>> good morning. we welcome everybody here and, i'm glad we have so many who are here. we have many others who are watching. we of course we're live streaming this on the judiciary website as i always do and i assume that others are covering it. and i would note that there are many people here. there is very strong

feelings and i appreciate that. certainly there are t-shirts that give different views and you have ever right to do that but i would urge as i always do in hearings, whether they're supportive of my views or opposed to my views be no demonstration, no blocking of people, people wait in line for a long time to be here at this hearing. you want to make sure you are respectful of those who are near you especially those behind you. we resume the hearings on comprehensive immigration reform legislation last friday. secretary napolitano was scheduled to appear then but i think everybody understands with what happened in massachusetts she could not be here. she will be before the committee tomorrow morning. today's hearing is our fifth immigration hearing this year. it will add to the more than 40 hearings, four, zero, hearings of senator schumer,

and i shared during the last few congresses on these matters. on friday we recessed -- received testimony on impact of bill. we'll see how it impacts farming, service and technology industries. wee hear from views of those fought long for immigration reform and those who oppose the proposal. we'll hear from the religious community and from the business community. well hear from law enforcement, advocates and witnesses who believe equality for all under the i am in i gra is system not only right but in our nation's interest. it is long past time to reform our immigration system. we came close in 2006 when senator kennedy and senator mccain led a bipartisan effort. in the course of those efforts senator kennedy said the following. woe believe immigrants like i am with and

african-americans before them have rights in this country and the time is ripe for a new civil rights movement. we believe that the nation of immigrants rejects its history and its heritage when millions of immigrants are confined forever to second class citizens and all americans are debased by such a two-tier system. time has come for comprehensive immigration reform. well, my dear friend senator kennedy was right. i wish the house had joined our efforts in 2006 and we completed reforms back then. i am glad however that senator mccain has once again joined this effort. it is long past time to get this done. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values, helps write the next chapter in american history by reinvigorating our economy and enriching our communities. the kind of country that at tracked my maternal

grandparents here, or, my wife's parents when they came here and became citizens and productive citizens. in vermont immigration promoted cultural richness with refugees resettlement, student exchange, economic development, eb-5 regional center program and tourism and trade with our friend in canada. foreign agricultural workers support vermont's farmers and growers and many have become part of the farm families that are such an integral part of the fabric of vermont communities. among today's witnesses are two vermonters who talk about the needs of farmers and the challenges many face under the current system and the way into national tourism and trade is critical to border states like vermont. now let me point out one thing that has troubled me a great deal. last week opponents of comprehensive immigration reform began to exploit the

boston marathon bombing. i'm a new englander. i, spent a lot of time in boston growing up and still do today. friends and relatives there. i urge restraint in that regard. refugees and asylum-seekers enriched fabric of our country from its founding. in vermont we welcome as neighbors, somalies burmaees at others are welcome to america for opportunity. whether in minnesota, vietnamese americans in california, texas and cuba cuban-americans in florida and new jersey or iraqies in utah. our history is full of stories of salvation. let no one be so cruel to use heinous acts of these two young men last week to delay the dreams and futures of millions of hard-working

people. the bill before us would strengthen national security and allow us to focus border security and enforcements efforts against those who do us harm but a nation as strong as ours can welcome the opposed and persecuted without making compromise in our security. we are capable of vigilance in our pursuit of these values. we've seen the tremendous work that the local law enforcement as well as federal law enforcement have done in the boston area and am so proud of them. the bipartisan effort behind the proposal we're examining today is the result of the significant work and compromise. in addition to the eight bipartisan members who led the effort i also want it thank senators feinstein and hatch for their work on the provisions affecting a culture. so i urge everyone on both sides to consider their example as we move forward on this. too often the recent past this committee has broken

along partisan lines on compelling issues. we saw all the republican senators on this committee oppose reauthorization of the violence against women act. fortunately, with the help of nearly half of the republicans in the senate, and a great number of republicans in the house we're able it enact that important legislation this year. now, we had three committee hearings and four mark-ups and extensive negotiations on gun laws but we saw republicans on this committee oppose bipartisan efforts to close the gun show loophole and enact a tough law against gun trafficking and straw purchasing. let's not let comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to ugliness we saw in the violence against women act and guns. the challenge know is ours in the committee but the challenge is really for all of america. let this committee set an

example and bring to the senate which should be the conscience of the nation the opportunity to create an immigration system worthy of american values. senator grassley. >> if you want to avoid partisanship i would say let's be very deliberate and i think you've been very deliberate so far. if you continue that deliberation i don't think you will have any partisanship. and i want you to take note of the fact that when you proposed gun legislation i didn't accuse you of using the norristown killings as an excuse and i don't hear any criticism of people when there is 14 people killed in west, texas and, demanding, taking advantage of that tragedy to warn about more government action to make sure that fertilizer

factories are safe. i think we're taking advantage of an opportunity when once in 25 years we deal with immigration to make sure that every base is covered. today we continue our discussion on the immigration bill that was unveiled last wednesday. and very good work by bipartisan group of senators. and as they correctly stated, a starting point and a process that is going to be have to be very deliberative because we were very deliberative in 1986 and you can see we screwed up because at that point we only had 3 people crossing the border unlawfully. now there is 12 million people that have. as some of the authors of that bill have emphasized the border security and economic opportunity and immigration modernization

act is a starting point. now, there are 92 other senators that must get their chance to amend and improve this bill in a deliberative process. let me begin by saying that at critical part of the bill that we're discussing is a first 59 pages and as people read through this bill, i hope you will pay special attention to those 59 pages. this is the border security section that triggers the kick-off legalization. because if we don't secure our borders up front, there will be no political will and pressure from legalization advocates to do it later. to summarize, the bill requires the secretary of homeland security within six months that a bill is signed into law, to submit a comprehensive southern

border security strategy as well as a southern border fencing strategy. after those so-called plans are submitted to congress, the secretary can start processing applications to legalize the 12 million people that are in the united states. the result is that the undocumented become legal after a mere plan is submitted, despite the potential that the plan could be flawed and inadequate. additionally the bill provides $6.5 billion in emergency spending to available for various border security enhancements, to be used under the discretion of the secretary. while i understand the need for such an investment there is no congressional input on either the secretary's plan and funding that she will have in her disposal. now i haven't read every page in this bill yet but from what i read, i find a great deal of congressional

authority delegated to the secretary. it reminds me of the 1693 delegations of authority in the health care reform bill that makes it almost impossible for the average citizen to understand what might be many coming down the road. more importantly, the bill does nothing to improve the metrics that and the future administration will use to assure that the border is truly secure. congress passed a law in 2007 requiring that the 100% of the border be 100% quote, unquote, operationally controlled. however president obama and secretary napolitano abandoned that metric. the bill before us weakens current law by only requiring the southern border to be 90% effectively secured. and in some sectors. only the so-called high-risk

sectors. what about the other six sectors? then before green cards are allocated to those here illegally, the secretary only has to certify that the security plans and fencings are quote, unquote, substantially deployed, operational and completed. if the secretary doesn't do her job then a commission is created to provide recommendations. this is just a loophole that allows the secretary to neglect doing the job. another area of interest for me is the employer verification measures. as i said before some times i was here in 1986 when we for the first time made it illegal to for employers to hire unindependent documented individuals. i'm a champion for making the e-verify system a staple in every work place. it is a proven and valuable tool to insure we have a legal workforce. weill i'm encouraged that the bill includes e-verify i'm concerned that the

provision will render the program in effective as a enforcement tool. the bill fails to put the system in place for everyone for almost six years down the road. after regulations are published the biggest employers in the country will have another two years before they're required to check their employees. if we're realizing and providing work permits in six months, why must we wait up to six years for everyone to comply? the system is ready to be deployed right now nationwide. finally on e-verify the bill fails to require or even allow employers to verify their current workforce and is only prospective in nature. i'm also concerned about the secretary's ability to exclude individuals with quote, casual, sporadic, irregular or intermittent, unquote, employment. however they may be defined. and then who, why don't we

define those terms i don't know. i'm interested in hearing from our witnesses about whether the bill fixes the problems in our immigration system. everyone including myself says the system is broken. aside from legalization for those who are here, and potentially for the family members who are not, and the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? what improvements will insure we're not back here in the hearing room 30 years from now to revisit issue? will the new legal guest worker program be effective? will small business and u.s.-based companies be able it compete and find high-skilled workers to grow the economy? will american workers truly come first? will we incentivize people to come here legally and deter them from overstaying their visas once it's expired? these are questions i have but in regard to basic, in regard to border security, security is what's the basis of the sovereignty of any

nation. we have independent authority over our, we must have independent authority over our borders. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we'll hear first from our arturo rodriguez. he served as the president of the united farmworkers since 1993. he has spent much of his life working to establish fair working conditions for agricultural workers in western united states. he is no stranger to this committee and of course senator feinstein has worked so hard on these agricultural matters as i know has met and talked to you a great deal and please, mr. rodriguez, go ahead. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, i asked that senator cornyn be given five minutes because he wasn't here friday and he is ranking republican on the subcommittee? >> could i, could i ask if he takes that during his question time? and i will, i know you weren't here and incidentally i stated publicly that if i was in

your shoes i wouldn't have been here either. >> well we had 14 dead. >> i said publicly i would have been there. >> that is reason i was there and i understand and i appreciate the ranking member pointing out the reason for my absence. >> i also did. >> my only concern, mr. chairman, is if i'm, that takes away time that i have for questions for the panel. i appreciate -- >> no, i'm going to give you extra five minutes so you can do both. >> i'll be happy to, thank you. >> i did state publicly at the hearing i commended you for being in texas and that is place you had to be. >> me too. >> okay. mr. rodriguez. as did senator feinstein. >> well, thank you, chairman leahy and ranking member grassley and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is arturo rodriguez and i have the honor of being president of the united farmworkers of america. tomorrow will mark the 20th year since our founder, caesar chavez passed away.

we think it is very appropriate that we are here today on this historic day to talk about the future of american agriculture. i wanted to give a special thank you to senators feinstein, who we have worked with for years to solve this problem and senator hatch unfortunately couldn't be with us here today with whom we worked very closely with over the last several months that helped us and in forging this agreement and bringing together and dealing with the crisis that we face in american agriculture. and that we'll hopefully, this will be a able to provide some stability in the years to come. last week, both chuck conner to my left and i proudly joined other agricultural employers and agricultural workers in supporting a policy proposal put together by senators feinstein, hatch, bennett and rubio that will strengthen our nation's agricultural industry. the proposal is part of the broader, more comprehensive immigration policy submitted last week by senator schumer,

mccain, durbin, gram, menendez, flake, bennett and rubio. it is great to see so many of you on this committee today. thankfully, many of you on this committee are very committed to fixing our broken immigration system. as someone born and raised in texas and with almost all of my extend family in texas i'm proud that both texas senators are on this committee and i hope to leave here today going i can count on the support of senators cornyn and cruz to advance this proposal in addition to those of you who already work, we worked so hard with. both recall farmers and farmworkers worked together over the last five months with support of these senators from both political parties in representing very different regions of the country in the interests of improving our nation's agricultural industry and securing our nation's food supply. we have worked so hard to come together and we ask you as members of this committee to come together to support

this proposal because america's farms and ranches produce an incredible bounty that is the envoy of the world. the farmers and farmworkers that make up our nation's agricultural industry are truly heroic in their willness to work hard and take on risks as they plant and harvest the food all of us eat every day. both are immigration system, but our immigration threatens our nation's food supply. vfw and the nation's agricultural employers have often been at odds on many policy issues. we have now come together to unify our nation's agricultural industry. we are in a unique moment in our nation's history and together with the a lot of work you on this committee can make the changes we need to secure our nation's food supply. let me speak a little about what's at stake for the women an men who work in the fields. every day across america

about 2 million women, men, and yes, sir, even children, labor under our nation's farms and ranches producing fruits and vegetables and caring for our livestock. at least 600,000 of these americans are u.s. citizens or permanent legal residents. our migrant and seasonal farmworkers are rarely recognized for bringing this rich bounty to supermarkets and our dinner tables. and most americans can not comprehend the difficult struggles faced every day by farm worker families. increasingly however america's consumers are asking government and the food industry for assurances that their food is safe, healthy and produced under fair conditions. the life of a farm worker in 2013 is not an easy one. most farmworkers earn very low wages. housing in farm worker communities is often poor and overcrowdedded. federal and state laws exclude farmworkers from many labor protections other

workers enjoys such as the right to join a union without being fired for it. overtime pay, many of the osha safety standards and even workers' compensation in some states. form workers excluded from these basic federal laws in the 1930's is one of the sadder chapters of our history. with any new immigration policy first and foremost we seek an end to the status quo of poverty and abuse. we should not continue to treat farmers, and farmworkers i'm sorry as second class workers. we also know that any new immigration policy must consider the future of the workforce upon american agriculture depends. i have want to thank this committee very much for the opportunity to be here today and certainly answer any questions that the committee might have in regards to this. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. rodriguez. and our next witness is charles conner. he serves as president and ceo of the national council

of farmer cooperatives and since 2009. he has served as deputy secretary and acting secretary of the u.s. department of agriculture in the bush administration from 2005, 2009. i might say on a personal note both during the time when i was chairman of the senate agriculture committee and when i was ranking member that mr. conner is one of the most valuable staff people working there. relied on heavily by both republicans and democrats for his advice. go ahead, mr. conner. >> chairman leahy, thank you for those comments. ranking member grassley and members of the committee. thank you for the invitation to testify today on agriculture, on america's agriculture's need for immigration reform. as noted in your introduction, i'm chuck conner, president and ceo of the national council of farmer co-ops. but i'm also here as one. founding members of the agriculture workforce coalition or awc.

