[Senate Hearing 117-828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-828
IMMIGRANT FARMWORKERS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO FEEDING AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2021
__________
Serial No. J-117-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-736 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 4
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 9
Padilla, Hon. Alex............................................... 5
Cornyn, Hon. John................................................ 7
Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................ 10
WITNESSES
Kooistra, Linnea................................................. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Myers, Shay...................................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Rodriguez, Arturo................................................ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Sequeira, Leon................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Sorenson, Jen.................................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas............................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Questions submitted with no response returned................ 81
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 217
IMMIGRANT FARMWORKERS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO FEEDING AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2021
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., Room
226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Feinstein, Klobuchar,
Coons, Blumenthal, Booker, Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Graham,
Cornyn, Cruz, Kennedy, and Tillis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to
order. The Iowa caucus is going to break up for a moment, here.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I'll officially
welcome you here. Chuck, thank you.
Today, the Senate's holding the first hearing in a decade
on the need for a path to citizenship for our Nation's
immigrant farmworkers. I am happy to make this not only a Full
Committee hearing but to acknowledge the Chairman of our
Immigration Subcommittee, Alex Padilla, who is an integral part
of this conversation and a part of this hearing.
During today's hearing, the Committee will hear from a wide
variety of Americans who support legalizing immigrant
farmworkers, including farmers, farmworker advocates, and our
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Secretary Vilsack, did
you know that this is the first time the Secretary of
Agriculture has testified before the Judiciary Committee in
more than 20 years? I don't know what that Secretary said, but
we're glad to have you here today, and thanks for your historic
appearance.
I have a little video that precedes this, and I'd like to
ask that it be shown. It really reflects the reality of the
work our immigrant farmworkers do to keep our food on the
table.
[Video is shown.]
Chair Durbin. During this pandemic, we've all been forced
to face the reality that our food supply chain depends to a
great extent on the labor of immigrants. At every step of the
food production process, from the moment a crop is planted to
the moment our grocery bags are handed to us, there is an
immigrant worker who plays a critical role in feeding our
families. Their work is essential, and it's never easy.
Our nation's farms, factories, and food processing plants
can also be dangerous. I know a bit about that, probably more
than some Senators. Back when I was working my way through
college, a few years ago, I worked for a meatpacking company in
my hometown of East St. Louis, Illinois--Hunter Packing
Company, now owned by John Morrell.
I was paid $3.65 an hour, which was a pretty good rate. I
stood elbow to elbow with the other workers on the assembly
line as thousands of pounds of meat came marching, nonstop,
down the conveyor belt. As summer help for 4 years, I came to
work the worst jobs in the packing house. Under our union
contract, an 8-hour workday meant processing 1,760 hogs, 220 an
hour. Speeding up the overhead chain line meant building up
numbers in the case of regular breakdowns. The work was hot,
exhausting, dirty, and dangerous.
In my home State of Illinois, the jobs at these meat and
poultry processing plants are still exhausting, dirty, and
dangerous. The next time you put a pork loin on the grill or
chicken tenders in your kids' hands, just remember, our
foreign-born workforce had a lot to do with the fact that you
have that opportunity. In the decades since I left the assembly
line, food processing continues to be difficult and dangerous,
especially because of COVID-19.
Over the past year, the workers who kept our grocery store
shelves stocked have endured immense hardship. The pandemic has
torn through our Nation's factories as well as our farms,
because in these workplaces, social distancing is not an
option. Whether they're packing meat or picking berries, the
workers who supply our food tend to work in confined and
crowded spaces. Many have been unable to protect themselves
from exposure to the coronavirus. According to the
Environmental Working Group, farmworkers in more than a dozen
States do not have access to PPE or COVID testing, and it's not
uncommon for these workers to be transported to fields in
tightly packed trucks, housed in close quarters.
All of these factors have led to a devastating outcome.
More than half a million ag workers have contracted COVID-19,
and during the first year of the pandemic, more than 7,000
farmworkers died of COVID-19. Sadly, the coronavirus is just
one of many workplace hazards these workers face. They handle
dangerous machinery, they experience repetitive strain
injuries, they're regularly exposed to pesticides, and now we
see in our western States they face sweltering heat. In fact,
farmworkers are 35 times more likely than the average worker to
die from heat exposure. These workers understand the risks of
working on a farm.
Many of them face another risk, one that is a direct result
of our broken immigration system: the threat of deportation.
About half of our Nation's two and a half million farmworkers
are undocumented. These workers head out to the field every
morning to pick the fruits and vegetables that feed our
families, but despite this essential work, they are at risk of
being separated from their families. One of these workers was
on the video, Vincent Reyes. Vicente. I'm sorry.
Vicente Reyes is a DACA recipient who is currently studying
robotics engineering at Bakersfield College in California.
Outside of class, he works on a farm in the Central Valley, and
he's a member of the United Farm Workers. Vicente is also the
son of farmworkers. His parents are undocumented. Each morning
before they head to the field, there's one brief moment.
They're facing a 14-hour shift, many times. The parents hug
Vicente tight, because they never know if it's the last day
they'll be together.
When the pandemic began, Vicente and his family were unable
to shelter in place because they are designated essential,
critical infrastructure workers by the previous administration.
Even though they make essential contributions to our country
and our economy, Vicente's parents still live every day in fear
of deportation. It is an embarrassment to this great Nation
that we allow this injustice to continue. We, in the Senate,
can change it. We can pass legislation that will not only keep
hardworking families like Vicente's together but strengthen the
durability and resiliency of our food chain.
Earlier this year, the House passed the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act on a bipartisan basis. This landmark
legislation is the product of an historic agreement between
farmers and farmworkers. It would fundamentally change the
lives of hundreds of thousands of farmworkers who came to our
rescue during the dark--darkest days of the pandemic, and it
would allow them to continue doing their essential work without
fear of deportation.
Many agriculture share--stakeholders, from dairy to
specialty crops to livestock, have said they are facing serious
worker shortages and that immigrant farmworkers are critical.
That's why, across America, both farmworkers and farmers are
calling on the Senate to pass the Farm Workforce Modernization
Act. Farmworkers not only deserve a path to legal status, they
are vital to our Nation's economic future.
For evidence of that, I look no further than my own State.
A few years ago, a legislator from my home State said, quote,
``Illinois has been a mirror of America.'' There is no State, I
might add, that better reflects the diversified nature of
America's economy. We have one of the largest metropolitan
areas around Chicago and 27 million acres of farmland, and over
the past couple decades, a troubling trend has emerged in our
State. While the population growth rate in our urban areas has
increased, it has decreased in our rural areas.
To put it simply, declining population growth means that in
the years to come, our rural communities are going to have
fewer consumers to shop and fewer taxpayers to fund schools and
hospitals. These divergent trends in urban and rural population
are not exclusive to my State. They pose a long-term risk to
our Nation's health. The Senate can help turn the tide. We can
enact reforms to the immigration system that encourage families
to move to the rural parts of our States, not only so they can
work on the farms, but so they can open businesses,
restaurants, and shops and contribute to the economy as
consumers and taxpayers.
Our farms and the communities surrounding them are some of
our Nation's greatest assets. Let's enact--let's enact policies
that help them to survive and thrive. When we debate
legislation like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, what
we're really debating is the future of America and particularly
rural America. Let's invest in that future with hardworking,
good people.
With that, I'm going to hand off to Ranking Member Grassley
for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I did not have the same work experience
you had, Mr. Chairman, at a packing company, but I can tell you
that I can attest to the conditions that you described where
you worked, because I saw them every day for 6 years at the
Rath Packing Company in Waterloo, Iowa. That paid for my way
through the University of Northern Iowa. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing. Very important we hear
about the lack of labor in agriculture, even in my State of
Iowa. I thank Secretary Vilsack for being here.
I'd be remiss if I didn't start today's hearing by noting
that last month U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered
188,829 people at our southern border, a 471 percent increase
from the year before. Encounters with unaccompanied children
were up 802 percent from last June. Family units encountered
were up 3,224 percent from last June. It's clear that we're
still facing an ongoing crisis at the southern border, and it's
long past time for this Committee to exercise its oversight
responsibilities and seek testimony from the Secretary of
Homeland Security and other administration officials regarding
what they're doing or not doing to address this issue.
With respect to the issue of agriculture labor, it's an
unfortunate reality that a significant portion of our
agricultural workforce is made up of undocumented immigrants.
It's also an unfortunate reality that the H-2A program, which
was set up to secure a stable flow of legal agricultural labor
into the United States, doesn't work well for many employers,
including in my home State of Iowa.
I'd like to make three points regarding congressional
consideration of agricultural labor reform proposals. First,
the primary focus of any such proposal should be reforming the
H-2A program to ensure that farmers and agriculture employers
have access to a stable and legal workforce. I consistently
hear from employers in my home State about the need for
Congress to improve their ability to get access to labor. This
will, in part, involve expanding the program to cover year-
round agricultural industries such as dairy, all animal
agriculture, and agriculture processing, that are currently
excluded--I want to emphasize--excluded from the H-2A program.
It should also involve streamlining the program, reducing red
tape, and addressing a very high cost of using the program for
many farmers and agricultural employers.
We'll hear from some of our witnesses today about how the
Farm Workforce Modernization Act, the focus of today's hearing,
falls short in addressing a number of these issues. Second, it
is important that any agricultural labor reform and immigration
reform, more broadly, include a robust and mandatory E-Verify
component. Finally, agricultural labor reform shouldn't include
mass amnesty of current undocumented immigrant farmworkers.
We should learn from the mistakes of the past, or we're
doomed to repeat them. Let me repeat, what I learned from the
1986 legislation that I voted for. It was termed the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, which provided an amnesty
to more than 1 million farmworkers under what was called the
Special Agricultural Workers program. At the time, the American
people were told that the 1986 amnesty bill would be a one-time
fix. Title I of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act creates a
program called the Certified Agricultural Worker Status that
is, in many respects, almost identical to the Special
Agricultural Workers program that Congress created in 1986.
1986 SAW, that Special Agricultural Worker program, had an
amnesty part to it. It was notoriously riddled with fraud. I'm
going to make some quotes, that this isn't just Chuck Grassley
saying it.
The New York Times called the Special Agricultural program,
quote, ``One of the most extensive immigration frauds ever
perpetrated against the U.S. Government,'' end of quote. Then
Congressman, now Senator Chuck Schumer said at that time, who
was--he was one of the authors of that program in the 1986
bill. He said that it was, quote, ``too open.'' Just two words
from his quote, but it's ``too open'' and, he implied,
susceptible to fraud. In a July 2000 report, the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice noted that, in 1995,
management at the then Immigration and Naturalization Service
estimated that 70 percent of the Special Agricultural Worker
applications were fraudulent.
On top of being bad policy, a mass amnesty of current
farmworkers also does absolutely nothing to address
agricultural labor shortages and workforce issues. As we saw in
the aftermath of the 1986 amnesty bill, many agricultural
workers who received legal status ultimately left the
agricultural sector. Employers then turned to a new pool of
undocumented immigrant workers to replace all the ones who had
left, and thus the cycle simply began once again.
I hope that Congress will ultimately be able to address
agricultural labor reform in a way that breaks the cycle of
dependence upon labor that illegally crosses our border and
would find legal ways to bring them into the country and thus
actually help farm and agricultural employers get access to the
legal labor that they need. Even in the State of Iowa, I hear
this. The bill we're discussing today doesn't do that, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues on the legislation
that does. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator. Chairman of the Immigration
Subcommittee, Senator Padilla.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, for inviting
me to Co-Chair this hearing, as well as to your Committee staff
for all the work they've put into organizing today. You know, I
often say that no State has more at stake in immigration reform
than my home State of California, and it's especially true when
it comes to the essential role of farmworkers.
California is the agricultural heart of the Nation. We know
that more than a third of our country's vegetables and two-
thirds of fruits and nuts come from California. In fact,
farmers in California, not just in California, but especially
in California, struggle every year to hire as many farmworkers
as they need to pick major crops. That's been the case since
prior to the pandemic. That's why our agricultural industry has
relied for decades on the labor of immigrants.
If we look back in our Nation's history--and recall that
during both our major world wars, immigrants kept our country
fed. We'll recall the Bracero Program, for example, which
brought millions of temporary workers to California at the
time. We also reflect on the 1960's, when California's
immigrant farmworkers led a historic boycott to fight for safer
working conditions. Today, an estimated 60, upwards to 75
percent of California's farmworkers are undocumented.
These dedicated individuals work backbreaking jobs for
hours on end to give their families a better chance in life and
to feed all of our families across the Nation. That's why I
believe they deserve better wages, better working conditions,
including overtime pay. I digress. That may be a subject of a
hearing on another day.
Let's reflect on this last year, year and a half. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, it wasn't just the U.S. Government.
Let's be clear about this. Donald Trump's Department of
Homeland Security deemed farmworkers essential workers. Think
about what that means. Formal recognition by the Federal
Government that farmworkers, regardless of immigration status,
are critical to our Nation, critical to the food supply,
critical to our economy. We can't live without them. I think
that was the case long before the pandemic, but it was
formalized during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's no surprise that, despite the challenges of COVID,
farmworkers continue to show up for work, despite the triple
threats of the pandemic, extreme heat waves, and record-
breaking wildfires. Because of their outsized presence on the
front lines and the climate crisis, farmworker--farmworker
communities have suffered a disproportionate number of
illnesses and deaths, but they still continue to show up for
work. At the same time, many of these workers faced increased
risks because of their undocumented status, showing up for work
despite living in fear of deportation.
Too many were denied the necessary PPE to try to mitigate
the risks they were exposed to; others unable, because of
ineligibility, to seek health care; too many afraid to speak
out against the dangerous working conditions for fear of
retaliation, including but not limited to threats of
deportation by their employer. More than half a million
farmworkers, more than half a million essential farmworkers,
per the U.S. Government, contracted the coronavirus, and
thousands of them lost their lives.
Farmworkers, and all workers who've worked on the front
lines during the pandemic, deserve better. They deserve
respect. They deserve our gratitude. They deserve security, and
they deserve a pathway to citizenship. Let's recognize that
farmworkers, most of the adults having lived here, on average,
18 years, is a very different group of workers, residents, than
those that may have shown up at the southern border in the last
couple of months.
Let's not conflate the two issues. Addressing the
challenges at the border, reforming our amnesty system, is
important, but let's not let that stand in the way of justice
for farmworkers and other essential workers. That's why I
support the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, and that's why I
was inspired to introduce the Citizenship for Essential Workers
Act as my first bill in the Senate. It is fundamentally wrong
for the U.S. Government to recognize workers and deem them
essential, yet deny them legal protections and status at the
same time.
As a proud son of immigrants, I know that immigrants have
always been essential, since long before the pandemic. Passing
immigration reform that respects the dignity and the worth of
all immigrants is also a recognition of their contribution to
our economy and our national security. I look forward to
today's hearing, to hearing from the witnesses, and to making
it clear what Congress can do to act to ensure farmworkers have
these basic rights and protections. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Padilla. The Ranking Member
of the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy
of allowing me to make a brief introductory statement. I
strongly agree with the underlying premise of this hearing.
Immigrant and nonimmigrant farmworkers are essential to
agriculture and feeding the United States population. That's
why it's so important to take the time to study the
deficiencies in the current guest worker programs and to
consider needed reforms.
Farmers and ranchers and producers face labor shortages at
home. I hear it all the time from my constituents. They've
turned to guest workers to fill their needs. According to
statistics published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
number of H-2A guest worker positions requested by ag producers
has grown from around 48,000 in 2005 to nearly 258,000 in 2019.
As Senator Grassley pointed out a moment ago, the H-2A
program only fills some of the agriculture community's labor
needs. Farmers can only rely on the program for temporary
seasonal workers, which may work in some places but certainly
not in others. Dairies, mushroom producers, livestock
producers, others with year-round needs, are left out.
Producers who have different needs at different times through
the season have to submit separate petitions for each arrival
date. The existing H-2A program, again, as Senator Grassley
pointed out, is cumbersome and expensive for producers.
