For Release on Delivery

Expected at 11:00 a.m.

Thursday, June 15, 2000

GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

H-2A AGRICULTURAL

GUESTWORKERS

Status of Changes to

Improve Program Services

Statement of Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,

Committee on the Judiciary, Hosue of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO
Page 1 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to contribute to the ongoing discussion

regarding our nation’s immigration policy and the role guestworker

programs should play in that policy. Immigration is a tense and

controversial subject, with the H-2A agricultural guestworker program

representing some of the most passionate as well as complex aspects of

this issue. The H-2A program provides a vehicle for U.S. agricultural

employers to bring legal, nonimmigrant foreign workers into the United

States to perform temporary seasonal agricultural work when domestic

workers are unavailable. As we reported in 1997, about 15,000 workers, or

less than 1 percent of the total agricultural workforce, were admitted

under the H-2A program in 1996. Comparable data are not yet available for

fiscal year 1999. However, the Department of Labor certified 41,827

workers in fiscal year 1999, compared with 17,557 workers in fiscal year

1996, suggesting a significant growth in the use of the program.1

Today, I would like to review the key findings and conclusions of our

December 1997 report, in which we assessed the H-2A program’s ability to

meet the needs of agricultural employers while protecting U.S. and foreign

agricultural workers, both in the present and if a significant number of

guestworkers were to be needed in the future.2 I will also review the steps

we recommended to reduce the burden of the H-2A program on

agricultural employers while better protecting domestic and H-2A workers

and the progress that the cognizant agencies have made in implementing

those recommendations.

In summary, we believe that the principal conclusions of our 1997 report

continue to be valid. More specifically, a sudden, widespread farm labor

shortage requiring the entry of large numbers of foreign workers continues

1In understanding the use of the H-2A program, it is necessary to distinguish between the number of

worker certifications Labor approves, the number of H-2A visas the Department of States issues, and

the number of workers who enter the United States with H-2A visas. Although the number of

certifications Labor issues increased from 17,557 in fiscal year 1996 to 41,827 in fiscal year 1999, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) does not have current figures on the number of workers

imported into the United States with H-2A visas. However, if the ratio of workers who entered with H2A visas to H-2A labor certifications has remained at its fiscal year 1997 level of about 85 percent, then

the program has expanded significantly over the past several years.

2H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve Services to Employers and Better

Protect Workers (GAO/HEHS-98-20, Dec. 31, 1997). In congressional deliberations on the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, concerns surfaced about whether the

act’s increased constraints on the entry of foreign workers into the country would result in a major,

widespread shortage of farm labor to meet the needs of agriculture. As a result, the act required GAO

to review the H-2A program.

H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 2 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

to be unlikely now or in the near future, although localized shortages

could emerge for specific crops or geographic areas. Although many

farmworkers are not legally authorized to work in the United States, INS

enforcement efforts are still unlikely to significantly reduce the aggregate

number of unauthorized farm workers. While comparatively few

agricultural employers seek workers through the H-2A program, those that

do continue to be generally successful in obtaining workers. In 1997, we

determined that poor information on H-2A program access and the

involvement of many agencies in the program could result in redundant

oversight and confuse employers that are considering participation and

that Labor was not always processing applications in a timely manner.

While Labor and INS have made progress in taking the steps we

recommended to improve the program’s operations, key changes remain

to be implemented, particularly those that would permit Labor to assess

the timeliness of its applications processing and to improve protections for

domestic and H-2A agricultural workers.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 created the program,

commonly referred to as the H-2A program, under which employers may

bring agricultural workers into the country on a temporary, nonimmigrant

basis. The program’s purpose is to ensure agricultural employers an

adequate labor supply while also protecting the jobs, as well as the wages

and working conditions, of domestic farmworkers. Under the program,

agricultural employers that anticipate a shortage of domestic workers can

request nonimmigrant foreign workers. The Department of State issues

nonimmigrant visas for H-2A workers only after the Department of Justice,

through INS, has approved an employer’s petition for authorization to

bring in workers. Justice does not approve the petition until Labor has

approved the employer’s application for certification that a labor shortage

exists and that the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly

employed will not be adversely affected by bringing in guestworkers. This

certification is based on, among other things, proof that the employer has

actively recruited domestic workers, that the state employment service

has certified a shortage of farm labor, and that housing for the workers

meets health and safety requirements. The Department of Agriculture acts

in an advisory role that includes conducting wage surveys for Labor’s

determination of the minimum wage rates to be paid by employers of H-2A

workers–the so called “adverse effect wage rate”– which are designed to

mitigate any negative effect their employment may have on domestic

workers similarly employed.

