REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL 

GUESTWORKER PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

Serial No. 112–92 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER PROGRAMS 

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

72–787 PDF 2012

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL 

GUESTWORKER PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

Serial No. 112–92 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

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

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Gary W. Black, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Paul Wenger, President, California Farm Bureau Federation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 81 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 90 

Bruce Goldstein, President, Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 93 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 139 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................... 6 

Material submitted by the Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................................................................. 6 

Technical Report 11–67 titled ‘‘H-2A Temporary Agricultural Employee Program,’’ submitted by Paul Wenger, President, California Farm Bureau Federation ................................................................................................................... 28 

Report titled ‘‘No Way to Treat a Guest,’’ submitted by Bruce Goldstein, 

President, Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC ............................................. 95 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Washington ............................................................. 161 

Letter from Diego Santiago Reyes Margarita, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO ................................................................................................... 163 

Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of Robert L. Guenther, Senior Vice President, Public 

Policy, United Fresh Produce Association .......................................................... 164 

Brochure submitted by the National Council of Agicultural Employers 

(NCAE) .................................................................................................................. 166 

Report submitted by Gary W. Black, Commissioner, Georgia Department 

of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 170 

(1) 

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

AGRICULTURAL GUESTWORKER PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Lungren, Gowdy, Ross, 

Lofgren, and Jackson Lee. 

Staff Present: (Majority) George Fishman, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Marian White, Clerk; (Minority) David Shahoulian, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call to order the Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement. 

Today we have a hearing on ‘‘Regional Perspectives on Agricultural Guestworker Programs.’’ 

Good morning to all. 

Today’s Subcommittee hearing represents our third hearing on 

the issue of seasonal agricultural labor and legislative proposals regarding a guestworker program. This is a complex issue which impacts not only foreign farm workers and agricultural employers but 

also U.S. workers, local communities throughout the United States, 

and, of course, the American taxpayer. 

This is a critical issue to U.S. agriculture because real-world experience has shown that there are simply not enough Americans 

willing to work as migrant farm workers. The labor-intensive 

branch of agriculture—fruits, vegetables, and horticulture specialties—employs over 1.2 million individual farm workers a year. 

Each year, farm workers are interviewed by the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey. The survey found 

that, over the 2007 and 2009 period, 48 percent of farm workers 

openly admitted being illegally in the country. The actual figure 

may be even higher, and the NAWS shows that 85 percent of firsttime farm workers openly admit to being illegally in the country. 

What options for legal workers do growers really have? Since 

1986, the H-2A program has made visas available for temporary 

AG workers. However, 16 years ago, American agriculture told the 

Subcommittee that the H-2A program was ‘‘characterized by extensive, complex regulations that hamstring employers who try to use 

2 

it, and by costly litigation challenging its use when admissions of 

alien workers are sought.’’ They alleged that the Department of 

Labor was ‘‘implacably opposed to the program.’’ 

Front and center in the growers’ minds was ensuring the availability of sufficient labor to meet crucial needs like harvesting 

whose timing varies with the weather. Unfortunately, timeliness 

has never been the H-2A program’s strong suit. Neither has realism about the availability of domestic labor. It seems that little has 

changed in the intervening 16 years. 

The Bush administration’s Labor Department initiated a bold 

plan to revamp the H-2A program. The plan, which was later rescinded by the Obama administration, remade the program into an 

attestation-based system designed to streamline the regulatory 

process and speed up the availability of guestworkers for growers 

that faced labor shortage. It also was designed to make the costs 

of the program more manageable for the growers. 

Even though these changes did improve the H-2A program, let 

me make it clear on one point. The H-2A program is not structured 

to meet the needs of the vast majority of agricultural employers in 

the United States. It simply is not flexible enough to provide an 

adequate supply of labor in a timely fashion to many growers, especially growers of specialty crops, across the country. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony today of a diverse panel 

of witnesses who will provide their own assessment of the H-2A 

program and to discuss specific recommendations for an alternative 

guestworker program. It is my hope that this hearing will plant the 

seed for much-needed reform of our agricultural visa program. 

And, with that, I would yield to my good friend, the Ranking 

Member from California, the number-one AG State in the United 

States, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You are right, this is the third hearing before the Subcommittee 

specifically on our AG workforce. But, really, we have been talking 

about the issue for this whole Congress, in relation to Chairman 

Smith’s proposal to implement a mandatory E-Verify system. As 

Members of both sides of the aisle have made clear, without something to address the country’s agricultural workforce needs, mandatory E-Verify would simply destroy segments of our agriculture industry. 

Looking back at the numerous hearings we have held on this 

issue over the last few years, I think that critical facts are sometimes ignored. We all know that crops like corn, wheat, and soy are 

not the issue here. The biggest problem is with seasonal, labor-intensive fruit and vegetable production. When it comes to such 

farming, we don’t just need a workforce, we need an experienced 

workforce. And even an experienced workforce is not enough; we 

need a fast, flexible, and experienced workforce. 

Farmers do their best to plan harvests, but unusual rises or dips 

in temperature or humidity can suddenly move up a harvest, giving 

growers just days or even hours to pick valuable crops. Planned 

harvest schedules often go right out the window. The grower must 

find experienced workers with the right skills immediately or lose 

his or her crops. 

3 

Luckily, such a fast, flexible, and experienced workforce exists in 

America today. Those workers have helped make American agriculture a resounding success. For those who believe in the power 

of the free market, this is a prime example of that power. 

Technological advancement may get all the attention, but America has long been an agricultural powerhouse. Agriculture continues to be a major sector of our economy and a primary U.S. export. In fact, we export so many more agricultural products than 

we import that the sector is regularly the largest in which we see 

a trade surplus. 

Yet Congress has long ignored the needs of labor in this sector. 

For decades, we have rightfully been educating and training our 

children for work in other areas. And at the same time, our immigration laws have made it all but impossible to fill the resulting 

void with foreign, legal workers. Despite a need for millions of 

workers, some on a permanent basis, our immigration laws have 

made only 5,000 green cards available per year for people without 

bachelor’s degrees. That is 5,000 per year to be shared not just by 

agricultural employers but also by landscapers, restaurants, hotels, 

and many other industries who hire such workers. 

The H-2A temporary worker program hasn’t done the job either. 

Any employer will tell you that the program is just too slow and 

bureaucratic for fast-moving harvests. A recent survey by the National Council of Agricultural Employers found that 72 percent of 

H-2A users reported that their workers arrived 22 days, on average, after the date of need. So it is no surprise that the program 

is used so sparingly, reaching the high-water mark of 64,000 visas 

in 2008. 

In that environment, is it any wonder that market forces worked 

their magic to pair up willing employers and willing workers? Let’s 

be honest here, the government essentially left farmers with no 

choice but to hire undocumented workers. And everyone, including 

the government, looked the other way as workers came in to fill the 

jobs that our country desperately needed filled. 

So what do we do now? Do we accept responsibility for creating 

this mess, recognize that we have an experienced workforce that 

has been providing critical services to the country for years, provide a way for them to obtain legal status and continue to help this 

country succeed? Or do we, as some suggest, attempt to throw out 

this entire experienced workforce and import millions of new workers through a government-controlled program that has never 

worked in the past? 

I have mentioned it before, but I need to mention it again. How 

can anyone think that the answer to our labor needs is to deport 

over a million agricultural workers who are already here—workers 

who have experience, who know where to go, what to do, when to 

do it—just to ship in millions of new government-approved workers 

every year, year after year after year? 

The proposals essentially ask taxpayers to spend billions to deport the experienced workers, only then to require America’s farmers to shoulder the costs annually of bringing in millions of new 

workers. It doesn’t make sense. It won’t work. 

We already know the result in those States where action has 

been taken—tremendous loss. We have seen a preview in Georgia 

4 

and Alabama because of their new immigration laws. University of 

Georgia estimates that because of resulting worker shortages in 

just seven key berry and vegetable crops, Georgia and its growers 

will suffer up to $391 million in direct and indirect losses every 

year. And a professor at the University of Alabama estimates that 

Alabama will face between $2 billion and $11 billion in annual economic losses. Is this what we want for American agriculture? 

I think we need to face facts. The law has been broken for decades, failing to meet the needs of entire industries, particularly AG. 

People took matters into their own hands. Yes, the workers came 

without obeying the rules, but almost every fruit and vegetable 

farmer in the country also broke the rules. The government essentially let it all happen. We are all at fault. We need to recognize 

that and do what is right for the country, and we can’t allow ideology to trump common sense. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

And the good news is, we have this hearing this morning. The 

bad news is, the bells just went off and we do have votes. We will 

get back as quickly as possible. We may lose some Members along 

the way, but this will be an important thing to have on the record, 

and we will recess until such time as needed to get back from, as 

quickly as possible, from the intervening votes. 

So, with that, we stand in recess, hopefully for not more than 

about 35 or 40 minutes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LUNGREN [presiding]. At this time, the Chair would recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from 

Texas, for a statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The agriculture industry needs to hire hundreds of thousands of 

seasonal workers each year to help put food on Americans’ tables. 

However, many workers with better options choose to work elsewhere. That is why many illegal immigrant farm workers who received amnesty in 1986 soon left the fields for other jobs in the city. 

As the President of the American Farm Bureau has stated, any 

new amnesty, such as AG jobs, would have the same result. Because of this, U.S. employers often face a shortage of available 

American workers to fill seasonal agricultural jobs. 

There is no numerical limit to H-2A temporary agricultural work 

visas, yet half of farm workers remain illegal immigrants. Why 

don’t more growers who have heavy demands for seasonal agriculture labor make use of the program? Well, in 2008, the Department of Labor concluded that the vast majority of growers, ‘‘find 

the H-2A program so plagued with problems that they avoid using 

it all together.’’ 

This Subcommittee held a hearing last year in which witnesses 

described what was wrong with the H-2A program. Growers believe 

that the Labor Department, which largely administers the H-2A 

program, is hostile to them and the program. Growers are also 

troubled by the great cost of using the H-2A program, especially 

the ‘‘adverse effect wage rate.’’ Growers have to build free housing 

for their guestworkers. 

5 

America needs an agricultural guestworker program that is fair 

to everyone it impacts: American growers, farm workers, consumers, and guestworkers. A program must provide growers who 

want to do the right thing with a reliable source of legal labor. It 

must protect the livelihoods of American workers and the rights of 

guestworkers. And it must keep in mind the pocketbooks of American families. 

I have introduced legislation, the American Specialty Agriculture 

Act, that accomplishes these goals. It establishes an H-2C 

guestworker program responsive to the needs of American growers 

and maintains strong policies to protect citizens and legal workers. 

And it does so without the fraud-ridden mass amnesty for illegal 

immigrant farm workers that failed in 1986. 

Let me highlight some of the provisions of the bill. First, the bill 

puts the Agriculture Department in charge of the H-2C program. 

Second, in order to minimize red tape, the bill streamlines the 

process for H-2C workers by making it attestation-based, just like 

the H-1B program for high-skilled workers. 

Third, the bill requires growers to pay H-2C workers and American workers the prevailing wage, as required in other guestworker 

programs. Fourth, the bill allows growers to provide a housing 

voucher instead of actual housing, which can prove extremely burdensome for growers who may need foreign workers for only a few 

weeks a year. 

Fifth, the bill opens up the H-2C program to dairies and other 

agricultural producers that cannot use the H-2A program because 

they employ workers year-round. Sixth, the bill allows growers to 

include binding arbitration in contracts with H-2C workers in order 

to forestall abusive and frivolous litigation. 

I am also pleased that the report of Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Black finds that my bill, ‘‘institutes an H-2C program that 

will be responsive to the needs of America’s specialty growers.’’ And 

I look forward today to hearing perspectives from both coasts on 

how best to write and implement an agricultural guestworker program. We must put policies in place that help ensure American 

growers can keep growing our crops and our economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the Chairman for his statement. 

And I might say, I enjoy sitting here because it is the first time 

I have seen that there is an override button where I can cancel all 

other microphones while activating my own. 

Mr. SMITH. You are not supposed to know that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I never knew that was here, but—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, could I ask 

unanimous consent to put the statement of Congressman Sam Farr 

into the record? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:] 

6 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren and Members of the Subcommittee, 

As the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement reviews 

immigration reform proposals, I urge you to consider the impact that policy changes 

would have on the California agricultural industry and the workers they employ. 

As Members of Congress, we must enact immigration policies that are tough, fair 

and practical. 

Successful immigration reform must establish a system that turns those who are 

willing to work hard and play by the rules into taxpayers, paying their fair share. 

We need a system that has common sense rules for who and how many people we 

let in legally, so we don’t flood the labor market in hard times, but that allows businesses to hire the workers they need. 