I look forward to learning from our witnesses today about
the changes we can make in the program, to better tailor it to
our 21st-century agricultural labor needs. However, as we
consider adjustments to the H-2A program, we need to be careful
that we don't unintentionally create new problems for our ag
producers and ultimately increase prices for American
consumers, further driving up inflation.
I'm concerned that the bill that forms the centerpiece of
this hearing, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, does not
yet have unified support from the agriculture community. In
particular, I've heard from the Texas Farm Bureau and the
American Farm Bureau, who've expressed concerns, and they are
seeking some changes in the legislation as currently drafted.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the
letter they sent to you and to Senator Grassley be made part of
the record.
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Cornyn. Thank you. In its current state, the Farm
Workforce Modernization Act is not ripe for legislative action,
and more work needs to be done to build a consensus, and I'm
happy to be a part of that effort. When Congress created the
Special Agricultural Worker program in 1986, many of the
workers who received lawful permanent resident status through
the program ultimately did not remain in agriculture.
The Congressional Research Service has attributed that
departure from ag labor to their newfound eligibility for
nonfarm jobs, and it makes sense. If people are here legally,
and they're not required to work in ag jobs, and they have the
option of working in less challenging working conditions,
they're likely to move, as the Congressional Farms--
congressional Research Service has said.
If Congress was merely to legalize the existing
undocumented immigrant farmworker population, without
addressing the underlying reasons they're unlawfully present in
the country in the first place and without making the necessary
changes in the guest worker programs, I fear we would repeat
the mistakes of the past, as Senator Grassley pointed out, and
create even more problems for our ag producers and our food
supply.
Any plan to legalize a portion of the undocumented
farmworker population must be coupled with a plan to replace
those workers. We should not move only the legalization element
of the proposal, independent of the guest worker provisions,
and we still need to make some changes, as I've indicated, in
the guest worker provisions.
Chairman Durbin, as you know, we've been discussing the
Farm Workforce Modernization Act as part of our bipartisan
immigration talks, and as I said, I don't believe the bill is
currently ripe for legislative action, but we should continue
our work to make changes that will allow us to build the
necessary consensus. As we address the broader issue in this
setting, we need to remain open to making incremental progress
on issues like guest worker reform, permanent legal status for
DACA recipients, and the crisis at our border.
I've heard concerning reports that some of our Democratic
colleagues are considering using a partisan budget
reconciliation process to create a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. It almost surely will not work,
consistent with the rules of the Senate. Members of the
Committee know full well that immigration law is not written
through our arcane budget procedures, and I hope our Democratic
colleagues will commit to moving through any immigration
reforms through the normal legislative process so it can be
truly bipartisan and a consensus effort.
Finally, regarding the border crisis that
disproportionately affects my State, with 1,200 miles of common
border with Mexico, I'm disappointed we don't have a witness
here from the Department of Homeland Security who can speak
directly to that issue. Last month's CBP encountered 188,000
migrants along the southwestern border. Just a few days ago,
the Center for Disease Control told us that 93,000 Americans
died of drug overdoses, mainly from illicit drugs coming across
the southwestern border, and many of our Border Patrol are
taken off the front lines of securing the border because
they're taking care of unaccompanied children and others
claiming asylum.
These surges have peaked in May, but the numbers have only
continued to climb. It cannot possibly help that the Biden
administration is also publicly mulling over ending its
authority to expel migrants under a Public Health Title 42 in
the coming weeks. Indeed, the COVID-positive test rate has
surged dramatically as a result of the uncontrolled movement of
people across the border without appropriate public health
measures being taken.
Farm and ranch families in my State and elsewhere along the
border have experienced significant damage to their property,
including their crops, as a result of the surge. I consider
that an agricultural issue, too, and deserves attention at this
hearing. Finally, Senator Sinema, Senator from Arizona, and I
have introduced the Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, which would help restore order to the
border region by establishing regional processing centers in
high-traffic areas and by prioritizing migrants' asylum claims
in the immigration courts.
I hope the Committee will not shy away from addressing the
crisis on the southwest border, which I think will be an
absolutely essential element of any immigration reform that
ultimately can pass Congress. I look forward to continuing to
work with my colleagues to advance bipartisan immigration and
border security solutions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Senator Feinstein and
Senator Tillis have asked for a moment, opening statements.
Senator Feinstein.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate this. This is a really important bill for
California. It's estimated that we have about 280,000 people
that would be affected by it. Last year, as you may know, Mr.
Chairman, I did a bill that dealt with this, but it didn't go
anywhere, and this year the House has passed this bill, and I
really think it has merit and it'll stand the test of time. It
passed the House in March, a bipartisan vote of 247 to 174.
It allows undocumented farmworkers who have worked for
years in this country, who have paid their taxes, and who can
pass a criminal and security background check, to legally
remain in the United States and potentially earn a green card.
It creates a year-round H-2A visa category that will help
industries like dairy, a big industry in my State, that needs
more long-term workers. It also creates a pilot program for
portable visas that will help States like a big one,
California, where workers need to move from region to region
according to the schedule of multiple crops. It's a good-faith
bill that reflects months of careful negotiations between
lawmakers, growers, and labor, and all of us know that this
isn't easy to do.
What I like about it is, it's comprehensive in scope, it's
measured in its objectives, and it has bipartisan support. Most
importantly, it gives farmers the help they need, and it
protects essential farmworkers who work hard to put food on our
tables. I just want to say that I'm delighted that you've
scheduled this. I thank you and the Ranking Member, and I
strongly support the balanced and thoughtful approach. One step
is done, because it's effectively passed the House, and we
might just get something done. Thank you very much.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Feinstein. Senator Tillis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Vilsack,
thank you for being here. I have got a National Defense
Authorization Act markup that I have to go to, and I'll be
there for late into the evening, but this is a very important
subject to me. I hadn't intended to speak, but I felt like I
had to come down here and weigh in on what I consider to be a
very important subject.
First off, I think you should be very proud of getting an A
rating in your confirmation. Ninety-two to seven is a very
strong indication that both Republicans and Democrats have a
lot of confidence in your ability in leading the Department.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it's--I heard last night, I received
an email where some pundit on the right says that our
immigration negotiation discussions are dead. That's not true.
I heard about a week ago some pundit on the left talking about
if we did nothing more than legalize and double the salaries of
those working in the fields, we would fix the problem. That's
not true, either.
What we have is a working group here that's trying to put
together a set of policies that will get the immigrant
farmworkers over the finish line, get DACA over the finish
line, take a look at those who haven't enrolled in DACA,
potentially get them over the finish line, and actually work to
solve a decades-old problem where we get to the one-yard line
and we fumble.
We have done that for decades. We made a mistake when we
did amnesty, as Senator Grassley talked about, without dealing
with border security. I think that we can do it in a way that
makes sense. I've had very productive discussions with Members
on the other side of the aisle, that--let's make sure that
we've got technology and infrastructure to interdict illicit
materials, human trafficking, but get more people across the
border legally, every single day. Use that same technology to
have more guest workers come to this country, work, and then go
home.
I really wonder, if we'd taken the time to get the guest
worker programs right, if many of the people here that we're
talking about today, who are illegally present, if they knew
that they could come from the country of their birth, where
many family members live, that they would come here and work
and go back home, and come here and work and go back home
again, and then some of them may want to seek a path to
citizenship.
We have to recognize that an amnesty for immigrant workers
is something that should be on the table for discussion, but to
do it in a vacuum and not understand and recognize the need to
take care of guest worker programs, we're going to swing, and
we're going to miss again. We're going to fumble on the one-
yard line again. If we just simply get in a room together and
recognize that border security is a problem, it's something
that we should work on, and it can be done on a reasonable
basis--it would be done differently, if the numbers in the
Senate were wrong and the party in the White House--wrong,
different--and the party in the White House was different.
Let's play the hand that we're dealt. Let's figure out a way to
come up with a reasonable way to take care of the needs of the
farmers.
Let me tell you what's happening. One of the concerns that
I have with the Farm Workforce Modernization Act is that some
of those who, on its face, support it may not recognize what
could happen on the back side. By the way, Mr. Chair, I've got
two letters from the North Carolina Growers Association and
Sweet Potatoes that I would like to enter into the record,
expressing their concerns with the Workforce Modernization Act.
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Tillis. Let me just tell the farmers out there,
let's say, here's the good news. Those illegally present people
are now going to have a path to citizenship, maybe along the
lines of a DACA program, which probably makes sense given what
Senator Padilla said about many of them having worked here for
a decade or more. The farmer thinks that they've solved their
labor problem, only to find out that a provision in the
Modern--Modernization Act now accounts for a private right of
action for your guest workers where you could be sued.
The good news is, you've got some stability with your
workforce. The bad news is, now a whole cottage industry
should--could be created so that that farmer is now--they've
got the workers, but now they have to spend a lot of their time
going and defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.
These are the things that we need to talk about, and these
are the things that I think can be worked out. I believe it
needs to be done. I don't believe in Big C, because I'm a
reader of history, and Big C comprehensive immigration reform
has failed miserably every time it's been attempted, but I've
used the term ``little C.'' I'm prepared to look at the right
and the people in the ivory towers that say, ``We don't have a
worker problem here.'' You know, ``All you've got to do is just
make sure you go out and get that indigenous workforce.'' It
doesn't exist.
Get out of your ivory tower and go talk to the farmers. Go
talk to us about--excuse me--a surviving spouse of a farmer who
committed suicide because they couldn't make their generations-
old farm work anymore.
To the left, I would say, ``Go to your local Harris
Teeter,'' like I did over the weekend. I went into the seafood
section, and I saw East Coast wild-caught shrimp, $12.99 a
pound. Argentinian red shrimp, $8.99 a pound. If you continue
to heap regulatory and labor costs on these farmers--I agree
that immigrant farmworkers are essential to feeding America,
but I also believe that farmers are essential to feeding
America, and we have to get the numbers right.
I want to make it very, very clear: I'm not going to stop
talking with Members on the other side of the aisle who are
serious about fixing this problem and willing to accept a
compromise that can get 60 votes in the Senate and make
progress for the first time since Queen was still topping the
charts.
Mr. Secretary, I apologize for not being here to ask you,
I've got a lot of questions, but I would like to reserve the
opportunity to get with you and talk about these things,
because I believe you understand these issues, and I know the
people on the second panel do. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
continuing to work with you to actually come up with a
solution. Senator Feinstein, thank you for all the work and the
collaboration we've had. This is the Congress where we should
get this done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Senator Tillis, thank you, and I'm sorry you
have a conflict and have to go to another Committee meeting. I
would like to clarify two things. There is no new cause of
action created in this farmworker modernization act. It
codifies an existing cause of action that is in--on the books
already.
Senator Tillis. I was speaking specifically to the H-2A
program, which is still going to be essential after we make the
illegally present population farmworkers, because you're going
to have some of that population leave the farms after they get
citizenship, and rightly so, pursue their American dream, and
if we don't have a backstop for making sure that we have a
reliable H-2A and H-2B program, we're going to have a problem.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. I might also add that in 2005,
when the Senate was in Republican control, it overwhelmingly
passed a bipartisan reconciliation bill that dramatically
increased the number of immigrant green cards, so I hope we can
find a pathway for a bipartisan effort, and I thank you so much
for the work that you've put into that, but the reconciliation
option was used by the other party in 2005.
I now want to welcome U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom
Vilsack. Thank you for coming before the Judiciary Committee.
Previously served as Secretary from 2009 to 2017, under
President Obama, worked to strengthen the ag economy, build
rural communities, and create new markets for innovation in
rural America. He was confirmed, as Senator Tillis noted, by an
overwhelming margin, as part of this Biden administration in
February.
We're going to have 5-minute rounds for the Secretary and
then the same type of rounds for the second panel which will
come before us. Let me start, officially, Secretary Vilsack,
asking if you'll stand to be sworn.
[Witness is sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect
that the Secretary answered in the affirmative, as I expected.
Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much,
and to Senator Grassley and to the Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I think it's
only fair, since you all are going to ask me questions, that I
ask you a set of questions at the outset.
What industry in the United States basically provides all
of the food needs for 323 million Americans and still has
enough food left over to export nearly 20 to 30 percent to the
rest of the world? What industry basically provides the
opportunity for American families to enjoy something that no
other set of families around the world enjoys, which is
spending the least amount of their disposable income on food?
The American family spends approximately 10 percent of
their income on food. If you go to any other developed nation,
you'll see it in the 20 to 25 percent range. In developing
countries, it might be as much as 50 percent.
What industry supports, directly or indirectly, 40 million
American jobs and is responsible for nearly 20 percent of the
United States economy, according to a recent Dunham &
Associates study? That industry is the food and agriculture
industry that we're here to talk about. At the same time, that
industry is served by a number of workers, and it has been
pointed out today that among them are farmworkers, nearly 2.4
to 2.5 million workers who work incredibly hard and, as has
been pointed out by this Committee, are now considered to be
essential workers in an industry that I would articulate and
argue is also an essential industry to the future of the United
States.
Who are these people? They are indeed people who have been
in this country for an incredibly long period of time. The
average, as Senator--indicated, is roughly 18 years of
longevity in this country working. Half, maybe as much as 70
percent, of these workers may well be undocumented workers.
Eighty-three percent of them are Hispanic or Latino. They work
long hours: 8-, 10-, 12-, 14-hour shifts, 5, 6, 7 days a week.
Their income, on the average, is below--either at or well below
the poverty line.
They are dedicated to family. Let me share with you one
story that was shared with me in Upstate New York last week at
an immigration discussion I had, an individual who's worked in
this country for 20 years. I asked him what his hope and dream
and aspiration was, 5 years from now or 10 years from now. He
said, ``Mr. Secretary,'' very simply, ``I would like to see my
family.'' I said, ``What do you mean?'' He said, ``I haven't
seen my family for 20 years. I'm concerned that if I leave the
country, I won't be able to get back.''
When we talk about family values, I think these farmworkers
are folks who understand and appreciate the essential nature of
family values. They come up here to make a better living and
send resources back to their families, with the understanding
that they may never, ever see them again.
Why is that? It's, in part, because we have an uncertain
and, I think we can argue, a broken immigration system. The
availability of H-2A workers is always in question, wage
increases or decreases are fluctuating from year to year in an
uncertain path, there is a cumbersome process involved, there
are uneven worker protections, and, again, these are--separated
from families.
What can we do about this? The House of Representatives
decided to take matters into their hands, in March, as they did
in 2019, by passing the farmworker modernization act. This is
an act that simplifies and streamlines the H-2A process and,
indeed, creates a year-long workforce opportunity, creates a
certified ag worker classification for those who have worked in
this country for at least 180 days over the last 2 years,
clarifies and defines wage increases and decreases to provide
long-term stability to producers, improves housing
opportunities for workers without burdening the producers with
additional costs, phases in a full-time E-Verify system,
provides worker protections, streamlines the process for more
dispute resolution and emergency appeals from producers, and,
indeed, provides a pathway to legitimacy after the payment of a
fine, taxes, and making sure that they can pass a criminal
background check.
I'm here today simply to advocate on behalf of American
agriculture and these workers, to plead with the Senate to fix
this broken system, to maintain the capacity of this great food
and agriculture industry to continue to provide the benefits
that we all enjoy in this country and, at the same time, to
provide the respect and dignity to the farmworkers who are
working so hard to make this system what it is today. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Vilsack appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. I might just add that
the Farm Workforce Modernization Act provides for workers to
get a 5-year certified agriculture worker visa to work in U.S.
agriculture. If they can establish with that visa that they
have had 10 years of prior work in agriculture, then they can
apply for a green card after waiting 4 years and then will wait
5 more years before they can possibly have naturalization. The
criticism that the--during the Reagan administration that
legislation gave them a status that had them leaving
agriculture very quickly seems to be addressed by the timetable
that I've just laid out for you here.
If you are the worker you ran into New York, even if he
wanted to go through this system in order to become a legal
citizen and stop worrying about crossing the border and never
getting back, as I understand it, if he spent 20 years in
agriculture, okay, he meets the 10-year requirement. Then he
has to wait 4 more years. At the end of 4 years, he gets a
green card, and then he waits 5 years to be eligible for
naturalization if he chooses that route. You have at least a
minimum of 9 years in agriculture, as I understand it; maybe
I'm mistaken, but as I understand it, 9 years minimum working
in agriculture before natural--citizenship.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, that's correct, and I think
it's reflective of the fact that this is a compromise piece of
legislation where folks on both sides of this legislation gave.
