Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I guess the question is, though: How many U.S. workers are out there who do take advantage of that now, or would in the future? I think you and I both know the answer. It is minimal at best. Reclaiming my time--I am about to run out of time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We are going to have our time split at 5:15. Agricultural employers who utilize blue card workers must only pay the blue card workers the minimum wage and are not required to pay U.S. workers any more than the minimum wage. I think we can agree on that. The H-2A program requires that employers who utilize H-2A pay all workers in the same occupations in which they employ H-2A workers the same wage guaranteed to every other H-2A worker. Throughout this immigration debate we have heard that widespread use of foreign workers will depress wages and that employers will reject U.S. workers in favor of foreign workers who are willing to work for less. In fact, the Senate passed by a voice vote an amendment that was put forward by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, addressing this very issue. Rather than trying to make the same argument that Senator Obama made, I simply want to quote him because it was on the same issue of prevailing wage for another program, the H-2C program. Here is what he said. It was a very good explanation. Senator Obama said that his amendment essentially says: . . . the prevailing wage provisions in the underlying bill should be tightened to ensure that they apply to all workers and not just some workers. The way the underlying bill is currently structured, essentially those workers who fall outside of Davis-Bacon projects or collective bargaining agreements or other provisions are not going to be covered. That could be 25 million workers or so which could be subject to competition from guest workers, even though they are prepared to take the jobs that the employers are offering, if they were offered at a prevailing wage. My hope would be that we can work out whatever disagreements there are on the other side. This is a mechanism to ensure that the guest worker program is not used to undercut American workers and to put downward pressure on the wages of American workers. That is exactly what I am saying because, if we have a prevailing wage, American workers are going to be more inclined to take those jobs rather than blue card workers coming in and being willing to take $5.15 an hour. That is exactly what is going to happen if we set the prevailing wage, which is where it ought to be, rather than utilizing your blue card program, which is going to wind up in millions, or hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers being hired at minimum wage. Let me close by saying, here is the reason that the adverse effect wage rate is so skewed. This is the chart that shows which States are used in calculating the adverse effect wage rate. In my case we use the southeast region: Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina. A farm worker job, or a worker at the State farmers market in Atlanta, GA, is compared to the same agricultural worker at the farmers market in Thomasville, GA. They are 225 miles apart. One is a very urban area, Atlanta, GA. The other is a very rural area, Thomasville, GA. It is pretty easy to see why the Senator from Idaho says this is a skewed way to calculate wages. With that we agree. The prevailing wage rate method of calculating wages says individuals who work at the farmers market in Atlanta will be paid a wage comparable to other farm workers in the Atlanta area. That wage earner in Thomasville, GA, will receive a wage that is comparable to agricultural workers who are paid in the Thomasville, GA, region. I am prepared to yield back, assuming that we have approached the hour where we are going to divide these last 30 minutes?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. What happens is these wage earners in the fields in Georgia and all over the country go out and they take a bucket out into the field. They cut squash, cucumbers, or they cut whatever the crop may be, they put it in that bucket, they dump that bucket in a bin, and they are given a chip. At the end of the day, those chips add up to dollars. They are required to be paid the minimum of either the minimum wage or, in this case, the adverse effect wage rate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Senator from California was not involved in those negotiations, and I chair the Agriculture Committee. I do not know how to respond to that other than by saying that certain segments of agriculture were involved in the negotiations, I assume. My dear friend from Massachusetts was involved, and I daresay that I have more farmers in my home county than we have in the vast majority of Massachusetts. My point is not that these discussions did not take place over a long period of time between farmers--I don't know who they were. But I can tell you this: The American Farm Bureau has looked at the AgJOBS provision. They have looked at my amendment. They have looked at the bill that I submitted which was somewhat contrary to AgJOBS. The American Farm Bureau--which, as I said earlier, has access to virtually every farm in America, particularly from the standpoint of the calculation of wages--has concluded that my amendment is fair and reasonable. And the American Farm Bureau is recommending a ``yes'' vote on the Chambliss amendment. To say that this has been discussed over a period of time by a group, or a large group--whatever the term was--of farmers across America, my farmers were not involved in those negotiations. Senator Craig and I have had any number of conversations about the bill and about our various amendments. But we were not involved in those negotiations. I see my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He comes from the Farm Belt of America. I daresay that his farmers were not involved in those negotiations. Let us be very clear about this. There was not a discussion or a negotiation by America's farmers for what they thought was best.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from California for her comments, and I tell her that I dialog with many farmers in her State on a regular basis, particularly as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I am hearing from a large number of her farmers in strong support of my amendment. Again, when you say that a majority number of farmers in America think this is the way to go, you can't say that. That is simply not right. There are only--by Senator Craig's numbers--less than 50,000 farmers in America--and I happen to agree with him on this--who currently utilize H-2A. I daresay the rest of the farmers in America don't even know what ``adverse effect wage rate'' means. But I can tell you they know what ``prevailing wage rate'' means. They know when they hire a tractor driver in the southwest part of Texas what their neighbors are paying for a tractor driver. And that is how you calculate a prevailing wage. That is not how adverse effect wage rate says you will pay that tractor driver. Whether farmers in California or farmers in Georgia or the northeast part of our country, the market should dictate, and the market dictates under the prevailing wage rate. It simply does not dictate under the adverse effect wage rate. That is why, in the Senator's bill, the adverse effect wage rate is rolled back 4 years. There is a flaw in the way the wage rate is calculated. If you are going to roll back the wage rate, which is actually going to move toward the utilization of the prevailing wage rate, let's do it now. Let's require that all farmers in America pay a reasonable wage rate for their employees based upon what other farmers in that region pay for employees. For example, I know in northern California there are different crops grown than in southern California. There are different types of jobs. But today, under the AgJOBS bill, a farmer in northern California will pay exactly the same wage rate as a farmer in southern California. Here is the chart. This shows how wage rates under this bill are calculated. They use the entire State of California. It is a different type of farming. There is a different skill required in northern California than there is in southern California. There is a different skill required in a tractor driver versus somebody who goes into the field and cuts lettuce or cuts cabbage or cuts squash or whatever it may be. Under the adverse effect wage rate in the base AgJOBS bill, that is not taken into consideration. Under the prevailing wage under my amendment, it is taken into consideration. If anyone says it is difficult to determine, how do I know in my example of Thomasville, GA, what it takes to hire that worker? Let me tell you what you have to do. You simply have to go to the computer and plug into a Web site, the Department of Labor. And you designate the area. You put into the computer where you are located, what the job is, and the computer immediately gives you what the Department of Labor has determined to be a prevailing wage. It is very simple and very easy. It ensures that one farmer next door to another farmer is paying employees the same wage rate. You don't have a farmer who is paying $8.37 currently required by the adverse effect wage rate and the farmer next door paying $5.15 an hour for the same job. This is about fairness. It is about equity. It is about ensuring that farm workers who come here under the base bill, which I, frankly, don't agree with, but if we are going to pass this, then let us be fair to those employees who come here and work in agriculture. Let us pay them the rate that is prevailing in the area in which they work. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time remains?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The minimum wage in Georgia is $5.15 an hour.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is correct.