Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. How about 2?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Idaho. That is exactly the opposite from what is the truth. The truth is, he is always a temporary employee, and if he has a supervisory position and if he is granted additional time after 9 years, his temporary status never changes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the coauthor of our amendment, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is not true because if his employer ever released him from his employment, he has to notify the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor, and that individual must go back to where he came from. Or if he secures a----

Mr. CHAMBLISS. You are wrong, but there are exceptions to everything.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. He is never a permanent citizen as he becomes under your bill after about 2\1/2\ weeks.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true, under your bill, an individual can get the temporary adjustment status after working 100 hours?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it true that 1 hour is defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act, or 1 day's work is defined as 1 hour, and it is actually 100 days?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Is it not true this is a fundamental difference in our two amendments? Under your amendment, the employee or the illegal alien comes in and says: I worked here for those 100 hours last year or 2 years ago.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator not agree a fundamental difference is, under your bill, the employee is the one who makes that attestation. Whereas, under our bill, it is the employer--the American employer--says: I need you. Under your bill, the employee says: I have been here for this period of time, and therefore I deserve to receive this adjustment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to further modify my amendment No. 418 with the changes that are at the desk, and also add a number of cosponsors whose names are also at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator from Arizona yield for another question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside be in order that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I call up amendment No. 418.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I concur in about everything my friend from Alabama has said. Initially, he made a comment relative to debating immigration law on a Defense supplemental bill where we are trying to provide funds for our men and women who are serving so bravely overseas today. I concur in that. I had hoped we would have an expansive debate on this very sensitive and complicated issue. I know my friend, the Senator from Idaho, feels exactly as I do on this, but unfortunately we have been dictated to by the rules of the Senate relative to this issue. That is why we have both of these amendments up for discussion today. The Senator from Alabama is exactly right. He is also right on one other thing. There are two amendments we are debating, AgJOBS, filed by the Senator from Idaho and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment. Both of these amendments recognize, as the Senator from Alabama said, we have a problem. We have a problem in the agriculture community relative to providing our farmers all across America a stable, secure, and lawful pool from which to choose for their labor needs. We can argue over how many hundreds of thousands or how many millions of individuals are illegally in this country today working on our farms. The Senator from Idaho said the Department of Labor says there will only be a few hundred thousand who will try to take advantage of this. I don't think that is right. I don't have a lot of faith in the numbers coming out of some of the studies that have been done. For example, there was a study by GAO a couple of years ago which said there were some 600,000 farmworkers in the United States today who are here illegally. In my State, there are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are working in agriculture as well as working in other industries today. Those who are working in other industries probably started out working in agriculture. That is 1 out of 50 States. Our number is dwarfed by Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, by those States that are on the border with our friends to the South in Mexico, where thousands of illegal aliens are crossing the border every day. However, we do recognize there is a certain number--and it is not material as to what that number is--but the fact is we agree there are hundreds of thousands or millions of folks here illegally. The basic difference between the Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy AgJOBS amendment and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment is this: Which direction do we want to go with regard to identifying those folks here illegally? Do we want to reward those folks here illegally, as the AgJOBS amendment proposes to do, or do we want to identify those people and those who are here illegally who are making a valuable contribution to the economy of the United States and who, most significantly, are not displacing American workers--and I emphasize that--and who have not broken the law in this country? Do we want to make an accommodation for those folks so they can continue to contribute to the economy of the United States by virtue of working in the agriculture community? We both agree we ought to regulate these folks. The difference is the Craig-Kennedy AgJOBS amendment gives those individuals who are in this country illegally a direct path to citizenship. The Chambliss-Kyl amendment recognizes those folks are here illegally and it says