With these principle in mind, I am concerned that the acute shortage of agricultural workers across our districts has not been adequately taken into consideration. 

I believe that any immigration reform legislation must provide farmers, ranchers 

and agricultural producers with a stable and legal workforce. For every job created 

on a farm, many more non-farm support jobs are created in the supply chain of distribution. Yet California’s farmers, who are responsible for billions of dollars of economic activity every year, continue to face significant barriers to finding a legal and 

stable workforce. The ideal solution would be the rapid passage of legislation like 

AgJOBS. 

I am concerned that some interim immigration reform proposals would create 

even more devastating labor shortages for growers. It is short-sighted to think mandatory worker verification methods, like E-Verify, are the sole solution to our country’s illegal immigration issues. Further, we should not impose additional barriers 

to legal workers who are willing to work hard and play by the rules. It would risk 

the economic vitality of the entire American agricultural industry and fail to accomplish true immigration reform. 

I believe the time for immigration reform is long overdue, but we need to find the 

right balance between ensuring American citizens have the best chance of finding 

a job while also ensuring our agricultural industry has an adequate and stable 

workforce for years to come. I stand ready to work with you to accomplish this goal. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And I ask unanimous consent that the statement 

of Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers; the statement of Maureen Torrey Marshall of Torrey Farms of New York; 

and the statement of Dale Foreman, chairman of the U.S. Apple 

Association, be included in the record as well. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The material referred to follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Tom Nassif, President and CEO of Western Growers 

Chairman Gallegly, Ranking Member Lofgren and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. Western Growers Association is an agricultural trade association headquartered in Irvine, California. Western Growers members are small, medium and large-sized businesses that produce, 

pack and ship almost 90 percent of fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in California and approximately 75 percent of the fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables grown 

in Arizona. In total, our members account for nearly half of the annual fresh 

produce grown in the United States, providing American consumers with healthy, 

nutritious food. 

I submit this statement in support of the proposal introduced by Representative 

Lungren, H.R. 2895. Representative Lungren’s proposal goes a long way towards addressing the unique labor concerns of agriculture. Unfortunately, if such a proposal 

does not accompany mandatory E–Verify legislation, the concerns facing the largest 

agricultural state will have been ignored, precipitating greater crisis in the future. 

7 

Sadly, legislation which is being touted as a job creation measure will have the opposite effect in communities where seasonal agriculture plays a central role. My 

statement will lay out the importance of agriculture to the U.S. economy, unique 

concerns and challenges our industry faces, and the need to move forward on a solution to the current labor crisis. 

AGRICULTURE IS CRITICAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE U.S. ECONOMY

Studies conducted by the University of California Davis, demonstrate that every 

California agricultural job creates two non-farms jobs in our economy, and every 

farm dollar generates an additional $1.27 for the California economy. Nationwide, 

the Department of Labor reported that 24 million jobs, a full 14 percent of all people 

employed in the United States, are supported by the U.S. food and fiber industry. 

Not only is agriculture’s role in maintaining a safe and secure food supply vital 

to our economic recovery, it is critical to the strength of rural America. Western 

Growers members and their employees are members of the very communities in 

which they grow, pack, and sell products. In 2009, when the California water crisis 

forced us to fallow 500,000 acres in the Central Valley, thousands of farms jobs were 

lost, and rural non-farm businesses supported by these jobs suffered. Some communities realized unemployment levels of 40 percent. 

Without an agricultural worker program that is workable, growers in California, 

Arizona, and across the country will eventually face similar predicaments. Securing 

a legal workforce is not a new challenge for agriculture. We’ve been working towards this goal for more than 15 years. But in the face of no immigration reform, 

a diminishing labor supply, threats due to I–9 audits and ICE raids, and now E– 

Verify legislation emerging at the state and the federal levels, it is clear that U.S. 

agriculture will be decimated without a workable mechanism to hire and continue 

to employ the labor we need. 

DEMOGRAPHICS OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL WORK FORCE

There are about 1.8 million people who perform hired farm work in the United 

States. Approximately 1.2 million or more of these people are not authorized to work 

here. Studies demonstrate that for a variety of reasons including the seasonal nature of the work, the difficulty of the work, and the skill level required for many 

agricultural jobs, unemployed Americans are unwilling to work in the labor intensive agriculture sectors—produce, dairy, nursery, livestock. The labor force in each 

of these sectors is overwhelmingly made up of foreign born employees. 

In the late 1990’s, at the insistence of Senator Dianne Feinstein, a multi-county 

welfare-to-farm-work program was launched in California’s Central Valley. Regional 

unemployment ran 9 to 12 percent; in some localities, unemployment exceeded 20%. 

State and county agencies and grower associations collaborated to identify cropping 

patterns, labor needs, training, transportation, and other factors impacting employment levels. Out of over 100,000 prospective ‘‘welfare to work’’ placements, three individuals were successfully placed. In the aftermath of the program, several employment agencies stated—in writing—that they would no longer seek to place the unemployed in seasonal agricultural work because it suffered from such a low success 

rate, and that seasonal agriculture was ‘‘not a fit’’ for these individuals. 

In 2006, in Washington State, a tight labor supply for the cherry harvest was a 

warning sign of a looming labor shortage for the much larger apple harvest. Again, 

state and local agencies teamed up with grower associations to conduct an advertising blitz and provide special training on how to safely pick apples without harming their market value or damaging the trees’ future productivity. In that program, 

over 1700 workers were sought; roughly 40 were successfully placed. 

In 2007, the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation set up a statewide hotline 

for job seekers, and advertised it in print and on radio. North Carolina needs roughly 60,000 crop and livestock workers each season. Two calls were received; one was 

from a grandmother who felt that farm work would do her grandson good. 

In 2010, the United Farm Workers Union launched the ‘‘Take Our Jobs’’ campaign. A media blitz which included national coverage. As of mid October, which 

generally marked the end of the growing season and the campaign, 10,021 people 

8 

had inquired about jobs in the fields, yet only nine people had taken jobs in the 

fields. Most of them quit after a few days. 

Some might be tempted to consider wage rates as an additional factor that might 

discourage unemployed American workers from seeking agricultural jobs, but the 

facts do not bear this out. According to an October 2011 USDA farm labor analysis, 

wages for field workers averaged $10.54 per hour. American workers do not seek 

nor stay in farm jobs, even today with unemployment hovering at 8.3 percent. The 

fact is the majority of farm jobs in this country must be filled by foreign workers. 

CHALLENGES TO A SECURE, STABLE WORKFORCE

Even before the challenge of E–Verify legislation, the need for a workable agriculture labor program could not have been more clear. 

In California, a state with no E–Verify legislation pending, and across the country, agricultural employers are facing an increasingly difficult time finding a sufficient, stable workforce due to the existing federal enforcement-only work authorization laws. 

As you know, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) mandates procedures for employers to verify the employment eligibility of their workforce. Failure 

to comply with IRCA can lead to substantial civil penalties and, in some cases, 

criminal charges. However, employers are prohibited from questioning the documents the employee presents if they appear to be valid. When the Department of 

Labor conducts workplace audits the employees’ work authorization is scrutinized 

and run through DHS databases, often times with severe consequences for agricultural employers. 

The Obama Administration has made enforcement of IRCA a priority. In 2011, 

the federal government initiated 2,338 employer audits, up dramatically from past 

years, made more than 150 criminal arrests and levied more than $7 million in fines 

on employers. 

Agriculture and food processing are among a select group of industries that are 

receiving the most attention. 

In March of 2011, 85 percent of a California wholesale nursery’s year round workforce—more than 70 employees—had to be terminated at the peak of their Mother’s 

Day floral season when DHS determined their work documents were ‘‘suspect.’’ 

THE IMPACT OF E–VERIFY

State 

The existing challenges we face in securing a stable workforce will pale in comparison to the devastating impact of E–Verify legislation in the absence of a workable labor program. 

State E–Verify laws are being enacted or considered across the country. The state 

of Georgia offers a glimpse into the future for the nation if E–Verify were to be imposed without a farm worker program. There, passage of a state law including E– 

Verify has led to farm labor shortages as high as 30 to 50%. Field workers are simply avoiding the state and Georgia growers and producers lost $75 million in production. An economic impact model indicates that the lost fruit and vegetable production resulted in an estimated $103.6 million reduction in total goods and services 

produced on a state wide basis and over 850 full time jobs. A repeat of 2011 level 

labor shortages for a full year, could result in production losses of $184 million and 

1,512 jobs. And as described above, the economic misery resulting from lost production and lost payroll is also being felt in the community-based businesses that serve 

farms and farm workers. 

Reports from Georgia are being replayed now in Alabama, which passed an even 

stricter E–Verify measure. If states are the laboratories of policy formation, the 

Congress should take note of these examples before enacting federal legislation 

without a workable solution for agriculture. 

The trends in California, which I noted does not have E–Verify legislation in 

place, are already startling. Our members, and other specialty crop producers across 

the country, are looking to foreign countries as they make plans to expand their 

businesses and create additional jobs there, not here. I have members who have 

9 

moved portions of their operations out of the United States, not because the cost 

of getting product to market is less in other countries, but because of the uncertainty surrounding the labor supply in the United States. In foreign countries there 

are local populations able and willing to work in the fields. We are moving production to where the labor force is located and where the regulatory burdens allow us 

to continue in business, competing with global producers. 

In the absence of a workable ag labor program, E–Verify not only promotes the 

movement off shore of what was once U.S. production, it is a jobs killer for rural 

America. When the incomes and taxes generated by farmers and employees leave 

a community, seed and fertilizer companies and distributors are impacted. Tractor 

and other equipment dealerships suffer. The decreased demand for packing and 

processing is injurious to the suppliers of packaging and processing equipment and 

their employees. Banks and storefronts close, and communities are imperiled. 

Right now, the only program we have available to us to secure with certainty 

legal workers is the H–2A or temporary agricultural guest-worker visa program. As 

has been well-documented, it is utterly failing the agricultural industry including 

Western Growers members. 

For example, H–2A is used to address only 2–3 percent of U.S. agriculture’s labor 

needs. And even then, a 2011 nationwide study of H–2A users commissioned by the 

National Council of Agricultural Employers that was presented to the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections last September, reports that 72 percent of 

workers arrived late, on average, 22 days after the date of need. In 2010, employers 

in the H–2A program reported $320M in losses due to their inability to get the 

workers they needed or to get workers when they were needed. 

The Department of Labor appears, at best, indifferent to agriculture’s needs. The 

Western Growers members who farm in Yuma, Arizona hire Mexican H–2A workers 

who live in Mexico and commute to work. Many of these H–2A employees prefer 

to return home after each work day. These employees decline to use the approved 

housing that is required to be provided to them by the growers under H–2A regulations. Despite repeated requests for an adjustment to the requirements, the Department of Labor has taken the position that employers must make the housing available for the H–2A commuters prior to obtaining employer H–2A certification, regardless of whether the H–2A workers intend to use it. This imposes a significant 

cost on the growers without affording any benefit to the intended H–2A worker 

beneficiaries. 

H–2A is administratively burdensome, implemented ineffectively, and is too unresponsive and inflexible to meet the labor needs of U.S. agriculture. 

It is also unduly punitive. DOL seeks damages in the hundreds of thousands of 

dollars for minor technical violations of the program, including payment of 3⁄4 of the 

wages workers would have earned if they had worked an entire season. This requirement applies even if the workers voluntarily quit the first few days of the season, but the grower notifies DHS of the workers’ departure more than two work 

days after they have left the job site. 

The Department of Labor also appears to target growers who use H–2A (with 

wage and hour investigations). 8 percent of H–2A employers report that they were 

audited before they participated in the program, but 35 percent report being audited 

since entering the program. 

As noted earlier, the H–2A program is used by a small percentage of agricultural 

employers. We are talking about the need for a program that will work for the remaining 96 percent of us and the greater than one million people we need to hire 

each year. 

Federal 

At the federal level, mandatory E–Verify legislation, H.R. 2885, was passed by 

this committee in September 2011. 

Similar to the state E–Verify laws, in the absence of an agriculture worker program, H.R. 2885 will deprive farms across America of a majority of their existing 

skilled workforce, as well as new employees willing to fill these jobs. 

In H.R. 2885, agricultural employment is singled out for unique treatment with 

respect to the hiring process. The positive aspect of this provision is that it recogVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:58 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 0190 H:\WORK\IMMIG\020912\72787.000 HJUD1 PsN: 72787
10 

nizes the special challenges agriculture faces. Unfortunately, the bill does not provide the needed solution to this challenge—a workable labor program. 

