Lea este artículo en español aquí.
A bipartisan group of six Congressional representatives, including District 18 Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, reintroduced the Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R. 3227) on May 7, which Lofgren described as a “compromise solution that provides needed stability for farms and farmworkers.”
According to a press release issued by Lofgren’s office, the proposed legislation would:
- Reform the H-2A program to provide more flexibility for employers, while ensuring critical protections for workers
- Establish a program for agricultural workers in the U.S. to choose to earn legal status through continued agricultural employment and contribution to the U.S. agricultural economy
- Focus on modifications to make the program more responsive and user-friendly for employers and provide access to the program for industries with year-round labor needs
Lofgren first introduced the act in 2019 as HR5038 with 62 bipartisan co-sponsors. It passed in the House by a 260-165 vote, including 34 Republicans. It later stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She reintroduced it in 2021 as HR1603 with 61 bipartisan co-sponsors and it passed in the House by a 247-174 vote, including 30 Republicans. It again stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her third introduction of the act, in 2023 as HR4319, with 22 bipartisan co-sponsors, was referred to the House Judiciary, House Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, and Financial Services on Social Security Committees, where it languished.
Lofgren gave an interview to BenitoLink, which was conducted on May 15.
BenitoLink: Has the act been modified since it was first introduced, or is it unchanged?
Zoe Lofgren: We just changed the dates to conform with reality, but there have been no substantive changes. However, we do understand that there will likely be updates in the format and form in the Senate.
It passed twice in the House with at least 30 Republican votes. Why do you think there was such support for it?
For starters, it’s a good deal. When we first put this together, I convened stakeholders to discuss it: growers and producers of all stripes. Western Growers and the United Farm Workers Union played particularly important roles in crafting the legislation. They hashed out their differences and disagreements over a period of about nine months. I shared it with the immigration subcommittee, their staff and lawyers steeped in all the nuances of immigration law.
The bipartisan members worked on it, too, and then we ended up with a bill that everybody agreed was a compromise. Nobody got everything they wanted, and it’s probably not perfect, but it was significantly better than the status quo. Hundreds of ag producers are for it, and I think the constituency, both on the worker and employer sides, has been very articulate.
I spoke to a winemaker who is taking a year off production because he can’t find anyone to pick grapes. Can you explain the need for the bill?
Well, it’s huge. In this country, we don’t know for sure, but estimates say at least half of the farm workforce is undocumented. Under the existing law, there is no way for those working people to comply, to sign up and get legal status, which is why we introduced this bill.
Now, with these threats under the Trump administration, people who’ve been here for decades are afraid that they’ll be ripped from their families. In some cases, they are not showing up to work, as they have in the past. I will say this: the H2A program, which is the temporary work program and the seasonal program, needs reform, and we address those issues in this bill.
How is this going to help the workforce?
Existing farmworkers can get certified agricultural worker status, which is a legal status, but they are not legal permanent residents. And their families can be with them. They can go ahead and work legally under that status. But later, if they want to become a legal permanent resident or a green card holder, they can pay a fine, work additional time as workers, and then become a legal permanent resident.
The existing H2A visa program is a mess. You have to advertise to ensure you’re not displacing American workers, and we streamline that through electronic postings and reduced processing forms. It allows 20,000 workers a year to be used for non-seasonal agricultural workers. For example, the dairy industry needs workers not currently eligible for the H2A program.
It also provides some protection for the H2A workers. It allows some free movement for some of them, authorizes farmworker housing so that better housing can be provided and avoids the phenomenon of H2A workers taking housing that we need in the community because of the housing shortage.
This is the fourth attempt to pass this bill, and it has received less bipartisan support each time. What are the prospects of passing it this time?
Well, here is how it would have to work this time. The first two times it passed, Democrats were in the majority in the House. The third time, the Republicans refused to take it up for a vote. Currently, Jim Jordan is chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Tom McClintock is chair of the Immigration Subcommittee. They do not support this. So, going through the committee process, with the Republicans in the majority, will probably not be workable.
Our hope is that the Senate takes action. We understand that times have changed. Some additional provisions are likely to be changed. Because we need a bipartisan vote to pass the bill, the principals—that is, the employers and the workers—will have to reach common ground on what those changes will be.