to them, we are going to grant you a temporary status to remain here if you are not displacing American workers, if you are law abiding, and if your employer makes an attestation that he needs you--whether it is for a short period of time, as the H-2A reform portion of our amendment calls for, or whether it is the longer term, or the blue card application. Unlike in the AgJOBS amendment where the illegal alien can make the application, in our amendment the application has to be made by the employer who does have to say he needs that individual in his employ. Another significant difference between these two amendments is this: Under the AgJOBS bill it is pretty easy in the scheme of things to become legal--not maybe an American citizen off the bat, but to position yourself to be placed in line ahead of other folks who are going through the normal course as set forth in our Constitution today to become a citizen, for these folks to make that type of application. Here is why. The AgJOBS bill says if you are an illegal alien, you shall be given status as one lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the illegal alien has worked 575 hours, or 100 workdays, whichever is less, during an 18-month period ending on December 31, 2004. Mr. President, 575 hours is 14.3 weeks of labor if they work 40 hours, or 71.8 days, or approximately 3\1/2\ months. An alien can get immigration status after working only 3\1/2\ months of full-time employment. Under Senate bill 359, section 2, paragraph 7, a workday means a day in which an individual has worked as little as 1 hour. So 100 workdays can amount to, literally, 1 hour per day for 100 straight days which would amount to 2\1/2\ weeks. That may not be the practicality of this, but in actuality, that is what the bill says. Coming from a very heavy agriculture area, as I do, these people for the most part who are here working in agriculture are here for the reason they want to improve the quality of life for themselves as well as their families. They are basically law-abiding people who are simply hard workers and are here because they have that opportunity to better themselves in this country versus their native country. But still, are we going to recognize those folks for what they are-- and that is an illegal alien--or are we going to grant them this legal status after being here for 3\1/2\ months? I do not think the American people ever intended for the Constitution of the United States, and for us operating under that Constitution, to grant legal status to anybody who breaks the law, to come into this country, and who may break the law not once, not twice, but three times during that 3\1/2\-month period under the AgJOBS bill, as they can do, and get legal status. I cannot conceive that America wants us to enact that type of legislation. A basic difference between the AgJOBS bill and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment relative to those issues is we do not put anybody on a path to legal status. We grant them temporary status under the H-2A bill. If the farmer comes in and says, ``I need 100 workers for 90 days to work on my farm, and here is what they are going to do,'' we will have that application processed in a streamlined fashion, compared to the way the application would have to be processed today, and those workers can come in, and whether they are cutting lettuce or cutting cabbage or picking cucumbers, they will be able to come in for that 100 days, and at the end of that 100 days, they will return to their native land. If there are other operations, other farming operations, whether it is a landscaper or somebody in the nursery business, that need individuals 12 months out of the year, they will have the opportunity under our bill to apply for the blue card--again, a temporary status. It must be applied for by the employer, not the illegal alien, as you can do under the AgJOBS bill. The employer must make the application for those individuals. No preferential status toward citizenship is given. They can have that blue card for 3 years, and reapply on two separate occasions following that first application. Technically, they could stay here for 9 years, if they continue to be law abiding and if their employer makes the proper attestation that says he needs them, that they have been important to the economy of this country, and they are not displacing American workers. It is significantly different from actually the legal status given after 3\1/2\ months under the AgJOBS bill. Where does the AgJOBS bill move this individual relative to the pathway to citizenship? What current immigration law says is for somebody who is here legally, if they work for 2,060 hours under the AgJOBS bill, at the end of that 1 year, which is approximately 2,060 hours of work, they can apply for a green card, and they are going to be given preferential treatment in getting that green card. What current immigration law says is anybody who has maintained a green card for 5 years can apply for citizenship. That is the pathway to citizenship that is being granted to folks who are in this country illegally today, who can have broken the law in this country today, not once, not twice, but three times, and still be looked at as somebody who is given preferential treatment over those individuals who are outside of this country who want to become citizens of the United States, who want to come here legally and do it the right way. It simply is not fair. It is not equitable. I cannot believe the American people want to see us enact a law that will reward those individuals who have come into this country illegally in that way. Lastly, let me mention one other point that is critically different between the AgJOBS bill and the Chambliss-Kyl amendment; and that is the issue relative to control of the border. The