rate and they'll work every other day and the workers go from farm to farm and come back. when they work at a piece rate they're making $30 to $35 an hour. they know what they're doing, they get the right fruit in the basket. they take care of it the right say so it can get to the market and be the highest quality it can be. and it's not just grunt labor. it is somebody skilled in what they're doing. >> just to summarize, i know my time is running out, as mr. black pointed out, that we've had these hearings and we've wrung our hands repeatedly, but what you're saying is any plan that doesn't deal with taking the current work force and somehow converting them to a legal status is not going to completely work, is that right? >> we have a number of people in this country have to figure out a way to give them some kind of an adjustment of status to allow them to be in this country to work. you're absolutely right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> i thank the gentlelady.

gentlemen, mr. ross? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me lay the predicate for my questioning so that you gentlemen know where i stand. i recommend a district in florida, predominantly rural. my county leads citrus production in the state. we have a lot of specialty crops, a lot of row crops. we have a tremendous demand for labor, and i concur with several of your testimony today that this is an issue that must be addressed. it has been debated. it has ing willered, and no action has been taken, but i have growers and harvesters back home who cannot meet their labor demands, who are sincerely concerned because the department of labor cannot meet their demand and the labor forces they need. they're ineffective. they're inefficient. we have litigation out of control and now we're looking at how we can keep our growers from trying to farm their property for houses instead of crops and to keep them from taking the crops overseas because it's the only way they can make a living. having said that, we have some wonderful proposals on the table today. i think chairman smith has a very good one.

i think mr. lundgren has a good one. i want to address those. i'd like to go with the commissioner and then mr. wenger and themr is portability something that's absolutely necessary in order to have an adequate guest worker program in this country? commissioner? >> congressman, did you say portability? >> portability, yes. in other words to go from pli employer to employer once they're over here or to stay with one employer. >> absolutely. absolutely. >> portability is necessary. >> absolutely. >> mr. wenger? >> absolutely. you have to have portability or it's not going to work. >> mr. wicker? >> dga supports structured portability so workers can move from one certified farmer to another. >> and mr. goldstein i know you commented on this but i don't know if you have any comment with regard to portability. >> maybe portability plus. [ laughter ] >> let me ask you then something else. with regard to chairman smith's bill. he talks about caps in his, and we can't get from the labor department what the adequate

number of the farm workers we need over here. we just can't. we don't have statistics on that for obvious reasons. would it be something that maybe we should look at having a ceiling, a ceiling and then a floor? somewhere in between, the usda would do a study and say we believe that this many number of workers are absolutely necessary? is that something that you think is a workable alternative to address that issue? commissioner? >> congressman, i believe that's in the field of play for sure. we've got to have better -- we have to have better day in in georgia. >> right. >> one of the things we have things we have discovered in this study, we are woefully under. we need to determine what those needs are and if we could get that ceiling in the proper place. i think that's a good rate. >> we will touch the third rail of immigration and take this away from immigration and call it what it is. it is an economic tool necessary to keep our economy, local economy, national economy at work, then i think we might be able to have an intelligent talk about this and pass some legislation. if we can pass the legislation

we can start gathering the data necessary to find out what our labor needs are on a basis. mr. wenger, how do you feel about the caps? >> i feel caps are dangerous because we have heard from those folks who are in h2a and if they could fix h2a, they can bring their workers in. as we look at seasons and folks up in the northeast and the northern areas, i think if you have a cap then those in the southern parts of this country are going to be better served quicker. and others won't. we need agriculture across this country. the other thing is, any time you have a cap, and if you say that you have a certain amount of months they can be in country, once they come in country and go back, has that been used up, even though they can be in the country for ten months, they were only there for three. historically workers like to go back and forth across the border. they like to do what they're good at for three or four months and then they want to go home. have we used up one of the key spots we thought we had a worker in country for ten months but we

only had them in for three or four. i think caps, as long as we can have a "w" visa type of scenario, where they're agricultural workers, allow them to go where the work is. some are in transition, not all working today, maybe in transit from getting across the border to getting up into maine or getting up into washington state or new york. so i think caps are dangerous. >> thank you, mr. wicker, if i have time for one more question. how do you feel about caps? >> on the caps we have a de facto cap now the bureaucracy that -- >> right. >> -- chokes all of the programs. >> yes, it's ineffective, yes. >> so, you know, the cap and the american specialty agricultural act is 500,000. should it be higher? maybe. let's pass that and get started. i know that if our country makes a commitment and puts the right statutory language in place that we can build a program that