the awc brings together nearly 70 agricultural organizations that represents the diverse needs of agricultural employers across the country. the awc came together because increasingly finding enough workers to pick crops and care for animals has become the number one priority for many of our members across the country in all regions of the country. i dare say for many producers this immigration legislation and this debate before us is more important to the survival of their operations than any other legislation pending before congress. we have all seen reports of crops left to rot in the fields because growers lack sufficient workers to bring in the harvest. it is estimated that in california ahope some 80,000 acres of fresh fruits and vegetable production has been moved overseas because of labor shortages here in the u.s. the problem extends to animal agriculture as well especially dairy. a study by texas a&m found

farms using immigrant labor supplies on more than 60% of the our farms in this country producing milk. without these employees economic output from this study was estimated to climb by nearly $22 billion and 133,000 workers would have lost their jobs. as many of you know the formation of the awc represents a significant change from where we have been in the past. for many years american agriculture has spoken with many and often times conflicting voices on the issue of immigration. today as the awc we speak with one unified voice. this unity in agriculture extends beyond just the employer side though. the awc has also engaged the united farmworkers union in arriving at a landmark agreement on agricultural immigration reform. it is with great pleasure that my fellow panelest

today, arturo rodriguez, president of the ufw joins us in support of this legislation. i would also like to emphasize that reaching this agreement would have been simply impossible without the leadership, tenacity and commitment of senator dianne feinstein. senator feinstein joined in the process of course by senators marco rubio, senator benett and senator hatch, foster ad spirit of unity that was ultimately necessary to produce this agreement. the agricultural provisions in this legislation represent our best chance in over a decade or longer to solve the labor shortage in agriculture. the program outlined in the bill includes two key components. a blue card program where current experienced farmworkers, for current and experienced farmworkers and a new agricultural visa program to meet future labor needs. agriculture today admits the reality that a majority of our current workforce is

undocumented. despite producers good-faith efforts to verify the status of their employees. in the short term the legislation provides that current undocumented farmworkers would be eligible to obtain legal status through this previously mentioned blue card program but the legislation also realizes in time these blue card workers will likely move on to jobs in sectors of the economy far beyond just agriculture it. to insure we do not end up back where we started in five or 10 years the bill includes a new, flexibilitiable and market based agricultural worker visa program. importantly the visa program will be administered by the u.s. department of agriculture. this is a significant change from the current regime administered by the department of labor which demonstrated a complete lack of understanding and agriculture and our labor needs. additional information on agriculture's unique labor needs as well as details.

proposal can be found of course in my lengthier and written statement which was submitted for the record, mr. chairman. i thank you again for this opportunity to testify on behalf of so many in agriculture today and i do lock for ward to any questions you have at a later time. >> thank you and good to see you back on the hill. allison eastman is the president of book ends associates. agent of h-2-a business services employers and act cultural workers based in vermont. her family's long tradition of farming in vermont. they currently own a 278-acre farm in orwell, vermont. that is one. prettiest parts of vermont but certainly one of the most significant agricultural parts of our state. miss eastman. please go ahead. >> good morning. my name is alyson eastman. at book end associates we're assisting h2a employers since 1993.

i would like to thank chairman leahy and ranking member grassley and all members of the committee to allow me the opportunity to apmere before you today. as a member of the national council of ag employers and through my work with u.s. apple i've traveled to d.c. on several occasions including two bipartisan meetings with u.s. dol officials and members of congress which took up better part of each day. there is bipartisan agreement that the current system is broke and the h2a program as it stands today is nearly impossible to use. a shared challenged, faced by all farmers seems it be finding legal and experienced laborers who can provide thing a account ral employers with -- agricultural employers with competence. it no longer draws a distinction between seasonal and nonseasonal employers such as dairy farmers. this will allow dairy farmers to hire their

workers and some their workers could be considered for legalization. a common misconception that h2a seasonal workers are replacing u.s. domestic workers. in our office we not only facilitate the application paperwork for employers but in some cases we also process their payroll. there is a direct correlation between the hiring of h2a and the hiring of domestic employees. foreign sources in new york applied and petitioned for 22 4-h 2 a workers. majority, roughly, 200 these workers only worked for eight-week harvest period. these foreign workers created 50 year-round domestic jobs. their payroll for fiscal year-ending 6/30/12 was just short of 2.4 million. without the h 2 a workers they would not find it possible to harvest crops and would not have marketable crop. all employers tell you it requires appropriate timing and skilled labor to pick

produce in such a way that will insure a quality product and market opportunity. employers face many challenges with the current h2a process and majority agree the issues are simply because u.s. dol does not understand ag. the application process is very time sensitive starting at 60 days prior to date of need. it is nearly impossible to get the workers here in a timely fashion due to the convoluted process and unnecessary notice of deficiencies. these employers are in the h2a program because they want a legal, reliable and experienced workforce. it would be most advantageous for usda to facilitate the application process as they understand the needs of ag. i think back to august of 2010 when there was no movement of the workers because department of state notified by u.s. dol not to let any jamaican workers enter the country due to investigation of jamaica central labor. thankfully senator leahy's seasoned staff quickly

sprung into action. an agreement was reached within a week and each employer signed an affidavit they would not take any deductions of the workers pay for jclo. another 48 to 72 hours we would have seen thousands of bushels of apples on the ground nationwide as a total crop loss. needless to say our office didn't get any sleep for a straight week just knowing that crop insurance would not cover this type of loss. it is important to h2a employers such as barney hodges at sunrise he can continue to get his experienced workers back each year. barney said without the experienced workers my orchard would be crippled and would be done farming and looking at developing. please note the term experience and also note the fact that these h2a workers returned year after year to the same farm. in conclusion, the only town i see with proposed name is the w-2 and w 3 visas. since all workers employee annual wages are reported on a form w-3 and the gross

employer wages are reported on a form w-3. pros certainly outweigh the cons. i feel employers will be in favor of the written part of the bill which refers to an employer's ability to give preference to a loyal h2a worker who worked for the employer three out of the last four years. also the logic behind the proposed wage rate seems much more commonsensical and affordable. i believe those undocumented workers also follow much of what is said above. i would be it would be great, a great opportunity for the employers to obtain a legal workforce and provide them with stability. the public does not seem to understand that these undocumented workers have been paying into social security and medicare, with the expectation that they would never benefit from it. it seems ludicrous to me to even consider sending all of the undocumented workers home as it would significantly impact our social security and medicare funding. while at the same time losing those folks who support our farms by doing jobs that americans simply don't want to do.

no doubt that whether one is refering to an undocumented ag worker or an h2a ag worker they share the following in common. these workers are ambitious. they're here to work. they want to please their employers and improve their lot in life and they're willing to do jobs we can not get americans to do. let's not forget, threw doing these jobs that americans don't want to do, they in fact create jobs on the farm for the u.s. dough mess workers. i conclude stating a solid immigration bill will solidify and solve many of these ag issues employers are facing today. thank you again for providing me with this opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you, miss eastman. thank you for using those real-world examples. i remember very well the question of the apple pickers. thank you for complimenting the staff. they, they do work, i may get credit but they're the ones doing the work and i

know a lot of meetings we had, a lot of phone calls with you, a lot of phone calls with others and a number of, i could make but they did the legwork and, as lifelong vermonter i worry about those crops too. they're a significant part of our basis. we also, you know the h2a program is open to temporary and seasonal agriculture employers. we could take care, assuming it works right we could take care of apple pickers. then we have dairy farmers and senator franken and i both noted that you can't tell the cows will be back in six months to milk you again. they don't react well to that. and so how would the proposed agricultural worker visas legislation, both seasonal and year-round workers? >> sir, i think it would, it would definitely help 24 in

many ways allowing for the workers to not only be here year-round, milk the cows, and i think too, when you face both types of visas whether they're coming in for one employer or they have the ability to move between employers, all of that seems very advantageous and will in effect take care of dairy farmers. when i look how the h2a works today and i see that, you know, poultry, some of our farms are year-round and they do have the ability to get h2a seasonal workers only because it's seasonal work that they're doing. however the milking of the cows does not wait. >> we see a lot of dysfunction in the current h2a program. do you think we should be given department of agriculture a greater role in the visa program? >> absolutely. i think most of us agree on that. i've got a prime example of u.s. department of labor that think everybody can

understand. when we petitioned for 18 peak seasonal workers to come and process turkeys, the job employment period was from 10/13 to, 12/3 it was clear they would come to process turkeys for thanksgiving. we received a notice of deficiency from department of labor who was doing jobs when seasonal workers were not here. we had to respond and have two years of payroll and notarized with affidavit to say it was true they were needed here to process turkeys for thanksgiving. i'm not sure really what is on their table at thanksgiving but they clearly did not understand that need. another thing -- >> no. i understand. i want, i know you have a couple other examples which we'll put in the record because i do want to ask mr. rodriguez, i want to set an example given my own time here. i know how he was, one. chief negotiators in discussions over the agricultural --, i would

note again, everybody that's been involved in this has had to give some. i hope people realize. this committee has been a lot of giving on both sides. the, this one area though, on this legislation, can you tell us how this is going to help prevent the exploitation of undocumented farmworkers? >> well i, first of all i think, and i want to thank the folks from the agricultural industry that we worked with and certainly senator feinstein and rest of the senators are there with us because they really helped fashion discussions in such a way we really talked about the various issues that affected all of us but i think all of us in the end, senator leahy, wanted to make sure we had an agricultural industry in this country that was viable and that we could all respect and be proud of here in our nation. it was very important for us to establish an agreement here that would honor the

farmworkers and the work that they do as well as insure that the ag industry will have the supply of labor that is necessary, the skilled professional farmworkers, that they so need to harvest their crops and for the dairy industry and other industries. and so we feel that there are a lot of pro -- protections here in the legislation that will insure the protection of the existing farm worker labor force that is here right now, the current force. they will have the opportunity to legalize themselves via the blue card program and that will provide great opportunities there for stablizing their families, stablizing the industry, stablizing certainly the agricultural economy within our nation and providing a good product for american consumers. >> and living conditions. >> certainly the living conditions would be very important and again, we work very closely in discussions with the agricultural industry and they were very open to insuring that that

did exist here within this legislation. >> thank you. mr. conner, i know you worked with a number of people with the western growers, lead negotiator on your side. i know there is a lot of give-and-take when you worked with senators feinstein and hatch. but if we get these reforms, do you feel pretty satisfied this will not only be better for the country but better for agriculture? >> senator leahy, there is no question. let me underscore, this is a compromise piece of legislation from our standpoint. you know the negotiations were extremely difficult but the in final product we believe we have a balanced proposal that protects those farm worker interests as arturo has described but at the same time provides an opportunity for u.s. agriculture to do what it does best which is produce high quality, low-cost products so that we're not continuing to import more and more of our food supply

