Growers say the current H-2A guest worker program is
cumbersome and often does not allow them to bring in enough
foreign workers when local recruiting falls short.

Up to 500,000 agricultural workers a year could enter the
United States under a bill sponsored by Bob Goodlatte, chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration
law. A Senate bill would allow 122,000 guest workers a year.
There are some 70,000 or so H-2A visas in use now.

“Farmers need the program to be uncapped,” said Lee Wicker,
deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association, the
largest H-2A user group in the country.

Its members expect to employ 7,500 guest workers during the
growing season as well as thousands of Americans.

At a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Wicker said farmers can
face bankruptcy if they cannot get enough workers into the field
when crops are ready to pick. Also, consumers pay higher produce
prices if crops rot in the field.

Goodlatte’s bill would create a H-2C visa, good for up to
three years and renewable for 18 months at a time, for farm,
seafood and food processing employees. It would be the first
time processors could hire guest workers for year-round jobs.

A coalition of growers and the United Farm Workers union
backs the Senate approach, which includes a path to citizenship
for farm workers in the country illegally as well as a new guest
worker program. It allows visas to run for up to three years at
a time but does not include packing-plant workers.

The North Carolina group supports Goodlatte’s bill. Asked
about the Senate bill, Wicker said, “I think it’s fine. I don’t
think it will pass in the House.”

Chris Gaddis, chief personnel officer at JBS USA, one of the
biggest U.S. meat packers, said it takes four to eight months to
train workers at processing plants. “To get a return on our
investment, we would need them to stay,” Gaddis said.

Goodlatte’s H-2C visas would be more attractive, he said, if
the long-term workers were not required to leave the country for
three to six months before a new visa would take effect and if
the workers could bring family members with them.

Meat processors have moved increasingly into rural areas in
the past couple of decades and say it is difficult to fill job
openings.

The House Agriculture Committee approved a five-year, $500 billion farm bill on a 36-10 vote. The next step will be debate by the full House, which is likely to start in June.

Congress is months late in writing a new farm law. The Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its version on Tuesday and the full Senate is set to begin debate on Thursday.

The House and Senate bills each end the $5 billion-a-year direct-payment subsidy, long a target of reformers, and spin off at least three new types of crop insurance.

Almost half the savings in the House bill would come from a $20.5 billion cut over 10 years in spending on food stamps for low-income Americans.

The House plan would restrict eligibility and require closer accounting of certain costs. It would be the largest cut in food stamps since the 1996 welfare reform law, experts say.

Food stamps are seen as the make-or-break issue for the latest farm bill, rather than crop subsidies, which have traditionally been the focus of debate.

An urban-rural partnership traditionally carries farm bills to passage – city lawmakers back generous farm subsidies in exchange for well-funded nutrition programs – but threatens to shatter this time around.

The farm bill died last year amid Democratic opposition to Republican demands for $16 billion in food stamp cuts. The bill was never debated by the full House.

A STEP TOO FAR?

“This goes too far,” Democrat Jim McGovern said of the latest bill. The Massachusetts lawmaker lost 27-17 on a mostly party-line vote when he tried to eliminate the food stamp cuts in the new bill.

Iowa Republican Steve King said high food stamp enrollment would “expand the dependency class” and Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican, suggested it was unfair that “nutrition is getting five times as much as production agriculture” in the bill.

About 2 million people, or 4 percent of participants, would lose food stamps under language in the new House bill to eliminate so-called categorical eligibility, created by welfare reform, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan think tank.

Some 45.6 million people, many of them impoverished elderly or working-poor families with children, received food stamps at latest count.

While the bill expands crop insurance spending by $9 billion over a decade, it would cut traditional subsidies by $22 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Aides to Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said the farm safety net would shrink overall.

Federal payments could surge above current levels if commodity prices fall sharply, said agricultural economist Vince Smith of Montana State University. When crop insurance and crop supports are considered together, “the government is responsible for a much larger share of any farm income shortfall,” Lucas said.

Cotton growers would get a special revenue insurance program to replace subsidies that the World Trade Organization says violated trade rules. The government would pay 80 percent of the premium. Peanuts would get a separate revenue insurance program.

“Companies underwriting federal crop insurance are likely to be among the major beneficiaries of the new farm bill when it becomes law,” said analyst Mark McMinimy of Guggenheim Washington Research Group.

U.S. commodity prices are at historically high levels so farm program changes may not be felt immediately for most crops. However, the Senate and House farm bills set peanut supports slightly above the projected market price and raise the “target” price for rice by 27 percent to 33 percent.