works for farmers and is accountable for workers so, yeah, we can have a program that treats workers well. >> thank you mr. wicker. mr. chairman, i see my time is up. >> yes, you'll have a chance for a second go round. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and the ranking member for courtesies extended. just have comments and a quick question and then a pointed question to mr. goldstein if i could. i have been working on these issues, i'm not from any of the states of the particular witnesses but certainly i join my colleagues in the importance of trying to address the questions dealing with farm workers and in addition i have seen the plight of many of the farming community, large farming communities as relates during these harsh times the loss of product, if you will, in the field. and i consider america -- one

america to be the bread basket of this world and want to ensure that not only are the people who are in heed here in this country eat and eat at prices that they can afford, but that we are able to serve those around the world. i'm frustrated, however, because we are having this hearing and many of you may have heard me over and over talk about comprehensive immigration reform which would entail of course, even though we have looked at the farm bill, it would talk about the whole approach. when we talk about individual visas, you can imagine in this time of unemployment, no matter how much you may make the argument are americans coming to pick products, there will be those who say you're taking jobs away from americans. let me just ask -- going straight across the board if you give me yes, no's and then hopefully i'll get to mr.

goldstein within my time. mr. black, does your state have housing school requirements for farm workers? >> no, ma'am. >> we abide by the h2a, the one that's final the focus, the 33 producers in georgia i believe that are using h2a, they abide by those requirements. >> you say you don't provide housing? i said housing and schooling for the children of migrant workers. housing for the families and schooling. >> those are the individual responsibility of those crews that come to work with the farmers, they're living in the community. >> all right, so it's the burden of the migrant workers, they provide their own housing and -- >> yep. >> are their children allowed to go to school in georgia? >> yes, ma'am. but what would be important to know there is whether or not the family's actually with them or not. >> okay. i have to move quickly. >> whether or not they're there for that period of time. >> all right. i thank you. i have to move rather quickly. do you have any american workers in your fields? u.s. -- >> very, very limited numbers. >> do they come when you call them? >> i'm sorry?

>> do they come when you call them? >> well i'd tell you the best example i have of that, congresswoman, is that one of my growers in tipton, georgia, this past year, under his requirements of h2a and hiring people through 50% of the contract period processed 1,500 local workers, he was able to get eight of them to stay. >>:o, let me move quickly. mr. wenger, housing, schooling? >> currently, a lot of growers will provide housing, they see that as an attractant to get workers. >> not required? >> it is not required. schooling, if they have children that are there, they go to the public schools. >> it's open to them? >> yes. >> mr. wicker of north carolina? >> i can only speak to our h2a workers and their families don't travel with them. the state department doesn't issue them visas to travel with them. >> what about workers for mr. wenger and mr. wicker? quick answers, please. >> it would be the same thing. schooling is available for -- >> no, american workers working

in your business. >> yes, i mean sometimes there's housing with it but most of the time -- >> american workers, u.s. people, working in -- i'm asking you do they work in your business? are they in the fields picking product? >> we have some that went through the legalization process in '86 that are now citizens. >> okay, i'm not, mr. wicker -- >> yes, ma'am, we have u.s. workers working on the farm. supervisors -- >> native u.s. -- >> yes. >> -- workers. >> yes. local workers. absolutely. >> all right. mr. goldstein, what are the problems we should be looking at in this visa program? >> well -- >> thank you, gentlemen. >> the problems were actually discuss are discussed in the 1909 report by the commission on country life, to teddy roosevelt and reported in the commission on migratory labor after president truman which said the same thing that the 1909 report said, and the same thing as the commission on agricultural workers said in 1992. we need to modernize labor

practices, improve wages and working conditions to attract and retain the farm workers. stop relying on the desperation abroad to bring in vulnerable workers on restricted nonimmigrant visas. we need to stop, end the discrimination in labor laws against farm workers. they don't get overtime pay. they don't have to pay the minimum wage. we need to do to things to stabilize the work force and treat farm workers as human beings, and we desperately need immigration reform, because more than half the farm workers are undocumented. we should give them the same opportunity that this nation of immigrants has given to other people. to become immigrants, leading to citizenship so they have bargaining power with their employees and they earn the right to become citizens who can actually vote and have an impact on the policies that affect them. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. chairman, could a make a correction for the record something i said so i will not offend any population.

i know the definition of native americans are those who are defined to have been there for when all of us came. my question was trying to establish whether u.s. citizen, other than those who come from out of the country to work were seeking these jobs, and so i think you answered some are and some are not. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady. we'll go for a second round now. i'll start off with five minutes. mr. black, mr. wenger, mr. wicker, do you support programs so that you can exploit vulnerable workers? >> so that we could exploit? >> exploit vulnerable workers. one of the criticisms expressed by mr. goldstein was that the various programs rely on vulnerable workers. i'm trying to ask your position on vulnerable workers and how your particular program does not rely on vulnerable workers, if that's the case.

