Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 4, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6240 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 04, 2000 CECILIA MUIOZ VICE PRESIDENT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA
RAZA HOUSE JUDICIARY CRIME CHILD MOLESTATION
BODY:
May 4,2000 Presented by Cecilia Muftoz Vice
President Statement on the "Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security
Act" Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation Before the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration 1.Introduction My name is Cecilia Mufloz. I am the
vice-president for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation of the
National Council of La Raza (NCLR). NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization established in 1968 to reduce poverty and discrimination and
improve life opportunities for Hispanic Americans. NCLR is the largest
constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving all Hispanic
nationality groups in all regions of the country through our network of 230
affiliate community-based groups and regional offices. NCLR has supported fair
and effective immigration and farmworker policies for over two decades, and has
ensured a fact-based Latino perspective on the issue of immigration. NCLR
approaches this issue as a civil rights organization, with an interest in
protecting the rights of our constituency and promoting the values and
principles of the nation as a whole. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement before the Subcommittee today, 1.especially when it concerns an issue
that ultimately will affect the lives of perhaps the single most disadvantaged
of all groups in the United States: the nations farmworkers. These hard- working
Americans toil in the fields for meager earnings and few benefits; they sustain
multi-billion dollar industries, and literally put food on our tables. Yet, they
remain largely invisible to the rest of the country. Under a century-old system
of labor, farmworkers continue to be inadequately protected by federal laws and
regulations, including worker protection standards that all other workers take
for granted. We have heard today from representatives of the agricultural
industry which is again attempting to orchestrate the establishment of
additional special privileges for itself, proclaiming the same unsubstantiated
argument employed continuously since the mid- 1 8 00s: that there are labor
shortages. NCLR continues to side with the experts in government and in the
private sector who have studied and found that there is still no shortage of
work-authorized farmworkers, but a shortage of decent jobs and decent pay.
Second, the status quo is indeed untenable, not because of over-regulation of
labor standards in agriculture but because of a complete lack of enforcement of
the few labor standards that actually apply to farm work. Therefore, NCLR
strongly opposes S. 1814 the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunities and Benefits Act,
and S. 1815, the Farmworker Adjustment Act, primarily because they would not
improve conditions for America's farmworkers. In fact, we believe that this
legislation would give unscrupulous employers an unreasonable level of control
over farmworkers' lives. Such comprehensive control could only lead to further
exploitation of the nation's most vulnerable workers. 11.The Face of America's
Farm Labor Force The history of farm labor in the United States coincides with
the political awakening of the American Latino community. Since the beginning of
the last century, Mexicans and other Latinos have been an integral part of the
nation's farm labor force, and farmworkers have been integral to the growth of
Hispanic Americans' political consciousness. For this reason, NCLR, like most
Latino advocacy organizations, is concerned about current proposals to "reform"
or expand current guestworker programs. In fact, the majority of farmworkers in
the United States are Latino. In 1997 and 1998, 81 percent of farmworkers are
foreign-born; 95 percent of these are from Mexico. As many as 52 percent of
farmworkers are undocumented; 58 percent of farmworkers, however, consider the
United States their permanent home. Further, the plight of farmworkers in the
United States has gotten worse over the last decade. Government studies show
that: Farmworker wages are stagnant: since 1989, the average hourly wage has
risen only 18 percent, compared to 32 percent for non- agricultural workers
Annual earnings remain below the poverty line: for the past decade, the median
income of individual farmworkers has been $7,500 while for farmworker families
it has remained less than $10,000 Despite their poverty, farmworker use of
public benefits remains low and has declined Farmworker assets are decreasing:
in 1994-5, one-third of all farmworkers were homeowners, by 1997-8 only 14
percent were homeowners More workers now rely on their employers, contractors
and coworkers for transportation to work: in 1994-5 49 percent of workers owned
a vehicle; in 1997-8, the figure dropped to only 44 percent. Unemployment and
underemployment is rampant: even during the hiring peak, just over half of the
nation's total farm labor workforce held agricultural jobs The number of days
crop workers actually were employed on farms has diminished over time: from
1989-91, the typical foreign-born worker was employed in farming for 213 days;
this figure fell to 193 in 1992-1994, and to 176 in 1995-1997. U.S. born workers
are also seeing less time in the fields, from 183, to 155, to 129 over the same
period. This indicates that the number of jobs available to all farmworkers is
shrinking. In California, the unemployment rates in eighteen agricultural
counties continue to be nearly double the statewide average even during peak
harvest months. The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) has
conducted surveys in the last three years of farmworkers in certain raisin and
grape producing counties during harvests. These surveys have consistently found
that there are available farmworkers who are not being recruited by employers.