Both versions of the bill would make slightly more land available for growing crops by shrinking the Conservation Reserve, a program that pays farmers to idle fragile land for 10 years or more. The House would cap the reserve at 24 million acres and the Senate at 25 million acres, down from the 27 million acres now idled.

(Reporting By Charles Abbott; Editing by Ros Krasny and Jim Loney)

The 1,000-page bill now goes to the Senate floor, where a vote could be called as soon as this month.

The House Agriculture Committee was scheduled to draft its farm bill on Wednesday. The new five-year farm law is months overdue after an election-year deadlock in 2012.

Expansion of crop insurance in the Senate bill would be part of a broad remodeling of farm subsidies. Most notably the $5 billion a year direct-payment subsidy to farmers, long a target of reformers, would end.

Separate insurance programs to guarantee revenue to cotton and peanut growers would be created, as well as an insurance program to compensate growers if revenue from other crops drop by more than 10 percent.

Agriculture Committee chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said the bill, by saving $24 billion over 10 years, generated “significant savings.”

It would cut food stamps by $4 billion, pare conservation spending by a similar amount and reduce traditional farm subsidies by $17 billion while creating at least three new areas of crop insurance coverage.

Analysts say food stamps are the make-or-break issue for enactment of a new U.S. farm law because Republicans want deep cuts in food stamps and Democrats oppose them.

Farm bills traditionally are carried to passage by a coalition of urban Democrats who support food programs and rural lawmakers who back farm subsidies.

Leaders of the House Agriculture Committee have proposed $20 billion in food stamp cuts that could push 5 million people off the rolls. Some House Republicans want deeper cuts.

In the short run, senators warned of clashes with the House over crop supports. The Senate bill would adjust crop support rates but not raise them as high as the House.

“The House isn’t going to accept this,” said Senator John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, who saw the prospect of protracted negotiations. But Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said high support rates “are a big red flag” because they could invite a world trade complaint.

There are large areas of agreement between the committees, though. Both would create an insurance-like program to protect a farmer’s crop revenue from low prices and poor yields. And both would expand crop insurance.

Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said food stamps should not be cut at all in view of lingering slow economic growth. But food stamp defenders decided not to ask for a vote to cut crop insurance subsidies as a way to prevent the $4 billion in cuts in the bill.

Republicans on the Senate committee lost three votes based on attempts to curtail access to the program. They said they might try again when the Senate debates the farm bill.

Three food stamp critics – Roberts, John Thune of South Dakota and Michael Johanns of Nebraska – voted against approval of the bill, which was cleared on a 15-5 vote. Also voting no were Gillibrand and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Senate bill would require farmers to practice soil conservation to qualify for subsidized crop insurance. House Agriculture Committee leaders rejected that idea in their bill. Crop insurance is the largest part of the farm safety net.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott; editing by Ros Krasny and Sofina Mirza-Reid)

The $500 billion farm bill is seven months overdue. Senate
Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of
Michigan, called a meeting of her panel to consider the bill on
Tuesday. The House Agriculture Committee confirmed that it will
start its markup on Wednesday.

Stabenow’s decision to continue the “target” price system -
although under a new name and with higher rice and peanut
supports – could resolve a major dispute over the program. In
2012 the Senate committee voted to replace almost all
traditional crop supports with a guarantee of crop revenue.

The text of the roughly 1,100-page Senate draft was posted
on the Internet on Thursday. Stabenow said her bill would cut
spending by $23 billion over 10 years, more than half of it in
crop supports. The House bill was expected to cut $36 billion,
with more than half it of from food stamps for the poor.

In the Senate draft, rice would get a target price of $13.30
per 100 lbs, up 26 percent from current law, and peanuts a
target price of $523.77 per ton, up 6 percent. Targets for other
major crops would be stay at current rates, well below current
market levels.

Farmers get federal payments when the average price for a
crop is below the trigger level set by the farm bill. The
Congressional Budget Office expects rice prices to exceed $14
per 100 lbs in coming years and peanut prices to average around
$500 a ton.

Target prices would provide a long-term floor for federal
support of grain, oilseed and cotton crops. The draft Senate
bill, like the 2012 version, would create an insurance-like
program to shield grain and soybean growers from the
year-to-year impact of poor yields and low prices.

Payments under the so-called shallow-loss program would be
triggered when a farmer’s revenue from a crop was from 12
percent to 22 percent below a guaranteed level. The guarantee
would be based on an average of recent prices and would be
recalculated annually.

