Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - January 10, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. CRAIG, MR. KENNEDY, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. VOINOVICH):
S. 237. A bill to improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits, and security for aliens in the United States and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senators CRAIG, KENNEDY, MARTINEZ, BOXER, VOINOVICH and I are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me--and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.
The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward.
The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a 20 percent decline in labor.
The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops.
The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau.
California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural state in the nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There 76,500 farms that produce half of the nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland.
California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few.
Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them.
The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.
Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources.
The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.
We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.
The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them.
In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent the farm labor payroll.
Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season.
We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.
The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program.
The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status.
The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker.
The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year.
Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements.
The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel.
The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years.
At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident.
There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported.
Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.
This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need.
The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.
Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it. AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system.
The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours.
The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the state Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area.
Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members.
The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard.
Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment.
Inbound and return transportation and subsistence are required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded.
The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers.
Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law.
Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing.
Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause, and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work.
H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.
A new limited federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of three years is imposed.
Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.
AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested.
We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator CRAIG, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill.
This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.
I ask my colleagues to join Senator CRAIG, Senator KENNEDY, Senator MARTINEZ, Senator BOXER, Senator VOINOVICH and me in supporting this legislation.
I also ask by unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 237
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. GREGG, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. LEAHY):
S. 238. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the misuse of Social Security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for such misuse, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: social security numbers.
The bill I propose is identical to legislation that I introduced last year. This is the fifth Congress in which I have proposed legislation to protect social security numbers. I stand before you again today because I believe that this issue is too important to ignore.
We all know that once a person's social security number is compromised, the path to identity theft is a short one. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 10 million Americans have their identities stolen each year.
The crime takes many forms. Thieves can obtain social security numbers through public records--marriage licenses, professional licenses, and countless other public documents--many of which are available on the internet.
These stolen social security numbers then act like virtual keys, allowing the thieves to unlock an individual's identity.
Thieves open credit cards and charge them to the max. Often, the victim does not even realize what has happened until they are denied credit in the future because of the unpaid debt on the fraudulent credit cards.
Thieves open bank accounts in the victim's name and write bad checks.
Thieves get driver's licenses or identification cards, and even apply for government benefits in the victim's name.
Identity theft is serious. A person whose identity is stolen can lose thousands of dollars and take months or even years to regain their good name and credit.
The damage, loss, and stress of identity theft are considerable.
Victims may lose job opportunities, or be denied loans for education, housing, or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. They may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.
The ease with which social security numbers can be accessed is distressing, but also, unnecessary.
The Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' social security numbers. The bill would: stop the sale or display of a person's social security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State and local governments from displaying social security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; end the printing of social security numbers on government checks; prohibit the employing of inmates for tasks that give them access to the social security numbers of other individuals; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her social security number; commission a study of the current uses of social security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of social security numbers.
This legislation is simple and necessary to stop the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens.
As we move further into the information age and rely more on information sharing, this problem will only get worse, unless we take action. I urge my colleagues to support the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.
S. 238
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 239. A bill to require Federal agencies, and persons engaged in interstate commerce, in possession of data containing sensitive personally identifiable information, to disclose any breach of such information; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act.
It is vitally important that Congress take immediate action to ensure that individuals are notified when companies, Federal agencies, and other institutions suffer security breaches that could jeopardize their personal information.
The Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act is a simple, straightforward bill that would require that notice be sent to individuals in the event of a data breach which compromises their personal information.
Providing individuals with knowledge that their personal information has been accessed by a hacker will allow them to take action to prevent or limit the damage caused by these security breaches.
The need for such legislation is, unfortunately, self-evident given the spate of data breaches we have all read and heard about. Unfortunately, almost every week we learn of a new breach.
For example, there have been major data breaches in just the last few months at Boeing, UCLA, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Starbucks, the Chicago Voters' Database, and Akron Children's Hospital.
Given this ongoing problem, it is not surprising that Americans have made it clear that they want Congress to act. A September 2005 CBS News/New York Times national poll on privacy and identity theft found that 89 percent of Americans are ``concerned' about the theft of their personal identity information and 68 percent of Americans feel that Congress should do more to regulate personal data and its collection.
According to the Federal Trade Commission identity theft affects approximately 10 million Americans each year. In 2004, there were 635,173 identity theft and fraud complaints made to the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Sentinel. In 2004, identity fraud cost Americans $52.6 billion dollars. Over the past 2 years, approximately 18 million individuals in this country have been exposed or affected by identity theft.
Data breaches threaten individual's economic and emotional well being. A person whose identity is stolen can lose thousands of dollars and it can take months or even years for a person to regain their good name and credit. So when a data breach occurs, people have a right to find out as soon as possible.