Agriculture is provided with an extended period before employers are required to 

E–Verify their employees. This 36-month extension does little to provide us with relief, however. As soon as the IRS sends an employer a notification of non-matching 

wage and earning statements or the Social Security Administration or Department 

of Homeland Security sends a No-Match letter, the employer arguably has constructive knowledge that the employee is not work-authorized. If the no-match cannot be 

resolved, the employee must arguably be terminated. We are left without certainty 

about our work force. 

Moreover, with DHS conducting an unprecedented number of audits of employer 

I–9 records, which, as noted above, often result in the termination of a large number 

of key employees, agriculture could be singled out for such audits during the 36 

month deferral period. Other businesses will have already had to comply with E– 

Verify. Again, we are left without certainty about our work force. 

Pending E–Verify legislation introduced in the Senate, S. 1196, is even worse for 

agriculture than the House proposal. There is no recognition of the challenges for 

agriculture imposed by E–Verify legislation. Under the Senate plan, all employers 

would be mandated to use E–Verify one year after enactment and it would eliminate 

a provision retained in the House bill, the agricultural commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) exemption for agricultural products under current federal procurement regulations. Elimination of this exemption would make it nearly impossible to source 

U.S.-produced meat, milk, fruit, and vegetables for the school lunch program and 

U.S. military. 

STEPS TOWARD A SOLUTION

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

a new approach to an employee visa program: one that resembles the current labor 

market. The number of visas would be determined by the number of employer requests for workers on a monthly and annual basis and would vary year-to-year 

based on market conditions. 

It would eliminate the contractual tie of the current H–2A program, benefiting 

employees and employers. A workable program would also provide farm workers 

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

employment related laws and employment taxes. Thus there would be no reason for 

an employer to prefer a temporary foreign worker over a U.S. worker. The perception of such preference is often a criticism levied at temporary worker visa programs. In reality, employers generally prefer to hire local workers first rather than 

rely on long distance migrants. 

It is also imperative for this program to address, not only the need for future employees, but also the need to retain our experienced employees, the people who are 

already here. Our farms could not function without these valuable farm employees; 

yet most work without proper immigration status. Any to attempt to address the 

farm labor problem in this country needs to provide a vehicle for these law-abiding, 

high skilled, hard-working and valuable immigrants to continue working in agriculture legally. This is critical to ensuring a stable agricultural labor force. 

CONCLUSION

The labor emergency affecting American agriculture threatens not only farmers 

and rural communities’ livelihoods; it puts at risk our stable and reliable food supply. If there are indeed 1.2 million or more falsely documented workers in agriculture and they were no longer able to work, then the 2 nonfarm jobs that they 

create will also be lost. That is a loss of 3.6 million jobs. 

The workforce willing to grow and harvest crops exists, but it exists in other countries. Ensuring a stable and legally authorized farm workforce is about growing jobs 

in the United States, promoting economic activity in both rural and urban communities. It’s also about avoiding a dependency on foreign food supplies. With less domestic production, more food will have to be imported, compromising the safety and 

security of our food supply since only 1–2% of imported food is inspected. 

11 

There is not a person in our country that is not connected to this problem. If you 

eat fresh produce, drink milk, grill steaks or purchase plants for your yard, you are 

benefiting from the hard work of a foreign agricultural worker. And do not forget 

that 90% of those working in this country illegally are employed in other industries, 

not agriculture. 

Based on the experiences of ad hoc state implementation of E–Verify laws, we 

know that enforcement at the federal level, without a workable labor program for 

agriculture, would be devastating to farmers throughout the United States and the 

entire U.S. economy, as jobs are permanently lost. 

I urge the Members of this Committee who are concerned about the survival of 

agriculture in your states to work together and reach out to your colleagues to craft 

a workable bipartisan solution to this important economic issue. 

Foreign workers will harvest the produce Americans eat. The question is whether 

they will do so in the United States or abroad. E–Verify legislation in the absence 

of a workable agricultural labor program will answer this question, and it will not 

be in the best interest of America. 

On behalf of Western Growers, I am appreciative of this Committee’s willingness 

to examine the labor crisis facing U.S. agriculture. The impact of the labor market 

uncertainty has resulted in the competitive disadvantage for U.S. specialty crop production. We look forward to working with you to do something about it. 

12 


72787B-1.eps
13 


72787B-2.eps
14 


72787B-3.eps
15 


72787C-1.eps
16 


72787C-2.eps
17 


72787C-3.eps
18 


72787C-4.eps
19 


72787C-5.eps
20 

Mr. LUNGREN. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses today. 

And we are very fortunate that we got our votes done so we can 

actually be uninterrupted now before Members might have to return to their districts. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. I would ask that each of you attempt to 

summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. And to help you 

stay within that, we have those beautiful timing devices next to 

you. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 

1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 

signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

We are not as difficult as—well, I won’t say difficult—we are not 

as precise as the Supreme Court is. If you have ever had an opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court, you are instructed that 

when the red light comes on, you are to stop in mid-syllable unless 

you are addressing a specific question of a member of the Supreme 

Court. We don’t do that here, but we would like you to try and follow that 5 minutes as much as possible. 

Let me introduce the witnesses. 

Mr. Gary Black: Mr. Gary Black serves as commissioner of the 

Georgia Department of Agriculture. He began his career with the 

Georgia Farm Bureau in 1980 as a field representative, later 

served as coordinator for the State Young Farmer Program. In addition, he served as president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council 

for 21 years as well as co-managing the Georgia Food Industry 

Partnership. The commissioner earned his bachelor’s degree in agricultural education from the University of Georgia. 

Our second witness will be Mr. Paul Wenger. Mr. Paul Wenger 

is currently serving his second term as president of the California 

Farm Bureau Federation. In addition to serving as a member of the 

Federation board, he chaired the Water Advisory Committee. In 

2011, Mr. Wenger was elected to the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors. He is a third-generation farmer and 

earned his bachelor’s degree from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. 

Our third witness, Mr. Lee Wicker, is deputy director of the 

North Carolina Growers Association, the largest H-2A program 

user in the Nation. Prior to this position, he worked for the North 

Carolina Employment Security Commission as the technical supervisor for farm employment programs and the statewide administrator for the H-2A program. Mr. Wicker has been growing fluecured tobacco with his family in Lee County, North Carolina, since 

1978 and graduated from the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Bruce Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein is 

president of Farmworker Justice in Washington, D.C. He has substantial experience regarding the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. Prior to this, he worked as a labor and civil 

rights lawyer in southern Illinois and became a staff attorney at 

Farmworker Justice in 1988. He received his bachelor’s degree 

from Cornell University and his law degree from Washington University in St. Louis. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony. We are 

looking forward to it. And if you would proceed in the order in 

which I introduced you and attempt to keep your remarks to about 

21 

5 minutes. Your full comments—that is, written, submitted comments—will be included in their entirety in our record. 

Mr. Black? 

TESTIMONY OF GARY W. BLACK, COMMISSIONER, 

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Lofgren, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, and ladies and gentlemen who are in attendance at this very important hearing today, I am deeply honored to serve as Commissioner of Agriculture for all farmers and 

all consumers in Georgia, a State that is very rich in agricultural 

heritage and diversity. 

I first discussed this guestworker reform issue in this type of 

subcommittee forum with three Vidalia onion farmers in 1997. Our 

gracious host for that day was Congressman Sonny Bono. Witnesses like me have come to this hall and dozens of others on this 

historic Hill for generations. We lay problems at your feet, snap 

photos, and then return home. The ritual has become an industry 

in and of itself. People share their problems with me, too. We can 

articulate problems very easily, but crafting solutions requires 

more effort. 

America’s well-documented illegal immigration problem has 

reached a fevered pitch. Some argue that illegal immigrants are a 

drain on resources. Others insist that illegal immigrants are so 

woven into society that their absence would cripple some areas of 

skilled labor. Nonresident immigrant laborers, those of legal and illegal status, harvest crops, milk cows, gin cotton, and maintain 

landscapes. We know this to be true, but for a generation, solutionsearching discussions have lingered on the horizon, much like a 

summer afternoon cloud bank, producing lightning, thunder, and 

wind but no rain. It is time that we work together to break this 

drought. 

I salute you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Kingston, my 

good friend, and other Members who have demonstrated great 

courage in proposing 21st-century solutions to America’s much-maligned guestworker program. Legal service reform, housing vouchers, and transferring authority to USDA are ideas that warrant immediate consideration. These proposals and others, though, must 

not compete with but be complemented by mandatory E-Verify, in 

my view. 

Opponents have long shouted at each other in this stadium for 

too long. It is time that we leave the grandstands and suit up on 

the field of play with the mutual goal of solving the labor problems 

in American agriculture. Agriculture is not alone in this arena, but 

I suggest that we could provide the laboratory. 

Mr. Chairman, your hearing shows this progress, and new bills 

indicate interest. Let’s embrace this opportunity by considering a 

multitude of ideas. 

As a component of guestworker reform, I suggested to your Senate Subcommittee counterparts last fall a penalty-based work authorization permit. Following a limited sign-up period, those who 

would come forward would be subjected to enhanced oversight and 

stiff penalties, including a substantial monetary penalty, a bioVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:58 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\020912\72787.000 HJUD1 PsN: 72787
22 

*See Appendix. 

metrically secured agriculture-only permit, immediate deportation 

for violations of permit requirements, forfeiture of previously paid 

Social Security benefits, waiver of future Social Security benefits 

withholdings, with both portions being dedicated to a required market-based health insurance product, and fierce employer sanctions 

immediately following the end of the sign-up period. 

Mr. Chairman, this puzzle has many pieces, and the economy of 

your hearing does not allow for each to be thoroughly examined, 

but I back up my plea with more detail in my written comments 

and in the 189-page document* that we were required to submit to 

our legislature just this past month. My goal is to stretch the balloon in such a way that it will not return to its current shape, because the status quo is highly unacceptable. 

Many retailers feature a green, red, orange, and yellow bell pepper 24/7. In Georgia, we can grow these varieties from June to October. Yet, without a 21st-century guestworker program that includes many of the initiatives that are contained in pending legislation, an idea similar to those that I have discussed, I see no way 

for farmers to meet the future consumer demand with domestically 

produced peppers and other agricultural products. 

We need a legally documented workforce and a reliable management system to ensure integrity. I would be delighted if this could 

be achieved by neighbors hiring unemployed neighbors. Farmers 

routinely tell me, ‘‘I will hire all local, drug-free, sober, reliable, 

skilled farm workers in my community. Please tell me where I can 

find them.’’ I laud the aspiration, but I loathe to tell you that it 

escapes reality. 

I ask you, as respectfully as I know how, to act with haste. Many 

think this is impossible in 2012, but, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared 

to work with any Member to prove the critics wrong. American 

farm families, our domestic food system needs our help now. 

Thank you, and God bless you for what you do. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Black. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

23 


Black-1.eps
24 


Black-2.eps
25 


Black-3.eps
26 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Wenger? 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL WENGER, PRESIDENT, 

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. WENGER. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Congressman 

Lungren, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members of 

the Committee. 


Black-4.eps
27 

I am here today because farmers and ranchers across the Nation 

are in critical need of a solution that provides an effective, reliable, 

legal workforce to cultivate and harvest our crops and tend to our 

livestock. In California alone, we rely on 400,000 employees during 

peak season. Nationally, it is estimated that the agricultural workforce consists of 1.83 million hired workers. Some have estimated 

that as much as 50 to 70 percent of the hired workers are not authorized to work in the United States. 

Agriculture is a very diverse industry. Different regions produce 

different commodities with widely varying weather, cultivation, and 

harvest times. These diverse needs cannot be addressed through a 

one-size-fits-all single program solution. It is not a problem confined to agriculture in the Northeast, southern border States, or 

western States. This is not just a problem for large farmers. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, 60 percent 

of hired farm labor is hired by farms with annual sales less than 

a million dollars. 

Last year, this Committee approved a bill that would make EVerify mandatory for all employers regardless of size or industry. 

However, it offered no solution to address the unique challenges 

that a national E-Verify mandate will create for agriculture. EVerify without a workable, economical way to ensure a legal agricultural workforce will send American agricultural production, and 

the additional off-farm jobs that are created by it, to other countries. 

Farmers throughout the United States have tried innovative solutions to secure a domestic labor force. All have failed, and not because we don’t pay enough or offer enough benefits. Rather, Americans, through habit and education, have progressed beyond agriculture to other occupations, and Americans no longer have the desire for agricultural work. Agriculture is a lifestyle occupation. 

Many farmers see their children moving to other occupations, and 

I can speak from experience with three sons. Two are home farming with me, and one has decided to move on to other things. 