which is what we are so strongly against. so there is no question. it's the right balance. we believe it provides us that opportunity because of the legalized workforce through the blue card program for our existing, trained skilled workers that equally as important for the new guest worker program that contains both an at-will as well as a contract provisions so that the seasonal as well as the livestock industry can get workers they need in the future. >> i thank all three of you and i yield to senator grassley. >> yeah. i'm going to make a little statement before i ask specific questions. if there is anything in my question or my statements that are incorrect i hope you will correct me. it's my understanding that the legalization program for agricultural workers mirrors in part the main legalization program in the bill. it gives undocumented people up to 2 1/2 years to come forward and apply. it provides a blue card for people who can prove that they're, they have worked in

agriculture for some time. it gives the same status as spouse an children. ag workers pay initial fine of $100. also like the main legalization program the department of homeland security is required to provide any alien that it apprehends he have after the date of enactment with opportunity to file an application. those in removal proceedings get the same benefit during the time the application is pending. undocumented person can not be removed. they can not be even be detained. if an application is denied because it doesn't have sufficient evidence, the undocumented worker gets another bite at apple. going to my first question. this is the way i read the bill and so i want you to tell me whether or not i'm right or wrong. the bill provides legal status to ag workers right away. then they must wait five years before gaining citizenship. however the secretary only has to submit a plan not implemented. so the border doesn't have to be secured before

millions get citizenship. would that be a accurate interpretation of the legislation before us? >> you want -- [inaudible] >> i would just say, senator grassley, that my understanding of the legislation is, is that the agricultural workers will yes, be given an opportunity to get legal status in this country immediately, however at the end of five years if they meet the requirements working in agricultural industry they will get permanent residency, not citizenship. >> okay. >> and the reason for that, the thinking behind that in discussions, you know the -- >> you don't have to justify that. it was in relationship to whether or not the citizenship for this group of people could be possible without the border being secured because of the time period. >> senator grassly, if i

could just supplement that very quickly. i will tell you in order to be eligible for the blue card program which eventually can then be as arturo pointed out converted into a green card, you have to have history of substantialing a cull ral work already in this country -- agricultural. >> i got you. i want to give a quote here from somebody commenting on the 1986 legislation as it deals with agricultural workers and following up on what senator leahy said, the extent to which it is better for agriculture. i don't disagree with what you said about that, mr. conner but, because there are lessons to be learned from mistakes that we made in 1986. this quote from phillip martin, professor, agriculture economics davis. the exit of illegal immigrants granted special agricultural worker status and subsequent permanent rest dents from the farm workforce since the early

1990s reflect as different phenomenon. falling real wages and shrinking benefits encouraged special agricultural workers to seek non-farm jobs as economy improved in the 1990s the special agricultural workers who left farm work were replaced by newly arrived unauthorized migrants. by 1997 to 98 it was estimated that the special agricultural workers were only about 16% of the crop workers. so, mr. conner, aren't we afraid, or shouldn't we be afraid giving legal status and eventual citizenship to people here illegally only repeat the mistakes in the 198 of putting the ag. industry in the same position in the long run? in other words this whole thing comes about, farmworkers come to us and tell us we need the workers. okay, we bring the workers. they migrate someplace else and people illegally came in afterwards.

hough do we avoid that mistake we made in 1986? >> senator grassley your question is a great question and it is, goes to the heart of fundamentally the basis of our negotiations that has been occurring in senator feinstein's office for the last three or four months. the blue card program for our current existing trained workforce is an important component but equally important component is, we don't know with absolute certainty over the next decade or so what will be the status of those workers that will be receiving these blue cards. you know, will they stay in agriculture in order to get the green card? they have to stay in for a very long time. the law requires that. but beyond that, we don't know for sure. that's why we have had very difficult negotiations over then the second part of that, which is the guest worker program. and to make sure that it's both at-will and contract so that it serves all of agriculture because we know at some point we are going to need additional workers

beyond the highly-trained, skilled workers that are currently doing the work in this country that are likely to get a blue card. there will be additional workers needed down the road. so we have to have a viable, workable guest worker program. the h2a, current h2a program is from the that program. if we had the blue card program in our existing h2a i can assure you we would be back here in a few years, senator, telling you that we've got a big problem. >> my time's up. >> that is what we've got to avoid. my time is up because we have to i can make sure we don't make the same mission take we did in 1986. >> we have two unique situations on committee with senator cornyn who had to be absent. all of us understand why he had, there is no question he should have been in texas and was. the other, senator feinstein had's handled the ag negotiations, both will be given some extra time with

consideration of other senators and i will yield first to senator feinstein. then we'll go to senator sessions i guess. >> thank you very much, mr. , senator leahy. i very much appreciate this opportunity. thank you very much and i want to thank our witnesses here today. i also, chuck, i hope you will thank tom nasif for the negotiation of those specific wage wage numbers. arturo, iters hard to call somebody by their last name when you sat for some hours together. so i want you to know i don't know a labor leader in this country who cares more about his people, who is more dedicated, more reasonable and i want you to know that it is just been a real pleasure to work with you. and chuck, i can say the same thing. the sessions were long. they were six, seven hours at a time. you all negotiated over weekends. we went back and forth.

through the course of this, it was easy to sort of come out with what was necessary. one, was that there was a deep belief a lot of the blf studies on wage rates were skewed. and, therefore we needed a new process. the farmers wanted specificity of wage. we have that for the farmworkers. we have a way of increasing it. we have a way of putting all of this under the department of agriculture. the secretary of agriculture will make his fsas, his farm service agencies, which exist in each state available which should help farmers. the thing about farmworkers was to find a way, to put, to recognize the skills that exist in farm work and to try to through a program to see that what evolves out of this is a professional class

of worker, who can be proud. the blue card, we expect, and this is very rough, would apply to 700,000, to a million, 1.1 million workers. it exists for five years. you have to have worked ag for a specific number of days and hours for two years prior to getting a blue card. you would be vetted. you would have to pay taxes, a fine, et cetera. no major criminal activity. you get your blue card. then you have to work another five years, dependent upon the number of days a year. and then you get a green card. the h2a program which exists only 74,000 workers, this past year, will cease to exist within a two-year period. and it would be replaced by two visa programs. chuck spelled them out. a contract program which

replaces h2a, and an at-will portable visa program. they're both three years. there's a cap on both of 112,000 a year for the first five years. that totals 300,000 plus. and then the secretary of agriculture in the future sets the cap. the wage rate, which is the adverse wage rate, is phase the out and replaced by this new methodology within, soon, i think within a year after the effective date of passage. of this bill. this is not been easy to put together and i appreciate senator grassley's comments but i want him and others to know that we tried to figure what you were aiming at and compensate for it in terms of making the kinds of changes that would have a

stable workforce out there for farmers. we, may staff has prepared, comments from each state that have come in with respect to the need. we have 100 copies and we would make it available to anyone that would like to provide additional information but i think every state is in here. it is as close to coming to a national crisis with respect to retaining this country's agricultural prowess as anything. farms can not farm because they do not have a consistent supply of workers. they can't get their contractors. they don't know what to pay them. i mean i sat next to a woman who operate ad turkey farm in california that, between the wage rates and the high price of corn, because of ethanol, had to shut down her business. that should not be the case in the united states. and we think that we have a

solution to that. now, let me go to the questions. and whoever would like to answer this. this bill would require all employers to insure a legal workforce at some point by using e-verify. very controversial when it comes to agriculture. employers with more than five,000 employers would be required to use e-verify no more than two years after regulations are published. smaller employers would have three years and agricultural employers would have to comply within four years. dhs secretary janet napolitano shared with this committee in february that the united states citizenship and immigration services recognizes the need and the unique nature of ag and has developed a pilot program to test the use of

e-verify in agricultural settings. i'm waiting to receive an update from dhs on the status of this pilot but chuck conner, let me ask you this question. is dhs working with your organization and other ag industry groups to test the e-verify pilot program? >> i'm not aware of anything at this point, senator feinstein, but we can provide any updates based upon surveying our membership for the record. along those lines i will just say we appreciate the fact that in the legislation there is some recognition of really the small business aspect of american agriculture and the fact that producers are moved, if you will, somewhat to the back of the line in terms of that being, you know, fully enforceable under the e-verify system because we do have new, new programs up and running. we recognize that there will be glitches here and there but ultimately our goal is

to have a program for every farmer, no matter how small that they have access to the workers they need without incurring enormous expense we know they simply can't do. >> well then let me ask both, everybody here, and, arturo and chuck and miss eastman. i don't know you as well as i do the other two, to please weigh in with dhs they must work with you. this is controversial in agriculture. and i know there are some bumps on the road that we're going to have to work out but we should get that done as soon as we possibly can. the chair isn't here but i will say to the ranking member, senator, i really believe with hour after hour and week after week that we have done the best we could do put together a bill which satisfies your concerns. and also enables farmers in america to get a consistent

supply of a. about workers. so i hope and that this will be possible to pass even unamended, perhaps there will be a few things but this has been a negotiated agreement over a substantial period of time. and i know mr. conner, you represent the american farm worker here as well as members of sheep and dairy and all the others as well as mrs. eastman. arturo, there were the farmworkers union in this and you were really outnumbered by farmers. you held your own and i think you got good protections for your workers and. i think you really perform in the best interest of not only the union movement but the workforce of this country.

i want to compliment you very strongly and thank you. i like to recognize senator sessions and the chair is back. >> thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you. well, it is an odd conversation it seems to me as we deal with this. i believe the interests, that needs to be protected is the national interest of the united states and that includes existing workers today, workers whose wages have been pulled down without a doubt by large flow of labor, low-wage labor into the country. and this bill would continue that in a way that very disturbing to me. for example, for the last 10, 15, maybe more, years, wages have not kept up with the inflation in america. julie hofkis an economist at federal reserve in atlanta, says the result of the growth in the share of

undocumented workers the annual earnings of the average documented worker in georgia in 2007 declined 2.9%, or $960. so i would say it is interesting that we have union members, we have business people, they meet and they reach an agreement. and this is somehow presumed to be the interests of the united states. so i would reject that. fundamental lip. we need to ask what is in the national interest. i'm also dubious about the idea that there are jobs americans won't do. i worked construction in alabama sun, hauling lumber and stuff. i know americans do that every single day. tough work. it is done every day. where i was raised, when i was dealt, when i would talked about how we should think about that, we were told to respect people who did hard work and not to say it's a job an american won't do. any honorable labor is good.

the last jobs report showed 486,000 people dropped out of the workforce. we determined about a fifth of that only is retirements where as only 88,000 jobs were created. so i worry about these kind of things and i think we need to ask that. it seems to me that you, the ag industry, is saying that we're entitled to a certain number of workers. we demand those workers. and, mr. rodriguez, this does impact the long term impact of reducing salary of people who have entered lawfully. people who get legalized today. immigrant workers. so their wages are at risk too as years go by. so i would say that the immigration policy of the united states should be established on national interest.

under this program? immediately? the potential that senator feinstein mentioned earlier, senator sessions, somewhere in the range of $8 00,0000 to $100 million it the best estimate. the numbers in the country. >> can some of those obtain legal permanent resident status in as little as three years? >>s or in, they could qualify to be able to do that. no one will be allowed to grain

from an illegal residence decency until five years in the program. >> after five. >> that's correct. >> other people in the country would wait ten years, we've been hearing ten years. agricultural workers able to get lpr status in fight; is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> and entitled to certain benefits? >> it actually gives them an opportunity to be able to stay here, work in agricultural, to be able to ensure they don't have to any particular way fear anything from immigration services or anything of that nature. they'll be able to stablize their families, as well as stablize the agricultural industry. >> in the future, -- of the

act. they will come for what period of time? how long will they get to come and stay in the country initially? >> the workers that are currently here right now? >> no. in the future. >> in the future? there's a provision here -- . >> want to be sure all he needs to keep his wage right at the level he would like to have -- . >> let mr. rodriguez answer the question. >> i'm letting him answer. >> there's a program established allow folks to apply and get three-year visa as opposed to the way it currently is right now. it's the deal with issues that we were talking about earlier. we have dairy workers included. it's a year-around problem. >> they could woman with three years. would they be able to bring their families? >> no. they would not. >> and after three years, do they have to go home?

could they stay? >> they have to go home for a period of time. -- ? >> how long? >> if i could, senator sessions, for the at will and contract guest workers, they are eligible for a three-year work visa. they are eligible for one renewal of the visa. it would combine as a total of six years. during the six-year period they have to spend, at the minimum, three months, if you will, back in the home area. >> over three years -- how many months at home? >> three months. >> three months. >> well, -- . >> so a person can stay for six years. they can get deeply attached to this country in that period of time. are you going ask them to go home then? >> well, to follow on to that, obviously they have to have -- . >> would you ask them to go home at the end of six years? >> yes. they will no longer be eligible

-- because they can only get two of the three-year visa during that period. >> my time is up. i think that where we are -- i don't think we'll be hunting down those people and seeking to deport them if they don't -- . >> trying to find time for everybody. senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, i want to thank you for your continued leadership, support on immigration, i can't thank you enough for agreeing to consider the bill our little group filed last week. i would like to make a few general comments and fete to ag. generally as initial matter, i would like to point out that our immigration bill has received wide spread support and praise among law enforcement, labor groups, religion leaders, conservative thought leaders and immigration groups. it's no accident the folks were standing with us last week when we introduced the bill. it's not a few narrow special interests. they are some of the leading groups that represent tens of

million of people in america. on the other hand, the only witnesses who are willing to testify against the bill today are three individuals from the so-called center for immigration study. an organization who stated goal to reduce immigration to the united states and invent the concept of self-deportation. the author of the sb 1070, controversial arizona law that was so far to the extreme it was stricken down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. the head of the i.c.e. union who has been an outspoken critic of immigration. to call the groups for it, as my good friend of alabama does, special interest, and have the three witnesses who are far narrow, far more special interest, and opposed any immigration reform for a long period of time isn't right. these three are not main stream witnesses. the american people are overwhelm belyingly in favor of

immigration reform. that's what every poll says. -- [inaudible] >> and they will not be satisfied for calls in delays and impediment toward the bill. i would say to my colleague, i understand their views views are heart felt. the way to improve the bill offer an amendment when we start markup in may and vote on it. i say particularly those pointing to what happened, those pointing to the tragedy in boston, as i would say, excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months or years. >> i never said that! i didn't say. you did, sir. >> i didn't say -- . >> mr. you -- [inaudible conversations] mr. chairman, i would appreciate -- . >> the,s that have come here. >> let me finish. we are going to have probably the most open process on this. there will be debate in the committee, we have time for it.

even senator grassley knows that i even offered some extra time on this, and let's keep on -- we'll have the debate. i expect we're going have a lot of debate. >> and i thank you. i wasn't intending -- those remarks were not aimed at anymore on the committee or three witnesses. there are people out there -- you read it in the newspaper, who said it. and what i'm saying is, if there are things that come up as a result of what happened in boston that require improvement, let's add them to the bill. certainly our bill tightens up thicks in a way that would make a boston less likely. the change is in the exit-entry system of visa, the requiring the 11 million people here to register, and all of that make it a tighter bill. maybe it should be made tighter still. we're open to that. that's all i'm saying. i've heard lots of call for

people out in the country saying delay it. what our bill does very simply, is add billions of additional dollars toward border security and border fencing, tracking immigrations who overstay the visa so they can be apprehended, and expedite deportation of dangerous individuals. individuals here finally have to register with the government. give photographs and fingerprint. all of that will make america a safer place. that's what i'm saying here. the status quo has none of these things. therefore, no responsible person should be aiming to keep the status quo in order. let's move forward. let's have this debate. it's an open debate. let's discuss all amendments from all points of view. let's not keep our present system, which everyone admits is broken. on agricultural, i want to thank senator feinstein for her great work, and senator hatch and the

member of the group. they have done an amazing group. you are a good example behalf we need in america. which is people coming together, none of you got everything you wanted, but you knew you each if better than the present status quo. that happened in agricultural, i hope will happen in the bill. my one question is very quick. my time about to run out. vermont's agricultural market is similar to new york's. we have the same problem. we have a fellow in ontario county, one of the large cabbage blowers in the country that didn't plant cabbage because he can't get labor to pick it up. a huge amount of can badge, a huge amount of jobs, a huge amount of produce that the american people are deprived of. it will rectify that situation and give him and many others the labor they need. can you mention how the bill keeps northeast do growers competitive with growers from

the rest of the country and why it's good for the northeast and new york. i would like to narrow to the fact that allow employers at an affordable rate to employ legal workers. the way the h2a program is right now with the paperwork, the timelines, it's so difficult to comply with and wage rate are exponential. the fact is, i'll give you a quick example, 1091 is the adverse effect wage rate in vermont. and you take, say, apple producers, the wage rate is $1 per bushell hand pick ciders. there's no consistent. there's nothing overseen on that. no regionalization of wage rate, the transportation. it's expensive. and yet it does provide legal

workers -- it is difficult to get them here. so i think, you know, with united states department of ag facilitating the process, it's going to be transparent, i believe. they understand ag, the need behind this, and keep in mind, i would like to let mr. sessions know, senator sessions know that we have employers that open up and they have to through the h2a program hire any willing, able, qualified individual. anybody is qualified because in the state of vermont we can't require experience. the department of labor said we can't require experience. we have orchard, i would like you to invite you to come visit them during harvest. they have everybody applying picking apples. they pick on trellis trees. they don't have to climb a 20-feet ladder. in week two, they hired eight pickers, u.s., everybody that showed up, by week two there was one left.

and that one picker asked if he could work in the packing house. this orchard needs 55 seasonal workers to bring the crop. when i say americans won't do the job, it's true. they're not doing the job. >> well, -- and -- . >> there are factors that go to that. >> trust me, i know the or orchard. i know, what she is saying. she stated it accurately. >>ly note that . >> senator cornyn again, seasonal work is hard to find . >> senator cornen, again, i think i can speak for all of vermonts, our hearts go out to texas. what you have gone through, and i appreciate the fact you could be here today, and i understand why there's only place you should have been on friday. that was texas. thank you, you have extra time because of that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know senator cruz joined me there, appreciates the comments

about concerns and grievances. people that lost their lives on the terrible incident last week. i want to use the time you have given me. ten minutes. i'll probably reserve some of the time for the second and fourth panel, with all due respect. i have a brief opening statement. the bill introduced last week by the bipartisan group touches on nearly every aspect of our nation's immigration system. it's truly comprehensive in the sense it covers a wide range of complex and often controversial aspect of the immigration law. the bill contains major changes to refew agree and -- guest worker programs, detention policy, work site enforcement, and overall, permanent immigration both in term of family and employment-based immigration. i fully expect there will be a healthy, and i hope respectful

debate about how we should address the 11 to 12 million people here in the united states who came here illegally or overstayed their visa in violation of the law, which comprises about 40% of illegal immigration. that's a conversation we crbtd afor-- haven't acroid. void. it impacts our national security, public safety, and the health of our economy. while engage in the conversation we must not give short shrift to the other critical immigrations contained in the bill including the areas i just mentioned. those who read the bill know that the legalization program for 11 to 12 million people takes up less than 100 pages of the 844 page bill. what is in the other 750 pages? that's important. because it turns out quite a lot.

and much of it at least is important to the national interest as any solution for the 11 to 12 million here. mr. chairman, we have had this bill less than a week, of course, as we know. we are analyzing the score of major reforms it contains. but i want to say this to my friends who were part of the gang of 8. this legislation makes a number of positive improvements to our immigration system. there are things to commend both in term of major upgrades to employment-based legal immigration and work site enforcement. there are reforms in the bill that have the potential to boost innovation and job growth within the united states. and there are reforms that will bolster tourism spending and incentive foreign investors and entrepreneurs to invest in u.s. companies and workers. i appreciate the attention given to the bill to expanding resources for improving a simulation and the integration

of immigrants in our society, especially in promoting english language and civics education. there are a number of areas the bill needs substantial improvement in. for example, while well intentioned, i regret the border security falls well short of the sponsor's aspiration to protect the borders and maintain u.s. sovereignty. in fact without major changes, the bill could do more harm than good. the bill sets super officially appear to be a worthy target of a 90% apprehension rate along the southwest border. based on the review, the 90% goal applies to three of the nine southern border sector. only two out of the five sectors in texas. as i read at the border security provision in the bill will necessarily mean the border patrol will shift resources away and preannounced fashion from the most of the borders sector

in order to reach the goal for only a few. we can only imagine what the transnational criminal organizations that move drugs, people, and contraband across our border will do in response. border security matters in texas and along the southwestern borders, and the bill does not adequately provide for it. i hope any colleagues will work with me to help get it right. i think question do it. as i said, the bill's comprehensive. it's not exhaustive. in other words, some important reforms were omitted i think need to be included. for example, the bill fails to address the critical needs for improvement that our land-based port of entry especially along the southwestern border. vitality of the land port of entry is critical in term of security but also the economic prosperity, the legitimate trade and travel bring to the border community and 6 million jobs in the united states. we must use this opportunity to

provide meaningful infrastructure investment to the port of entry in order to reduce wait time for legitimate trade and travel. i'm also concerned that the bill does not do enough to deal with the biomettic exit requirement in current law. it's perhaps one of the most concerning area of the bill because since 1996, there has been a requirement mandated by congress for an entry-exit system. unfortunately, while the entering system works well, the exit system is nonfunctional. i want to learn more about the -- long standing mandate of the commerce, and why the department continues to drag its feet in implementing the law already on the books, which requires a biomettic exit. if we want to get serious about preventing another wave of visa overstays, we have to get this

exit system right. i remain concerned about the message it sends by allowing individuals with multiple serious conviction to be eligible for legalization. it shouldn't be a proposition to a oppose legalization for someone who on top of their illegal entry or overstay was convicted much two misdemeanor drunk driving offense or two misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, or who misdemeanor child abuse offenses. it is in the front to the rule of law, i believe, to get the secretary of department of homeland security the discretion to wave the bar and allow an illegal immigrant who committed three or more types of though offenses to a pathway to citizenship. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix that. i also worry that the bill's implementation will be frustrated by thousand of lawsuits unless we tighten up the administrative and judicial review portion of the bill.

it falls short of providing certain employers particularly in the construction industry with access to the labor force they need to run and grow their businesses. so mr. chairman, i look forward to a spirited and respectful discussion of these issues. the challenge before us is to make sure we get all of this right. and i reserve the remaining two minutes and twenty six seconds i have. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. as the state a lot of agricultural workers, i'm impressed by the work you have done and the fact that farmers union, farm bureau, mr. rodriguez, the amazing work that the organizations are supporting. it is truly a tribute to the ability to comprise and see the bigger picture. i thought i would start with you, mr. rodriguez. i've been impress bid your work, and you can imagine that some people still get concerned about

what this could mean for american jobs. with the guest worker agreement and someone with immense credibility in the labor movement and others fighting hard to protect american workers. can can you summarize why you think it's good for american ag workers? >> first of all, the, senator klobuchar, the workers currently here in the united states, they have an ample opportunity to gain legal status first of all, the blue card program, and secondly gain legal permanent resident sei. secondly, there's clear language in the bill that calls for no discrimination against u.s. workers. we had lots of discussions with the employers in regard to that. they had an agreement they want to keep experienced farmworkers that have the ability and skills to pick their crops as ms. eastman engs manied earlier. it doesn't help the cows to change the work force and have rotating numbers of workers.

