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

80–975 PDF 2013

AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1773 

MAY 16, 2013 

Serial No. 113–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 16, 2013 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1773, the ‘‘Agricultural Guestworker Act’’ .................................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration and 

Border Security .................................................................................................... 56 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 57 

WITNESSES 

H. Lee Wicker, Deputy Director, North Carolina Growers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 60 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 110 

Christopher Gaddis, Chief Human Resources Officer, JBS USA Holdings, 

Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 114 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 117 

John B. Graham, III, President, Graham and Rollins, Inc., Hampton, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 122 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 124 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 130 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 132 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by H. Lee Wicker, Deputy Director, North Carolina Growers Association ...................................................................................................... 62 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 139 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security ....................................................................... 160 

Prepared Statement of the the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration and Border Security ................................................................. 165 
Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 169 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Washington ............................................................. 178 

Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation ......................... 181 
(1) 

AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER ACT 

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:30 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, King, Holding, 

Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Gutierrez, and Garcia. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Chief Counsel; Stephanie Gadbois, Counsel; Graham Owens, Clerk; and (Minority) 

David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good afternoon. I apologize to everyone in the audience and especially my colleagues for having another vote in another Committee. But we are here because the Subcommittee on 

Immigration and Border Security will have a hearing on H.R. 1773, 

which is the ‘‘Agricultural Guestworker Act.’’ 

And the Committee will come to order. 

Welcome, again, to all of our witnesses. 

I will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

So we are now here to begin our consideration of this H.R. 1773, 

the ‘‘Agricultural Guestworker Act.’’ This legislation will provide 

American farmers with what they have asked for, needed, and deserved for many years: a workable and fair guestworker program 

to help them grow and harvest our food. Of course, this benefits 

each of us. 

I congratulate Chairman Goodlatte for introducing this legislation. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have informed and instructed my understanding of these issues. And I especially thank the farmers and others in the agricultural industry 

for helping me understand the challenges they face in meeting this 

issue of national significance. 

We would all do well to place ourselves in the shoes of farmers, 

because we sometimes lose track of what it takes for growers to actually put this bounty on the world’s tables. We lose track of what 

it takes for them to give us the safest, most efficient, most reliable 

agricultural system in the world. 

For those crops that are labor-intensive, especially at harvest 

time, hard labor is critical. At our February hearing on agricultural 
2 

guestworker programs, I asked why H-2A program was so underutilized. I noted that, in the eyes of many farmers, the program 

seems designed to fail. It is cumbersome and full of red tape. Growers have to pay wages far above the locally prevailing wage, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against growers who use 

unlawful labor. 

Growers are subject to onerous rules, such as the 50 percent rule, 

which requires them to hire any domestic workers who show up 

even after they have unsuccessfully recruited for U.S. workers and 

their H-2A workers have started working. Under the H-2A program, growers can’t get workers in time to meet needs dictated by 

the weather. And then the final indignity: Growers are constantly 

subjected to litigation by those who don’t think the H-2A program 

should even exist. 

Growers need a fair, workable guestworker program that gives 

them access to the workers they need when they need them at a 

fair wage and with reasonable conditions. They need a partner in 

the Federal Government, not an adversary. Such a program will 

benefit not only farmers but also American farmworkers. If growers 

can’t use a program because it is too cumbersome, none of its workers’ protections will benefit any actual workers. 

H.R. 1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act, jettisons the dysfunctional features of the H-2A program and creates a new H-2C 

agricultural guestworker program that successfully meets the 

needs laid out. 

This bill contains a streamlined petition process based on the H1B program and allows growers to hire guestworkers at will once 

E-Verify has been made mandatory. The bill puts the Department 

of Agriculture in charge of H-2C. The bill requires growers pay 

guestworkers the local prevailing market-based wage. It does not 

require growers to additionally provide free housing or international travel reimbursements to guestworkers. 

In order to discourage vexatious, frivolous, and abusive litigation 

against growers, the bill allows growers and guestworkers to agree 

to binding arbitration and mediation of grievances. It also provides 

H-2C workers are not eligible for taxpayer-funded lawyers under 

the Legal Services Corporation Act. 

In order to prevent a labor force shock, the bill allows illegal immigrants to participate in the H-2C program, just as can any other 

foreign national, so long as they abide by the terms and conditions 

of the program. 

I look forward to hearing today’s witnesses and learning how 

H.R. 1773 would benefit them. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from California, the Ranking 

Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

[The bill, H.R. 1773, follows:] 
3 

1l:3TH CONGRESS H R 1773 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To create a nonimmigrant H-2C work visa program for agricultural workers, 

and for other purl1oses. 

IN TIlE IIOrSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A PR.n , 2(). 201:3 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. 

1 

FAltENTHOl,ll, lVIr. 'NES'L'lliOlt8:LAKll, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. IIOLlllNG, 

1\·Tr. PRTKRSON, and Mr. HUR."') introduced the follovving hill; whieh was 

referred t(. the Committee ')11 the ,Judieiary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the 'N orkforcc and ''lays and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 8urh provisiollf': llR fall "ithin the jurisdiction of the rOlllmittee eoncerned 

A BILL 

To create a nonimmigrant II-2C work vitm program for 

agricultural workers, and for other purposes. 

the Senate and House of Representa2 t/:V(?S afthe United States afAmerica in 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may he cited as5 (1) the "AgTieultural Ouestworker Act"; or 

6 (2) the "AGAct". 
4 

2 

1 SEC. 2. H-2C TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL WORK VISA PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.-Section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (R U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(II)) 

5 is amended by striking ": or (iii)" and inserting", or (e) 

6 having a residence in a foreign country which he has no 

7 intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the 

8 United States to perform agricultural labor or services; or 

9 (iii)". 

10 (b) DEFI~-rTION.-Section 101(a) of such Act (8 

11 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fo1-

12 luwing: 

13 "(58) The term 'agricultural labor or services' has 

14 the meaning given such term by the Secretary of Agri15 culture in regulatiolls and includes agrieultural labor as 

16 defined in section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code 

17 of 1986, agTiculture as defined ill section 3(f) of the Fair 

18 Lahor Standards Act of 1938 (2~) U.S.C. 203(f)), the han19 dling, planting, drying, packing, parkaging, procc88ing, 

20 freezing, or grading prior to delivery for star'age of any 

21 agriClutural or horticllltural commodity in its unmanufac22 hu'eel state, all activities required for the preparation, 

23 processing or manufacturing of a product of agriculture 

24 (as such term is defined in such seetion 8 (f)) for further 

25 distribution, and activities similar to all the foregoing as 

26 they relate to fish or shellfish in aquaeluture facilities." . 

• HR 1773 IH 
5 

3 

1 SEC. 3. ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2C WORKERS. 

2 (a) PROCEDURE FOR ",ADMISSION.-Chapter 2 of title 

3 II of the Immigration and Kationalit,V Act (8 ~C.S.C. 1181 

4 et seq.) is amended hy inserting after section 21R the fol5 lowing: 

6 "SEC. 218A. ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2C WORKERS. 

7 

8 218B: 

9 

DEFINITIONS.-In this section and section 

"(1) AREA OF EMPIDYME~T.-The term 'area 

10 of emplo;yrnent' means the area vvithin normal com11 muting distance of the worksite ur physical location 

12 where the work of the H-2C worker is or will be 

13 performed. If such ~work site or lucation is vvithin a 

14 Metropolitan Statistical ",,"~rea, any place "rithin such 

15 area shall be c011sidered to be v,~thin the area of em16 plo;yment. 

17 "(2) DI81'IjACI~.-The term 'displace' means to 

18 layoff a worker from a job that is essentially equiv19 alent to the job for ~which an II-2C worker is 

20 sought. A job shall not be considered to be 'essell21 tially equivalent' to another job unless the job22 "(A) involves essentially the same resIJon23 sibilities as such other job; 

24 "(B) ~was held by a rnitecl States worker 

25 vvrith substantially equivalent qualifications and 

26 experience; and 

.HR 1773 IH 
6 

4 

1 "(C) is located in the same area of employ2 meut as the other job. 

3 "(3) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.-The term 'eligible 

4 individual' means an individual who is not an unau5 thorized alien defined in section 2 74A(h) (3)) 

6 ~with respect to the emploJlnent of the individual. 

7 "(4) ElVIPLOl'ER.-The term 'employer' means 

8 an employer who hires workers to perforrn agTicul9 tu1'3l emplo,Ylnent. 

10 H-2C WOHKI·JH.-The term 'H-2C worker' 

11 means a nonimmigTant described III section 

12 101 (a)(1 ;5)(H)(ii)(c). 

13 "(6) LAY OFF.-

14 TN G+JNlm.AI,.-The term 'lay off'-

15 "(i) means to cause a \vorker':,;; los:,;; of 

16 emplo)ment, other than through a dis17 charge for inadecll1ate performance. viola18 tion of workplace rules, cause, voluntary 

19 departure, voluntary retirement, or the ex20 piration of a grant or contract (other than 

21 a temporary employment contract entered 

22 into in order to evade a condition described 

23 in paragraph (3) of subsection (b)); and 

24 "(ii) does not include any situation in 

25 which the worker is offered, as an alter-

.HR 1773 IH 
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

5 

native to such loss of emplOylllent, a similar employment opportunity with the same 

employer (or, in the case of a placement of 

a worker vvith another employer under subsection (b)(7), vvith either employer described in such subsection) at equivalent or 

higher compensation and benefits than the 

position from which the ernployee was discharged, regardless of whether or not the 

employee accepts the offer. 

"(B) CONSTRUCTION.-~othing m this 

12 paragTaph is intended to limit an employee's 

13 rights under a collective bargaining agTeernent 

14 or other emplo:yrnent contract. 

15 "(7) PREVAILING WAGE.-The term 'prevailing 

16 wage' means the wage rate paid to workers in the 

17 8ame occupation in the area of employment a8 eOHl18 puted pursuant to section 212(p). 

19 "(8) UNITED STATER WORKER-The term 

20 'United States worker' means any worker who is21 a citizen or national of the United 

22 States; or 

23 "(B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for 

24 permanent residence, is admitted as a refugee 

25 under section 207, is granted asylum under seceHR 1773 IH 
8 

1 

2 

3 

6 

tion 208, or IS an immigrant otherwise authorized, by this Act or by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to be employed. 

4 "(b) PETITION.-A~l employer, ur an association aet5 mg as an agent or joint employer for its members, that 

6 seeks the admission into the United States of an H-2C 

7 worker shall file with the Secretary of Agriculture a peti8 tiun attesting to the following: 

9 "(1) TEMPORARY WORK OR SERVICES.-

10 "(A) IN Cm:,\EH.AI,.-Tlw employer is seek11 ing to employ a specific number of agricultural 

12 workers on a temporaTJ hasis and vvill provide 

13 eompensation to sueh workers at a speeified 

14 wage rate. 

15 "(B) DEFI~-:rTION.-l"1or purposes uf this 

16 paragraph, a worker is employed on a tem17 porary basis if the employer intends to employ 

18 the worker for no longer than 18 months (ex19 r~ept for sheepherders) during any eontract pe20 riod. 

21 "(2) BENEFITS, WAGES, AND WORKING CONDI22 TIONS.-The employer will provide, at a minimum, 

23 the benefits, wages, and working cunditions required 

24 by subsection (k) to all workers employed in the jobs 

25 for whic11 t11e H-2C worker is sougllt and to all 

.HR 1773 IH 
9 

7 

1 other temporary workers in the same occupation at 

2 the place of employment. 

3 "(3) NONDISPLACEMENT OF UNITED STATES 

4 womCERS.-The employer did not displace and will 

5 not displace a United States worker employed by the 

6 employer during the period of employment of the H7 2C worker and during the 30-day period mllne8 diately preceding such period of emplo,yment in the 

9 occupation at the place of emplo:ynlent for which the 

10 employer seeks approval to employ H-2C workers. 

11 "(4) RECRUITl\IEXT.-

12 "(r\) IN GI·JNlmAI,.-The employer13 "(i) conducted adequate recruitment 

14 m the area of intended employ-mellt before 

15 filing' the attestation; and 

16 "(ii) was unsuccessful m locating a 

17 qualified United States worker fur the job 

18 opportunity for which the H-2C worker is 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

sought. 

"(B) OTHER RE QUIRE::VIENT s.-The recruitment requirement under subparagraph (A) 

is satisfied if the employer places a local job 

order with the State workforce agency serving 

the local area where the work will be performed, 

except that nothing ill tllis sllbparagraph shall 

.HR 1773 IH 
10 

8 

1 reqUIre the employer to file an interstate job 

2 order under section 658 of title 20, Code of 

3 Federal Reg·ulations. The State workforce agen4 cy shall post the jub order un its official agency 

5 vvebsite for a minimum of 30 days and not later 

6 than 3 days after receipt using the emploJlnent 

7 statistics system authorized under section 15 of 

8 the vVagner-PeyserAet (29 U.S.C. 491-2). The 

9 Secretary of Labor shall include links to the of10 ficial vVeb sites of all State workforce agencies 

11 on a single webpage of the official Vl,T eb site of 

12 the Department of Tmbor. 

13 END OF RECRUITMENT REQUIRE14 MI~NT.-Tlle requirement to recruit United 

15 States workers shall terminate un the fin;t day 

16 that work hegins for the II-2C worker. 

17 "(5) OFFERS TO UNITED STATES WORKERS.-

18 The employer has offered or will offer the job for 

19 whieh the H-2C worker is songht to any eligible 

20 United States worker who21 "(A) applies; 

22 "(B) is qualified for the job; and 

23 will be available at the time and place 

24 of need . 

• HR 1773 IH 
11 

9 

1 This requirement shall not apply to a United States 

2 worker who applies for the job on or after the first 

3 day that work begins for the H-2C worker. 

4 "(6) PWJVISION OF INSURANCE.-If the jub fur 

5 which the H-2C worker is sought is not covered by 

6 State ~\Vurkers' cumpensation law, the empluyer vvill 

7 provide, at no cost to the worker unless State law 

8 provides othellvise, insurance covering il~iury and 

9 disease arising out of, and in the course of, the 

10 worker's employTnent, which will prmride benefits at 

11 least equal to those provided under the State work12 ers compensation la~\V for comparable employTnellt. 

13 REQUIREMEXTS FOR PLACElVIEXT OF H-2C 

14 WOH,I(lm.S WITH O'l'HI'~H. 1~IVlPljOYlm.s.-A non15 immigTant whu is admitteu into the United States as 

16 an II-2C worker may he transferred to another em17 pluyer that has filed a petitiun under this subseetion 

18 and is in compliance with this section. 

19 "(8) STRIKE em LOCKCHTT.-There IS not a 

20 strike or lockout in the course of a labor dispute 

21 which, under regulations promulgated by the Sec22 retary of Agriculture, precludes the hiring' of H-2C 

23 workers. 

24 PRRVlOUS VIOLATIONS.-The employer 

25 has not, during tlle previous two-year period, em-

.HR 1773 IH 
12 

10 

1 ployed H-2C workers and lmovvingly violated a ma2 terial term or condition of approval with resped to 

3 the emplo:vment of domestic or nonimmigrant work4 ers, as determined the Secretary uf Agriculture 

5 after notice and opportunity for a hearing. 

6 "(c) PUBLIC ElGUHXATIOX.-Not later than 1 work7 ing day after the date on which a petition under this see8 tion is filed, the empluyer shall make a copy of each such 

9 petition available for public examination, at the employer's 

10 principal pl ace of business or worksite. 

11 "(d) LIST.-

12 "(1) IN GI~:\EH.Alj.-l'lle Secretary of AgTi13 culture shall maintain a list of the petitions filed 

14 under subsection (b), which sha11-

15 "(A) be sorted by employer; and 

16 "(13) inrlude the numher of II-2C workers 

17 sought, the wage rate, the periud of intended 

18 employment, and the date of need for each 

19 alien. 

20 "(2) AV.AlLABILITY.-The Secretary of Agri21 culture shall make the list available for public exam22 ination. 

23 PETITIONIXG FOR ADMISSION.-

24 "(1) CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS.-For peti25 tiOllS filed and considered under subsection (b)-

.HR 1773 IH 
13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

"(A) the Secretary of Agriculture may not 

require such petitioll to be filed more than 28 

calendar days before the first date the employer 

reqmres the labor or services of the H-2C 

worker: 

"(B) unless the Secretary of Agriculture 

determines that the petition is incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Secretary, not later than 

10 business days after the date on which such 

petition was filed, shall either approve or rejert 

the petition and provide the petitioner ~with notice of such action by means ensurmg same or 

neA't day delivery; and 

if the Secretary determines that the 

petition is incomplete or obviously inaeeurate, 

the Secretary sha11-

• HR 1773 IH 

"(i) w'ithin 5 business days of receipt 

of the petition, notify the petitioner of the 

defir~imlC.ies to he corrected hy means ensuring same or next day delivery; and 

"(ii) within 10 bnsiness days of receipt of the corrected petition, approve or 

deny the petition and prcr\'ide the petitioner 

\\'ith notice of such action by means ensuring same or next day delivery . 
14 

12 

1 "(2) PETITION AOREEl\TENTS.-By filing an H2 2C petition, a petitioner and each employer consents 

3 to allow access to the site where the labor is being 

4 performed to the Department of Agriculture and the 

5 Department of Homeland Security for the purpose 

6 of investigations to determine compliance with H-2C 

7 requirements and the immigration laws. ~ot\vith8 standing any other provision of law, the Depart9 ments of Agriculture and Homeland Security cannot 

10 delegate their compliance functions to other agencies 

11 or Departments. 

12 "(f) ROI,I~S ell-' AGI{ICUI/I'CKAI, ASSOCIATIONS.-

13 "( 1) PERMITTING FILING BY AGRICULTURAL 

14 ASSOCIATIONS.-A petition under subsection (b) to 

15 hire an alien at:; a temporary agTicultural worker 

16 may he filed by an association of agTicultural em17 ployer:s which u:se agTicultural :services. 

18 "(2) TREATMENT OF ASSOCL~TIONS ACTING AS 

19 EMPH)YERS.-If an assoeiation is a joint employer 

20 of temporary agricrutural workers, such workers may 

21 be transferred among its members to perform agri22 ccltural services of a temporary nature for which the 

23 petition ,vas approved. 

24 "(3) TREATMENT OF ~VIOLATIONS.-

.HR 1773 IH 
15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

13 

"(A) INDIVIDL"AL MEMBER.-If an individual member of a joint employer association 

violates any condition for approval with respect 

to the member's petition, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider as an employer for purposes of subsection (b)(9) and invoke penalties 

pursuant to subsection (i) against only that 

member of the association unless the Secretary 

of Agrictliture determines that the association 

or other member participated in, had knowledge 

of, or had reason to know of the violation. 

"(B) ASSOCIATION 01,' AGIiICUL'I'UIiA.l, I<JIVlPL01:ll:RS.-lf an association representing agricultural employers as a joint employer ,~olates 

any condition for approval ,vitll respect to the 

association's petition, the Seeretary of Agriculture shall consider as an employer for purposes of subsection (b)(9) and invoke penalties 

pursuant to suhsP('tion (i) against only the association and not any individual member of the 

association, unless the Secretary determines 

that the member participated in, had knowledge 

of, or had reason to know of the violation . 

• HR 1773 IH 
16 

14 

1 "(g) EXPEDITED ADMINISTRATIVE ApPEALS.-The 

2 Secretary of Agrieulture shall promulgate regulations to 

3 provide for an ex-pedited procedure4 fur the revie~w of a denial of a petition 

5 under this section by the Secretary; or 

6 at the petitiuner's request, for a de novo 

7 administrative hearing' at vvhich new evidence may 

8 be introduced. 

9 "(h) MISCELh~)"""EOUS PRGV1SIONS.-

10 "(1) ENJ)OH.8I~MENT 01" J)OCUiVnJN'l'S.-The 

11 Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for the 

12 endorsement of entry and exit documents of H-2C 

13 workers as may be necessary to carry out this sec14 tion and to prov~de notice for pUl1)oses of section 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27.L~. 

FEES.-

"(A) IN GENEK'lL.-The Secretary of -Lt\g'-

riculture shall require, as a condition of approving the petition, the pay,nent of a fee, in accordance with subparagraph (B), to recover the 

reasunable cost of processing petitions filed by 

employers or associations of employers seeking 

H-2C workers for jobs of a temporary or seasonal nature, but may not require the paylllent 

of such fees to recover the costs of processing 

.HR 1773 IH 
17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

petitions filed by employers or associations of 

employers seeking H-2C workers for jobs not of 

a temporary or seasonal nature. 

• HR 1773 IH 

"(B) FEE BY Tr'PE OF ElV[PLOYEE.-

"(i) SINGLE EMPLOYER-An employer whose petition for temporary alien 

agricultural workers is approved shall, for 

each approved petition, pay a fee that-

"(I) subject to subclause (II), IS 

equal to $100 plus $10 for each approved H-2C worker; and 

"(TI) does not exceed $1,000. 

"(ii) ~'lliSOCLI\TION.-Eaeh employermember of a joint employer association 

whm;e petition for H-2C workers is approved shall, for each such approved petition, pay a fee that-

"(I) subject to subclause (II), is 

equal t.o $100 plus $10 for each approved H-2C worker; and 

"(II) does not exceed $1,000. 

"(iii) LIMITATIO~ ON bSSOCUTION 

FRES.-A joint employer association under 

clause (ii) shall not be charged a separate 

fee . 
18 

16 

1 }IETHOD OF PA'Yl\1ENT.-The fees 

2 eol1eeted under this paragraph shall be paid by 

3 check or money order to the Department of Ag4 riculture. In the case of employers of H-2C 

5 vvorkers that are members of a joint employer 

6 association petitioning on their behalf, the ag7 gregate fees for all employers of H-2C workers 

8 under the petition rnay be paid by 1 check or 

9 money order. 

10 "(i) ENl,lOH.Cl~lVlEN'l'.-

11 "(1) INv'ESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS.-The Sec12 retary of Agrieulture shall be responsible for conn dud.ing investigations and random audits of employ14 ers to ensnre complianee vv~th the reqniremeni:s of 

15 the H-2C program. ~\ll monetary fines levied against 

16 violating employers shall be paid to the Department 

17 of Agriculture and m;ed to enhanee the Department 

18 of Agriculture:s investigatory and auditing pmver. 

19 FAlIJUUE TO MEET CO~l)ITIONR.-If the 

20 Secretary of AgTiculture finds, after notice and op21 portunity for a hearing, a failure to meet a eondition 

22 of subsection (b), or a material misrepresentation of 

23 fad in a petition under subsedion (b), the Sec24 retary-

.HR 1773 IH 
19 

17 

1 "(A) may impose such other administrative 

2 remedies (induding civil money penalties in an 

3 amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation) as 

4 the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and 

5 "(B) may disqualify the employer from the 

6 employment of H-2C workers for a period of 1 

7 year. 

S PENALTIES FOR \\'1I,LFUL FMLUR.E.-If 

9 the Secretary of Agriculture finds, after notice and 

10 opportunity for a hearing, a vvillfnl failure to nwet 

11 a material condition of subsection (b), or a willful 

12 misrepresentation of a material fact in a petition 

13 under subsectiun (b), the Secretary14 "(A) may impose sneh other administrative 

15 remedies (inelmling civil muney penalties in an 

16 amount not to exceed $5,000 pCI' violation) as 

17 the Secretary determines tu be apprupriate; 

IS "(B) may disqualify the employer from the 

19 employment of H-2C workers for a period of 2 

20 years; 

21 may, for a subsequent v'iulation not 

22 arising out of the prior incident, disqualify the 

23 employer from the emplo'ylnent uf H-2C work24 ers for a period of 5 years; and 

.HR 1773 IH 
20 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

18 

"(D) may, for a subsequent violation not 

arising out of the prior incident, permanently 

disqualify the employer from the employment of 

H-2C workers. 

"(4) PENALTIES FOR DISPLACKVIENT OF 

6 UNITED STATES WORKERS.-!f the Secretary uf Ag7 riculture finds, after notice and opportunity for a 

8 hearing, a willful failure to meet a material condition 

9 of subsection (b) or a vvillful misrepresentation of a 

10 material fact in a petition under subsection (b), in 

11 the course of which failure or misrepresentation the 

12 employer displaced a United States worker employed 

13 by the empluyer during the periud of employment of 

14 tIle H-2C worker or during the 30-day period pre15 ceding 8u('h periud uf employment, the Secretary16 "(A) may impose sneh other administrative 

17 remedie8 (ineluding civil money penaltie8 in an 

18 amount not to exceed $15,000 per violation) as 

19 the See.retary determines to he appropriate; 

20 "(B) may disqualify the employer from the 

21 employment of H-2C workers for a period of 5 

22 years; and 

23 may, for a second violation, perrna24 nently disqualify the employer from the employ25 mellt of H-2C workers . 

• HR 1773 IH 
21 

19 

1 FAILURE To PAY "'VADES OR REQUIRED BENE2 FITS.-

3 "(1) ASSESSlVIENT.-If the Secretary of Agri4 culture finds, after notice and opportunity for a 

5 hearing, that the employer has failed to provide the 

6 benefits, wages, and working conditions aUested 

7 the employer under subsection (b), the Secretary 

8 shall assess pa.yment of back wages, or such other 

9 required benefits, due any United States ,yorker or 

! 0 H-2C worker employed by the employer in the speII cific employment in question. 

12 AMOITN'I'.-The back wages or other re13 quired benefih; described in paragraph (1)-

14 shall be eqnal to the difference be15 tween the amount that should have been paid 

16 and the amount that was paid to such worker; 

17 and 

18 "(B) shall be distributed to the worker to 

19 whom such wages or henefits are due. 

20 "(1\:) }IINIl\IUM \VAGES, BENEFITS, AND VVORKING 

21 CO~vITIONS.-

22 "( 1 ) PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF ALIEXS 

23 PRonIDITED.-

24 "(A) I~ GENERAL.-Each employer seek25 mg to hire United States workers shall offer 

.HR 1773 IH 
22 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

20 

such vyorkers not less than the same benefits, 

wages, and working conditions that the employer is offering, intends to offer, or will provide to H-2C workers. No job offer may impuse 

on United States workers any restrictions or 

ubligations which will not be imposed on the 

employer's H-2C ~workers. 

"(B) 1NTETIPTIETATION.-Every interpretation and determination made under this section 

or under any other law, regulation, or interpretative provision regarding the nature, scope, 

and timing of the provision of these and any 

uther benefit8, wage8, and other term8 and conditions of emplo:YTnent slla 11 be made so that-

.MR 1773 1M 

"(i) the 8ervice8 of wurker8 to their 

employers and the emplo:Ylnent opportunitie8 afforded tu work em by the employer8, 

including those emplo:yment opportunities 

that require United States workers or H2C workers to travel or relocate in order to 

accept or perform employment-

"(I) mutually benefit such ,yorkers, a s well as their families, and employersj and 
23 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

"(II) principally benefit neither 

employer nor employee; and 

"(ii) emplo:vynent opportunities \\~thin 

the rnited States benefit the United 

States economy. 

RE(~UIRED vVAGES.-

"(A) Ix GENERAL.-Each employer petitiuning for wurkers under subsectiun (b) shall 

pay not less than the greater of-

"(i) the prevailing wage level for tlle 

occupational classification in the area of 

emplo:yrnent; or 

"(ii) the applicable Federal, State, or 

local minimum wage, whicllever is greatest. 

"(B) SPECL'LL RULE.-An empluyer can 

utilize a piece rate or other alternative wage 

payment system as long as the employer guarantees each worker a wage rate that equals or 

exeeeds the amount required unrler 8uhparagraph (A). 

.HR 1773 IH 

EMPLUYMENT GUARAXTEE.-

IN GENEKI\L.-

"(i) RE(~UIREMENT.-Each employer 

petitioning for workers under subsection 

(b) shall guarantee to offer the worker em-
24 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

plo:ynlent for the hourly equivalent of not 

less than 50 percent of the work hours 

during the total anticipated period of employment, beginning ~with the first work 

day after the arrival of the worker at the 

place of emploJlnent and ending on the expiration date specified in the job offer. 

"(ii) F AlLURE TO :\-IEET GUAB-

~~NTEE.-If the employer affords the 

United States worker or t1le H-2C worker 

less emploJlnent than that required under 

this subparagraph, the employer sllall pay 

such ~worker the amount which the worker 

vvonld 11 ave earned if the worker had 

worked for the guaranteed number of 

hours. 

"(iii) PERIOD OF EMPLOYlVIENT.-Ji'or 

purposes of this subparagraph, the term 

'period of empJo.yment' means the total 

number of anticipated work hours and 

vwrkdays described in the job offer and 

shall exclude the _yorker's Sabbath and 

Federal holidays. 

"(B) CrU,CULATION OF HOURS.-Any 

hours w1lich t1le worker fails to work, up to a 

.HR 1773 IH 
25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

maXImum of the number of hours specified in 

the job offer for a work day, when the wor'ker 

has been offered an opportunity to do so, and 

all hours of work actually performed (including 

voluntary work in excess of the number of 

hours specified in the job offer in a work day, 

on the worker's Sabbath, or on Federal holidays) may be counted by the employer in calculating whether the period of guaranteed employment has been met. 

"(C) LIMITATION.-If the worker voluntarily abandons emplo:ynwnt before the end of 

the contnwt period, or is terminated for cause, 

the worker is not entitled to the 50 percent 

guarantee describecl in subparagnlph (A). 

.HR 1773 IH 

"(D) TEK\UNATION OF EMPLUYlvIENT.-

"(i) IN GENERAL.-If, before the eA'J}iration of the period of employment specified in the job offer, the serviees of the 

worker are no longer required due to any 

form of natural disaster, including flood, 

hurricane, freeze, earthquake, fire, 

drought, plant or animal disease, pest infestation, regulatory action, or any other 

reason beyond the control of the employer 
26 

24 

1 before the emplo,Y'lllent guarantee in sub2 paragraph (A) is fulfilled, the employer 

3 may terminate the worker's employment. 

4 "(ii) R,E(~nREME~TS.-If a worker's 

5 employ'lllent is terminated under clause (i), 

6 the employer shall7 "(I) fulfill the emploYlllent guarS antee In subparagraph (A) for the 

9 work that have elapsed during 

10 tlle period beginning on the first work 

11 day after the arrival of the worker 

12 and ending on the date on which SUCll 

13 employment is terminatecl; 

14 "(TT) make efforts to transfer the 

15 United States worker to other cmn16 parahle employment acceptahle to the 

17 worker; and 

18 "(III) not later than 21 hours 

19 after termimltion, notifY (or have an 

20 association acting as an agent for the 

21 employer notifY) the Secretary of 

22 Homeland Security of such termi23 nation. 

24 "(1) PERIOD OF ADMISSION.-

.HR 1773 IH 
27 

25 

1 "(1) IN GE~ER.AL.-An H-2C worker shall be 

2 admitted for a period of employment, Hot to exeeed 

3 18 months (or 36 months as provided in subseetion 

4 for a worker empluyed in a job that is nut 

5 of a temporary or seasonal nature), and except for 

6 sheepherders, that ineludes7 "(A) a period of not more than 7 days 

8 prior to the beginning of the period uf employ9 ment for the purpose of travel to the work site; 

10 and 

11 "(B) a period of not more than 14 days 

12 follow~llg the period of employment for tl1e pur13 pOiSe of departure or a period of not mure than 

14 30 days follovv~ng t11e period of cmplo,yrnent for 

15 the purpo:se uf :seeking' a :sub:sequent offer of 

16 employment hy an employer pursuant to a peti17 tiun under thi:s :seetion (or pur:suant to at-'will 

18 employment pursuant to section 218B during 

19 SHc-h time as that sec-fion is in effed). ~'ill H20 2C worker who does not depart within these pe21 riods will be cunsidered to have failed to main22 tain nonimmigrant status as an H-2C worker 

23 and shall be subject tu removal under seetion 

24 237(a)(1)(C)(i). Such alien shall be eonsidered 

25 to be inadmissible pursuant to section 

.HR 1773 IH 
28 

26 

1 212(a)(9)(B)(i) for having been unlavvfully 

2 present, with the alien considered to have been 

3 unlawfully present for 180 days as of the 15th 

4 day follovving the periud of employment for the 

5 purpose of departure or as of the 31st day fol6 lowing the period of emplu}lnent fur the pur7 pose of seeking a subsequent offer of employS ment where the alien has not found at-vvill em9 ployment ~with a registered agricultural em10 ployer pursuant to section 218B or employment 

11 pursuant to this section. 

12 ElVIPI,(W.VII~NT j,IMITATIO:'\.-An allen may 

13 nut be empluyeel during- the 14-day perio(l described 

14 in paragrapll (1)(B) except in the employment for 

15 which the alien is othenvise authorized. 

16 "(m)ABANDONMEXT OF E}!J:PLOD'IENT.-

17 "(1) IN GE.'fERAL.-An alien admitted or proIS vided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) vvho 

19 abandons the emplo}lnent which was the hasis for 

20 such admission or status21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

"(A) shall have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as an H-2C worker: 

"(B) shall depart the United States or be 

subject to removal under section 

237(a) (1 )(C)( i); and 

.HR 1773 IH 
29 

27 

1 shall be considered to be inadmissible 

2 pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) for having 

3 been unlavvfully present~ with the alien consid4 ered to have been unlavvfully present for 180 

5 days as of the 15th day following the date of 

6 the abandonment of emplo,vment. 

7 REPORT BY EMPLOYER.-Not later than 

8 24 hours after an empluyer learns of the abandon9 ment of employment by an H-2C worker, the em10 ployer or association acting as all agent for the emIl ployer, shall notify the Secretary of Homeland Secu12 rity of SUCll abamlollment. 

13 "(3) REMOYLiL.-'1'he Secretary of Homeland 

14 Security shall promptly remove from the United 

15 States any H-2C worker who "iulates any term ur 

16 condition of the worker:s nonimmigrant status. 

17 "( 4) VOLL'NTARY TE RlVIINATION.-.\J ut\vith18 standing paragraph (1) ~ an alien may voluntarily 

19 terminate the alien's employment if the alien 

20 promptly departs the United States upon termi21 nation of such employment. An alien who voluntarily 

22 terminates the alien's employment and who does not 

23 depart within 14 days shall be considered to have 

24 failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as an H-2C 

25 \yorker and shall be subject to removal unrler section 

.HR 1773 IH 
30 

28 

1 237(a)(1)(C)(i). Such alien shall be considered to be 

2 inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(~)(B)(i) for 

3 having been unlawfully present ~with the alien con4 sidered to have been unlmvfully present for 180 days 

5 as of the 15th day follovving the voluntary termi6 nation of employment. 

7 "(n) REPLACEMEXT OF ALIEN.-An employer may 

8 designate an eligible alien to replace an H-2C worker who 

9 abandons employment not,,~thstanding the numericallimi10 tation found ill seetion 214(g)(1 )(C). 

11 "(0) EXTENSION OF STAY OF H-2C "VORl-OmS IN 

12 'l'HI~ UNI'I'lm STATI~S.-

13 "(1) EXTENSION OF STAY.-lf an employer 

14 seeks approval to employ an H-2C worker who is 

15 lawfully present in the Cnitecl States, the petition 

16 filed hy the employer or an association pursuant to 

17 subsection (b) shall request an extension of the 

18 alien's stay and, if applieable, a ehange in the alien's 

19 emplo,Ylnent. 

20 "(2) 'YORK AUTHORIZATION UPON FILING PE21 TITION FOR EA'TENSIOX OF STAY.-

22 "(A) L'\ GENERAL.-An alien who is law23 funy present in the United States on the date 

24 of the filing of a petition to extend the stay of 

25 the alien may eommence or continue tl1e em-

.HR 1773 IH 
31 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

plo:vment described III a petition under paragraph (1) until and unless the petition is deTued. The employer shall provide a copy of the 

ernployer's petition for extension of stay to the 

alien. The alien shall keep the petition with the 

alien's identification and emplo.ylnent eligibility 

document, as evidence that the petition has 

been filed and that the alien is authorized to 

work in the United States. 

"(B) ElvIPI,OYlVnJNT 1~L1GIBILl'I'Y J)OCITlVIENT.-Upon approval of a petition for an extension of stay or change in t11e alien's authorized employment, the Secretary of Homeland 

Security shall prov~de a new or updated employment eligibility doeument to the alien indicating 

the new validity date, after which the alien IS 

not required to retain a copy of the petition. 

FILE DEFINED.-In this paragraph, 

the term 'file' means senrling the petition by 

certified mail via the United States Postal Service, return receipt requested, or delivering by 

guaranteed commercial delivery wmch ~will pro-

~vide the employer with a documented acknowledgment of the date of receipt of the petition 

for an eAi.cnsion of stay . 

• HR 1773 IH 
32 

30 

1 LIlVIIT~~TION ON AN INDI\'1DUAL'S STAY IN 

2 STATUS.-

3 lVLLTIl\1UM PERIOD.-The maXImum 

4 continuous period of authorized status as an 

5 H-2C ,Yorker (including any ex't.ensions) is 18 

6 months for a worker employed in a job that is 

7 of a temporary or seasonal nature. For an H8 2C worker employed in a job that is not of a 

9 temporary or seasonal nature, the initial max10 imum continuons period of authori7.ed status is 

11 36 months and subsequent maximum contin12 110ns periods of authori7.ed status are 18 

13 months. There is no maximum continuous pe14 riod of authori7.ed status for a slleepherder. 

15 "(B) HEQUIREMENT TO REl\1A1N OUTSIDE 

16 THE UNITED STATES.-In the case of an alien 

17 outside the United States ,vho was employed in 

18 a job of a temporary or seasonal nature pursu19 ant to sPf'tion lOl(a)(lPi)(H)(ii)(c) whosp period 

20 of authorized status as an H-2C worker (in21 eluding any extensions) has expired, the alien 

22 may not again be admitted to the United States 

23 as an H-2C worker unless the alien has re24 mained outside the United States for a contin25 110US period equal to at least 1/6 the dnration of 

.HR 1773 IH 
33 

81 

1 the alien's previous period of authorized status 

2 as an H-2C worker. For an alien outside the 

3 United States who was employed in a job not 

4 of a temporary or seasonal nature pursuant to 

5 section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) whose period of au6 thorized status as an H-2C worker (including 

7 any extensions) has expired, the alien may not 

8 again be admitted to the United States as an 

9 H-2C worker unless the alien has remained 

10 outside the United States for a continuons pe11 riod equal to at least the lesser of % the dura12 tion of the alien's previous period of authori7.ed 

13 :statu:s a:s an H-2C worker or 3 month:s. There 

14 is no requirement to remain outside the United 

15 Staters for :sheepherder:s. 

16 "(p) lW.HT8TMENT OF STATu8.-Notv\:'ithstanding 

17 any other provi:sion of law, an alien who irs unlavvfully 

18 present in the United States on April 25, 2013, is eligible 

19 to adjust status to that of an H-2C 'worker. 

20 TB,UST FUND To ASSURE vVORI-illR RETURN.-

21 "(1) ESTADLISIIMENT.-There is established in 

22 the Treasury of the United States a trust fund (in 

23 this section referred to as the 'Tnlst Fund') for the 

24 purpose of providing a monetary incentive for H-2C 

.HR 1773 IH 
34 

32 

1 workers to return to their country of origin upon ex2 pil'atioll of their' visas. 

3 "(2) 'VITHHOLDIXG OF WAGES; PAYlVIENT INTO 

4 TIlE TRUST FUND.-

5 "(A) IN GENEKiIili.-Kohvithstanding the 

6 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

7 201 et seq.), all employers of H-2C workers 

8 shall withhold from the wages uf the wurkers an 

9 amount equivalent to 10 percent of the wages 

10 of eacll worker and pay such vv~thheld amonnt 

11 into the Trust Fund. 

12 "(B) ,JelKs THAT Mlf<J NOT (W A 'nJM13 PORARY OR. SEASOKI\L NATURE.-j1~mpluyen; of 

14 H-2C workers employed in jobs that are not of 

15 a tempurary or sea:sonal nature :shall pay into 

16 the Trust Fund an amount equivalent to the 

17 Pederal tax on the wag'e:s paid to H-2C worker:s 

18 that the employer would be obligated to pay 

19 under chFlpters 21 and 2:~ of the Internal Hev20 enue Code of 1986 had the H-2C workers been 

21 subject to such chapters. 

22 l'1..mounts 'withheld under this paragraph shall be 

23 maintained in such interest bearing account with 

24 such a financial institution as the Secretary of AgTi25 culture shall specify . 

• HR 1773 IH 
35 

33 

1 DISTRIBUTION OF FLI\vS.-i~mounts paid 

2 into the Trust Fund on behalf of an H-2C wfJ['ker, 

3 and held pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and interest 

4 earned thereon, shall be paid by the Secretary of 

5 State to the worker if6 the worker applies to the Secretary of 

7 State (or the desigl1ee of such Secretary) for 

8 payment vvithin 30 days of the expiration of the 

9 alien's last authorized stay in the Lnited States 

10 as all H-2C worker at a Lllited States embassy 

11 or consulate in the worker's home country; 

12 "(B) in SUCll application tlle worker estah13 Ii shes that the worker has complied ,vith the 

14 terms and conrlitiolls of the H-2C program; 

15 and 

16 m connection vvith the application, 

17 the H-2C worker eonfirrns their identity. 