Agriculture needs a timely solution that fills the gap between the 

currently legally authorized workforce and the agricultural needs of 

the Nation. It is estimated agriculture employs between 900,000 

and 1.2 million unauthorized workers with special skills and abilities. 

Any solution must address the following: First, a workable solution must deal with the industry’s ongoing need for a future workforce. Because much agricultural work is seasonal, intermittent, 

and physically demanding, agriculture does not attract a domestic 

workforce. Secondly, most producers have not been able to use the 

H-2A program, but let me be clear: We strongly support an overhaul to help those that have been able to utilize it. 

I respectfully request that the study released by the National 

Council of Agricultural Employers illustrating the major flaws of 

the H-2A program be submitted into the record. Even if H-2A could 

be substantially improved, reform of that program alone cannot 

stabilize the farm labor situation. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Without objection, that report will be entered in 

the record. 

[The report referred to follows:] 

28 


72787F-1.eps
29 


72787F-2.eps
30 


72787F-3.eps
31 


72787F-4.eps
32 


72787F-5.eps
33 


72787F-6.eps
34 


72787F-7.eps
35 


72787F-8.eps
36 


72787F-9.eps
37 


72787F-10.eps
38 


72787F-11.eps
39 


72787F-12.eps
40 


72787F-13.eps
41 


72787F-14.eps
42 


72787F-15.eps
43 


72787F-16.eps
44 


72787F-17.eps
45 


72787F-18.eps
46 


72787F-19.eps
47 


72787F-20.eps
48 


72787F-21.eps
49 


72787F-22.eps
50 


72787F-23.eps
51 


72787F-24.eps
52 


72787F-25.eps
53 


72787F-26.eps
54 


72787F-27.eps
55 


72787F-28.eps
56 


72787F-29.eps
57 


72787F-30.eps
58 


72787F-31.eps
59 


72787F-32.eps
60 


72787F-33.eps
61 


72787F-34.eps
62 


72787F-35.eps
63 


72787F-36.eps
64 


72787F-37.eps
65 


72787F-38.eps
66 


72787F-39.eps
67 


72787F-40.eps
68 


72787F-41.eps
69 


72787F-42.eps
70 


72787F-43.eps
71 


72787F-44.eps
72 


72787F-45.eps
73 


72787F-46.eps
74 


72787F-47.eps
75 


72787F-48.eps
76 


72787F-49.eps
77 


72787F-50.eps
78 


72787F-51.eps
79 

Mr. WENGER. Good. Thank you. 

It is impossible for the program to scale up quickly, from admitting 50,000 to 60,000 workers to admitting the much larger numbers agriculture will need. An example in Texas: About 100,000 

workers currently fill a need of 155,000 farm jobs each year. In 

2009, only 2,807 farm jobs in Texas were certified for H-2A, meaning that the H-2A program currently fills only 1.8 percent of the 

Texas Farm Bureau needs. And this comes from the Department 

of Labor. 

To ensure our industry a future workforce, we need a new program model that is more flexible, scaleable, and market-oriented. 


72787F-52.eps
80 

Congressman Lungren is offering such a solution by creating a W 

visa for agricultural workers. It requires a biometric visa, criminal 

background check, and incentives for workers to abide by the terms 

of their visas and return home when the work is done. 

The closer a new program comes to replicating the way the farm 

labor force moves now among employers and crops, the more likely 

it will be able to meet the industry’s needs. To ensure programs actually work, they likely will need to be administered by the United 

States Department of Agriculture instead of the Department of 

Labor, which has a long and checkered history of administering the 

H-2A program. 

A workable program would also meet the needs of the dairy and 

the livestock industries. These operations frequently have difficulty 

finding workers, and their need is year-round. Any solution must 

avoid needless disruptions of the industry and must accommodate 

the large, experienced labor force currently within our industry. 

Any solution must deal in a practical and humane way with current workers. The most important features of a solution for our industry will be to recognize that many of our workforce want and 

need the ability to come to the United States, work on our farms 

and ranches, and return to their home country. 

The consequences of getting it wrong are serious. Make no mistake, to lose the ability to feed our Nation and depend upon foreign-produced food is a national security issue. Imposing an EVerify mandate and not creating a reliable workforce for agriculture will endanger America’s food supply that is currently grown 

in America. United States Department of Agriculture statistics 

show that foreign producers are gaining market share in the 

United States. Fruit and vegetable imports from China have increased over 555 percent. 

In conclusion, I have shared with you a snapshot of what is taking place across America. I urge you to craft a solution that provides farmers and ranchers with a solution that is economically 

practical, one that addresses the impact of our past inability to resolve this problem and recognizes the value of the people who work 

for us and feed our Nation. 

I will be happy to answer any questions later. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wenger. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wenger follows:] 

81 


Wenger-1.eps
82 


Wenger-2.eps
83 


Wenger-3.eps
84 


Wenger-4.eps
85 


Wenger-5.eps
86 


Wenger-6.eps
87 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Wicker? 

TESTIMONY OF H. LEE WICKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NORTH CAROLINA GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WICKER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, and Committee Members. I am Lee Wicker, deputy direcVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:58 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\020912\72787.000 HJUD1 PsN: 72787

Wenger-7.eps
88 

tor of the North Carolina Growers Association. Thank you for holding this hearing on a critical issue for labor-intensive agriculture. 

As the largest H-2A program user in the Nation, NCGA has over 

700 farmer members that will employ more than 7,000 H-2A workers and many thousand more U.S. workers in 2012. I am proud of 

the farmers and farm workers of NCGA because they have refused 

to surrender to the conventional wisdom that it is impossible to 

comply with our Nation’s labor, immigration, and worker protection 

laws. Instead, the farmers and workers of NCGA have committed 

themselves to compliance. With the dogged determination of the 

American farmer, all labor-intensive agriculture can comply, compete, survive, and thrive if the Federal Government would institute 

commonsense agricultural labor policy reforms. 

Americans are blessed to enjoy a safe, abundant, and affordable 

food supply produced on our Nation’s farms—so fortunate, in fact, 

that many Americans never give a second thought to the food they 

consume, where it comes from, or what life could be like if our food 

security and independence was lost. We must never take farmers, 

farm workers, or our food supply for granted. 

In order to continue delivering fresh food to the U.S. consumer, 

American farmers need a reasonable, rational, predictable, and 

workable guestworker program that supplies a legal, available, and 

fairly compensated farm workforce. A program that works is critical if our Nation intends to secure the viability of our farms, especially those that grow fresh fruits and vegetables. 

In previous testimony before this Committee, I described in detail the most onerous and chronic problems with H-2A. The current 

program is costly, unpredictable, and administratively flawed. It is 

too expensive, too litigious, and too cumbersome. Most farmers lack 

confidence that the Federal agencies running the program will 

meet their mandated obligations on time, even when the farmers 

fulfill their responsibilities perfectly and well in advance of the 

deadlines. 

In my prior testimony, I also recommended practical and sustainable solutions that AG employers across the Nation agree will give 

farmers and farm workers confidence that the AG guestworker program can work, be predictable, and treat all parties fairly. 

The solutions include: a rational wage rate linked to the highest 

of FLSA or State minimum wage plus 10 to 15 percent to help preclude wage stagnation; binding mediation and arbitration to fasttrack resolution of worker grievances and avoid costly lawsuits; 

allow farmers and workers who share the benefits of the program 

to also share the fixed costs; streamline the overly bureaucratic 

processes that discourage participation; allow all sectors of agriculture access to the program to encourage wider participation; and 

provide easy-to-understand processes for farmers and farm workers 

to comply with immigration law. 

In addition, these reforms must include clear statutory language 

that explicitly defines the role and reach of the administrative 

agency so that farmers are not continually whipsawed and subjected to different legal interpretations and regulations with every 

executive branch change. 

Legislation to reform the agricultural guestworker program has 

been introduced in both the House and Senate in this Congress by 

89 

Members from both political parties. It is clear there is a bipartisan 

political agreement that the current program is badly in need of reform. 

Chairman Smith’s AG guestworker measure, the American Specialty Agriculture Act, adopts most of the important and meaningful reforms sought by AG employers and would be a substantial improvement over the current program. For that reason, NCGA 

proudly endorsed the Chairman’s bill last fall. 

Some of the other legislative proposals being considered would 

also make significant improvements. For example, the BARN Act 

introduced by Representative Kingston and the HARVEST Act introduced by Senator Chambliss both include most of the improvements agricultural employers have suggested are needed. 

Other narrowly scoped proposals expand the existing program for 

specific areas like dairy, sheep, and goat herding. And while these 

are important, they are insufficient to deal with the larger systemic 

problems of the current program. 

Finally, there is the current version of the more than 12-year-old 

AgJOBS bill that seeks to legalize the current undocumented workforce without adding a single worker to an already inadequate supply and without creating a sustainable and workable guestworker 

program for the future. Rather than solve the problems with the 

current AG guestworker program, AgJOBS would make many of 

them worse. AgJOBS clearly will not solve our problems. In fact, 

many AG groups who had supported the AgJOBS proposal in the 

past are not supporting it now. 

I applaud this Committee for their focus and deliberate work to 

solve this crisis. Your continued focus on this issue is critical. Unfortunately, the issue of farm labor has become linked to the broader immigration debate, and the agriculture industry is presently a 

political hostage. 

It is clear that amnesty alone for undocumented workers did not 

work well for farmers after it was granted in 1986, and it will not 

solve the problems now or in the years ahead. Only a workable and 

predictable guestworker program will ensure that farmers continue 

to plant and harvest labor-intensive crops and provide wholesome 

food for our Nation. 

This Congress has an opportunity and an obligation to fix this 

problem or we will continue to lose our food production to foreign 

competitors. Farmers and farm workers want to comply with labor 

and immigration laws. Now is the time for Congress to take action 

so that they can. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wicker. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wicker follows:] 

90 


Wicker-1.eps
91 


Wicker-2.eps
92 


Wicker-3.eps
93 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Goldstein? 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, PRESIDENT, 

FARMWORKER JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about agricultural guestworker programs. 

Our agricultural labor system is unsustainable and unfair to 

farm workers and their families. This Nation’s immigration system 

is broken, our labor laws discriminate against farm workers, and 


Wicker-4.eps
94 

the labor practices of many agricultural employers are deficient. 

The resulting turnover in the farm labor force means that now 

more than one-half of the approximately 2 million seasonal farm 

workers lack authorized immigration status. 

The presence of undocumented workers depresses wages for all 

workers, including the roughly 700,000 U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants in agriculture. But undocumented farm workers are not 

leaving, and they are needed. To help agriculture thrive, we need 

a program that allows undocumented workers to earn legal immigration status. 

Some Members of Congress have proposed new agricultural 

guestworker programs, but it makes no sense to bring in hundreds 

of thousands of new guestworkers when there are over 1 million 

undocumented farm workers, in addition to U.S. citizens and documented immigrants. In addition, the H-2A program is available 

and has no limit on the number of guestworkers that may be 

brought in annually. 

Our recent report, ‘‘No Way to Treat a Guest,’’ shows that the H2A program contains modest labor protections but is fundamentally 

flawed and rife with abuses of both the U.S. and foreign workers. 

I ask that it be included in the record. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Without objection. 

[The report referred to follows:] 

95 


72787A-1.eps
96 


72787A-3.eps
97 


72787A-4.eps
98 


72787A-5.eps
99 


72787A-6.eps
100 


72787A-7.eps
101 


72787A-8.eps
102 


72787A-9.eps
103 


72787A-10.eps
104 


72787A-11.eps
105 


72787A-12.eps
106 


72787A-13.eps
107 


72787A-14.eps
108 


72787A-15.eps
109 


72787A-16.eps
110 


72787A-17.eps
111 


72787A-18.eps
112 


72787A-19.eps
113 


72787A-20.eps
114 


72787A-21.eps
115 


72787A-22.eps
116 


72787A-23.eps
117 


72787A-24.eps
118 


72787A-25.eps
119 


72787A-26.eps
120 


72787A-27.eps
121 


72787A-28.eps
122 


72787A-29.eps
123 


72787A-30.eps
124 


72787A-31.eps
125 


72787A-32.eps
126 


72787A-33.eps
127 


72787A-34.eps
128 


72787A-35.eps
129 


72787A-36.eps
130 


72787A-37.eps
131 


72787A-38.eps
132 


72787A-39.eps
133 


72787A-40.eps
134 


72787A-41.eps
135 


72787A-42.eps
136 


72787A-43.eps
137 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Many employers prefer guestworkers because 

they are more vulnerable than immigrants and citizens, for several 

reasons: H-2A workers may only work for the employer that obtained their visa, must leave the country when the job ends, and 

must hope that the employer will request a visa for them in a following year. They never earn the opportunity to become permanent 

immigrants, no matter how many seasons they work here. To pay 

recruitment fees and travel costs, H-2A workers often borrow 

money that must be repaid even if their job ends prematurely. 