Labor is also responsible for ensuring that agricultural employers comply

with their contractual obligations to H-2A workers and for enforcing labor

Background
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 3 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

laws covering domestic workers, including the wage, housing, and

transportation provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker

Protection Act. For example, workers who complete 50 percent of the

contract period are due reimbursement for transportation from the place

of recruitment, while those who complete the entire contract are

guaranteed work or wages for a minimum of three-quarters of the contract

period and reimbursement for transportation home.3Agricultural

employers must provide the same wages, benefits, and working conditions

to H-2A workers that are provided to domestic workers employed in

“corresponding employment.”

In our 1997 report, we concluded that a widespread farm labor shortage

did not appear to exist and was unlikely in the near future. Although there

was widespread agreement that a significant portion of the farm labor

force was not legally authorized to work, INS enforcement activity was

unlikely to generate significant farm labor shortages. On the basis of

available evidence from a Congressional Research Service (CRS)

reportthat recently examined this issue, data from the National

Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) released in March 2000, and recent

INS policy, we believe that our earlier conclusions remain correct.4

As we noted in our 1997 report, although data limitations made the direct

measurement of a labor shortage difficult, our own analysis suggested that

a widespread farm labor shortage had not occurred in recent years and did

not then exist. Our conclusion was based on the combination of (1) the

large number of illegal immigrant farmworkers granted amnesty in the

1980s, (2) persistently high unemployment rates in key agricultural areas,

(3) state and federal designations of agricultural areas as labor surplus

areas, (4) stagnant or declining farm labor wage rates as adjusted for

3Under the three-quarter wage guarantee, an employer must offer each worker employment for at least

three-fourths of the workdays in the work contract period, including any extensions. If the employer

provides less employment, the employer must pay the amount the worker would have earned had the

worker been employed the guaranteed number of days.

4 Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, RL-30395 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2000) Labor,

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Findings From the National Agricultural Workers Survey

1997-1998: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers, Office of Program

Economics Research Report 8 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2000). Since 1988, NAWS has collected detailed

information on the basic demographics, legal status, education, family size and household

composition, wages, and working conditions of domestic seasonal agricultural services workers,

including their participation in the nonagricultural U.S. labor force. NAWS also collects information on

hourly and piece rate wage rates, farm labor housing, health care, and many other aspects of field

labor working conditions.

A Widespread Farm

Labor Shortage Is

Unlikely in the Near

Future, Although

Localized Shortages

Are Possible

Ample Supplies of Farm

Labor Appear to Be

Available in Most Areas of

the Nation
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 4 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

inflation, and (5) continued investments by growers in agricultural

production.5 For example, our analysis of the monthly and annual

unemployment rates of 20 large agricultural counties–those that contain

large amounts of fruit, tree nut, and vegetable production in dollar value–

found that 13 counties maintained annual double digit unemployment

rates and that 19 had rates above the national average during 1994 through

1996. As of June 1997, 11 counties still exhibited monthly unemployment

rates double the national average of 5.2 percent, and 15 of the 20 counties

had rates at least 2 percentage points higher than the national rate. We

also noted that the lack of evidence of widespread farm labor shortages

does not preclude the existence or potential for more localized shortages

in a specific crop or remote geographic area.

Since our report, the national economy has continued to prosper. National

unemployment declined from 4.9 percent in 1997 to 4.2 percent in 1999.