AgJOBS bill is basically silent when it comes to control of the border. But what it does do is it says if you have previously worked in the United States, and you are now back in your home country, you can come and make application for the adjusted status by saying you did work 575 hours within a certain period of time and, therefore, you should be given legal status in this country. And that will happen. The difference in our provisions relative to control of the border is we mandate that the Department of Homeland Security come back to Congress within 6 months after the effective date of this legislation and report to us on a plan they are going to put in place to control our borders. Because, let me tell you, I don't care what bill we pass, which of these amendments we pass, or any future bill we may pass relative to the immigration laws of this country, if we do not control our borders, we have not made one positive step in the right direction. We simply must figure out a way to control our borders. We think rather than us legislating a way in which that be done, those folks who deal with the issue every day, those folks at the Department of Homeland Security, are better suited to determine how we can come up with a plan to control the border. We mandate that they come back to us with that plan to control the border within 6 months after the effective date of this legislation. Mr. President, I would simply say in closing, we agree, No. 1, there is a problem. I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy for continuing to move this ball down the field, as they have done. While I do not necessarily agree that the Iraq supplemental is the right place to do it, we are here today. But it simply is a matter of in which direction we are going to go. Is it going to be looking at folks who are in this country illegally and rewarding them, rewarding them with a path to citizenship? Or is it going to be in the direction of saying, OK, we know you are here illegally, but if you are here and are a law-abiding individual in this country, and you are making a contribution to this society, and you are not displacing an American worker, then we are going to give you a temporary status? We are not going to say you are here illegally. We are going to say you are here legally, temporarily. That is a critical difference. We are going to make sure our farmers and our ranchers have the workforce necessary to carry out the job they must do of feeding Americans as well as other folks around the world, but we are simply not going to use that tool to put people who are here illegally on a pathway to one of the most precious rights every American citizen has, and that is citizenship of this country. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that I, along with my friend from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, have introduced. This amendment represents a practical alternative to S. 359, which has been introduced by Senator Craig, commonly known as the AgJOBS bill. My hometown of Moultrie, GA, is located in Colquitt County. It is one of the most diversified agricultural counties in the country and often referred to as the most diversified agricultural county east of the Mississippi River. During my 26 years of practicing law, before I came to Congress I represented farmers who grow almost every kind of crop there is. These farmers, as do most farmers in America, depend very heavily upon migrant labor for their means of planting, harvesting, and getting their crops to market. Up the road from my hometown is the Georgia peach growing area, which also produces most of the pecans that are grown in the country today. So, firsthand, I recognize the need for a stable and legal agricultural workforce. From my perspective as a former member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and my present position as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, I understand that our country's need for a secure and reliable domestic food supply is an issue of national security. This legislation addresses those needs without providing amnesty to our current illegal agricultural workforce. Instead, we take a two-pronged approach. First, this legislation modernizes and streamlines the current H-2A program. Secondly, it creates a temporary agricultural guest worker program called the blue card program. Let me give a little background on the present H-2A program and why so few agricultural employers utilize it. The H-2A program is a program for non-immigrant, work-related, temporary visas authorized by the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It is regulated and administered by the United States Department of Labor. Although its purpose is to allow producers to have access to an adequate legal seasonal workforce when domestic workers are unavailable, participation in the H-2A program is time consuming, bureaucratic, and inefficient. A producer must complete a complicated application process which involves sequential approval by a State agency and three Federal agencies. As presently designed, administered, and enforced, H-2A employers must complete a great deal of paperwork during the application process. They must then coordinate and track their workers through a Bureau of Customs and Immigration Services and State Department visa approval system. Once the workers are present on the farm, these employers must also comply with all aspects of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Migrant Seasonal Protection Worker Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various OSHA regulations regarding housing and field sanitation. Redtape aside, another serious issue with the current H-2A program is that it requires employers to pay the Adverse Effect Wage Rate, which is determined by an archaic survey