Guestworkers will toil to the limits of human endurance at low 


72787A-44.eps
138 

wages, when U.S. workers seek more sustainable productivity requirements. 

An employer does not pay Social Security or unemployment tax 

on guestworkers’ wages but must do so on U.S. workers’ wages. H2A workers are excluded from the principal Federal employment 

law for farm workers, the Agricultural Worker Protection Act. And 

while recruiting in foreign countries, employers select workers 

based on age and gender, which is illegal inside the United States. 

These factors have led H-2A employers to discourage U.S. workers from applying for H-2A jobs and to subject them to unfair working conditions that cause them to quit or be fired. We commend 

Secretary Solis for restoring the H-2A protections that the Bush 

administration unconscionably removed. These protections evolved 

over many years and were issued by conservative President Ronald 

Reagan. 

For example, the principal wage protection requires H-2A employers to recruit U.S. workers, using at least the average hourly 

wage paid to farm workers in their region as determined by the 

USDA. The Bush formula, like some recent legislative proposals, 

set most H-2A wages at the average of the lowest-paid one-third of 

farm workers in a local area, cutting $1 to $2 per hour off of wages 

for thousands of U.S. And H-2A workers. 

We commend DOL’s increasing oversight of H-2A applications, 

which has led to the rejection of unlawful job terms that discourage 

U.S. workers from applying for H-2A jobs. Nonetheless, violations 

of basic program requirements are rampant, harming both U.S. 

and H-2A workers. Our report recommends strengthening protections and enforcement. 

Some growers audaciously complain that DOL delays processing 

their H-2A applications, even though they caused the delay by submitting illegal job terms or incomplete applications. Legitimate 

complaints could be addressed by providing more resources to the 

agencies to process applications and visas. 

Representatives Lungren, Kingston, and Smith have introduced 

guestworker bills that would slash wage rates, remove labor protections such as U.S. worker recruitment protections, minimize government oversight, and shift responsibility to the Department of 

Agriculture, which has no expertise administering immigration or 

labor laws. Their proposals would have taxpayers pay for a huge, 

costly guestworker program under which employers would bring in 

hundreds of thousands of additional foreign workers despite an 

adequate supply of farm labor among U.S. workers and experienced 

undocumented farm workers. We strongly oppose these bills for the 

harm they would inflict on U.S. and foreign workers. 

Large-scale guestworker programs are anathema to American 

values, because they take advantage of foreign workers by depriving them of economic freedom and political representation. Farm 

workers are human beings, not imported commodities. Our immigration system is not a set of trade rules; it reveals to the world 

our Nation’s values. 

There are sensible policy solutions to provide the Nation’s agricultural sector with a stable, legal labor force, treat farm workers 

fairly, and ensure a safe food supply. Congress should end discrimination against farm workers and labor laws, fund labor law enVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:58 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\020912\72787.000 HJUD1 PsN: 72787
139 

forcement to set a level playing field among employers, and encourage employers to offer job terms that attract and retain productive 

farm workers. Most importantly, Congress should provide current 

undocumented farm workers with an opportunity to earn permanent immigration status and the chance to pursue the American 

dream. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 


Gold-1.eps
140 


Gold-2.eps
141 


Gold-3.eps
142 


Gold-4.eps
143 


Gold-5.eps
144 


Gold-6.eps
145 


Gold-7.eps
146 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank all of you for your testimony. 

At this time, we will move into questions by the panel. And since 

there are not a lot of us here, we will probably do several rounds, 

if other Members wish to stick around. And I will start, with 5 

minutes. 

First of all, Mr. Goldstein, you indicated that my proposal, along 

with other proposals, would slash wage rates. If you give workers 


Gold-8.eps
147 

market mobility—that is, they are not tied to a particular employer 

but can seek employment in agriculture, among the different employers—wouldn’t that tend to give them an ability to benefit from 

wages? 

That is, I have heard a complaint about our proposal from 

some—very, very few—farmers who said, ‘‘You mean I would have 

to compete with the farmer down the street for these employees 

and I might have to pay them 50 cents more an hour than the 

other?’’ How does that slash wage rates? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, first, more generally, under guestworker 

programs, what happened under the Bracero program and tends to 

happen under the H-2A program, as well, is that because the workers are in a restricted, nonimmigrant status, they really don’t have 

much bargaining power. And so—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Could I ask you to specifically refer to the question I have? I specifically said it will be different than the Bracero 

program, it would be different than the H-2 program, in that they 

would have market mobility, job market mobility. Yes, they would 

be restricted to agriculture, but within agriculture they would be 

able to seek employment. And if, in fact, they felt they were mistreated or not paid enough, they could seek employment from another farmer. 

I would like you to talk about that specific part of it, because—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Okay. 

Mr. LUNGREN.—I have been criticized by some saying, you don’t 

tie them to a particular employer. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. My understanding is that the mobility would be 

between employers that enroll in that guestworker program. Growers that enroll in the guestworker program would set up recruitment systems to bring in their workers. So if a worker at one grower wanted to shift to another, I don’t see why most of the growers 

would bring on that worker when they have already set up a recruitment system to get an adequate supply of foreign workers on 

temporary work visas. 

So we don’t view that mobility as similar to the mobility that 

people have in the usual marketplace for labor. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. I wish you would at least concede what we have in our bill, to talk about that. I think it is illogical to suggest that giving them increased mobility in the market 

in which they are allowed to come into the United States would not 

have a tendency to increase wages. I just think that is logically inconsistent. So if you won’t even look at that, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Wenger, in your testimony, you talked about the number of 

farm jobs, I believe it was in New York. Don’t we have at peak season around 400,000 in California? 

Mr. WENGER. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And how many of those were certified for H-2A in 

a recent year, if you have that number? 

Mr. WENGER. I don’t have the exact number, but less than 2 percent. I could get that number for you. But it is insignificant in the 

fact of what our overall demand is. A lot of our growers, we have 

some that are in the strawberry plant business, they can utilize in 

some of their rural areas H-2A workers, but where they need largVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:58 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\020912\72787.000 HJUD1 PsN: 72787
148 

er numbers of people in the valley for growing those plants, it 

doesn’t work, and so they need to use more seasonal type of labor. 

Speaking just real quickly to your other answer, last year a 

neighbor of mine had cherries that were ready to harvest, and a 

rain was coming in, and he would have lost his crop. The word 

went out immediately, saying, ‘‘I need workers.’’ And a lot of those 

workers were working in vineyards and doing other things, tying 

grapevines, things that weren’t so critical to be done before the 

weather. When the word went out—he probably paid a little bit 

more for that labor; he had the labor. He brought in reefer vans 

and filled them with those cherries. He was able to salvage his 

crop, and he could not have done that if he didn’t have the flexibility to try to find folks. Now, were a good majority of those folks 

who probably didn’t have legal documents? Absolutely. 

And so, your program would allow for that movement between 

folks. And that is so critical when we are talking about seasonal 

fruit and vegetable production and weather-related incidents coming in. So we need to have that mobility. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In the statement that Maureen Torrey of New 

York submitted to us, and I have it in the record, she is the owner 

of Torrey Farms, a 12th generation farm; 21⁄2 years ago, they took 

a thousand acres of fresh market vegetable production out of production, and instead planted corn and wheat because they were unsure of how they were able to get their labor commitment. 

What did that mean? That meant that their payroll for a thou- sand acres of onions, around $2.5 million for 50 people year round, 

was replaced by payroll for a thousand acres of corn at $70,000 a 

year, covering 2 employees. How that benefits the employee, I do 

not understand. 

Mr. WENGER. Congressman, for the record, we do have last year, 

400,000 hired farm and ranch workers. Only 3,503 farm jobs were 

certified H-2A. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I don’t want you to state under oath exactly what 

it is, but would you say that it is fair to suggest that over half the 

workforce in the AG fields in California is here without benefit of 

legal papers? 

Mr. WENGER. We are certainly afraid that at least 50 percent or 

more. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would you believe that is true nationwide? 

Mr. WENGER. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. My time is up. My colleague from California, Zoe 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much and thanks to all the witnesses for your testimony. 

Mr. Wenger, from a California perspective, you have given your 

testimony that the E-Verify program, a mandatory E-Verify program without a solution for the current workforce would be disastrous, and I believe the same thing. 

You have also said, as to solutions, that it has been and will be 

impossible to find and deport the current unauthorized farm workforce and replace it with new workers, properly authorized under 

a new visa program or a combination program and improved H-2A. 

Any solution, you have said, must deal somehow in a practical and 

humane way with the current workforce. 

149 

Why do you believe that it will be impossible to replace the current undocumented workforce with millions of new temporary 

workers? 

Mr. WENGER. They are just not out there, even if you—if you 

were to take the folks that are here and now don’t have current 

documents, that you would find out who those are through an EVerify program. And if you were to remove them to a desert island 

and all of a sudden had this big vacuum of need, there wouldn’t 

be adequate labor supply, even in Mexico, to fill those jobs. 

And I want to also say that these aren’t unskilled jobs. A lot of 

the folks that are doing this work that have been here, they are 

driving pieces of equipment that are worth more than your most 

expensive Mercedes. I mean, they are highly skilled people that understand what they are doing. And so it is paramount that we find 

a way to find those that are already here, that don’t have legal documentation, to be able to go through some system to get that legal 

credential, that W Visa to be able to allow them to work here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Talking about the skill set, my—the district I represent in California is pretty urban, but we have some agricultural 

activity as well, especially in the south part of our county. And I 

remember a number of years ago, when I was in local government, 

visiting with the farmers who were growing mushrooms and visiting with the mushroom cutters, I mean, incredibly skilled work. 

I mean, I think at that time, and that was, you know, 20 years ago, they were paying $20 an hour to those people cutting, and I 

couldn’t have done it. 

Can you describe some of the other kinds of skilled work? I 

mean, we talk about this as unskilled labor, but I am wondering 

if you could describe the kind of skills that are necessary and that 

are possessed by the current workforce and why it might be very 

difficult to replace those skills with an entirely new workforce. 

Mr. WENGER. Certainly for a lot of our commodities in California, 

but throughout the country, they are being much more mechanized. 

And so you have to have a skill set that takes years and years to 

try to learn that and be able to operate this machinery in an effective and in a safe manner. 

But today, with such a demand for such locally produced food, 

what you are seeing in your area, we are seeing with urban agriculture throughout California. Talking to some of my contemporaries and other State Farm Bureaus, what we are seeing 

throughout this country, folks going from more of the commodity 

areas and putting a certain amount of production into seasonal 

fruit and vegetable production. 

And now all of a sudden they are figuring out we need somebody 

that has that hand-to-eye coordination and understands how to 

pick the fruit and harvest the vegetables at the right time. Whether it is picking strawberries, if you don’t pick a strawberry at the 

right time, it is either overly ripe and will wreck everything else. 

As it perishes in the basket, the other strawberries around it, you 

have to pick it at the ripeness, the right time. It can’t be too green, 

can’t be overripe. 

It takes a hand-to-eye coordination that takes years to learn, 

whether it is a plum, whether it is a peach. All the things that we 

want our kids and grandkids to eat, it is talking about more fresh 

150 

fruits and vegetables. And that is a highly skilled—and you are exactly right, Congresswoman Lofgren. We have one of our board 

members, that they do plums and peaches. 

Now they pay the workers on piece rate, and they will work 

every other day. And those workers will go from farm to farm, and 

then they will come back. But when they work at a piece rate, they 

are making 30- to $35 an hour. They know what they are are 

doing, they get the right fruit in the basket, they take care of it 

the right way so they can get the market and be the highest quality it can be. It is not just grunt labor, it is somebody that is very 

skilled on what they are doing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, just to summarize, I know my time is running out. As, like Mr. Black pointed out, that we have had these 

hearings and we have wrung our hands repeatedly. But what you 

are saying is any plan that doesn’t deal with taking the current 

workforce and somehow converting them to a legal status is not 

going to completely work; is that right? 

Mr. WENGER. We have a number of people in this country, we 

have to figure out a way to give them some kind of an adjustment 

of status to allow them to be in this country to work. You are absolutely right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman, Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me lay the predicate 

for my questioning so that you gentlemen know where I stand. 

I represent a district in central Florida, predominantly rural, 

very agricultural. In fact, my home county leads citrus production 

in the State. We have a lot of specialty crops, a lot of road crops. 

We have a tremendous demand for labor. And I concur with several 

of your testimonies today that this is an issue that must be addressed. It has been debated. It has lingered, and no action has 

been taken. 