In fact, employers are doing a poor job of making their work opportunities
known. CRLAF's most recent report is attached to this testimony as Appendix A.
These findings are very disturbing to us. More importantly, they indicate that
there is truly no shortage of farm labor in the United States. Were there
actually a shortage, wages would be going up, just as they have in other sectors
experiencing difficulty in recruiting and retaining workers. In fact, these
figures indicate a national oversupply of labor. For this reason, NCLR opposes
employer efforts to enact policy that would guarantee for themselves a continued
oversupply of workers. Whether it was Chinese immigrants in the nineteenth
century, the 4.5 million braceros brought in to toil in the fields between 1942
and 1964, or "guestworkers" under the current H-2A program, the agricultural
industry has been dependent on foreign-labor and has been relentless in
maintaining this dependency. They have spent the last decade soliciting
Congressional support for a massive expansion of the H-2A program. 111.Problems
with the H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program NCLR believes that the existing
temporary foreign worker program, known as "H-2A", is overly generous to the
agricultural industry and insufficiently protective of the rights of both U.S.
and foreign workers. Industry proposals to further "deregulate" the H- 2A
program will inevitably and inexorably undermine wages and working conditions
for all of America's farmworkers. There is considerable evidence that the H-2A
program - which brings in nearly 30,000 mostly Mexican and Jamaican temporary
workers each year - has been fraught with abuses. In its December 1997 study,
the GAO found that workers who enter under the H-2A program are not receiving
all of the protections required by the H-2A law. The "special requirements" of
the H-2A program, which the growers decry, are there for a reason. These
protections are intended to ensure that nonimmigrant guestworkers are hired only
to fill actual labor shortages, that U.S. farmworkers' wages and working
conditions are not affected adversely, and that foreign workers are not
mistreated. In 1998, the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General
reported that the program fails to protect U.S. farmworkers. It found that
employers and the State Employment Service Agencies were doing a poor job of
advertising available jobs to U.S. farmworkers, and that the Department of
Labor's Employment Training Administration was approving H-2A certifications
without sufficient scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Department of Labor is acceding
to growers' demands by offering, for instance, administrative reform and quicker
processing that further undermine the program's protections. The current program
has resulted in lower wages for farmworkers in America. That is why the USDA's
National Commission on Small Farms urged the repeal of the H-2A program after
hearing testimony that "large farm operators and agribusiness have unfair
advantages 'because employer costs have been reduced by partial or total
exclusion of agricultural workers from coverage under key labor laws.' In
addition, 'the authorized importation of foreign workers for agricultural work
(H-2A program), by adding workers to the pool of available labor, has helped
keep wages for agricultural workers ... below what they would have been without
such interventions."' The current H-2A program approves 99 percent of the
applications filed by agricultural employers despite the labor surplus. The H-
2A program was streamlined for employers in 1986 and has operated to their
advantage. The program is growing rapidly and spreading to new crops and new
states. In Georgia, for example, the Department of Labor approved applications
for more than 2,200 jobs in 1999, even in cases where the grower failed to file
the application on time. During the previous year, Georgia received fewer than
200 H-2A workers. Still not satisfied, growers are demanding that Congress
"reform" the guestworker program to lower wages, reduce recruitment of U.S.