conducted since the 1930s. This survey was never designed to capture prevailing wages within a specific geographical area nor does it specify the type of work that is being done for that wage. In my home State of Georgia, the present wage an employer must pay for an unskilled farm worker is $8.30 per hour. This wage is in addition to free housing and reimbursement for all transportation costs. All of these expenses make it very difficult for these H-2A employers to compete with producers who do not or cannot use the program and who then pay workers they are able to find between $5.15 and $6.15 per hour. We have millions of illegal workers on farms in this country. We have a program that will allow growers to use legal workers. The fact so few agricultural employers take advantage of H-2A is simple. It is too complicated, too costly, and much too litigious. The legislation that Senator Kyl and I have introduced simplifies the H-2A program by streamlining the application process to involve fewer Government entities in the final approval. Under this bill, employers who wish to use H-2A workers will go through an attestation process, rather than a lengthy bureaucratic labor certification process. Employers will be allowed to attest to the Department of Homeland Security that they have conducted the required recruitment and were unable to find an adequate number of domestic workers to fill their labor needs. The Department of Labor will maintain its roll as an auditor to punish those employers who willfully violate the conditions that must be met in the attestation process to obtain H-2A workers. We have increased the penalties to ensure those who continue to employ illegal workers rather than utilize this updated program will pay the costs. This legislation also addresses the Adverse Effect Wage rate, which many contend has discouraged employers from using the H-2A program. Instead, we move to a wage rate that is more market-oriented and a prevailing wage for each region of the country. Another important aspect of this legislation is it clearly states that the Legal Services Corporation cannot represent or provide services to a person or entity representing any alien, unless that alien is physically present in the United States. This clarification is needed because of the longstanding and well-documented abuses by the Legal Services Corporation in filing frivolous lawsuits against producers who employ H-2A workers. By streamlining and modernizing the H-2A program, we can make it easier and more attractive to U.S. agricultural employers and minimize the attraction of using illegal labor. The second part of our legislation targets the illegal population in this country with the creation of a blue card program. The blue card program is an innovative, new temporary guest worker program. The idea of it is to allow employers who cannot find an adequate domestic workforce to petition on behalf of an immigrant who is currently illegally here to receive a blue card or a temporary status in this country. The petitioning process will require the alien to submit his or her biographical information along with two biometric identifiers to the Department of Homeland Security. This way, we can be sure we are not bestowing the blue card status on a potential terrorist or an alien with a criminal past. The blue card itself will be a machine-readable, tamper-resistant document that will be capable of confirming, for any immigration official who needs to know, the person holding the blue card is who the card claims he or she is, and the blue card worker is authorized to work in agricultural employment in the United States and the authorization has not expired. Because the blue card workers will maintain these secure identification documents, they can freely travel between the United States and their home countries. This will allow the blue card workers to maintain ties to their lives and families at home. It is important to note that by setting the Blue Card Program up on an employer-petition basis, the program has a natural cap built in--one that responds to the U.S. market and our agricultural labor needs. Employers will only petition for as many workers as needed to fill their labor needs. This is unlike the AgJOBS bill which allows illegal aliens to self-petition. Once an alien receives a blue card, he or she is eligible to work in the United States for up to three years. The blue card may be renewed up to two times, each at an employer's petitioning. At the end of the second renewal, the blue card worker must return to his or her home country, or country of last residence. This is important. The blue card provides no path to U.S. citizenship, which is contrary to what the AgJOBS bill does. Any blue card worker who wishes to become a U.S. citizen is certainly allowed to do so. All that worker has to do is revoke his or her blue card, return to his or her home country or country of last residence for at least 1 year and apply through the normal process just like everyone else. An approved blue card worker will receive all the protections U.S. workers will receive. While blue cards are available only to those aliens who work in the agricultural field, this legislation expands a traditional definition of agriculture in recognition of the interdependence on various occupations within the field of agriculture. By including packagers, processors, and landscapers, we not only encourage a larger percentage of our illegal population to come forward, submit to Homeland Security background checks, and get legal work authorization, we also provide some relief to those occupations that have traditionally relied on H-2B visas for foreign workers. As we all know, H-2B visas are in short supply and high demand. This legislation is important, and I urge the support of my colleagues.