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

58–410 PDF 2010

PROTECTING AMERICA’S HARVEST 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 

Serial No. 111–150 

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

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 ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JUDY CHU, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law .................................. 6 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 7 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and 

International Law ................................................................................................ 8 

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law .................................. 9 

WITNESSES 

Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., Professor, Vanderbilt University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

Mr. Phil Glaize, Chairman, United States Apple Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Mr. Stephen Colbert, Host, The Colbert Report, Comedy Central Studios 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

(1) 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S HARVEST 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 

(Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Conyers, Berman, Jackson 

Lee, Waters, Sa ́nchez, Gonzalez, Chu, King, Smith, Lungren, and 

Poe. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Subcommittee 

Chief Counsel; David Shahoulian, Counsel; Tom Jawetz, Counsel; 

Traci Hong, Counsel; Reuben Goetzl, Clerk; and (Minority) Blaine 

Merritt, Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Citizenship, Refugee, Border Security, and International Law will 

come to order. 

We realize that there is great interest in the plight of migrant 

farm workers in America, but we will ask that the press actually 

pull back from the table so that we can observe all four of our witnesses. If the press cannot do so, they will be asked to leave the 

room. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses, Members of the Immigration Subcommittee and others who have joined us today for the 

Subcommittee’s hearing on protecting America’s harvest. 

The American agricultural sector has long suffered from a lack 

of available U.S. Workers to grow and pick America’s fruits and 

vegetables. Even in today’s tough economic climate, whether we 

like it or not, an insufficient and continually decreasing number of 

U.S. workers are willing to fill manual agricultural jobs. America’s 

farms are dependent on a reliable workforce to produce our domestic food supply, and today’s farms are struggling to stay in business 

as a result of current labor challenges. 

Today’s hearing will explore the labor needs of our Nation’s agricultural sector, its attempt to recruit U.S. workers for agricultural 

labor, the problems with our current visa program for agricultural 

workers, and potential solutions. 

One explanation for why American workers may now be unwilling to engage in manual farm labor when they were willing to do 

so decades ago may lie in our improving educational system. In the 

2 

1940’s and 50’s, a full half of the native-born workforce did not 

have a high school diploma. Last year, that number was 5.7 percent. 

In any event, the difficulty in recruiting native-born workers to 

work on farms has been highlighted by the United Farm Workers 

Take Our Jobs, Please Campaign. The Campaign invites unemployed Americans to use the UFW’s assistance to obtain employment as farm workers. Yet according to the UFW, even in the period of high unemployment across all educational and socioeconomic sectors of our society, only seven U.S. workers have 

agreed to actually work in the fields as of today. 

I have been a long time advocate for farm workers and growers. 

When I was on the Santa Clara board of supervisors in the 1980’s, 

I worked closely with the United Farm Workers and the Farm Bureau. I spent time on many farms. 

Just recently at the invitation of the UFW, I spent the day picking strawberries at a farm near my district. The UFW also invited 

me to spend the day picking vegetables at a farm in New York with 

Stephen Colbert. I want to thank UFW’s President Arturo 

Rodriguez for bringing us together on this important issue. 

I would like to admonish the audience before I continue my 

statement that we need to maintain order and decorum throughout 

these proceedings, and to that end, I would like to remind all of 

the visitors in the audience that they should refrain from any manifestation of approval or disapproval of these proceedings or any 

other disruptive actions. 

If necessary, the Capitol Police are here to remove anyone who 

disrupts the hearing, but we certainly hope that won’t be necessary. 

Part of what I have learned over the years is that without a sufficient U.S. labor force, U.S. farmers have increasingly relied on 

undocumented workers. According to the Department of Labor, 

over 50 percent of all seasonal agricultural workers are undocumented. Experts believe that due to underreporting, that number 

may actually be closer to 75 percent. 

Critics argue that the shortage of U.S. agricultural workers could 

be solved by simply increasing wages and working conditions. As 

a long time and ardent supporter of farm workers, I would like 

nothing better. But we must also face the reality that the Nation’s 

growers compete with farmers from around the world in this increasingly globalized world. 

Increasing wages and benefits necessary in an amount necessary 

to attract millions of educated U.S. workers to the field would 

mean increased production costs that could render U.S. food products uncompetitive with imported products. American farms would 

then close, in turn, resulting in the mass offshoring of tens of millions of agriculture and related jobs. 

Indeed, this is already happening. Between 2007 and 2008, 1.56 

million acres of U.S. farmland were shut down. Many of these 

farms simply moved to Mexico where agricultural labor is more 

available. And when farms close, our country suffers. Not only do 

we lose the jobs filled by those who work in the fields, but we lose 

the millions of so-called upstream and downstream jobs connected 

to those jobs. Whether it is processing, packaging, transportation, 

3 

seed production, manufacturing, accounting, advertising, these jobs 

are overwhelmingly filled by U.S. workers. Yet these jobs disappear 

too when farms are closed. Economists believe that for every farm 

job lost, the U.S. loses another 3.1 complimentary jobs. 

Aside from the loss of millions of jobs, the closure of American 

farms endangers the Nation’s economy and national security. The 

truth is that our national security depends on our ability to 

produce a stable domestic food supply. Like oil, the more we rely 

on other countries for our food supply, the more we fall victim to 

an increased trade deficit, scarcity in times of drought, fluctuating 

external market prices, and political pressure. We would also increase the possibility of food-borne illness also and terrorist attacks 

through our Nation’s food supply. 

The plain truth is that food security is national security. America 

cannot afford to stop producing its own food supply, and we need 

the labor force to do so. 

Today we will hear from our panel of witnesses to better understand this complex and very important issue for Americans, American jobs, our economy, and our national security. 

People in the media spotlight have a special ability to focus public opinion on an issue, whether it is Bono talking about Third 

World poverty or Angelina Jolie advocating for protecting children 

against human trafficking, the power of media figures to use their 

celebrity to focus attention on essential public issues is well-known 

and well-regarded. 

I am happy that Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report has 

joined that group of celebrities who will use their media position 

to benefit others. As you can see from Mr. Colbert’s written testimony, he has taken the time to walk in the shoes of migrant farm 

workers, and he urges reform of our immigration laws. 

I am happy that the United Farm Workers helped introduce me 

to Mr. Colbert, who I had not met before, so we could spend a day 

on a farm together. His actions are a good example of how using 

both levity and fame, a media figure can bring attention to a critically important issue for the good of the Nation. 

I appreciate all of our witnesses’ efforts to be with us today and 

their leadership in this area, and I hope that together we can find 

solutions to these pressing problems. 

I would now recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Steve 

King, for his opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate being recognized. 

The thought that comes to mind as I listened to your opening 

statement is I wonder how the Eskimos got along all those centuries without fresh fruit and vegetables if it is a national security 

issue. 

However, before we start the testimony from the panel, I would 

like to focus my remarks on protecting American workers. 

Illegal immigration, the lack of enforcement of our immigration 

laws and today’s jobs depression have formed a perfect storm for 

hurting Americans. The most important duty of this Subcommittee 

is that we ensure our Nation’s immigration policy lifts up Americans, not holds them down. 

4 

I find it hard to understand why some people carelessly claim 

that Americans won’t do hard work. I find this claim insulting, as 

I am sure most hard-working Americans do. It is most insulting to 

those brave American soldiers who voluntarily risk their lives to 

defend our freedom and way of life every day, the men and women 

who take on terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, who trek for miles 

across the desert with 70 or more pounds of gear in 100-plus degree temperatures for about $8.09 an hour, and that includes the 

Marines. 

Make we should be spending less time watching Comedy Central 

and more time considering all the real jobs that are out there, ones 

that require real hard labor and don’t involve sifting behind a desk. 

If we did, we would realize that every day, American workers perform the dirtiest, most difficult, most dangerous jobs that can be 

thrown at them, from crab fishermen who venture out into some 

of the most roughest and most dangerous waters in the world, to 

the Joe the Plumbers of the world who many days would prefer the 

aroma of fresh dirt to that of the sewage from American elitists 

who disparage them even as they flush. These are real Americans 

doing real jobs, tasks that simply must get done. 

When American workers are treated with respect and paid for 

the labor, they will do any job and they will outwork anyone on 

earth. America’s spirit is hard-working, and so are the people that 

comprise this great Nation. 

Let’s move on to agricultural. I represent a rural district made 

up mostly of farmers and farm communities, and the people of 

Iowa know what it takes to manage and effectively run a farm. 

One issue with attracting more American workers to seasonal agricultural labor is that most migrant workers are consigned to perpetual poverty. I wish that the United Farm Workers Union today 

understood, as Cesar Chavez clearly did, the devastating impact 

that illegal immigration has on American farm workers. 

Of course, it is argued by Tom Vilsack, President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, that food prices would be three, four or five 

times more if it were not for illegal immigrant workers. This is blatantly false and can’t be supported by any data, and he doesn’t 

even bother to defend himself. 

Data from the Secretary’s own Department of Agriculture and 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that labor costs only represent 

6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh fruits and vegetables. You could double the pay of workers and see only a 6 percent 

increase in consumer prices. 

Highly respected agriculture economist Phillip Martin of the University of California notes that if there was a 40 percent increase 

in farm wages, the average household would spend only $8 more 

a year on fruits and vegetables, less than the price of a movie ticket. I am sure that most Americans would gladly pay $8 more a year 

in order to ensure a legal workforce. 

Cheap labor is just not worth illegal immigration’s cost to Americans as workers or as taxpayers. The reality is employers hire desperate aliens who will work for much less than Americans, driving 

wages down and making it impossible for American workers to 

compete. 

5 

As Ranking Member Smith has pointed out many times in the 

past, there are 8 million illegal immigrants in the workforce competing against the 15.4 million Americans who are officially counted as unemployed, which includes the 80 million who are simply 

not in the work force because they have dropped out and are no 

longer looking for jobs, and they are of working age. 

Americans have given up looking for those jobs because wages 

have been depressed and job opportunities eliminated by low 

skilled and very mobile immigration. The percent of teenagers who 

work has never been lower. Professor Carol Swain will testify today 

about the toll mass immigration has taken on minority communities. 

What is important to point out is that all of this started happening well before the recession. Professor George Borjas, now at 

Harvard University, did groundbreaking research on the impact of 

immigration in the 1980’s and 1990’s on low skilled American 

workers. 

Professors Andrew Sum and Paul Harrington and other researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University found in 2005 that, ‘‘Given large job losses among the Nation’s teens, 20 to 24 year olds with no 4-year degree, Black males 

and poorly educated native-born men, it is clear that native-born 

workers have been displaced in recent years because of immigration.’’ 

It is amazing to me that amnesty advocates simply ignore the 80 

million labor pool. We can either feed, clothe and house them, or 

put them to work to feed and clothe the world. 

The current economic crisis only magnifies the impact on American workers and families, but unless our immigration policies are 

changed, American workers and families will continue to be undermined even after the economy turns the corner. 

The Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an immigrant household without a high school degree receives over $19,000 in total government benefits more than they 

pay in taxes from Federal, State and local. 

Cheap labor. You know, I think about the day that I had to swim 

out into a sewer lagoon and dive into 9 feet of fluid to retrieve a 

pump. And when I think about the day that it was 20 below and 

I am in the water fixing a waterline, and the warmest place there 

was in the water. The work I have done in my life in the construction business and the work that we have put our workers through 

in and the pride with which they take means that it is an insult 

to me to hear that Americans won’t do this work. 

I can’t think of a job that I have not been willing to do, and I 

can’t think of a employee that I have had in over 28 years that refused to do the work that was necessary. Americans will do that 

work, but they wanted to be paid a respectable wage for it. 

I look forward to the testimony, Madam Chair, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

With the agreement of the minority, we are recognizing the author of the AgJOBS bill, Mr. Berman, for his statement, and then 

Mr. Smith and Mr. Conyers will give their opening statements. 

Mr. Berman. 

6 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thank you very much for holding a hearing which perhaps like few 

others will highlight the conditions of migrant farm workers in this 

country and turn attention to this critical issue. 

I thank both the Chair and Ranking Member of the full Committee for allowing me to go. This is an issue that I have been focused on for 40 years. In the last 10 years of each session, I have 

introduced bipartisan legislation to try and deal with this issue 

known as AgJOBS. 

Unfortunately, because I Chair another Committee, I have a 

hearing at 10 o’clock, and so I appreciate the courtesies extended 

to let me jump in line here. I am going to forego my prepared opening statement, but I simply must respond to the comments of the 

Ranking Member, my friend, the Ranking Member, on this particular issue. 

There is nothing that the Chair said, there is nothing implicit in 

the Take Our Jobs Campaign, explicit or implicit, that said Americans aren’t doing hard work. And if the gentleman from Iowa were 

deeply concerned about the conditions on the farms and the wages, 

I would have noticed more activity to ensure that a number of the 

laws that apply to all other workers in America apply with equal 

force to the people who pick our fruits and vegetables in this country. I would see an effort to push greater appropriations and greater funding for people to monitor the working conditions on our 

farms. I would see an effort to try and get the rights that all other 

workers have to collective bargaining extended to farm workers, 

who are excluded from our national collective bargaining legislation. 

The fact is that while Americans over and over again have shown 

both their courage and their willingness to undertake terribly difficult jobs, jobs that I would dare to say that people on this podium, 

including myself, would be very reluctant to take, study after 

study, including studies at the time of welfare reform where huge 

numbers of people were going to be forced off of the welfare rolls 

and in counties where unemployment was two or three times the 

average of the country generally, people would rather have no income and no welfare than take the back-breaking jobs that the migrant farm worker has to do every single day. 

There is a problem here. You can try and cheap-seat it all you 

want, but we know that were it not for immigrant farm workers 

in this country, there would be no seasonal fresh fruit and vegetable industry. 

I join the gentleman in wanting better wages and better working 

conditions, and we should do everything we can to try and improve 

that. But the facts are the facts. Study after study has demonstrated that these jobs are not taken by U.S. workers, even when 

unemployed, even when having no other significant means of support, and no rhetorical flourishes can hide that fact. 

I commend the gentlelady for holding this hearing. I want to pay 

a special recognition to my dear friend for a number of years, the 

president of the United Farm Workers union, Arturo Rodriguez, 

and the other witnesses as well, and I apologize for not being to 

stay. I hope to come back when my hearing is over, but apologize 

for not being here for the entire hearing. 

7 

I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. 

We would now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for his opening statement. He will be followed 

by Mr. Conyers and then just to keep it even, we will invite Mr. 

Lungren to have an opening statement and other Members will be 

invited to submit opening statements for the record. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. American workers face 

tough economic times. With unemployment almost 10 percent for 

the first time in a generation, jobs have become scarce and millions 

of families are hurting. 

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates there are more than 7 million illegal workers in the United States. Alexander Aleinikoff, 

Clinton administration INS official and now U.N. Deputy High 

Commissioner For Refugees calls it a myth that there is little or 

no competition between undocumented workers and American 

workers. 

This competition has had devastating effects on the most vulnerable of Americans. Over 32 percent of native-born workers without 

a high school degree are either unemployed, forced to work parttime, or too discouraged to even look for work. For native-born Hispanics without a high school degree, the rate is 35 percent. For native-born African Americans without a high school degree, the rate 

is 43 percent. 

We could make millions of jobs available to American citizens 

and legal immigrants if the Federal Government simply enforced 

our immigration laws. About half of agricultural workers are illegal 

immigrants, so that means that a substantial number of legal 

workers labor in the fields, perhaps as many as half. Certainly 

even more would take these jobs if the wages and working conditions were better. 

The most effective means we have to save jobs for Americans are 

U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement work site enforcement 

actions. Each time they detain and deport an illegal worker, they 

create a job opportunity for an American worker. Each time the 

Department of Justice sanctions an employer, it sends a clear message that the employment of illegal workers will not be tolerated. 

Unfortunately, this Administration is turning its back on American workers. Work site administrative arrests have fallen 79 percent since 2008. Criminal arrests have fallen 62 percent. It is hard 

to conceive of a worse time to cut work site enforcement efforts by 

more than half, and yet that is what the Obama administration 

has done. 

The Department of Homeland Security will tell you that they 

have increased the number of work site audits of employers. Employers consider the small fines just the cost of doing business. And 

what happens to the illegal workers? They walk down the street 

and take another job that could have gone to an American worker. 

Citizens and legal immigrants should not be forced to compete 

with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs. The Obama administration 

should put the interests of American workers first. 

Let me point out that one witness, Stephen Colbert, has shed 

some light on the issue of jobs Americans supposedly won’t do. A 

8 

few years ago when debating himself on his show, he asked, ‘‘Don’t 

we want to have cheap labor for all the jobs we don’t want to do?’’ 

He responded, ‘‘Yeah, unless you are an American landscaper or an 

American construction worker.’’ Then he added, ‘‘But I am an 

American TV host. My job is safe.’’ 

Millions of Americans wish they didn’t have to compete with 

cheap foreign labor and had such a safe job. Unfortunately, 17 million American workers are out of job or have given up looking for 

work. It is no laughing matter to pretend that Americans don’t 

want jobs. Pay them more if needed, but don’t insult American 

workers by telling them that the government cares more about illegal workers than U.S. citizens. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Conyers will be recognized for any opening statement he 

may wish to give at this time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This is so important here. I would like to propose to my good 

friend the Ranking Member Steve King that we form this Committee so that we can get everybody to work very quickly. Between 

you and I we could probably recruit hundreds of thousands of people and solve this problem, even though the farm workers couldn’t 

do it, and Senator Feinstein wasn’t too successful. You say it is 

pretty easy. So I would like to work with you on this. What do you 

say? 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your yielding to me. I actually recruited farm workers and hired them and paid them. So 

what I had to do was raise the wages and benefits in order to attract people. I know that people are migrant. The Okies went to 

California for jobs. So if you offer the wages and the market and 

demand will provide the value, then the workers will show up. The 

legal workers will show up. 

Mr. CONYERS. So the answer is yes? 

Mr. KING. I would be happy to do that. Hopefully we can consider that labor is a commodity, like corn or beans or tomatoes, and 

that the supply and demand establishes its value in the marketplace. 

Mr. CONYERS. And you wouldn’t have any objection to them 

being organized, members of a union? 

Mr. KING. I think here in America, if you want to market your 

skills and you are a legal worker, you do it the way you best can 

market your skills. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, fine. Thanks a lot. I will see you after the 

hearing and we will get started. 

Mr. KING. I look forward to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. And now to Stephen Colbert, who I enjoy and have 

for many years, I am so happy that you helped us fill the room. 

I haven’t seen this many cameras since when, Madam Chair? It 

has been awhile. 

Mrs. LOFGREN. Maybe it was impeachment. It has been a long 

time since we have had this kind of coverage. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is a haunting remembrance. 

Now, here is what I suggest so that our Republican colleagues 

can—we can get to the bottom of this. Mr. Colbert has presented 

9 

us with a fine statement. It will be entered into the record. He has 

got a huge march coming on October 30, Saturday, here in Washington, which many people are going to be at I know. I have got 

a very good feeling about that. I will be busy working in Michigan 

trying to turn out the vote. We have been having a very low voter 

turnout, so that is the only reason I won’t be with you in the 

march. 

But I would like to recommend that now that we have got all 

this attention, that you excuse yourself and that you let us get on 

with the three witnesses and all the other Members there. We are 

sure it will be shown on the show to night, and maybe Monday, I 

don’t know. You run your show, we run the Committee. But what 

do you say to that, Stephen? 

Mr. COLBERT. I am sorry, what was the question? 

Mr. CONYERS. You didn’t hear the question? 

Mr. COLBERT. I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. CONYERS. You don’t understand the question. The question 

was—— 

Mr. COLBERT. You are asking me not to talk? 

Mr. CONYERS. No, I am not asking you not to talk. I am asking 

you to leave the Committee room completely and submit your 

statement instead. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering, Mr. Colbert’s 

microphone isn’t on and he can’t be heard, but whether, having 

posed the question, we could listen to Mr. Lungren, and Mr. 

Colbert can ponder what you have said. I think many are eager to 

hear his comments. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is fair enough. 

Mr. COLBERT. Madam Chair, I am here at the invitation of the 

Chairwoman, and if she would like me to remove myself from the 

hearing room, I am happy to do so. I am only here at her invitation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. That is fair enough. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will now hear from Mr. Lungren, who will make an opening 

statement, and then in the interests of proceeding to our witnesses, 

we will invite other Members to submit their statements for the 

record. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I have been working on this issue for some 30 years. I confess 

that I was the Republican floor manager for the Simpson-Mazzoli 

bill. I thought at that time we had presented a reasonable solution 

to the problem of illegal immigration in this country. Unfortunately, while the legalization program, which was supposed to be 

a one-time only program was successful, there was a total failure 

with respect to enforcement. We also included in that law the SARAW program, Seasonal Agricultural Program and Replenishment 

Agricultural Worker program, both of which were riddled with 

fraud, which some of us suggested would happen when we opposed 

that section of the bill. 

Since that time and because of the lack of enforcement by the 

Federal Government, we have seen a continuation of the flow of ilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092410\58410.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
10 

legal immigration in this country so that it is of a larger dimension 

than it was back in the 1980’s. At the same time, we have the 

highest rate of unemployment, I believe in my adult lifetime, and 

in my district we have a higher unemployment rate than the State 

of California, which has a higher unemployment rate than all but 

two States. It is a severe problem. 

I have agriculture in my district and I have urban areas in my 

district. It seems to me that we ought to put all the facts on the 

table and understand that there are different segments of our economy, most of which, in my opinion, can successfully attract American workers. 

I see no reason right now for the presumed or the assumed lack 

of opportunity for African American young males in the construction trades. I see no evidence whatsoever that in the area of construction or landscaping there is a need for foreign workers. I think 

the intelligent thing for us to do is to establish laws which would 

allow us to look economic sector by economic sector and make a determination through our government as to whether or not there is 

a need for foreign workers. 

Now, I have never worked in the fields. I have worked on 

ranches, I have worked in construction, I have worked in shipyards. That is all tough work. I doubt it is as tough as the work 

I have seen the individuals in the farm fields do. It is really tough 

work. 

Being from California, I happen to believe there is evidence that 

we cannot attract sufficient Americans for agriculture purposes, 

and therefore I have always suggested we have to establish a program that works and that the American people determine through 

their elected officials the contours of, and then on an annual basis 

we make a determination as to how many people are needed in this 

country. 

But I am sorry my friend Mr. Berman has left, because one of 

the problems with his AgJOBS bill is that it grants people the path 

to citizenship who have been in this country illegally as a major 

tenet of this program. I don’t think that is necessary. 

The reason I say this is this: There is an essential notion in our 

society, I believe from the time we were on school yards and even 

before that, that cutting in line is unfair. And I have to ask the 

number of people from the sending countries who followed the law 

and did not come into this country illegally but wish to come to this 

country, what does it say to them that they get put behind those 

that were not following the law? 

So all I would say is this: I think we can reach a satisfactory conclusion to this if we recognize that enforcement in the past was not 

there and therefore encouraged continuing illegal immigration; a 

failure to have a workable temporary worker program has caused 

some of the problem that we have; and I think thirdly, that you 

do not have to have an amnesty component in a program. There 

are other ways we can treat people humanely and deal with this 

problem without that. Because I fear, Madam Chair, that if we 

have that as a component of any legislation we have, the American 

people will not support it and we will fail to deal with a real challenge that we have confronting us today. 

11 

Among all the issues that we have, we always see that we also 

have the backdrop of the threat of terrorism today. And I am not 

and never have suggested that most people who are here illegal are 

terrorists or there are a large number of them. All I say something 

the longer you have a porous border, the greater opportunity you 

have for terrorists to take advantage of that, and that is something 

we did not have to deal with, as we do today, we did not have to 

deal with in 1984-86 when we were dealing with the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation. 

Madam Chair, I thank you. I actually want to thank Mr. Colbert 

for bringing the attention to the question of workers in the field 

workers in the field. It is always tough to say anything to him because you are not sure what is going to happen in return or what 

will appear on TV, and I know he would never take anything out 

of context. So I guess I might as well quit while I am ahead. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, and your time has expired. 

I would like to introduce the panel of witnesses before us, and 

I will start by introducing Dr. Carol M. Swain. Professor Swain is 

currently a professor of political science and professor of law at 

Vanderbilt University and a member of the James Madison Society 

of Princeton University. She received her bachelor’s degree from 

Roanoke College and her masters from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. She holds a Ph.D. from the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and in 2000 she was awarded an 

MLS from Yale Law School. 

She specializes in race relations and immigration and is the author of several books, including her most recent, Debating Immigration, a collection of essays by Professor Swain and other scholars on contemporary immigration. 

Next I would like to introduce Phil Glaize. Mr. Glaze is a third 

generation fruit grower and former chairman of the U.S. Apple Association, a nonprofit membership association serving the interests 

of the entire American apple industry, and an active member of the 

Agriculture Coalition For Immigration Reform. 

U.S. Apple represents a $2 billion industry with over 7,500 commercial growers nationwide. Mr. Glaize’s family business grows, 

packs and ships apples for the fresh and processed markets and 

has been producing apples in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties 

in Virginia since the 1920’s. 

It is my pleasure to introduce our third witness, Arturo 

Rodriguez. Since 1993, Mr. Rodriguez has served as the president 

of the United Farm Workers, the largest farm workers union in the 

United States, founded by Cesar Chavez. A veteran farm labor organizer, he became active with the UFW’s grape boycott as a student in 1969. He holds a master’s degree in social work from the 

University of Michigan and has worked for the UFW since 1973. 

Mr. Rodriguez has over 35 years of experience organizing farm 

workers, negotiating union contracts and leading farm workers 

across the country for fair wages and working conditions. 

Finally, it is my pleasure to introduce Stephen Colbert. Mr. 

Colbert is the host and executive producer of the Emmy award and 

Peabody award winning series on Comedy Central, The Colbert Report. The series won the Peabody Award for Excellence in Broadcasting in 2008 and has garnered a total of 15 Emmy nominations. 

12 

Mr. Colbert and his writing team have won two Emmys for outstanding writing for a variety, music or comedy program. 

He recently traveled to an upstate New York vegetable farm to 

experience the life of a farm worker through the United Farm 

Workers Take Our Job Initiative, and he has also worked with the 

farm workers to try and publicize their Take Our Jobs, Please 

Campaign in the effort to highlight the shortage that we face. 

Now, each of you has prepared a written statement and that 

statement, those written statements, will be made part of our official record. At this point, we would like you to summarize your 

statement in about 5 minutes. 

There are little machines on the table. You can see right now 

they are green. When 4 minutes is up, they will turn yellow, and 

when 5 minutes is up, it will be red. At that point, we would like 

you to conclude, not mid-sentence, but sum up so that all of the 

witnesses can be heard and also so that Members of the Committee 

will have an opportunity to ask their questions. 

First we will go to you, Dr. Swain, for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF CAROL M. SWAIN, Ph.D., 

PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 

Ms. SWAIN. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to testify 

on this important issue. I speak today on behalf of millions of 

Americans who would like to see immigration laws vigorously enforced. 

I contend that America does not have a shortage of agricultural 

workers. Instead, we have a manufactured crisis by some who 

would like to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor, and in some 

cases, labor that bypasses also the H-2A and H-2B visa program. 

The H-2A program is for agricultural workers. The H-2B program 

is for non-agricultural, mostly low-skilled workers. 

Labor economist Phillip Martin, who has conducted extensive 

studies of farm labor in the areas of fruit and vegetable production, 

has found rising production in crops and stagnant wages for the 

workers. Meanwhile, the cost of household expenditures on fresh 

fruits and vegetables has remained constant. 

If there were labor shortages for agricultural workers, one would 

expect to find rising wages and more attractive working conditions. 

One would not expect to find unemployment rates of 10.8 percent 

in May and 7.9 percent in August. These unemployment figures indicate that there are native workers actively seeking employment 

in the sector that includes agricultural workers, forestry, fishing 

and hunting. 

The majority of agricultural workers have less than a high school 

education. They work under the most strenuous conditions. Consequently, there is a high turnover rate among these workers. Agricultural workers often leave the farms for other low wage-low skill 

occupations. There they compete directly with low-skilled Americans for a dwindling supply of low wage jobs. 

The UFW’s humorous Take Our Jobs Initiative entirely or perhaps deliberately misses the point. America cannot continue to 

bring in low-skilled guest workers to compete with the most disadvantaged Americans, the poor Whites, the Blacks, the legal HisVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092410\58410.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
13 

panics and other people that are here legally. Nor can it continue 

to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. 

Often surplus labor that starts in the field migrates into other 

industries. Without surplus labor, employers would be forced to pay 

higher wages and many would be forced to improve substandard 

working conditions. Instead of paying $8 or $9 per hour, employers 

might be forced to pay $12 or $13. Phil Martin shows that an increase in the wages of farm workers would not substantially increase the average family’s food bill. He estimated that the average 

family’s food bill would rise about $8 a year. 

The Take Our Jobs Initiative misses the fact that in some parts 

of the country, native workers have respectfully worked alongside 

immigrants. Yesterday, I had a conversation with a businessman 

from Nashville who ran a 1-year experiment in Helena, Arkansas, 

involving sweet potato planting and harvesting. 

Mr. Don Kerr of Kerr Industries invested over a quarter million 

dollars of his own money to help unemployed Americans get jobs 

in the fields in an area of the country where unemployment is 

around 40 percent for African Americans. His experiment involved 

H-2A workers, the agricultural workers that here on visas, and native-born Blacks, who were picked up from a central location. They 

were transported to the job site. They were provided with bathroom 

and lunchroom facilities and a decent wage. 

Mr. Kerr saw no differences in the quality of the work provided 

by the native-born Black American workers, and he concluded that 

American workers will do farm work if they had transportation and 

decent working conditions. Even though he had a program that 

was providing jobs for unemployed Americans, he could not get 

State or Federal agencies to make an investment in the program. 

He would like to see an independent farm service company created to stand between the workers and the growers. The agency 

would hire the workers, provide transportation in air conditioned 

buses, bathroom and lunch facilities, and would serve as a buffer 

between the agricultural workers and the growers. 

The UFW’s Take Our Jobs Initiative, in my opinion, has not 

made a serious effort to recruit American workers. This is a publicity stunt. 

We need to reform immigration. The rapid influx of cheap labor 

from foreign countries creates an oversupply of labor that works 

against the interests of native workers. It depresses our wages, it 

reduces our opportunities, and it deters employers from investing 

in native human capital. 

Compounding these problems, native-born Blacks and Hispanics 

suffer more than any other group. You can just look at their unemployment rates, and it is in my testimony. It is off the charts. This 

is a disgrace. 

Congress needs to do something about reforming immigration, 

and they need to protect the most disadvantaged Americans. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Dr. Swain. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Swain follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL M. SWAIN


CMS-1.eps
15 


CMS-2.eps
16 

Ms. LOFGREN. We will turn now to Mr. Glaize for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF PHIL GLAIZE, CHAIRMAN, 

UNITED STATES APPLE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. GLAIZE. Thank you, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member 

King, and distinguished Members of the Committee. 


CMS-3.eps
17 

I am honored to testify today on behalf of the U.S. Apple Association and the Agriculture Coalition For Immigration Reform. 

My name is Phil Glaize. I am a third generation fruit farmer 

with operations in Shenandoah and Frederick Counties in Virginia. 

Depending upon the time of year, we employ from 30 to 155 workers. 

The fact that I appear before you today as a farmer with Arturo 

Rodriguez, the president of the UFW, should send a very powerful 

message: American farmers and the farm workers have a common 

problem. 

Despite continued attempts at automation, apples still need to be 

manually pruned and handpicked. The work is physically demanding and a certain amount of skill is necessary. Apples bruise easily, 

and improper picking will greatly reduce the value of our crop. 

We need a reliable, skilled and legal workforce. Today, farmers 

are choosing between a reliable, skilled and illegal workforce or a 

bureaucratic unreliable H-2A program. Without a thoughtful Federal legislative solution, farms will fail. We will export U.S. jobs. 

We will import our food. 

Who is doing the work on America’s farms? Government statistics tell us that hired farm workers are over 80 percent foreign 

born and over half of those are unauthorized. Private estimates say 

that has many as 75 percent are unauthorized. Only 2 percent of 

America’s farm workers are coming in through the existing H-2A 

program. 

Many believe that native-born workers will harvest America’s 

specialty crops. However, the UFW’s Take Our Jobs Campaign is 

only the latest in a series of unsuccessful efforts in good and bad 

times in Michigan, in Washington, in California and elsewhere to 

recruit Americans into farm jobs. Those of us that are struggling 

to harvest our crops are not surprised that Take Our Jobs is only 

producing a handful of workers. It isn’t about hourly wages. 

Farm workers can earn more per hour picking apples than flipping burgers or stocking shelves in a big box store. The average 

picker on my farm earns $93 for a 9 hour day. The better ones earn 

more. But like so many agricultural jobs, picking apples is highly 

seasonal. It is out in the weather, it is demanding. 

I do have a picking bucket full of apples here. I invite every Committee Member, please, come down, put it on, understand what it 

is like to fill that thing 150 times a day. You go up and down a 

ladder. 

Most in this room would probably argue that our immigration 

system is broken. Some growers are trying to use the H-2A guest 

worker program, but face huge administrative obstacles and uncertainty. Just last month, apple growers in the Northeast had a near 

disaster when decisions by the State Department and the U.S. citizenship and immigration services put applications of hundreds of 

Jamaican workers in jeopardy just days before the grower needed 

them to start harvest. Members of Congress intervened, and the 

workers arrived at the last moment. A few more days of inaction 

could have meant losses estimated at $95 million for the affected 

growers. 

From a user standpoint, the H-2A program is a mess. The choice 

between using the dysfunctional H-2A program or hiring workers 

18 

whose documents look good but may not be is untenable. In the 

U.S., we have a short window of a couple months to get about 200 

million bushels of apples off the trees. As the apples ripen, there 

is about a 5-day window to pick them at the proper maturity. Different varieties and strains allows us to manage the harvest timing 

over the course of 8 to 10 weeks. A delay in arrival of workers has 

a domino effect that leads to overripe fruit, fruit on the ground and 

financial loss. 

What is most worrisome to me as a grower is the reality that we 

could lose a large portion or even a whole crop if willing and an 

able pickers are not available. At harvest time, all but the picking 

costs have been invested. Our lines of credit are fully utilized. We 

have a leveraged investment that must be converted to cash. If we 

lose apples to the ground due to a lack of pickers, we could easily 

be forced to liquidate part of the farm to pay our lenders. This can 

happen to me quickly and without warning. One year is all it will 

take. 

The threat of losing farms and all the jobs dependent upon them 

is real and worsening in the face of congressional inaction. At least 

80,000 acres of high value vegetable production have left Arizona 

and California for Mexico. Seventy-seven percent of Texas vegetable producers report scaling back due to labor shortfalls. Florida 

tomatoes and oranges are moving to Mexico and Brazil. 