Sugar support prices would remain at current levels under
Stabenow’s proposed five-year bill, while the dairy program
would be revamped into a margin-insurance format.

A $5 billion-a-year “direct payment” subsidy, paid
regardless of need, would be eliminated in the Senate bill – a
cost savings long sought by lawmakers.

“The era of direct payments is over,” Stabenow said in a
statement touting the bill’s deficit reduction goals.

“Passing the farm bill will yield a total of $23 billion in
cuts to agriculture programs,” said Stabenow.

The bill would require farmers to practice soil and water
conservation to qualify for subsidized crop insurance policies,
said the Environmental Working Group, a pro-conservation group.

It also said the bill needlessly cuts conservation programs
in order to lavish more money on crop supports and crop
insurance subsidies.

The text was available here

(Reporting By Charles Abbott; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Analysts say food stamps for the poor, the biggest
Agriculture Department program at an estimated $79 billion this
year, is the make-or-break issue. Republicans are demanding far
larger cuts than Democrats will entertain, and the debate is
becoming increasingly partisan.

Enrollment in the program has doubled in a decade and costs
have tripled. Critics say spending is out of control when only
the neediest should get aid. Defenders say the weak economy is
the culprit – enrollment is highest during economic turmoil –
and that food stamps are targeted to avoid cuts in farm
subsidies.

Food stamps “is the key to getting a final farm bill done.
Not that there won’t be plenty of other fights,” said Pat
Westhoff, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI), a think tank at the University of Missouri.

“It seems like there is going to be some trimming and a
battle between the House (of Representatives) and Senate over
how much,” said analyst Mark McMinimy of Guggenheim Securities.
“I think a lot of heat is going to be around nutrition
assistance.”

The Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to start
drafting its bill on Tuesday, with its House panel likely to
follow on Wednesday. “On food stamps, they’re going to be 10
miles apart,” said a farm lobbyist.

Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who chairs the Senate
Agriculture Committee, is aiming for $4 billion in food stamp
cuts over 10 years.

That is a far cry from the $20 billion in savings targeted
by Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas, the House Agriculture
chairman, up $4 billion from the proposal in last year’s bill,
which House Republican leaders never put to a floor vote.

Republicans such as Senators Pat Roberts of Kansas and John
Thune of South Dakota, and Representatives Marlin Stutzman of
Indiana and Randy Neugebauer of Texas, would cut food stamps
much more deeply, by some $36 billion over a decade.

While Stabenow says closing loopholes can generate
substantial savings, the Republican faction would restrict
eligibility broadly.

Between 2 million and 4 million people could be cut from the
program under the Republicans’ cuts, says an anti-hunger expert.
That would be as much as 8 percent of the current enrollment.

Those receiving food stamps – formally known as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – was a
record 47.8 million at the end of 2012, up from 46.5 million a
year earlier.

Agriculture Committee leaders from both chambers commonly
say farm policy is not a partisan issue.

Historically, disputes have split along regional lines that
pit cotton and rice growers from the South against corn and
soybean farmers of the Midwest. Republicans and Democrats
cooperate based more on geography than party affiliation.

On food stamps, party identification increasingly appears
paramount, however.

While Senate Agriculture Committee members Roberts and
Thune, from the socially conservative Great Plains, want to cut
food stamps, another committee member, Democrat Kirsten
Gillibrand of New York, circulated a letter opposing any cuts in
food stamps. It was signed by 32 Democratic senators.

In the House, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern has
sponsored a resolution opposing against food stamp cuts. As of
Wednesday, it had 115 sponsors, all Democrats.

The farm bill died in the House at the end of 2012 in an
election-year deadlock over food stamps. The Democratic-led
Senate passed its version over the summer.

Small-farm activist Ferd Hoefner, policy director at the
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, said the quarrel
over SNAP could rupture a long-standing partnership of rural and
urban lawmakers who supported farm programs on the one hand, and
public nutrition programs on the other.

“Is this the end of the farm bill coalition?” Hoefner said.

(Reporting By Charles Abbott; editing by Ros Krasny and Gunna
Dickson)

The proposal, expected to be part of the Senate immigration bill, would help assure a stable workforce, said industry and union officials on Wednesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee was to begin debate on the bill on Thursday.

There was no immediate estimate of how many jobs might be filled by foreign workers. Around 480,000 people work at 6,300 meat and poultry plants nationwide, according to a trade group.