how do you empower your workers to the program you envision for us to try and solve this problem? >> well, mr. chairman, no, we do not support anything that exploits vulnerable workers. >> how would they be empowered by the program you support? >> i think it creates a lot of opportunity in the marketplace. i think the portabilities, some of the things you were discussing earlier, being able to compete is an excellent step for us to take. >> mr. wenger? >> yes, no. we don't -- the interesting thing is if you're worried about workers being taken advantage of, give them a document so they can travel and vote with their legs if they want to go, if they think they haven't been dealt with correctly. you don't need to be a citizen. you need a legal work document that empowers you and in california, we have a minimum wage. we pay overtime for agricultural work. and if you're really concerned about the plight of those who are living in the shadows and they're undocumented, give them a legal document.

it was interest last summer, as we were going over to my son's graduation at cal poly, and we came by a peach tree, and every single one at lunch break had their phones out and they were texting and calling on the phone and talking to people. the people we have working in the fields today aren't somebody that's just stuck back in the shadows. given a legal documentation so they can come out of the shadows as far as being a workforce. there should be no reason that anyone should be taken advantage of. >> mr. wicker? >> no, we do not support a program that boo allow exploitation. >> how are they empowered? what in your program allows them not to be exploited? let me put it that way. >> they come through orientation and they make many, many different worker rights groups. we have a collective bargaining 'agreement at north carolina grower growers and they know english as a second language, and there's a lot of oversight and accountability. we give full disclosure. we keep records and provide wage statements and we comply with the law.

there's a lot of oversight and accountability. that's how you make sure that workers are not exploited. >> so as you may know, i'm kind of frustrated by this whole thing. i was here in the '80s. i was the republican floor manager of simpson masoli. i wrote a lot of what is now the h2a program from the '80s hoping that would work. i look now and see it didn't work. we haven't had the protection of the farm workers that i believe we should have. if they had a legal status and they were out of the shadows of illegality, and so i'm trying to put the best program forward that i think can pass and can actually work, but then i hear things like a cap. anybody here know how many tourists we have come into the united states per year? 50 million. so what i were here to advocate an arbitrary cap of 25 million?

doesn't relate to the flow. doesn't relate to the market. doesn't relate to anything except we in congress decided to have 25 million tourist visas here, even though the demand is 50 million. it seems to me it makes more sense for us to be able to establish whatever program we establish without a cap, but on an annual basis reflects the need as proven by the agriculture committee, approved by the department of agriculture, and then reviewed on a yearly basis. if in fact it's a million it's a million. people seem to be afraid of saying that, but it seems to me it ought to be what the market tells us and then be real with respect to that and give people the mobility and the marketplace so that in fact they're not wards of a particular employer and find themselves back in their home country when they have a legitimate gripe with the employer that they have and an ability to join unions if they

want to or not join unions. those sorts of things, so i just, i try and deal in the reality of what's out there, and to me, caps is like saying we know we have 50 million visitors that come every year, but we are going to stay at 25 million. why? well, because we think 25 million. maybe we ought to see what the market is and deal with the market in that way. and whatever program we adopt, my hope in authoring my bill was to have flexibility and with the legal status of the people involved in the program comes the protections of the already existing law which they can rely on. the gentlelady from california. >> well i, just a couple of comments. really looking, i wasn't here in the congress during the reagan years. but i think the problem we often talk about wasn't in force. the real problem was that there

was no mechanism for new people to come in. it was insufficient capacity to meet our actual economic needs, whether was agriculture or whether it was nuclear physicists, you know, that was the problem, and we're still grappling with that problem. my colleague from texas mentioned the need for broad reform of the immigration laws. and before i was ever an elected official, i used to be an immigration lawyer and i taught immigration law. and i can tell you that the system is a mess. i mean, it's a mess when it comes to agricultural. it's a mess when it comes to family law. it's a mess when it comes to starter visas for high-tech. i mean, it needs reform. i hope that we can do that. i'm sensing here, that's not going to be in the remainder of this congress, but it's an

obligation that i hope we can address, and it would be wonderful to do it on a bipartisan basis. i think looking at this ag area, the idea -- and i credit everybody's trying to address this, but the idea that we could actually get -- let's say we put a cap of 500 -- 1,000. you wouldn't find 500,000 people to apply and to be interviewed in counsel offices to get to american farms in time to avoid the destruction of american agricultural. the idea of a company is really not even worth discussing because it won't work. there aren't enough people to apply. we have to talk about how do we help the people who have worked in the fields to gain a legal status that allows them to continue to work, which we need them to do, but also allows them the dignity and rights that they