Workers certainly gave; producers certainly gave, in an effort
to try to find common ground.
Chair Durbin. Key point. These two groups have not
historically always been on the same page. We know that, and I
won't go into that history. It's well documented. In this case,
they worked out an agreement between them. Certainly, the
producers understood they need ag labor, so they were prepared
to come up with a process leading to citizenship,
naturalization, but it is over time, even for the veteran
farmworkers.
Let me ask you to reflect for a moment, Mr. Secretary. Your
State of Iowa next to my State of Illinois have many things in
common in terms of the crops we grow and the life in our rural
communities. Would you reflect for a moment on the state of
agriculture in Iowa as it relates to this issue of migrant
farmworkers and those who are coming in to take jobs related to
food production?
I can tell you that we have a witness in the next panel,
Linnea Kooistra. Thank you for being here. She's from a dairy
family. I've had dairy farmers tell me that, unless you're
lucky enough to have a bunch of kids who want to hang around
the farm, by and large you need workers to come in to milk
those cows twice a day, to keep the farm operation--dairy farm
operating. Same thing true in the orchards of southern
Illinois. If they don't have workers coming in to pick those
crops, they will literally go out of business.
One particular owner of an orchard said, ``Senator, don't
tell me to hire local people. I'm trying to get a high school
kid to work in the stand out by the highway where we sell the
fruit. It's air conditioned, and I still can't get a worker to
do it.'' It's an indication of the challenges they face. Have
you seen the same thing in Iowa or other parts of the Midwest?
Secretary Vilsack. I have, Senator, and I was thinking of a
conversation I had recently with a dairy farmer who indicated
that he was the third generation, but he said, you know, ``The
reality is, our family wasn't large enough to be able to deal
with the expansion of our operation, so we had to hire
additional workers, and they became part of our family.'' He
perceives and sees these workers, the 9 people that now work on
his farm, as part of his family.
That same panel that I listened to included the president
of the New York Farm Bureau, as well as a representative of the
Vegetable Grower Association in New York. They basically shared
the fact that they put out an advertisement for additional
workers; they didn't get a single response. Not a single person
responded to the ad for additional opportunities to work in
this industry. It is clear that this industry is dependent on
immigrant workers. It's very clear. There are numerous examples
of situations where requests were made for U.S. workers to work
in these difficult jobs, with very little response, if any.
Chair Durbin. Talk meat and poultry processing industries.
In areas of Illinois where we have those plants, we also have a
remarkably large number of immigrant workers from Africa. When
I go through a naturalization ceremony in Springfield, 200
miles south of Chicago, as you know, it's not uncommon to have
two or three from Africa who work at the meat processing plant
not far from Springfield. The same thing is true of Hispanics.
Secretary Vilsack. This is a reoccurring story of our
history. Immigrant labor comes in and does the difficult,
challenging work that the rest of us are not interested in
doing. They do it well, and they have the notion of being able
to supply opportunity for a better life for their family.
I mean, this is replayed every single day in those
meatpacking facilities, every single day on those farm fields,
Senator. These are people that care deeply about their family.
They're sacrificing, working hard, to make sure their family
has a better life. That's the story here. We need to figure out
something that allows them to have that connection with their
family that the rest of us enjoy every single day.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for being
here. While I'm glad to see you here, I'm kind of disappointed
that Secretary Mayorkas isn't here, as well, because the H-2A
program is a major guest worker program that's administered by
the Department of Labor and Department of Homeland Security and
not by your Department. If we're going to have a hearing about
H-2A, Secretary Mayorkas should also be here to answer our
questions.
If he was here, I'd ask him on--about a June 3rd letter
that he and you, Secretary Vilsack, and Interior Secretary
Haaland received from the American Farm Bureau Federation and
all 50 State Farm Bureaus, relating to the current border
crisis and increase in immigration illegally crossing our
border. I would ask to put that letter in the record, at this
point.
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Grassley. The letter notes that farming and
ranching families on the border are, quote, ``bearing the brunt
of this unprecedented influx and have never seen a more dire
situation,'' end of quote. The letter went on to say that
farming families have experienced damage to their crops and
property, which has caused financial hardship. More
importantly, the letter highlighted, quote, ``the security and
safety of these families are at stake, given the current
circumstances,'' end of quote.
The letter concluded by urging the Biden administration to,
quote, ``recognize the crisis and take swift action.'' Mr.
Secretary, since the letter was also addressed to you, I--I'm
not going to ask you if you read it, because you get a lot of
mail, but I do direct you to that letter, and I just described
some of the--in that letter.
This brings me to my first question with you, and it's
based on the proposition that I don't know for sure if there's
any programs in the Department of Agriculture that can help
these farmers, and I don't know even if these farmers ask for
any help, but is the USDA currently taking any action to help
farming families who have experienced damage to their crops and
property as a result of the border crisis? If not, did you have
any plans to do that?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we are asking our NRCS folks to
take a look at whether or not the conservation programs that we
have could potentially provide some assistance and help in
terms of debris removal and repair of fences and so forth that
have been damaged. I have seen the letter; I've read the
letter. Certainly, I've talked also, as well, to President
Duvall, who is the president of the American Farm Bureau, about
this issue on a couple of occasions. We are taking a look at
ways in which, from a financial perspective, we might be able
to provide assistance and help to those families.
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much. That's a very
positive response to my question. My next question, and last
one, or last subject I'll bring up, about H-2A access for year-
round agricultural employers. As you know, this is a major
issue for a number of ag industries in our home State of Iowa.
What are your views on expanding the H-2A program to cover
year-round agricultural workers such as animal agriculture and
agricultural processing? Because right now, it's limited to
dairy and, I think, a 20,000-person cap, I believe?
Secretary Vilsack. I was pleased to see in the proposal an
expansion and a creation of this opportunity. As I understand
it, Senator, and I could be wrong, I believe there's a phase-
in, over a period of 3 years, of 60,000 additional H-2A
workers, and there's also a pilot program that focuses on year-
round--or, not year-round; it focuses on the ability of workers
to sort of move around the country--of 10,000.
I know that dairy is very interested in that long-term,
year-round workforce. They are appreciative, and the National
Milk Producers Federation is supportive of this, as are, I
might add, roughly 80 ag groups who have worked collaboratively
with the--the farmworker unions to work on this bill. I think
there is a process, I think there's an opportunity for us to
see how that staged-in increase works and to determine at that
point in time whether or not additional adjustments need to be
made. There is a process, and we're certainly appreciative of
that.
Senator Grassley. I think maybe you just asked my last
question, but I want to state it for the record, anyway, if
you've got anything to add. I know that you're generally
supportive of this legislation, but what is your response to
employers, including Iowa-based employers on our next witness
panel, who have expressed concern about how the bill addresses
H-2A access to year-round employees and the bill's cap on H-2A
workers for year-round employers?
Secretary Vilsack. I think the key, Senator, is to give us
an opportunity to see whether or not this phased-in approach
works. I would point out that there is a number of reforms and
streamlining of the process, a reduction, an online registry--
for example, the ability to not have to have repeat
applications to get workforce from time to time during the
course of the year.
I think there are a series of important improvements to the
H-2A system that could be an opportunity for us to see how this
works. Obviously if there are problems with the--we can always
tweak and modify, but I think first and foremost, you kind of
learn to--you want to learn to walk before you run, and that
phased-in approach allows us to learn to walk before we run.
Chair Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary. Under current law, the wage rate for H-2A workers is
usually set, as I understand it, by the adverse effect wage
rate, sometimes called the super minimum wage. That rate can
vary considerably between regions and fluctuate from one season
to the next, creating uncertainty for both employers and
workers. The Farmworkers Modernization Act, if passed, would
freeze the rate for one year and then put caps on the amount it
can go up or down for the next nine years. Does this act do
enough to ensure that growers can anticipate the wages they
will need to pay workers?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think it does. I would point
out that the current wage rate, on average, for those folks who
are earning that wage, is roughly a little over $13 an hour,
which is significantly below the average wage of a typical
American worker, also below the wage that even a worker with
the lowest educational level in our economy would earn. Again,
back to the individuals I talked to in New York, it was
interesting to me that they were working for $13 an hour and
hadn't had a raise in 3 years.
This does provide some stability and a range in which both
producers and workers can work with, and I think it also
provides and directs me and Secretary Mayorkas of the
Department of Homeland Security to take a look at that
calculation and that method over that 9-to-10 year period and
determine whether or not there's some more permanent fix that
could be put in place, but it's certainly an improvement over
the current state, which creates uncertainty for everyone.
Senator Feinstein. Most farmworkers are already protected
by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
H-2A workers are not. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act, if
passed, would change that. The farmworker modernization act, if
passed, would change that by expanding MSPA to include H-2A
workers. Here's--here are two questions. Does the farmworkers--
the Farm Workforce Modernization Act do enough to protect
workers from exploitation and abuse by employers?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it provides an opportunity for
consistency and clarity, in terms of those protections. I think
there are additional ways in which this bill provides
assistance and help. I mentioned housing in my initial comment.
That's also an issue, in addition to wages and in addition to
working conditions. These folks basically deserve decent
housing. That's obviously a fairly--can be a fairly expensive
proposition. The bill, I think, provides and directs the
Department of Agriculture to invest additional resources that
would be provided under this bill to expand housing
opportunities.
I think on balance--and everything about this bill is on
balance, because at the end of the day, this represents a very
delicate compromise between producers and workers. They worked
long and hard on this, and I think it deserves our vote of
confidence to allow it to see what works, see what works well,
what doesn't work. No--as you all know, no bill is ever
perfect, but I think the fact that this is a compromise between
people who historically have had a difficult time finding
common ground should--we should be encouraging that kind of
activity, I would think. Whether it's sufficient or not, time
will tell, but I think it's certainly an improvement over where
it is today.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thanks,
Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Feinstein. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
being here today and for your testimony. I particularly
appreciate your reaching out to me and other Members here to
see what's possible in this space. As a practical person and
somebody who's been a Governor of a State, you understand the
legislative process is, perhaps by design, difficult, because
you have to build consensus, and that's always particularly
been a challenge in this area.
I would share the views that Senator Tillis earlier
expressed, where comprehensive immigration reform certainly has
never been successful in the time I've been here in the Senate,
and I think the best way for us to try to do this is to take
smaller pieces on an incremental basis and find consensus where
we can, but then use that as a confidence-building measure to
then allow us to do other things.
I'm not suggesting we stop at the farm labor position, and
just like--I've asked Senator Durbin to consider putting a bill
in the Committee for markup on the DACA population, 640,000 or
so young people who now have a great deal of uncertainty as a
result of a Federal court decision last year saying the
original executive memorandum issued by Secretary Napolitano
during the Obama administration was not legally effective to
prevent--present them a work permit and deferred action.
I wanted to just have a conversation maybe, or at least--
about the best path forward. I know everybody's frustrated by
our lack of progress in the immigration space. Our Democratic
colleagues now apparently are going to rely on the budget
process in order to try to pass immigration reform. I have a
different point of view from that of the Chairman. The Senate
rules are not self-executing, and the so-called precedent he
points to, in 2005--there was no objection based on the Byrd
rule, which is, I know, getting down in the weeds.
My personal opinion is--and I think it's shared by many
people, including the former Senate parliamentarian, is it's
not going to be possible for us to do immigration reform in the
context of the budget, which is what apparently our Democratic
colleagues have in mind.
My simple request would be for you and the administration
to continue to work with us to try to do this during--using the
normal legislative process. I know building bipartisan support
for legislation is hard work. That's why so many people avoid
it except as a last resort, but it's very important, I think,
for us to provide some stability to our broken immigration
system. I think you used those words. I would agree with you,
but part of what's happening at the border right now is simply
unacceptable and needs to be addressed.
Senator Sinema, Henry Cuellar, Democrat from Laredo, and
Tony Gonzales, and I have introduced the Bipartisan Border
Solutions Act in order to provide some suggestion to the
administration and others about where the administration might
land on that issue, rather than try to ignore it, which--which
appears to be what they are doing now.
I would like to try to find a way to be constructive in
this area. It's enormously frustrating, because we haven't been
successful, but I for one, am committed to keep trying, and I
would ask you to continue to work with us and encourage folks
on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration, to
stay engaged with Congress to try to solve these problems
through the normal legislative process rather than resort to
this partisan budget process, which I believe will have zero
percent chance of success. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Did you have a question, Senator? No. Thank
you very much.
Senator Cornyn. I believe I can use my time to make a
statement----
Chair Durbin. Of course.
Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Or request or ask questions.
Chair Durbin. You can put a question mark at the end of the
statement. Your choice.
Senator Cornyn. It is my choice. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and thank you,
Senator Cornyn, for those relevant and direct comments about
the urgency, the importance of our finding a bipartisan way
forward. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, for your continued
leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators who meet, week
after week, and are trying to find a pathway forward.
Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for presenting so concisely
to us the opportunity we have in front of us with this piece of
legislation, legislation hammered out by groups that do not
often come to the same table: those representing farmworkers
and farmers, those representing very different points of
interest in the agricultural community.
As you pointed out, we owe the very food on our tables to
the farmworkers who've labored during this pandemic in
remarkably difficult circumstances, living through, working
through extreme weather, working through the challenges of this
pandemic, and to the farmers and processors who employ them.
We have a badly broken immigration system around farm labor
and farm production and processing in our country, and I can
think of no better way to honor the contributions of the
essential workers in our farms and in our country than by
showing them that their continued hard work under the sun can
earn them a place in our society outside the shadows of being
undocumented and disengaged from our communities and our
country. I look forward to working with you, and to both
Democrats and Republicans, to try and advance this promising
and important piece of legislation.
This is an issue close to my heart. In Delaware, we have
one of the greatest concentrations of chicken processing in the
country. We grow soybeans and corn to feed those chickens. It's
42 percent of the land area of little old Delaware that's in
agriculture. It generates about, I think, $1.5 billion a year,
which is tiny compared to Iowa but big for my State. We have
long struggled to come up with the right balance of who's
working and under what conditions and how and why, and this
would help move that forward.
Delaware farms do not use a huge number of H-2A visas, but
they rely on H-2A workers to get their products processed and
to market. For years I've heard from farmers in Delaware and
across the Delmarva Peninsula that the H-2A application process
is too complex, too time consuming, too costly. In fact, some
farmers have told me directly they have to hire a consultant
just to get through that process. Farmers agree, across the
country, it's time to modernize and reform this antiquated
system so we've got a legal pathway for folks to come here.
I just spent 2 days in Guatemala with a bipartisan group of
Senators, and one of the things we heard, from the president to
advocates and activists, was we need a better legal pathway for
folks to come to this country, to put pressure back on those
who are trafficking, illegally, folks into this country. Can
you speak to how this House bill would help address issues like
this, make the H-2A program more predictable and transparent,
and provide legal pathways for farmworkers in this country?
Secretary Vilsack. I'd be happy to, Senator. Thanks for the
question. The current process requires multiple filings in
order to qualify and to obtain H-2A workers. This proposal
would basically limit--instead of three filings, it would limit
it to a single filing. The current process requires, if you
have a growing season where you want to bring a workforce in at
the beginning of the growing season and then bring them back at
the end of the growing season, you've got to go through the
process not once but twice. This basically would allow for one
petition to cover the entire growing season, so you wouldn't
have to do it more than one time.
It also provides--the current law provides classified ads
and a series of steps to try to quantify that you've tried to
hire people from this country. This essentially would provide
an online job registry, which would make it easier to satisfy
that criteria, as well. In that case, it simplifies, it reduces
the paperwork and burden, and I think it reduces the cost
associated with the current system.
Senator Coons. You've been the Governor of Iowa. You've
been the Secretary of Agriculture. You are now again the
Secretary of Agriculture. Is it your testimony to us today that
this may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make right
how immigration and our farming industry and community and
society interacts in a way that provides real opportunity for
us?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, for the first time in a long,
long time, I think the country, as a whole--not individual
Senators who understand the importance of this industry--the
country as a whole now understands and appreciates the nature
of our food and agriculture industry and are appreciative of
it. Having said that, there are many aspects of that system
that are broken. Just to give you one statistic, 89.6 percent
of American farms today do not generate the majority of income
from the farming operation, for the farm family.