workers, eliminate the current program's housing obligations, authorize wage and
other employment practices that are currently illegal, and reduce enforcement of
labor standards. Guestworkers are desirable because they lack the right to
switch jobs or to remain in the country once their job ends. Guestworkers also
lack economic or political power to improve their conditions. The vulnerability
of H-2A workers forces them to live with unbearable working conditions that no
other American would ever tolerate. In a series of articles, the Charlotte
Observer recently shed light on the H-2A program in North Carolina, where
employers import as many as I 0,000 H-2A workers every year. These articles are
also attached to this testimony as Appendix B. I'd like to highlight one
particularly poignant story in the first of these articles. It is the story of
Carmelo Fuentes, an H- 2A worker who suffered heat stroke while picking tomatoes
in 105- degree heat. According to his employer, Mr. Fuentes, who was 36 years
old, said he just wanted a short break after showing signs of heat stress, which
state investigators said were "dangerously ignored" by his supervisor. His
employer said "that boy said he was fine, and just needed to rest." As he
rested, heat stroke shut down his internal organs and led to Mr. Fuentes to
suffer from severe brain damage. According to the Charlotte Observer story,
Nobody can know exactly what Carmelo Fuentes said about how he felt that July
day in 1998. But as a veteran working his third N.C. harvest, he likely
understood what some say are the unwritten rules of the government program that
brought him to an N.C. farm 2,000 miles from home. Work fast, or lose your job
to somebody who is faster. Complain about your living or working conditions, and
you're sent back to Mexico. Get sick or injured, and you're off the list of
workers invited back next season. These are the rules that have many
guestworkers have come to understand as determining whether they will continue
to be able to work in the United States. That is why the H-2A program reminds so
many Mexican Americans of the universally denounced Bracero program that existed
between 1942 and 1964. As in the H- 2A program, Bracero workers were so
controlled by their employers that, according to Ernesto Galarza, one of NCLR's
founders, undocumented workers actually used to consider themselves "libre" or
"free workers" since they could leave an employer if conditions were
intolerable. The same can still be said about the current program. NCLR opposes
the current H-2A program, and calls for its repeal. Any attempts to reduce the
protections it provides for farmworkers, both those already in the U.S. and
those entering through the program, should be rejected. IV.Problems with S. 1814
and S. 1815 The Agricultural Jobs, Benefits and Opportunities Act and the
Farmworker Adjustment Act fall far short of what is needed to improve the H-2A
program and to make better the lives of America's farmworkers. These bills would
subject farm-workers to even poorer wages and working conditions and inequitable
economic and political status for many years to come. This legislation would
create two new temporary foreign agricultural worker programs by modifying the
current H-2A program and by establishing an "adjustment" program for currently
undocumented farmworkers. Neither proposal is satisfactory, and should be
rejected. As mentioned above, the current H-2A program inadequately ensures that
U.S. farmworkers have access to available farm jobs, and that individuals
entering as H-2A workers are not exploited. S - 1814 would revise the H-2A
program to lower wage rates, eliminate housing opportunities, reduce recruitment
inside the United States, decrease government oversight, and in other ways lower
labor standards of U.S. farm-workers and allow exploitation of vulnerable
foreign workers. No valid reason justifies it. The bill would also authorize
wage systems ("group piece rates") and other practices that have been used to
circumvent the law and prevent farmworkers from improving their circumstances.
The "adjustment" guestworker proposal in S. 1814 and S. 1815 also would
guarantee employers a pliable workforce of individuals who are too desperate to
meet its requirements to help realize the few labor rights they have as
farm-workers. The bills' proponents contend that this new "adjustment"
guestworker program would benefit currently undocumented farmworkers because (1)
those who qualified could work legally on temporary non-immigrant visas as
seasonal agricultural workers and (2) upon satisfying a 5-year agricultural work
requirement, later they would be permitted to apply for immigration status.
These workers (upon showing 150 days of agricultural work in 1998-1999) would be
obligated to find and prove 180 days of agricultural work each year for five
more years. They could perform only agricultural work, and would be required to
leave the country for at least 65 days per year. The lack of available work
shown by recent surveys means that many "adjustment" guestworkers would never
acquire enough work in each of 5 years to qualify to apply for immigration
status. The proposal would give employers extraordinary control over workers'
economic status and immigration status. Workers would be desperate to comply
with the difficult tasks of securing and proving 180 days of frarm-work each
year to remain in the program. Consequently, many will be too afraid of being
fired and other employer reprisals to demand higher wages or better working
conditions, or seek to enforce the law. The "adjustment" guestworker proposal
contains none of the wage, housing or other minimum labor standards that have
been part of the H-2A and the old bracero programs in the last 55 years. There
are no protections against undercutting current wage rates or against
exploitation of the vulnerable guestworkers. As "non- immigrants," guestworkers
will be ineligible for federally funded legal services and for public benefits.
Due to certain immigration-law restrictions, many guestworkers who complete the
5-year requirement may still not qualify for immigration status. Because the
bills would create a waiting list of up to 5 years for receiving immigration
status, some eligible workers would not receive a green card for 1 0 to 12
years. During that time, spouses and children would not be entitled to enter the
US or gain immigration status. The "adjustment" program does represent a fair
compromise between workers' needs and employers' wants. It further shifts the
balance of power into the hands of the unscrupulous employers, contractors and
crewleaders. V.Recommendations NCLR believes there should be a change in farm
labor policy, but S. 1814 and S. 1815 is not the right policy prescription.