That is why I have introduced and tried to pass legislation that would: require that the Federal Government and business entities notify individuals when there has been a security breach involving their personal data; ensure that the notice is provided without unreasonable delay; create very limited exceptions to notification for national security and law enforcement purposes, as well as instances in which law enforcement certifies that there is no threat of harm to the individual; provide civil remedies against those who do not notify individuals and the provisions of the bill would be enforced by State attorney generals; and pre-empt all state laws so that there is a single, nationwide notification requirement.
I strongly believe that individuals have a right to be notified when their most sensitive information is compromised--because it is truly their information.
The instant legislation will give all Americans more control and confidence about the safety of their sensitive personal information. They will know when their data has been compromised so that they take the appropriate steps to protect themselves.
In November 2005, the Judiciary Committee approved the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. That bill included similar notification legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate took no further action and the bill expired at the end of the 109th Congress.
Since then, the problem of identity theft has worsened--there have been numerous large scale data security breaches involving companies, federal agencies, and universities.
We cannot afford to keep waiting to act. I urge the Senate to pass the Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act to give Americans the information they need to protect themselves from identity theft.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 239
BREAK IIN TRASNCRIPT
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 249. A bill to permit the National Football League to restrict the movement of its franchises, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last November, John York, the owner of the San Francisco 49ers, announced his intention to move the team to Santa Clara.
The 49ers have been an integral part of San Francisco for the past 60 years. The team was founded in 1946 as part of the All-American Football Conference and joined the National Football League in 1950, when the two leagues merged.
The team's name is derived from the city's history, celebrating the miners who rushed to San Francisco in search of gold in 1849 and helped build the city.
The team has been a part of San Francisco for so long, and is such a central part of its culture, that the prospect of the team leaving concerns many of the people of San Francisco.
In response, I am introducing the Football Fairness Act that provides a new and limited antitrust exemption that is designed to slow the frequent movement of National Football League teams and prevent communities from suffering the financial and intangible costs of these moves.
As Mayor of San Francisco, I had the pleasure of witnessing several 49ers' Super Bowl victory parades.
What I remember most about those victories is the way the team's success brought the city together. I've also seen other cities unite in celebration of their teams' championships.
Our football teams are more than just businesses. They are a common denominator that cut across class, race, and gender to bond the people of a city. They are a key component of a city's culture and identity.
There are instances where a city cannot support a team, but it is disheartening when a city that can--and does--support a team is nevertheless abandoned and the loyalty of the fans discarded.
In 1985, then 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo explored the possibility of moving the team to San Jose. As Mayor of San Francisco, I worked with the 49ers and we were able to reach an agreement to keep the team in San Francisco.
Today, I remain hopeful that an agreement to keep the team will be reached that will benefit the people of San Francisco and the 49ers' organization.
However, this situation highlights a broader trend of NFL teams abandoning cities after those communities invested substantial funds and good will into a team.
This persistent movement is bad for our cities.
In the last 25 years, National Football League teams have moved 7 times: Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles in 1982, Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis in 1984, St. Louis Cardinals to Tempe in 1988, Los Angeles Rams to St. Louis in 1994, Los Angeles Raiders to Oakland in 1994, Cleveland Browns to Baltimore in 1996, and Houston Oilers to Nashville in 1997.
However, during that same time period only 1 Major League Baseball franchise moved. In 2004, with the approval of Major League Baseball, the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals.
Why has there been stability in baseball, while National Football League teams have moved so frequently?
Unlike the NFL, Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption which gives the league and its owners control over the movement of its teams.
When the Oakland Raiders sought to relocate to Los Angeles in 1982, the National Football League's owners voted to prevent the move. However, the courts found that the NFL's intervention was a violation of antitrust laws, and the League could do nothing to prevent the Raiders from moving.
Just 12 years later, the Raiders left Los Angeles to return to the same city and stadium it had abandoned.
If a city is incapable of supporting a team, it is understandable that a franchise would move. However, of the six cities that have seen National Football League teams leave in the last 25 years, five of those cities later received another NFL franchise.
It is clear that NFL teams are not moving because cities cannot support teams.
To address the real costs imposed on communities by the persistent and unnecessary franchise movement that we have witnessed, I am introducing the Football Fairness Act.
The Football Fairness Act is straightforward and it is limited.
It would permit the National Football League to review and restrict its teams' movement. This should help keep the fans who support the NFL from being left out of the equation.
The Act is targeted. It limits the exemption from antitrust laws solely to the National Football League's ability to prevent the movement of its franchises. Consequently, the Act will not diminish competition.
I urge my colleague to support the Football Fairness Act and help prevent the damage done to fans and communities by frequent NFL franchise movement.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 249
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/