Senator Coons. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. We've got to begin the process of
constructing a stronger foundation for this system, and part of
that stronger foundation is a better ag worker system.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Let me close with this. As the
co-Chair of the bipartisan Chicken Caucus, I was proud to work
with my colleagues, including a fellow Member from South
Carolina, to----
Senator Graham. Am I on it? Am I on that caucus?
Senator Coons. Yes, you are.
Senator Graham. Oh, good.
Senator Coons. To include direct payments to chicken
growers for the first time. Part of the USDA's response to
COVID-19 was to broaden your aperture in terms of who's
eligible and who's able to work with direct payment programs,
and for the very first time, contract growers for chicken are
included. I just want to thank you for working with me on that
and for making this critical additional support for farm
families in Delaware possible. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons, and I understand
there's open enrollment for the Chicken Caucus?
Senator Coons. Yes. Yes. We're taking all comers, because
there's chicken in every State.
Senator Graham. Yes, Chick-fil-A by the end of the day----
Chair Durbin. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Okay, thank you. You are what you eat, so--
so bottom line, I appreciate you coming, Mr. Secretary. Is the
southern border secure?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it's fair to say, Senator, that
there are ways in which we can improve----
Senator Graham. No, that's not the question. Is it secure?
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Senator Graham. If you can't figure this out----
Secretary Vilsack. No, no, no.
Senator Graham. Is that a hard question?
Secretary Vilsack. It can be a hard question, okay?
Senator Graham. It's not today----
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Because a million people came
across, all-time highs, with no end in sight. If we legalize
one person under this program, which I've been historically
for, how will it affect border security? Will there be a run on
the border?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't believe so. In fact----
Senator Graham. You don't believe so? You don't believe
that if----
Secretary Vilsack. The reason----
Senator Graham [continuing]. We give legal status to
hundreds of thousands of people without first securing the
border, there won't be a rush on the border?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't believe so.
Senator Graham. Why?
Secretary Vilsack. In large part because the people we're
talking about within the ag workforce are people that have been
here for----
Senator Graham. Do you understand magnets?
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. A long period of time.
Senator Graham. Do you understand pull factors?
Secretary Vilsack. I understand the nature of this
workforce. I also understand the nature----
Senator Graham. Do you----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Of the work.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Understand that if you give
legal status to one person without first securing----
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, what----
Senator Graham [continuing]. The border, you're going to
have a run on the border ten times worse than----
Secretary Vilsack. No, I don't----
Senator Graham [continuing]. You have today?
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Believe so, Senator.
Senator Graham. You don't believe that?
Secretary Vilsack. No, I--and the reason I don't is because
I think the primary----
Senator Graham. I just think that's ludicrous. I think--
I've been involved in every immigration bill there has been,
and we always secured the border first because of this very
reason. You don't give amnesty and hope people won't keep
coming. You secure the border, then you provide legal status.
We're doing it ass backward.
Mr. Chairman, you know, we've had our differences. I like
you a lot. We've had two Committee hearings about legalizing
people. We haven't had one hearing yet about the status of the
border. If you don't believe legalization through DACA or ag
workers will create a run on the border, you're not listening
to the people at the border.
When I was Chairman, you asked me, the Committee did, the
Democrats asked me to have hearings about the status of
confinement, the way kids were being treated. We had three
different hearings, for the Department of Homeland Security
Acting Director to come so you could ask questions about
conditions of confinement and our policies on the border. I
have asked for a hearing, Senator Grassley's asked for a
hearing. There is no way in hell we can legalize anybody until
we first understand the effect it would have on the border and
whether or not it would incentivize further illegal
immigration.
Mr. Secretary, you're a fine man, I think you're very good
at your job, but if you can't figure out that legalization
without first securing the border doesn't create a problem,
then you really don't understand this issue. Mr. Chairman, when
you asked me to do things that some of my people didn't want to
do, we did it. We had hearings. It is now time for this
Oversight Committee to have a hearing about what the hell
happened at our border.
In December 2020, we had the lowest crossings, illegal
crossings, in 45 years. Now, 6 months later, we have an
explosion of illegal immigration, no end in sight, because of
policy changes by the Biden administration, I believe. It's
imperative that this Committee do oversight of our broken
border, to try to figure out what the hell happened in the last
6 months. If we did some of the things being suggested by the
Secretary and by other people about legalizing any population,
what effect would it have on illegal immigration? My belief is
it would lead to an explosion of illegal immigration.
I'll ask you again. Tell me why, if we legalized hundreds
of thousands of workers, which I'm willing to do, without first
securing the border, you don't believe it would create further
border security problems. Explain that to me.
Secretary Vilsack. Do you want an explanation?
Senator Graham. Yes, I do.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. I think the primary reason why
people are crossing the border, Senator, is because they've got
a very difficult experience economically back home. First and
foremost, if you're truly interested in securing the border----
Senator Graham. Well----
Secretary Vilsack. Senator----
Senator Graham. I'll stop you right there. What----
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, you----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Happened in the last 6 months?
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Asked me to respond, and
I'm----
Senator Graham. Well, but I'm----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Going to respond.
Chair Durbin. He asked if you----
Senator Graham. Okay, good.
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Wanted a response.
Senator Graham. Go ahead and finish, and I'll follow-up.
Secretary Vilsack. Fair enough. If you're truly serious
about that piece of it, then I think we have to take a look at
how we can help create better opportunities south of our
border.
Senator Graham. You don't believe catch-and-release is
having an effect on the surge in illegal immigration?
Secretary Vilsack. You asked a question about the
agricultural workforce.
Senator Graham. But you're----
Secretary Vilsack. Basically----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Giving answers about
immigration.
Secretary Vilsack. No, I'm asking--I'm here----
Senator Graham. No, no.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. To talk----
Senator Graham. You answered that the key is to give more
money to the triangle countries.
Secretary Vilsack. That--no.
Senator Graham. Is that the key?
Secretary Vilsack. The key is helping them build their own
economies. For----
Senator Graham. We have been----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Example----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Trying to do that for years.
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know how well we've been trying
to do it, but I will tell you this----
Senator Graham. Let me ask you something. You don't believe
the change in policy has effected a wave of illegal
immigration? You don't believe eliminating Remain in Mexico has
effected a surge of people seeking asylum claims?
Secretary Vilsack. It's a complicated issue, Senator.
Senator Graham. No, it's not. It's not----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, it is.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Complicated at all.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, you----
Senator Graham. Let----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Know it's complicated.
Senator Graham. Well----
Secretary Vilsack. You know it's complicated.
Senator Graham. You're making--no, it's not. It's really
simple.
Secretary Vilsack. Sure it is. Yes, no, it's not simple.
Senator Graham. So----
Secretary Vilsack. It's not simple.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Let me just say this.
Secretary Vilsack. It's very complicated.
Senator Graham. Put on a fine point on it. What the hell
has happened in the triangle countries in 6 months, where we
went from the lowest illegal crossings coming from that part of
the world to the highest?
Secretary Vilsack. The pandemic and food shortages.
Senator Graham. That's what you believe? It's not changing
the policy of Remain in Mexico, abolishing the idea that you
have to wait in Mexico, you're not released into the country?
You can't figure out that when the Trump--excuse me, the Biden
administration canceled Remain in Mexico, they'll let you come
into the country and they release you into the country and you
never show up for your hearing, that that catch-and-release
program--have you ever talked to the Border Patrol about this?
Have you ever had a discussion about the pull factors with the
Border Patrol? Have you ever had one? Yes or no?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes.
Senator Graham. When?
Secretary Vilsack. My first stint.
Senator Graham. When was that?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't remember the year, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. Has it been in the last 10 years?
Secretary Vilsack. It may have been.
Senator Graham. Has it been in the last year?
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Senator Graham. Okay. Go talk to them, and you'll find out
how wrong you are, if you talk to them.
Secretary Vilsack. Well.
Senator Feinstein. Time is up.
Chair Durbin. The last oversight hearing in the Judiciary
Committee, under the previous Chairman, was on--a Subcommittee
hearing on January 16th, 2018, 2\1/2\ years ago. President
Biden has been in office, officially, yesterday, I think, 6
months. So, in terms of oversight of the Department of Homeland
Security, there is a record of a hearing 2\1/2\ years ago.
I would also add that I called this hearing with Senator
Padilla because most Americans will be sitting down to dinner
tonight and through the weekend and enjoying food that's being
picked, to a large part, by migrant farmworkers, and we're
trying to figure out a way to deal with this. If the premise is
that we can't do anything on immigration until we do everything
on immigration, we'll be right where we've been for 36 years:
doing nothing.
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
Chair Durbin. You may.
Senator Graham. On March the 6th, 2019, we held an
Oversight hearing with Customs and Border Protections,
responding to the smuggling of persons at the southern border.
On June 2d, 2020, we had an Oversight hearing entitled
``Examining Best Practices for Incarceration and Detention
During COVID-19.'' We've had--I've called the Acting DHS
Secretary twice, because you were concerned about families
being separated. So was I. You cannot understand this issue
until you have a hearing on the border and how legalization
would affect the wave of illegal immigration.
If you don't secure your border first, Mr. Chairman, then
you're going to incentivize more illegal immigration. That's
why every bill you and I have worked on had border security as
the first thing. To the Secretary of Agriculture, you're a fine
man, I want to work with you on this program, but you need to
go talk to the Border Patrol, because if you spend 15 minutes
talking with them, they will tell you that the pull factors
have been created in the last 6 months, and if we legalize one
person, the worst is yet to come.
Chair Durbin. I stand by my statement. The last DHS
Oversight hearing in this Committee was 2\1/2\ years ago. There
have been specific issues that have been raised. I will tell
you, and you know as well as I do, when we worked on the Gang
of Eight to put together a bill, it included a dramatic
commitment for border security, more money than any of us had
ever imagined, and of course it was not approved on the House
side when the other party was in control. I am just loath to
accept the premise that until you solve everything, you can't
discuss anything. I want to do what's right by the farmworkers
and border security, and I don't think they're exclusive. I
think they can be done together. At least I hope they can be.
The next question comes from Senator Klobuchar, who is
joining us virtually.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Durbin. I was thinking back to all the work that you and, in
the early days, Senator Graham did on immigration. In fact, I
remember, as a brand-new Senator, the work that was being done
when President Bush was in, to try to get immigration reform
passed, and those bills were path-to-citizenship bills. As you
noted, over time included a lot of security money for the
border.
My--some of my earliest memories are of Secretary Gutierrez
coming in and meeting with Senator Graham and Senator McCain
and a number of Democrats that were involved in this effort,
Senator Kennedy. I got to be there as part of history, and I
vowed we would get this done. Then, when President Obama came
in, again, supported by a number of Republicans and finally
passed in the U.S. Senate, with Senator Grassley's support, we
passed immigration reform.
The time is now, and I want to get back to what the core
is, of this. For me, it comes down to, yes, there are moral
issues; yes, there are humanitarian issues; but for me, in my
State right now, it's economic issues. That's why I think
you're here, Secretary Vilsack.
My State has a strong economy, relatively low unemployment
rate. We don't have enough people for the work that needs to be
done. It's really that simple. Not in our resorts and, more
significantly, not in our ag areas. For certain agricultural
employers, like dairies, which has been pointed out, pork
producers, forestry, seasonal visas just don't meet the needs.
That's why I am a fan of this year-round proposal. It's part of
the immigration reform, the U.S. Citizenship Act, that I am Co-
Sponsor of with Senator Menendez, but it's also the work that
came out of the House.
Can you talk, Mr. Secretary, about the challenges faced by
dairies and pork producers when they're trying to meet their
year-round workforce needs, when they just have one of these
seasonal visas? I've heard a lot. I'd like to hear it from you,
from the ground.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, they simply can't find the
workers, and the result is that they either have to reduce the
amount that they're producing or they have to destroy that
which they've grown because they simply don't have enough
people to pick and harvest. You know, this is a--an issue that
goes to the heart of our food supply, goes to the heart of our
capacity to have choice in the grocery store. It goes to the
ability to have affordable food for all of our country and our
ability to export, which supports millions and millions of
jobs.
At the end of the day, you need workforce, to be able to do
that, and you need a stable and secure system so you can plan
ahead, so you can determine whether or not you are able to
expand, able to buy that additional farm, able to expand by
buying and expanding your herd. Farmers can't do that today.
They can't make those decisions because they don't have the
security and the stability of a system that works.
Senator Klobuchar. Do you think that's part of the reason
this has been bipartisan? You know, we have Democrats and
Republicans representing agricultural areas. I know in the
House, the bill that passed was bipartisan, got some
significant Republican support. Where is that Republican
support coming from? Because if you listen to Senator Graham
right now, you would think that there is no movement on
immigration, and I just know the opposite from talking to my
colleagues.
Secretary Vilsack. The folks who worked on this compromise,
Senator, on the producer side and on the processor side and on
the labor side, represent, I think, the entire political
spectrum in this country: very, very conservative producers in
the Southwest and in California obviously progressive folks
representing the union and the workers. They came together with
this as a compromise bill in an effort to move this forward, to
strengthen the foundation. I think that's the reason why you
saw bipartisan support in the House: because they knew there
were 80 different separate agricultural groups that felt this
was a good idea, that felt that this was necessary to get done
now.
Senator Klobuchar. As a Member of the ag Committee, in
addition to this great Committee, I've heard from many
constituent farmers and groups about the delays in processing
of the agricultural worker visa applications that can have a
devastating effect. Harvests are missed, payments are delayed,
investments need to be put off, as you just pointed out. How
would reducing processing delays, such as by streamlining the
application process, benefit farmers and consumers?
Secretary Vilsack. It would reduce cost, it would provide
for a better understanding and a timely nature of a workforce
that--it's very important that it be timely, because at the end
of the day, depending upon when you're harvesting, it will
depend--that the quality of what you are able to sell into the
market. It means real money, for farmers to be able to have
that stable and secure workforce on time.
Senator Klobuchar. A last question, kind of going the next
step from the bill, the House bill that just passed, and that
is to the larger idea of a pathway to citizenship. In a
previous hearing in the Immigration Subcommittee, a Republican
witness, Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, testified about the economic
benefits, not just to affected immigrants but to all Americans,
of a pathway to citizenship. To qualify, the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act requires that an immigrant pay Federal taxes.
How would expanded tax revenues, not just for the Federal
Government but for State and local governments, benefit all
Americans?
Secretary Vilsack. As you well know, budgets basically fund
everything from education to job training to public safety to a
wide variety of State and Local government responsibilities.
Obviously, to the extent you've got additional resources, you
can keep the tax base lower for everyone, and you can continue
to have the essential services that people depend on. It makes
sense, obviously, for folks to come out of the shadows to be
able to pay their taxes without fear of deportation or without
fear of disruption on the farm.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator----
Senator Klobuchar. I think that's why----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator Durbin, I'm--this is my last
statement here. I think that's why, when you look at the
incredible debt reduction you would get with comprehensive
immigration reform, even though we're focused here on the year-
round visas, it's one of the big benefits. It was the reason
that Grover Norquist, way back, supported the immigration bill
under President Obama, because of the debt reduction you'd see
and the enormous benefit to taxpayers. With that, I'll turn it
back to you, Senator Durbin. Thank you for allowing me to
appear remotely today.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Biden border
crisis keeps getting worse. Every day, it is getting worse. In
my home State of Texas, on the southern border, we have seen
over a half million illegal crossings this year. We are on a
pace to have over two million people cross the border
illegally, and this is the direct result of decisions made by
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Three decisions made in the opening week of this
administration caused this crisis. Number one, the first week
in office Joe Biden immediately halted construction of the
border wall. Number two, he reinstated the failed policy of
catch-and-release. Number three, most indefensibly, he ended
the incredibly successful Remain in Mexico International
Agreement.