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I simply say to my friend from Massachusetts, I hear what the Senator is saying relative to the numbers the Senator just addressed, but here is what you are doing. You are taking 40,000 agricultural employees who now operate under H-2A and you are reducing their wages immediately. The chart Senator Craig had up here Thursday night showed what the numbers are. I don't remember what they are, but it is a significant reduction because you are rolling that wage back to what it was 4 years ago. Now, that is 40,000 agricultural workers. Here is what you are doing to 1.5 million agricultural workers under your bill. You are going to allow farmers across America who do not participate in H-2A to pay those blue card workers $5.15 an hour. We can argue whether minimum wage is high enough, whether it ought to be more, but that is the effect of what you are doing with your blue card workers. So if the $7 number is good enough for H-2A or not good enough for H-2A, whatever it is, it ought to be good for those 1.5 million workers who will have a blue card. That is what fairness in my amendment is all about. When Senator Craig says let's get it right, let's do get it right. We agree the adverse effect wage rate is wrong. There is no disagreement about that. The question is, How do we correct it? How do we get to the point where it is fair? The way we get to the point where it is fair is we take the same method of calculation we do under every other labor bill, including the one we just passed last week, the H-2C bill that Senator Obama said: Let's put a prevailing wage rate on H-2C. I say let's put a prevailing wage rate on H-2A. We understand we are not the ones to calculate that. It is calculated by the Department of Labor. It is calculated by the Department of Labor based upon the fair and accurate wages paid to individuals in different parts of the country who perform different jobs within agriculture. It is very easy to ascertain by the farmer what that wage rate ought to be. It will remove the ability of the next door neighbor to come in and undercut that farmer, whether he is a blue card worker or whether they continue to be here illegally. It will depress the wages for those farmers rather than raising the standard for all workers to be paid a fair wage. It will encourage farmers--this is what we want to do--to participate in the H-2A program. If we had every farmer in America doing that, they would have a quality supply of labor from which to choose. They would have to pay those workers a reasonable rate, and America would never be in a position of being dependent upon foreign imports for our food supply. We cannot afford to get there. This is a national security issue. We need to make sure farmers have those workers from whom to choose to make sure their crops are harvested. Mr. President, I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Friday, May 19; I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair now lay before the Senate the House message to accompany H.R. 1499. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 484 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of S. 193, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As announced this evening, tomorrow we will continue to work on the bill, but we will not have any rollcall votes during Friday's session. The next rollcall votes will occur on Monday afternoon. At this point, we have two votes locked in for 5:30 Monday. We will be in session tomorrow to continue this constructive debate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I call up amendment No. 4009.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Alexander and Bond be added as original cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have said it before and I say it again today that I think the approach taken in this legislation we are considering today is contrary to the best interests of agriculture. By ignoring proper enforcement of our immigration laws for many years, the Federal Government has been sending the wrong message to farmers and ranchers across the United States: that it pays to break the law. Quite literally, it has. For those who have flouted rule of law by refusing to utilize the temporary worker program for agriculture--the H-2A program--have gained a tremendous economic advantage over their counterparts who have adhered to the laws on the books today. I will be the first to admit that some farmers have had little choice but to utilize an illegal workforce--for the H-2A program, as presently written has its limitations--for instance, farmers with jobs that are not seasonal are not able to utilize it. However, changes can be made to the H-2A program to make it more responsive to the needs of agriculture and more user-friendly for farmers. That is what the focus of immigration reform should be. Instead, the bill we are considering today is putting in statute what has only been implied previously by the Federal Government's blind eye about illegal workers: it pays to break the law. This statement is truest in the agricultural section of this bill than anywhere else. The amendment I have introduced is one of a series that I will file that will attempt to eliminate some of the hardships this bill levies on those agricultural employers who have been and will continue to utilize the legal program we have in place for temporary agricultural workers. Currently, agricultural employers who utilize the H-2A program must pay all workers in the occupation in which they utilize H-2A workers the higher of the applicable minimum wage rate, the prevailing wage rate, or the adverse effect wage rate. In almost every instance, the adverse effect wage rate is the highest of these options. Conversely, those agricultural employers who utilize an illegal workforce and, are often competitors of those using the H-2A program, are governed by no wage floor and generally end up paying around the Federal minimum wage rate, sometimes less. Obviously those who utilize an illegal workforce have a significant competitive advantage over their H-2A user counterparts based on overhead costs due to wage rates alone. And those illegal workers are subject to abusive payment practices by some employers. Historically, approval of an employer's use of non-immigrant visa- holding foreign workers was predicated on two things: No. 1, No U.S. workers were available to fill the specific job, and No. 2, wages for that occupation would not be depressed by the hiring of foreign workers. The obvious solution was the imposition of a prevailing wage requirement for specific occupations. The prevailing wage, determined by surveys conducted by States, insured that available U.S. workers would not be discouraged from applying for the job because it paid lower than usual wages. It also guaranteed that all workers, both foreign and domestic, would be paid a wage that was competitive in the local area, thus avoiding depressing wages for that occupation or making the use of foreign workers more attractive than hiring U.S. workers. At the present time, prevailing wages are required for H-1B, H-2B, and permanent work-related visas. However, H-2A, the agricultural version of temporary, non-immigrant work visas, is required to pay a different wage rate--the adverse effect wage rate. Unlike prevailing wages, which are established for a local area for specific jobs, and determined by the level of experience, skill, and education they require, the adverse effect wage rate is an average of all wages including incentive pay, bonuses, and seniority for all farm jobs in a multi-State region. So an H-2A employer in Indiana must guarantee an H-2A worker with no experience who is working on a dairy farm the same minimum wage as a farm employee in Ohio with 5 years of experience operating a combine to harvest soybeans. Likewise, an inexperienced employee who is harvesting lettuce in Arizona must be guaranteed the same minimum wage as an experienced greenhouse worker in New Mexico. It just doesn't make sense. Prevailing wages are determined by the U.S. Department of Labor through its State partners, using a methodology designed to capture a fair wage that reflects the local standards specific to a particular occupation. This is currently done for H-1B and H-2B visas. I might add that the new H-2C program that has been approved as part of this particular underlying bill and was accepted as the prevailing wage for that work was accepted by unanimous consent yesterday. Conversely, the adverse effect wage rate is determined by a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of its larger National Agricultural Statistics surveys. Officials in the Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service readily admit that the wage survey used for adverse effect wage rate was never designed to set specific wages--only to describe them in general. As such, the National Agricultural Statistics Service's survey creates an artificial, multi-state wage floor--one that significantly increases annually, regardless of the economy, the agricultural market, and competitive factors within a product line or local area. Supporters of maintaining an adverse effect wage rate for H-2A workers will tell you that it is necessary to prevent the presence of foreign workers from adversely affecting the wage rates of U.S. farm workers. These are generally the same folks who advocate for greater protections for farm workers. So you can imagine my surprise when reading this bill when I found that there is no mandated wage floor for those workers who are now illegal working in agriculture once they get on a blue card or once they adjust to permanent resident status--assuming they stay in agriculture. So while a farmer who utilizes H-2A workers in an occupation will have to pay all workers in that occupation the adverse effect wage rate, those farmers who have been using an illegal workforce and are allowed to continue to use that same workforce, which is legalized through this bill, will only be bound by the applicable minimum wage. This does not make the least bit of sense. To give you some examples: a farmer who uses the H-2A program in Oklahoma will have to pay his workers $8.32 per hour, while a farmer in the same place who uses a newly legalized blue card worker will have to pay only $5.15 per hour to his employees. In Louisiana, an H-2A employer will have to pay $7.58 an hour to his workers while a farmer who employs blue card workers will only have to pay $5.15 per hour. In Maryland, an H-2A employer must pay $8.95 an hour while a blue card employer only has to pay $5.15 an hour. In Nebraska, an H-2A employer must pay $9.23 an hour while an employer of legalized blue card workers must pay only $5.15 an hour. In Arkansas, H-2A employers must pay $7.58 an hour to their workers, while those who continue to use the previously illegal workforce pay only $5.15 an hour. In Arizona, H-2A employers must pay $8.00 an hour while blue card employers pay only $5.15 an hour for the same work. In Kansas, H-2A employers will have to pay $9.23 an hour, while employers of blue card workers must pay only $5.15 an hour. In Montana, H-2A employers must pay $8.47 an hour while blue card employers must pay $5.15 per hour. You might be asking--well what about those states that have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage? The adverse effect wage rate is still higher--for example, an H-2A employer in New York will have to pay his workers $9.16 an hour while an employer who uses blue card workers will only have to pay $6.75 an hour. And in Connecticut, an H-2A employer will be mandated to pay $9.16 an hour while the farmer who uses blue card workers will pay $7.40 an hour. This is not fair to the farmers and it is not fair to the workers. This bill systematically rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have, with some difficulty, been obeying the laws on the books today. This amendment is not just about parity, though I would argue strongly that it is needed--for not only will H-2A employers be mandated to pay higher wages than their counterparts who use the newly legalized workforce, H-2A employers will also continue to be responsible for providing to their employees free housing and utilities, reimbursement of transportation costs, and payment of visa, consular, and border crossing fees. This amendment is about what is right for agriculture, both for the farmer as well as the migrant worker. We know from past experience that once farm workers are legalized through an amnesty, they leave farm work. This means that the farmers who use an illegal workforce today and plan to legalize their workers with the blue card program in this bill will be faced with the reality that the H-2A program will be the only avenue for legal workers when they cannot find others to do the jobs they need in the near future. The failure of the H-2A program in the past to meet the needs of agriculture across the nation has been based, in part, on provisions such as the adverse effect wage rate. H-2A employers simply can't compete with the illegal workforce and they won't be able to compete with employers of blue card workers. This amendment will require that all workers in agriculture be paid the higher of the applicable minimum wage and the prevailing wage rate, as determined by the Department of Labor. This will allow the mandated wages to reflect geographic location, occupation, and skill level, unlike under current law and in this bill. In addition, it will provide much-needed additional worker protections to those workers who adjust status under this bill by ensuring that they are guaranteed the same wage as an H-2A worker in the same occupation. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's put parity in agriculture in a temporary worker program that has been on the books for decades and will work--if we can streamline it, if we can make it fairer for the employer, more attractive to the employer to use, and at the same time fair to the employee. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I do not intend to take but a few seconds to not necessarily respond to my friend from Idaho, who correctly states we have been working together in trying to solve a very difficult problem relative to reform of the H-2A program. He has been at it for a long time. My first vote on this was 11 years ago as a Member of the House of Representatives. That is how long I have been working on this issue. And we have yet to get the H-2A program reformed. I am very hopeful, as we go through this, we will have an opportunity to look at the numbers. I did not even mention prevailing wage numbers for Ohio or any other State. Obviously, I am happy to look at those. But the numbers are what they are. And the Senator from Idaho, I assume, agrees with me and is going to vote with me because he said he wants a prevailing wage, and I am seeking to amend this bill to get a prevailing wage in a bill that has an adverse effect wage rate in it. But seriously, the numbers are what they are. I think we can agree that the prevailing wage rate is higher than the minimum wage, and it is less than the adverse effect wage rate today virtually in every State and in every location in the country. Our farmers are very much at a disadvantage today, and it is not like they are not willing to pay a fair wage. You are right, most of our employees work on a piece rate. They cut a bucket of squash, they take it to the wagon, and they get a chip. And that chip may be worth $2 or it may be worth $5. That is the way most agricultural workers are paid: on a piece-rate basis. But there has to be a floor. They have to be paid a certain amount per hour under the law, and that is the way it should be. And that is what we are going to be talking about. But the numbers are what they are. And the numbers speak for themselves. We look forward to debating in much more detail on Monday. Our purpose today on both ends was simply to get the amendment laid down. We will be back Monday to engage in more extensive debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 on Monday, May 22, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Chambliss amendment No. 4009; provided further that the time from 5 to 5:30 be equally divided between Senator Chambliss and the Democratic manager or his designee. I further ask consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed immediately to a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment No. 4076, as modified. Finally, I ask consent that no second degrees be in order to either amendment prior to the votes.