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on farm labor policy. 

As emeriti professors from Texas A&M University, Dr. Fisher 

and I have researched the agriculture economic conditions that 

make the farm labor situation unique. Dr. Fisher has served as a 

farm labor specialist in Oregon, Michigan, and New York. We concluded that the current H–2A program is broken. Agriculture needs 

a much better solution. 

Reform of labor policy is essential. If farm labor is not available 

on a timely basis, large quantities of fruits and vegetables will be 

wasted. About 1 million farm workers are primarily employed to 

produce fruits, vegetables, and nursery crops. At least 61 percent 

of the farm workers are unauthorized. 

There are several myths regarding the economics of agriculture 

and the farm labor workforce. These myths can mislead individuals 

who seek solutions to farm labor problems. 

The first myth is that farm labor is readily available from the 

non-farm labor force. This is not true. Experience indicates that 

there are many farm jobs that non-farm laborers cannot or will not 

do. This was the central conclusion of a study completed by USDA 

and the University of California. Back-breaking hand labor is essential for harvesting most perishable fruits and vegetables. 

These are jobs that must be performed on a timely basis, or food 

is wasted and farm income declines. Waiting for a work permit to 

be issued under the H–2A program is not a viable option. This is 

the principal reason most farmers do not use the program. 

A second major myth is that large corporate agribusiness firms 

employ most of the farm labor. This is not true. In 2009, 2.2 million 

farmers were family farms, and only 61,000 were non-family farms. 

Over 46,000 family farms having less than $250,000 in sales were 

organized as corporations. Likewise, all types and sizes of farms, 

including small farms, utilize farm labor. In 2009, 16 percent of the 

labor utilized on small farms having $10,000 to $250,000 in sales 

was hired farm labor. These farms would be particularly adversely 

affected by actions that limit the availability of hired farm labor. 

A third myth is that farmers could pass on the increased hired 

farm labor cost to buyers. This is not true. Farm prices are determined nationally and globally by competitive forces. Mexico, Peru, 

Chile, Argentina, and South Africa are major sources of fruit and 

vegetable supplies for U.S. consumers. Chinese exports of apples 

have risen from near zero in the early 1990s to nearly double U.S. 

apple exports. Farmers whose operations are disrupted by changes 

in labor policies and costs increasingly run the risk of financial failure. In 2007, USDA determined that 20 percent to 40 percent of 

14 

the farms in each farm type were in an unfavorable financial position. Higher labor costs will contribute to higher imports, reduced 

exports, and farm financial failures. 

Our fourth myth is that large agribusiness firms are directly involved in farm production that utilizes large amounts of farm labor. 

This is not true. Agribusiness corporations that produce farm commodities are the exception rather than the rule. 

Our fifth myth is that there is a national farm labor market and 

that farm labor shortages are not real. This is not true. In fact, 

farm labor markets are local and are dispersed throughout the 

United States. 

The fact that the H–2A program accounts for only less than 5 

percent of the hired farm labor workforce indicates that the immigration program is broken. It is time to replace the H–2A with a 

more flexible market-oriented program. Such a program must be 

attractive to current workers; farmers must be able to attest to 

their labor needs; farmers must be able to change their hired farm 

labor workforce on a timely basis; and there must be flexibility for 

workers to shift among farmers. 

A more healthy American diet will require increased production 

of fruits and vegetables. Farm labor policies involving a higher 

level of Government regulation would lead to fewer jobs and increased fruit and vegetable imports. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knutson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Dr. Knutson. And now we will 

go to questions. We are going to limit it to 5 minutes per member. 

My question first, a simple yes-or-no answer if you can give it, 

to each of the panelists: Do you think our agricultural labor crisis 

in your region or State can be fixed without legalizing the current 

workforce? 

Mr. NASSIF. Absolutely no. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No? Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Dr. Knutson. 

Mr. KNUTSON. No. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Black. 

Mr. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, if legalizing means providing a work 

permit, that is the way I interpret that rule. We must have a viable guest worker program for agriculture. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is one way of legalizing, absolutely. 

OK. Thank you. Let the record show all four did not believe it 

could happen without legalizing in some way or other the current 

workforce. 

Next question, this is for Mr. Black, Commissioner Black. I 

talked about two articles in my opening statement where the agriculture commissioner of Alabama stated that the Alabama law 

would have an adverse impact on the farm economy. There were 

similar statements from Brian Tolar, your successor at the Georgia 

Ag Business, who estimated the monetary loss of unharvested 

crops due to the lack of immigrant workers to be in the range of 

$300 million, with an overall adverse impact on the State of Georgia approaching $1 billion. Do you basically agree with Mr. Tolar’s 

estimates? 

15 

Mr. BLACK. Well, the estimates were really premature, and, Senator, there are some new studies. We are looking at some of those 

figures right now. Mr. Tolar’s group and about five others engaged 

in this study. The preliminary numbers that I saw this morning 

were somewhere in the neighborhood of about $150 million. So the 

economic losses were real. 

This year, I would say it was more of an impact of the fear of 

the law rather than the law itself because there were some deadlines that were simply not—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. So you would say they are very significant but not as high as the initial estimate. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir, that is correct. That is what is being aired 

right now. 

Chairman SCHUMER. OK. Thank you. 

Next question, and this one is for Mr. Nassif. Can you please 

give us a short verdict specifically on whether Arizona’s new everify law has helped or hurt farmers to find American farm workers in Arizona? Some have suggested that mandatory e-verify will 

create 7 million jobs for American citizens. What do you think this 

legislation will do for the agricultural economy based on the experience that is occurring in Arizona? 

Mr. NASSIF. Certainly in Arizona it has not helped the agricultural industry. It has been very difficult to find workers in Arizona. 

We tried going to the Department of Labor and asking for a simple 

fix that would allow us to bring those who live on the other side 

of the border, because Yuma is on the border, across to be able to 

work in our fields. And we said they do not want to have housing. 

If they want housing, let us provide housing for those that want 

it. But if they do not want housing, do not make us spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for this housing. None of those workers use the housing. The Department said, ‘‘I am sorry. We do not 

think we have the authority to be able to change that.’’ Well, every 

time we get a new administration in, they find some way of changing the regulations on H–2A. This would be a modest fix that 

would not hurt anybody. The worker would have the right to say 

yes or no outside of the hearing of the employer, but even small 

changes like that they are unwilling to do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But you agree that this e-verify imposition 

in Arizona has hurt agriculture significantly. 

Mr. NASSIF. It certainly has. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And the contrast with California, where 

there are still plenty of troubles, as my colleague has indicated, but 

it is considerably worse in Arizona right now? 

Mr. NASSIF. Of course, in California we have no e-verify, and we 

still have shortages. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. A final question for Mr. Smith. Many 

of our farmers in the Northeast, they love farming. It has been in 

their family for generations. But the profits are razor thin, if existent at all. How would raising labor costs, even by relatively small 

amounts, affect so many of our family farmers in the Northeast? 

Mr. SMITH. It would have a major impact, a major negative impact. The truth of the matter is that on many of our farms, labor 

is a major portion of the cost; 20, 30 percent of their total production often for Northeast farms goes to labor. So you have a 10-,

16 

15–, 20-percent increase, that puts them in many cases in a nonviable situation. They just simply do not have the profit levels to 

survive that kind of situation. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. My time is up. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Black, can you explain what an employer 

is required to do by current law to determine whether someone can 

legally work at their workplace? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I have had many farmers report to me, Senator, over time that if they are presented with documentation that 

appears to be authentic, that is, completion of the I–9 and that 

kind of documentation, that there comes a real challenge of the 

farmer’s inability to question the authenticity. 

Senator CORNYN. And I think, Mr. Nassif, you mentioned that 

you think about 70 percent—or I think maybe Mr. Smith, about 70 

percent are falsely documented? 

Mr. SMITH. I said that, yes. 

Senator CORNYN. So just so we are correct, current Federal law 

requires an employer to do their best to try to confirm the legal eligibility of somebody to work, but under the current system, somebody can falsely claim a legal work status in the United States 

and, frankly, we do not expect employers to be the police or to do 

the Federal Government’s job. They accept those documents at face 

value and, unfortunately, in a majority of cases, they end up being 

false. 