18 ~'ill::VIINISTRATI\TE EXPENSES.-The 

19 amounts paid into the Trust Fund and held pursu20 ant to paragraph (2)(B), and interest earned there21 on, shall be paid to the Secretary of State, the Sec22 retary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Home23 land Security in amounts equivalent to the expenses 

24 incurred by such officials in the administration of 

.HR 1773 IH 
36 

34 

1 the H-2C program not reimbursed pursuant to sub2 section (h)(2) or section 21SB(b). 

3 "(1') INVEST}!1ENT OF TRUST FUND.-

4 "(1) IN GENEIL~L.-It shall be the duty of the 

5 Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of 

6 the Trust Fund as is nut, in the Secretary's judg7 ment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such 

8 investments may be made unly in interest-bearing 

9 obligations of the United States or in obligations 

10 g1w.ranteed as to botll principal and interest by the 

11 United States. For such purpose, such obligations 

12 may be acqnired13 "(A) on uriginal i:Sl:me at the price; ur 

14 "(B) by purchase of outstanding obliga15 tiun:s at the market price. 

16 The purposes for which ohligations of the United 

17 State:s may be i:s:sued under chapter 31 uf title 31, 

18 United States Code, are hereby e).'tended to author19 ize the issuance at par of special ohligations exclu20 sively to the Trust Fund. Such special obligations 

21 shall bear interest at a rate equal tu the average 

22 rate of interest, computed as to the end of the cal23 endar month next preceding the date of such issue, 

24 borne by all marketable interest-bearing obligations 

25 of the United States tllen forming a part of tlle puh-

.HR 1773 IH 
37 

35 

1 lic debt, except that where such average rate is not 

2 a multiple of Vs of 1 percent, the rate of interest of 

3 such special obligations shall be the multiple of VS 

4 of 1 percent next lower than such average rate. Such 

5 special obligations shall be issued only if the Sec6 retary of the Treasury determines that the purchase 

7 of other interest-bearing obligations of the United 

8 States, or of obligations guaranteed as to both prin9 cipal and interest by the United States on original 

10 issue or at the market priee, is not ill the publie in11 terest. 

12 "(2) SAljl~ O!,l OKl,IGATION.-Any obligation ac13 quired by the Trm;t Punu (except 8peeial obligation8 

14 issued exelusively to the Trust Fund) may be sold by 

15 the Secretary of the Trea8ury at the market price, 

16 and snch specinl ohligations may he redeemed at par 

17 plu8 accrueu intere8t. 

18 CREDITS TO TReST FUND.-The interest 

19 OU, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, 

20 any obligations held in the Trust Fund shall be 

21 eredited to and form a part of the Trust Fund. 

22 REPORT TO CONGRESS.-It shall be the 

23 duty of the Seeretary of the Treasury to hold the 

24 Trust Fund, and (after consultation ~with the Sec25 retary of Agriculture) to report to the Congress eacll 

.HR 1773 IH 
38 

36 

1 year on the financial condition and the results of the 

2 operations of the Trust Fund durIng the preceding' 

3 fiscal year and on its eJ<.~ected condition and oper4 at ions during the neJ<.i fiscal year. Such report shall 

5 be printed as both a House and a Senate document 

6 of the session uf the Congress to which the report 

7 is made.". 

8 (b) AT-\VILL E:\-IPLGYJ\1:ENT.-Chapter 2 of title II of 

9 the ImmigTation and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 et 

10 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 218A (as in11 serted by subsection the following: 

12 "SEC. 218B. AT-WILL EMPLOll'IENT OF TEMPORARY H-2C 

13 WORKERS. 

14 A'l'-\VII,I, ElVlI'J,oYlVll~"'l'.-

15 "(1) IN GE~"E&\L.-An H-2C worker may per16 form agricultural labor or services for any employer 

17 that is designated as a 'reg-istered agTieultural em18 ployer' pursuant to subsection (b). However, an H19 2(; worker may only perform lahor or servir~es pnrsn20 ant to this section if the worker is already lavvfully 

21 present in the United States as an H-2C worker, 

22 having been admitted or othenvise provided nou23 immigrant status pursuant to section 218A, and has 

24 completed the period of employment specified in the 

25 job offer the worker accepted pursuant to section 

.HR 1773 IH 
39 

37 

1 218A or the employer has terminated the 'worker's 

2 employment pursuant to section 218A(k)(8)(D)(i). 

3 An H-2C worker 1,vho abandons the employment 

4 which was the basis for admission ur status pursu5 ant to section 21SA may not perform labor or serv6 ices pursuant to this section until the worker has re7 turned to their home country, been readmitted as an 

8 H-2C worker pursuant to section 218A and has 

9 completed the period of emplo.yment specified in the 

10 job offer the worker accepted pllrsuant to section 

11 218A or the employer has terminated the 'worker's 

12 emplo,V,nellt purslJa.nt to section 21SA(k)(3)(D)(i). 

13 PERIOD OF STAY.--L'lll H-2C worker per14 forming such labor or sen~ces for a registered agTi15 eultuml employer is sul~jeet to the periud uf admis16 sion, limitation of stay in status, ami requirement to 

17 remain outside the United States euntained in sub18 sections (l) and (0)( 3) of section 218A. 

19 "un TER:'vIINATION OF EMPLOYMENT.-At the 

20 conclusion of at -,vill emplo,Y'YIlent 1,vith a registered 

21 ag-r-:icultural empluyer or the cunclusion uf employ22 ment pursuant to section 218A qualifying an H-2C 

23 worker to perform at-will work pursuant tu this sec24 tion. an H-2C worker shall find at-\\~l employment 

25 1\~th a registered agricultural employer or employ-

.HR 1773 IH 
40 

38 

1 ment pursuant to section 218A ,,~thin 30 days or 

2 will be considered to have failed to maintain nOH3 immigrant status as an H-2C worker and shall c1e4 part from the United States or be subject to remuval 

5 under section 237(a)(1)(C)(i). An H-2C worker who 

6 does not so depart shall be considered to be inadmis7 sible pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) for ha\~ng 

8 been unlawfully present, v,rith the alien considered to 

9 have been unlawfully present for 180 as of the 

10 31 st day after conclusion of emplo:ymellt where the 

11 alien has not found at-v,~l emploYTnent ,,~th a reg12 istered agricultural employer or emplo:Ylllent pursu13 ant to 8ection 218A. Huwever, an alien may volun14 tarily terminate tlle alien's emplo:yment if the alien 

15 promptly depart8 the United State8 upon termi16 nation of 81wh emploYLnent. Either a registered agTi17 cultural employer or an H-2C worker may volun18 tarily terminate the worker's at-vvill emploYTnent at 

19 any time. The H-2C worker then shall fiml adcli20 tional at-vvill emploYlllent with a registered agricul21 tural employer or emplo:yment pursuant to section 

22 218A mthin 30 days or will be considered to have 

23 failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as an H-2C 

24 worker and shall depart from the United States or 

25 be subject to removal uncleI' section 237(a)(1 

.HR 1773 IH 
41 

39 

1 All H-2C worker who does not so depart shall be 

2 considered to be inadmissible pursuant to section 

3 212(a)(9)(B)(i) for having been unlawfully present, 

4 with the alien considered to have been unlawfully 

5 present for 180 days as of the 31st day after conclu6 sion of employment where the alien has not fmmd 

7 at-I"ill employment vvith a registered agricultural 

8 employer or employment pursuant to section 218A. 

9 "(b) REGISTERED AGRICULTLRAL EMPLOr'ERS.-

10 Tlle Secretary of Agriculture shall establish a process to 

11 accept and adjudicate applications by employers to be des12 ignated as registered agricultural employers. The Sec13 retary shall require, as a comlition of approving' the peti14 tion, the pa:yrnent of a fee to recover the reasonable cost 

15 of processing- the application. The Secretary shall des16 ignate an employer as a registered agrirultural employer 

17 if the Secretary determines that the employer18 "( 1) employs indhiduals I,{ho perform agricul19 tural labor or services; 

20 "(2) has not been subject to debarment from 

21 receiving future temporary agricultural labor certifi22 cations pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) 

23 "ithin the last five years; 

.HR 1773 IH 
42 

40 

1 "(3) has not been subject to disqualification 

2 from the employment of H-2C workers within the 

3 last five years, 

4 "( 4) agrees to, if employing an H-2C ~worker 

5 pursuant to this section, abide by the terms of the 

6 attestations contained in section 218A(b) and the 

7 oblig'ations contained in subsections (k) (excluding 

8 paragraph (3) of such subsection) and (q) of section 

9 21BA as if it had submitted a petition making those 

10 attestations and accepting those obligations, and 

11 "(5) agrees to notify the Secretary of AgTi12 culture and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

13 each time it employs an H-2C worker pursuant to 

14 this section within 24 hours of the commencement of 

15 employment and each time an H-2C worker ceases 

16 emplo.y'ment \vithin 24 hours of the cessation of em17 plo:yment. 

18 "(c) LENGTH OF DESIGNATION.-An employer's des19 ignation as a registered agricultural employer shaH be 

20 valid for 3 years, and the designation can be extended 

21 upon reapplication for additional 3-year terms. The See22 retary shall revoke a designation before the expiration of 

23 its three year term if the employer is subject to disquali24 fication from the employrnent of H-2C workers subse-

.HR 1773 IH 
43 

41 

1 quent to being designated as a registered agricultural em2 plover. 

3 "(d) ENFORCElVIENT.-The Secretary of Agriculture 

4 shall be responsible for conducting investigatiuns and ranS dom audits of employers to ensure compliance ,vith the 

6 requirements of tlns section. All munetary fines levied 

7 against violating employers shall be paid to the DepartS ment of Agriculture and used to enhance the Department 

9 of Agriculture's investigatory and audit pm-vel'. The Sec10 retary of Agricultnre's enforcement powers and an em11 ployer's liability described in subsections (i) through (j) 

12 of section 218A are applicable to ernployers employing H13 2C wurken; punmant tu this sectiun. 

14 "(e) RI·JIVIOVAI, (ll<' H-2C W(H~Klm .. -The Secretary 

15 of Humeland Security shall prumptly remove from the 

16 United States any II-2C worker who is or had been em17 pluyed pursuant to thh; sectiun on an at-will basis who 

18 is who violates any term or condition of the worker's non19 imnngrant status.". 

20 (c) PROHIBITION ON FAMILY MElVIBERS.-Section 

21 lOl(a)(15)(H) of the ImnngTation and ~ationality Act (8 

22 U.S.C. llOl(a)(15)(H)) is amended by striking "him;" at 

23 the end and inserting "him, except that no spouse or child 

24 may be admitted under clause (ii)( c):" . 

• HR 1773 IH 
44 

42 

1 (d) NUlV[ERIC~iI,L CAP.-Section 21 i1(g)(1) of the 1m2 mi/2Tatiou and )Jatiormlity Ad (8 l~.S.C. 1184(g)(1)) is 

3 amended4 (1) III subparagraph (A), by striking "or" at 

5 the end; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

7 at the end and inserting "; or"; and 

8 by adding at the end the folluvving: 

9 under sedion 101 (a)( 15)(H)(ii)( c) 

10 may not exceed 500,000, except that11 "(i) the Secretary of Agriculture may 

12 mcrease or decrease such number based 

13 un14 "(1) a shortage or su11)1us of 

15 ,vurkers performing agricultural labur 

16 or sen'lces; 

17 "(11) gruvvth or contractiun in 

18 the United States agricultural indus19 try that has in[~reased or denre3sed 

20 the demand for workers to perform 

21 agricultural labor or services; 

22 "(III) the level of unemployl1lent 

23 and underemploylnent of United 

24 States workers defined in section 

.HR 1773 IH 
45 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

.HR 1773 IH 

43 

218A( a)( 8) ) m agricultural labor or 

serVICes; 

"(IV) the number of nonimmigrant workers employers sought 

during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to clause (a) or (c) of section 

101 (a)(15 )(H)(ii); 

"(V) the number of H-2C workers (as defined in section 218A( a) ( 5 ) ) 

who ill the preceding fiscal year had 

to depart from the United States or 

be subject to removal under section 

237(a)(1)(C)(i) beeause they eoulll 

not find additional at-v,~ll employnlent 

within 30 days pursuant to seetion 

21813; 

"(VI) the estimated number of 

United States workers defined m 

Sf'[~tion 21RA(a)(R)) who workf'd m 

agriculture during the preceding fiscal 

year pursuant to clause or (c) of 

section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii); and 

"eVIl) the munber of nonimmigrant agricultural ,vorkers issued 

a visa or othervl~se pruvided n011-
46 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

44 

immigrant status pursuant to clause 

(a) or (c) of section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) 

during preceding fiscal years who remain in the United States out of compliance \\'ith the terms of their status; 

"(ii) during any fiscal year, the Secretary of Agriculture may increase such 

number on an emergency basis for severe 

shortages of agricultural labor or sen'ices; 

and 

"(iii) this numerical limitation shall 

not apply to any alien who performed agTicultural labor or sen'ices for not fewer 

than 57:'5 honrs or 100 days in which the 

alien \vas employed 5.75 or more hours 

performing agricultural labor or services 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act Act during 

the 2-year period beginning on the date of 

the enaetrnent of sneh Ad. and emling on 

the date that is 2 years after such date.". 

21 (e) vV~~IVER OF BARS TO AnMISSIDILITY.-Section 

22 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Kationality Act 

23 (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v)) is amencled24 (1) by striking "The Attorney General" and in25 serting the follm'~llg: 

.HR 1773 IH 
47 

45 

1 "(I) IN OENERAL.-The Sec2 retary of Homeland Security". 

3 (2) by striking "Attorney General" each place 

4 it appears and inserting "Secretary of Homeland Se5 curity'~; and 

6 (:3) by adding at the end the following: 

7 "(II) H-2C wORKERs.-The SeeS ~~~&~~&oo~~ 

9 waive clause (i) solely if necessary to 

10 allow an alien to come temporarily to 

11 the United States to perform agricul12 tural labor or services as prm~ded in 

13 sediun 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c), except tu 

14 tlle e>..'ient tllat the alien's unlawful 

15 presence followed after the alien's 

16 having the status of a nonimmigrant 

17 under such section.". 

18 (f) PR.EVAILINO ~WAOE.-Section 212(p) of the Immi19 gration amI Nationality Aet (8 r.B.C. 1182(p)) is amend20 ed21 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding "and section 

22 218A" after "of this section"; and 

23 (2) in paragraph (3), by adding "and section 

24 218A" after "of this section" . 

• HR 1773 IH 
48 

46 

1 (g) CLERICAL "bIENDMENT.-The table of contents 

2 for the Immigration and Nationality Ad (8 U.S.C. 1101 

3 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item relating 

4 to seetiull 218 the following: 

"See. ~lSA. Admission of temporary H-2C workers. 

"Sec. 21SB. Ap,,,ill empl()yment ()f temporary H-2C workers.". 

5 SEC. 4. MEDIATION. 

6 A nunimmigrant having status under sedion 

7 101(a)(15)(II)(ii)(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Ad (8 l~.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c)) may not bring a civil 

9 action for damages against the nonimmignmt's employer, 

10 nor may any other attorney or individual br'ing' a civil ac11 tion for damages on behalf of such a nonimmigrant 

12 against the nonimmigr'ant's employet', unless at least £)0 

13 prior to bringing the action a request has been made 

14 to the Federal }Iediation and Conciliation Service to assi.st 

15 the parties in reachi.ng a satisfactory resolution of all 

16 issues involving all parties to the dispute and mediation 

17 has been attempted. 

18 SEC. 5. MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER 

19 PROTECTION. 

20 Secti.on :i(S)(ll)(ii) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agrl21 eultural Worker Proteetion Ad (29 C.S.C. 

22 lS02(S)(ll)(ii)) is amended by striking "under sections 

23 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and 214(c) of the Immigration and 

24 K ationality Act." and inserting "under snbclanses (a) and 

.HR 1773 IH 
49 

47 

1 (c) of section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), and section 21i l:(c), of the 

2 Immigration and K ationality Act.". 

3 SEC. 6. BINDING ARBITRATION. 

4 (a) APPLICAnILITY.-1\ny H-2C worker may, as a 

5 condition of employment ,"ith an employer, be subject to 

6 mandatory binding arbitration and mediation of any griev7 ance relating to the emplo:yment relationship. An employer 

8 shall provide any such worker v,rith notice of such concli9 tion of emplo:vment at the time the job offer is made. 

10 (b) AJ,/,OCA'I'IO:\ OF COS'I's.-Any cost associated 

11 with such arbitration and mediation process shall be 

12 eqllally divided between the employer and the H-2C work13 er, except that each party shall be responsible for the cost 

14 of its OW,l counsel, if any. 

15 (c) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section: 

16 (1) Thc tcrm "condition of cmplo:ymcnt" means 

17 a term, condition, obligation, or requirement that is 

18 part of the job offer. such as the term of employ19 ment, the joh responsihilities, the employee conduct 

20 standards, and the grievance resolution process, and 

21 to which an applicant or prospective H-2C worker 

22 must consent or accept in order to be hired for the 

23 position. 

24 (2) The term "H-2C worker" meaTIS a non25 immigrant described in section 101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) 

.HR 1773 IH 
50 

48 

1 of the Immigration and ~ationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

2 llOl(a)(lG)(ii)(c)). 

3 SEC. 7. THE PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR OR 

4 

5 

SERVICES BY ALIENS WHO ARE UNLAWFULLY 

PRESENT. 

6 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall waive the 

7 grounds of inadmissibility contained in paragraphs (5), 

8 (6), (7), and (9)(B) of section 212(a), and the grounds 

9 of deportability contained in subparagraphs (A) through 

10 (D) of paragrapll (1), and paragraph (3), of section 

11 237(a), of the ImmigTation and Nationality Act (8 l~.S.C. 

12 1101 et seq.) in tlle case of an alien physically present 

13 in the United Staters at') of April 25, 2013, :solely a:s may 

14 be necessary in order to allow the alien to perform agricul15 tural labor or :service:s. Such alien :shall not be con:sidered 

16 an unauthorized alien for purposes of seetion 27 41'1c(h)(3) 

17 of the ImmigTation amI Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

IS 1324a(h)(3)) or to be unlawfully present as long as the 

19 alien performs sueh lahor or se1"viees. 

20 SEC. 8. ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS AND 

21 REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS. 

22 (a) FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS.-H-2C workers 

23 (as defined in section 21SA(a)(5) of the Immigration and 

24 Kationality Act, as inserted by section 3(a) of this Act) 

.HR 1773 IH 
51 

49 

1 and aliens performing agricultural labor or services pursu2 ant to section 7 of this Act3 (1) are not entitled to the premnun assistance 

4 tax credit authorized under section 36B uf the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986; 

6 shall be subject tu the rules applicable to in7 dividuals "\vho are not la\vfruly present set forth in 

8 subsection (e) of such section; and 

9 (3) shall be subject to the rules applicable to in10 dividuals who are not lav,fully present set forth in 

11 section 1402 (e) of the Patient Protection and Af12 fordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071 

13 (b) HEFrND~lliLE T1L"X: CREDITS.-H-2C ~worken; (as 

14 defined in section 21 of the ImmigTation and Na15 tionality Act, as inserted by section of this Act) and 

16 aliens performing agrirultural labor or servires pursuant 

17 to section 7 of this Act shall not be allowed any eredit 

18 under section 2,1 or 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

19 1986. In the case of a joint return, no credit shall he al20 lowed under either such section if both spouses are such 

21 a worker or alien. 

22 SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATES; SUNSET; REGULATIONS. 

23 (a) EFFECTIVE DATES.-

24 (1) IN GEKERAL.-The amendments made by 

25 sections 2 and 4 througll 6, and subsectiolls (a) and 

.HR 1773 IH 
52 

50 

1 (c) through (f) of section 3, of this Act shall take 

2 effed 011 the date that is 2 years after the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act, and the Secretary of Ag4 riculture shall accept petitions to import an alien 

5 under sections 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) and 218A of the 

6 Immigration and K ationality Act, as inserted by this 

7 Act, beginning on such date. 

8 (2) AT-\VILL EJliIPLOYMENT.-The amendment 

9 made by section 3 (b) of this Act shall take effect on 

10 t11e date t11at it becomes unlav,ful for any person or 

11 other entity to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, 

12 for emplo:yment in the rnited States an indi,~dual 

13 (a8 provided in 8ection 27 4A( a) (1) of the ImmigTa14 tion and Nationality Act) (8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1)) 

15 ,vithout participating" in the B-Verity ProgTam cle16 scrihed in seetion 408(a) of the Illegal Immigration 

17 Reform and Immignmt Re8pon8ibility Act of 1996 

18 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) or an employment eligibility 

19 verifie.ation systf~m patterned on sueh program's 

20 verification system, and only if at that time the E21 Verify Program (or another program patterned after 

22 the E-Verify Program) responds to inquiries made 

23 by such persons or entities by providing confirrna24 tion, tentative nonconfirmation, and final noncon25 firmation of an indi,~dual's identity and emplo:yment 

.HR 1773 IH 
53 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

51 

eligibility in such a way that indicates whether the 

individual is eligible to be employed in all occupations or only to perform agricultural labor or services pursuant to seetion 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) of the 

Immigration and ::-.J ationality Act inserted by this 

Act), and if the latter, whether the nonimmigrant 

would be in compliance with their maximum continuous period of authorized status and requirement to 

remain outside the L"nited States pursuant to sections 218A and 218B of S11Ch Act (as so adrled) and 

on what date the alien 'would cease to be in compliance ,,~th tlleir rnaxinmn1 continuous period of authorized status. 

(3) AC+HICUL'I'UH.AI, I,ABOH ClH SI·JIWICI~S BY 

~UIENS UNh~\\'FULLY PRESENT.-Section 7 of this 

Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

17 of this Act and shall cease to be in effect on the date 

18 that is 2 years after such date. 

19 (11) OPERATION AND SUNSET OF TIlE H-2A Pn.n20 ORAM.-

21 

22 

(1) _ApPIJICATION OF EXISTING REGUILA.-

TIONS.-The Department of Labor H-2A program 

23 regulations published at 7:3 Federal Hegister 77110 

24 et seq. (2008) shall be in force for aU petitions ap25 proved under sections 101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(e) and 

.MR 1773 1M 
54 

52 

1 218A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in2 serted by this Act, beginning' on the date of the en3 actment of this Act. 

4 (2) rll.JUSTlVIENT OF STATUS.-~ot'vith5 standing any other provision of law, an alien who is 

6 unlawfully present in the rnited States on the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act is eligible to adjust sta8 tus to that uf an alien described in sectiun 

9 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nation10 ality Ad (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)) begillning 

11 on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 

12 on the date that is 2 years after the date of the en13 aetment uf this Act. 

14 (3) SCNsE'l'.-Beginlling on the date that is 2 

15 years after the date of the enadrnent of this Ad, no 

16 ncw petition to import an alicn undcr scrtions 

17 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and 218 of the Immigration 

18 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

19 1101(a)(Fi)(H)(ii)(a); 8 lUte. 118R) shall he ar20 cepted. 

21 REGUh4eTIONS.-Nut later than 18 months after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

23 Agriculture shall promulgate reg'ulatiuns, in accordance 

24 with the notice and comment pru\'isions of section 553 of 

.HR 1773 IH 
55 

53 

1 title 5, United States Code, to implement the Secretary's 

2 duties under this Aet . 

• HR 1773 IH 
56 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also Chairman 

Goodlatte, for holding this hearing on Mr. Goodlatte’s Agricultural 

Guestworker Act. 

As with the hearing we just had on Mr. Smith’s Legal Workforce 

Act, I understand this hearing is another in a series of hearings 

meant to examine what is broken in our current immigration system. 

Nowhere is this evidence of brokenness more evident than in our 

agricultural sector. We know from the countless hearings we have 

held on this topic that as much as 75 percent of the on-the-farm 

workforce is undocumented, and that is an incredible figure. This 

situation is untenable for both farmers and farmworkers, who together provide an invaluable service to our citizens, our economy, 

our country. They deserve a system that works. We all do. 

That is why it is so significant that, just last month, farmers and 

agricultural trade associations from all over the country and in 

every sector of the agricultural industry, from apples, beekeeping, 

sheep herders, tobacco, citrus, Christmas trees, berries, blueberries, 

onions, peaches, potatoes, vegetables, eggs, the Wine Institute, and 

everybody in between, everybody agreed with the United Farm 

Workers to reach an historic agreement to reform our agricultural 

labor system. 

The agreement that everybody signed on to, which came after 

many months of negotiations, is designed to provide a system that 

works for both growers and farmworkers. In doing so, it will help 

to support the millions of jobs that depend upon the agricultural 

industry and will prevent us from becoming increasingly dependent 

on food produced overseas. 

The agreement includes both an earned legalization program for 

the current undocumented agricultural workforce and a new visa 

program to address future farm labor needs. It is a sensible solution, and I applaud all of the people who worked hard to make it 

a reality. 

Let me pause briefly to note that, for years, we talked about the 

former ag jobs compromise that our former and, I would say, beloved colleague, Howard Berman, played such a critical role in forging. After the ag jobs compromise fell apart, it was unclear how the 

parties would be able to come together once more to find a mutually agreeable solution. Significantly, the proposal that the parties 

recently reached has even more support than the ag jobs compromise. 

Today’s agreement is supported by organizations representing 

large farming, small farmers, fruits and vegetables, dairy, sheep 

herders, beekeepers, landscaping, farm bureaus around the country. Over 70 different agricultural employer organizations support 

the agreement, including the American Farm Bureau, the National 

Council of Agricultural Employers, the National Council of Farmer 

Cooperatives, USA Farmers—which I understand Lee Wicker, our 

witness, is treasurer of that association—the Western Growers Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the Western 

United Dairymen, farm bureaus across the country, including Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana, and even the Idaho Dairymen’s Association. 
57 

All of these organizations agree, the current immigration system 

is hurting our agricultural sector. That is an opinion I share, and 

it is an opinion that I know is shared by Chairman Goodlatte. His 

bill, I know, is a sincere effort to address the dysfunction. And I 

appreciate this hearing as a way of studying the proposal while 

considering ways to fix the broken system. 

As this Committee prepares to enter the national discussion 

about reforming our immigration system, we will need to fully understand each aspect of a top-to-bottom reform of our system just 

as much as we will need to understand how each aspect is interrelated. 

I must admit, however, that I hope this hearing will help convince the Chairman and other Members on his side of the aisle to 

accept and support the agreement that has been reached between 

the diverse coalition of grower interests and the UFW. Considering 

the support for that agreement all across the farming community, 

I am not sure why we would craft something completely new that 

is opposed by important members of that community. 

I must also note at least two elements of that deal that will prevent it from ever becoming law. 

First, 1773 provides an opportunity for undocumented farmworkers to apply for a new temporary worker visa created in the 

bill. But those visas would only allow workers to remain here for 

a period of 18 months even if they have been here for decades and 

have spouses and children in the United States. The reality is, this 

program, this proposal in this bill won’t work. By asking such people to come out of the shadows, register, and obtain a temporary 

visa, we are essentially asking them to report to deport. People will 

not come out of the shadows, and farmers will not have access to 

the stable supply of authorized workers that they need going forward. 

Second, H.R. 1773 would dramatically reduce wages and other 

protection for farmworkers, who are already the least-paid and -protected workers in the United States. Indeed, H.R. 1773 would create a program with lower wages and fewer protections than the 

Bracero Program that is widely recognized as a black eye in our 

Nation’s history. 

The country needs us to find a solution to the agricultural labor 

problem, but I believe the superior solution is the landmark agreement between farmers and farmworkers. I am grateful the United 

Farm Workers, the American Farm Bureau, and all of the other agricultural employers and associations are putting us on what I believe will be the right track. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the 

Chairman of the full Committee, for any opening statement he 

might think appropriate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Chairman Gowdy. And thank 

you and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding this doubleheader of 

hearings on our step-by-step approach to addressing all of the 

issues related to immigration reform that are so badly needed in 

our country. 
58 

As we seek to reform our immigration system as a whole, we 

must take the time to look at each of the individual issues within 

this system to ensure that we get immigration reform right. For 

this reason, I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for holding this 

important hearing. 

H.R. 1773 is a bill that will replace our outdated and unworkable 

agricultural guestworker program and bring us one step closer to 

solving the larger immigration puzzle. As past hearings on the H2A program have revealed, farmers avoid using the existing agricultural guestworker program because it burdens them with excessive regulations and exposes them to frivolous litigation. 

The new guestworker program created under the Ag Act, known 

as the H-2C program, remedies this problem by streamlining access 

to reliable workforce and protecting farmers from abusive lawsuits. 

It also allows dairy farms and food processors to participate in the 

program. 

The new H-2C program will be market-driven and adaptable. It 

will reduce bureaucratic red tape by adopting an attestation-based 

petition process and by allowing H-2C employers in good standing 

who agree to abide by additional terms and conditions the opportunity to be designated as registered agricultural employers, further expediting the hiring process. Moreover, subject to certain conditions, H-2C workers can be employed under contract or at will, 

making it easier for workers to move freely throughout the agricultural marketplace to meet demand. 

We must also learn from the mistakes of the past. As a result, 

the following pitfalls of the H-2A program will not be repeated in 

the new H-2C program: The Ag Act will not require growers to hire 

and train unneeded workers after the work period begins. The Ag 

Act will not require employers to provide free housing and transportation for their workers, and farmers will pay guestworkers the 

typical wage paid to agricultural employees in their locality, not an 

adverse-effect wage dreamed up by Labor Department bureaucrats. 

However, the new H-2C program will be at its core a 

guestworker program. Unlike the agricultural worker provisions in 

the Senate immigration bill, the Ag Act does not create any special 

pathway to citizenship for unlawful immigrants. The bill simply allows unlawful immigrants to participate in the new H-2C 

guestworker program, just as other foreign nationals can, provided 

a job is available. They are required to abide by the same exact 

conditions as foreign agricultural workers currently working legally 

in the United States, including the requirement to leave the U.S. 

periodically and the prohibition on family members accompanying 

the worker. 

Under the Ag Act, H-2C workers can be admitted for up to 18 

months to work in a job that is temporary or seasonal. For work 

that is not temporary, H-2C workers can be admitted initially for 

up to 36 months and up to 18 months on subsequent H-2C visas. 

At the end of the authorized work period, an H-2C worker must remain outside the United States for a continuous period that is 

equal to at least one-sixth of the duration of the worker’s previous 

stay as an H-2C worker or 3 months, whichever is less. These requirements will be strictly enforced. 
59 

To encourage guestworkers to abide by these rules, a small portion of guestworkers’ wages will be held in escrow until they return 

home to collect the wages in their home countries. And if a 

guestworker abandons his or her job, an employer will be required 

to notify the Department of Homeland Security within 24 hours. 

Workers who do not leave the U.S. when required will be barred 

from re-entry into the U.S. for from 3 to 10 years. 

As a general rule, the program will be limited to 500,000 visas 

per year, although individuals working in the U.S. unlawfully who 

transition into the H-2C program will not count against this cap. 

Finally, the H-2C program is fiscally responsible. H-2C 

guestworkers will not be eligible for Obamacare subsidies or for 

other Federal public benefits. They are also not eligible for Federal 

refundable tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, or the Child 

Tax Credit. 

It is essential that we examine solutions to our broken immigration system methodically, for if we fail do so, we risk repeating 

some of the same mistakes of the past. 

I am pleased to welcome all of our witnesses here today. I would 

say to them and to all the Members of this Committee and others 

in the Congress that we look forward to working with them on this 

issue. And this hearing on the specific legislative language of this 

bill is a good starting point to talk about the issues related to agricultural immigration reform, and we will benefit from the testimony of these witnesses today. 

I look forward to their valuable testimony, and I thank the 

Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank Chairman Goodlatte. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

On behalf of all of us, we welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

I will begin by swearing you in, so if you would all please rise 

and lift your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOWDY. May the record reflect all the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

I will introduce you en bloc and then recognize you individually 

for your 5-minute opening statement. 

Just to be clear, your entire statement is already part of the 

record. So to the extent it may be more than 5 minutes, if we could 

get you to edit it. The lighting system means what it normally 

means: green, go; yellow, you have about a minute left; and red, 

go ahead and, if you can, wrap up that thought. 

I am pleased to first introduce Mr. Lee Wicker. He is the deputy 

director of the North Carolina Growers Association, the largest H2A program user in the Nation. Prior to holding this position, he 

worked for the North Carolina Employment Security Commission 

as the technical supervisor for farm employment programs and the 

statewide administrator for the H-2A program. Mr. Wicker has 

been growing flue-cured tobacco with his family in Lee County, 

North Carolina, since 1978. He graduated from the University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 
60 

Mr. Christopher Gaddis is the head of human resources for JBS 

USA Holdings, Inc. With 140 production facilities worldwide, JBS 

is the largest animal protein processor in the world. Prior to his 

current role, he served as the general counsel for JBS, USA, where 

he oversaw litigation mergers, acquisitions, and corporate compliance. Mr. Gaddis received both his J.D. And B.A. In political 

science from the University of Colorado. 

Mr. John Graham III is the fourth-generation president and 

owner of Graham and Rollins in Hampton, Virginia, a crab-processing plant that has operated as a family-owned business since 

1942. He also runs Hampton Seafood Market, which offers retail 

seafood and dining about a mile away from the plant. We would 

also like to welcome Mr. Graham’s father, John Graham, Jr., who 

is in attendance and is the third-generation operator of Graham 

and Rollins. Mr. Graham attended Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia. 

And, lastly, we would like to welcome Mr. Arturo Rodriguez. He 

is the president of the United Farm Workers, which is a position 

he has held since 1993. He began serving full-time with UFW in 

1973. And Mr. Rodriguez has more than 35 years’ experience organizing farmworkers and negotiating UFW contracts. Mr. Rodriguez 

earned an M.A. In social work at the University of Michigan in 

1971. 

Welcome, each and all of you. 

And, with that, we will start with you, Mr. Wicker, and recognize 

you for your 5-minute opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF H. LEE WICKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NORTH CAROLINA GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WICKER. Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and the Committee Members. I am Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association. I am also 

a member of USA Farmers, the Nation’s largest ag guestworker 

employer group. 

NCGA and USA Farmers support Chairman Goodlatte in his effort to provide ag with a new program that provides reliable access 

to labor. Thank you for holding this hearing on a critical issue for 

labor-intensive agriculture. 

NCGA has been the largest H-2A user in the Nation for more 

than 15 years, and our 750 farmers will employ more than 7,500 

H-2A workers and thousands more U.S. Workers this season. 

In previous hearings, I have highlighted the chronic problems of 

H-2A. It is expensive, overly bureaucratic, unnecessarily litigious, 

and excludes some farms and activities. The measured reforms in 

H.R. 1773 solve most of the flaws with our current system, creating 

a new program that all ag producers can use. This proposal is evidence that the U.S. can have a workable farmworker program that 

treats workers well and carefully balances the critical elements of 

worker protections while promoting economic viability on our 

farms. 

This bill offers significant reforms to the prohibitive costs farmers currently face and makes improvements in other important 

areas. It provides for a market-based prevailing wage floor that 

surpasses the Federal minimum, authorizes piece-rate pay systems 
61 

to promote higher earnings, and offers structured portability to enable worker movements from employer to employer. 

The bill makes farm and worker obligations clear and understandable and creates a streamlined legal dispute resolution system to solve farmworker complaints quickly and efficiently. These 

improvements will provide a viable alternative to employing illegal 

aliens. 

The bill maintains valuable employee benefits and critical worker 

protections for domestic and foreign workers, like continuation of 

the minimum hours worked guarantee, mandatory workman’s 

comp insurance, a hiring preference for U.S. workers, and enables 

undocumented workers to come out of the shadows to work legally. 

The bill allows farms that currently provide housing to continue 

but doesn’t prohibit farms without housing from participating. 

The proposal imposes a robust enforcement regime and a strong 

penalty structure for violations. All the economic benefits and 

worker protections in this bill will provide workers who accept 

these jobs assurance: They will enjoy a higher wage and benefit 

package, a safer work environment, and quicker resolution of their 

grievances than if they work on U.S. farms illegally. 

It is clear. There is bipartisan, bicameral consensus. Our Nation 

needs a modern and flexible future flow ag guestworker program. 

In fact, this bill encompasses many elements of the Senate Gang 

of Eight ag proposal, such as: a simplified application process 

under USDA; elimination of the unnecessary 50 percent rule and 

worthless newspaper ads; savings on acquisition fees; open to all ag 

sectors, including some food processing; authorizes longer visas to 

respond to evolving farm production practices; enables undocumented workers to obtain legal status and keep working; provides 

at-will and contract employment to allow workers and growers 

flexibility to decide for themselves what works best; and provides 

portability so workers can seek additional and/or alternative opportunities in the farm marketplace. 

Although the 750 farmers of NCGA and others are strongly opposed to an arbitrary cap and a new program, we acknowledge the 

500,000-per-year cap in the H-2C program is far more reasonable 

than the woefully inadequate annual cap in the Senate bill. Farmers need the program to be uncapped to avoid devastating economic 

losses that will force unprecedented farm bankruptcies when crops 

are lost because partisan, political systems and administrative 

processes will never react quickly enough as crops ripen, then rot. 

Market opportunities are lost, contracts with customers go unfilled 

and are lost, and consumers are forced to pay higher prices for a 

smaller supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. 

While not perfect, NCGA’s board voted unanimously to support 

H.R. 1773 because it provides growers with a program that is substantially more predictable and user-friendly. It is a win for farmers, a win for farmworkers, and a win for America. It will create 

jobs and save jobs in the United States. 

And I would like to enter into the record a comprehensive study 

completed by economist Michael Clemens that has just been published by the Center for Global Development and the Partnership 

for a New American Economy that shows clearly and demonstrably 
62 

that legal guestworkers save and create jobs for Americans on and 

off the farm. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Th e effect of fo reign labor on native emp loyment: 

A job-specific approach and ap plica tion [0 North Carolina farms 

Mir.had A, Clemens' 

P.conl;lIll'SIS hal't'_mt:asurudllw cfk":lS oflmmlgnlllvn 0 11 n;lIi,·C cmplO)'mem pr,' 

l)I~ril y willi mr"!:c ,,,," s hifl ~ ill Ihc fll"''1(1l labor suppl yclltvc. I IlIlb~ 1 an a lk,"a· 

livc-, "ccupatfOIl'Sp"cj(;c HPPTOlICh: di y 'Icsc rl\>e. fur lll ~ l"b. lhe 'mtil,(, labOf 

supply CII1Vl!. J a ppl y llic mc lhl'ld 10 a. nal f~rm ... k ill Nrmh CnrolinQ, and 

u <;o IW<) nalural CXI' ~rill H'lIl -S 10 1l!~l e ulIlivv labuT -$U pply_ 'fh e nr~1 1I~IUTllI CJ<-

PCri'"Cru uS/":Sa I''g;ll TC'quil'l.'InCill fu r farmers I" d emand nalil'll WIl rk sa~ petfeel 

suhsl ilulCS fm lo rd!!" "mla'rs; lhi ~ dc!;<:ri bcs Ihe b 'd ofnlltivc labor l'ply. 'I'h.' 

~'t:O lld ,,,uural expe.ill1e nt lh c~ p,kc; n U.s. IIIII'11Ipl<»'II1CI11 durillg,he2007----6 

,;Conumic crisis: Ihis d csc ri l><--s Ih" 1"",, lupe "fnalh'" labor sl'pply. 'Il1l·lr ... ·d and 

~]opt! lif nalive Llbor supply In lhb /ub. ~I bc)lh t!l(IL~lsive ~rul inl cnsi.'" lll~rWn . are 

lIl·arl y Will n\i ~ Id'~IIUh.s II~ O e!TilelS uf fo",il:'\ Moor suppl y 011 lIaliw " mpl oymr'lIl! a din.":1 .. rfecl (dose 10 :lerli) ~Ild and itl(lill'<'l ," !T~'C 1 (posilivcl via cons .... lu c ill 

iI1Crt a>-p.s in ...,.;lOral OUIf'Ut "nd lis mullipl!r.r r.!T.!I;t$. ( f.Slil1l3Ir Lha! ~ U.S. job 

ro,. ~ HI I ",,,,tors o f Ih" North Cal oil "a ' '<'UI,om), is crcalL"d by ',,""h 1.5-<!:.J furl'i!;" 

scas.u ~1 farm l<fflrki!rS io Ill<!shu r1 rUri (I~!OnLiE frprtXluttio l\ ). ami by eac h 3.o-t.1i 

ror~ig" 5I!aS(l nru farm worker. in Li m long run (Co bb-Douglas I'",duclion). 