should have so that they can be treated fairly? i certainly would not suggest any of the individuals here an individuals are unfair, but it happens in the world that we live in, and people need bargaining power and the ability to stand up for yourself, and you cannot do that if you are living in the shadows, if that is how we want to describe it. so, i do understand, immigration is a subject that has become to my mind almost irrationally hot. and we should be thinking what is the right thing to do for our country and when i think about how our country has been strengthened by immigration, looking at whole country, we have been strengthened by the

people that had enough get up and go, to get up and go to come to america and dream american dreams and become americans withes, and that is what this discussion about, we should embrace our history and make sure it part of our future. and the ag discussion, is just a small part of that discussion. now, having said that, i want to talk about the economy because we have a tough economy now. and even though we have got a largely unauthorized workforce in the fields, they are contributing to the economic wealth of the country. and when i look at mr., or commissioner black, your testimony, you talk about a survey of respondents, indicating that they had lost $ $10 million due to georgia's new

immigration law, but if i'm reading the report correctly, and you can say yes or no, the survey was of 570 people that responded and reported their losses. but, we don't know whether all those people were even farmers and my understanding is that there are 48,000 farms in georgia, the $10 million reported lost from the 570 responded to the all that is lost if we have 38,000 farms, is that correct? >> that is correct and if i could explain, we wanted to direct farmers, direct questions, of our 800 respondents to the survey, they were all farmers. of the ones that answered the economic impact question that was the 500 number you

mentioned, and we said 26% of those indicated losses that totalled over $10 million. >> i see. >> so that is 125, 130 farmers. so we know that was the direct impa impact to those producers in their response. >> the university of georgia has done an analysis and they said the loss was $140 million for just seven of the key vegetable crops and their study said that it would lead to an additional $250 million for a total of $391 million lost to the georgia economy because of the immigration law they passed. thank you mr. chairman, my time

is up. >> mr. ross. >> i want to address the adverse effective wage rate. we have farmers that utilize programs, and they know it the right way to go about it but their competitors realize that the market drives wages more than anything, that they lose a tremendous competitive advantage and the resulting outcome has been that you insentivize the hiring of illegal workers if we had fixed cost and fixed price, than an adverse effective wage rate could be fixed into the profits but this is a market driven enterprise, what is your comment on the adverseive effective wage rate? >> it difficult, when you look at a shed that may have minimum

wage jobs, like sweeping the the floors, but that's an economy pressure that you put on a job like that, having to a abide by that adverse effective wage. that is why, when we talk about the whole issue of wages, in agriculture one of the things i'm glad we have been doing in our study is explode the myth that we under pay people. that those that are doing the productive work. but the fact is that there's still minimum wage jobs left and having flexibility is important. >> mr. wange eer >> i think when you set wages at a certain level and you will see that people will find what that wage should be. there will be things that will

have a higher wage rate because the work is harder. maybe others you do not is have the same responsibility. let the market determine here we are agriculture, i can think of a industry that is more market driven. >> we are tied to a state minimum wage and we are looking for a base hourly wage rate that is predictable, i agree to an extent. the grower, skill sets you'll pay more than that base hourly wage rate. but it's so expensive to farm and what my members tell me consistently is this, lee, all i know is that over the last 20 years our wage rates have gone up 4.7% a year. i'm scared to go to the bank and

push my chips in the middle of the table and buy my farm or try to grow more and do better. i'm scared because i cannot get my hands around where we are going with the labor issue. all i know is it going up and it's driving me out of business. >> do you feel that it gives incentive to those that do not want to hire? >> it's based a survey of agriculture employer's wages, because undocumented workers are willing to work for less, it's resulting in depressed wage rates. >> yet, harvesters back home cannot compete because there are

those being -- >> we would like to legalize the do you wanted workforce and have greater enforcement of farm worker's rights. you heard people saying, that some of these people are making $30 an hour. and i talked to people, and they said it was more like $10 an hour. can't we pay them $15 an hour and health care? >> you should have that flexibilitity. >> when you are setting things, one of our categories this year completed his work, completed his paperwork, turned the paperwork in and in the process, they changed one penny in our state. did the system help him change that paperwork up front? absolutely not. he went to the back of the line and started all over, for the change of one penny on the form.

another good example of why that piece of work in the paperwork surely does create obstacles for people using the program. >> thank you, chaurm, my timeir is up. >> i would like to thank the witnesses here for their testimony today. you will have five days to submit questions for the withins, and we ask that you respond in writing so we can with make your answer as part of the record. all member hes ha s -- members five days for additional statements. thank you to say witnesses and this hearing is adjourned.