Remain in Mexico was an agreement President Trump
negotiated with the government of Mexico that said that those
people who cross into Mexico illegally would remain in Mexico
while their asylum cases are pending in the United States, and
it worked tremendously. Last year, we had the lowest rate of
illegal immigration in 45 years. This year, we have the highest
rate of illegal immigration in over 20 years.
The people of Texas--I'm hearing from people all across
Texas. Go to South Texas, talk to mayors, and by the way, talk
to Democratic mayors on the border that are dealing with
hundreds of thousands of people coming across. Talk to farmers
and ranchers who are dealing with coyotes crossing their land
on a daily basis, trafficking people, trafficking drugs.
Talk to landowners like one rancher I know who had his
ranch house broke into and MS-13 painted, spray-painted on the
walls. The answer from the Biden administration is, they don't
care. I've got to say, Mr. Chairman, it is painful to say, the
answer from the Democratic Judiciary Committee is, the
Democratic Judiciary Committee doesn't give a damn. We're not
having a hearing about the crisis on the southern border.
This is not the first hearing we've had on amnesty. This is
not the second hearing we've had on amnesty. This is the third
hearing we've had on amnesty in 6 months. These hearings are
part of the problem. You know what? All across the world,
people are hearing Senate Democrats saying, ``We're in the
business of amnesty.''
Little boys and little girls are getting physically
assaulted by drug traffickers and human traffickers. They're
being sexually assaulted by drug traffickers and human
traffickers. When I led a group of 19 Senators down to the
border, we saw one 11-year-old girl who had been raped by the
traffickers, coming across. On the Rio Grande River, we saw the
body of a man who had drowned crossing the river. The answer,
tragically, from the Democrat Judiciary Committee is, they
don't give a damn.
We spent 4 years listening to Democrats run to TV cameras,
talking about kids in cages. There are more cages, and they are
more full today. Joe Biden is running the cages that are packed
with kids. At the Donna tent facility, built for 1,000 people,
with COVID restrictions, its capacity is 250 people. Senator
Kennedy, when we were down there, there were over 4,200 people
in that facility, 1,700 percent its capacity. The Biden cages,
child after child after child, packed in there. Little boys,
little girls, not six feet apart, as you would want in the
pandemic; not three feet apart. They weren't even three inches
apart. They're next to each other.
They're sleeping on the floor, no beds, no mats, no cots,
wrapped in reflective emergency blankets. The time we were
there, the COVID--rate of COVID positivity was over 10 percent,
and the Biden administration is releasing illegal aliens into
our community who are COVID positive. It is irresponsible, it
is wrong, and every Democrat who said to a TV camera, ``Kids in
cages. Kids in cages''--Mr. Chairman, why doesn't this
Committee have a hearing on the Biden cages? Instead, we have a
hearing with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. Secretary, if we were having a hearing on the optimum
fertilizer for growing corn, I think you might be a very good
witness. Does the Department of Agriculture secure the border?
Secretary Vilsack. We're not responsible for the law
enforcement aspect of this, but the secure----
Senator Cruz. So, no. No, hold on.
Secretary Vilsack. You asked a question, sir.
Chair Durbin. Allow the witness to answer.
Senator Cruz. Okay. My question was, do you secure the
border? The question----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, but----
Senator Cruz. The answer is no.
Secretary Vilsack. Now----
Senator Cruz. Hold--do you run the cages?
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Senator Cruz. Do you prosecute the traffickers?
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Senator Cruz. Are you the Attorney General?
Secretary Vilsack. No, sir.
Senator Cruz. Are you the Secretary of Homeland Security?
Secretary Vilsack. No, sir.
Senator Cruz. With all due respect, your answers on
immigration were fertilizer. They were nonsense. Your answer--
you said, ``Why are we seeing this crisis?'' Your answer was
``poverty.'' There are 7 billion people on planet Earth, many
of whom were poor, and you know what? They were poor last year,
and we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years.
They're poor this year. What's changed is this administration
refuses to enforce the law, and Texas is paying the price for
it. That's what changed.
Your other answer was the pandemic. Mr. Secretary, last
year there was a pandemic, and we had the lowest rate of
illegal immigration in 45 years. Poverty didn't magically
appear on January 2021, and the pandemic didn't appear on
January 2021. What appeared was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and
policies that are inhumane, that are cruel, and that are
failing.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, was the border secure last
year?
Senator Cruz. Last year, it was the most secure it's been
in 45 years.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. If that's the case, why didn't you
all pass the Ag Modernization Act last year, after it passed
the House? You're telling me it's got to secure the border
before you pass this act.
Senator Cruz. Let me be clear. I'm not Lindsay Graham. I
don't support this bill.
Secretary Vilsack. No, well----
Senator Cruz. No, no, no. Look, I understand----
Secretary Vilsack. The Republicans----
Senator Cruz [continuing]. That there have been Democrats
and Republicans who support amnesty. I ain't one of them.
Secretary Vilsack. Why wasn't----
Senator Cruz. I get that you want amnesty. I get that----
Secretary Vilsack. It's not----
Senator Cruz [continuing]. Your invitation is, ``Come to
America. Forget the legal processes, and everyone--"
Secretary Vilsack. I want a workforce----
Senator Cruz. ``--gets amnesty.''
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. That's going to continue to
support the greatest agriculture and food industry in the
world. That's what I'd like to have, Senator.
Senator Cruz. I'll tell you--I thought you wanted him to
respond.
Chair Durbin. Senator, you've taken more time than any
other Senator this morning. Will you please wrap up?
Senator Cruz. This is a crisis. This administration caused
it, and this Committee doesn't even care to have a hearing on
the suffering that is happening at the border that is caused by
policies that don't work.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cruz. I see Senator
Padilla's off to vote and will be back shortly, so he will
preside at that point and ask questions. I thank Senator
Vilsack for his patience. Let me address--oh, I'm sorry.
Senator--wait, let me--I'm getting virtual information here,
and I understand that Senator Booker is available in a virtual
setting.
Senator Booker. Yes, I am. Mr. Chairman, I'm really
grateful for you recognizing me. I'm also grateful for the
Secretary of Agriculture. He and I haven't agreed across the
board on things, but he is such a man of civility and dignity,
and I know he is open to all Senators for--to engage in
constructive dialog, especially on things that we agree on in
this country and need to move forward. I just want to give him
a tribute.
I know these hearings aren't always easy, but he has been
so accessible in having substantive conversations about issues
that matter to millions of Americans and worked very hard with
me and others to find common ground. Today is a day that I just
especially want to celebrate his dignity and civility and his
willingness to roll up his sleeves and work with anybody. You
know, there are about 2.4 million farmworkers in the United
States. Three-quarters of them are foreign born, and half of
them are undocumented. It's really undeniable that America
relies very heavily on immigrants, documented and undocumented,
to keep food on our tables.
From my vantage point, the issues have numerous
implications. The sources of our food have humanitarian
implications, economic, health, and even, as has been
discussed, national security. My first question is, Secretary
Vilsack, what concerns you most right now about this labor
crisis in the agricultural sector? What are some of the things,
I think, that are--that are sort of having you worried and
concerned?
Secretary Vilsack. A couple of things, Senator. First of
all, obviously, always concerned about the safety and
protection of workers, to make sure that they are in safe and
decent working conditions. To the extent that we don't fix this
particular broken system, it compromises the ability of us to
continue to have this incredibly strong food and agricultural
industry, it compromises our ability to have supply, it
compromises our ability to have choice, it compromises our
ability to have less expensive food in the grocery store, it
compromises our ability to have the jobs that are connected to
these workers.
When they pick the fruit, it has to be processed, it has to
be canned, it has to be transported, it has to be stored, it
has to be shelved. All of those are jobs that are connected to
their work, and so it has a rippling impact and effect on the
economy. If we fix this system, then we have stability in that
food and ag sector, which obviously provides enormous choice
for consumers, less expensive food for consumers, and better
jobs and better protections for workers.
Senator Booker. Thank you, sir. You know I have a
tremendous concern about the growing corporate consolidation in
our food system. It's stunning now that about 4 companies
control 90 percent of the global grain market, and the top 4
beef packers in the United States now control 85 percent of the
beef market. We have seen the stunning disappearance of
independent family farmers being driven out of business as the
market power of these large multinational corporations have
transformed American agriculture in a matter of decades.
I just want you to know that this is an ongoing--I see as a
crisis, and I'm wondering if you could just give, for the
record, your opinion on what this market consolidation--the
kind of impact it's having on small family farmers.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I don't know if you were with
us earlier when I indicated that 89.6 percent of American farms
today don't produce the majority of income for the farm
families that operate them, which means that these people have
to work two and three jobs to continue to do what they want to
do and what they love to do. I think that's one of the reasons
why the President signed the executive order on competition.
It's one of the reasons why we recently announced utilizing
some of the American Rescue Plan resources to expand processing
capacity so that we have a more transparent, more competitive,
and more open market for our producers. It's one of the reasons
why the executive order also directs us to take a look at this
issue of consolidation in the seed industry, which we intend to
do.
All of it's designed to provide opportunities for more
competitive markets for farmers so they get better prices and
to make sure that the inputs that go into the production of
crops and livestock are reasonably priced and are obtained in a
competitive and open-market way, as well. That's--that's my
concern. We've got to make sure that folks at every level--we
support diversity in agriculture, the size of operations, the
producers, the method of production--I think diversity is a
great strength, and we want to see our systems stronger and
more resilient.
Senator Booker. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your time.
I'm going to end with a few seconds left and turn it back over
to my friend and our Chairman, Dick Durbin. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Booker. Senator
Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary. Mr. Secretary, I know you want to see our farmers
prosper. I want to see our farmers prosper. It appears that--
and, of course, to prosper, our farmers need labor, and it
appears that many of the people who are new to our country want
to work as farm laborers, and that's a good thing. I know there
are shortages in that respect.
It seems to me that we ought to--well, figure out a way to
work together to achieve that end. The problem, as you know, is
in our immigration policy. Normally I ask questions, but I just
want to spend a second telling you where I'm coming from. I
don't completely understand it. Our border's not secure. It's
less secure today than it was in December. I think if you go
down there, you'll see that.
I think we could secure it. You know, Americans have done
extraordinary things. We can unravel the human genome. You
know, we can take a diseased human heart and replace it with a
new one and make it beat. We can send a person to the moon. I
suspect we can secure the border.
It seems to me, until we do--or certainly get it more
secure than it is now--that amnesty's not going to pass the
U.S. Senate. Here's what perplexes me. If--many of my friends
who don't support securing the border--not all of them, but
many of them--say that vetting people at the border is racist.
I think it's prudent, and I think most Americans think it's
prudent. I could understand the racist charge--I wouldn't agree
with it, but I could understand it if we didn't have such a
robust legal immigration program.
We admit about a million of our world's neighbors to
America every year to become citizens, more than any other
country. We make a clear distinction between legal and illegal
immigration. I think most Americans think legal immigration is
good and illegal immigration is bad, and it's not because
they're racist.
I think most Americans see our border as sort of America's
front door. Most Americans lock their own front door at night.
They don't do that because they hate everybody on the outside.
They do that because they love the people on the inside, and
they just--they want to know who's coming into their home, and
they--they don't want to just keep everybody out. They just
want to know who's coming into their home.
That's the way I look at the border, and I don't understand
why we can't do that. I don't--I know it's not in your purview,
but I just don't understand why the Biden administration
doesn't, for example, re-implement the Remain in Mexico
program. Of course, Mexico, if you ask them, says, ``We don't
like it,'' but if we trade hard with them, they'll do it, and
it does work. It can stem the flow.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, can I ask you a question about
what you just said?
Senator Kennedy. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack. Several speakers have suggested that
this is about amnesty, and that's--I'm puzzled by that. The
reason I'm puzzled by it is this. I used to practice, and I
know you're a lawyer, I think, by training? Is that right?
Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
Secretary Vilsack. I used to practice in a small town, did
a little criminal work. A guy would come in, be charged with
some petty crime, would go in front of the magistrate.
Magistrate would say to me, ``Look, here's the deal. If your
guy pays a fine, pays court costs, we'll put him on probation,
and we'll let him go.'' I don't think--I didn't perceive that
to be amnesty. I perceived that to be a system that basically
created some mechanism for acknowledging wrongdoing, providing
something of value--in our criminal justice system, either you
provide your time, by being locked away, or you pay a fine, or
in some cases you do both.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Secretary Vilsack. When this bill provides for the payment
of a fine of $1,000, I don't quite understand why we're talking
about amnesty.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. Can you help me----
Senator Kennedy. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Understand that?
Senator Kennedy. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman?
Chair Durbin. Briefly.
Senator Kennedy. Because it is amnesty, and I think most
Americans see it as amnesty. I see it as amnesty. They see it
as, ``You came into our country illegally. You didn't follow
the law, as many people do, get in line, wait their turn, fill
out the forms. Now, by just paying a fine, you get to jump the
line.''
Secretary Vilsack. No.
Senator Kennedy. They also know what is going on at the
border right now, and people are pouring across. There are a
lot of reasons for it, but I know it could be slowed down, and
I just think as a practical matter and also as a principled
matter, I'm not going to support any--any form of amnesty--you
and I may disagree on the definition--until I see a concerted
effort to secure the border.
Clearly, there isn't one. I've been down there, Mr.
Secretary. If you go down, you'll see. I don't know the reason
for it. I don't know whether it's politics or what, but I know
we could do better, because in December we were.
Secretary Vilsack. Yet, even though that was the case,
there was no effort in the Senate to pass this bill before.
Senator Kennedy. It's--it's not just as simple as saying,
``Well, the border''--we had done a better job in December. The
American people--this is what the American people want to see.
First of all, they don't trust Washington. There's a reason
that you, and I, and all of us in Washington, DC, and part of
Government poll right up there with skim milk. The American
people don't trust us. They want to see a border secured. They
want to see a good-faith effort on both sides to make sure it's
secured, for an extended period of time.
Yes, the border was more secure in December than it is now,
and no fair-minded person can disagree with that. Many of my
Democratic friends completely bashed, every chance they got,
the Trump administration for doing that. There was no feeling
among the American people that this is going to be sustained. I
think if we had a bipartisan effort to really secure the border
as best we can for a sustained period of time, you would see
the American people very sympathetic to a discussion of amnesty
and drafting an immigration policy that looks like somebody
designed it on purpose.
Senator Padilla [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary,
Governor--whatever I should call you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. It's now my turn just to
preside, as Senator Durbin is off to vote. He'll return in a
few minutes. It's also my opportunity to ask questions before
recognizing Senator Ossoff, and then we'll proceed to the
second panel.
First, a couple of points of clarification. I think some of
my colleagues, due to their questioning, due to their
statements, have caused a little confusion. I'm not sure if
it's intentional or unintentional. Secretary Vilsack, can you
clarify for everybody watching us here today, are you the
Secretary of Homeland Security, or are you the Secretary of
Agriculture?
Secretary Vilsack. I'm the Secretary of Agriculture,
Senator.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. That's what I
thought, coming into this hearing, and so I will focus my
questions appropriately so on issues of agriculture and
agricultural industry and your portfolio of responsibility.
Second, I just feel compelled to respond to some of the
comments some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the
aisle have made regarding the appropriateness of considering
the reconciliation process to advance the elements of the Farm
Workforce Modernization Act or other elements of immigration
reform; their suggestion that this is best done on a bipartisan
basis, through bipartisan negotiations, which, you know, if I
felt they would be fruitful, I would absolutely welcome.
It's not like we haven't been trying for the last 6 months,
but it's clear that while some of our colleagues suggest,
``Well, I support this, I support that, I support DREAMers, I
support farmworkers,'' they're quick to raise excuses and
pretexts for why we can't do anything.
Finally, I just can't help but observe the contradiction--I
believe it was--Senator Durbin described Senator Graham's
comments as, ``Well, it makes no sense to say we can't do
anything unless we do everything,'' while Senator Tillis, among
others, has suggested when we try to do everything we've been
unsuccessful for years and years and years, so let's sort of
ratchet down the scope of what we're trying to do, to more of a
piecemeal approach. You can't have it both ways.