And that’s going to have to happen in the Senate. If the Senate can pass this procedurally, it’s then sent to the House, where it sits at the desk. And there’s two things that can happen. The parliamentarian can send it to the committees and go through the regular process, or the speaker can have the bill taken from the desk and put up for a vote on the House floor. I believe if a bill got through the Senate, it would pass the House. That’s the reason why we’re moving forward in this way.
When widespread immigration enforcement begins in America’s agricultural fields, there will be tremendous pressure for a bill like this to pass. It will cripple agriculture, and they’re in trouble anyway.
So our friends on the Senate side might get a little fire lit to get something done. The other thing is, I’ve talked to Republican and Democratic senators about this bill. The House members intend to be more proactive with the Senate. The Senate doesn’t like to be told what to do by the House, I get that. We feel the same way about them. But we plan to engage more intensely with the senators this time to move this along.
What arguments have you heard against the bill?
Most of them, I think, are not valid.
I’ve heard McClintock say any immigrant working in America is taking a job from an American. I think that’s clearly not the case in agriculture, but some people believe it. I’ve heard people say that unemployed people in the inner city should be bussed to rural areas to work. That’s not going to work.
It’s kind of a baloney sandwich. In Georgia, they had people convicted of crimes and they sent them out into the fields. And they lasted until noon. It just didn’t work. It’s also skilled work. You may not need a college diploma, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t need skills to do it well. And it’s astonishingly hard.
The United Farm Workers, a couple of years ago, invited members of Congress to spend a day in the field and I did it twice. They later told me I was the only one who did it. Not only is it hard work in order to make money, you need to be good and quick at it, which I certainly was not.
If it fails this time, will you reintroduce the bill again after the midterms?
Not everyone agrees that immigration is important. Some people say there should be no immigration. We’ll just have to see. This is an important area of reform, but the entire Immigration Act needs reform. It is contradictory and counter to American interests in so many ways that it would be great to reform some of the more problematic areas.
Note: Lofgren’s office provided BenitoLink with its two-page summary of the bill and section-by-section outline. The text of the bill is available through the congressional website.
Stakeholder reaction
In addition to the interview with Lofgren, BenitoLink received a press release from the United Farm Workers union and asked local Republican party officials Rob Bernosky, Christopher Valadez of the Grower Shipper Association and Brittany Brown, Executive Director of the San Benito County Farm Bureau, for their reactions to the proposed legislation.
A press release from the United Farm Workers described the act as a bipartisan compromise that would “protect undocumented farmworkers from the threat of deportation and allow them to continue their essential work of putting food on Americans’ tables.”
The others responded by email as follows:
Bernosky wrote:
“I support any immigration reform that helps California agriculture and any other industries, that also protects the sovereignty of the United States. We are such a great country, so great that many people want to come here and I support that if they want to come for the right reasons. Working and participating in the American dream certainly qualifies. But to stay, they have to eventually want to become American citizens and assimilate into the United States as the founders envisioned it and be practical about it (learning English, for example). If workers only want to be temporarily here, I am okay with that too, but temporary means temporary and working.”
Valadez wrote, in part:
“We’re encouraged by the renewed effort to stabilize farm labor in support of continued food production. Many Farm Employers would welcome the added certainty if the Act passed the House, the Senate and were signed into law. But its recent history [makes it] seem unlikely it could get signed into law under this Administration, in part due to its language enabling a pathway to citizenship. Now might be the time to re-open to renegotiate in order to secure terms that continue to result in relief, security, and are adjusted to the 2025 (today’s) landscape.
While the bill does provide real improvements, over the past few years the Adverse Effect Wage Rate has increased so much that capping rates that are already near unsustainable levels may buy some time for the farmer, but inevitably leads to their inability to continue using the program due to its high user costs that are not tied to market returns and wage market reality.”
Brown wrote:
“The San Benito County Farm Bureau supports the reintroduction of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. Local agriculture depends on (a) stable, legal workforce, and this bipartisan bill is a smart, balanced step toward ensuring our farms and food supply remain strong. Farmers and ranchers in San Benito County continue to face increasing uncertainty when it comes to labor. This act offers a meaningful solution by combining workforce ability with accountability, ensuring that those who contribute to our farms do so legally. This is important for the strength of our farms, our food system, and our rural community.”
BenitoLink also sent requests for a quote to Republican Party official Peter Hernandez and Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA District 4), a cosponsor of the bill, but as of publication had not received a response.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.