But I have growers and harvesters back home who cannot meet 

their labor demands, who are sincerely concerned because the Department of Labor cannot meet their demand and the labor forces 

they need. They are ineffective, they are inefficient. We have litigation that is out of control, and now we are looking at how we can 

keep our growers from trying to farm their property for houses instead of crops, and keep them from taking their crops overseas because it is the only way they can make a living. 

Having said that, we have some wonderful proposals on the table 

today. I think Chairman Smith has a very good one, I think Mr. 

Lungren has a very good one. But I want to address some issues 

of both. And first of all, Mr. Lungren addressed this, and I would 

like to go with Commissioner and Mr. Wenger and then Mr. Wicker 

on portability. Is portability something that is absolutely necessary 

in order to have an adequate guest worker program in this country? Commissioner. 

Mr. BLACK. Congressman, did you say portability? 

Mr. ROSS. Portability, yes. In other words, to go from employer 

to employer once they are over here, or stay with just one employer. 

Mr. BLACK. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROSS. Portability is necessary then. 

151 

Mr. BLACK. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Wenger. 

Mr. WENGER. Absolutely. You have to have portability or it 

doesn’t work. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Wicker. 

Mr. WICKER. GGA supports structured portability so workers can 

move from one certified farmer to another. 

Mr. ROSS. And Mr. Goldstein, I know you have commented on 

this, but I don’t know if you have any comment with regard to portability. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We need portability plus. 

Mr. ROSS. Let me ask you then about something else with regard 

to Chairman Smith’s bill. He talks about caps in his. And we can’t 

get from the Labor Department what the adequate number of farm 

workers we need over here. We just can’t. We don’t have statistics 

on that, for obvious reasons. 

Would it be that maybe we should look at having a ceiling, or 

a ceiling and then a floor, so somewhere in between, the USDA 

would do a study and say that we believe that this many number 

of workers are absolutely necessary. Is that something that you 

think is a workable alternative to address that issue? Commissioner. 

Mr. BLACK. Congressman, I believe that is in the field of play for 

sure. We have to have better data in Georgia. It is one of the 

things that we have discussed in this study. Our data is woefully 

underserved. We need to determine what those needs are. And if 

we could get that ceiling in the proper place, I think that is good 

direction. 

Mr. ROSS. And I think over time if we had—if we will touch the 

third rail of immigration and take this away from immigration and 

call it what it is, it is an economic tool necessary to keep our economies, our local economies, our national economy to work, then I 

think we might be able to have an intelligent talk about this and 

pass some legislation. So if we can pass the legislation, we can 

start gathering the data necessary to find out what our labor needs 

are on a basis. 

Mr. Wenger, how do you feel about the caps? 

Mr. WENGER. I think caps are dangerous, because we have already heard from those folks that may be in H-2A, and if we could 

fix H-2A then they could bring their workers in. But as we look 

about seasons and trying for folks to maybe get up into the northeast and the northern areas, I think if you have a cap, then those 

in the southern parts of this country are going to be better served, 

quicker, and some of those others won’t. And we need agriculture 

across this country. 

The other thing is anytime you have a cap, and if you say that 

you have a certain amount of months that they can be in country, 

once they come in country and go back, has that been used up? 

Even though maybe they could be in country for 10 months, they 

were only there for 3. And historically a lot of workers like to come 

in where we can go back and forth across the border. They do like 

to come in for what they are really good at for 3 or 4 months, and 

they want to go home. And so have we used up one of those key 

spots that we thought we had a worker in country for 10 months, 

152 

but we only had them in for 3 or 4? So I think caps, as long as 

we can—and have a W Visa type of scenario where they are agricultural workers, allow them to go where the work is. 

Some could be in transition. They are not all going to be working 

today. Maybe they are in transit from getting across the border to 

getting up into Maine or getting up into Washington State or New 

York. So I think caps are dangerous. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. Mr. Wicker, then, if I have time for one 

more question. How do you feel about caps? 

Mr. WICKER. On the caps, we have a de facto cap now with the 

bureaucracy—— 

Mr. ROSS. Right. Oh, yes. 

Mr. WICKER [continuing]. That just chokes all the program. 

Mr. ROSS. Yes. And it is been effective, yeah. 

Mr. WICKER. So, you know, the cap and the American Specialty 

Agriculture Act is 500,000. Should it be higher? Maybe. You know, 

let’s pass that and get started. 

I know that if our country makes a commitment and puts the 

right statutory language in place, that we can build a program that 

works for farmers and is accountable for workers. And so, yeah, we 

can have a program that treats workers well. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I see my time 

is up. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. You will have a chance for a second goaround. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for courtesies extended. I just have comments and a quick 

question and then a pointed question to Mr. Goldstein, if I could. 

I have been working on these issues. I am not from any of the 

States of the particular witnesses, but certainly have joined my colleagues on the importance of trying to address questions dealing 

with farm workers. And in addition, I have seen the plight of many 

of the farming communities, large farming communities as it relates to—during these harsh times, the loss of product, if you will, 

in the field. 

And I consider America and want America to be the breadbasket 

of this world, and want to ensure that not only are the people who 

are in need here in this country eat at prices that they can afford, 

but that we are able to serve those around the world. 

I am frustrated, however, because we are having this hearing, 

and many of you may have heard me over and over talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which would entail, of course, even 

though we have discussed the farm worker visa separately, it 

would discuss a whole comprehensive approach. When we talk 

about individual visas, you can imagine in this time of unemployment, no matter how much you may make the argument are Americans coming to pick product, there will be those who say you are 

taking jobs away from Americans. 

Let me just ask, going straight across the board, if you can give 

me yes/noes, and then I will get to Mr. Goldstein, hopefully, within 

my time. 

153 

Mr. Black, does your State have housing, school requirements for 

migrant workers, farm workers? 

Mr. BLACK. No, ma’am. We abide by the H-2A. The one that is 

mainly the focus is those 33 producers in Georgia, I believe, that 

are using H-2A. They abide by those requirements. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So are you saying you don’t provide 

housing? I said housing and schooling and for the children of migrant workers, housing for the families and schooling. 

Mr. BLACK. Those are the individual responsibilities of those 

crews that come to work with those farmers, not when they are living in the community. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. So it is the burden of the migrant 

workers. They provide their own housing. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And are their children allowed to go to school 

in Georgia? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, ma’am. But what would be important to note 

here is whether or not the family is actually with them or not. 

Many of these workers are not there for that time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. I have to move quickly. All right, I 

thank you. I have to move rather quickly. 

And do you have any American workers in your field, U.S.? 

Mr. BLACK. A very, very limited number. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do they come when you call them? 

Mr. BLACK. I am sorry? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do they come when you call them? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I would say the best example I have of that, 

Congresswoman, is one of my growers in Tifton, Georgia, this past 

year, under his requirements of H-2A and hiring people through 50 

percent of the contract period, processed 1,500 local workers. He 

was able to get eight of them to stay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Let me move quickly. Mr. Wenger, 

housing, schooling. 

Mr. WENGER. Currently a lot of growers will provide housing. 

They see that as an attraction to get workers, but it is not required. And schooling, if they have children that are there, they go 

to the public schools. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is open to them. 

Mr. WENGER. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Wicker of North Carolina. 

Mr. WICKER. I can only speak to our H-2A workers, and their 

families don’t travel with them. The State Department won’t issue 

them visas to travel with them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. What about American workers? For Mr. 

Wenger and Mr. Wicker, just quick answers, please. 

Mr. WENGER. It would be the same thing. You know, schooling 

is available through all the public—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No, American workers working in your business. 

Mr. WENGER. Yeah. I mean sometimes there is housing with it, 

but most of the time—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. American workers, U.S. jobs—people working 

in—— 

Mr. WENGER. Right. 

154 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am asking you, do they work in your business? Are they in the field picking product? 

Mr. WENGER. I have some that went through the legalization 

process in 1986 that are now citizens. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. Mr. Wicker. 

Mr. WICKER. Yes, ma’am. We do have U.S. workers working on 

our farms. They tend to be supervisors—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Native U.S.—— 

Mr. WICKER. Yes, local workers, absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Mr. Goldstein, what are the problems that we should be looking at in this visa program? Thank you, 

gentlemen. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, the problems were actually discussed in a 

1909 report by the Commission on Country Life of Teddy Roosevelt 

and reported again in the Commission on Migratory Labor, President Truman, which said the same thing that the 1909 report said 

and the same thing as the Commission on Agricultural Workers 

said in 1992. 

We need to modernize labor practices, improve wages and working conditions to attract and retain farm workers, stop relying on 

the desperation abroad to bring in vulnerable workers on restricted 

nonimmigrant visas. We need to stop, end the discrimination in 

labor laws against farm workers. 

Farm workers don’t get overtime pay. Small farmers don’t even 

have to pay the minimum wage. You know, we need to do things 

to stabilize the workforce and treat farm workers as human beings. 

And we desperately need immigration reform because more than 

half the farm workers are undocumented. And we should give them 

the same opportunity that this Nation of immigrants has given to 

other people: to become immigrants, leading to citizenship, so that 

they have bargaining power with their employers and they earn 

the right to become citizens who can actually vote and have an impact on the policies that affect them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Chairman, could I just make a correction for the record, 

something that I said, so that I will not offend any population? I 

know that the definition of Native Americans are those who were 

defined to have been here when all of us came. 

So my question was trying to establish whether U.S. citizens, 

other than those who have come from out of the country to work, 

were seeking these jobs. And so I think you answered, ‘‘Some are 

and some are not.’’ 

I thank the gentlemen, and I yield back. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentlelady. We will go in for a second 

round now and start off with 5 minutes. 

Mr. Black, Mr. Wenger, Mr. Wicker, do you support programs so 

that you can exploit vulnerable workers? 

Mr. BLACK. So that we could exploit? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Exploit vulnerable workers. One of the criticisms 

expressed by Mr. Goldstein was that these various programs rely 

on vulnerable workers. And I am trying to ask your position on vulnerable workers and how your particular program does not rely on 

vulnerable workers. If that is the case, how do you empower your 

155 

workers in the program that you envision for us if you try and 

solve this problem? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, Mr. Chairman, no, we do not support anything 

that exploits vulnerable workers. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, how would they be empowered by the programs that you support? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I think it creates a lot of challenges and opportunities in the marketplace. I think that portability, some of the 

things you were discussing earlier, and being able to compete is an 

excellent step for us to take. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Wenger. 

Mr. WENGER. Yeah. The interesting thing is if you are worried 

about workers being taken advantage of, then give them a document so they can travel and vote with their legs where they want 

to go if they think they haven’t been dealt with correctly. And you 

don’t need to be a citizen, you just need to have a legal work document that empowers you. 

In California we have a minimum wage. We pay overtime for agricultural work. And if you are really concerned about the plight 

of those that are living in the shadows and they are undocumented, 

then give them a legal document. 

It was interesting last year, last summer, as we were going over 

to my son’s graduation at Cal Poly, and we came by a peach field 

that was being harvested—and every single one of them at lunch 

break had their phones out and they were texting and they were 

calling on the phone and talking to people. 

The people we have working in the fields today aren’t somebody 

that is just stuck back in the shadows. Give them a legal documentation so they can come out of the shadows. As far as being a 

workforce, there should no reason that anybody should be taken 

advantage of. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Wicker. 

Mr. WICKER. No, we do not support a program that would allow 

exploitation. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, then, how would you empower them? How 

are they empowered? What in your program allows them not to be 

exploited? Let me put it that way. 

Mr. WICKER. They come through orientation and meet many, 

many, different worker rights groups, like we have the collective 

bargaining agreement at North Carolina Growers with the Farm 

Labor Organizing Committee. They meet migrant help providers, 

they meet English as a second language providers. They meet wage 

and hour investigators. There is a lot of oversight and accountability. 

We give full disclosure. We keep records and provide wage statements, and we comply with the law. That is how you make sure 

that workers are not exploited. 

Mr. LUNGREN. As you may know, I am kind of frustrated by this 

whole thing. I was here in the eighties. I was the Republican floor 

manager of Simpson-Mazzoli. I wrote a lot of what is now the H2A program from the eighties, hoping that would work. I look now 

and see it didn’t work. We haven’t had the protection of the farm 

workers that I believe we should have if they had a legal status 

and they were out of the shadows of illegality. And so I am trying 

156 

to put the best program forward that I think can pass and that can 

actually work. But then I hear things like a cap. 

Does anybody here know how many tourists we have coming into 

the United States per year? Fifty million. So what if I were here 

to advocate an arbitrary cap of 25 million? Doesn’t relate to the 

flow, doesn’t relate to the market, doesn’t relate to anything except 

we in Congress decided we are going to have 25 million tourist 

visas here, even though the demand is 50 million. 