Nevertheless, recent CRS work on this issue suggests that our earlier

assessment accurately captures the current conditions of the national

agricultural labor market. CRS based its conclusion on a variety of

economic data that are inconsistent with an agricultural labor shortage

scenario. (1) Employment of hired farmworkers, including contract

workers, fluctuated erratically during the 1990s and actually declined in

1998 by 1.2 to 1.4 percent, in contrast to the growth in total U.S.

employment.6 (2) The national unemployment rate for hired farmworkers

has remained above 10 percent since 1994, has increased since 1997, and

at 11.8 in 1998, has remained well above the national average. (3) There

was no discernible variation in the average number of weekly hours that

hired farmworkers were employed in crop or livestock production

throughout the 1990s. (4) The underemployment of farmworkers remains

substantial, with the number of days crop workers employed on farms

diminishing from an average of 186 days per worker in fiscal years 1993-95

to 174 days per worker in fiscal years 1996-98. And (5) while farmworkers’

average hourly wages increased at a slightly faster rate than those of

workers in the nonfarm private sector between 1990 and 1998,

farmworkers continue to earn little more than $0.50 for every dollar

earned by other private sector workers. The CRS study concluded that

“indicators of supply-demand conditions generally are inconsistent with

the existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available

5H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Response to Additional Questions (GAO/HEHS-98-120R,

Apr. 2, 1998).

6 For hired crop workers, employment increased by 9.3 percent from 1990 to 1998, according to one

statistical series. However, this was still well below the 11.7 percent increase exhibited by all wage and

salary employment over the same period.
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 5 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

farmworkers at the present time . . . . “ Again consistent with our

conclusions, the CRS report did not preclude the potential for localized

farmworker shortages during various times of the year.

Data from the latest NAWS survey are also consistent with the conclusions

of our 1997 report. If a labor shortage existed, one might expect larger

than average increases in hourly agricultural wage rates. Although real

wage rates for crop workers increased between 1997 and 1998, the latest

years for comparison, they remain 10 percent lower than the average

agricultural wage rates in 1989.

In our 1997 report, we estimated that approximately 37 percent of the

agricultural labor force–about 600,000 farmworkers–in the United States

lacked legal authorization to work. Since then, the estimated number of

unauthorized agricultural workers has increased. The latest NAWS has

estimated that, as of fiscal year 1998, the proportion of the agricultural

labor force that lacked legal authorization to work was more than 52

percent.

The prevalence of such a large number of unauthorized and fraudulently

documented farmworkers would leave individual employers vulnerable to

sudden labor shortages if INS were to target enforcement efforts at their

individual establishments. At the time of our 1997 report, fears of such

targeting appeared to be unfounded. INS officials around the country were

unanimous in their statements that they did not expect their enforcement

efforts to have any general effect on the supply of farm labor, either

nationally or regionally, given the large number of fraudulently

documented farmworkers and competing enforcement priorities. At that

time, most of INS’ investigation resources were focused on identifying

aliens who have committed criminal acts, including violent criminal alien

gang and drug-related activity, and on detecting and deterring fraud and

smuggling. Few investigations involved agricultural employers, and INS

officials did not expect a significant increase in enforcement efforts

directed at agriculture in the near future. We also acknowledged that

although INS efforts were under way to improve employers’ ability to

identify fraudulent documents, these efforts were still in the early stages

and were not likely to have any significant effect on the availability of

illegally documented farmworkers in the near future. The degree to which

these initiatives, if fully implemented, would affect the number of

unauthorized workers and the supply of agricultural workers was

unknown.

INS Enforcement Efforts

Are Unlikely to

Significantly Reduce the

Number of Unauthorized

Farmworkers
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 6 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

We believe this conclusion remains accurate for several reasons. Since our

report, the percentage of INS’ investigations dedicated to worksite

enforcement programs has not changed significantly. As we reported in

1997, about 5 percent of the 4,600 investigations completed in fiscal year

1996 involved employers in agricultural production or services, with 40

percent of these involving employers in industries not associated with H2A, landscapers, lawn maintenance firms, and veterinarians. In fiscal year

1999, INS completed about 3,900 investigations of employers, with about 7

percent directed at agricultural workplaces.

