Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007--Continued
FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - January 30, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Massachusetts, and I very much agree with his remarks. I also thank the Senator from Georgia for withdrawing this amendment.
This amendment muddies churning waters even more. I think it would be very difficult if put in at this time. The way to go about this is through something called the AgJOBS bill. I have seen the Senator from Idaho on the floor. The Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Massachusetts, and myself have all played a role in the AgJOBS bill.
If I understand what the Senator from Georgia was trying to do, it was to substantially change the H-2A program, which is the temporary agricultural worker program. That is a visa program, codified under section 218 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Under current law, employers of H-2A guest workers must pay the State minimum wage, the Federal minimum wage, the State's adverse effect wage rate--which is the market rate or the local prevailing wage, whichever is highest.
The Chambliss amendment would have required that H-2A employers pay the greater of either the Federal minimum wage or a newly defined prevailing wage.
My staff called both departments mentioned on line 6 at page 2 of his amendment--that is the Occupational Employment Statistics Program and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--neither of which had a prevailing rate they could certify.
This amendment, if promulgated, would have presented serious problems for our agricultural workers. For example, in my home State, the adverse effect wage rate is $9. This rate is higher than the Federal minimum wage. Because we do not know what the prevailing wage would mean in the Chambliss amendment, it would most likely result in a major cut of wages for agricultural workers.
Now, in AgJOBS, we have negotiated a 3 year freeze of the adverse wage rate so that a study could take place. It would give us a period of time to work this issue out. I think to do this as an amendment, without negotiation, without a real hearing, is a tremendous mistake. So I am very pleased the Senator chose to withdraw his amendment. I would have spoken as strongly as I possibly could against it had he not withdrawn it.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, Madam President, I would make a statement and then ask the Senator from Idaho a question. This morning I was visited by a delegation from Tulare County, which is an agricultural county in the central valley of California. These were city and county officials who pointed out the enormous loss from the frost and the fact that it looks as though the citrus loss is going to be at least $800 million and the total loss will be over $1 billion. Nobody knows the tree loss yet, let alone the avocado or nursery plant loss or the row crop loss of strawberries and lettuce and other crops. But this will also have an impact on the ability to find agricultural labor, and I think the Senator agrees, I know I agree, that we must pass the AgJOBS bill.
Madam President, an estimated 90 percent of agricultural labor in this country--the picker part of it, not necessarily the processing and canning part of it, but the picking part, the field work--an estimated 90 percent is by undocumented people. What we have tried to do is develop a plan, which actually passed the Senate once before as part of the comprehensive immigration bill, called AgJOBS. This also reformed the H-2A program.
We have been trying to get that bill up before this body for a vote. This next year is going to be a singularly difficult year for agriculture, and with the inability to get a consistent workforce, farmers don't know if they can plant, they don't know if they can prune, they don't know if they can pick, because they don't know if they will have enough labor.
My question to the Senator from Idaho through the Chair is, Do you agree with the statement I made?
Mr. CRAIG. I agree totally and I agree for all the reasons the Senator from California put forward--and a couple more. One of the things the Congress is committed to--both the Senators on the floor at this moment have voted for it--is to secure our Southwest border. We are investing heavily on that at this moment, and we should be. There is no question about that. We may argue about how many miles of fence, but we all recognize an unsecured border is a very problematic thing. It is closing. It is becoming secure and we are going to continue to invest in it.
As we are doing that, all of these other problems are beginning to happen because that workforce is moving around and they are not staying with agriculture. The Senator lost a tremendous amount this year in the San Joaquin, in the greater agricultural area of California.
I spoke with young farmers and ranchers of the Idaho Farm Bureau this weekend. We have lost hundreds of millions--nowhere near what the Senator from California has lost, but we have a different kind of agriculture. The intensity of ours, the hand labor of ours is simply not as great as the Senator's. But there is a real problem and that problem is quite simple. If we don't get this corrected, we may well be looking at $5 billion worth of agricultural loss this year, and half of that or more will come from California alone, let alone all the other areas, and I may even be conservative in my guesstimate.
So the Senator is absolutely right. Now we are coupled with the natural weather disasters that have hit California and could hit my State at some time in the future. That is typical of agriculture. But, if we provide a stable and secure workforce that is legal, then we have helped our agriculture a great deal in knowing that when they do produce a crop, they have the people there to help them get it out of the field, get it to the processor and ultimately to the retail shelves of America.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. My plea, and I know the Senator joins with me, is that the people of America will weigh in and say: Get this bill passed; that agricultural labor will weigh in, corn and citrus, potatoes, apples, wherever it is in the United States, wherever they need a consistent, legal workforce, will please weigh in and say to this body: Get that bill up and get it passed, and will say to the other body: Get that bill up and get it passed. Senator Craig and I have been coming to the floor from time to time to plead to give us time. I believe the majority leader will give us time--I am uncertain as to when, but I believe it is going to happen. My hope is that it happens sooner rather than later because the predictability is so important. Here we are, we are at the end of January, we are going into February. People are getting their loans to plant and that kind of thing, and they need to know they can deliver a crop. They need to know they can get the workforce to deliver that crop. So this is a huge issue economically for America and for the agricultural industry.
So I wish to say to the Senator from Idaho and to the Senator from Massachusetts, I thank them so much for their work on this issue. I wish that the Senator from Georgia would be with us on AgJOBS, because I believe it is the right way to go, and I believe his State--Georgia--will also be benefited by the H-2A reforms in the bill. For California, the H-2A reforms mean that this program, which hasn't been used by agriculture because it was so cumbersome, will now be used by agriculture. It, in effect, is the guest worker program. So passing AgJOBS secures a legal guest worker program for agriculture and also a path to legalization for those who have engaged in agricultural labor who will pay a fine, who will pay their taxes, who will commit to work in agricultural labor for another 3 years, thereby providing that consistent workforce.
So I very much hope that the day will not be far distant when the Senator from Idaho and I will be on the floor and will, hopefully, be able to mount a substantial vote for this important bill.
I thank the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
NOMINATION OF LISA GODBEY WOOD
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, one of these judges, Philip Gutierrez, is for the central district of California. Vice Judge Terry Hatter, who at one point was the chief judge, a very good chief judge, has retired. Mr. Gutierrez is one of two judicial emergencies we need to fill. His nomination went through the special commission that we have, which is Republicans and Democrats who screen these judicial nominations. He has served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He also served on the municipal court. He is a Los Angeles native. He graduated from Notre Dame and UCLA Law School. I strongly support his nomination.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/