/EL ClasslficaLion Numbcrs: F22, /6 1, 015 

·c,.,,'c. ru. CJohol :h>"" I""", ", ;",<1 NTIJ Fi"a"d ol Ac • ..,,;. In,',",I'I:' 1'<>, la pm",;"", [d,a"t 'he 

Nor1h no",lI na l,t<>W1:",A,..odolion. Ihr.lliml"" " r l:mpl",,"",'" ),counly.' \h~ Norlh r''''ollna I),,,..rlmenl <A'Conllrl4'ltll. and (he 1I"",.u "fliOJO"mkAnai)'SI, 01 ~ .. , t).S. lX'fI;,nmQnl "rCvmnll',,-," I (h n~ 

1\')a,. ... ·; Vel"Ylldhlon 31ld M.rl~ StlMirk fo. el(:" lIell( ,,,,,,,o,,,h r..<iM 'Drt.'- I ..,,'eiwd ~""<''')''S SUPi1"" f",," 

Ih" I'~"\ 0 .• lId C&r""rim: l . MacAn!>", fnund"'I"", (heW~Ii.m ."d 1'1".-. \l e,..k~1 r",,,,dallon, and Ihc 

ror1"c<"hip I".-a Nt"""" ,,,,,,lca" 1:':"MOll'. I n<').,; .. :d hdp ""d Id, ,~, I',,,,,, AM 1I.1:I·hl. Gat)' lIull'''I, Slo" 

l,ul')\ Q m!). lI.wml n. 'Il,,'mas 11 Ll. J"y 11I1i. Da,;d Na!;d I~c" Powell, 1.,,,1 P,;!dlCIl. J",IIII s" " ddil •. 

p",,,,,llm,,,",,, ond u.'<! lVi,ke,. plus .., min~,p"rl ll).""3! 'he u.s. Oept. " f t .. bu •. SMIJ. ~''' All'lml ;.n 

Nall"" .1 UII;""rsl'y. I an< I>QIl'Iy ""'p"",s.lhlc r"r.lIY err",,,, V-":ws"'1"."."cd hen: .re Ih .. "urh"r's ""I), Ihl")' 

d" II' ,I """""",,tlly pr~-.(' n' II", "ICW5 \>f Ihec"u'cr [<I' ('Job.o llJ'''''''',,,n,cn,. I", huo n!. <It 11$ f\Jnders. 
63 

Tfi li tJ cr!)~ nuu U;N IAIIOH O,'\IN" lW ~ IJl.1PI1)\').ICNT 

I. Introduction 

'fhe literature uses t\\'o common meiliods 10 measure theefrec\ orroretgu labor Ill! na· 

tive employment. methods of len called the "area" approach and the "factor proportions~ approach. Both of these use shifts in the supply of foreign labor 10 measlIn: 

subsequent changes in n;uive unemployment. The "area" apptOach seeks exogenous 

changes of foreign laborsupply within labor market segments delimited by goo!9"aphic 

sp~ce. and measures ch~nges iIlulllive employment in Ihose spaces. The "faClor proportions" approach seeks eJCogenous changes offoreiglliabor $l!pplywithin lailor market segmell1s delimited by personal characteristics-espt'Cially age and educ31iollAnd measures h~l1 ges in ualive employment in those sim islical cells. over larger geographicarr3s. 

These approaches ha~e been fruitful but have limitations. First, they face challenges in 

clMifying tIle mechanism of ally employmem effect: [s the degree of nalil't'·immignull 

SUbstitution wilhin each ~bor submark.et determined by labor demand [sub;stiIlHability of nati~e and foreign labor in the produclion [uLle liolll or by labor supply (relative 

willingness of nalil'l!S !O .1CCt'. pt certain jobs)? Secolld. in bodt approaches. adverselyaffected uati~e workers illay go tUldc!ected ifthe-y self·select oul of the submarkN under examiuatiou-by moving (lUI of immi rlll iou-iJJte si~ places, or investing in human tapitalto leave immigmtion-imensive statistical cells. Finlllly. both approaches 

rely OIll'xog~tlOUS shifts in foreign labor supply, whic.h is somewhat distant from teal 

irnmi!,'Talion policy. Much il/lluigmtioll policy regulllle5 nOI jusllhe supply of foreign 

labor bur also the demand for fOll!igll labor (not just /IOIU mOlly foreign workers may 

emer. but which foreign workers employers lila), hire unde! whHt conditionsl. 

In tlris paper. I prnpose a differel11. o<:cupatioLl-spedfic approaCh thai has relative adv~nt3ges and dislldvamages. I build "II sImple model oftlle relationship between native 

IHbor supply for II job aud eITec t of foreign labor supply to tlrat job on natil'e employment. J use two natural experiments affecting one occ\lpation-se~sonill farm work in 

tire United States-to dlre.::tly approximiltt:: the level and slope of Datjve I~bor supply 

ill that occupatiOLl. I apply the approach to ~ large group of farms ill North Carol ilia. 
64 

This providl'S inFormation llOOu! both the degree and the Illcch:'IJ1ism of foreign uative 

lauor suustitution ill elllployrnCIit for Ihis occupatio!!. 

The first ofrhese n~lllr~1 cxpcrimems uses ~ provisiou of U.S. Jaw thlll allows ~n unlim· 

ited supply of foreign seasonal farm labor but tightly restrlcts dem~nd for that labor: 

Employers IIIl1ST hire native workcCli 35 if they were perfect substitutes For foreign workers, at fixed lind equal wages. luse thaI provision to estimate the level of Dlltive labor 

.supply for seasonal fllrm work at Cllrrent lerms of OOlltmct. 1 describe ule universe of 

U.S. appl icants 10 tens of thousands nf Sl!aSllnal farm jobs over II IS-year pl!riod textensive margin labor supply1 and describe how'long they lasted before leaving thl! job 

(intensive margin labor supply). 

The set;ond experiml'~l1 is a SLldden, largl', unexpected ch,mgtl in Tbe demand for na· 

rive labor in olher occllpmioos dlldug the Great Recession. I use this to Ilpproximale 

the local slope of the native labor supply curve for seasol la) faml work. I describe how 

unemploymtlllt shocks affect U.S. lVorkt:IS' applicatioiLs to seasona) farJllwork {exten' 

sive m~rglnJ and their dUTRtion Oil the job (inteosive margin). Theory and Ihe I~bor 

literatllfe suggest thaI ;\ negative shock fa expected reservalion earnings should aITect 

labor supply for;t job analogously 10 a posili,,!! shock to thar job's \\~lg!!. This elidellce 

suggestS tbat boUI the level and the local el~sticity of native labor supply 10 seasonal 

farm work are close to lero. which ill tllm suggesls Ihat the dirt'c\ effect of foreign seaSOllal farm work on naliVl'! employment is IikP.lvise close to lero. 

ThiS approadl h~s adv"!lntages lind disadvantages relative \0 IlthN Approaches. An ad· 

vanta$e is tbat il elucidales Ihe m~anism determining nalivl:'-foreigll employment 

substitution ill Ihis setting. Normally, imperfect sllUstilutioll belween tl~\il"e ami foreig.rl labor in the production function could give rise to different labor demand for na· 

tive aud foreign workers. Slit since emplOyeCli are obliged to hire niltive lI'orkers liS if 

they lV~re perfect SU\}stiTutes for foreign wQrkl!rs, any observed impl!rfect sub~ itution 

must arise from differences in native and foreign labor supply. Another contribution 

is thlHlhe approach is 11 more direct measure of sllUstiwtion. less prone 10 biases Ihal 

call arise from other aliproacbes when natives sejf·select QuI Or irnmigrar.iOl)-iutensive 

, 
65 

T n li H H CT O~ f(J IlUCN' LAWn 01'1 N"lW ~ lJl.1Pl1)\?1 r.NT 

geographic arcas or skill groups. The firs! IIlItmal cJlip('ril!1 cll1 us('d here rcquin's neh 

job to be first offered IU nil ullelllployed u.s. workers ill Ihe 5131C and the relevmu skill 

group. A third ~dv~nt~ge is h~1 Ihis ~ppro~ch is more rclevMIl to policy in some SCItings: the consequellees of common reslrictiOllS on demand for foreign Inbor are nOI 

well-identified by naturaJ experiments thai sbjrl ouly the supply of foreign labor. The 

occllp~lion- ecificit y of tht' ~ pproacl\ has advantages or disadvantages depending on 

the reseMeh qUf!5 liou: Jt is less in£Onn3Ii\'e than typical research designs about the 

unemplo)'mem effecls of regul alions on Ihe overall supply of foreign labor. bUI more 

informati\'e about the effeclS of regulatious on labor demand for particular types of 

foreign labor. Findings in tbesening of seasonal fArm work.are certainly nOleJlitemAlJy 

valid III oIlier settings. but tile ppro~ch can be used in OdlCrsettillgS. 

The analysis finds Ihat the It'\·el and local el~sticity of native labor supply for seasonal, 

m~Jlua! fnrm war):: in Norrh Carolina-at both extensive and imellsive margius-is well 

approximated by zero at current terms of contrnct. This suggests a near-zero diIecl df('{;t of foreign labor suppl)' to this occilpaiion on nal;ve employmenl. This matches 

numerous findings in tile lifl~r~lllre ~cross broader rAngE's of occupations. Jt furthermore offers evidenceagainSI ~ number of re~ salls for Ihat near·zero ~ffecL It is not because employers have a different demaud for foreigu workers. since tJte)· are required 10 

demand nnlil'e workers as perfeci SUbSlilu\es. II is not becnu~e native workers lack informa tion about the jobs, since imeusive-margin labor supply (among native workers 

aware of and experienced in this job) is likewise Ilear r.ero. It is uot because employers 

refuse modest inCl"f'ases in the wage: Ibe local elasticily of native labor stlpply is barely 

distillguishablefrom zero acros:> a substautiaJ range. 

Aside from these direct effects, this aualysis implie:; an indirect effect offoreigu seasonn) farm labor on u3tive employmelll-wilhin and beyond the agriculture seClor. If 

uativelabor supply to essemial mauualagricultural work is close to zero, foreign wor)::-

ers iu agriculture heavily influence the uut!lul of the sector as well as its t11ul tipli er eC· 

fects on other se<;tors· output This effect is conditional on current tedlllology. and 

\vould be allered b)' the full mechaniZllliOIl ofthesub5ectors where most seasonal agricultUrAl I~bor works. The 1l1llitipJier effeclgcoer3!es !lalive empluyment across 311se<;-

3 
66 

MICIIAU. A. (]JJ,I FJ'II!> 

lars of the smteeCooollly. A consl'rv<'!live estimate is !hat, inlheshofl nlil and without 

any adjusunerll hy flHlUers, each 1.5--2.3 foreign seasonal farm workr.rs cre/lle 0111' lIa· 

rive job in North Carolina. In tire long mn, foUo"~,,g tir e greatest -plausible adjustment 

hy farmers, each 3.1)-4.6 foreign seasonal farm workers creale one native job in North 

Carolinll.1 

I begin bydiscllssing pn'ViOllS related research a nd the prediNionsof a simple theory of 

immigrmiOTJ regula tiou via regllj~liorr on lire demand for foreigr'llabor. Ilhen discuss 

details of the IWO natural experiments Oil which Ihe ill1alysis rests: legal restrlctiOlls on 

U.S. employers' demalld for foreign seasonal farm work, and sharp chauges In generalized U,S. demand for n~live workers inlhe Great Reeessioll, Thereafter I discuss the 

empirical selling: a group offllrms in North Carolina lilal is the la rgesl user of the U.S. 

sellSoual farm·work visa. I use those data to explore native labor supply for seasoual 

farm l'Iork al Ihe extensive and inte nsive margins. Ilheu skelch the effects of foreign 

seasonal farm labor supply on native employment across all seClors oftlle North Carolina economy. ullder assumplions 3bout tlle 3gricuhural produclion fUIIClioil 31ld reo 

gional economic nHMipJiers. 

2. A new empirical approach 

For over a century, the effecl of rbreigu workers on I!illive e rnphl)'ment has shaped the 

economic r~e.1rch agenda (e.g. HlIl1913) Ami imrnigrntiou policy (e.g. Goll1irr 19!14J in 

tir e Uniled States. The rec ent empiricallitemtnre takes twO general 3pproacht$-tlle 

"area" ~pproa h and Ihe "factor proportions" approach (BOrjiLS ('I ~I. 19!J6).~ The area 

L'l,,,,,, Hgu"", ",r~r rOJ II\~ "ITecI' "n Ihe-I",a! Sh><i: "f all jobs lI" .. il.W ~ r" III Norlh OI",li n;o", ..,.,.,ing 

wnot. ·1 iw'y d" n'" ",f.".." di'l~.<"t:ml~" " djer'$ '10 jo}t>s held ( ",wnlly b)' N'lnh O r(lfiTlian;. "'htrh ~" uJd 

h<: replaa<llfr."I. In n.h,·, "'<lrd •. Ih")' do ",>1 m.:." Ih~I' dt<:"'~ln 'h ~ ",pply"fsc3'<'r'~1 f.,m lobo, 

would n'4ulr" "fT~n'ly mplol"'<l ,""rill ",~io .n> r" _,,,,,k ILire",arl,'" ~lb;. ~m('m~ ~n u"JilTUni<I[.<,,1 ",ral 

number "fy,L>s: ralher, 'l"'l'inlt~l·'h"I'h""'w .... rIJ bola d"di"~ In IIL~ 101.1 "",nl",rofjob. ,hal ~o,~d be. 

S<llljll" by ''')'lI''''- • n<>tl,"IAA<Jl\ ~"d Va" U"" ~fl( WIl!'J. p. 133) call U""", rW<J "1'1'"","11,-.. , 111\ '1) 'J.J corrul~IJon m" Utud" 

a"d Ih ~ "skin rcU me lh"d', ",-'p,-'Clivdy. 1"1"')' .I ~) idelllify a ,J"," ' I'roduc "<>n (""<:1"'" .,,"Ih .. d", 1~rI· 

Ing '''';111 C",' .. Mn 11'lu2.). Ihol tirsl ~sl;m~I"-<dc"",,,d cl.>lidl;~ (ur ir"mign"'t and ""liv 13b\lr IJlI'IVdU<: I~ ," rU""'I"flS ~"d ~"" rl" ,"" ~."Ici ie:< r<, .;t'mp"'" r.ho I.Wr·IMri<ci d teo;l< of Im'nlgr.~' ' ''I'l'b'- HiIC~us" ~'I • . ",hlir<lnllure ",rll"."',. ~ producrtun fUllc ri,," n>l"8 hu",lg"'''1 II,M'G hu" deli,nllcd &<,,,. 

gnlphk "",as. J f"ll"", 11"1).' P, .1. Ir "~~') ~"d Ind ud .. ~ .... illLln 'h<: ":on",· .ppmodl . 

• 
67 

"n I H IJHCf O~ fOlIUCN lAIlOH 01'1 N'\TlV~ E!l.1PllJ\?Il r.NT 

approach ({'SIS wh('til er locals" uncmploymenl rises liner inflows of immigrants to limiled geographic areas.:I TIIf' fac tor propOr(iOllS approach testS whether locals' uuem' 

ploymeHt rises after increases in immigrant s ha re within ;lge. experience. andlor occupation cells across a broader lahor IllHrke l."' Mas! of ule studies using hmh approa es 

find thai imllligrams have q uite small effects ou O\'erallllllemp[oyrnent among native 

worke rs. 

Tht' re asoo thf' e ffects are om larger is all area of active research wilh 00 COOS('[J ' 

~ (freeman ~OOil) . Leading explanatiOIlS for modest employment e ffects ill geo· 

graphic area studies include o ut-migration by [ocal Jobseekers (Borjas eI [\j, 1997: Cnrtl 

200 1: HatH," aud TlillI 2(05) and stimuliUiOIl of local labo r demand by immigrants' 

cOllsumptlon (BodV<l.rs~on 1'1 al lOllS). Leading expltllmlious for modest effecls in 

age expc ri eJlce/oc~u pati n cell studies include capital adjustment and Icch oological 

change (suH-eyed in Loughi et al. 2(05). f. 

This slUtly takes a new aJlPro~ h. II uses ~ 03tur~J experimellf in whi ch a large 

number of Imllligram jobs were exogenously offered to native worker.; on Idcmical 

lerms. It measures native lauor supply 10 those jubs initiaU}' and-in 3 second oalllr~1 perilll em- e3sures how native labor supplr to those jobs changed following 

a large exogeuous shock to native workers' alternative employment o ptions_ Oue adviu,lage of this approach over 111 ~ altewatives IS that it allO\YS idelltifica!ioll of whether 

native- foreign labor substitution- in this selling o oly--ls determined by the relative 

s hapes of mpl oyers' demand runctions for the two types of labor, o r by til e relative 

shapes of 113ti.'e and foreign workers' labor s upply funCTio ns. 

,,,,, Indude en",,,,",,, (J~11: Coml (, .... (»; Alivn)llOnJ f;,ull H'")I): Illnn (lfl:I~): r .. lTil\Kt.", ""~ 

d,· Ulll. II!~~); pi<rh~I ' " .. J \',~hl~ II ' '';); ,\D@' .... \ ~nd ~1I1l1, .. (:tOIl}I: lJI.l""';,nD "r.L \'tIl(\;;1: (.. .. h.·,,_ 

(~,l~''''t ~"d P~""rrn. "I I' ); ""'n "d JIm.""", Ill"'); G",,<!jJ11'1. ond u,,~~" (21'1'); (.11'" 1:Ii>ltl; Sn,W, 

(~1'1~). 1 "ml ludl.", ,holle;;t ," ,,~ .n w"!\"" "nty~lId nil' " n>pl")'n,,,n" 

ll ~ I"dud" lIu'j~, ~1 ~1. (1~~1); IV1 m("-Cllilk:J' ."'~ ,.."dmOU,,,. ll!I'~": frk'<il>l!rt (21~"): lloti"-' 

I2!WIJ); c.""".., "I "lIWOll); Oll."i",'<, ;.",1 I"", ("'JI~l; 1\tr,·",,,1 c. ~I " {20131. "' ~a", I o01i, stud"_",, h~1 

""" ,," "("~"n wages ,,"ly and "m ml~O)''' '' ''' ' 

' /I (""VI . n,di"" lin.d ",me .ub"'""lial fl",," "n l" migrnl~'" n" 11 .. 1, ... "ncn'pl"y",,,,," I ,!II~ t~O t~1 r,,,,1.< 

,hOI illl"';g"li"n cau,,", slI!:»lami.! illcreases in un~ml~ toy mcnll" c"rn",,,)' 3""AlW""1 "nd t.:ugl r (~1JII3) 

n"d _'urh dl<pl.' "<J"'ClI' . rnO<$ Ih", EU. ".1 • ~s ... d,~fl!'.'- 111 U""I' '" wi,h "'ure lI e>C ibl ~ l.bI •• m~rt ' 

1"",,,,,1 .. ,,,, o\Ilo"J' ""d C.,nl 11 '~>l1 rmd 'hat lnunlgr.,k,n causes ub"~nlial ,1""/1,,,,,, i" "'''''''pl'»,,,'''''1 

In 'hi; Unlled SJ~ "," 

5 
68 

MICIIAtLA.(]'IJ,lli\I!> 

A Few prior sTUdies h~ve investigal(~d the degree of native-immigrant substitution 

withiu occup:uiolls Uududing C.,rd 2001; Peri ;U\d Sparber 200!!}, These research de--

signs face chall enges in specifying the mechanism that determines the degree of substitutiou, It could be deterrniued by the labor demand fuuctton: Employers !lIay get a 

different mllrginal revenue producl from foreign labor, or employers ha\'e greater market power in hirint;; foreign workers and can pay lbem Il.'Ss-panicularly 011 lhe black 

market. AJt emativ('ly, it could bedr.termined by u3tive workers'labor supply: Employers may have the same demand for bolll types of workers, but forei,gn labor stLpply Illay 

exceed nlltive labor ~upply 3t given lerms of contrllCt. Thesl' questions Me important 

to underslilndillg and regulm.lng the I~bor market impacts ofpMticulllr types oflll1llli, 

gr~!ion, aLld the answers are likely 10 vary greatly by occupation. 

A second advantage of this approacb is that the 'area" approach aud the "factor pro, 

pOrTions' appro~ch ~re vulnerable 10 native self-selection out of Ihe labor market 

segmenT under Investigation. Unemploymem effects on natives within immigration -

iLl!en~ive geographic areas cau be unob$erved if natives move away from those areas 

(e.g. Hatton rood 'J':!ni lOOS). likewise, unemployment effects on natives within statistical celis can be mitigated if natives sr lf- ~eiect out of those cells, for instance, ualive 

high-school dropoLlts can mitigate tite employmelll effe.::ts of immigration into highschool dropout skill cells IJystayiug in high school or completiug a General Equivalency 

Diploma [e.g. HUitt 2012). The alternative approach in this paper dir~><:tly measures the 

willingness of n~ti\' e workers 10 take foreign wurkers' jobs, prior 10 the foreign workers' 

arrival. II thereforf' does nOl miss any impacts on natives caused by self·selection oul 

of the S3mpie re$uJting from the foreigll workers' arrival. 

A final advantage of this approach is thHt it te;ts the effcets of immigratiou regulation 

via regulation of demand for foreign labor instead of via regulation of tile supply of 

Foreign labor. Much exisling research, though it is motivated in part by an iutl.'re5t in 

immigration policy. ICStS only the effects of grealeror lesser supply of immigrant labur. 

This is mewha~ removed from ]lolicy, for two reawn$. 

First, mOSt intporta.nt nugrallt rlcstination COlllJtries regula te no( simply the ll\unber 

6 
69 

'n 1 H H Hcr IW r U IlElCN LAUO" 01'1 NATIVE b\1I'llJ\?Il r.NT 

of foreign worl<ers who can cmer. bUl ~lso extensively regula!e 1141;ell foreig,n workerS 

employers may hire. llllder what lenns {see snlbe<:liUI14.I.J. The erectts ofl~\Jor supply 

rcgulatio,'s arC 'Jlot hilly inlormative aUout the effects oflallor de'uand regulations. for 

the same ceasoll thai an illternatinna! trade literature altoul theellects of nw.rall illlporT 

nows on ~ Country Is nO! fully informative aboul the effeefs of trade barriers I!ke local· 

content r~trictions and local licensing requiremenls. Second. with large movements 

of unflulhori~rd labor across som!' Imporwnt borders. the ability of go\'enullcnts 10 

regulale foreign labor sllpply has limits (e.g. HanSOIl (lmi 5pi!imucrg<) ID99; Hanson 

e l aI. 20(2). Thai is, studies of Ihe effeclS of foreign labor snpply are nOI even ful!), 

informative about the ellecls of supply-side restrictions because 00W5 of labor across 

borders Meanl)' partlydelerm ined by Ihosereslriclio"s. The lallordema 'id reslriClions 

analywd in Ihis paper. ill the setting examined. do llDI surrer from a large degree of 

exlnllegal activity: there is no evidence that Sllbslillllj~1 numbers of U.S. workers have 

been illegnlly turned 3way from the jobs examined hefe. 

3. Nati ve labor supply and lhe e(fecLS or foreign labor 

I argue tl.3t there are advautages to a research design that 8111)\vs separation of the erfe1;ts of labor demand aud labor supply on native-foreign labor subSiitution. Here I 

disC"uss these advantages in a simple model. Following LaLo'lde aud Topel (199J) and 

Card (200 l) as t'Xlended by ll ugrist Hud Kugil'r (2003), lellhe output !J of a finn employiug lIative illld imllligril/ll work.ers in ~orne occupation be 

II '" /(IIIJ(N.MJ). (II 

wh ere !J 

,Y 3lldN are thedernands for native and migra,l{ labor 111 the occupation in questiOn: /I 

is an exogenous s.hifter: 0 < {I"; I delermilles the elasticity ofsubstilU[ioJl betweeuuative and migrant labor ( , ~,,) : 'I > Oset5 tbe relative marginal revenlll" product of natil'e 

and migrant labor: and f is the production functionsucb thai rt.) :;. 0; and rr·) < 0_ 

Normaliling the output price to unity. the employer sets demand to maximize profit 

II ::: f(O,q) ~ ("N .... , ~ " .,., M. where \I' '''' and y.M af(" llaliveand migrilul wages. Here aud 

7 
70 

throughout, II subscript de.nOles the panial derivative. Demand for nl1th-e labor N~ is 

set by the first-o reler-condition 

(2 ) 

Now 11'.1 natives have a differelll labor supply for the occupation Ihan migrants. foH owiug Peri and Sparber (2009) and D'!l.IlIuri and Perl 12011). For II mauual, routine occup;nion, this might be bfi:tluse natives dislike mal1ual or rOllline work itself, ueclluse 

Ihey dislike circulllSl3nces of Ilie work (dirt, stench, exposure 10 Ihe elements), or because Ihey iucur ~ social stigma for performing such work. Migntml,1bor supply /II' is 

fixed aud InelaStic, while native labor supply [shifted by II constant (I is 

N' [(t~"')', 13) 

where e is tile wage elastici\)'. Tn get the response uf ll.1til'e labor to an increase in migTAlltlabor, impose N ~ N' and /11 ,\J~ _ U ' bysil bstitilling (3) lmo (2J, ~nd 

totally dilTerentiale with respt'cl lO M. Then, 

). !J,lr )' ) 

The firSI term in parenlbeses 7_qM < 0 represents the simple reductioo in firms' 

use of native labor as the availability of lIIigram labor rises. provided th~t native 

and migrall! labor iUe perfect substitut es." If native and migmlll lAbor are imperfect 

s ubstitutes ({I < I), the term ~ :> 0 represents the countervailing increase in dem~lld for na tive labor fIS th ~ finn's production rises with greater lise of tnignu!! labor.' The overall effect of migrant Inbo r on narive labor is scaled by ¢(e'. N, AI. fl.O) ;: 

(lIN€: - !/NNI9N - (II!" I f'jg.v)-l :> 0, where O?, > 0." 

I highlighr tll'O implications of Ihe effe<:1 of migrant lauor on native labor (1J. First, 

Ihe effect has ambIguous Sign, and Ihe magnitude of any elTect depends on three key 

T1I ~ Inuq ..... lilyhulds/x:alUS<!.9" ., .., (~)" _I :> 1,1 

t· n" I""~I("'Ulyh,~d< 1x!c.:! .. ",1' < I - 'f;: ..- ~!.,; (1f)" :> 0. 

·M,;utnln~ impe,fc"'lS1,b<tlluIIOli d'M< '~;' L), ln "::- ,. N-'(1 -I') ((f)' (, - I) 0. 

8 
71 

'Hi li f'.FF[Cf OF rUll hlCN lJlIIO" 0 1'1 N"lW ~ IJl.1 PIlJ\?II r.NT 

forc<'S, 1) 1t depends on the shape of I and thus the m3gtlitudc of Or I /', In different 

iuduSlries, Iherefore. Ihe effect could differ. 21 11 depeuds 011 the elaslicity of substit\L' 

tion b<'lweeu native l1 d migrant labor. ~. The more imperfectly migrants substitute 

for Imlivell in praduclion, lhe smaller is auy dispiacemeul effccl. 3) The less willing 

native workers nre 10 supply labor to Ihis occupatiOIl (smallers), the smaller is any displacemenl effect. 

Note thai the effect of l11 igraru labor depends bOlh on Ihe form of labor demalld (via 

III aud, separately, 011 the fOfm of labor supply (via fl. The lIlllS1 comn1(1U approach 

iuthe literature is 10 eslimnle reduced-form equations caplurillg the overall effect N,\I 

(Pischke ~nd Ve lling 1997J. These suit some purposes bUI do not allow sepaf(lIion uf 

effeels conditioned by firms' Inbor demand from effecls conditioned by native and mi· 

grallliabor supply. Such estimat<'S also do not allow prediction of displ~cemenl by HUY 

given type of worker in II gi\'e11 industry. 

Se<:ond, suppose II polkymaker seel:.s to protect nlllive employmeul, minimlung the 

~ver~geeffect of migrant labor OCClisJoned by the marginal effect. Equation (4) sugge5IS 

IWO ways to accomplish this vi~ migration poliCy: I) Tile policymaker can regulate immigr~tion by (juotas, exogenousl}' 5('lIing .\1 ' to some low number, wilhoul ch~nging 

the marginal effe.:t NM. 2) The poliCYIl1~ker Clln regulate II reduction in the marginal 

etTeel tvJo ,: either the [Jolicymllker can regulate R lower bound on wages in inUlligrall(' 

henvy iudn$lries (th~1 is. force firms 10 behave as if !f-OM w·ere less neg~li~e . or can 

require firms to hire any native willing lodo the work (lhal is, force firms to beh~veas if 

nmives and migrmll;s were perfect substitutes in production. d1l15 I' "" J Hnd ~ "" 0), 

We observe govemment5 doing each of Ihese in different combinations: GOVCfUl11cnlS 

somclimes regulate migralion try qUOlas withoul wage/hiring restriCliOlls (e.g. U.S. 

rllmil~'·reul1lficatiou residency visas); sOllu'(imes by wRge/hiring restrictions without 

quol~s (e.g. U.S. H_2A visa and Canada Sea$Onal Agricuhural \II,'orkers Program): and 

sometimes have both qUOlas and wage/hiring restrictions (e.g. U,S. H-2B visa). A par-

{i;ll. explicil goal of nil of uH.'Se policies is 10 ]lrotet( n~live employment. The effect 

ofthes.e inlerventiOl1S will be smaUer to Ihe extent tha1 natives and migrantS are im -

9 
72 

perren subslit\Jles in klbor demand. llnd to the Cl<lem thaI labor supply w different 

occupations differs becwee(luacives and migraucs. 

F.qu~tiol1 (4) is thekc>y to imerpreliug the empirical results in this paper. !t suggests that 

1'0'1' CIII} learn about the effect of foreign !abor on native employment (,v,I/) by pinning 

dowll two parameters OLl ule right-hand side: the dc>gree to which fore.igu and nath'e 

workers Rre complements in production (rc>f1eeted by the term ~). nut! the elastitiry of n~tive labor suppLy /I:). EaclJ of these. espe~t ivel y. tlSI'S olleof the IwO Ilalumi 

"p eri!lle nt~ described in the uext section. 

4. Two natural experimen ts 

This paper uses twO natural expc>riments 10 leam abuu\ the immigIlUlt·1l3uveemploy· 

mcntsubstillltiuJl relatiooship (4) in the selling of North Carolina seasonal farm labor. 

The Ilrst e.xperiment is a legal res1fi!;tion to hiring foreign seasonal fa rm workers thaI 

obliges employers to set demand for native labor as if native and foreign labor were 

perfect suUstilUt.-s (p "'- l. lind dillS 2f: ~ 0). 

The second experiment uses an exogenOlls unexpected shock to the reserve employ· 

ment options of natives. ,,1lich is informative about the local slopt' of ule native labor 

suppJy curve (rj. The lower ulis slope, the lower the effect of foreign Jabor rlemand re~ 

striClions-on ule displacement of native L~bor by fOlf'ign labor (since !~,N\, - ~O ~ 

IlJ. Togeiliel. these two experiments impl)' iliat if t is dose 10 zero. {hen tile effect of 

foreign labor 011 native employmelll "".II is lI egativ(' bl1tlik.ewiseclose to zero.. 

4.L Firsl experiment: Native labor demand requiremen ts for the 1i-2A visa 

The first ualllral experimenr used here isa legal restriction on ttJelJiring offor('ign labor 

"uder olle tu ajor employment·bascd visa. This "H -2A" visa nl!Qws eutry for 10w·sk.iIl. 

season~l agriculnmlliabor. The United States limits U.S. employers' fore ign Jabor delIland under tlll'H·2A visa. BlIt there is no numcricallimil Oil foreign workel'$'labor 

lO 
73 

T Il Ii HHCf O~ fUlUJCN LAUO" 01'1 N"TlV~ E!l.1Pll)Y),1 f.V r 

supply. uo cap ou the number of H-2A visas llillt c~n be givell. Employe,s oeedil)g ~d

dhional seasoual ~gfi ulturall.1bor all SpUUSOf foreiguworkers 10 enler the u.s. and 

remain for up (0 JO months per year. In fiscal year 201 I. llie U.S. issued 55,384 H-2A 

\'isas. Of thes"" 51.921 (93.8%) went to workef5 of Mexican nationality. 

laoor demand restrictions 3re cOlllmon in immigration policy. Many countries regulate both thesuppl}' of aod the deman d for immigr.lOt labor uoder t'll1ploymem-uased 

visas. Forexarnple, the Uuilcr1 S!~lestesuifts labor Stlpp!y thro"g!1 most elllploymeutbased resident visas via tightly-bimliug qUOL1S. But it "ls(l regulates demllLld fur workers through the same visa5-Such as by requiring employers to actively recruit any able 

and wil!ing American worker hefore hiring a foreigu workerY Similar restrict.ions on 

labor demllIHI apply to the U.S.'s I~rgesl temporary ("nonimmigrant") employmembased visas: H-l B for kiU~d illllllil:rHnts with "s pecialized knowledge" and H-lAIB for 

low-skill seasonal workers. The Unite d Smtes is not exceptional in this feg~rd. Most 

principal migrant destination co tr ~. in addition!o restricting llle supply ormigrant 

labor. likewise regulate de1ll311d fnr foreigtlworkers. ,ij 

Prosp~ctive ~Illplorers of H-2A workers must firsl recei\'~ a Foreign laborCerlific~lion 

from the U.S. Oepl. of labor. To rrcei\'e certifiCAtion. employers must work wilh the 

State Workforce Agency to prepare a job order forintrastatt' and interslate recruitmem 

of U.S. workers. advertise Il\ ~ positiolls in two local daily n~lYspallers (and, in some 

n,~ 'wt.< 1,'1::"'" .Ic-g"ri< "f ellll~'~·""lnt_b." d ",-,ld""1 vt,o" '0 Ihe Unl tt...t Slot"" "'" Ih . E2 ~'eg"l)' 

(·I""I.,....."n.). It,,)djllg Ad .. ct.'Il 1 "11"'''-' .nd I'e",,~,. n( Dlu.'I'll'~"d AlXllly") ~nd 111 oat'1l"1)' !":" Idlkd 

W"t.:~r.; . P'«(es~(~lal s. and I"'(on-Seasonal) tl nskill!)d Worke"'-I. n"'",ar.. nlunc["(oos IImih ~n demond 

r", immig.r.>nl I"bo, U""ugt. II ~ visas. I,"'pl"}",,,, m~y n(l' 'ptIfl<ur ~ w"~ f(lr 1Me ,is,,", "nl~ lh ~ 

u.s. n..1'1. ,,( t ... btl, ha.< ""rtlflc'<l U'.I "Ih" ", .IP. "ul sumrienl W0I1",,,, whu.", ;illI~. ,",Uh"~ . 'IU.ulFtl..t 

..• nd .v.li.hie al Ih', limo ,,( al1plir~li"n .. . and ol 'he pl. <~ whe," nil, ~(jen i. I" p!'.rnnn ~I<h ~~Ied Dr 

"n klllc..t 1.1)0, .• nd lh" mpll!)' m"m (II such ali"n "ill ""l ~d ... :",ely olT(!C1 lli", "lo;~'S "nd ,",urting run'!lH) ~1) W"rt;·rs In ,h,,- Unl\N! S\lO ~< imi .rly mpl.'Y"" " U.~. Jmrnjg""j n and t<a'iQnaj;'Y A(l. ~)(:'iQ n 

I2 )(~I("')}. fompl (»'~ ... · ,n,," rllrth,,,m,,,,, pruw In the ll.S. Ocl". M Hnme\"nd S< • .'curily 1M, i!2.wo,ker.< 

ha,,, "II,,.,, lOy,,,,,,, .. r ... ,,rt,,,,,,:rj,, ... :,," lha' lln ~ill!)d I;:, w"rt"", a" ' I'",I·,mnlnJ:M,." 'h.l i$d"n"'nJ."J 

fn ''VMy m,)llih t<llhe yeti,. Ih"l .l:m~J f.3 ",,,",,,rs II ... "" al IC Sl """ )"a",orwutk cl<pI:rie",:e .• nd "u"'iI<-

,,"" n!lwr ''''luj"""",,!!;. ·Ih""'att! . W, liml .. " n 11k· <" I'ply orlnJl"igr-~nl 1.1>", through II","" tw" '''''015: 

with ml"n, """"Il1ion •. Iha "'''''oc, of ~lJlr~\\'. ,,"tlc, each 'o'l", h curt<:mly ,e;l"I"ll'<l "'. l"Iorld";1I,, 1<1101 

of 4Q.lJ.(() perl"'" whld, no m"'" ,han UI(\;! .n J:" '0 nali"".!s "r.ny nne ~' lUnlry. (nll! "umixil of 

wort".., ;, mu.-h smaJlt r boO<".,,,c 5(?OUS''S ~nd child"", 1-.)",,, al!"-Wjl IM_ Iu .l '1"1"";0, re llghcly bind· 

Ing: d"' ..... hh,~ 1[;;1 (,,' nk'" ""'''',,('''' Ollh" tl,, · "(",,,jug I, "ye",,; {"rt::lond 6 )'I'"'" In, O. I, Is c-Ii"" 

1'>ogerf<>,Chl"" ""d Itldio. 'i E);"mplc. from "II",. ,nl):'lOnl-dc,.lno(j,," """",ril'" ~'C n",j"wc-d rn 1.J1pI ndj~ "," II, ,It 1* 

II 
74 

States. on local rndio st~tio[ls), com act forme. U.s. worke rs to advisclheOl of the openillg. and prove to the Dept. of L.1Uor National Processing CelLler (NrC) that they have 

done all of the above. This must occur at least 45 days before tbe job's starT-dale. FinaUy, "employers must submit II 'recruitmelt\ report' to the NPC at least 30 days before 

the StilT! date that lays-out the re<;ruitmelll efforts made. ideolilles U.S. workers who app!i~ for jobs, and explains 'Iawful job-related reason(s) ' for not hiring each U.S. worktJr 

who applied UuIW1lS not hired; the number of jobs cert ified to be filled by H-ZA workers is reduced for each U.S. worker wrongly rejected by the employer" (MarUn 2008. p. 

181. The reQuiremelll to hire any a\)le lind williug U.S. worker extends from the time of 

certification up \0 50% nfthe way through the contract period. 

Both native and foreign workers must be paid the same fi;o;ed wage set for each st~le 

called the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AE'NR). or the sl3te or federal minimum wage if 

il is higher; Employen must also provide identical housing. liwndry. :tnd s~ni alion 

facili lies forbOlh typesofworkf'rs. and intf'rnmional transportation for foreign workers. 

The program is unpopulnr w'ith U.S. farmers. Most foreign labor hired for seasonal 

farm work in the U.S. is hired on the unauthorized lallor marKet rath!'.r than through 

the H-2A program (Carroll el AI. 2005; .\IMli" 2(06). Less thau "I'e percenl of all hired 

farm workers are hired Ih["O"gh the program, even though about three {]uancrs of c rop 

farntworker5 have Mexicau nationalily (KalldeI2008. p. 14). Fanners complainlhat rhe 

H-2A program is ·coslly. unprediClable, alld administratively flawed" (Wicker 2012) . 

including the burl'aucratkburden of advenising to. hiring. keeping retords of, Imining. 

and replacing U.S. workers who show limiled and shorl·lived interest [nlhe positions 

(Martin and Taylor 20 I;}).t' 

Employers hiring H-2A workers are required to make hiring d~isions as if native. and 

foreign WQrkers were perfect suustitutes. For tltis rellson. any irnperfecl suustitution in 

employment between these two groups is reliably attributable to the relalive shape of 

" t am on, aWIIII' "I ... h'~ar.ll;p On the 1r"" ' or 'h""" buruens "n , .. e or 'h ~ .~. agrim,,,,,.t .caslOO.' 

wort visa progrnno. $,uJylng"us'rnli,. Ubwn ~nd Md:~"m.· (W] t\ and 11&)'00<1 !1~"'" WH:'" iind til"' ""(I!'<"'"' 'ed '" ,,"d bu,re""c"u'" fi"l"i"'mM' ...... in(ludJJ'g 'h" n"luire"",n, 10 Pn)\'" ,,,., n')I\llSlUii." 

"",,ltcr " i","""'r~'" In .... "'Y I'"" i,'"n-po",,,,,,etl If.,." ""'1'1,,1'''''' r"'fI' 'n~ A,,,,,,":\Ii.\; ".elnr s.,.,,,na' 

W",t", I'it"t Sdl"rn". 

12 
75 

"n I H HHCT IW W IlEICN UIIIO" 01'1 N"TlV~ E!l.1P11)I?1 r.NT 

Ihe laborsupply curves for native and foreign laixn. at currenlleflilS of COOlraCl. 

'J.2. Second experimem: Unemployment in the Great Recession 

The secoud experimelll uses the sharp. exogenous, unexpe(:ted ris(' in U.S. ullempluy· 

ment in 2008 to provide informalion about the local slope nfthe naliveSlJPplyclJrve for 

seasonal farm wnrk- awayfrom curreUllerlllS of COlllracr. Figure 2shows the large and 

sudden chHngr. in uncmploymem during Ihe pe riod under examination. The en>pid· 

cal problem is 10 measure Ihe elasticity of labor supply by unemployed uMlve workers 

for manual farm jobs. All ideal natural experimelll WQuW creale exogenous clmnges of 

w~ge in job offers. or exogenous shifts in the lauor demand curve. allowing the I~b r 

s upply curve to be !Jaced. An aitcrualivc mClhod is 10 use t'XOgenous shocks 10 labor 

demand in Ihe unemployed worker's pro5jl{!ctive alteruntives. 