So it strikes me that we might be able to find a sweet spot here 

for people who are concerned about finding a legal workforce and 

also address what I think ought to come first, and that is, the concerns from the American people that the Federal Government is 

simply not doing its job enforcing the law. In other words, I think 

what we might be able to do—and, frankly, I think that Congressman Smith’s e-verify bill may have brought us to this place. The 

threat of accurate confirmation of the eligibility or ineligibility of 

a prospective worker has brought us to the place where maybe we 

might be able to address a bill something like Senator Feinstein 

and others have proposed to create a legal workforce and not a 

pathway to citizenship. I think that could well be progress. 

But I am intrigued, Mr. Black, by your testimony where you say 

the Federal Government does not necessarily need to administer a 

temporary worker program that would actually work, unlike the 

current H–2A program, but could create one and then delegate the 

actual implementation to the States through an MOU for the dayto-day responsibilities of administering the program. You talked 

about how that relationship currently exists in an area like environmental enforcement and food safety regulations. Could you put 

a little meat on the bone and tell me how you think that might 

work? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. I have looked to the successes of our agency 

when it comes to implementation of food safety laws, to implementation of pesticide labeling laws, the wide range of issues that, and 

quite frankly, I am a pretty big proponent that there are many 

things the States can do perhaps more economically, and also closer to home. If the Federal Government could give us the rules to 

live by, could audit the systems, provide the standards, provide the 

17 

training, perhaps return Federal tax resources to help support the 

program like they do with other initiatives, I think the idea is worthy of consideration. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I hope federalism is not dead and that we 

recognize that the States are completely competent to administer 

many of these programs, and it does not have to be done nationally, and there could also be some flexibility associated with regional differences. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Senator CORNYN. Dr. Knutson, let me ask you, when the unemployment rate is so high, why will unemployed non-farm workers 

not take certain farm jobs? In some States H–2A wages are 30 percent higher than the Federal minimum wage. That is almost $9.50 

an hour. Why is ag labor so different? 

Mr. KNUTSON. This is a very puzzling issue. It is true that agriculture is a back-breaking job; it requires you get down on your 

hands and knees and so forth and so on. I happen to feel that Federal policies regarding unemployment compensation may well be 

contributing to this issue. The more you extend the period, the less 

incentive there is for these people to take farm jobs. 

Now, that certainly is not the only explanation, but it is the only 

one I have not heard mentioned and talked about. Now, that is a 

highly political statement, I recognize that fact. But I think it is 

something that needs to be researched as to what kinds of disincentives are developed by our current Federal policies to get 

American citizens employed in agriculture. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. 

Knutson. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I drove down Highway 1 in the Castroville 

area, Mr. Chairman, and I would say the temperature was about 

95, 96 degrees, and I watched row crops being harvested. And I 

will tell you, I would not last 10 minutes out there doing that kind 

of work. It is extraordinary difficult, and it is not true that these 

are unskilled workers. They are skilled workers. You watch their 

hands. You watch them pick. You know how they pick. You watch 

them prune. And it is precise because there is knowledge there. So 

I have come to have a great respect for people who have the stamina and the ability to be able to do these jobs. 

Now, I have also come to the conclusion that Americans do not, 

and do not want to have the stamina and do not want to do those 

jobs. But people who do I think should. 

Now, I wanted to ask a question about e-verify. Senator Leahy 

and I wrote a letter to Ali Mayorkas, who is Director of the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and we asked him 

about the potential use of the program within the ag industry, and 

he wrote back to us, and he said, you know, the usual, that it is 

designed to provide simple, convenient employment verification, 

and lack of computer access in remote areas could be managed 

through the use of e-verify employer agents. There are companies 

that run e-verify queries on behalf of other employers for a fee 

since EEAs design and build their own software to interface with 

e-verify using an access method known as web services. The bottom 

line is he said this could be worked out. 

18 

But, on the other hand, if my bill were in law, you would have 

a counterfeit-proof blue card which would have biometric data in 

it, which seems to me to be equal to e-verify. Let me ask everybody 

what they would think of that. Mr. Black, and we will go right 

down the row. 

Mr. BLACK. Senator, I do not know about the comparison of the 

two, but as I stated in my testimony, absolutely a biometric card 

I believe is actually the direction we need to go. Now, how that fits 

into the actual logistics of e-verify I am not—I would not want 

to—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, it would be an option. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Tom. 

Mr. NASSIF. We believe that is a very viable solution, Senator. 

Mr. SMITH. Senator, it seems like that would work. It is just important that the existing workforce be able to be included as part 

of the eligible workforce. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right, right. 

Mr. KNUTSON. I agree with the concept. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. So that is one way of doing it that does 

not disadvantage the farmer that does not have computer knowledge. You know, I am not of the computer generation. I sort of 

managed to do without it, surprisingly, yes, and I find it challenging to learn. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In any event, going back to the bill, I think 

most of you know about the H–2A reforms in the bill, but one thing 

I want to ask you about, yes or no, is: Would you put a 5-year limit 

on it? Now, again, this has no amnesty and no pathway to citizenship. Would you put a 5-year limit on it or would you have no 

limit? Mr. Black. 

Mr. BLACK. Your 5-year notion, it is certainly something we 

would love to talk about. I think that is a good idea. It is a good 

place to start, yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. OK. Tom. 

Mr. NASSIF. While we would prefer a permanent resolution of 

this issue, we would certainly support a pilot program of 5 years 

in order to find out how well it works or does not work, and then 

hopefully that would be a blueprint for future legislation. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand the need for the 5-year limit or at least 

the viableness of the 5-year limit, but would prefer a permanent solution because that allows farmers to really make the investments 

that they need to do. If they are going to expand markets, going 

to grow agriculture in this country, you need a permanent solution 

over time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. KNUTSON. What I really worry about is the impact on smaller farms. I think that smaller farms have a real difficult time coming to grips with the technology involved in communication with 

Government agencies at this point in time. And I am not saying 

they are computer illiterate necessarily, but it is a difficult process. 

So I worry that you are going to put a lot of small farms out of 

business. 

19 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, my 5-year bill would not have e-verify. 

It would have a counterfeit-proof card. 

Mr. KNUTSON. Well, if you are talking about—I thought you said 

that you were putting in e-verify. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We are looking at putting it in, but the alternative—I am trying—— 

Mr. KNUTSON. I agree with the alternative, but when it comes to 

e-verify, it seems to me that the impact on small farms—and by 

small farms I mean less than $250,000 in sales—would be very adverse. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you gentlemen agree to—do you oppose e-verify for this purpose? 

Mr. BLACK. Do I oppose e-verify? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is right. 

Mr. BLACK. E-verify is a real problem without the fix and a viable guest worker program, yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Tom. 

Mr. NASSIF. Our position has been and is that we do not oppose 

border security, employer sanctions, enforcement of the laws, everify, so long as we have a viable program for maintaining our 

present workforce and for bringing in new employees. 

Mr. SMITH. E-verify without a worker program would just create 

devastation in agriculture, so you need a worker program. But keep 

in mind e-verify creates unfairness out there. The reality is that 

farmers have hired people, have looked for the documentation. 

They have gotten that documentation. And now we are going to go 

back, after those workers have been there 10 or 15 years, and say 

now you lose your workers? That is unfair. Those farmers have invested millions of dollars, have viable farms out there, using at 

that point in time what was appropriate. They provided the identity information to the farm business. They accepted it. They have 

to accept it. And they were hired. And now those workers are experienced workers that are needed on farms. 

So, you know, there is a lot of unfairness there. If we are going 

to do e-verify, we have to have a viable worker program. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. Mr. Knutson. 

Mr. KNUTSON. I agree with that statement. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. I think the record shows that 

without significant changes, every one of the witnesses agrees that 

e-verify would not work. Just standing on its own, making it permanent would not work for agriculture. OK. 

Senator Grassley had to leave, so without objection, I will ask 

that his statement be put into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now we have Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Thank you 

for holding this hearing, which I think addresses a very, very important subject for the entire country, not just for your areas. 

Let me begin with Commissioner Black because you have a background not only in this area of providing verification of workers 

and so forth, but also food safety. I wonder if you could tell us how 

these requirements in terms of e-verify and the H–2A requirements 

20 

impact safety, particularly at the local level, where you have implemented projects and requirements that are innovative and evidently successful. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, Senator. I really believe it becomes a question— 

and Senator Feinstein did mention it earlier—as to whether we 

want the product produced here or abroad. I think we have Americans that want local production of food. I am seeing citizens of 

Georgia every day becoming more engaged in the fact that food production is as important a component of national security as anything else we do. They also recognize that we have had some challenges with our energy production and where that is coming from, 

and they do not want that to happen with our food. 

Therefore, we are at a very important crossroads. We must have 

an agricultural guest worker program that works for all producers, 

for without that labor we will continue to see production drift elsewhere. And I do not think that is acceptable. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And food coming from elsewhere may not 

be subject to the same scrutiny and oversight and—— 

Mr. BLACK. There are some challenges there, and we have even 

our own FDA challenges and border challenges of being able to inspect where that is coming from. It is a free and open global market, but I think for our economy, for jobs locally, and for that 

wholesomeness of locally produced or at least nationally produced 

food, our citizens expect us to put together a program to allow that 

to happen. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So it is not just an issue of price or cost. 

It is also the potential safety of food coming from abroad if it is not 

produced here, and also the ability to control what the standards 

are applied when there is sufficient oversight at the local level 

through these—— 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir, and I would maybe venture to say this 

also—there is a cost to doing this, but there is a cost to not doing 

it. One of the costs to not doing it is a price I do not think we can 

pay. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I gather all of you support the food 

safety goals and standards that come with production in this country as opposed to importing from abroad. Is that correct? The 

record will note that I think they all—all the witnesses agree. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Smith, because you come from a part of the 

country that borders on Connecticut, are there any regional differences particular to the Northeast that make us different so far 

as this subject is concerned? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Senator. It is good to see you. And we do 

serve farmers in Connecticut, and we have a number of offices in 

the State of Connecticut. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And you do great work, and we appreciate 

it. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Yes, some States are certainly more vulnerable to labor shortages than other States as an overall industry. 

Industries that have labor-intensive agriculture—fruits, vegetables, 

dairy, nursery/greenhouse—are going to be more vulnerable to potential changes in labor than in other States. In the Northeast, a 

very high level of those production, Connecticut is the third most 

vulnerable State in the Nation when it comes to labor shortage if 

21 

you look at it from the standpoint of the amount of labor cost as 

it relates to the total production in the State. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And are there differences among the 

crops, the kinds of crops produced that make us particularly susceptible? 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. Again, greenhouse/nursery products—and 

Connecticut is very big in greenhouse/nursery, dairy, fruits and 

vegetables. We have got a number of great apple orchards and 

wineries in Connecticut, all vulnerable to not having adequate 

labor due to immigration enforcement efforts. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. My time has expired, but this 

has been a very, very valuable panel, and I want to thank the 

Chairman again for having this hearing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and I 

thank the witnesses. Exactly right. 

Senator Sessions, do you have some questions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, the first thing I would suggest to you is that the first 

priority is what is in the national interest, what is in the interest 

of the United States, and the United States has a powerful interest 

in a lawful system of immigration. 

Second, I would suggest to you, you are not entitled to an unlimited amount of low-cost labor even if that is your desire. The world 

is filled with people who could get rich if they had a very high level 

of low-skilled or low-wage workers. So that is the problem we have 

got. 

The proposals that were made previously in the AgJOBS bill— 

and hopefully, if Senator Feinstein offers more, it will be better, 

but if it is not different, if it not going to pass. And that legislation 

had people coming for 3 years with their families, being able to extend for another 3 years, I think another 3 years indefinitely. By 

then they have children. Somebody said, well, we no longer need 

you, you should go home, you create a social problem of real great 

worth. 

I believe a guest worker program can be crafted that would be 

passable and would serve the national interest. I cannot see it 

being anything other than staying less than 1 year and without 

families for agricultural workers. 

I do believe that farmers can find employees that work on their 

farms from American citizens. That is the advantage. What our 

Nation should seek to do is to create a situation that would reduce 

food stamps, which have tripled in the last 10 years, gone up 300 

percent. We have got other welfare programs and unemployment 

insurance and the highest unemployment we have had. So, obviously, the national interest says let us use as many of the American workers as we possibly can to fill these needs. 

Do you think that you could be supportive of a plan that allowed 

workers to come for less than a year, to work and to return to their 

country and not place roots and bring families with them? Maybe 

you can give me your opinion of that. Do you want to start, Mr. 

Black? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir, Senator. I tell you, any steps we could take 

to having a viable guest worker program for agriculture in this NaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22 

tion, that is what I am for. We have had some experience with local 

workers—— 

Senator SESSIONS. It is a little more expensive to have to pay 

somebody’s entrance and back and forth for the farmer or the agribusiness and so forth. They would like for the person to be able to 

stay, and that was what was promoted previously. So do you think 

you can live with this kind of system? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, currently under H–2A they do go back and 

forth, and there are provisions for that. I think there is a tremendous bureaucracy that needs to be revamped, and that is why I am 

for actually rebranding this program as opposed to just putting 

duct tape on it again. But, you know, I would love to have some 

more discussions at the proper time and be able to share some experiences about employing local folks. There is no doubt in my 

mind that is an aspiration that every producer I represent would 

love to attain, and I would love for us to get there. I think it is 

a generational issue, and it is not going to be solved in the coming 

months. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am going to push back a little bit. I think 

people are willing to work, but they are not willing to take a job 

for 3 months and then be cast aside with no health care, no benefits, and no job security. So therein that niche lies some justification for a limited, well-managed guest worker program, I think. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And then to the extent we can, bring as many 

citizens into full-time agricultural employment I think is not an unrealistic goal. 

Mr. Nassif. 

Mr. NASSIF. Yes, Senator, thank you very much. If we are talking 

about new workers coming in, first of all, our industry is no longer 

just seasonal. It is not just 3 months. Most of our farms run 12 

months of the year because the people who buy, the retail and food 

service companies, require an adequate, consistent quality and sufficient volume 12 months of the year. So—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you could stagger the—— 

Mr. NASSIF. So our farmers go from region to region so we have 

12 months of the year, and, of course, the more experience they 

have, the more valuable they are. So our preference would not be 

for less than 12 months. And, of course, we would want those new 

employees to be able to return so long as they obey the laws of the 

United States and the State in which they work. It is a wholly different question if we are talking about an existing workforce, but 

I assume you are talking about just new employees and not the existing workforce. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Franken will be next, and I think there is a great interest in this subject shown by the number of seven members have 

shown up, which is a lot for a hearing on a Tuesday morning. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is a very, very important hearing, and 

that is why, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I missed your testimony. I was in an important hearing in the Energy Committee, 

but this is very important to Minnesota. We have the seventh largVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23 

est number of farms in the country as a State, and we have some 

nurseries. 

In fact, Mr. Nassif, last month Joe Bailey, the head of the Minnesota-based Bailey Nurseries testified before the House Education 

and Workforce Subcommittee. Now, Bailey’s is one of the largest 

wholesale nurseries in the country, and Joe voluntarily enrolled his 

company in e-verify, and on top of that he dramatically expanded 

his recruitment efforts. And even then Joe Bailey was short 100 

workers. 

Mr. Nassif, I am curious to know if this is a common experience, 

a farmer going out of his or her way to comply with the law and 

then finding that there is just no way to get enough workers. Is 

that common, in your view? 

Mr. NASSIF. Yes, Senator, it is very common. Senator Feinstein 

has done some extensive studies on this in California to show that 

no matter what you do and how hard you recruit and the advertising you do and the efforts you make, you get very few people to 

respond, and those that respond either will not stay or stay maybe 

a day or two and then leave the fields. The United Farmer Workers 

Union, as you know, made a big effort—Take My Job—and look 

what happened. I think there was something like 10,000 inquiries 

and maybe a couple of people actually worked on a farm. 

There is not any question that we cannot find a legal workforce 

in the United States, and that is why we have programs that allow 

us to go abroad to do that. 

Senator FRANKEN. I was interested in reading your testimony, 

and I read all your testimony last night. You actually have a subheading, ‘‘Steps toward a solution,’’ which caught my eye. 

Mr. NASSIF. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. And I was interested to read about your proposed solution. Can you tell us a little bit more about it? 

Mr. NASSIF. Well, Senator Feinstein, as I understand it, is introducing a new solution next week—— 

Senator FRANKEN. And I am a cosponsor of that. 

Mr. NASSIF [continuing]. Which may be very similar to what we 

are talking about. But basically we are talking about two separate 

programs: one for new employees and one for existing employees. 

And, obviously, it is extraordinarily important that we maintain 

our current workforce because of the experience they have had, the 

loyalty that they have shown, and their ability to produce more per 

acre in harvest than we could retraining new employees and bringing them in. 

So we want to make sure that we have a program that allows 

them to be here legally. We are not asking for any special treatment. We are saying let us have a market-based approach so that 

the new employees coming in versus those who are already here 

versus any legal workforce would all be subject to the same sorts 

of laws. And the way we pay for a program like that is we take, 

for example, Medicare, which they would not be eligible for if they 

are here illegally, and put that money into cities and counties and 

States that have had to pick up the tab for some of this health 

care, take unemployment insurance and put that into the program 

to help offset the cost of administering a program like that, and 

take the Social Security funds, which they are not eligible for and 

24 

which probably have collected hundreds of billions of dollars in Social Security that will never be paid to these farm workers, and put 

that in a fund for them so that when they do return after the end 

of their program to their country of origin, whatever that country 

might be, this would be a savings account for them, and allow us 

to bring the temporary workers in, the new workers in without 

families in the United States to be able to do that work, but be able 

to keep the legal workforce we have. 

We know that, although we have supported ag jobs for a decade, 

the pathway to citizenship, given the political realities, is not going 

to work. So we are suggesting now some program that does not 

necessarily need to a pathway to citizenship but allows them to be 

able to live here in peace and security for their jobs and well-being 

and still be able to benefit the best interests of the United States. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I think whatever we do—and I know I 

am about to be out of time, so I will just—I think whatever we do 

is going to have to be in the context of comprehensive immigration 

reform. But in the meantime, thank you for your solution. 

I would not mind asking more questions a little later, but for 

now thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important 

hearing. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, and we will have a second 

panel, which Senator Franken has graciously agreed to preside 

over since I must be gone. But I want to thank the witnesses for 

excellent testimony that maybe, I think—I do not know if my colleagues would agree—will help us move to a solution to this area 

which cries out for a solution. And I would say from the comments 

of some of my Republican colleagues and some of my Democratic 

colleagues, we may not be that far apart, and we have to come up 

with a solution. The future of agriculture, we have someone from 

the Southwest, someone from the Northeast, someone from the 

West, and someone from the South who all agree we need to do 

something, and simply the advent of e-verify without some solution 

for existing workers does not work. 

So thank you all very much, and we will go on to the second 

panel. I want to thank Senator Franken for chairing the hearing, 

and I want to apologize to the witnesses in the second panel that 

I have been called away and cannot stay. Thanks. 

Senator FRANKEN. [Presiding.] We have three witnesses for our 

second panel, and I would like to introduce them. 

Mr. Rodriguez, who is taking his seat, is the second president of 

United Farm Workers of America. I think we know who the first 

one was. He became UFW president in May 1993 after the death 

of Cesar Chavez, the founder of the UFW. As president of the 

UFW, Mr. Rodriguez represents 30,000 farm workers in ten States 

and fights for workers to earn decent pay, health coverage, and 

protections against toxic poisons. 

Connie Horner is the president of Horner Farms in Homerville, 

Georgia. Horner Farms is a small, family owned organic farm. It 

currently grows blueberries, strawberries, and blackberries, and is 

planning to grow kiwi, grapes, bananas, and raspberries—you are 

shaking your head. Is that misinformation? 

Ms. Horner. Yes, that was from 2 years ago or so. We are now 

primarily blueberries and a nursery. 

25 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Sorry that we had some outdated information, but primarily blueberries, which is what you are going to 

be testifying on anyway. I read your testimony. 

Despite trying to follow the rules, Ms. Horner lost 70 percent of 

her blueberry crop this year even after listing ‘‘Help Wanted’’ notices at three branches of the Georgia Department of Labor. And 

that is accurate, right? 

Ms. HORNER. That was last year. 

Senator FRANKEN. Last year. 

Eric Ruark is the director of research at the Federation for 

American Immigration Reform. At FAIR he provides research and 

drafts for issue briefs, reports, and other publications. He is the author of a report entitled, ‘‘Illegal Immigration and Agribusiness: 

The Effect on the Agriculture Industry of Converting to a Legal 

Workforce.’’ 

Why don’t we start our testimony with Mr. Rodriguez? 

STATEMENT OF ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, UNITED 

FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, KEENE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Franken and 

other members of the Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom 

we have worked closely with throughout the years, for holding this 

hearing and for inviting me here today. 

At the peak of the harvest, more than a million men, women, and 

children were toiling in our Nation’s fields producing our fruits and 

vegetables and caring for our livestock. Yet most Americans have 

the luxury to operate in ignorance or denial about how the food we 

eat gets on our tables every day. 

Quite simply, agriculture in the United States is dependent on 

a hard-working, dedicated, tax-paying, immigrant workforce. We 

believe American agriculture employs about 1.1 million unauthorized workers on crop farms and in livestock, and those workers 

have families. There are over half a million children in the United 

States who have a parent who is an unauthorized farm worker; 70 

percent of these children are U.S. citizens. 

These are facts. It is time for Congress to look beyond the harsh 

rhetoric of the anti-immigrant lobby and their talk show bullies 

and recognize what everyone knows is true: America needs these 

workers. Everyone in this room is directly sustained by farm laborers every day. 

There is another indisputable fact: The life of a U.S. farm worker 

in 2011 is not an easy one. Most farm workers live in poverty, endure poor working conditions, and receive no Government assistance. The simple reason that the agriculture industry depends so 

heavily on immigrants is because undocumented workers take jobs 

many American workers will not do, for pay other American workers will not accept, and under conditions other American workers 

will not tolerate. 

It is not the farm workers’ fault that 15 States do not even provide the basic protection of workers’ compensation for farm workers 

injured at work. 

It is not the farm workers’ fault that more than 70 years after 

Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, farm workers 

26 

still do not have the right to join a union to improve their wages 

and working conditions, except in California. 

It is not the farm workers’ fault that year after year farm labor 

contractors violate the laws with impunity while the growers who 

employ the contractors avoid any responsibility for the workers 

who are abused on their farms. 

We know from a campaign we initiated that was alluded to earlier—‘‘Take Our Jobs! ’’—that it is simply not possible to replace the 

1 million professional farm workers who live and work here without legal status. This is why the enforcement-only strategy to deal 

with the complex issue of immigration puts agriculture on a collision course. 

The sponsor of the e-verify bill in the House, Congressman 

Smith, basically admits that this is true. His answer is yet another 

guest worker program which would bring in another 500,000 workers at a wage rate far lower than the average wage paid to farm 

workers in this country today. While Americans are not going to replace the unauthorized workers, it is all too easy to replace the 

hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. workers who currently work in 

agriculture with guest workers earning less. And that is exactly 

what will happen if the Smith bill or a similar proposal becomes 

law. For months, we have heard that the e-verify bill is a jobs bill 

for American workers, but for the poorest workers in America it 

will turn out to be just another jobs give-away. 

For over 10 years the UFW has sought a bipartisan solution to 

this dilemma, and we have worked very closely with Senator Feinstein. 

Because our current labor force is comprised of professional farm 

workers with essential skills needed to sustain the viability of the 

agricultural industry, AgJOBS would give undocumented farm 

workers presently here the right to earn legal status by continuing 

to work in agriculture. We have had to make many hard compromises to come up with a bill that is supported by both farm 

workers and agricultural employers, and we will remain open to 

new ideas, such as one suggested earlier by Senator Feinstein. 

We want to see a permanent solution for the current farm labor 

force that is here and their families. What we cannot accept is 

compounding the problem by adding yet another exploitative guest 

worker program that does not provide a path to legal status for 

workers already here. It is totally un-American to allow an industry to build near complete reliance on guests. 

In agriculture it is not possible to enforce your way to a legal 

workforce. That goal will only be realized by improving the ability 

of farm workers to earn a living wage and by offering experienced 

immigrant workers a permanent place in this industry. 

We hope that this hearing will lead Congress to see the urgency 

of this issue and the need for a compromise that is faithful to the 

workers here. A failure to do so would be both a human and economic tragedy for our Nation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

27 

Ms. Horner, I apologize for getting some of the information 

wrong in your introduction, but please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF CONNIE HORNER, PRESIDENT, HORNER 

FARMS, INC, HOMERVILLE, GEORGIA 

Ms. Horner. Thank you. Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member 

Cornyn, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members of the Committee, I need your help to continue to do the right thing. I need 

legal, experienced, seasonal workers to maintain my farm and harvest food that helps feed Americans. I want to hire legal workers. 

But the process must be cost-effective and, most important, simple. 

In short, I need your help to make it easier to do the right thing. 

I manage a family owned organic farm. I am one of about 2,000 

United States blueberry farms. Our farm is small, but we share 

many challenges of large farms across Georgia and the Nation. 

In 2006, we hired 67 individuals over the course of the year. 

They were pleasant, productive, and efficient. We later received 

nearly 60 Social Security mismatch letters. Unknown to me, almost 

90 percent of my hires were most likely falsely documented workers. 

This is reality for many growers, but it was unacceptable to us. 

We researched options and found H–2A. In 2007 and 2008, we filed 

joint H–2A contracts with a larger farm. We believed H–2A participation would supply legal, reliable, experienced workers. We were 

wrong. 

After suffering hail damage from a 2009 storm, we needed just 

five additional workers. Department of Labor employees assured us 

that they could fill over 500 farm jobs due to the large number of 

local unemployed Americans. I spent hours on the phone with three 

branches of the Department of Labor begging them for workers. Interested Americans only wanted air-conditioned positions and refused to work outside. About 80 percent of our fruit rotted on the 

bushes. 

Our 2009 DOL experience forced us back to H–2A in 2010. The 

larger farm refused to participate in the program, so we entered 

into our own H–2A contract and brought back the seven best farm 

workers from 2008. We spent more than $12,000 in H–2A non-payroll-related costs. H–2A compliance documentation consumed 14 

reams of paper. That is 1,000 sheets of paper per needed worker. 

H–2A also requires us to hire local workers. In 2010, we sent out 

58 local hire letters. Only 13 people accepted the jobs and came to 

work. Of those, six worked 3 days or less, one lasted longer than 

2 weeks, and none—zero—finished the harvest season. By chance, 

we discovered many of our referred workers were parollees. I will 

not participate in a program that puts my family in unnecessary 

danger. 

I’d guess none of you would choose to be a new surgeon’s first 

patient. Why? Because we all want to deal with experienced, efficient service providers. Farmers are no different. Yet almost all of 

H–2A’s local worker referrals had no farm experience. As a result, 

production suffered and I was drowning in required paperwork instead of working in my fields. 

Our 2010 H–2A nightmare confirmed that the program is not the 

labor answer for American agriculture. I believe H–2A is a wellVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

meaning mess that has turned Government red tape into a crimson 

tide. I want to keep our farm operating, but I need skilled, experienced seasonal labor to make that work. 

So where do we go from here? American agriculture depends on 

skilled, dedicated foreign workers. Few Americans are interested in 

manual labor farm jobs. It is not about wages. It is about choices. 

Americans have job choices, and they choose not to pursue agricultural work. 

E-verify enforcement without labor solutions will cripple American agriculture. For proof, just look at Georgia’s experience this 

year. E-verify should not be the first step in solving this crisis but, 

rather, the final step. 

In short, today’s H–2A would make Rube Goldberg proud. It 

takes a simple task and makes it extremly complicated. We need 

a new 21st century agricultural visa program that is simple to administer and includes current experienced agricultural workers. 

How important is this issue? Imagine a food version of OPEC. 

That is our future if we fail to develop a practical solution to this 

labor crisis and we become dependent on foreign countries for our 

food. 

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today. I believe that 

we can work together and solve this crisis. Then you can get back 

to other pressing issues, and I can get back to farming. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Horner appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Ms. Horner. 

Mr. Ruark. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC A. RUARK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RUARK. Senator Franken, Ranking Member Cornyn, members of this Committee, thank you all very much for the opportunity to testify here today. I am Eric Ruark, director of research 

for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known as 

FAIR. FAIR is a national, nonprofit public interest organization 

representing more than 200,000 members and activists nationwide. 

We have been working for more than 30 years to promote policies 

that will end illegal immigration, restore moderate legal immigration, and to reform our immigration laws to bring them into accord 

with the national interest. I am here today to testify about the employment of illegal workers in the agriculture industry. 

The H–2A visa program was created under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 specifically to allow the agriculture 

industry to transition to a legal workforce. Since then, large commercial farming operations actually have increased their reliance 

on illegal labor. The H–2A program has not been successful because the Federal Government has failed to secure the border and 

to enforce immigration law in the interior. Large commercial farming operations have taken advantage of this laxity, choosing to employ low-wage illegal workers in large numbers, over a million by 

last count if workers on livestock farms are included. 

29 

Representatives lobbying on behalf of commercial farming interests oppose efforts that would result in a conversion to a legal agricultural workforce. They claim that converting to a legal workforce 

is cost prohibitive both for farmers and for consumers, and some 

have said explicitly that without illegal workers, crops would rot in 

the fields. 

No one would dispute that farm work is tough and that picking 

crops is not a job that many Americans would choose to do. But 

that does not mean there are not Americans who are willing to 

work as farm laborers and that fair wages and adequate working 

conditions would not attract more American farm workers. 

In the first quarter of 2011, there were over 28 million workingage American citizens with a high school diploma or less who were 

not in the workforce. It is simply not credible to argue that none 

of these Americans would be willing to do farm work when today 

up to 30 percent of hired farm laborers are American citizens. 

What I have found from examining data from the Department of 

Labor and the Department of Agriculture is that large commercial 

farms are the major employers of illegal workers and can afford to 

pay wages up to 30 percent higher than they currently pay and 

still remain profitable, even if the increases are not passed on to 

the consumers in higher retail food prices. 

Large commercial farming operations are a vital component of 

the Nation’s food supply chain. When considering immigration and 

labor policy, the Federal Government must consider the interests 

of the agriculture industry, but that does not mean that the interests of the agriculture industry should trump the interests of the 

American public. Nor should they be allowed to continue to enjoy 

profits while depending on a low-wage, mostly illegal workforce. 

Now, I want to underline this point. There are those who are 

profiting from hiring illegal farm workers while the economic and 

social costs of illegal immigration are passed on to the American 

people. 

Yes, if illegal workers were replaced with legal workers, profit 

margins would be reduced, and it is likely that food prices would 

increase. But these increases in consumer prices would be very 

small, which has been demonstrated by other researchers. And I 

believe that Americans would be willing to add a few dollars to 

their weekly grocery bill if they knew that this was the result of 

farm workers being paid a living wage. 

To argue that our food supply is dependent upon the use of illegal workers should raise some very fundamental questions, particularly the ways in which the men and women who pick our crops 

are treated by their employers. There is an essentially moral question that underlies this discussion that we cannot dismiss simply 

by talking about price points or global competitiveness. 

If we as Americans want to have an honest food system that has 

integrity and one in which farm workers earn an honest wage for 

their labor and are not subjected to adverse working conditions, we 

must recognize the effect that a constant flow of illegal aliens is 

having on farm workers in this country. 

To maintain, as some industry representatives have, that depressed wages for hired farm workers are not the result of the use 

of illegal workers and that the failure of these jobs to provide a livVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
30 

ing wage is not the No. 1 reason why Americans are discouraged 

from taking these jobs flies in the face of all logic and in the face 

of all evidence. 

It is also misleading to declare that the H–2A program is a failure when it has been vastly underutilized by employers who have 

chosen to hire illegal workers. It may not be that Americans would 

take all available jobs vacated by illegal workers, but working to 

achieve a legal agricultural workforce will result in better wages 

paid to farm laborers and better working conditions on farms, and 

this will attract more Americans to these jobs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruark appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

I just want to take my prerogative as Chairman to question last. 

First we will turn to Senator Feinstein, who, again, has spent a 

tremendous amount of time and thought and effort in this field. 