Turning to agriculture. Mr. Secretary, in 2019, California
produced $50 billion in agricultural commodities. California
alone. As I mentioned earlier, the State is also a major
exporter of agricultural products and makes up 16 percent of
total U.S. agricultural exports, totaling $21.7 billion. In
addition, more than one-third of the country's fruits and nuts
are grown in California, including 80 percent of the global
supply of almonds and nearly 90 percent of U.S.-grown
strawberries. Yet California and other States across the
country are facing the chronic labor shortage that you've
spoken to already.
The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that, in
total, U.S. agriculture needs 1.5 to 2 million hired workers
each year, but farmers are struggling to fill these positions.
In 2019, prior to the pandemic, 56 percent of California
farmers reported being unable to find all of the workers they
needed for their main crop over the last 5 years. Again, that
was prior to COVID.
Mr. Secretary, about 400,000 workers represent California's
agricultural workforce. More than 60, upwards of 75 percent of
these workers are undocumented. Given the over-representation
of undocumented immigrants in this industry, how could
providing a pathway to legalization for farmworkers bolster the
U.S. economy and trade relations?
Secretary Vilsack. It would provide stability to western
growers, Senator, and that's one of the reasons why the western
growers have been at the front of an effort to try to get this
compromise formed and ultimately through the House and to the
Senate. I think they recognize that they--with that stability,
they can plan, they can make determinations about expansion
opportunities, they can figure out ways in which they can be
more productive, which creates more opportunities not only for
domestic consumption but also exports and, in turn, supports
all of the jobs that are essentially in the supply chain that
result from the fruit that's being picked and grown in your
State.
At the end--and your State is the number one agricultural
State, in terms of productivity, in terms of sales, so
obviously anything you all do that can benefit and expand
opportunities in California will have a positive impact on
agriculture generally. As I indicated, the agriculture and the
food industry is roughly 20 percent of the American economy, so
at the end of the day, it would provide for more robust and
stronger and more stable American economy.
Senator Padilla. Great. I appreciate your description on
the benefits of this act, should it become law. Can you shed a
little bit more light, describe in slightly more detail, short
of passage, what some of the challenges, operational and
otherwise, in the agricultural sector, because the workforce is
not currently stable?
Secretary Vilsack. Many of the farmers that we're talking
about are people--the average age of the American farmer today
is nearly 60 years of age, and many of these farmers are now
trying to determine what they do next, in terms of the next
generation. If they don't feel that they have access to
additional workers, they may constrain the size of their
operations, and at the end of the day, those operations may not
be as profitable, they may not be able to support as many
families as necessary in the family farming operation. That may
result in the sale of those lands and the reduction of
agricultural activity, agricultural land in the country.
We lose about 2,000 acres of land every single day,
already, so that would probably potentially see an acceleration
of that. Ultimately, over time, if we don't deal with this
issue and don't provide stability, ultimately, over time, we
will continue to see the economic challenges of agriculture
continue to mount, and eventually it could compromise the
security that we currently enjoy, which is the ability to
essentially produce all the food that we need for our own
people, as well as for exports.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next, for
questions, I recognize Senator Ossoff, joining us virtually.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary Vilsack, for your service and for your testimony
today. Farmworkers in Georgia and across the country make it
possible to feed the American people and, indeed, for the
United States to help feed the world, and yet the stories that
I've heard from so many farmworkers are truly appalling: 20-
hour shifts, folks who are sleeping in vans, exposed to extreme
heat, exposed to pesticides and chemical fertilizers without
adequate protection, making very little money, often paid less
than the minimum wage, often subject to other forms of abuse
and harassment.
Do you believe that these conditions do prevail, as I've
heard from so many farmworkers, in too many places across our
country? What policy reforms must Congress enact, in order to
ensure that those who are working in the fields to feed our
country are treated with the respect and dignity that every
human being deserves?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act does provide an opportunity for additional
support for these farmworkers. It obviously provides an
opportunity for them for decent housing, it creates the ability
to ensure that they have adequate opportunities for protections
in the event they get hurt, in workers' compensation, things of
that nature. It reforms the H-2A system, which provides a
series of protections, as well, so that more folks can benefit
from that system, and makes it easier for farmer to utilize
that system.
Nearly 50 percent of the H-2A workers we have today come
from 5 States, one of which is your State of Georgia, as well
as the Chair's State of California. At the end of the day, it
creates a mechanism by which people understand what their
rights are, are able to protect themselves through normal
processes. There's a mediation process; there's a shortening,
if you will, of the ability to raise concerns about working
conditions so that people can get relief sooner.
There are a series of steps--again, this is a compromise
bill, and I think it's really important to emphasize the fact
that people from all political spectrums have come together and
supported this bill because they understand and appreciate how
central it is to better working conditions and a stronger and
more stable farm economy. I would hope that what you've
explained are very limited circumstances in agriculture today,
and the hope would be, with--with this act, that we would see
even fewer of those circumstances.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Of course, the
pandemic has put tremendous strains on agricultural supply
chains, as well as disrupted labor markets, but taking a step
back and looking at the bigger picture, what are some of the
most significant challenges that, in your view, Georgia farmers
and farmers across the country face in their efforts to hire
farmworkers?
Secretary Vilsack. It starts with the cumbersome process
that requires multiple applications, a lot of paperwork, not
the use of digital technology to make it simpler and easier.
That discourages or makes it more difficult to get the
workforce on a timely basis. It starts there. The result of
that--I mean, the reality is, timing matters.
Timing is everything, in agriculture. If you don't plant at
the right time, if you don't harvest at the right time, it
impacts and affects the quality of what you produce, and that,
in turn, impacts the price that you get in the market and, in
turn, creates challenges for farming operations. To the extent
that we have a stable and secure system that's predictable, it
allows farmers and ranchers and producers to--to plan expansion
opportunities, allows them to be as efficient, as profitable,
as possible. It also creates the protections we talked about
for workers and ensures that there's an adequate wage, decent
housing, and things of that nature for our farmworkers who work
incredibly hard.
I think it begins to send a message about the significance
and importance of this essential workforce from a perspective
of respect. I think for far too long we've taken these people
and those who work in our processing facilities for granted.
We've not paid as much attention to them as we need to, but,
you know, when it--when it came to protecting our food supply
during the midst of the pandemic, the height of the pandemic,
those folks showed up, and they showed up at the risk of their
own lives and did so in large part because they were motivated
by making sure that they could take care of their families.
That's a value system I would hope that we would continue to
support in this country.
Senator Ossoff. Well said, Mr. Secretary. We should indeed
be guided by our commitment to the human rights and human
dignity of each individual, and these farmworkers deserve far
better.
With the Chairman's indulgence, my final question for you,
Mr. Secretary--grateful for your recent trip to Georgia; your
visit, in particular, to Fort Valley State University and your
continued expressed commitment to Georgia farmers. Will you
commit that the next time you come to Georgia, you'll sit down
with me, local agricultural leaders, as well as those who are
leading Georgia's trade efforts--of course, we have the Port of
Savannah, one of the fastest growing ports in the country--to
discuss how we can work together to expand Georgia farmers'
access to export markets around the world?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, if you sweeten your offer with
a slice of pecan pie, it's a deal.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ossoff. Done. Looking forward to seeing you there.
Thanks for your help. Take care.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Let the record reflect the commitment that
has been made here today.
[Laughter.]
Senator Padilla. I want to thank Secretary Vilsack for
joining us. We're grateful for your testimony and insights.
We'll now proceed to the second panel. Senator Durbin has
returned. I'll return the gavel to him, to introduce the
witnesses for the second panel. Those of you who are here in
person, please come forward at this time.
Chair Durbin. Special thanks to the Secretary of
Agriculture. I mentioned at the outset, I think it's been 20
years since the Secretary of Agriculture has appeared before
the Judiciary Committee. Please don't wait so long to come
back. You're always welcome. Thank you for your service to our
country.
We have a second panel coming up, and I'll tell you who
they are. Linnea Kooistra is a farmer from my home State of
Illinois. She and her husband, Joel, own and operate Kooistra
Farms, a grain farm in Woodstock. She and Joel were dairy
farmers for 40 years, and their dairy herd was one of the
highest producing farms in Illinois. Good for you. You received
several awards for production and milk quality.
Second, we have Arturo Rodriguez. You're almost legendary
status, Mr. Rodriguez. We are honored that you're here.
President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers of America, or
UFW. Spent 45 years with the UFW, the last 25 as our president,
continuing to build the union that Cesar Chavez began.
We've also been joined by Shay Myers. I have a confession
to make, Mr. Myers. My television appetite starts with the
Bears, obviously, Chicago Bears; baseball; politics; news; and
CBS Sunday Morning, which I hardly ever miss. I happened to see
that show, I think it was 2 weeks ago, maybe 3. I said to my
wife, ``This fellow named Myers I would like to have on a panel
before the Senate Judiciary Committee,'' because of the
powerful presentation that you made. Mr. Myers is a third-
generation farmer and the CEO of Owyhee Produce, based in
Idaho, agribusiness.
Honorable Leon Sequeira is a--did I pronounce your name
correctly? Thank you--is a witness who is brought before us by
Senator Grassley, and he is not here at the moment, but I'll
say this about him. Mr. Sequeira is an attorney with two
decades of experience in law, politics, and public policy;
provides legal and business advice to clients on many matters,
including immigration. His clients include some of the Nation's
largest H-2A employers. During your career in and out of
Government, you've advised House and Senate offices, Cabinet
agencies, and the White House; served as Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor under
President George W. Bush; and you were legal counsel to the
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.
Chair Durbin. Oh, Okay. Then the other witness who was
suggested on the Republican side, who will be with us
virtually, is Ms. Jen Sorenson. Grew up on a hog farm in
southeast Iowa--now I see why she was nominated--and went on to
receive degrees in animal science and journalism from Iowa
State. Ms. Sorenson works as director of communications for
Iowa Select Farms, a farming business that markets more than 5
million hogs per year; serves as president of the National Pork
Producers Council; vice president of the Iowa Pork Producers.
She worked for Iowa Select Farms for the last decade. Prior
to that, she worked in the communications department of Iowa
Pork Producers, Christensen Farm, and McCormick Company.
Finally, she manages all activities of the Deb and Jeff Hansen
Foundation, founded in 2006 to show gratitude to members of the
armed forces and their family and to deal with issues of food
security. Jen and her husband and daughter live in Ankeny--I
hope I pronounced it correctly--Iowa.
We're going to start this panel with Linnea Kooistra. Each
of you has--first, I need to swear you in, so if you'd please
rise and raise your right hand. All of you, please.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Thank you. Let the record reflect that they answered in the
affirmative. Each of you has 5 minutes, then some questions.
Mrs. Kooistra.
STATEMENT OF LINNEA KOOISTRA, FARMER,
KOOISTRA FARMS LLC, WOODSTOCK, ILLINOIS
Mrs. Kooistra. Good morning, or I guess it's maybe good
afternoon, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. My name is Linnea Kooistra. I'm a farmer in Woodstock,
Illinois. My husband, Joel, and I were dairy farmers for over
40 years, and we were both raised on dairy farms.
Years ago, labor on farms was all provided by family
members, but as dairy farms have increased in size, hired labor
has become a critical part of the business. Our dairy herd
included 300 cows and 250 young animals. We had three full-time
employees. About the year 2000, we switched to an immigrant
workforce. We had been having a lot of frustration with our
labor pool. It was very hard to find employees willing to be at
the farm at 4 in the morning to milk cows. Our day started at 4
and finished at 7 p.m., seven days a week.
After switching to an immigrant workforce, our lives became
much easier. Our people were loyal, dedicated workers. They
were excellent with the cattle, they were hardworking, and they
were honest. They were also highly skilled and well trained. We
were extremely proud of our team.
Our decision to sell our cows in 2018 was, in part, because
we were worried about losing our workforce. The atmosphere
regarding immigrants in the workforce was hostile. We knew we
could not run this business without them, and at our age, we
decided to sell the cows. This was definitely not an easy
decision.
I'm here to tell you how essential these workers are to all
dairy farmers and critical to our Nation's food supply. Fifty-
one percent of the labor on dairy farms is from immigrants. The
dairy farms that employ immigrant labor produce 79 percent of
the U.S. milk supply. These are not jobs that are displacing
other workers. I ran my dairy farm with my husband for over 40
years, and I can decisively say that the domestic workers just
aren't there, even with good pay and good benefits.
Our dairy farmer friends are telling us that the situation
has gotten worse since we left the industry. They are in crisis
mode today, and I say that with a capital C. The farm families
and their dedicated employees are working to the point of
exhaustion, which has a direct impact on the quality of the
work. They are sacrificing a great deal because there are just
not enough workers to serve the labor needs on farms. I'm
worried about the toll on their physical and mental health.
Dairy farmers are resilient. They are creative problem
solvers, but they cannot fix this problem. Only you can fix it.
This labor shortage will not go away after the COVID recovery.
The urgency of the workforce crisis cannot be overstated. Dairy
farmers are in a difficult spot because they cannot supplement
their workforce with H-2A employees. H-2A visas do not work for
dairy farms because they need qualified year-round employees.
I'm here to plead with you to help the industry that I love
and my friends who are dairy farmers and are up against the
wall. One farmer told me he's starting to think about robotic
milkers, but he says the cost is astronomical, and he does not
know how he can pay for it with his 500 cows. If the U.S. dairy
industry lost its foreign-born workforce, it would nearly
double retail milk prices and cost the U.S. economy more than
$32 billion, according to a study by Texas A&M University.
These are the choices. Do we want our food produced in this
country, where we have the safest food supply in the world? The
labor crisis on our farms is an issue of national security, and
it must be addressed now. This will require two critical
reforms. First, we must protect our current workers. They
deserve the chance to work toward citizenship. They are
critical to our Nation's food supply, and they are good human
beings. Second, we must reform H-2A so dairy farmers have
meaningful access to a legal agricultural guest worker program.
The bipartisan bill passed by the House of Representatives
would make progress toward achieving both of these goals. I
just plead with you, please, come together on a bipartisan
basis, as the House did. Reform our immigration policies so
that today, and into the future, we can continue to feed our
Nation, with a reliable workforce, and have a safe, abundant,
and dependable food supply. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Kooistra appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mrs. Kooistra. Mr. Rodriguez.
STATEMENT OF ARTURO RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT
EMERITUS, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Grassley, and Members of the Committee. I sit before you as
President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers union and a
representative of the UFW Foundation. Thank you for the
opportunity to address you today.
For nearly two decades, we have been working tirelessly to
achieve farmworker legalization and to reform the H-2A visa
program, efforts that could have--would not have been possible
without the leadership of Senator Feinstein. The ag industry
and our food security rely on approximately 2.4 million
farmworkers. Roughly half are undocumented, and 10 percent are
workers here on H-2A visas. In the United States, represented
in this Committee alone, there are more than 1 million
farmworkers.
To feed the Nation, farmworkers work to the limits of their
endurance. They work with their dairy cows for milk production;
tend livestock for our meat; and plant, tend, and harvest
fruits and vegetables. Today, we have with us five women that
join with me here today, sitting right behind me: Claudia
Duran, Lopita Perales, from Michigan, Alma Young, Anayi
Santiago, and Diana Rondes from Georgia. Some of them started
working in agriculture as young as 5 years old.
Collectively, the five women behind me and their immediate
family members have more than 220 years in agriculture. Their
families make it possible for Americans to have food on their
tables, and that's why we're here today, because their families
have earned a path to legalization.
Lack of legal status, the isolated nature of agricultural
work, and a shameful history of excluding the industry from
basic labor laws makes farmworkers vulnerable to a range of
abuses. The H-2A program is the visa category linked to the
highest number of documented human trafficking cases, cases
that occurred in every State represented in this Committee,
with Georgia, California, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas
among the top five.
Farmworkers who feed us have earned the right to live and
work without fear, to be treated with respect, and to hold
their children, spouses, or parents again, to visit loved ones
when they are ill and attend funerals when they depart.
To achieve a farmworker legalization, we have made lots of
compromises. Together with employers, we have struck three
major different bipartisan deals. In 2006, and again in 2013,
bills to legalize our farm workforce and reform the H-2A
program were integrated into broader immigration bills that
passed this chamber with overwhelming support. In 2019, during
a dramatically different political environment, we spent 7
months in negotiations with ag employers, Democrats, and
Republicans. We made serious concessions again in what is now
the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, a bill that has passed
the House twice, now, with more than 30 Republicans supporting
that bill.