How much labor \'Iill an unemployed na tive worker supply to a manual farm job! We 

flO,,1 replace the assurnt'd form of labor supply (3) with the richer, Cll>lOllical model of 

labor supply in Cahuc and ZylllerUl'.rg t:'O(M t p. 33). Suppose an unemployed worker 

chooses lauor supply to farm ·work by solving ~'f U C >-I'L J subject to CI ru L 

!ltL t II, where C and " are consunlption and leisure. w is the wage. Ii is the Cobb· 

Douglas elasticity. r. is the total endowlIIetil of time availaul e to be allocated between 

work and leisure. and (I represents expected future income from prospecllve future 

wages outside of farJll\vork plu~ current nonwagl' iJl(;ome. For example. 1/ could include prospective fUlU re income from while-collar employment (borrowed against), 

aud currE'nt unemploymenr insurll>lce payments. li Native labor supply N' aggregates 

labor supply 1\" by each individuill i : 

N' L II'" where II" 

, if » < 6 t: 

if Ji ~~t· 

15) 

The first line sh ow" labnr supply at Ihe eXlensive margin. Ihe second line at the illlen-

"' Ih ~ "-,""",,,,>[on ~ '" Is >h" ln~j "'0 of 'II""II>utl.,,, , .... ""n Id",,,,, 00<1 w.,.r\,jng ,It (hoe lar", 

I"b. ,,, ... ruNled 01 >h ~ puinl " r mAAt ","m Id. "", I.: v, ~ hl~.r. I-,~ " 'l1>c 1""lic>p.llon ,:" ,," >oinl 

.... i wlj '/l<n,r""'il ~i. 

13 
76 

sive margin. 

In Ihis simple model. twoShocks have inverse ~nd sYIllmelriceITects: llil increase in dll' 

w~ge U', and 11 decrease in prospect;\'e aheruative income fl. This symmetry holds at 

the extensive Illargin of accepling any m~nual farm wQrk, and at tile intensive margin 

of choosing how many hours to work. Labor supply is elastic 10 a large negative shod: 

in /I if nnd only if;1 is elastic 10 11 large pOSi t.i\'(' shock in u'. 

ThiS symmetry motivale!; Ihe natural experiment used here. The Great Recession of 

2007 200!l caused a large lIegativ(> shock 10 prospective income from ahermlliv(> jobs 

for unemployed workers in Iheshort- to mooiulll-terlll. A longslaudiugempirical lauor 

IltemHlre provides support for the model in (5). showing thai labor supply al a gil'en 

wage rate respunds positively to the duration of ullemployment, corresponding 10 a 

reduclioll io expected n. IJ If Ihe effecl of a lMge shock to Iile Illlcmploymel1l mte on 

labor supply 10 allY given occupalion is very small. Ihis suggesls tllat fl for tllis occupa· 

tion is very small-which in turn suggests a near·verlicallaUor supply curve. 

This does not mean thlll the response of nntil'!' labor-supply to changes in tile unezn· 

ployment ratl' can offer straightforward numerical eSlimmes of Ihe labor sllpply slope 

iJ . The percentage change in perceived Ii for the average uuemployed pe~on could dif· 

fer from the pcrccOIage-point change inlhe overall unemployment rme. This ~pproach 

Inay nevertheless provide information about fl. Assuming thai changes in overaU W I ' 

employment arr, well correlated widl changes in II. any very large shock to Ihe overall 

unemployment raIl' must cause a substantI al percellinge change io expected income 

from otller employment options. If sucll shod,s are 1I0t associated with suustantial 

changes in labor supply, Ihis is suggestive (bur not conclusive) evidence that fI is small. 

! lise bOlh of tllese natural experimems 10 stlldy labor markel Oll1comes al a large net· 

work of farms ill North Carolina thnt Ilires foreign s('asonal manual agricul!urallabor 

C):d llsively through Ihe H·2A prognllr1. North Carolina was suuj e<: t to the IHrge I1nem· 

" n,j,; indud"" M>("IC" (t~71; n. ", ~.,. (l'17r.): l(io.·l n~ N('lIu," "" (I~i"l; fl>he- (1~l.Cl: '-" " ""-"''''r nlld 

1.11~lIcr (Jj41~l' rl'h.l>'~;n ",td 1~,'~"'" (("1111: "ddf'"n "H~ I'''''uglll n*Nl. 'I b.e.v~ "' lWdunl' o QI WI· 

o'l'l"yn",n' .nd '" ""1'.,.:wlll'"ob;ohOi()" <or tindlng ~ "",,"' fool:> With/II ,. ~h'c (i.no: ore ~ .. ly ""rrt~OI00 

wt,h l!u,un<:ml't' .,.mcnl ",he 'Ih"(,\,,,",wd "'·":rl"~" "uri., on 1I",U.1i. IS '""h cvi """""r lhi II""'. 

I. 
77 

T fl ii HHCT CW fUC!UCN LMIOIl 0,"1 N" V~ E!>.IPI1)\?1 r.NT 

ploymcl11 shock in 2008 experienced by the r!'Sf of the coumry. 

Figure 1 skO::'rches bow thest' n;!curaJ experiments provide new. occupation·specific 

inforlmuion about rnt'Chanis1lls. The traditional "area" lind "fa ctor proporTions· approaches IFigure Ill) rmce tbe effects ofa shift in foreign latror sllpply SIO"'\g'" where Iis quamity of labor lind uti R is Ihe ratio Ofll'3gl' 10 reserve optiou in t'quation (5). The 

effect 00 Dative employmelll d wages (poim ,,) depends on both the shape of oative 

labor supply '<;"11, and the degree to which Il~ti\'f' ~nd foreign I~bor ~re substitutes ill the 

production fuuctiou (lhl' relatiouship betweeniabuT demand curves Dus lind /JtQn ~)' 

These approaches make II difficu lt to IImlbllte observed effecls to supply or demand. 

In this paper (Figure Ib), two natural expl!rirlll':uts assist wilh isolating mech~nisms. 

First, hiring restrictions force employers to hnve the same, infinrtely elastic demand 

curve for both native and foreign labor IOJ. Second. natural shocks to the rest'rv(' op· 

tioll 1/ exogcouSIY shift 0 up and down in {I., ii) splice. Observed niltive employment 

outl:omes thllS trace the localleve! and slope of 8"5' This ioforms the mechanism fo r 

elIects orroreign labor on nati\'e employmelll in hi~ occupation. 

5. Empirical SCI ring: th e North Carolina GrowersAssociation 

Tile d31a for this st udy come from the North Carolina Growers Associ81iou fN CGII,). ~ 

network of approxirnalely700 farms across Ihe Stille of North Carolina. In recent years 

the NCGA has hired <lOOnt 6,500-7,000 foreign seasonal farm workers per year on H·2A 

visas frable I), making it !he largest single. user of the H·2A visa progtilm. Its memo 

bers grow cucumbers, 5\veel potatoes, tobacco, lIud Christmas trees, as we!! as smaller 

quantities of other crops including peppers. hay SU"lIW. beans. com. and horticulture 

pialllS. UuliKl-. mOst of rheotherwisesimilar farms in the United States. the NCGA com· 

prises farms whose sole source offoreigo manual seasonlli iaoor is the H·ZA progmm. 

The NCGA was founded in 1989 as A nonprofit business asSOCiation to exploit gronp 

returns to scaltl in H·2A rl'Cruiun('nt 'lIld regulatory compliance. 11 secu res Fareign Labor Certifications for its member fanus. processes foreign aud domestic applical1ls for 

15 
78 

H-2A jobs, IT.:Iins aud oricms new workers, Illediates in disputcs between f~rll1l'rs and 

worker>. ~ud serves A5 the Hul: uetweeu farmers Hud state aud fedl:1n11 regulators. The 

NeGA hires the Mexican finn CSI tabor Services SA. de CV. of MOlllcrrey, Nuevo leon 

to re~rui! seasonal worl:.ers throughout Mexi~o. M051 of these workers ~Ollle frOIl! iUlerior St.:ltCS of Mexico. not border StMes: the top five Stales of origin for NCGA workers 

in 20 12 \v~fe, in dl'{;reasing order: Durango. Nayarit. San luis POtoSi. Guanajnato, and 

Hidalgo. Recruits are processed at the U.S. ~0I15U!Mes in Monterrty and Nuevo Laredo. 

and brnught brchartered bus 10 ils headquarterS.:lt Vass. North Carolina before assign _ 

mem 10 worksites across tlLI_'.state. 

As tles<;ribed above. the NCGA is reqnired to recruit l!Ilemployed U.S. workers fat every H·2A job through the State workforce agency. the Division of Employmem Security 

IOI>S) at the North Carolina Deparlmem of Commerce. Announcements of IllesI' job5 

are mailed 10 any regist ered unemployed person whu has expressed an interesl in farm 

work. they are rec;ommended by DES counselors moniroring uoemployment benefits 

recipiems. and they are JistI'd 8t jobs tenninals in DES offices statewide that are upen 

to any member of tbe public. UJ-Ion request IUly DES office will refer an interested U.S. 

worker to the NCG!\. The NCG/!. is furthemlore required 10 p\\rchas~ newspaper adve rtisements. ill four newspapers across U!ree states. for U.S. workers to fill every H·2A 

job. 

Extremely few unemployed Nortll Carolina residents processed by the DI>S show ioilial 

interest in NCG/!. jobs. 3nd much feo.ver are willing to report for work and complete a 

h~rvesl season. Table 2 summari z.es these DES referrals to NCGA seasonal jobs over 

the I~Sl scvtral years. The first lliree colunlliS show Ihe calendar y~a r. the state l,nem· 

ployment mil' in each year. and Ihe annual average number of unemployed workers in 

the state. The next three columns sbow the number of new applications for jobs reo 

ceived by aU DES offices statewide. and the number of ref~rrals made 10 any employer 

in the SHue for nun-Hgriculturnl auo agricul1ura! employmel11, The l1eXI column shows 

tbe lIumberofthese referrals that were sell! to tbe NCGA. Almost all of these were hired 

b)' the NCGA. as shown in the next column. TIle following colulllll shows how m~lIy 

of these reported for the first day of work. The penultimate column show:!; how many 

16 
79 

Til F. f:l HeT O~ fOl!UCN LMIOH 0111 N"TlV~ E!l.1PUIDI r,v r 

oflhese worked umil Iheend of the contract. without quiniug or being fired. The final 

columll sbows Ihe number of missing observatiorls-workers whose o ut come I\IllS nOl 

recorded.' l 

'.Vhr are so rei" Ullemployed wor~e rs willing 10 consider, accepl, o r complete these 

jobs? The pallern cannot be easily explailled by geogral'hic separation between NCGA 

jobs and DES offices. sbown in Figure 3. While il is true tbaT U.S. workers are less likely 

10 show inreresl in NCGA jobs far from their residences, very I~rge numbers of unem -

pl O)-~ d North Carolinians live dose to NCGA worlr.:shes. Flgure 33 shows Ihe lucations 

ofNCGA H·2A jobs. Figure 3b shows the coumies·of·residl!llce of U.S. Ivorkers referred 

10 the NCGA, a nd Ihe lOCaTions of DES local offices. Figure 3c shows unemploym eul 

by county in 201 1. The firsl TWO maps show thaT unemployed U.S. \I'orkers li ving dose 

to NCGA worksiIes are more likely to show intereST in the jobs. U; But Ihe unemploy· 

ment map shOll'S Ihat every countylhat contains NCGA worksites either is or adjoins a 

coullly where unemployme nt was over 10% in2011. Furthermore, access 10 DES offices 

is ludik!"ly to be a majOT factor limiting native labor supply: in FignTt' 311 there is Iitde 

couelation betweeo U.S. referrals' residences and the presenct' of II nearby DES office. 

6. Results 

What is it. Ihell. that sosel'erely cllrtails nati\'e employmelll in Illesc jobs? We call rule. 

alii o ne candidate explanation: nlere is no evidence tlwi the North Carolina Growers 

Association iss ubstaotialtyout of compliance with the rcgulalion 10 hire oatil"e workers 

as iflhey were perfecl s ubslituTes for fON!ign workers. nu~ NCGA is closely watched by 

s\ale aud federal eguJator~; ils mem bers receive scores of inspections from the Dept. 

of I..<Ibor each )'!"ar. Ne ithe r regulators nor advocacy groups currcntly allege Ihal the 

NCGA syslematically and illegally !Urns away s ubsr aruial numbers of na tive workers 

wiUiug i\I"ld able to perfom) seasonal mauual work. 

[)\I ~ lo~ da'" r .. ~~ N(X;!I rloNlf\k Q" II . rtfurr~ () al lld~r \"""':''OO7 Werefl\)l p,~1. 

" 11 -2" "'n !~ ")'.,.. an, O)<jul .... d 'II p ... fl. ba<k, d()lrrti \"f"\··<I) . .tc-! 1) [l<.'(1ed l ... ~, j"g tllr~r$ 

wh" d" nol II ... "carll)' . • ,. U,l< pal1 ~n' ~.u<lhj y ,eil,,,-,,,,. p",r""·"",, by U.s. "".r\:en; h' live 01 " ""''' 

Uuring Ih~ ""flo: " ,.", on ~lId 3\~JlU 01I~ 'J} ·p",vr<lc~1 "'<.S;n~. 

17 
80 

MIClIAf.LA.{]'I)'II OII!> 

The an~lysis to follow explores alternative explanatious, It could be tim! there is a special charaCleristic of the plllCes with NeGA jobs Ihat creales a spalial mismatch betweell 

unemployed U.s. wockers and NeG" jobs. For e,.-ample. the state workforce ageliCY 

(Divisio!l of EmploymeUl Security) offices ill places with NCGA jobs might !lot be the 

offices where large numbers of the unemployed go to seek work. It could be Ihal nn· 

employed U.S. workers. despile eg~1 obligations forth eNCGA \0 adv\'nise through the 

DES lIud throllS!1 local newspapers. do lIo/learn of the jobs' exis/ellce. It could be ThaT 

U.S. workers' access 10 unemploymenr insumnce gives them a bener oplion th~n man, 

ual farm labur. II C1)uld be th31 thE' NCGA pays too linle 10 3ttraCI U.s. workers, butlVilh 

modest increases in 'v:1ges. uative labor suppiywould rise. I test each of these io fum. 

The interpretAtiofJ ohhese resulls ((!SIson equmions (~) and (5). 1[1 this setting. employ· 

ers are obliged to rreat nmil,tl and foreign workers as pt'rfcct substitutes IIJNA/19M OJ, 

Ihus NM < 0, But The magnitude of Nt! depends un uative labor supply elasticity ':. 

apprQXim3ted by t:Xogellous changes in II viII eqUnlion (5). and ~ <>; 0 -= NM "" V. 

6.1. t he elasticity of n:ltive labor supply: ExtetJsive margi!) 

Tht' first step is to explore the. elTect of local unemployment on DES referrals to the 

NeG" ~nd the outcomes of those referwls, l~ This ~rrajysis is couducled by DE.'i office 

and month. DescriptiveSla[istics are in iablp 3. 

iabll' 4 shows panel rUled-effects regressions ,"ilh DES referrals and their OUfcomes as 

Ihe dependeut \·ariabh,'". !Q(;31Ullemplo)'ment arrd office·le..-ellob·allplications as the 

regressors. and DES office fixed elT("cts. The first four columns shfllv the relationship 

between the regressors and all referrals by elll:h OES office to all jobs in the state. first 

non-agricultural jobs aud then agricultural jobs. lile fiual fourco[ulllllS show Iht's~![le 

relatlonship for referrals by each OES office 10 the NCGA. and the outcomes of those 

referrals. To make aU eight columns comparablt'. the NCGA referral data are restricted 

to the same months ami rears fur which oveml DESrefertal dara are available: February 

'·'U.,III une'''pl' ''' '''~ \f ' "'c"''' fI ~ ,,,, ,, ,,,piu~n "" f Me .t u~d, DilS "Hk~. 'I"h[, I, C"tl,~al/'d lO, lit. ~":f,,)(e """lnpl,,}"":"f ... h: in 1I, ,,~,,u ,,'i .,. .. :rA:d bt'lI~lf "n .. ", w"f~h">d 1»i",,,mlyl$IMrr"""'"_ 

lB 
81 

fl Ii HCTO~ nlm U;N I AImH O,'\ N"lW ~ h!l.I P(1)\').ICNT 

2oo5-May 20J I. 

Two reatures onable 4 are notable. First, there is 3 positive ~ssociation between local 

unemploymem lind referrals to the NCGA. as weU ~5 hiring by the NCGA-controlling 

for hOI" many applica tions the DES office has received in the current month aud in 

each of the preceding to months (columns 5 and 6). This relationship is significant at 

the 1% level. There is a IllUch weaker. blU still st3tisticaUysignific3nt positive relations hip between unemployment and the number of those ref('rrals who arrive to begin 

work at the NCGA lcolumn 7). There is no detectable rela tinnship between local lUI· 

employment and the number of U.S. referrals who complete their contracts with the 

NCGA (col UlllnS). 

Figure 4 represents lhese coefficient~ graphically as mllrgillS plots. The vertical axes 

are multiplied hy the numher of DES offices in the sarnple awlrhe nurnber of mombs 

in a yea r. so that they (('present the expected number of total U.S. workers statewide 

per rear. nlf~ horizontal axes show loelll unemploymeut. Those plots reveal that the 

rn~gnililde of these relationships is exrremelysrn~ll. A 10 pen::entage· poInt rise in Ull · 

employment is associatE'd with roughly 100 3dditionRi referralS to ule NCGA each rear, 

contmlling for all time-invariant trailS of the DES office in ql,estiol1 AS well as the lIum· 

uet of applications it has reCl'i~d ill the preceding 10 months. The same shock to lUIelllplOYlllenr is Itssnciated with about so addiliOIl!\1 U.S. workers statewide per yearwho 

actually arrive to begin Ivork. and has no signifi caJ){ association at all with the number 

who complete work. 

Asecond nOlable featureof1"alJle -t is thai NCGA referrals are negatively correlated with 

lagged Ilumbers of overaU job applications at each DES offir.e for the first five mOlllhs of 

lags. bUI positively correlated forlags IHO. One explanatiOIl for this paltern is the fact 

that. under the Eznployment Securit)' Law of North Ctrolina, the 1l111Xill\u1Il dunuion 

of state unemployment insurance benefits is 26 weeks. The coerikit;!nl~ are compatible 

witll. but oat conclusive evidence of. an eITecl of 1I11employmeot benefits that deters 

application to NCGA jobs: rhosewho became unemployed during the coverage period 

are less likely to express interest in NCGA jobs (Ihe of.'g~tivt coefficiellts io lags 0-5), 

19 
82 

and tbose whas .. coverage expires are more Ji kely to show inte res!. ~ 

AnY5nch deu:'ffcuceeffect from uuemploymeminsurauce is coutrolled awayinthelasl 

coluInu T~bll' 4, llul the coefficient on unentploymem is iudistiuguishAlllefroln zero. 

ThisSllggestS Ihall.lllernploymeni insnmnceis not a Sl,bstantiai reason that we observe 

no reiarinnsliip llelWl'en local unemployment aud native-worker completion of NCGA 

jobs. 

6.2 . The elasticity of Ilillive labor supply: Intensive margin 

The analysis now shifts 10 Ihe level ofindillidual employmenT episodes. 1 SIIlfI by mea· 

suring the amitioll of U,S. referrals betweeu the refe rral dat e and tbe first day of the 

work contract. and e.'fploring the relationship between this aflrilion and localunemplo}'men!. 

Figure 5" shows Ihat {or every two wl'cks that pass bl'tween all unemployed U.S. workers' referral 10 the NCGA and the slarr tlate of IVork. roughly an additional hAlf of the 

referred workers fail 10 begin work. The figure displays 1I Kaplan·Meier survival curve 

fo r ~II workers referrt'd I\lthe N"CGA llNween HI!l8 and 2012. from the dale of referr~i until the dllre the wo rk contract begius, wilh a 95% confidence imerv.ll Ilroull11th ~ 

curve. Censoring is defined liS re porting for 1V0 rk as scheduled. Workers drop OUI if 

rhey eilher (outacr the NCGA 10 ~ncel the jo b, or simplr do not appear for work. The 

solid verlical line shows Ihe sample mean time from referral to start date, wilh dOlled 

liues slLolviug a 95% coufidence imerval for Ihe mean, 

Figure 5b shows Ihal this surviv~l curve has Ihe property predicted by theory in 15). 

II shows rhe results of a Cox proportional hazards model where the r~gressor is local unemploymenl in Ihe U.S. workers coullry of resideuce in rhe mouth of referral. 

\\~l n unemploymem is high, referred wo n:.ers lire substllntially more likely 10 begin 

" n,js "aUet" rdk.:1S ~ wmmun finding III the I.,,,,",, lit~mtu r<:: Cl""" , .. Ihe ,naximulll dur;utun ur 

u"c'"pIO\'rn<O''' "'~ s, '!~ ~~~SIU'l' ,1"'"';" (>:5 in ,h,· h!-~"\I"n "'~S" r I.!:l<'r lq ply (e. . I ,j!,. ll«!) 

"d '''''P in ...... """ In <-..... 1'" """" rrumun mpt")' ''~m' (,-,.I;-K.\, "11,1 M'~'" l<i'1>!r, Ilu"l I'~!" : fhor,'.,,,1 

Ill.n~ !IO~l. 

20 
83 

'Hl ii H HCf IW f UlIU CN lAIlOIl 0111 N"l ~ IJl.1PUm i f.'.rr 

work. Tabl" 5 shows Ihe underlying semipanunelricCoxregressiou. aloog with alternalive paramelric spe<:ilicatiDlls. The hau.rd rate is roughly 9% IDwer for each additioua! 

p('rcentage point of local unemployment. But Figure 51> shows that tJlis effect is quile 

small: even ~ very large shock to llnemploymellt tends to delay tllis attrition by around 

twO weeks. 

Similar patterns are seen ill survival CilrYes l!Xaminillg ilttritiOIl from Ille 513rt ufwork 

to the completioll dille of tbe \~or\:; contract. Figllre r.~ shows these Kaplan -Meier SlIr,., 

\'i\"dl wrves fur U.S. workers (solid bJnd) and Mexican H·2A workers (dashed red), with 

95% confidence intervals. Here, censorlllg is defined as complellng Ihe wnrk contmCI. 

Workers drop out if they Quit or are fired. The hazard Tate for U.S. workers is roughly 35 

times the rale for Mexicall workers in the smne jobs (Taule 6). 

TherE' are IWO dimensions of missing d:H~ ill lUI' NCGA records, sbown in Table 7 . For 

some workers Ihe Olilcome is Linkuowli (for U.S. (efc-rrals, 111/1658", 6.7%). III Jllis 

c~se. I nOl e that almost half of Ihese missing va lues o\:cur in a single yeHf (2008. ~ee 

Tab{e 2), and the results lire lint materialiysensiliYe to the omisSion of III at yellr (results 

available on request). For ollll.'.r workers, Ihe outcome is kuown but Ihe dUflllion is 

unknown (for U.S. refermls, 108/1658 ,,6.5%). For these [ impure survivMI times with 

a simple nrodej .r~ The resulls ofirnputing U.S. worker survival limes For observalions 

with knowil olltcome nre slrown wilh the dorted greenlinr. ill Figure 61l lllld in the lower 

panel of 1bblr G. There is lirtle change inlhe surviml curve. and Ihe U.S. worker day· 

lo-day allriliOIl rate from quilting or being fired remains above 32 limes the Me:l':ican 

mil!. 

FigurE' 6u shows tire relatiollship between the U.S. worker survival e urve (colUplelf' 

clIses onl)') from start-of-work to con!ract complf'lion. and local unernploymeul. Again 

it shows the result ofaCox proportional hau.rds mode! with local une ruploymern as Ihe 

>tn,,, ,mputarl"" modd "lISum .. " d",r wlOb<.rvnd ,un"" ... 111", ... fur u .s.. wuliwr...~ L"'lUallu ~, e 00· 

...: rv, J , "n'i, ... lll",,-"" ow.s. ",,,rkcf> ",hn are rcl,,,n>J al't.., \>III'C h :a! ","""p!(»'II\ClIl ~le, ,,-ho , Iar' .ne. 

lh"5am<": ~eI.}' bol " rtfe.n! .1IIdSI •• !-of-wort. I'll" finbl' W!>rI: w;th Ih ~ ,ame (~llr .. nlC. "' (he sam" 

y.; and n,,)nll!. Hl~'I$. s .. .r"""~ ,;",\. 1< I'redio;'(:(1 t:ly on OI.S "'"11.<,,<;on (>1 .<"'\';",,1 (;"", ,n Inn) ,,"em· 

(110)'''''''' In 'h" 'I\("\lh "f n·fer .. !. " ".nlh< "'''1''''''' ruferr .. ! .nd OUtl • •• '" ul dunu"" ", f(JI """h lIulwn", 

<:t'mpl~I" ,I. ~(111. lin"" . on,! " filii ;.." " f In",...CI, ,,J dllmml.,;- fur ,I", )''''' and ",,,,,Ul " f applic;j.;"". 

21 
84 

regr..ssor. T3blt> 5 shows the- ullderiying Cax rcgression and fully pamme-tTic alternatives. Agaiu the- relatiouship corroborates the- prediction abollt inte.usi\-e·margiu labor 

supply in IS]: when ullemploymeor is high!'r in a referred worker's county of residCllce, 

the worker lasts longer on [h~ job. But the magnitude of this rel~tionship is sm~n, aud 

only reaches conventional levels of statisriCBI significance in the exponential survival 

model. There estimatl'S suggest that with each additional p",rcentage point of unem· 

ploymeut. U.s. workers' hazard rate foHowing the stan or work is around 3% 100\'er. but 

Ihis effect cannOl be definitively distinguished from zero. A 10 percentage·pOinT in, 

crease ill ullemploymenr makes U.S. workers stay roughly two wee~ longer on joUs 

whose typical commctlength is 4.5-5.5 mombs. 

Togelher, these estimates suggest that Ihe slope of tbe native labor supply clIrve in the 

neighborhood of Ihe current wage is positi"e but very close to zero. Nariw labot supply 

at the intensi\,(, margill-willingness to begin work. and williugness to complete \\l{)rlt 

once begun-is extremely low. It is 3fJecled by Ihe reserve opTions ~vai13ble TO Ihese 

workers, hut WiTh all extremely smalJ magnilude. 

6.3. lndiret:1 effccls offmeign se,lSnnal farm workers on native employment 

The prl!('e-diugresulls test and rejeet some altem~li\' explanations for lowlaborsuppJy 

byU .S. workers. Lowlaborsupply is not likely 10 arise from spnlia] variation across DES 

offi~s: the anRlysis in Tabl'" 4 and Figure·\ includes DES office Jix('d·effects. It is un· 

likely to arise be<;itllsC U.S. workers do oat know ll00tll the jobs: imcllsi"e·margin I"bor 

supply among U.S. wotkers referred for Ihese jobs is similarly low w extensive· margin 

labor supply by aliullemployed U.S. workers. It is unlikely to arise {rom deterrence by 

unemploymem insumnClei Thble" caplures and comrols for al least some of any such 

deterrence. Finally, it is unlikely 10 arise from 311 unwiUinguess or inability of farmem 

to modestly mise wages: the evicience is compatible with near·r.ero local slopes for ti,e 

extensive·margin and inteosive-margin labor supply curves. 

Thls suggests tha t there is close to zero employment sUUstitution between native and 

roreig!! labnr in Ihese seasonal f3rm jobs. and Ihal tIle mechanism for tllis lack nf sub· 

" 
85 

T fl ii HHCf O~ fUlUJCN LMI()H 01'1 N"lW~ lJl.1 PUIDI r.NT 

stitutiou is almost exclusively 01] the labor·supply sidc. TIlis has a funh er implic:niou 

for the effect of foreigu seasollal f~rrn work Oil native elllploymenl outside the farm 

scctor. Conditional on North C~ olin~"s continued production of crops that require 

mauual haf\'est to be profil3bll!. this implies that foreign Sl!asonal laborers ill North 

Carolin1l cause all increment to the economic produci of the state. The following aoal · 

ysi~ conduttSa rougb estimat80fthat stalewide I!conomic effecl and ilS consequences 

for 1l3tive jobs in all ~eClors oft/II' stale pcoao",y. 

1able fla reports estimates of Ille marginal Te\'ellue product (MRPJ of manual seasotlal 

harvest and plllnting wnrkers in North Carolina, for three of the principal crops pro· 

duced by NCGA farms. TIley are based primarily on crop budgets pruduCt!d by researchers 3t North C~rolioa State UniverSity and are specific to Ihe state. The shortruu esTimates of workers" MRP assume ~ Leomieff production function, so that tlT e 

MRPlhourl acfe is simply equal 10 the MHPI~crelseason divided by the hours uf man· 

ua! harvest and planting laoor required per seasoll. This dearly O\'erestimates MRI~ 

sineI' farmers could be expected [0 adjuS1.otber iuputs in re~ponse to a loss of manual 

lauor. The long·run estirnaTes assullle a Cobb· Douglas production function. assum· 

ing tbaTthe productjor) elasticity of manual labor equals its COSI share.l:l This clearly 

underestimates MRP' since farmers of crops whose harvest has 1I0t been er. hani~ed 

c~nnot infinitely substitute other inputs fo r manual labor at COIl5tant (unit) elasticity. 

Details orthe method and data sources are given in Appcotlix $llb$t'ctiOIi A2. 

Theseestimatessuggestthat The.short·runMRP of sea SOlla I n13llual labor in NCGA jobs 

is somewhere around 4-1, times the w~ge paid to mallwll seasonal workers, and the 

long· run MRP is somewhere around 2:-3 tim('S the w~ge '" The short-T\rn MRP is con-

~e rvatively less tban 6, mid the long·ruu MRP cannot go below 2:-3 value that would 

'"A ",,'r Imptl ca l~ n ()r, .... b"·Il .. "ogI~.I''';dILtlion is ,tw Ih" OUIPUI ~"!lcl y (If , n InP' '' i. wefl ~p. 

p","In,","d .,.,. Ir ,; r<>o;l <'"''''_ In rhnsf "'p)''''' "".<sIDn or the du.ll'rohi"m. 'R!t (,,'1.0 I rlI) s .•. AK' .... I. ~ 

Q FOC" ~t'~I. · II " ",."donll" Ih" Indus"i.l "rg,mr,..ll<>n 11r""""", l"~pp"».h"'IL I;rm I"'''1 'KI!· 

pill d"lieilil!s wilh ind"'lry Ic",·r~ in!,,,r c<>Slsha"", (e.g (.rH,rhr-:; I; ~,l : U." ly In.1. I''''l: ¥IS<'" ~r~r·l : 

r">l~r et _I. ~IJUIlt. 

"'l1>t."SIl figure:. ~rt <"(J nvb<or~red by Ihe ",~ y <"O"""p • .onJi"~ es li"'~l e ul whid,) om .wa ..... in lilt: ;,gri· 

"',l1u",1 .,..( on"rni r~ 1i.(·",(UJe Ms mi,,~ C<:oI;ot>.l)oO.1g:ia, pmdu t~ . II"fr",~" (t~m, l 11lof.> 5) n"ds ,har 

r"r "'1'n.. .... "'OIlve r."".ln Nurth Ca ",Un., 11,,, "'"'lP".1 ruve"ue pn>dl"" "fl~red 1.,1><11" is 1.75 llnl<."; Ih. wa!(':. 111L: cum:>ll<mdifLj( ngun:s in T/Lhk tIlL a n, 1. 1.\~) rlm<"> lhi- "~lSc. 
86 

assume farmers can almosT cominuously substitute for all)' deficit in nlauual labor by 

adjus(iug other inputs. 

Table Bb dr~ws Out Ihe implications of these figures for tile impact of foreign seasonal 

H·2A farmworkerg for eCQllomic product and jobs iu all sectors of the emlre state of 

North Carolina. Details and sources for this calculation are gillen in Appendix uh~l'c ~ 

1ion /1.3 The MRP of 7000 foreign seasonal agriculturlI.I workers per year is bem-cen 

about $300 aud 450 miJlion in the short run ~r\d about $( 50 8,\d 225 million in tbe long 

rUJI. The U.S. Bureau of E<::ollolllic Analysis RIMS It regiunal economic mod!') predicts 

thaI an incremem oflhls lIlagnitudein the agricnlrurnl economy of North Carolina gen· 

erates roughly 2800-4300 jobs in all Sf!(;tl.lrs of the Slate economy in till' short rUIl. auti 

roughly 1400-2100 johs in the long run. In other words. each 1.5·2.3 foreign H·2A work· 

ers create one U.S. job in North Carolina in the short run. and each 3.Q-4.G foreign H·lA 

workers f.fe;l1 eOne U.S. job in Nonl' CaroliuiI in Ihe long run. The RIMS II output mul· 

tiplier furthermore Sllggests lilli\ ihhe labor orlhe 7000 H,Z/I workers employed by the 

NCGA were 1051, Ihe tolal economic output of North ~ro!illa would dedi Ill' b)' roughly 

$500-750 miJliOIl in the short run (withoUT all)' adjustment b)' fanners) and by alleast 

$250-370 millioo in tbe long run (Mter the greatest plausible degree of Adil.lStment by 

farmers). 

These estimated impacts ouU.5. workers' jam do ILOt represeili lhe effecl ofl-l·2A workers 011 the currem jobs of working North Carollnians. most of which could be replaced 

if 1001. That is. the)' are not the common estimales of a "displacement" efff!(;t on U.S. 

workers' jobs if H·2A work ~ were losl. R~th r. they reflect an incremcm to fhe tOfal 

number of jobs thal could be sought by any unemployed U.S. worktor in North Carolina. 

Tiles!' estimales are consemltive for four reasons. Firsr. the particular RIMS II jobs 

rnuJriplier used here is Ihe 'TYPe J' multiplier. which omils al! effe<:ls of local expendi· 

ture Uyworkers. \'.~Iil e H-ZA workers III the NCGA remll to Mexlco the maiority oftheir 

earnings. they do spend ronghly 1001S% of earnings in North Carolina. Second. (he 

'Typ e!' lIlultiplier ignores the effects of spending by non·sellsonal hired workers on the 

same farm~. IllOS I of wb n~ are U_S. workers \\110 live al ld spend in the area. Third. il 
87 

Tfl ii H HCf O~ f OlIUCN UIIIO" 0 1'1 N"lW ~ IJl.1 Pl1)1?1 r.NT 

ignores all eITacts of all e~pansioll in thp Nortil Carolina economy 011 the ecouomies 

of ueighboring stales aud job eceatio!) in those states, FOllflh, it ignores all effects 011 

the U,S. eCOllomy from any eventual sppnding of don~rs remitted to Me~ico 011 U.S. 

~"ports. 

7. Concl usion 

These resullS suggest tha t rhe eff~1 offoreign manual farm lauor on U,S_ nalive em· 

ploymenr is Hlrnnst lew ill Nonh Carolina. TIle reason is almosl exdusivelYlheshalle of 

the nalive lallor supply curve for these jolJs-supply is d~e 10 tern at current terms of 

comlaet and 31 a range of nearby terms. I test and subsramially ruleoula rallgeofpossible explaoations for low native labor supply, induding geograpbic mismalch, illegal 

discriminatory hirhlg practices, asymmetric iJ\foml~liofl. and moral ha;o;ard from WI-

~mJllOy!IJel!l iusura!!ce. II appears that almost aJJ U.S. 1V0rkefS prefer almost any labormarket omeome-indudillg long periods of ullemployment-IO carrying OUI manual 

harv~t and p!amillg labor. This remains true across a wide range of rest'rvt' options. 

suggesring thllt it relllnirl~ true across a wide r~l1ge of compen.sation as well. 

This method has advilulages over previous ~ppro~ches in this selling. Firs!, il idemi· 

fies Ihe mechanism; lack or natiV('-fofeign subs\iwtability arises uor from d!fferPllces 

ill employer demand for Ililtive and foreigulabor but frum differences in labor supply 

by rmlive ~ud foreign labor. Set:ond, is il less prone 10 bias by native self·selection out 

of tlit' labur market segment und ... r t'X<lminatiun: all of the jobs ill question wt're firsl 

offered to IlAli\'es within the rele\'lInt labor lTlarket segmem before foreign hiring coulc! 

occOr. Third, this ftndillg is more relevant (0 polley oonlrQIs on foreign laOOr demand 

than other studies that use shifts ill foreigu labor supply. Sud] demand comrols are 

frequemly occupation,specific, And sometimes occur ill the absence of supply cons]raims, ~s wilh thl'. H-2A ,';sa. nle shape of Jl~tive labor suppi)' directly informs the 

effects (If occupation·specific restrictiollS on fureign labur demand. 

These results implytua! if tl.lneric.ans continue to COllsu!Jle!he crops ill question a! ;my· 

25 
88 

where neM CUrfem prices. only [Jlrce OlHcomes are plausible. Either seasonal foreign 

labor will allow cOl11inued domestic produc[iou. domestic production will be repl!!ced 

by imports. or technological change will reduce or e-lirninale the ll~d for rnallHallabor 

in production. ConditiOIl!!1 011 ~nrrc11lteclll)()logy. then. foreign seasoual labor causes 

fin increase in GDP. This analysis suggests that if the roughly 7.000 Me:'(ic3n seasonal 

workt'rs employed by the Nonh C~rolil13 Growers Association in 2012 had not emered 

the country. in the short run [he North Carolina economy would lose 28()t)-.4300 jotls 

IICTOSS allliectorsand would sllrink by$500-750 million. In [he long run. after the great· 

est plausible degree of ~djnstment by farmers. [his loss would be roughly 140tJ-2100 

jobs lind $2S0--370 million. In OUtet words. each 1.5·2.3 foreign H·2A workers create 

Olle U.S. job in North Carolina ill Ihe shofT rUIl. and each 3.(J.....4.6 foreign H·2A workers 

create one U.S. job ill North Carolina in the long rtl1l. 

Labor demAnd reguilltions in this industry hll\'e remarkable consequences. Regulators 

require the NCGA to IId~"ertise all of its H·2A jobs in fOllr lleWspllpers in three states. It 

spent $54.440 on theseadvenisemenlli in 2011. and $35.906 in 2012. for a [wo·year to· 

tal newspaper advertising cxpendilUll' of$90.341i. During That wlQ·rear period. II total 

or five U.S. workers bired by the NCGA reported that they had firs[ leawed of the job 

through a newspaper advertisement (Thble !)). or [hose five. only one was willing to 

Stllrt the job. Stay past the first few weeks. and complete [he growing se.lson-earning 

rong!Jly$8.ooo in four !\Iomhs. The newsp~per advertising requiremem appears equiv. 

IIlent to a large t~x on farmers and subsidy for newspaper owners. with essentially no 

benefit to U.S. farm workers. 

Beyond tltis. the NCGA reports thai it speods roughly $46.000 per year in s[afTtirue ex· 

clusively related [0 required cooperatio!1 with the DES on re<:ruiliug. hiring. and track,. 

ing U.S. referrals. Combined with newspllper advertising COSts. this means that the 

NCGA spem about $IB2.000 over the two·ye~f period 2011-2012 TO recruit U.S. work· 

ers. Ttlis exclusively comprises administrative COStS at the NCGA headqUArterS offir.e 

and does not include lime spent by farmers 10 traill or replace U.S. workers who leave. 

1I also does not includegovemmentexpenditures ill the effort to re~fLljt U.S. I .. orkersthe time of employees or DES. the U.S. Dept. of L~bor. or the North Carolina Dept. 

26 
89 

T fl ii t.r~[Gf OF HmUCN LAUOn 01'1 NATIVE b\1I'11)\'},1 "NT 

of !~1l>or thai was spent en forciug U.S. worker recruitment requircmcms. Durius that 

two-yellr period, ! 7 hireo U.S. workers were willing II.! complete the sellsou ITable l ). 

Each worked Ort average S months and earned about $9,700, for lotal earniogsof about 

5165,000 3cross all 17 willing U.S. workers. This is le5s Ihan Ihe direct cost that tht: 

NCGA headquarrers incurred 10 recruil the same workers. Given thm this recrulmlem 

COSt omits any COS ts 10 the farms themselves or to state or local gOv~rnlll nt, this suggests that regulatiolls on demand for foreign seasonal <lHlJlual farm labor are a uel oestroyer of economic V!l[ue in North Carolin~. 

27 
90 

MWIIAf. L A. I}. II 'II~ 

References 

Addison, J. and P. PorlUgal, "Job Displacemem, Relmivc Wag!;' Changes, and DuratiOIl 

of Unernp!oyrnrnt," Irmrnal ofLnbor Economics, 1989, 7(3),28 1-302. 

Altanil, J.G. and O. Card . "The dfeets o(irtulligration Otl tbe ~bor JII~rkel outcomes of 

less·skilkd n.·uives,· ill I.M. Abowd and R.F. Freeman, f'd.s., IlllllligmlirJlJ, Trade and 

Ille Labor Mflrhr, Universirv of Chi en go Press, 1991. pp. 201-234. 

Angrist, J.D. and A.D. Kugler. "Protec tive or CouUltt· productiVt'? Labour markel illstirU!ioll~ and the r>ffr't'l (If in,migrn rim, an E..ll. ""I,y(,S," F..eo'IOlllic./ouflial. 2003, /13 

(488), F302-F331. 

Baily, M.N .. C. Hulten, D. CampbeU, T. Hresnahan, (lfld R.E. Caves. "Produt:tivity d\'· 

JlanliCS in mmlllfaMurinc pla ll l~ ," Brookillgs Popers 011 Ecollomic Acrillily; Microeco1I0/l/ics, 1992, 1992,187-267. 

Barnes, W.E, "Jou ~!;'a ch models. the duration oruncmploynll'nt, and Ihe asking wage: 

SQInI' I'mplrical evidl'flce," Jom/lal ofH'll/Iflii Re501lI"CI'S, 197~, /0 (2). 23()-;!40. 

Bodvarsson, 6.B. and U. Van dcn Be rg. 1"II~ ECOIIOIIIICS of ImllllgrtllUm; T/lf'()ry allli 

Policy. New York: Springer, 2009. 

_ , H.f. Van dcn Hcrg, a nd 1.1. l.cwer. "Mrllsuri" c i"Hn igrstiOll's efreers Oil I~bor dt'· 

IIlimd; A ft'eXa<llination of lIt\! ManelBo<l1lif't," lJI/Jour Ecollomil:s, 2008, /5 (4), ~6o574. 

Borjas, G.I .. "TIlt' labor dt'mand C'lIrw ~ dOlVrllI'lird sloping. fu>("'~l!Iilli'lg th(' impact 

of i",llligrarian on (he labol markel, " Qrlflrtl'rly 10lmml of ECOI/OllliC$, 2003, 118 14). 

1335- 1374. 

_ , !lB. l'reeman, and LE Katz, ·Searching for Ihe Effect aflnllnigrarian on the Labor 

MarkN," AlIlI'ricftl/ ECflllOlllic Relliew Paf.!l!rS & Pror.eerlillgs, 1996, 86(2), 246-251. 

_ , _ ,and _ , "How Mud) Da lnlllligtaliOll atldTrad~ AITt'Ct UibOt Minkel OutcOnl\!S?:' 

Brookings Pflpers all Ecollomic.Acril'ity, 1997, 1997 (1), I-'JO. 

Cahu c, P. and A. Zylberberg, /..tIlior Et;IJIlal/liC$. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2004. 

Card. D .. "The ImpaCT ohhe M3rielBo~difron die Mi ami Labor MHrkel," IlIdllstrialaml 

Labor Rem/illll; RelliclIJ. 1900. 43 (2). 245-257. 

_ ," hnnlignllit (ntJows. Nali\'t'Ou!f1l1WS, ;'Iud rhe Local Labor M.1IkcllrnplICls ofHit:!wr 

rillmigr~riou " JormmlofLLIbor Economics, 2001,19 (1), 22~. 

Carrasco, fL, 1.1'. limeno, and A.C. Ortega, "Th(Jl'fl('CT ofimmigraHQn 0" Jlle Il\bor m~r" 

k!'l l>!'rfornol1ur.r. oflllltive-boru workers: Some evidellce for Spaiu: JVI/Trw/ ofPopI'-

larion EcOIlOlllics. ZOOS, 21 (3) ,627 .. £48. 

Carrington, \Y.I. and I~ d e lima, "lhe ImpllCI of 1!l70;; repalri~t es from I\fri~a onlhl' 

Porlugll(!SI' labor m~rkel ," 1m/lis/rial (llid La/JOr Belmiolls Rtl1ieUl, t996, 49 {21 , 330-

347, 

2B 
91 

"Hili t.I HCf IW fUllhlCN lJ\I\OH 01'1 NII.1Wh bMI'UWM r.NT 

Can-oil, 0 .. R.M. Sama rdi ck, S, Bc rnard, S. Gabbard, and T. lIem a ndez, "Fi"dilllrl 

from the N:uional Agricultural Worker~ Survey (NAWS) 200 1-2002: A demographic 

and t!fHpluymelH profile or United Slijl(:S farrll worker5," Rese~rch Repon No.9, U.S. 

Depl. of laoor 2005. 

Cohen·Goldner, S. and M.D. l'asermal1, "Tht' d~"aruic unpllel ofill\/I1igratio/l ou nalives' I~bor H1~rkel Olilcomes: !::i\id<::nce from Israel: Emopetlll Ecollomie Review, 

20l!. 55 (8). 1027-1045. 

D'Arnuri, P. and G. I'erl, "Inlll1lgmtion, Illb~ and I:.mplllylllCIlI PrQtt'Clion; £vidcnr'e 

frum EurDp.:," NBER Workins Paper 17 139. NalionaJ Burcau of Economic Research. 

Cambridge, MA 201!. 

Dustman", C., f, fabbri, and I, P're~to , "'Ole IfHp~t:I of IIl11lligraiioll on the BritiSh 

labour Mai"kl'l," Ecollomic}ollfl/(ll, 2005, 11 5 (507), F3U-F3.11 . 

f acchini, Giovanni, Annll Maria Mayda, and Marlapio Mendola . "Soulh·Soulh Migra_ 

lioll and the L~bor M~rkel: I'.videuce frOln South Africa: Working P;!per 351, Centro 

STudi Luca d 'Agliano Development Studies 2013. 

f eldstein, M. and j. Paterna, "Unemployment Insurance and reservatioll w~ges: IOllf111110/ Pllulic EcOIlOlllies. 1984.23 (I), 141-167. 

Fis he, R.l~lf. .' "Ullcmploy",tu\ In$ur1l.utr mid the flcservatluu Wagr of llor Uue", · 

ployt!d; f1l!lliewof&.v l/olJlics fllIIlSw/isfics, 1982,64 (I), 12-17. 

fOSler, L , J. llahiwlll1ger, and C. Syverson, Re~l!ocation, Firml\lrnover, :llld Effi· 

cI "rl ~y: Sl'lecllOrl ntl ProdllctlvltVor Prol1lauliily?," Americnll EcwwIII;e Rerl;e)./. 2008, 

98(1),394 .... 25. 

f rL.emall.R.B .. ~opleFlowsinGlouali:t.~rjon ... }OImm!o/ECOl/omicPerS/X.Cli/Ii.$. 2006, 

2O(2).14!;-J70. 

f riedberg, R.M .. "The impi1cl of nutss migratiou 011 the Ismeli I~uor martel: Qrmrrerly 

luumlll ofEcO/wlIJir:s, 2001. 116 (4), 1373-1408. 

Gibson, J. and D. McKenzie, Au.~lrnllll'S Pacific SeaSQJIl\1 W<)tkf'r Pilol Sdlf'me(PSWPS): 

Oev~JopUlem Impacts ill lite FirSl1\vo Venrs: workillS Pnper, Department of Economics, University ofWaikato 2011. 

Glitz, A., "The lauor market impaCT of hnll1igralirur: A qul\si f'~perilllenr f'xpilliting im -

migrnllt location rules i1\ Gennauy: !ourl/al of Lahar Ecomlfllics. 2012, 30 (I). 175-

213. 

Gold in, c., "ThE' politlcnl ~coIlol1lyof!mllllgrllTi on te:$triction in lilE' Uoited SlateS, 1890 

101921: ill C. Goldin and G.D. Libec~p, eds.. Tile Rl'glilmed £COI/Ollly: A HisfOriwl 

API"()tlclllo Polilicn/ £COl/amy, Chicago: University of dlicago Press, 1994 , pp. 223-

257. 

Gonz.liJe'l., Ubcrlad and Pran CeSC Orlcga, "ilowdo I'eryopen t'(:onomie5 adj\lstto large 

immigr3l iol1 flows? Evidence from Spllllish regIons," LlI/xJIlr EcO/lOlIIieS, 2011. 18 (iI, 

57-70. 
92 

MIrIIA f.L A. (],1)'1 b'>lS 

Grili ches,"/.., "[.sII"lillt'S of ,Ilt' "~1\'gml' tlgricultllr.ll productiOn IUllctiou fro, ,, CIOSSsectional dal3: IOl/mal of Fflrm Ecol/omia. 1963, 45 (2), 419-428. 

Grossman, J.6., "The substitlHabilil)' ofnaliVe!i and hmnigranls ill production: Rlmiew 

afEc/momilis filii/ Srmisrics. 1982, 64 r4), 596-£03. 

naJl, P.H, "The Rec{'1II l-lisloryQflrnmigrariOllll.nd lllllnigrnlion Resrriction: /ollmnl of 

Pollliwi Er,ol/Q/IIY, 1913, 21 (8), 73~751 . 

I:hmson , G.II. and A. Spilimbcrgo, "lIJega) ImmigratiOll1 Border Enforcemem, and fiel· 

lItil'e Wtlges: EI'iOellceftoHl App rt!hellSionS ~I Ih ... US-Mexico Border." America" EcolIomic Relliew, 1999, 89 (5),1337-1 357. 

_ . R. Robertson. and A. SpiLUnbc rgo, "Dot'S OOrdf'r ('ufOttl'mt'rlt IlrOiN't US '''ork('rs 

froUl illegal hn,nigralio,,!. " RelJil!w ofEcollolll lcs nIJ d SlaliSlics. 2002, 84 (I ), 73-92. 

natton, T.). and M. Tanl. "Immigrarir)U aud lnter·Rl'giona) Mobility ill Ihe UK. l:l8i2000." EcolJomic /OIl(lI(rl, 2005, 115 (507). F342- F358. 

1.lay, D. and S. !lowes, "AllsrrnHas PIlc!lic St'asonlll waner PHot Scheme: why h as takeliP bt'iJ1l so low?: Discussion Pltper 17, Australian NatiOll31 University 2012. 

!luffman, W.E., "The produclive value 0" hUIIIAIl !inl;, in US agriculture: Aml!riwlI 

lallfllal ofAgricllltllml Econolllics, 1976. 58 (4 Parr I), 672-ti83. 

Hunl, I .. "Tbe impaCI of lbe 1962 reparriatl'.s from Algeria on the Frencb labor mHrkel," 

II/dustrial (llId tnbor Reln/iolls Rc,,jew. 1992.45 (3) , 556-672. 

_. JH~ Effect ofUOf'mplO}lllelll Compellsation on Un employment DlJr~tion In GerOIiUlY: IOl/m(l1 ofulbo, Ecollom;c;, 1995, 13 ( t), /lS-120. 

_ . "The Jmpad or 1Jurnj& ~tioIJ un Ihl.' EducalioJl;tl Allailllllellt CIf N~tives : NBER 

Wllrklng P~per 18047. Nalional 6u ~u of Economic Research 2012. 

lean, S. and M. Jimenez. "The ulleluploymwt impaci ofiuII1!igrariou in DeCO CQ'HItri{lS." EurojJM/I/ollrllnl ofPo/iliCil/ ecollomy. 2011. 27 (2). 241- 256. 

Kandel, W .. "Profilr of Hired Farlll\vorters, A 2008 Update." Economic Resea rr:h Report 

NI~ 60. United States De partment of Agriclllwre. Economic Research Service 2008. 

Kasper, II .. °Thl' ask:ing price of labor and lile duratiOll of unemployment," Reuieru of 

Ecollomic; alld SlfIlislics, 1967.49 (2), 165-172. 

Kau. L.P. and 0.0. Meyer, "Th~ irnpae! of Ille porputlal dllmuon of ,uH'mIJ1OYIUP.Il1 

beoefits 011 tlU! dUfaliou o( UUNllpluVlIll·t,t,· 'oj/fllnl oj Prlblic £.collolllia , 1990, 41 

(l j. 4~72. 

Klder, N.M. and G.R. Neumann. "An Empirical Job·Searcll ModeJ, with a fesl or thr. 

C(ln~tn'lI Rf'Scl"\·~rlon·W~ge HypotJ1eliIS." Journal afPolitical ECOI/OIIIY, 1979. 87 (I), 

89-107. 

Lalonde, IU. and R.H. Topel, "Labor Mnrkl'r Adjustllll'ul5!O Increased Immigratioo." 

in J.M. Abo ..... d and R.B. Freeman, eds., flllllligrfllioll, Tmde flIntrhe Labor M(lrkct. 

ChiCitgO: University of Chicago Press. 199), pp. 167-199, 

30 
93 

'Hili t.I HCT IW rUllhlCN fA1101l 01'1 N"lW~ IJl.1PI1)\?1 r,v r 

lancaster, T. and A. Chesher, "Au roeuUOtHClr;1: I\ualy$is i'll R('St'rV3Ii(l1i Wage~," Econometrica, 1983,51 (6), 1661-76. 

longhi, S., P. Nljkamp, and J. 1'001, "A Meta·AllalYlic Assessmenl of dIe !:fleal uf Lo"";· 

graliOll 011 Wngr$," 101lrntl/ afEconomic SlIfI't')'S, ZOOS, 19 (3), 451---477. 

Martin, Po , E\'RllI~ ioll of the H·2A Allell Lllbor (knification Process ~lI d the u.s. r-;l tm 

Labor Market: COllliul1iug repor! from KRA Corporation. Silver Spring, Marylalld, 

Employment and Tmining Adminisrmtion. U.S. Depl. of Labor 2008. 

_ and I.B. Taylor, "Ripcwi lll Glange: Evolving farm labor mnrkcls ililhe UlliledSlalf'S, 

Mexicu, ~nd Cenrral Arnrrica; Repon of rhe Re iOll~1 Migmlion STudy Group, Wash· 

ingTon, DC Migration Policy Institute 2013. 

Ollilviano, GiamTlIlTC() II' and Giovannll'eri, "Rethillklng the effect ofilllmigr.lliou Oil 

wages: 1011 mal of tile ElifOpe{!/1 EconomicAssocialioH, 2012, 10(1 ), 152-197. 

Peri, G. and C. Spamer. "TttSk Specioll1.mion, Immigration, aod WlIges," Americl/l! £CO. 

nomic fOIll'lml: Applied Economics, 2009,1 (3).135-169. 

Pischke. I.S. Wld J. VeUing, "Employment effl'!;ts ol'imlll igration to G('rmIlUY: An 1l1l~1· 

vsis lJlI$f'(l on Inc~1 labor IIHukf'IS ." Review of EcOllomics mid SlfJlisrics, 1997. 79(4), 

594-W4. 

Rued, K. and T. Zhang, "Does Unemployment Compensmian Affect Utll!mplo¥mClll 

Durmion1," Economic IOllmal, 2003, 113 (484), 190-200. 

Smith, C.I. .. "Tile ImpaCI IlfLow-Sk.i!led 11l1111igrarion!lll Ih~ You rll l~i.Jor Markel," 101lrlIal ofLllbor Ecollolllies, 20 12, 30 (I), 55-89. 

Syverson, C •. "Mark"r strucrure and pr()dliC1ivity: A CQIlCfr'le exampl ... " Joumal of Po-

[iliall Economy, 2004. 112(6), 1181-1222, 

Wicker, II.L. "Regional l'erslll'ct;\le~ un Agrkultur~1 Guestworker Progrnrns: Hearing 

before the Subcommittee 011 Immigration PoHcyand Enforcement, february 9, U.S. 

House of Represellllllive5 Committ ee 011 the Judiciary 2012. 

Wintcr·Ebmer, it and J. ZwcimiiUer, "Do irmuigrams displ-lcl' y6UIll:t Ilatiw.' IVorkers: 

The Austtian IO'Xperieucf'," Journal ofPrJpulf!lion ECO/IOlI/itS, 1999, 12 (2), 327-340. 

31 
94 

MI( II~I A. I,I),IH\I~ 

Figure I: 1IIM' IIn IIlternlltive approllch is inrormllu\fl.' IlbOUI causlll mechanism 

wi' wI' --- ~ 

• . ............ ; ..... _ .. _-_ .. _ .... , 

.-.. ,_.-- ... i ..... _ .. __ . __ ... _ 

V ;alol M flop"""n, " ' ''W '"" m~l1l "wkl •. m.p<'C1i"') SOI!",,,,,,I,,,, S and IJ '''1'''''''''' ,up[>l .ad """"OI~. 

'0'$( .... , 1"'\)'. /." 'I ... '1'"""11} ., I,t.l, oHlllh<l, ."d ; "'h" ",,10) of ... ,'" ,tf",,"'GI"""lln '''j\o''I<I" (-.1_ 

Table I: Overview of Mexiam /1 -21\ Worker.c at NCGA 

Year Number Months/worker 

'.!(l(I.l 6jn!l 4.4:,4 

200,; "'" 4.:,:.!7 

'20(j('; 4i8iJ '1..';;1 

2007 1',.110 I. 7~J7 

20\11' :,(I(IJ ~.:n:\ 

:.!oro 1.i:l37 ii.i)S4 

'20w litOl ,l.t\l :\ 

2011 fJH4 ,jA(){; 

:.!OJ~ """ 5.500 

MuUl 1,i(1.;\ 5.f}.~4 

"n",I .. , 01 "·m .....• how> n",ob.:.< <l/ l!"lqur 1r.ll\1o.IU.", ".<o blS "'10 0, "'"'" H·M ""\j>lnY'''"''' o.1;'_l ln_, 

<.1.""1,, ~""' , MIIT"h,I"·" ,",,, ..",.,.~ ~"1!8 ,00",1>,01 wo,. by .. d, kno! .. ;,llOo\I , 'Me.,,' rowc-"","'" 2004_2Il ' 2. 

32 
95 

T II HITFI:CfOF f UIU, U;N LAIIOII (),\I NA1Wh H,II'I1)YJ.II N f 

Fignre 2: Nonh Carolina unemilloyment, al ~ac h DES office and slatewide 

O~-.-r-'-' __ r-r-~.--.-.-r-'-'--r 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 200S 2010 201 

Year 

BIa<:k: No"l, O""li" .... ,,,,,,1<10 ".'"g<' 'nu'''.'r u, .... ,'pIOf''' ... '' .. t. ('110), ClOy: ''''' I' I<»''''~'. ,.'" . , ,'0<1, lll:s ~m<~,-" ~I.,,,j •• 'VPrl!!O u,,,,.,pIO)',,,.,,, .. ,~ I" ' 1 .. ..,,,,,,1<$ .,'"'''' 1»' lho' offic,', "'<'!jI;I,tod to)' "" ""Y I.bo , Jolftt', 

33 
96 

~ ~l iZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ": :> ~ ~ ,," ;:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ d 6 3 d d 
97 

Figure 3: Locations ufNCGA jobs, referred U.S. workers, and high unemployment 

!I

""l 12.1 

10,1 1',101 

.. A111n'P> 00' ,1 ... 1<1,'<,1 Inlo 110 .. 100 ,,,,,,,,I,,,, "f"""h (,;;0"';00 In 1:;1:1'''' J', ""aol.:.r ,,,cl, "''''"1;1,,,,""11 .... ""~~ 

OU"'i>M <>111.$. """ro,. " .. kHu, In .1001 ""un'y k'lNtnl by Ih. Ol:S'u."" r-It;;I:>\ ,-.ch l"" ... ,,~. y~ll "'HI" "' ""ow 

1..,.11"".01 [l(;S ' ,..,.1' prfia. , .... .kI< ~\I: ""."<.h' QIlIcI-.. , .'''~. 'he \\~f",'"U" 1«. 1 nrn", 1>0< .. " ... OI~~ ,'k! ''''' p"~I"h "I'1,1 ;'",llonl,.k:,..1 d.,. ro' ,h., ullic. 2~OII~ Nonl, Comilo .... ,-' .. u,, ~ 01""" 560 rnl"" t9Il l "n) ll\Im 

" .. , 10 _<t. ,j,.. ....... 11" ,,'IJm of on,' "",nil'" 13.Z ,nU, .. (37.J ~J~ _ 

35 
98 

MI( IIAIL A.{],1)'IH'''' 

Table 3: OC'S(:ripllve statisncs 

N Meall S.D. Min. Max. 

DftIn by DES officI' ITIlff 111011111. fnll. 1998 10 Dec. 2012 

\'e ar Ilo:;(J 'o!OO ~_OI ".~2 \008 20 12 

Monlh 1 1O .. "lJ c..'W ;US 1 It 

Unemployment (%) 10(180 7.03 ~.10 0.:), nTl) 

UnemplO)'l"d (N) lOI)bi) \71'..1.O'J ,,!~H;K~ G" r;00I11 

Refe rrals 10 NCGA IlO~(; O.IG O.m 0 31 

Hired by NCGA II~ 0.15 OJ~G 0 :11 

Began work al NCGA """ '"' O.~ I , :M 

Compleled work al NCGA 1l0000i U.OI U.IJ'J II 

Dfttn by DES office (I/fd /I/omll. fev. 2005 /0 !I/ny 201 1 

Year .". 2W7.i'6 1.85 200S 2011 

New job applic.1!iol1s 4-I!H 34:3.~ 1; 18 U)~ " 2111 

TOlal non·agr. referrals 4484 2li'l.i1 J3:J:l.9!J 0 137M) 

Tma( nOIl·agr. pJacemems -HS·) ST.27 n.(~1 II 7:>1 

TOlal agr. referrals 44~2 'lfJ.2'i t 11, .. 1[1 0 2102 

TOlal ~gr, plaCt:melllS 111'14 HI .~ !12.11 0 1:)22 

DftIn byemploymelll episode: U.s. workers. JOIl. 1998 10 Dec. 2012 

Year of iob SI3rt I~J'1 201J(;.35 -1.1 1 I!J!J~ ~'U\2 

Month of job Slarl I:;~I 4.6\1 l.n2 

Unemploymelll (%) /.~2(i -I. ., {" :Olt! U, " If,At! 

Time before work stan (mo.] ]~9~ 1\.,1" (lA l 000 (d)li 

Time after IVOrl; stan (mo. I '" 1.00 lAr. 0.00 ~51 

Completed job. if ref rr~d? Hi:J~ lUll 13.20 " I 

COJupl eIed job. ifslaned? ,"" 0.08 0.'<!8 0 

Dft/(I iIyclllploymc/II f:'llisode: Mexim/J WQlkefS,j(ll!. 2()()4 to Dec. 2012 

Y('~r of job slart (;J I~~~ 2(KII\ .• % 2.0';'1 Z~H 2Ill ~ 

Mnnth ofjoh start (l] I:j~ 5.'10 1.!12 1 t~ 

Time after workSlnrt (mo.) r.l::!.'" ~."O 'o!.2i< O.()II l.~ j 

Completlld job, ifSlarted? ti125~ 0.1)'1 0.27 II 

u.$. , .. ,""" tb .. lOr 2001 wem ,"" p ...... ,,>C'\l by ~ Ncr ..... u .. n.pI""'n .... I~) is .. "..-.ognu,,"'nl~,?',nenr .. tn itl tho 

<",,"II .. ",rw<li,,- e;od, O~QIli,-". ~"'g\I'r<l by .~ or 1.1"" kl"..,: Un'''''I'kll"l IN) 11"".1 ",,,,,I,,,, I" Ih,,,"c,:,"'n1\e1. 

AU \"'''~kl> '''' "10"" u".<aI~"' • ..:aI,"! .,."10,, uf-",,, 'I,pl"""''''' (,n !I"~",.a,,,k) b ,,,,,I in I~* 4. 

35 
99 

T il li tJ HCT or r U IU,Ir;N LAlIOn 0.\1 NATIVh IiMI'UWM IN " 

" " • 0 " • c . ~ 

I , , , , 

i! • 5 

~ ! i it 

g • 

> ; 

5 z • 8 

37 
• " 

Marginal effects of un em ploy men I ra te on U.S. labur supply 10 NCGA (siale h1 lal/year) 

U.S. won:ers referred U.S. won:ers hired 

" " 

, " , 0 " , 0 8 1-- --- ------- • § - ---- • 

------------------- j * 0 • 0 

, , 6 8 10 12 " , , 6 8 10 12 " Unemployment rote, % Unemp!0Yme<11 rate. % 

U.S. workers started won: U.S. workers completed 

" i , 8 i 8 N N 

• 8 • § 

• 

0 

• • 0-1 _.!5 .. • • I • , , 

, • 6 8 10 " " , • 6 8 10 12 " Unemptoyment rate. % Unemployment rate. '" 

It", ..,.:,/Ilt ....... "" ,"" U(k'"J»o)"l0"" .. tol"on". ofM •• ·'. lh",.· ,"1>0' 111<1 ..... , ",,-In "nIl' 01 pe' ortlco-I"" lMO'Io. '" 'lob 'hot on" """"-,,,'<1 ,,, ...... ""'Itlo ""o!< 1'<" l"" by 720 (. !'oIl om.;.,. " U ,,,,,,,,h.). UOlhcd It,"" .. , ..... ... ... L 
101 

Table:;, U.S. worke l1i. by unemployment 

Parametric survival estimation 

em ExpclIl'lIria£ GOlllpr!J"fZ 

Frol/l referral to slarr liMe: 

Ull empJoymelH 1%) (J.1!13'" 0.!1I2'" O.U I2'" 

(0.012;.) to.OI:.!;.) U.OIt~) 

,V 1:l.!!1 13,;,1 1:\1j4 

Frol/l sinn d(ltt! W quirting/lermi/mtiOlf (Corn piNe cases only): 

UlIemploYlOenl (%) 

N 

o.m~ 

(0.UI84) 

.'IO~ 

u.:) 1(0" 

(tJ.OIBO) 

o.nn 

(0.Ul !!-3) 

Weibuli 

0.01 I'" 

(1"I.oJ:.!:;) 

1:181 

1!.!JI:4 

(O.Ollfl) 

:;.0:1 

1)",,",)/',,,,,,,,,, co)f-(li<-"'n .. (l%tN.'I"" h. 'Mllb""' ..... ,"l"ri",, ~""~'I I. «o!"hesk.· p <,UtIi.·· ,." O.~ I ••• ~ " 0 001. "c...- I, u .. "'''''p""", .. !II, <.:,,. ""'1'<,"1,,,,.1 ",,,,,n'" nw.M. 
102 

Figure 5: U.S. workers, from refe rral 10 start dote 

8 

I. 

,-

.. 

• I 

.. 

. " i 

!~ 

8 

• 

"' 05 10 15 

TImo .',,,,, .. ""'"' ("""' .... ) 

8 

_ ---.,. _ IN 1~ 

In 'Wife r.., lin .... t..w. 000 """"",,,,,,,,.1 , ,,,,,,, 01_95" (OnrH~oreln'"moI. V<nhl ()r."~ Ii .... """" ''''IOIl'' 

dUr .. lOn In I~.ml«l "'n """ (\<ioh ~ •• ""DI\dco"", hu",,".d), 
103 

TflliHHCfCW rOIll CC;NIAUOn o,'l n"lWh 1.lI.1Pl1)\?lr,vr 

Tau!e 6: All work£rs, from start dale 10 quiUillgl t£rmin Ul io n , by nationalit y 

ParametriC survival estima tion 

Cox Expo nelllilli Gomperr;: H~HI/III 

Comple:recll$t's 

U.S. worker .1·L. :.!!l"· ~_n"· .%.;'7'" 35. 1:1'" 

( 1-730) (HlSl) (1.780) ( \.700) 

N r, Hi~!l (ilf,!)] (;W!JI 61ml 

Missillg sllmlmlrimes imJlllled 

U.S. worker \I S~)'" :\:\.51·" 

(U!I:I) (LC~!J) ( 1.4:17') 

N 

0 ... • ~~l h M .... II.·." ""'"""'- "'1i<)1 ... "I."<I .. .,.~( ,,,,,,w_, u...g n~,li ... ",~nt • .:.,tIll ",,<\oJl«l ,<,0)'" In I'''wnlh'''''''_ 

'p < . ,. ~ < otil . .. • ,.<0.001 .• 1.:<0 ... to ~ .... "'lp.r.''' .. ''k:(:O' P"'I"","""j h,,,,.nJ. "",,10-1. -Ctl" 'I,I ... r._" 

0"" "bu",,,,jo,,,, "';,I,ou, ,"IS!I"~ " '_01 'im •. "1t"1""""" m",,, oni»l"~ ",'"",,ollimL'> m",ll'INl.,. ",,,", I,,,,,-'lon 

Mhow rh, •. mllloyonou, "1'1>0<.1<' .... lto<.l loo .. 'pl .. t<I. q\jl,. ri""'li OI,~,· fmm ,"".",,11" ... ", 'I ... ·"'~loym"'l' .. r,·" ,I .. ' .. 1'''''lJI rn;Sufr". .. , .. "I d",n" ,lL .. fur,"",. ",ou,h, .,,<1 ,." ~ "~,,"II (Iil. ,""""wi,>!: .. ,,, ~., ,im",. ,,"...e .. 1 

nf o.'!OBI<). "F"'''''''''-"IlP''' """'0.1"'-'''0.''. ,h ..... ,], U.s. wo<te, ",lit.. ,~],'lt .. ".",aln,,, ..... oIgn,,1 ,II • • ,"""'.101 ... · oit o", ."-~ AI.xl,."" W(I, , " 'I'll 'h ", ,,,p)l>b 4U to '~,· «\ttnl'l<'1t-.J. ~ull . ~""\J """ ".,,"" "~'\;!IJ 

,h" .. ,ne,non,h 0' 'h .... "'~ y .. < 

~bl e 7: f,ti~s ng observations on outcome and durallon oFwork 

U.S. worker dura/iOlI an worker duution 

No! missillg Mln i/lg Not miuillg Missill8 

Ouu.:ome: 

Compleled G1 , 'j(j.)()~ 

Olli l ,188 " '''' ZU-5 0 

Fired 31 ; ;l<l{;4 

Unknown 0 "' 0 . ., 

" 
104 

MI( II"'L" I,I),IH\I~ 

Figure 6: U.S. & Mexican wo,kcr~, trom start of work In quittlngltermlnation 

8 

, 

• 

i~ , 

i~ 

! 

I • 0 

, 

, 

d 

" 

~-----

Tune since Stirt afwor1< (monlhS) 

--- US: Com!>lme 

~ 

" ~.~~ 

US; Iml"l'ed 

c~ 

I 

,I 

1'-

.,~ 

--._-._-----

• 

42 
105 

TilE lJ'n:CTOr I r1l!rlr;N IAI~JI'I'N N~T IVKI MI'IOI'W:l, r 

TaIM8 , Hough eSlimalCS oflhc marginal revenue produCI (MIWj ofmanuallnbor 

Crop Cucumber Sweel POIMO Tobacco 

y,~ 2002 2013 2002 2012 2"'" 

Revenue/Rcre(S) 2{1tO.OO 2:121,.111) 2(;:17.r,0 :n";.O(l If>~Q.OO 

Non- ~bor cost/acre (5) 1(16.1 i 116l1.20 141S5oWl )f.'V..5(j Z6:.!i.!I;; 

Hours/ane ., '" ;0 50 OJ 

Revenue/acre/Ilr (5) 2:,;j() 2!J.f)(j ~,2. j[, nuo m.an 

NOIl·lauor cost/acre/lir (S) 10.0$ H.OO 29.12 3~ !1:J ~:H;O 

Labor cosi/acre/hr ($) IO.~ 4 L~.;)8 10.M 13 ~,x n.oa 

Cosr [merioo 0.;; \ 0.,1>1 0.2r. 0.2!"! O.2~ 

NCGA wage/hour ($) 7.·,};1 :J.7() 7,,,:J !I.TO lUI 

Short run. ~CJosu.bsti tu on (Leontief) 

MRPlllr/acre ($) 7~ :.() 2(100 ;;~.7;; BI·W 13U,O 

Mlilripleofwage :PlJ ''''' 7.UI U.% T.2:.1 

long run, utlil elasticity ofsubstitutioo (Cobb-Douglas) 

fo. lRPlhrlacre ($) I:Ul-t I VII) 13.lll 1!).1~ 1:,.;:'2 

Mll/ripll' o/wnge 1.13 1 .• ].1 1.!S3 I.!l'J 1.66 

5<-_,,,11 ,-«IV hlJ.dt<'" .'" "1'"""",.11 ... r., N',,(J> C.tOIl"". d .... ~"t ,~ .. h(J<1.",I.O"n"" il',.n ., Ai'I""~14 

",I""" '"'' ..... 1,...,.,. ""'I".'" ,Joe nw» "nonn"",." Ncr .... [;0" .... nf'''', ~"'wn "" ,h .... " ... t"m, N"""I«f$Io, <l""",br,, .",1 ,.""...,.,.'" f~<pnl("~ <""" '"b ..... ,.r ,,,,m,.(·n;,'WSI ,01'0<:«' ""I>< .... M~~. '(.>00.' 10.", ",I ... 1'i",,<lVfoIy,o u"'k~ ,-.1 ",." ... , t"." I", .,."" .... ,.1..,'0. ~I''''n't. bU, ... , '" P,(~B'Jl Of "'0'" >1:.1 1 .. -.1 "",,<1< ...... 1.., , .. .mol" • .,. "I"''''''" '" ""l"""iol<1". 

4J 
106 

MI( IIIIIL II.{],IJ,IH'''' 

T1lble 8b: Rough eSlimalCS ofsla lewlde US jo b creallon by 7.0000 11 ·2A workers 

Shorl rUIl LongrUIl 

lOll! high loUi Iligll 

MRP Illllliiplier " 6 2 , 

TOlal wage bill ($Ill) i~ 7 H .i H7 71.7 

Rc\,eolle producl !$m) 1()$:.!.< I'IS.I l1Jk4 ?1L. 1 

lobs m ultiplier 9. :n .~ 2i !! .. ~i '1 .~ 27 

USjobs cre(lfed ill NC :!1\,lIi 4:$J l wa ~ l~{ii 

H·2A IfJOrkef$ per US job 1.:{ l.~ Ul t o 

OUlpullllulliplier I.G~7 U;57 U,57 1.I;~7 

EJlecrol/ NC ecolwlllicoutpur ($Ill) 4~.'> S7oI:1 21 ~ S:17I 

n""", •• ", f'" 7 .II!KI 1l.lA "",... ... ,,'" )""" T ..... "'0il" b"1 (,.,.11 N<X .... It·lA .... <1<.' ... . "'u,, "'" ~." ",,, .. I .. ",,<I< to, .. ~.f(':>A""'x.", ... PP'Oll'i'" ..... yWI" ""i<: ·n,". 59,7QII"" IlIlQ l",,1''' 7,W\I""<I< ... Sl ;7 '~ , :oo .. ewi<to I IS Ito'" ,,>oJ OU'I'U' "u"; I .... f",,,, us nu,,_ of r. 4'ltIln"'Ao,al~.\< II I M'1l 'O"'~" t'Tyj." r, I£''''' ''' ~ ",\}, I,~.' 

"-'1"""'1""",,): d .... U. I" ""fI'"~Iil:."h,.""io " 11,1 

Table 9: lIow U.S. applicanUi learned aboul job 

" ear 

2011 20 12 TOIa] 

Division of Employmelll Security '50 227 363 

Friends or Fmnily 

Newspaper " " " • , , 

Dept of Social services 0 • • 

DisaSler Relief Fund 0 , 

DlvisiolJ ofVe ter3ns Affairs 0 

Employer 0 

NoanslI'er 2 3 

Total '86 '76 '" ,,, :lOll ,,,. ''''Wy """'1""':' ","." .. ","" .. \101'0 ""'" 1"lIlollylll"-'lI . ,"1 l ,,01 11"'1' OUI or , I)<' hI,",!! 1''''Mo' "."a,,, 

'1 .. "",,·,1' ~~ .. d ,n!Oi>' ",,<I (145 .. ,,'" Inl,Wly 0110."" 1,1",,,,,,, I~l ".,."" " QB., I" :lOIHI ... ""'.<1' <m'." alh.t,u ..... '" hi,...! pi",. ,\OII"u... .. 1,,, ",.", oll'r«! '" j<>Ill>u' ,lid no'~""", (2IJ w. ... hl,," I u.<on,," ""rt) 
107 

'Hili t.rF[Cf 0 1' f UlUJCN lAIlOH 01'1 NII.TlVF. f.MI'U)n11 N f 

Appendix: Data Sources and Background 

A. U,S, job creation in No rth Carolina by value-added arising 

fro m H-ZA manual farm labor 

A. L Production flUlctions 

III IllI' ,,,,Iilllalqs uf I~hlu lIa I usc 1'01"0 dilTereol ~SS nl>li"II < "" Ill(' ('lTI" " r (arms' p,oduc11011 UII~ I!lIl. Fnl lhe nxr.d-rrop • .,tliol1~ rro<l"~Hon rlln~lion, .1/11'1"", .... ,. - ,' , 'oI"hern I' 

is n-,"" nUl,l huu,I,",. e. rot Ih" ~onSlalll (u nil) ..[Aslidly uf substitutio n prodUCliull f"n",ioll, 

.\1 rUM.l»II«Io' _ '. when~" i~ Itl<!O)l;I fratlion uf",anual har\\)Sllabor. 

'\.2. Marginal revenue product (MRI') ofNonh Carolina manual farm labor 

QtrI"'I/lF.rs (piddillY- DiI1a rm fI)l'lltlUr./sr.aron/uCTc and W!lls/S<'.ll)t)f1/acr.' (wilh0,,1 manual 

harv"$lin&* I'lanH,,& lahor) fur 200~ m in<' ('Uln E_I~. '5, I. Sdluln"'is, ~lId 11. Sam pson (2()O2), 

"CU';lIrnhcrs. I'lckUns:: L't. [(t'V!.'IH"', I!jl~:ral ln l: Lxp_, Amuml OW'Whhljll~tp .. am) Nrl l(~ ... '-

e nll(' p,,., ,\~rt'" , D,·pl. ur j~rie llllUlRl 'lnd llesulI,ec Economic,;, Norlll ClUolina SH,lc Un;". 

(AREINGsU): Hnd for 2013 cun ... ftom Co . Butten ~nd A, '1110rruon (20]:1), ·Sl'rln~ Cutu",lwr 

for J'icl:Je:.-lni~HIN; ft~ lln1aI ~~ ! ~U~ S pcr aCI"C, Z(J1 :)", AIlEa lld Dl'pl. llfllortkuhllml Sciellt~, 

NCSU. Appr(1Kiln (~,,..,.1tk~'f· 1{)ursl~'asonlacre ru, low-skill "'''"l1al h~r""';l I~ bor is fronl I'TVr. 

Da,iil I I. Nat*l, f:XI",,~I 'm I'rofes..;", in I!U ~ DCpt. u f P!alll and Soi! Sd" I1 Cr:s, Missl~slppi Sla lr. 

Univ,,,..i,y. )l<'",,,,"al comnu>n icalion January ~. 2013. 1-1" is LIm a". hur uf D./l. N~Il<!l(21)()O), 

QI""Mrcinl Prcf/1I(riOIl OrOICllmW,.., III /I1iS$I~I/Jlli, ar :Vm , MS: Mi,,-<I,,;lppi Slale UnJ~,· 

Slly D:11" ~io n s.,rvic,·. 

Sweer IJUlaroer: DaI~ on )Vt: nudsc~son "",cand [Uslslscasonlacrc(wilhuUI mllJuml har.,e,tingE- pl""lil1g IJoor) fur 2OO2oonw from E- 10<1",;, I. ~chullh ds, and I L S<lmpson (2'lO2). "'i'W, .. ,-

pulal(""':: blhuale<1 11<", .. ()r!'nol(,)gl);I',,,",,~.,../\llI1U"I()\,n,~rshIJl Expcn,. ~"anoJ Nf'l ~II\r" I'<:r 

Act<l",AIIE/N(.SI): and Ii;r 2IJ)2 from e . UuUCli (211 12), ~", 'I I'!;04Ah I-2f112: !;slill ,~ hO( I < ~~I< 1'" 

Acl'l~ . 2012 , AHEINCSIJ. Es1ima lcd wOfkef·h 'SI!it,aS(o lacr~ for Juw-s):;.lll rn a nu<I! harvP.S1 all'l 

plallllnglaho, isf,ulll W. F~J'r~i,a. (2U I il ..... w, .... 1 llt"al"",_ tm f"'~h markl'l ''' ',;a<I'lL [",imalN! 

rust< and H~lurn> per .Arf<', Kingsln.." SC: Cl<!m~n Ul1jv~r:; yC,-ljlfl<: ratl w: ExWnslon SCrvlce: 

~nd from D. I'~,vi , C. \o\':II,Io'n, ,,,,d II. Gnw.:s (lOlIO). &IoU",(c'(/ CM/s'IOId R,'II,m.jor SIt",,(-

pGltIUIn in M/$&{SSlllpl, Starkville, MS: ~)tflc ~ uf Aj;,ic ultural Communfo;atio ,IS, ~ liss ~ippi Siale, 

Un'y,1)iI i~iull uf Awieu hure, 1'",,",,11)\ and V()\ .. ,ina,y M!'ditinc, 

Tobacco: To eslfrna!fllyplcal ~VI!'lu c/sca"'lIllaCfe I !11~1 (,.1«1 ,m.'fagc yieldlacre in Norlh Car_ 

liJ,~ fn. It." ~"ars ~OO9 r2,3. ,l lb /~cm) '!IId 2011) (2, 1 Z3 lb/ac,e), I.Il.. JOuJ;hly 2,250 !blacre (A,n. 

1Ir()\\'n ~t -aL 1201 11, Fllle·Cllw 101101(('0 Gliide 2fJ11 . HalClgh, NC: North CarolIna Stale Uni-

,'c",ily, 1'. 7). ~nd multIply by Ih" avcrnllc price nl<:t'IVI!<.llor aJl slsl):;' posItIons [app,md mal ~Jy 

$1.60llb In 21)1)'J, Ibid. p. 8) \Q b"-ll "pproxl11lahl f()\'tll1 uclscason lac'tl Or Sol ,050. ~llma ll '(l 

~"stsl"""sunl~c ' (,,;thuUl nmnu,,1 t.arvcslin~ I'< p l"l11ing lab",) ~n' (wm G. Uull .. n nd L 

n .h"r (~n 2), "1 Iu('·( ul'f'<l I"h~ .. ~, )-- j l(U1[I II" r'·,"'1 !'i,'\Jt1WI)I ~nI2: t ... lbMI e<1 <~ .. I' J1''1 A~"" , 

20 12, AllIilNCSU. (Nul c IIMI NCSU Is" publlsh,~ loha~''C'' hlldl:CIS ror 200!! hUI Illl'Y I'll' rur 

mach inc·1MrV<'swd Wrntcc": Ihe un ly ~u rr CIII, 'c~c"IJ y p"bllslll-~1 halld·h.arve<llobacco budg~! f,olll NCSlJ I:; r"'lIl 20J 2.) 

Wages ami mWlllallaoorrosN: The 2UI2 :1",12013 NCG,\ ''',It::C uf $9.70Ih, l~ f r(Jm lhe NI.:GA aud 
108 

public u,w"Ss allhc U.s.I);:pl. ur ! aboT Furcilllll .... borC.nWicalion Q.:'ller. Th(\21102 ~IIIJ ~U()iJ 

wall~nrolhr.NOIlh CaroUtHl ,~Pt~jfjc "Mvasr. f: l Wagr. U"lr." lix~1 fori'.adl )'i!at by Ih n U.s. 

l:x,pL ,,(labor'!; (1m"" "r I"on'ill" L~ x",C""liJkatio" ami pobli. 1<~ in Iht) Fed.',.,,1 Rl!giSln 1-he 

'~m pl oycr'l; fuJi COSI or manual I I-li\ ,,,,,,I:(:rs' labor IS p'sl imall~l a l 1.1 >< ""~gr.. In a(;Conlancr. 

wilb Nf:(;A ",,(imal(!:\;. The additional em ~ a ll! primarily for housin!:, mlllspallin!:. ~q ulppilll:. 

and 1«llning workers. 

A.3. U.s. jobs muhillHer 

Tim !tureau uf Ecollolnie Arlal%is at 11m U.S. ~pl. or (:omITlercr. buill lh~ fh'!;,on dl In pUII htlpUllI.l od~1ill g";' m 11llMS II) 10 cr('al"",limalllSof huw local dpmalld ,hock.~affl!C l:'m;s 

OUlpU!, \'alue add,~I , C'''rnl"g" and "'p oyn"ml in "'l:ion~ 01 the Unltl'<l SIdl5 iUMS II p.slimail'S Iwo 1)'pI.'S or,~nplo nH'nl rnullipli<'f" ror.'<.~",omics oc b ill Ih .. , "Crol' and Animal ProdUCli<)ll" su tlSO,'Clvr u[ llie "AWicullure. fcre;lry, n.hillll. and hunlin~" ~tor. 'IWI! Imllhlpli~'I'! 

u",il 11 ,(' t'fTL'<:lsufhouschold ~I","di g by<lll w",kt r~, l~pc II mulliplil:rs incLude thes,: erftXls. 

With lht' rclc.v:ml rC!;iun tirnil'-'<J 10 Ihc.slawo! t'\Itlrlh Otrul'!I~ . IheTyp" I muhipll~r for shocks 

10 Ihis SUh"Khit Is jI,527 lind Ihn 1')1'c ll muhlpli<ll' is 1:\.In5. Th is mUllll' il r "rrprP.:lt!lliS Ihn 

10(aJ hallile ill munhcrofjobs (hal O<:Cur~ ill aU illd" "ri.-'S with in t'~I~h' rur ,'neh addW,,"a l 

millltm dollars OfOUll'UI I; VL>re<lIO final demand bV Ih e~!<!C L'< lndu>trV" 

TI'ol' iubs dfL'C1 cstirmUL,<1 in this "~ y Is ~ry difft!rt'nl [rom popular C$l im,1lCS o[ lhe numbN 

of jobs .... "pporh;il by" ma n lml h.borrrs. whkh <10 nol 1)'Pi~a ll y IH k" illio ~ccounl 11m abi!,cy"r 

worlt:t.,~ 10 find ul her ](.Ibs if Iheir current jub~ were 10 be diminalt.-.l. Ins(,'ad. lhe IUMS II jub_ 

l11ullipllerl!Slimalcs th .. oumber n[ jQb, ill illl ~t!O:lOrs of Iht! <'Illim SHUt) (hal MeeauS<.>d (0 exisl 

by a gi""" ehanb'" in Ih" I""""""k aCli,ity happ('n ill!: wilhin ""0. !il)Clor, i/lc/udillg the abililY of 

WU tkt~ ' who I<l:i<l-lh(!ir jobs hI find Nhr.r job,;, II lima(~ Ih i~ df' 1 "r /')CtillO(llic c halli,'t) ol1 lh ~ 

lolal 1',,<>1 " r a il jobs available to a"y in.Jivid uals. nOi Ihe eft,,,,, on llmcurmnl jnhso[ pal'!icuIHr 

ImlMdua ls. 

TIlt' IUMS 11 '1')'1'1) I multiplier fur $la lcuulI'U! u'ii'd in ll1bll" h is 1.1;57. ~nd Ihe orre;I>onditlg 

Typp. 11 11\l[llipll('r Is2.1:H. Thp OUIPUI mull!plier "" 'PIL""'-!I1lS Ihl) 1(,lal ()U~r ~ng~ ill OUII'ul 

Ihal )I, Cllr~ in H)I indu$trie; "flhi!' Iho stale. f<)f (,ach addili'Jllal tMllI1 tlr ('UIPUI ticli .. ,rt..'d 1\. 

lilla l dcm~"tI by Iht!$dr;C1Cd illtlu~lr y", 

i3. Other data sources 

AU dat~ {1 n U.S. workers I'<f~'fTCd I<J and hired by the Norlh Carolin" (;TOWL~ Associalion 

(NCGA),IUld ()r'I Mcxitall \\'u rk,-,rs hin>d by Ill<' NCI'A. w('re prnvi,l~d by Ih" Nt.:GA.l' 1)(,(.1 Oil 

n8S cmc~" we..., disserninall.'<l in Ihe IIltll\l hly "dil k'Tls of Employmelll Ser'I'm mId Ullem, 

plr:1Y"'elll/ll~IIT(",ce OjJ(-'mtiOIl$ publi~lH~d by thfl I:mpluymcru !;r.curily (;c,nllniSSlun or Nort h 

Cawli"" Labor M'~fk<>t ~rO Tlnali n nivb;{}n,\!mplnyrnCI1I s"rvice; .,.H,I UnmnploymCnl In· 

" 6 growcfll in Ilt ~ d~13.m l"le<! "" bL~ ~ tx'~Ic;J in ·"" ltc IAllc'lIt","y· l'<>tll"!)', n,c'Y or<-' . • s"'~,ned 10 

.... he counl)l s1 celhcdo laronl~'n [",m"re~nlW~" Ihol .n<only;n .... h e .h.n "u1ri,,"'IIegtw.")I &l U,S. 

"'OrJ;:CflI in I] ", nri~ln"l dal ...... "'" rcfcrnxl bya n o~eocy""'~ld. North r .. n,)ln", I,, t nrth .. c 5J ore 1,-"", 

I'utnv R~ ... 'Illeya", ign '''~ll n .h;, anaty>;i-'o. 

n lhe Olvl<i"n ~rt mp <»' ''''' ''' S""urity (l)ES) ~I ,tw, N'Jf\h Om.dln" Dt.'P~ t;"",,,,,,~w.< 1;,t" .... o'U >< 

tho I:mpIOjl"",,,i Seem;!)' 0"" ",,,,1 .. ,, (I&'llllllll NI~'t!mj,., :mll , ."d" SllU """"",,nly ",Ierml I" 1:>\' 

Ihi> "0"'" 
109 

'nlli HHCT IW fWIUCN I.JllIOll 01'1 N"TlV~ 1.lI.1Pll)I? IIX f 

SutnnL'<' R' ro' liug IJ"il, f''''1l l:ct""Hty 2(11'5 10 ~1~y 201],'<> 1;,,,al' !5 uf Ihesiw of .1", labm 

[01"«(' alld t)L!I"bt r {If unntnplOYl'd 1"':T'.OIl' " ill ('~ h N(Jrlh Ca mUna county am fnun Ih<l lileal 

A,,,,. Ull.'mpl<,\,llW,"1 SI~tNi"" llAUSj dalabasu at Ul!! DES, whkh '''.' ~1 1lS iL~ im~l <lS ba.s< ... 1 

o n IW\l urc()!; o f data f,om th'" U .s. pL of I.abor Uureau of l.abur Slalistil:S: thn Currrmi 

Lmplovn.,'nl ~taliSlic~ ICES) and th<l Qu;uw rly ('.i'nsu~ of r ml'lll}'ml'nl ~nd W"t:''!; (QCI;W). 

TIl<!;r melbl>tllor c n'aling <:(J unty-lr "n1 "" empl oy'n<lnl estil1\a tcs is ~"'i b(od in lJurea u oll.aboo SI~llst; es (2ilO!lj, 1.0<,;;.1 \ro'~ tJn(',nploynlo',,' ~latl" tl C'>, I slim",iun M"ltli><lolo~, U.S. Do~PL 

u fLabor, access..'d IIItl. 2,(, 21J13. 

r"r 'il h m<rnth,<lo urlly-lt' .. '1 dala wcrnrcso>lvc,ll<> DES "ffbl-!t-\,,.J d~l~ asfnUows.'l I ir~l . only 

0 11'" rount y (f;ulliurd) h~s f1l(jr~ Ihan one I)I'.S oflk"' IG rr'<'nsh(jrf) "lid Illgh 1\')1111), T h.S<': tWU 

"rt~ ,.-.:m ImHh:d as" sinJ.:h, oflie". comprising the Im~1 applicalio ll". n,ferrals, ;Illd plae,,-

mems ror thl! t",11 office!' in ~ach month. S<:-cond, 14 oflict$c-ilch :;crve mori' lh~II <JIlccount)l " 

In Ihl!$<: cases. county-lew! d"I" on number ofpt.'<lple in II", labor r"fCcHlld numbo,r "rpeople 

u nempluyt"li 'n' IOlalt"li aero., oo uoli csscrv~"li by cadi [)£S om,,!!. Ihe11 divldl'tllo athic\'<l-th ~ 

(I[tice-I('1'<'1 uJI>'rnploymcnl ralC. l'hmJly. Ih ... Wllrrcnl"n Dl;S offi cI> is Illno,~'d OOcHU~" Ihe 11ES 

did 1(01 1'"I)Ii5h 8pplicalion. r<:f')rrai, a nd pl~<'''' '\l ~, nt lali ~iCl' rOI Ihal o rtic'l LM tW'~1\ l:cbrull.fY 

2005 111\(1 May2011. 

c. Hegul alio n o[demaod fo r immigraol labor i.n olher coun tries 

Canada's u'l1Ip<JTary wurk. vil;;l~ r<-'<jullY" a "~Ioor markel opinion' front I-lu,mm f(csoun:cs all,1 

S, K:;aIIMvo;\()pu,'-'nt Cunada \h~t (h r. s .10 n~dlan (II pnrmun,:rH reside .1i availabl e", \"hil" 

"l<ii!i<d-wuti<;>1 Il"fman"lll ,r,~~ ar .. I}lIly aJlow ~1 in rertain '':"up~lil}ns.. Un/lt!d KIngd om ,,01-

pluY(·f$ rL'<:fIl itlng rurr,lgn ",,,«crs rur someskiller! o.;cul,a llu n!r-(h05(' IHII on a lisl <1 ~c", c< 1 in 

"s hurt~g ' by Ihe ~l}VCrn 'nel)\ Sl filst aClive ly fl!<:t'uil a"d hill' allY ''''allabl" 11K w()rkcr~ 

ul\d( , Ihe flc.";dNH l;,bour M:ukrl 'fbi n,/!uir.,mnl1l. France has ~ sl ",il~ 1 ~""(CUl' Unless a 

sldll!...J occupalion is in ho ~I:" ("'m lellSlo,,"' . "mploy"'-" ",uSI lirsl prov" thai Ilwy hH.'" lx.'·II 

unable 10 re<;rIlit n!n h wurk~r~. while In Ge rmany ,-arluuS work "t~"s rCljuif<'. a Similar lesl 

(Vorm"spnlfi"'S). In tr al l ... P,u.p",;li,·c mplO)'crs " r bulh skill .. ,,1 HnJ SI'~"" n .. i """killed 

fnrcl~" worlu.'fS 11111,1 lift.·,. II\!' !;llYerrun" r\I "evi,h,II"'> o r (he d fnns mHd e w werult from (he 

oc-~I ~hollr llHuk"t ·. 

" A, II ", Ib,w or .... 'uln~ " .. ~~II"' ''' 1~1e' cd;.",,,, , •• ,,', "" d 1»' Ih" I)f.s., .... "'''.n''''''"-'''''' 

'(Ilcre a nES "MIke' ",fer> t() a ",,~ I "mo:, n<JI a b.-"nrh nflkf. nf$l'nbliMl,," '1'I'Iicol;"" , n:r"m.I, "n<l 

pl "''' '''' nI dal~ hy ~",l<I ,,!lice ""Iy, whem Ih" dol. r", .:.dll"",,1 "ff"~,, ind,ul" d.l. for any hrnncl' "m(t: 11", m~y be linked 10 .hal h;,.-aI oflice. 

" AstKtv.lle uflire S<'n'e< ij .. »r""'l1e, M~,II",,\; [ d" ulon !>lIlt" .<coves U"' .... an. ,:.,,"" ",q"Ir" ~ns. 

1)',,,,11 . W>sh;" t l''''; 1]"",OOlh Ci ly"ffi' '''""fV'''Q u''~~n .U.ni lu , P""luUlank; rOruJ'Cilj' lir, '~ ""' ''" 

P.~k . !Iuthe rrord; !Icndc,""""tk ,,/Iicc .. ,,"" II"n<l"""-,,,, TllIn'y1v.'''>~ "inw>If nOice "'''' ... Creene, 

Len..,;", Mltrpl,y OIlke ""l"o'<:< d , crok"", .~, Cmh.m: N<:w m om"" SCfVl!$ e n """, ie' '' <!$, P,n.liC(l; 

1I ,'idsvlllc Il :" «On"" eo",,-..41, ll(W:\:.ingh ... ,,: ~""nQ e A'plds ,-,fri...., $NV,,.- 11.lifo:, t-'on,b.lml"Q ; H""ky 

M"'HlI "RlL"'''''''''' td~l"'''11l1~· , N. ,h; W;tShj,,~,,~, "/Ii""..,....,,," 1Il""r"". tty,le; IVUti~.",."" "mCh""'V,," 

!kn;t:, ~l~r'ln: IV,n", ,n ~'ia- I<:rn .,m"" .. ", ....- I'''''yll\, s."kt..,;. 
110 

Mr. WICKER. It is critical to get this public policy right. Our U.S. 

Farmers cannot afford and many will not survive another policy 

failure like 1986. 

The H-2C program will provide a fair, predictable, efficient, and 

affordable process for employing workers in agricultural jobs. 

Farmers and farmworkers want to comply with labor and immigration laws. Congress should pass the Agricultural Guestworker Act 

so they can. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Wicker. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wicker follows:] 
111 

efforts 10 provide agriculture with a guest worker program Ihat provides 

reliable access to much needed farm labor. Their ideas for reform offer a 

balanced approach to address the many problems that plague the H-2A 

program and farmers, including too much paperwork, too much 

bureaucracy, too many regulations and too much frivolous litigation_ Thank 

you for holding this hearing on a criticai issue for labor intensive Agriculture_ 

As ihe largest H-2A Program user in the nalion, NCGA currently has 750 

farmer/members that will employ more than 7500 H·2A workers and many 

thousands more U$_ workers this season_ With more than 10% of the Iota I 

agricultural gwestworkers employed nalfonally, NCGA has beer! the largest 

program user for mere than 15 consecutive years, I am proud of the growers I 

work for because, they strive to be the most compliant farmers in the nation 

when it comes to the various stale and federal labor, employment, worker 

protection and ,immigration laws_ 

In previous hearings on this tDpic I've highlighted the chronic problems of the 

current H-2A program that undermine farmer confidence and make hiring 

illegal workers a better option: H-2A is expensive, overly bureaucratiC, 

unnecessarily litigious, and excludes some farms and activities, 

The measured reforms in H,R 1773 go a long way towards solving the most 

onerous flaws in H·2A and creating a guestworker program that all agricultural 

producers can utiiize_ This proposal is evidence the U.S. can have a workable 

farmworker program that treats workers well and carefully balances the cntical 

elements of worker protections while promoting economic viability_ 

This bill makes significant reforms to the prohibltive program costs associated 

with H-2A and the new H-2C program make!> additional impro\lements in other 

important areas. The bill provides for 11 reaiistic markel based prevailing wage 

as a floor that surpasses the Federal minimum wage_ It also authorizes piece 

rate pay !>yslems on top of the super minimum wage to promote higher 

earnings as a financial reward for increased worker producti\lity. The new 

program allows farmers and farm workers who benefit from working together 

2 
112 

in the program 10 share in the program costs and it offers a structured 

portability process enabling workers to move from employer to employer. 

Importantly, the bifl creates a streamlined legal dispute resolution system to 

solve any farm worker complainls quickly and efficiently, and makes farmer 

and worker obligations clear and understandable, These improvements will 

provide a viable alternative to employing illegal aliens and will give farmers 

and workers confidence they can partiCipate in the H·2C program 

successfully 

This legislation maintains the long standing protection of giving American 

workers prefe;ential consideration in obtaining farm jobs by requiring farmers 

to solicit and hire U.S. workers through Ihe local employment service for 30 

days before the jobs begin - prior to any foreign worker being employed, In 

addition, this bill enables farm workers currentfy employed on farms without 

proper legal status to come out of the shadows and continue their 

employment legally by waiving the 3/10 bar under currant law. 

The blll maintains valuable employee benefits and critical worker protections 

for domestiC and foreign workers like: continuation of a minimum hours work 

guarantee, mandatory workers compensation insurance coverage, or state 

law equivalent, for workplace injuries, and promotes the employment of US 

workers by requiring non-seasonal ag employers 10 pay an additional users 

fee for administration of the new program. 

The bill allows farms that currently pl"Ovide housing to continue offering it as a 

worker benefit but doesn't prohibit farms without housing from participating in 

the program, It requires comprehensive recordkeeping and reporting 

ob.ligatlOnssimilar to current law, 01'1 average, I estimate the wage and 

benefit package associated with this bill will cost NC farmers, $10-$12 per 

hour, If that is the total cost of the program and Ihose total costs remain 

predictable and reasonable, then this is a viable alternative to the current 

program and I think most farmers across the country could use it. 

It should be noted that the proposal imposes a robust enforcement regime 

and maintains a strong penalty structure for violations and severe penalties for 
113 

gross materia! violations with oversight and enforcement authority explicitly 

provided 10 USDA. All the economic benefits and worker protections in this 

bill will provide workers who acoept these jobs assurance they will enjoy a 

higher wage and benefit package, a safer work environment, and quicker 

resolution of their grievances than if they work on U.S. farms illegally. 

It is clear there is bi-partisan bi-cameral consensus that our nation needs a 

modern and flexible future flow ag gueslworker program. This H-2C proposal 

encompasses many elements of Ihe Senate Gang of Eight a9 proposal such 

as: 

strcamHntrg the attesLa1ioll. based ;ippb':1:Ition imu h ... .vlng the progmm J.dlninis~en:~d by 

USDA 

ehmin~nion of the C!Rpcnsivc and Vir[1.1aHy '\~'Ot:thJes5 pr~scriptive newspaper 

advcrtl~efl1cnts n;qulred by 'I--l, 2A 

redu'l-tion tn lhe prolubi!i"'e oVi.:rhead cost." of1.h(' conen! program through stJ\il1g~ (I!) 

InmsportaGonj subsistence ~md Yisa feeg 

authorizing 10nge:r It:nn vh;as; when needed, to respond to cyolving ag production 

practices and l1{"'wly covered 5C:l;:lQrs 

elli1blip~ current umJo{;un1i!flted ,\vorkCM rUl'i.iml1s10 ohtain legal ;;tatus nnd keq1'working 

111 agriculture 

pruvldt!s for both at wiH an.d von tract style agreements und0t the new program to allo)v 

workern and growers flexibility to ili:cidc ti" themselves what w<>rks he,~ in c<rtain 

sectors in ,i(fterenl pafts ofth~ country 

provides portability 50 lho.1 workers hay!.; the ablHty "iu seck additional and/or tlhcrnative: 

ag wOlk l.rpportunitlcs in the farBl work marketpiace 

Although the 750 farmers of NCGA are strongly opposed to an arbitrary cap in 

a new agricultural worker program, we acknowledge that the 500,000 per year 

worker cap in the H-2C program is far more reasonable than the woefully 
114 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Gaddis? 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER GADDIS, CHIEF HUMAN 

RESOURCES OFFICER, JBS USA HOLDINGS, INC. 

Mr. GADDIS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 1773. 

My name is Chris Gaddis, and I am the human resources chief 

officer for JBS USA. JBS, USA has approximately 60,000 employees in the U.S., and I did a straw poll; I believe we have facilities 

in all but 5 of your States. 
115 

My remarks today are on behalf of JBS USA, but they are also 

on behalf of the Food Manufacturers Immigration Coalition, a 

broad coalition of the leading meat and poultry processors and 

trade associations, including the North American Meat Association, 

the American Meat Institute, the National Chicken Council, the 

National Turkey Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the National Pork Producers Council. 

We thank the Chairman and his cosponsors for the introduction 

of H.R. 1773 and for its constructive attention to an essential component of immigration reform, addressing the labor needs of U.S. 

employers and also the sources of such labor. As we see it, for reform to be meaningful, we must reckon with the needs of U.S. employers for less-skilled labor to work jobs that, due to various circumstances, go unfilled by U.S. workers, and we must address document fraud and identity theft. 

To begin, we support the definition of, quote, ‘‘agricultural labor 

or services,’’ unquote, contained in this bill. We believe it important 

that the legislation recognizes that all activities required for the, 

quote, ‘‘preparation, processing, or manufacturing of a product of 

agriculture for further distribution,’’ unquote, are an essential ingredient in the agricultural labor equation. These activities, which 

include the preparation and processing of animal protein products 

for further distribution in the food chain, are a critical second step 

in the food supply chain by which our companies feed the United 

States and the world. 

We also support the bill’s provision of 36 months of uninterrupted stay for H-2C workers who obtain positions in agricultural 

manufacturing. The positions we offer are permanent, full-time, 

nonseasonal jobs. After an initial probationary period, our employees receive full benefits, including 401(k). The 36-month stay period 

is the minimum necessary for our companies to invest in the training of a new employee and then to reap some benefit prior to the 

employee needing to leave the country. 

And we note that the legislation only provides for maximum subsequent periods of stay of 18 months and does not allow H-2C 

workers to bring spouses or minor children with them. We encourage the Committee to reconsider these restrictions when comes to 

agricultural manufacturing and look forward to working with the 

Committee further on this topic. 

Next, we commend the bill’s sponsors for taking a practical approach to dealing with labor that is presently here in unauthorized 

status. By granting eligibility for H-2C work to any person physically present in the United States on the date of the bill’s introduction, the bill recognizes the unlikelihood that this population 

will be removed involuntarily, it maximizes the pool of persons who 

would qualify for H-2C status, and it avoids encouraging unauthorized migration by people who may read the bill from afar. 

We also note that the bill contains various requirements that 

protect rights of U.S. workers vis-a ́-vis H-2C workers and the 

rights of H-2C workers vis-a ́-vis prospective employers. This was 

covered in greater detail by Mr. Wicker. The companies in our coalition want to be very clear: We do not want to be associated with 

a program that would facilitate or allow improper treatment of do-
116 

mestic or foreign workers, and we therefore commend your direct 

confrontation of those issues. 

Last, there is an essential ingredient to immigration reform— 

Julie Myers Wood was here earlier. I have often heard that politics 

makes for strange bedfellows. JBS USA, in 2007, acquired Swift 

and Company, which in December of 2006 was the subject of the 

then-largest worksite enforcement action in the history of the Department of Homeland Security. At that point in time, Julie Myers 

Wood was the director of ICE. Over the last 3 years, Ms. Wood has 

done an incredible job on behalf of JBS as a private consultant, 

bringing us from where we were into the IMAGE program. JBS has 

the benefit of the size and scope to bring someone like Ms. Wood 

in. So I commend this group’s addressing not just E-Verify but also 

trying to get their arms around identity theft in greater detail. 

In conclusion, the Food Manufacturers Immigration Coalition 

thanks Chairman Goodlatte and this Committee for taking an important step forward in the immigration reform process in the introduction of H.R. 1773 and its consideration of Congressman 

Smith’s employment verification legislation. We understand that 

the road to effective immigration is not a straight line, but we believe in and appreciate the important steps taken by this legislation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Gaddis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaddis follows:] 
117 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

Hearing on H.R. 1773 

Testimony of Christopher Gaddis, Chief Human Resources Officer 

JBS USA 

May 16, 2013 

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on 

H.R. 1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act of2013. My name is Chris Gaddis, and I am the 

Chief Human Resources Officer for JBS USA. JBS USA employs approximately 60,000 people 

in the United States and is a division of JBS SA, the largest animal protein processor in the 

world, with over 120,000 employees globally. My remarks today are on behalf of JBS USA. and 

also on behalf of the Food Manufacturers Immigration Coalition, a broad coalition of the leading 

meat and poultry processing companies and a variety of trade associations including: the North 

American Meat Association, the American Meat Institute, the National Chicken Council, the 

National Turkey Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the National Pork 

Producers Council. We thank the Chairman and his cosponsors for the introduction of H.R. 1773 

and for its constructive attention to an essential component of immigration refonn - addressing 

the labor needs of many U.S. employers and the current sources of such labor. There is no 

question that immigration refonn will not be successful unless we reckon with: (i) the needs of 

US. employers for less-skilled labor to take positions that often go unfulfilled by US. workers; 

and (ii) those persons who are present in the United States in an unlawful status who attempt to 

fill these positions by engaging in document fraud or identity theft. 

We believe this legislation contains a number of positive features, and we wish to comment on 

specific provisions of interest to the animal protein industry. 

Definition of Agriculture 

We support the detlnition of "agricultural labor or services" contained in this bill. We believe it 

important that the legislation recognizes that "all activities required for the preparation, 

processing or manufacturing of a product of agricullure . 1'<'11' fUlther dislribution" are an 

essential ingredient in the agricultural labor cquation. These activities, w'hieh include the 

immediate packing or processing of raw agricultural commodities, and the preparation and 

processing of animal protein products for fhrther distribution in the food chain, are a critical 

second slejl in the manner by which our companies feed the country and feed the world today. 

By recognizing this fact, the legislation updates legal definitions that 'vere last revised in the 

1930s or 1950s. Much has changed in our inelliSH} in the intervening decades, and much has 

changed globally: the US and global pOjlulation has increased exponentially. The resulting food 

supply chain has develnped and evolved in a parallel manner. This detlnition recognizes the 

realities of 21 q century agricultural labor and services, and the drafters are (0 be commended for 

that advance 

7832790-v21WAS DM S 
118 

36-Month Stay. 

We also support the bill's provision of 36-months of uninterrupted stay for H-2C workers who 

obtain positions in the preparation, processing or manufacturing of an agricultural product for 

further distribution. The positions we offer are permanent, full-time, non-seasonal jobs. After an 

initial probationary period, our new employees are eligible for full benefits, including a 40 I(k) 

program. Many of our beef, pork, and poultry plants are unionized, and we have a constructive 

relationship with organized labor, including the United Food and Commercial Workers Union 

(the UFCW). Our companies expend, on average, between $12,000 and $15,000 to train a new 

employee to become productive, and the training period usually takes between four and eight 

months. The 36-month period of stay is the minimum necessary for our companies to invest in 

the training of a new employee, and then to receive some return on our investment before this 

person would be required to leave the country for six months. The initial 36-month period of 

stay is cri ti cal. 

We note that the legislation only provides for maximum subsequent periods of stay of 18 

months, and does not allow H-2C workers to bring spouses or minor children with them. The 

touch-back requirement also raises logistical issues for our member companies. We would 

appreciate your reconsidering these issues, including whether the touch-back period could be 

shortened for second and subsequent employment terms with an agricultural manufacturing 

employer. We think the characteristics of this flow oflabor are different from the classically 

transient, temporary guestworker. Because the U.S. agricultural economy has evolved over the 

decades -- as I described earlier in my testimony -- so has the nature of the migratory flow of 

labor that has provided some of the required labor. As a result, longer subsequent periods of 

stay, and some prospect for unification of immediate family members, should be provided, for 

H-2C workers fulfilling the positions that are more permanent in nature. We look forward to 

working with the Committee on this topic as the bill is further considered. 

Date of Enactment Eligibility. 

We commend the bill's sponsors for taking a practical approach to dealing with the labor that is 

presently here in an unauthorized status. By granting eligibility for H-2C status to any person 

physically present in the United States as of the bill's introduction -- April 25, 2013 - the bill (i) 

recognizes the unlikelihood that this population will be removed involuntarily, (ii) maximizes the 

pool of persons who could qualify for the agricultural labor or services definition, and (iii) avoids 

creating an incentive for increased unauthorized migration by people reading the bill in a foreign 

country. We think this approach strikes a reasonable balance between enforcement priorities and 

labor-force requirements. The Senate legislation is already being criticized for setting its 

legalization cut-off date at December 31, 20 I!. This bill wisely avoids some of those issues. 

U.S. Workers and Wages and Working Conditions 

We would like to comment on the complex topic of wages, working conditions, U.S. worker 

recruitment, and related issues. The legislation contains requirements to: 

• Recruit for U.S. workers before seeking H-2C workers; 

• Prevent displacement of U. S. workers by H -2C workers; 

7832790-v21WAS DM S 
119 

• Provide equivalent wages, benefits and working conditions to U.S. workers and H-2C 

workers; 

• Provide prevailing wages to H-2C workers; 

• Guarantee that at least 50% of the work oiTered in an H-2C contract is provided, 

notwithstanding other economic factors; and 

• Allow H-2C workers to change U.S. employers that offer positions within the definition 

of "agricultural labor or services." 

These topics, taken together, address the major topics on which previous guestworker programs 

have been criticized. The companies in our coalition do not want to be associated with a 

program that could facilitate or allow improper treatment of foreign or domestic workers. At 

JBS and our affiliate, Pilgrim's Pride, wages and working conditions are critical topics that we 

fully and thoroughly negotiate with our constituent unions. Our coalition has been working with 

the UFCW on immigration reform topics, and we do not want this legislation to become a 

vehicle for discord on the issues that we have been able to resolve at the bargaining table to date. 

We commend the bill's drafters for ensuring that these important issues are fully considered in 

the H-2C process. Reasonable people can disagree on the proper wage or benefit result, but there 

are private sector and public sector processes in place to resolve these questions. We imagine 

there will be significant comment on these topics as the Committee further considers HR. 1773, 

but we note that the issues are resolvable, and we pledge to playa constructive role in 

contributing to their resolution in the legislative process. 

Concerns about Worker Verification. 

Employment verification is an essential ingredient to immigration reform - particularly because 

identity theft defeats the current electronic systems in place. This issue is addressed in 

companion legislation, HR. 1772, on which we are submitting detailed testimony, and 1 

encourage the Committee to review it. 

Conclusion. 

The Food Manufacturers Immigration Coalition thanks Chairman Goodlatte and this Committee 

for taking an important step forward in the immigration reform process through the introduction 

of the H-2C legislation, and through its concurrent consideration of Congressman Smith's 

employment verification legislation. The Coalition supports effective and meaningful 

immigration refonn, and we understand that the road to such refonn is probably not a straight 

path down a four-lane road. We appreciate the important steps fOfV.iard taken by the legislation 

under consideration today. 

7832790-v21WAS DM S 
120 

ATTACHMENT 

STATEMENT OF UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION AND 

FOOD MANUFACTURERS IMMIGRATION COALITION 

ON IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION 

We join Americans across the country and call for congressional action on U.S. 

immigration policy. We join those committed to work toward a comprehensive approach 

that serves our country's interest by promoting fairness and the rule oflaw and contributes 

effectively to our economic well-being and recovery. We support reform that recognizes 

the US economy's current and future need for permanent workers to support growth. 

America has always been a nation of immigrants. Now is the time to create a modern, 21st 

century legal immigration system that reflects our national interests and values. 

We support a comprehensive immigration reform that: 

Ensures smart and effective enforcement that protects our borders, fosters 

commerce, and promotes the safe and legitimate movement of people and goods at 

our ports of entry. 

Establishes a workable employment verification system that defines rights, 

responsibilities and protections for workers and employers on which hoth can rely. 

Provides for enhancement of the current verification program to ensure that 

employment verification can be applied uniformly and effectively, such as the EVerify Self Check. Compliance with employment and antidiscrimination laws should 

be transparent, not a guessing game. Employment verification should not be 

restricted to a biometric process. 

Renews our commitment to earned citizenship that fully integrates undocumented 

immigrants into our way of life, affirming our shared rights, protections and 

responsibilities by providing a pathway to citizenship. 

Protects the sanctity of family by reducing the family backlogs and keeping spouses, 

parents and children together. 

Creates a process for determining and addressing the need and allocation of 

employment based visas to provide safe and legal avenues for foreign workers to fill 

future workforce needs. Establishes an independent government office to ensure 

that migration meets the needs of employers and the American economy. Creates a 

new occupational visa for non-seasonal, non-agricultural permanent positions not 

covered by other visa programs. Requires the new office to provide real-time 

empirical data on labor markets and wages so that employers can recruit effectively 

and policy makers can legislate based on relevant evidence and avoid ideological 

arguments. 

The purpose of the new occupational visa is to enhance the productivity of U.S. 

companies that utilize permanent non-seasonal non-agricultural labor, to the 

benefit of U.s. workers and U.s. employers alike. Any new independent government 

office should focus on analyzing the availahility of able, willing and qualified U.S. 

workers, in conjunction with employer recruitment efforts. If such U.S. workers 

cannot be found by employers in a reasonable period of time, the government office 

1 
121 

should facilitate the entry of foreign workers to fill the vacant positions -- consistent 

with the purpose of the new visa category. 

We support comprehensive immigration reform that reflects both our interest and our 

values as Americans and is consistent with our nation's commitment to opportunity, 

fairness and equality. It is time to move forward, time for us to join together to enact 

immigration reform. 

2 
122 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Graham? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. GRAHAM, III, PRESIDENT, 

GRAHAM AND ROLLINS, INC., HAMPTON, VA 

Mr. GRAHAM. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte and Committee Members. Thank you for inviting me—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Would you make sure your microphone is on or pull 

it closer to you? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Okay? 

Mr. GOWDY. That is perfect. 

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you for inviting me to testify here today. 

Not only am I the president of Graham and Rollins, but I am 

also a member of the Coalition to Save America’s Seafood Industry, 

which fights to keep us free to compete in the global marketplace. 

America’s $31 billion seafood industry supports more than 1 million U.S. jobs, including almost 184,000 in seafood preparation and 

packaging and many others within our supplier and customer networks. 

America’s seafood processing industry has struggled over the last 

20 years as the local labor force has moved on to less strenuous 

full-time jobs and we are forced to find alternative labor. We currently use the H-2B program for essential work and to augment 

our full-time American workforce. A most recent survey conveyed 

an average of 2.1 American jobs was created from a single H-2B 

worker within the seafood industry. 

Most coalition members have used the H-2B program for over a 

decade, but it is a constant struggle to make the program work. Instead of focusing on growing my small business, I spent an inordinate amount of time on H-2B issues. These include the Labor Department’s tedious paperwork requirements that are inconsistent 

year after year. We have to continually worry about not getting 

visas because the national cap hasn’t been met or, more recently, 

worrying that new and more complex DOL rules will put me out 

of business. 

In addition to these requirements, most seafood processes are dependent upon a resource that is supplied by Mother Nature. We 

have no control over the availability of blue crabs. We also have 

harvest restrictions as to how many, where, and when our seafood 

may be harvested. Our members are deeply frustrated that DOL 

does not understand the unique nature of the seafood industry, 

from foreign competition to Mother Nature, and yet they continue 

to put regulatory pressures on us. 

For example, most seafood processors are in remote coastal communities. Our local workforce is tiny and shrinking. Yet DOL falsely insists that we simply choose to use the H-2B program rather 

than hire locally. Year after year, we have to prove at our expense 

through advertising and training programs that ultimately are unsuccessful that Americans do not want these jobs. 

The current rules reflect this misunderstanding, making the H2B program very difficult. And so it is vital that Congress take a 

broad look at the H-2B program and its regulation by any government agency as part of this immigration reform effort. 
123 

Chairman Goodlatte, I applaud your creative thinking with the 

H-2C program and inclusion of seafood in this agricultural workforce bill. 

First and foremost, I am glad that you have included our seafood 

industry alongside the agricultural industry. These two industries 

are alike in many fashions. Both are production-oriented, whereas 

workers’ wages are calculated not by just the amount of time in 

fields or within the processing plants but also based on individual 

performance in the form of piece wages. We are alike in that we 

are not providing a service, we are providing and manufacturing 

products from nature’s resources. 

Secondly, because we are at the mercy of Mother Nature, our industry is faced with frequent weather events which can abruptly 

change production schedules. It is for this reason I am supportive 

of the provision of guaranteed employment for 50 percent of the 

work hours promised. This is much more flexible than DOL’s proposed 75 percent guarantee presented in 2011. 

Lastly, I understand the motive behind establishing a trust fund, 

thus creating an incentive for the workers to return home. I believe 

that it was very creative and one which I think will prove to be 

worthwhile and beneficial to the H-2C program. 

I understand the House and Senate are considering several sets 

of guestworker programs. As you work through the process, I think 

I can speak for the entire industry in saying we are looking for a 

program that is dependable and consistent and one that allows us 

to stay in business and keep Americans working. 

H-2C offers a workable solution to obtain a reliable temporary 

workforce without the current problems we face within the H-2B 

program. Our need is that simple and that basic to our survival. 

Unfortunately, we are at a critical point where a change has to be 

made now or another American industry and American jobs will be 

lost. 

I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Graham. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:] 
124 

Thursday, May 16th 2013 

H.R. 1773,the 

Agricultural 

Guestworkers 

Act 

John B. Graham, III 

President, Graham & Rollins, Inc. 
125 

Chairman Goodlatte, Committee members - thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. My name is Johnny Graham and I am the President of 

Graham & Rollins. We are a 4tn generation famity owned and operated 

company founded in 1942, located in Hampton, Virginia on the 

waterfront at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. We are processors of 

Blue Crab Meat. 

I am also a member of the Coalition to Save America' s Seafood 

Industry, which fights to keep us free to compete in the global 

marketplace. America' s $31 billion seafood industry supports more 

than one million U.S. jobs - including almost 184,000 in seafood 

preparation and packaging, and many others within our supplier and 

customer networks. 

America' s seafood processing industry has struggled over the past 20 

years as the local labor workforce moved on to less-strenuous, full-time 

jobs and we were forced to find alternative labor. We currently use the 

H-2B program, for essential seasonal work and augment our full time 

American workers. A most recent survey conveyed an average of 2.1 

American jobs was created from a single H-2B worker. Most Coalition 

members have used the H-2B program for over a decade - but it is a 

constant struggle to make the program work. 
126 

Instead of focusing on growing my small business, I spend an inordinate 

amount of my time on H-2B issues. These include the Labor 

Department's tedious paperwork requirements that are inconsistent 

year after year. We have to continually worry about not getting visas 

because the national cap has been met or- more recently - worrying 

that new and more complex DOL rules will put me out of business. 

In addition to these requirements, most seafood processors are 

dependent upon a resource that is supplied by mother-nature. We 

have no control of the availability of the blue crabs. We also have 

harvest restrictions as to how many, where and when our seafood may 

be harvested. 

Our members are deeply frustrated thor DOL does not understand the 

unique nature of the seafood industry, from foreign competition to 

Mother Nature, and yet they continue to put regulatory pressures on us. 

For example, most seafood processors are in remote coastal 

communities; our local workforce is tiny, and shrinking. Yet, DOL falsely 

insists that we simply choose to use the H-2B program rather than 

higher locally. Year after year we have to prove, at our expense, 

through advertising and training programs; that are ultimately 

unsuccessful, that Americans do not want these jobs. 

2 J 1>." p 
127 

The current rules reflect this misunderstanding, making the H-2B 

program very difficult. And so it is vital that Congress take a brood look 

ar the H-2B program and its regulation, by any government ogency, os 

port of this immigration reform effort. 

Chairman Goodlatte, I applaud your creative thinking with the H-2C 

program and inclusion of seafood in this agricultural workforce bill. 

First and foremost, I am glad that you have included our seafood 

industry alongside the Agriculture Industry. These two industries are 

alike in many fashions. Both are production oriented whereas workers' 

wages are calculated not just by the amount of hours in the fields or 

within processing plants but also by individual performance, in the form 

of piece wages. Were alike in that we are not providing a service; we 

are providing and manufacturing products from nature's resources. 

Secondly, because we are at the mercy of Mother Nature our industry 

is faced with frequent weather events which can abruptly change 

production schedules. It is for this reason I am supportive of the 

provision of guaranteed employment for 50% of work hours promised. 

This is much more flexible than DOL's proposed 75% guarantee 

presented in 2011. 

Lastly, I understand the motive behind establishing a trust fund, thus 

creating an incentive for the workers to return home. I believe it was 

very creative and one which I think will prove to be worthwhile and 

beneficial to the H-2C program. 
128 

I understand the House and Senate are considering several sets of guest 

worker programs. As you work through the process, I th ink I can speak 

for the entire industry in saying we are fooking for a program that fs 

dependable and consistent - one that aflows us to stay in business and 

keep Americans working. 

Our need is that simple - and that basic to our survival. Unfortunately, 

we are at a crfrical point where a change has to be made now or 

another American industry and American jobs will be lost. 

I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

9" 1-~ 
129 

",000 ,-------------------] 

700,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

o 

Pounds of Crabs Purchased bV Graham & Rollins, Inc. from 2007 - 2013 

The Chart above (illustrates Graham and Rollins Inc. crab purchases 

over the past 7 years, and demonstrates the role mother nature plays 

in the industry, Th is is one example of the unique nature of the 

seafood businesses who use the H-2B program. The current program 

dearly does not meet the needs of a consistent, workable program. We 

are hopeful the H-2C program will solve some of these issues. 
130 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Rodriguez? 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Arturo 

Rodriguez, president of the United Farm Workers, and I have the 

honor of serving farmworkers in our Nation. We very much appreciate the chance to speak today on behalf of farmworkers throughout the United States. 

Our broken immigration system threatens our Nation’s food supply. Today, we have farmworkers forced to work in the shadows of 

society in difficult working conditions, and farms around the country have great challenges hiring a legal workforce. We are in a 

unique moment in our Nation’s history, a moment in which members of both political parties are coming together to confront the 

question of how to fix our broken immigration system. The urgency 

of the moment requires a straightforward analysis of the options 

before us. 

In that vein, H.R. 1773 falls far short of the challenge that faces 

American agriculture and our Nation’s food supply. In fact, H.R. 

1773 bears a much closer resemblance to the horrific Bracero Program of the 1940’s-1960’s than it does to the immigration reform 

changes we need for the 21st century. 

H.R. 1773 would replace the existing H-2A agriculture temporary 

worker program with the new H-2C program. The H-2C program 

would deprive U.S. farmworkers of jobs by minimizing the recruitment obligations of employers, slashing wages, and withholding 10 

percent of a worker’s wage. It would also minimize the government 

oversight, limit workers’ access to judicial relief and legal assistance, and reduce temporary workers’ minimum work guarantee. 

Further, it would eliminate the requirement that employers provide housing for temporary workers and U.S. workers who travel 

to the worksite and eliminate travel expense reimbursement for 

temporary workers. As a result, H.R. 1773 would have the practical 

effect of dramatically cutting wages for the hundreds of thousands 

of farmworkers who are U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents. 

All of these changes reverse 50 years of agriculture labor law 

precedent established in response from both political parties to the 

terrible abuses of the Bracero Program of the ’40’s through the 

’60’s. 

In addition, the H.R. 1773 proposal would not provide a roadmap 

to citizenship for the current farmworker labor force and would 

only allow them to apply for temporary worker visas. 

Those of us who work in agriculture know the policies we need. 

We can elevate farmworkers by making changes to immigration 

policy that do the following: 

One, retain as much of the existing workforce in agriculture. We 

can keep people in agriculture by honoring farmworkers with the 

ability to earn permanent legal status. We need to have the ability 

for the existing farmworkers to earn permanent legal status to en-
131 

courage people to stay in agriculture and to honor our American 

values. 

Two, include basic worker protections that ensure that U.S. 

worker wages do not decrease and that stabilize the agricultural 

workforce. The agreement we came to with the Nation’s agricultural employers does not include many of the wage and labor protections we wanted. Our agreement with grower associations is a 

compromise. But the agreement does have the basic wage and 

working protections we need to ensure that farmworker wages that 

are already low do not decrease further. 

We appreciate the Chairman’s view on immigration comes from 

a place of his own study of the issue and a desire to address the 

labor needs of agriculture, but we respectfully suggest there is a 

better approach. We want to elevate farm work so that neither 

farmworkers without legal status nor guestworkers are the norm 

in American agriculture. 

We ask this Subcommittee to support a new comprehensive immigration process that grants current farmworkers and their family members a reasonable and prompt opportunity to earn legal immigration status and citizenship and ensures that future workers 

are brought here in a manner that elevates farm work in our Nation. By having such a system, we can ensure that we continue to 

have an agricultural industry that is the envy of the world and 

honor all of the women and men who have built such an exceptional domestic food supply. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 
132 

Statement of Arturo S. Rodriguez 

President of United Farm Workers of America 

Before the House Judiciary Committee's 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

H.R. 1773, the "Agricultural Guestworker Act" 

May 16, 2013 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Arturo Rodriguez, and I have the 

honor of being President of the United Farm Workers of America. We very much 

appreciate the chance to speak today on behalf of farm workers throughout the country. 

America's farms and ranches produce an incredible bounty that is the envy of the world. 

The farmers and farm workers that make up our nation's agricultural industry are truly 

heroic in their willingness to work hard and take on risk as they plant and harvest the 

food all of us eat every day. 

But our broken immigration system threatens our nation's food supply. Today, we have 

farm workers forced to work in the shadows of society in difficult working conditions 

and farms around the country have great challenges hiring a legal workforce. We are in a 

unique moment in our nation's history - a moment in which members of both political 

parties are coming together to confront the question of how to fix our broken immigration 

system. 

The urgency of the moment requires a straightforward analysis of the options before us. 

In that vain - HR 1773 falls far short of the challenge that faces American agriculture and 

our nation's food supply. In fact, HR 1773 bears a much closer resemblance to the 

horriiic bracero program of the 1940s-1960s than it does to the immigration program 

changes we need for the 21 ,I Century. 

HR 1773 would replace the existing H-2A agricultural temporary worker program with a 

new H-2C program. The H-2C program would deprive US. farm workers of jobs by 

minimizing the recruitment obligations of employers, slashing wages and withholding 10 

percent of a worker's wages. It would also minimize government oversight, limit 

workers access to judicial relief and legal assistance, and reduce temporary workers' 

minimum-work guarantee. Further, it would eliminate the requirement that employers 

provide housing for temporary workers and US. workers who travel to the worksite and 

eliminate travel-expense reimbursement for temporary workers. As a result, HR 1773 

would have the practical effect of slashing wages for the hundreds of thousands of fann 

workers who are US citizens and permanent legal residents. All of these changes reverse 

50 years of agricuJturallabor law precedent established in response from both political 

parties to the terrible abuses of the hracero program of the 1940s-1960s. 
133 

In addition, the HR 1773 proposal would not provide a roadmap to citizenship for the 

current farm worker labor force and would only allow them to apply for temporary 

worker visas. 

Many UFW members are US citizens and permanent legal residents. I want to address 

those who have proposed that only wealthy and highly educated immigrants should be 

able to become US citizens. That is profoundly disrespectful to the people who have 

worked so hard to feed us every day. Let me speak a little about my own family. Neither 

of my parents were born with any money. My father who passed away recently worked 

his whole life. My parents maintained a small farm of200 acres where they raised cattle. 

After sending my siblings and me to school, my mother enrolled in college when she was 

in her 40s. When she completed college, she went on to teach immigrants and their 

children how to speak English so they could participate more fully in American society. I 

share this story not just to highlight my parents - as special as they are to me - but to lift 

up the fact that there are hundreds of thousands among those people who work in the 

fields and other low wage jobs in America today who share those values of hard work 

and contribute to all of our American dreams. 

We face a choice as a country going forward - do we want to be like Europe which 

legally segregates people into multiple classes? Or do we want to honor the best parts of 

our American history where we both welcome and challenge people around the world 

who come to our country to commit themselves to our powerful American ideals? With 

rights, come responsibilities. The overwhelming number of people working in the fIelds 

report to duty for an extraordinary responsibility - feeding the nation. The work the 

women and men in fields do every day is extremely difticult. On days with brutal sun 

that sometimes kills people- farm workers continue to harvest. During icy cold mornings 

in the winter months when the sun has yet to rise, fann workers are skillfully picking 

fruits and vegetables by hand for other Americans' consumption. The work is so 

physically demanding that farm workers live in physical pain well beyond their years 

working in the fields. Most ab'Ticultural work requires a skill, precision, and discipline 

that few who do not do the work can grasp. 

We believe that the new Americans who harvest our food and feed us every day deserve a 

way to earn a temporary legal status with a meaningful and real opportunity to 

earnpermanent legal status with the real hopes of earning such legal status. In poll after 

poll, American voters agree and have expressed overwhelming support for a roadmap to 

citizenship for new Americans -like farm workers - who contribute to our country. 

We believe that America is exceptional. Our agricultural system is just one more 

example of how America is exceptional, so we should honor the new Americans who 

continue to build our agricultural system as the heroes that they are for our country. 

To the extent a new path is needed to bring more professional farm workers from abroad 

to this country, we should look forward and not backward to the bracero program. HR 

1773 is a step backward. Future agricultural workers who we invite to our country to 

2 
134 

work should be accorded equality, job mobility, strong labor and wage protections, and 

an opportunity to earn immigration status leading to citizenship. 

For the last 20 years, Congress has tried and failed to reform our agricultural labor 

system. There have been a host of Congressional commissions, recommended policies, 

and different pieces oflegislation. Many of you on this committee have also worked at 

malcing these changes for a long time. Now is the time to come together and make the 

changes we need. 

Both farmers and farm workers from diverse regions of the nation have worked together 

over the last 5 months with the support of members of Congress from both political 

parties with the interest of improving our nation's agricultural industry and securing our 

nation's food supply. While farmer and farm worker groups historically have been at 

odds with each other and agricultural interests from different parts of the country often 

compete, we are now united for the first time ... fanners and fann workers ... big 

agribusiness and small farmers ... farm workers who have worked in the industry for 

decades and those who have only come to the fields in recent years .. across region .. 

across crops .. We are united. 

We have come to an agreement on policy that we hope that you as members of Congress 

will consider as an alternative to the approach found in HR 1773. 

Those of us who work in agriculture know the policies we want - but more importantly 

we understand the policies we need. Let me make the distinctions between what we want 

and what we need. 

No industry will benefit more from immigration refonn than the agricultural industry. 

The issue is having enough people who are both willing and able to do ditTicult 

agricultural work. What we need in order to ensure that we have enough people who are 

both willing and able to work in agriculture is 

to elevate farm work so that guest workers or farm workers without legal status do not 

need to be the norm in agriculture. 

We can elevate farm workers by making changes to immigration policy that do the 

following: 

1. Retain (IS much of the existing workforce in agriculture. We can keep people 

in agriculture by honoring farm workers with the ability to earn permanent legal 

status. What we wanred in new immigration policy- higher wages and better 

protections. But we did not get those changes in the agreement between grower 

associations and the UFW. What we need to have -- the ability for the existing 

farm workers to earn permanent legal status to encourage people to stay in 

agriculture and to honor our American values. 

3 
135 

2. Include basic worker protections that ensure that US worker wages do not 

decrease and that stahilize the agricultural workforce - Tn this area, there are 

many things we want. The United Farm Workers and our nations farm worker 

organizations and advocates want an end to the more than 70 years of 

discriminatory labor legislation that excludes farm workers from basic protections 

like the right to organize, to act collectively, and to join a union. A Congressional 

commission set up to determine new immigration policies and made up 

principally of appointees of President Ronald Reagan and Chairman Gowdy's 

former Senator Strom ThunTIond agreed - Federal law should allow farm workers 

to organize and should mal(e it illegal for an employer to fire a farm worker who 

acts collectively. Their report - the "Report of the Commission on Agricultural 

Workers" in 1992 made recommendations for the "development of a more 

structured and stable domestic agricultural labor market" that would "address the 

needs of seasonal farm workers through higher earnings, and the needs of 

agricultural employers through increased productivity and decreased uncertainty 

over labor supply." lOne such recommendation was that "[fJarmworkers should 

be afforded the right to organize and bargain collectively. " The agreement 

we came to with the nation's employers does not include a right for fanTI workers 

to organize. Our agreement with grower associations is a compromise. But the 

agreement does have the basic wage and working protections we need to ensure 

that farm worker wages that are already low do not decrease. 

There are many more examples - I am sure that the nation's major growers and grower 

associations can also produce a long list. 

Indeed, the United Farm Workers and our nation's agricultural employers have often 

been at odds on many policy issues. But we are together in agreeing to a proposal that 

will fix our nation's immigration system with respect to agriculture. We have worked so 

hard to come together in the agricultural industry and we ask you as members of this 

committee to come together to support our joint proposal because America's fanTIs and 

ranches produce an incredible bounty that is the envy of the world. The farmers and farm 

workers that make up our nation's agricultural industry are truly heroic in their 

willingness to work hard and take on risk as they plant and harvest the food all of us eat 

every day. 

We appreciate the ChainTIan's view on immigration comes from a place of his own study 

of the issue and a desire to address the labor needs of agriculture. But we respectfully 

suggest there is a better approach. 

We want to elevate farm work so that neither farm workers without legal status nor guest 

workers are the norm in American agriculture. 

lRcporcofthc Commission on Agricu/cura/ Workers, Executive SUmmal), p.xxiv, Washington D.C. November, 1992. 

4 
136 

We ask this subcommittee to support a new, comprehensive immigration process that 

grants current farm workers and their family members a reasonable and prompt 

opportunity to earn legal immigration status and citizenship, and ensures that future 

workers are brought here in a manner that elevates farm work. By having such a system, 

we can ensure that we continue to have an agricultural industry that is the envy of the 

world - and honor all of the women and men who have built such an exceptional 

domestic food supply. 

5 
137 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 

Virginia, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and 

the Ranking Member’s forbearance on letting me ask questions 

first. I do have to get somewhere else soon. 

But I was pleased to be able to hear the testimony of all four of 

you. You are all making a great contribution to our effort to solve 

this problem of having an agricultural guestworker program that 

works for America and that contributes to avoiding a problem that 

occurred after the 1986 law went into effect. 

So, Mr. Rodriguez, let me direct my first question to you, along 

those lines. In your testimony, you state that, ‘‘We need to have the 

ability for the existing farmworkers to earn permanent legal status 

to encourage people to stay in agriculture.’’ However, your statement is at complete odds with the lessons learned from the legalization of illegal immigrant farmworkers in 1986. Once they received permanent residence, many left the fields for jobs in the cities. 

In fact, Philip Martin, professor of agricultural economics at the 

University of California-Davis, found that by 1997-’98, less than 12 

years later, the percentage of crop workers who had been granted 

permanent residence through the 1986 act had fallen to only 16 

percent. 

Isn’t it the case that if Congress were to again grant a special 

pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrant farmworkers, that 

growers would soon be left without a labor force? Or, if you looked 

at it differently, if we were to have a legal status as a part of the 

overall solution to immigration reform, that we would then have a 

new demand for workers? Because, like 1986, many, when they can 

work anywhere they want to, will go and work elsewhere, creating 

a shortfall in agriculture that we need to replace with a workable 

guestworker program, which is where I think my legislation is 

headed. 

And when we do that, we are not going to be able to have a 

steady flow of people filling what is a very large demand—some 

people estimate half a million to a million people short—a steady 

demand of people if we constantly grant them lawful permanent 

resident status after they have been a guestworker for X number 

of years. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You know, my understanding is—and I know a 

lot of farmworkers that came through the 1986 program and still 

are working in agriculture today. The estimate today is about 15 

percent, from my understanding, 20-something years later. 

The realities are that, first of all, the legislation that we currently have proposed calls for both, taking into account folks that 

have spent a lot of time and demonstrated their skills, their professional capacities to work in agriculture, that they would be provided legal status and a path toward permanent residency and 

eventually a path toward citizenship. We are saying that that 

800,000 to 1.1 million, whatever that number is, that they have 

that opportunity to do so. 

But, simultaneously, the agricultural industry, the agricultural 

employers, they have fought very hard and debated—we debated a 
138 

lot about the need for the future flow, and there were two new visa 

programs that were designed for that particular purpose. 

So I am very confident that there is going to be an opportunity 

and then, when the need arises within the ag industry for future 

workers, that there will be that opportunity to get some. 

And the other reality is, sir, is that, you know, I have been doing 

this, as well, for several decades, and the actual wages and benefits 

in this particular industry hasn’t really escalated to the point 

where it is an attractive industry for people to want to stay, to 

have a career, to build their—to raise their families, and to gain 

the opportunities—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But part of that may be because such a large 

percentage of those folks who are not here lawfully are not able to 

use the kind of leverage they would have if they had a legal status. 

And, therefore, it seems to me that when you legalize this and you 

look at a real market-based wage, that that market-based wage is 

likely to rise, whereas the current bureaucratic government-setsthe-wage approach is likely to miss the target, miss the right 

amount, and encourages, rather than discourages, the use of unlawful immigrant labor. 

So I think we can solve this problem. I think we agree with some 

of what you are saying. We are just saying that, in the future, we 

are not going to be able to have a steady flow of 800,000 to 1.1 million people flowing through the system, able to get a green card, 

able to leave the workforce, as has happened when they were legalized in the past. And we have to have a real guestworker program 

that is just that, a guestworker program. 

Let me ask you one more question. You say in your testimony 

that the H-2C program will deprive U.S. farmworkers of jobs by 

minimizing the recruiting requirements. Is it your opinion that 

farmers face a shortage of farmworkers because they don’t do 

enough recruiting? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The requirements that I was making reference 

to are in regards to the protections for farmworkers when they are 

being recruited here in the United States, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I do have some other 

questions. Perhaps they could be submitted in writing or you may 

ask them. 

Mr. GOWDY. Or I would be thrilled to yield my time to you, Mr. 

Chairman, if you would like it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No, I think it is fine. 

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

I would at this point recognize the gentlelady from California, 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before asking my questions, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record of this hearing the list of the 71 farm 

organizations that have signed off on the agreement with the farmworkers’ union on the agricultural program that I referenced earlier. 

And I would also like to ask unanimous consent to include in the 

record a letter or a statement from the Agriculture Workforce Coalition that is not in support of H.R. 1773. 
139 

And if I could get unanimous consent for those two inclusions. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Members of the Agricultural Workforce Coalition that Brokered an 

Agreement with the United Farm Workers 

1. American Farm Bureau Federation 

2. American Nursery & Landscape Association 

3. Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association 

4. National Council of Agricultural Employers 

5. National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

6. National Milk Producers Federation 

7. USA Farmers 

8. U.S. Apple Association 

9. United Fresh Produce Association 

10. Western Growers Association 

11. Western United Dairymen 

12. Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform 

13. Agricultural Council of California 

14. American AgriWomen 

15. American Beekeeping Federation(ABF) 

16. American Frozen Food Institute 

17. American Mushroom Institute 

18. American Sheep Industry Association 

19. California Association of Winegrape Growers 

20. California Avocado Commission 

21. California Citrus Mutual 

22. California Giant Berry Farms 

23. California Grape and Tree Fruit League 

24. California Women for Agriculture 

25. Certified Greenhouse Farmers 

26. Colorado Nursery & Greenhouse Association 

27. CoBank 

28. Cooperative Network 

29. Council for Burley Tobacco 

30. Farm Credit East 

31. Florida Citrus Mutual 

32. Florida Farm Bureau 

33. Florida Nursery, Growers & Landscape Association (FNGLA) 

34. Georgia Farm Bureau Federation 

35. Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association 

36. Georgia Green Industry Association 

37. Hispanic American Growers Association 

38. Idaho Dairymen’s Association 

39. Illinois Farm Bureau 

40. Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation 

41. MBG Marketing/The Blueberry People 

42. National Christmas Tree Association 

43. National Farmers Union 

44. National Grange 

45. National Onion Association 

46. National Peach Council 

47. National Potato Council 

48. Northeast States Association for Agricultural Stewardship (NAAS) 

49. Northwest Farm Credit Services 

50. OFA, An Association of Horticulture Professionals 

51. Oregon Association of Nurseries 

52. Produce Marketing Association 

53. Red Gold, Inc 
140 

54. Society of American Florists 

55. South East Dairy Farmers Association 

56. Southeast Milk, Inc. 

57. State Agriculture and Rural Leaders (SARL) 

58. Sweet Potato Council of California 

59. Texas Citrus Mutual 

60. Texas International Produce Association 

61. Texas Vegetable Association 

62. U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. 

63. United Ag 

64. United Dairymen of Arizona 

65. Utah Dairy Producers 

66. United Egg Producers 

67. Village Farms International, Inc. 

68. Wine America 

69. Wine Institute 

70. Yankee Farm Credit 

71. Yuma Fresh Vegetable Association 
141 

AGRICUL'rURE WORKFORCE COAUTION 

STATI:MENT SUBMITTED TO THE 

JUDICIARY SUBCOMMmEE ON IMMIGRATION & BORDER SECURITY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

May 16, 2013 

Chairman Gowdoi, Ran~lng Member lofgren, and member~of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunit~ to wbmit astatement for the r«ord and thank you for holding this hearins on the 

Agricultural Gu~tworker "AG" Act (H.R. 1773). !-t.R. 1773 properi~ recognizes that America's farmers 

and ranchers need Con8re~ional action to enSu re a legal and stable workforce. This legislation 

represents an important l irst step in the House of Representatives In iJoddressif\l! immigration reform. 

The Agriculture Workforce Coalition (AWe) brlngs together nearly70 OfjIanizations representing the 

diverse needs of asricullural emplovers across the countr'/. AWC 5o!rvl'5 as the unified voice of 

agriculture In thl': effort to ,"",sure thatAITlerica's farmers, ranchers and growers have acce ss to a stable 

and5e;cure workfare!!. The AWe came together out of the realilation that, while America's farms and 

r.andll':sare among the most productive in the world, thev have Sln'8gled in receot ~a s to find enousll 

workers to pict.crops or care for animals. Thl': sreat success story that is American asriculturl': is 

threatened b'I this situation, and the AWehas been working to develop an equitable. mar~et·based 

r.o!ution to the oroblem. 

While the labor situation In agriculture has been a concern for many years, it has now read1eda 

breakIng POInt. Today, larse segments of Ameri~an agricult ure fare a criti~allack of workers. a .honage 

thaI makes our farms and ranches less competlti'li! and Ihat thl"eJlens the abundant, safe and 

affordable food supply American conSUn1""~ enjoy. 

There arl': num",ous reports from all over th~ U.S. of crops I~ft to rot in the fields be<:altSe growers lack 

suHicient wo,kef!i \0 briOJ! in the harvest . II l~eSlimaled that in California alone, some SO,OOOxres of 

frl'5h fruit an d Yelletable production has mo~ed over.eas because of th~ labor shortage. 

Repeated evidence over the past decades has .hown tlut ther~ are som~ jobs in agricuitUfe that 

Americans .i"1p1~do nolchoose to do. Although many of these jobs oHer wages competlt .... e With 

51m1l a, nO'l'ig,lcultural occupatiom, ijoey are physically demandins, cO'1.ducted in all seasons and are 

often seasoOilI or tram it""". II i. for thes~ reasons that farmers have grown to rely on forej~n workers, 

of whld> approldma el ~70 perce nt are In qu~stlonable legal status. 
142 

This labor crisis is exacerbated by the fact that farmers' and ranchers' only option to legally find the 

workers they need is the H-2A program, a program that has not worked for many agricultural 

employers. 

The H-2A program's basic framework is overly restrictive and difficult for an employer to navigate. 

Furthermore, the H-2A program is only accessible for producers with seasonal needs; excluding the 

year-round needs of many producers such as dairy, livestock, mushrooms, and other crops. In recent 

years it has become even more unworkable and costly to use. The program has become so burdensome, 

in fact, that producers use it only when they absolutely need to, and the H-2A program provides only 

about five percent of agriculture's total workforce. 

In an effort to achieve a lasting solution for the current and future agricultural labor in the U.S., the AWC 

came together with the United Farm Workers (UFW) to negotiate a legislative solution that we believe 

can garner the required political support. The landmark agreement between the AWC and UFW has two 

components. It includes both an earned adjustment of status for current experienced and essential but 

unauthorized agricultural workers, and a new, more flexible program to provide access to a legal 

workforce into the future. 

In the short-term, to preserve agriculture's workforce and maintain stability in the sector, unauthorized 

farm workers would have the opportunity to earn legal status if they meet several conditions and 

continue to work substantially in agriculture over several years. 

For long-term stability, an agricultural worker visa program would be established that will provide 

farmers and ranchers access to a legal and reliable workforce into the future and the flexibility to meet 

the needs of all producers. This program offers both employer and employee choice and flexibility 

through two different work options: an "At_Will" visa and a Contract visa. These three-year visas would 

be valid for employment with agriculture employers registered through the USDA and the program is 

distinct from the low-skilled visas for the general business community. 

"At_Will" Visa employees have the freedom to move from registered employer to employer 

without any contractual commitment, replicating the way market forces allocate the labor force 

now. 

Contract Visa employees would also have the freedom to move from employer to employer 

upon completion of any contractual commitment, giving both parties increased stability where it 

is mutually preferred. 

The principles of the AWC/UFW agreement will continue to guide our efforts as work on the 

immigration issue begins in Congress. We appreciate that H.R. 1773 is reflective of some of the 

principles contained in the agreement, including a new two-pronged guest worker visa program that 

allows employers to hire foreign workers based on a contract or at-will; coverage of year round 

agricultural jobs, such as dairy and livestock; a longer visa than currently allowed in the H-2A; transfer of 

program administration to the USDA; and a more streamlined application and recruitment process. 
143 

We would also like offer some general comments on key provisions of the bill that we believe could be 

modified to better meet the needs of agriculture. In particular, we would respectfully suggest that 

workers be eligible to be admitted to the country with a work offer, rather than a work contract, prior to 

implementation of E-verify. Requiring initial contractual employment could artificially limit the ability of 

workers to enter the country if enough employers do not choose contract employment. 

Also, the AWC has consistently advocated for a separate legal status for experienced agricultural 

workers that are currently working in the US and have been for a period of time. We do not believe the 

bill's approach of funneling them into the temporary H2C nonimmigrant program adequately addresses 

the needs of the industry. Additionally, the bill requires workers to return to their home country at least 

1/6 the duration of their visa length. Touchback provisions are extremely disruptive to business 

practices. This is especially burdensome for year-round employers who would lose experienced and 

trained employees for three months at a time. Even with detailed business planning, providing for 

complicated rotating workforces, losing experienced employees for an extended period is impractical. 

Lastly, the AWC has concerns about the operation of the at-will program. The program as included in 

H.R. 1773 is structurally unacceptable as written. Farmers seek simplicity in this process and require 

short-term employment relationships; therefore, the requirement that all initial employers must enter 

into contracts is concerning. We advocate that acceptance of a job offer, whether under contract or atwill, provides the assurances that the visa workers have valid grounds to enter the United States, but is 

not overly burdensome to those employers requiring more flexibility. We will continue to work as a 

resource in order to improve these elements and others that may arise through the legislative process. 

We commend Chairman Bob Goodlatte on his forceful advocacy over the years for action that would 

ensure a secure, legal workforce in agriculture today and in the future. As the process unfolds in the 

House, the AWC will continue to work with Chairman Goodlatte and other members to ensure that any 

legislation achieves a workable, flexible and market-based solution that addresses the labor needs of 

agricultural employers both in the short and long terms. 

We also note the Subcommittee heard from witnesses on the Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772). This 

legislation deals with an enforcement mechanism, E-verify, that would greatly impact the agriculture 

industry. Immigration enforcement without a workable program to address the labor needs of fruit, 

vegetable, dairy and nursery farms and ranches, will result in many U.S. farmers and their farm 

employees losing their livelihoods and decreased US agricultural production. 

The effect would go far beyond the farm gate. If there is no one to pick the crop, industry sectors that 

operate upstream and downstream of farm production and harvest will be adversely impacted as well. 

Studies have shown that each of the nearly two million hired farm employees who work in labor 

intensive agriculture supports 2 to 3 fulltime American jobs in the food processing, transportation, farm 

equipment, marketing, retail and other sectors. Mandatory E-Verify without workable labor solutions for 

agriculture puts these American jobs, and the economies of communities across the country, in 

jeopardy. 
144 

The AWC supports a phase-in approach to E-verify for agriculture due to agriculture's unique hiring 

circumstances. A rushed approach could hurt agriculture even with a fix for our current and future 

workforce. Agriculture's unusual hiring situations often occur in remote rural areas with limited access 

to high-speed internet, actually including field-side hiring sites. Hiring has very pronounced seasonal 

peaks and there is often high turnover. Few farms have the luxury of dedicated human resources staff. 

Such factors justify allowing additional time for the necessary adjustments to be made to the program 

before the industry is required to comply with E-verify. 

Thank you again for holding these hearings and we forward to working with the Committee and other 

members to ensure that the labor needs of agriculture both now and in the future are addressed in 

immigration reform legislation. 
145 

FOtludiug Ano~ i9li o l\I n1htG of A wei 

American Farm Bureau FetleTIllion 

American Nursery & Landscape Association 

Florida Fruit & Vtgetable A~:IOciation 

National CQuocil of Agricultural Employers 

National Council or Farmer Coop!!Tatives 

National Milk I>rodl,lcer~ Federation 

USA Fannt'rs 

U S. Apple Assod~tion 

United Fre~h Produce Association 

We!;tt'm Growers Association 

Western United Dairymen 

Coalition Pllnntn: 

Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform 

t\ we S"PI>Or1 tN: 

Agricultural Coullcil of California 

Am~rican A!:lriWomen 

Americall Beekeeping Federation(ABF) 

American Frozen Food Institute 

American Mushroom Institute 

Americlln Sheep InduSlry Association 

California Association ofWinej;rape Gr6wers 

Clllifmnia Avocado Commission 

California Cimls Mutual 

California Giant Berry Farms 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League 

California Women for Agriculture 

emilied Greenhouse Farmers 

Colorado Nursery & Greenhouse Association 

(oBank 

Cooperative NctwQrk 

Council for Burley Tobacco 

Fann Credh East 

Florida Citrus Mutual 

Florida Farnl Bureau 
146 

Ms. LOFGREN. You know, I just want to take two statements out 

of this Ag Workforce Coalition, which is signed by practically every 

agricultural employer group in the United States. It says, ‘‘The 

AWC has consistently advocated for a separate legal status for experienced agricultural workers that are currently working in the 

U.S. and have been for a period of time. We do not believe the bill’s 

approach of funneling them into temporary H-2C nonimmigrant 
147 

programs adequately addresses the needs of the industry.’’ They 

further say, as to the at-will program that the program, as included 

in the bill, is structurally unacceptable. 

I certainly believe that the author of the bill, Chairman Goodlatte, has every intent to make a workable program. I do not at all 

disbelieve his good intentions. But I do not think this is a workable 

plan. 

Listening to you, Mr. Graham, about the H-2B program, I have 

heard those complaints about the Department of Labor from my 

own constituents. I think there are issues relative to the administration of the program. But I would note that the bill has 500,000 

visas, a cap. Within that cap would have to be the entire current 

unauthorized workforce, estimated at somewhere like 1.8 million 

people, plus all the new people—there wouldn’t be any room for 

new, additional workers—plus the H-2B people that are not currently in that program. So if you are worried about the cap on H2B now, you wouldn’t get a single visa out of this bill because of 

that cap. 

I do think that the—you know, I am not suggesting that the W 

visa program that was the result of the business community and 

the labor community’s negotiations is a perfect plan, but it does 

have huge numbers of visas, certainly considerably more than are 

included in the bill that we are considering today. 

So I think that is worth thinking about as we move forward, because we want to make sure that we have adequate protections in 

place so that American workers are not disadvantaged by prospective future workers. 

At the same time, we know—I mean, I was thinking, listening 

to Mr. Goodlatte about people who left agriculture, and I think 

some people did. I mean, it is a hard job. On the other hand, you 

know, 1986 was 31 years ago. I mean, if you were 40 years old in 

1986, you would be 71 years old today. I mean, you are not going 

to be out in the fields. It is an aging workforce. 

So we have a need for immigrants in some parts of our economy 

to meet our needs. And I think to have those needs met in a legal 

way and in an orderly way with an adequate number of visas available is very advantageous for the United States and certainly fair, 

also, to American workers as well as immigrants who would be 

coming in. Because we are not the kind of country that really 

thinks it is right or fair to mistreat people who are coming to our 

country to work. That is not what America is all about, and I know 

that is not what any one of you are about. 

I would just ask, you know, Mr. Rodriguez, the—well, let me ask 

you, Mr. Graham. How many workers do you need in your—in 

terms of immigrant workers, how many H-2B workers do you have, 

and how many would you need to have if you didn’t have all the 

rigmarole and caps that you deal with? 

Mr. GRAHAM. I would estimate our needs for the seafood industry 

are probably less than 15,000. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. And when you get into the meatpacking— 

and, as you know, there is a special allocation in the Senate bill 

for meatpacking—what do you think, and can you speak for the 

whole industry, what the need is for immigrant labor in meat and 

chicken? 
148 

Mr. GADDIS. I can’t speak with specificity about the industry. I 

can tell you, we hire somewhere between 100 and 300 a week. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. So, clearly, a 500,000 cap for all existing 

farmworkers, all additional farmworkers, plus new industries that 

are not currently in the program would be eaten up just in a snap. 

I see my time has expired. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

I am going to recognize myself and then recognize the gentleman 

from North Carolina and the gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. Graham, to those who think that you would be able to find 

more domestic workers if only you recruited harder and more, what 

do you say? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Can you repeat that question again, please? 

Mr. GOWDY. To those who think that you would be able to hire 

more domestic workers if only you recruited more or harder, what 

do you say? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, being in the program now for 14 years and 

having to go through the rigmarole of the recruitment process and 

offer 2-week training and having numerous people come and apply, 

to walk out 2 or 3 days into the whole process, you know, there is 

not much more that I can offer for training and recruitment. We 

have done our due diligence, and we are just not finding the people 

out there. 

Mr. GOWDY. Your testimony is eerily reminiscent of what we 

have heard from—what I hear from peach farmers in my own district. The effort is there, the recruitment is there. And even if domestic workers come, they may not stay past lunch. 

So, Mr. Gaddis, do you have similar experiences or different experiences with respect to recruiting domestic workers? 

Mr. GADDIS. Very similar. The scale is a bit different. 

But, in 2007, at a beef plant in Greeley, we decided to start a 

second shift, and we strategized as a company as to how best to 

do that and literally barnstormed the country to areas where individuals with meatpacking expertise or experience or a propensity 

to even accept a job meatpacking were located. And I can tell you, 

after 3 months of virtually door-to-door recruitment efforts and 

some more sophisticated efforts, we didn’t have enough people. And 

we turned to, at the time, refugee labor. 

So I think it is a very—in a healthy industry like ours and like 

Mr. Graham’s, it is a reality, regardless of the circumstance, that 

there just are not enough U.S. workers to fill the jobs. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. 

Staying with you, how will having the Secretary of Agriculture 

involved in the administration of the H-2C program be beneficial, 

if it will be beneficial, to your industry? 

Mr. GADDIS. Could you repeat the question? I am sorry. 

Mr. GOWDY. How would having the Secretary of Agriculture be 

involved in the new H-2C program be beneficial, if it would be beneficial, to your industry? 

Mr. GADDIS. I go back and forth on that. As somebody who administers human resources for our company, we do not rely on— 

or we would not rely on H-2C workers as a primary source of labor. 

But I would tell you, to have access to someone or to a department 
149 

that is sympathetic to our plight, our situation, outlined by Mr. 

Graham and I, that is always helpful. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Wicker, you, I believe, are able to speak to the 

litigious nature of some with respect to the current visa program. 

In fact, I think you noted that the North Carolina Growers Association has been sued over 30 times and paid over $5 million in attorneys’ fees. 

Can you speak to the litigation reforms in Chairman Goodlatte’s 

bill? 

Mr. WICKER. Yeah. What we should strive for is to try to solve 

farmworkers’ problems, legal problems, grievances, et cetera, quickly and efficiently. And the best way to do that is not with attorneys 

and lawsuits that are very expensive. 

And so North Carolina Growers Association started in 1990. We 

signed a collective bargaining agreement with the Farm Labor Organizing Committee—it is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO—in 2004. So 

we have a grievance procedure in place on all of our farms with our 

workers now. 

And so it can work. You can provide a system so that farmworkers and farmers can solve their problems without having to go 

to court. 

Mr. GOWDY. Sticking with you, why should you be required to 

provide housing and transportation when other industries do not? 

Mr. WICKER. Well, you know, that is a great question. The farmers that I work for have been providing housing for a long time. 

It is a magnet. It is a benefit that draws workers to our farms and 

has them be—creates the desire for them to want to stay there. So 

even though this proposal doesn’t mandate that housing be provided, I suspect that going forward our farmers would continue to 

provide housing. 

But it is a burden, especially in Representative Lofgren’s home 

State of California. I have friends in California that farm, and 

housing is a huge issue. And so it is something that has to be fixed. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

First of all, I want to thank Chairman Gowdy for calling this 

hearing. 

I want to join the Ranking Member, Zoe Lofgren, in expressing 

our desire to work with the other side of the aisle in a bipartisan 

manner. One of the things that immigration has been able to do 

here in Washington, D.C., is kind of—here is Benghazi and the 

A.P. And, you know, everything else that is going on in Washington, D.C. And we are going to vote to repeal Obamacare one 

more time today. I think it will be the 36th, 37th time. And so 

Democrats defend it and Republicans attack it. But we have not allowed any of that to come down and to poison the well in our immigration discussions with Republicans and Democrats. We have kept 

that all outside. And I think that that speaks, I believe, to the desire of the American people and for us to be responsive to the desire of the American people. 

I wanted to say—so I wanted to thank all of you for your testimony and for your work and for everything that you do, because 

I think it is important that we hear from all quarters. 
150 

But I also want to echo something that Congresswoman Zoe 

Lofgren mentioned. It seems to me that, if out here—that is, the 

private sector, the business community—has reached an agreement 

with those that represent the labor community, that we shouldn’t 

meddle. I mean, it seems to me that there is no reason, when there 

is an agreement that has already been reached between those who 

represent the farmworkers and those that represent so many other 

diverse industries. Why we don’t simply accept that men and 

women of good faith have bargained and reached an agreement and 

why we can’t embrace that is something I think we need to ask 

ourselves as we move forward. 

I would like to say that, for me, this is a very important part of 

what will be comprehensive immigration reform, a somewhat 

unique part of what will be comprehensive immigration reform, because of the relationship that the farm-work community has to a 

movement for justice, for a movement embodied in Cesar Chavez, 

for a movement embodied in what I believe is making America a 

better, greater place for social justice and what that spirit entails. 

And it really is in the support that across America farmworkers 

have, that special place that we not only have for farmworkers 

every night when we sit down for dinner to eat the crops that they 

have harvested for us, to do that backbreaking, dirty, filthy work— 

which we all know we have trouble, let’s face it. 

We have had testimony here before because Chairman Gowdy 

has brought people here who have taught us that we are going to 

have to fundamentally make a decision: Are we going to eat food 

that is grown in foreign countries by foreign hands, or are we going 

to have food that is grown here protected by us, by foreign hands? 

Because let’s face it, nobody here on this panel is sending their 

kids to school to become a farmworker. And the population doesn’t 

exist out on your farm or rural areas because that population isn’t 

there. We are going to need people to continue to come to America 

to do that work. 

And I just want to say, if it is backbreaking work, when we discuss here comprehensive immigration reform, I think we have to 

get away from this notion and we have to stand up for farmworkers, we have to stand up for those who provide us our food, 

because, you know, that is an essential ingredient to our safety. 

Watch the future. Food is going to become a condition of your survival as a Nation, and who picks that food is going to become a condition. 

I would like to ask Arturo: Arturo, the issue of citizenship has 

been brought up. Tell me from your perspective, why is it important that farmworkers become citizens of the United States—be allowed the opportunity to become citizens of the United States? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Congressman Gutierrez. 

I mean, first of all, farmworkers have been here now for, in some 

cases, since 1986, since the last immigration bill, working in agriculture. They have demonstrated here to our Nation, as has been 

mentioned by many of the Members already, it is difficult work, it 

is hard work, but it requires a lot of skills and profession. 

And I think the farmworkers that are here today have come here 

because they want to make a contribution to America. They want 
151 

to make a contribution to our economy. And they are willing to do 

what many have chosen not to do any longer here in this Nation. 

And so it is a way of honoring those individuals, and it is a way 

of ensuring that they do stay in the agricultural industry to continue to meet further requirements that are necessary in order to 

gain a path to legal permanent residency and eventually to citizenship. 

So that I believe, in terms of ensuring that we are going have 

a secure labor force, that we take the estimated 800,000 to 1.1 million unauthorized farmworkers currently working in agriculture 

today, we give them that opportunity to work and to gain the legal 

permanent residency, to earn that, as everyone else would, under 

comprehensive immigration reform and to eventually be on that 

path to citizenship so that they can enjoy the fruits of America just 

like anyone else can here in this Nation. 

So we welcome that opportunity, and we hope that as we continue the process that that becomes the decision that is made by 

Members of Congress as well as in the Senate to move forward. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I just want to end by saying I thank the Chairman for his indulgence in allowing Mr. Rodriguez to finish his answer. 

And I just want—as we move forward, you will see the bill. And 

when it comes to the STEM industry, the high-tech industry, I assure you, they are going to say bring tens of thousands of workers 

to America, but they are going to give them green cards and they 

are going to allow them to bring their families. I am just saying, 

fight for your own people in your own industry the same way 

Google and Apple and others fight for high-tech. Somebody has to 

do the backbreaking work. 

Thank you so much. And I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. 

Mr. HOLDING. [presiding.] Thank you. 

I am going to recognize Mr. Garcia from Florida, and then I will 

recognize myself and be the final questioner. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the other day, someone who doesn’t agree with immigration reform said to me, ‘‘You know, Joe, if somebody walked into 

your house and you didn’t invite them, just walked around and 

then left, you would want them prosecuted.’’ And my response was, 

if somebody walked into my house, filled my refrigerator with fresh 

fruit, painted my walls, cleaned my house, put my grandmother to 

bed, then went outside and mowed the lawn, I think I would owe 

them money, not want to prosecute them. 

The folks that come to this country come for the very best that 

our Nation has to offer, which is opportunity and freedom. And, 

clearly, they pay a grave price for it. 

I want to talk about something that, Artie, you have been working on for a very long time, which is, for years, the negotiated 

agreement between your folks and the Chamber of Commerce— 

which, in truth, is what we should be talking about here, right? An 

agreement that you in good faith negotiated. I think Mr. Wicker 

was part of the group who singed off on that agreement. 

I want to you tell me about the time you put into that. And did 

you think you were just negotiating with the Chamber or did you 
152 

think you were negotiating in good faith to put a bill together that 

would be accepted by Members of the other side? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We actually became engaged—thank you very 

much, Congressman Garcia. 

We became engaged initially in this process to bring about immigration reform for the agricultural workers and the industry as a 

whole with agricultural employers dating back to the year 2000, 

about 13 years ago. And, you know, at that particular time, we met 

with the heads, the CEOs, the presidents of a number of different 

agriculture associations throughout the United States. And we initially fashioned AgJOBS, which was a legislation that was being 

utilized and being discussed and debated for many, many years 

now. 

About 6 months ago, we were approached by many of the same 

agriculture employers and different associations to look at and discuss a new immigration reform package for the agricultural industry that would impact both on the employers as well as on farmworkers. And we began that particular process and, as a result of 

that, fashioned an agreement that we felt was a compromise but 

yet something that all the parties could agree to. 

And we met with 12 different associations that ranged from the 

American Farm Bureau to the Western Growers Association to 

nurserymen, sheep herders, dairies, apples, all the various citrus 

associations from Florida. All the various major agricultural associations throughout the United States came to the table, and our 

voices are all heard and debated and discussed. And we finally 

reached an agreement the day that the comprehensive bill on the 

Senate side was being submitted. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you for your work, and hopefully it won’t be 

ignored over here. 

Mr. Wicker, I believe you were part of the group that signed off 

on this. Am I correct? 

Mr. WICKER. I am here today to testify for North Carolina Growers, and I am treasurer of the USA Farmers Group. And USA 

Farmers was part of—is part of the agricultural workforce coalition 

that negotiated the compromise that resulted in the Senate bill. 

Mr. GARCIA. How did you feel about that compromise? 

Mr. WICKER. I think it is fine; I don’t think it will pass the 

House. So we need to get a bill that will pass the House and go 

to conference and get something to the President’s desk. 

Mr. GARCIA. Well, you let us take care of the politics of it, 

but—— 

Mr. WICKER. Sure. 

Mr. GARCIA [continuing]. You—I want to get an understanding. 

I mean, Mr. Rodriguez described his working through it. Could you 

give me your sense as someone who was on the other side working 

through this bill, the compromise required, the struggle? Maybe 

give us a sense from your perspective. 

Mr. WICKER. I was not directly involved in the negotiations. 

Mr. GARCIA. I am sure they were checking off with you through 

it, right? 

Mr. WICKER. Pardon? 

Mr. GARCIA. That you were part of discussions as the negotiations were going on. 
153 

Mr. WICKER. Sure. And we think at USA Farmers that they got 

as good a bill as they could possibly get—— 

Mr. GARCIA. Good. 

Mr. WICKER [continuing]. Out of the Senate compromise. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you. 

You know, Mr. Rodriguez, you have been in the fields, and you 

know how hard it is to work. Today someone from the other side 

alleged that these are jobs that American workers are willing to do 

and anxious to do. In your years and with all your folks out there, 

do you find that to be true, that, you know, U.S. Workers are willing to do the work that the American farmworkers are doing today, 

and, in particular, those without documentation? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, actually, yes, Mr. Garcia, we estimate 

there are approximately 600,000 U.S. farmworkers, U.S. either citizens or legal permanent residents that are currently working in agriculture today. And we very much believe that that number would 

grow significantly when this legislation passes and gets implemented and gives farmworkers a right to gain legal status in working in the agricultural industry. 

So there is a sizable number of folks that continue to work in agriculture, and we hope that, through this process, as well, we continue to elevate farm work as an honorable work, as a career that 

all of us can pursue here in the United States. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you. 

I want to thank all the witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses here today. I want to particularly thank Mr. Wicker, who has been an informed, intelligent, 

and reliable voice on these issues in North Carolina for a long time. 

And I have known him beyond this capacity in this job but even 

when I was a staffer here on Capitol Hill. 

And so, welcome. 

I want to turn specifically to North Carolina. Mr. Wicker, you 

were talking about the 500,000-worker cap on this bill and how it 

really should be uncapped. I want to talk about specifically what 

is happening in North Carolina now. How many guestworkers are 

we using in North Carolina at the moment? 

Mr. WICKER. NCGA is not the only user of guestworkers in North 

Carolina. This year, it will be 10,000 maybe, out of a national total 

of 70,000 possibly. 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, those 10,000 workers, what percentage does 

that represent of the total amount of workers that we need in 

North Carolina to handle these agricultural jobs? 

Mr. WICKER. I think that represents in the range of 10 to 15 percent. 

Mr. HOLDING. Wow. And the folks who are making up the difference, the workers who are making up the difference, where are 

they coming from? What are they composed of? 

Mr. WICKER. I think that group is largely composed of undocumented workers. I mean, everybody is in agreement across the 

board that the overwhelming majority, somewhere between 50 and 
154 

70 percent, of migrant seasonal agricultural workers are undocumented workers. 

Mr. HOLDING. So if the program is capped at 500,000, we in 

North Carolina would need—you are saying 100,000 of those would 

have to come to North Carolina? 

Mr. WICKER. I think that is correct. 

Mr. HOLDING. And the rest of the States would just have to divvy 

up what is left, right? 

Mr. WICKER. Yes. 

Mr. HOLDING. Okay. 

A few other questions for you, Mr. Wicker. The concept of at-will 

temporary guestworkers enjoys broad support. What would be some 

of the advantages of hiring at-will guestworkers? 

Mr. WICKER. I think at-will, the concept here is largely borne out 

of west coast agriculture. And so the at-will provisions contemplate 

having a workforce that can move more freely from short-term agricultural job to short-term agricultural job. 

In North Carolina, we have an extremely diverse ag portfolio, 

and so we have been able to string a lot of different short-term jobs 

together, like tobacco, cucumbers, sweet potatoes. So our growers 

overwhelmingly prefer the contract provisions, because the margins 

are so tight on the farm, we want to know if we are going to the 

bank to borrow a million dollars in operating money and push our 

equity into the center of the table and plant these crops, that we 

want to know that we have workers who want to stay until the end 

of the harvest season. 

Mr. HOLDING. And you bring up a valid point, in that you might 

bring in a guestworker to work on a tobacco crop, but then that 

merges over into a sweet potato crop, and then before too long they 

have been here for a period of time that takes them out of the classification of being a seasonal worker, because they are working 

multiple crops. 

what are some of the complications there? 

Mr. WICKER. Well, the current program is capped at—in statute 

at a year, but in reg 10 months. Our growers have figured out a 

way to live inside the parameters of this program, so the longest 

workers that we have in North Carolina are 10 months. 

But agriculture is changing; it is consolidating. We are moving 

to year-round productions, especially in the Sun Belt States. And 

so we are going to have to move to a longer-term visa in the future. 

Mr. HOLDING. Are there any problems—I think under Obamacare 

seasonal workers are exempted from being covered by Obamacare, 

correct? 

Mr. WICKER. I was hoping you weren’t going to ask me a technical question about Obamacare. But, yes, as I understand, the two 

tests that you have to complete to decide if have you coverage, you 

have to have more than 50 permanent employees. So, you know, 

when you get into that longer visa—— 

Mr. HOLDING. They may very well be covered by it. 

Mr. WICKER [continuing]. They very well could be covered. 

Mr. HOLDING. That would add a significant cost to our farmers 

per worker. 

Mr. WICKER. That is absolutely true. 
155 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, I see my time is expiring. I am going to confer with my distinguished Ranking Member—ah. 

I will recognize the distinguished lady from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the members for their patience, that we were on the floor debating on a matter that caused 

me to have to run from the floor. And thank you for your courtesies. 

And I did not want to miss the opportunity, first of all, to thank 

the witnesses for being here, to acknowledge the legislation that is 

before us. 

I think, over the years, we have had, Mr. Chair, Congressman 

Lofgren work tirelessly on this with one of our former Members, 

Mr. Berman. And I think my good friend, Mr. Rodriguez, knows 

that we have been on a long journey. 

I cannot start any line of questioning without saying that the 

real commitment to the Nation is comprehensive immigration reform. And what I remember in terms of our work, with the years 

gone past, we worked on issues such as poor housing for farmworkers, poor health conditions, poor working conditions. We were 

just at the bare minimum of trying to create a decent way of life. 

And I am also reminded of the friendship of Cesar Chavez and 

Martin Luther King. It has been a long, long journey. 

And I, frankly, believe that if we look at this issue and do not 

provide a component that deals with the rights of workers, then we 

may be going in the same cycle again. 

So I just want to ask, Mr. Rodriguez—and I may have time for 

someone else—to be able to share with me your thoughts about 

whether there is a framework of protecting workers. 

And I want to ask sort of a pointed question, that farmworkers 

are everybody. If 500 American workers wanted to come and do 

that work, everybody is embraced as a farmworker. Is that not 

right, Mr. Rodriguez? 

If we fill up the whole needs of farmworkers with people who 

here in the United States—no one is making a decision to weed 

them out or not let them come or not let the farming industry recruit them. So let’s put that on the line, that the farm industry— 

we started as farmers. Obviously, people have moved to cities and 

moved into different capacities. But I don’t want it to be said that 

we either couldn’t find or we wouldn’t recruit individuals who are 

here in the United States. 

And so you might want to comment on that, but then the framework of the underlying legislation in terms of protecting workers. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Jackson 

Lee. 

You know, one of the reasons why we don’t feel that H.R. 1773 

really is the type of legislation that we are looking for here and 

why we have spent so much time sitting down with employer associations over the course of the last few years and months was to 

really design a program that ensured that the jobs of U.S. workers 

were protected, first of all, that it was very important to maintain 

their jobs, that they have an opportunity to maintain their jobs and 

the wage levels that they had, and that we would not utilize and 
156 

bring in guestworkers for the purpose of lowering those wages or 

deteriorating those working conditions. 

And what we find with H.R. 1773, that they take away a lot of 

those protections. My understanding is, via the legislation, there 

would be no paid transportation, inbound transportation, for workers that are brought in from a country to work here in the crops. 

And, as a result, it is very difficult for them to pay that money up 

front. They come from countries and from, more than likely, situations where they haven’t been working prior to that in terms of 

coming here. 

Somebody talked about housing a little bit earlier. It is important. I mean, here are the lowest-paid workers in our country, and 

where are they going to get money to pay rent, to find housing, especially in rural communities that already have a difficult time in 

terms of achieving that? So that without providing some type of 

housing or housing allowance, there is not going to be the opportunity for people to—we are going to go back to the camps that we 

found during the Bracero days and those types of things and reverting back forward. 

The enforcement mechanism is an issue of real importance to us, 

to make sure that there is someone that is going to be watching 

and observing and ensuring that all the parties are doing what 

they should be doing in relationship to that. 

And the wages is of utmost importance and ensuring that, again, 

we have a wage level that is set that is going to, again, provide 

those workers with what they deserve, what they should be paid 

to be able to work here, and that they are not utilized in a way 

to undercut what U.S. workers and what American workers are 

making at the particular farm where they are at. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just to follow up with one quick question, Mr. 

Gaddis. I am sorry I had a coughing spell here. I didn’t want to 

be unfair to the growers. And just this quick question. 

One of the things—I think what Mr. Rodriguez has indicated are 

issues that we need to work on together. One of things that will 

help you, of course, if our colleagues will allow the Affordable Care 

Act to stay in place, you will have some form of health insurance, 

depending on how we formulate the comprehensive immigration reform. 

But the question is—we respect the industry. It is an important 

industry for both the United States, the food industry, growers, 

farmers, and the world. Would you welcome some of the fixes that 

Mr. Rodriguez has talked about, housing and certain rights, so that 

you have a healthy and committed and dedicated workforce that is 

there for you when you need them? 

Mr. Gaddis? 

Mr. GADDIS. There are some distinctions to be drawn between 

the workforce that Mr. Rodriguez is involved with and ours in the 

meatpacking industry. I can tell you that ours are good jobs, goodpaying jobs that provide employees without a lot of education to become upwardly mobile. That is why meatpacking has historically 

been a first-generation job. 

We are, first of all, supportive of the initial 36-month length of 

stay. For us in the meatpacking industry and the coalition, the critical issue on that front relates to the subsequent stays of 18 
157 

months. It takes us somewhere between 4 and 8 months to teach 

someone a trade, teach someone a meaningful trade. And so, in 

order to get a return on that investment, we would need them to 

stay longer. 

And then the other thing that we would ask for is unification of 

family, spouse’s dependents, the opportunity for unification of 

spouse’s dependents. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you wouldn’t mind if—all of the witnesses 

wouldn’t mind if we improve this legislation or in comprehensive 

immigration reform put in some of the features that Mr. Rodriguez 

has spoken of. 

Mr. WICKER. I am sorry. I didn’t hear your question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That you wouldn’t mind fixing the legislation 

to put in some of the features that Mr. Rodriguez is speaking of 

to make it more palatable for the worker. 

Mr. WICKER. Let’s get together and talk about it. It is all about 

a balanced package. We have to take care of the workers. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Graham, before I am gaveled down? 

Mr. HOLDING. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But Mr. Graham can say yes or no? 

Mr. GRAHAM. Coming from the H-2B program, some of the things 

that we are talking about we were doing. So we have no problem 

with some of those provisions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for 

their indulgence. My time has expired. 

Mr. HOLDING. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. 

This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our witnesses for 

attending. 

And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(159) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
160 

Statement of Chairman Trey Gowdy 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

Hearing on HR. 1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act 

Thursday, May 16,2013 

We will now begin the Subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 

1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act. This legislation will 

provide American farmers with what they have asked for, 

needed and deserved for many years - a workable and fair 

guest worker program to help them grow and harvest our 

food. Of course, this benefits each of us. I congratulate 

Chairman Goodlatte for introducing this legislation. I thank 

my colleagues on both side of the aisle who have informed 

and instructed my understanding of the issues. And I thank 

farmers and others in the agricultural industry for helping me 

understand the challenges they face in meeting this issue of 

national interest. 

We would do well to place ourselves in the shoes of 

farmers because we sometimes lose track of what It takes for 

growers to actually put this bounty on the world's tables. We 
161 

lose track of what it takes for them to give us the safest, 

most efficient and most reliable agricultural system in the 

world. 

For those crops that are labor-intensive, especially at 

harvest time, hired labor is critical. At our February hearing 

on agricultural guest worker programs, I asked why the H-2A 

program was so underutilized. I noted that in the eyes of 

many farmers, the program seems designed to fail. It is 

cumbersome and full of red tape. Growers have to pay 

wages far above the locally prevailing wage, putting them at 

a competitive disadvantage against growers who use illegal 

labor. Growers are subject to onerous rules such as the 

"50% rule", which requires them to hire any domestic 

workers who show up even after they have unsuccessfully 

recruited for U.S. workers and their H-2A workers have 

started working. Under the H-2A program, growers can't get 

workers in time to meet needs dictated by the weather. And 

in the final indignity, growers are constantly subject to 

2 
162 

litigation by those who don't think the H-2A program should 

even exist. 

Growers need a fair and workable guest-worker program 

that gives them access to the workers they need when they 

need them, at a fair wage, and with reasonable conditions. 

And they need a partner in the federal government, not an 

adversary. Such a program will benefit not only for farmers 

but also American and foreign workers. If growers can't use 

a program because it is too cumbersome, none of its worker 

protections will benefit any actual workers. 

H.R. 1773, the Agricultural Guest worker Act, jettisons 

the dysfunctional features of the H-2A program and creates a 

new H-2C agricultural guest worker program that 

successfully meets the tests I laid out: 

10 The bill contains a streamlined petition process based 

on the H-1 B program and allows growers to hire 

guestworkers "at will" once E-Verify has been made 

mandatory. 
163 

• The bill puts the Department of Agriculture in charge 

of the H-2C program. 

.. The bill requires that growers pay guest workers the 

local prevailing market-based wage. It does not 

require growers to additionally provide free housing 

or international travel reimbursements to guest 

workers. 

.. In order to discourage frivolous and abusive litigation 

against growers, the bill allows growers and 

guestworkers to agree to binding arbitration and 

mediation of grievances. It also provides that H-2C 

workers are not eligible for taxpayer-funded lawyers 

under the Legal Services Corporation Act. 

• In order to prevent a labor force shock, the bill allows 

illegal immigrants to participate in the H-2C program 

just as can any other foreign nationals as long as they 

abide by the terms and conditions of the program. 

4 
164 

f 

I look forward to hearing today's witnesses and learning 

how H.R. 1773 would benefit them. I now recognize the 

gentlewoman from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Lofgren. 
165 

Statement of Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren 

Hearing on: H.R. 1773, the "Agricultural Guestworker Act" 

May 16, 2013 

I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy for holding this 

hearing on H.R. 1773-Chairman Goodlatte's "Agricultural Guestworker 

Act." As with the hearing we just had on Mr. Smith's "Legal Workforce 

Act," I understand this hearing is another in a series of hearings meant to 

examine what is broken in our current immigration system. 

Nowhere is evidence of that brokenness more evident than in our 

agricultural sector. We know from the countless hearings we have held on 

this topic that as much as 75% of the on-the-farm workforce is 

undocumented. 

That's an incredible figure. 

This situation is untenable for both farmers and farmworkers, who 

together provide an invaluable service to our citizens, our economy, and 

our country. They deserve a system that works. 

That is why it is so significant that just last month, farmers and 

agricultural trade associations from across the country and in every sector 

of the agricultural industry joined with the United Farm Workers to reach 

an historic agreement to reform our agricultural labor system. 
166 

The agreement they signed onto, which came after months of 

negotiations, is designed to provide a system that works for both growers 

and farmworkers. In doing so, it will help to support the millions of jobs 

that depend upon the agricultural industry and will prevent us from 

becoming increasingly dependent on food produced overseas. 

The agreement includes both an earned legalization program for the 

current undocumented agricultural workforce and a new visa program to 

address future farm labor needs. It is a sensible solution and T applaud all 

of the people who worked hard to make it a reality. 

Let me pause briefly to note that for years we talked about the former 

AgJOBS compromise that our former and beloved colleague, Howard 

Berman, played such a critical role in forging. After the AgJOBS 

compromise fell apart, it was unclear how the parties would be able to 

come together once more to find a mutually agreeable solution. 

Significantly, the proposal that the parties recently reached has even 

more support than the AGJOBS compromise. Today's agreement is 

supported by organizations representing larger farmers and small farmers, 

fruit and vegetable producers, dairy farmers, sheepherders, beekeepers, 

landscaping, and farm bureaus throughout the country. 

Over 70 different agricultural employer organizations support the 

agreement, including the American Farm Bureau, the National Council of 

Agricultural Employers, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 

2 
167 

USA Fanners (of which witness Lee Wicker is the Treasurer), the Western 

Growers Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the Western 

United Dairymen, fann bureaus across the country (including Georgia, 

Florida, and Louisiana), and even the Idaho Dairymen's Association. 

All of these organizations agree the current immigration system is 

hurting our agricultural sector. This is an opinion I share, and it's an 

opinion that I know is shared by the Chairman Goodlatte. His bill, I know, 

is a sincere effort to address that dysfunction. 

And I appreciate this hearing as a way of studying that proposal, 

while considering ways to fix our broken system. As this Committee 

prepares to enter the national discussion about reforming our immigration 

system, we will need to fully understand each aspect of a top-to-bottom 

reform of our system just as much as we will need to understand how each 

aspect is interrelated. 

I must admit, however, that I hope this hearing will help convince the 

Chairman and the other Members on his side of the aisle to accept and 

support the agreement that has been reached between the diverse coal ition 

of grower interests and the UFW. Considering the support for that 

agreement across all sides of the farming community, I'm not sure why we 

would craft something completely new and that is opposed by important 

members of that community. 

3 
168 

f 

T must also note at least two elements of that deal that will prevent it 

from ever becoming law. First, H.R. 1773 provides an opportunity for 

undocumented farmworkers to apply for the new temporary worker visas 

created in the bill, but those visas would only allow workers to remain here 

for a period of 18 months, even if they have been here for decades and 

have spouses and children in the country. 

The reality is that this proposal simply will not work. By asking such 

people to come out of the shadows, register, and obtain a temporary visa, 

we are essentially asking them to "report to deport." People will not come 

out of the shadows, and farmers will not have access to the stable supply of 

authorized workers that they need going forward. 

Second, H.R. 1773 would dramatically reduce wages and other 

protection for farmworkers, who are already the least-paid and protected 

workers in the country. Indeed, H.R. 1773 would create a program with 

lower wages and fewer protections than the Bracero program that is widely 

recognized as a black eye in our nation's history. 

The country needs us to find a solution to the agricultural labor 

problem. But 1 believe the superior solution is the landmark agreement 

between farmers and farmworkers. I am grateful to the United Farm 

Workers, the American Farm Bureau, and all of the other agricultural 

employers and associations for putting us on what 1 believe will be the 

right track. 

4 
169 

Opening Statement of Rep. Bob Goodlatte 

Chairman, House Committee on the JUdiciary 

Hearing on H.R. 1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

May 16, 2013 

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GOWDY. 

AS WE SEEK TO REFORM OUR IMMIGRATION 

SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, WE MUST TAKE THE TIME 

TO LOOK AT EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES 

WITHIN THIS SYSTEM TO ENSURE THAT WE GET 

IMMIGRATION REFORM RIGHT. FOR THIS REASON, 

I THANK THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN FOR 

HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING. H.R. 1773 IS A 

BILL THAT WILL REPLACE OUR OUTDATED AND 

UNWORKABLE AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER 

PROGRAM AND BRING US ONE STEP CLOSER TO 

SOLVING THE LARGER IMMIGRATION PUZZLE. 
170 

AS PAST HEARINGS ON THE H-2A PROGRAM 

HAVE REVEALED, FARMERS AVOID USING THE 

EXISTING AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER 

PROGRAM BECAUSE IT BURDENS THEM WITH 

EXCESSIVE REGULATIONS AND EXPOSES THEM TO 

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION. THE NEW GUESTWORKER 

PROGRAM CREATED UNDER THE AG ACT, KNOWN 

AS THE H-2C PROGRAM, REMEDIES THIS PROBLElVi 

BY STREAMLINING ACCESS TO A RELIABLE 

'VORKFORCE AND PROTECTING FARMERS FROM 

ABUSIVE LAWSUITS. IT ALSO ALLOWS DAIRY 

FARMS AND FOOD PROCESSORS TO PARTICIPATE 

IN THE PROGRAM. 

2 
171 

THE NEW H-2C PROGRAM WILL BE MARKETDRIVEN AND ADAPTABLE. IT WILL REDUCE 

BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE BY ADOPTING AN 

ATTESTATION-BASED PETITION PROCESS AND BY 

ALLOWING H-2C EMPLOYERS IN GOOD STANDING 

WHO AGREE TO ABIDE BY ADDITIONAL TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE 

DESIGNATED AS "REGISTERED AGRICULTURAL 

EMPLOYERS," FURTHER EXPEDITING THE HIRING 

PROCESS. MOREOVER, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN 

CONDITIONS, H-2C WORKERS CAN BE EMPLOYED 

UNDER CONTRACT OR AT WILL, MAKING IT 

EASIER FOR WORKERS TO MOVE FREELY 

THROUGHOUT THE AGRICULTURAL 

MARKETPLACE TO MEET DEMANDS. 

3 
172 

WE MUST ALSO LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES 

OF THE PAST. AS A RESULT, THE FOLLOWING 

PITFALLS OF THE H-2A PROGRAM WILL NOT BE 

REPEATED IN THE NEW H-2C PROGRAM: 

" THE AG ACT WILL NOT REQUIRE GROWERS 

TO HIRE AND TRAIN UNNEEDED WORKERS 

AFTER THE WORK PERIOD BEGINS; 

• THE AG ACT WILL NOT REQUIRE 

EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE FREE HOUSING 

AND TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR 

WORKERS; AND 

• FARMERS WILL PAY GUESTWORKERS THE 

TYPICAL WAGE PAID TO AGRICULTURAL 

EMPLOYEES IN THEIR LOCALITY, NOT AN 

4 
173 

"ADVERSE EFFECT" WAGE DREAMED UP BY 

LABOR DEPARTMENT BUREAUCRATS. 

HOWEVER, THE NEW H-2C PROGRAM 'WILL BE 

AT ITS CORE A GUESnvORKER PROGRAM. UNLIKE 

THE AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROVISIONS IN THE 

SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL, THE AG ACT DOES 

NOT CREATE ANY SPECIAL PATHWAY TO 

CITIZENSHIP FOR UNLA WFUL IMMIGR~NTS. THE 

BILL SIMPLY ALLOWS UNLAWFUL IMMIGRANTS 

TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW H-2C GUESTWORKER 

PROGRAM JUST AS OTHER FOREIGN NATIONALS 

CAN, PROVIDED A JOB IS AVAILABLE. THEY ARE 

REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THE EXACT SAME 

CONDITIONS AS FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL 

"VORKERS CURRENTLY WORKING LEGALLY IN 
174 

THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE 

REQUIREMENT TO LEAVE THE U.S. PERIODICALLY 

AND THE PROHIBITION ON FAMILY MEMBERS 

ACCOMPANYING THE WORKER. 

UNDER THE AG ACT, H-2C WORKERS CAN BE 

ADMITTED FOR UP TO 18 MONTHS TO WORK IN A 

JOB THAT IS TEMPORARY OR SEASONAL. FOR 

WORK THAT IS NOT TEMPORARY, H-2C WORKERS 

CAN BE ADMITTED INITIALLY FOR UP TO 36 

MONTHS AND UP TO 18 MONTHS ON SUBSEQUENT 

H-2C VISAS. AT THE END OF THE AUTHORIZED 

WORK PERIOD, AN H-2C WORKER MUST REMAIN 

OUTSIDE THE U.S. FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD 

THAT IS EQUAL TO AT LEAST 116 OF THE DURATION 

6 
175 

OF THE WORKER'S PREVIOUS STAY AS AN H-2C 

WORKER OR 3 MONTHS, WHICHEVER IS LESS. 

THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE STRICTLY 

ENFORCED. TO ENCOURAGE GUESTWORKERS TO 

ABIDE BY THESE RULES, A SMALL PORTION OF 

GUESTWORKERS' WAGES WILL BE HELD IN 

ESCROW UNTIL THEY RETURN HOME TO COLLECT 

THE WAGES IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. AND IF A 

GUESTWORKER ABANDONS HIS OR HER JOB, AN 

EMPLOYER \VILL BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WITHIN 24 

HOURS. WORKERS WHO DO NOT LEAVE THE U.S. 

\VHEN REQUIRED WILL BE BARRED FROM 

REENTRY INTO THE U.S. FOR FROM THREE TO TEN 

YEARS. 

7 
176 

AS A GENERAL RULE, THE PROGRAM WILL BE 

LIMITED TO 500,000 VISAS PER YEAR, ALTHOUGH 

INDIVIDUALS WORKING IN THE U.S. UNLAWFULLY 

WHO TRANSITION INTO THE H-2C PROGRAM WILL 

NOT COUNT AGAINST THIS CAP. 

FINALLY, THE H-2C PROGRAM IS FISCALLY 

RESPONSIBLE. H-2C GUESTWORKERS 'VILL NOT BE 

ELIGIBLE FOR OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES OR FOR 

MOST OTHER FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS. THEY 

ARE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL 

REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS - THE EARNED 

INCOME TAX CREDIT OR THE CHILD TAX CREDIT, 

8 
177 

f 

IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE EXAMINE 

SOLUTIONS TO OUR BROKEN IMMIGRATION 

SYSTEM METHODICALLY, FOR IF 'VE FAIL TO DO 

SO, WE RISK REPEATING SOME OF THE SAME 

MISTAKES OF THE PAST. I AM PLEASED TO 

WELCOME ALL OF OUR WITNESSES HERE TODAY, 

AND I LOOK FORWARD HEARING THEIR VALUABLE 

TESTIMONY. 

9 
178 

Testimony from Congressman Doc Hastings 

H.R. 1773, the Agricultural Guestworker Act 

Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security 

May 16, 2013 

I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for introducing HK 1773, the Agricultural 

Guestworker Act, as well as Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding today's 

hearing on this important bill. 

Agriculture, and in particular labor-intensive specialty crops, is the backbone of the 

economy in Central Washington and plays an important role in our nation's food supply 

Without Pacific Northwest growers, the United States would lose more than half of its apple and 

cherry production, more than 70 percent of its pear production, and more than 77 percent of its 

hops production. In addition to providing high quality products to Americans, many of these 

products are exported and contribute significantly to our agricultural trade surplus. 

I think that we all can agree that the H2-A program, which is currently the only option 

available to growers to bring in willing workers to complete these jobs, is completely 

unworkable. Time and time again, 1 have heard that the burdensome administrative process and 

the costs associated with it that have made the program too expensive and bureaucratic for the 

vast maj ority of growers to access. From the handful of larger growers in my district that do 

attempt to use the program, I have heard firsthand accounts of the costly challenges caused by 

ever-changing interpretations and enforcement by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the 

failure of growers to receive the number of workers they need, when they need them. I have also 

heard accounts that using the H2-A program has also made some growers targets for frivolous 

lawsuits - often funded at the taxpayers' expense through the Legal Services Corporation. 

The subject oftoday's hearing, the "Agricultural Guestworker Act," creates a new 

guestworker program that addresses many of the problems with the current H2-A program. It 

moves the administration of the program from DOL to the Department of Agriculture (USDA)-

an agency that actually understands the labor needs of farmers and nature of agriculture. It 

simplifies the requirements for employers to recruit U.S. workers and provides a deadline for the 

agency to respond to a grower's application, giving them certainty that they will receive the 

workers they need by the date they need them. It seeks to address the high wage concerns that 

has made the H2-A program uneconomical for so many, and eliminates the significant costs and 

bureaucratic headaches of the housing and transportation requirements in the current program. 

The bill provides legal protections for growers while maintaining the rights of workers by 

allowing employers to require as a condition of employment, that both parties agree to binding 

arbitration and mediation for any grievances. It discourages frivolous lawsuits, that target 
179 

employers who utilize the program by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to bring 

lawsuits against growers. 

Unlike the H2-A program, the program created by the "Agricultural Guestworker Act" 

allows workers to move from employer to employer under the terms of the visa. This portability 

option, when properly enforced to ensure that the workers are tracked and remain working only 

in agriculture, would provide critical flexibility to small and medium sized growers whose labor 

needs vary significantly from season to season. 

The" Agricultural Guestworker Act" also recognizes an important reality - it will take 

several years for a new program to be implemented, and during that time, growers must not lose 

access to their existing workforce or they will go out of business. Current workers will be able to 

continue to work in agriculture for two years until the new program takes effect, and then are 

permitted to participate once it is up and running. 

Unlike the Senate proposal, the legislation before you today includes a much more 

realistic cap of 500,000 workers. I am also pleased the bill provides discretion to USDA to 

increase the cap if there is verifiable need. Washinb>ton state's apple harvest is one of the latest of 

any crop nationwide, and is therefore especially sensitive to a cap that is set too low. 

There is much that I like in this bill. However, I do believe that there are ways that it can 

be improved. While T understand that Chairman Goodlatte intends for the wage section in the bill 

to be more market-based than the adverse effect wage used in the H2-A program, I encourage the 

Committee to consider providing further clarification to ensure that the wage calculations are fair 

and that our growers do not fall victim to unintended consequences. I also encourage the 

Committee to consider whether the initial contract requirement to bring in foreign workers is 

workable for small growers. 

In conclusion, I cannot comment on this legislation without talking about the overall 

issue of immigration reform. I have long believed that our immigration system is broken and that 

we need complete ref0n11 to secure our borders, end illegal immigration and create a workable 

guestworker program for agriculture. In fact, I voted against the border security-only bill that 

passed the House of Representatives in 2005 because it did not achieve all of these goals. 

The bill before you today makes critical improvements to our immigration system to 

provide our growers with the legal and willing workforce they need. However, even within the 

realm of agriculture, important questions like when the E-Verify Program would be made 

mandatory and trigger the portability visa option, and how to create an incentive for the current 

workers to remain employed in agriculture, are left unanswered under the assumption that they 

will be dealt with in separate legislation. This shows how interrelated the various issues within 

immigration refonn are. 
180 

f 

1 fully recognize the value of reviewing the complex issue of immigration reform in 

smaller pieces so that they can be properly vetted. It is vital to our nation's security and economy 

that we consider this issue in a thoughtful manner - and that we get this right, unlike reforms 

made in 1986, which have led us to the situation we are in today. 

However, when it comes time to pass legislation on the floor, I encourage you to move 

forward in a way that allows for a more complete bill to be sent to the Senate. In addition to 

creating a workable guestworker program for agriculture, we must act to secure our borders, 

improve enforcement of immigration laws on the books, and refonn our laws so that our nation 

is never again faced with millions of illegal immigrants. Sending immigration reform legislation 

to the Senate in pieces gives them the ability to move forward on some bills while leaving others 

behind - which would undermine efforts to fully address the many flaws in our immigration 

system that are negatively impacting national security and our economy. I t1nnly believe that 

there is a way to consider immigration reform in a thoughtful way that allows maximum input by 

members throughout the process while still sending complete immigration reform legislation to 

the Senate, and I would respectfully request that you work toward this goal. 

Once again, 1 would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte for introducing this important 

legislation, and Chainnan Gowdy and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding today's hearing. 

The lack of a workable guestworker program for agriculture has caused serious repercussions for 

my constituents, and your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. 
181 

Statement of the 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

SU1\Il'rn: o FOR THE RECORD 

I.IO USE J UDICIARY CO!\l!\lln'EE 

SUUCO,'lJ\ lITTEE ON IMMIGRATION & BORot:R SECU RITY 

u.s. UO USt: Ot' REPRES[NTATIV [ S 

HEARING RE: H.R. 1773, TH E " AGRICl IL T URAL GUESTWORKER Aero. 

May 16, 2013 

___ Mt __ I_OC_.' ...... _ I',.. __ , __ 
182 

The American Farm Bureau Federation appreciates this opportunity to submit a statement for the 

record on the Agricultural Guestworker HAG ,. Act (H.R. 1773). H.R. 1773 properly recognizes 

that America's farmers and ranchers need congressional action to ensure a legal and stable 

workforce and this legislation represents an important first step in the House of Representatives 

in addressing this issue. 

The labor shortage situation in agriculture has been a growing concern for many years and is 

moving toward a breaking point. Today. large segments of American agriculture face a critical 

lack of workers that undermines the competitiveness of our farms and ranches and threatens the 

abundant, safe and affordable food supply American consumers enjoy today. To ensure 

consistent delivery of high-quality food products, farmers and ranchers must have access to a 

stable, legal work force that is available when needed. More than one million workers are 

required to ensure that perishable, fragile crops, such as fruits and vegetables, are harvested and 

our cows are milked on time. 

Agriculture has long experienced difficulty in hiring sutllcient numbers of domestic workers 

who are willing and able to work on fanns and in t1elds. Jobs in agriculture are physically 

demanding, conducted during all seasons and are often transitory, conditions many U. S. residents 

seeking employment do not t1nd attractive. As repeatedly evidenced over the past few decades, 

there are some jobs in agriculture that most Americans simply do not want to do even though 

many of these jobs offer wages competitive with similar, non-agricultural occupations. 

It is for this fundamental reason that fanners have grown to rely on foreign workers, many of 

whom are of undocumented status; while some put the t1b'llre at more than 50 percent or even 

higher, in fact, the exact number is unknown. Farmers have done their best in the last two 

decades to work within the system Congress established in 1986. A few have been able to 

navigate the difficulties and expense of the H-2A program. Others have relied upon work 

authorization documents that in too many instances prove to be fraudulent. Unfortunately, while 

farmers and ranchers strive to ensure the workers they hire are legal and documented, federal law 

strictly bars them from questioning those documents. This combination of factors - a limited H2A program that is poorly run; demographic shifts; an aging workforce; and the likelihood of 

heightened enforcement - has forced agriculture producers to rely on a system that is near 

collapse and in dire need of refonn. 

There are numerous reports from all over the U. S. of crops left to rot in the t1elds because 

growers lacked sufficient workers to bring in the harvest. It is estimated that in California alone, 

some 80,000 acres of fresh fruit and vegetable production has moved overseas because of the 

labor shortage. 

In an etfort to achieve a lasting solution for current and future agricultural labor in the U.S., 

AFBF, as a member of the Agriculture Workforce Coalition (AWC), came together with the 

United Farm Workers (UWF) to negotiate a solution suitable for both agricultural employers and 
183 

fann workers. This agreement between the AWC and UFW has two components: it includes an 

adjustment for current, experienced, unauthorized agricultural workers and creates a new 

program to provide access to a legal workforce into the future. 

In the short-tenn, to preserve agriculture's workforce and maintain stability in the sector, 

undocumented fann workers would have the opportunity to obtain earned legal status by 

continuing to work in agriculture for several years. After this obligation is fultilled, these 

employees could obtain permanent legal status and the right to work in whichever industry they 

choose, including agriculture. 

To build long-tenn stability to meet future needs, a flexible agricultural worker visa program 

would be established to provide fanners and ranchers access to a documented legal and reliable 

workforce that meets the needs of all producers. This program would otfer both employer and 

employee choice and flexibility through two different work options: an "At-Will" visa and a 

"Contract" visa. 

• "At-Will" visa employees have the freedom to move from employer to employer without 

any contractual commitment, replicating the way market forces allocate the labor force 

now. 

• "Contract" visa employees would commit to work for an employer for a fixed period of 

time, giving both parties increased stability where it is mutually preferred. 

These three-year visas would be valid for employment with agricultural employers registered 

through the United State Department of Agriculture and are separate from the low-skilled worker 

visas available for the general business community's needs. 

"The AWC remains committed to the agreement on agricultural immigration refonn reached 

with the UFW. The principles of the AWCIUFW agreement will continue to guide our efforts as 

work on the immigration issue progresses in Congress. 

H.R. 1773 is the initial action taken to advance the immigration discussion in the House, 

reflecting an understanding of the issues facing the agricultural industry and taking positive steps 

toward ensuring agricultural producers have access to a legal, stable workforce. We appreciate 

that H.R. 1773 is reflective of some of the principles contained in the agreement, including a 

new two-pronged b'llest worker visa program that allows employers to hire foreign workers based 

on a contract or at-will; coverage of year round agricultural jobs, such as dairy and livestock; a 

longer visa than currently allowed in the H-2A; transfer of program administration to the USDA; 

and a more streamlined application and recruitment process. These steps are in agreement with 

AFBF policy set by our grassroots members and with the guiding principles set by our 

leadership, as well as with elements of the AWC/UFW agreement. 

3 
184 

However, there are provisions in H.R. 1773 that AFBF believes could be improved to better meet 

the needs of agriculture. First, AFBF has consistently advocated for a separate work 

authorization for experienced agricultural workers that are in undocumented status. Funneling 

these workers into the proposed H-2C program would allow those workers to continue to work in 

agriculture, but would require growers to comply with all terms and conditions of the program, 

including heightened standards that do not currently apply to this workforce. 

Second, the bill requires workers to return to their home country at least one-sixth the duration of 

their visa lenb>th. Touchback provisions are extremely disruptive to normal farm and ranch 

business practices and are especially burdensome for year-round employers who would be 

required to do without experienced and trained employees for three months at a time. Even with 

detailed business planning that incorporates complicated rotations of employees, losing 

experienced workers for an extended period is disruptive and impractical 

Third, AFBF has concerns about the design of the proposed at-will program. Farmers crave 

simplicity in procedures to secure short-tenn, seasonal employment. Requiring all employers to 

initially enter into contracts is concerning. We advocate that acceptance of a job otfer, whether 

under contract or at-will, provides the assurances that the visa workers have valid grounds to 

enter the United States, but isn't overly burden to those employers requiring more flexibility. 

We will continue to work as a resource in order to improve these elements and others that may 

arise through the legislative process. 

We commend Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) on his forceful advocacy over the 

years to help agriculture ensure a secure, legal workforce. As the process unfolds in the House, 

the AWC will continue to work with Chairman Goodlatte and other members to ensure that any 

legislation achieves a workable, flexible and market-based solution that addresses the labor 

needs of agricultural employers both in the short and long terms. 

We also note the subcommittee has heard from witnesses on the I,egal Workforce Acl (H.R. 

1772). This legislation deals with an enforcement mechanism, E-verify, that would greatly 

impact the agriculture industry. As we have indicated in the past, AFBF opposes immigration 

enforcement that does not include a worker program for U.S. agriculture. 

The effects of mandatory E-verify will go far beyond the farm gate as industry sectors upstream 

and downstream from the farm cope with tight supplies and increased costs when farmers have 

no one to harvest their crops. Each of the 1.6 million hired farm employees who work in laborintensive agriculture supports two to three fulltime Arnericanjobs in the food processing, 

transportation, farm equipment, marketing, retail and sectors. Mandatory E-Verify without 

workable labor solutions for agriculture puts these American jobs and the economies of 

communities across the country in jeopardy. 

AFBF supports a phase-in approach to E-verify for agriculture due to our industry sector's 

unique hiring circumstances, which often occur in remote rural areas. A rushed approach to 

4 
185 

Æ