Senator? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that. 

Mrs. Horner, I think you have told it the way it really is. We 

have compiled this booklet of stories, and they are all like yours. 

Mr. Ruark, come to California, come to the Central Valley, come 

at harvest season and really see what it is like, because I think you 

are in some kind of a dream world. 

Arturo, let me ask you some questions. We have worked now for 

10 years to try to find something that would work, that the growers 

will accept, that you on behalf of the workers will accept, and I 

thought we had it. And as I said earlier, I see no way where a bill 

that has citizenship is going to fly in this Congress, certainly not 

in the Senate—we cannot get 60 votes—and not in the House of 

Representatives. 

I think this hearing has been very helpful with respect to everify. But assuming we took the basic structure of the AgJOBS 

bill, the emergency AgJOBS bill, and maybe toughened a couple of 

numbers in the eligibility requirement part and the length people 

would have to work on a farm, and had the counterfeit-proof ID, 

which we have in the bill, would you support it? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We would obviously want to discuss it and see 

what the legislation actually says in detail, but, Senator, I think 

we would be concerned, first, about ensuring that there is a permanent solution for the workers that are here right now and their 

families, and that there is legal status given to those workers so 

that they do not have to fear ICE or the immigration raids that are 

currently going on right now in California and every other State in 

this country; and, second, that the guest worker proposal that is in 

AgJOBS remain the guest worker proposal that is part of this; that 

we do not move toward the guest worker proposal that is being proposed right now in the House of Representives because we feel that 

would undermine everything that we have worked so hard for 

these past years. Really, to us, the the House guest worker is unAmerican and really won’t protect Americans here in the United 

States. 

31 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. Well, we would leave the guest worker 

proposal except change the date to 2010 for the 3-year period, 

which was negotiated. So the guest worker proposal that was negotiated would remain. 

With respect to families, there would be the blue card, and the 

blue card would enable somebody to stay in the country for the 

length of the bill. And that would be 5 years as planned. 

Now, what is the reason for this? We all hope that there can be 

an overall immigration reform bill. We all know the system is broken. There just are not 60 votes for it in the Senate, and I doubt 

very much that there are the votes for it in the House. And that 

is for the rest of this session. 

My thinking always has been get people working in the industry, 

get farmers able to count on a workforce, get people out of the 

shadows, at least with respect to agriculture, and begin to rebuild 

this agriculture industry, be able to provide Mrs. Horner with the 

workers she needs every year with some stability. And I think that 

is the best we can do right now. 

I am going to try. I am going to put it in. I am going to try. And 

if we go down, we go down. But at least we are going to try, because what I am afraid is that a lot of this land is going to get sold 

off because farmers are getting fed up that they cannot find workers to work their farms. And then once that happens, we lose our 

industry. Certainly in California that is the case. 

You can say anything you want. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No, Senator, I mean, obviously, we have worked 

with you for the last 10 years. We are very thankful for the dedication and the commitment you have made to this particular issue. 

Certainly no other Senator in the Nation has worked on this as 

hard as you have, and we will continue to try to work with you to 

find solutions because we truly believe that there needs to be a permanent solution to the current workforce that is here right now 

today with their families. And we also believe that any guest workers that are brought into this country need to be done so with labor 

protections to ensure that they are not going to displace American 

workers. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, and, again, 

thank you for your leadership on this issue. 

Now to the Ranking Member. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Rodriguez, I see from your background you 

are actually from San Antonio, although you live in California. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is right, sir. 

Senator CORNYN. I have got my boots on, too, to prove it. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I do, too. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Good. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. I wanted to press you a little bit on what you 

said about guest worker programs because, of course, we have a 

legal guest worker program known as H–2A, but obviously it does 

not work and it needs to be fixed. At least that is my view. 

32 

You have used some pretty tough language about guest worker 

programs. I think you used the word ‘‘un-American.’’ Would that 

also include your feelings about the current H–2A? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. No. But Senator, I think you are aware that in 

AgJOBS we have discussed with Senator Feinstein and many others that there are acceptable adaptations, adjustments to the H– 

2A guest worker program to make it more feasible, to make it 

workable for the agricultural industry as well as for workers, and 

as well as for protecting American jobs. We will continue to be in 

support of that—as long as other conditions are met. 

Senator CORNYN. I recognize that people of good faith are trying 

to figure out a very complex puzzle and trying to figure a way to 

come up with solutions. But it has been my experience—and we 

have some Texans here today, other Texans. Do you still call yourself a Texan, by the way? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I sure do. 

Senator CORNYN. OK, good. Good.—who have advocated for room 

to allow people who do not necessarily want to come to the United 

States and become citizens to come and work legally here and then 

return home with the savings and perhaps the skills they have acquired working in the United States. 

As a concept, do you oppose that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, that is currently what the H–2A program 

does do, and it does allow for workers to come here and work for 

a temporary period of time based on the need and then to return 

home, and not bring their families here. And we are not necessarily 

totally in support of that because we would like to see people that 

come here to work in this country have a stake here. We believe 

that is important. When you take ownership, you take a lot more 

pride in the work that you are doing. And certainly the current 

labor force that is here today has a lot of pride, they have a lot of 

roots. They have been here, some for generations now, and that is 

what we are most concerned about, to ensure that those workers 

are protected. 

Senator CORNYN. I understand, and I believe that one of the 

most important things we can for all of the population, immigrant 

population, native-born population, is to make sure we have a legal 

framework that protects them and protects the country. And I 

think that is where we are trying to get. 

Mr. Ruark, the data shows that 20 to 40 percent of the farms in 

each farm type classification are in less than a favorable financial 

position. That is from 2007 data. Would you agree that these are 

the farms that would be the most vulnerable to labor cost increases? 

Mr. RUARK. I would not agree with that. I think the farms that 

are in the most favorable condition are the ones who are utilizing 

illegal workers the most, and so the farms that we see, the smaller 

operating farms, the farms with smaller profit margins, usually do 

not hire seasonal workers or do not hire them on a large scale. So 

I think they would be less affected by that. 

Senator CORNYN. Since according to different testimony more 

than 50 percent, some have said as high as 50 percent of the people 

working in agriculture now in America do not have legal authorization to do so, what is the effect on wages for American citizens 

33 

when people rely on that population for jobs in the ag sector? Does 

it depress American wages? 

Mr. RUARK. Absolutely. I do not know how someone can argue 

that an employer having access, abundant access, to people who 

are willing to work for low wages is not going to depress wages for 

everyone. We do not only see it in the agriculture sector, but I 

think it is most pronounced, and the wages in the agriculture sector are lower than in other low-skill occupations. And the unemployment rate, if I may add, is also higher for agricultural workers. 

Senator CORNYN. I just have to ask this question, too, because 

those of us who live along the U.S.-Mexico border know that the 

costs associated with our current system fall most directly on local 

citizens in terms of education, health care, and law enforcement 

costs for our current system. And yet the Federal Government does 

not live up to its responsibility either to secure the border or provide a legal immigration process that would satisfy our economic 

needs. And yet the costs follow local taxpayers the most. Is that 

your experience? 

Mr. RUARK. Yes, Senator. The way that my organization, FAIR, 

looks at it is that the Government really is helping to subsidize 

low-wage labor and that the employers who utilize it are profiting 

from that, but the costs are borne at the State and local level. So 

it is taxpayers really who are supplementing this by the additional 

costs of illegal immigration. 

Senator CORNYN. And I bet that you and Mr. Rodriguez could 

agree on one thing, and that is, people who operate outside the 

ambit of the law are vulnerable to exploitation of a variety of 

kinds. Would you agree with that, Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. RUARK. I would say without a doubt, absolutely. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Let me begin by asking you—first of all, thank you for being here 

today. I will begin by asking you the question you may have heard 

Senator Schumer ask of the last panel. I would like to ask it of you, 

and I think the responses may be somewhat different. But do you 

agree that the solution to the problems we have been addressing 

here really require legalizing the current status of workers who are 

now on our farms working to harvest our crops? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, and their families. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And their families. 

Ms. Horner. 

Ms. HORNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. RUARK. No. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I suspected your answer might be different, and so my question to you is—you have heard here today 

most recently, most immediately from people who are actually in 

the trenches, so to speak. Ms. Horner operates a 50-acre farm, and 

you have heard her describe her difficulties, and you have heard 

members of the other panel. So why do you disagree? 