Some of these changes have been painful. The bill creates
an earned, lengthy, and optional path for farmworkers to seek
permanent legal status. Putting farmworkers on a long path to
permanent protections, excluding them from access to social
safety net programs, and imposing a steep fine for their
essential work is not the best way to honor the people who have
been breaking their bodies and putting their lives at risk to
feed the Nation. We agreed to these compromises.
We also agreed to provide employers with a 1-year free--
freeze on wages, an annual cap on wage fluctuations, and access
to the H-2A program for year-round employers. These
concessions, along with a number of changes to streamline the
H-2A program, give H-2A employers the ability to predict costs
over the long term and will conservatively provide ag employers
with more than $2.8 billion in economic benefits over the next
10 years. It also includes E-Verify.
The time is now. We have a House of Representatives that
has passed this bill twice, a Chair of the Judiciary Committee
who is committed to farmworker legalization. We have a
President that is ready to sign it, and now we need the Senate
to use every tool in its disposal to honor the people that we
rely on to feed our Nation and bring stability to the ag
industry. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Myers.
STATEMENT OF SHAY MYERS, CEO AND
FARMER, OWYHEE PRODUCE, ONTARIO, OREGON
Mr. Myers. I'd like to start by thanking Chairman Durbin
and Ranking Member Grassley and the rest of the distinguished
Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to share my experience
and speak on an issue that's very near and dear to my heart.
This bill isn't about labor shortage and people skipping ahead
of the line. This is about the American Dream, the American
voter, and the viability of an America that allows the dreamers
to dream and the voters to create the change that they dream
of.
I grew up in a very special place called Nyssa, Oregon. It
has a population of just 3,000 people, about 50 percent white
and 50 percent Latino. Those Latino folks were almost
exclusively from Mexico and arrived in our area, at least
originally arrived, as migrant field workers.
When I was in school and my friend's name was Martha or
Mario, out of an unspoken cultural love and respect, we called
them Martha or Mario. With two different cultures together, we
ate each other's food, tried to speak each other's Native
language, and most importantly, we worked side by side in
fields and on the farms. Admittedly, some of us only did this
work for extra spending cash, while others did it out of
necessity, to help pay rent and keep the lights on. Regardless
of the reason, we understood each other better because of it.
That's why today, as a friend, and as a farmer, I'm here to
add my voice to that of Latino farmworkers. These farmworkers
come to the United States from Mexico for the same reason that
my great-grandparents came from Germany and for the same reason
that yours might have come from Ireland, Scotland, Poland,
Cuba, Holland, Britain, Russia, Japan, or China. They all come
to create a better future for themselves and especially a
better future for their children.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The last 36 years of
policies and political failure have led us here. Now is the
time to act. It's not ethical, it's not economically viable,
and it's not safe to kick this can down the road yet again.
It's not ethical because, for the last two and a half decades,
we allowed people to cross our southern border, and the system
allowed them to be employed in the United States. If you found
yourself in a position where you're unable to clothe and feed
your family, can you honestly answer that you would not do the
same? It's also not ethical for Congress to fail to act, again.
It's not economically viable because America's farms,
ranches, and dairies cannot operate their businesses without
sufficient labor. This year on our asparagus farm, we lost 100
percent of the season's profits because we were unable to get
domestic workers when our 36 H-2A workers were delayed at the
border for 90 days beyond their date of need. Ninety days after
we needed them. We lost nearly 300,000 pounds of asparagus. I
had to go online and give it all away to any food pantry or
family that was willing to come and harvest it.
It's not safe, because if we can't get workers here, we
can't harvest the crops. If we can't harvest the crops, we
can't feed you. Sure, we could switch to mechanize low-labor
crops like corn, soy, barley, and wheat, but it's not the best
use of our Nation's water, soil, and other resources. Besides,
do we really need 10 million more acres of corn? America needs
to grow and produce what's essential to her survival, and
fruits and vegetables, not just corn and soy, are basic
necessities for a healthy society and economy.
If you want to see the canary in the coal mine, when it
comes to U.S. vegetable production, let's look at U.S.
asparagus production. Acres harvested in the U.S.A. have
plummeted over 85 percent since 2004. California now only has
600 acres of asparagus. As recently as 2004, they had 25,000.
Asparagus is an extremely difficult crop to harvest. It
requires long hours and many hours spent over--bent over at the
waist. Because it is so physically challenging and because
labor is so scarce, it was the first crop to leave the United
States. Since 1994, over 90 percent of all asparagus production
has left this country. I still grow asparagus, but I can't for
much longer if we don't have a workforce and an immigration
policy that works, and I'm not alone on this.
American voters want fair wages, lower carbon emissions,
and the safest food, all grown with as few pesticides as
possible. Instead, our vegetable production continues to shift
south of the border, where workers earn $8 per day, versus a
minimum of $150 per day on American farms like mine. If these
other countries--in these other countries, there are no
enforced emission standards. If you travel south of the border,
you'll see smoke and fumes that are allowed to billow from
smokestacks and exhaust pipes.
Don't get me started on food safety standards or pesticide
use restrictions in these other countries. While visiting farms
in Mexico and Central America, I have personally witnessed raw
sewage being mixed into irrigation water and pesticides not
allowed in the United States for decades being sprayed on crops
and on workers.
This is going to sound like hyperbole, but I believe that
if we continue on our current trajectory, and without some
protections for cheap imports, virtually all vegetable
production, all vegetable production in the United States, will
end within a decade. I strongly urge this Committee to take
action on the farmworker modernization act, which must include
green cards for those that keep America fed and consistent
access to labor for farmers through the H-2A visas. The Farm
Workforce Modernization Act is one step. Many more are
desperately needed in the direction of ethically right,
economic--economically smart, and safe policy. Thank you all
for your time. I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Myers. Mr. Sequeira.
STATEMENT OF LEON SEQUEIRA, FORMER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR POLICY,
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Sequeira. Thank you. Good--Chairman Durbin, Ranking
Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee, appreciate the
opportunity to testify today about the importance of
farmworkers to our economy and how to best address the shortage
of workers on our Nation's farms.
I've worked on employment and immigration policy for nearly
20 years, including as a staffer in this body, as an Assistant
Secretary of Labor, and advising clients in private practice. I
represent employers across the country, ranging from small
family farms with a few employees to complex family farming
operations with thousands of employees. Let me begin by noting
that I'm testifying today in my personal capacity and not on
behalf of any client.
The worker shortage on our farms continues to get worse
with each passing year, and it is threatening the future
viability of labor-intensive agriculture in America. Farm work
is honest, honorable, and necessary work, but there simply are
not enough U.S. workers willing to do it. That has been true
for decades, and it is true regardless of the unemployment
rate.
Congress long ago recognized this and created the H-2 visa
program in 1952, which was later renamed the H-2A program in
1986. That program today remains the only option for farmers to
fill their seasonal labor needs. Throughout its history, the
program has been plagued by complicated regulations,
bureaucratic inefficiencies, high cost, processing delays, and
the exclusion of some agricultural sectors altogether. Despite
its numerous shortcomings, farmers simply have no other option.
The steadily worsening labor situation has produced
dramatic growth in the H-2A program over the last 15 years. In
2005, the Department of Labor certified about 40,000-48,000
positions as eligible to be filled by H-2A workers. By 2020,
that number was 275,000. These numbers obscure the fact that
farmers are not thriving in the H-2A program. Growth and use of
the program has actually slowed in recent years, as the
constantly spiraling costs put American farmers at a serious
disadvantage in the marketplace.
Recently, H-2A employers in some States have seen their
mandated wage rates increase by 10, 15, and even 23 percent in
a single year, far exceeding general inflation and wage
increases in any other part of the economy. Growers face
numerous other costs associated with the program, including a
requirement to provide free housing. Labor costs for a
specialty crop farmer can be 40 percent or more of their total
production costs. As H-2A costs rise, farmers are falling
further behind.
In recent years, most farms have seen little, if any,
increase in the price they receive for their crops. There is no
margin to absorb rising production costs when you are competing
for space on grocery store shelves with imported fruits and
vegetables. Americans want cheap food, and bad Government
policy is pricing U.S. farmers out of the market. Thirty years
ago, the U.S. was a global net exporter of fruits and
vegetables. Today, we import more than twice as much as we
export.
No more--nowhere is this disparity more evident than in our
trade with Mexico. In the past 15 years, imports from Mexico
into the U.S. have tripled. In 2019, we imported more than $15
billion worth of fruits and vegetables from Mexico, while
exporting just over a billion dollars' worth. Much of this is
explained by the costs of production in each country. In 2021,
the minimum wage in Mexico is about $7 per day. By contrast,
the nationwide average wage in the H-2A program is more than
$14 per hour: 16 times higher than Mexico.
It does not take a PhD in economics to recognize that
fruits and vegetables can be grown and harvested in Mexico,
shipped to the U.S., and sold in grocery stores for prices far
below what it costs a U.S. farmer just to grow the crop.
Recent legislation passed by the House, while it may be
well intentioned, does not meaningfully address this problem.
Although the House bill proposes a few limited improvements to
the H-2A program, it also contains numerous provisions that
would actually make the program even more expensive, more
bureaucratic, and impose huge new legal liability on farmers.
The House bill would also legalize undocumented farmworkers.
While there may be reasons to extend legal status to these
workers, doing so will not alleviate the labor shortages on
American farms. In fact, as we saw in the 1986 legalization,
these workers will soon leave the farm in pursuit of other
opportunities in the economy, leading to further farm labor
shortages.
Mr. Chairman, hopefully this Committee will have an
opportunity to consider legislation that provides farmers with
an H-2A program that is responsive to modern agriculture and
designed to ensure that American farms can remain competitive
in an international marketplace. An updated H-2A program must
be simpler, more efficient, less costly, and accessible to all
agricultural employers. Thank you again for the opportunity
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sequeira appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Sequeira. Ms. Sorenson.
STATEMENT OF JEN SORENSON, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, URBANDALE, IOWA
Ms. Sorenson. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss an issue of critical importance to U.S. pork producers
and all of U.S. livestock agriculture. My name is Jen Sorenson.
I'm the communications director for Iowa Select Farms in West
Des Moines, Iowa, and president of the National Pork Producers
Council, a national association representing the interests of
more than 60,000 U.S. pork producers.
The U.S. pork industry supports more than 50--500,000
domestic jobs, generates more than 39 billion in gross national
product, and exports an increasing volume of product which in
2020 was valued at more than $7.7 billion. U.S. hog farmers are
proud to provide an affordable and nutritious source of protein
to consumers at home and around the globe. Unfortunately, the
U.S. pork industry is suffering from a serious labor shortage
negatively impacting our farms and our processing plants.
As any pork producer will tell you, there is no pork
season. It requires a full-time, hardworking, and dedicated
workforce on our farms and processing plants. There is an
increasing need for employees throughout the entire pork supply
chain, but there has been a steady decline in rural population
growth, where most farms and harvest facilities are located.
This has resulted in a labor shortage for U.S. hog farmers and
harvest facility operators.
Statistics suggest pork industry wages average roughly
$14.75 an hour across the country, including many in rural
areas where the local minimum wage is much lower. However,
despite solid wages and benefits, according to a study by
economists at Iowa State University, native-born workers and
permanent residents simply cannot offset the need for foreign-
born labor.
Current visa programs designed for seasonal agriculture,
such as the H-2A visa program, fail to meet the workforce needs
of U.S. pork producers and other year-round livestock farmers.
More than ever, we need a dedicated year-round workforce. The
U.S. pork industry is proud of our diversity on our farms and
across the entire supply chain. For many foreign-born
employees, a position in the U.S. pork industry has provided
and created the opportunity to come to our country and become
an integral part of our rural communities.
Last month, NPPC launched a campaign, ``Year-Round Pork
Needs Year-Round Labor,'' to highlight the vital role of
foreign-born workers--foreign-born workers across our industry.
One of our foreign-born employees featured in the campaign,
Cristina Carmona, is a technical training manager at Prestage
Farms in Oklahoma. Cristina, who was born in Mexico and grew up
raising cattle, came to the United States in 2003 to obtain her
master's degree in agribusiness.
She is now the lead international recruiter at Prestage
Farms, hiring foreign-born employees to help with hog
production. She's a stellar employee who is well respected
amongst her colleagues and in 2020 won the Excellence Award
from the Oklahoma Pork Council. Working in the U.S. pork
industry has created opportunity for Cristina and so many
others, to come to the United States and become integrated in
their communities. We are proud of our diversity throughout the
pork supply chain and need visa reform to enable the continued
production of our year-round industry.
Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
the farmworker modernization act of 2021, which seeks to
address agriculture labor reform by offering a capped number of
year-round visas. While NPPC believes this bill is a step in
the right direction, a cap will force different sectors of
livestock agriculture to compete against one another for the
same limited number of year-round visas. In that scenario--
scenario, no one wins, and ultimately the consumer will be
punished with reduced pork supplies and higher prices at the
store.
If the labor shortage is not addressed, it could lead to
farms and packing plants shutting down. As a result, pork
production would be constrained, leading to higher food prices
for consumers and the United States becoming an unreliable
trading partner for the many countries around the world that
rely on our pork.
NPPC urges Congress to address this pressing matter by
opening the H-2A visa program to year-round labor without a
cap. Our industry is vital to the U.S. economy and prosperity
in our rural communities. Our foreign-born workforce is an
essential part of our supply chain, and we need visa reform to
reflect our year-round needs. We look forward to working with
Members of this Committee and other lawmakers to achieve this
outcome. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sorenson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Ms. Sorenson, for your testimony.
Thanks to all of you. I'm glad you were here for the earlier
part of the hearing, when Members were asking Secretary Vilsack
questions, because I think it puts into political perspective
why we have failed for 36 years, 36 years, to pass any
immigration reform bills.
You'd think this Nation of immigrants would have to modify
its laws from time to time to reflect the reality of employment
in America and other issues that come before us, and yet we
have just been stopped in our tracks, unable to move. Some of
the statements made earlier by a few of my colleagues may give
you some insight into why that is the case.
I happen to disagree with the premise, and the premise
seems to be that if we allow one person to receive what they
call ``amnesty'' and become a citizen of the United States, the
message is going to go out around the world, ``The doors are
open in the United States. You can find your way in here. All
you have to do is just present yourself at the border.'' I
think there are a million reasons, at least a million reasons,
why that argument fails, because each year we allow a million
people to become citizens of this country.
Naturalization ceremonies are going on today. In fact, one
of our staffers has a father who's going through a
naturalization ceremony today. A million newcomers to America
show up regularly. That's just part of who we are. Yet that
doesn't send the message to the whole world that the doors are
wide open. Many people have struggled their whole lifetime to
be eligible for citizenship.
Mr. Rodriguez, you know these workers better than anybody.
Tell me what you think about the argument about amnesty and the
fact that we're dealing with diseased, terrorist drug runners
who are going to come to this country and make it weaker and
worse?
Mr. Rodriguez. I think the reality is that we have worked
very hard with the ag industry, as well as with Republicans and
Democrats, especially in these last few years, in trying to
develop the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, that legislation
to ensure that, in fact, those workers that are working here
today in agriculture will continue working in agriculture for
years to come. As a result, we felt that that is not going to
bring as a result of other folks coming into the country
because of the fact that we're doing that.
One, they can't even get into this legislation, they can't
even be a part of the program, unless in the two previous years
they worked a certain amount of time in agriculture--just to
enter into the program itself and to get certified agriculture
worker status. That alone prevents an onslaught of people
coming into our country in order to be able to be a part of
this program. That won't be allowed. In addition, for them to
attain any other type of legal status in the country, they're
going to have to minimally work another four years in
agriculture. Minimally.
Chair Durbin. Mr. Myers, like some of the other witnesses,
you made a great sacrifice to come here today, from the Idaho-
Oregon border. I'm really digging--I'm really appreciating your
presentation, first on CBS and then again today. You just don't
seem like the likely witness to be coming before us with your
message, an Idaho-Oregon asparagus farmer who is basically
telling us we've got to give these people some dignity and some
opportunity. Is that a factor of growing up in the community
that you described?