we want to do everything we possibly can to maintain that stability here within the ag industry. as much as we can. and so legalization was our number one issue to try to deal with. so we keep the workers here right now. keep those professional workers and the skilled workers in the agricultural industry, and secondly, put provisions in there there would not did discrimination. >> thank you very much. i've been hearing from ag producers for years about the problem with the h2a program. i'm happy we're going to find a way with the improved program to make it work better. and the -- can get confusing. can one of you explain what you see as the biggest problem with the h2a program as it is? and whether you think the bill addresses these problems. mr. connor? >> i know your -- time is

short. certainly the wage rate that are part of the h2a program. for your constituency, obviously the fact it's a strictly an at-will program that provides no value for year around workers. it's no use to the dairy industry at all. secondly, the administrative briewrk of the program. small producers don't have the toobilityd hire consult assistant to navigate their way through an process. >> that's for sure. and someone explain why you think it's important to have the ag department oversee the guest worker program instead of the labor department? i'll try as well. let me say i think a couple of different ways to answer that. certainly, a structure already in place for not only state level usda officers. we know there's a virtual usda presence in every county in

america. certainly every major agricultural county. these are offices that producers out there deal with quite often. they're quite familiar with them. there are people in the offices who are used to not only helping the producer, but helping them, you know, navigate through the process. we believe that producers will be quick to use that local system that is well established out there in america today. >> thank you. ms. eastman i thought one of the most important part of your typically is talk about the indirect benefit, really, of the guest workers. the fact when they're here and we have a stay status that works. buy themes in motorcycle whether they use them here or ship them back. you mention the positive impact for rural area with stores. could you talk more about the indirect impact you have seen in your community? >> yes, thank you, senator. one of the best times i have at

the end of harvest. we have a baggage truck that has a seat route. it's run by florida east coast travel service. it's great because when i get the listing of where it's going go, the workers actually know before i do. it's like an underground tunnel. they can't wait. they get their bins together where they go to costco, walmart, they buy motorcycle, weed wakers, washing machine. it is shipped back. it's cheaper for them to buy it here and ship it home. $200 for a canoe and costs $200 to get it home. a lot of money they make here in the united is spent locally here as well. >> thank you very much all three of you. >> thank you very much. i told senator lee is next. senator lee of utah go ahead. >> thank you, chch. thank you to the witnesses for -- joining us today.

i have recognize that the labor problem facing or agricultural industry are different in kind from those in other industries. directly important to the nation's economy. the nature of agricultural work can, of course, deter everyone the hardest working of americans. the long hours, distant and secluded work site. nominal margin that result from low -- and the back breaking physical lay war itself contribute to a relative lack of interest data in participation in the jobs by american workers. creating a sustainable guest worker visa is essential for keeping our nation's farm and ranches fully staffed. i introduced a dash act, the bill expanding axe excess to the h2a program for additional category of workers and employers. addressing problems for agricultural workers and employers must be part of any

visa reform. i'm glad we're having this discussion this morning. i was wondering if i could start with ms. eastman. if u you could tell us restate for us why you think the l2a program is insufficient. particularly as it relates to the industries like dairy farming and sheep herding? [inaudible] microphone. >> i can't speak to sheep herding. as far as the dairy farming goes, it's impossible. we have two dairy farms that do have h2a workers. they're here to repair fence and work in quarry that are going to be used as pasture. it's not related to milking cows, which is simply an every day function at the farms. so -- in part it's not available to those folks. >> explain to us why it isn't.

>> it's because right now h2a is limited to ten-month seasonal. if you're an employer -- that's limited to the employer. the actual h2a employee can stay here longer. they have transfer. one individual employer can have l2a workers on site for ten months out of the year. >> which doesn't work for some of these areas. >> that's right. it's not based on a fiscal year, like you take apple when they come in. it's august and they'll stay to pick, prune, pack. think have to be gone by the end of may. >> in this bill, in your opinion, addresses the problem. >> yes. >> tell us how it fixes the problem. >> it fixes the problem, because, i think, mr. connor can speak to that better with the different type of these obligations. >> it fixes the problem fundamentally by creating two different groups of guest worker program. one would be the seasonal

at-will the most similar to the current h2a program. the other is a contract program. again, where you would have the ability to bring in year-around workers on the contract as you noted to perform those milking functions, the feeding fudgeses on the farm. those kinds of things where you, you know, they produce 24/7 every day of the year. looking long-term, do you think for the long-term, do you see it as a long-term fix or something we would have to tinker with every few years? >> there's no question, senator, lee, we picture this as a long-term fix. this was fundamental to our coalition's effort. we were not looking to come back and do this in a few years. we know that's, you know, not going to happen. you know, this has been a

problem. it's been developing since the mid 1980s, and, you know, we believe that the combination of the blue card program for our trained existing work force and the viable guest worker program both at will and contract administrated by usda provides that long-term access to the work force -- legal work force we need to continue to produce the crops and the food for america. >> and can you tell me how the cap works? the caps on the number of visa that will be available? >> yes. there's a cap on the visa workers in year one, the cap would be set at 112,333. as you note by some of the -- it was comprise by both sides. another 112,000 would be year two, and year three so then the by year three the cap would be 3.

337,000 workers. in no event can it go above that. between years three and five, from years five on ward, there would be no cap. the secretary of agricultural would be empowered to set a cap based upon need for the number of guest workers we would have in the country. >> okay. and that's part in force why you see it as a long-term fix because you're then allowing us to respond to changing economic circumstances through the department of agricultural. >> absolutely. i see my time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to take a moment to respond to those who say that immigration is such a complex problem that we can't address it with a comprehensive approach. i believe that the complexity of this problem and the

connectiveness of the issues involved in immigration speaks to the need for a comprehensive reform. take, for example, border security. i know, that border security is critical. i'm happy to see that the strong provisions in the bill are in it. but if all you did was secure the border with ten-foot walls, if there's still a market for documented labor. you would create the huge market for 11-foot ladders, and so you need to verify -- you need to be able to verify workers. so, mr. connor, mr. rodriguez. i want to congratulate you on working with each other. i think it's a great thing.

mr. connor, one of the important aspect of the bill is delayed phase in of the employment verification requirements, agricultural employers aren't required to participate in the e verify program until four years after regulations are issued. which would be about five years after the passage of the bill. it's going prove -- be very important for farmers in minnesota. lots of our farmers run pretty small operations. it's going to fake time for these programs to get up and running. can you, mr. connor, identify why the delayed i i want -- em ploymentation is important. >> it's a great question. let me say the important aspect go to the heart of the program. that is we are creating in many ways, you know, the two brand --

in some way almost three brand programs here. you have the blue card program and you have the year-around contract part of the gust worker program, and the at-will part of the guest worker program. we know this is going to be administratively difficult. we know there will be bumps and bruises along the way on implementation. it ensures, again, that agricultural production, which is so important in terms of timeliness, seasonality, that there's going to be a maximum amount of time before the e verify system is kicking in and fully operational. so we can make sure that these three new apparatuses are working, the caps being set in an adequate amount to provide the worker we need. it gives time, remember senator franken, these are small businesses out there on our american farms and ranches. almost by any standard. more than anything else, we want

to make sure that the small producers know the program, know what it takes to get the legal work force here before we, you know, get to enforcing it out on every single farmer ranch in america today. i think that's fair. >> especially for the small operations. we need make sure that the e verify program has a sack rate sei. the higher accurate sei rate than it has now. i'm worried that as we introduce millions of immigrants in the system, the error rates tend to get higher when you do that, and when you run a dairy operation and other small business for the matter that you don't have a huge hr department like you might at other businesses. i think this is just very important that we we understand

how this all fits together, and that we have do with our eyes wide open. to me, it's absolutely essential that we do it in one time. because everything is so interrelated. i'm very priced what this is going to do, again, for the dairy industry. half of all dairy cows and america are milked by foreign -- rather by immigrant labor. and i call for it to be fixed for years. i'm glad senator feinstein and senator leahy had made efforts to do that. in your mind, mr. connor, what, in addition to dairy , by the

way, senator, the chairman since -- you say the cows only going to milk you seasonally, they don't like it. they don't know what you're saying. they . >> they do in vermont. maybe not minnesota. [laughter] okay, i know the chairman is deadhead. i'm no comment. [laughter] on where he got -- [inaudible] [laughter] sorry, senator. [laughter] >> the senator have questions? >> i have no idea where it was. i wanted to -- what are the aside from dairy what are the one or two most helpful aspect of this? >> well, again, senator, you know, we have a problem in american agricultural today. it's reflected in the fact that, you know, much of the work force is currently undocument the.

for anything else we have recognize that the problem exists today. so the status quo is in intolerable. across all of the agricultural sector, the notion you are going give us the ability to actually have a legalized work force that we know is legal. can verify that. the farmers and ranchers in the most law-abiding people on the planet. they want to have access to those workers. they want them to be legal. and more than anything else, i think fundamentally, this bill gives us that ability to be legal and, you know, that's huge. because the status quo, again, is what are the alternatives? i challenge, you know, those to suggest that. we -- the current system is broken. we have got change it. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the chairman and the witnesses. and i want to thank all of you

and senator feinstein for working hard to get an agreement here. we kept informed those of us working on the broader agreement, of the progress that was made and the hurdle you had to overcome. it's not an easy task. i think we all know. congratulations for working together on this and getting it done. as i mentioned, when we launched the broader bill last week, i grew up on a farm working alongside migrant labor, and i know the motivations they have, i know how difficult it is, and i know that they were here to make a better life for themselves and for their families, and for the life of me, i have never been able to place all of those who have come here across the border undocumented in some criminal class. it just never run true to me that way. i want a solution here. farmwork is tough work. i made it off the farm with

almost all of my dingt. just lost the end of one in an alfalfa field. i'm here largely in politics because i got tired of milking cows. it's a tough job. you can't tell them. you can't tell them. we're not going to milk you today. it doesn't work. i've tried. i've tried. it doesn't work. but i appreciate what you have done here, mr. connor. i appreciate working with you at the usda on the issues and appreciate the work you have done. let my say, in your experience, i know you have been working on a solution just for ag for years now. why is that so difficult and important to have it as a part of the broader bill. why is it easier as a comprehensive package or at least possible? >> i know that you've been working on it why haven't it been possible to achieve on the own? >> well, senate, you are absolutely correct in the

agricultural has, you know, this is not a realization that come aabout in the last few months. we have known we have had a problem for a long time. and we worked with senator feinstein on solving just agricultural's problems for a very, very long time as well. and i would just say that history suggestses that, you know, that didn't work. that, you know, the agricultural problem in of itself probably was not going to, you know, produce successful legislation. so being a part of the comprehensive effort, again, our negotiations have been very, very limited to just the agricultural piece. but we have appreciate the fact that as bart -- part of the broader package, there seems to be some momentum to get something done this year. we have been talking and propewsing luges -- proposing solutions and producing legislation for a very, very long time. because this has been a problem for a long time.

we believe 2013 reflects you know what i have describe to many as best chance in a generation to stop talking about it and finally fix it. >> can you just go on -- if we fail to reach an agreement here and there's no agreement just with the sub set of agricultural, what would the consequence be? what -- how much of our industry do we stand to lose if we can't reach agreement here? >> well, the consequences are substantial, senator. some of those i put in my opening statement. but, you know, again, the status quo means that a large, large percentage of the american work force doing nothing means a large percentage of the american work force are going to continue to be undocumented workers in the country. people that are not here legally. it's untenable to the american producer out there. somehow we can't give him or here a legal work force. so that's first.

secondly, we have labor shortages in this country. it's resulting in crops going unharvested. it's resulted in agricultural production. i cited the case of the california study of tens of thousand of acres moving to another country. that pattern will continue if we don't fix the problem. >> in the remaining seconds i have. some will argue that if we don't have foreign labor force, and that simply mean more jobs for americans. but how is the lack of program like this effect u.s. jobs or american worker jobs? several have raced this point and perhaps arturo has a comment too. i know, time is running out. ly say this issue has been studied and looked at exhaustively. senator feinstein has been personally involved in arm inform efforts out there to demonstrate are we replaces u.s.

jobs here? are there people who really do this but just not paying enough or something is wrong? and therefore we're turning to the foreign workers? it's been proven time and time again. study after study several cited in my written testimony, that is not the case. they will not do this work, and without this work force, again, food production will gooff sea and crop will be left unharvested in the u.s. period. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will note at the outset they regret, i was not able to be here at the hearing on friday. i joined my colleague, senator cornyn in west texas visiting with the victim of the horrific

accident. i want to thank my colleagues and the millions of meshes who have lifted up the citizen of west who have been suffering through that tragedy both west, texas, and obviously boston have both, in the past week have had horrific tragedies. all of us are lifting those lost their lives, those who lost loved one, and those suffering. i'm grateful for the citizens of west and their suffering. i want to thank each of the three of you for being here today for the testimony and for your hard work and commitment to immigration reform. indeed, i would like to thank all of the member of the so-called gangle eight, who i think have worked very hard on the difficult issue. to try to reach a solution to the difficult problem. i commend the effort of the four

democrats and four republicans who have worked very hard on this. i think there is a enormous agreement this this country that our immigration system right now is broken. i think it's bipartisan agreement. i think it's across the country. i think there are huge changes -- challenges. i think those challenges are particularly acute in the agricultural area. i will note for me, this is an issue that is not simply abstract. i'm proud to be the son of an immigrant who came from cuba with nothing. and to be the grandson of an agricultural worker. my grandfather worked in the sugar cane on a plantation in cuba in difficult circumstance. and indeed, i would know, i would like to commend the senator senior from california for this very substantive report she put together. i think it's very well done, i think it very effectively tells

the story how the current system is not working. i think there is bipartisan agreement we have got get

serious about securing the border. that we need to increase manpower, we need to increase technology. we need to fix the problem in a post 9/11 world, i think it doesn't make sense right now that we don't know the criminal history, we don't know the background of those coming in. i think there's wide agreement we should fix that including the problem of visa overstay which is a significant opponent of the illegal immigration today. i think there's like wise wide bipartisan agreement that we need to improve one of the things that all three of the witnesses have talked about today are the difficulties that the existing h2a system and having that system work. one of the reasons we see illegal immigration at the levels we do is because of our legal immigration system is not working effectively.

and i think we should all be champions of legal immigrants making the system work and not just welcoming but celebrating legal immigrant. i think if we are going to see an immigration reform bill pasta should be the focus of the bill. i think if instead the bill includes elements that are deeply -- i would note that i don't think there is any issue in the entire debate that is more devissive than a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. in my view, any bill that insists upon that, jeopardizes the likelihood of passing any immigration reform bill. so it is any hope that passing a bipartisan bill addressing areas of common agreement securing the border, improving legal

immigration, improving agricultural workers to ensure that we have workers here out of the shad go, able to work legally. i hope that that reform legislation will not be held hostage to an issue that is deeply, deeply devizzive namely a pathway to scoich. that's how we get something done. we go focus on area of agreement not on area of disagreement. i'm hopeful we'll see consensus come together to do that. >> thank you. thank you senator cruz. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll pick up where my friend from texas left off about consensus. it may be wrong, but after having dealt with this since 2005 i think we are beginning to reach consensus as a nation. the first we reached the current system is not working. if you're worried about amnesty, that's a exactly what we have.

we have 11 million people roaming around the country with no way to find out who they are under the current construct. senator cruz is right. if you are trying to access legal labor is hard to do. the visa run out. it's too complicated. i think most americans believe the status quo won't work. they want the border secure. there's consensus. there are few people in the country that think border security is not a good thing. visa control, 0% of the people illegally didn't come across the have all of the high were visa overstay. we need to be aware who is living among us. we can by threatened by our own people. the status quo should be replaced. i think there's a consensus what senator cruise said with the caf yet.

it's senator sessions and i kind of join forces. the only time i want you to be able to hire somebody, mr. rodriguez, when an american worker will not do the job after you advertise at the competitive wage. until you get the system under control you don't know. why there are almost no native born workers inning a dhurl? the work is too hard. because the wages are too low and most illegal immigrants? i think the ore thing people have come to grips with where we disagree if 11 million will not go away, most people are okay with a pathway to citizenship, 70% is earned. if you don't cut in line.

you have to go through a criminal background check, pay a fine. you have to learn the language and hold a job. we're talking about a ten-year minimum before you can even apply for a green card in the condition on the pathway to citizenship you have to learn our language, you have to pay a fine for the crime you committed, you have to go through a criminal background check and keep a job. i think most americans will say that's a practical solution. most americans like me do not want to deal with this twenty years from now. my goal is to end this debate and get it right. we didn't get it right in 1986. when it comes to the agricultural community, mr. connor, do you believe most people working in agricultural are noncitizens? ? or illegal immigrants?

>> senator graham, i believe the statistics do verify that, you know, the numbers are somewhere between 60 to 70% of our -- . >> why is that? >> undocumented. >> why is that? mr. rodriguez, do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> why is that? >> well, i think you pointed out some of the reasons, sir, you said that, you know, the current systems that are in place are not effect not -- . >> employers can't get enough legal labor. there's limit on the visa and complicated and expensive. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> everybody? >>. >> yes. you also agree it appears that meat packing, poultry, agricultural, some of these more labor intensive jobs it's hard to find labor here in our country? do you agree with that? >> well, senator, let me respond to you. i'm not here representing the meat meat packing industry. the six categories, if you will,

of a agricultural workers. there's no question i whoat heartedly agree with the statement. you cannot get americans do do the work. >> here's the question. if you paid $40 an hour, you probably could be. nobody would be left in american agricultural. they would go to mexico. i have to find a way, in my view, to replace our agricultural work force with 60% 70% illegal. and everybody should be legal. terrorist no benefit to our economy by having a bunch of illegal workers and any part of the economy dominate that part of our economy. so what i think we have done with the bill, is we have tried to strike a balance and senator rubio and feinstein, in my view, have done a good job. one last thought, mr. chairman, indoling me for a second.

you have to have e verify up and running and entry and exit control visa before people with transition from a temporary legal status to get a green card. i think those three make sense. if this committee can make those triggers more effective, if senator cornyn can help on the exit visa system. if we find way to secure the border better, senator crews, count me in. i want to make sure that we do not have a third way in getting the agricultural part right since 60 to 70 percent of the workers in agricultural are illegal. seems to be a good place to start. so i would like to compliment the author of the part of the bill. you have done a good job. let's make it better, if we can. thank you.

that's it. i want to thank this -- [inaudible conversations] >> go ahead. >> i know i have been chairman of the committee, and we have to move on. but i do want the record to show that we were hoping to have a second round at -- we'll submit our questions answers in writing. i appreciate that. >> i'm looking at the number of witnesses we have today, it's going take some time, of course, we will have another panel tomorrow with the head of homeland security. i want to thank mr. rodriguez, mr. connor, ms. eastman for being here. each one of you have been helpful in putting this together. i -- and i want to thank senator feinstein and senator hatch and others who worked so hard on the agricultural part. thank you all very, very much. >> can we make any final points,

sir? >> if you would like to make a brief final point. each of you go ahead. >> it will be brief. again, we want to thank the committee for the hard work, we want to certainly thank once again senator feinstein for her diligence in this. one closing thought, i think what we try to do here in working together over the past few months and years is to really do something that would both honor farmworkers in this country and the work they do do. it's ban lot of discussion about that. and secondly, we have an industry and agricultural industry that will maintain the viability. i think all of us in america want to see products produced here. >> having had the honor of serving as chair and ranking member of the senate agricultural committee. one of the most powerful nation on earth, we can supply our own food and agricultural.

i want from east to west, north to south, agricultural committee. so thank you all very, very much for being here. >> and i would note we are changing -- if mergen -- megan smith, brad smith -- please come forward. set up the -- [inaudible conversations] join us tonight at 8:00 eastern for booktv in prime time. our focus is remembering the '60s and '70s. ..

and whether or not that's a legal principle, i make that observation as a story. countries under attack will decide whether they are at war or not. and if they think there were, if kerry came to shanghai and blew up with leading buildings and killed thousands of chinese citizens tomorrow,, it wouldn't matter what presidents we had

that about the boost he had applied. if the chinese thought it had come from people others ease, they would act as if they were at war and they would use 100% of their available power to attack people who had caused that. to the absolute best of what was possible. and wherever those people were, they would do that. frankly, so with any other government developed a sense of responsibility to its citizens to the limit of its power. which is traveling around the country cannot be national conversations about ending partisanship and politics and government. next, a discussion about the future of public service, putting three former governors. this is an hour. >> i'm here with a stellar panel of people who've thought about

and better public service and obstacles to want to serve in government and get back in a way. and what we might create looking forward. i have a couple of duties, so first public to make sure our online audience to go in with a full question, which we have. we'll put up on the screen, which you consider running for political office in the future? that is a yes or no question. said during the session will be reporting results on the screen here from all four of his life streamed on the bipartisan policy center website which is a partisan policy.org and you can send us a tweet using a hash tag engaged u.s.a. some of it but our comments have comment about two questions are in the audience for the final part of the session.

i'm going to introduce the panelists and then we'll get to the questions. to my left here, mark gearan had of the peace corps in the clinton administration. chris marvin is the head of the guy is six campaign, organizations that connect veterans to public service in a number of ways. the governor of california gray davis come over going to go down to another governor, governor kempthorne who has served in the cabinet and senate. and antonia hernandez, head of the community foundation. governor jennifer granholm and bob tuttle in the attic kingdom as well as presidential personality make it astray should in his library reset as we speak. so i'm going to turn first to the question. one is through twitter already and not is a question from

arianna from simi valley. it is, how can young people contribute to government and politics and the future? if i could elaborate on the question and ice cube are directly come you're the president of the college in you see the younger generation today and at least our senses when you ask people if they want to serve, they want to give back companies say yes and i want to do good things, but they often are more attracted to nonprofits are not interested in running for office. what do you see in the younger generation? >> i would say mark bradley is a great question that was formulated. but i'm very optimistic about millennial engagement. they're the most service-oriented since the greatest generation. you see it with numbers interested in the peace corps and americorps, teach for america, all the streams of service.

amidst our many and varied problems we have, which this great effort is addressing, i come to this with great optimism about this generation. i would say it is the generation that brings a sense of idealism as other generations, but a very pragmatic sense of that. what they do in their neighborhood with americorps or peace corps, ways to tangibly make a difference. the political space safety for all the reasons we are discussing in the genus of this commission on political reform is not attract some of the very talented students. i think i can change. i think there's pathways for this. i comes with great appreciation and great optimism for commitment, service and sense of civic engagement. colleges can do more. political space can do more. innovative programs can add to

the future, which from my perspective is brave. >> i'm going to turn to antonia hernandez. with a conversation yesterday and yet young people and people wanted to do good works. what is your son of the young generation compared to what it was a generation ago? >> i agree with mark. it's a great deal of caring and this young generation. you want to address the typical issues facing the world. they volunteer. they want to recommend not-for-profit sector. i want to volunteer at a food bank, but politics -- they've turned off to politics. they don't see politics as a place where they can make a difference where they are hurt and they don't see the current elected official behaving in a

way of modeling that good government is. so they are turned off to politics, but they are very much turned onto doing good. >> i know jennifer granholm as governor, you want to weigh in on this question. can you give your perspective? >> i was so encouraged by the number of young people here in this room to raise their hands and asked the question, would you consider serving? the whole number reflects the new% would consider serving. i would just say this. we've got a veteran appeared in many people that the service is getting to our country the way of veterans doing to fight overseas and that is a hugely wonderful and honorable thing. we all have a duty as citizens to serve, to end the duty is you are here on this planet, and this country to make it other than when you arrived and the

duty of serve as it's not jazz for islam. it is for all. the question for you as you've heard of these political changes we discussed today, that that not deter you in serving, but in fact fuel your desire to serve so you can come in the changes necessary for the reforms we all know need to happen. i teach at berkeley and the graduate school is a public policy, so perhaps my view on this is a little bit of work. because i'm teaching people who want to or. i'm really encouraged, even in the political side, by those willing to raise their hand and say send me. i one piece of advice for you is for you to recognize and binding, it is not about you, that it's not about you.

it is the changes you want to make in the world. if you run with that in mind, your focus and your vision clarity becomes much more easy to raise your hand when you realize it is not about you. so go forth and change the world. >> governor kempthorne. >> john, between breaks i've enjoyed talking to the young folks here. the fact that some of the outside of me wanted to be here and he started this morning and you're still here. we had to sign a note for you. simi valley high school, royal high school, grace brethren. any other high schools? it's tremendous. [applause]

and john, if i could come on give you a couple other specifics because here is my point. i would talk about running for public office, it is not for everybody, but i think there are so many samples as citizens are not getting around waiting for the government to do some data for them. they are doing significant things. there is a young mancome and have in the crackdown, a student body president at american university. last year he organized 125 incumbent university student body presidents. i was on the speakers us to address them. i do know what what to expect. 125 college leaders. one of the most respect full impressive group of people i've ever seen. the question insightful, i'm the one in decorated. did a tour of duty in the middle of these.

posted by harvard business school and implemented there must now be public service before you graduate physics classes so you have business students in the classroom, both models. the former marine started a health clinic in africa. these are young people. somehow they just got up and did it. that is the greatness of the spirit of america and maxwell jumped back. pardon me for reiterating. that ad by budweiser this had names of the horse and the number one and there was hope, that's with this joy hosting

gatherings act yankee stadium. every age, ethnicity was the common denominator? there's this thing called hope in the liver. >> do you want to jump in? >> i agree 100% with both governor said. maybe i can speak to those who didn't raise her hand this morning. i didn't have the courage to put the name on the ballot. i can do fortunate to be one of those lucky people whose able to serving government and i served as a non-career political appointee for 10 years of my

life. it has enriched my life and i've met people i never thought possible. we have something very unique in our political system that not true of many democracies that we have a lot of noncareer appointed position at the federal level. it's about 3000 full-time and 1800 part-timers. there is the same in our local and state government. so i would encourage those of you who maybe don't want your name on the ballot to get involved in a campaign or some way to serve any political or appointed position. they are very, very important. as i said in our federal government 3000 full-time political appointment. it seems small when you think of the 2.5 to 3 million federal employees, but it's much larger than the western democracies. in a country as it desires, i'm an example of someone who came from the west coast and went to washington, spent six and a half years.

you bring back as much as he possibly could. so please think about serving in a politically appointed position if you would. >> of a follow-up with a question and i'll turn to governor davis. if you didn't serve direct gain, trying to fill these positions and find people who want to serve in the federal government. it's very different from many countries and people who admire president obama will take time from their private lives and spent several years serving their country. what were the challenges of you seeking out the right people for this complex jobs, bringing to washington. what did you try to do to get them quick >> when i first went to washington and was interviewed for the office of personnel, someone told me there's enough republicans within a mile of where were sitting to fill up

the government. i said that's not true. what is true. lots of people want to serve, so we thought it was important in presidential personnel to go outside of june. so we have specialists. good people, and from the professional surf world who work for us to go outside of washington. people who looked in the campaign. after an election there's a command is dusan and you get thousands of letters to people who want to serve and of course there's not a lot of positions. when sir philip, the enthusiasm dies down. we went and found people who sent letters that the reagan administration and called them for five years later and were able to find outstanding people that way. so there's many ways. they probably represented here in gsm and your interest in. we are looking for a position

that was not in very good shape. frankly senator baker sat with some people serving paper trepidation about answers to his office. he said we have a little problem here. call this guy do a side of the national paper in health i people. sure enough i called this guy the one that president reagan select the two turnaround. there's lots of people it's very important. >> governor davis. >> first of all i want to commend the young people and bank cannot reagan library for for being here. i got to meet ronald reagan when i first went to sacramento in 1974. a null character democrat, republican you have to like

ronald reagan's. sunny disposition, no malice in his heart. it's like to see politics get back to that no matter what your point of view, be seen as a good person or through the reagan libraries in california when i was growing a, you know, great things happen to politics and ronald reagan help of the cold war. eisenhower sputnik you can see in 1857, we could combat the russian presence in our sky. we will pay for your education. private, public. so great things happen. not on my bubbles and the first

bill in america. by, my point is find a way to serve, even if it not in government because today with the adoption of rapidly evolving technology companies all kinds of ways to serve and anyone who's spent any time in silicon valley are a technology center is just an address with the attitude every person that comes to google, apple, twitter, facebook, go to work out even they are going to change the world. guess what quick sometimes they do. there is no question the change in government and the africa last year had a lot to do with the google search and twitter because the government could not block all forms of people's ability to communicate. they could call meetings, protests, demonstrate. you could change the world for the better in a whole host of

ways. government is one. i'll leave you with this last thought. i was in switzerland a couple years ago. switzerland you think of as being peaceful, always be neutral. israel requires every man and woman of the country. i respect everyone who serves this country in any capacity. in switzerland you have to serve the country for three years. man or woman has to join the service. and ours, we have an unwritten rule we have to find someway to get back to america. you are so lucky because you have a whole host of ways and no one should tell you how to get back. you should follow your heart. clearly there ways you could impact the world, just sitting at home on a computer you can change the world and i encourage you to do so. >> thank you, governor. we're going to get to the question on the panel him also to go to philadelphia, think

about other institutions of public service we can create. military service in the peace corps and americorps, but other institutions we need to survive. can i ask you a follow-up? most people who ran for governor didn't do that is their first office. they started somewhere else. can you talk about motivations for getting in at the lower level and what you see in california for people today looking to get into politics or break in at a lower level the mighty sosa steppingstones for higher office clinics >> my primary motivation came in vietnam because i read the newspaper and when i got over there he found a different situation. identify anonymous stanford or columbia law school. i found a lot of minorities. this is an era when we had a draft, so presumably everyone hide -- you might end up in vietnam what they wanted to read

not to spit it that way and everyone was under the burden of serving the country. i have this old-fashioned notion that everyone is doing their part, which was not the case. i was in the back of my mind when i look back to los angeles, started practicing law and was asked to help tom bradley get elected terephthalate. he lost in a close race. i attribute my motivation to leaving the practice law because i felt so strongly this is the way to get back to the experience i had in vietnam. that led me to a succession of different offices and ended up being chief of staff to the legislature. i think there's a sense of having to pay your dues. you can run for president of the united states is your first office. you might not make it. generally, people like to see you been elected to some other

office first as a demonstration. you actually can accomplish something in people's confidence , the promotion or whatever office you run it for now. local school board, legislature, congress, those are points of entry and you learn a lot about the process and you prove people you can pay your dues and wait your turn, which still resonates as some voters. it's always fun to start at the top. i remember being at the new governor school. i'm sitting next to jesse ventura. jesse ventura was elected in 1998, a former rest are in minnesota and he is reading my resume. chief of staff and assembly control sent by god first year at this, then that. finally got to be governor. is that what should i've done?

just going to rest when you get elected governor. so there are exceptions to the rules. but for most people come you have to accommodate to the notion he'll try at least one office first before you run for president of the united states. >> i want to turn to chris marvin. you run an organization that is bringing veterans in a public service. veterans have a strong record of having run for public office at higher rates than the population. what can you say about today's veterans coming back? today feel less likely to run than an earlier generation? they clearly have served. they want to serve more. what are they thinking? >> governor davis mentioned the draft in vietnam in something like a draft does the skin in the game for everybody. it's a form of civic engagement in a way and we don't have that today. but we have is an all volunteer military force, which means every single person in the

military chose to do it. they sign up to serve and they have served. many of them when they come home, their service doesn't stop. sometimes popular belief in the public where people are up to saint thank you for your service. i was amazing. these are people that are preprogrammed. i'm not a fan may have the volunteer the communities are boy scouts or girl scouts or not to let into military service. for many of them, it was too political or public service as well. what is striking today if any 72, the early 70s, 75% of congress were military veterans. anybody have any idea what it is today? is actually 19.4% of the recent

loss of senator in a way, a venerable veteran and senator. it's higher than the distribution of veterans in adult population, but significantly lower than those running for congress. one in four races in 2012 have a military veterans. not just the early basis. but only 12 are elected. so 32 years in a row would decrease the number of veterans in congress to cut the lowest rate since the 1920s. we also have the highest level of hyper partisanship. how to make an argument and others might agree that while veterans won't solve the problem and the lack of veterans didn't solve, they hope. veterans are used to being something greater than

themselves. you may get a democrat and republican to serve together to figure out to push a bill through despite partisan tendencies. i thought would be what they were talking about military service, americorps, peace corps, the people who have served know how to work together and be something greater than themselves. these are the types of people would like to see in our legislatures. >> i'm going to turn back. one of the hats he wore that it did not mention was he was the director of the transition for the clip administration. that is a big operation in another country where there's a few people you have to bring into government. there are thousands and there's planning going from the campaign to get mr. edition. what are some of the challenges? what are some of the ways our system while allowing people to comment is making a little bit

hard? >> the ambassador's point is well taken in terms of the different ways to look at the federal government and the generational shift that we are right on the beginning of in terms of the many interesting careers that exist, particularly young people because he did a great deal of responsibility at a young age. i was a while there's been reached and offers on the congress to help this, there are encumbrances for political appointees in terms of confirmation, people's lives being on hold and i think we could do a lot to make it easier. i was very honored to be nominated by president bush to serve on the corporation for national community service that runs americorps vista and senior corps is the board that is three times a year or requires senate confirmation. so an eye out geneva, new york in the college president arrives the fbi.

i have been cleared by the senate to be the director previously. is just start a perhaps the level of detail required for a board that meets three times a year may not necessitate it. one of the questions they would like to speak with your neighbors, we talk to your neighbors. i live on campus as a president. i live next to a fraternity. [laughter] so i had this great image of sending the fbi to knock at the door next door. but i digress. the point is there are encumbrances that efforts like this, whether the senate confirmation of his money point is i required might miss the opportunities in a very long confirmation process that sometimes distracts, delays and

may even retired people's interest from serving. >> if i follow a little long in the process if mark and ambassador returning to find people to be nominated to send them to the senate. he was sitting in the senate. do you think mark's point is right that may be the one that takes, and people to have conflicts of interest. are we putting people through the wringer. i'm using a fixed as a weapon what is the senate's role is performing its proper role of the confirmation process? >> i decide that issue into. the first is how much information do they need. that's not a political thing. that is something that is a process and a rule and i believe in a bipartisan fashion and congress could take a look at that. to meet three times a year versus a cat november, my

members are visited by the fbi of. wasn't as exciting as a fraternity. the other part, the senate, where for political reasons he put a hold on somebody, and they have nothing to do with that appointee and you can roll it around. i'm going to take my hold off of that nominee. would you put yours on? l.a. just keep passing around. here's what it does to the nominee. this is somebody who's been nominated for u.s. attorney or for judge and again it has nothing to do with them really. it's just you can't bring the judiciary committee's nominee by word. so how many non-is that person to be put on ice? maybe he or she is a practicing

attorney and well everybody thinks they are going to be confirmed as the next u.s. senator, judge, who is going to sign up at them as an attorney and give him a contract for a year. suddenly their business begins to dry up. that is their income. at some point they say i can't do it. i think there is some individual and the state for two years. they truly wanted to serve. that's what i think is wrong. this goes back -- but when your party has the white house, you are convinced the president has every right to have their nominee voted up or down. when you're not in the white house, we'll do whatever is necessary to delay it, use it as leverage and not sway every party has been on record as

saying a president should have their nominees voted up or down. they are not consistent. they don't say it all the time, but she's got that one record. put it together, yet the case. will make the effect to date five years from now, eaters of now so that it does not in fact and in common administration. that way at it's an advantage for whoever happens to the white house next time. that's the way it can be done, part of the reform i suggest. >> about the issue of governor davis raised. he raised the issue of universal service to the draft or can we think about other institutions of service we can create. with the military in the peace corps in america and governmental institutions, but are there other institutions we should create?