Over the past couple of decades, meat packers have moved plants away from cities such as Chicago, and have drawn foreign-born workers, especially Hispanics, to rural communities. Industry officials say it is hard to recruit enough workers. They would prefer three-year visas that can be renewed.

“These are not seasonal jobs. Many of these jobs take a lot of training to do the job properly,” said Barry Carpenter of the Food Manufacturers Immigration Coalition of livestock producers and processors. “There’s a big safety-training factor as well.”

The initial version of the Senate immigration bill included a provision for meatpacking and seafood workers. The language was revised in recent days but would remain part of the bill, said Carpenter.

Jill Cashen of the United Food and Commercial Workers said the union and industry “have some over-lapping goals,” especially on workplace stability, that led to the alliance on immigration reform. A large portion of beef and pork plants are unionized while poultry plants, concentrated in the southern United States, often are not.

In a letter to the eight senators who took the lead on immigration reform, the industry and union asked for more flexibility in verifying that applicants can work legally. The letter suggested deletion of a special allocation of visas proposed for meat and seafood workers.

The largest U.S. meat companies are Tyson Foods, JBS and Cargill.

(Reporting By Charles Abbott; editing by Ros Krasny)

The Senate panel has scheduled a bill-drafting session for May 14. Its House of Representatives counterpart, unofficially, aims to start writing its version on May 15.

The bills are expected to boost crop support rates, expand the crop insurance program, reduce the scope of land-idling programs and cut spending on food aid to the poor.

Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, has said the Senate bill would cut farm bill outlays by $23 billion over 10 years. The House bill is expected to aim for savings of $35 billion over a decade.

Passage of the farm bill is seven months overdue and counting, after an election-year stalemate in the House prevented passage of a bill last autumn.

Tea Party-influenced lawmakers in 2012 wanted to generate bigger cuts in spending while Democrats said the House bill cut food stamps too much.

Stabenow’s proposal would shave $4 billion from food stamps, compared with the $20 billion that House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, has targeted.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand organized a letter, signed by 32 other senators, to cut crop insurance subsidies and avert any food stamp cuts.

Farm lobbyists said Stabenow was expected to propose higher “target” prices for grains and oilseeds, growing chiefly in the Midwest, to satisfy objections from Southern rice and peanut growers. The bill also would shield growers from fluctuations in crop revenue, an approach backed by corn and soybean growers.

Environmentalists say farmers should be required to practice soil conservation to qualify for federally subsidized crop insurance, now the largest part of the farm safety net. Growers collected a record $17 billion in payments for losses caused by the severe 2012 drought.

That idea gained traction this week. Farm groups said they would accept the linkage of insurance and so-called conservation compliance if environmentalists drop attempts to make the wealthiest farmers pay more for coverage. The government pays 62 cents of each $1 in insurance premiums.

Lawmakers began work on the farm bill three years ago. Farm bills are broad-spectrum legislation that cover crop subsidies, agricultural research, food stamps, farm exports, global food aid, rural economic development and biofuel development.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott; editing by Ros Krasny and Marguerita Choy)

The Senate panel has scheduled a bill-drafting session for
May 14. Its House of Representatives counterpart, unofficially,
aims to start writing its version on May 15.

The bills are expected to boost crop support rates, expand
the crop insurance program, reduce the scope of land-idling
programs and cut spending on food aid to the poor.

Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of
Michigan, has said the Senate bill would cut farm bill outlays
by $23 billion over 10 years. The House bill is expected to aim
for savings of $35 billion over a decade.

Passage of the farm bill is seven months overdue and
counting, after an election-year stalemate in the House
prevented passage of a bill last autumn.

Tea Party-influenced lawmakers in 2012 wanted to generate
bigger cuts in spending while Democrats said the House bill cut
food stamps too much.

Stabenow’s proposal would shave $4 billion from food stamps,
compared with the $20 billion that House Agriculture Committee
chairman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, has targeted.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand organized a letter,
signed by 32 other senators, to cut crop insurance subsidies and
avert any food stamp cuts.

Farm lobbyists said Stabenow was expected to propose higher
“target” prices for grains and oilseeds, growing chiefly in the
Midwest, to satisfy objections from Southern rice and peanut
growers. The bill also would shield growers from fluctuations in
crop revenue, an approach backed by corn and soybean growers.

Environmentalists say farmers should be required to practice
soil conservation to qualify for federally subsidized crop
insurance, now the largest part of the farm safety net. Growers
collected a record $17 billion in payments for losses caused by
the severe 2012 drought.