Mr. Myers. Absolutely, it's a factor of that. I've been
privileged to live in--lots of folks think of homogenous small
towns. We have a multi-cultural and a very diverse group of
people that live in my hometown, and that--growing up, that
appreciation, that love that we have for one another has
formed, you know, my opinion of a lot of things. I will add,
the personal experiences that I've seen, with those trying to
work toward DACA or with employees or with schoolmates, and the
reality of the immigration system, their circumstances, and
what the results were and the consequences of decisions that
others made for them.
Chair Durbin. Just--I was consulting with Senator Grassley
because we have an additional roll call that we're facing. Mr.
Sequeira, do you dispute the thing--the statement that has been
made repeatedly that half of the farmworkers in this country
are undocumented?
Mr. Sequeira. I think that's what the best data available
shows. The Department of Labor conducts regular surveys of
farmworkers, in-person surveys, and the result of those show
that at least 50 percent admit to being in the country without
legal status.
Chair Durbin. If we were to rigidly enforce the laws and
they would be deported, then what you predicted, the decline of
American fruits and vegetables being grown and exported, would
probably be accelerated, wouldn't it?
Mr. Sequeira. I think that's fair, yes.
Chair Durbin. Yes, I think that's fair, too. I might also
say that I happen to agree with Mr. Myers that I think
consumers are becoming more discerning and asking more
questions about what they're buying, and I've got a lot of
friends who look very carefully at the origin of fruits and
vegetables and lean, obviously, toward the United States, where
there are higher standards. Mr. Sequeira, do you oppose the
notion of a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented
farmworkers?
Mr. Sequeira. Personally, I don't have an opinion on that
issue. I think the question is, what's the purpose for the
legalization? As I noted in my testimony, I think there are
many good reasons that people could put forward to legalize the
current undocumented workforce. For me, the question is, what
does that do for agriculture and the availability of labor?
And----
Chair Durbin. So let's----
Mr. Sequeira [continuing]. While you may legalize,
certainly, workers who are here in illegal status, that doesn't
do anything to help the current labor shortage.
Chair Durbin. Let's use the example Secretary Vilsack used.
He ran into a farmworker who'd been there 20 years, working as
a farmworker, unable to leave the country, because he's
undocumented, to visit his family in Mexico. If this became the
law, he wouldn't instantly become a citizen and decide to open
a franchise restaurant. He has 9 years, at least, to wait
before he becomes naturalized. At least 9 years to wait. The
suggestion is, at least to me, he's going to continue to be a
farmworker for that period of time, but he gets to visit his
family. Is that such a bad thing?
Mr. Sequeira. Again, Senator, that's a question for this
body to decide. I look at this issue from the perspective of my
clients and the agricultural workforce. These people are
working currently in agriculture, performing very difficult
jobs and, certainly many of them, without legal status.
Providing them legal status certainly would have benefits to
those workers and to their employers, but again, that doesn't
help larger agricultural problem of labor shortages, and that
can only be done through a reform of the visa program.
The person that you mentioned, I don't think that's an
uncommon story. Many people have come across the border without
authorization and have essentially become trapped in the U.S.
because of a failure of the visa system. If they had an ability
to obtain a visa and travel back and forth across the border,
many would. From what my clients tell me, most farmworkers
aren't interested in becoming U.S. citizens. They want legal
status to come here and work, because they can earn 16 times
more than they can earn at home.
Chair Durbin. That was a shocking number that I heard from
you, Mr. Myers. $150 a day? That's what you pay the
farmworkers, which basically----
Mr. Myers. Correct.
Chair Durbin. If you do the math, that's what it turns out
to be, as opposed to $8 a day, if they're working in Mexico.
That's--Senator Grassley?
Senator Grassley. Yes. First of all, I want to apologize
and thank Senator Durbin for introducing my guests. I was
supposed to introduce Leon Sequeira and my constituent, Ms.
Sorenson, but every Wednesday at noon, I always have a
telephone news conference back to Iowa with my journalists in
Iowa.
I'm going to start out with Ms. Sorenson. I know that the
National Pork Producers Councils and others have long called
for agricultural employers with year-round employment needs to
have access to the H-2A program. This is an issue that I've
heard at many of my county meetings, and I've had 85 of those
meetings so far this year. Can you explain some of the
challenges your members and similar employers face for not
being able to participate in the H-2A program?
Ms. Sorenson. Absolutely. I, too, as president of the
National Pork Producers Council, hear repeatedly from farmers
of all shapes and sizes that there are significant labor
shortages on our farms because of--our rural populations are
declining and people are moving to urban centers. We continue
to recruit out of high school, we continue to recruit out of
college, we continue to place a heavy focus on recruiting from
our local labor availability and labor sheds, but there is
still a significant gap in staffing on our farms, and there is
no pork season.
We are 24/7. Every single day we are out there showing the
barns and taking care of our animals. Estimations show that we
are 25 to 30 percent short on our farms throughout the U.S.
pork industry and also in our packing plants. The H-2A program,
an uncapped, year-round H-2A program, is the only type of
program that matches the size of the issues our industry
currently faces.
Senator Grassley. You expressed in your opening testimony
some concerns you have with the bill before us. Can you explain
in a little more detail why you find the bill's cap on the
number of H-2A workers that can go to year-round ag employees
to be problematic and how it would impact the employers that
you represent?
Ms. Sorenson. I think it goes back to just the significant
volume of employee and worker shortages that we have on our
farms. If we--we would not want to find ourselves in the
situation where we are competing against our fellow livestock
farmers for a specific number of workers, and that is why we
ask for an uncapped H-2A program and also a year-round H-2A
program. We were definitely in support of the farmworker
modernization act. With those two pieces amended, it would be a
excellent solution for U.S. pork producers as we look at
fulfilling labor on our farms.
Senator Grassley. I'm going to go to Mr. Sequeira. I know
your testimony references both the extreme volatility in the H-
2A wage rates, along with what in your view is a flawed
methodology used to calculate this wage rate. For the benefit
of the Committee, can you explain how the H-2A adverse effect
wage rate is calculated and the extent to which the--it poses
challenge for farmers and agricultural employees?
Mr. Sequeira. I could, Senator, depending on how much time
you have. It's not an easy issue to explain, but in general,
the H-2A wage rate is determined based upon a labor survey
administered by the Department of Agriculture. Based upon
responses they obtain from farmers, they calculate average wage
rates over multistate areas. That wage rate then is used by the
Department of Labor as the mandatory minimum wage to be paid in
the program.
It is extremely volatile, as I noted in my testimony. It
can swing virtually always upwards by 10, 15, even 20 percent
or more. Over the last five years, I think on average it's been
up 20 percent, but again, depending on where you live in the
country, it could be much higher.
Senator Grassley. This will be my last program, gives you a
chance to tell us some changes to the bill. Knowing that the
act fails--falls short, what are your top two or three reforms
you think Congress should consider making the H-2A program in
order to make it more workable for farmers?
Mr. Sequeira. In addition to what's already been mentioned,
I think undoubtedly the cost structure in the program, as
proposed in the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, is
unworkable. In fact, it's worse than the status quo. It would
fundamentally change the way wage rates are administered,
leading to even higher wages in the future.
Beyond that, the bill opens up an entirely--several entire
new avenues for litigation against farmers, includes new
private right of actions allowing workers to sue farmers,
authorizes class actions with mandatory fees--mandatory awards.
That would be detrimental, certainly, to all of agriculture,
although it might be somewhat beneficial to lawyers. I don't
think it's a good idea and good public policy.
Senator Grassley. No. I thank you all for participating in
this hearing and particularly thank my--or my constituent from
Iowa, Ms. Sorenson. Thank you. I'll see you--and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Padilla [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
Thank you again to all the witnesses for participating here
today. A couple of questions, and unless another Member joins
us, I may be the last one with questions before we adjourn.
Let me start, coming back to the urgent topic of COVID.
Farmworkers were deemed essential during the pandemic, as we've
discussed repeatedly here today, but as a result, farmworkers
continue to work on the front lines of our food supply chains
and often had few resources to protect themselves from the
COVID-19 virus. Nearly 600,000 farmworkers contracted COVID,
and the food and agricultural workers in California, I know,
have experienced the highest excess mortality during the
pandemic, with a 39 percent increase compared to previous
years.
For Latinos, specifically, the mortality rate increase
reached 59 percent. According to findings from the National
Agricultural Workers Survey, about one-third of U.S.
farmworkers live below the Federal poverty level, and fewer
than half have health insurance or sufficient paid sick leave.
It's not a good combination we're describing here. Many do not
qualify for unemployment insurance or other social safety nets
because of their undocumented status.
These are essential workers. As I mentioned in my earlier
statement, I introduced the Citizenship for Essential Workers
Act as my first bill, to provide a pathway to permanency for
farmworkers and all essential workers. Mr. Rodriguez, can you
discuss how the immigration status of farmworkers has impacted
them during the pandemic?
Mr. Rodriguez. It makes it extremely difficult. I mean,
here you have a worker that doesn't have legal status in our
country, and they feel, first of all, obligated because of the
work that they do. That's what they're skilled at, that's what
they've been doing, that's what they're knowledgeable about
doing, and it has been mentioned here today, I mean, that's
what--that's the way they contribute to our Nation in regards
to making sure we have a secure food supply.
Because the pandemic came was not a reason for them to
leave and discontinue working in agriculture. They continued
working. They showed up every day. They made sure that our
crops production continued here within this Nation, dairy
farms, working there, and so forth. They'll continue to do so,
despite the fact that they did all this at great risk.
Senator Padilla. Let me just say the continued commitment
and work, contributions to the supply chain, to the economy,
despite the risks, despite the dangers, is nothing less than
heroic.
My next question is for Ms. Sorenson. As I made reference
again to my Citizenship for Essential Workers Act, it would
cover more than 5 million immigrant workers that have continued
to work in a number of sectors, not just agriculture, as
essential workers making sacrifices for all Americans
throughout the pandemic.
These workers and their households have paid $47.6 billion
in Federal taxes alone, an additional $25.5 billion in State
and local taxes each and every year: significant contributions
to our Nation's economy. However, they don't have the pathway
to permanency and live in--live and work in constant fear of
deportation.
Ms. Sorenson, I heard you say earlier that you support
permanent status for meatpackers. I just wanted to make sure I
heard that clearly, again, for the record. Meatpackers, as you
know, are not eligible for H-2A status, which you mentioned
causes difficulty for pork producers to hire enough workers to
carry out their operations. If enacted, this bill would--my
bill would put meatpackers on that pathway to citizenship. The
question is a simple yes or no. Am I correct in understanding
you do support a pathway to citizenship for the workers in your
industry?
Ms. Sorenson. I'm here to talk about the H-2A program, and
I want to focus on the pieces that provide certainty to packers
and to farmers, and----
Senator Padilla. All right. I know that a pathway to
citizenship certainly provides that certainty and fairness for
workers in your industry. As time is running out, I do have one
more question that I think is critical to mention, as we're
facing not just drought but constant extreme heat conditions
throughout the west. As temperatures continue to rise across
the country, more and more farmworkers are at risk of
experiencing heat illness, which can cause heat cramps, organ
damage, heat exhaustion, stroke, or even death.
In fact, between 1992 and 2017, heat stress injuries killed
815 U.S. workers and seriously injured more than 70,000. A
recent report published by UCLA found that the financial costs
of heat-related injuries in California alone are between $750
million and $1.25 billion dollars each year. The study also
found that on days with high temperatures above 90 degrees
Fahrenheit, very common in the Central Valley and other parts
of the State, workers have a 6 to 9 percent higher risk of
injuries. That's particularly alarming, given the ongoing
increasing impacts of climate change.
The Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention
Act, which I'm a proud Co-Sponsor of, directs OSHA to implement
a heat safety standard nationwide. California adopted its own
heat stress standards, and as a result, workplace injuries
declined significantly. I was a proud supporter of those State
workplace standards in my prior service in State government.
Unfortunately, it's not the case for vulnerable workers across
the country, and I believe we need a National standard in
place.
Mr. Rodriguez, can you discuss what recourse immigrant
farmworkers have if they suffer from heat-related injuries?
Mr. Rodriguez. Certainly in the State of California, we do
have laws and legislation. In fact, when that legislation was
passed, you drive down Highway 5 now and Highway 99 through the
Central Valley, you'll see farmers that have put up coverings,
tents, and so forth, there for the workers to go when they
actually get exposed to the heat, when the temperatures rise to
be 90 degrees and up. They are provided with the water and so
forth.
The unfortunate thing is that--that is one of the few
States that actually have those protections for farmworkers, so
that the majority of farmworkers still, in this country, are
exposed to heat conditions that have caused, as you said,
illnesses that have transpired time and time again, and even
deaths. We recently had one in the State of Oregon that
prompted State legislation, State regulations to take place
there because of the fact that farmworkers were dying as a--
because of the exposure to heat that they're experiencing right
now.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Having just seen
with my own eyes the statistics of the impact of that State
bill, but I've seen with my own eyes the impact in the fields,
having toured repeatedly over the years, including this last--
just this last Friday in and around Fresno. Amazing what a
simple concept of a little bit of shade, little bit of fresh,
cool water, and even access to a restroom in the fields can
make.
It shouldn't take State law to bring about those
improvements in working conditions for agricultural workers,
but if it does require State law to do it, California probably
has done it, and I believe essential farmworkers across the
country, regardless of the State that you live and work in,
deserve the same protections.
I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the
Committee today and for your participation. On behalf of
Senator Durbin, I'm going to begin to conclude this hearing
today. Before I do, I want to move to enter a number of
statements into the record from a variety of organizations,
including the Economic Policy Institute, Farmworker Justice,
and Immigration Hub.
Without objection, these statements will be included. The
record will close 1 week from today.
In closing, this has been a great conversation, great
discussion. As we've referenced so often, the Farm Workforce
Modernization Act--the House passed a bill, this bill, that
would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented
farmworkers and their families, meaning that they would be able
to continue to do the work that this Federal Government has
deemed essential, would continue to be able to do that work,
but be able to do so without living in fear of being separated
from their families.
The Farm Workforce Modernization Act illustrates the kind
of reforms our broken immigration system needs to help generate
long-term economic growth, establishing a more secure
foundation for consumers, for workers, and for employers, while
growing our tax base and securing our food supply chain.
It's our turn to act, in the U.S. Senate. On behalf of
Chairman Durbin and myself, we pledge to do everything in our
power--Senator Durbin as Chair, myself as a Member, Chair of
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, to move forward
legislation to provide a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented farmworkers. Thank you all, and with that, this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X
to
IMMIGRANT FARMWORKERS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO FEEDING AMERICA
American Farm Bureau Federation, letter, June 3, 2021............ 86
American Farm Bureau Federation, letter, July 20, 2021........... 193
Bipartisan Policy Center, statement, July 21, 2021............... 211
Centro De Los Derechos Del Migrante, Inc., statement, July 27,
2021.......................................................... 204
Economic Policy Institute, booklet, December 15, 2020............ 101
Economic Policy Institute, statement, July 20, 2021.............. 95
Economic Policy Institute, statement, July 21, 2021.............. 91
Farmworker Justice, statement of Bruce Goldstein, July 21, 2021.. 174
Immigration Hub, letter, July 21, 2021........................... 183
Justice for Migrant Women, statement of Monica Ramirez, July 28,
2021.......................................................... 207
National Farmworker Women's Alliance, letter, July 27, 2021...... 89
National Immigration Forum, statement, July 21, 2021............. 185
NC Growers Association, letter, July 19, 2021.................... 188
Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, statement, July 21,
2021.......................................................... 201
North Carolina SweetPotato, letter, April 13, 2021............... 189
Polaris, statement, July 21, 2021................................ 190
Ruiz, Dr. Raul, statement of Congressional Hispanic Caucas....... 85
UMOS Building Better Futures, letter, July 22, 2021.............. 215
Underserved Occupational Populations for the American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine....................... 214
UNIDOS US, statement, July 21, 2021.............................. 195
[all]