34 

Mr. RUARK. Well, I want to commend Mrs. Horner for her commitment to a legal workforce. That is something that not all employers are committed to. And I think she raises some valid questions about the H–2A program and how it can be improved. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But it is not only she who has raised 

them, so—— 

Mr. RUARK. No, absolutely. She is testifying today. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. The previous panel, who are very well 

versed and experienced in the real, practical, everyday reality of 

what Ms. Horner describes as ‘‘a well-meaning mess.’’ 

Mr. RUARK. So your question is why does FAIR oppose legalization, Senator? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Correct. 

Mr. RUARK. OK. We oppose amnesty for a number of reasons. I 

think the most—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Not necessarily amnesty, but—— 

Mr. RUARK. Legalization. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Some legalized status, and 

Mr. Black said some permit program, which would conceivably involve screening and other kinds of criteria applied. 

Mr. RUARK. I think what we have seen in the past when legalization programs have been implemented, that helps to facilitate the 

movement of workers out of the agriculture industry, actually. We 

saw it in 1986. Following 1986, there was a steadily increasing 

number of illegal workers who came in to replace the steady number of legalized workers who were moving out into other occupations, construction, service industry, you know, all those other jobs 

that supposedly Americans are not supposed to be working. And so 

I think that is a real problem, but I think the biggest problem is 

whether we reform H–2A or we institute a new guest worker program. If we do not enforce those measures, the same problems are 

going to arise, and there is not a lot of confidence among the general American public that whatever is put into place is going to— 

the requirements are going to be upheld by—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I think as a former prosecutor, enforcement is the key to any law. 

Mr. RUARK. Right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Without it, the law is meaningless. But 

also the law has to be enforceable. 

Mr. RUARK. Correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It has to be practical and real in terms of 

what it requires so that people really can comply voluntarily, because most laws depend on voluntary compliance for the most part 

and on the deterrence that comes with strong enforcement. Would 

you agree? 

Mr. RUARK. Absolutely. Strong deterrence, strong enforcement is 

something we support wholeheartedly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So some reform of the law, not just stronger enforcement, is required here, is it not? 

Mr. RUARK. I would agree with that, but I would not say legalization can be part of it. FAIR is never going to support that. I do not 

think the American people will ever support that until they have 

the confidence that the integrity has been replaced within the system. And over the past 25, 30 years, I think it has been demVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
35 

onstrated that the system is not working. And the disagreement I 

think we see here is why. Is it because it is unfeasible, or is it because there has been an outlet for employers to hire people illegally 

which affects the whole industry in a negative way, and also discourages Americans from seeking employment as farm workers? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you disagree with the witnesses who 

testified here that they have difficulty—in fact, they find it impossible sometimes to fill those jobs with people who are here legally? 

Certainly you have heard Ms. Horner describe her very, very impressive efforts to do the right thing. 

Mr. RUARK. I would not disagree with those statements, but I 

would say our disagreement comes in why that is, why the difficulty is—why they are having so much difficulty attracting workers. I think in some areas, in some sectors, there may be a shortterm shortage of workers, but I do not think overall that we lack 

a labor supply who would and could do these jobs if we incentivized 

them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the—and I know I am at the end of 

my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Please take your time. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But the key word here is ‘‘incentivize.’’ I 

would like to invite you to give us your views on what kinds of incentives would be necessary. Obviously the current ones are not 

sufficient. 

Mr. RUARK. Well, I think for workers it is tightening the labor 

market, which would raise wages and conditions. And I think both 

of those things have been depressed by the access of employers to 

illegal workers. But I think the way to incentivize employers is to 

say, ‘‘We are going to hold you accountable, and we are going to 

make sure that if you violate the law knowingly, you will be prosecuted,’’ that criminal charges will be brought against employers 

who knowingly hire people illegally. That threat is implicit, but I 

do not think that, especially in the agriculture sector, there is a 

great fear that they are going to be held accountable for breaking 

the law. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony. I would just close with the observation that for the employers who are self-enforcing, so to speak—and Ms. Horner is one of 

them, and others who were here today—the prospect of following 

the law leaves them right now in really an untenable situation because they have had that difficulty of really enlisting a sufficient 

legal workforce. 

So I think the reform of the law is not just about enforcement. 

It has to be about changing fundamentally the way that we provide 

rights and the labor force for these employers, and I would invite 

you to think more about what kinds of reforms will lead to better 

enforcement but also to the availability of a more abundant and 

available labor force. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator, and thanks to all the witnesses. This has been a very good panel. 

I think there is agreement here that this system is broken. I 

think there is disagreement over what to do. Mr. Ruark talked 

about there being a short-term shortage of farm workers if we sort 

36 

of adopted his solution, speaking of which, Ms. Horner, when you 

have blueberries that are ready to be picked—I am talking short 

term here—how many days do you have to pick them? 

Ms. HORNER. For good quality, 7. 

Senator FRANKEN. So it is a 7-day window? 

Ms. HORNER. Yes. We pick each field an average of every 7 days 

to make sure that the fruit goes high quality, fresh market. After 

that, the quality deteriorates, and we usually have to go into the 

process market, if you can get it in. High bush is typically all fresh, 

and then the later varieties are usually processed. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. 

Ms. HORNER. So if your labor is 10 days late, you are going to 

have a mess for the entire 11 weeks of your blueberry season. 

Senator FRANKEN. And, obviously, with the H–2A program, the 

experience has been—and, Mr. Rodriguez, you can speak to this because you have experience observing this—that there are often 

delays in getting workers. And you were unable to get enough 

workers as it was, but even when there are workers, just 

standardly there are delays, right? 

Ms. HORNER. The H–2A experience I had with bringing labor was 

successful. Our labor did get there in time. We actually brought 

them—we made sure we had a window of 7 to 10 days to get them 

in. I did not have a problem actually bringing H–2A workers. It 

was everything that went on after that where my problems came 

in. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is that they did not—— 

Ms. HORNER. They were inexperienced, which is a huge production problem. And I have got information in front of me where the 

best H–2A workers averaged about $11 an hour where a migrant 

worker averages about $16 an hour. And then your Americans, the 

legal referrals, they average less than $3.75 an hour in earned 

wages. So there is just a huge difference in trying to work with migrant versus H–2A versus legal Americans who are inexperienced. 

These workers are skilled. It is amazing to watch them pick blueberries. They are like little machines. It is amazing. 

Senator FRANKEN. And in certain crops, am I right, Mr. Rodriguez, you can do damage to the future bearing potential if you pick 

improperly? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There is no doubt. I mean, if you do not know 

how to prune a vine, for example, in table grapes or orchards or 

any of those berry crops that require pruning, you can not only affect next year’s crop but affect the crop many years into the future 

and do serious damage to the vine or to the trees. 

The same thing with row crops. If you do not know how to pick 

them right, you are stepping all over the place, you are smashing 

other crops, you are killing the strawberries, mutilating the strawberries, and the same thing with the berries. You have to be experienced; otherwise, you will squeeze them or you will not pick them 

right, and you will not grab the stem right. Yes, it does require a 

skilled professional workforce. 

Senator FRANKEN. And I want to ask you about—you discussed 

in your testimony—oh, by the way, I just want to put this in the 

record. I am sure it is, but the National Council of Agricultural 

Employers recently issued a report finding that 72 percent of growVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:10 Jan 12, 2012 Jkt 071756 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71756.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
37 

ers participating in the H–2A program reported that their guest 

workers arrived after the date they were needed, on average 22 

days late. 

Ms. HORNER. Which is why we made sure we moved our date—— 

Senator FRANKEN. You did everything incredibly right. 

Ms. HORNER. I did everything. Yes, I did. 

Senator FRANKEN. You just anticipated everything. You worked 

as hard as you could. You were doing the paperwork. 