INS is also in the process of changing its approach to worksite

enforcement. It has developed a new interior enforcement strategy with

two worksite enforcement priorities–one calling for INS to pursue the

criminal investigation of employers that are flagrant or grave violators and

the other aimed at blocking and removing employers’ access to

unauthorized workers.7 With respect to this second priority, INS

acknowledged the limitations of worksite investigations–”raids”–and is

focusing on the crucial employer role in creating an effective deterrent to

illegal immigration. It will now work to educate and foster employer

cooperation to deny employment to unauthorized workers. INS has not

specified how many resources it intends to devote to such employer

compliance efforts. Since INS plans to implement its strategy over the next

5 years, it is too soon to know how the proposed changes will be

implemented or to assess their effect on the employment of unauthorized

workers in agriculture.

In addition, as we reported in 1999, despite several ongoing INS initiatives,

the employment verification process still remains susceptible to fraud.8

INS continues to test three pilot programs in which employers

electronically verify employees’ eligibility to work. However, employer

participation in the pilot programs under way has been significantly less

than INS anticipated–only 1,658 employers in all industries as of June 2000

are participating, and only 425 of these are employers in agricultural

production or services.

7According to our 1999 report, Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien

Employment Exist (GAO/GGD-99-33, Apr. 2, 1999), an INS official expected that INS’ new emphasis on

dismantling the criminal infrastructure that supports unauthorized employment would result in (1)

fewer worksite investigations and removals of unauthorized aliens from the workplace, (2) more

criminal employer investigations, and (3) heavier penalties.

8GAO/GGD-99-33.
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 7 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

Finally, INS has made little progress toward its goal of reducing the

number of documents that employers can accept for determining

employment eligibility. In February 1998, INS issued proposed regulations

to reduce the number of documents that can be used from 27 to 14.

However, INS received numerous comments on the proposed regulations,

and INS officials do not know when these regulations will be made final.

INS has also begun issuing new documents with increased security

features, which it hopes will make it easier for employers to verify the

documents’ authenticity. However, aliens are statutorily permitted to show

employers various documents other than the INS documents that

authorize them to work, and other widely used documents (for example,

Social Security cards and birth certificates) do not have the security

features of the INS documents.

It should be noted that the high percentage of fraudulently documented

workers means that an employer may hire workers not legally authorized

to work in this country without violating the law. An employer that hires

illegal aliens who present documentation will be abiding by the law unless

the employer knows or should know, based on an apparent irregularity in

the alien’s documentation, that the aliens are in this country illegally. The

Immigration and Nationality Act allows an employer to rely on

documentation that reasonably appears on its face to be genuine. Thus,

more than 600,000 illegal aliens could be working in agriculture without

any agricultural employers violating the law with respect to their

responsibilities under federal immigration law.

In our 1997 report, we identified a number of concerns with the operation

of the H-2A program. These concerns included (1) Labor’s inability to

process applications in a timely manner, (2) multiple agency involvement

in the approval of H-2A petitions that added little value to the process, (3)

multiple agency involvement in program administration and insufficient

information generally, and (4) worker protection provisions that are

difficult to enforce. We made recommendations to the cognizant agencies

that would address each of these concerns. Most of these

recommendations are still in process or no action has yet been taken.

In 1997, Labor issued certifications for most of the workers whom

agricultural employers requested through the H-2A program, and agency

officials reported that they could handle a major increase in program

workload with additional resources. However, Labor did not generally

process applications in a timely manner, and the lack of data made it

difficult to monitor timeliness and oversee the program. Labor continues

GAO’s

Recommendations

Targeted at Problems

in H-2A Program

Operations Have Been

Partially Implemented

Although Employers

Obtain H-2A Workers,

Applications May Not Be

Processed in a Timely

Manner
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 8 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

to approve the overwhelming majority of applications, certifying more

than 94 percent of all applications submitted during fiscal year 1999, or

2,948 of 3,130, and accounting for 88 percent of the 47,300 worker

certifications requested.

The H-2A application process sets very specific time requirements that

employers and Labor must meet. At the time of our report, these statutory

and regulatory deadlines included a requirement that employers file an

application for workers at least 60 days before they are needed and that

Labor issue a decision on the certification of a labor shortage at least 20

days before the date of need. In 1997, we determined that Labor did not

always process applications on time, making it difficult to ensure that

employers were able to get workers when they needed them. Although no

data were available on how many employers failed to obtain the required

workers by the date of need, we identified some applications that were not

certified by Labor until after the date of need. Because Labor did not have

data on program operations, we could not assess the explanations Labor

provided us for its inability to process applications in a timely fashion. In

response, we recommended that Labor regularly collect data on its

performance in meeting H-2A regulatory and statutory deadlines for

processing H-2A applications and that it use these data to monitor and

improve its performance. Labor is currently developing such a system and

hopes to have it in place by October 2000.