Instead, Congress should seek to improve opportunities for farmworkers, both
foreign-born and U.S. born, by enacting the following recommendations:
Effectively Enforce Existing Protections and Labor Laws: The Department of Labor
(DOL) must prevent persisting employer abuses of the H-2A program, by enforcing
existing protections in the program, including the "fifty percent rule," which
gives U.S. farmworkers preference over an H-2A worker. Growers must also not be
allowed to exploit foreign workers by underpaying them or denying them crucial
benefits. DOL also must increase its vigilance over the H-2A program and resist
attempts to reduce alleged administrative burdens. Provide Adequate Resources
for Enforcement of Labor Laws: The Administration should request, and Congress
should provide, sufficient funding to DOL's Wage and Hour Division and OSHA,
among others, to assure effective monitoring and enforcement of labor standards
for U.S. farmworkers and H-2A workers. Congress should also revisit the budget
restrictions and limitations on the Legal Services Corporation
grantees that have traditionally served farmworkers. Improve Existing
Recruitment Methods: The agricultural industry must improve its current
recruitment methods to attract available, work-authorized U.S. workers. Surveys
along the East Coast, where more growers are using the H-2A program, have shown
that U.S. farmworkers are indeed available for work but need advance assistance
with transportation; which is rarely provided to U.S. farmworkers. Growers also
must assure that their written job advertisements are placed in locations where
U.S. farmworkers will hear or see them. In addition, the Department of Labor's
U.S. Employment Service must improve its outreach efforts to match U.S.
farmworkers with available agricultural jobs, primarily since less than five
percent of all U.S. farmworkers use this system to secure work. Employers and
DOL should improve coordination with labor unions and community-based
organizations that are ready and willing to promote recruitment of U.S.
farmworkers to meet the employers' needs. Make Growers Who Use Farm Labor
Contractors (FLCs) Responsible for Treatment of Their Workers: Congress and
enforcement agencies must assure that growers do not circumvent existing labor
laws by increasingly relying on FLCs for workers. Since the enactment of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), growers have come to depend
more heavily upon FLCs to produce a workforce. Essentially, contractors have
become the "risk buffers" between growers and their immigrant workers, and now
perform the regulatory duty imposed by IRCA on all employers. Furthermore,
evidence has shown that workers hired by FLCs are more susceptible to
exploitation in the form of lower wages, reduced benefits, lower retention
rates, and inferior working conditions. Enact a New Legalization Program: While
we believe there is an oversupply of available work-authorized farm workers, the
currently high proportion of undocumented workers in the farm labor force is
troubling. NCLR believes that the use of farm labor contractors competing to
provide growers with the cheapest available workers has led to an
overrepresentation of undocumented workers. These workers are not as able to
defend themselves from exploitative practices as are legal workers. Congress
should allow workers who have already contributed to the U.S. economy through 1
their sweat and labor an opportunity to become legal residents, without any
conditions that would further subject workers to more exploitation. Enact
Pro-Immigrant Legislation This Year: Many farmworkers would benefit from passage
of pro-immigrant legislation that has already been introduced. Namely, NCLR
strongly supports and calls on Congress to enact: S.2407, the Date of Registry
Act, which would update a long-standing provision of the Immigration Act called
"registry" and allow long-time resident, deeply-rooted immigrants who are
contributing to our economy to remain here lawfully. This bill would change the
registry cutoff date from 1972 to 1986. NCLR would prefer a change in the date
to 1994. S.1592, the Central American and Haitian Adjustment Act, which would
correct for past unequal treatment among different groups of similarly-situated
Central American and Caribbean Refugees. H.R. 1841, to restore Section 245(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would allow immigrants who are
eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent residency to do so while
remaining in the country instead of traveling to their home country to complete
the process. By passing this provision, Congress could ensure that immigrants
are not separated from their families and employers for as many as ten years.
Legislation, not yet proposed, to decrease the immigration backlogs by
increasing the number of available visas so that immediate relatives of U.S.
citizens and permanent residents may join their families and cease having to
wait in interminable backlogs for lawful admission to the United States All of
these proposals will help reduce the number of undocumented workers in the labor
force, not just in agriculture, but in other sectors that are genuinely
experiencing trouble finding work-authorized workers. VI.Conclusion I
respectfully urge you to consider these recommendations, as they represent a
consensus among many different immigrant and farmworker advocates about
immigration policies that Congress should enact in the short-term. Immigration
is but one of the many complicated issues concerning farm labor that need to be
addressed, and I appreciate the attention the Subcommittee is paying to the
issue today. However, before the Subcommittee considers acting on this
legislation, I ask that you take a closer look at the need for comprehensive
reform of our farm labor system. Finally, I would like to call your attention to
a letter that was sent to the entire Senate and its leadership last February. It
is also attached as Appendix C. It calls on the Senate to reject S. 1814 and S.
1815, and is signed by 185 organizations made up of farmworkers, and individuals
that work day-to-day with farmworkers. Please take their voices into account as
you consider this legislation. Once again, I thank the committee for allowing
NCLR to present this testimony.
LOAD-DATE: May 19,
2000, Friday 