Ms. HORNER. I was drowning in—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Would you like to work in the Senate? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Because—anyway—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You have the right to remain silent. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HORNER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Rodriguez, you discussed the United 

Farm Workers ‘‘Take Our Jobs’’ program, which is a campaign 

where you literally invited people across the Nation to take your 

jobs. Ten thousand people inquired about those jobs, but you said 

only seven eventually accepted a job in agriculture. What were the 

main reasons that the people did not take those jobs? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It was actually 11, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry, 11. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, it was a misprint on our part. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, in that case, that sounds like a success. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. There were a number of different reasons. Some 

were mentioned here earlier by Ms. Horner: some people were wondering if there was going to be air-conditioning provided. 

Senator FRANKEN. Does air-conditioning fields cost a lot to the 

growers? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Unfortunately, yes. They were asking about 

whether transportation would be provided. Potential workers would 

ask if somebody could come and pick them up at their homes and 

take them to their jobs and return them? They asked how many 

hours do I have to work? What are the breaks like? Very unfamiliar—with what it takes to work in the fields, the types of skills 

it requires, the types of stamina and endurance that someone has 

to have to be able to do that work. 

Senator FRANKEN. I will end my questioning now, but I am really 

curious about those 11 people. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You know, to be honest with you, we do not 

know a whole lot about them. We know they were there, they were 

working, and they were doing their job. But we did not get back 

information as to how long they actually stayed with it after they 

started and that type of thing. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, then, I guess we will just wrap up. I 

want to thank you all for your testimony. I think that, again, we 

would all agree that we have a broken system and that there are 

different viewpoints on what to do with the short-term problems 

and with the long-term problems. But this concludes our hearing. 

I would like to again thank Commissioner Black, President Nassif, 

President Rodriguez, Mr. Smith, Dr. Knutson, Ms. Horner, and Mr. 

Ruark for testifying at today’s hearing. 

38 

The record will remain open until Tuesday, October 11, 2011, for 

further testimony and questions. I would like to thank the following individuals and groups for submitting testimony for the 

record: the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the National Milk Producers Federation, Upstate Niagara Cooperative, 

Maple Lawn Farms, St. Alban’s Cooperative Creamery, Idaho 

Dairymen’s Association, Foremost Farms USA. I ask unanimous 

consent that these statements be inserted in the record of this 

hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statements appear as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record.] 

39 


71756.001
40 


71756.002
41 


71756.003
42 


71756.004
43 


71756.005
44 


71756.006
45 


71756.007
46 


71756.008
47 


71756.009
48 


71756.010
49 


71756.011
50 


71756.012
51 


71756.013
52 


71756.014
53 


71756.015
54 


71756.016
55 


71756.017
56 


71756.018
57 


71756.019
58 


71756.020
59 


71756.021
60 


71756.022
61 


71756.023
62 


71756.024
63 


71756.025
64 


71756.026
65 


71756.027
66 


71756.028
67 


71756.029
68 


71756.030
69 


71756.031
70 


71756.032
71 


71756.033
72 


71756.034
73 


71756.035
74 


71756.036
75 


71756.037
76 


71756.038
77 


71756.039
78 


71756.040
79 


71756.041
80 


71756.042
81 


71756.043
82 


71756.044
83 


71756.045
84 


71756.046
85 


71756.047
86 


71756.048
87 


71756.049
88 


71756.050
89 


71756.051
90 


71756.052
91 


71756.053
92 


71756.054
93 


71756.055
94 


71756.056
95 


71756.057
96 


71756.058
97 


71756.059
98 


71756.060
99 


71756.061
100 


71756.062
101 


71756.063
102 


71756.064
103 


71756.065
104 


71756.066
105 


71756.067
106 


71756.068
107 


71756.069
108 


71756.070
109 


71756.071
110 


71756.072
111 


71756.073
112 


71756.074
113 


71756.075
114 


71756.076
115 


71756.077
116 


71756.078
117 


71756.079
118 


71756.080
119 


71756.081
120 


71756.082
121 


71756.083
122 


71756.084
123 


71756.085
124 


71756.086
125 


71756.087
126 


71756.088
127 


71756.089
128 


71756.090
129 


71756.091
130 


71756.092
131 


71756.093
132 


71756.094
133 


71756.095
134 


71756.096
135 


71756.097
136 


71756.098
137 


71756.099
138 


71756.100
139 


71756.101
140 


71756.102
141 


71756.103
142 


71756.104
143 


71756.105
144 


71756.106
145 


71756.107
146 


71756.108
147 


71756.109
148 


71756.110
149 


71756.111
150 


71756.112
151 


71756.113
152 


71756.114
153 


71756.115
154 


71756.116
155 


71756.117
156 


71756.118
157 


71756.119
158 


71756.120
159 


71756.121
160 


71756.122
161 


71756.123
162 


71756.124
163 


71756.125
164 


71756.126
165 


71756.127
166 


71756.128
167 


71756.129
168 


71756.130
169 


71756.131
170 


71756.132
171 


71756.133
172 


71756.134
173 


71756.135
174 


71756.136
175 


71756.137
176 


71756.138
177 


71756.139
178 


71756.140
179 


71756.141
180 


71756.142
181 


71756.143
182 


71756.144
183 


71756.145
184 


71756.146
185 


71756.147
186 


71756.148
187 


71756.149
188 


71756.150
189 


71756.151
190 


71756.152
191 


71756.153
192 


71756.154
193 


71756.155
194 


71756.156
195 


71756.157
196 


71756.158
197 


71756.159
198 


71756.160
199 


71756.161
200 


71756.162
201 


71756.163
202 


71756.164
203 


71756.165
204 


71756.166
205 


71756.167
206 


71756.168
207 


71756.169
208 


71756.170
209 


71756.171
210 


71756.172
211 


71756.173
212 


71756.174
213 


71756.175
214 


71756.176
215 


71756.177
216 


71756.178
217 


71756.179
218 


71756.180
219 


71756.181
220 


71756.182
221 


71756.183
222 


71756.184
223 


71756.185
224 


71756.186
225 


71756.187
226 


71756.188
227 


71756.189
228 


71756.190
229 


71756.191
230 


71756.192
231 


71756.193
232 


71756.194
233 


71756.195
234 


71756.196
235 


71756.197
236 


71756.198
237 


71756.199
238 


71756.200
239 


71756.201
240 


71756.202
241 


71756.203
242 


71756.204
243 


71756.205
244 


71756.206
245 


71756.207
246 


71756.208
247 


71756.209
248 


71756.210
249 


71756.211
250 


71756.212
251 


71756.213
252 


71756.214
253 


71756.215
254 


71756.216
255 


71756.217
256 


71756.218
257 


71756.219
258 


71756.220
259 


71756.221
260 


71756.222
261 


71756.223
262 


71756.224
263 


71756.225
264 


71756.226
265 


71756.227
266 


71756.228
267 


71756.229
268 


71756.230
269 


71756.231
270 


71756.232
271 


71756.233
272 


71756.234
273 


71756.235
274 


71756.236
275 


71756.237
276 


71756.238
277 


71756.239
278 


71756.240
279 


71756.241
280 


71756.242
281 


71756.243
282 


71756.244
283 


71756.245
284 


71756.246
285 


71756.247
286 


71756.248
287 


71756.249
288 


71756.250
289 


71756.251
290 


71756.252
291 


71756.253
292 


71756.254
293 


71756.255
294 


71756.256
295 


71756.257
296 


71756.258
297 


71756.259
298 


71756.260
299 


71756.261
300 


71756.262
301 


71756.263
302 


71756.264
303 


71756.265
304 


71756.266
305 


71756.267
306 


71756.268
307 


71756.269
308 


71756.270
309 


71756.271
310 


71756.272
311 


71756.273
312 


71756.274
313 


71756.275
314 


71756.276
315 


71756.277
316 


71756.278
317 


71756.279
318 


71756.280
319 


71756.281
320 


71756.282
321 


71756.283
322 


71756.284
323 


71756.285
324 


71756.286
325 


71756.287
326 


71756.288
327 


71756.289
328 


71756.290
329 


71756.291
330 


71756.292
331 


71756.293
332 


71756.294
333 


71756.295
334 


71756.296
335 


71756.297
336 


71756.298
337 


71756.299
338 


71756.300
339 


71756.301
340 


71756.302
341 


71756.303
342 


71756.304
343 


71756.305
344 


71756.306
345 


71756.307
346 


71756.308
347 


71756.309
348 


71756.310
349 


71756.311
350 

Æ 


71756.312