After receiving Labor’s certification, INS must approve an employer’s

petition for H-2A visas before workers can apply to the State Department

for visas, a procedure that can add up to 3 weeks to processing time. INS

officials agreed that the INS petition approval process adds little value to

the process because petitions for H-2A visas, unlike other visa petitions,

do not generally identify individual workers. Therefore, INS examiners

check only to make sure that Labor has issued a certification and that an

employer has submitted the correct fees for the petition.9 To simplify the

H-2A application process and reduce the burden on agricultural

employers, we recommended that the Attorney General delegate authority

for approval of H-2A visa petitions from INS to the Secretary of Labor or

the Secretary’s designee and revise corresponding regulations as

necessary to implement and facilitate such an agreement, including a

revision of visa extension and appeals procedures. According to an INS

9This verification that Labor has issued a certification is performed again by the State Department,

according to officials at the two consulates–Monterrey and Hermosillo, Mexico–that process almost all

H-2A visas.

Multiple Agency

Involvement in Petition

Approval Added Little

Value to the Process
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 9 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

official, the Office of Management and Budget recently cleared and

finalized the regulation, and it will be released after final administrative

details are completed.

Even if all processing deadlines are met, agricultural employers, their

advocates, and state employment officials told us that the workers may

not be available when needed. This is because the weather and other

factors make it hard to estimate 60 days in advance when workers will be

needed. This is especially true for crops with short harvest periods. The

60-day deadline may also encourage employers to estimate the earliest

possible date, which can have negative consequences for workers who

arrive before an employer has work for them: They are left with no income

until work is available. To address this problem, we recommended that the

Secretary of Labor amend the regulations to allow H-2A applications to be

submitted up to 45 rather than 60 days before the date of need, if INS’ role

in the petition approval process were eliminated as we recommended.

Labor implemented our recommendation, and employers now need to

apply only 45 days before the date of need.

Finally, to protect work opportunities for domestic workers by ensuring

that sufficient time is available for agricultural employers to positively

recruit domestic workers while reducing the total processing time, we

recommended that the Congress amend the Immigration and Nationality

Act so that, as long as the authority for approving H-2A visa petitions

remained with Labor, Labor would be required to complete all applications

at least 7 days before the date of need, rather than 20 days. However,

rather than requiring Labor to complete all applications at least 7 days

before the date of need, the Congress changed the requirement that Labor

complete all applications from 20 days to no later than 30 days before the

date of need (P.L. 106-78).

As we reported in 1997, employers, advocates, and agency officials

expressed frustration about the poor information on H-2A procedures.

Labor’s handbook on the H-2A Labor certification process included

information that was outdated, hard to understand, and incomplete.

Program participants can also be confused by the multiple agencies and

levels of government involved in the H-2A program, which fosters

redundant agency oversight and the inability to determine compliance

with program requirements. In some states, for example, employerprovided farmworker housing is subject to federal, state, and local housing

regulations and must be inspected by multiple agencies. To address this

issue, we recommended that Labor update and revise the H-2A handbook

to include the procedures for all agencies involved and key contact points,

Insufficient Information

and Multiple Agencies

Administering the H-2A

Program Can Make

Program Participation

More Difficult
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 10 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

both in Labor and other agencies. Labor has not yet taken action on this

recommendation, preferring to wait until other regulations related to our

recommendations have been promulgated.

Violations of H-2A worker protection provisions, including the

requirement that foreign guestworkers be guaranteed wages equivalent to

at least three-quarters of the amount specified for the entire contract

period, are difficult to identify and enforce. H-2A guestworkers may be

less aware of U.S. laws and protections than domestic workers, and they

are unlikely to complain about worker protection violations, such as the

three-quarter guarantee, fearing they will lose their jobs or will not be

hired in the future.