China has requested access to our market for fresh apples, and 

they already produce over one-half the world’s apples. If the U.S. 

apple industry is starved for labor, the Chinese are ready to step 

in and supply our apples. 

In the face of a crisis retrieving lost production will not happen 

quickly. 

Specialty crop production is extremely risky. Average profitability doesn’t really give a proper return, given the risk that we 

take. For most of us, the reasons we stay in it are not economical. 

A major life goal for me is to provide jobs for as many people as 

possible. I am compelled to be able to pass on our farm to someone 

who will take it. Labor shortages are not going to find me a willing 

buyer. 

It is a serious economic problem that Congress has not addressed 

for far too long. Now is the time. I am extremely supportive of 

AgJOBS legislation. Comprehensive reform may be too politically 

charged right now. Please focus on AgJOBS and get it passed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaize follows:] 

19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHIL GLAIZE


PG-1.eps
20 


PG-2.eps
21 


PG-3.eps
22 


PG-4.eps
23 


PG-5.eps
24 


PG-6.eps
25 


PG-7.eps
26 


PG-8.eps
27 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will turn now to Mr. Rodriguez. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member King, and 

all the Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and for 

inviting us. My name is Arturo Rodriguez, and I am president of 

the United Farm Workers of America. 

And joining with me today are five farm workers that I would 

like to ask them to stand up and then raise their hands when I 

mention their names. 

Isabel Rojas has 40 years working in the fields. She started at 

age 12. Rogelio Luna started at age 16, has 46 years working in 

the fields. Amparo Flores, started at 14, 33 years working in the 

fields. Teresa Serrano, started at 14, working 43 years in the fields. 

Alfredo Zamora, 17 started working, and has 34 years working in 

the fields. 

Very proud to be with all of them here today. 

Today, across America, the harvest season is reaching its peak. 

More than a million men, women, and children are toiling in our 

Nation’s fields, producing our fruits and vegetables and caring for 

our livestock. 

Most Americans have the luxury to operate in ignorance or denial about how the food we eat gets on our tables. Agriculture in 

the United States is dependent on a hardworking, dedicated, taxpaying, immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all farm workers 

are born outside the country today. These are the facts. 

America needs these workers. Everyone in this room is directly 

sustained by their labors every day. If you had a glass of Florida 

orange juice with your breakfast this morning, it is almost certain 

the oranges that went into that juice were picked but unauthorized 

workers. If you had milk on your cereal, it is likely that the workers who milked the cows didn’t have the right papers. When we sit 

down every day to give thanks for our many blessings, most of the 

food on your table has been harvested and cared for by unauthorized workers. 

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

in 2010 is not an easy one. Most farm workers live in poverty, endure poor working conditions, and receive no government assistance. Undocumented farm workers take jobs other Americans won’t 

do, for pay other American workers won’t accept, and under conditions other Americans won’t tolerate. 

Who is to blame? It is not the farm workers’ fault that 15 States 

do not even provide the basic protection of workers’ compensation 

if they are injured at work. It is not the farm workers’ fault that, 

more than 70 years after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, farm workers still do not have a right to organize. It is 

not the farm workers’ fault that, year after year, farm labor contractors violate the laws with impunity while the growers who employ the contractors avoid the responsibility for those workers. 

Our society places all the risk and cost associated with the seasonal industry, featuring millions of short-term jobs, on the backs 

28 

of the worker. For example, if there is a freeze, as occurred many 

times recently in Florida, thousands of workers are left without 

work. There is no unemployment assistance for those workers during that particular period. Furthermore, if a worker is injured, oftentimes there is no real recourse, there is no access to worker 

compensation. 

So we, the United Farm Workers, initiated the Take Our Jobs 

campaign, and we did invite citizens and legal residents to apply 

for jobs on farms across the country to supply our homes, restaurants, and workplace cafeterias, including those in our Nation’s 

capital, with the food that fuels the people of this great Nation. 

Since June the 24th, we received 8,600 inquiries through our 

Web site, takeourjobs.org, but only seven people have accepted 

those jobs on a full-time basis and continue to work in agriculture. 

Indeed, if we deported all undocumented farm workers here now, 

the government estimates U.S. agriculture would need to hire at 

least 1 million citizens or legal residents to replace the immigrant 

laborers. A mass deportation of agriculture workers would cause 

the collapse of the agricultural industry as we know it. And we feel 

that would have a severe impact on maintaining a very much-needed industry in our society today, as well as providing American 

consumers with safe food. 

We continue our work. We urge that AgJOBS be passed here by 

the Congress, that you seriously look at that and giving legal status to those form workers that are here today. The growers, the 

employers, the agricultural industry is asking for a secure farm 

labor force. We think it is the obligation of this Committee, as well 

as this Congress, to take action immediately on that issue. 

Now is the time for Congress to acknowledge its role in creating 

what exists today as our current farm labor crisis and to offer a 

real and lasting solution. It is time to acknowledge the dignity of 

the current farm labor workforce and ensure the safety and abundance of America’s food supply by passing the AgJOBS bill. A failure to do so would be both a human and economic tragedy. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ


ASR-1.eps
30 


ASR-2.eps
31 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now we will turn to our—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, could I just say that, after listening to Dr. Carol Swain, I withdraw my previous request that I 

had made to Stephen Colbert. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

And we will turn now to Mr. Colbert for his 5 minutes of testimony. 


ASR-3.eps
32 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, 

THE COLBERT REPORT, COMEDY CENTRAL STUDIOS 

Mr. COLBERT. Good morning. My name is Stephen Colbert, and 

I am an American citizen. It is an honor and a privilege to be here 

today. 

Congresswoman Lofgren asked me to share my vast experience 

spending 1 day as a migrant farm worker. I am happy to use my 

celebrity to draw attention to this important, complicated issue. 

And I certainly hope that my star power can bump this hearing all 

the way up to C-SPAN1. 

As we have heard this morning, America’s farms are presently 

far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables. Now, the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits 

and vegetables. And if you look at the recent obesity statistics, you 

will see that many Americans have already started. 

Unfortunately, my gastroenterologist, Dr. Eichler, has informed 

me in no uncertain terms that they are a necessary source of 

roughage. As evidence, I would like to submit a video of my 

colonoscopy into the congressional record. 

Now, we all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. After all, it was the 

ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids. But this is 

America. I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it 

picked by an American—then sliced by a Guatemalan and served 

by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian. 

Because my great-grandfather did not travel across 4,000 miles 

of the Atlantic Ocean to see this country overrun by immigrants. 

He did it because he killed a man back in Ireland. That is the 

rumor. I don’t know if that is true. I would like to have that stricken from the record. 

So, we do not want immigrants doing this labor. And I agree 

with Congressman King, we must secure our borders. Of course, I 

am sure Arturo Rodriguez is saying, ‘‘Who, then, would pick our 

crops, Stephen?’’ First of all, Arturo, don’t interrupt me when I am 

talking; that is rude. Second, I reject this idea that farm work is 

among the semi-mythical jobs that Americans won’t do. Really? No 

Americans? 

I did, as part of my ongoing series ‘‘Steven Colbert’s Fall-Back 

Position,’’ where I try other jobs and realize that mine is way better. I participated in the UFW’s Take Our Jobs campaign, one of 

only 16 people in America to take up the challenge. Though, that 

number may increase in the near future, as I understand many 

Democrats may be looking for work come November. 

Now, I will admit, I started my workday with preconceived notions of migrant labor. But after working with these men and 

women, picking beans, packing corn for hours on end, side by side, 

in the unforgiving sun, I have to say—and do I mean this sincerely—please don’t make me do this again. It is really, really 

hard. 

For one thing, when you are picking beans you have to spend all 

day bending over. It turns out—and I did not know this—most soil 

is at ground level. If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we 

make the Earth waist-high? Come on, where is the funding? 

33 

This brief experience gave me some small understanding of why 

so few Americans are clamoring to begin an exciting career as a 

seasonal migrant fieldworker. So, what is the answer? Now, I am 

a free-market guy. Normally, I would leave this to the invisible 

hand of the market. But the invisible hand of the market has already moved over 84,000 acres of production and over 22,000 farm 

jobs to Mexico and shut down over a million acres of U.S. farm 

land due to lack of available labor, because, apparently, even the 

invisible hand doesn’t want to pick beans. 

Now, I am not a fan of the government doing anything. But I 

have to ask, why isn’t the government doing anything? Maybe this 

AgJOBS bill would help. I don’t know. Like most Members of Congress, I haven’t read it. But maybe we could offer more visas to the 

immigrants, who, let’s face it, will probably be doing these jobs 

anyway. 

And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse 

if they are abused. And it just stands to reason to me that, if your 

coworker can’t be exploited, then you are less likely to be exploited 

yourself. And that, itself, might improve pay and working conditions on these farms, and eventually Americans may consider taking these jobs again. 

Or maybe that is crazy. Maybe the easier answer is just to have 

scientists develop vegetables that pick themselves. The genetic engineers over at Fruit of the Loom have made great strides in 

human-fruit hybrids. 

The point is we have to do something, because I am not going 

back out there. At this point, I break into a cold sweat at the sight 

of a salad bar. 

I thank you for your time. Again, it is an honor, a privilege, and 

a responsibility to be here. I trust that, following my testimony, 

both sides will work together on this issue in the best interest of 

the American people, as you always do. 

I am now prepared to take your questions and/or pose for pictures for the grandchildren. I yield the balance of my time. USA— 

number one! 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Colbert follows:] 

34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN COLBERT


SC-1.eps
35 


SC-2.eps
36 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Thanks to all of the witnesses for their testimony. 

We will now begin questions of any of our witnesses. And we will 

begin—if Mr. Conyers is ready at this time, I will recognize Mr. 

Conyers for his questions for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 


SC-3.eps
37 

I appreciate all the testimony of all the witnesses. 

I have to observe that Mr. Colbert’s submitted statement was 

considerably different from the one that he presented, but that is 

a small detail. 

Dr. Carol Swain, you have written and studied about this subject 

quite a bit. And what I am interested in knowing is—you spoke of 

a conversation you had with a grower who had a program to provide jobs to African Americans. But, in your written testimony, you 

state that he closed the program because he couldn’t get Federal 

or State agencies to invest money. 

Now, what it sounds like to me is that the grower couldn’t make 

it profitable without government investment, right? 

Ms. SWAIN. He invested a quarter of a million dollars of his own 

money. And he has worked with Blanche Lincoln and other Members of Congress on these agriculture issues. He is very much—this 

is a White man. He is very much involved—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yeah, but he couldn’t get enough money. 

Ms. SWAIN. He is very much involved in issues affecting people 

that are disadvantaged—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I know he is a good guy, but he couldn’t get 

enough money, right? 

Ms. SWAIN. He could not get—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Is that right or wrong? 

Ms. SWAIN.—State, local, or Federal officials to invest in a program that was providing employment—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Right. 

Ms. SWAIN [continuing]. For Americans. 

Mr. CONYERS. He couldn’t get enough money, right? 

Ms. SWAIN. I don’t understand your point. 

Mr. CONYERS. You don’t have to understand the point. Is it right 

or wrong? 

Ms. SWAIN. It is the responsibility—— 

Mr. CONYERS. He didn’t get enough money, and that is why he 

went out of business, even though he invested a lot of his money, 

he was a good guy—— 

Ms. SWAIN. He didn’t go out of business. Kerr Industries is a 

very well-known, profitable company. He didn’t go out of business. 

He is a Nashville businessman. 

Mr. CONYERS. But he closed the program. 

Ms. SWAIN. He closed the program or he—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Why? 

Ms. SWAIN [continuing]. Sold the program in Arkansas. 

Mr. CONYERS. Why did he close it? 

Ms. SWAIN. Because he could not get Members of Congress and 

State and local officials to be interested in the plight of disadvantaged Americans. And so he spends his energies in other places. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you really know that? I mean, I don’t know 

anybody on this Committee and not too many in the Congress that 

aren’t—— 

Ms. SWAIN. Mr. Conyers, you should read my book—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, please. 