It seems to me it makes more sense for us to be able to establish 

whatever program we established without a cap, but on an annual 

basis reflects the need as proven by the agriculture community, approved by the Department of Agriculture, and then reviewed on a 

yearly basis. If in fact it is a million, it is a million. People seem 

to be afraid of saying that. 

But it seems to me it ought to be what the market tells us, and 

then be real with respect to that and give people the mobility in 

the marketplace, so that in fact they are not wards of a particular 

employer and find themselves back in their home country, when 

they have a legitimate gripe with the employer that they have, and 

an ability to join unions if they want to, not join unions, those sorts 

of things. 

So I just try and deal in the reality of what is out there and, to 

me caps is like saying we know we have 50 million visitors that 

come here a year, but we, the Congress, are going to say 25 million. 

Why? Well, because we think 25 million. 

Maybe we ought to see what the market is and deal with the 

market in that way. And whatever program we adopt, my hope in 

authoring my bill was to have flexibility. And with the legal status 

of the people involved in the program comes the protections of already existing law, which they can rely on. 

The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, just a couple of comments really, looking— 

I wasn’t here in the Congress during the Reagan years, but I think 

the problem we often talk about wasn’t in force. The real problem 

was that there was no mechanism for new people to come in. There 

was insufficient capacity to meet our actual economic needs, whether it was agriculture or whether it was nuclear physicists, you 

know. That was the problem. And we are still grappling with that 

problem. 

My colleague from Texas mentioned the need for broad reform of 

the immigration laws. And before I was ever an elected official I 

used to be an immigration lawyer and I taught immigration law. 

And I can tell you that the system is a mess. I mean, it is a mess 

when it comes to agriculture, it is a mess when it comes to family 

law, it is a mess when it comes to starter visas for high-tech. I 

mean, it needs reform, and I hope that we can do that. 

I sense it is not going to be in the remainder of this Congress, 

but it is an obligation that I hope we can address and it would be 

wonderful to do it on a bipartisan basis. I think, looking at this AG 

area, the idea—and I credit everybody trying to address this—but 

the idea that we could actually get—let’s say we put a cap of 

500,000, you wouldn’t find 500,000 people to apply and to be interviewed in consular offices to get to American farms in time to avoid 

the destruction of American agriculture. So the idea of a cap really 

157 

is not even worth discussing because it won’t work. There aren’t 

enough people to apply. 

We have to talk about how do we help the people who have 

worked in the fields to gain a legal status that allows them to continue to work, which we need them to do, but also allows them the 

dignity and right that they should have so that they can be treated 

fairly? I certainly would not suggest any of the individuals here are 

unfair, but that happens in the wide world that we live in and people need bargaining power and they need the capacity to stand up 

for themselves, which you can’t do if you are living, you know, in 

the shadows, if that is how we want to describe it. 

So I do understand that immigration is a subject that has become to my mind almost irrationally hot as a topic in America 

when we really should just be thinking of what is the right thing 

to do for our country. 

And when I think about how our country has been strengthened 

by immigration, my grandfather was an immigrant. And looking at 

the whole country, we have been strengthened by the people who 

had enough get-up and go to get up and go and come to America 

and dream American dreams and become Americans with us. And 

that is really what this discussion should be about. 

Instead of turning our back on our history, we should embrace 

it and make sure that it is part of our future. And the AG discussion is, I think, just a small part of that discussion. 

Now, having said that, I want to talk about the economy because 

we have a tough economy now, and even though we have got a 

largely unauthorized workforce in the field, they are contributing 

to the economic wealth of the country. 

And when I look at Commissioner Black, your testimony, you 

talk about a survey of respondents indicating that they had lost 

$10 million due to Georgia’s new immigration law. But if I am 

reading the report correctly—and you can just say yes or no—the 

survey was of 570 people who responded and reported their losses. 

But we don’t know whether all those people were even farmers. 

And my understanding is that there are 48,000 farms in Georgia. 

So the $10 million reported lost from the 570 who responded to the 

survey is not all that was lost in Georgia if we have 48,000 farms; 

wouldn’t that be correct? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, ma’am. And if I may explain the rationale, the 

methodology on the survey, rather than doing economic models and 

extrapolating, we wanted to ask direct farmers direct questions. Of 

our 800 respondents to the surveys, they were all farmers. Of the 

ones that answered the economic impact question, that was the 500 

number you mentioned. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Mr. BLACK. And we said 26 percent of those indicated losses that 

totaled over 10 million. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see. 

Mr. BLACK. So that is roughly 125, 130 farmers. Then one can 

extrapolate however you might care. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. BLACK. But we know that was the direct impact to those producers and their response. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. I know my time is up. 

158 

I will just note that the University of Georgia has done that 

analysis, and what they are saying is that the direct losses would 

be $140 million in the spring of 2011 for just seven of the key berry 

and vegetable crops. And according to their study, the direct losses 

would lead to an additional $250 million in indirect losses to Georgia’s economy, for a total of $391 million lost to the Georgia economy because of that immigration law they passed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. Mr. Ross. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to address the adverse effect of wage rates. I have growers back home, I have harvesters back home who utilize H-2A programs because they know that it is the right way to go about it. 

But yet their competitors in some instances realize that because 

the market drives wages more than anything, that they lose a tremendous competitive advantage and, in fact, the resulting outcome 

has been that you almost incentivize by way of an adverse effective 

wage rate the hiring of illegal workers. 

I guess if we had, you know, fixed costs and fixed price, then an 

adverse effect of wage rate could be fixed into the formula for the 

growers’ profits, but that is not the case. This is a market-driven 

enterprise. 

And my question to the gentlemen, starting with Mr. Black, 

would be what is your comment on the adverse effect of wage rate? 

Mr. BLACK. Congressman, it is a difficult issue. When you look 

in a packing shed that might have some minimum wage jobs, like 

sweeping the floor, and yet if you are forced, that is an economic 

pressure that you place on a job like that, having to abide by that 

adverse effect of wage. 

That is why I really—when we talk about the whole issue of 

wages in agriculture, one of the things we have been—I am glad 

we have been able to do in our study is kind of explode the myth 

that we underpay people. 

Mr. ROSS. Correct. 

Mr. BLACK. You know, those that are doing the productive work. 

But the facts are there are some minimum wage jobs still left 

and having flexibility to—— 

Mr. ROSS. Is important. 

Mr. BLACK. Is important. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Wenger. 

Mr. WENGER. Yeah, I think anytime you set wages at a certain 

level, and if you can—if you don’t have caps and you let people 

come in and meet that, for what they are doing, their responsibility 

level, they are going to find what that wage should be. 

And as Mr. Black has said, there are going to be certain things 

that are going to have a higher wage rate because maybe the work 

id a little bit harder, maybe it is outside; whereas others you don’t 

have the same responsibility, and so let the market determine. I 

mean, here we are, agriculture, I can’t think of any group as a society that is more free market driven, and let’s let our wages be free 

market driven. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Wicker, how do you feel? 

Mr. WICKER. Yeah, we are advocating a super minimum wage 

that is tied to the Federal or State minimum wage, whichever is 

159 

highest. And what we are looking for is a base hourly wage rate 

that is predictable. 

And then I agree to some extent with these other gentlemen that 

the discretion of the grower, he is going to piece-rate systems, responsibilities, skill sets, you are going to pay more than that base 

hourly wage rate. But it is so expensive to farm, and what my 

members tell me consistently is this. All I know is that over the 

last 20 years, our wage rates have gone up on average 4.7 percent 

a year. I am scared to go to the bank and push all my chips into 

the middle of the table and sign the note to buy another farm or 

invest capital and infrastructure to try to grow more and do better. 

I am scared because I can’t get my hands around where we are 

going with this labor issue. All I know is that it is going up and 

it is driving me out of business. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Goldstein, don’t you think that the adverse effect 

of wage rate incentivizes those who don’t want to participate in the 

H-2A program to hire those that are illegal? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We think the adverse effect wage rate is actually 

too low. It is a market-based wage rate. It is based on a USDA survey of agricultural employers’ wages. It includes wage rates paid to 

undocumented workers. And because undocumented workers are 

willing to work for less than U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, 

that survey is resulting in depressed wage rates. In addition—— 

Mr. ROSS. And yet my harvesters back home can’t compete because there are too many being hired illegally at less than the average effective wage rate. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We are advocating for a complete change to that. 

We would like to legalize the undocumented workforce and have 

greater enforcement of farm workers’ rights. 

You know, and you have just heard the gentlemen, Mr. Wenger, 

saying some of these workers on piece rates are making $30 an 

hour. I have just been talking to some growers who say, you know, 

that worker is making an average of about $10 an hour, which is 

above the adverse effect wage rate in most States, but can’t we find 

a way to work together on a solution, maybe pay them 15 bucks 

an hour plus some health insurance? 

Mr. ROSS. And you think that is flexibility—Commissioner Black. 

Mr. BLACK. Congressman, just one other point about AEWR. One 

of our growers this year completed his work, completed his paperwork, turned the paperwork in. In the process, the AEWR changed 

1 penny in our State. 

Did the bureaucratic system help him change that paperwork up 

front? Absolutely not. He went to the back of the line and started 

all over for the change of 1 penny on the AEWR. And another good 

example of how that current system surely does create obstacles for 

people using the program. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentlemen, and I thank all of our 

Members here. I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

which we will forward, and then ask you to respond as promptly 

160 

as possible in writing so that we could make your answers part of 

the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion into the record. 

With that, again, I would like to thank our witnesses and this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(161) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Washington 

I would like to thank Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren, as well 

as Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers, for holding this important hearing on ‘‘Regional Perspectives of Agricultural Guestworker Programs.’’ Agriculture, 

and in particular specialty crops, is the backbone of the economy in Central Washington, and labor shortages are a constant threat to the economic vitality of our 

communities. 

My district is a top-producing region of a diverse range of crops. Without Pacific 

Northwest growers, the United States would lose more than half of its apple and 

cherry production, more than 70 percent of its pear production, and more than 77 

percent of its hops production. In addition to feeding the United States, many of 

these products are exported and contribute significantly to our agricultural trade 

surplus. 

The crops I mention above share one thing in common—they are all labor-intensive. When I was younger, Americans traveled from state to state, picking these 

crops as they became ready for harvest before moving on to the next as the seasons 

progressed. However, that is no longer the case. In my home state, this past harvest 

was a clear example of the labor challenges faced by our growers. 

Due to a cold growing season, the apple crop was unusually late this year. This 

caused many of the workers who traditionally pick Washington state apples to move 

on to other regions before the harvest begun—causing the worst worker shortage 

our region has faced in decades. 

In September of last year—the height of the apple harvest—Washington state 

faced an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. Growers put out signs, advertised on 

the radio, and worked with workforce training centers throughout the state to try 

and recruit American workers willing to pick fruit. Some offered wages as high as 

$150 a day to workers with no experience. Despite these efforts, growers had only 

a handful of pickers show up—and they were often times gone within hours or days 

after realizing how difficult the work was. 

The worker shortage caused as much as two percent of the crop to be left on the 

trees. Even more economically damaging, some of the fruit was harvested so late 

that it impacted the storage capability—substantially reducing growers’ rate of return. 

Unfortunately, the current H-2A Program is not a viable alternative to meet the 

labor needs of our growers. In his opening statement, Chairman Smith mentions 

that there is no limit to the number of visas that can be issued as a part of the 

program. While that may be the case, this should not be misunderstood to mean 

that the program is meeting the labor needs of the agricultural community. 

A number of growers in my district apply for workers through the H-2A program. 

More often than not, growers get only a small percentage of the workers they have 

requested. Equally damaging for growers of highly perishable products—which most 

labor-intensive crops are—are the delays that growers face in securing H-2A workers, who often don’t arrive until weeks or months after they are needed. Most of 

these crops have a short harvest period and these delays can be the difference between making money or breaking even, and suffering a loss on the year’s crop. 

162 

The H-2A program is also very difficult for growers to administer. The high cost, 

burdensome paperwork requirements, and ever-changing enforcement by the Department of Labor make it impossible for most small and medium-size growers to 

participate at all. The larger growers don’t have just one staff member dedicated 

to meeting H-2A requirements—they have an entire team. 

As it currently exists, the H-2A program denies American farmers the workers 

they need and invites chaos at our borders. I have long said that a workable and 

enforceable guestworker program that gives our growers and processors access to a 

stable legal workforce while ensuring that our government is in control of immigration is critical to our national security and our economy. 