That idea gained traction this week. Farm groups said they
would accept the linkage of insurance and so-called conservation
compliance if environmentalists drop attempts to make the
wealthiest farmers pay more for coverage. The government pays 62
cents of each $1 in insurance premiums.

Lawmakers began work on the farm bill three years ago. Farm
bills are broad-spectrum legislation that cover crop subsidies,
agricultural research, food stamps, farm exports, global food
aid, rural economic development and biofuel development.

The administration, which needs congressional approval to
make the changes, is discovering that only a few lawmakers are
prepared to publicly support the effort to send cash abroad to
make the distribution of aid faster and more efficient.

They are outnumbered by lawmakers from both parties who want
to kill the initiative or water it down substantially, based on
letters sent to the White House and comments made at recent
congressional hearings. In one letter 21 senators, including two
key committee chairwomen, opposed the changes.

The administration’s proposed changes, rolled out last
month, have already been diluted.

The White House had hinted it wanted to convert aid entirely
to cash donations. Instead, its fiscal 2014 budget proposal said
that at least 55 percent of aid spending, or nearly $800 million
of the $1.4 billion requested, would be earmarked to buy and
transport U.S.-grown food.

It would still be the biggest change since the Food for
Peace program was created in a mixture of Cold War “soft”
diplomacy, compassion for suffering overseas and a practical use
of farm surpluses. For six decades, U.S. food aid has meant
shipping U.S.-grown goods thousands of miles to hunger spots.
Other major donors have switched to cash donation.

Lawmakers were bluntly skeptical of the administration’s
plan, which was a response to some aid groups’ assertions that
using U.S. cash aid to buy food overseas would allow more needy
people to be fed than if the United States continued to send
food rather than cash.

“I don’t think that’s going to get done,” Nebraska
Republican Senator Mike Johanns told Secretary of State John
Kerry at a hearing days after the administration’s new aid
formula was proposed. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack heard a
similar message at a House appropriations hearing.

The criticism reflected not only the challenge the White
House faces in altering the aid formula, but also the fact that
its aid plan faces an uphill struggle for action at a time when
Congress is focused on deficit reduction and overhauling the
nation’s immigration laws.

Congress could resolve the issue as soon as May or June,
when it writes the annual funding bills for food aid and other
agricultural programs. The long-term farm policy bill, another
avenue for food aid reform, is scheduled for drafting in May.

CRITICS OUT EARLY, OFTEN

Opponents of the White House plan were in touch with
congressional heavyweights as early as February, when word of
the proposal leaked out.

Those leading the charge have included groups such as the
Alliance for Global Food Security, which is made up of several
aid organizations, and major commodity groups.

Opponents made contact with key lawmakers by soliciting
meetings, writing letters and encouraging constituents to press
their case – often by citing the U.S. jobs that could be lost if
the aid’s focus was shifted away from sending food.

A coalition letter to Obama had more than 70 signatories
including agricultural, maritime and logistics groups, aid
organizations and individual companies.

Another letter was sent in March to the leaders of nine
congressional committees including those overseeing agriculture,
foreign affairs, appropriations and budget in the U.S. House and
Senate.

The letter lauded the “transparency, accountability and
reliability” of the current system – essentially a suggestion
that limiting aid to cash could invite corruption. The letter
also noted that the current aid program provides jobs to those
who grow, package and ship food.

Lorena Alfaro, the American Soybean Association’s
representative, said soybean farmers who visited the capital in
March met with congressional aides on various policy issues,
including food aid, and will raise similar concerns again if
necessary.

ADMINISTRATION PUSHES EFFICIENCY

In pressing the case to shift more aid to a cash system, the
White House and the U.S. Agency for International Development
have highlighted the potential ability to feed up to 4 million
more needy people each year at a lower cost. Several major aid
groups, including Oxfam America and CARE, favor such changes.

Groups that support reform say it is generally better to buy
food locally, thereby supporting local farmers and cutting out
the cost of shipping food around the globe.

The administration says its plan would also clarify what has
become a jumble of programs. Food for Peace is funded through
USDA but run by the State Department, which operates other
humanitarian programs.

<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FACTBOX-Split control over US food aid programs

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But the proposed savings – $500 million over a decade – are
too small to pique the interest of congressional budget hawks,
especially when stacked against the vocal complaints about the
potential loss of jobs and markets for U.S.-grown food.

Under the White House plan, cash could be used for food
vouchers or to buy food locally in needy areas. In dangerous
places, “these more flexible tools are invaluable,” said Rajiv
Shah, the head of the USAID and an Obama appointee.

The Food for Peace program is focused on emergency hunger
relief, meaning famine, broad-scale food shortages, provision of
aid to refugee settlements in war-torn regions, and so on.

Some 1.44 million tons of food were shipped last year. Among
the largest recipients of aid were Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya and
Pakistan. Shippers have a vested interest in keeping aid
tonnages high, because at least half of such shipments must be
carried on ships sailing under the U.S. flag.

Government spending of $1 billion or so a year to buy food
for donation – typically rice, vegetable oil, flour, lentils,
dry beans, a corn-soy blend, bulgur and dried peas – pales next
to U.S. farm exports worth some $145 billion this year.

Commodities shipped under the Food for Peace program
“currently account for less than two tenths of one percent of
U.S. agricultural production and about one half of one percent
of U.S. agricultural exports,” the White House estimated.

“Exports via food aid are a small drop in the market,” said
Veronica Nigh, an economist with the American Farm Bureau
Federation. “Our concern is less about decreasing an important
revenue stream for U.S. agriculture. It’s more about the loss of
a sense of pride.”

(Reporting By Charles Abbott and Patrcia Zengerle in Washington
and Karl Plume and PJ Huffstutter in Chicago; Editing by Ros
Krasny and Claudia Parsons)

Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who oversees the legal code, said he
would examine the immigration system issue by issue “to ensure
we get immigration reform right.” The Senate is working on a
comprehensive reform bill that includes a separate path to
citizenship for undocumented farm workers.

The agricultural guest worker program proposed by Goodlatte
would be a replacement for the H-2A program, which critics say
is slow and overly bureaucratic. The new program would allow up
to 500,000 workers a year to enter the country for jobs with an
initial span of three years. It does not offer a permanent legal
status for illegal immigrants.

A Goodlatte aide said the question of “how to bring the
estimated 11 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows”
would be addressed separately.

The United Farm Workers union said Goodlatte’s plan would
slash wages and benefits for workers and deny the opportunity of
legal status.

In a statement, Goodlatte said his plan “is good for those
seeking a better life for their families by providing
opportunities to earn a living while temporarily working in
agricultural jobs U.S. citizens are not willing to do.”

Food processors said the new guest worker program would help
assure a stable workforce in rural America.

The meat industry has moved its processing plants into rural
areas since the 1990s and drawn foreign-born, and especially
Hispanic workers, to rural communities. In some agricultural
counties, such as Imperial County, California, Clark County,
Idaho, and Seward County, Kansas, foreign-born residents account
for more than one-quarter of the population.

Dairy and livestock farms, who need workers year-round,
would benefit from longer-term visas for guest workers, who now
are limited to seasonal work.

Up to 60 percent of the estimated 2 million hired farm
workers are undocumented. The H-2A guest worker programs
provides about 70,000 additional workers a year.

Food processors called for longer-term visas for
lower-skilled workers as part of immigration reform early this
year.

“We are manufacturers, wanting a stable and permanent
workforce that can help sustain the rural communities where we
do business,” said Mike Brown, speaking for a coalition of meat,
poultry and egg producers and processors at a House hearing on
Feb 26.

Goodlatte proposed an H-2C guest worker program that would
allow a visa of up to three years for year-round jobs on the
farm or in processing plants, including packing plants, before
workers would be required to leave the country. The visas could
be renewed for up to 18 months at a time followed by a return
home. To ensure workers return home, 10 percent of their wages
would be paid through the U.S. embassy in their home country.

Undocumented workers with a record of agricultural
employment would be eligible to continue to work legally on U.S.
farms. When the H-2C program is in operation, they also would be
required to leave the United States periodically.

By comparison, the Senate immigration bill would allow
undocumented farm workers to apply for permanent residency after
five years. It would allow 122,333 guest workers a year with
visas good for up to three years at a time. It has no provision
for processing plants.

The farm workers union said the Goodlatte package would
eliminate many labor protections for workers as well as remove
current requirements for employers to provide housing for guest
workers and to cover the cost of transportation.

A coalition of growers said it would stick to the farm
worker terms of the Senate bill.

Also on Friday, Goodlatte was a cosponsor of a bill to
strengthen the E-Verify electronic system to check if job
applicants can work legally in the United States. Goodlatte said
better enforcement would discourage illegal immigration.

(Reporting By Charles Abbott; editing by Andrew Hay)