Ms. SWAIN [continuing]. Especially the chapter on the Black Caucus and how they are not representing African-American interests 

on this particular issue. 

38 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am glad Maxine Waters isn’t here today. 

Boy, oh, boy. 

Well, the point that really this discussion comes down to is that 

Dan Lungren, my dear friend from California, former attorney general, he doesn’t like the Berman bill, but he doesn’t have a bill. 

Steve King and I are forming a committee afterward to make sure 

that—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield, I do have a bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you do have a bill? Oh, thank you. What is 

the number? Well, we will find it. If you say you have one, your 

word is your bond. 

But Steve King and I are forming a committee to recruit people. 

And, Dr. Swain, now, you are from Vanderbilt. You must know 

that only 4 percent of the people doing this kind of stoop labor are 

African Americans, right? 

Ms. SWAIN. If Americans are—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Right or wrong? 

Ms. SWAIN [continuing]. Not doing these jobs, it is because they 

are not paying that much. The American workers are being undercut by the surplus of cheap labor. And there are people that prefer 

the cheap labor to paying a decent wage to American workers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I presume you are saying ‘‘yes.’’ 

Ms. SWAIN. I am not in a court of law, so I don’t have to say ‘‘yes’’ 

or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, okay. And you are not under oath either. 

Well—— 

Ms. SWAIN. But I do hope that you all would look at Mr. Kerr’s 

suggestions. He has been a grower, you know, probably for 30 or 

40 years, and he has the industry, and he has made some suggestions that I think that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, have you looked at Mr. Rodriguez’s suggestions? 

Ms. SWAIN. I have read everyone’s testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what do you think of his? He is representing 

all those fine people with the red shirts that are sitting in back of 

you. What do you think of his position? 

Ms. SWAIN. I would like nothing better than to see farm workers 

well-paid and have decent working conditions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course not—of course you do. But what do you 

think of Rodriguez’s position? Are you in agreement with him? 

Ms. SWAIN. As long as there are unemployment figures, right 

now for August, 7.9 percent unemployment in the agricultural sector, I cannot agree that there is a shortage of workers. I do believe 

that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I am going to close, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. But could I invite you to join me and Mr. King on 

this committee since it is—— 

Ms. SWAIN. I would love to work on these immigration issues—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Would you join our committee after the hearing? 

Ms. SWAIN [continuing]. Because I represent the American people. I am not a Member of Congress, but I represent the American 

people. I would love to work with you all. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

39 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And the Ranking Member has asked that we go 

next to Mr. Smith, who will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Swain, thank you for your excellent testimony. And thank 

you for trying to answer all the questions that you have been 

asked. 

I have a couple of more questions, and the first is this: Why 

aren’t the interests of the American people being better represented? 

Ms. SWAIN. Well, I think it is because the American people are 

not organized in lobbies. And most of them are trying to make a 

living, and so they are not in the pressure groups that seem to 

have the most influence over Members of Congress. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And you mentioned or referred in your testimony to the danger of, sort of, what we might call ‘‘chain guest 

workers.’’ And if they come in and are allowed to stay, they are 

going to probably take another job at a higher pay as soon as they 

can. What are the consequences of that? 

Ms. SWAIN. Well, I mean, it is pretty clear that, in some areas 

of the country, African Americans, they work in hotels, they work 

in restaurants, they do yard work, they do that. There is a displacement of American workers. And whenever there is a crackdown, all of those jobs that we are told that Americans will not 

take, you see thousands of Americans—hundreds of them lining up 

to take those jobs. 

And so, there are employers that would prefer immigrant labor 

because it is easier to exploit that labor. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Swain. 

Mr. Colbert, I would like to ask you a couple of questions, if I 

could. 

First of all, let me say that I think you made some good points, 

particularly about Democrats in November and particularly about 

the need for Members of Congress to read bills. I hope our Democratic congressional leadership was listening to you. 

It so happens that I am going to take that as an endorsement 

of the Republicans’ pledge to Americans, because we have a provision in there that requires the leadership to give 72 hours of notice 

of any bill that we have before we vote on it on the House floor. 

Let me give you a second opportunity to be a little bit more serious, because I know you do take this subject seriously. And I would 

like to ask you about your experience when you worked for 1 day 

in the field in upstate New York. 

How many other workers were there with you that day? 

Mr. COLBERT. I didn’t take a count. I am not good with math. I 

would say 50. 

How many people were out in the field? 

About 100 people were out there on the field. 

Mr. SMITH. How many of those individuals were illegal, and how 

many were legal? 

Mr. COLBERT. I didn’t ask them for their papers, though I had 

a strong urge to. 

40 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. We assume that, if you don’t know they were 

illegal, there might well have been legal workers there. Is that correct? 

Mr. COLBERT. I don’t know. I have no idea. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, if you don’t know, then it is hard to say that 

they were all illegal workers. My point being that if some of them 

were legal—and I presume they were—that does show that Americans are willing to do those jobs. 

Do you know how much those workers were paid? 

Mr. COLBERT. I don’t know—even if they were legal, I don’t know 

if they were American citizens. 

Mr. SMITH. You don’t know what? 

Mr. COLBERT. Even if they were legal, I don’t know if they were 

American citizens. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, my question was, do you know how much 

they were paid by the hour? 

Mr. COLBERT. I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t do a good 

enough job to get paid, so I can’t compare my salary to anyone. 

Mr. SMITH. Ah, right. 

Mr. COLBERT. I was actually asked to leave. 

Mr. SMITH. Gosh. Well, to me, how much they get paid is a pretty serious subject. And if they need to get paid more for us to attract American workers, we should, I think, do so. 

I know you are an expert comedian. I know you are an expert 

entertainer. I know you have a great sense of humor. But would 

you call yourself an expert witness when it comes to farm labor 

issues or not? 

Mr. COLBERT. I believe I was invited here today by the congresswoman because I was one of the 16 people who took the United 

Farm Workers up on the experience—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. COLBERT [continuing]. Of having migrant farm work for a 

single day. 

Mr. SMITH. Does that—— 

Mr. COLBERT. And if there are other Members of the Committee 

who did that, then there is no purpose of me being here. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Does 1 day in the field—— 

Mr. COLBERT. But if there isn’t, then I might be able to give you 

some insight. 

Mr. SMITH. Does 1 day working in the field make you an expert 

witness? 

Mr. COLBERT. I am sorry? I can’t hear you. 

Mr. SMITH. Does 1 day working in the field make you an expert 

witness, do you think? 

Mr. COLBERT. I believe 1 day of me studying anything makes me 

an expert at something. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that to say, it is more work than you have ever 

done before, right? 

Mr. COLBERT. Excuse me? 

Mr. SMITH. It is more work than you have ever done before—— 

Mr. COLBERT. It is certainly harder work than this. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. Is it harder work than the comedy show? 

Mr. COLBERT. Excuse me? 

Mr. SMITH. Is it harder work than the comedy show? 

41 

Mr. COLBERT. Absolutely harder than punditry. 

Mr. SMITH. And you don’t want to return to it. Okay. 

Mr. COLBERT. I will never—I don’t even want to watch ‘‘Green 

Acres’’ anymore. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, like I say, I am happy you are here. 

Mr. COLBERT. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I do think you have made some good points. But—— 

Mr. COLBERT. By the way, I do endorse your policies. I do endorse Republicans. You asked me if I endorse Republican policies, 

and I do endorse all Republican policies without question. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Including the requirement that Members have 

72 hours before we vote on it? 

Mr. COLBERT. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your endorsement of the ‘‘Pledge to 

America.’’ 

And, Madam Chair, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

I would turn now to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, for her 5 minutes of questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is 

a crucial hearing because I think it involves constitutional principles of the equality and justice that we demand in this Nation. 

And I thank the witnesses for their presence here today. 

I want to say to Dr. Swain—and I don’t disagree with you—that 

this Nation should not turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. In 

fact, we should engage. And, frankly, for almost a decade, in my 

tenure in this Congress, we have tried to fairly engage in the question of illegal immigration by putting forward a plan of comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the question of a process, 

if you will, of access to citizenship. 

Lamar Smith and I, over the years, have talked about the importance of providing a widespread view of Americans and creating 

jobs and ensuring that there is an investment in the skills of Americans. And so we probably don’t disagree on that. 

We find ourselves, however, in the political climate where, if 

right was right and truth was truth, we could not find on this Committee a bipartisan pathway to be able to effectively deal with fixing the immigration system, doing some of the things that you 

have said, which means that we could, in fact—Members of this 

side of the aisle have agreed that we could take some of those fees 

and invest in training, for example. We did that, training nurses, 

training farm workers maybe, training others that happen to be, as 

you have declared, people here in the United States. 

So we wish we could take up your challenge, because that would 

be the right thing to do. But we find ourselves in a dilemma where 

we can’t get anyone that is on the other side of the aisle to look 

reasonably at the crisis that we face. 

To Mr. Colbert, let me say to you, your last sentence in your testimony you submitted is something I agree with: ‘‘They say that 

you truly know a man after you have walked a mile in his shoes, 

and while I have nowhere near the hardships of these struggling 

immigrants, I have been granted a sliver of insight.’’ 

So I want to pose these series of questions, and start first with 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

42 

Mr. Rodriguez, how do you rebut the comment that Dr. Swain 

made, that your effort was a bogus effort to try and find American 

workers to work in the farms of America? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me just first respond, thank you very much, 

Congresswoman Lee. 

We came up with this idea and this concept actually sitting down 

and meeting with some of the farm workers that I just introduced 

to you. We were trying to discuss how do we help sensitize and inform the American public about this particular issue in a way that 

everyone could hopefully better understand. 

And so, as a result of that, the workers came up with the suggestion, well, let’s invite legal citizens, let’s invite politicians, let’s invite policymakers to come and work in the fields so they can understand that farm workers are not here and immigrant workers are 

not here to take away American jobs. 

So, as a result of that, after discussion, we came up with the idea 

of the Take Our Jobs campaign. And, consequently, we received a 

very interesting response from people, upon doing that. And when 

Mr. Colbert decided to also invite us to come on the show and talk 

about that, it further gave more visibility to that particular issue. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But the question is, she said that you were 

not serious. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are very serious. We wanted to prove a 

point. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, you refute quickly that you were not 

serious. You worked hard, and continue to work hard? Is the program still in place? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We work very hard. We have people dedicated 

every day to listening to individuals that call into us, checking our 

Web sites, trying to assist—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are serious about it—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We are extremely serious. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. And you welcome workers. 

Mr. Colbert, when I spoke about the landscape of immigration reform, I take it that you have had enough experience that—are you 

speaking only to farm workers? Or do you see the value in America 

answering the call and concern of Dr. Swain and not turning a 

blind eye to immigration and looking at immigration comprehensively? 

Do you think it is long overdue for this Nation to pass a comprehensive immigration reform plan that looks at all aspects of 

those who are undocumented who are seeking an opportunity, particularly young people who have come here and are undocumented 

and need to access our colleges and schools? 

Mr. COLBERT. I think there are way too many undocumented 

Mexican workers here in the United States doing jobs. And I think 

that we have ignored this issue for too long, and it is time to roll 

up our sleeves and face this issue, mano a—whatever the Spanish 

word for ‘‘mano’’ is. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Madam Chair, let me just conclude by 

saying I appreciate Mr. Colbert, but I hope that this hearing will 

lead to the foundation for comprehensive immigration reform, 

43 

which I truly believe is the underpinnings of what America is all 

about. 

Mr. Rodriguez, no job should be diminished—no job. And the 

workers that are behind you, their job is not diminished. And I 

think we can work alongside of each other and tell America that 

we are better working together. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before recognizing Mr. Poe, I just would want to 

note for the Ranking Member that the Democratic rule is that all 

bills must be posted 72 hours in advance on the Internet. 

And I would yield now to Mr. Poe for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Since I have no life, I actually do read the bills, including the 

health care bill. And I also read the Arizona law, unlike some people in the Administration. 

But I want to thank you all for being here. It is always good to 

see a fellow Texan, Mr. Rodriguez, for being here, as well. 

There are several issues that I see: one, legal immigration versus 

illegal immigration, legal workers versus illegal workers. I think 

that the problem is the illegal workers. If the country needs more 

legal immigrants to work, that is an issue that needs to be solved. 

And the answer is not to just allow more illegals in the country. 

The answer is to solve the legal process to come here to work as 

a migrant worker. That seems to be the problem, I think, should 

be solved. 

The other issue I see is wages. Based on what your testimony, 

your written testimony is, a person that works as a worker in the 

field can make up to $300 or probably $360 a week. That varies 

from farm to farm. A person can draw unemployment in the United 

States as a citizen of up to about $390 a week. So, if Americans 

are unemployed and receiving unemployment and the wages are so 

low in the farm industry, they lose the motivation to work because 

people in the farm industry are underpaid, whether they are legal 

worker or illegal workers. 

And, as far as jobs that Americans won’t do, I represent southeast Texas. I represent people that work offshore. And you talk 

about hard jobs, that is working offshore. Those hard jobs are a lot 

of jobs that are very tough for Americans to do. But they do that 

because they get compensated for the work that they do. 

So, low wages seems to be the issue here, not whether or not we 

should allow people to stay in the country or be in the country illegally. Low wages; fix the process to let people come in if we need 

those workers, but deal with the 14 million unemployed Americans, 

4.5 million of which are drawing up to $390 a week unemployment 

for up to 99 weeks. 

Now, Dr. Swain, I want to go back to some of your testimony and 

ask you to, kind of, rectify and resolve these issues that I have just 

mentioned and see how—because I represent a great number of minorities in Port Arthur, Texas. Fourteen percent of them are unemployed in Port Arthur, Texas. 

And how would you see a system to create fair wages, compensated wages, wages where everybody is paying taxes, not just 

some people paying taxes? How would you see Congress moving in 

44 

a direction regarding legal immigrants to work and also getting 

more Americans working? 

Ms. SWAIN. Well, the first thing I think that we need to do is, 

as I said before, enforce the existing laws and to put—the E-Verify 

program that the Federal Government already has—and many people are voluntarily signing up for that program—that program, if 

it was mandatory across the country, it would create opportunities 

for American workers. Because there are millions of illegal immigrants that are working, on the payrolls, that should not have jobs. 

These are jobs that should go to American workers. 

And so I think that we need to enforce the laws that are on the 

books and then see how much surplus labor we may need. If we 

have a labor shortage after we enforce our laws, then we need to 

look at the guest-worker programs and see how they need to be 

changed. 

I think it should be easier for people to come to the United 

States legally and that we should reward those that do it the right 

way, that come here legally, and not allow their interests, you 

know, to somehow be treated lss importantly than the interests of 

people who come here illegally, they seem to get the worst end of 

the deal. I have friends that are immigrants that are trying to do 

it the right way, and many of them feel like that they would get 

a better deal if they were to fall out of status and become illegal, 

rather than to try to do it a way that is legal. 

And I would like to respond to the comment about the Take Our 

Jobs initiative. The very fact that they named it ‘‘Take Our Jobs’’ 

is a deterrence, because it assumes—the name, itself, implies that 

the jobs belong to someone else. And so the immigrants are saying, 

‘‘Take our jobs.’’ I don’t know many people that would want to take 

a job that belonged to someone else. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Rodriguez, let me ask you a generic question. In 

the farm working industry, approximately how many people working in the industry that are foreign nationals are legally here, illegally here? Can you give me a percentage? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman. 

The estimate is, by the Federal Government, Department of 

Labor, about 53 percent. Based on my own experience, after being 

out there all the time, probably more like 70 to possibly 75 percent 

are unauthorized workers that are working in the agriculture 

workforce today. 

Mr. POE. All right. 

Just one last comment. I agree with Dr. Swain that we need to 

fix the legal immigration system. It is too complicated; it takes too 

long. 

And, with that, I will yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very much. 

And I will turn now to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I find 

this hearing to be most interesting. 

And the question of whether or not immigrant workers are taking jobs from Americans and African Americans has been mentioned an awful lot here today. And I am so pleased to hear that 

so many people are interested in African Americans getting jobs. 

45 

I am also interested in the fact that, all of a sudden, we are hearing discussion about increased wages, when one of the biggest 

struggles we have had in this Congress is increasing the minimum 

wage. And so, this is very enlightening to me, as I listened to some 

of the interest, particularly of some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle. 

Let me just say this, that of course there are Americans and African Americans who would work on some of these jobs. But let me 

just assure you, for the people in my district, this is not a high priority for the kind of job they would like to have. I imagine very desperate ones would take some of these jobs for a limited period of 

time, you know, if it concerned their survival. But if I had to support subsidizing corporations to hire workers, I would not put my 

emphasis on farm labor. I would put my emphasis on construction 

jobs. 

For example, in my district, a lot of young people who are not 

well-educated ask for and seek out the opportunity to work on construction jobs. We had one program that was laying fiberoptics that 

many of the young people who did not have skills learned to do this 

kind of work. 

So, whether we are talking about in construction or communications industry, where training is available and possible, I would 

subsidize employers to increase those kinds of jobs. 

I would also subsidize employers to bring jobs from offshore back 

into the United States, where they would be in the inner cities and 

in the urban areas. Because this business of talking about transportation from urban areas to rural areas is just unreal. It just— 

it is not something that is workable. 

So I would like to focus a little bit on comprehensive immigration 

reform, because I think that is really what we should be talking 

about. And I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Rodriguez, who I 

have known for many years—and I am proud to say that I was in 

the California legislature when Howard Berman led the way on all 

of the reforms that we did for immigrant workers, working with 

Cesar Chavez. And I think he was one of the most profound organizers of our time. 

Let me ask you, in immigration reform, if we talk about allowing 

citizenship to be made available to farm workers, how would you 

frame that? Would you say that, if you have been here working 

without papers for 4 years, 5 years, 2 years, 3 years, 10 years, you 

should be afforded citizenship? How would you do that? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Waters. 

In fact, we do have a solution. And what the legislation that Mr. 

Berman and the other Member of the Congress, Adam Putnam, 

have put together and fashioned to deal with the agricultural industry specifically is that a worker that worked 150 days in agriculture in the previous 2 years would be allowed to become part of 

the AgJOBS program, as we call the legislation. 

But farm workers would not get automatic legalization, as we 

talked about before. They would be put into a program of earned 

legalization, whereby they would have to continue working in agriculture for the next 3 to 5 years. In addition, they would be paying 

46 

upwards of $500 million, overall within the entire group, of fines 

for being here and coming into the country undocumented. And—— 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just ask you quickly, because I want to get 

this in on comprehensive immigration reform. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Sure. 

Ms. WATERS. Would you support significant fines for employers 

who break the law? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Once we get this settled and once we deal with 

this particular issue, yes, I think there should be an enforcement 

policy put into place to make sure that we don’t have continued immigrants coming in that would violate those laws. 

Ms. WATERS. Do you think there are some immigrants who 

should be deported for some reason, whether they are criminals or 

some other kinds of reasons? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. If an immigrant has committed and violated serious laws here within our country, yes, that is a reason for their 

deportation at this time. 

Ms. WATERS. And would you support in comprehensive immigration reform some way of keeping families together, where you have 

undocumented immigrants who have been here for a period of time, 

children were born here, they are legal, and at some point in time 

the mother or father may be faced with deportation? How would 

you deal with that? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady’s time has expired, so we will ask 

him to answer. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would support any immigration reform, whether it is comprehensive or AgJOBS or the DREAM Act, that worked 

to keep families together. That is the basis of our society, to have 

families together. Immigrant families want to be together just like 

any other American family. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And we turn now to Mr. Lungren for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I just might respond, when you said that there is a Democratic 

caucus rule of a 72-hour notice, perhaps you ought to inform your 

leadership, since just 3 weeks ago I received no notice of a bill that 

contained part of a bill I had introduced to get rid of the 1099 requirement on small business that is in the health care bill. Our 

leadership was given 10 seconds’ notice—10 seconds’ notice. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Happy, if you can give me more than 10 seconds. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is not a Democratic caucus rule. It is a House 

rule. And the measure that the gentleman is discussing was actually on the suspension calendar, which has a different—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Ah. Okay. So there is an exception to the 72-hour 

rule—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. On the suspension calendar. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. So long as you are in command. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Which requires a two-thirds votes, as you know. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that. But let’s just make it clear: 

Ten seconds is not 72 hours. And perhaps you ought to inform your 

leadership of that, rather than the caucus. 

47 

I would like to ask Mr. Rodriguez this. If you estimate that 75 

percent of those working in the fields are here illegally, 25 percent, 

I presume, are here legally. How are we able to attract that 25 percent? Since, presumably, they are subjected to the same price 

structure and working conditions as the others. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. 

As I introduced the individuals that are here, there are a lot— 

there are tens of thousands of farm workers that are here legally, 

working here legally, that have been in agriculture for a long time, 

as the ones that I just introduced to you. 

And they have been here—they have worked hard. They work 

with the employers that they enjoy working with. They enjoy the 

work that they do, and they continue to do so. They have good 

wages where they work at. They have good benefits, medical plan, 

pension plan, vacations, paid holidays, like any other American 

worker here in this country. And so—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. So are you telling us that the 25 percent that are 

successfully recruited to the agricultural fields are recruited successfully because they get appropriate wages and they get appropriate working conditions? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think that is one factor. In addition to that, the 

employers that have unauthorized workers working with them also 

oftentimes want to see those employees continue working with 

them. They treasure those workers; they value those workers. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I realize that, but that is not my question. My 

question is—I am trying to work this thing out and I am trying to 

figure out, if your premise is that we don’t have people going into 

the fields because Americans won’t take those jobs, you then tell 

me that 25 percent of those people in the fields are Americans. And 

so my question is, how were we able to successfully attract them? 

And is it different than the conditions and wages available to the 

other 75? And if that be so, could we attract a larger number of 

Americans replicating what we do for that 25 percent that are 

Americans working in the field? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think our solution is realistic right now and 

practical. The agricultural industry needs these workers now. They 

have a workforce that they have worked with now for many years. 

All we are asking is to give them the opportunity to have legal status in this country. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that, but that is not my question. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And then, as a result of that, conditions will improve, wages will improve. The likelihood of American consumers 

having a good, safe food supply will also be secure. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

And I would like to ask you both you and Mr. Glaize, is it an 

absolute essential to the AgJOBS bill that the people who would 

benefit from it on the workers’ side are allowed to be on the path 

to citizenship and, thereby, be put in the front of the line of others 

who followed the law? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. They are not going to be put in front of the line. 

Farm workers that would be included under AgJOBS would have 

to work in agriculture for the next—minimally, for the next 3 to 

5 years in order to be qualified to even get a green card. They 

would not get a green card until after they have been able to demVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092410\58410.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
48 

onstrate that they have continued to work in agriculture for a 

minimal—for a certain period of time. And then they will be able 

to get a green card, which does not put them in front of the line. 

It just gives them an opportunity then to go and file for—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Well, let me ask this question. One of the 

major sending countries is Mexico. How long does one have to wait 

in Mexico if one wants to get in line to get legal entry into the 

United States and work toward a green card? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have no idea. I don’t have any idea because the 

workers that I work with, unfortunately, come in a different way. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, but, see, that is the question of whether 

they are in the front the line or not. If people have to wait longer 

than 3 years or 5 years or 8 years or 10 years to get in line legally 

and you are saying that these folks qualify automatically, they are 

being put in the front of the line. 

Mr. Glaize, is it—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I mean—— 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Essential to your program—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Could I just clarify that one point? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, let me just ask Mr. Glaize, it is essential to 

your program, Mr. Glaize, that they be put on the path toward citizenship, as opposed to another type of legal status? 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, so we will ask 

Mr. Glaize to respond. 

Mr. GLAIZE. Congressman Lungren, let me say thank you very 

much for your efforts to actually fix this problem. 

It is essential that the workers that are here now be allowed to 

have work authorization for a period of X number of years. The 

AgJOBS contemplates a fixing of the H2A program, which we have 

had lots of testimony here stating that—let’s figure out to legally 

bring workers to pick these crops. That is of the utmost important. 

In the meantime, I cannot afford to lose a crop 1 year. Now, the 

status down the road, I think that is a part of our American willingness to accept immigrants in this country. And putting them at 

the front of the line, I agree with Mr. Rodriguez, no, they don’t go 

to the front of the line. They will have work authorization for a period of years, and then they can seek their citizenship at that time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you to all of the panelists who are here today. 

I have heard so many interesting and somewhat, I think, outrageous claims today, I kind of don’t even know where to begin 

with some of the questioning. But I just want to start by making 

an observation. 

If, as some members of the panel have suggested, these immigrant workers are taking jobs that Americans want, then I would 

expect that there would be zero unemployment in the agricultural 

sector, and I would expect that many, many Americans would be 

rushing during this tough economic time to take these jobs. 

And yet, Mr. Rodriguez, how many people did you say actually 

inquired about going out to take a job in the fields? 

49 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We had about 3 million hits on our Web site 

since June 24th. Of that group, 8,600—8,600—were serious about 

trying to apply for it. And, of that group, we have documented 

seven people that are actually working out in the fields right now. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And did those seven remain in that job? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As far as we know right now, they are still 

working there, yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. But there was a huge drop-off between the 

inquiries and the actual people who signed up and went out and 

did that work; is that not correct? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. An incredible drop-off. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Okay. 

And forgive me, but I am just going to add my 2 cents here. I 

think that the Take Our Jobs campaign, I have a hard time believing that if you just called it ‘‘Take a Job’’ campaign that those 

8,000 people would all be working in the field today. But that is 

just my personal opinion. I don’t think the semantics of what you 

call the campaign—as I think once people probably figured out 

what the work actually entailed, that is where the big drop-off 

came. 

Would you say that that is maybe an accurate assessment, Mr. 

Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. And we were not trying to—we didn’t go to 

any experts to try to design this campaign. As I mentioned earlier 

today in my testimony, it was farm workers who really suggested 

to invite people to come and work in the fields, because they were 

tired of hearing all the criticism that they, as farm workers, as immigrants, were taking away American jobs. So—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. And I am not trying to 

cut you off, but I am trying to get through some of these questions. 

Now, the next point that I find incredibly interesting is that I am 

hearing from colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some of 

the panelists that, well, the reason why Americans don’t take these 

jobs is because, gosh, the pay isn’t high enough and, you know, the 

working conditions are bad. 

And I think it is interesting because—correct me if I am wrong— 

most agriculture workers in this country aren’t covered by things 

like workers’ compensation law, minimum wage law, overtime law, 

right to organize. Am I correct in stating that, Mr. Rodriguez? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes, you are. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So it seems to me that if you really want the 

wages to go up in this industry, as you say you do, so that American workers would want this job, that my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle and some of the panelists would really be advocates for labor reform, particularly in the agricultural sector. 

And yet, I have in front of me some information regarding some 

votes that we have taken here in Congress on specific things that 

would help raise wages for workers, like H.R. 2, the minimum 

wage increase, increasing the Federal minimum wage by $2.10 over 

2 years, from $5.15. And I note that Mr. King, Mr. Gallegly, and 

Mr. Lungren all voted ‘‘no’’ on that particular bill. And I just find 

it, sort of, contradictory that they would be saying the wages need 

to be higher, and yet, when we try to raise the wages for workers 

across this country, they are voting ‘‘no.’’ 

50 

I want to get on to Mr. Glaize—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I will not. I have some questions that I want to 

ask. 

Mr. Glaize, you spoke of the number of farms, including many in 

my home State of California, who have moved or are considering 

moving their operations overseas. And I would like for you to talk 

in a little bit greater detail about why a farm would move operations to another country, and what that does to our local economies in this country when those farms relocate, and how can we 

reduce the incentive for those farms to relocate in other countries. 

Mr. GLAIZE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Well, essentially, I am a small-business person, and I need to 

make a profit. I operate by supply and demand, world supply. And, 

essentially, if a farm is going to not be able to grow, harvest, pack, 

and sell its crop at a profit, then that farmer is going to go out of 

business. 

The foods that that farmer was producing will come from somewhere else. Our apples compete with Chilean apples right now. The 

price of our Galas are low right now, probably by about $2 a box, 

because of the Chilean apples that are in the market. 

If I cannot continue to grow and produce apples and sell them 

at a profit, I will go out of business. I won’t have anything to pass 

on to the kid that was holding up the picking bucket. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And everybody who is supported by that business 

here in the United States would lose their jobs, as well. Is that correct? 

Mr. GLAIZE. Oh, certainly. By the time our—we invest $1.6 million just to get our crop ready on the trees. That is spread out locally in our community. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

And final question, and I know I am short on time. Mr. Colbert, 

after your experience of working in the fields, what they would 

have to pay you to do that as a career day-in and day-out, 365 days 

of the year? 

Mr. COLBERT. Whatever the SAG minimum wage is. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

We turn now to the Ranking Member, Mr. King, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

As I listened to the testimony here, I have accumulated a whole 

list of things that that need to rebutted, not the least of which is 

the minimum wage position. 

It is pretty interesting to me to hear the testimony of Mr. Glaize, 

that he pays his workers $93 a day for 9 hours’ work. Now, that 

works out to be $10.33 an hour. And to hear Ms. Sa ́nchez say that 

there are not laws that apply to ag workers—and it is true, to some 

degree—and we need to just increase the minimum wage so that 

we can increase the wages to farm workers and be accused of 

being, let me say, inconsistent with the rationale. But I think the 

evidence is right here before us. If Mr. Glaize is paying what he 

says—and I absolutely believe him—and the minimum wage in the 

United States is currently $7.25 an hour, there must be a reason 

51 

Mr. Glaize pays more than the minimum wage. And that is called 

supply and demand, as I have heard some of the witnesses reference. And I am sure Dr. Swain would address that within that 

context. 

I have said labor is a commodity. I have spent a lot of time as 

labor. I have spent more time as labor than anybody else on this 

panel. And it has always been supply and demand. And I have 

looked at the people that competed against me for those jobs, and 

I have known that I had to do a better job and show up on time 

and produce more work per hour or somebody was going to be looking over my shoulder to take that job. And I started on the pipeline 

in the construction business with those workers that dug ditch by 

hand, and if they got tired and couldn’t dig and they had to stop 

and rest on the shovel, somebody was sitting on the dirt pile to 

come down and take the shovel out of their hands. These were 

Americans lined up to take jobs. 

The back-of-the-line piece of this, Mr. Rodriguez’s testimony that 

they would go to the back of the line—and I think it is important 

that we understand where that line is. If you look at the lines in 

each of the countries where people have lined up to legally apply 

to come to America—and I have great respect for those who want 

to achieve the American dream—but that line is about 50 million 

long, if you add up the accumulated visas out there in the various 

varieties that we have. And the waiting period of time from Mexico, 

I don’t know that I can speak to that factually, but we know that 

is several years, and it might be 7 or 8 or 9 years. And it is about 

that period of time even to bring in a family member from, let’s 

say, a foreign country. 

So the back of the line—if we are going to talk about the back 

of the line, it is behind the 50 million. It is not in front of the 50 

million. 

And then I often hear the statement that they would—within the 

context of the broader version of comprehensive immigration reform, that they would learn English and pay a fine. And the fine 

started out at $500 and went to $750 and then perhaps $1,500. 

Learning English is not a penalty. It is a good thing. Wherever in 

the world you have English, you can go anywhere in the world and 

get a job. So I would say that is a benefit to do that. 

The 72-hour rule, yes, it exists, but think about—this subject is— 

not specifically addressed here in this testimony, this subject that 

we are talking about is the rule of law. And the 72-hour rule says 

Mr. Lungren has 10 seconds to know that a bill is coming up because the rule is waived or ignored or not respected. When we don’t 

respect the rule of law, that is the product that we get. And so, I 

will say the central argument is an essential pillar of American 

exceptionalism, the rule of law. And we are trying to figure out 

how to reconcile it after it has been ignored for so long. 

And I look back at—perhaps Dwight Eisenhower was the last 

President to advance an Administration that strictly enforced immigration law. And it has diminished under each Administration 

since that period of time. And we had a good program in the Bracero Program. But the 1986 amnesty act said, this will be the last 

amnesty ever—the last amnesty ever. And I remember Ronald 

Reagan at least was honest when he said, ‘‘I am signing the amVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Jan 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\092410\58410.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
52 

nesty bill, but we are going to enforce immigration law.’’ And I believed him. And I still have those records that I kept with the applicants that came in on their I-9 forms, but nobody ever showed 

up to look at those documents. 

And the enforcement diminished Administration after Administration. And now, there has been bred a contempt for the rule of 

law. And we are here with a debate before this panel that seems 

to argue that we should just simply disregard all the lawbreaking 

that is going on because we haven’t enforced the law. And now the 

argument that I have heard is we can’t enforce the law. 

Well, we can, we must. We must reestablish the rule of law. And 

I don’t suggest that we go out and chase people down and round 

them up and put them in train cars to go back to their home country. I suggest that we enforce the law at the local level, with cooperation of local law enforcement officials, in the spirit of the 

287(g) program. 

I suggest that we look to each other, our neighbors, and understand that, if there is someone standing on the line, on the clock, 

being paid, and they are unlawfully working in the United States, 

then they are taking a job that a legal worker can do, whether they 

are a legal immigrant or whether they are an illegal immigrant. 

And this country has an oversupply of underskilled labor. That 

is why the people that grew up around me that decided they didn’t 

want to go on and get a higher education can no longer punch the 

clock and make the same money that an educated high school 

teacher does. It is half the money, in my neighborhood. 

And I would just conclude, as I watch the gavel start to move 

here. Rather than ask a question, I will just make this point. 

I watched Mr. Colbert—I did finally watch you. I saw the video. 

I watched you picking beans, and I believe you did. And I also 

watched you, you said, packing corn. But I was watching you unpack corn. And I know you don’t do that out there on the cornfield. 

It gets packed into the crate and gets shipped out here. So I am 

just going to presume they ran the film backwards; you were making productive work. 

And I would conclude my statement and yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, could Mr. Colbert be given a 

minute or 2 to respond? 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t actually ask a question, so— 

and I don’t think I disparaged him. I think I actually complimented 

him. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, perhaps Mr. Gonzalez will give the witness 

a minute of his time. 

Mr. Gonzalez is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Colbert, do you wish to respond to Mr. King? 

Mr. COLBERT. I didn’t really understand the statement. It is confusing. 

Were you implying that I was not actually doing the work that 

I was depicted as doing? 

Mr. KING. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Gonzalez? Would the 

gentleman yield? 

53 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Let’s suspend all those rules, just since we are 

dealing with Mr. Colbert. He is just trying to respond to some sort 

of an opening statement or statement. You all can just talk to each 

other. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So the gentleman will yield here. 

Mr. COLBERT. That would be nice. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sure. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, for yielding. 

I only made the point that, in watching the film on YouTube of 

the event of you and Chair Lofgren working there on the farm, that 

as I watched you handling corn—in Iowa, we know corn, and that 

is what we do. 

Mr. COLBERT. I know. 

Mr. KING. And I know that actually there is corn that gets 

brought into Iowa, sweet corn, in wooden crates, like you were 

working with, that are wired together once they are full. And I 

thought it was curious that on the farm where you harvest the corn 

I was watching you actually unload a crate, rather than load the 

crate. So it was curious to me that it looked like the corn was going 

the wrong direction, and I only presumed they must have run the 

film backwards. That was my point. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think that the question has now been 

cleared. 

Mr. KING. And I yield back to the gentleman, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Gonzalez has the time. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So, Mr. Colbert, which direction was the corn 

going? 

Mr. COLBERT. Well, I want to make sure that if I get this answer 

wrong I can’t be held for perjury. 

I was packing corn. I was a corn packer. And I packed it, I put 

it in the trucks, and I iced it down to keep it at 38 degrees so it 

wouldn’t go through the process where the sugar turns into starch. 

And we got that corn out that day. 

I actually was a corn packer. And I know that term is offensive 

to some people because ‘‘corn packer’’ is a derogatory term for a gay 

Iowan. And I hope I didn’t offend anybody. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Gonzalez? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, I definitely will reclaim my time, at this 

point. 

Dr. Swain, because of your background, your studies, your accomplishments, which are incredible, you have an idea about legal 

principles. And we are up here and we espouse them all the time. 

Most of us here are lawyers on this particular Committee. And you 

will hear the ‘‘rule of law,’’ ‘‘nation of laws, not men.’’ There is another one; it is ‘‘equal justice under the law.’’ And I think we are 

familiar with that. 

What you are going to be hearing from my colleagues on the 

other side, some of which are from the same State of Texas where 

I was born and raised, even the same city, is that the only solution 

for anyone here that doesn’t have legal status, that is an ‘‘illegal,’’ 

is deportation. 

Do you agree with that, that one size should fit all, one punishment for all, and that is, you are not here legally, you shall be deported? 

54 

Ms. SWAIN. It is my understanding that the cases are heard individually by an administrative judge, and that judge has the discretion to look at particular circumstances. I know that there are people who accidentally fall into illegal status, and I think those—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Oh, no, no. We are talking about a farm worker 

that came here in violation of our laws to pick our fruits and vegetables. It wasn’t a mistake. 

Ms. SWAIN. I think that if a person came here, deliberately 

breaking the law, and they get caught, they should expect to bear 

the punishment. And if the judge says that punishment is deportation—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. No, no. The judge really doesn’t—I am just telling 

you from my experience, because I come from a city that has many, 

many immigration cases. I have been told that if you came here illegally, misrepresenting your status, came here in any way, you 

are barred from remaining in this country. So let’s just assume I 

am right and that a judge has no discretion. Do you believe that 

that judge should have any other discretion other than deportation? 

Ms. SWAIN. I think that we should enforce the laws on the book 

or we should change them if we are uncomfortable with enforcing 

them. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I agree with you. And that is what we are—— 

Ms. SWAIN. As long as there are laws are on the books, we have 

to enforce them. 

Mr. GONZALEZ [continuing]. Trying to do with comprehensive immigration reform—— 

Ms. SWAIN. Well, the problem—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ [continuing]. That would stay true to our principle 

of equal justice under the law. Sometimes the laws don’t work anymore; they are not applicable. 

Ms. SWAIN. I agree. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. They don’t serve a social or human purpose. That 

is what we are trying to address. 

But if you are of like mind with my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle, then let me ask you this—— 

Ms. SWAIN. Could I say something? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Let me just finish, because Mr. Colbert and Mr. 

King used most of my time. 

Ms. SWAIN. I am sorry. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If you have a death penalty, what I call the death 

penalty—and that is the ultimate punishment, and that is: You are 

here illegally, you get deported. But there are two parties to this 

action. 

Why don’t we close the business that is employing these individuals? We slap them on the wrist. We give them a small fine, place 

them on some sort of probation. But, truly, if you treat the employee in the absolute, why wouldn’t you do that to the employer? 

Why do we have a range of punishment for the employer, but we 

don’t have a range of punishment for the employee? 

Because you are telling me who is being exploited and who is 

being victimized in a lot of instances in this country—and you seem 

to agree on that principle, that wages are somehow depressed, 

55 

working conditions can be deplorable. And, until they improve, we 

are not going to have a domestic labor market. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. SWAIN. If it were up to me, I would throw the employers in 

jail. I think that they do get slapped on the wrist and that they 

are part of the problem and that that has to be addressed. 

And the problem that I have with the way the Democrats seem 

to be defining comprehensive immigration reform is that it seems 

to be—it doesn’t include what I would consider comprehensive, that 

you would look at all the different aspects of what feeds illegal immigration. It just seems to be about amnesty. To me, ‘‘comprehensive’’ means you look at all aspects of the problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I would 

turn now to—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yeah, Madam Chair, I appreciate it, but that 

word of ‘‘amnesty,’’ especially coming from Dr. Swain, she knows 

better than using the word ‘‘amnesty.’’ But she is clear that she 

wants to put the employers in jail, and I appreciate that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We turn to the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Well, Ranking Member Smith questioned Mr. Colbert’s 

expertise as a witness. However, I would like to point out that, in 

the past, Republicans have had witnesses such as Loretta Swit, 

who played ‘‘Hot Lips’’ Houlihan from MASH, to testify on crush 

videos; and that Republicans invited Clint Eastwood to testify before Congress about ADA lawsuits; and Republicans also invited 

Elmo to talk about music education at the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Labor/Health and Human Services. 

Well, on another note, Mr. Colbert, thank you for attending this 

hearing and highlighting the plight of farm workers. The situation 

is, indeed, dire. 

And I know from my State of California, I heard about the case 

of Mr. Asuncion Valdivia, who came from Mexico for a better life 

and took a job that few Americans wanted to do. Every day in the 

hot summer months, he picked grapes for 10 hours straight in 105- 

degree temperatures. And then one day he fell ill. He fell ill and 

could not stand up. And Giumarra Vineyards, rather than calling 

the ambulance, told his son to drive Mr. Asuncion home. On the 

way home, Mr. Asuncion died of heat stroke, and his son had to 

watch his father die of a preventible heat stroke at the age of 53. 

And, in fact, this is only one of many stories like this. There have 

been 23 reported deaths since 2001. And those are only the reported deaths. But this was the last straw, and that is why I 

worked with Mr. Rodriguez and the UFW in carrying legislation to 

require water, shade, and rest periods on every farm so that outdoor workers could be protected. 

So, I am wondering, Mr. Colbert, did any of the farm workers 

that you picked with talk about working conditions having to do 

with heat, with water, shade, rest periods, any of those kinds of 

things? 

Mr. COLBERT. No, we didn’t talk—thank you very much for asking me the question, first of all. But, no, we didn’t really talk that 

much. I tried to engage them in conversation, but I don’t speak 

Spanish very well, and they seemed very busy with the beans and 

56 

with the corn. And I tried to get them to sing field songs and that 

sort of thing, and they didn’t seem to have any. 

And so I never really found out about what their working conditions were like, in terms of what medical services were available 

to them or what health care was available to them or what kind 

of breaks were available to them. They seemed to be working the 

entire time. 

Ms. CHU. Did you experience any of these issues pertaining to 

heat? 

Mr. COLBERT. It was very hot. Yes, it was hotter than I like to 

be. 

Ms. CHU. And considering the conditions, why would any American worker want to work on jobs like this? 

Mr. COLBERT. I don’t know if Americans would or would not 

want to work on jobs like this. I believe that Americans are tough. 

I agree with the congressman, that Americans are tough and they 

do tough jobs. 

It is not a job I want to do, and not a lot of people took Mr. 

Rodriguez up on his offer. And it seems, from the statistics that my 

researchers found, that there is a lack of labor in parts of the 

United States, and that seems to say that Americans don’t want to 

take these jobs. But I don’t want to say definitively that they won’t. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues. Why 

are you interested in this issue? 

Mr. COLBERT. I like talking about people who don’t have any 

power. And it seems like one of the least powerful people in the 

United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but 

don’t have any rights as a result. And, yet, we still invite them to 

come here and, at the same time, ask them to leave. And that is 

an interesting contradiction to me. 

And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers. 

And these seem like the least of our brothers right now. A lot of 

people are least brothers right now because the economy is so hard, 

and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that. But migrant workers suffer and 

have no rights. 

Ms. CHU. Well, thank you for that. 

And, in response to Ms. Swain, I would say that, according to the 

most recent data, in 2007, 8.8 million Californians worked for minimum wage, many of them in undesirable jobs. According to your 

analysis, if we only paid Americans more, they would be willing to 

work in the fields, but 8.8 million are already taking that lower 

paycheck. We still don’t see Americans flocking to work in the 

fields. And that, I think, says a lot. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And I think this has been a very helpful hearing. You know, as 

I have listened to my colleagues, I have heard really a plea that 

we upgrade the conditions of migrant farm workers. 

And I have been thinking, as I was listening to Ms. Sa ́nchez, 

that I might introduce a bill that provides for the rights of farm 

workers to organize as a labor union under national law. We have 

that in California. That we would make sure that farm workers, 

57 

migrant farm workers, are covered by workers’ compensation, the 

minimum wage laws, that they also are covered by the overtime 

laws. 

And I am hoping that when I do, that those who have spoken so 

passionately about the need to upgrade the conditions for farm 

workers will be among the first to ask to cosponsor that bill. And 

I will be working with Ms. Sa ́nchez to do that. 

You know, in my career prior to being in Congress, I actually 

was an immigration lawyer at one time and I taught immigration 

law part-time. And I am very mindful that the laws are important 

but the Congress makes the laws. 

And, currently, for those individuals who wish to immigrate to 

the United States who do not have a college degree, we allocate 

5,000 visas a year. So when people say you ought to do it the legal 

way, I think those individuals probably don’t know that there are 

only 5,000 visas a year and we have 2 million farm workers. 

Now, I do think it is important that we make available first all 

jobs to the people who are here. But as the campaign of the Farm 

Workers has shown, there are some jobs that are not a good fit for 

people who are unemployed. And part of the problem here is that 

these are seasonal migrant jobs. 

And I was very pleased to go to New York and look, with Mr. 

Colbert, at the farm there. But I am mindful of my trip earlier this 

year to the strawberry farm outside of my district, where, luckily, 

the farm workers are represented by the United Farm Workers. 

Those migrants farm workers earn $18,000 to $19,000 a year. They 

have health care benefits. They have a pension plan. They are provided housing. And, in talking to their employer, they have been 

unable to get Americans to come take these jobs, because they are 

killer jobs. I mean, it is—I was out there picking those strawberries, and that is just a fact. We could say that is a good idea 

or a bad idea. That is the reality. 

In reading Mr. Glaize’s testimony and understanding in California the number of farms that have simply folded and gone off 

farm, this has implications for the entire American workforce, upstream, downstream. We have three to four jobs that Americans 

are doing for every migrant farm worker who is here. And so, if 

those farms close and go offshore, it is not just the farm workers 

who are displaced; it is the four Americans who are dependent on 

those farm workers who are displaced. So this is a very serious 

issue. 

I would just like to thank each one of our witnesses for being 

here. A lot of people don’t realize that the witnesses who come before Congress are volunteers. They come, I mean, just as volunteers 

to help make a better country, to help the Congress understand an 

issue better. 

And so, each one of you, as a volunteer, has done that today. I 

thank you for doing so. 

I thank the Members for their participation. 

I would note that the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days so that Members may submit material. 

And, further, that Members may have additional questions for 

the witnesses that will also be submitted within 5 days. And if that 

58 

should occur, we would request respectfully that the response be 

forthcoming. 

With that, I would thank all of the witnesses and Members for 

their participation and would adjourn this Committee. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