In my view, as Congress looks at ways to control our borders and crack down on 

illegal immigration, we must establish a new temporary guestworker program that 

provides employers with the legal and willing workforce they need in a simple, timely manner. This program must meet the growing labor needs of our farmers, and 

it must respect the seasonal nature of Central Washington’s agriculture economy. 

Once Americans have passed over an agricultural job opening, employers should 

have a means to bring in a legal workforce. 

Once again, I would like to thank Chairman Gallegly and Ranking Member 

Lofgren, as well as Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers, for holding this 

important hearing. I stand ready to work with you to address this critical economic—and homeland security—issue. 

f 

163 

Letter from Diego Santiago Reyes Margarita, Farm Labor 

Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO 

f 


72787AA.eps
164 

Prepared Statement of Robert L. Guenther, Senior Vice President, 

Public Policy, United Fresh Produce Association 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for providing the opportunity for the United Fresh 

Produce Association to provide comments regarding the Committee’s hearing on regional perspectives on ag guestworker programs. As you and the other members of 

the Committee are aware, this is an issue of tremendous importance to the men and 

women of this country who provide all Americans with a bountiful supply of fresh 

fruits and vegetables. 

United Fresh is the pre-eminent trade association for the produce industry in 

managing critical public policy issues; shaping legislative and regulatory action; providing scientific and technical leadership in food safety, quality assurance, nutrition 

and health; and developing education programs and business opportunities for members to better meet consumer needs for increased consumption of fresh produce. 

Founded in 1904, United Fresh represents the interests of member companies from 

small family businesses to the largest international corporations throughout the 

global fresh produce supply chain, including growers, shippers, fresh-cut processors, 

wholesalers, distributors, retailers, foodservice operators, industry suppliers and allied associations. 

Our mission at United Fresh is to represent the entire industry, with all its diversity and array of views. While our members may differ on a variety of matters, we 

work with them to achieve consensus on the issues that most impact the various 

links in the fresh produce chain and advocate for policies that most enhance our 

members’ ability to stay in business. 

An issue on which we have consensus is with respect to the current state of the 

produce industry’s difficulties in maintaining a stable workforce of skilled labor and 

how well the federal government’s current guestworker program is able to meet that 

need overall. As you are well aware, of the nearly two million on the farm jobs in 

the produce industry currently are largely held by workers who were not born in 

this country. According to the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR), 

of which United Fresh is a member, more than 70 percent of all farm workers in 

the specialty crop industry do not have the proper work authorization in spite of 

the documentation they present to prospective employers. In spite of the repeated, 

persistent efforts of produce industry employers to hire domestic workers, our association members have told us about multiple situations in which they had very few 

domestic workers apply for the farm jobs available, and of those who did, in numerous instances those workers lasted on the job for only a few days and sometimes 

only a few hours. Given the number of jobs needed to be filled, along with the highly 

time-sensitive nature of harvesting fruits and vegetables and getting them to the 

marketplace, these kinds of experiences force producers to use the workers who 

apply for these jobs, are skilled and will stay on the job. 

Our members make every effort required to recruit domestic workers. But as you 

know, the Department of Homeland Security administers the H–2A program, which 

has the mission of providing foreign-born workers for seasonal agriculture jobs. We 

have members who use the H–2A program and have received satisfactory results. 

However, we have also received substantial feedback from the members of our association who have tried to use the H–2A program and it did not meet their workforce 

needs. 

For example, the National Council of Agriculture Employers (NCAE) conducted 

extensive research in 2010 into the experiences of their members with the H–2A 

program. Among their findings are that over half of survey respondents had to seek 

additional assistance from elected officials to make the H–2A program responsive 

to their needs. As a result of getting workers through H–2A too late in the process, 

reported losses of nearly $320 million. So while the H–2A program has been useful 

for some growers, it clearly does not meet the needs of the majority of produce farm 

operators. It is estimated that less than 5 percent of farm labor comes from the H– 

2A program. 

Last year, legislation was introduced and considered in this committee that would 

mandate the use of DHS’s E–Verify system for all businesses nationwide. With the 

high number of foreign-born workers in the produce industry nationwide, mandatory 

use of E–Verify would disqualify a tremendous percentage of our workforce. That 

165 

situation, combined with a widespread lack of success in recruiting and retaining 

domestic workers and a current ag guestworker program that is riddled with flaws 

would lead to a disastrous situation for the produce industry. United Fresh is not 

opposed to the E–Verify system, but we do oppose mandating its use without a corresponding guestworker program that ensures a viable, skilled workforce. The fallout in the state of Georgia from such a law, with labor shortages and economic 

losses in the millions of dollars, provides a stark illustration of the impact of mandatory E–Verify only. 

We believe that any bill to mandate E–Verify must be accompanied by 

guestworker program that address the workers who are currently in the U.S. with 

as little disruption to the industry as possible; it must be flexible and market-oriented and acknowledges the nature and flow of agriculture field work, as well as 

the skill level involved; and should address future workforce needs. We are ready 

and willing to work with this Committee and others in Congress on how best to 

achieve these principles. 

Improving the ability of the produce industry to attract and retain a legal, skilled 

workforce is in the best interests of legally employed Americans. ACIR estimates for 

every farm job, there are three others downstream dependent on the jobs done on 

the farm. Jobs in the produce chain that are not on the farm are much more likely 

to be held by domestic workers. Maintaining an effective, efficient workforce in the 

field helps retain hundreds of thousands of other jobs. At a time when U.S. unemployment is still close to double digits, undermining U.S. jobs is the last thing Congress should be doing. 

Furthermore, legislation that would remove most of the produce industry’s workforce without a proposal to fill that void, makes this country more vulnerable to food 

dependence. American producers are already competing with increased imports from 

countries such as China and Peru. According to the Congressional Research Service 

in 2008, a gap of $7 billion existed between U.S. fruit and vegetable exports and 

imports. U.S. producers can narrow that gap, but not without a stable workforce. 

While mandating E–Verify may seem like a simple solution to the problem of ensuring a legal workforce in agriculture and other industries, the application of this 

approach on its own would have dire consequences for our members. We appreciate 

the efforts of Chairman Smith, Congressman Lungren, and Congressman Jack Kingston and several others to address the needs of the agriculture sector. While we believe there is still much that needs to be done to achieve a workable solution, it is 

helpful to see the acknowledgement of agriculture’s unique needs. We look forward 

to working with our industry partners and with Members of Congress and their 

staffs to bring about an effective, efficient means for ensuring a stable, legal agriculture workforce. 

f 

166 

Brochure submitted by the National Council of 

Agicultural Employers (NCAE) 


72787E-1.eps
167 


72787E-2.eps
168 


72787E-3.eps
169 

f 


72787E-4.eps
170 

Report submitted by Gary W. Black, Commissioner, 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 


BlackA-1.eps
171 


BlackA-2.eps
172 


BlackA-3.eps
173 


BlackA-4.eps
174 


BlackA-5.eps
175 


BlackA-6.eps
176 


BlackA-7.eps
177 


BlackA-8.eps
178 


BlackA-9.eps
179 


BlackA-10.eps
180 


BlackA-11.eps
181 


BlackA-12.eps
182 


BlackA-13.eps
183 


BlackA-14.eps
184 


BlackA-15.eps
185 


BlackA-16.eps
186 


BlackA-17.eps
187 


BlackA-18.eps
188 


BlackA-19.eps
189 


BlackA-20.eps
190 


BlackA-21.eps
191 


BlackA-22.eps
192 


BlackA-23.eps
193 


BlackA-24.eps
194 


BlackA-25.eps
195 


BlackA-26.eps
196 


BlackA-27.eps
197 


BlackA-28.eps
198 


BlackA-29.eps
199 


BlackA-30.eps
200 


BlackA-31.eps
201 


BlackA-32.eps
202 


BlackA-33.eps
203 


BlackA-34.eps
204 


BlackA-35.eps
205 


BlackA-36.eps
206 


BlackA-37.eps
207 


BlackA-38.eps
208 


BlackA-39.eps
209 


BlackA-40.eps
210 


BlackA-41.eps
211 


BlackA-42.eps
212 


BlackA-43.eps
213 


BlackA-44.eps
214 


BlackA-45.eps
215 


BlackA-46.eps
216 


BlackA-47.eps
217 


BlackA-48.eps
218 


BlackA-49.eps
219 


BlackA-50.eps
220 


BlackA-51.eps
221 


BlackA-52.eps
222 


BlackA-53.eps
223 


BlackA-54.eps
224 


BlackA-55.eps
225 


BlackA-56.eps
226 


BlackA-57.eps
227 


BlackA-58.eps
228 


BlackA-59.eps
229 


BlackA-60.eps
230 


BlackA-61.eps
231 


BlackA-62.eps
232 


BlackA-63.eps
233 


BlackA-64.eps
234 


BlackA-65.eps
235 


BlackA-66.eps
236 


BlackA-67.eps
237 


BlackA-68.eps
238 


BlackA-69.eps
239 


BlackA-70.eps
240 


BlackA-71.eps
241 


BlackA-72.eps
242 


BlackA-73.eps
243 


BlackA-74.eps
244 


BlackA-75.eps
245 


BlackA-76.eps
246 


BlackA-77.eps
247 


BlackA-78.eps
248 


BlackA-79.eps
249 


BlackA-80.eps
250 


BlackA-81.eps
251 


BlackA-82.eps
252 


BlackA-83.eps
253 


BlackA-84.eps
254 


BlackA-85.eps
255 


BlackA-86.eps
256 


BlackA-87.eps
257 


BlackA-88.eps
258 


BlackA-89.eps
259 


BlackA-90.eps
260 


BlackA-91.eps
261 


BlackA-92.eps
262 


BlackA-93.eps
263 


BlackA-94.eps
264 


BlackA-95.eps
265 


BlackA-96.eps
266 


BlackA-97.eps
267 


BlackA-98.eps
268 


BlackA-99.eps
269 


BlackA-100.eps
270 


BlackA-101.eps
271 


BlackA-102.eps
272 


BlackA-103.eps
273 


BlackA-104.eps
274 


BlackA-105.eps
275 


BlackA-106.eps
276 


BlackA-107.eps
277 


BlackA-108.eps
278 


BlackA-109.eps
279 


BlackA-110.eps
280 


BlackA-111.eps
281 


BlackA-112.eps
282 


BlackA-113.eps
283 


BlackA-114.eps
284 


BlackA-115.eps
285 


BlackA-116.eps
286 


BlackA-117.eps
287 


BlackA-118.eps
288 


BlackA-119.eps
289 


BlackA-120.eps
290 


BlackA-121.eps
291 


BlackA-122.eps
292 


BlackA-123.eps
293 


BlackA-124.eps
294 


BlackA-125.eps
295 


BlackA-126.eps
296 


BlackA-127.eps
297 


BlackA-128.eps
298 


BlackA-129.eps
299 


BlackA-130.eps
300 


BlackA-131.eps
301 


BlackA-132.eps
302 


BlackA-133.eps
303 


BlackA-134.eps
304 


BlackA-135.eps
305 


BlackA-136.eps
306 


BlackA-137.eps
307 


BlackA-138.eps
308 


BlackA-139.eps
309 


BlackA-140.eps
310 


BlackA-141.eps
311 


BlackA-142.eps
312 


BlackA-143.eps
313 


BlackA-144.eps
314 


BlackA-145.eps
315 


BlackA-146.eps
316 


BlackA-147.eps
317 


BlackA-148.eps
318 


BlackA-149.eps
319 


BlackA-150.eps
320 


BlackA-151.eps
321 


BlackA-152.eps
322 


BlackA-153.eps
323 


BlackA-154.eps
324 


BlackA-155.eps
325 


BlackA-156.eps
326 


BlackA-157.eps
327 


BlackA-158.eps
328 


BlackA-159.eps
329 


BlackA-160.eps
330 


BlackA-161.eps
331 


BlackA-162.eps
332 


BlackA-163.eps
333 


BlackA-164.eps
334 


BlackA-165.eps
335 


BlackA-166.eps
336 


BlackA-167.eps
337 


BlackA-168.eps
338 


BlackA-169.eps
339 


BlackA-170.eps
340 


BlackA-171.eps
341 


BlackA-172.eps
342 


BlackA-173.eps
343 


BlackA-174.eps
344 


BlackA-175.eps
345 


BlackA-176.eps
346 


BlackA-177.eps
347 


BlackA-178.eps
348 


BlackA-179.eps
349 


BlackA-180.eps
350 


BlackA-181.eps
351 


BlackA-182.eps
352 


BlackA-183.eps
353 


BlackA-184.eps
354 


BlackA-185.eps
355 


BlackA-186.eps
356 


BlackA-187.eps
357 


BlackA-188.eps
358 

Æ 


BlackA-189.eps