other things the government to keep what you see should really have some additional institutions for them to serve? >> there's a lot of institutions that people can serve on the volunteers to nonprofit boards. i may go back to the issue of government service. a lot of young people want to work in government. i started in the senate judiciary committee. i worked for ted kennedy and i was one of the people ahead to that the judge is an individuals. and i will tie you, i love the time i worked in the senate. director senator durbin, hatch, alan simpson. it was the place where you work together to find solutions. i can tell you i would not work in the senate today because of

the fact that people go when to make a difference. like you said, it not about you. it's wanting to change the world. it's wanting to see results. if you don't see an institution functioning to get to those results coming are not going to be inclined to do that. the next question is this wonderful young people want to serve. it's really a wonderful afternoon of the fact people want to serve. the question is, why? is it to change the world? it is to change the world, i can tell you don't people are turning to other institutions. one of the biggest mistakes. and he went to the military. one of the biggest mistakes this country has made as a volunteer military because it's through

coming in outcome assertive men dating to to serve your country to meet people from different society, to see yourself in the same boat and you see yourself as part of the whole. i will tell you, my foundation has been very involved and help dean veterans returning from afghanistan and iraq. one of the things i find disturbing is the isolation of the folks who serve in the military and the lack of support given to a military individuals. they are coming back with immense problems and the support is not there. because not everyone has served with the possibility of service, there is not that expensive commitment. we thank them at the airport. we think when we see them in

military, but are we understanding the sacrifices military people have made. my thing with young people is there are tons of things you can do. this generation is not waiting to tell us what to do. they are developed a new not-for-profit. we got hundreds of applications to my foundation from young people who started a tutorial in the inner cities. the food bank. i will tell you last year we honored a young high school, 17-year-old high school at the age of 14 lived in the san gabriel valley. lots of fruit trees. he went and bought the equipment and started knocking on doors, saying, can i take the fruit? and then he would deliver it to the food bank. so there's not a lack of

commitment. it's not a lack of wanting to do it. it's going back to the issue that we are here today. what is within our government, whether it local, state, federal, and the assembly or the sinai, are the institutions working? are they solving problems to convey to the young people at these institutions are worthy because they are solving the issues? i think that is the question about public services and service in government. not whether young people are committed to serving. >> a quick follow-up. >> i just want to pick up on something and tony ifad and something that was said about skin in the game. i don't wish it had a draft and have an implicit understanding that everyone not to serve six

months doing something. the peace corps, teaching, homeless, educational institutions and regular races who everyone gets a certificate of service because it's one thing we can all do together. all americans to matter how busy you are into our own thing we are, we'll give something back to make this country better. the advantage of having a draft, which i don't propose is we would not in iraq for 10 years. we would've been in iraq for 10 because everyone gets to weigh and because everyone is concerned their son or daughter may be forced to go to place they don't want to go. you can't have a world live in relative comfort with 1% or 2% of the country doing the heavy lifting for america. have great admiration for the young men and women serving multiple deployments. he made done to deployment, three and four and it's unfair

the disproportionate amount of keeping america secure and a small part of the population. i think reinstituted draft would be a mistake, but we have to find a way to engage middle class america as if they had skin in the game so they weigh in if they are not pleased to a military adventure is going. spinmeisters quickly. a huge cloud for all of you out there when you graduate from high school or college want to do a year of service. americorps oeste deary teach for america are fantastic programs. if i had a pen, i would sign a five to 10 fold increase for those programs because they are so incredibly important in teaching leadership in getting exposure to parts of the country and problems in the country you might you might not otherwise have seen. i have two daughters have been

assigned to the toughest schools and the tough days school district in the country. if you want to run for office, have an experience that is a passion for you. my kids are completely obsessed now about poverty and education, making a change in education. i don't think a run for office, but they want to make a difference in the area because they've been exposed to it and are earning with the desire for change. so if you want to go after college, either way it is a hugely growing experience in auch every young person in america could do it. >> a quick follow-up. i do want to go to twitter. >> john, thanks. john brezhnev is also a member the commission is going to be here because of a family issue he must deal with. but john is working that admiral

mullen, general mcchrystal, others. these military leaders are developing what is an alternative to military service, which is civilian service to the country, what is being discussed here. i've been to the meetings. there will be a proposal that will come from not and it would be a call, he called to serve. the youth of this country raise a hand out. >> let me turn to our twitter results. an online viewers and not a few of them were whispered to consider running for political office in the future? our audience is more public spirited than other polls. 58% saying yes and 42% female. i do have a couple questions that have come in from twitter.

the two questions i have are similar. one is from tony p. in southern california, which is like an educator do to help next generation of public servants get beyond gridlock? another question from sean k. from california is that the willingness to serve and lead to polarization? will mix you must run office? i want to put this together to think about motivations for people running for office. none of them have been in association with the party, finding your way in the republican or democratic party. believing in the issues they are. are we at the point where we've come a ideological? are we having fewer people that want to give back? anybody can take this, but what is the relationship between today's people's polarization or sooth the past?

>> clearly since the day tom daschle as majority leader in dan glickman was in the congress can and there's not a sense we can work together. ronald reagan used to invite tip o'neill over printed work things out in the progress of george bush promising not to. i don't know quite what is starting to change, but it, you know, we pay the salary of all the people you sent to washington and sacramento. they are working for you and they have to be of the come back and say, here's what i was able to do for you in the country. not just amendment that failed or made a speech, what actually happened to the country forward to give your children more opportunity. i don't know how that is going to change unless america starts voting on a common. i don't say that lately because there's a lot of incumbents

trying hard, doing their best. somehow the signal has to go to washington that we are tired of excuses. for tired of telling us you can't get the job. step aside and will find someone who can do the job because i don't see how you get past gridlock is gridlock will still keep it in your member of congress reelected. the only thing that gets their attention is losing where their buddy losing. and they say maybe i better take another look at what i'm doing. just spending half the time in recess and raising money during that time in coming back with excuses is not good enough. >> do we have a different type of person running today? one of the questions is are we attracting more extremist run for office? a good way of putting that is committed evil ideas. is it a problem today? where i read? >> -underscore and to point out

some of the examples, very positive examples. it's not they are sitting on the sidelines. they may not choose to run for office doesn't mean they're not doing tremendous name in helping to change the world. you can see in a pinch those folks. the old individual initiative, not waiting for government to take care of them. pretty often. >> for young folks who are committed, what i would say to you is fun to listen. intolerance is the most important thing. understand politics is the give-and-take. his sausage making and you don't get everything, but you have to come in with the attitude he'll take a little, give a little. coming from extreme positions, you party come into a gridlock.

that's the modeling you have to do. this close to some degree are responsible for not teaching civics, not teaching government. not teaching the understanding of how our democracy works. it was made to work on a give-and-take. it's not an absolute where the majority could everything. i think that's really important to listen, not just to be cnbc, but to listen to other people and put yourself in their shoes. that's the real art of being a successful leader in understanding people will vote for you are the values that you stand for and the judgment, not because you're promised a vote on mr. initiative is certain way he'll never change. >> don't sign pledges. >> matter. >> another question from twitter from brian from california.

he asks, how to give our middle class people to run for office and campaigns are so expensive? is that one of the obstacles people face today? >> i would say see an earlier panels and beat somebody who has no aspirations right now, the one thing that scared me off is the idea i had to raise millions of dollars. where would that come from? to think so -- juxtaposing against the previous question if it's not the extremist running because things are extreme, but it's the same symptoms creating the hyper partisanship that are causing discouragement with people who might run for office and that might be just the reputation of washington and in some circles the gridlock, the

necessity to raise a lot of money that are contributing to hyper partisanship and also to the lack of participation. but we are only measuring night in those who are winning races. we're not measuring those who run for races because there's still people running for races. a democrat in republican district or vice versa may not be these problems, who are out to serve the public and start winning races. >> john, to brian's question, we as the panel and the bipartisan policy need to be careful we don't become so nationally centric that we think every office is federal. it's not. there's a lot of wonderful middle-class folks that are running for mayor and city count all and county commissioner, governor.

schoolboard. that's where they are and that is the groundwork they have a record, they can offer themselves further. when i first decided to run for mayor, 33. when i went to the political thinkers, they said that is the dumbest idea we've ever heard a because if you were thinking of politics, don't run for mayor. nobody has been able to do anything in the city. bilby from the biggest city in the state, so you'll never be elected to anything beyond that. i took the council and ran. [laughter] because my motivation was simple. i truly believed in my heart it could be part of the solution for a community for a last, where my children would be born. if that was the extent of my

public service, so be it. every day for the rest of my life when i bought down that time, i would know somehow i did something good. >> is not true at the state and local level that a compromise has been and people know how to work together. >> absolutely. i believe in it. >> i think you can make a difference if your goal is to do that, not to see how long you can stay in office here. it amazing what you can do if you're willing to risk your office. people see a genuine and they're moved by that because they know you're vulnerable on taking a risk. one of the reasons i lost my third race for governor and a recall was i insisted on raising something called the vehicle license fee, which should be called the public safety tax

because they spend the money back to local police and sheriffs. they lowered it to 50% of fireplace. for one year what to raise it back to their place. people said they didn't tell you to give us the money. you take it it's our money. last back the plane as i raised the tax because i didn't want to shortchanged local public safety, which is import to all of us and people understood that. i think most people agree the state would be a lot better off is that taxpayer. we didn't put a stamp on the money, but people a sense of passion. they know why you're doing it and want to take the risk. if you want to make a difference, those are probably inconsistent goals. >> with him to be going to philadelphia to pick up these

questions in the future. if the commissioners have a question about this, we'll turn to the audience for one or two quick questions before i wrap up the program. there is an mike floating around, so i'm going to go to the back left here and if you can identify yourself when the might comes. >> larry kennedy, then share county trustee. all of these includes universal service. ella terry, this staff, peace corps. i wandered the senate policy level that could link up with the problem of students have now a student loan debt. it's so huge. so how can we incentivize so i myself was drafted.

everyone who does serve to affect they got something that? >> that's a great question and there are ways. i would go to governor granholm's point. peace corps, americorps that are highly applied for programs. when i was direct or, we had 10,000 applications a 3500. i don't know that the 6500 others were handpicked in the atp peace corps volunteers, the wind gods name are we saying now? the americans want to go to the most desperate places on the planet to serve. the peace corps is 1% of 1% of the federal budget. military marching bands, which i'm a fan of a bigger part of the budget. so there is an imperative, americorps, the state each and every year have challenges.

so i think your point of incentivizing what we see is a burgeoning interest of young american and those not so young wanted to get back in these ways out that if the military, that we are not responding to the fortified increase that governor granholm suggested. individual colleges and these providing ideas to provide incentives. there's programs and federal incentives that could be tight to that for either loan purposes are incentivizing on the front end with the americorps grants. >> so we really have time for one more question before we trade jason appear. start of the left, and on the right. >> whininess cassano. i was wondering, you had bad the

people that volunteer to go into service as a man a because of the lack of incentive for the lack of support from everyone. but if you initiated a draft and there was more support, don't you think the people who didn't want to be as good as to be less committed? >> is universal service -- the volunteer army today's people want to be there. is the idea of universal service going to bring a lot of people into the service you really don't want to be there? is that a fair enough summary? >> i will take a crack at that. the answer possibly. i think we -the answer is possi. i think we made it brought enough. besides sanctions turned, you can serve your local school board, church, synagogue, boys

club, gross club, whatever. some of those people may not compensate you, but hopefully as mark said, could be worked out so you can get scholarships to universities and colleges will recognize the significance of your survey is and wave to a shared or find ways to reward you. i just think it is important that this generation of americans which clearly understands the service is that. we appreciate it and say what those options is to go into public office. one is to work for public policy institute. one is to be a mentor to someone who will benefit from their expertise and guidance and there's a lot of ways you can serve. it's an important that we give americuld say to young your rate

and your responsibility to the communal elian should have a stake in the game, whether it's iny and. one of the today as roma going to do what we want to do is maintain this democracynsle e ll the communal and the united states of onof the ti responsibility to make the r ap. the noaa? is the only way we will improve the country. >> i'm going to bring jason not appear. can we thank thank the panel fur service tonight? [applause] >> this has been a big day for everybody. we could not done it without all of you. i want to thank john fortier for together.ht to our commissioners, i want to

thank you all jo us. i have a small apology to we told you this wasn't going to take too much of your time. i feel that it is an a slighttad a profound number of question we now have an obligation to answer ocommission will be july 23rd wrealladelphia. happg twn no h we updte and you want to learn what is posed questions and continue will be a dynamic dialogue. finally, i want to thank media partner u.s.a. and susan page for leaving off the event and mostly in this room it is nice to think about and think the president and the legacy of president ronald reagan. so much of this. but pragmatism and passion and conviction inspires the work we intend to do to mr. affect to be

in the fabulous library to start this process. thank you to the reagan library. [applause] ..

documented the march on washington. this photographs have been curated by his widow and included essays of the collection by michael eric dyson