Labor officials noted operational impediments in enforcing these

protections. For example, the three-quarter guarantee applies only to the

end of the contract period, and H-2A workers must leave the country soon

after the contract ends. Labor officials said that monitoring the threequarter guarantee is difficult because they cannot interview workers after

they return to Mexico to confirm their work hours and earnings. Such

enforcement difficulties create an incentive for less scrupulous employers

to request contract periods longer than necessary: If workers leave the

worksite before the contract period ends, the employer is not obligated to

honor the three-quarter guarantee or pay for the workers’ transportation

home. And if a worker abandons the contract, it can be very difficult to

determine whether he or she has left the country or is instead remaining

and taking jobs that might otherwise go to domestic workers.

In general, Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Employment

Standards Administration is the primary agency for enforcing existing

H-2A contracts and other labor standard provisions, while the

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers the H-2A

program, working with state job services and agricultural employers to

facilitate the application process. However, under current law, ETA

exercises Labor’s authority to suspend an employer’s participation in the

H-2A program in the event that the employer has committed a serious

labor standard or contract violation, and WHD, when conducting an

enforcement action, must request that ETA consider using this authority.

Given the overall separation of program functions between WHD and ETA,

placing this suspension authority in ETA seems incongruent.

Consolidating this suspension authority in WHD would permit ETA to

concentrate more effectively on the H-2A program’s crucial duties and

possibly increase the effectiveness of WHD enforcement.

Worker Protection

Provisions Are Difficult to

Enforce
H-2A Agricultural Guestworkers: Status of

Changes to Improve Program Services

Page 11 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

The H-2A program also requires that agricultural employers provide H-2A

workers the same minimum wages, benefits, and working conditions as

those provided to domestic workers employed in “corresponding

employment.” Current Labor regulations guarantee wages for the first

week of work to domestic workers who are referred to agricultural

employers through the interstate clearance system of the employment

service, unless the employer informs the state employment service of a

delay in the date of need at least 10 days in advance. However, no

provisions are made to provide the same guarantee to H-2A workers,

resulting in a disparity of treatment and the potential for personal hardship

for foreign workers.

To address these issues, we recommended that Labor transfer the

authority to suspend employers with serious labor standard or H-2A

contract violations from ETA to WHD, revise its regulations to require

agricultural employers to guarantee H-2A workers wages for the first week

after the date of need, pay workers those wages no later than 7 days after

the date of need, and revise regulations to apply the three-quarter

guarantee incrementally during the duration of the H-2A contract in a

manner that would improve the protection afforded to H-2A workers but

also minimize any additional administrative burdens on agricultural

employers. At this time, Labor has not determined how best to take action

in each of these areas.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may

have.

For more information regarding this testimony, please call Cynthia M.

Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors include Charles A. Jeszeck,

Carolyn S. Blocker, and Ronni Schwartz.

GAO Contacts and

Acknowledgments
Page 12 GAO/T-HEHS-00-134

Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien

Employment Exist (GAO/GGD-99-33, Apr. 2, 1999).

H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Experiences of Individual Vidalia

Onion Growers (GAO/HEHS-98-236R, Sept. 10, 1998).

H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve Services

to Employers and Better Protect Workers (GAO/T-HEHS-98-200, June 24,

1998).

H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Response to Additional

Questions (GAO/HEHS-98-120R, Apr. 2, 1998).

H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve Services

to Employers and Better Protect Workers (GAO/HEHS-98-20, Dec. 31,

1997).

Illegal Immigration: Southwest Border Strategy Results Inconclusive; More

Evaluation Needed (GAO/GGD-98-21, Dec. 11, 1997).

Passports and Visas: Status of Efforts to Reduce Fraud (GAO/NSIAD-96-99,

May 9, 1996).

Border Patrol: Staffing and Enforcement Activities (GAO/GGD-96-65, Mar.

11, 1996).

Immigration and the Labor Market: Nonimmigrant Alien Workers in the

United States (GAO/PEMD-92-17, Apr. 28, 1992).

The H-2A Program: Protections for U.S. Farmworkers (GAO/PEMD-89-3,

Oct. 21, 1988).

(205516)

Related GAO Products
Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs